Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

"WP:RSN" redirects here. For "Wikipedia will be ready real soon now", see meta:Eventualism.

Editors can post questions here about whether given sources are reliable, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer. The reliability of sourcing is heavily dependent upon context, so please include not only the source in question, but the article in which it is being cited, as well as links to any relevant talk page discussions or article diffs. Please post new topics in a new section.

The guideline that most directly relates to whether a given source is reliable is Reliable sources. The policies that most directly relate are: Verifiability, No original research, and Neutral point of view. For questions about the sourcing policy, please go to the Verifiability talk page.

This noticeboard is not a place for general discussion of issues or for disputes about content.

If your question is about whether material constitutes original research, please use the No original research notice board.

If your question is about undue weight, or other neutral point of view issues please use the NPOV noticeboard.

This noticeboard deals specifically with sources, not articles. General questions about articles, including "which sources in Article X are reliable?" may be beyond the scope of this noticeboard and may be better handled on the article talk page or the talk page of an interested WikiProject.

Click here to start a new discussion thread

The Indian Institute of Planning and Management

Can [1] be used to source this statement: However, Stanford has stated "Neither the Stanford Graduate School of Business nor the office of Stanford Executive Education has ties of any kind with IIPM." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Has that document been uploaded to MBA Channel by the site's publishers/editors (in which case it is a reliable source), or by some user (in which case it is not) ? Do you know of a page on the website that links to the document ? Abecedare (talk) 04:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for prodding me to investigate further. It's linked from here [2] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Since that article is written by Bärbel Schwertfeger, an employee of the publication, and is not some user-submitted content, I think it is reliable for the claim. Abecedare (talk) 04:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The article is written by Bärbel Schwertfeger who is the part owner of the site. Her web site in question is a commercial career portal[3] whose main aim is to be an MBA Directory (see the web page description on the main page at the top)[4]. Even if it is a self-published career portal (as Barbel is the part owner), "self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.". But Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Flaws#OS:_Self-publication would advise us to wait in this case as the attribution of Stanford backing out is an exceptional claim, and if it is reported, then it should have been printed by other sources. Having said that, I'll also on the other hand suggest that a secondary source that might have reported the same could be used.▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 07:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You say the Stanford claim is exceptional, I say it isn't. Plus, the website hosts a Stanford's document refuting IIPM's claim which can now be used since it's referred to by a third party reliable source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The claim here is not that Stanford backed out, BTW. The claim is that they never had a partnership in the first place, contradicting what IIPM said in their ads. As I recall, the only place where a partnership with IIPM and Stanford has been reported is in IIPM's advertisements and websites. Isn't that a primary source of the school talking about a third party?(retracted, see below) Schwertfeger is a respected journalist with many publications about MBAs and business training; she is an expert in the field where IIPM provides education. Her reporting is what led me to Stanford's statement. I see no reason to believe that she fabricated the Stanford document.

Just so everyone here is clear on my involvement--I'm the editor who originally used MBA Channel as a source, and who replaced it with Stanford's direct statement after Wifione challenged MBA Channel and removed it. I want to be transparent so you can all take my potential bias into account. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 14:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

NeilN, you say the career portal MBA-Channel source is a third party reliable source. I have shown how it is a self published source as Barbara is the co-owner. Under Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Flaws#OS:_Self-publication, we should consider the fact that "editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking. In general it is preferable to wait until other sources have had time to review or comment on self-published sources. " Given that, as mentioned I would suggest a search for secondary sources that quote Stanford's association with IIPM, like this[5]. Or on Stanford's site, like these.[6][7]. Given that you consider Barbara as a respected journalist, WP:SPS would suggest we maximum include the link as an op-ed column in the IIPM article than as a straightforward reliable source. I'm alright with that. What do you say to that? ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 17:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right that the Tribune India report, which is cited in the article already, is a secondary source; I had forgotten about that and retract my earlier statement about it only appearing in primary sources. However, the CV and faculty bio of professors at Stanford do not support the already-cited Tribune India report that Stanford is partnering with IIPM as an institution. They support that individual professors who teach at Stanford have taught seminars, but that doesn't constitute an institutional partnership.

I'll let others weigh in on whether respected journalists constitute self-published sources. Wifione and I have already gone round and round on this topic regarding another source, and I'm interested in what others think. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 18:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You're quoting an essay not a guideline. The guideline states: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". The material in this case is directly supported by a primary source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

NeilN, an essay is a guiding thought which has some weight and defines guidelines in examples. I'm ok with the self published article's Stanford point being included if even one external secondary source has confirmed the same. In case you are saying that we can use a self published article's statements without even one external reliable secondary source confirming the same, then it'll be a critical move away from suggested styles of editing Wikipedia articles.▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 03:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Please do not put words in my mouth. I'm saying the source fulfills the guideline. Again (since you haven't seemed to address it): "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

NeilN, I agree with your interpretation of the guideline (which, of course, has much more weight than an essay). But I think perhaps User:Makrandjoshi has provided us with a secondary source stating the same thing in Der Spiegel. It is by Schwertferger, but I think anyone would have a hard time arguing that Der Spiegel isn't a reliable source. That article states: "Bereits 2007 distanzierte sich die Stanford Graduate School of Business deutlich von falschen IIPM-Angaben." In English (my translation), this says "Already in 2007, the Stanford Graduate School of Business distanced itself from clearly false IIPM statements." Wifione, does this meet your request for "one external reliable secondary source confirming the same"? Can we agree that this source is reliable now? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

A google search on Schwertfeger's name is enough to establish her credentials as an expert. She regularly writes articles in major newspapers on business education. And as WeisheitSuchen pointed out,. I have given a link for the same fact from Der Spiegel, which is undeniably WP:RS. Makrandjoshi (talk) 13:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The Der Spiegel article is an opinion piece by Barbara who doesn't work at that magazine. Can we therefore reach a consensus then that both her self published MBA-Channel news and the Der Spiegel source are RS opinion pieces? In other words, if they're used, we'll have to use them as opinion pieces clearly mentioning her name. Acceptable? ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 08:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Neither of these are opinion pieces; it would not be appropriate to label them as such. In major news magazines like Der Spiegel, opinion pieces and editorials are clearly labeled. This is a regular article, not an editorial. Her name isn't necessary in either case. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 13:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not an opinion piece. If it were, it'd be labelled as such on the Spiegel website. And if you read it, it is more of an investigative column, where she has contacted different schools and gotten their reactions on tie-ups with IIPM. It is very clearly not an opinion piece. Makrandjoshi (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• As we've accepted the MBA-Channel article is a self published "RS" source, it automatically becomes equivalent to an opinion piece as the common sense assumption would be that it would not have undergone an "independent fact check", irrespective of how investigative the article might seem. A quick look at the RS discussion that Makrandjoshi raised on Maheshwer Peri's column in his own publication would clarify this thought. Therefore, the MBA-Channel article should surely be considered an opinion piece.

• The Der Spiegel article by her would also become an opinion piece as she's an 'autoren' (author) in Spiegel and not an editorial reporter. [8]. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 19:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• WS, You could also compare the current opinion writers in Speigel and check whether their names come in the Autoren section. That could support/reject this context. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 19:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The Peri article is an opinion piece because it is specifically labeled as "opinion." Look at the heading right above the article title for that source. That's what we don't have in either case with Schwertferger's sources. We should not conflate opinion pieces and editorials with self-published sources, contradicting Wikipedia policy. In addition, the fact that she is a freelance journalist does not imply that her article did not go through editorial review with Der Spiegel. There's nothing in Wikipedia policy that demands treating freelancers in reliable sources any differently than staff writers. Do you have any arguments from Wikipedia policy or guidelines that say these sources should be considered opinion pieces? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

WS, maybe this link helps WP:ASL. One line could be helpful from this, "By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean a matter which is subject to dispute". Also, can you please show the place where Speigel puts its opinion articles? As it's a German site, I'm not able to traverse properly. If I get the link, I can check the authors who are mentioned there and compare the points. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 09:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Wifione. It is not an opinion piece. It is a news article. Go to the google-translated version of the page here Look at the top left under the banner and tabs how the article is classified: News -> UniSpiegel -> Study -> India. Spiegel classifies it as "News". Hope this is enough to put your mind to rest. Makrandjoshi (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Wifione, if we labeled this as an opinion piece when the source labels it as news, wouldn't we be engaging in WP:OR or WP:SYNTH? When Der Spiegel publishes an opinion piece, they label it clearly at the top to differentiate it from their normal news reporting, as they do here. In German, the word is "Meinung." I don't see a section just for Meinung at Der Speigel the way I do at Zeit Online, which may mean that Der Speigel just doesn't regularly publish opinion pieces, only news and investigative reporting like this example. I am strongly opposed to labeling a source an opinion piece in direct contradiction to the source itself. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 16:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

WS, thanks for the links. Do pl note.

• That MBA Channel is self published has been already accepted. Therefore it directly becomes an Opinion piece. A self-published piece (if RS) will have to be considered for the author's statements as opinion rather than as fact.

• I repeat a line that's there in WP:ASF, which says "By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean a matter which is subject to dispute". If you visit the section link I've given, you'll see why the dispute heavy statements of Schwertferger's in Spiegel should be considered an opinion to avoid a non-npov bias. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 06:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You say that self-published sources must automatically be considered opinion pieces. Please do not confuse the meaning of "opinion" as a general word, like you quoted from ASF, with an Op-ed or editorial, which are specific genres within journalism. The Peri article is an editorial; these are not. If we label them as op-eds, that would be in direct contradiction with what the sources themselves say.

If you have a source that disputes what is said in Der Spiegel, you are welcome to add it to the article for NPOV balance. I understand that you dispute it as an individual editor; do you have a reliable source that disputes it? We can't include content in articles based on the opinions of a single individual, only what's in sources. Wouldn't you agree? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Your view on Der Spiegel is logical. Wrt MBA Channel self-published sources, would you be ok with us raising an RS query on whether a self-published source, after being considered reliable, should be considered as an opinion piece or as a news source? I'm perfectly alright with you wording the query as a separate RS question (if it's ok with you). Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 06:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm glad we have reached a consensus that Der Spiegel is a reliable source.

I think part of the problem is your use of the phrase "opinion piece," which seems to be an informal synonym for editorial or op-ed. That's how the phrase is currently used in the article when referring to the Peri article. It is factually untrue here. It's not an opinion that the MBA Channel article isn't an editorial; it's a fact. Whether the information contained is opinion or fact is a separate question, but we need to avoid being careless in our wording when asking these questions. We can ask whether the content of this article should be treated as opinions. Basically, we can go back to NeilN's original question, slightly reworded: Is MBA Channel (with the primary source from Stanford) a reliable source for supporting this statement: "Neither the Stanford Graduate School of Business nor the office of Stanford Executive Education has ties of any kind with IIPM." In other words, should we treat the statement that Stanford isn't IIPM's partner as a fact or as an opinion attributed to Bärbel Schwertfeger?

Since this discussion was originally about the MBA Channel source and the supporting Stanford document, let's just keep it here. After all, you've already made the arguments here. No sense in duplicating that work elsewhere. What does everyone else think? Should reliable self-published sources be automatically assumed to be opinions in all cases, including for supporting the statement about Stanford above? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The argument whether or not the MBA piece is an editorial, while interesting, is moot. Schwertfeger's credentials establish her as a reliable source. Her piece refers to the Stanford document meaning we can now refer to it. Additionally, we are making no interpretive claims using the primary source. Please read WP:PRIMARY carefully. It does not say primary sources can never be used on their own. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

NeilN, Barbel is not a primary source. (She's not involved in any IIPM incident, so to say). Secondly, it's been accepted that Barbel's piece in MBA Channel is self-published. The Stanford document you refer to is not on Stanford's website, but in her web-site referred through her article. I'll actually look forward to your/others comments (to WS's correctly worded ques) as I'm not sure myself about how we should take it. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 08:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The Stanford document is a primary source, even though it's published on MBA Channel as part of her supporting documentation. Abecedare noted back on 29 December that since that document was uploaded by Schwertferger that it is an acceptable source.

Wifione, it seems like you are pushing here that even though everyone has agreed that MBA Channel is a reliable source that you want to put conditions on that. The rule isn't that self-published sources are "reliable with conditions"; the rule is that some self-published sources are just reliable sources. Most self-published sources aren't, but this one is. Even you yourself have used the word "reliable" to describe it.

The Peri article was an "opinion piece" not because it was published in a magazine he owns, but because it was written and clearly labeled as an editorial. Had that same editorial been published in the NY Times, it would still be appropriate for us to call it an "opinion piece" in the article. "Editorial" and "self-published" are two independent criteria; they aren't actually linked in any intrinsic way. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 13:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was referring to the Stanford document as the primary source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

WS, with due respect to your statements, I'm not sure what you mean when you're saying the Stanford source, loaded on MBA Channel by Schwertferger, is a primary source. I'm also not sure which guideline you're referring to when you mention that reliable WP:SPS should be considered simply reliable sources. I ask you again, would you be open to listing this question as a separate query on this RS noticeboard? I suggest this move as out here, other commentators (including Abecedare, who commented before he perhaps knew all facts - which is clear by his not knowing Schwertferger owned the very website where she'd written the article) might get confused seeing so many statements? ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 05:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The Stanford document is a primary source because it was written by someone in a position of authority at Stanford. The fact that it's published on the MBA Channel site isn't the determining factor. Whether it's a primary or secondary source depends on 1) who wrote it and 2) whether it contains analysis, evaluation, etc.

Let me quote WP:SPS for you, as NeilN has done before: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Note that it doesn't say "self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable, but only if you treat it as an opinion piece." It says SPS in a case like this is an "acceptable" source--just like any other reliable source.

If you were to start a new discussion, would you have any new arguments that you haven't presented here? If not, then there's no need to extend this discussion further. If you're worried about people being confused by reading through a long discussion, then you can add a brief summary of your arguments here. Whittle your arguments down to two or three bullet points so people can understand your position even without all the previous context and "window dressing." WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

WS, I would suggest listing the issue separately because it could go a long way in redefining how Wikipedia looks at self published reliable sources. That's an issue where others could be motivated to answer. If you think it's logical, I can raise the issue on the reliable sources guideline as a general issue (of whether reliable sps can be considered equivalent to reliable sources). Your call (and yes, I'm sorry for replying late). Best. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 12:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• I've included a proposal for changing the current policy on WP:SPS here. Pl feel free to engage in the discussions there too. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 13:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me make sure that I understand you correctly. You agree that under the current guidelines for WP:SPS that MBA Channel is a reliable source, correct? So for right now, that means we have a consensus about how it should be used--as a reliable source. But we would adjust how MBA Channel is used if your proposed policy change takes effect. Does that sound like a fair resolution so we can close this discussion on this particular source, while leaving open your broader question? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

If you see the SPS issue I've started, I've actually pointed out the issue in question. Let's resolve it over there, as you mentioned and close it from here. Warm regards ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 02:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

How can Quackwatch be considered a "reliable source"?

Yes, there are medical organizations that say it's a great site (most of which are companies/organizations that rely on drugs or drug sales), but the only thing that Quackwatch does is bash alternative medicines. It has no positive information about alternative medicines and is completely biased against them. I'm thoroughly confused as to how this can possibly be considered a reliable and unbiased source whereas almost every other biased website that I've seen cited here has been shot down as "not RS". Can anyone explain this to me? Burleigh2 (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

See Quackwatch and the numerous refs cited there. LeadSongDog come howl 22:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I see all the citations as I mentioned in my original question and that's already been covered. Most of those may be praising certain aspects of the website (eg. uncovering fraudulent companies), but the site in general bashes virtually all alternative medicines regardless of effectiveness, verifiability, or usage of the various categories. I have read articles on their site before that were practically ranting about certain supplements that they claimed didn't work and were ripping off people who used them, but they didn't mention a thing about the dozens (or in some cases, hundreds) of studies that have been done and published by various organizations (many of which have been published in PubMed, the Lancet, JAMA, and other reputable organizations). That spells the very definition of "biased" to me... am I missing something? Burleigh2 (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, can you give a concrete example with Lancet/JAMA disagreeing with QW? 0¹⁸ (talk) 04:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a subscription to either of those so I can't read the full articles, but I have come across some citations over the past few years that were pointed out as conflicting with QW in the articles that were written by Barrett... that was one of the first times I started looking at what QW was writing. I unfortunately didn't keep those citations or I would list them. Burleigh2 (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that is a pretty serious accusation to make without any evidence. I am sure I can get access to both, so if you have examples, I can look through them. Until you do find an example, you might want to attenuate your rhetoric. 0¹⁸ (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The evidence is right on their respective websites. I'm sorry I don't have instant recall to all the articles and research I've ever read, but I can look through some sources that I have seen some examples of in recently and see what I can find. It's been rather busy at work so it may be a while, but anyone in a solid position in an alternative medicine field (eg. supplements, chiropractic, Naturopath, etc) would be able to verify from their experience and research about QW's bias against their professions in general. I work in the supplement field and some of the articles he's written made me laugh because of how overly biased he was with twisting the facts to the way he wanted them.Burleigh2 (talk) 22:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to do this now or on any timeline. What I am saying is this: before you next make time to attack them, please first make time to put together a cogent argument with some references. 0¹⁸ (talk) 05:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Quackwatch. However, in principle, the fact that a site dedicates itself to finding medical quacks and fraud does not automatically make it unreliable, just as an attorney general who dedicates himself to finding criminals and does not bother to praise good people is not automatically unreliable. The real question is whether or not Quackwatch does a good job of identifying quacks and frauds or not. --Jc3s5h (talk) 22:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

True, it does some good things like exposing frauds, but then it also bashes all the rest including some of the most well respected doctors not only in their field, but even in their local areas in some cases. Burleigh2 (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we try to be fairly careful and circumspect about Quackwatch as a source, but consensus has repeatedly held that it is acceptable under certain circumstances. Is there a specific usage that concerns you? MastCell ^Talk 23:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I pointed the editor to this noticeboard on their talk page after undoing their edit on Alternative medicine. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Virtually every source has some kind of bias. If we insisted that reliable sources have no bias, we'd have no sources left. What we require instead is that sources be verifiable, and that they have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. If an established publisher in the modern world starts publishing junk (about people, products or organizations), they will quickly be sued or fined out of existence. In the case of Quackwatch, when using them as a source, we should be sure to wiki-link the first instance, and use in-text attribution ("According to Quackwatch, ... "). If there are other reliable sources which contradict Quackwatch, they should be mentioned too, unless they represent a tiny minority. Crum375 (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That's true that every source will have some sort of bias... even saying the sky is blue would be biased based on the time of day. The reason I even ask this is that Quackwatch is very overly biased against any alternative options. After too many searches to want to count, the only "alternatives" I have seen in a remotely positive light are multivitamins and I think only prenatal ones were shown exclusively in a positive light (while some of the articles said multivitamins in general were useless). I would hardly call such an overly-biased website "reliable", even if they do some good work to expose frauds, which is what most of the lauding of the site comes from... does that really mean everything on there is reliable? Burleigh2 (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

All good points. NPOV requires we cover all significant sides of an issue using reliable sources, and reliable sources will usually be biased from some particular POV. That doesn't exclude them from eligibility as sources.

This issue has been discussed to death in many venues here at Wikipedia. The conclusion is that the use of Quackwatch be judged on a case by case basis, just like every other reliable source we use. There is no RS that's allowable in every situation, so context is important. It would be rather odd to allow positive sources in an article on alternative medicine and exclude the largest, best known and most highly recommended (and hated!) database on the internet for skeptical information on the subject. That would violate NPOV. Nearly any article without negative or controversial content likely violates NPOV. Lack of such content is a red flag for possible policy violations.

Here are a couple places to read up on the subject:

• Usage of Quackwatch as RS in medical quackery

• Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal

As to the reasons why QW criticizes alternative medicine, they just happen to be right. They don't work, otherwise they'd be called "medicine". Read this section carefully, especially the part about where the NCCAM hasn't found evidence for efficacy after ten years of large studies:

• Relation to evidence-based medicine

Happy reading, and Happy New Year! -- Brangifer (talk) 02:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with most of this. I totally agree that Quackwatch should be judged on a case by case basis. After all, if there was a great humanitarian that robbed a bank just once, would he get off because of all the other good stuff he did or would he be tried based on that robbery? I think the point of being judged on a case by case basis should be mentioned on the RS entry for it, but I'm not sure if that is implied for all RSs or not. There have been a number of articles I've seen on Quackwatch that were bashing certain treatments, saying they shouldn't be used and/or didn't work, but they are some commonly recommended treatments by more Naturopathic doctors because they work... just one example of why not all of it would be a RS. Burleigh2 (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Use on a case by case basis applies to all RS, not especially to QW. As to your mention of certain unnamed treatments that you believe NDs recommend because they "work", well, if they really work, then they're EBM and Quackwatch and Barrett wouldn't be criticizing them. Note two points: (1) Not everything that is recommended by an ND is quackery. They actually do some good things. (2) Being recommended by an ND is a red flag, since they also recommend many things that are unproven or even disproven. Some of their most used methods are horrendously pseudoscientific, such as homeopathy. Whatever the case, your objections on this basis really have nothing to do with the use of QW as a RS, but only are a difference of opinion as to whether QW is wrong and NDs are right. The mainstream EBM position, IOW the evidence, sides with QW, which again shows that QW is a notable source that backs up whatever is current mainstream science and opinion. If the evidence changes, so does QW, and that's the way it should be. Barrett and the other authors who write there are educated in thinking using the scientific method, and they judge things through that prism, which is a good thing. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That's what I figured (and was hoping), but I've come across a few instances within Wiki where the argument was made that QW as a RS for statements that could be seen as completely unnecessary for the context. One example is in Alternative Medicine where the statement is listed "Many CAM methods are criticized by the activist non-profit organization Quackwatch" (and cited the general website, not an article on it)... in other articles, that could be seen as spam/advertising for that website, but when I removed it saying it wasn't appropriate, another editor put it back saying Quackwatch was RS so it belonged (which was the main reason I asked the question here).

Obviously, that example could be argued on both sides of keeping/removing it depending on your bias, but listing the website in general and no specific article is definitely not RS material from what has been said thus far (case-by-case basis and all). It's the potential edit-wars like this that bring to mind the old quote "can't we all just get along?"... but if it was removed again, I'm sure the same member would undo the removal without something more than "that's the intent" stated. Is there somewhere that says RS is on a case-by-case basis that I can point to for inappropriate citations like this? Burleigh2 (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

As is mentioned in the links provided by BullRangifer, Quackwatch is supposed to be evaluated on a case by case basis. The problem is that the majority of articles are written by Barrett, and they are not peer reviewed. So, it should not have the same weight as an article published in a peer reviewed journal. stmrlbs|talk 09:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Many of the articles written by Barrett himself are opinion articles based on his opinion, but a number of them are exposing frauds which some feel gives more weight to his opinion about everything else. Regardless of how good my mechanic might be with my car, I wouldn't ask him what medical treatment I should take just because he's so good with my car. Burleigh2 (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Barrett's opinions are notable opinions from that POV and are used as opinions, not scientific facts. Some articles are much more scientific in their nature and can be used to source facts. Others are commentaries on various issues related to consumer protection and fighting health fraud. Most use extensive sourcing and sometimes we choose to use those sources, rather than the article itself. All its articles and documents are different in their nature and should be used in the appropriate situations. No rule at Wikipedia would consider the use of a source to be reliable in every situation. No one has ever argued that QW is somehow immaculate or unlike other reliable sources we use. It's just the most notable website of its type, the largest database of skeptical sources related to its subject matter, and thus not to be excluded as an often usable source. Just use common sense. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course. That should go without saying to anyone who understands our sourcing policies, as you should by now. When dealing with the nitty gritty details of scientific facts, the WP:MEDRS guidelines take priority. They prefer scientific research, so Quackwatch isn't normally used for such details (except for the scientific articles it hosts), although it always agrees with them. Since it usually agrees, it thus demonstrates that it truly is "reliable" in the traditional sense of the word. So, per MEDRS, we still prefer scientific studies for such details, while QW is usually used for other aspects of the subjects.

As far as it not being "peer-reviewed", that's a red herring. Websites aren't expected to be peer-reviewed, and QW never pretends to be a scientific journal, so that argument doesn't have a leg to stand on. Only one website is peer-reviewed, and that happens to be a medical journal that is only published on-line. We still allow the use of myriad websites as RS for information, even though they aren't peer-reviewed. It all depends on which details are being tied to which sources. Just connect the dots properly.

While numerous articles are primarily written by Barrett, he does have a very large group of experts who aide him and review as necessary the articles. While this isn't exactly the same as the peer-review process used for journals, it's still far better than for most websites. Vetting, fact checking and review by multiple experts is a good thing. Many articles are also written by other authors. There are definitely articles at QW that wouldn't be suitable as sources here. That's why the use of QW is already done on a case by case basis. Just use our normal sourcing rules and common sense. -- Brangifer (talk) 09:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Very true... but unfortunately, not many people in the world understand the sourcing policies here. Yes, those who edit a lot here would likely understand and know most/all of them, but the common man typically doesn't. I also note in the "Usage of Quackwatch as RS in medical quackery" part that was referred to above, it points out that Quackwatch has been sourced in reliable 3rd party publications... but does that automatically mean that everything he posts on his site is reliable? I mean, by that standard, you could use a magazine or newspaper source and make a quote from the opinion section as being reliable because the paper/magazine is so well respected... that's basically what people are citing because Quackwatch is listed as RS (not necessarily just on Wiki, but on other sites as well). Am I the only one that sees that as more than disturbing? Burleigh2 (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

[Moved to correct section] The principle on which organizations such as Quackwatch operate is the Scientific Method, and all of its umbrella principles (falsifiability, testability, the Peer Review Process, predictability, etc.) which is the method utilized to evaluate the empirical validity of scientific claims. Organizations like Quackwatch do not "bash" or have a "bias" against alternative medicine; They simply evaluate them based on whether they follow proper empirical methodologies. Personal belief systems aside, so-called alternative and complementary medicines do not have any scientific validity. Those that do aren't called "alternative" or "complementary" medicine; they just called medicine. This is a point that is not only unknown by the general public, it is also unknown by many who work in these fields, which is why they are advocated even by people with PhD's after their name. But whether someone of repute advocates an idea does not mean it has empirical validity. To argue it does is a logical fallacy called Argument by Authority.

As for unbiased, Wikipedia's policies on Reliable Sources do not, and cannot, gauge such a thing, because all sources, even reliable ones, from the New York Times to the Village Voice to FOX News, have biases. Reliability is predicated on criteria such as whether the organization in question has proper editorial controls for its content, whether its staff has the pertinent expertise, etc. Complete lack of bias cannot be a criterion, because no source exists (nor any writer working for one) that lacks some type of bias. Nightscream (talk) 04:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

An excellent summary of the situtation. Thanks. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not. It is a generalisation arrived at without consideration of the arguments on this page or the article about Quackwatch or Quackwatch itself. To assert that Quackwatch is an organisation operationally adhering to the scientific method and all of it's umbrella principles is not only unfounded but demonstrably wrong. The discussion in this section already shows that Quackwatch is to be evaluated on a case by case basis, and shows the reasons why. Attempts to elevate Quackwatch to the standard of a scientific institution adhering to all the principles of the scientific method are unfounded and a clear attempt to imbalance the situation by introducing the "Argument of Authority" the author wishes not to see in Wikipedia. Weakopedia (talk) 15:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Weakopedia here. QuackWatch is basically the blog of Stephen Barrett, and it is wild to suggest the the blog adheres to the scientific method. It has already been determined that QuackWatch should be used on a case by case basis, and should usually be balanced with an opposite viewpoint. DigitalC (talk) 16:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with these two as well. Is there an option of listing a caveat on the Quackwatch listing on the RS page that it should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, not as gospel truth? Or is that implied on everything on the RS page (so others take it as gospel truth if they don't know about that implication)? Burleigh2 (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The default implication in the RS policy is that all sources be judged on a case by case basis. QW is no exception, nor under any special scrutiny. Most sources are written from some POV or other and we just have to use common sense. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you're picking and choosing to find something you can object to, rather than noticing I repeatedly state things we both believe. Note that it was myself who clearly stated that it should be (1) used on a case by case basis, and (2) that scientific research is preferred to Quackwatch when dealing with the nitty gritty details of scientific and medical facts. Other editors agreed. That's in agreement with the MEDRS guideline. Do you disagree with that? I don't think we really disagree on that. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I have indeed considered the arguments on this page, and you have not provided any evidence or line of reasoning that I have not. The original comments that I was specifically responding to were the notions that it "bashes" alternative medicine, has a "bias" against it, and that it does this even despite the advocacy of some of these ideas by "well-respected doctors", and my response was sound: Pointing out that alternative and complementary medicine is without empirical validity is a fact, and is not a "bias", nor "bashing", and the degree to which a doctor advocating an idea is respected is not the basis upon which ideas in science are properly vetted. If you can invalidate this, then do so.

