Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about reliability of sources in context!

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

Venezuelanalysis Reboot

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

• Widely referred to in Google Books (200+ hits) [1] and Google Scholar (300+ hits) [2]
• Specific academic views: Analyzing Venezuelan media, Darrell Moen calls it "A major source of non-corporate controlled information regarding the process of social transformation that is occurring in Venezuela ... This website offers critical analyses by dissident scholars and grassroots-based accounts by social activists involved in the various social movements in Venezuela as well as links to a number of alternative media sites and access to documentary videos that depict recent events in Venezuela.". Writing in New Political Science, Walt Vanderbush calls it "a valuable resource for Venezuelan news and analysis."
• Endorsed by 4 academics on Venezuelanalysis' "donate" page: [3]. Links to their homepages: Anderson, Grandin, Hellinger. (Ellner's page I can't find; Venezuelan university websites are generally not great.) Ellner and Hellinger are Venezuela specialists (political science); Grandin and Anderson have broader Latin America interests. A book Hellinger and Ellner co-edited (Venezuelan Politics in the Chávez Era: Class, Polarization and Conflict, 2003) was described by Foreign Affairs as "An extremely valuable and balanced overview of Venezuela".[4].
• Ellner's endorsement ("In short, Venezuelanalysis offers useful detail and analysis on pivotal issues that is unavailable from other media sources."[5]) is particularly significant, being a (if not the) leading English-language academic on Venezuelan left politics. Ellner's 1988 book was described by Foreign Affairs as "A well-researched analysis of Venezuela's small but innovative third party..."[6]. In the foreword to that book, Michael Conniff described Ellner as "a leading analyst of Venezuela's left politics"[7] That was in 1988; "Steve Ellner"+Venezuela gets 150+ hits on Google News [8], many from the New York Times and Christian Science Monitor asking Ellner for his opinion on events of the day. He is described in neutral terms such as "a political analyst at Venezuela's Oriente University"[9] Even Fox News described him neutrally as "a political science professor at Venezuela's University of the East."[10]
• Used by Human Rights Watch as a source in its 2008 report [11], and multiple times by UNHCR Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, eg here.
• Lonely Planet: Venezuela deems it "the best English language news site" to "keep track of the country's political and economic affairs."

In the face of this evidence that Venezuelanalysis is widely considered a reliable source, some Wikipedia editors wish to substitute their personal opinion that it is unreliable, because links they allege between the website (the alleged links are weak and the sourcing generally unreliable) and the Venezuelan government allegedly render it unreliable. They also argue that in their opinion the website editors' political views, which differ dramatically from their own, render it unreliable. In addition they argue that those wishing to use VA as a source must prove the site's 8 editors have "journalistic credentials" (whatever that means). (It was generally ignored that I had noted - to suggest that "journalistic credentials" are not everything - that Venezuelan media, formerly one of the most respected presses in Latin America, had after the election of Hugo Chavez become part of the opposition: "media owners and their editors used the news - print and broadcast - to spearhead an opposition movement against Chavez... Editors [...] began routinely winking at copy containing unfounded speculation, rumor, and unchecked facts." Dinges, John. Columbia Journalism Review (July 2005). "Soul Search", Vol. 44 Issue 2, July-August 2005, pp52-8. US media reporting on Venezuela has also been critiqued [12] [13])

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

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

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

Some of the content on there is opinion. Those we need to attribute to Venezuelanalysis in the text of the article, if we use them. For statements of fact however, it is totally reliable, and nobody has provided any evidence to the contrary (although plenty of evidence has been shown that it is considered reliable by numerous mainstream sources). The New York Times publishes opinions as well, but we don't call it an "opinion paper". Double standard. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Chavista connection? I guess only sources that are "anti-Chavista" would be reliable right? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Agreed -- there has been no rational reason given for not including it, other than that it is "partisan". All publications are partisan, and of course, that's not really the issue. The editors who keep bringing this up are merely trying to allow partisans that support their POV and remove those that don't.Venezuelanalysis is factually accurate and is considered reliable as a source by numerous mainstream sources (see above). There is really no argument given for it's not being reliable other than that it is "Chavista". 01:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

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

That's because nobody has provided any, because there isn't any. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Good for you. Thanks for inserting your POV into the article. The encyclopedia is much better for it now. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

• Comment. I was asked to comment here. [14] I don't think venezuelanalysis.com can be regarded as a reliable source within the sourcing policy, WP:V. It's what the policy calls a "questionable source": "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves." See WP:V#Questionable sources.

  It is also a self-published source within the meaning of the policy, in the sense that it seems to have no employees, no bosses, no office, and no formal editorial oversight. It describes itself as "an independent website produced by individuals ... its contributors are all working on the site from their homes in various places in Venezuela, the U.S., and elsewhere in the world." [15]

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

In view of the range of sources noted at the top of this thread citing it or endorsing it, I do not think it should be considered "self-published"; and I would say that the fact that other sources rely on it matters more than a debatable interpretation of "self-published". It has editorial oversight at least insofar as the 8 individuals listed here [16] are just some of its many contributors. Rd232 ^talk 19:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Agreed -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

All of the people are experts, and it has been subject to fact-checking by editors, like most newspapers. The fact checking is good enough that all of the organizations, professionals/experts, etc listed above and below feel that it is reliable enough to be used as a source. Please provide a single piece of evidence showing that their fact-checking process is not adequate. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I have been asked to comment about this. You got to love the moral ambiguity and circularity of argumentation of Rd232. Venezuelanalysis is reliable, among other things, because HRW mentioned it in a report the very spinmeister of the site, a.k.a. Gregory Wilpert, protested for allegedly not having followed academic standards. But Rd232, as far as it remains known, lacking any credentials on Venezuelan studies or indeed international law, called the report he now uses as proof as "biased and manipulative". Worth of note also, the fact that said HRW report also quoted me, to which Wilpert et al reacted by saying, without providing a shred of academic evidence, that I was a mentally unstable opposition blogger. My exchange with Chomsky demonstratetd that none of them had any evidence to support such spurious arguments. Rd232 calls tenuous the Gaceta Oficial de Venezuela, for those ignorant on the topic the official gazette where all legislation, appointments, etc, need be published BEFORE reaching legal and official status. This debate is a joke. Rd232, his alter ego and JRSP, have a notorious track record of utterly biased and tendentious editing in pages relates to Chavez and Venezuela. They give far too much weight to the radical left, to obscure academics that lack peer reviewed publications related to Venezuela, while ignoring reputed left sources, such as NYT, BBC, etc., or indeed, HRW, when these report on the horrendous crisis Venezuela is undergoing. I declare myself out of this, there is no good faith here. Venezuela/Chavez related entries are nothing but a crude exercise in propaganda, and I will go as far as stating my belief that there is a connection between the editors in question and chavista propaganda efforts. Otherwise, how else can their attitude be explained?--Alekboyd (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

So, all editors who don't put out anti-Chavez propaganda are "chavista propagandists"? Kind of like how any source that isn't wholly critical of Chavez is a "partisan, left-wing opinion site"? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• • • Also, obviously and unsurprisingly misleading. For example the criticism of HRW's report involved 118 academics. And I did not specifically call the Gaceta tenuous, I called the whole argument which relies on Gaceta as source for part of it tenuous. And if Alek thinks it is not significant that HRW cited VenezuelanRd232 ^talk 20:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
      • I did actually say in the opening post of this thread that "the old thread remains open for any more accusations of bad faith that may be required". Obviously, anyone who disagrees with you must be a paid propagandist! Only possible explanation! For the record, I joined WP in October 2004, becoming an admin in October 2005. I made a few edits to Hugo Chavez (the centre of the Venezuela disputes, so I've checked the history for that article) for the first time in summer 2005; 3 in 2006 (including a vandalism rollback), zero in 2007 and 2008 (OK, I was mostly absent from mid-2006 to early 2009 - but it's a hell of a way to collect a paycheck, doncha think??). In any case, as Soxred's tool and some careful thumbing through my history shows (especially pre-2009, when I seemed to get a lot more involved with Venezuela), Venezuela is just one of many topics I've edited, and only a relatively small proportion of my edits (especially on the edit side rather than the talking - reams of talking here). Rd232 ^talk 20:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

• , My bad. It so much weakens the case for it as a source that the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, "Canada's largest independent administrative tribunal",[17] used it as a source. As for your comments about Ellner - you clearly read my post enough to dismiss Michael Conniff's view of him, so why do you ignore 150+ cites in Google News, many from sources like NYT quoting him? Rd232 ^talk 20:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
• Cheap shot to mention the VIO citation when it is relied on purely for the number of people elected in the 2008 elections. Even you can't find something objectionable about that. Rd232 ^talk 21:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• 99.9999% of the comments on this topic here have absolutely no relationship the question of whether this source meets our reliable source guideline. Please stop cluttering up this page with this off-topic ideological dispute. Dlabtot (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • This is exactly why I started a new section (and complained at ANI when the same thing happened as before). Rd232 ^talk 21:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Um, but that didn't prevent you from starting this very thread with your ideological distortion, did it ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Case in point. Don't address the content issue with relevant sources or arguments, just attack other contributors with vague accusations. It's a surefire way to make sure nobody else will want to comment on the content issue. Rd232 ^talk 02:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Yes, other than personal attacks and rheotoric, I haven't seen any evidence that it's not a reliable site. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right, and all of the facts in Venezuelanalysis seem to be verifiable and accurate to me, so what's the problem? It seems to meet the criteria in both WP:V and WP:RS-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Reboot the reboot: Exhibit I

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

I went and checked the original article and copied two paragraphs not moved when Corruption in Venezuela was spun off. One mentions corruption in a general context of crime; the other based solely on ...er... Venezuelanalysis.[18] Well anyway there it is. I can still userfy if you want to check anything else. And do you not agree that it's more useful to the reader to have the content in Corruption in Venezuela than hidden away in a subsection of Criticism of Hugo Chavez? Rd232 ^talk 15:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

How typical of Sandy to insinuate instead of clearly stating the supposed problem. The only substantive difference I can see between the current version and the old version, in terms of the paragraph where Venezuelanalysis is used as a source is that Sandy has added "He is in prison, for an investigation ordered by Chavez, awaiting trial" sourced to a newspaper source which [19] relies heavily on opposition journalist Roberto Giusti's opinion (find-in-page here about his take on journalistic ethics). Despite that, the source doesn't obviously support the specific claim that "Chavez ordered the investigation", which is ironic in view of Sandy's crusade to strengthen policy requirements to provide foreign language quotes in articles to back up their use. Elsewhere Sandy for some reason is deleting content sourced to Venezuelanalysis with nothing more than a claim of "bias"[20]. Rd232 ^talk 08:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Just so one does not get to carried away one can say the exact same thing about Fox News / Rupert Murdock. His media empire is even a little bit larger :-) I remember seeing this clip [21] were Fox had on someone who called for Chavez to be murdered. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Exactly, for statements of fact there is absolutely no problem with using it. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Use as required reading in university courses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Gregory Wilpert is "a former US Fulbright scholar in Venezuela, and is currently [2002] doing independent research on the sociology of development". Books by Gregory Wilpert, google scholar. As "Greg Wilpert: [22], [23], [24].
• Eva Golinger is a widely published Venezuelan-American writer and attorney and the author of several books on Chavez: google news, google scholar, google books, books by her. --JN466 14:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• According to this book which he co-wrote, Michael Fox is not a scholar, but "a journalist, a reporter, and a documentary filmmaker based in South America." Here it says he is a "former staff-writer for Venezuelanalysis.com". --JN466 15:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• Federico Fuentes is described as an "author, journalist and political activist". The article also says he "is actively involved in the Australia-Venezuela Solidarity Network, of which he was a national co-convenor (2008-9), and has organized several solidarity delegations to Venezuela. He is also a member of the Socialist Alliance (Australia)." Elsewhere it is said he is "a frequent writer for the Australian socialist newspaper, Green Left Weekly, and maintains the blog Bolivia Rising". Google News: [25], Google Scholar: [26] --JN466 16:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• Jan Kühn appears to be a German student of history and sociology, studying in Berlin and Caracas, as well as working as a translator and in "independent media". Not anyone with any academic track record. --JN466 15:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• Same for Tamara Pearson: "Tamara Pearson is an Australian activist and writer as well as a member of the Australian-Venezuela Solidarity Network. She currently lives in Venezuela." --JN466 15:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• No evidence that James Suggett is significantly published outside VA.com: [27]. --JN466 15:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• Kiraz Janicke is described as "a member of the Green Left Weekly Caracas bureau", "a Resistance member who has been based in Venezuela for the last 12 months", "a participant in the first Australia-Venezuela Solidarity Brigade" etc. --JN466 15:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

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

• After all that research, you did not find that Eva Golinger just got $3.2 million from the Chavez regime to carry on with her propaganda activities in Correo del Orinoco? Neither did you find out that Gregory Wilpert is married to Chavez's Consul in NY? The foundation Wilpert registered in NY, using his home address, is just a silly attempt to make the site look more reputable. Listen folks, the issue of Venezuelanalysis.com is not about them being liberal or leaning to the left. Rather it is a semi-official propaganda rag, funded by the Venezuelan State, whose main voices are deeply involved with the Chavez regime, professionally, and personally. So stop this BS about Harvard reading list and start looking at thing from a more objective point of view, for none of the people that contribute to the site is an authoritative source on anything other than chavista propaganda.--Alekboyd (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I agree with you there, but it's not clear there are scholars involved. The volunteers who run the site are Federico Fuentes, Michael Fox, Eva Golinger, Kiraz Janicke, Jan Kühn, Tamara Pearson, James Suggett, Gregory Wilpert. [28] Are any of them academics? And can you give an example of the kind of edits it has been used to support? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 14:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Having researched the team's credentials, I was less impressed than I thought I was going to be. ;) The site is currently cited on 200+ WP pages: [29]. About 115 of those are articles in mainspace. --JN466 16:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Having expended more than enough energy on this issue, I'm staying out of it. However I will correct the error introduced above by relying on the Harvard reading list: the source given for the Mark Weisbrot contribution is "Black swans..." [30], which is a straight re-publication of the CEPR paper here: [31]. Weisbrot hasn't written for VA, as far as I know; but seemingly is quite liberal in allowing republication by anyone that wants. Rd232 ^talk 22:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

As I said, the impetus behind this section in WP:RS was the case of boxofficeindia.com. After a long debate at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_13#Boxofficeindia.com there was a consensus it was a reliable SPS. One redoubtable editor put it back then as "if it's being used as a source by the mainstream media, it should be okay for us" and felt that the meaning of WP:SPS "could be stretched in this case to include being used as a source for other publications, because the material isn't contentious."[32]John Z (talk) 23:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed -- SPS's can be considered reliable when they are written by experts and widely considered reliable by experts and mainstream sources. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

KavkazCenter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kavkaz Center

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

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

Well and an other article of this page

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

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

That's a quote from a different website quoted by Kavkaz Center. The site isn't used on wikipedia for links on Afghanistan anyway so that's not very relevant. It's used to post statements from rebels in the northern caucasus with which it has direct contact. Grey Fox (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

But anything reprinted by the BBC is good per our rules: [34]. Right? I am asking because many other mainstream media also make a reference to Kavkaz Center. Biophys (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to be personal. But you Biophys provide a lot of terroristic and extremism thinking in your wikipedia contributes. --Saiga 00:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No, not "anything reprinted by the BBC is good per our rules", which say nothing of the kind. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I only mean that BBC can be quoted with appropriate attribution. Same about 686 books that quote Kavkaz Center (see link by Greyfox below). Many of these books qualify as "academic sources". Seriously, I do not think that our WP:RS rules should be more strict than rules used in academic publications. If they quote KavkazCenter (on the North Caucasus topics and with appropriate attribution), we can do the same.Biophys (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Kavkazcenter has been posted more often on WP:RS (and always survived) by people who are bitter about conflict. The site is indeed an extremis propaganda website, but always had ties with caucasian forces during both chechen wars. It has released images, videos, interviews, attacks, burials and also figures of casualties on both sides. Of course their numbers should be taken with a grain of salt, but they aren't less accurate than casualty figures reported by the russian press (often known for being propaganda figures as well). Kavkazcenter has been quoted by thousands of news tabloids [35] many times over, including the major ones. The same goes for books [36]. As long as their statements are attributed as something like "according to the radical kavkazcenter website" it's fine to use it on subjects related to the conflict in the northern caucasus (not afghanistan or iraq). Just as news tabloids as well as wikipedia articles also quote statements by Taliban leaders or even Al-Qaeda leaders as well as statements by pkk leaders or other rebel formations. I also think that anyone who accuses someone of spreading "terrorist propaganda" or calling anyone a "terrorist lover" (such as here [37]) should be blocked or warned for personal attacks because those accusations are highly provocative and polarizing. Grey Fox (talk) 15:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Journal of Genetic Genealogy

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

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

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

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

The editorial board consists of

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

The associate editors are

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and then in Box 3:

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

Box 3 also has this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So much for consensus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In terms of Wikipedia policy please?

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

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

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

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

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

Someone here is reminding me of Zahi Hawass (the Magnificent One),[38] that great defender of Egypt against the evil forces of Set. DinDraithou (talk) 02:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Yes, obviously you were talking about me, but is this the right forum for talking about me? Should I respond to all your "asides"? I was told not to. But you keep posting this stuff, and indeed it is hard to see anything other than asides. I think it is important to see the context of the deletions you came here to try to get justified were recognized by people editing the article to be connected to a personal animus you have somehow developed about me without ever having tried to work with me or communicated with me at any length as far as I know.[39] Why am I being asked to pretend this is about Wikipedia policy while you show no shame at all in making it clear that for you it is not?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Re-factoring of responses to initial posting

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

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

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

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

• The accusation that the authors and editors of the journal aspire to be something other than what they are is not justified by anything cited and appears to be personal speculation by a Wikipedian.
• The accusation that the JOGG is a way to get published in a field where an author is not qualified also appears to be personal speculation by a Wikipedian. In order to make this accusation a passage was cited which simply stated that the JOGG aims to fill a gap not currently being filled, quite a normal aim for any journal. Any fair reading of the facts shows that the JOGG aims to have its own specializations and strengths.
• The knock-on implication that the authors are not knowledgeable or recognized in the subjects they write about, or more importantly for which they are being cited on Wikipedia, is also apparently personal speculation by a Wikipedian. Here is the google search I suggested for showing a JOGG article being widely cited, and not only by fellow JOGG authors: [40].
• (Note the central importance of the term "hobbyist" in all discussion here so far. The term is part of the first sentence and is then repeated by Jayjg as apparently the key part of his understanding of what is supposed to be relevant to the discussion (i.e. hobbyists contrasted to geneticists). The term is correct only if it means "not a tenured academic in genetics". But the key point for Wikipedia is concerning whether a person is verifiably a respected and knowledgeable source, and Jayjg clearly seems to think based on the wording of the opening that this is how the word can be understood in this case. It is unfortunate that this term is being used in such a central way instead of clear ones.)
• The journal's obvious association is with genetic genealogy and genetic genealogy really is distinct from genealogy. Nevertheless the word genealogy and genealogist have been used and dwelt upon as if it were an argument in itself in both this forum and in other places on Wikipedia, by the proposing party. In reality, one person can be expert in both, or only one of the two, and they can also be expert in other fields. Indeed, of course genealogists are rarely only genealogists. This raises a few issues for the claim being made:-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regarding the positive, directly verifiable evidence provided:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(And indeed in the adjunct debates you are having about India related genetics, you also want peer reviewed "bullshit" not mentioned in Wikipedia, on "common sense" i.e. WP:TRUTH based arguments. So your concern is certainly not peer review as such. Your real concern in this campaign is that your "common sense" tells you that genetics articles are trying to keep too much up-to-date for Wikipedia.[41])

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

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

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

Making things up? Here we go again :-( For quick reference, the text from King-Jobling, one more time (and full text search for "fact" and "cite" may, just may, help):

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

• Here we see the claim: "What King and Jobling explicitly did was say that it was a journal with a reputation for fact checking and having an editorial fact checking process." Explicitly?
• Here we see the claim: "The article specifically states that the JOGG and genetic hobbyists are now cite-able amongst academics and are knowledgeable and respected." Specifically?

There's a word for this phenomenon. It's what makes a "top geneticist" out of a Research Associate. It's what makes a "major journal" out of an impact factor ranking of 74th in 138. It's what makes JOGG a RS out of thin air. The characteristic feature is the casual yet total disregard of facts. It's a bit more than just making things up, and it explains the futility of "discussing" anything with certain types of people. rudra (talk) 08:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This and more context from the article is already quoted already above and can be read there. But you are confusing the issue, responding to a straw man. No one is claiming that JOGG is a "top" "genetics" journal, nor that it should trump any.

Just to remind you what you were making up, you were claiming that King and Jobling "discount" JOGG's "reputation for fact-checking or accuracy"? And yet previously you said "The article has good things to say about JOGG, but one swallow does not a summer make."