Burleigh mentioned studies published in Lancet, but he never provided any examples, nor did he mention whether these studies survived Peer Review or have achieved wide acceptance in the scientific community. (Remember that the vaccine-autism hysteria, for example, began with a 1998 study by Andrew Wakefield published in Lancet that was later found to be bogus.) And again, if these studies have been validated by Peer Review and widely accepted, then they're no longer complementary or alternative medicine. They just medicine. Complementary and alternative are essentially just euphemisms for "non-scientific" or "ineffective to any degree greater than placebo." Have any of the ideas criticized by Quackwatch been so accepted? If so, where are the examples? If Quackwatch's adherence to the Scientific Method is "demonstrably wrong", where's the demonstration? The determination that it should be used on a case-by-case basis? I assume that's not the demonstration you're referring to, since that's a Wikipedia editorial decision, and in no way makes a statement about whether Quackwatch understands and accepts the SM. I haven't considered the arguments here? How so? Which ones? And how do you know this? Nightscream (talk) 08:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If you'd like an example, the link for one has already been given. One of the last times this was brought up (at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_32#Usage_of_Quackwatch_as_RS_in_medical_quackery ) that cited http://www.villagevoice.com/1999-06-22/news/doctor-who/ "Barrett depends heavily on negative research and case studies in which alternative therapies do not work, but he says that most case studies that show positive results of alternative therapies are unreliable. Former adviser to the National Institutes of Health's Office of Alternative Medicine Peter Barry Chowka states that: He seems to be putting down trying to be objective... Quackwatch.com is consistently provocative and entertaining and occasionally informative... But I personally think he's running against the tide of history. But that's his problem, not ours. In a critical website review of Quackwatch, Joel M. Kauffman evaluated eight Quackwatch articles and concluded that the articles were "contaminated with incomplete data, obsolete data, technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo..." and "...it is very probable that many of the 2,300,000 visitors to the website have been misled by the trappings of scientific objectivity. -- Levine2112" Burleigh2 (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Brangifer has stated a workable compromise that is in line with the consensus reached in previous discussions. If someone wants to suggest a different general guideline for the use of Quackwatch, then do, but otherwise we need to move on to improving the various articles. Following a question on WP:NPOVN I had a look at the Quackery article. It has multiple problems quite independent of any perceived bias. So there is work to be done and people need to be able to work together. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The link you mention, Burleigh, shows the vast majority of editors agreeing that it is reliable, and should be vetted on a case-by-case basis, which I agree with. As for Peter Chowka, the fact that he is an advisor to an "Office of Alternative Medicine" makes it clear he too, may not understand the scientific skepticism with which scientific ideas are properly distinguished from non-scientific ones. It seems odd to argue that Barrett has a "bias", but that someone who works in capacity promoting A&CM does not. I would find a scientifically-informed "critical website review" that reported on numerous errors fundamental to Quackwatch's abilities to be more reliable, but you did not link to that one, interestingly enough. I agree that unless such information can be provided, each bit of material from Quackwatch should be examined on a case-by-case basis, and that we should move on. Nightscream (talk) 08:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I never said that the link wasn't biased, I said it points out how overly biased Barrett is. I also said it was just one example (of many I've read over the years). The fact that you are ignoring the article based on the man's title would be exactly the same as me ignoring all of Quackwatch (or at least any article that Barrett writes) because he's a psychologist and knows nothing about drugs or supplements... most of your statement is completely biased to ignore any facts or information presented to you, which does seem quite similar to Barrett's position. I have seen numerous reports about Quackwatch that it conveniently ignored studies that showed the effectiveness of a supplement/herb and only uses those that show it in a negative light. I have seen some of the studies first-hand that have reported certain supplements/herbs in a negative light and many of them were flawed (whether funded by a drug company or whether it was testing something completely different; I can give more information on that via E-mail as this would take too much space on an already crowded page), but those seem to be the only ones that Barrett uses to push his ideals against natural options and "alternative medicines". Oh, and please don't twist my words for your own purposes... that does seem to be one of the main attacks of the skeptics and it really doesn't show you in a positive light.Burleigh2 (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Burleigh, you can exclude a source by showing its publisher has a poor track record for fact checking and accuracy, and for that you'd have to provide reliable mainstream sources which have so concluded. Unless you can do that, your own personal knowledge and personal opinions of a source are not relevant for WP. Crum375 (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That's completely understandable, but there are two different sides to this... there's Quackwatch's valid and helpful information that points out fraudulent companies and false items (which is what's being praised on all those sites), but then there's Dr. Barrett's personal articles that are entirely his opinion and bias and many have nothing to do with what the rest of the research did. If Dictionary.com had an opinion section, would the opinions posted all be automatically reliable?

Yeah, it's really hard to separate them since they are on the same website and his name is on both of them, but that's what is so difficult about saying the site is completely RS. After going through this, I know it should be on a case-by-case basis and I totally agree that is the best compromise... but not everyone on Wiki (and most people who don't edit here) have no idea that it should only be used on a case-by-case basis and that not all of them are appropriately RS. I can't recall if I mentioned it yet in this, but in the Alternative Medicine article, Quackwatch is mentioned saying "Many CAM methods are criticized by the activist non-profit organization Quackwatch" and then gives a citation to their general website... in any other article/example, that would likely be seen as spam for the website (since it doesn't cite any specific article), but when I deleted it and said the citation had nothing to do with that statement, my edit was undone because "QuackWatch is a RS". If I went to the GOP (Republican party) article and referred to Fox News or another RS that is very Democratic and said this site disagreed with many Republican ideals, it would be removed within minutes as spam or defamation... how is this any different based on what we've already covered and agreed on?Burleigh2 (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Note that the old discussion had RS saying that QuackWatch was a reliable website: JAMA, Lancet and NEJM. And if you are going to use a review from the Village Voice, then you shouldn't forget using also the review from the Time magazine, which is very favorable. And also all the other stuff that I bothered to compile in the compressed text here. Otherwise you are picking only the negative reviews while leaving out the positive ones.

I also agree with Brangifer's compromise. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, this was only one example that was listed on the last time this was brought up... there are many more examples I've come across that point out how biased against alternative medicines he is regardless of the available research he seems to ignore. This is not just my opinion, but has been verified in many places that I've read over the years. If you'd like a few more examples, a quick search on Yahoo brings up 163,000 hits for "Quackwatch biased" (most of which are not praising Quackwatch, but pointing out their bias and "attack articles" for lack of a better term).Burleigh2 (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

"The fact that you are ignoring the article based on the man's title..." I am not ignoring the article based on the Peter Chowka's title. I responded to your presentation of it (kinda hard to do if I'm "ignoring" it) by pointing out that the person who criticized Quackwatch promotes a/c medicine himself, thus illustrating that he, like any other promoter of it, does not follow scientific skepticism. This has nothing to do with "ignoring" or his "title". It is a response based on the same criteria I've maintained in this discussion: Proper adherence to scientific skepticism, the same criteria that properly informs all scientific knowledge, and critical examination of it.

If you had instead presented, as an example of criticism of Quackwatch, a person (Michael Shermer, Robert L. Park, James Randi) or organization (Center for Inquiry, Skeptics Society, American Medical Association) that found "incomplete data, obsolete data, [or] technical errors" in Quackwatch's work, as you alleged, that would've been different. But aside from merely cutting and pasting material from an old version of Wikipedia's Quackwatch article (or a site mirroring it) about Joel M. Kaufman, you did not do this. I tried looking through the Skeptic's Dictionary, randi.org and Google to see if Kaufman is regarded as an adherent of proper scientific methodologies, but could not find anything at a glance to this point. Kaufman, it should be pointed out, is a critic of mainstream medicine, and a promoter of low-carb diets, which doesn't say much about him regarding this point.

"would be exactly the same as me ignoring all of Quackwatch (or at least any article that Barrett writes) because he's a psychologist and knows nothing about drugs or supplements..." Wrong. As aforementioned, my response to your mentioning Chowka was based on whether he promotes ideas that are considered pseudoscience, which is a valid scientific criterion. By contrast, ignoring Barrett because he's a psychologist and not a nutritionist is an ad hominem argument, and therefore, a logical fallacy. Not the same thing.

"most of your statement is completely biased to ignore any facts or information presented to you" I have responded to each line of reasoning and evidence that you have presented, and have done so directly, in order to explain why they do not support the conclusion that you believe they do, which flies in the face of this assertion. But if I'm wrong, please name one of these facts or bits of information presented to me, and please explain, by pointing to my replies to them, how I "ignored" them. If you'd like, I'll provide an example of how you have done precisely this:

I pointed out, at least twice, that there is no form of alternative or complementary medicine that has been scientifically shown to work any better than a placebo, that such medicines that are found to work thus are no longer called "alternative" or "complementary", but simply "medicine", and that this is why skeptic organizations like Quackwatch conclude thus. As far as I can remember from reading this entire thread, you did not respond to this point. If this "herbal supplement" you mention has passed the Peer Review Process, clinical trials, etc., then how is it "alternative" or "complementary"? (If you did and I missed it, I apologize; can you please point it out to me?) If I'm right, then isn't this an example of you ignoring information presented to you?

"I have seen numerous reports about Quackwatch that it conveniently ignored studies that showed the effectiveness of a supplement/herb and only uses those that show it in a negative light." Yet you have consistently refused to link to any of them, making it impossible to discern whether any of these studies are scientifically reliable, or just criticizing Quackwatch because they themselves promote a/c medicine. If you did, and it showed this, then I'd be in greater agreement with you. But feel free to link to one that's been peer reviewed, and prove me wrong.

"If you'd like a few more examples, a quick search on Yahoo brings up 163,000 hits for "Quackwatch biased" (most of which are not praising Quackwatch, but pointing out their bias and "attack articles" for lack of a better term)." Which is a poor method to verify that Quackwatch is biased, since Google hits can be generated by those promoting the exact same pseudoscience that we're talking about. This is like pointing to a survey showing that half of Americans reject evolution or accept creationism in order to argue that evolution is scientifically questionable, or that creationism is scientifically valid. I'm sorry, but anyone arguing that Google hits indicate anything other than the popularity of an idea (as opposed to its being "verified" scientifically) obviously does not understand the proper standards by which scientific knowledge is properly examined. Nightscream (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding sooner, it's been a busy week. I was saying that you were ignoring what he was saying and writing off because of his title... more appropriately because of his position and his views. You contradict yourself when you say you aren't rejecting it on that basis because you say he "does not follow scientific skepticism" as a blind statement based on his title/position/whatever you'd like to call it. You're dismissing every point he's making in the article regardless of how you want to say you're not. There are a number of MD doctors including some at highly reputable hospitals (John Hopkins and Mayo included) that use and recommend alternative medicines (not all, but a good number) because of their proven effectiveness... dismissing someone's statements because they use or recommend alternative medicine is just being biased and stereotyping. I'm also not talking about ALL of Quackwatch's information... I'm referring to the articles that are written by Barrett that are only of his opinion and not on any factual or cited basis. Again, you are twisting my words and choosing to use only the words you want... how are your arguments any more valid than mine or anyone else's if you contort the truth or what you perceive into what you want to perceive? That's just as bad if not worse than ignoring facts no matter how you want to read that. Burleigh2 (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There is science and pseudoscience, the medicine and complementary medicine distinction is a false dichotomy. All treatments need the same degree of evidence. Physicians will use what makes sense and has been shown to work. Quackwatch exposes treatments that have a poor reference base. Often ones that are so poorly researched that nothing exists in the peer reviewed press. The evidence needs to show something works before claims of effectiveness can be made.

If quackwatch was to say no evidence exists for some treatment and you came up with a review of 10 RCTs published in the Lancet that showed effectiveness we would go with the review. However if nothing exists and quackwatch says so. And no one can show otherwise. Quackwatch is a good enough reference.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

"You contradict yourself when you say you aren't rejecting it on that basis because you say he "does not follow scientific skepticism" as a blind statement based on his title/position/whatever you'd like to call it." No. Based on the fact that he promotes an idea that is pseudoscientific. Arguing that alternative or complementary medicine is not pseudoscience because some guy running an office promoting it says so is specious reasoning, and saying so if perfectly valid.

"There are a number of MD doctors including some at highly reputable hospitals (John Hopkins and Mayo included) that use and recommend alternative medicines (not all, but a good number) because of their proven effectiveness..." One more time: The empirical validity of an idea is not based reputation or authority. That's religion, not science. The empirical validity of an idea is based on whether it has survived the scrutiny of the Scientific Method. The fact that you continue to repeat this fallacy over and over---without responding to my repeated refutation of it---proves that you know I'm right, and are simply not able to admit it. In science, there are no sacred cows, no popes, no saints, no dogmas. Only evidence and repeat testing. None of these therapies have not exhibited proven effectiveness under these criteria, and the "folk wisdom" that you're insisting on is not a sufficient substitute. Saying "this doctor or this reputable hospital says it's been shown to work" is anecdotal, and anecdotes are not scientific, because they're too subjective, and impossible to measure objectively. If I'm wrong, then why not respond to this point by pointing out how?

"dismissing someone's statements because they use or recommend alternative medicine is just being biased and stereotyping." If they're talking about basketball or their favorite movie, then yeah, it is. But if they're promoting new medicines that do not follow the Scientific Method, are not submitted to Peer Review, are not testable, are not falsifiable, and/or have been shown in clinical trials with proper controls, such as randomization, double-blind procedures, etc to have nonexistent effects, then no, it's not. It's an adherence to the only methodology by which empirical knowledge can properly be examined. Is a planetary scientist "biased" for rejecting the views of a Flat Earth Theorist? A chemist for rejecting someone promoting alchemy? An astronomer for rejecting astrology? Is a virologist "biased" for concluding the ideas of AIDS denialists are wrong, and saying that they are not afforded more weight because a noted doctor promotes them? Is a historian prejudiced for rejecting Holocaust Denial, or conspiracies relating to the JFK assassination and the moon landing? The answer is no. These ideas are rejected because the proper methodologies by which the facts of the universe we live in can be discovered, tested, confirmed and revised show that they all lack merit, and includesaAlternative and complimentary medicine. That's not a "bias", unless you change the definition of the word "bias". Bias is when you form an opinion on irrelevant internal criteria instead of relevant external criteria. My statements clearly conform to the latter, not the former, and are therefore statements of fact. Not bias. If you really think that recognizing a proper standard for determining matters of fact, or pointing out when some people do not, constitutes a "bias", then you need to reexamine your dictionary.

You seem to think you can slide out of this problem by reframing or rewording my statements, which shows either your cognitive dissonance, or your deliberate dishonesty. I did not "dimiss his ideas because he uses alt medicine." I pointed out that if Quackwatch writes about how some ideas are non-scientific or pseudoscientific, and you want to refute his work, then you have to do so scientifically, using the scientific literature, and not by merely by pointing to someone who advises an office whose existence is predicated on promoting the very branch of non-scientific knowledge that was criticized in the first place. That is not a "bias", it's simply a question of having a proper standard for reliability. A peer review journal criticizing Quackwatch is reliable. Rebuttals by those who favor the ideas Quackwatch exmaines are not, and more than a judge in a criminal trial declaring a witness to be unreliable is "biased". Nightscream (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you really like to argue and twist words, don't you? This is tough enough to argue on this page because there's more than one topic that fights like this would be better suited to E-mail, but I'm not sure I'd want to spend the time arguing with you if you're going to keep twisting words (reminds me of a few bullies I've come across, but that's another story). I've already said my piece in regards to your first paragraph and you've already said your piece on it... we're never going to agree no matter how much either of us refutes the other and I think we both know that.

With your second paragraph, I could say the same thing about Barrett in his articles he writes without citation or reference... that's all based on his opinion and to follow it because of his opinion could be classified as religion. There have been double-blind studies done on various vitamins, herbs, supplements, etc, but the hard part is that supplement companies don't have the money to afford to pay for such expensive tests and to be able to reap all the benefits of it since any other company could sell the same product and cite the results. Also, some of them have been done by pharmaceutical companies and some were investigating other purposes (that gives misleading results that some glean from them) so there is a lot of conflicting information. For example, one study I read about Vitamin E was testing the results on terminal patients so the media showed the outcome was that Vitamin E could increase mortality (since some terminal patients died during the study... go figure). What it comes down to on that is the FDA requires documented proof of the claims that supplement companies make (or the companies risk having the product removed or the company shut down). Supplements and herbs are still considered CAM, but the FDA can verify that they are tested and verify the claims that they are listed for. I've seen some of the studies and I've discussed this fact with our compliance officers... it's verifiable and proven, but it's still CAM; that doesn't make it pseudoscience or unreliable, nor based on anyone's opinion. Burleigh2 (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I have not distorted a single one of your words, as I've quoted them exactly, and responded to them directly. By contrast, referring to a proper scientific standard by which empirical knowledge is properly examined, and pointing out when this standard is not upheld, as a "bias", is indeed a distortion.

As for organizations that can't afford proper scientific testing, well, that may be the case, but it doesn't change the need for it, nor does it mean that whatever lesser standard they're employing is just as reliable. The FDA is a government regulatory agency. It may rely on proper studies, but its stamp of approval, in and of itself, is not a substitute for one. But in any event, if the efficacy of a given medicine or substance has passed peer review, then it's no longer CAM, and the studies that have led to such a judgment should be publicly available. If you can name one of these vitamins or herbs whose efficacy has been shown in a published peer review study, and show that Quackwatch dismissed it without addressing said study, then please present it. Nightscream (talk) 02:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Quackwatch is a lot like the early versions of many wikipedia articles: written by people who knew a lot more than most about the topic, not always completely polished or balanced, and mostly lacking scholarly documentation. Pretty damning, huh? Except that most of the wikipedia science and medicine articles have been fairly useful and pretty accurate right from the beginning. Inaccurate info gets challenged and corrected pretty quickly here, and perhaps eventually all will be cited. Since Barrett has no end of howling critics, the absence of any list of substantial errors anywhere is pretty strong evidence that his articles are pretty accurate. Even the crankish pretensions of much-touted Joel Kauffman are feeble if you read them: he leads off with an obviously false claim about his "methodology" in the first page, and gets no more honest thereafter. The amount of outrage expended on Barrett's acceptance of the cholesterol-atherosclerosis link gives you an idea of how "unbiased" Kauffman is and how hard it was for him to find any really crucial errors. There isn't much to add to this lengthy argument until Burleigh actually provides us with reliable sources to back up his claim. Which he wont't because there aren't. alteripse (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Goldhagen

The following sentence keeps on being deleted (5 times in 1 day last week , once just now), based on the claim that Daniel Goldhagen - a fomer Harvard Associate Professor with an international bestseller in the area and a PBS series forthcoming - is not a reliable source. I've asked the deleters to come here and explainwhy they don't think he is reliable, but they won't do it.

Daniel Goldhagen states that, as a result of their communist ideology and their knowledge of Soviet experience, Chinese Communist leaders, as early as 1948, planned for the destruction of 80 million people, including peasants and landlords. This destruction included mass executions, mass incarceration, mass population movements, and other eliminationist policies.

• Goldhagen, Daniel (2009). Worse Than War: Genocide, Eliminationism, and the Ongoing Assault on Humanity. PublicAffairs. p. 608. ISBN 1586487698, 9781586487690. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) p.344.

P. 344 is not that long. Would somebody look at Goldhagen's credentials, and verify that my summary is accurate? Smallbones (talk) 01:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC

I don't know the definitive answer to the question, but would note that the word "controversial" appears in the second sentence of Goldhagen's WP entry. --FormerIP (talk) 02:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The publisher's reliability is moderate. Their about page indicates that aggressive commercial marketing is their primary business, their back catalogue indicates that they are not an academic publisher. Similarly, they're an independent affiliate of a publisher's network that works on a marketing basis only. Not the best, nor the worst, within WP:MILMOS#SOURCES schema. Certainly a work from another publisher would be preferable. Regarding Goldhagen's reliability, Goldhagen is a historian known for his speciality in assignment of guilt in relation to the European holocaust. His assignment was controversial, but the level of criticism was within the standards of acceptable academic conduct. The book is too new to have yet been reviewed academically. One commercial review discovered at Washington Post is not generous, "His ambitious new book, "Worse Than War," springs from an immersion in their sufferings and the heartfelt desire to end it. But even victims -- or, perhaps, especially victims -- deserve books that are clearly argued and clearly written. "Worse Than War" is not that book." (First unnumbered web page.) And goes Goldhagen for academic failures, "But by conflating so many incidents, movements and events -- all of which are (or were) very bad, yet all of which are very different -- he makes the eliminationist concept virtually meaningless. He's like a doctor who thinks it doesn't much matter whether you have cancer or AIDS." (Second unnumbered web page.). However, I'd counsel waiting on academic reviews, strongly counsel this. Goldhagen's specialty is not Chinese history, so he's probably using other sources for those claims of intention and number. 1) Use with caution, if at all. 2) Return to WP:RS/N in six months when the academic reviews have been published for a proper opinion on the reliability of this text. 3) Immediately: seek Goldhagen's footnotes for the claims of intentionality and volume; if non primary, use these instead as they're probably more reliable than Goldhagen. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I consider reinstating the unsourced figure of 80 million as a blatant disruption by Smallbones. I raised this issue here and Smallbones has simply ignored it while continuing to edit-war instead. (Igny (talk) 02:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC))

PS I can't see the material on Google books. Would it be possible to type out the relevant extract?--FormerIP (talk) 02:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

In 1948, Mao in "agrarian reform" study materials conveyed to the party membership that his schemes for restructuring overpopulated China required that "one-tenth of the peasants would have to be destroyed" One tenth of half a billion is fifty million. In 1948 Jen Pi-Shih of the Communist party's Central Committee declared in a speech to the party cadres that "30,000,000 landlords and rich peasants would have to be destroyed" The communist leadership's intention already well formulated (and communicated to their ideologically like-minded followers), they began, upon taking power, to implement their elimionist policies in programs of population movement, mass executions, and mass incarcerations of landlords, rich pesants, and other class enemies in the vast camp system they created. The communists exterminated Chinese on the order of magnitude that Mao and Jen had foretold well before they had begun.

Thanks. That doesn't seem to support "...as a result of their communist ideology and their knowledge of Soviet experience..." in any way, and Smallbones also seems to have resolved a conflict between two figures by adding them together, which is creative but not a good use of the source, I think. --FormerIP (talk) 03:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The 3 sentence immediately before "In 1948" "For Mao and the Chinese communist leaders, the ideal of a transformed and purified communist society derived from Marxism. The knowledge that they must use violence to achieve it derived from the experience of their mentors, the Soviets. Therefore, the intention to practice thoroughgoing eliminationist politics took shape much earlier than it had with the Soviets, crystallizing in mass-murderous thinking as the communists’ victory over the nationalists and the assumption of power neared." As far as adding Goldhagen's fifty million and 30 million together, yes I can add, and WP:SYNTH specifically allows such simple addition.

Fifelfoo's "WP:MILMOS#SOURCES schema" is irrelevant here. A sub topic of the manual of style on Military History simply doesn't over-ride WP:RS on a genocide article. Fifelfoo has earlier stated that Goldhagen was a very good scholar. Whether somebody calls him controversial or Fiflefoo counsels waiting until all the reviews are in is also irrelevant. Is a Harvard scholar with an international best seller in the area and a forthcoming PBS series based on the book cited, a reliable source or not? By the standards stated in WP:RS, I'd say there is no question that he is. Smallbones (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Also see [9]. Smallbones (talk) 04:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

If you're putting it in those stark terms, then no, this book isn't an RS. His publisher is crap and the reviews available to date indicate that this work fails to meet expected academic standards. Reliability primarily inheres in the publisher, not the author. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Which is why I'm counselling to wait on academic reviews, which will take about six months from now. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that it is most likely a misreading to add the 50 million and the 30 million together. The dates for the two speechs study materials and the speech are not given. So, either the number shrank from 50 million to 30 million with the target becoming more focussed from peasants in general to landlords and rich peasants in particular, or vice versa.

As for using Goldhagen or not, we have to remember that we are not writing PhD dissertations here. Thus, it is not up to us to determine the source material used by the authors and then vet the authenticity of same. Rather, we are supposed to be writing undergraduate level papers wherein we present articles that survey the literature on a given topic. Thus, whether to use Goldhagen or not depends on how one intends to present his material. Does his analysis fly in the face of accepted scholarship? Then it should be presented as such, presented as an alternative, not-widely-subscribed-to view, and fully cited accordingly. While I truly respect Fifelfoo’s caution, I am not altogether certain that one need wait for reviewers to vet the book prior to our being able to use it. It’s out there. And it presents an (alternative?) viewpoint that ought to be presented to wikireaders to maintain the article’s neutral point of view by surveying the spectrum of scholarship in the subject area. Finally, Goldhagen is notable enough that he qualifies for a wikiarticle, so why would a book by him, a book that is not self-published, not be notable enough to be cited so long as it is cited with due caution? — SpikeToronto 05:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is obvious that Goldhagen is a reliable source. He is also fairly mainstream - even if controversial in his own way. Mainstream: Chinese Communists killed 30-50 million. Goldhagen: because of their Communist beliefs, Chinese Communists planned to "destroy" 80 million. Note that the 30 million and 50 million are not alternative numbers, they are separate numbers that can be added together. Mao - "destroy" 50 million peasants - one class of people according to Communist theory. Jen Pi-Shih - "destroy" 30 million "landlords" and "rich peasants" (i.e. Kulaks) (two other classes in Communist theory). "Destroy" includes mass executions, mass internments, and mass population movements Smallbones (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, had he been published by an academic publisher, or a commercial publisher with a statement of purpose that was less marketing oriented, I wouldn't be worried. But the combination of an extremely hostile review going to the credibility of the research methodology (claiming it isn't credible research) combined with the publisher issues has me worried. The article in question has a number of issues with academics who publish credible work in academic spaces and FRINGE work in unreliable publishers, or SELF spaces. Checking reviews in academic journals for arbitration would be my normal next step, but the work is sufficiently new to be within the publication cycle of humanities / social science journals in the field. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

If you are looking at reviews, you might as well look at the New York Times review [10] "In this magisterial and profoundly disturbing “natural history” of mass murder, Daniel Jonah Goldhagen calls for an end to such willful blindness. As he did in his celebrated and controversial “Hitler’s Willing Executioners,” Goldhagen insists that even the worst atrocities originate with, and are then propelled by, a series of quite conscious calculations by followers as much as by leaders. " Smallbones (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Smallbones, I attempted to access that review but got channelled into blog territory. I'd still prefer waiting for full academic reviews before stabilising my opinion, but getting a magisterial out of NYT is sufficient to swing the presumption back in favour of Reliability. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Source is RS by WP standards, and as long as the numbers are cited to the author, it is properly in the article. [11] repeatedly cited by the NYT as an American scholar, so the author is notable as well. It is moreover, not up to us to decide which figures we like or do not like - as long as the numbers are sourced, we have to deal with it. Collect (talk) 14:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• The "80 million" are nowhere present in Goldhagen and fall foul of WP:SYN. Goldhagen himself cites Rummel, p. 223, which is visible in google books. Rummel quotes Mao's instruction mentioning the 10% (or 50m), and then adds that "Jen Pi-shih, a party Central Committee member, had also said in a 1948 speech to cadres that '30,000,000 landlords and rich peasants would have to be destroyed'" (emphasis mine). The placement of the word "also" reinforces my impression that neither Goldhagen nor his source, Rummel, meant for these two figures of 50m and 30m to be added to each other.
• Rummel is much the better source to use here. Goldhagen moves from Hitler to Mao to Serbia in the space of two paragraphs. It is a high-level survey, whereas Rummel's book is actually dedicated to the topic of China. Rummel puts the figure of those killed as a result of these policies at an estimated 4.5 (not 80) million. --JN466 19:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

As for Goldhagen discussing all of this in summary while Rummel deals with the material in detail, I do not think that that is relevant. We are not doing investigative journalism here. Nor are we writing graduate theses and dissertations. We are charged with writing undergraduate level articles that survey the literature. We are only to vet the sources for verifiabilty and reliableness.

I think that both Rummel and Goldhagen can be used so long as they are presented as differing views. My understanding of WP:NPOV is that the article must, on balance, be neutral. To leave out one author’s differing calculations is to choose one view over another, which is not our job as neutral wikieditors. However, it is one thing for the Party to have made estimates of between 30 and 50 million, it is quite another if the subsequent reality is an entirely different figure. I would suggest that Goldhagen’s quote be used to illustrate the Party’s pre-genocide estimates, while Rummel’s numbers be used as a measure of the ensuing genocide. However, I think that one can find many sources that would disagree with Rummel, that his number is too low. I seem to recall reading back in the dark ages when I was at university that the number in reality was much nearer Mao and the Party’s estimate than Rummel’s calculation.

Finally, I still maintain, and agree with Jayen, that the 30 million and 50 million figures are not intended to be added together, regardless of whether WP:SYN would permit it or not. To do so is to misread, to misunderstand, the source. — SpikeToronto 20:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe there is no point of fact on which Goldhagen and Rummel differ. Goldhagen simply repeats material from Rummel, citing him. --JN466 20:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Note that Goldhagen's book has the searchable preview in amazon enabled: [12] --JN466 20:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Note that Rummel's estimate of 4.5m is for land-reform-related killings only. [13] Rummel himself says that estimates vary widely and gives examples. --JN466 21:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Fine, both can be cited, Goldhagen for 50 million planned "destructions" and Rummel for 4.5 million actual killings during the land reform program. The "basic addition" exception to WP:SYNTH only applies when it is obvious to everybody that the numbers can be added together. While I think that it should be obvious that Communists would never conflate "peasants" and "landlords" in the same category, I'll bow out on this one (as I made clear on the talk page), so 50 million is the number Mao PLANNED to destroy according to Goldhagen. Does anybody have problems with this? Smallbones (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that this section was titled using the name of a writer rather than a reference to the source cited. Goldhagen's academic writings are reliable sources. His popular books are not. The same with all other writers. Smallbones, do you understand what this difference is and why it is important? The Four Deuces (talk) 00:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

An interesting claim - but not one founded in WP policy nor guidelines, nor in any articles on WP. Books which one does not like are automatically not RS just "because"? Nope. Books by academic presses by recognized scholars are RS for WP. Collect (talk) 01:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Partially seconding Collect here (The press isn't academic). Yes he's gone through a high intensity marketing popular press. No, this doesn't mean he's avoiding appropriate review (though in this case its commercial rather than academic review). Popular press reviews located so far are split (NYT: magisterial, Washington Post: not clearly written and argued). This would be different had he gone to a less reputable press, or a small press, or a press where this would be their money spinner for the year on the basis of it having his name on it: all methods of avoiding review. However, its rather obvious Goldhagen's book will be peer reviewed in journals, Real Soon Now. Given that the press isn't shocking, the reviews are split, and he's deliberately bringing his views into a public domain commercially, presumption favours reliability. Avoidance behaviour which would mean he's avoiding academic publication review would be a website, vanity press, micro press who doesn't normally publish in that area, a popular magazine or newspaper etc. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Goldhagen is generally considered to be a reliable source. If the publisher were a university press, that would weigh in favor of increased reliability, but that doesn't mean the book is unreliable. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Goldhagen is a notable expert in the field, but some of his original statements are not undisputed in academia. They can be used, but should be used with inline attribution. For the non-disputed facts presented by Goldhagen, in most cases other, less controversial sources, are available, and should be used instead.  Cs32en  12:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Goldhagen is a noted expert in his field. There's no reason to prefer other sources to him for "non-disputed facts", and he can be cited freely and without inline attribution for them. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a better way to put it would be "For non-disputed facts, citations to Goldhagen should be used in due proportion to citations to other appropriate sources." I was probably too concerned about people who may want to source everything to Goldhagen, so that the author would become unduly relevant as the authoritative source for such facts, and, by extension, on possibly other facts as well, in the mind of our readers. I also was concerned about a particular interpretation that Goldhagen may attach to a fact that itself would be undisputed, and that may become unduly prominent by, e.g. repeatedly referring to a specific book published by Goldhagen that includes the undisputed facts that are being sourced, as well as a number of interpretations that may well be controversial. The statement in my previous comment above was too absolute, and I am retracting it.  Cs32en Talk to me  03:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

"Goldhagen argued that ordinary Germans not only knew about, but actually supported the Holocaust, because of a virulent "eliminationist antisemitism" in German society, which had developed in the preceding centuries. Thus in the twentieth century, with Hitler in power, conditions were primed for the pursuit of large-scale killing of Jews."[14] If that is not fringe, then what is? The Four Deuces (talk) 02:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It's just one end of the academic spectrum of views on the functionalism versus intentionalism debate. His work generated a lot of support and criticism, but it's within the bounds of academic debate. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

News sources

Question: What should the policy/guideline be about the use of questionable, but not totally unreliable sources like Xinhua, Pravda, Granma, etc. ? 76.117.247.55 (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You mean, secondary but official sources. They'd be reliable secondary sources for many topics. They may require attribution "The state-owned nespaper XYZ says ....", and for information about the government itself or related controversies they would become primary sources. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a particularly culturally specific answer. The issue isn't that they're state owned (The BBC is state owned), the issue is that they're government controlled. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The BBC isn't state owned. --FormerIP (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Its a public corporation acting in trust on the basis of a renewable state charter establishing its nature as a result of the actions of the government, and in receipt of recurrent funding enforced by acts of parliament and criminal law; but, it isn't "owned" by the state despite being dependent upon the state for its establishment, terms of operation and right to operate, and for a significant revenue stream. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a lot of words, but you are correct, I think. --FormerIP (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The BBC is state owned, just not state controlled. It's probably the least biased mainstream news source in the UK. It was recently censured for anti-Israeli reporting, but because it is subject to independent review at least we know when its coverage has not been neutral. If you ask me BBC News is the most reliable news source there is in Britain, if not the world. Betty Logan (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

As well-written as the BBC's reports are, it would still become a primary source for, example, disputes over Northern Ireland. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That's nonsense.

To answer the original question, I what SFC originally said was not nonsense. State-controlled media will often be perfectly acceptable, but in may cases may not, or they may need to be attributed. It would need to be worked out on a case-by-case basis. I think there is no easy rule-of-thumb that can be applied. --FormerIP (talk) 01:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Squid... you are off base here. The BBC is considered one of the most reliable news sources in the world. It is a reliable secondary source, even for reporting on the UK and Northern Ireland. Blueboar (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I brought up the BBC as an exception that proves the rule. It's a very fine source, though because it's not completely independent, I would use other sources to weigh in on who's right and who's wrong in Northern Ireland. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Can I restate my question? I don't claim the BBC is untrustworthy, or that it should be avoided because of its relationship to the government, the same for RTE, AFP, DW, PBS, and others of similar quality/reputability. My question was just on the ones that are run by countries whose news outlets' editors have direct line from the presidential palace on their desk, so to speak. 76.117.247.55 (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

They're as reliable as an official statement from the government in question itself. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

And should be treated as such? IE. For current events something like BBC, Reuters, etc. would be preferred? 76.117.247.55 (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

For current events probably the best way to handle things is to use a mix of international wire services and local, even if government-run, sources. Also check out the Washington Post and The Economist for analysis, and also there are specialty sources for analysis of geopolitical, military, and diplomatic aspects. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, independent news sources are preferred; one should avoid government press in favor of BBC, Reuters, Washington Post, New York Times, The Times, etc. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

YouTube video on 9/11 Truth movement

An editor has used a YouTube video in the article 9/11 Truth movement. Is this a reliable, secondary, and independent source?  Cs32en  11:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Depends what point it is being used to support.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It is being used to introduce Noam Chomsky's viewpoint on the September 11 attacks and on 9/11 conspiracy theories into the article. It's not clear when or where Chomsky spoke, and Chomsky does not comment on the 9/11 Truth movement, but on 9/11 conspiracy theories. The findings of the 9/11 Commission and of NIST are already described in the article to provide context, so adding Chomsky's views on 9/11 there is coatracking. The uploader of the video apparently runs a blog here, and it's not clear whether that blog can be considered independent. It's certainly not a reliable source. No indication of any secondary source referring to Chomsky's comments has been given.  Cs32en  12:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I would say you would need something more reliable to comment on a figure as prominent as Chomsky. But can you provide that exact quote it is used to support? Youtube is like Wikipedia. It is based on user added content. It is not peer reviewed. I am behind a firewall and cannot view the video. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The editor has added the following paragraph to the article, based on the YouTube video.  Cs32en  12:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky "the academy’s loudest and most consistent critic of U.S. policies at home and abroad" stated, regarding US government involvement in the 9/11 attacks, "the evidence that has been produced is essentially worthless" and while the American government stood to benefit from the incident, "every authoritarian system in the world gained from September 11th." He argues that the enormous risk of an information leak, "it is a very porous system and secrets are very hard to keep", and consequences of exposure for the Republican party would have made such a conspiracy foolish to attempt. He dismisses observations cited by conspiracy proponents saying, "if you look at the evidence, anybody who knows anything about the sciences would instantly discount that evidence," arguing that even when a scientific experiment is carried out repeatedly in a controlled environment, phenomena and coincidences remain that are unexplained.

The quote sounds correct / true but it would be nice to have a better source. The quote is here in Salon [15] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It's an opinion column, but it would be a secondary source that references what Chomsky said. Thank you for finding the text!  Cs32en  13:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't view YouTube at work. The question is 1) where is the video from and 2) is it clear that the uploader had permission to upload it (ie. they are the copyright holder)? Because we don't link to copyvios. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyright is a red herring in that we can use a source even if it is a copyvio (just then not link to it). However, it seems clear that youtube videos of questionable provenance are not reliable sources. If this were from a channel of a known news organization or something like that it might be different. But as it stands this isn't reliable. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

As Joshua says, youtube videos are not reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Um, that was my point entirely. If, say, this were a link to an interview of Person X on CBS, we'd only link to the YouTube if it was uploaded by CBS. If it was uploaded by Joe6PackLOL, we wouldn't link it, but could cite the original airing on CBS. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You probably shouldn't cite it even then, if you've only seen it on Youtube. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

What, specifically, is the "Resolved" decision? On what finding of fact is the "Resolved" based? E.g. the video in question appears on Youtube in violation of the rights of the copyright holds, Chomsky is not a reliable source, etc.

Please forgive my pedantry on this topic but when the dust clears I am going to write up some proposed clarifications to YOUTUBE#Linking_to_user-submitted_video_sites, so I would like to understand this decision clearly. Note that the video in question is cited to verify the statements attributed to Chomsky in the article. Deicas (talk) 20:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The resolved was that we found an alternated source from Salon and that as youtube videos are self published they are rarely if ever appropriate sources. We discuss self published sources here. Youtube would be an example. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

What has me confused here is that the video in question shows Chomsky, making the statements, that are attributed to him, in the Wikipedia article. In this instance, the video is no more and no less reliable than Chomsky himself. Contrast that to an identical video with some person off the street, e.g. me, making the same statements. In that case the video and the content therein would not be a reliable source on the topic because I am not a reliable source on the topic. Am I making sense? Deicas (talk) 05:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You assert that the video shows Chomsky. There is no verifiable and reliable source that gives the information that the Youtube video does in fact depict Chomsky. You may say that it is clearly showing Chomsky, beacsue you knwo what Chomsky looks like. However that would be original research on your part. Now if there were a relliable source that cited this particular Youtube clip in more than a paasing reference then that might help assert the reliability of the source. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources again. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

If any good secondary source, or Chomsky's own website cites or links to the video then the video would be authenticated. If so, Chomsky's own views are probably notable enough to include in the article. But please check and see if there's a transcript or a position paper; rich media such as video shouldn't be our first choice for a reference link. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly right, Jezhotwells. It's best to stick to reliable secondary sources in any event, even if some sort of authentication could be provided that the video was what it was purported to be. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

everyhit.com

The issue of finding reliable chart sources for British positions has come up again. In a nutshell, British charts are produced by the Official Charts Company, with the BBC being the first publisher of the chart. They are then republished in numerous physical media. Online, they are archived by the Official Charts Company for 100 weeks. This leaves us in the unfortunate situation that the primary and best online source converts into a deadlink in slightly under two years.

Various online archives keep information for longer. At WP:GOODCHARTS, the recommendation is to use chartstats.com, a recommendation that has been a source of controversy due to the anonymous nature of the archiver. These objections were primarily brought up by Goodraise.

Recently, Goodraise has objected to the use of everyhit.co.uk, specifically in the featured list reviews for the Pussycat Dolls and the Black Eyed Peas. This archive, while once again being an anonymously archived copy of the data, can be demonstrated to have been treated as reliable by multiple news sources. It was

• Used by the BBC as a source for movie theme chart positions
• Used by the Telegraph for information about Eurovision chart positions
• Used by Reuters in an article about Thin Lizzy
• User by the Norwegian newspaper "Aftenposten" in an article about the Beatles.

This level of use in my mind establishes the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" required by WP:RS. At the very least, I think it qualifies as a legitimate convenience link because the original source of the data has an impeccable reputation.—Kww(talk) 16:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Sources expected to go dead can be archived case-by-case by editors using WebCite; obviously this doesn't help with links already dead. Rd232 ^talk 17:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a somewhat related topic to whether we can treat everyhit.com as reliable, but it is generally untrue with chart sites. All the archive facilities I am familiar with have difficulty recovering data retrieved from databases and searches, as opposed to be directly encoded in the source HTML.—Kww(talk) 17:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

the use of everyhit.com in those undoubtedly reliable sources as a source of information proves reliability. They would not use the source if they didn't think it was reliable, they have their own reputations to protect. and there are many more examples of its use. Mister sparky (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to jump on this a bit, but can this discussion group clear up for me if Zobbel and αCharts are considered reliable? --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 00:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

In terms of fully meeting every requirement of WP:RSN, no. In terms of literal accuracy, in that they seem to correctly archive the things they archive, yes. Zobbel has problems with conflating charts: it can be difficult to determine which chart an album charted on unless you know the qualification rules for each chart beforehand. Acharts accurately archives charts that are unofficial charts to begin with, WP:GOODCHARTS is silent on Zobbel, and recommends against using acharts for good and featured articles. There are some times it is hard to avoid using Zobbel, as they are the only archive that preserves position 101-200 on the UK charts. Allowing its use is a case-by-case matter with me. Acharts is wholly unnecessary: every piece of data it archives is available on an official licensed archive as well.—Kww(talk) 15:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay I see that aCharts can be replaced, but with what? Going by everyHit, this seems to only archive no's 1-40, is there another website i should be looking at? --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 01:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

British charts excepted. WP:GOODCHARTS recommends chartstats.com, but everyhit.com is arguably better when dealing with the first 40 positions, because of the usage noted in this discussion. It would be nice to get back on the original topic: the reliability of everyhit.com, and whether the references from news sources establish a reputation for reliability.—Kww(talk) 16:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I will start a separate discussion elsewhere. --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 23:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Aren't there books that provide these lists? Couldn't you just provide a reference to a relevant ISBN, then it would be valid for all time? Hibbertson (talk) 13:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK the books over cover up until 2006/7, so anything after that still needs a web-based archive. Mister sparky (talk) 01:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Mister sparky. The days of large paper tomes detailing the complete histories of a chart are gone.—Kww(talk) 01:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Convenient lists may not exist in book form, but the UK charts are still published on paper, aren't they? On a side note, it would be nice if this thread received some feedback from editors not involved in discography articles or FLCs. Goodraise 02:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Weekly trade magazines, yes. Technically possible to reference? Certainly. Reasonable? Not very, especially when there's an archive available that reliable news sources feel is reliable enough to use. Would you please respond to that point?—Kww(talk) 03:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I would have preferred to simply abide by the consensus of uninvolved editors, but since you're asking for my opinion, I'll state it. Is it reasonable? That's not the question. We need to cite reliable sources. EveryHit.com is either reliable or it isn't. Whether it's inconvenient not to use it is irrelevant. So, is it reliable? Since in this case, outside citation is the only indicator of reliability, I'd like to see more than just a handful of links. Goodraise 06:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it would be nice to get some outside voices. At this juncture, it seems unlikely. We agree more than you think, BTW. I'd love to have some rock-solid, fully licensed and attributed permanent archive of these charts. The vast majority of my edits are eliminating poorly-sourced information and correcting sources. I'm between a rock and a hard place on this one, though. If I go 100% purist, I would be pushing for citations to the physical charts. In practice, those are unverifiable, though: very difficult for editors outside of the UK to get access to, and not easy for the average UK citizen to access, either. If someone cited a position in a UK chart to ChartsPlus, I would wind up verifying it against Everyhit and ChartStats, and, if it mismatched, I would wind up either deleting the information or correcting it to match the information found in the archives because, whether they meet WP:RS or not, their accuracy has not been brought into question: if the mismatching information was referenced to the physical chart, the odds are that the information is incorrect, not that all three archives got it wrong. Worse yet, I can see people forging the physical citations as the path of least resistance: look up the date on EveryHit, and forge the reference based on the information retrieved from there. Of course, when people verify it, they will look at ChartStats or Everyhit to verify, completing the loop of forgery.

I've asked Mister sparky to search diligently for more high-quality references to everyhit.com. Hopefully, we can find enough to make you feel more comfortable. I would also like to hear your views on these cites with regard to WP:CONVENIENCE. That's a guideline that I have tried to engage in discussion with you about multiple times, but you have never replied.—Kww(talk) 17:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Since WP:CONVENIENCE leads to an essay, I'll ignore what is being said there and instead assume that you meant to link to Wikipedia:Citing sources#Convenience links, which, by the way, is a style guideline, as opposed to a content guideline. First off, pages given as convenience links need to be reliable sources. They are not exempt from that. Secondly, it's "convenience links", not convenience references. When the original source goes offline, you place a link in the reference to the original source (in {{cite web}} this is done using |archiveurl=), not replace the whole reference. ChartStats and everyHit.com may accurately archive the raw data of the official website, but their pages are not true copies of the originally referenced ones.
If you're saying that we should rather openly use inferior sources than risking forgery, then I'll have to strongly disagree. Since we are all volunteers, it makes no sense to call any one of us lazy, but if an editor is unwilling to do the proper footwork to write the kind of quality articles that our readers deserve and instead resorts to such improper methods, then the project would be better off without that editor. I'm not willing to accept bad sources for that reason, let alone supporting the promotion of an article using it to featured status.
At this point, the only two things that I can picture persuading me to accept everyHit.com as reliable is a substantial amount of high quality, third-party usage/recommendation and/or advocacy from several uninvolved editors. Goodraise 00:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd say allow it. We have to have some flexibility in how we do things, and I think you've made a good case. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's a good link: BBC Radio One specifically recommends using everyhit.com to search British chart history.—Kww(talk) 19:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to have to chime back into this discussion, this time for the correct reasons (and because I don't think this has been quite resolved yet). I just wanted to point out that looking through a lotta, lotta discographies - especially FLs - pretty much every one of them link to either ChartStats, or everyHit. So firstly, does the above link satisfy Goodraise (which I think ultimately could be considered a consensus on the subject), and secondly, if it doesn't, what should happen to the discogs? --^{SteelersFanUK06} HereWeGo2010! 20:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources at Dorothy Kilgallen

As an option to attempt to solve a situation about whether appropriate for use as external links, the website http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/kilgallen.txt was insterted within the article as a reference. It seems even more clear to me that the use of the website as a source within the article is even more troublesome. MM207.69.139.142 (talk) 00:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Who is Eric Paddon and where has he published this article? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not reliable as it stands; however, it may be published elsewhere as Jayjg notes above. It appears that Eric Paddon is an instructor (of some type) in the History Department at the County College of Morris in Randolph, New Jersey. He may well be a professor, associate professor or assistant professor. --Bejnar (talk) 07:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be allowable under selfpubs by an expert? The subject of the biography passed away in the 1960s, so the provisions of BLP do not apply. As appears in the diff, the material is properly cited and attributed, I would only suggest some NPOV tweaks to clarify that this is an "opinion", a "claim". Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

That's why I asked "Who is Eric Paddon"? Is he indeed a noted expert on the subject? Unless he is, he cannot be used. And no, being "an instructor (of some type) in the History Department at the County College of Morris in Randolph, New Jersey" would not make one an expert. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Fein, Rummel, Midlarsky,Valentino

in order to remove material from wikipedia [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] it has been claimed that following scholars have never used such terms and/or "there is no proof that these terms have ever been introduced"

• Helen Fein, a chapter on "Soviet and Communist Genocides and 'Democide" in Genocide: a sociological perspective; "Contextual and Comparative Studies I: Ideological Genocides". Sage Publications. p. 75. ISBN 9780803988293. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

• R.J. Rummel on "communist democide" in Totten, Samue; (2002). Pioneers of genocide studies. Transaction Publishers. p. 166. ISBN 9780765801517. These books on communist democide are packed with figures and graphs... {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link);
  

Rummel, R.J. (2007). China's bloody century: genocide and mass murder since 1900. Transaction Publishers. p. 100. ISBN 9781412806701. Next to be considered is the communist democide... {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

• Manus I. Midlarsky on "communist politicide" in Midlarsky, Manus (2005). The killing trap: genocide in the twentieth century. Cambridge University Press. p. 310. ISBN 9780521815451. Indeed, an arc of Communist politicide can be traced from the western portions of the Soviet Union to China and on to Cambodia. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

• Benjamin A. Valentino on "communist mass killings" Valentino, Benjamin (2005). "Communist mass killings:The Soviet union, China, and Cambodia". Final solutions: mass killing and genocide in the twentieth century. Cornell University Press. p. 91. ISBN 9780801472732. Understanding communist mass killings is of vital importance not only... {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

unless I'm completely missing something with this, in case the scholars listed above have never used such terms indeed like claimed, the sources where its printed on black and white must not be reliable?--Termer (talk) 07:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it is pretty clear it is not a question of reliability of sources. The proper venue for this discussion is an RfC. (Igny (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC))

Agree with Igny. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with you agreeing with him. --FormerIP (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Igny, TFD and FormerIP. And wonder why Termer started this thread without notifying people on the talk page of the article? Again? If any admins see this, please note how Termer keeps following the patterns of Wikipedia:DISRUPTIVE#How disruptive editors evade detection.--Anderssl (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ask that AGF be observed where an editor has sought to use noticeboards for a specific query. The use of accusations here is not warranted, and may lead others to determine that those making the attacks are indeed the attackers. Collect (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

In case anything was unclear from my behalf: I'm only interested in the question if the sources listed above are considered reliable by Wikipedia standards, and based on it either those sources can be used or not for the material in question that's getting removed from wikipedia? Thanks!--Termer (talk) 05:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the point implied by Igny is that no-one disputes that they are reliable, but that is a different question to the broader one of whether they are suitable for the article. If you do get approving opinions about the reliability of the sources, this would in no way entitle you to re-insert material into the article. An RfC would be better for getting comments on the wider issues. --FormerIP (talk) 15:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

a note to editors who voted for deletion of the article and now attempt to delete the article in bits and pieces by removing sourced materials. I'm already aware of your opinions, there is no need to keep repeating it.--Termer (talk) 02:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

mako.org.au

Is the website mako.org.au ever a reliable source? It is a kind of public list of convicted (or not) criminals (" 98+% of offenders listed in the MAKO/Files Online and MAKO/Files Online- (WTC) have been convicted by a court of law."), without any kind of official backing, reputation for fact-checking, ... As this is used for extremely sensitive information (identifying paedophiles, murderers, ...), I don't believe that this source is good enough. It is currently used on 36 pages.[21] Any ideas?

Original US gov't or academic sources, and excerpts from those sources

• ORIGINAL US GOVERNMENT SOURCES

Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/FRUS/

FRUS is a good research tool for persons interested in foreign policy and related issues. FRUS is the official documentary historical record of major US foreign policy decisions, produced by the US Dept. of State. Is this a reliable source? I would think so, but would appreciate some verification.

• EXCERPTS FROM US GOVERNMENT SOURCES

Additionally, when doing research in the FRUS, some of the relevant documents may extend over several pages, and the portions relevant to the particular research subject at hand may be scattered here and there, etc., etc., over various pages, so for various reasons it is desirable to produce a series of excerpts of the FRUS, with a LINK back to the original page or pages. Is there any rule against quoting from a US government source in this fashion? The following would be an example -- http://www.taiwanbasic.com/state/frus/frus1948aa.htm

Continuing on in this line of inquiry, as regards what constitutes RS, we have some US government documents which are very difficult to locate online, or if located, are quite lengthy. The 1971 Starr Memorandum of the US Dept. of State is one good example. It is actually online at -- http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/One-China.cfm in PDF format, and is thirteen pages in length. Such a format, and length, makes it less than "convenient" for the access of many who use the internet. Nevertheless, I believe it meets the requirements of being an RS . . . . . so is that affected if a page of excerpts are presented in friendly html format? For an example, see -- http://www.taiwanbasic.com/nstatus/starr.htm (I don't believe that a collection of a few excerpts presents any kind of copyright problem.)

• ACADEMIC SOURCES

Long before the days of the internet, a very important article discussing the international legal status of Taiwan was published in the Yale Law Journal. See Who Owns Taiwan: A Search for International Title, by Lung-chu Chen and W. M. Reisman, The Yale Law Journal, March 1972. Is this a reliable source?? I would think so, being in such a prestigious law journal. However, it is very difficult to reference this article, because neither I nor my associates have ever been able to find a complete copy of the article in a publicly accessible internet site. I did manage to find a copy in a library once, and it was 73 pages long. I did photocopy some portions, and put those excerpts on a webpage, whereupon a friend was kind enough to fix it up in html format and post it on the web, see -- http://www.civil-taiwan.org/cairo-potsdam1.htm Does presenting the information in this way violate any rules?

• TREATY SOURCES

Is an international treaty considered an RS? When making reference to a treaty, are we required to quote various articles of the treaty to back up our statements? For example, in the Treaty of Peace with Italy (1947), there was no authorization for transfer of the sovereignty of the Dodecanese islands to Turkey. For someone who has read the treaty, this is common sense, but others might argue that this is an "interpretation" or violates NPOV? How do we deal with such claims of other Wiki editors?

In a similar fashion, the Treaty of Paris (1898) did not cede the Philippines to New Zealand. But, if I write this on some Wiki page, and someone challenges my "assertion," and quickly deletes my statement(s) from the relevant Wiki page, how should my response be made? I am presenting the material objectively, and yet I am being challenged!!! This is very disturbing. Are there rules against "propaganda"? (I don't find any page for WP:Propaganda) My point is that there may be some people who believe that the Philippines are a long-lost island chain of New Zealand. From my point of view, that appears to be propaganda, but the people who promote that view obviously don't question it very thoroughly.

So . . . . where do verifiability and objectivity end, . . . and propaganda and political posturing begin?? I find myself often having this problem when quoting from US government sources and also from international treaties. Arguably, for someone with a lack of expertise on the content of a particular treaty, it might be necessary to read the entire treaty to comprehend one fact. What one fact? Well, an example would be if I wrote that the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848) did not cede the Mexican state of Tamaulipas to the United States. (Obviously, some treaties are long and somewhat complicated.) So, what is the correct course of action for me when I am challenged on something like this which (from a straightforward reading of the treaty) is an objective fact? And/or when I can offer verifiable commentary from prestigious sources (law journals, US government documents, etc.) to support my writing?

Significantly, in the Peace Treaty of San Francisco (1952) and Treaty of Taipei (1952) there was no authorization for transfer of the sovereignty of "Formosa and the Pescadores" (aka Taiwan) to China. This is quite clear from a straightforward reading of both treaties. The Starr Memorandum (mentioned above) also clarifies this point in detail. And yet when making simple references to such matters on various webpages, I often see my contributions deleted by other Wiki editors or moderators who claim that I have violated the rules for Verifiability (RS), NPOV, or OR.