By the way, I kindly ask you to cease your constant "asides" which give wrong impressions about what you are responding to and what is being discussed - for example I mean "here we go again"; your various troll style edit summaries[42]; your knowing sounding "asides" about other articles[43] and my editing history[44], and the constant use of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT instead of answers to substantive and unanswered points (implying that the point has been responded to already). Please note that I have been asked not to respond to issues relating to particular articles or editing disagreements even though they form the core of what your write. This is having a pretty big impact on the usefulness of this discussion to say the very least.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

After I specifically requested you to stop linking to discussions about other edit disagreements, because I have been asked not to keep pointing to the links you keep mentioning in misleading "asides" between this case and others, you edited the post I had replied to already, to ADD a link to a discussion about another source. Are you trying to imply to others not reading carefully that the other discussion was about a JOGG article? Or are you tacitly agreeing with me that your whole discussion here is not just about JOGG for you? Or are you just not sure what your point is?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

As I've written before, had this been Usenet, I would have plonked you long ago. The limitations of the medium here prevent my arranging to make what you write disappear from my view, so occasions will arise where I'm more or less obliged to address you directly. This is one of those, hopefully rare, occurrences. It has become necessary to point something out.

You seem quite unaware that apparently persuasive phrasing on the order of "formatting error", "major journal", "two top geneticists", "specifically", "explicitly", etc. -- are all instances of bullshit. Not only do you seem oblivious of your propensity to bullshit, you also seem incapable of absorbing the incontrovertible evidence of your bullshit when presented to you. You also seem untroubled by the fact that bullshit is fundamentally abusive behavior, especially in Wikipedia's culture of WP:AGF. People are not fools or naifs to believe what you write simply because you wrote it; nor are they imbeciles incapable of reading and comprehending evidence for themselves, who need others to exercise judgment for them. Yet these are the expectations of others that you convey by your bullshit. Please examine your behavior and try to free yourself of what seems to be an unconscious habit. Thank you. rudra (talk) 13:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why you felt the need to broaden and intensify your personal attacks and go even further off-topic, but I do feel I must respond to these comments.

Concerning this topic here, I defer to my re-factored explanations as the clearest statement I made so far, even if imperfect. Your fuzzy complaints about particular words like what University position a "top geneticist" should hold (I'd say you should look at publications, there are not many teams in this field; Leicester is one of the top ones anywhere) and how to use google scholar, are just very watery and vague, and that is obvious. In effect, whatever criticisms you might be able to come up with (I am not perfect, sure) the re-factored posting has changed the nature of discussion so that only you are left holding an extreme position.

The practical role of this message board is being walked over by your arrogant insistence of treating a discussion about fine points of Wikipedia policy as if you are dealing with a black and white case, and the only problem is idiots who know nothing. Everyone agrees including you that JOGG can potentially be used in some cases. The problem is only coming from you specifically wanting to extend the need for caution in a case like JOGG, to a sort of blanket right for being able to delete any passage at all without discussion. This is apparently, why it is so important to you and I (who know the edits involved), but no one else, whether it is called an RS in no way at all, with possible exemptions sometimes, or a poor RS, requiring caution but useable sometimes. You would think there is no practical difference, but your edits (the ones you came here wanting to justify) show what you wanted to try to use this board to rubber stamp.

But your comment above reflects very clearly the underlying problem which is that you do not really WANT to reply to me ever, and when you do, it is because you feel forced to (thank goodness) by Wikipedia rules. This animus is apparently based on some sort of insights you had about me before ever having tried to make constructive contact with me, while you were busy flaming another editor, concerning an R1a related topic, on an India related article ([45], [46], [47]) which I was hardly aware of at the time.

Here is how you entered conversation with me: [48]. It was described by Marmaduke Percy, who posted a complaint there, as amounting to "personal insults at editor Lancaster" that "does nothing to further the aims of an encyclopedia". It contains such greatest hits as:

• "The notion that WP is obligated to faithfully reproduce howlers simply because they happen to appear in <reverential_hush>reliable sources</reverential_hush> does not strike me as a sound basis for policy."
• "So far, all you've managed is the POV-pusher's standard bleat "but but but it passed peer review!""
• "And now you dare to question me?? Where the f*ck do you get off, Andrew Lancaster?"

Your subsequent personal attack speeches about me to User:MarmadukePercy ([49]) and User:Dbachmann ([50]), which are the lead up to your postings here and your broadening of now increasingly vague complaints that all genetics related articles are somehow OR?? (I have asked you to explain)[51], are just pure poison, way out of line with regards to any number of Wikipedia policies, and frankly obsessive. You seem to be trying to blame me personally for anything that annoys you in the world. They show that you are someone who can not be treated seriously. In such conditions, difficult communication is just what you would expect I think?

You want me to think about this more? I think I should think about it less, and I think you should also. I feel confident that most people would agree with me.

You clearly do not like the WP:AGF rule, nor WP:TRUTH and WP:NEUTRAL, at least when they apply to your edits. You want Wikipedia to have bosses, and you want to be one of them. The examples of flame wars discussed above, which you seem to be regularly involved in, show that you feel outrage at people questioning you.

You mentioned now several times what you would like to do to me if we were on USENET. We are not on USENET.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Obfuscatory and diversionary "points" need no response. The issue was JOGG's credentials as a RS. The evidence presented was the King-Jobling article. The evidence was found inadequate, barefaced claims of "explicitly" this, "specifically" that and whatever notwithstanding. There is no evidence of JOGG having a reputation for fact-checking or accuracy beyond what would be normal for sincere amateurs. Which is simply not enough for the WP:RS guidelines. The conditions for exceptions by WP:SPS rules are similarly straightforward. There is nothing further to discuss. rudra (talk) 10:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Everything has been answered above. I expect any further attempt to explain anything will meet with more claims that I am the one talking in circles. That's a set piece game plan that is obvious now. Citing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT as a cover for not having an argument yourself (or not one you want to go through) appears to be the new cheap trick for wikilawyers on Wikipedia. I only ask that people read my postings in order to read what I wrote, and not Rudra's re-readings of them, which are confusing the issue over and over.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: I can't believe this discussion is still ongoing! Since the opinions of other uninvolved editors above is not being given much credence, I'd recommend getting the input of User:DGG, who has real world expertise in judging such sources, and then following what he says. Note that, simply disregarding independent input is not really an option, and editors who do are liable to be blocked for WP:TE. Abecedare (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I was asked for an opinion & at this point i haven't the least idea of what position anyone has been taking, & I'm not going to look immediately. Rather, I'm looking first at the publication itself, not the debate above. It's not an academic peer-review journal. It seems to be, however, an extremely good hobbyist magazine. Wikipedia RSs are not limited to academic peer reviewed publications. I can think of many fields in which the hobbyists have done very good work long before the professional academics get involved, & remain doing good work supplementary to them: computer history, asteroids, field botany, and so on in the sciences, and quite a lot in the humanities. In a era of "big science" and the great growth of the academic establishment, we tend to forget this. It is somewhat surprising to me that this has turned out to be the case in molecular genetics (since I was trained in an earlier period of molecular biology reliant on rare and expensive , often unique, instrumentation) ), but the development of commercially available dna mapping services has made it possible. I examined a number of the articles; none seem absolutely stupid.

I need to remind people that there is a wide divergence in quality in articles published in peer-reviewed journals--even between articles published in good peer-reviewed journals. there is no source that is absolutely reliable or absolutely unreliable--the way Wikipedia guidelines characterize them is, in my opinion, a little unrealistic. The material from this journal can be used, but used carefully. Looking now at the comments above, I think DinDraithou said this back at the beginning of the argument.

I see that the conflicts are primarily about the R1a haplotype, This is an interesting situation, where the state of the fundamental knowledge can best be described as unclear, and various people at Wikipedia are making strong assertions about it, and attempting to evaluate the intrinsic quality about public work, a task best left to experts writing in peer-reviewed sources, not in Wikipedia. Rather, they need to recognize the existing state of uncertainty, and do what scientists actually do, which is wait until further work is done before drawing conclusions. (personally, the part I find most interesting is the possible conflict between it and mitochondrial dna data, which, if true, has fascinating sociological implications.) DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

DGG, you are right that this discussion stems from discussion involving R1a, but the removal of JOGG material has not been connected to any disputes about what the current mainstream positions are. The R1a article as re-structured by me a few months back is dominated by one very recent peer reviewed source (Underhill et al 2009) and despite all the debates about other things, I believe I am right in saying that every editor who has looked at the article has accepted this, or even explicitly said that this is the way it should be. The only content dispute which involved a clearly defined claim that the R1a article was trying to keep too much up to date was concerning Sharma et al (2009), which was published in a peer reviewed journal. Rudra has compromised on that by allowing it to stay in the bibliography though I think I am correct in saying that there is no other editor of the article who agrees with this, and does not feel his position to be making the article deliberately not reflect mainstream understandings. (This is not to say that other editors simply ignore or can not understand his quite specific concerns with that particular source.) In any case, although Rudra himself keeps referring to that case here in this forum, it has nothing to do with the JOGG question. The 2 JOGG references in the article were deleted by Rudra with an edit summary which simply said the JOGG was not a reliable source, and then this discussion started and Rudra also posted a new thread on the article talkpage which made it clear that he linked the two cases as linked[52] making comments implying that he thinks the real problem is "original research" and saying he might start an NOR case. Concerning the JOGG, which is what this discussion is supposed to be about, please note that Rudra claims (above) that he does not even need to talk about whether they were being used to say anything controversial or outside the JOGG's competence, because his apparent understanding of RS rules is that the JOGG MAY NOT be used for ANYTHING? That's the only way I can read what he is saying. Does this make sense?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Other than (a) endorsing JOGG on the basis of WP:OTHERCRAP and WP:ILIKEIT; and (b) leaving the apparently portentous phrase "used carefully" conveniently (and carefully) undefined, I see nothing new here. rudra (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

More formal response to response to re-factored response

Personally, I believe it is unclear whether this case is still open at all. Since the re-factored response, the only responses have nearly all been effectively "can be used, with caution" unless I am reading it wrongly. However there is clearly some doubt remaining even if it is a one person minority. DGG suggests a more formalized approach to discussion, so once again, I am going to re-factor comments which have already been made. The responses which were made to my re-factored response did not cover all aspects of the re-factored response. They focused only on two things: the citation about the JOGG which was written by King and Jobling in a peer reviewed journal; and google searching.

1. Concerning the example of an academic review article which explicitly made positive remarks about JOGG...

• Claim. The article does not "article does not specifically state cite-ability" as I had read it to. My claim to this effect has been flamed extensively.

Response. I can accept that the word "cite-ability" is not used, and so with a lot of imagination, there might be argument about this. However:-

• It is actually not critical to Wikipedia rules. It is just lucky that there is an academic review to help this discussion, and Wikipedia would not be able to function if it needed a peer reviewed journal to explicitly call a source "citeable" for us. Wikipedia rules actually ask us to check the reputation for knowledge, and whether there is a fact checking process. If these rules are met then the rest is up to content discussion amongst editors in order to get due weighting.
• The same Wikipedian questioning how clearly the article says that the JOGG is cite-able does accept that the article is positive about the JOGG, and that it refers to the JOGG as a source showing knowledge, being read by academic authors, and contributed to by academic authors. This at least strongly implies cite-ability, if not conclusively, or else what makes something cite-able?
• If we must use exact words, then the article does explicitly call the JOGG a source for "articles on individual surname studies, new methods of analysis, insights into mutation rates, geographic patterns in genetic data and information that helps to characterize haplogroups". It names these types of articles as examples of subjects the JOGG is handling well, it seems to me.
• The article does explicitly call JOGG a "model for public involvement in scientific publication". It is hard to imagine that you can call a journal a model for any type of scientific publication and not be thinking it can be cite-able.
• The article does explicitly point out that it is not only the academics publishing in JOGG but also that the JOGG is showing that "amateurs can make useful discoveries".

• Claim. There is a secondary claim that concedes that the evidence presented would justify citing JOGG, but only in specific cases where the JOGG articles being cited have also been cited by peer reviewed journals.

• Response. This argument is illogical. It is being claimed by the same Wikipedian that it is "bullshit" to say that academics think the JOGG is cite-able, and at the same time it is being conceded that in reality it is actually already being cited. It can not be both.
• In another way the claim has a reasonable core in it. Pretty much everyone agrees I think that the JOGG should be used as a lesser journal in strictly genetics areas, i.e. with caution, in anything which is core technical "genetics". If that is however the main argument, then the case should be considered closed. No one ever argued otherwise. If we understand however that the proposal being made is that the JOGG is a "questionable source" with no reputation for fact checking etc then no evidence has been presented anywhere for such a case, and indeed the opposite has been conceded?

• Claim. Quote: "Wikipedia cannot be the one to identify the knowledgeable amateurs, and there is no implication, let alone guarantee, that amateurs publishing in JOGG are ipso facto knowledgeable."

• Response. It is absolutely correct that "Wikipedia cannot be the one to identify the knowledgeable amateurs". That is why Wikipedia policy tells us not to try to decide this for ourselves, but rather just to work out whether a source has a good reputation and fact checking process. It is also absolutely correct that this policy gives no guarantees that authors are ever right. This is indeed one of the most difficult things for many people to accept about Wikipedia. What Wikipedia policy tells us to do is to take every significant source with a reputation for facts and fact checking, and from there it is up to editors to discuss due weight and find a consensus. (And if there are other concerns behind this, for example that there are some genetics articles using too much primary material and trying to keep too up-to-date that is for another forum and can not be handled in this discussion.)

• Claim. It was claimed that the words (of King and Jobling "lacks the standard scientific peer-review system of traditional journals" are an "explicit" "discounting" of the JOGG's editorial checking process.

• Response. This is discussed above at length. There simply is no such "explicit" comment, and the context obviously makes the opposite clear, stating that the JOGG is a "model" for non traditional "scientific" publication. There is only a contrast being made to make it clear that JOGG is not a "traditional" academic journal. (The same Wikipedian who made this claim went on to flame me about the use of the word "explicit" in an over-blown manner not realizing where the word had come into the conversation. I mention this only to avoid further misunderstanding continuing to grow.)

• Claim. A large amount of comment has been given to the claim that my re-factored response was "over blown" "bullshit" and "puffery" for the specific reason that I said that both Mark Jobling AND Turi King are "top" geneticists. Specifically it was argued that Turi King can not be referred to as "top" because being "Research Assistant" is not good enough.

• Response. I think these replies are wrong and also tendentious.
• First, frankly, who cares if there are one or two "top" geneticists? This has no bearing at all on Wikipedia policy. Turi King is a reliable source, notable, significant, etc. The article being discussed is certainly one of the most significant review articles in recent times in the whole field and Turi King is first named author of it. How long is a piece of string?
• Second, you can not judge such things by University position. In this relatively small field of human population genetics the Leicester team are maybe the second most respected in the world, and Turi King has been first author on a number of very well known articles already[53], and yes, my knowledge of the field does help me understand this.

2. Google Scholar.

• Claim. It was claimed that google scholar needs to be understood correctly in order to give the right understanding.

• Response. The important thing is whether JOGG articles are ever cited by peer reviewed journals. That was the claim supposedly being addressed. The quick answer is that yes, it is sometimes cited.

Extra Comment. As mentioned above, the response to my "re-formatted response" only covered a few side issues, and this should not be forgotten. Most of my re-formatted response attempted to address the original wording of the proposal as it was made here, which does seem important if this discussion is to have any meaning:

• A major part of the original proposal was that JOGG appeared to be a journal written by hobbyists pretending to be something that they are not. As evidence for this, snippets about the qualifications and careers of the editorial board were mentioned. Nearly all initial discussion in favor of the proposal took this remarkable presentation at face value. The relevance of such a way of proposing a case has been questioned in my re-formatted response in more detail, but another way of looking at this can be drawn from an example later made by the same proposing party in his discussion of the King-Jobling article and Google Scholar...
• Observation 1. The same person, Whit Athey although he is not named, is described by the proposing Wikipedian as both an example of why the JOGG should be treated as a questionable source run by hobbyists pretending they are something they are not, and then later, as a "special exemption" who is a cite-able source that has published in JOGG. This is a good way to see the problem with dividing the world into "hobbyists" and "real geneticists". Which one is Whit Athey? According to the original proposer, he is both. We could extend the twisted logic to say that actually, the editorial board contains "real geneticists" meaning that at least in the way the case was originally posed, it was simply wrong, and known to be wrong? But I do not suggest using this style of logic.
• Observation 2. This proposal was opened in conjunction with a deletion which was made from the R1a article of reference to two sources. One of those sources, Gwozdz, was a basic extension of an observation that had been previously been cited in a peer reviewed journal, and reference to this was ALSO deleted. The other was by Klyosov, who is a person whose articles and correspondence have appeared in other journals. Both references seem to be in the categories conceded to be acceptable by the proposed of this original case. I think it is always very illuminating to look at the real examples when discussion gets bogged down!
• Summary. The JOGG is cited by peer reviewed experts, and respected for containing correct information including useful discoveries. It also has an editorial process for fact checking and does not meet the requirements of a self published source or any other type of questionable source. The concessions made to these points now effectively concede everything which is relevant to Wikipedia policy concerning questionable v. reliable, and leave the problems in the court of finding due weights in specific cases.
• Practical. The JOGG contains a wide range of article types. I would like to ask others if they there is really any practical disagreement with the following practical proposals, so we can close this case...

• Some might be considered primary material, and as the JOGG is not perhaps recognized as a top journal for all types of primary genetics research this needs to be handled carefully. No one claims otherwise.
• Particular areas of primary discussion where it might occasionally claim some specialization would of course be in areas like surname studies, and other basic summaries of volunteer project (where meeting any notability or significance requirements of course). Perhaps these are arguably "genetic genealogy" anyway.
• It also contains secondary material: review articles and articles which give multi-disciplinary perspectives. These are helpful in a small number of cases around Wikipedia.
• It also contains some of the best articles anywhere about genetic genealogy, which is the concern of User:DinDraithou who has an interest in Irish dynasties and history, which is a field currently very much affected by genetic genealogy. That R1a is a topic involving genetic genealogy is I think already conceded by everyone.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I would modify the above to " the JOGG is not recognized as a leading academic journal in human population genetics. Despite that, some areas of discussion where its research articles might be considered reasonable sources are... " (and then continue as written) DGG ( talk ) 08:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe this is a fair characterization and a good suggestion. MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

(Sigh. Yet another load. Just one example, to convey the nature of the rest, a mass of misrepresentation, fallacy and special pleading posturing as argument: The King-Jobling article did not call JOGG a "model for public involvement in scientific publication". They called JOGG an "interesting model for public involvement in scientific publication". And so it goes. on and on. WP:TLDR? Yes, the favored technique seems to have worked.) rudra (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

www.americanboardofsportpsychology.org

Hi, User:BruceGrubb is wanting to use Terry Sandbek, Ph.D. "Brain Typing: The Pseudoscience of Cold Reading" Journal of the American Board of Sport Psychology as a source on Multi-level Marketing. The site is ostensibly a peer-reviewed journal however the "journal" appears to consist of a sum total of 8 articles appearing only on the rather unprofessional looking website [54] and the document in question doesn't even appear to be one of those. The "journal" itself seems to have racked up a sum total of one citation, in an obscure Pakistani journal [55]. Given the article in question is (a) not by an expert in, or about, the topic in question (multilevel marketing) (b) probably not peer-reviewed and (c) not in a journal of any standing even if it was, it would appear to me to clearly fail WP:RS. Comments appreciated. --Insider201283 (talk) 23:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC) ETA: I found the article in question listed here on the website. It's a "position paper" and listed with other opinion-type pieces. As noted, it's not listed in the "journal" articles section [56] --Insider201283 (talk) 23:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RATINGS:

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

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

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

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

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

Bruce, I note again, even if one accepted it was a prestigious well known peer-reviewed journal, and clearly relevant to MLM (neither of which are true) the article in question is not even listed on the journal page. The front page of the site says "Journal of the American Board of Sport Psychology Inaugural Issue now Available", and following that link gives a page that does NOT include the Sandbek article [57]. The Sandbek article is instead listed at the bottom of the home page under "articles". Having an asterisk beside an article saying "peer-reviewed" on a clearly amateur website does not make something a reliable source. --Insider201283 (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

POSITION PAPER #1 on BRAIN TYPING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bruce, I provided a link to the discussion on RS/N where I posted fitzpatrick and taylor's websites. I can find no other discussions about pyramidschemealert.org[58] nor mlm-thetruth.com[59]. The only place I can find Vandruff references is your comments here [60]. If you have other RS/N discussion, please post a link to it. I'd note, again, that TheEditor22 was banned from WP for, if I recall correctly, a single purpose disruptive account, threats, and sockpuppetry (not to mention identity fraud) so I wound't exactly hang my coat on his opinion. The fact remins they are all self-published websites by non-experts on the topic of the article. --Insider201283 (talk) 13:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see there's a can of worms there. I didn't look at those references specifically, hence my word "try". This question is about whether an article by a sport psychologist in a sport psychology magazine focusing on criticizing a specific project by a specific person who happened to have participated in MLM in his past is a reliable source for a very strong criticism of all MLM, and my answer to that is "no". --GRuban (talk) 14:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

But Sandbek's foundation of argument against Niednagel is based on the premise that the two things (Multilevel Marketing and Positive Thinking) Niednagel has been involved with have no direct link to applied science or scientific research. If those premises don't work then his conclusion also doesn't work--so he argument agains MLMs has to work for his argument against Niednagel to work.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

if the quotation is as reported, then it's useless. It's not part of the scholarship in the article, but just a passing comment. DGG ( talk ) 22:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually the quotation is the conclusion of about two full pages of analysis so some degree of scholarship was involved.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Brief Chronicles