I don't think that I have violated these rules. Can someone explain the rules/guidelines in more detail? Hmortar (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The sources you list above all seem to be primary sources. They may well be reliable, but being primary they require a secondary source to interpret them, establish their notability and put them in context. If you already have such a secondary source, then using these primary sources to add details would generally be OK, as long as there is no interpretation or analysis required. Even selecting or highlighting a specific piece out of a primary source can be viewed as advancing a position, so this too can only be done if it is backed up by a secondary source. In summary, per WP:NOR, primary sources should be used very carefully, and never to establish notability. Secondary sources should be used to establish the big picture, with primary sources in a supporting role to add non-controversial details. Crum375 (talk) 14:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly as Crum375 says. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

• I am not going to be able to address all of the original poster's questions, but I do have some comments. With regard to the Yale Law Journal mentioned under "Academic Sources" above, there is no problem with citing a journal article that is available in print but not online. As stated at WP:RS, "It is useful but by no means necessary for the archived copy to be accessible via the internet." In this case, the Yale Law Journal is likely to be found at law libraries throughout much of the world. According to WorldCat.org, it is collected at hundreds of libraries throughout the United States, as well as some in Canada, Ireland, the UK, Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, Hungary, Argentina, Egypt, Israel, Japan, Hong Kong, New Zealand, South Africa, Australia, and Singapore. So anyone who wants to take the effort to track down the article and confirm the citation should be able to do so. The link you provided to civil-taiwan.org is at best just a convenience link. Looking at that page, one cannot be sure if it is an accurate reflection of the Yale Law Journal article because it is a very unofficial reprint -- the only way to be sure is to compare it to the original article, but if one had the original article, one wouldn't need the convenience link page. Finally, I note that the Yale Law Journal article most likely takes a position in support of one particular side of the dispute over Taiwan, and so Wikipedia should not take the opinions expressed in the article as the definitive truth due to WP:NPOV concerns. Rather, it should present the opinions in that article as one perspective on the dispute. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
• Also, with regard to the Starr Memorandum, I note that its appearance at heritage.org is itself a reprint (presumably there is some official U.S. government publication where it previously appeared), although the Heritage Foundation is an established organization (notwithstanding it may take a particular point of view on this dispute) and can presumably be trusted to reprint the document in full accurately. Putting up excerpts from the document at taiwanbasic.com would be getting even farther from the original source -- an unofficial reprint of an unofficial reprint. I don't see why the 13-page PDF at heritage.org is considered so inconvenient; as computers get faster, even much longer PDFs can be read without much difficulty. So I would strongly recommend citing either to the PDF at heritage.org, or even better to a reprint at an academic site, or best of all to a U.S. government site, for this U.S. government document. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler's 50th Birthday - sources.

An editor of Adolf Hitler's 50th Birthday is attempting to use the following sources to verify the scale of the event.

• UfA TON-WOCHE, Hitler's 50th Birthday - Documentary film
• http://www.ihffilm.com/16.html

The first appears to be a Nazi propaganda film, which he maintains is "an official record". The second appears to be advertising blurb on a site selling a DVD of the same. Hohum (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

If the film backs up what it is being sourced for (the leader of the Slovak republic attended the celebrations) then I see no problem with that (though I would prefer an English language source)t. As to the second, there is a problem I think here. It does not contain any information beyond this event happening. Nor does it strictly reflect the passage it is used as a source for, but this may be a translation problom (demonstration as opposed to parade).Slatersteven (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem in the film being termed "an official record". An official film record in Nazi Germany will, after all, be a Nazi propaganda film. Indeed, any official records that take a point of view are going to reflect to some extent of the regime it is an official record of. The film can certainly be used as a source - although as Slatersteven notes, as and I am sure you know anyway, it does take a biased view. The second link, as Slatersteven says, is not actually a source. It merely shows that you can acquire a film called "Hitler's birthday parade". It shouldn't be used as a source for anything other than that fact. I don't really have a problem about the film not being in English. Hibbertson (talk) 13:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Does a site that has been claimed to be copy violating automatically non-RS?

Whether or not truckads.com is a RS on its own is not the question right now, it is only an example I have handy for this question, so please dont get sucked into tangents, as I know there are other issues about this site. The question is- it is claimed that this site doesnt have Nielson's permission to use its data and therefore it is a copyvio problem and therefore we cant use it, because the site we are citing is a copyvio even though we arent violating any copyrights because we are simply citing non-copyrighted information that happens to also be on the site. But is that an issue for us? Do we automatically not use legitimately accurate information because the site we link to MAY be copyviolating? I have no proof other than others say "it is claimed" that it is a copyvio site, I assume since we've had this link for quite some time now and the site still exists and hasnt been sued and removed that these are just "claims". I dont believe it is a matter for us to consider in considering whether or not this or any site is a RS. Along with the problem that we use neilson information ourselves, so do newspapers, there's nothing proprietary about the information that it cant be used on another site, so I'm not sure what the copyvio issue exactly since the articles in question do say that the description given is of Nielson geographic DMA's, it isnt claiming that they are something else, it is giving credit to Nielson. But anyways, in my opinion the only thing that should matter is in regards to being an RS or not is- is the information being cited accurate? If so, it's a RS for that piece of information; if not it is not a RS for that information. The NY Times for example if it gets a piece of information wrong it can not be cited as a RS for that information because the information is not accurate. We throw around things like "verifiable, not the truth", but ultimately it DOES come down to- is the information accurate? I am talking about information in which there is in fact a truth, eg- Nielson's DMA geographic area either does or doesnt cover certain counties; I dont want to get into an argument about "there is no truth" on this issue, I want to keep it to topic please.Camelbinky (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Please note that the issue some have is they claim the maps are copied from Nielsen, and are copyrighted, when looking at the truckads DMA maps it appears they are created by truckads.com itself and not copy/pasted from a Nielsen website, it is similar to us creating our own maps based on the boundaries seen on copyrighted maps. I find that us linking to those said maps to cite a prose description of what counties are in a DMA to not be a copyvio problem. Would like many opinions.Camelbinky (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore the context of your question and purely address the hypothetical. Yes, a copyright violating site can be a reliable source, though empirically it would be quite uncommon for a site to be reliable while also violating copyright. The copyright provisions say we cannot link to copyright violating sites, so don't link to them. The site could still be referenced as a source in much the same way that dead tree media can be referenced, i.e. with no url or other online link. Hence, there is no strict connection between the legality of the content a site hosts and the reliability of that site (especially when the content being cited may be strictly separate from the content that is subject to a copyright dispute). However, as I said above, it would be very unusual for a reliable site to host copyright violating material, and the reliability of any site suspected of doing so would have to be reviewed carefully. But the reliability of the content is, in principle, a separate issue. I'm not personally interested in considering the specifics of the case you outline above, but perhaps someone else will be able to do so shortly. Dragons flight (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a question of RS, it's a question of WP:LINKVIO. Stifle (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Stifle, from what I've seen you write elsewhere I believe you think it is a copyright violation because you think Truckads.com is using maps directly from Nielsen, this is not true as far as I can ascertain. The maps on the site are those created solely for use by Truckads.com, this would not be a copyright violation then. Please explain if I got things wrong, if you have proof that the maps are copy/pasted directly from Nielsen then you would be correct. If you are saying that no one can create their own maps showing what counties Nielsen puts in their DMA's then you are incorrect, as anyone can do that, we do the same thing on Wikipedia all the time. In fact I bet there are several throughout Wikipedia showing DMA's of Nielsen. Please explain why you believe the site is a copyright violator. If it isnt then I'll be putting the links back.Camelbinky (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a link to one of their maps. It is the map itself that is being called a copyvio. The map is clearly labeled being the copyright of Truckads.com and I have found no evidence it is lifted from any other site. This isnt a copyvio issue. Anyone can make a map of anything they want. You cant copyright the information presented in a map, only the particular map you created itself. Prove me wrong.Camelbinky (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

It is possible to claim a copyright in a determination of what counties/regions/cities come into a region, as this is a judgment of opinion and is creative authorship. Stifle (talk) 09:08, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Source I used on Apache Ain't Shit

I used a website set up by Jared Taylor to illustrate that the track "Kill D'White People" is hate speech against whites. Whilst the source may or may not constitute a reliable source, I hope there's no one here who does not consider a black rapper saying "kill the white people" to be a form of hate speech.--HulolsIam (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

In principle, I think you'd be better off using a neutral source, than one racist bad-mouthing another. Crum375 (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless an RS calls it that we cannot, no matter what our views may be.Slatersteven (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, absent a RS, hate speech is in the eye of the beholder. I am white and I am not offended by such rantings.--Jarhed (talk) 07:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

List of review farm websites?

Is there a wiki page or project that holds a list of known "review farm" websites?

Every week I am contacted by about twenty different websites wanting to write reviews on software my various companies sell. All they want in return is a reciprocal link. Such reviews are never neutral as they want to get as many reviews on their websites as possible and ideally you to publish the article on your own website. eg: cmswire, cmswatch...

There are also a number of websites that allow marketing managers to publish articles themselves. eg: pcworld.com, pressdispensary.co.uk...

In terms of quickly establishing and flagging non-notable references, if such a list existed the wiki system itself could be made to highlight such references. Sendalldavies (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Pseudonymous news column

I just inserted in an article in which I'm the main editor, United States Senate election in California, 1950, a tidbit from a political news article from March 1950, from the Los Angeles Daily News, about a bid for the Senate being dropped. The article consists of a number of various political tidbits, but the byline is given as "Frank Observer", something which was not unusual in Southern California newspapers of that era (possibly elsewhere too). I've put a comment in the reference stating "obviously a pseudonym". Anything else needs to be done?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that would be OK, as long as the publisher is reputable, which is what we focus on. I don't see it different from not having a byline at all, which would still be reliable if the publisher is. But I don't see the comment there at the moment. Crum375 (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The only caveat is that the publisher of the Daily News, in fact the day of this article, began his own run for the Senate seat. However, there is no mention of that in this news article, it would not have been in until the following day's edition. And there is no indication in this column that there is anything but straight news being reported.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

If there is reliable sourcing for a potential conflict of interest by a source, it should be mentioned, in my opinion, but does not disqualify the source (POV is allowed). Also, I still don't see the comment about the pseudonym in the footnote. Crum375 (talk) 05:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It is there now, I had it as a hidden comment and made it a visible part of the footnote. How's that?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

"Come Softly to Me" appears to have been performed by Delta Rhythm Boys in 1955, several years before the Fleetwoods!

I have seen some references from Billboard Magazine dated March 9, 1959, P 52 and 53 referencing the Fleetwood's release of "Come Softly to Me."

Also can see the video clip of their appearance on the Dick Clark Show on Youtube the same year 1959.

But "Come Softly to Me" appears to have been performed by Delta Rhythm Boys in 1955, several years before the Fleetwoods! Karlamorningsun (talk) 06:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

A youtube video of the song, with the only claim to have been performed in 1955 being the title chosen by a random person on the internet, is not a reliable source for that claim. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Someguy. There's no way to know that the YouTube poster put the correct year on the video. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Appears to be 1961 from the cites I can find - Scopitone was still alive then, so the video could date from that time easily. Fun looking it up <g>. Collect (talk) 01:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Are Amicus Briefs Reliable Sources?

Are amicus briefs from relevant experts reliable sources? Phoenix of9 03:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Amicus briefs are designed to advance a particular POV. They exist solely to advance a particular position before a Court of law. Instead of relying upon Amicus briefs, one should link directly to the sources contained within the briefs. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Amicus briefs are reliable only in terms of stating what party X believes about a question of law. Stuff that is on point is reliable in terms of what party X believes. Beyond that, then no. Ngchen (talk) 03:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

For example, are amicus briefs from American Psychological Association a reliable source with respect to LGBT parenting? Phoenix of9 03:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think they would be fine in suggesting what the APA believes about a position. However, research within the brief should be linked directly. It is important to remember that an Amicus brief exists only to assert a particular POV. That's why they are created and filed. They are inherently biased towards a certain position. It is best to extract the scientific research directly. Science > advocacy. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 04:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The American Psychological Association is the association of psychologists in the USA, therefore an official statement by the APA is a reliable source for facts about psychology. It should be regarded as a secondary source, whereas the individual scientific papers are more likely to fall into the category of primary sources. The only caveat that applies is that there may be more than one view among psychologists, in which case all major viewpoints should be mentioned. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Is Weekly Standard a Reliable Source for Facts in a BLP?

To those not involved in the Bill Moyers article, would The Weekly Standard be regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of a BLP citation about facts on the subject? The author of the article, Stephen Hayes, is a graduate of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and a former director of the Institute on Political Journalism at Georgetown University. The article cited is used for simply describing the earnings of the subject of the BLP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drrll (talk • contribs) 08:54, January 25, 2010 (UTC)

As much as I dislike the Weekly Standard's ideology, I would say yes. Just because a source is partisan doesn't mean it can't be reliable. Ngchen (talk) 15:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

RS for that sort of factual material (the WS does have editors). Opinions, however, must be cited as opinions. Collect (talk) 15:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Weekly Standard is a RS for facts, but opinions should be cited as opinions. THF (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

What does the article actually say, and why would it have access to the information it provides? Are there other reliable sources available for the same information?

Although not relevant to the question as to whether The Weekly Standard is a reliable source for the information you wish it to support, I do wonder why a subject's earnings (presumably for a particular period of time) are relevant or notable enough for inclusion in the article. Hibbertson (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Some excerpts from the article about earnings (it has access on some specifics because they're public record; the rest don't come with specifics):

If I have it wrong, so does the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Their records show that over the past decade, Moyers took a total of $969,377, though nothing since 1994. Some might call this nitpicking. After all, PBS was created with federal funds, and the indistinguishable streams of taxpayer, corporate, and foundation money that flow through public broadcasting makes the Enron partnerships look simple in comparison. What's more, many of the shows Moyers produces for public television come with companion books, and Moyers sells most of his productions in video after they air on PBS...What he will tell us, though, is that with the production of "Now with Bill Moyers," he has decided to suspend his privatization...When I asked Moyers if he sees any irony in the fact that he's a wealthy man owing in no small part to his long association with public television...He quietly earns $200,000 a year as president of the Florence and John Schumann Foundation...

The issue of earnings is relevant because he earns quite a bit from publicly funded public television.--Drrll (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

First, the excerpt seems quite old - presumably you can date it. If he took that amount over the past decade, but nothing since 1994. It suggests it is information from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. If WS is usually considered reliable, I'd say this info appears to be reliably sourced - but be careful about the year. Even if the 200k figure is correct for the Florence and John Schumann Foundation, it is not clear where this info came from (could it have come from the Foundation itself?), nor is it clear what year it refers to. Did he receive 200k once for one or more years, and which years? The article seems as though it ought to be treated as reliable for the info from the CFB, but be careful over what you actually distil from it given its apparent age. In the absence of some idea as to where the info on the Foundation would come from, I wouldn't want to use the 200k figure. Hibbertson (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I also note this [22], which offers greater clarity on dates. I do not comment on its reliability though it does appear to have been written after an interview with him. Hibbertson (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Weekly Standard is a partisan source, but it is completely reliable to use in BLPs. --Defender of torch (talk) 02:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Since the founder and editor in chief of the WS is neocon Bill Kristol, a well known GOP apparatchik who has had his errors and slanted reporting revealed numerous times (look it up, but for example Kristol Fails To Check His Sources, And So Bungles Key Fact In Anti-Obama Column), I find it hard to believe editors here are okaying his partisan periodical as RS for the BLP of one of his hated enemies. A RS is defined as known for fact checking and accuracy, and there are numerous examples where this has not happened in the Weekly Standard. ► RATEL ◄ 05:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

RATEL, an isolated case of error reporting by a single individual does not make the entire magazine unreliable. And your claim "there are numerous examples where this (fact checking and accuracy) has not happened in the Weekly Standard" is unsubstantiated claim. --Defender of torch (talk) 06:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You want I should dig up a long list of refs for that claim? Because they exist, rest assured. ► RATEL ◄ 09:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

And moving on from Kristol, what about the author of the piece, Hayes? From his biography on wikipedia:

Bill Moyers dispute

Hayes also gained some attention with a piece attacking former PBS host Bill Moyers whom he claims interviewed "Cornel West, O.J. Simpson attorney Alan Dershowitz, and Vagina Monologues playwright Eve Ensler. Bill Moyers replied in a letter to the editor, "He gets it right only once. I have never met or interviewed Alan Dershowitz or Eve Ensler." Moyers summarized the piece famously as "replete with willful misrepresentation, deceitful juxtaposition, and outright error, with a little hypocrisy thrown in for flavor."Bill Moyers Responds."

Now that's what I call the exact diametric opposite of a reliable source. ► RATEL ◄ 09:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

echnically a general rule where we assume that one side of the debate is telling the truth violates WP:NPOV, unless we can fact-check it ourselves or we can agree that it's too minor to merit inclusion. WS is not the best but it is citeable - we don't just remove all sources which are critical. That would violate WP:NPOV. II | (t - c) 00:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Moonfruit.com

I recently afd James Hyland who seems to me to be self-verified. But is moonfruit.com OK as a source? If not, should it be added to a spam list? Kittybrewster ☎ 15:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Moonfruit.com looks like it is just a platform for people to build their own Websites - what is the specific page which is being used as a source? Barnabypage (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

James Hyland official website] Kittybrewster ☎ 16:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If that's his website, then it should be fine as a source for content about him. Such a source can be used for a biography when it belongs to the person being written about. However, I don't think it would have much weight for Notability with regard to an AFD. Morphh ^(talk) 16:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Barnabypage. If there is an article hosted on a subdomain of moonfruit.com I personally wouldn't trust it to be independant or a notable source. Subdomains are given away to anyone using their website development platform. Regarding "spam list": I have a topic on the reliable sources noticeboard#Review Farms page asking if such a list exists in wiki. Sendalldavies (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

$10 and you can spin up your own domain name.. where the site is hosted is of little relevance. Follow the RS policies and you should be fine, regardless of where the site is hosted. I'll also note that independent is not a requirement, particularly if you're talking about the website of the biography person, which would also be notable for that person. So again, it all depends on what it is being used for, which the RS policy should already cover. Morphh ^(talk) 19:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit hacking incident

Resolved

A request for clarification: the article is about some people hacking into an academic server and the resulting investigation of both the crime and the reaction to the content of the released email. There have been two self published books about this incident - they are obviously not reliable sources, but the fact that they were published seems to be notable to the reactions section. What constitutes a reliable source to make such a claim? Simply the fact that the books exist would be trivially cited. On the other hand, there have been no news stories about the publications in a reliable source. But that is the case for most books. What is the correct way to go about this? Ignignot (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The existance of the books cannot be verified from a reliable source. Hipocrite (talk) 17:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Updated (quoted from Hipocrite and my discussion on his talk page): "Nothing about the books except their existance is verifiable. They exist and have titles, publishers, whatever. They are not notable untill a reliable source mentions them. That's all we know. This is like wikipedia 101. It's the same as if I made a blog. Hipocrite (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)"

So then the question is - is the fact that two books were published about the article topic notable to the article if they have not been mentioned in a newspaper? It seems like a high hurdle for information that a reader would want to know. One of the main uses for wikipedia is to find more in depth information regarding a topic. I have not read the books, and I suspect that they have some seriously fringe ideas in them, but I am not sure that excludes them. Ignignot (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

What information do you want to put into the article, and what is the reliable source that leads you to believe that information is verifiable? Please don't commit WP:OR by WP:SYNTH, for instance, by subtracting dates and stating that the books were published "very quickly" or anything. Hipocrite (talk) 20:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

In the reaction section, something along the lines of "Since the incident occurred, two books, (blah) and (blah blah) have been published by climate skeptics, alleging that the behavior of the scientists is worse than is being portrayed in the media." Or something like that. That's just a paraphrase from the amazon editor's notes on one of the books. Ignignot (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

So you'd like to paraphrase an unreliable, self-published source to assert the notability of a book that has no reliable secondary sources that mention it. Are there other articles where you see books about the topic referenced in this way? Hipocrite (talk) 20:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The back cover of the book and title are reliable enough to determine what the subject of the book is, I think. Since that subject is identical to the wikipedia article's subject, that makes the fact that people wrote books about this subject notable enough for inclusion (although obviously not reliable as a reference for content). I believe that the notability hurdle is lower because I am not suggesting that a separate article be written about these books or that they be cited for other article content. Ignignot (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that it's at all notable. Bear in mind that self-publishing is trivially easy now - there are plenty of websites that do it - so this is really no more noteworthy than some random individual creating a web page or uploading something to scribd.com. If these books get coverage by third parties, then we might consider it, but as it stands they have zero notability. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: since this has changed from a reliability question to a notability question, we should take this to the verifiability talk page? Ignignot (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Since there is quite a bit of argument happening on the CRU hack page which may be taking up your time I will wait until tomorrow to resume this discussion on that page. Ignignot (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry you didn't get the answer you wanted, but the policy is absolutely clear and no 'clarification' is necessary. All content must be verifiable to reliable sources. Dlabtot (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Huh? The source for verifying that the books have been published and their names (and subject) is [23] and [24] - note that climategate is a redirect to the article we are discussing. The book database is one of the links from wikipedia's how to find books search. We weren't talking about adding information into the article with these books as a citation, but instead adding that these books were published by skeptics about the incident, with the book database as the citation. I am completely clear on the policy of not using self published books as sources of information, since they are not reliable. But what is a reliable source for the title, subject, author, and publication date of a book? Ignignot (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, I understand that repeatedly being told the same answer that you don't want to hear is frustrating. But the answer will remain the same no matter how many times you ask the question. Dlabtot (talk) 22:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The frustration is from different answers. I would be quite willing to drop the issue, and I think the books are probably crap. But the answer moved from "we cannot verify that the book exists" to "the books are not notable" to "don't perform OR or synthesis" back to "not notable". And I can see the case for not notable. I get it. I'm not trying to wikilawyer or just ignore the answer. If it is a question of notability then this is the wrong place to ask the question (I think, could be wrong...) But as for the others, what would be the right way to prove that a book exists? What sort of synthesis would it be to say, "this book is about the same subject as the article"? I'm begging you - don't just say WP: something. Please just say, "oh, it is a notability problem, and if the new york times reviewed it, then it would be included" or, "because it is not notable, then we cannot verify anything about the book". Anything along the lines of a concise answer.

Also, I see how this could be viewed as being intentionally obtuse. I assure you that I am not feigning confusion on this issue, and your AGF earlier was much appreciated, believe me. I took it to talk:Hipocrite specifically because I was trying to avoid an argument about this. And then when that didn't remove my confusion, I took it here, with the hopes that it would be laid to rest. I failed at avoiding an argument, so I apologize. Ignignot (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you're confused because you were asking so many different questions at once. No one here said anything about the books not existing; your "summary" of the books' contents would fall afoul of WP:SYNTH as written; and notability seems to be a key problem with these books. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

There's a general confusion surrounding OR which is exemplified by Hipocrite's comment: "Updated (quoted from Hipocrite and my discussion on his talk page): "Nothing about the books except their existance is verifiable. They exist and have titles, publishers, whatever. They are not notable untill a reliable source mentions them. That's all we know. This is like wikipedia 101. It's the same as if I made a blog". This was the subject of a long discussion (Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research#Deletion_of_examples_of_primary_sources_from_PSTS). Consensus is not that these things cannot be mentioned (there was no consensus). Whether or not they are allowed to be mentioned is up to the judgment of the editors involved. Personally I would wait until they're reviewed or discussed by another source. II | (t - c) 00:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Would these sources be considered reliable?

All of these have been published in written form:

^ The American Naturopathic Association, Inc, Newsletter Jan, 1948

^ The Platform of the American Naturopathic Association as drawn up by the Golden Jubilee Congress. July 27th – August 2nd, 1947

^ American Naturopathic Association Certificate of Incorporation and Standing, Issued by the DC Department of Consumer Affairs, Corporate Division. (Continuously Incorporated since 1909)

^ National Board of Naturopathic Examiners of the ANA Certificate of Incorporation and Standing Issued by the DC Department of Consumer Affairs, Corporate Division. (Continuously incorporated since 1952)

^ Wendel V. Spencer, U.S. Appellate Court for the District of Columbia (1954)

^ Naturopathy, A Definition by Dr. Benedict Lust, MD, ND, DC, DO, March 1936, American Naturopathic Association, Washington DC. ^ Standardized Naturopathy, Dr. Paul Wendel, ND, MD, DC, DO ©1951

^ “Independent Practitioners Under Medicare”, U.S. Department of Health Education and Welfare. (December 1968)

^ _ Study of Naturopathic Licensing, State of Florida, (1986)

^ Performance Audit, Naturopathic Licensing, State of Utah, 1979

^ Sunset Report on Naturopathic Licensing, Arizona Auditor Generals Office, September 16, 1981

^ Study of Naturopathic Licensing, State of Florida, (1986)

^ Oregon Educational Coordinating Commission: Summary of Staff Findings at National College of Naturopathic Medicine (1985)

^ Correspondence from the National Association of Naturopathic Physicians to Hon. Tom Vail, Chief Counsel, Senate Finance Committee (September 10, 1970)

^ “Independent Practitioners Under Medicare”, U.S. Department of Health Education and Welfare, (December 1968)

^ Self Study Report, National College of Naturopathic Medicine, Portland Oregon (1979)

^ School Catalog, John Bastyr College of Naturopathic Medicine, (Volume 4 Spring 1982)

^ Performance Audit, Naturopathic Licensing, A report to the Legislature, State of Utah, 1979

^ State of Arizona, Attorney Generals Office, Special Investigations Division, Report # AG191-0511.

^ Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine, Founders list.

^ (NPLEX)Oregon Educational Coordinating Commission: Summary of Staff Findings at National College of Naturopathic Medicine (1985)...

^ NEPLEX Board Roster (1991)

^ https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=147E&view=chapter&year=2009&keyword_type=all&keyword=Naturopathy

^ http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=36135910197+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

^ http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title54/T54CH51SECT54-5106.htm

--Ndma1 (talk) 03:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Some of the above mentioned sources (1,2,6,,15,16) are fringe and conflict of interest sources. These sources should never be used for a general statement on medicine. These can be used only in the article Naturopathy or topics directly related to Naturopathy to elaborate the view of Naturopaths with proper attribution. For example, "according to Naturopathic viewpoint" etc. However these sources can be used to mention non-medical facts like budget of a Naturopathy institute etc with attribution. The other sources are non-Naturopathy government sources and can be used as reliable source to mention the legal status/situation/infrastructure related to Naturopathy. --Defender of torch (talk) 05:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, The "fringe" sources were only used in the naturopathy article for the purpose of relating how naturopaths view themselves and defined their profession. The governmental sources were used generally for historical background related to the profession or to document the legal status of an organization or group (for example the corporate status and history of an organization) I thought I was using these correctly but kept butting heads with somebody does not like what the sources say and so dismisses them as unreliable. Just wanted to make sure I was operating according to policy. --Ndma1 (talk) 07:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

As Defender of torch correctly implies, it is never correct to refer to a source as being generally "reliable". The real question is whether it is reliable for a particular piece of information. Without knowing what that particular piece of information is, how that source supports that information, and why it is reasonable to take the view that the source would be right about that information, it is impossible to say anything definitive. Hibbertson (talk) 09:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the question of reliability, these sources are so poorly cited that the question is premature. Most of those have online versions if not controlled archival versions. They should, at minimum, be linked in order to aid verification before posing the question of reliability. LeadSongDog come howl 19:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

For instance, the first listed appears to refer to either

• Nature's Path. January 1948. ISSN 0028-0909. OCLC 24298005. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) or
• The journal of the American Naturopathic Assn. January 1948. OCLC 24225069. {{cite journal}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

but gives no author, article title, volume, issue, or page numbers that would clarify the intended work. Please do the groundwork needed to help others help you.LeadSongDog come howl 05:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Some of these sources are primary, which could be good for descriptive basic information. Per WP:NPOV, naturopathic sources should be cited for views in their own articles and on particular topics they are close to. II | (t - c) 00:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Source

Please tell me whether the follwoing sources reliable or not:

1. Czech-mates: The Sex Machines Museum viscom.miami.edu
2. Sex Machines museum prague.tv
3. Sex Machines Museum prague-stay.com --Defender of torch (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I have rechecked the sources and found that prague.tv is a user edited site which makes it unreliable. I am not exactly sure about prague-stay.com, but probably a poor source. However I think this is perfectly reliable because it is published by the School of Communication of the University of Miami. I am using this source in the article Sex Machines Museum. --Defender of torch (talk) 04:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

What piece of information are you seeking to support by reference to these sources, and why is it reasonable to conclude that those sources would be reliable for that piece of information. No source is reliable for every piece of information - without the piece of information you are looking to support, it is impossible to answer your question. Hibbertson (talk) 09:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Freebase.com - circular and unreliable references

About 144 links or references to Freebase (database) - a user generated database that also scrapes content from Wikipedia leading to many a circular ref. FYI and for folks willing to clean up. N.B. Freebase itself may be using reliable sources - in those cases, those sources should be referenced directly. –xeno^talk 20:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree, Freebase.com should be removed as reference from the article in which it is used. --Defender of torch (talk) 02:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I have started to remove Freebase from articles as I also agree that it is an unreliable source.   ArcAngel   (talk) (review) 19:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with this. –xeno^talk 15:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Self-published and hard to verify primary sources

How to deal with self published and hard to verify primary sources (i.e. catalogs, press releases not found online or in any libraries) that are provided by the subject of the article? The usual procedure would be to accept them on good faith, if the claims are uncontroversial and plausible. That was done in one article, Richard Tylman initially. As there was a conflict of interest at least two editors tried to verify some of the more accessible sources and were not able to verify the claims (see [25] and [26] in particular]). Either the individual was not even mentioned in the source, or the source did not support the claims. Note that at least User:Victoriagirl was a completely uninvolved editor, with no prior contact to the subject of the article and not editing in his topic area (i.e. Eastern Europe, apparently a quite contentious topic area).

The question now is of course what to do with the other sources which are almost impossible to verify (not in libraries, not published, let alone anywhere online). For some sources the subject of the article provides convenience links to copies on his webpage. Compounding the problem is that whenever a claim in the article is questioned, new (and for all practical purposes inaccessible) sources suddenly appear. What to do? Can we trust the sources; should we stub the article to the most basic biographic information; should we stub the article to only include what at least allegedly though unverified third party sources published and exclude everything in primary sources (i.e. press releases and the like)? Pantherskin (talk) 07:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It's reasonable to ask whoever has added the information what the source actually says (ie to provide a direct quotation), and why it is reasonable to assume that the source is accurate. If they are not able to satisfy others with those answers, then that information should not be used.

I should add that, to the extent that the usual procedure is to accept them in good faith, the usual procedure is wrong. People can easily, in good faith, make a mistake about what a source is saying, and how reliable that source is. We should not just readily accept a source in good faith. I note it is not contrary to the "good faith" rule to ask questions that would allow you to be able to determine whether the source is reliable. Hibbertson (talk) 09:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, a source must be published - in that it must be possible for someone (possibly with time and money on their hands) to see that source. A pamphlet that is thrown away, and not kept in any library, is not accepted as a source. It is not enough for someone to upload the pamphlet onto their webpage. Also for a source to be used, you must be able to question who wrote it and why it should be treated as reliable for that information. Hibbertson (talk) 10:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Is 'Africa News' a reliable source?

An editor has been inserting information into the article on the Lockerbie bomber, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, based on Africa News. Leaving aside the fact he's using a two month old source saying he's been alive for three months to say something about now, I don't think Africa News is a reliable source, based on this [27]. The linked article [28] does say "The editorial team of Africanews.com supervises the content in the news section." but I still don't think this is an RS. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree. It is hard to see what controls they have to ensure the veracity of their content. --FormerIP (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems like they support self published news : "Simple. When you think something is news, it is news. Please post your article or photos to us and we will publish. Or not."[29] --TheMandarin (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The source looks citeable. Information which is dated should be noted as such in the article. The journalist' name and credentials are shown and they encourage people to cite the sources. Obviously, it's African and is best used for African-specific information. Note that if someone submits something and they publish it, obviously it is not self-published (by definition). Such an argument is analagous to saying that if I submit a paper to a journal (or whatever), it is self-published... II | (t - c) 00:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Horus and Jesus comparison sources

There is an ongoing content dispute as to whether the article on the Egyptian god Horus should include a comparison to Jesus. The sources that have been added detailing the comparison have been called out as unreliable by User:Farsight001. The question involves this edit: [30] from three separate editors, which was then reverted here: [31] due to "rampant use of unacceptable sources." These are the sources being used:

1. William Ricketts Cooper (1877). The Horus myth in its relation to Christianity. Hardwicke & Bogue.
2. Gerald Massey (1907). Ancient Egypt, the light of the world: a work of reclamation and restitution in twelve books. T. F. Unwin.
3. Thomas William Doane (1884). Bible myths, and their parallels in other religions: being a comparison of the Old and New Testament myths and miracles with those of heathen nations of antiquity, considering also their origin and meaning. J. W. Bouton.
4. D. M. Murdock; S. Acharya (2009). Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection. Stellar House Publishing. ISBN 0979963117.
5. Tom Harpur (2005). The Pagan Christ: Recovering the Lost Light. Walker & Company. ISBN 0802714498.
6. Charles, Larry; Maher, Bill (2009), Religulous, Lion's Gate Entertainment
7. Gasque, W. Ward (2004-08-09). "The Leading Religion Writer in Canada ... Does He Know What He's Talking About?". History News Network. George Mason University. Retrieved 2010-01-20. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Are these sources demonstrably unreliable? Or can they be rightfully used as references for a section of the Horus article detailing the comparisons made between Horus and Jesus? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 18:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Well a comedy show is unlikely to exercise the same level of editorial control as a high end newspaper or scholastic journal. Nor is it likly to be written by a notable expert in the field of theology. So no its not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, Religulous wasn't a comedy show, it was a documentary. And what about the six other references? Remember, this isn't a question of whether the claim is accurate, but, rather, whether the claim has been made in a reliable sourced reference. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It was a comedy documentary not a pure piece of scholastic (or even popular sociological) filmmaking. Gerald Massey was a self taught Egyptologist, And there have been some doubts raised as to the reliability of much of his work. The HNN article does not support the claim, it dismisses it, and so any use of it should reflect that (it also heavily chritisises Tom Harpur basicly accusing him of poor scholership). The others I would have to see. D. M. Murdock appears to be self published, so no its not RS [[32]].Slatersteven (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

So the context of this section is to establish that the comparison has been made by reliable sources, it was not written to address the veracity of the comparison, which is more of a NPOV question than a WP:RS issue. The HNN article is used to rebut the comparisons in the article. Also, Religulous is a "comedy documentary," and should not be scrutinized as a serious piece of research. But in the article, again, these references are being used solely to establish the existence and of the comparison. So, in that context, are these sources reliable? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Now a comedy/documentary is not an exceptional source for anything, for all we know he just looked for the bigest loonys on the block. Nor (I would argue) is a source RS for a view it says is silly, its only RS for the fact that that person thinks that view is silly (and that is definalty fringe).Slatersteven (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Again...forgive me if I sound like a broken record, here is the claim being made in the diff: "Several authors have written about possible similarities with the origins story of Horus and Jesus Christ." How on earth does that qualify an "exceptional claim?" It seems downright pedestrian to me. You're arguing that there are not several authors claiming a similarity? We're discussing the existence of the premises, not the validity of the conclusion (which is a WP:NPOV issue). That's basic WP:V stuff: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". It doesn't matter if they're loony, silly, or even fringe. This is not intended to be an article called Horus and Jesus Comparisons, this is simply an attempt to establish that, yes, this belief is repeated in reliable publications. And yes, it deserves inclusion in the Horus article. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:REDFLAG makes it clear that we should avoid claims not covered by mainstream sources and claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them. It also says that Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources See [[33]] as an example of the same claim (but about a different Egyptian god). The sources used here are recognised Egyptologists and biblical scholars. Not comedians and self published self-proclaimed experts. An exceptional claim is not one that is weird or extreme, its one that goes against mainstream theory. Nor does it matter hoow its worded in the article, its the status of the claim outside the wiki community that makes io exceptioal.Slatersteven (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I should point out, at one of the sources quoted in the Osirus article (Stephen Benko) has said similar things about Horus / Jesus in his book "The Goddess: Studies in the Pagan and Christian Roots of Mariology." Also, noted Egyptologist Erik Hornung, in his book "The Secret Lore of Egypt", page 60, says: "There was an obvious analogy between the Horus child and the baby Jesus and the care they received from their sacred mothers..." If you deem the evidence for the Osirus article sufficient, then you must surely accept that identical sources would be sufficient for inclusion in the Horus article, yes? You would consider those two to be reliable scholars? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Not that sure about Benko (I can't find anything about his academic background), but his publishers do appear to be reputable publishers of books on the subject so I cannot find any reason to not consider it RS. As to Mr Hornung yes it does seem to be RS, I would have no objection to its use.Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you for your feedback -- I think you've helped to find a new way forward with this material. I located several reliably sourced references referring to the similarities in Christian iconography with Isis/Horus & Mary/Jesus, so that's what the comparison needs to start with. The Christ Myth theory stuff is dubious, flawed, and (oftentimes) totally fallacious...so to start the comparison there is a very bad idea (I now realize). But, like I say, it's a theory that's been advanced by several notable individuals (regardless of their background or qualifications, they are notable), so it's my opinion that it warrants some kind of mention. But nothing more than a sentence or two. Again, thanks for the feedback on this. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 17:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

A source is only usualy on ly RS if the views are expressed by some one whoese views on that subject would be notable, nit if that person is notable. You should stick to the accademic sources, and leave out the opinions from self proclaimed experts. Remeber you do not know why they have writen this material, or even if thet belive it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The Dartmouth

Is The Dartmouth considered to be a reliable source for a BLP issue?

It's a college newspaper (Dartmouth College's official student newspaper), but it's 211 years old (the oldest student newspaper in the United States) and has interviewed substantial figures such as Barack Obama and Joe Biden; it's not tabloid-ish or exploitative.

The article I wish to use as a reference is this news article from 2008, discussing a speech given at the college by Deroy Murdock, a conservative columnist and fellow with the Hoover Institution. The article notes that Murdock is gay, a fact which had been in his Wikipedia bio (unsourced) but was removed, citing BLP concerns. While it shouldn't be a particularly controversial point (several of Murdock's columns are available at Independent Gay Forum, which explicitly identifies its contributors as gay or lesbian), Murdock doesn't discuss his personal life all that much, and finding a reliable citation without wandering into the realm of synthesis proved to be difficult.

There have been quite a few discussions about the reliability of student newspapers on this noticeboard, and there has never been a definitive statement one way or the other on the topic. Due to the sensitive nature of the material I intend to use the article to source, I'd like to see if there is a consensus that The Dartmouth is a reliable source on this issue. Horologium (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If his sexual orientation is so hard to verify that you need to refer to a (respectable) student newspaper interview, and to the fact that he has columns on a gay-oriented forum, then it looks to me as if his sexual orientation is not that important (for his article, his public figure: of course it is important in his private life): including this hard-to-verify but probably correct fact in his biography seems to be giving undue weight and invading his privacy, and should be left out of the article. Fram (talk) 14:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• This seems fine, and as you note it is uncontroversial. If he's writing articles in the Independent Gay Forum then he's obviously not in the closet. No definitive statement on college papers, but I'd say student newspapers are generally citeable. II | (t - c) 00:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I disagree. I would avoid citing a living person's sexual orientation to a college student newspaper, because such newspapers are subject not only to all the sources of error that a professional newspaper would have, plus others as well (such as being written and edited by amateur journalists). If the subject is "out" as being gay, then there ought to be better sources to verify that than a student newspaper. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the student newspaper is clearly RS, and the existence of his other columns shows that is hardly an extraordinary claim. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want to rely on the fact that his articles are posted at Independent Gay Forum, that's one thing, but I don't think any student newspaper is "clearly" a reliable source for a contentious claim in a biography of a living person. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Gonzaga Journal of International Law

This is a law journal, edited by students to "Law Review standards" (http://www.gonzagajil.org/content/view/123/37/). Can material published there be used on WP? Tzu Zha Men (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Certainly (pretty much all law journals are student-edited). Has someone tried to argue otherwise? II | (t - c) 00:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, see this. Not so much an argument as a revert with a request that this be discussed here. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It's all in the attribution. The way it was worded on one side of the diff made it sound like the report came from the UN or something. If you cite it, it should be identified as a student law journal, so our readers will understand it may be a novel claim. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it a blog?

The web site http://blog.taragana.com/politics/2009/12/21/russias-communists-urge-nation-dont-criticize-stalin-on-his-130th-birthday-9548/ looks like a blog. Can it be used as a RS in the article about Stalin?--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is a blog maintained by this person who is the founder of this outsourcing company. Actually it is the blog of that company and you will find a link to the blog in this page. This is why the web site you mentioned is not RS. But the article you cited is a newspiece by the Associated Press and you will find this same newspiece in other reliable sources. Try this reference, it is Milwaukee Journal Sentinel which is a reliable source. --Defender of torch (talk) 02:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Than you Defender of torch.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Islamic Q&A website

I ran across an artile using the site Islam Q&A [34] as a source. According to the site, "Responses are composed by Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid, a known Islamic lecturer and author. Questions about any topic are welcome, such as theology, worship, human and business relations, or social and personal issues.All questions and answers on this site have been prepared, approved, revised, edited, amended or annotated by Shaykh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid, the supervisor of this site." While the sheikh may (or may not) be all he claims, I'm not comfortable with the reliability of the site. Much of the site is devoted to issuing new fatwas. Would someone else mind taking a look at this site and seeing what kind of impression they get? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The site is definitely a pro-Islamic advocacy site as can be seen from this. --Defender of torch (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Definately not NPOV. I just don't know enough about Islam to know if the guy is much of an authority. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No indication that the source is notable or reliable. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Being a pro-Islamic advocacy site and not NPOV aren't relevant. Jayjg's criteria are the ones that count. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• And that's why I followed up with my comment wondering about his expertise.Niteshift36 (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

There may be a case for having more specific guidance about sources around Islam. It very much depends what flavour of Islam that one is discussing and what the source is talking about. There are many interpretations of Fiqh, and they can depend on the training of the Imam.

ALR (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• That's where I start having the problem. Does the site appear to be run by an "expert" who can be considered reliable. Or is this the opinion of a cleric who is really not any more of an expert than any other cleric? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Define expert, there are many Imams who can recite the Q'uran and Hadith by rote who would be considered expert by some traditions in Islam. They will tend to give a formulaic answer to a question. There are others who will a more nuanced and sophisticated response who would not be considered acceptable by those traditions. On the other hand the former wouldn't even be consulted. Normally reliability is in the eye of the beholder, more so when it comes to Islamic jurisprudence.

ALR (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• That's why I'm here. Personally, I look at this and see a Q&A site run by a guy who claims to be renowned, but I can't prove that. I tend to be skeptical of it. Trying to find out if I'm alone in that. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally I'd avoid anything about straightforward Sunni/ Shia that's not out of Cairo or Qom. Sufi teachers are a lot more difficult, but the reputable ones can demonstrate a lineage.

ALR (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, the issue here is reliability and notability. I see no indication of either. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I would say that notability is not relevant here, it doesn't really matter how notable or otherwise the individual might be he's only reliable when talking about the interpretations of Islam from his own tradition, not Islam in general. Which is why I floated the idea of some specific guidance around Islam above.

ALR (talk) 09:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, notability is quite relevant here. If he's neither a notable expert in his own right, nor published in a reliable source, then he cannot be used. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Blog used on Westboro Baptist Church

Hey. On the Westboro article, someone recently added the following text and used http://www.gayindynow.com/news/?id=news&item=136 as a source:

Some targets of the church's protests assert that counter protests provide publicity and encouragement to the church, and serve to foster continued protesting.

Some groups against whom the protests are directed have used it as a fundraiser, getting their community to donate money to combat intolerance.(ref) One method used is to get donors to pledge money for length of time a given protest lasts.

The reference is a blog belonging to the Indy Rainbow Chamber of Commerce. Aside from the issues of weasel words in the quotes above, I'm pretty sure that the given reference doesn't back up the text in the article. And it's a blog, so it's not really a reliable source as it's self-published. Or am I mistaken? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The way I interpret WP:SPS is that it can be removed as an unreliable source.   ArcAngel   (talk) (review) 04:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Blog, not reliable. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Can we use SPPI Blog

[35] is written by Christopher Monckton. Is it a reliable source to confirm his Graves disease? Kittybrewster ☎ 06:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Personal blogs by notable persons/experts can be used as reliable source (in the field of knowledge in which the blogger has expertise) as long as you attribute, eg. "XYZ in his/her blog claimed...". --Defender of torch (talk) 13:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I think WP:BLP is more relevant here particularly as it has additional requirements and in particular does not generally alow blogs for claims on living persons no matter what the expertise unless the blog is part of some RS with independent editorial control and fact checking. However it does allow SPS from the subject including blogs, in particular:

Living persons may write or publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:

1. it is not unduly self-serving;

2. it does not involve claims about third parties or unrelated events;

3. there is no reasonable doubt that the subject actually authored it;

4. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

So using it to mention his Graves disease should be fine Nil Einne (talk) 17:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No sources for Sectarianism

The sectarianism page claims that

Sectarianism is bigotry, discrimination or hatred arising from attaching importance to perceived differences between subdivisions within a group, such as between different denominations of a religion or the factions of a political movement.

There are absolutely no sources for this claim, and none of the dictionaries that I checked agreed with that definition. After mentioning this on the talk page and stating my intention to move the page to a more appropriate article name, and waiting nearly four months (!) without anyone objecting, I did so. Then Dr.enh, who apparently has developed a vendetta against me, reverted my edits without any reason. He also forged a comment by me at the bottom of the page. Then Nate showed up and threatened me with a block if I continued with my editing, citing absolutely no wikipedia policy. Seems to me that unilaterally telling other people what edits they are and are not allowed to make is a clear violation of wikipedia policy. When I rejected Nate's right to tell me what to do, Jauerback showed up, accused me of vandalism, and then blocked me for a week. This is completely unacceptable. Jauerback's accusation of vandalism is completely without foundation, and a blatant violation of civility.Heqwm2 (talk) 06:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Heqwm2 was blocked for edit warring, which they already have a track record for as their block log shows. No where did I mention "vandalism". I take this back, apparently, I used the wrong block template. Clicking the "abuse of editing privledges" is a link to WP:VANDAL. For that, I apologize, but not for the block itself. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I presented a reason for my edits on the talk page, invited others to refute my position, and no one did so. How is that edit warring? I find your claim that I "have a track record for edit warring" to be inaccurate, but I do not think that this is the proper forum for discussing that. And, as I said, the proposition that I was engaging in edit warring was not advanced as a justification for me ceasing my editing of the article. Nate simply showed up and demanded that I not edit. As for the substance of the issue, why are admins using their power to keep an unsourced article?Heqwm2 (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I left a response on your talk page. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 22:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Venezuelanalysis

The issue has come up whether the website Venezuelanalysis can be used as a source. I'm not sure exactly how to proceed with a discussion on this, but it needs settling.

Some background on Venezuelan media (I can email on request: Dinges, John. Columbia Journalism Review (July 2005). "Soul Search", Vol. 44 Issue 2, July-August 2005, pp52-8); or this source is online and gives background too. From Dingles (2005): "media owners and their editor used the news - print and broadcast - to spearhead an opposition movement against Chavez... Editors [...] began routinely winking at copy containing unfounded speculation, rumor, and unchecked facts." Media representation of Hugo Chávez also has some details on national and international media in relation to Venezuela reporting.

Notable too (I can find sources for this if needed) is that international media sources rely heavily on reporters who work with (and live in the same areas as) the largely oppositionalist Venezuelan private media. The reason I mention this is to illustrate that this source is not easily replaceable with international media sources, which most obviously manifest their bias in an extreme selectivity. So many details are sourceable only to Venezuelanalysis, occasional Spanish-language sources, or sometimes academic papers and books (which are obviously less accessible and searchable). Rd232 ^talk 12:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem across Chavez/Venezuela articles on Wiki is pervasive and is larger than the use of one pro-government website (venanalysis), and extends to aporrea.org, Venezuelan-government-controlled sources, rethinkvenezuela.com, Global Exchange, and many others, although venanalysis is the most frequent source of bias, in favor of mainstream reliable sources. I suggest a thorough read of these two pages, so that Venezuelan/Chavez articles on Wikipedia can begin to be approached neutrally: Center for Public Integrity and National Review. There are many editors on Wiki spreading these sources to the exclusion of more neutral and reliable sources, and few who speak Spanish and can deal with all of this bias on Wiki; a first method to addressing Wiki's pervasive pro-Chavez bias would be an insistence on solid sourcing. Most of these issues and events are widely covered in mainstream sources like The New York Times, LA times, CNN, and the BBC, so there is no reason to use sources with a known bias. As a side note, I have rarely found any neutral accounting of any issue from Venanalysis, and I do speak and read Spanish and can access Spanish-language sources, so that argument is a red herring, as is the unsubstantiated statement about "largely oppositionalist Venezuelan private media"-- the NYT, LA Times, BBC etc. are reliable sources. Editors who examine the pervasiveness of this problem on Wiki will need to explore offline sources like Foreign Policy magazine, and others, to offset the sources that Rd232 provides, in the context of the Venezuela Information Office efforts on behalf of the Chavez government, and also review WP:BLPN#Mark Weisbrot, WP:BLPN#Thor Halversson Mendoza. The problem of biased sourcing across Wikipedia extends beyond the Chavez/Venezuela articles, and includes many BLPs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"Widely covered" - yes, in a generally very shallow way, hence the difficulty in replacing this source with others. This is not a question of bias (well it is that too) so much as of information. You've not addressed my argument about selectivity, and what those links are supposed to prove is anyone's guess. Rd232 ^talk 12:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, the language point you allude to is another reason to use Venezuelanalysis: other sources providing equivalent levels of detail, where available at all, will often be in Spanish. Rd232 ^talk 12:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for expanding my response while we edit conflicted twice. Again, I speak Spanish, and refute your allegations about reliable sources with respect to WP:V, a pillar of Wiki, and the problem you allege with Spanish-language sources, which I can and do read. The bias on Wiki is best understood in the context of the articles about the Venezuela Information Office. Venanalysis is clearly biased, and works closely with the Chavez administration and typically reports their version of events. Further, most of the editors who use these sources rarely balance them with mainstream reliable sources (see Talk:RCTV#Pro-Venezuelan government POV as today's example, students were killed in Venezuela yesterday in protests over RCTV), instead sourcing articles almost exclusively to these biased sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no evidence for your claims. For instance, VA reports the protests yesterday. Any tendency of editors to over-rely on one source or set of sources is (a) common, and quite human (b) fixable by adding sources, not taking them away by declaring some "unreliable". Rd232 ^talk 13:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible, but not feasible with so many editors spreading only these sources across so many articles (Venezuela Information Office?), and only one or two editors on Wiki who speak Spanish and can do the necessary work. Wiki needs to globally address this very pervasive problem. Iffy sources are being used to the exclusion of reliable sources, and virtually every Chavez/Venezuela article on Wiki is POV as a result. And I linked two articles which evidence my "claims"; more can be found by anyone who has the time to do offline research. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

For clarification: since the article Venezuela Information Office does not have any sources from Venezuelanalysis, you are in fact claiming that editors connected with VIO are editing on their behalf? Rd232 ^talk 13:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't read words I didn't type (and do stay on topic here :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

?? Please clarify what you meant then. Rd232 ^talk 13:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That possibly, according to the two articles I cited, the VIO has been very effective in putting its message out to the media. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Since you won't clarify exactly what your two sources are supposed to prove (the National Review article doesn't even mention VA), I'll quote from the Public Integrity source, which has VIO saying "We encourage people to go their site because it is the most in-depth, comprehensive coverage of Venezuela in English... but we certainly do not have a structural relationship with them." Rd232 ^talk 13:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Golinger writes for Venanalysis, and you're quoting James, not Public Integrity, which proves the point. Whether or not they have a "structural relationship" doesn't make them any more reliable, less biased, or negate the effectiveness of VIO in putting out a biased message to the media. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

And the relevance of VIO to this is what? We're talking about Venezuelanalysis. Also the point I made above has been completely ignored: the reason VIO was set up in the first place was to counter the evident and documented bias in international (especially US) media. Rd232 ^talk 14:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Venezuelanalysis is a hardline pro-Chavista site which recives fund from the Chavez government [36]. Using it in politics related articles is like using Korean Central News Agency in North Korean politics related articles. --Defender of torch (talk) 13:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought this was the Reliable Sources noticeboard - so why are you citing a random blog? And of course your ludicrously hyperbolic statement is wrong. VA just scraped its $10k fundraising goal from public donations. [37] Rd232 ^talk 13:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the hyperbole is; Venanalysis is certainly "a hardline pro-Chavista site", and if it's true that they no longer receive funding, that fact doesn't change. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"a hardline pro-Chavista site" - source for that? Even some examples from the site would do. Rd232 ^talk 14:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Though the site is a random blog, the author is not any random guy. Aleksander Boyd is a notable Venezuelan political analyst based in London who wrote for highly respectable publications like this. BTW the random blog is mentioned by publications like ResourceInvestor.com [38] Anyway, venezuelananlysis is very obviously a pro-Chavez source and should be used with extreme caution (for example with proper attribution) if ever used. However the best option is to avoid it on politics related articles. --Defender of torch (talk) 13:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Correct (and the fact that he also writes a blog doesn't negate the validity of the info in the blog. It may not be a reliable source for articles, but the info in it is relevant to whether Venanalysis is biased). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not info, it's an unsupported claim, in a random blog, by someone who either is part of or identifies with the Venezuelan opposition. None of this is anything but smoke and mirrors: no reliable source has said they're unreliable, and there's no evidence that information from them is not generally correct. Rd232 ^talk 14:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

They're unreliable because of their close association with the Chavez administration; they don't report all sides of an issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Both points are unproven, and I think untrue. Have you actually read any of their stuff, and compared it to other sources? If anyone's not reporting stuff, it's the news agencies. Rd232 ^talk 15:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Arguing that Venezuelanalysis has a close association with Chávez just because some blog says so is a very feeble argument. With the same reasoning you could argue that a lot Venezuelan media is opposition-aligned and therefore unreliable. In fact, you could prove that all sources in the world are unreliable. JRSP (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a reliable source (Center for Public Integrity) which says that Venezuelanalysis is a pro-Chavez site [39]. --Defender of torch (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That piece is not exactly Exhibit A for that Center being a reliable source. See the response. Probably the most notable part of the response would be "It is also worth noting that Miriam Kornblith, who is identified as the "Lead Social Scientist" responsible for your "Global Integrity" report on Venezuela is part of the Venezuelan opposition. Miriam Kornblith currently represents the opposition on the National Electoral Council (CNE). She is also listed (see NED Grant No. 2003-548.0, page 5) as an advisor to Súmate, a group that led the signature drive to recall Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez." Rd232 ^talk 16:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

An article published by a reputed organization is reliable, not some random grievance letter to the editor by some angry socialists. A major signatory in this letter expressing personal grudge is Mark Weisbrot who is an adviser to El Presidente. --Defender of torch (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no reliable source saying he was ever an adviser. I note you don't seek to minimise the importance of the information provided in the letter, which was of course taken seriously enough to be published by the organisation being criticised (to their credit). We may assume that they would have corrected any egregious errors of fact in their publication of the letter. (Though Kornblith's CNE membership and contribution to the 2004 Global Integrity report are anyway not hard to verify from other sources.) Rd232 ^talk 17:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

There is, example here. It is difficult to understand why is it that Chavez apologists have such a difficult time admitting their connections to their paymaster.--Alekboyd (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That source does not mention Venezuelanalysis. Rd232 ^talk 21:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Lets have a critical look at the website Venezuelanalysis. According to this, the site is written by Federico Fuentes, Michael Fox, Eva Golinger, Kiraz Janicke, Jan Kühn, Tamara Pearson, James Suggett and Gregory Wilpert.