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

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

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

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

As I see from their editorial board [[61]] Brief Chronicles is obviously a peer reviewed journal with high standards. The editor in chief is Gary Goldstein, former editor and publisher of The Elizabethan Review, a semi-annual peer reviewed journal published from 1993 to 1999 on the English Renaissance. The rest of the editorial team has similar credentials. If that were not enough, the journal will be indexed by the Modern Language Association International Bibliography and the World Shakespeare Bibliography. Definitely RS. Smatprt (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Smatprt will recall a related discussion here [62] from last year. Dougweller (talk) 10:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think you are wrong to say that it is a "reliable source" for the Authorship article. To make an extreme analogy, that would be like saying that Mein Kampf is a reliable source for the Adolf Hitler article. Mein Kampf an be quoted and footnoted to explain Hitler's opinions, but it is not a reliable source which can be used for, say, factual statements. It can be used in certain conditions, but only reliable sources on Hitler can be used in others. I think that's the crucial point here - reliability determines how certain sources can be used. Paul B (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, rather than argue in the abstract, let's see what the specific statements it is being used to back are. --GRuban (talk) 23:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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

If a litmus test to decide whether a subject is "genuine" is the ability for researchers to "get their theories published within mainstream academic journals", then that threshold has been met. Not only have "The Review of English Studies"[[63]] and "Critical Survey" [[64]] both published articles by anti-Stratfordians, but the Shakespeare authorship studies is now being taught at at least one noted university [[65]]. Paul knows all this, so I wonder why he would post such erroneous information. Smatprt (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, the issue is quite simple. As stated at the top of this section "Is the Oxfordian journal Brief Chronicles considered to be a reliable source for the WikipediaShakespeare authorship question article?" That's the only question. "Academic Journal" or not, is actually off point due to the fact that, as Gruban notes above "A source can be both reliable and biased. The article Shakespeare authorship question is specifically about the controversy, so it is a perfectly appropriate place where a journal published and reviewed by highly titled Oxfordians should be cited to explain Oxfordian views; it seems a perfectly reliable source for that branch of scholarship." This, of course, is merely a paraphrase of the policy on Fringe articles where it notes that the theory itself can best be described by theory proponents and, the section on Parity that states: "Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia. For example, the lack of peer-reviewed criticism of creation science should not be used as a justification for marginalizing or removing scientific criticism of creation science, since creation science itself is almost never published in peer-reviewed journals. Likewise, the views of adherents should not be excluded from an article on creation science because their works lack peer review." Smatprt (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at the journal. It is not a high quality scholarly journal, and it seems to be edited from a considerable degree of bias. But it does not seem altogether worthless either, it's somewhat more than a blog. The material is reviewed, and nothing in there seems to be the sort of total uncritical garbage that blogs on the subject are likely to contain. It can be used with caution. In fact, using anything requires caution. The world is not divided into RS and nonRS, and the Wikipedia practice of saying that it is has a considerable lack of reality. Basically, the nature of scholarship, especially in the humanities, is no trust nobody else's interpretation. I've seen peer-reviewed journals, that meet the technical definition of such, much worse than this. there is no bright line, so I cannot say of which side this one falls. It certainly can not be used to say that the Oxfordian hypothesis has academic respectability;but then, no indirect evidence would show it: the facts that the journal exists, that PMLA does list it, and that very few academic libraries list it in their catalog must be interpreted by the readers. What it is a RS for, like everything, is for the opinion of its authors. That its editors or authors are the most respectable people who believe in the hypothesis remains to be proven, and would need proving from their individual writing, not from being editors or published in the journal. If RSs are ranked from 5% to 95% reliable (I deny the possibility of 0% or 100%), and if the journals in PMLA fall in the scale between 70% and 95%, I'd guess that this is 70%. My personal opinion for why PMLA includes it is that scholars want the information on their opponents so they can refute them. DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

FitzPatrick & Reynolds, False Profits

An editor is using the book False Profits as a source for several claims in the article on multi-level marketing. The book appears to be a "vanity publishing" book, with the publisher, "Herald Press" [66] having the same address (1235-E East Blvd. #101, Charlotte NC 28203) as the authors "consumer advocate" organisation and website www.pyramidschemealert.org [67] No other books appear to have been published by this publisher and the authors have no other RS publications in the field, his website has been previously rejected as an RS for the article[68]. Comments appreciated. --Insider201283 (talk) 11:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you outline what is being asserted using this book as a source? Skeptics dictionary did a review BTW [69] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Yes I agree that the source is poor. However we have better sources that also say that MLM is a pyramid scheme and that it exploits relationships for financial gain such as [70]. Thus we have an easy solution. Replace this poor reference with a good reference. I have the complete copy to this article if needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Doc James, governments around the world all state that "pyramid schemes are illegal", yet they also state that multilevel marketing is legal. Any source that says MLMs are pyramid schemes are either (a) saying they are illegal, which is not true, or (b) saying pyramid schemes can be legal, which is also not true. Clearly any such source is, virtually by definition, not reliable. With regards the metapress.com link, it unfortunately doesn't work without the login. Which article are you referring to? There's two I found through a search for "multilevel marketing", one on "internal consumption" [71] and one on "socialization" [72]. I have both papers and neither of them support the claims, indeed both explicitly note that MLMs are NOT pyramid schemes. --Insider201283 (talk) 23:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The problem with this line of reasoning is it is like the one MLM pyramid schemes use ie we're not a pyramid because a corporation is a "pyramid". I would like to point out your counterargument has two major flaws-- 1) in standard businesses all the "local competitors in an industry" usually buy their goods from their own wholesalers and in some cases have an option to return any unsold goods (though in a limited time) and 2) there may be limits on reselling things ie you can't sale your left over Saturns to the competing non-GM dealerships.

Also if you really look, the very concept of MLM encourages you (if you actually want to make money) to recruit downline no matter where in the structure you are. But the longer the downline the more people between the wholesaler and the ultimate customer there are; so how does each and every person in that chain make a profit? Simple basic Business 101 logic would suggest that given the same level of profit the good would become more expensive the more levels it went through ie if you have Wholesaler to A to B to C to D to E to ultimate consumer then the good would be far more expensive for E than for A. Financial & Tax Fraud Associates in its Multi-Level Marketing (MLM) article points out that with the rise of the internet you have the ability to access to wholesalers directly so why would any one really want to mass with a downline?--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, it frankly astounds me that, given the apparent passion you have for editing articles related to this topic, that you apparently haven't bothered to do even a modicum of research into how MLM works. You give 2 points with regards "standard business" and both of those points apply to MLM as well. You purchase products from a wholesaler and have the option to return unsold goods. Indeed, the latter isn't "in some cases", it's virtually a golden rule of MLM! Secondly you have the shockingly misguided belief it's some kind of "endless chain". More than 30 years ago the FTC investigated that aspect and discovered (surprise, surprise) that's not how the business works at all. The number of "links" profiting in MLM is very similar, or less, to in traditional distribution. In traditional compensation plans like Amway, it's limited by volume, the same way it is in traditional distribution. In other MLM setups the maximum number of levels is explicitly limited. In either case "where you are in the structure" is not really a valid question as in a growing organisation that's in a constant state of flux. Read FTC vs Amway for more details. ::Now, you also point out that "with the rise of the internet you have the ability to access to wholesalers directly" and that is indeed a reality for all retailers, not just those using MLM. Yet you're ignoring the dual roles of MLM reps. Indeed, perhaps not even a dual role - you're missing the role entirely. In the past they were a combination of distributor and marketer. Today, with the internet and direct fulfillment, they rarely play the role of distributor - they pay the role of marketing. Even websites need a way to drive traffic to them. The idea "if you build it they will come" was dismissed pretty quickly in the dot com crash. These days MLMers are paid primarily for the role in marketing, not distribution. --Insider201283 (talk) 12:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

FTC vs Amway was decades ago and only delt with one company. Also I am pointing out basic Business 101 logic that anyone with good old fashion common sense should be able to see. The door to door salesman is a rare thing these days for a reason--brick and mortar business with mail order catalogs, later malls, and then superstores were more efficient in delivering goods to people. Another part of basic Business 101 is that any business that has a high turn over rate has a serious problem and MLM has one of the highest turn over rates known.

The FTC's plan to require MLMs to abide by the Franchise and Business Opportunities Rule was a good one and yet the DSA fought the idea with a near Viking like fierceness. But why shouldn't people know what their odds of actually making it are?

"Many pyramid schemes will claim that their product is selling like hot cakes. However, on closer examination, the sales occur only between people inside the pyramid structure or to new recruits joining the structure, not to consumers out in the general public." -- Debra A. Valentine, General Counsel for the U.S. Federal Trade Commission regarding pyramid schemes at the International Monetary Fund’s Seminar on Current Legal Issues Affecting Central Banks. And yet despite this the FTC still counts distributors as consumers. Does the left hand know what the right is even doing over at the FTC?!?--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Also you say that MLM's limit the number of levels but how do they do that when in the other breath they talk about recruiting a downline making you more money? The basic logic presented doesn't wash and neither does the cop out that boils down to 'herding cats'. When the system itself encourages such behavior than the system itself is to blame.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Quoting an RS source citing non-RS sources

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

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

Now note that the citations given are not actually listed as citations in the WP article, it's merely a whole quote from (Carl, Walter J. (2004) "The Interactional Business of Doing Business: Managing Legitimacy and Co-constructing Entrepreneurial Identities in E-Commerce Multilevel Marketing Discourse" Western Journal of Communication, Vol. 68 a minor but otherwise acceptable journal.[73] Fitzpatrick & Reynolds, 1997 is clearly referring to the book False Profits, a vanity press book which I listed on RS/N and was rejected as a reliable source[74]. I asked Bruce if the Carter reference was another vanity press book "Behind the Smoke & Mirrors" and his reply was that it didn't matter what the reference was because the quote was from a peer-reviewed journal.[75] He did not reply when I asked what the Hopfl & Maddrell reference was, and the Butterfield reference almost certainly references a 25yr old book about Amway [76] from a collective, non-profit press that actively admits to being committed to "the politics of radical social change" [77] - not exactly NPOV when discussing a multinational business! So, the quote cites 4 sources, two of which are clearly non-RS, one of which is dubious but perhaps allowable, and one of which is of unknown origin. Is this acceptable editing practice?--Insider201283 (talk) 13:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry Insider201283, but you clearly stated "The books I've listed are only from recognized publishing companies and not self-published. As such they are considered good sources under Wikipedia guidelines WP:RS and WP:V." in the Talk:Multi-level_marketing/Archive_2#Sources_for_the_article and followed that up with a list of books by such people as Mark Yarnell (who is now selling IE crystals which Dave Touretzky showed have some serious scientific issues) and Kiyosaki (who admits to claiming that his cat is his business partner to get out of contracts). As the old adage goes with friends like those you don't need any enemies.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, Media Research Center, Media Matters for America, Newsbusters

See also discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#John_Gibson_.28political_commentator.29. THF (talk) 00:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

RFC on Media watchdog groups

I believe there needs to be a consistent Wikipedia decision on the use of partisan media-watchdog organizations. Newsbusters, a project of the Media Research Center, which is run by L. Brent Bozell III, is consistently deleted from articles on the fictional grounds that it is an "extremist" or "far right" organization (in fact, it, like Bozell, is mainstream conservative); it remains in only a handful of articles. However, the same editors that would delete newsbusters.org have little qualms about inserting fair.org into articles, though Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting is on the Naderist left. Media Matters for America, which is mainstream liberal, is frequently cited, as well. I can see rejecting all three as sources; I can see accepting MMA and Newsbusters as opinion sources and rejecting FAIR as UNDUE except when it is cited by tertiary sources; what I can't see is the current Wikipedia quasi-consensus of deleting Newsbusters and regularly citing to MMA and FAIR. The effect of the double-standard by the same editors, intentional or unintentional, is POV-pushing throughout the encyclopedia: Newsbusters' POV is considerably closer to the median American voter than MMA or FAIR is. (Disclosure: In reading these articles, I learned that a MRC affiliate asked me to write two op-eds for them a few years back. I didn't realize at the time that it was associated with MRC. Go know.) THF (talk) 00:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

NB there are two questions here; many comments answer one question but seem unaware of the other:

1. Should Wikipedia treat MRC/Newsbusters sourcing consistently with Media Matters for America sourcing?
2. Is it permissible to include links to partisan media watchdog groups in BLPs?

THF (talk) 03:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Consistency

RFC: Should Wikipedia treat MRC/Newsbusters sourcing consistently with Media Matters for America sourcing?

• Support consistency. The Media Research Center is the leading conservative media criticism organization. It's not a neutral source to be sure, but there is no difference between it and Media Matters for America: they both provide partisan takes on their perception of media bias. They have a notable point of view, and WP:NPOV explicitly states that notable points of view should be included in articles. I'd like to get consensus on treating the two identically, or a sound reason why it continues to be acceptable to include criticism from the MMA blog in articles, but MRC/Bozell/Newsbusters criticism gets scrubbed as a violation of one policy or another. COI disclosure: I'm going to pitch friends at MRC an article about bias in Wikipedia, so I'd make more money if Wikipedia continues to have a double-standard. THF (talk) 00:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support consistency. MMA and FAIR are routinely cited, often as providing criticism of conservatives. This is a problem, to me, when both identify themselves as "progressive" and MMA even goes so far as to claim that they "monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media" (by substituting their own. If you allow them, you have to allow Newsbusters. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. A classic example of false equivalence. Not all media criticism organizations are alike, just like all newspapers, journals, and books are all alike. Gamaliel (talk) 05:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• MMA doesn't even pretend to be impartial. That they term things that they disagree with as "misinformation", demonstrates their bias. At the same time, they'll ignore similar items if they are complimentary to liberals. They are no more neutral than Newsbusters. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying one is impartial and one isn't. Lots of sources are not impartial, lots of sources are biased. Not all non-impartial things are alike. Gamaliel (talk) 05:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Then on what basis should Newsbusters be rejected as a reliable source? Niteshift36 (talk) 05:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• For space considerations, I've answered your question at length in the section below. Gamaliel (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• I've responded to the answer. Nothing in Gamaliel's argument justifies treating MMFA better than MRC. They're both partisan watchdog organizations. THF (talk) 00:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• And the New York Times and the Springfield Shopper are both newspapers. Repeating an assertion of equivalence does not make your case. Gamaliel (talk) 02:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Note - Gamaliel has canvassed the RFC. I didn't think it was appropriate to notified those which are sympathetic to your cause. Arzel (talk) 03:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• An RFC is designed to elicit opinions. I asked for opinions from three users whose opinions I respect. They are free to agree or disagree. You are likewise welcome to ask from opinions of whomever you choose. Gamaliel (talk) 04:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Then you should read WP:CANVASS for future reference. Your scale was limited, your message was neutral, your approach was transparent. However, your audiance was partisan, and by definition is called votestacking. Arzel (talk) 11:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• One person's respected opinions are another person's partisan ideological ammo. I asked for opinions from users I respected. I'm not much for networking, so if I knew more users, I would have contacted more. I'm sure were the situation reversed you would have asked the same usual suspects. We can argue about ill intent or you can AGF, your choice. Gamaliel (talk) 14:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support They are clearly ideological mirror images of each other. Arzel (talk) 05:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support Parallels are sufficiently evident than using only one would violate one of the basic principles of WP - that of being able to balance positions. Were we to abrogate that principle, we would disserve the project. Collect (talk) 12:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support per all the above, provided there's consensus that they are indeed the leading examples of their kind on either side of the debate, accurately reflecting the views of many. Barnabypage (talk) 13:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support consistency in application - else this boat will lean too far one way and lose credibility. I prefer it when everybody hates us. Rklawton (talk) 14:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I would prefer to see all three disallowed as sources, because they all cherry-pick and omit facts which are pertinent but do not support their narrative. And it is not a false equivalence (as asserted by Gamaliel) because there is no difference between MMFA's flacking for the Democrats and MRC's POV-pushing from the right. Horologium (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support although I agree with Horologium above that none are demonstrated to be relable sources. Auntie E. (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support, with due consideration to WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV MutantPlatypus (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose since this needs to handled on a case-by-case basis. As Gamaliel notes, this is a false equivalence. This seems similar to saying that Fox News and CNN are the same when in fact Fox News is much more politically biased. I do think it is important to note both sides, but sometimes a side skews the facts too much for them to be used without introducing "original research" correcting the errors. For example, it is not appropriate to say that both the right-wing view that global warming is not happening should be given the same weight as the "left-wing" view that global warming is happening. Similar statements go for "intelligent design". These are obvious, but more subtle disregard of science are also present in debates on financial regulation and healthcare as well. II | (t - c) 23:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Or CNN is more biased. Certainly more Americans trust Fox News than CNN. Given that this New York Times story explains why CNN so frequently cites to MMFA, I fail to see why we should bootstrap a partisan's use of a partisan organization into a double-standard on Wikipedia. THF (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - this is clearly a false dichotomy; to quote myself from another discussion: there are always going to be issues and facts that are more relevant to some articles than to others, and it's disingenuous to try and shoehorn material into or out of one article because it doesn't fit a predetermined mold. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and we should do everything we can to discourage the dogmatic impulses of some to falsely equivocate very distinct articles. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose push-polls couched in the form of Requests For Comment. It's moot, anyway. The noticeboard doesn't make pronouncements, neither are the perceived consensus of particular RfCs useful as editing dictates. Questions of weight must be resolved on a case by case basis. Any of these organizations would in particular instances qualify as reliable sources and could be used with attribution. Dlabtot (talk) 02:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support consistency. We should support source consistently within reason. While a human interest or opinion piece should not have the same level of importance as a formal news piece unless it is clearly labeled as such we should not be able to exclude it. Conversely just because a reference come from a major publisher like Random House, Wiley or even the University of Chicago a source should not get a free ride. For example, The Gold Leaf Lady and Other Parapsychological Investigations may be by University of Chicago press but that alone should not make it reliable. Similarly Wiley has a Lifestyles division that includes ...For dummies, Betty Crocker, Weight Watchers, Howell Book House, and Pillsbury so saying that is up to the same standards as the more academic Wiley InterScience, Wiley Plus, Wiley-Blackwell, or Wiley higher education brands is total insanity.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support consistency. Both organizations are populated with ideological activists, regardless of their prior journalistic experience or degrees.--Drrll (talk) 07:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - I support the idea about consistency, but would prefer that no partisan(left or right) opinion/media watch groups or whatever the heck they are called are used as sources and definately not used in the external links section. Using them gives them our "endoresment" as it were. We could find 100's or links to use, how do we decide which ones go in? Anyways, --Tom (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I think the existing rules are sufficient to deal with various kind of sources, and in particular I don't feel it would be useful to create a new category of "leaning sources" which would be used to exclude sources. WP:RS says that questionable sources "expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature" are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties. Creating a "leaning sources" category could end up undermining Amnesty International in order to exclude CAMERA. --Dailycare (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support consistency. Looking at Media Matters' "About Us" page, I see that it says they are "dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. ... Media Matters for America put in place ... the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda .... Media Matters posts rapid-response items as well as longer research and analytic reports documenting conservative misinformation throughout the media." In other words, their purpose is focused only on noting what they describe as conservative misinformation. When they criticize mainstream media, they normally do so on the basis that the subject presented the conservative point of view too positively or the liberal point of view too negatively. This is just the opposite side of the coin from Media Research Center's goal of documenting "liberal bias in the media". Wikipedia needs to treat sources such as Media Matters and MRC consistently with each other. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support consistency. There are many sources on opposite sides of the left/right ideological divide such as these that, even if not point-for-point identical, are fairly equivalent. Wikipedia should treat them consistently. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support consistency. Both sources are equally biased in that they control the subjects they choose to cover. Sometimes an issue is only covered by one or the other. In cases where they both cover the same subject, the editors can duke it out as usual. --Jarhed (talk) 08:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. We should treat them consistently to the extent they behave the same as each other. We should simply accept a declaration that two sources are "just as bad" (or just as good) and declare that both are totally banned or totally acceptable. The supposed consistency approach can actually damage article content if one declares a solid source on one side of an ideological divide the equivalent of an unreliable source on the other side. It's like a basketball coach sending the last guy off the bench to commit dirty fouls on the best player of the other team. If both players get thrown out of the game on technical fouls, then the decision has strongly benefitted the team that only lost a benchwarmer. I have a big problem with a blanket declaration that Media Matters is unreliable. MMA's modus operandi is generally to mention a person's remarks along with a video clip (for TV programs) or audio clip (for radio programs) of the remarks along with a long section of transcript. And rather than taking remarks out of context, MMA places the pertinent remarks in a large amount of context. In fact, it oftens seems that MMA bends over backward to show the context of a remark. They often excerpt such a large portion of video and written transcript that it gets tedious. As far as I know, MMA hasn't been reliably shown (or even merely accused) of doctoring its video/audio clips or transcript excerpts, so it seems frequently to be a good source for the fact of what was said. In contrast, the second most recent article currently at Newsbusters (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/03/06/bill-oreilly-rips-tom-hanks-mocking-fox-news) ends with the Newsbusters writer declaring, "Yeah, Tom - don't be a pinhead!" I don't think we should make blanket declarations of equivalency. There should be a case by case assessments (unless a source has been shown to have a track record for factual inaccuracy). If a source provides a video or audio clip to verify a quote, they provide a sufficient portion of the text so that the remark isn't being taken out of context, and the source doesn't have a track record of fabricating clips, then I think it's permissible to cite to a group even though it has an ideological bent. On the other hand, we should be much less willing to use a synthesis or commentary from such sources. Those could be used to illustrate criticisms from a given political faction when clearly portrayed as such and to the extent consistent with policies on NPOV, undue weight, etc. For example, in this column (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-bozell/2010/03/06/bozell-column-year-anti-religious-bigotry), Bozell of Newsbusters attacks "Hollywood and New York" for "clearly anti-Islamic religious bigotry." Bozell's examples include an episode of 30 Rock in which Alec Baldwin's character feign's interest in a girlfriend's Islamic faith. Bozell alleges that the point of the episode is to ridicule Islam. I haven't seen the episode, but given what I've seen of 30 Rock, Bozell's accusation seems off-base. Baldwin's character is supposed to a selfish, arrogant buffoon. It seems much more likely that the episode was intended to satirize Baldwin's character. So we should judge on a case-by-case basis. If a source includes a clip and sufficient context, those would be factor's in favor of the reliability of quotes it presents. We should have greater skepticism towards including synthesis from such websites, except in the proper context as one POV. And request for comments should definitely not be couched in push-poll terms (i.e. it is "consistent" to view Media Matters and Newbusters as equal, which presumes a right answer). --JamesAM (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support...and it's high time this 800# gorilla in the middle of the Wikipedia room was quietly euthanized. Judging by the response thus far, perhaps there's some hope for this medium after all. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 06:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Rebuttal

This seemingly simple RFC isn’t so simple when you really look at what’s being asked here. We’re being asked to make a declaration that two items in a category are equivalent. Is there really any precedent here under WP practice for this sort of declaration? Do we usually do this? Should we declare Science and The Lancet equivalent in the journal category? Le Monde and the Washington Times? Fox and Al Jazeera? What is the point and usefulness of such a declaration? It should be incumbent upon those who support this atypical declaration to prove both how they are equivalent, beyond merely asserting it, and why there is any point to this. It has been asserted by many that these two organizations are equivalent, but these assertions are not backed up by facts and are based on assumptions. In reality MRC is more akin to FAIR, and this comparison was often made in the years before MMFA existed. MMFA slipped easily into a preexisting analogy, but the facts do not bear this comparison out. This is just a preliminary look, I’m going to post this now before my entire day gets consumed .

• Composition: MMFA staffers include a number of professional authors and journalists such as Eric Alterman, Eric Boehlert , and Will Bunch, all of whose professional work has no doubt been cited in many WP articles. Their numbers also include a PhD in economics and a doctorate in communications and numerous members with long years of political experience. MRC staffers seem to have little in the way of experience outside the realm of professional conservative activism. Tim Graham was White House Correspondent for a Christian publication for a year, but I could find no others with professional journalism experience. The bio of founder, Brent Bozell, indicates no professional journalism or academic background. He is a syndicated columnist, but I wouldn’t make too much of that, since the same syndicate brings you Al Capp.

• Media citations: A sample of the citations of both organizations by the media, taken from Lexis/Nexis searches for (“Media Matters for America”) and (“Media Research Center” OR “Newsbusters”)

MRC:

	 The Washington Times (169)
	 The New York Times (14)
	 The Washington Post (14)
	 St. Petersburg Times (13)
	 The Sydney Morning Herald (Australia) (13)
	 USA Today (11)  

	 Fox News Network (112)
	 CNN Transcripts (36)
	 Global Broadcast Database - English (Full Text) (30)
	 Federal News Service (16)
	 CNBC News (14)
	 National Public Radio (NPR) (10)
	 MSNBC (9)
	 CQ Congressional Testimony (4)  

MMFA:

	 The New York Times (27)
	 The Washington Times (27)
	 The Washington Post (24)
	 USA Today (11)
	 The Hollywood Reporter (8)
	 The Philadelphia Inquirer (7)
	 The Toronto Star (5) 

	 CNN Transcripts (33)
	 Global Broadcast Database - English (Full Text) (27)
	 MSNBC (20)
	 CNBC News (11)
	 Fox News Network (5)
	 National Public Radio (NPR) (3)
	 NBC News (3) 

When you look at these numbers, remember that MRC has been around 22 years while MMFA has been around for only five. That makes the disparity all the noticeable. MRC leads only in citations by ideological fellow travelers Fox News and Washington Times, and the numbers for the latter are skewed by the fact that the WT runs Bozell’s column, which ends with the words “L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center”.

• Reception and perception: Columbia Journalism Review, the most prominent and respected publication about the news media, has little respect for the MRC. A sample: CJR denounces them as “Propaganda Clothed as Critique”, while citing Media Matters as “a consistently useful resource”.

More to come, probably, but I think this more than makes my point. Gamaliel (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

That probably speaks more to the bias of CJR than anything. I am not sure how anyone can claim that either has a moral highground over the other. Arzel (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The moral highground isn't a policy matter, unfortunately. Gamaliel (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Then the view of CJR really adds nothing to the discussion. Arzel (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, it illustrates that the the most prominent and respected publication about the news media treats these organizations differently, so we should follow their lead as we follow the lead of secondary sources generally. Gamaliel (talk) 23:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Liberal leaning outlets quote liberal leaning sources more often. Who is surprised by that? Not me. 98.208.212.240 (talk) 02:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

An opinion piece by Brian Montori who praises NPR for being fair while noting that it's audience is almost exclusively liberal, rails on MRC for being funded by the right, and ignores that MMFA is funded by the left? Yeah, sounds like a pretty balanced piece ;) Arzel (talk) 02:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Anyone seriously doubt that The New York Times, The Washington Post, NBC News, and MSNBC are not "ideological fellow travelers" with MMfA?--Drrll (talk) 08:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much everyone. No observer of the media or media professional would take that notion seriously. Gamaliel (talk) 14:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Then I'd submit to you that you haven't looked at the issue enough. One very good example would be Bernard Goldberg. With 28 years as a CBS reporter and anchor, 38 years total in the media and numerous awards (at least 10 emmys), I'd say he qualifies as a "media professional". His book NYT best-seller Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News details (with names and incidents, not anonymous sources and vague references) the bias he saw exhibited at CBS. It's worth noting that Goldberg was a life-long liberal that had never voted for a Republican in his life. So you can't call him a partisan hack. We won't even go into his follow up book "Arrogance".Niteshift36 (talk) 16:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how this is on topic at all. The issue is whether or not MRC and MMFA are mirror opposites. MRC and Fox regularly give each other mutual tongue baths, while MMFA regularly criticisms the mainstream media as well as the conservative media. So I'm sure they'd agree with Goldberg about bias, but they would differ in their examples. That hardly makes them fellow travelers and is another example of many of why we shouldn't treat these apples and oranges the same. Gamaliel (talk) 16:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• I hope you didn't hurt yourself when you just ducked that point and did your bob and weave. Drrll asked if anyone doubted that some of these outlets were ideologic fellow travelers. You made the statement "No observer of the media or media professional would take that notion seriously." Then I showed you that statement is false by showing you an award winning career journalist from a major network that says there IS media bias. MM doesn't "regularly" criticize the MSM. The MSM parrots their left leaning POV's. So if my remark is "off-topic", it's no moreso than yours was. Glass house anyone? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• If Goldberg has demonstrated that MMFA and those news outlets Drrll specified are skipping merrily hand in hand when the former constantly criticizes the latter, then I'm sure you'll be ready to provide a page number from one of his books. Or perhaps instead you'll resort to sarcasm and incivility again. Gamaliel (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• So now a little humor about bobbing and weaving is incivility? You know you weren't referring solely to a partnership between the two and, if you actually were, you did a poor job of defining your incredibly narrow statement. I think it's more a case of you not planning to have someone so specifically demonstrate that true media professionals have identified and exposed bias in the media. But you can spin it however you want, just like MM does routinely. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'm glad you've treated us to some more of that humor of yours. Gamaliel (talk) 05:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Rebuttal to the Rebuttal

• First, your study is flawed. MMFA's citation count is artificially inflated because it was founded recently, and there was a rash of news stories about its creation by Soros, and then about its head, David Brock, who released a biography. That MMFA was in the news does not mean that its reporting, as opposed to its existence, has made news.

• Second, Columbia Journalism Review is happily and proudly biased left of center, going so far as to say that conservatives make bad journalists. It's hardly surprising that they like their ideologically sympathetic watchdog group and dislike the conservative media watchdog group that has criticized CJR for its bias.

• Third, you've cherry-picked quotes. The New York Times calls Media Matters for America "a highly partisan organization". That same story explains why they are cited so frequently on CNN: "James Carville, the Democratic strategist and CNN commentator, has read from its items on the air, not least, he says, because they just irritate the right to no end."

Your information provides no reason to treat MMFA differently than MRC. THF (talk) 00:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Lexis/Nexis came up with hits dating back to the years of MRC's founding as well. Should there not also be a rash of similar stores about MRC's founding? And whatever rash of stories there were, if MRC was truly viewed as important and significant, 22 years of reports and citations would far a one year statistical blip.

• Yes, I have, because I went to the top and picked the most significant source of media commentary. A case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't eliminate CJR's respect and prominence. You've just cherry picked yourself. I could cherry pick through years of the NYT or Washington Post or CNN or The Atlantic or whatever and find many more unflattering things to say about the MRC. Gamaliel (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• There's plenty of reason here to dispute the false equivalence postulated here. It should be incumbent upon you to back up your assertion if you want it to become WP policy. Gamaliel (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• NOTE: the user Gamaliel is canvassing.[78][79][80] 172.129.113.34 (talk) 07:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• That's already been discussed above. Need we bring up this in every section? Gamaliel (talk) 14:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• The consensus was clearly against your personal view Gamaliel, so you then informed three users that you know would take your side. That is trying to influence the outcome of the discussion. 199.8.158.103 (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• RFCs are open to everyone, just as editing on Wikipedia is open to everyone. Gamaliel (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Consistently include or consistently exclude?

RFC: Is it permissible to include links to partisan media watchdog groups in BLPs?

• Include. WP:NPOV requires the inclusion of notable points of view about a subject. So long as these opinion pieces are recognized as opinion pieces, it is appropriate to have a sentence that links to notable criticism by these notable media watchdog groups, even though they are partisan. (It would be inappropriate to have an entire article taken up with such criticism, however, per WEIGHT. See, e.g., John Stossel.) WP:BLP is meant to exclude the bogus "Hillary Clinton murdered Vince Foster" conspiracy theorists, and to ensure adherence to NPOV, not to whitewash articles of reputable mainstream partisan criticism. Perceived media bias is a real issue, and excluding the only sources that specialize in commenting upon it would give readers the false impression that media bias is not an issue. THF (talk) 00:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Mixed include We have "conspiracy theorist" supporters in some articles (including BLP and BDPs) who say the allegation of a conspiracy or criminal act, no matter how far-fetched, must be presented at all times, even where the source is a clearly partisan source. I would therefore draw the line at such material implying a specific criminal act where no subsequent acts of any kind ensued and no prosecutions ensued of any kind. Collect (talk) 12:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Media bias real or perceived is certainly an issue which can't be ignored in BLPs. But if a partisan watchdog (anywhere on the political spectrum) is frequently putting forward fringe theories, doesn't that tend to imply that it is itself a fringe source, and not a good reflection of mainstream media criticism? Barnabypage (talk) 13:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Include - but limited to political views. It's useful to know how the left/right views a matter. However, I do not extend this "include" to fringe science theories or conspiracy theories. I have no use for wackos - except in articles about the wackos themselves. Rklawton (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Exclude It is easier to enforce a blanket policy of excluding opinion from media-watchdog sites than it is to deal with tendentious wiki-lawyers who will push the limits on what is and is not allowable criticism. If something is notable enough to garner mention in the article, it will be covered somewhere other than these sources, which exist solely to create spin for opposing ideologies. Horologium (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Include - but pay attention to the cautions and restrictions laid out at WP:NPOV (especially WP:UNDUE). Blueboar (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Exclude: These sources are involved in whatever controversy they are supporting or refuting, therefore they are WP:PRIMARY primary sources. They should only be included in content about the controversies, not content about the facts. MutantPlatypus (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• I don't understand the WP:PRIMARY argument. If Source X writes an analysis Y of Jane Doe, that's surely a secondary source, right? Yes, it should be phrased in the text as "Media Matters said Y about Jane Doe" rather than stated as a plain fact, since Media Matters is not neutral, but that doesn't transform it into a primary source. I don't think anyone is proposing to use these sources as neutral arbiters of the facts, merely as exemplars of notable points of view about particular subjects. THF (talk) 19:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Exclude, or include with balance. I've seen articles where people try to insert faux "awards" that MM makes up to promote their own POV (like "misinformer of the year"). There really isn't much balance to that. It's a made up award that is the opinion of some writer. If it is a legitimate criticism on an issue, that is a different matter. But both sides spin things their way. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Neither. Issues should be decided on a case by case basis. Citations of fact? Probably not. Citations of opinion? Maybe, depending on if this opinion is an outlier or representative. Gamaliel (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

  Presentation of a POV in favor of one under some situation is a main reason this is being discussed. It is far better to have a policy that is clear rather than some arbitary measure which only results in edit wars. Arzel (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

  A broad policy is what would be arbitrary. We handle things like I described all the time, no reason it can't be done for these sources. Gamaliel (talk) 23:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Exclude. Let the tabloids deal with the mud. Arzel (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Include where appropriate. Lumping together all citations to Media Matters is as bad as insinuating that Media Matters and Newsbusters are identical. There are two major contexts in which quotations from such sources actually appear.

• (1) Expression of notable opinions. Per WP:NPOV, we report facts, including facts about opinions -- but we can't include every opinion on every subject. This is inevitably a judgment call. In general, however, as Gamaliel's work illustrates, I think that Media Matters and FAIR will generally be more notable than Newsbusters. I think I'm among those who've removed at least one Newsbusters reference but I don't think I've ever removed an opinion, properly attributed and cited, from more significant right-wing sources like National Review Online or The Wall Street Journal. You can say something like "Conservatives, however, criticized Obama's proposal, arguing that it would cost too much," and cite to NRO or whatever. Contrary to Arzel's view, this isn't "mud" -- a fair summary of the major differing opinions can help the reader understand a subject.
• (2) Statements of fact, especially about media. This aspect was discussed at length in several threads on Talk:Chris Wallace (journalist), especially this one. Media Matters had reviewed several dozen publicly available transcripts of a particular Fox News show and made a factual assertion about what was (and, more importantly, what was not) in the transcripts. It was open to anyone to oppose use of the Media Matters report by finding an error. No one did that, however (not surprising, because, as usual, Media Matters was completely accurate). Instead we had paragraph upon paragraph of attacks on Media Matters. In the case of a factual report of that sort, the source's ideology is less important (as opposed to, say, "According to this organization, an anonymous informant said that he saw the bio subject doing cocaine," which generally wouldn't be worth inclusion if the only source were an advocacy group).

Thus, our use of these groups should be, as Gamaliel said, a case-by-case decision. Consistency doesn't mean "always include" or "always prohibit". Instead, we should consistently exercise sound judgment. JamesMLane t c 08:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Exclude (sort of)- unless dam good reason to include :) Seriously, these "media watch dogs" are barley a step above blogs, imho, and I would treat them the same. I understand that if we exclude "partisan" material, we aren't left with much, but so be it. --Tom (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Usually exclude unless the organization has carried out proper investigative journalism and has a good reputation for accuracy in investigations. Or unless the commentator is a notable and serious one in their own right. It seems to me that these "watchdogs" usually pick up information published elsewhere and that we can find better sources. But we may need to discuss on a case-by-case basis. I do not think the "if we include liberal then we must include conservative" is consistent with policy. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Neither. Obviously no blanket policy is possible. Note that a watchdog website may be the only source of relevant audio and video material. Xanthoxyl ^< 23:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Strong exclude. The mission-driven agenda of these watchdog organizations sometimes means that they cover (or uncover) controversy where there was none previously. A perfect example is here: Gretchen Carlson. This is a Fox News anchor who is completely uncontroversial except for mentions of her by a watchdog site (and by Jon Stewart, another example of a mission-driven watchdog). Inclusion of this data in a BLP can be harmful for no good reason.--Jarhed (talk) 08:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
• False choice - Although one should cast a wary eye on material sourced to advocacy journalists, and question even whether they are suitable (as a weight, relevancy, and NPOV matter - note the point above regarding making controversy where none exists) as sources to justify stating what their own opinions are, blanket exclusionary rules are dangerous. Reliability of sourcing depends not only on the publication but the author, the subject matter, the statement in question, and what it is being used to verify in which Wikipedia article. Further, one does not generate NPOV or BLP compliance by balancing a source deemed liberal (by contemporary American political standards) against one deemed conservatives. They are not true opposites of each other, they are merely two political factions in opposition, and it is not Wikipedia's place to try to ensure an even fight between national political factions.
• Strong Exclude - Either preclude extremist bias under BLP or surrender any pretense to composing an encyclopedic treatment. They are mutually exclusive. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 06:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

What about Fox News and MSNBC

Wouldn't this just lead to removals of extreme far right companies like Fox News as partisan advocacy? Jon Osterman (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Times identified as "unreliable"

This discussion is taking place over at the CRU hacking incident article. The editors are quibbling over the reliability of the Times of London. As usual, an uninvolved administrator would go a long way towards toning down the rhetoric.

Just read this discussion and the one below and it was interesting as I just recently had another editor lambast me for rejecting a particular Times article as a source. The reason for my rejection of it was that it was reporting on a court case, and the actual public court documents showed the Times article to be inaccurate. A generally reliable source was clearly not reliable. In another case an editor wanted to use a peer-reviewed article as a source for information outside of the expertise of the author (and the main topic of the article). The article had a number of clear errors that one might expect peer-review to pick up on, but since they were a minor part of the introductory section and outside the area of expertise of the journal it's not surprising they weren't. I come across this type of thing again and again, where ostensibly reliable sources can, using (more) reliable and verifiable sources, be shown to be unreliable on certain facts. I suspect it's ridiculously common with news media these days. While mechanisms are in place to deal with this kind of situation (primarily consensus) it's a cumbersome process and I feel it would be beneficial if wikipedia policies and guidelines more explicitly dealt with this kind of situation - even if just to give guidelines on how to deal with it. --Insider201283 (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Please note that Insider201283 is also challenging a direct quote out of the Western Journal of Communication because it cites a paper he doesn't like and saying anti-MLM comments out of Wiley books are not reliable while pro-ones are. He also tried to claim the paper in question was not scholarly and then tried to back track and then tried to again claim it was not scholarly.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, your constant inappropriate and usually misleading harassment is really starting to cross the line.--Insider201283 (talk) 08:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Insider201283, it is not harassment to point out based on your own talk page this seems to be latest in a long history of COI issues regarding either specific MLMs or MLMs in general.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

By "American standards, all British newspapers are tabloids because they don’t distinguish between what is true and what they make up."[81][82] These sources meet WP:SPS requirements. They relate specifically to The Sunday Times, also a News International publication, with separate editorial policy, but rather confusingly sharing the TimesOnline website with the daily. Just because something is in a formerly respectable British newspaper, that doesn't mean it meets verifiability standards. We also have to consider the writer, and some of them have a very questionable track record. As always, research and cross checking with other reliable sources is needed to assess individual statements. . dave souza, talk 10:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

When the now Conservative party education spokesman, Michael Gove, was asked to defend a complete hatchet job he wrote about a prominent Conservative figure in 2000, he said, "I wrote those words when I was a columnist for the Times and I was paid to entertain… I was paid to entertain and the column was designed to amuse and to provoke."[83] (I heard the interview on the BBC myself, that blog is just the first transcript I found) --Nigelj (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

And your point about an editorial columnist being what? This was not from the "news": “Move over Jim Davidson, there’s an even more high-profile comedian backing the Tories. Let’s give a big welcome to the king of the one-liners, self-made millionaire, self-style [inaudible] Lord, I was just taking the Michael Ashcroft”. This is no more relevant than would be removing a RS based on the the content of it's funny pages or classified ads.99.144.192.23 (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

"The British Newspapers Make Things Up" quote is from a the 'blog' section of psychology today so that makes it a little on the iffy side and letter the Center for Evolutionary Psychology via University of California Santa Barbara printed is aimed just at the Sunday Times of London article not at British news papers in general. I should mention key point missed here is the Times and Sunday Times are two different papers beginning life as The Daily Universal Register (1785) and The New Observer (1821) respectively. Other then now having similar names and being owned by the same company there is nothing that connects the two. Using the Sunday Times to challenge the quality of the Times is on par with saying because Wiley puts out a Living Division (Betty Crocker, Pillsbury, among others) we can't take the InterScience, Plus, Blackwell and Higher Education divisions seriously. They are both non sequiturs.