• Federico Fuentes is a socialist, a frequent writer for the Australian socialist newspaper Green Left Weekly and member of the Democratic Socialist Perspective [40]
• Eva Golinger is the writer of a pro-Chavez book The Chavez Code: Cracking US Intervention in Venezuela.
• Kiraz Janicke is a journalist for the socialist Green Left Weekly and member of the socialist youth organization Resistance [41]
• Tamara Pearson stood as a candidate for the Socialist Alliance Party [42]

It is obvious a site written and controlled by an all socialist team will be highly partisan. --Defender of torch (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Site looks more reliable than some of the other websites opponents of this site have put forward in this thread. Simonm223 (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a fact that Venezuelanalysis is run by chavistas: it was registered by Martin Sanchez, Chavez's Consul in SF (formerly in Chicago) who admitted having received funding from the Chavez government; it is run by Gregory Wilpert (husband of Chavez's Consul in NY); it counts among its staff with Eva Golinger, who is also a paid apologist of Chavez; all this information is verifiable. I understand that my site should not be used as a source, however all the information I have published over the years with regards to the people associated with Venezuelanalysis, can be corroborated simply by following the links to reliable sources, such as Center for Public Integrity, Venezuela's Gaceta Oficial, US DoJ, etc. The fact the is, Rd232 and JRSP run Venezuela/Chavez related pages, as if it were their own blog. They have no qualms in deleting perfectly sourced information, just like that. This is a case that should be brought to higher authorities within Wikipedia community, and those editors should be requested to either uphold Wiki policy or refrain from editing these pages.--Alekboyd (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The POV in all Venezuela/Chavez articles is a huge and pervasive problem on Wiki across hundreds of articles; this does need to be dealt with at higher levels of dispute resolution, but first dealing with the sourcing issues is a good first step. It is simply not possible for one or two Spanish-speaking editors, knowledgeable of Venezuela, to clean up this pervasive and embarassing and systemic mess that has been allowed to grow for years; global help is required. When I came to Wiki in 2006, I engaged the Venezuela articles, along with dozens of others; they have all since given up and left, in the face of serious pro-Chavez tendentious editing. I also stopped following Venezuela articles, because one person can't keep up with all of it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• All sources are biased, so it is irrelevant to attempt to exclude a source because you don't like their bias. That's why we have a WP:NPOV policy. Dlabtot (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• The entire line of reasoning (above) by JRSP and Rd232 about bias in US sources is absurd, wrong, and goes against the very core of the Wiki pillar, WP:V. I have never seen neutral reporting from Venezuelanalysis.com, while sources like The New York Times, the LA Times, the BBC and CNN go to (irritating) pains to put forward the pro-Chavez point of view along with the anti-Chavez point of view. Neutral, balanced, unbiased sources are available, but we have a couple of editors filling articles with other sources, overlooking mainstream sources, deleting text they disagree with, adding text to marginal sources, etc ... textbook tendentious editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Well we agree that there is a systematic problem here, but then any attempts at providing balance, are immediately quashed by these two. For newcomers it is incredibly frustrating having to explain to senior editors the very rules that supposedly govern this encyclopaedia. And since no one in the wider Wikipedia community really cares about Venezuela, then these guys continue running the show. If you think in English is bad, I invite you to visit, for instance, Eva Golinger's entry in Spanish. There it's even worse, crude propaganda and self promotion, any attempts at balance, you get, as I did, a block for life. These pages are a joke, and although I agree with what you've said about clearing up sourcing, a good way to start would be to eliminate all links to Venezuelanalysis. If it is to be used, it should be clearly stated that it is a semi-official chavista site, run and funded by chavistas with very close connections to the Chavez regime. I agree that all sources are biased, hence the need for balance and weight, which at the moment is simply non existent.--Alekboyd (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

{ec}I'm sorry but based on what I've seen this is not what is happening. I understand you may disagree over content but the site in question seems relatively reliable and US news sources are generally exceptionally conservative in bias. Simonm223 (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Simonm223, let be say very clearly that Venezuelanalisys is reliable as far as the Venezuelan government official line is at a given time: in that is very reliable. The problem is, in my opinion, to pretend that it is an independent source of information, totally disconnected to the official line, when in fact, is anything but.--Alekboyd (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope this outpouring of prejudice and accusations of bad faith is cathartic, because it's got bugger all to do with Venezuelanalysis as a source. Unsourced opinion is worth... nothing. Nobody's saying Venezuelanalysis is Fox News; clearly it has a left perspective. In any given conflict between it and other sources, the weight to be given to the respective sources can be debated. So far nobody's even given a single example of a conflict. Rd232 ^talk 21:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• The website is reliable enough to be cited, surely. WP:NPOV states that articles must represent "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". The pro-Chavez view is certainly significant, and it cannot be excluded in compliance with WP:RS. So, the website should certainly not be excluded, but it should be balanced by other views from the anti-Chavez group. II | (t - c) 00:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Break

It's unclear to me on what grounds this website could qualify as a WP:RS. Can someone briefly explain why they think it qualifies? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a well-known, fairly longstanding Venezeula news organization. Whether it is printed or not is irrelevant to reliability considerations. It certainly represents a significant POV in the Venezuela news spectrum. As the Venezuela Analysis website itself reports, now that Venezuela has recently launched an English language newspaper, it might be less necessary to use it (although the trend, as shown by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, is for news to drop print). II | (t - c) 05:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a brilliant example of the Venanalysis misleading reporting and the ignorance about Venezuela from many people weighing in here and their willingness to believe that VA (not to mention VA's faulty fact-checking and strong association with Chavez regime, which has everything to do with it as an RS, and the people citing VA almost *never* balance their viewpoints because VA is an extremist site that attracts extremist viewpoints). Does no one question why there seems to be so far not a single edit on Wiki about the students who died day before yesterday during protests about freedom of the press in Venezuela and no reliable reporting anywhere on Wiki about the level of state-controlled media in Venezuela, while Rd232 and others go on about "bias" in mainstream sources? Does anyone notice that the success of the Venezuela Information Office has now permeated and furthered Wiki as another arm of their influence, undermining Wiki's pillar of WP:V, and the level of state-controlled media that exists in Venezuela?

Now as to the completely false VA report and headline provided by II, (who is clearly uninformed about Venezuela), "Announcing Venezuela’s First and Only English Language Newspaper, Correo del Orinoco International", this provides a perfect example of how misleading they are, as well as an example of how far the level of state control of the media has gone in Venezuela. The Daily Journal existed for eons in Venezuela, and I read it during the ten years I lived there. Does anyone wonder, in an environment where journalists can be prosecuted and media outlets closed when they report anything the Chavez regime doesn't agree with, why the level of state control of media has grown? This is not the "*First* English Language Newspaper" in Venezuela (and I should also mention that one of the leading newspapers, El Universal (Caracas), also publishes an online version in English, but their reporting is very brief, otherwise Chavez could shut them down). The Daily Journal is gone, state-controlled media has taken over in Venezuela, read up on freedom of the press in Venezuela. Point made, thank you. Let's not have Wikipedia become another arm of the state-controlled media in Venezuela. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Well if you read beyond the headline into the first paragraph, you'd find "While in the past other English-language publications have existed, none remain in circulation today..."[43] I take that as a reference to the Venezuela Daily Journal (funny, the article there notes censorship in 1988... guess that was Chavez too), whilst the English language edition of El Universal is excluded because it's online only. (I think - never seen it in print anyway.) In sum, try reading the source you're so keen to damn. Rd232 ^talk 14:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I think the point is clear; even when reading the article, one finds absolutely no neutral or comprehensive or unbiased reporting of The Daily Journal or mention of El Universal's online English version, and II clearly fell for it. This is typical of Golinger, Venanalysis, and all the non-reliable sources; their reporting is one-sided and biased. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I really didn't want to get into a drawn-out discussion, but I should clarify - I thought the headline was odd - I doubted that Venezuela had no English newspapers - and did a little research before posting. Since I couldn't find any English-language newspapers for Venezuela (and had noted the clarification in the first paragraph), I figured the slightly misleading headline was not a big deal. Since you've mentioned El Universal, I agree with you more. However, I hardly see how Venezeula Analysis is worse than the "Anarchist News" article you recently added to Mark Weisbrot's article. I don't support blanket exclusions of news organizations without very good reasons, and this article certainly isn't enough. II | (t - c) 20:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

So? It's a piece on the launch of a new newspaper, not an analysis of English language sources in Venezuela. This sort of criticism could be levelled at absolutely any news piece from any organisation: details are left out - ones not known about or felt not to be so important. Far more important details are routinely omitted from international media sources; which is exactly why different sources should be combined - and one of them should be Venezuelanalysis. Rd232 ^talk 18:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

That's right, Eva Golinger, that beacon of objectivity and independence, will be the Editor in Chief of the 'First English Language Newspaper of Venezuela'. The Daily Journal never was, neither the English version of El Universal. Collect said it best "When a source is that disingenuous, it is clearly not reliable". --Alekboyd (talk) 13:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Alek, the level of comprehension and digestion of relevant info isn't running high on this page; best take care with the sarcasm, as some may not get it :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks -- that PR shows precisely why it is not RS. Saying that no English language newspapers are now in Venezuela seems to elide the reason why there are none <g>. Nor would I regard the new "Bolivarian Revolution" newspaper as being RS. When a source is that disingenuous, it is clearly not reliable. Collect (talk) 11:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

See above - the existence of prior English language papers is mentioned in the article. And any unsourced speculation about why Venezuela Daily Journal closed is worth... nothing. (If you have sources, please add them to that article.) Rd232 ^talk 14:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• The extent to which Venezuelanalysis is run by the goverment is irrelevant, and hence much of the above discussion seems irrelevant to me. We do not require that our sources be unbiased. The importance is "a reputation for fact-checking". I have no idea if this holds for Venezuelanalysis or not, but that is what the discussion should focus on. Most newspapers have a political bias, and for that matter we use CIA as a reliable source. Taemyr (talk) 12:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Can you please explain how the extent to which they are run by the government, in a country where media is state-controlled, is irrelevant to Wiki's core policies of WP:NPOV and WP:V? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• • • To sum up your argument seems to be it's leftist and treats Chavez favourably therefore it's not reliable. Is that about it? Because that's all I've seen. So I'd have to say source is reliable.' Simonm223 (talk) 13:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• I suggest some of the uninformed people weighing in here might want to google "Venezuela press freedom" and peruse some of the 625,000 hits. And if you're weighing in here, please try to be informed about the laws that the Chavez regime enacted to control the media. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Uninformed people would also benefit from looking up the role of the Venezuelan private media in the 2002 coup attempt. But really, what does that have to do with Venezuelanalysis? Rd232 ^talk 13:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, they should look at your use of one-sided sources there, and the failure of that article to reflect in any way mainstream, reliably-sourced viewpoints. Particularly since you just added a lot of radical sources there, and completely failed to balance them with neutral mainstream sources ... you're fond of saying "WP:UNDUE much"? :) PS, Wiki is not a reliable source (and that article is Example Number One of why); sending readers here to a biased, unbalanced, POV article isn't very helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Yeah, Columbia Journalism Review is a hotbed of radicalism. Rd232 ^talk 13:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Using an undue source like Venezuelanalysis may establish the POV of pro-Chavez editors, but it will ultimately harm the project, will further decrease the reliability of the project which wikipedia is already loosing [44]. --Defender of torch (talk) 14:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
      • More unsupported assertion. Rd232 ^talk 14:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Based on the foregoing, I think it's clear that Venezuelanalysis isn't the high-end journalism that forms the best sources, as per the background of the persons responsible for it and also the general low level of name-recognition of the site. --Dailycare (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Venezuela attracts a lot of strong feelings. I seem to have mised example of misleading reporting OK, I see it now. See comment below. I'm personally no fan of Chavez, but the Chavez view cannot be excluded in articles relating to Venezuela, and as a news organization Venezeuala Analaysis is average. If we excluded every source which was "disingenuous" according to some editor, we'd exclude everything: NYT is socialist, WSJ is a right-wing business rag, medical journals are heavily sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, ect. It seems to me that SandyGeorgia is too close to this to be neutral. I'd agree that other sources should be looked at first, but name recognition is not really a way I like to see sources evaluated, particularly when we're talking about foreign reporting. II | (t - c) 17:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You do seem to have missed my clarification of how the example given was not misleading reporting. It was a misleading headline, yes (shock - whoever heard of a news organisation doing that... quick let's disqualify anyone as a reliable source who's ever done it!) Rd232 ^talk 18:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Mainstream reliable sources like the NYT, CNN and BBC do not exclude the Chavez POV by any means (they go to lengths to include it); honestly some of the arguments made here really worry me about the future of Wiki and it's core pillar of WP:V, and I'm equally worried about the number of editors weighing in here who don't seem to have done the minimum amount of research and homework on state control of the media in Venezuela, and why we don't want to accept another radical source closely associated with the regime there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Your increasing hysteria ("wiki in peril"? really?) seems to stem from the fact that you don't have any actual arguments. You just don't like the source - that's your right. If you want to show in any given instance that it's wrong or biased, and balance it with other sources - fine. If you accumulate lots of examples of it being wrong, come back to RSN. But declaring it blanket unreliable on the basis of nothing more than your vociferous opinion is simply an attempt to blanket-ban a source which is an important part of the information spectrum for Venezuela. Rd232 ^talk 18:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

In fact, the "Correo del Orinoco" story neatly illustrates exactly the information gap Venezuelanalysis fills, certainly in English. At least, English language sources on its launch seem pretty sparse, and I can't find any CNN or BBC coverage. [45] Rd232 ^talk 19:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Look, we all agree that all sources are biased. We all agree that Chavez POV should not be excluded. It is a verifiable fact, that Venezuelanalysis is nothing more than just another propaganda outlet of Chavez vast media empire. So, in light of this information, how come we can not agree that use of Venezuelanalysis needs to be balanced by other sources? Rd232 and JRSP will believe everything chavista outlets print, but there are others who will take everything printed there with a rock of salt. Wikipedia is not RD232 and JRSP personal domain, ni mucho menos. Mind you even Jimbo Wales is aware of this. So then again, how come can we not settle this futile conversation by agreeing that for every time chavista apologists are cited, an opposition voice and an independent one must also be used? Gap of information... in Wikipedia, for sure.--Alekboyd (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

In general, where there are different opinions, those should be balanced from different perspectives. For the n-th time though: this is about information not easily available elsewhere (at least in English). If the information is generally accurate (and nobody has made any serious attempt to show otherwise), it can be used a reliable source for points of fact. Where there is a dispute about the facts based on different sources conflicting, the matter will be settled by discussion on a case by case basis in the usual way. PS Naturally I disagree with your description of VA, which is completely ludicrous. Rd232 ^talk 00:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Rd232, I think it is evident that I couldn't care less whether you, or chavistas in general, agree with me. For me your opinion has no value whatsoever, and this is compounded by a rather simple reason: anyone who refuses to deal with demonstrable facts deserves no consideration. I have demonstrated, with evidence and official documents, that Wilpert, Golinger, and Sanchez are up to their necks with the Chavez regime. You may disagree all you like, the facts remain though. Learn to deal with them, only then you can expect others to give consideration to your biased understanding of what goes in a country totally alien to yours.--Alekboyd (talk) 11:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

As per Golinger's 'Correo del Orinoco' and her 'artillery of ideas propaganda', beyond information related to how much it costs (zero as in free), everything else in there can be ripped apart by anyone whose knowledge and sources of information go beyond Chavez gospel. Here is an example, from the lede of the main article: "The polarization that has characterized Venezuela over the past 50 years..." So according to Golinger's wisdom, polarization started in 1959, that is, the year after the second to last dictator was ousted by popular uprising, in which everyone and its sister participated. Surely a fountain of objectivity, no? The launch of a such a rag, by Venezuela's girlfriend nonetheless, will get much attention by serious news organizations.--Alekboyd (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where the hell you got that quote from, but adding a ludicrous interpretation like that discredits you, not her. I don't know the context of the quote, but from the fragment I would interpret it as referring to polarisation of freely expressed political views within a democratic context; it doesn't make sense to talk about that kind of polarisation in a non-democratic one. I could say more by looking at the context but your quote doesn't seem to be from the article under discussion and doesn't show up in Google. Rd232 ^talk 00:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The quote comes from the front page, but it won't be me the one who places here link to such rag.--Alekboyd (talk) 11:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It's laughably ironic that in a debate about reliable sourcing, you decline to provide a source at all. Presumably because it would show just how wrong you were? Rd232 ^talk 14:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Break 2

Reams of hot air between the most interested parties aside (rather obscuring other input), none of this is really getting any closer to a conclusion. Instead of more of the same I suggest doing something rather different instead:

1. close this discussion, for now.
2. editors wishing to show VA is too unreliable to be used go away and accumulate evidence for that on a shared userspace page. This combines naturally with their concern of fixing the alleged problem: just search for use of VA and check each instance that seems plausibly problematic. Check these, fix any problems, and list the problem on the userspace page. (For fairness, cases that check out as OK should also be listed there, but that may be asking too much.)
3. moratorium on inline tagging VA as "unreliable" etc. This is to be shown, and tagging like this is a poor substitute for checking out the alleged problem and fixing if necessary.
4. in a month or so (maybe less if the editors don't need that long), come back here for a discussion of the findings.

This sort of systematic, evidence-based approach might actually settle the issue, whilst also fixing what some people see as a desperate problem, instead of talking endlessly and unproductively about it. How about it? Rd232 ^talk 01:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, we need to re-ask the question. The last time I asked the question, the initial responses were that it was "well-known, fairly longstanding" and "represents a significant POV". All of these are interesting, but are true of both reliable and non-reliable sources, and have no particular bearing on reliability. Again, I asked for evidence that this was a reliable source. That would require those using it to provide such evidence. Can that be provided succinctly? In particular, we'd need to see evidence of strong editorial oversight, or some other similar indication that this is a reliable news source. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

But there may well be editorial oversight, by a man who is married to Chavez Consul in NY, and has received funding from the Chavez regime. Reliable? It is, without a doubt, as far as Chavez gospel goes. See, the point is not whether what Venezuelanalysis publishes is reliable, but rather that they can not claim to be an independent source. I would describe it as a collective blog, of people closely associated and funded by the Chavez regime. I maintain that it can be used, so long as it is properly identified as a propaganda mouth of the Chavez regime. If people have a problem with that, RNV or other such sources -that publish exactly the same info- can be used to reflect Chavez's POV. --Alekboyd (talk) 11:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Eh. Why don't you take a stab at showing "evidence of strong editorial oversight" for the NYT and the WSJ? Hint: it's not easy to do, and in fact I'd say it's impossible, but nevertheless I strongly request it. And don't cite Pulitzer prizes, since a test like that can't be generalized to small papers. Any paper can say it has "editorial standards", and even put up a few names. We could try secondary sources, although Fairness_and_Accuracy_in_Reporting is pretty US-focused, and also has spent a fair bit of time criticizing the US media's coverage of Venezuela as right-wing. See The Repeatedly Re-Elected Autocrat, Venezuela, in stark contrast to Sandy's assertion that the US media go out of their way to show the Chavez perspective. The authors of the site have already been shown to be notable journalists and analysts on the country, with one of them serving as editor-in-chief for the new English paper. II | (t - c) 07:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Excellent points. I'll add some things that can be said about the mainstream Venezuelan media - all from an article in the Columbia Journalism Review - see Media of Venezuela: editors "began routinely winking at copy containing unfounded speculation, rumor, and unchecked facts."; according to a political reporter for El Nacional speaking in 2005, "the common attitude has been that we can leave aside ethics and the rules of journalism"; prominent journalist Alonso Moleiro said that "Reporters bought the argument that you have to put journalistic standards aside, that if we don't get rid of Chavez, we will have communism and Fidelismo."; The head of the Institute for Press and Society in Venezuela said that "here you had the convergence in the media of two things: grave journalistic errors - to the extreme of silencing information on the most important news events - and taking political positions to the extreme of advocating a nondemocratic, insurrectional path." Rd232 ^talk 21:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The authors of the site have already been shown to be notable journalists... Please place here evidence of Wilpert, or Golinger, journalist credentials. Thanks.--Alekboyd (talk) 11:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Alek Boyd was until at least 2008 employed by the Human Rights Foundation. Having him come here and criticise Venezuelanalysis is a bit like someone from the Venezuela Information Office coming onto Wikipedia to decry use of Human Rights Foundation as a source. (HRF being founded by Thor Halvorssen Mendoza, a Venezuelan described by the New York Times as "a scion of wealth and privilege".[46]. HRF campaigns on behalf of RCTV, which actively participated in the 2002 coup. Before founding HRF, Halvorssen supported the 2002/3 "general" strike/lockout in no uncertain terms.[47]) Rd232 ^talk 13:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Your point being? If it is to somewhat advance the notion of guilty by association, as you have been trying to do with Thor, two things: 1) my exposing of Chavez apologists predates any association with the Human Rights Foundation, as my writings, which have been reprinted in other sources, show; 2) how's Wilpert, Golinger and your unquestionable belief in all things Chavez leave you lot, were I to apply to you "It's worth noting that x, y, and z have professional, financial, and marital relations with a man caught red handed leading a coup d'etat against a democratically elected president? A militaristic putschist which has demonstrable relationship with narco-terrorists, islamo-fundamentalists, rogues and dictators the world over? Deal with that comrade. Tas ponchao! --Alekboyd (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Well I found it worth mentioning because you seem to think an association by marriage is damning... As for your allusion to Chavez' 1992 coup, it's worth noting that he won the first post-coup presidential election he was able to participate in. Also that partyarchy is not the same as democracy. Rd232 ^talk 00:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Stop with the ad hominem attacks, Rd232; they derail the purpose of this board, and have nothing to do with reliability. And at least we know who Alekboyd works for; he's not hiding it, is he? We're here to look at the sources, not attack the messengers, and the sourcing problems are just one small part of the massive POV and tendentious editing occurring on Venezuela-Chavez articles. The issues will be addressed, sooner or later, so stay on topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Well of course you would define my noting Alek's links (possible WP:COI) as an "ad hominem attack". And you know all about derailing dispute resolution. PS I note yet another insinuation slipped in there that the only possible reason someone might edit Wikipedia's Venezuela articles with anything less than the intention of showing that Venezuela is just North Korea with oil must be a paid agent of the Venezuelan government, presumably via the Venezuela Information Office you're so keen to mention. (Seems to have escaped you that VIO is US-based and I'm clearly UK-based.) Rd232 ^talk 16:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether this has come out in the discussion or not. Apparently, after perusing some of the above. Nothing is allowed in the Venezuelan articles that is not complimentary to Chavez. For example, his recent compliments of Idi Amin, and Carlos the Jackal are considered "too unimportant" to mention anyplace, althought well documented and caused the French to call the Venezuelan Ambassador on the carpet. All dutifully censored from any article no matter how objectively worded. No matter how WP:RELY the source.

Pretty much the mantra: 1) It never happened. 2) It did happen but nobody cares. 3) It did happen and people cared but it's over now. Actually a microcosm of what goes on in the country, now that I think of it! Student7 (talk) 03:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with Venezuelanalysis as a source. Use dispute resolution if necessary. Rd232 ^talk 07:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It's worth noting, in the face of the constant stream of "pro-Chavez" editing accusations, that these come from editors who have shown little or no interest in neutrality; their views of what constitutes neutrality are not objective, and having to constantly deal with their stream of selectivity and bias would make even the most neutral editor look "pro-Chavez" because of being pushed into discussing issues chosen by them and framed by them, and presenting facts, context, and arguments ignored by them. These editors demonstrate their own bias by showing no interest in (or knowledge of) Venezuela pre-1998, and the continuities and discontinuities which matter so much for understanding the present. They show no interest in expanding neutral content which presents facts that are not directly relevant to the political battles of the present. They show an obssession with Chavez personally, and whatever silly rhetoric he came out with this morning. They present (and presumably see) the country as not 27m people but as one man (plus a mob of supporters whose only function is mindless voting and violence) and an "opposition" of "the people" and "civil society" which represents all that is good and true. (Social movements of the poor that brought Chavez to power? Flaws in the previous system? Debates within the Chavista movement? What?) Sensible discussion of any given Venezuela topic is hard to impossible, because they rely on Venezuelan and US mainstream media (plus whatever Venezuelan opposition they're exposed to personally) and have no interest in a dispassionate analysis; they seek rather to prosecute Chavez (particularly to show that he's an unhinged dictator), and generally (intentionally or because of the sources relied on) pursue Venezuelan political battles via Wikipedia. Again, for emphasis: balancing that will make the most neutral editor look "pro-Chavez", most certainly to these editors, but perhaps also to neutral observers, because of their agenda-setting and the information and arguments they leave out, such that neutral editors need to advance them. Rd232 ^talk 08:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks Rd232, for such a candid description of self, and those of your ilk. And since you think you are so knowledgeable about Venezuela, both pre and post 1998, could you please share with us your credentials? To show good faith, I'll share mine: Venezuelan, born, raised and educated to high school level, writing about the country, pretty much without interruptions since October 2002, Geology undergrad studies, and Spanish American Studies postgrad, both from the University of London, shadowed, as a blogger and perhaps for the first time ever anywhere, a presidential candidate in the race of 2006, founder and editor of website of news about Venezuela in English which for years was the most visited (by far), written and published Venezuela-related opeds in major international papers, asked for comment about Venezuela in major international news outlets (such as the Beeb's World Service, met with representatives of governments, NGO and multi-laterals in Europe and Americas, briefed high officials of various countries about Venezuela, lectured about Venezuela in various countries, I reckon that'll do for the time being. Are you Venezuelan? Are you a historian or an academic of any sort? Are you an activist? Has your knowledge about the country ever produce requests for comments from independent media? What makes you, and not me, for instance, more knowledgeable, or more trustworthy, or more objective, or more neutral? Whoever said to you that you were objective, knowledgeable, trustworthy, or neutral? Mind you, how can you support, beyond pretending that we take your words at face value (which for some isn't an option), your arguments? Who told you that you, and JRSP, are to run the show in Chavez-related Wikipedia entries? In my dealings with you lot in Wikipedia, I reckon you upheld perfectly just one of Wikipedia editing policies: that of being bold.--Alekboyd (talk) 12:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, while accepting the worldwide opinion of Chavez, I do not like to see bias in articles. Either way. But there is no point in attempting to moderate the bias in Venezuelan articles since nothing can get in them that is the truth anyway. Why bother? The immoderates have full sway. Why bother with "reliable sources" when nothing is allowed as reliable if it is not favorable to Chavez? A casual reader is left with the picture of "Fearless Leader"! How encyclopedic is that?Student7 (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

What are the editorial policies of the website, and what editorial oversight does it have? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/about JRSP (talk) 03:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

So, there's the answer to Jayjg: "Eva Golinger", "Gregory Wilpert", end of story. The editorial "oversight" is one-sided bias, one only has to look at their reporters. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I know nothing about these people, either positive or negative. Why would we consider them to be able to provide reliable editorial oversight for this website? I'm looking for something to support a claim that the site has reliable editorial oversight. Given that anyone can create a website, and that, unlike various print newspapers (e.g. The New York Times, Washington Post, etc.) this website is not a news source with a well-known and longstanding reputation, we'd need some other way of supporting a claim of reliable editorial oversight. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Um, Eva Golinger et al were lost way at the beginning of the thread :) Center for Public Integrity and National Review. We could probably google any of those folks in the "about" page and come up with more info, but as far as I know, there is nothing to establish any info about VenAnalysis having reliable editorial oversight; we know they hire people who are aligned with Chavez, and were at one point funded by him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

"reliable editorial oversight"? Well Golinger is now editor-in-chief of a Venezuelan newspaper, as mentioned previously. Also mentioned previously was a number of quotes from the Columbia Journalism Review about editorial oversight by mainstream Venezuelan media - which some people are so keen to rely on: the press spearheaded an opposition movement to Chavez, and editors "began routinely winking at copy containing unfounded speculation, rumor, and unchecked facts." More quotes about that above. Rd232 ^talk 10:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hm, Defender of the torch elsewhere declares the National Review to be "a highly influential, highly significant, notable and mainstream magazine and is a reliable source." What exactly makes NR a reliable source but VA not? Rd232 ^talk 16:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

:It is because National Review is a notable and really significant magazine. Although it is a partisan source, expressing conservative viewpoint (being a fan of Nina Hartley, I find their view on cultural issues like LGBT rights or pornography extremely irritating). But hey, on economic issue we can certainly use this homophobic and pornophobic magazine as a reliable source because it is not promoting any fringe economic theory as VA does. Center for Economic and Policy Research is to economics what Discovery Institute is to science, IMHO. Tell me why NA is unreliable on economic issue? --Defender of torch (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I have replied in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. --Defender of torch (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

BLP violation

In digging in to the POV walled garden that is Wiki's Venezuela-Chavez articles, I'm finding POV articles and tendentious editing and serious issues everywhere I look. 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt is too egregious for any one editor to attempt cleanup, and I just barely scratched the surface at cleaning up Raúl Baduel, a former top military supporter who was key in Chavez's coups, turned against Chavez, highlighted by human rights orgs as an example of political persecution, yet was strangely orphaned on Wiki. Now I've also found a serious BLP violation (see this version of Manuel Rosales). Rosales is a well respected and popular Venezuelan politician, ran against Chavez for President,[48] highlighted by human rights organizations as an example of political persecution in Venezuela, had to seek exile, [49] [50] yet we find almost nothing about his political accomplishments in his article, so our readers have no idea who this man is, but they do see him as hiring an assassin.

This very serious BLP violation, sourced to Venanalysis, was added by Rd232:[51]

In September 2009, Al Jazeera showed footage of a Colombian police interview with a paramilitary assassin, who claimed that in 1999 Rosales had offered him $25m to assassinate Chavez.[52] [53]

Great source, great journalism, typical Venezuelanalysis. Claims of this kind require the highest quality sources; this is a man who ran for President against Chavez, and was one of Venezuela's most popular governors. I can't find any reliably sourced mentions of this alleged assassination attempt; this is a BLP violation of the most serious kind, and typical of VenAnalysis.