Also Kanazawa in "The British Newspapers Make Things Up" article states "Most British people consider the Times of London to be the most respectable “broadsheet” newspaper (as opposed to “tabloid” newspapers) in the UK, despite the fact that the Times, along with most British “broadsheet” newspapers, is now published in the tabloid size to make it easier for people to read it in crowded London subways." The problem is Wall Street Journal had plans to go tabloid size overseas in 2005 and this was reported by no less than the New York Times in an article ironically titled "Abroad, The Wall Street Journal Will Be a Tabloid". By this loopy logic we can't trust the oversees version of the Wall Street Journal because it is in the tabloid format. Again this is non sequitur.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact remains, as in the opening of this thread, that any source, The Times included, may be shown to be wrong or unreliable on some point at any time, using more specialist sources, or those closer to the original events or facts. If what is found in The Times can be shown to be incorrect or incomplete by other means, then it is not WP:VERIFIABLE and so may be quoted and then discounted, or omitted totally, depending on due WP:WEIGHT in the context of the rest of the article. The problem is people cherry-picking such a choice quote and insisting it is given heavy prominence, regardless of the fact that it is easily shown to be wrong or irrelevant in a wider context. --Nigelj (talk) 14:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. The same kind of stupid blunder that Kanazawa did here which caused him to claim the Times wrote about an interview with him that never happened, when it was actually the Sunday Times that wrote about an interview that never happened, the same blunder can happen in a reliable source. And when we find out about this, or have good reason to suspect it because nobody else reported about the little green men who were seen killing Jacques Chirac on Tienanmen Square, then we simply discard the information. Reliability is not really a property of a newspaper or book or other source. It depends on the actual claim that is being made and on several other, external factors that can usually but not always be ignored. Hans Adler 14:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Any claim that can be found in a reliable publication is verifiable, even if it can be shown to be wrong. Reliability is a property of certain books, newspapers, etc. It means they are usually right, and have a process to control the content of the publication and minimize errors. "Verifiable" does not mean true or correct. "Reliable" does not mean infallible. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

But that means that if a diligent editor were to cast their nets far and wide enough, and pick only the errors from a dozen otherwise-reliable news sources, they could construct whole WP articles that are total tosh, but which have to stand as written because the sources are 'reliable' and all we want here is (simplistic) verifiability not truth? This is not as far-fetched as it sounds as, in the field of climate change, many scientifically-challenged journalists and sub-eds have rushed some absolute howlers into newsprint in recent years, and we have an active crop of anti-science denialists who are desperate to cloud the actual scientific facts in the articles here. --Nigelj (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, although this particular Sunday Times article seems to be accurate, I have to side with Nigelj on the general issue. We must make decisions on whether a particular reference to a generally-reliable source can be used, based on how they agree with other sources, reliable or not. We cannot reject a source if we know from personal experience that it is inaccurate (much as I'd like to edit my own Wikipedia article), but only if other sources disagree. And we are allowed to use unreliable sources to determine the weight of that disagreement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)There is no requirement that material appearing in a reliable source must be included in an article, only that it is not eligible for inclusion unless it appears in a reliable source. Sort of like a job application; a teacher applying for a job must have a teaching license, but that does not mean the school board has to hire every applicant who has a license. Likewise, we can exclude material that appears in a reliable source if many other sources of equal quality, or one other source of clearly better quality, shows the source in question is wrong. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Nicely put. Thanks. So, where in the policy docs does it actually say that? Where can we point people who revert the tosh back in, saying "Undo deletion of reliably-sourced statement"? Clearly we need a well-sourced Talk page discussion that points out the error and the sources used to determine the error first, but we still get, "You can't tell me that my quote from The Times (or X or Y) isn't good enough, they're a reliable source." Where's the pithy policy point? --Nigelj (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The relevant quote is in the upper left corner of every page: "Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia". Encyclopedias summarize the best material from other sources. Even though Wikipedia isn't a paper encyclopedia, and does not need to limit the amount of material for reasons of mass and printing costs, it does need to limit the amount of material in order to serve the purpose of an encyclopedia, that is, to provide readers with a summary that is manageable in size and complexity. That means that the vast majority of material must be omitted. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't really know where so many editors got the idea that newspapers are intrinsically reliable. No matter what the nationality of the publisher, they often disagree with one another on matters of detail. In particular, newspaper reporting of science and medicine is a complete disaster area. --TS 17:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I came across some erroneous information that was reported by a reliable source and came up against strong objections when I suggested it should be removed because it was clearly wrong. I was informed that "correctness" was not an issue, the only concern was verifiability. This is clearly a misinterpretation of the guidelines because surely Wikipedia policy doesn't oblige us to include incorrect information just because it's verifiable through a reliable source. Obviously consensus can easily take care of incorrect information reported by reliable sources: if people don't agree that something should go in, then it doesn't go in; if something is in and is referenced through a reliable source then it doesn't come out unless people agree it should come out. I got around the problem by contacting the authors and pointing out their mistake and it was corrected. But the verifiability section I think should be more explicit in making it clear that verifiabiliy isn't a bullet-proof sole condition for including material, and that it can still be challenged if it can be shown to be inaccurate. It should be made clear that consensus can overrule verifiability. Betty Logan (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Betty, I understand and agree with the point you are making... but not your choice of words. I think it would be more accurate to say that "consensus can, in certain very limited circumstances, over ride verifiability". Blueboar (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar, I think your point is absurd. It is both impossible and undesirable to include all material that meets our verifiability criteria. Omitting sources is the rule, not the exception. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

When you have two or three highly motivated conspiracy theorists, who have just found the 'one true quote' that they think proves their fringe beliefs, it is very hard to establish that what they have there is an editorial oversight, an error, and it must be omitted or we'll skew the whole lede section, for example. --Nigelj (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

A statement in a "reliable source" that is obviously incorrect (because it contradicts more reliable sources) is not verifiable. If The Times reports that overconsumption of jelly babies causes AIDS, we don't consider it to be verifiable just because The Times said it. --TS 20:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Tony is wrong. The policy is that statements that can be found in a reliable source can be considered for inclusion in Wikipedia articles. Verifiable means the statement is actually contained in a reliable source. To say that statements become unverifiable when better sources are found is essentially the same thing as equating verifiability to truth, and only allowing true statements to be in Wikipedia articles. Such reasoning totally rips apart the WP:V policy. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Concur. Editor's opinions about what is 'correct' or 'incorrect' are completely irrelevent to the questions of verifiability and reliability. Dlabtot (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not wrong. We don't, whatever The Times may say, say that the moon is made of green cheese. Why not? Because more reliable sources say that it is not. If you somehow think that we do decide that something is verifiable just because it's in The Times, you're wrong. --TS 21:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Editorial judgment as to whether particular citations should appear in a given article should indeed be informed as to whether it is contradicted by a preponderance of other reliable sources. But because an item in a source is 'wrong' doesn't mean it isn't verifiable or that the source should be considered unreliable. All sources can be presumed to contain errors. Of course if the errors start adding up, the source develops a reputation for unreliability and would no longer be considered RS. Really we are just arguing semantics here. No one (afaik) is proposing that we should include errors in an article because they can be verified and cited to a reliable source. Dlabtot (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have confused WP:V with WP:DUE. If The Times says that the moon is made of green cheese, then this statement is WP:Verifiable, but not WP:DUE. Statements must comply with all the content policies, not just one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Dlabtot (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, so it might make it into the article on the Times, that they once reported that the moon is made of green cheese, but it almost certainly wouldn't get into the article on the moon, or the one on green cheese. And the judgement is on the basis of WP:DUE, since WP:V and WP:RS are satisfied in all three cases. I just want to get this very clear, as it's not so clear in practice sometimes, especially with inexperienced SPA editors and noisome socks shouting in your ears. --Nigelj (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's about due weight at all, but how we report it. Of course a newspaper saying something stupidly wrong may pass all due weight arguments, but as noted that doesn't mean we report that the moon is made of green cheese, nor does it mean that the newspaper is a reliable source on the ingredients of natural satellites. To take an apt example, The Times' sister paper the Sunday Times once ran what it claimed, on no less an authority than World War II historian Hugh Trevor-Roper, were extracts from the previously lost diary of Adolf Hitler. Trevor-Roper was wrong, and we certainly wouldn't say now that, just because there are issues of the Sunday Times filled with manifest falsehoods about the supposed Hitler Diaries, the documents were authentic. As soon as the hoax was exposed, that was no longer an option. But note that we mention the hoax, and the newspaper's involvement in it, in the appropriate articles, with due weight. Likewise, if The Times or any other newspaper should come out with some nonsense that contradicts more reliable sources, we would not report it as fact just because it was in The Times. --TS 00:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

"Of course a newspaper saying something stupidly wrong may pass all due weight arguments" you seem to have misunderstood the discussion. That is 180 degrees opposite of the point that was made. Dlabtot (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I think Tony's right, it may pass all due weight arguments, as may for example the Hitler Diaries. If the fact of the erroneous reporting itself becomes a notable issue, then it may get a passing mention in all kinds of articles. But in each case it will be described as an error that was made. The problem comes when people want such an error reported as fact, for example because they don't believe in the notability of a small number of rebuttals (even if they actually are of very high quality). --Nigelj (talk) 12:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope (almost?) everybody in this discussion agrees that the only thing we fundamentally disagree about is how to use certain words that describe our normal and necessary practice of excluding information which according to common sense shouldn't be included. When we are in an argument, we all have a natural tendency to argue in terms of the policies and guidelines that we have in our minds from previous discussions. Therefore our rules have the tendency to get more and more blurry. E.g. AFAICT it's a standard argument at WP:RS/N to say that a newspaper is reliable for current events in the area it covers, but not for detailed claims about brain surgery. On the other hand, the Lancet isn't reliable for details about the history of the Beatles. Perhaps we shouldn't formulate the truth of these statements in terms of reliability but in terms of something else, but it seems that currently there is no other way to formulate this. Hans Adler 21:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Further down the line, it might be easier to quote a string of other RSs that agree that X was wrong about something, but when X first publish it, all that domain experts who 'just know' it's wrong can say is, "Let's wait, WP is WP:NOTNEWS". Later you may get just one source that contradicts the first (we had one recently with an Oxford don in The Guardian pulling the rug from under a point made on 'Newsnight' from the BBC). Those are cases where it's harder to win the case for what you can see as an grown-up, but can't prove beyond doubt to all Talk-page contributors. --Nigelj (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

In the instance you cite, we looked at NewsNight and it was obviously a very poor piece. The thought that NewsNight, or their "expert", might be considered to be reliable sources on the matter was never a consideration. The man admitted he'd no idea what the code was for, or its provenance, and those who interviewed him obviously weren't in a position to judge his expertise. The lesson is that news magazines and newspapers aren't good at this kind of thing. They get it wrong far too often to be taken seriously. --TS 00:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think what we're getting close to here is a point that I know usually goes down very badly in WP policy discussions: It is the importance of having knowledgeable people and domain experts involved in constructing and maintaining articles. The argument is often put that everybody should be able to have equal input into any article, that it takes no particular knowledge of the subject matter to gather together a few dozen references from the relevant media and assemble any well-cited WP article. I maintain that this can go wrong as that approach will give little due weight to clarity over confusion, incisiveness over burbling or to fact over isolated or subtle errors in coverage. An experienced domain practitioner will have built-in radar that alerts them to nonsense, bull**** and irrelevancies. Thus they will know when it is time to look further for corroboration or disproof in a way that a 'generalist' editor (let alone a POV warrior) will not. --Nigelj (talk) 12:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hans, your summary sounds right to me. I think that problems sometimes come from cases where a source normally considered RS is seen by Wikipedians as having something wrong, but we have no alternative source to confirm exactly what the facts are. If an RS can be cross checked with a better RS, this makes policy relatively clear. Of course in cases where the information is insignificant, there is an obvious solution of just leaving something out, but where the information is thought to be significant, and there is nothing disagreeing with it in any other RS, my reading of Wikipedia neutrality policy is that it pushes us to include the material, perhaps giving it a low weight etc.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

VH1 - sexy scientologists

Is a VH1 picture of someone labeled "Sexy Scientologists" a reliable enough source to describe someone as a Scientologist in the Wikipedia article on them?[84] Jayjg ^(talk) 03:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently this is regarding recent edits at Laura Prepon. No, it is totally unacceptable to label a person based on the link you gave. I have no idea how that information was added to the site, but even if it were a reliable source, it is not acceptable to say "X is a Y" based on the joke-like assemblage of photos on some gossip site. If X really is a Y, there will be a better source; if there is no such source, do not make the claim in the article. Johnuniq (talk) 07:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Women's Health Magazine, however, is a fine source. --GRuban (talk) 13:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• No, it's not a RS. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Pubmed search results

I have run across several articles like these examples that cite the results of a Pubmed search to support a claim about the author's work. This seems like original research to me.

• Jakub Chlebowski: "Author of dozens of scientific and research papers in French, German and Polish, and three ground-breaking medical textbooks.<ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Chlebowski%20J%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus</ref>"
• Fereydoun Davatchi: "is the author of more than 100 research articles in international journals and several books in English and Persian.[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_AbstractPlus&term=%22Davatchi%20F%22%5BAuthor%5D]"
• Leonard Horowitz: "Beginning in the early 1990s, AIDS hygiene in dentistry and addressing patient fears about AIDS risks in the dental office became dominant themes in Horowitz's self-published titles and in his peer-reviewed work.<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Horowitz%20LG%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus "Horowitz LG" (Author) - PubMed Results].</ref>"
• Michael Merzenich: "Dr. Merzenich has contributed to over 232 publications.<ref name="PubMedResults">{{cite web | title = merzenich - PubMed Results | work = PubMed A service of the U.S. National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health | publisher =Department of Health & Human Services: U.S. National Library of Medicine | date = 2003 | url = http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Search&db=pubmed&term=merzenich | doi = | accessdate = 2009-01-02}} </ref>"

Thanks for your input.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 15:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

well, a pub count shouldn't be controversial new thesis or idea so I wouldn't think that is worse than going to census or CIA for a number like population count. The puffery adjectives of course would need to be sourced if encylopedic at all. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

A publication count is suitable material for an article. It does not however prove notability. The evidence that helps much more is seeing if the work is extensively cited by others, which requires a search in Web of Science or Scopus, or at least the sort of approximate search possible in Google Scholar. The way I usually present the evidence is listing the most cited 5 titles--it is also now usual to obtain the h-index, a value of 20 meaning there are 20 articles with 20 or more citations to them. Instead of or in addition to a search for a count in PubMed or the like, the subject's official CV is also an acceptable source. Note that conventionally in most subjects only articles in peer-reviewed journals really counts, not book chapters or conference papers--a count given in an article needs to be actually checked for this. And watch out for terms like several or many or a number of , unsupported by actual numbers or lists. DGG ( talk ) 02:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Pubmed is a reliable source for publication details; but realize it is usually incomplete. Same for similar abstracting services. What you can't use it for is analysis, like "Most experts on subject X believe Y." That would be OR. Zero^talk 09:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

And as in the case of Cheblowski, Pubmed searches are also insufficient for sourcing qualitative claims (i.e. "groundbreaking"). But really, that tid bit is the same for any source, as in "don't say something the source doesn't". Someguy1221 (talk) 10:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

So a better statement would be something like, "As of {some date}, Pubmed indexed {some number} articles by {some author}.<ref>{some pubmed search}</ref>" ?  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 08:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Scientific article meeting all Wiki requirements rejected as reliable source in the Pedophilia article

The following scientific article follows all Wikipedia standards related to "reliable sources" but was systematically rejected in the pedophilia article by user User:Jack-A-Roe. It's clear to me that this rejection is because such user do not agree with the content of the article.

Article: "On the Iatrogenic Nature of the Child Sexual Abuse Discourse"

Main link: http://www.unizar.es/riesgo/archivos/1242046186Iatrogenic.pdf

Abstract and info on publication: http://www.springerlink.com/content/k4q25t0332x43865/

The reason given for removing the link does not say the truth and is in fact very weak : "removing non-reliable source; it's not a study, it's an opinion piece expressing a far-fringe view by an author with an agenda, and who is not cited by any researchers".

This can be viewed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pedophilia&diff=next&oldid=347367287

In December 2009, this same reliable source was removed and the issue was debated in the "pedophilia" Talk Page. See "Archive 13", Section 4.2.1 ("Legal issues about the use of the term", "new text", "splitting the text", part 1). Detailed arguments for keeping the source were then presented by user User :Giancarlo32 which were not refuted since then.

Link of the Archive 13 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pedophilia/Archive_13

Transcription of arguments not refuted (section 4.2 .1) posted by (User Giancarlo32) –

« This sounds ridiculous and kafkian to me, but just for the sake of argumentation, I took the time to split the text in four parts: (1) While recognizing the term “pedophile” as pejorative, vague and hackneyed, researchers suggest its replacement with less value-laden and pejorative terms. [85] (see page 11, 2) [86]

(…) This is the Wikipedia policy about reliable sources (see WP:SOURCES) : "The most reliable sources are usually peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine, and science."

The article written by Agustin Malón [87]

is a reliable source – because the article is a university-level textbook and is available in the website of a university in Spain (University of Zaragoza, [88]; and because the article was published by a peer-reviewed journal, “Sexuality and Culture” [89]. This is very explicit in the section “Description” of the journal's website, which reads: “This interdisciplinary journal publishes peer-reviewed theoretical articles based on logical argumentation and literature review and empirical articles describing the results of experiments and surveys on the ethical, cultural, psychological, social, or political implications of sexual behavior” (source here - [90].

The journal has an Editorial Board whose members are identified here – [91]. They come from all over the world, including many researchers from USA and others from Germany, Sweden, New Zealand, Canada, Brazil, Hong Kong, Mexico, Austria, France, Australia and Croatia. Therefore this article follows the guidelines of Wikipedia about reliable sources. Giancarlo32 (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the explanation above is enough for me. This article (Malón) is well-referenced according to Wikipedia's rules and policies about "reliable sources" (WP:SOURCES). AleBZ (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC) "

(end of transcription; Talk Page - Archive 13)

Please examine the reliability of this source with impartiality, and if you agree with me, explain to User « Jack-A-Roe » that this source is reliable according to Wikipedia’s criteria. If this scientific article is NOT reliable, then NO ONE would be, according to Wikipedia’s criteria on reliable sources. He/She cannot distort the rules or forget them whenever they are more convenient to support his/her point-of-view. If this is not resolved here, I will call for formal mediation. Thank you. AleBZ (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

AleBZ, can you tell us what you want to do with this source? The diff above merely shows it being listed as a second ref for an already adequately supported statement.

Sure: it's a reliable source -- for some things, like "What is the title of this source?" or "What did the author say in the fifth paragraph of this publication?" Just about any source is reliable for some trivial question like that.

Is this a reliable source for "What do experts generally believe and recommend?" Maybe not -- especially if nobody has favorably cited this publication. Is it a reliable source for "What does this single author say?" Maybe so -- but while reliable for the author's opinion, it might not be WP:DUE. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The journal is an important reputable scientific journal, and articles in it are usable sources . However, what has been lost sight of is that this article is not a scientific article, at least not in the way English uses "scientific" (some other languages use it as the equivalent of "academic"). It is an academic opinion piece, one that ought o be seriously considered, but it is not actual evidence, except that it is evidence that the view taken in the article is considered within the bounds of academic respectability. DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That's right, the source is an opinion piece, not a study - and it has not been cited by any significant sources. There's a simple reason for the lack of citations: author's opinion is a fringe view that has no scholarly support. As such, it has no due weight for the topic. Also, as noted above, there is already another source supporting the same statement, so there is no need to make a stretch and add a fringe opinion-piece as an extra footnote. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 09:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The article is a scientific paper. It expresses the opinion of the author, but that is true of a great many scientific papers including a large fraction of all papers in the psychological sciences. So there is nothing about the source itself to exclude it from use in Wikipedia. If the opinion in the paper is disputed by other scientific papers, it would be reasonable to qualify it with "According to Agustín Malón, ...". Whether it is appropriate for a particular article is a different question that I have no opinion about, but it absolutely is a Reliable Source. Zero^talk 09:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not been disputed, because it's completely obscure. According to Google Scholar, the article not been cited anywhere. As far as attribution to Malon, his work is also compeltely obscure. He's published three papers in Spanish and none of them have been significantly cited by anyone. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It is a journal article, but it is an opinion piece. Now opinion pieces are not inherently Non-RS, but this one in particular contains several assertions that are so WP:fringe and poorly-supported I am shocked and saddened as an academic that such a thing ever passed peer-review. This is a relatively new paper and has not been cited anywhere in academia yet as far as I can tell, and it is my prediction that there will either be a tremendous academic backlash with many responses published by other authors, or that it will fade into obscurity with not a single subsequent paper citing it in any meaningful way save the author himself. That's all I have to add about it that has not already been mentioned.Legitimus (talk) 17:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but where does it say that it's an opinion piece? As far as I can see, its an academic analysis based on previously published works. The journal publishes 3 types of articles: Theoretical, empirical, and book reviews. This looks like a theoretical article, "based on logical argumentation and literature review"[92].The fact that it has not been cited (so far) is not really surprising - it was only formally published last June. None of the 2009-published articles from Sexuality&Culture shows any citations [93]. However, even 2008 and 2007 papers are cited at most 4 times, so this journal seems to have rather low impact. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

As a regular contributor to pedophilia and related articles I fully endorse jack's removal and the reason for it; this is a fringe piece. if I had got there before him I would have done the same as Jack and for the same reason. I am not sure what you mean by "where does it say it is an opinion-piece" but I certainly agree that it is opinion and opinion that is considered fringe by almost all experts on the subject. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 18:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

What I mean is that there is no indication that this is an opinion piece (at least I did not find one) and that the journal does not, according to its web page, publish opinion pieces. As far as I can tell this has been accepted and published by a bona-fide academic journal (published by Springer, one of the premier scientific publishers) as a normal peer-reviewed article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

But the opinions expressed in the article are clearly associated with a particular fringe views on the subject, which we know exists, and which people have been trying to push into the wikipedia articles as more important than it really is on pedophilia articles pretty much as long as wikipedia has existed. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs21:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That neither has bearing on the status of the article as a reliable source nor is it a reason to miss-characterize it as an opinion piece. If you cannot agree on using or not using it on the article talk page, WP:FT/N can possibly help out. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually making sure fringe views are not given undue weight does affect whether we use the article as a reliable source in pedophile articles. Certainly you are right that this should be discussed on the pedophilia talk page with those editors with special interest in and knowledge about the subject rather than here, this whole thread seems inappropriate here to me. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 21:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Film reference

Is this site reliable for sourcing BLP's? I can't find any information about where their info comes from or who actually writes the articles. Their whois info also lists a Yahoo e-mail address which does not exactly scream "organization known for fact checking". Copana2002 (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not reliable for anything on Wikipedia. Every discussion of it both here and elsewhere on Wikipedia that I know have has always come to that same conclusion. On top of that, it appears to be a site that has been linkfarmed on Wikipedia for free advertising. All such attempts to use it as a reliable source should be removed. DreamGuy (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. That's what I thought from comparing with WP:RS. Copana2002 (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Is a media studies book a reliable source for the contents of a news broadcast?

At Muhammad al-Durrah incident, there is a dispute over the reliability of this source: [94]. It is a book by Eoin Devereux, entitled Media studies: key issues and debates. In a chapter authored by Greg Philo, on page 126, it states:
The circumstances of this killing were highly contested and became the focus of an extensive propaganda struggle [...] the Israelis issued a statement saying that the boy's death was unintentional. This was reported on TV news as follows:
Israel says the boy was caught unintentionally in crossfire. (ITV, lunch-time news, italics added, 2 October 2000)
The Palestinians rejected his account and stated that the targeting was deliberate. This view appears on the news in an interview from hospital with the boy's father, who is reported as follows:
Miraculously his father survived but his body is punctured with eight bullet holes. 'They shot at us until they hit us', he told me, and 'I saw the man who did it - the Israeli soldier.' (BBC1, main news, 1 October 2000)
The two accounts of the events are therefore opposed, but it is the Israeli view that became dominant on the news. Most significantly, it is endorsed by journalists as the 'normal' account of events. It is referenced not simply as a viewpoint [...] but rather as a direct statement, as in 'the boy was caught in the crossfire'.

I would like to use this source to support the statement: "On October 1, an interview with Jamal al-Durrah aired on BBC1 news. It was reported that Jamal al-Durrah had 8 bullet holes in his body, and that he said, "They shot at us until they hit us [...] I saw the man who did it - the Israeli soldier."

Is this acceptable? Or do I have to track down the original BBC1 broadcast, as SlimVirgin suggests here? Tiamut^talk 23:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Tiamut is trying to insert an unclear source into a featured article, Muhammad al-Durrah incident, in order to push a POV. It is sourced to a media professor, who is citing the BBC, who according to the media professor cited the father of Muhammad al-Durrah, during an interview on Oct 1, 2000. In other words, the sourcing is very indirect. I've asked Tiamut to cite the original BBC report—they keep their key material online so that shouldn't be difficult. The reason I'm requesting this is that there was one controversial interview conducted with the father on Oct 1 by the Palestinian cameraman working for France 2 who shot the original contested footage of the incident. If this is the interview the media professor is citing—and I believe it was the only interview conducted with the father that day—we need to say that's what it was, because that interview is part of the story. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 00:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me Slim, I asked a simple question, and I'd appreciate a simple answer: Is a media studies book a reliable source for the contents of a news broadcast?

I don't agree with your assertion that the Talal Abu Rahma interview, is "part of the story". Its only conspiracy theorists who doubt Abu Rahma's integrity who would cast doubt on Jamal's statement simply because he conducted it. As usual, you've given their views undue weight, both in the article and here at RSN. While you accuse me of pushing a POV, its quite clear where your sympathies lie. Tiamut^talk 10:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Talal Abu Rahma was deemed by the court in France to have credibility issues. He was the person who shot the footage, he was the person who said the IDF had fired the shots, he was the person who said the IDF had targeted the boy, and he was the person who interviewed Jamal the next day. That has been the problem throughout. Such a major news story rarely rests on one person's shoulders no matter how trustworthy they are. Therefore we need to see the BBC report. But we would need to see it anyway. We should never say "X says the Times said," when we can go straight to the Times itself. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 18:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I find this use of sourcing dubious. On the other hand the source provided could, and perhaps should, be used to source a statement along the lines of "The insidence lead to a propaganda struggle in which the israeli viewpoint eventually won out." Taemyr (talk) 11:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I checked and the book is published by Sage Publications who according to their web page is the "leading international publisher of journals, books, and electronic media for academic, educational, and professional markets." That combined with the fact the book is a textbook means the book itself certainly seems to fulfill the "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine, and science." requirement of Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources. If a book "Written for undergraduate courses in media and communications and cultural studies; vocationally specific courses such as journalism and PR, as well as for students taking media as part of a wider social science or arts program." by Sage Publications does not quality as reliable source I don't know what does.

I should mention this is why it is so important to tell us who the publisher is as that can help determine reliability.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say an academic textbook is a reliable source. In this context it uses second-hand sourcing which is discouraged in academic circles but still permissable where the original source is not available or difficult to track down, so I don't see why it shouldn't be acceptable on Wikipedia. It's important to make it clear it's a second-hand source though so the citation would look something like this: (BBC1, main news, 1 October 2000 cited in Devereux, year of publication, page number). The Reference section would give the full the reference details of the Devereux book since that's the referenced work. Betty Logan (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Tiamut says that the original source is BBC News, which is easy to track down. We should never say "Someone said the BBC said" when we can easily go to the BBC itself, especially not in featured articles, which are meant to follow best practice. The policy (WP:V) is quite clear on this. When someone challenges a source, as I have done, the burden of evidence lies with the person who wants to add the material. I am challenging the source because I can't find that BBC interview, and I suspect it was not a BBC interview, but one by the France 2 cameraman that the BBC may have (stress: may have) broadcast. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 20:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Slim is raising a very valid point, and I think she makes a legitimate challenge. In order to know if the textbook is reliable (in this specific context), we need to know who conducted the underlying interview. Blueboar (talk) 20:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the passage again I noticed there seem to be two issues here--using a source and interpretation of a source. The passage presented uses two sources (ITV and BBC) and interpenetrates them as follows: "The two accounts of the events are therefore opposed, but it is the Israeli view that became dominant on the news. Most significantly, it is endorsed by journalists as the 'normal' account of events. It is referenced not simply as a viewpoint [...] but rather as a direct statement, as in 'the boy was caught in the crossfire'" The interpretation is nowhere in either the BBC or IVA broadcasts so I don't understand why everyone is saying that going back to either of those broadcasts will help. This would seem to fall under Wikipedia:No_original_research and guidelines for secondary sources is quite clear there.

I should add the idea that "we need to know who conducted the underlying interview" in a Media textbook published by Sage publication is totally insanity and would open the flood gates to every reliable source being subject to this type of challenge. Secondary sources at Wikipedia:No_original_research is quite clear on this: "Articles may include analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source." It not like Tiamat is saying a ...For Dummies book is possible reliable simply because it came out of Wiley but rather that a Sage Publications publication that is a textbook in Media Studies is a reliable source regarding the handing of a media event. I have to ask WHY IN THE NAME OF SANITY ARE WE EVEN DEBATING THAT?!?--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The statement you refer to is what the book says, so NOR does not apply. However the source is not beeing used to claim that there was some controversy in reporting. In the article it is beeing used to give the impression that the shooting was intentional. Taemyr (talk) 02:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above. If the passage was to say that, there is a dispute over this incident and that the boys father claims to have been shot X times, then it would be RS. It is not it is being used as a source for one side of the debate, cherry picking.Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but its a fact that it is the fther's view tht he was shot by an Israeli soldier. And its the view of Palestinians that they were shot by Israeli fire. That's a significant POV that should be represented in the article. Other people's opinions as to who shot them are mentioned. I see no reason why theirs should not be. That's not cherry-picking, that's providing balance per NPOV.

I do intend to use the source to propose that the narrative and counter-narrative issue also be represented. One thing at a time though, since that page is subject to editing restrictions. Every edit that is to be made must be proposed on talk first and gain consensus. So what I'm trying to establish here, before going any further is: Is this a reliable source for the information it presents? Which parts should be used and which should not be is a discussion for the talk page. Tiamut^talk 21:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't use a media professor's statement to source the fact that the father felt he was under fire, he is not a reliable source for that. However there is no need for indirect sourcing here. The interview with the father is a primary source, but it can be used to source a statement like "the father felt the fire was deliberate". Taemyr (talk) 05:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Obviously, the BBC, ITV, and "Media studies: key issues and debates" are all reliable sources. Dlabtot (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but they are reliable sources for different things. Taemyr (talk) 05:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Notice of RfC at NPOV: Using the National Science Foundation as a reference at NPOV

See: Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#RfC:_Using_the_National_Science_Foundation_as_a_reference

Please weigh in THERE on whether a statement by the National Science Foundation is a reliable source to use as an illustration for a portion of an ArbCom statement used in the NPOV policy. This is especially important for members of the Arbitration Committee, since it relates to an ArbCom ruling. Please do not discuss this here.

Before proceeding, please read the short RfC which preceeded this one and layed the groundwork for it. (I wouldn't start an RfC if I didn't feel there was some chance of succeeding ;-) -- Brangifer (talk) 08:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

BullRangifer in perfect Berlusconian manner is trying to introduce innocently-sounding legislation designed to give him leverage in his own petty disputes.

The NFS is a US government agency. Sure, it can be referenced for whatever it is worth. There is no need to introduce specific instruction certifying that the NFS may be used. Where is this going to lead? An exhaustive list of certified WP:RS?

No, this does not "relate to an ArbCom ruling", BullRangifer is just trying to inflate the importance of his campaign at Talk:Ghost. --dab (𒁳) 16:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You obviously haven't done your homework. If you'll look at the discussion at NPOV, you'll see that this quote is exactly the type of thing that grouping number two describes, so it's the perfect ref for that grouping. That wording happens to be from the Psi ArbCom.

Dbachmann, I'm rather surprised that an admin would comment here after reading the clear instructions above: Please do not discuss this here.This is an announcement, not a place to discuss this matter. The RfC is not being held here. Your adminship is already hanging on a thread at the moment as all your actions of late are being collected as evidence of repetitive disruption. I suggest you follow the instructions and keep your comments for the RfC. END OF DISCUSSION. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Open Carry in context outside the United States

I am not sure this is the right place to ask this question, if not please point me to the correct place. I was just looking at the sourcing of this section in the Open Carry article: Open carry around the world, and see that while there are dozens of references made to a large number of well known sources, that essentially none of them are pointing to coverage of the issue of global "Open Carry", or at the least none of them use the term "open carry". It is becoming apparent to me that the topic of "Open Carry" is largely a term describing a US centric political concept, and it is a term rarely used that can see in global context. I am asking for third opinions about this, do the sources used in context of that global subsection of that article meet reliable sourcing policy and guidelines? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It could perhaps have gone to the NPOV noticeboard, but you will also get comments here. I agree with what you say about sourcing and synthesis. I'm wondering whether the easiest solution is to merge the article with Gun law, with some detail perhaps going into the relevant articles on gun legislation in the USA. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, "open carry" is a US term, but the concept of carrying a firearm ( especially a pistol ) that isn't concealed certainly exists around the world. Is it really a problem if some of the sources use a different wording? Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

No bibliography, secondary source

Hello everybody, we have a problem in Cham Albanians page. There is a source put in the page, by some contributors, which lacks references and bibliography, i.e. it is completely just a work by the author but with no references in it. The direct question is as follows: Can a source that has no references and no bibliography in it, be a secondary reliable source?Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The above mentioned source provides lots of references. For example on page 40, 41, 42, 58, 62 actually there are refs almost in every page.Alexikoua (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sources don't need to provide their own sources. It certainly helps, but it isn't required. For example, most newspapers are considered reliable secondary sources, but most do not cite their information. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

East Bay Express

I've been contacted on OTRS (ticket:2010022610053185) regarding the veracity of citation to East Bay Express in Van Jones. The correspendent argues that East Bay Express is a fake news source, with no White Pages/Yellow Pages or office prescence. What do others think? Kevin (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks real, if alternative. We've got an article on it: East Bay Express. CNN seems to think they're a real newspaper, if one with a sense of humor (they nominated Gary Coleman for Governor of California).[95] They win awards.[96][97] Methinks someone doesn't like what they have to say. --GRuban (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with GRuban. The East Bay Express is a member of the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies, and I see no reason to believe that they are any less legitimate than their fellow members, which would normally also be considered reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of musicianguide.com as a source

There are at least 200 articles linking to musicianguide.com, which has been deemed unreliable through past discussions such as this. Start removing now. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Banning a website from Wikipedia needs more discussion than that. Start an RfC, or point me to an archived one. Binksternet (talk) 04:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine. If everyone's gonna complain about it... Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Sourcewatch

Is Sourcewatch an EL that should be used? It appears to be a partisan source. It appears to be an open wiki and per WP:EL open wiki's are to be avioded. It uses content from wikipedia in it's articles and thus is a double redirect. Arzel (talk) 05:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'd say no under WP:ELNO#12. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• I would also say no per their own about. There is no fact checking, no verification that anything on the site is accurate. I don't think it could ever be used as a an type of source. Arzel (talk) 05:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Not as a source, but possibly as an EL. It also wouldn't be a bad idea to peruse Sourcewatch during our sourcing discussions. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• It's not on our blacklist? It should be. It's a blended site and even hate site with no fact checking, anyone can write what they want, and it's an open wiki. It should only be allowable as a source or EL on its own article. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The spam blacklist is for spam. "Hate site"? Where are you getting this from? Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It is certainly an open wiki and should not be used in ELs. Richard (talk) 16:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

ELNO #12 allows open wikis with a history of stability. Sourcewatch seems pretty stable; I don't think I've ever seen material there that doesn't belong. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless things have changed in the last year, it's not stable. At that time it contained articles that were unfinished rants, poorly written biographies, libelous material, unsourced material, etc. I'm not saying that was the majority of stuff, but there was obviously little or no fact checking. Here's an example. Compare it with our article National Council Against Health Fraud. Note that their article is a rant by a chiropractor who reprints libelous conspiracy theories that have been the subject of libel suits. Many of its "articles" are more like blogs or social networking sites. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

There are some good articles there that popped up in various searches I'd done when researching other topics. Though when I hit the "random article" button a few times, there seems to be a long tail of stub articles that aren't so great. I wouldn't blanket-ban the site, but if a particular article isn't stable or if it's just a rant, then you can invoke ELNO as an "attack page". Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

IMDB as a source; List of documentary films

I posted the following on user Jayron32 talk page, I should have come here instead. I am editing the list of documentary films, which includes such infomation as year; director; producer, I have been using IMDB as a source for that information, before I continue I really need something in writing stating IMDB is O.K. for such information (basically needing the nod a approval) for this list.--intraining ^{Jack In} 10:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Please ignore the above, I have read various discussions regarding IMDB. While I would side to IMDB be fine for year;director;producer. I also think that offical websites or realiable sources would be much better. I have already started replacing IMDB references.--intraining ^{Jack In} 12:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

IMDB has been discussed before, here for example. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It is reliable for information about a film; it is not reliable for establishing a film's notability (since they attempt to list every film). Dlabtot (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The Australiasian Journal of Herpetology and the strange case of Sam the Koala

I'd like some clarification on this one - clearly, I know where I stand, but out of respect to the other editor I thought some other opinions may assist. As a quick bit of background: Sam the Koala was photographed and filmed while being fed water from a water bottle during backburning prior to the February 2009 Victorian bushfires. The photo of Sam, and later the koala itself, became a significant symbol of the fires. After the fires a koala was rescued, described as Sam, and taken into care. Sam was later euthanised due to an illness unrelated to the fire, and was stuffed and mounted at the Melbourne Museum, with comparisons being drawn to the popularity of Phar Lap.

The dispute concerns whether or not the rescued koala was the same koala as the one given water, and whether or not the original photo was a set up. There has, as far as I can tell, been no media coverage discussing these claims (based on a search of NewsBank and Google News). However, after a trademark dispute, the individual defended the trademark raised them, and this led to an article in the Australasian Journal of Herpetology (AJH) which claimed that the whole thing was a conspiracy, with a deliberate set up using a tame koala in the photo, and a different koala being rescued later. It makes further claims, but these are not currently being added to the wikipedia article. It is this article and journal that is in dispute, and this appears to be the only source offered (other than a press release and a YouTube video by the author) making these claims.

The journal is not an academic work, and it is owned, published, edited and entirely written by the same person, Raymond Hoser, a professional snakecatcher and amateur herpetologist, who nevertheless has some significant published works outside of the AJH. The journal does claim to be peer reviewed, though. I have a number of concerns covered in the article's discussion:

• The journal is self published.
• Although the journal claims to be peer reviewed there are no details on who conducts the peer review, only that it is restricted to "factual correctness and quality control".
• As the article in question is written by the editor, owner and publisher, I'm not sure if the peer review standards could apply.
• The journal and author do not appear to have any academic credentials, although how much this matters may be debatable.
• The author appears to be an expert in herpetology, and the journal is supposedly focused on such, but the article is about koalas.

The editor, on the other hand, argues that:

• The journal is peer reviewed.
• The evidence in the article is very strong (indeed, the editor argues that the claim that there are two different koalas should be obvious to anyone inspecting the photos provided in the work).

I guess my major concern is that the idea that the claims that the editor wishes to add are extremely strong, as they speak to deliberate misconduct and fraud by those involved. And thus my assumption is that the sources need to be equal to that. I have requested other sources to support these claims, but so far none have been offered, so the question comes down to the reliability of the journal. Obviously, I don't think it is reliable, but I'd like to be fair and bring it here. - Bilby (talk) 13:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

No references to the Australasian Journal of Herpetology are found in Google Scholar. A turn-around time of 4 days (received 8 Feb, published 12 Feb), and acceptance of 2 days (Accepted 10 Feb) has the appearance of critical peer review against it. Writer, editor and publisher being the same person does not make this journal a reliable source. Wikipedia policy (WP:RS) states: "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications." and "self-published media [...] are largely not acceptable".

Although the evidence provided in the article may be "very strong" according to the author (second argument), the fact that it has not been written about in other sources indicates that the fact itself is not enough to be included in the encyclopedia.--Rwos (talk) 10:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Not an academic journal, and one person seems to be author of all the articles (true?). Therefore: self-published source. Author and editor has a history of making accusations of official corruption and getting into trouble over it, see his page. Dubious source. Zero^talk 11:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The journal seems to exist to primarily (solely?) promote the views of the editor, that a respectable herpetology journal should publish conspiracy theories about koalas sounds bizarre. Agree with all above points, not reliable source. Glumboot (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that - it helps a lot. Especially the turnaround, which I failed to notice. Hopefully it won't come up again, although I suspect it will, but it it is good to see that I wasn't badly out in my assessment. - Bilby (talk) 04:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Musician Guide

There are 300+ links to Musician Guide on Wikipedia. I truly believe that this is not a reputable source: there is no editorial policy; we don't know the writers' credentials, if any; and Domain Tools shows that it's apparently hosted out of someone's house by someone with a Gmail address. A few times, I have found information in Musician Guide that I have not been able to back up anywhere else (for instance, that James Bonamy's first single was withdrawn because the label thought there were "too many dog songs").

There was also a previous RSN discussion, one GA discussion and two FA discussions:this one (the grey "issues resolved" tab) and this one wherein the reviewers decided that Musician Guide is not reliable, so I took that as a weak precedent, but a precedent just the same. I boldly started removing the links, but had no fewer than three editors to complain to me about removal. So that's why I'm asking now: Is this a reputable source or not? (Post script: Yes, the site does show its sources, but wouldn't it be better just to use those sources instead of all the info that Musician Guide regurgitates questionably from the same?) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

According to whois, it is hosted by amazon.com, and it seems to be pointing visitors to Amazon. So it appears to be a marketing ploy by Amazon to drum up business. Its reliability is unclear, though one would suppose that Amazon would be worried about lawsuits for defamatory information emanating from its site. Crum375 (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide an occurance of this site being in factual error, of being promotional in nature or extreme in it's view? Is so please provide a link of what fits the criteria. SunCreator 15:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Promotional? Check the listing for Bill Gaither. All the links for albums point to Amazon. Also, the lead of each article provides a large amount of contact info (label's website & address, fan club, etc.). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Those Amazon.com links are not what Wikipedians are using for their references—they are not part of what makes the page reliable or not. I have two problems with musicianguide.com and they are:

• No inline cites. All the references are listed at the bottom, and facts in the article are not traced directly to their origin. The references are largely solid ones, very reliable, and various musicianguide.com authors write from them in various ways, yielding a continuum of straight across reportage to fanciful creative writing. Some articles are reliable, some are not.
• Opinions given by article authors may be their own original research, offered by non-notable writers.