I'm finding this sort of tendentious editing in every article I check, typically sourced to Venanalysis, usually added by Rd232. Rd232 put up a BLPN fuss (that was not supported by uninvolved reviewers) when text was added that Mark Weisbrot had been described by multiple reliable sources as an adviser to and supporter of Chavez, and yet he added this text to Rosales. Why does Rd2332 want Wiki readers to see a well-respected Venezuelan politician accused of being an assassin, yet he sees a BLP violation in telling Wiki readers that multiple reliable sources say Mark Weisbrot has a close association with Chavez and has no problem with Thor Halvorssen Mendoza's article being a smear (two items resolved this week already at WP:BLPN, and apparently now I've got to take Rosales there as well)? Wiki has a pervasive problem in all of its Venezuelan articles.

Getting Venanalysis under control is only one piece of the cleanup needed. See Center for Public Integrity and National Review for info about Venezuela Information Office and context. Most of the sources on Rosales will be Spanish, and the only editor on Wiki who is likely to clean up this Venezuelan POV and BLP mess is moi, and I don't have time to fight tenditious editing across hundreds of articles sourced to Venanalysis, so I don't think it will do any good to take Rosales to BLPN.

This Rosales example is the kind of non-biased information that II, JRSP and Rd232 think we must have to offset US media "bias" (aka US media professionalism)? And there's many more problems, VenAnalysis is the tail that's wagging the dog, but this one BLP example has gotten long enough. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this campaign of Sandy's is getting out of hand. She's repeatedly refused to explain what the hell is wrong with Thor Halvorssen Mendoza, or to fix it. Another editor not part of this debate has edited it since. She brings it up here still refusing to explain the issue. As for the Rosales example: the information is presented neutrally and factually, and attributed explicitly: it is left to the reader to judge the significance of the claim, taking into account the clearly described sourcing. By contrast at Mark Weisbrot Sandy presents as fact that Weisbrot "supports Chavez policies", even though the only sources given present this economist as supporting Chavez economic policies, or as supporting Chavez policies in the context of discussing economic policy. Rd232 ^talk 10:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, despite Sandy's misleading subheader (now fixed), the VA article [54] merely reports the Al Jazeera video and adds some background info relating to the issue (but not to Rosales). So this entire section has no relevance as to the reliability of VA as a source. Rd232 ^talk 11:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

PS I note that Sandy took the opportunity to delete several VA articles used as sources on issues not relating to the assassination claim, replacing them with {{fact}} tags. Rd232 ^talk 11:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Then I'm sure you also noted that I added sources to the talk page that can be used to rewrite the text neutrally from reliable sources. Yes, the VA article reports it, when no other sources do, which allowed you to add it even though such claims require high quality sources, not VA reporting on Al-Jazeera, reporting what a criminal said. Thor Halvorssen Mendoza was already cleaned up, by someone from WP:BLPN after I took your changes there, and no one from BLPN seems to have any problem with Mark Weisbrot. Rosales is another story, for another day; every Ven article I find seems to need hours of work just to get it to start class. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you're doing. You're going to pretend that I introduced or permitted a "smear" in Halvorssen, by declining to explain what it was or how it was subsequently removed. And you have no response to your removal of existing VA sources, when the question of its reliability is unresolved. Nor do you have any response to the fact that mainstream Venezuelan and US media have been shown to be biassed in favour of your POV - of course you're keen to use them and to censor anything else. Rd232 ^talk 11:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Take care there, Rd232; watch your AGF. Keeping up with the problematic Venezuela articles is a full-time job, and I have other duties on Wiki. VenAnalysis is not a reliable source, I left other sources on talk, and I'm sure you'll expand the article neutrally tomorrow so I won't have to clean up a third BLP in a week. Now we have three BLP noticeboard issues related to Rd232's editing:

• Mark Weisbrot
• Thor Halvorssen
• Manuel Rosales

I don't need to respond to your allegations of US bias: you need to read and understand WP:V, and answer Jayjg's question about how VA meets it. I've already given above an example of their journalistic standards (report on Aljazeera reporting on what a criminal says, when no other source seemed to pick up that story.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Rd232, you don't seem to have a good grip on neutrality. The text is sourced to Venanalysis and this is a discussion of Venanalysis; the heading is not non-neutral, yet you've altered my heading twice. At any rate, I'm not going to sweat it; you've already gotten the answer on BLPN and shock that you added such an egregious BLP violation to Wiki, at the same time you're claiming a non-existent BLP violation on Weisbrot, and failing to see the BLP issues on Halvorssen. We have every indication of POV, tendentious editing here, and VenAnalysis is your preferred source. Considering the egregious BLP vio at Rosales, I'm now worried about what else I'm going to find. It's going to take me a long time to check all the BLPs Rd232 has edited; can anyone help? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Fine, I give up. Your ability to WP:GAME the system is clearly greater than mine for dealing with your misrepresentations and manipulations. I'd be happy to co-operate with you, talking about specific points on specific issues in relation to specific sources; you clearly have no interest in doing so; you pursue a confrontational and manipulative agenda with a never-ending stream of accusations of bad faith. I might have time to contribute something (a little) to Wikipedia articles in a collaborative way; and I have no doubt that if you were interested in collaborating, the result would be better than either of us doing it alone. But you clearly have no interest in that, and I have not the time or enthusiasm to respond to everything you and your chums are saying and doing. Clearly, the Venezuelan opposition and US rightwingers, using Venezuelan and US media, using Venezuelan and international media sources, are just the people to write Wikipedia's Venezuela articles!! Me, in the face of this tidal wave of gaming, bad faith and tendentiousness, I'm outta here. Rd232 ^talk 12:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Sandy of course knows what I mean, but in case anyone else cares, the most obvious gaming example is her attempt to make my moving a paragraph within Thor Halvorssen Mendoza into a BLP violation. She never explained what the problem was (either on the talk page or at BLPN, which she jumped straight to); but claims that the problem was fixed by a different editor making these edits which did little more than move some text about. With hindsight, it is clear that her refusal to either explain or fix the supposed problem was so that she could add it to the list of grievances against me. We call this WP:GAMEing; and at this point in my life and wikilife, I'd rather (semi)retire than deal with it. Rd232 ^talk 16:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The ones WP:GAMEing the system are you, your alter ego, JRSP, and other chavista editors advancing the notion that Chavez is the reincarnation of Jesus. Your game is up chaps, the MSM has waken up to Venezuelan realities, and so, it would seem, it's happening in Wikipedia. Ever heard of the saying, "el sol no puede taparse con un dedo?" Start your blogs, it may help.--Alekboyd (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Break 3

Just noting for the record that, after his BLP vio was exposed on Manuel Rosales, Rd232 appears to have semi-retired that account and is now editing as Disembrangler (talk · contribs). [55] As I have time <sigh>, I will review his admin actions as Rd232 to see if there was any improper use of tools on Venezuela/Chavez accounts, since the BLP vio was so egregious and surprising. The Disembrangler account has also edited numerous Venezuelan BLPs, and checking all of them is going to be more than one editor can handle. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be better when this has calmed down to try to work with RD as he in good faith suggested, I have seen RD making some very good edits and I am certain there is no need to scour his contributions for infractions, and as these questions have now been resolved perhaps closing this thread as resolved. Off2riorob (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

(ecx3)Nothing's actually resolved: rightwing Americans and Venezuelan oppositionalists declare an international leftwing website an "unreliable source", on the basis of little more than prejudice. On the other hand, Venezuelan media and international media shown to be biased are declared some sort of gold standard. (I don't see anyone else other than myself adding academic sources to Venezuela articles...) Still, I cede the field to Sandy and her friends; I just want to be clear that nothing has been resolved - it is their unilateral declaration; their vocal opposition of course scares off anyone else participating, and no doubt she will now claim that the "official result" of this RSN thread was that VA was declared unreliable, when nothing of the sort has been established. It is censorship, plain and simple - as can be seen from Sandy's removal of VA references even while the thread is in progress, rather than adding sources for some sort of (in her view) balance. Rd232 ^talk 19:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Rd, have you semi-retired or not? Please stop jumping the line with your posts, and use chrono order. VA has long been considered non-reliable on Wiki; you began adding it in the two years that I wasn't editing Venezuelan articles. It's up to you to establish it's reliability, which so far, hasn't been done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see, so now your tack is that it's "long been considered non-reliable on Wiki" by unspecified persons based on unspecified evidence. Like jelly to a wall! I'm so glad I'm semi-retiring, which means what it says: "no longer very active". I chose that instead of "retired" for a reason BTW - precisely so people wouldn't complain if I made the occasional edit. Rd232 ^talk 22:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Jayjg, a former arb, can address your query about how long it's been considered unreliable: I wouldn't want you to have to rely on only me :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Having found pretty serious problems on every article I've looked at, and noting a rather alarming amount of WP:TEND, I'm concerned about the extent of the problem; I think we're going to need many eyes on cleanup of Venezuelan/Chavez articles, and proper use of VenAnalysis as a source. There are very few editors who speak Spanish and know Venezuelan sources and politics, I can't do this alone, and the tendentious editing has pervaded hundreds of Ven/Chavez articles. If it's also in BLPs, we've got an embarassing debacle that could call press attention. Manuel Rosales is a highly respected politician in Venezuela, and that our BLP of him was a smear for six months is quite alarming. I also think someone needs to find time to make sure Rd232 hasn't used admin tools improperly on Ven articles, and he needs to be asked not to use tools in this area; his POV seems to have affected his application and knowledge of policy. On the other hand, I'd feel much better about this if Rd232 would spend some time checking all of the BLPs he's edited himself, rather than railing at me; that's the kind of good faith editing I'd like to see. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact that no one else has has gone along with your complaints should've given you a clue. You complain about AGF to Rd232 above, but can't seem to write two lines without acusing him of something. Time to disengage and review your behaviour. 189.116.62.114 (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

And btw, the list of Rd232s admin actions that you're compiling here is a joke. I'm really looking forward to your explanation of how deleting an unused category is evidence of biased editing... 189.116.62.114 (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read :) Any more IPs wanna come out of the woodwork, while I deal with the cleanup alone? Meanwhile, if there is any other Wiki editor who speaks Spanish; knows Wiki policy, Venezuelan history and politics; knows where to find the Spanish-language sources; or is willing to do the work of checking for other BLP vios or POV articles, I'd love to have some help. We had a serious BLP smear on a well-respected man in Venezuela. I have other duties on Wiki, and would love to disengage. If such an editor exists today, I haven't "met" them, and the dozens of editors who used to contribute have all left (WP:BITE, WP:OWN). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Drop the sarcasm, I did read and all I found was a smear campaign. I'm still waiting for your explanation of how a routine deletion of an unused category constitutes biased editing. 189.116.62.114 (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

For your edification, only admins can see deleted versions, and I've made no characterization of my list other than things that need to be checked. And we don't know if the cat was always empty, or if it was emptied or deleted, like Category:Political repression in Venezuela. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Really? I see a large tittle at the top that says "Venezuela BLP problem " and then a whole lot of stuff listed under it, including amazingly my IP number, care to explain that? I dont rember ever havin edited a venezuela article before, except perhaps their national soccer team. 189.116.62.114 (talk) 22:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't had time yet to investigate, and admin help will be needed, but we do have:

• 11:15, January 27, 2010 (hist | diff) Venezuelan general strike of 2002-2003 ‎ (←Redirected page to Presidency of Hugo Chávez#Oil paro) (top) [rollback]

and all mention of Sumate and Raul Baduel, and most mention of the General strike obliterated from the POV 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt, a serious BLP vio, massive sourcing to Venezuelanalysis and other biased sources, and POV articles at least at RCTV, Human rights in Venezuela and Media of Venezuela, also with sourcing and undue problems. It appears that the seriousness of the human rights and press freedom issues in Venezuela has been whitewashed on Wiki. I haven't yet checked diffs to see by whom; this will be a huge effort. Wanna help review diffs? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No I dont. I do wanna know what my IP number is doing on your list though. 189.116.62.114 (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess the price of disengagement is not being able to keep up with your manipulations and bad faith assumptions. It's left as an exercise for the reader to actually follow the diff relating to the 2002-3 general strike and laugh (or possibly cry). Rd232 ^talk 22:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

If, and this is a big if, Rd232 his alter egos and JRSP commit to observe and uphold Wikipedia policies and rules, I can lend a hand Sandy. Having said that, I am still waiting to learn about, for instance, Golinger and Wilpert journalism credentials, or indeed, those of the editors that maintain that chavista officials are to be taken as independent voices. For the umpteenth time, Venezuelanalysis is reliable, as far as chavista propaganda goes. But as Chavez media empire grows, I reckon other sources that also publish in English, as ABN, could be used instead see link.--Alekboyd (talk) 22:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Opinion needed on a website

I have cited as a source in the article Iowa class battleship ussiowa.org, but its reliability has been questioned. I would like some input as to whether this meets reliable sourcing standards or not. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be the website of the USS IOWA(BB-61) Veteran's Association. They'd obviously have some knowledge of the subject, but little in the way of real editorial oversight. I'd say it's o.k. for non-contentious claims. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you define a non-contentious claim? It may mean the difference between keeping a source and removing the information. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you show us a diff? And is the material questioned by regular editors of the article, or as part of a Featured Article review? Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

On request 1: yes I can, but that may take a little while. On question 2: yes, this is for an FAR; I'm one of the article's main contributors (I currently have the highest edit count on the article, and it was I who nominated the article for FAC back in the day). TomStar81 (Talk) 05:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Point of clarification:what kind fo diff are we talking about? A diff showing the source being questioned, or a diff showing the source being added to support a claim? TomStar81 (Talk) 09:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

A diff showing the source being added or deleted. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The Middle East Review of International Affairs

Any thoughts how can the reliability assessment can be done on Middle East Review of International Affairs? Specifically, Richard Landes publishes his analyses of the Goldstone report in the latest MERIA volume. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 21:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Not particularly easy. MERIA, I would say, counts as a political magazine. OK as a source for notable commentary, would need to be presented as viewpoint and attributed. Landes is a well-published historian but his real expertise is in millennarianism, not in the Israel-Palestine conflict. So consider carefully the question of notability of his viewpoint alongside the sourcing question. May be other views here. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

As often is the case, I think that whether this is an RS or not will mainly depend upon what statement it is being used to support. --FormerIP (talk) 01:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Judith, no question attribution to MERIA will be formulated properly. I merely wanted to make sure there's nothing in MERIA per se that precludes citing analyses published there. As for Landes, your description is 100% correct in general; however, I think in this particluar case it is of minor relevance - MERIA published his study so I guess they found its contents good enough for their agenda. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 07:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Post-disco??

POV push by User:RockandDiscoFanCZ regarding a notion about "Post-Disco" as a specific genre of music, despite many requests on the talk page for an RS source to support the claim.

• The single source provided, that weakly asserts post-disco is a genre, is an anonymous All Music Guide feature.
• The reliable sources available, some of which are cited in the article, overwhelmingly use the term "post-disco" or (postdisco) in discussing the era subsequent to disco's commercial decline.
• Much of the article's content is derived from the editors OR based observations and are supported by an assemblage of random references, that happen to feature the term "post-disco"; and in any particular context.
• None of the sources provided, except AMG, refer to the articles's subject in manner that is directly related to post disco as a genre of music.
• User currently engages in edit warring to stifle dissent [56][57][58][59]

The article was recently considered for deletion, where similar observation's were made. I'm interested in hearing other views on this, should there be any. Cross-posted hereSemitransgenic (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Post disco is not a genre, post disco is more like a movement of sound changes (yes it is same, but.. not same at all). New instruments were brought by late 1970s - it gave born to "post disco" music (src no 1). As AMG said, it have some reason to naming post disco as a movement of characteristic elements - for example, innovators like Leroy Burgress, Larry Levan and DJs and producers played in post-disco serious part; musicians, Nick Straker Band, Kashif, D. Train. These artists make disco that sounds different (we should say it is "disco not disco"). As source no. 19 said, post-disco is a [musical] style, because we know and sources saying it, rock and funk are musical styles too. Artists like Mtume, Klein + MBO, Change, Central Line, Kano, etc are related to post disco because it is not an era, but something like "genre"; if it is an era, these artists are unrelated to post-disco because post-disco range is from 50 Cent, Backstreet Boys, Snoop Dogg, Blur, Oasis to Frank Sinatra ("New York, New York" song).

"The single source provided, that weakly asserts post-disco is a genre, is an anonymous All Music Guide feature. " - dubious/editorial observation/point-of-view/degrading of the source/trying to discredit AMG

"[sic] in discussing the era subsequent to disco's commercial decline." however it is questionable, there are also sources that saying it is underground music, but there are songs like "Love Come Down" (US #17) ― Evelyn King, "Big Fun" (US #21) ― Kool & The Gang, "I'm So Excited" (US #9) ― Pointer Sisters, "Call Me" (US #26) ― Skyy. Seems like "underground" music, hmm. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 15:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Also this version tries to mention all variants of post-disco (an era, AMG genre mentioning, Billboard/Cadence mentioning, Techno and house roots in post-disco dance music, etc). [60] ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 15:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you please give links to the specific source(s) you are concerned about? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you have to give us links to the specific sources that you are concerned with, along with the content the source is being used to support. As for edit-warring, this is not the venue to discuss this. See WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I have doubts that "Post-Disco" refers to a genre in the sense that the average person on the street would understand what is meant. It seems to be covering at least three very different ideas: 1. 80's dance/R&B music like Cameo, Patrice Rushen, etc. 2. a faster, more synthesized version of disco that ended up in several separate, mostly underground scenes ( hi-nrg, electro, Latin Freestyle, Italo, Eurodance, house ), and 3. New Wave music that happened to be danceable, like Duran Duran. This really isn't an RS issue but an issue of whether an article exists. You could take it to AFD and see if the people want to keep it as a standalone article or merge it someplace else. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

slocartoon.net for actor

How reliable should we treat slocartoon.net for sourcing? For example I used it to support a claim that Yuka Aimoto is a voice actress. Two other articles also use it for sourcing, but only in combination with another source: Ivana Brlić-Mažuranić, and Lapitch the Little Shoemaker.

slocartoon.net is written in Slovenian; here is a translation of their FAQ for "Slocartoon community" which appears to describe what a registered user can do, and that administrators review user input. I would not like to judge but guess that it is marginally more reliable than IMDB (which allows registered users to enter details - that from my experience are not checked if obscure). -84user (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually my experience at imdb is that the first several edits of a registered user are extensively checked, and after that obscurity of the data (difficulty in checking) may lead to failure. --Bejnar (talk) 11:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Forums are not reliable sources. Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources (online and paper) If a person has significant secondary sources about them, reliance on forum or blog sources is unnecessary. If they don't then they are not notable. --Bejnar (talk) 11:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Reliability of Virgin Media

I am trying to determine if the subject source is reliable for citations about criminal charges against celebrities: http://www.virginmedia.com. Specifically, I am trying to get the criminal charge in the following article properly sourced: Stedman Pearson. I couldn't find a previous discussion on this source in the archive.

The source appears to be primarily a broadband company and does news as a sideline. There is some questionable material such as the following (from the Virgin Media article), but I don't know how significant it is for RS purposes: http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1000000189,40004190,00.htm

The Stedman article came up on the BLP noticeboard Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Stedman_Pearson. Considering the salaciousness of the charge, I am trying to get the entry as compliant to WP policies as possible.Jarhed (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK, Virgin Media does not do any journalism of their own: they simply republish news stories from elsewhere, so there is no way of knowing whether they do the fact-checking and so on expected of a reliable source.

When the issue at stake is as serious as a criminal charge, I would want the source to be from a reputable news-gathering outlet, not a news re-publisher who could have sourced the material from anywhere. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd be very surprised if Virgin Media were publishing news that was not from the wires (AP, Reuters) or already publishing elsewhere. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The Press Association Ltd. did in fact issue a release about Stedman's arrest on 8 October 1990 entitled "Pop Star's Indecency Shame". It appeared in a number of papers. The original may be accessed via LexisNexis. --Bejnar (talk) 11:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Virgin Media are part of the Virgin Enterprises Group, who are one of the leading media corporations in the world. The group have held record companies, publishing houses, radio stations, shops, telecommunications, airlines, trains, and even television channels. Virgin Media's website is not just a broadband provider, it is a multimedia site with news, features, entertainment, TV listings - much like an online magazine or newspaper. With regards to their publishing house, Virgin have published a vast array of books including The Virgin Encyclopedia of Popular Music and its various forms and editions (Virgin Encyclopedia of Rock Music, 60's Music, 80's Music, Country Music, etc). Since the information you are referring to isn't exactly "news" (because it's 20 years old), it is likely Virgin have sourced the material from their own published archives. Fortunately, I have access to a few of these books and I have found the very detail you are referring to in the Virgin Encyclopedia of R&B and Soul, written by Colin Larkin and published in 1998. Larkin is a highly respected journalist and author who has written several books about music. There is even a sample of the entry from a digitised copy available on Google Books ( [61] ). Due to Virgin's longterm standing in the media industry, they would be considered experts in this field and know what they are talking about, which makes them a reliable source as per WP:RS. Furthermore, there are two other sources in the article in question (The Guardian, a highly respected UK broadsheet newspaper, and another published book about pop music history) that corroborate the material you are talking about - so the Virgin Media source is obviously reliable. Lastly, the link from zdnet.co.uk you have included in your posting above about Virgin's broadband service is absolutely nothing to do with the subject or article you are enquiring here about, so I am curious as to why you included it. MassassiUK 12:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Slashdot article that was submitted by a Wikipedia editor

Is this Slashdot article, which was submitted by a Wikipedia editor, sufficient for Wikipedia:Verifiability and/or Wikipedia:Notability purposes? The discussion is currently occurring at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JWASM, specifically, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JWASM#Pending Slashdot Story/Review. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

A search of the archives indicates it has generally been ill-favoured as a reliable source. –xeno^talk 21:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Not reliable. It's user/member submitted material that doesn't show any inidcation of reliability or editorial oversight. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• No real editorial oversight and no peer review, plus the fact that this "article" was "published" within hours of its "submission" clearly make the case (in combination with Xeno's comment about the archives) that this is not a reliable source. UnitAnode 22:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Slashdot.org is a reasonable source, and generally meets WP:RS, although with a certain degree of caution. Articles posted there are subject to editorial discretion (although comments following articles are not). The degree of editorial vetting that happens on Slashdot is definitely far less than in, e.g., a peer-reviewed source, but it is not a self-published source like a blog or personal website.

The above comment about the rapid publication schedule Slashdot is either bad-faith or a misunderstanding. The New York Times or CNN, for example, are eminently reliable sources, both of which often publish within minutes of the events they describe. The fact a source has an editorial review of hours (as opposed to days or weeks) merely describes the type of events and process it uses, but does not speak to its reliability (or the notability of topics addressed).

The mere existence of a Slashdot source is not a sufficient reason to keep an article under AfD discussion, but it does add to the general weight of available sources. In particular, discussion of a topic in a Slashdot article lends a fair degree of credence to the notability of a topic, but is somewhat less useful for reliable and verifiable facts about the topic. LotLE×talk 22:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is a carry over from a rather heated discussion for AfD re JWASM, where lines are strongly drawn. So far except for xeno's, all other comments are from interested parties in that AfD. I'd recommend that the comments be read here, but that editors involved in the AfD recuse themselves from influencing contention regarding Slashdot, as their analysis is demonstrably partial, as mine would be. -- spin^control 23:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• An anonymous person can sign up and submit an article. That is not reliable by any means. The fact that the article references Wikipedia shows it's not that reliable. Even wikipedia prohibits using wikipedia as a source.Niteshift36 (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Referencing Wikipedia indirectly, i.e. for more information, in which was never done in the original submission but as apart of the editing process by Slashdot, is vastly different from referencing Wikipedia as a primary source of information for said article/story. The primary source for the Slashdot article was the JWASM website and direct test cases against the tool. Please also note, that Slashdot does not allow for anonymous editors. Anyone can call up a news station/paper and submit a story, but whether they choose to verify and then publish it is an entirely different and controlled process. SpooK (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• • They do allow anonymous submissions. They don't publish under real names. (Please spare me the odd example of a reliable source that uses an occasional psuedonym. How many RS's use nothing by handles?) There is no evidence of editorial oversight. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

When's the last time you refused to read a book or article because it was published under a pseudonym? Let's try to put things in perspective here. An attempt to correlate editors under pseudonym as unknown/unreliable people is not the same as an uncontrolled editorial process. Also, I supplied an example of editorial oversight, thus disproving such claim. The whole article doesn't necessarily need to be rewritten by an editor to be considered edited. Such assertions are merely examples of denying the antecedent. SpooK (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Wow, you totally missed the point. I acknowledged that there are even psuedonyms in the media. (Yet you felt the need to point it out, as if I denied it). What I said was that it is more the exception than the rule for news sites to not use real names. Your example of editorial oversight is faulty. They take the anon submission, they add a few lines and publish. BTW, overlinking your responses doesn't make them more valid. Same term 3 times in as many sentences? Another one twice in 3? Bottom line, I say they don't meet RS. That is my contribution to the consensus process. Take note, I'm not the only one holding that opinion. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• I was in the middle of writing my response when you edited yours to include the psuedonym comment... and I didn't feel a need to change it :P Your assertion of the lack of editorial oversight lacks proof. Unless you have a statement by the editor that claims they did absolutely nothing to edit that article, then you have no proof and therefore no case to back up your claim. I respect your right to claim that this doesn't provide a WP:RS, but make sure to back up any further assertions with solid proof and not mere conjecture. Accountability is an important factor in this situation. SpooK (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Your example of editing process seems to be a message board with such usefull comments as "I'm also a big YASM fan. YASM can generate object files for Windows, OS X, and Linux. That, combined with its macro features, let you write a single x86 file that can be used on all three platforms. I'll certainly take a look at JWASM, though!" Exactly how is that helping to improve the article? It’s a message board; one that does not appear to operates (for example) a non-soapbox policy. Moreover is there any indication that these posts are from experts likely to be able to pick up errors?Slatersteven (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You are confusing the article (the top part) with the uncontrolled/edited responses. Think of the main article as a Wikipedia entry, and the replies to the article as the talk page of a Wikipedia entry. SpooK (talk) 00:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I see so the example of edit process you gave was not an example of the process but of the end result. So we do not kn ow how they (or why they) added the new text just that they did. \forgive me but oyu use of the term editing process led me to assume that is what we were segin (a bit like seeing the edit history page on wiki). The main differance seems to be removal of text, why was it removed? I can't actualy see any alterations beyond this so it only an example of them editing text, not checking it.Slatersteven (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is weak-point in the Slashdot editing process, in that it is not as transparent as Wikipedia. I'll request the information about the process directly from the editor. I'll let you know what the response is, if there is any. SpooK (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• This is a waste of time. A Wikipedia editor did not like the way an AFD was going, so he wrote a review for Slashdot, and then cited it as a potential "source." Sorry, but that is the definition of original research, saying nothing about the fact that Slashdot is not a reliable source. UnitAnode 00:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Last time I checked, I am not property of Wikipedia. I don't remember signing any contracts that state I cannot participate in other venues. Furthermore, I have not contributed to the main JWASM page until I posted the external link to my published Slashdot review. To say that being an editor here and at Slashdot is mutually exclusive, is foolish. There is no WP:COI as I have not contributed to JWASM or its corresponding Wikipedia page prior to the AfD. Also, to assert yet again that my Slashdot review is only to "save" the JWASM Wikipedia page is false and I consider it a personal attack against my character... which I have informed you of multiple times, so please desist. Moreover, in this AfD process, Unitanode has failed to comply with WP:AGF. SpooK (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

  You have admitted, both here and in the comments of your "article" that the main reason you wrote it was because of the AFD. That's simply not on, and it's not acceptable for use as a source. UnitAnode 01:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

  And a link where he admits that he wrote it in response to the AFD. UnitAnode 01:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