Both of the above complaints are not true across the whole musicianguide website. I think each article must be evaluated on its own merits. Binksternet (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

DesmogBlog Is not wp:rs

After the discussion above about deltoid blog and how it had been used as a ref in multipile articles i noticed another blog desmogblog has also been used as a ref in multipile articles. The ones i have looked at so far are opinion pieces written by various authors, I have removed a few of these per wp:blp but would like to know before i remove the rest if this blog is for some reason actually a wp:rs? From what i can see the site was set up by a pr guy and has been used to basicly attack people who are sceptical of the theory of AGW mark nutley (talk) 15:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• No. Clearly a POV pushing source. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, should i remove such ref`s from articles now? Or do we wait to see if others have an opinion on this? mark nutley (talk) 11:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I have been asked to expand on this. The ref is to a .pdf which is hosted on that blog, it is apparently for convenience. However as there is noway to verify if the transcript is as said (from a newsnight show) without getting into wp:or i still do no see how this can be wp:rp any further thoughts? mark nutley (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not a neutral source, but I see nothing to indicate that is isn't a reliable source for the opinions of Jim Hoggan and its other contributors. Guettarda (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

And why is the views of a pr guy reliable? One with a POV to push? Why would you say hoggan is ok as a source but not. hmm lets say, Antony Watts? Would you accept him as a reliable source? The pov of a pr guy is not wp:rs mark nutley (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That's another question altogether - one of notability, as in why should be care about Hoggan's opinion, or Grandia's opinion, or anyone else's. And the answer there lies with the fact that Hoggan is "Chair of the David Suzuki Foundation, an executive member of the Urban Development Institute and Future Generations and a Trustee of the Dalai Lama Centre for Peace and Education", Grandia is a columnist for HuffPo and a contributor the Guardian's Environment blog. DeSmogBlog has been cited by Revkin's on his NYTimes blog, by Monbiot on his blog at the Guardian, been cited at HuffPo, and attracted passing mention from the Knight Science Journalism tracker, which is the gold standard of science journalism. As for Watts - IMO, his blog is a reliable source for his opinion, as well. Obviously. Guettarda (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Quick search of LexisNexis shows reference to DeSmogBlog from the (print, not blog) versions of the NY Times (Business/Financial desk), the New Zealand Herald, the Toronto Star and the Guardian. Guettarda (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Watts has been mentioned in The FT fox news The Guardian The Telegraph So by your reasoning he is a reliable source right? mark nutley (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Mark, it appears to me that you're coming to this forum seeking blanket permission to remove any and all uses of certain websites (i.e., scienceblogs.com/deltoid, above; desmog blog, this thread; exxonsecrets, a few threads below.) That's not what this forum is for, and it's because it's almost never as simply as "source XYZ is always/never an acceptable source." I doubt really doubt you'll find consensus for such a broadly formulated "ruling". But if you bring some specific examples to this forum, then I bet there will probably be consensus as to whether it's an appropriate source in those specific cases. And maybe that consensus will be that desmog isn't a reliable source in those cases, but that won't mean it can never be used, and it certainly wouldn't give you license to go around blindly removing everything link to it. Yilloslime ^T_C 00:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken, i did not bring deltoid to this board. And it can`t be a wp:rs either, if you wish to comment on that one please do mark nutley (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was wrong about scienceblogs and have struck that from my comment above. But the rest of my comments still stands and is relevant. Yilloslime ^T_C 01:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• I agree that it is a POV-pushing (i.e. advocacy) source, but I think evidence has been presented that it may be used, with attribution, as a source of opinion. I would suggest that an article be started on it, using the sources Guettarda has mentioned, then whenever it is used in an article that it read something like, "According to Jim Hoggan in his DeSmogBlog..." Cla68 (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. Cla68 (talk) 06:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

lalate.com

Is this webpage reliable for the material it asserts about Nick Carpenter? Nightscream (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Salon.com

Hello. I have a question about whether Salon.com is reliable on the cultural and queer theorist Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick. An article is here:[98]. Note that I would have thought there would be no reason so suspect that this is not a reliable source, but I wish to confirm that. Thank you. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 02:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks reliable, but that article is mostly a review of her autobiographical book, so most of its contents should probably be cited to the book rather than the review. What's the fact that needs to be cited? --GRuban (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Celebheights.com

We have an editor arguing on Mike Tyson that Celebheights.com is a more-reliable source for Tyson's height that a BBC "Tale of the Tape" report. Do we have an opinion on this site in general? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to consider the site non-reliable. Apparently, anyone can just email the owner of the site any titbit of information. There is no description of what kind of fact-checking, if any, is done. Favonian (talk) 11:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

From that sites FAQ And folk should really take me (Rob) and my comments as if my tongue is in my cheek half the time. So no not reliable. mark nutley (talk) 11:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Pan-Arabism

This is not the type of request that usually appears on this noticeboard, but the issues with the sourcing in a particular article, Pan-Arabism, are simply to numerous to list here. Each of the sources used in the article (as of a few days ago) are listed in the talk page, here. A large number of random websites and editorials are used to proclaim that pan-Arabism is Nazism, fascist, racist, and among the worst evils in the world. Attempts to discuss the sources have largely been ignored. Would anybody who watches this noticeboard take a look at the sources and help us determine what is and what is not acceptable. nableezy - 07:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a quick look, but you may need to post source by source. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Having had the quick look I agree that the sourcing is very poor in some places. For the historical bits it should be easy to find good scholarly accounts. Any sections on present-day ideology are going to be harder to write, because as I understand it, Pan-Arabism is a much less important current than it once was, and people/governments are suspected of it rather than openly adhering to it. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

And the history is out of chronological order. There is no clear exposition of what Pan-Arabism is. Doesn't it have different varieties? If so, they should be explained. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It does indeed, working on getting quality sources for that. But so much of the article right now is based on unreliable sources and any attempt to remedy that is quickly reverted. nableezy - 18:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Is Medialens wp:rs?

This site appears to have been used as a ref in a fair few articles, however when i look at the webpages about us i see it was set up by three guys who as they say, Media Lens is a response based on our conviction that mainstream newspapers and broadcasters provide a profoundly distorted picture of our world. We are convinced that the increasingly centralised, corporate nature of the media means that it acts as a de facto propaganda system for corporate and other establishment interests. The costs incurred as a result of this propaganda, in terms of human suffering and environmental degradation, are incalculable This appears to me to be a selfpublished opinion site and does not seem to meet the criteria of wp:rs mark nutley (talk) 11:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The times calls it " a campaign group that undertakes press monitoring from an anti-war, anti-corporate perspective. Tackling left-liberal UK publications including The Independent and The Guardian, and public service news providers, it contends that the "best" British news providers are not to be trusted."[99] I'd say reliable only for the opinions of editors Edwards and Cromwell. --Glumboot (talk) 14:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Pilger is a better source for that, but I'm not sure Esler's eulogy or Pilger's criticism of it merit that much coverage--or any at all. My search didn't turn up the Esler article in the Daily Mail, but I did find a piece in the Scotsman by Esler (Feel-good president who made Americans smile again, June 7, 2004) which does confirm that Esler held Reagan in high regard. However it does not contain the words currently attributed to Esler. Those words appear to be attributed to a live commentary on Newsnight, and there may be no relevant transcript. As often happens here, I think the question is really one of due weight: while Esler's eulogy may merit coverage in itself, one has to ask does all this blog comment by Pilger, etc, amount to much? It sounds like somebody's spurious attempt to "balance" Esler's own commentary. --TS 14:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Tony, has your mobile posted in the wrong spot again? None of the people you mention above have anything to do with medialens? mark nutley (talk) 15:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I dismiss medialens as a usable source in the first sentence. The rest of my comment discusses the wider question of how we're to report Esler's comments, and to that end I supply a reliable source (an article by Esler published in The Scotsman which is possibly a reprint of the one in the Daily Mail) for Esler's comments and then mention that due weight is also a consideration here. Please don't try to be cute. --TS 15:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Tony, what are you on about? I ask if medialens can be considered a reliable source, you respond by posting a link to an article written about ronald reagan by gavin esler who has noting to do with medialens. How do you think i`m being cute? mark nutley (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Any chance of some more feedback on this? There is an editor who is insisting it may be used as a reliable source if it is attributed to medialens, even if there are blp violations on said website mark nutley (talk) 08:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is the specific context of the Medialens reference, it is in a section called "Other reactions", and it is specifically attributed as opinion:

In March 2007, media watchdog website Medialens published a refutation of Durkin's film describing the work as "Pure Propaganda

While there may be weight issues surrounding this line, i would contend that it is neither an RS or BLP violation (as Mark states). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Using it in this form, directly attributed, does not pose a policy violation. Unomi (talk) 09:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Christian Newswire / Coptic American Association

This site [100] appears just to be a newswire service for religious organisations , so I guess that it's reliability depends on each particular org? A specific release from the Coptic American Friendship Association [101]is being used in the Nag Hammadi massacre to support some strong statements - "government protection is almost non existent for the Copts and the law is usually not enforced on the Muslim perpetrators." and "eye-witnesses reported that the mob was chanting "Allah Akbar" and "No God except Allah" while destroying, looting and torching Coptic property in many recent attacks". These statements were originally being attributed direct to the newswire service ( not added by me!), I changed it to reflect the CAFA origin but now I'm thinking that this isn't a good enough source. ANy thoughts thanks --Glumboot (talk) 12:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Well for the no government protection tell him to use this one [102] It is wp:rs But i doubt the christian newswire is wp:rs mark nutley (talk) 13:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Another wp:rs source about the coptic/muslim issue [103] Hope these are of help mark nutley (talk) 13:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Cheers - the sydney herald link looks to be an opinion piece, I'm not sure that would be good enough for statements of fact. I 'm now thinking that human rights NGOs are going to be best or reports in respected journals.--Glumboot (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

ofcomswindlecomplaint.net is not wp:rs

Is it? It has been set up for the sole purpose of This website contains details of the most comprehensive of the complaints to the UK Office of Communications (Ofcom) regarding Channel 4’s film The Great Global Warming Swindle This is a single purpose site and i am sure it does not meet wp:rs mark nutley (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It appears be run by Ofcom. It might be usable as a primary source, but WP:WEIGHT (which is beyond the scope of this noticeboard) should be addressed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

No AQFK they are not even remotely related :) this is ofcom this is not ofcom who runs the swindle site

Depends on what it is used for. If it is used to show an example of critique of the great global warming swindle, or is used to source a specific request to OfCom about TGGWS - then it can be reliable. You will always need to provide the context in which the reference is used. The site is pure opinion - but in this case (where it started an OfCom case) it may be reliable (and certainly is reliable to the wording of the complaint). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No kim it is not, it is selfpublished, it is as you say pure opinion, and of course no editorial control, it totaly fails wp:rs mark nutley (talk) 08:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Mark, WP:RS is not a bright line. There is no way to sort sources/references into those reliable and those who aren't (which is why we do not have such a thing). It all depends on the context in which they are used. A blog is unreliable for most things - but not all things. A self-published site is unreliable for most things, but not all things. An article in the Times may be reliable in general, but can be unreliable in a specific context. Please read some of the discussions on this board, and some of the archived cases, to get a general feel for what aspects that are taken into account when judging the merits of specific sourcing and contexts. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

ofcomswindlecomplaint.net Reset

Unfortunately, all three of the editors who've responded so far (this includes me) are probably involved in one way or another. Can we have some uninvolved editors weigh in? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I am uninvolved.

http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net is the publication of a protagonist in a dispute. WP:RS looks for "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", but this is clearly not a third-party site, so is not an RS for the substantive facts, only for the opinions of that group.

However, note that RS#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves says that "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". So that site may be used as evidence of the existence its own assertions, but not of their veracity, as in this fictional example:

The complaint group BADGUYswindlecomplaint described the programme as "selling a bizarre conspiracy theory to the British public"{ref badguyswindlecomplaint.net}, and MyTVstation responded with a assertion that its program was a "fair and balanced investigation"{ref MyTVstation}."

Note that WP:NPOV#A_simple_formulation says "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

reliability of Psychology Today

In 2010 Austin plane crash, there's been some discussion of the reliability of a Psychology Today article attributing a certain definition of insanity to a 1983 novel by author Rita Mae Brown. User:NuclearWarfare added a "not in source" tag to the sourced attribution saying "it would be nice if things were actually in the sources listed". User:AoV2 later removed it saying "rm irrelevant blog". I will concede that Psychology Today did not say Rita Mae Brown was the first person to use it in her 1983 novel, however, it does affirm her use of it, none-the-less. As for it being an "irrelevant blog"... as noted at Talk:2010 Austin plane crash/Archive 1#Guys, can we cool it a bit?, the fact that a site runs blogging software does not mean it is a self-published source. I mean, sure, anyone can publish a blog, but not just anyone can post an article on psychologytoday.com. Now, I will concede that the fact that the article on psychologytoday.com cites wikiquotes is a problem. Does that mean that psychologytoday.com is not a reliable source, that just that particular article is not reliable (even though the rest of the website may very well be) or could the psychologytoday.com article be a reliable source regardless?

WP:RS states "Some news organizations have used Wikipedia articles as the sole source for their work. Editors should therefore beware of circular sourcing." but does not elaborate as to whether or not such articles should be considered reliable sources. On one hand, it seems silly to think that a journalist who does not provide citations would be considered more reliable than one that does, but, on the other hand, the journalist did cite a self-published source. WP:RS also states "Wikipedians should not rely on, or try to interpret the content or importance of, primary sources". It seems to me that that's essentially saying the same thing as "a reliable source should be considered to be reliable regardless of what it says". ie. if psychologytoday.com cites wikiquotes it should still be considered reliable. Now, if you have two different reliable sources contradicting each other, that's one thing. At that point, it might be best to say something like "articles have variously referred to the building as being four-stories [1][2] and seven-stories [3][4]", but this isn't a case of two reliable sources contradicting one another. TerraFrost (talk) 07:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Appears a clear form of circular sourcing. The blog bases its statement ("probably" to be attributed to Rita Mae Brown) on the note made in wikiquotes. The wikiquote only states that it is the first time that the statement appeared in print (unsourced statement), not that the statement can be attributed to Rita Mae Brown. Thus, the statement in the wikipedia article is based on an unsourced statement in wikiquotes (mis-interpreting the note on the wikiquotes page). In this context, the quoted source (Psychology Today) is not reliable. Rwos (talk) 08:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Vjosa common female name in Albanian: source is edit-warred

At the article Vjose, I cited this source [104], to claim that the name is but I am continuously being reverted several times by megisitas, with the claim that it is a commercial website. Now this website is far from being a commercial website: It's not a dotcom and it's not selling anything. It's just a database of baby names. Would I be allowed to say the following in the Albanian paragraph (here) the following?

Vjosa is a common female Albanian given name. River names, such as Drin, Valdrin (waves of Drin), Vjosa, Holta and Valbona are common first names in Albania.

If I can use this source, how could I better express the above info? Thank you for your attention and time.--sulmues (talk) 10:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not RS Sulmues, and not even needed as we have the name in the article even without it. There is not doubt expressed that the name exists. You attempted to edi-war it in (despite the talk page), in a pointless manner. But the name is in without aboutnames and we moved on.Megistias (talk) 12:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Aboutnames is made by an individual, a personally published website. That is why its not RS Sulmues. Of course the rest your cite from it on river names in general is just irrelevantMegistias (talk) 12:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Megistias here. Sulmues is repeatedly trying to insert stuff from aboutnames.com without any consensus on the talkpage. I also note that the stuff about the other river names is entirely irrelevant. Athenean (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there an admin to say their opinion? I have already heard 10 times from Alexikoua-Athenean that it's a commercial website, while it's not. --sulmues (talk) 02:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not an admin but by my understanding of the rules involved there is nothing inherently wrong with citing a commercial publication, especially if what the publication is making its business on is providing information, like a newspaper. However it sounds like there is a dispute about the accuracy, and so maybe you guys need to consider the core wording of WP:V and WP:RS. Does this publication have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking? If editors working in the field can not agree on this then it might be best to spend energy on finding another source rather than debating the fine points of Wikipedia policy. Consensus is very important on Wikipedia, and often takes precedence when the fine points of policy are not giving a simple answer to a debate.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

IGN's "Pokemon of the Day Chick"

Video game website IGN in 2002 ran a series of FAQs analyzing the various creatures in the Pokemon franchise, written by an unnamed female staff member and as a retry of their failed "Pokemon of the Day" series of articles.[105][106] However a concern was brought up on Talk:Mr. Mime as to whether the articles are reliable enough for character reception as all of them are in IGN's FAQ section, in which the majority of the content is user-submitted and may not have been editorially scrutinized, though the author's status as a member of IGN's staff has been acknowledged on the same account and the content was advertised at least twice during its run by notable staff members such as Craig Harris. In addition the articles are being used only for the author's own opinions, which is the backbone of a reception section's concept as a whole.

So where do they fall on the matter of reliability for reception?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

All I can tell you here is (1) Mr. Mime used to scare the hell out of my son when he was a 4-year-old Pokemon fan, and (2) if there is a general consensus (as appears to be the case) that the "Pokemon of the Day Chick" was an "established expert" in the field, it ought to be OK, as a matter of common sense, to use "her" opinions as reliable sources for themselves, duly attributed and used as part of a "critical reception" section, no matter what part of the website the column technically appears in. (I suppose this conclusion might be bolstered if there is any evidence that Chick's columns were cited in other WP:RS sources as an expert.) Just my opinion.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipolitique

Is Wikipolitique a reliable source for National liberalism, Conservative liberalism and Conservatism? It is used in the article National liberalism in order to define the topic. Here is a link to the source used. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say no, although to be fair I deleted it from the article in question before hearing about this request. Wiki editors are anonymous, even though this one requires that editors create an account. Consequently, we cannot evaluate whether things posted to them are the work of an expert or poorly-educated loon. It is only our own RS policy that makes Wikipedia trustworthy. If Wikipolitique cites a reliable source in support of a statement, we can refer to that source, but not to Wikipolitique itself. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 19:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with RJC. --GRuban (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

exxonsecrets.org

I am finding this site used as a ref all over the place. There can be no way this site meets wp:rs is there? Even with attribution? Also they appear to have been hacked and turned into a phising site? Their home page currently has the halifax bank login page on there [107] :) mark nutley (talk) 20:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

In general they are acceptable, but--as with just about any source--there may be instances where they are not acceptable. (Whether one page on their website has been (hopefully temporarily) hacked, has no bearing on their reliability). I think they are mostly used as a source for funding information for "contrarian" global warming groups. This seems perfectly fine to me, as the website is the work of a major international organization and all the funding information that it discloses is usually sourced back to I-990s, company and foundation annual reports, etc. I am not aware of anyone seriously disputing the accuracy of the information presented by this website. Yilloslime ^T_C 21:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I e-mailed them to let them know of course. Now from the front page ExxonSecrets is a Greenpeace research project highlighting the more than a decade-long campaign by Exxon-funded front groups - and the scientists they work with - to deny the urgency of the scientific consensus on global warming and delay action to fix the problem This is obviously a pov pushing advocacy group who has a terrible reputation for fact checking (most recent i know of being their contribution to the himalayan glacier fiasco) They breach wp:blp guidelines and i can`t see how they ca nbe considered wp:rs mark nutley (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Mark nails it... it might be reliable, in limited instances, for an attributed statment as to Greenpeace's opinion, but not for statements of fact. Blueboar (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Just because you don't like greenpeace, that doesn't mean this website can't be used a source in certain circumstances. And you seem to be confused about WP:BLP: It's a wikipedia policy that applies to wikipedia pages. Saying that a source "breach"es WP:BLP doesn't make any sense and has no bearing on whether it's reliable. Sure, the way a source is used on a wikipedia page could be BLP vio, but we don't and can't require other websites to follow our policies.Yilloslime ^T_C 21:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a clear wp:sps, and would require additional source support for inclusion, by its self the site has questionable opinions. Whether Marknutley likes them or not, that is how Wikipedia operates. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly another issue ZP5, it is self published and the rules from there say Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer Now given all of exxonsecrets.org refer to living persons it also fails wp:rs there. And also from wp:BLPSPS Never use self-published books, zines, websites, forums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject mark nutley (talk) 22:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

If we accept that greenpeace is a notable organization which has notable opinions on the matter of global warming then there is no reason to disallow inclusion of their opinions in relevant articles. WP:SPS doesn't apply as long as it is directly attributed to them. I find it a bit disturbing that User:Marknutley seems to have dedicated himself to removing information and sources from global warming related pages. Especially considering that his first edit was to assert fraud on the basis of a blog we have here every indication of an WP:SPA. Unomi (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It`s a bit sad that you need to try and dig up dirt on me to try and cast doubt, please asssume good faith and do not engage in personal attacks. This is not about greenpeace this is about exxonsecrets, tell me is there editorial control? Who checks the data which is sent in and put on that site? The rules are very clear here as pointed out above, please comment on those and not on me mark nutley (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The rules are very clear and I suggest that you read them. WP:SPS and WP:BLPSPS concern themselves with WP:ASF, not with directly attributed opinions. Greenpeace remains an organization with notable opinions on the matter and while I agree that their statements should not be used for WP:ASF for anything but about themselves, this does not afford you the ability to remove information sourced to them. By all means, rewrite where necessary, but please revert your removals and WP:PRESERVE. Unomi (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I have not removed any text apart from in one article which was a rewrite (since reverted by WMC) all i have done is remove unrelaible refs and added a cite needed tag mark nutley (talk) 22:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wikipedia WP:BLP would like to avoid notable organizations from libeling non-public figures. If the BLPs are public figures than the info has a lower standard for inclusion than if not. Best policy is to have multiple sources for contentious info when dealing with questionable sources. WP:SPS always applies to self-published sources. Again, this is about the sources please avoid making it about the editor. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I would kindly suggest that you review marknutleys [edits. The vast majority of them do not concern themselves with blp in the slightest. Unomi (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I would ask again, comment on content, not editor. This is not about me, it is about exxonsecrets mark nutley (talk) 22:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I just did, please point out which edits you have made regarding exxonsecrets that you believe addressed blp violations. Unomi (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dioxide_and_Global_Change&diff=prev&oldid=348618001

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atlas_Economic_Research_Foundation&diff=prev&oldid=348589515

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Africa_Fighting_Malaria&diff=prev&oldid=348572477

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Climate_Report&diff=prev&oldid=348571953

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Center_for_Public_Policy_Research&diff=prev&oldid=348568926

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Center_for_Public_Policy_Research&diff=prev&oldid=348567868

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Competitive_Enterprise_Institute&diff=prev&oldid=348548715

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greening_Earth_Society&diff=prev&oldid=348578867

These are but a few from your last 50 edits. I don't see that these constitute blp violations, but perhaps you can explain that to me. Unomi (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• If ExxonSecrets is officially sponsored by Greenpeace, then I think it can be used as a source to give Greenpeace's opinion on something, and attributed that way. I think it can be used to give Greenpeace's opinion on living people, also, as long as it is attributed. Cla68 (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Of course, they all breach wp:blp It is not just companys or think tanks being named, everyone who works in those companys are in the lists. You can`t accuse people of taking money to push an agenda for "big oil" or "big coal" or "big tobacco" without breaking wp:blp All the exxonsecrets articles do just that mark nutley (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

As I stated above, it's clear that your are confused about the applicability of WP:BLP. Yilloslime ^T_C 23:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry what part of this do you not get? wp:BLPSPS Never use self-published books, zines, websites, forums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject i fail to see how that is confusing mark nutley (talk) 00:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Greenpeace is an advocacy group and involved party in environmental issues. At best it is reliable for its own opinions per WP:SPS but not for statements of fact. WP:WEIGHT needs to be established.