  "My effort to write this review is a result of an AfD situation that occurred at Wikipedia, yes, but my desire to do so is for the sake of the tool itself, i.e. personal interest." (emphasis mine). That's a direct quote. This is simply not acceptable, and negates whatever shred of reliability Slashdot may have had, at least with regards to this issue. UnitAnode 01:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Main and only are two different contexts. This particular AfD motivated me to go ahead and do the Slashdot article, as a result it is undeniably my main motivation. However, and as stated previously, whether or not Wikipedia cares about the relevance of my review is not entirely relevant to me. Posting that review on Slashdot was sufficiently rewarding in itself despite any sway that it will make on Wikipedia. JWASM's notability will continue to increase over time, and if it isn't notable enough for Wikipedia at the moment, that's fine with me. With that being said, my latest responses have been to address faulty assumptions and hasty assertions by various people, including you Unit. Again, a healthy dose of WP:AGF can go a long way to a mutually understood and beneficial resolution. SpooK (talk) 01:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Slashdot is obviously nowhere near a reliable source. If you even think it might be, you should not be giving opinions on whether sources are reliable. --TS 01:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It's nice to see an experienced wikipedian drop by. Basically some folks were rules-lawyering whether JWASM was notable not not. So then some other folks figured heck, we can use slashdot as a reliable source, because if you ruleslawyer, it sort of does fit that description. ;-) Of course, if you just want to apply common sense, you can see how JWASM might be somewhat notable... ;-) (there's not many assemblers out there any more, I was surprised to discover) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to ruleslawyer; this isn't a unique situation. Slashdot is a secondary source like many other news organizations. However most articles are essentially letters to the editor, so they should be relied on very lightly. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Unitanode's comments here and on the AfD that triggered this discussion are belligerent, and he self-consciously states that he will not WP:AGF of other editors. Moreover, his position is absurd. It seems to be that if a WP article discusses a topic--not only as an editor of a WP article, but also a commenter on its talk page or an AfD about it--that editor is barred from writing about the same topic for other moderated publications concerning the same topic. Not for the New York Times, not for the Journal of Programming Languages, nowhere that might externally indicate relevance or notability of a topic. The fact is that Slashdot is really not the most carefully edited publication in the world. But it is an edited publication. The large majority of submissions for Slashdot articles are rejected (my understanding is that their acceptance rate is along the lines of 1/20th), and those articles that are accepted are edited by paid staff editors before publication (yes, often sloppily modified, but it's only the paid staff who can actually publish on the website--in articles, not in comments). The submission and subsequent publication of a review of JWASM--by a recognized expert in its field--by Slashdot indeed is relevant to the notability of its topic (although indeed should not be a sole indication of notability). The fact that the recognized expert happens to be a WP article is irrelevant... FWIW, I have also had an interest piqued by reading WP articles, and subsequently published moderated articles in various WP:RSs as followups to that acquired or renewed interest. And I very much hope that experts in other fields have done and continue to do likewise. LotLE×talk 01:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not. And my statement about AGF was only that once bad faith has been clearly demonstrated, there's no further need to assume good faith. And now a Slashdot vandal has shown his/her colors at my talkpage. The review itself was written in response and as a result of the AFD, and is not by a noted expert. It's by an anonymous username at an unreliable source. You're hitching your wagon to the wrong horse here, Lulu. UnitAnode 01:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

And sorry if it sounds offensive, but if you want to be taken seriously it probably doesn't help to use adopted names on Wikipedia. Cunard, Spin, and whatnot are signs that you don't want anybody to care. Use your real name. Why not? Are you ashamed? --TS 01:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I can think of about a dozen reasons why people should use pen names on Wikipedia; in fact I'm of the opinion that they should have been mandated on WP from the beginning. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Those people work for slashdot. When wikipedia wants to start giving me a check, I'll happily use my real name. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't have to use our real name, that's not a fair criticism. I only use mine because I want to! :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi - slashdot vandal here. Sorry, I shouldn't have said that, and I won't resort to personal attacks again. I'd just like to say that it is a false inference that anonymity implies bad faith, on the grounds that anonymous users make thousands of good faith edits to Wikipedia every day 123.243.237.83 (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

That was a good thing to do/say. If all slashdot vandals are like you, they're welcome to drop by and chat too! ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

So you want more people that react like this to those with whom they disagree? "Hi! I've come here via slashdot, and read your control-freak-like attempts to maipulate people. This otherwise normal user (and occasional positive contributer, although I don't spend my life on wiki) just wants to say you're a dickhead. Thanks!" UnitAnode 16:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

A few points about using a Slashdot article as a source:

• It does count as a secondary source, though a "weak" secondary source. They only print a very limited number of the articles submitted to them, showing that the opinions expressed are at least notable.
• Slashdot cites would really be RS to back up statements such as "has received praise from the open-source community", or in cases where the Slashdot article performs an analysis of other sources that would fall just outside our WP:NOR policy.
• The comments are not RS, though there is a ratings system for comments. When making a convenience link to a Slashdot article, consider raising the comment threshold a few notches to include mainly the productive comments.
• There's still a guideline about citing yourself. Even if you're published in Nature, you should ask for someone else to add the cite. Though if it's under time pressure in an AFD debate I would forgive this.
• Use of pen names is not a problem, and is pretty common in some areas in computing, especially in some aspects of computer security. People use pen names for decades and can conceivably earn expert reputations under their pen names. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The slashdot article is an issue of appropriate expertise. It may offend a number of Wikipedia editors but SpooK in fact has the expertise to write the review and that expertise comes from outside Wikipedia. It is a case of attacking a detached person writing a review beyond the influence of Wikipedia editors who has nothing to do with the JWASM project and did not write the original stub for JWASM. Content of a review is a technical issue, not an internal issue subject to the opinions of Wikipedia editors who don't want a topic to remain in Wikipedia.

Hutch48 (talk) 04:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want to argue expertise, there is a provison called WP:SPS that allows sources written either by topic experts, or subjects of a biography, to be cited as RS even in material that doesn't go through an editorial process, like a personal website. It sounds like there's some case to be made for either of those routes to RS, and I feel it is inappropriate to be removing sources in the middle of a AFD. That said, self-published material wouldn't count towards notability, and even if we decide Slashdot is a secodnary source, we really need several strong secondary sources for notability. I'd suggest merging to our article on WASM, especially if the syntax is very close. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• To address Unitanode's claim that the aforementioned Slashdot review/article is not written by a noted expert but instead someone anonymous, and further implying unreliability of said article source, please review the following facts. It can easily be seen that I am Odoital on Slashdot between my responses there to Unitanode and my alternate account here. A quick look at my Wikipedia user page and corresponding history page shows that my real name and personal website link have been posted at Wikipedia since 2007. My personal website lists the programming projects/endeavors that I am associated with. As a prime example, I fronted the initial/major effort in bringing 64-bit support to the Netwide Assembler, as well as implementing the 64-bit PE/COFF and Mach-O object formats. The operating system I have been working on, for nearly the last decade, has been and is currently developed entirely in x86 assembly language. The assembly language community and related forum, that I currently float the hosting bill for, requires more effort to maintain than someone with merely a inexpert/passing interest could offer. My previous and current jobs have employed me primarily as a professional software developer. I am currently pursuing a college degree in software development/programming to mach my current level of experience, i.e. the sheepskin that says I can do what I am already doing, full-time while holding a 3.9 GPA with a full-time job and full-time family. As one can see, I may not be a critically acclaimed "expert" in software development, nor do I think I am, but I am definitely not an "anonymous" or ill-informed person either; obviously enough of my peers (including ones that don't necessarily get along with me) agree that I am capable of producing a technically unbiased and objective review of JWASM in such a manner as I have. Again, accountability is an important factor in this situation. For those who may have made this slight factual oversight, please ensure that, in the future, you are presenting the facts and interpreting the rules... not the other way around. Thanks. SpooK (talk) 08:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
• No, Slashdot does not meet our RS guidelines. Dlabtot (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a news organization with an editorial process, and is well-respected in the software community. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not a "news organization", as no "news organization" would post a "review" from a non-staffer within hours of its creation. It is not a reliable source, and this "review" was basically an attempt at an end-run around the RS and NOTE questions raised at the AFD. UnitAnode 15:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Slashdot is well-respected, and people in the software community treat it as a news site. It does meet the standards of a secondary RS, as there is an editorial board that selects maybe five of the hundreds of submissions to run each day. There is an issue that what's under discussion is essentially a letter to the editor that has been published in an RS, and there is still a question of notability. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Being well-respected and treated as a news site in the software community does not a reliable source make. I was a bit more open-minded about this up to the point where they posted this review within hours of its submission. No respectable news agency does such a thing. UnitAnode 16:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is "hours" a problem? There's a handful of editors, if they're all together or online they can check facts (online as well) and make the call as to putting it in. The new media works quickly. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Submit a story idea, book review, movie review, or a software review to the New York Times website. See how long it takes to get published. Yes, the very fact that Slashdot published this within hours speaks to its lack of reliability as a source. UnitAnode 16:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess the fact that the response you wrote to Squidfryerchef only took you 13 minutes speaks to its lack of reliability as to its content. -- spin^control 16:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be funny, if you weren't so serious. I'm a person, you know that, right? Slashdot is an organization, which posts various types of content. Comparing my response time to the time it took them to post a "review" is, well, frankly quite odd. Or simply a way of "spinning" (per your username) unrelated facts to fit your preferred conclusion. Either way, Slashdot isn't going to be considered a reliable source, and this article will be deleted soon. UnitAnode 17:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You are merely carrying your partiality over from the JWASM AfD. It stops you from making reasoned comments on the issue at hand. -- spin^control 17:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: To clarify, the article at AfD won't be deleted because of the lack of reliability from this site. It will be deleted because it's not notable. (Note that notable does not mean popular or useful). Niteshift36 (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Your comment about notability is irrelevant here. -- spin^control 17:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• So? It's still part of the reason this discussion is even taking place. All I did was clarify that the AfD issue unitode mentioned isn't really reliability, it's notability. Lessen the confusion. But I didn't realized you'd been appointed the owner of this discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The question here is whether Slashdot is a reliable source. If you want to talk about JWASM, the place is here. It's that simple. -- spin^control 18:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• So sorry for trying to clarify and make sure people didn't get those issues confused by the way unitode phrased it. But guess what? After 11,000 edits, I could have probably figured out where I needed to go on my own. Or maybe I just don't care to follow you orders. But you enjoy your ownership of the discussion my friend. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• I think the confusion lies in that Unitanode and others wish to maintain their assertions that Slashdot, and thus the review I submitted, is not considered a reliable resource for the purpose of denying it as a WP:RS and therefore cannot add weight to WP:Notability for JWASM... not WP:Verifiability in which is already covered. I don't think that anyone in the "for" camp is claiming that said Slashdot article in itself is sufficient to establish WP:Notability, but I, at least, was certainly under the impression that it would help as per Elen of the Roads' and Kim Bruning's advisement here. Acknowledging my Slashdot article/review obviously leads down a slippery slope from attempted absolutism of the rules to the more gray-scale world in which we live. In short, some people have reduced themselves down to attacking the good faith and position of others, including the reliability of Slashdot, by asserting unfounded personal opinions/attacks instead of stating the facts (in which requires research/investigation if you don't know them) and reasonably interpreting the rules. Once again, a mountain has been made out of a molehill by Wikipedia deletionists instead of figuring out how to improve the situation to benefit Wikipedia and interested parties. SpooK (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Slashdot is simply not a reliable source for any purpose whatsoever. Dlabtot (talk) 23:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Slashdot has no significant editorial oversight, and no reputation for reliability. As Dlabtot says: "Slashdot is simply not a reliable source for any purpose whatsoever." Jayjg ^(talk) 02:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the reliability of Slashdot

Spook said:

Furthermore, I have not contributed to the main JWASM page until I posted the external link to my published Slashdot review. To say that being an editor here and at Slashdot is mutually exclusive, is foolish. There is no WP:COI as I have not contributed to JWASM or its corresponding Wikipedia page prior to the AfD.

A look at the history confirms this [62]. Regardless of anything else, and it's a bit disconcerting no one pointed this out, this is a violation of WP:COI and WP:SPAM. If you wrote an article, even if it's in a reliable secondary source do not add it yourself. Mention it in the talk page and let others decide whether it has any merit in the article. Being an editor here and at Slashdot is not mutually exclusive, but editing articles to promote content you edited in Slashdot is. Remember that even if you have good intentions one of the inherent problems is that when you have a COI, it's very difficult for you to be neutral and adding links to somethign you wrote is always going to come across as needless self promotion Nil Einne (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Plus-size model

The article is desperately lacking citations given that this industry is still somewhat tied to obesity epidemic hype. Real, statistical data outside of national dress size averages are especially difficult: i.e. The quantity and location of international agencies servicing this industry are not listed in published media, however the information is germane to the discussion of global growth and spread of work. Can this page: [63] serve as a source for such information? This site styles itself as an archive to the industry, spanning work from 1999 -2010, is non-profit and without conflict of interest to article. Author is a model but does not self promote (outside of explaining her credentials on profile page); searching on her name in the site does not yield results. The research for the list appears to be sound, without prejudice and is free of agenda. The previously longest-established source for this information: [64], has not been updated for some time (3 years?) and was Nth American-centric to begin with.

The article is heading towards warring as other editors have been adding OR specifically to create ref links to their blogs. One site oft-linked [65] openly declares its censorship of discussion at the top of every forum page, has only a small community, and has been cited on other websites for repeated censorship of comments. Advice, please. AntiVanity (talk) 08:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• "Censorship of comments," or rather comment selection, does not impact the notability or significance of a site. Many web logs screen comments before posting. (For example, Huffington Post is well-known for rejecting comments that do not conform to the wishes of its moderators. Within the plus-size community, Shapely Prose is known for this as well.) The Judgment of Paris has a very significant readership: 520,293 Alexa rank at the time of this writing, and 153,000 Google hits for "judgmentofparis.com". Furthermore, it has been online since 1998, and has established itself. Also, it features many interviews with professionals in the plus-size modelling industry, including editors of past magazines featuring plus-size models (magazines that are cited in the article), top plus-size models themselves, retailers of plus-size stores, marketing managers in plus-size fashion, and so forth. By contrast, runwayrevolution.com has a far, far smaller readership (2,500,028 Alexa rank at the time of this writing, and a mere 2,610 Google hits -- both far fewer than judgmentofparis.com). The continued exclusion of judgmentofparis.com, with its higher readership and greater number of interviews with industry professionals, and the inclusion of runwayrevolution.com, with its far smaller readership, doesn't make any sense, and merely seems to reflect personal dislike of the above commentator. Furthermore, since the above user implies a conflict of interest (even though Wikipedia discourages implications of conflict of interest in disputes), one could imply the same to AntiVanity/3RingCircus, as the included line about "quantity and location of international agencies servicing this industry" constitutes OR specifically to create ref links to her blog. 24.215.23.237 (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• At any rate, to the original question: Including the suggested page listing agencies in order to draw an inference from that about "global growth and spread of work" is indisputably original research. After all, how does such a list indicate "growth" or "spread"? Did those agencies not represent plus-size models in the past? (In fact, most of them did.) Where is evidence that these agencies either represent more plus-size models now than they did before, or that a number of them were recently established? Such facts would be required to indicate "growth" or "spread." To assert that such a list in and of itself somehow indicates "global growth and spread of work", without any additional indications of growth, is mere speculation. 24.215.23.237 (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Furthermore, as a sole-operated blog, runwayrevolution.com has absolutely no editorial oversight, and is merely a self-published blog, with no vetting of any kind. The inclusion of material, the commentary, all is at the sole whim of the owner. This disqualifies it as a reliable source. 24.215.23.237 (talk) 16:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see what the issue here is. Both of the mentioned sites are self-published and have no editorial oversight. Both are disqualified as reliable sources. 216.95.109.143 (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

See WP:SPS for when it is appropriate to cite to a weblog. Self-published, by itself, isn't necessarily disqualifying, especially if the weblog is cited for the opinions of its independently notable author. THF (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Balkan Wars

There is a dispute in Balkan Wars over the use of this [66] source. This is the Carnegie Report of 1914 on the Second Balkan War between Greece and Bulgaria. The source is from 1914, so it is primary, and it is written by a certain Pavel Miliukov, a Russian. At the time, Russia was pursuing an pan-slavist policy and Bulgaria was a Russian client. Consequently, Miliukov is as pro-Bulgarian as they come, and the source is far from neutral. A casual look at the source itself reveals that is very biased, saying nonsensical things like The main fact on which we must insist is that the Greek army inaugurated the second war by the deliberate burning of a Bulgarian town. (p. 99, paragraph 2). Nothing could be further from the truth. Even Bulgarian authors concede that the Second Balkan War was started by a Bulgaria that was dissatisfied with its gains in the First Balkan War. The consensus on this is universal, and this reveals the extremely biased nature of the source. The Carnegie Report has been panned in the literature:

• Frank Maloy Anderson, Amos Shartle Hershey, National Board for Historical Service -Handbook for the diplomatic history of Europe, Asia, and Africa, 1870-1914‎ -"pro-Bulgarian bias" p 428
• Kemal H. Karpat -Ottoman population, 1830-1914: demographic and social characteristics‎ - "Some pro- Bulgarian sources (such as Carnegie Endowment)" p. 50
• Giannēs Koliopoulos, John S. Koliopoulos -Plundered loyalties: Axis occupation and civil strife in Greek West: "the fanatically pro-Bulgarian part of the report" - p. 12
• Alice Garnett -Jugoslavia: History, peoples, and administration‎ - "a full account written from a pro-Bulgarian standpoint" p. 140.
• The key role P. Miliukov played in that report was revealed by Prof. of university of Sofia Ivan Ilchev in his study "Karnegievata Anketa na Balkanite prez 1913" in Makedonija: Istorija i polititseska sadba (1912-1941), Sofia 1998, vol. 2, pp. 241-256.

I also note that the source is posted on an ultra-nationalist Bulgarian website, which should set further alarm bells ringing. Athenean (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The Carnegie report was compiled by the American Carnegie foundation and included representatives from the major European countries and the US. Pavel Miliukov was just one member and User Athenean has not presented any evidence that he wrote that particular chapter.

Russia's position at the time is hardly relevant, but it must be noted that during this period Russia generally supported Serbia over Bulgaria and had recently had a falling out with the Bulgarian government, so the statement "Russian client state" is inaccurate.

Primary sources prohibits their usage for interpretations and they're not used in the article in this way - they are simply used for a citation of a fact. That the chapter was biased is Athenean's personal opinion. When one considers the anti-Bulgarian propaganda produced by Greece (before the war) such a conclusion doesn't seem so absurd.

Athenean falsely asserts that the Carnegie commission is universally considered biased. For example, in the recent work "The Balkan Wars, 1912-1913: prelude to the First World War" which is used extensively as a source for this article, the report is referred as :"Probably the most objective assessment of the question of atrocities in the

Balkan Wars is found in the Carnegie Report." [67]. Even in one of the sources which according to Athenean prove the bias of the report, actually states: ""Their work was accurately and carefully done, although the pro-Bulgarian bias of one member, M.Miliukov probably affected the report to some extent", which is very far from the condemnation Athenean seems to portray. About his other sources, Kemal Karpat and Giannēs Koliopoulos, being Turkish and Greek respectively are quite likely to be biased against the report which reported about war crimes committed by their nations' armies (are we going to have Bulgarian sources proving the neutrality of the report?).

The citation by Garnett doesn't even refer to Carnegie: [68]! I actually placed a note on the talk page of Balkan wars about this, so I don't know why it's reproduced here. I couldn't find the final source (by Ilchev) so I was unable to ascertain its authenticity though it's notable that it was posted by the same user (Factuarius) who also falsely cited Garnett's book and has been blocked for edit warring on this subject.

Kroraina.com can hardly be regarded as a Bulgarian ultra-nationalist site - it's mostly a collection of materials on Bulgarian history. Also, this is irrelevant as the site is only used for the deposition of the report- it's not as if they made it themselves.

As this source is probably the most extensive and neutral source available on the subject and is only used for direct citation, I do not see why it shouldn't be used. Kostja (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's dispense with the wikilawyering and nitpicking. The tone and content of the entire chapter is extremely biased and partisan. It is immediately apparent to anyone reading it. A source that claims Greece started the Second Balkan War so as to cleanse the Bulgarians of Kilkis is not even worth server space it takes up. Athenean (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That source doesn't say anything like that. That Greece planned the war in advance and was just waiting for a pretext is obvious and well known. You don't start such a propaganda campaign if you're planning for peace. And no Athenean, you're not the source to decide what is obvious. Kostja (talk) 08:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there any modern source(say post 1970) written in English(since this is English wikipedia) that supports the Carnegie Report of 1914? --Kansas Bear (talk) 08:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is. As I've mentioned above, it's called ""Probably the most objective assessment of the question of atrocities in the

Balkan Wars is found in the Carnegie Report." in the 2002 "The Balkan Wars, 1912-1913: prelude to the First World War" by Richard Hall, who is used as the main sources on this article: [69], page 138. The report is also mentioned as an "important historical document" in "Ethnic cleansing in the Balkans: nationalism and the destruction of tradition", 2002: [70]. It's also used a source in "Jews, Turks, Ottomans: a shared history, fifteenth through the twentieth century": [71] and "The Balkan wars: myth, reality, and the eternal conflict", 2001: [72]. According to another recent book: "An ounce of prevention: Macedonia and the UN experience in preventive diplomacy", the Carnegie report "gives an account of the developments and resolution of the two regional conflicts of 1912-1913": [73].

• Athenean indicated that he thought the Carnegie report was a primary source. I beg to differ. A primary source would be the battle plans, the dispatches, the dead counts, etc., of the war. This is a secondary source and reads like a second-hand account, at least one step removed from the events. Secondary sources write about primary sources, often making analytic or evaluative claims about them. See Wikipedia:PSTS#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. --Bejnar (talk) 10:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I note that the appendices to the Carnegie report do contain primary documents, letters, etc. --Bejnar (talk) 10:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Christ myth theory

The Christ myth theory article includes a section detailing the scholarly reception of this fringe theory. Under the sub-heading "Methodological concerns" the following sentence appears: "Additionally, advocates of the Christ myth theory often give the impression of willful disbelief, their views not being amenable to counter-evidence." As it currently stands, this sentence is referenced with a book and a couple of online sources. There's an additional source that I would very much like to include though. A while back a member of the Jesus Seminar tried to get the views of Earl Doherty (a notable advocate of the theory) published in the journal The Fourth R. The editor declined. Doherty's website reproduces the rejection letter, including the following text: "I'm not presently inclined to devote an issue to questioning the existence of Jesus. The topic is a perennial one among skeptics. If someone wants to doubt the existence of Jesus, my experience is that no evidence or argument will change his mind."

My question is, while Doherty's website is self-published (and Doherty's not an expert) and thus seems to run afoul of WP:RS, since the quote in view pertains to Doherty himself, can the Christ myth article use his page as a source for the rejection letter? Failing that, can the article use another website, also self-published but this time written by an expert, which quotes Doherty's page? Eugeneacurry (talk) 19:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Eugene. Doherty's website can be used for establishing Doherty's own views, provided these are notable, but it cannot be used for citing the comments of people who have written to him, IMO. Licona's comments are likewise RS for establishing his views, but if you do not think Doherty's views are notable, then it is hard to see how Licona's views about them are. The main issue here seems to me to be one about NPOV and attribution, rather than RS. The whole section seems to represent opinion as fact. The quote you are concerned with ("Additionally, advocates of the Christ myth theory often give the impression of willful disbelief, their views not being amenable to counter-evidence") is a clear example of this. Sentences like this should be rephrased so that they explain that this is a view held by a person or a group of people, or else the section should be deleted. --FormerIP (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The concerns about WP:NPOV aside, given that you reject the use of Doherty's site as a RS, would Licona's article that quotes the relevant material from Doherty's site qualify as an RS? Or does the unreliability of Doherty's page ramify up the ladder of quotation? Eugeneacurry (talk) 04:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I would add that no article should contain text like "advocates of the X theory often give the impression of willful disbelief" unless that text is expressed something like "John Smith said ...". It doesn't matter how much of an expert John Smith is, an WP:NPOV article simply cannot dismiss advocates of a theory in such terms. Per WP:VALID, an article does not need to give weight to fringe theories, but there is simply no reason for an article to even say something like "advocates of the flat earth theory often give the impression of willful disbelief" (such a statement could only be validly claimed after a large research project conducted by qualified experts who examine the mental state of flat earth theorists). Johnuniq (talk) 04:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

DVD: "Treasure Within the Mountains (The Mountain Parkway)"

On Mountain Parkway Byway, a DVD named "Treasure Within the Mountains (The Mountain Parkway)" is being cited as a reference. It is listed as being produced by a company called Gauley Productions in 2005. I tried searching for both the DVD name (and some variations) as well as the production company name on Google and wasn't finding anything. I also tried searching on the West Virginia Secretary of State's website for the company name [74] and was getting no results. (As Gauley is the name of a major West Virginia river and the article is about a scenic byway in West Virginia, I assume the producer would be based in West Virginia.) At this point, I'm really questioning if this reference is a viable source to use in this article. With no Google results about its name, I'm not sure if it was even published or that any other editors would be able to obtain a copy to verify the material attributed to the DVD. Any input that could be provided here would be appreciated. Brian Powell (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

They produced it ,but the idea for it came form the Northern Webster Co Improvement Council Inc. They can give you the inFo you need about the DVD.Gauley production is a subsidiary of Gauley Trading Post which is based in Webster Springs. The dvd in question was released in 2005 --Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, for verification purposes, it isn't listed in WorldCat, so finding a library that has a copy will be difficult. It is not listed in the catalog of the WV Library Commission/Archives & History Library, the Wheeling Public Library (Ohio County Public Library), nor the Louis Bennett Public Library (Lewis County). The Webster-Addison Public Library does not have an online public access catalog, so I could not check there. --Bejnar (talk) 10:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That beasue it was never released globaly. It was only relased in West Virginia. For the information you seek contact the Northern Webster Co improvement Council Inc.User:Bmpowell should have the contact information.--Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

JURIST

Is there anything that precludes citing JURIST as a source (of course properly attributed)? Specifically, to use this opinion in the Goldstone report? --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 07:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Using JURIST for a news source and using its op-ed pages are two different things. Op-ed columns are generally to be avoided wherever they occur. In the reactions section of the article under legal commentators, it might be cited for someone's expressed opinion as a primary source if no secondary source is available, and if the person whose opinion is being cited is either notable or is considered an expert in the field. Such opinions should not just be cited because they exist, there must be a substantial reason for citing an opinion. See, in general, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Statements_of_opinion. --Bejnar (talk) 09:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Bejnar, let's consider concrete example. The two behind this op-ed are "Laurie R. Blank is the Acting Director of Emory Law's International Humanitarian Law Clinic. Gregory S. Gordon is an assistant professor at the University of North Dakota School of Law and Director of the UND Center for Human Rights and Genocide Studies". Seems like they are competent enough to produce valuable opinion for the legal commentators section of the Goldstone report, are they not? --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 11:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me that JURIST is basically an academic journal, so it they published the "op-ed" piece, then the opinion is weighty enough to consider as an RS in Wikipedia. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Guido Fawkes

Is this Guido Fawkes blog post a wikipedia reliable citation for this comment? In December 2009, the political blogger Guido Fawkes claimed that Griffiths still has a so called super-injunction preventing full press coverage of the matter in the United Kingdom... Also is Guido a WP:RS for anything? Off2riorob (talk) 08:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a primary source for that statement; however, if the intent is to talk about the injunction rather than Guido's opinion, then it is not a reliable source. Normally one wouldn't assert an opinion of someone unless they were notable or an expert in the field. --Bejnar (talk) 09:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Also and about the same situation..

Its related to this story , this is a News of the world exclusive so this is the only source, is it ok to use comments from this article? Off2riorob (talk) 09:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

These are the comments....In March 2009, The News of the World revealed Griffiths had sexual relations in the House of Commons with a female companion who was not his wife in November 2008. At least 27 pornographic images were taken on the House of Commons estate, and 44 images were taken at a second location on the same night.When initially asked, Griffiths denied the affair and claimed the evidence had been fabricated and applied to the courts to issue a gagging order censoring the affair. When the courts lifted the gagging order, Griffiths confessed to the matter and issued an apology.

Don't forget there's another path to inclusion as an RS; if reliable sources discuss the Guido Fawkes blog's role in handling a story, then the Fawkes opinions would be notable as an actor in the story, and the blog an RS for its own views. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

European Center for Law and Justice (ECLJ)

Is there anything that precludes citing ECLJ as a source (of course properly attributed)? Specifically, to use this analyses in the Goldstone report (press release here)? --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 13:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Reliable if specifically attributed to the ECLJ. The ECLJ is an offshoot of the ACLJ (American Center for Law and Justice), which is a conservative civil rights organization. Its criticism of the Goldstone report is certainly worthy of inclusion. Ngchen (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

of course properly attributed. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 19:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Arabic Wikipedia

Hello,

Since Osm agha's deleting content that he doesn't like, i suggest an admin check those sources, present in this article, to this date, to assess their validity, in order to protect the page in the future. [[75]] Now, sources include a lot of respected Arab newspaper, additionally to the Netherlands radio. Thank you.

• I think the problem there is that most Wikipedia users can't read arabic and personally I think that if the same source can be found in English translation (for the English Wikipedia) then it could be used, but i'll wait for some admin's suggestions. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)