I don't know if this is helpful in this particular case, but I would like to point out that writing Wikipedia articles should be easy. If you're having difficulty finding third-party reliable sources to support some content, then that's a strong indication of something that should not be in Wikipedia. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree regarding attribution, but to claim that you cannot write about the funding for a particular organization because they have people working for them is not a valid argument. Unomi (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Marknutley, what part of "A company or organisation is not a living person" don't you get? They fail both "living" and "person". Your interpretation is so bizarre that it's not even worth discussing. Hans Adler 00:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Hans but no, exxonsecrets do not just print a company name, they also print the names of the people working for said company. How is that bizzare? We are linking to a site which accuses people, not companys of being shills for big oil mark nutley (talk) 00:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Mark, we routinely accept the opinions of sources on people. You are trying to deny the use of a source on funding for a company because that source also has pages describing the affiliation of people. I suggest you test your assumptions at WP:BLPN. Unomi (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps. Also as has just been pointed out to me the use of exxonsecrets may als ofall foul of wp:undue If this is the only secondary source to mention these donations and most reliable sources don`t make much of them then they fail on weight as well. This was pointed out to me here [108] mark nutley (talk) 00:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Facepalm Do you think that funding for pressure groups could ever fall under WP:UNDUE? Please stop trying to make the facts fit your desired outcome. Unomi (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Who says they are pressure groups? mark nutley (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I hate to break up your fun, but this is the reliable sources noticeboard. If you want to discuss WP:BLP issues, try BLP noticeboard. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Freedom of speech does not apply to misinformation and propaganda This from greenpeace`s TAQ about exxonsecrets [109] But the scientists named on ExxonSecrets rarely publish peer reviewed scientific work. Same FAQ, which is blatently false. With such a singular POV how can anyone consider this lot a reliable source for WP? -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marknutley (talk • contribs)

And this on their front page ExxonSecrets is hanging here in the Big Apple with DeSmogBlog, as the Heartland Institute, flush with cash from anonymous planet hating foundations and corporations, is putting on the second annual global warming Denial-Palooza With a view like that can they really bu considered reliable? mark nutley (talk) 08:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. For their opinions. They are a notable source. Just because you insist they are liars and don't agree with their stances doesn't make them an unreliable source. DreamGuy (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

What? Comment on content not me please. A partisan group with no fact checking who`s stated aim is to destroy peoples reputations because they thing they are planet killers ca nnever be a reliable source mark nutley (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikinews... is our consensus outdated?

Please opine at WT:IRS#RFC on Wikinews as a reliable source. The short version is that we need to re-establish what our consensus is, due to some recent changes at Wikinews. Blueboar (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Student academic research paper

Is a student academic research paper, completed as part of the requirements for Senior Service College Fellows at the U.S. Army War College in Pennsylvania, and published on the website for the Defense Technical Information Center a reliable source [110]? Of particular interest to me is the information on page 11,

Out of a total of 392 Palestinian villages and cities from which their inhabitants fled, only six were emptied because of orders from Arab leaders. 221 Palestinian villages were emptied as a direct result of Jewish military assaults; 51 more were expelled by Jewish forces (not through direct assaults, but by other means); 54 were drained because of the influence of a nearby Palestinian village’s fall; 43 others were cleared simply because of Palestinian fear; and 14 were evacuated as a result of a whispering campaign by the Jewish forces (Ibid, 2004, p.xvi).

This is a summary of the findings in Benny Morris's 2004 work on the Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem. There, Morris lists the causes for the emptying of each Palestinian village individually. What the author of this research paper has done is add up the totals for each type, providing (for the first time that I've seen), numerical totals for each type in summary.

What I would like to know is if this information can be introduced to our articles on this subject citing the academic research paper. If that is unacceptable because the source is not considered RS, is it permissible to use Morris' listing and tally up the total ourselves, citing his work directly. Or would that constitute WP:OR? Thanks for considering this issue. Tiamut^talk 23:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Benny_Morris#Selected_book_summaries seems to give different numbers.

Student papers are generally not the best sources, especially for controversial information. Whether it's acceptable depends in part on how you present it. One idea that you might consider is a kind of 'double citation': you got the information from "Student, Sally 'My Thesis'" who relied on "Morris, Benny 'My Book'". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

In general, whether the paper was authored by a student or not is irrelevant. What matters is the venue in which the paper appeared. Wikiant (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You can add Morris's totals yourself. Simple arithmetic isn't OR. Try and find a wording that makes it clear that Morris didn't do the addition, e.g. "when added together, Morris's accounts come to...". Itsmejudith (talk) 10:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

We should not use student papers. Find it in a reliable source or don't use it. DreamGuy (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that the point to be made here is to not use the student paper as a source in itself. However, it is acceptable to follow up on the student paper’s sources and use some of those sources, and the information contained therein, once you have (i) verified the correctness of quotes contained in the student paper that you want to use by comparison to the sources themselves, and (ii) determined that the student’s source satisfies WP:RS. — SpikeToronto 21:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: The paper in question was done while the author was a Visiting Defense Fellow at the Queen’s University Centre for International Relations. This paper was presented as part of that centre’s Security & Defense Seminar series. Should the paper be published under that centre’s auspices — or elsewhere — then the paper, in that published version, would most likely satisfy WP:RS. — SpikeToronto 22:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Ancestry.com

Ancestry.com [111]. Can it be a considered reliable source, and if so to what extent? Specifically, I'm interested in using some info from here [112]. I realize they're a private (for profit, I think) company, with some (weak) association with the Church of LDS but from what I know of them they do quite impressive genealogical research to the extent that sometimes even academic researchers rely on them. Thoughts?radek (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the question of who authored the bio you want to use is more important than the fact that it is hosted on ancestry.com. Do we know who the author is? Blueboar (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The article in question seems to come from the rootweb section of Ancestry, which is basically user-generated content, people researching their family history and so on. So it's unlikely to be a reliable source for our purposes. Other parts of of Ancestry host large amounts of primary material in licensing agreements with the the likes of The National Archives. They are a reliable publisher of that sort of data, though of course as primary sources we must be cautious in using it. David Underdown (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

David's take on this sounds right to me. Blueboar (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense to me too. Thanks.radek (talk) 00:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Wholesale removal of unreliable references

I've noticed an editor who is removing references to an unreliable source wholesale. I personally think that this is damaging, because it will leave a whole lot of unsupported statements in the articles. I guess I'd like an opinion: is it better to remove an unreliable reference and leave the unreliable statements, or is it better to leave both, and remove both with more care at a later time? cojoco (talk) 04:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

As the editor in question, I'll describe what I did. I noticed that a website dismally failing WP:RS was used in lots of articles (I think about 60-70 of them). (1) In the case where a statement had an additional citation as well as the unreliable citation, I just removed the unreliable citation. (2) In the case where a statement had only the unreliable citation, I replaced the unreliable citation by a "" tag; except in a very few cases (I think only 2 cases) where the statement struck me as dubious or inflammatory, in which case I removed both the statement and the citation. Clearly this method is not perfect, with errors possible in both cases (1) and (2). However I think it is reasonable as a first step when a unreliable source is used in lots of places. Since I deleted article text only in the 2 extreme cases, the information necessary for completing the fixing of the articles is still visible. The next step, with the help of my fellow editors, is to find better citations and/or check that the remaining citations are reliable and support the text. In general I think we need to be careful to not impose too much on the time of editors who are trying to fix articles. For example, even though it would have been lovely to bring each of these cases to the relevant talk pages for discussion first, in practice it would have taken impossibly long and I would have done nothing at all. Zero^talk 07:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe that people fact-check references on WP very rarely, and even more rarely when a cited reference is not contentious. If a contentious reference is removed, then I reckon that the chances of anyone checking that section in the future will drop to approximately zero. I'm certainly not accusing you of bias, as I can't even decide myself whether this reduces the influence of an unreliable source, or increases the likelihood of incorrect statements from that source remaining on WP. However, because this kind of removal removes the link between a statement and its reference, I can see a lot of junk accumulating in these articles in the future. Sadly, I believe that reducing editing time sometimes comes at the expense of reducing editing quality. cojoco (talk) 10:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The process of removing unreliable references does smack of POV pushing. A reference even if so called unreliable is fine if the material is not contentious/challenged. There are a fair few myths about WP:RS, resulting in good faith errors and also consensus on what is and is not reliable changes. Due to the nature of a reference discussion often being somewhere other then the article it would seem appropriate, essential even, that when replacing an existing reference with a template such as {{cn}} or {{fact}} that a link is given to the edit summary where consensus was reached of the reference failing WP:RS. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 12:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I suspect you guys aren't familiar with the Israel-Palestine conflict related area of Wikipedia. WP:V is a policy not a 'nice to have' particular when it comes to areas like this covered by discretionary sanctions. Compliance is mandatory as is compliance with WP:NPOV. A source is not an RS by default and this source cannot be considered an RS by default. Have you even looked at it ? Pretty much everything is contested in this area and people are checking articles and sources frequently. There's POV pushing/advocacy, editors waging endless politically motivated battles and widespread use of unreliable sources like this for factual information. There has even been coordinated external campaign to influence the content of articles by CAMERA. Zero is addressing policy non-compliance. That is exactly what editors are expected to do and it's particularly important for articles covered by the sanctions. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Well I agree. If all this topic area is contentious then editing wants to be done with considerable caution. If there has been a reference in an article and it's now removed without seeming discussion on the talk page or edit summary this is a possible cause for conflict; hence my recommendation above to link from the edit summary to where consensus was reached on the source being unreliable. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

To SunCreator: With respect, I believe you are not stating policy correctly. At WP:Verifiability#Questionable sources it is stated that questionable sources "should only be used as sources of material on themselves". That policy page appears to allow no sources at all for non-contentious/challenged text, but it does not allow questionable sources for it. The source in question is a website which does not identify any person or organization as its author, and which is described in many other places as existing for the purposes of political advocacy. It fits the description of "questionable source" perfectly, so we can't use it except as a source on itself. Another reason to delete it is that Wikipedia must not be used for political promotion. In war-prone parts of Wikipedia, advocacy sites are often used as sources, even when more neutral sources are very easy to find, so as to lead Wikipedia readers to those sites. This practice is forbidden. Finally, editors have to decide on the reliability of sources all the time and have the right to make good faith decisions without discussing them first. Discussion is only required if other editors seek to discuss it, like now. Zero^talk 13:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

My above post had the caveat 'if the material is not contentious/challenged'. A different set of material is found in the WP:V policy as it states that it applies to material 'challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations'. It seems the material you are editing is contentious so it's a rather irrelevant point. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hold on... if this is about CAMERA then you need to know that this source has been discussed multiple times on this notice board. Please look through the archives and read these discussions. My take... There is by no means a clear consensus as to CAMERA's reliability or its unreliability. It remains a hotly debated issue. As such, it is very inappropriate to make blanket removals of information citing it. Each individual citation needs to be examined and discussed, with close attention paid to the context of exactly how it is being used: what specific article it is being used in, and what exact statement it is being used to support. What consensus there is, seems to indicate that it is sometimes reliable, and sometimes unreliable... and determining which is which depends on context. Blueboar (talk) 15:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It isn't. It's about palestinefacts.org. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah... thank you for clearing that up. Yes, I would agree that Palestinefacts.org is not a reliable source. No indication that it is anything but a personal website. I would suggest, however, that a blanket removal is the wrong way to approach this. Better to address the situation one article at a time. Blueboar (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. If a source is not reliable, it's not reliable period, except as to whether it discusses itself. Removal of unreliable sources is a net plus for the encyclopedia. Woogee (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Bad sources are bad sources, and when they are removed with either another source left there or tagged as needing a source there is absolutely no downside at all to removing them. DreamGuy (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Poptower.com

Thoughts? Reubot (talk) 07:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

About what? Blueboar (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Do people think it's a reliable source? There are about 30 pages (mainly to do with reality tv) using the site as sources. Reubot (talk) 11:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Claps And Boos

Hi I have a group of friends who run Claps and Boos, a Tamil/Indian Movies rating website, www.ClapsandBoos.com. Some of the folks who run this website are working as Journalists and some of them are involved in Movie making (Short Films, Documentaries), as a passion. This is a completely self funded venture and we do not publish fake news or fake reviews. We are similar to Rottentomatoes in that we collate user reviews and ratings and present an aggregated score/rating. We also have some technicians in the industry who give us interviews and some content like Pictures and Posters of movies. Senior editors in Wikipedia have been black marking this website classifying that as a fan site. They told me that only Admin users can determine the admissibility of the website. They have been accepting other websites which have been known to put up fake news, just for getting hits and they also have Pop-Ups and Malware being launched. http://clapsandboos.com/ http://clapsandboos.com/about Interview with a Tamil Movie director: http://clapsandboos.com/mindspeak/in-conversation-with-director-vishnuvardhan Interview with another director: http://clapsandboos.com/mindspeak/selvaraghavan-speaks-claps-amp-boos-special http://clapsandboos.com/mindspeak/gautam-menon-on-life-after-vinnai-thaandi-varuvaya-

I posted my question in the admin and was redirected here. Please let me know how we could work to become a reliable source?

Develop a reputation for fact-checking and reliability - something that can be demonstrated by citations to you in already established reliable sources. Dlabtot (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi D1abtot, When you say fact checking, we can only show the veracity of our news articles - and when you mean already established reliable sources - if you mean other review sites, then it is going to be difficult because they are our competitors. Which was why I have been trying to prove in Wikipedia articles as to how often our ratings have mirrored the existing reviews and collections for each movie. Karthik Sriram (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Also we were the first to post the poster for a Tamil movie called KO - None of the other websites have been able to get it. I feel I'm going around in circles!! Karthik Sriram (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, being a reliable source does generally mean getting a reputation. That means other reliable sources treating you like you are a reliable source. Yes, it is a Catch-22 of sorts. The good news is that if you keep doing what you say you are doing, getting interviews with directors, and various exclusives, presumably eventually newspapers and magazines will start citing your site. The bad news is that it's not a quick process, you can't jump-start it, you have to wait for them to take notice of you. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - if you don't immediately think of slow and stodgy when you think of the word encyclopedia, you should. :-) --GRuban (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

GRuban, Thanks for the response. Okay - so as long we update news items with news that we have that should be fine right? I agree that for reviews we have to build credibility and reputation. But for movies we get exclusive content and so would like to share them - especially since we are getting it from the industry sources? Would that be fine?

No, it won't work. Get credibility first then Wikipedia will start using you as a source. In the mean while I would suggest you grow your credibility Google news is one possibility to consider. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Using an opinion piece by a controversial journalist as a reliable source regarding Middle Eastern History

User:Breein1007 insists on adding this material to Sheikh Jarrah: In the late 19th century, Sheikh Jarrah incorporated the Jewish neighborhoods of Shimon HaTzadik, founded in 1876; Nahalat Shimon, founded in 1891, and villas owned by leading Arab families. The Husseini family owned six homes east of Saladin Street. In 1918 there were eighteen Arab families living in Sheikh Jarrah. The neighborhood was predominately Jewish until 1948 when the Jews fled following attacks by Arab militiamen. with this opinion piece by the controversial geography PhD student and journalist Seth Frantzman as the only source - Terra Incognita: East Jerusalem's lost years.

I tried explaining on User talk:Breein1007 that it was unacceptable to use an opinion piece as a source for anything other than the opinions of the author and that Frantzman had no accreditations in the field and could not be considered reliable anyway, but he/she somewhat rudely deleted my notice. Perhaps someone else could inform her of Wikipedia policy on reliable sources, since they certainly aren't listening to me. Factsontheground (talk) 03:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

(This comment by Zero0000 points out how ridiculous Frantzman's claims are. Factsontheground (talk) 07:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC))

Regardless of whether Seth Frantzman was right or wrong, I'm not sure how an opinion column by "a PhD student in geography at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem [who] runs the Terra Incognita Journal blog" constitutes a reliable source for anything other than a statement of his opinion.

Worth noting that he appears to edit Wikipedia as Sfrantzman, and I'm quite concerned he may be using the Seth J. Frantzman article as an autobiography (note that he edited the article on himself, and uploaded the picture of himself; also note the high number of IP address edits to that article, and that the article was started by a seemingly single purpose account). ← George ^talk 07:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Opinion piece or not, it has been published in the Jerusalem post, a high quality and high profile reliable source. The statement that is questioned is not an opinion, but a fact that is either unambigously (more or less) true or false. The question is whether we can trust the Jerusalem Post and whether the Jerusalem Post has a reputation for fact checking. That should clearly be the case, so I do not see a reason to dismiss this on the grounds that it is published in the editorial section of the Jerusalem Post. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 10:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

What leads you to conclude that it should clearly be the case that JPost fact check the opinion pieces they publish ? They publish opinion pieces by all sorts of people who make all sorts of claims ranging from people like Daniel Pipes to the head of Human Rights Watch. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it standard policy that opinion pieces can only be used as reliable sources on the opinions of the author, regardless of the reputation of the newspaper it appears in? Factsontheground (talk) 10:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but as I explained the statement that is questioned here is not an opinion but the statement of a fact. What makes me believe that the Jerusalem Post fact checks their column is the reputation of the Jerusalem Post. Correct me if I am wrong, but this appears to be a regular column by someone, not just a guest column and is thus even more subject to the editorial oversight that can be expected from a nespaper of the stature of the Jerusalem post. Furthermore, judging from his Wikipedia article he seems to be an active academic researcher with publications in an area related to the statement at question. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 11:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, this is totally at odds with everything that I have read about sourcing on wikipedia. And what publications? Factsontheground (talk) 13:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I do see the source as reliable and apparently there are no available reliable sources to contradict its assertions. However, it may be that searching for other reliable sources in support to this one will make a good solution. Preferably non Israeli ones, not because Israeli sources are unreliable, but because there are always users who are not willing to accept those.--Gilisa (talk) 12:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Gilisa, I'm certain you can find 20 good sources that contradict Frantzman's claim "the neighborhood was predominately Jewish until 1948" in 15 minutes searching. Everyone knows it was predominantly Arab then. Zero^talk 15:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, here is one source (in Hebrew, from a left wing newspaper) that may provide partial support [113], it's an Israeli for the very simple reason that this subject is in highlights in Israel -naturaly. The all subject is politicaly highly loaded, it seems like it would be a very hard task to source the article unbiasly.--Gilisa (talk) 12:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

That source does not support Frantzman's wild assertions, it refers to neighborhoods near Sheikh Jarrah. In fact the source Frantzman gives, the highly respected Israeli geographer Ruth Kark, doesn't support them either. You can see her book at google books (I have it in hard copy). You are quite right that Sheikh Jarrah is a hot potato in Israel at the moment, which is a very good reason to avoid polemic newspaper articles and blogs. There is ample serious academic work on it, such as Ruth Kark's papers and books, that we don't need the unreliable noise. Zero^talk 15:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be a situation where attribution is called for... as in: "According to Jerusalem Post collumnist Seth Frantzman, in the late 19th century, Sheikh Jarrah... ". Blueboar (talk) 14:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Zero, never heared on Ruth Kark. When it come to this issues academic stamper is not necessarily stamper for relability. In the academic field of Humanities, one sided scholars are not hard to find and the influence of their world-view on their academic work is well known. So, each source should be examined per case (including the JP).--Gilisa (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Gilisa: what's "stamper"?? I think you are saying that academics are not necessarily RS because they are influenced by a world view. Actually they are prima facie RS and the solution to one-sidedness is to make sure there is a fair balance of academic views. Re opinion piece in the JP, obviously news in the JP is RS, but this is not a news report. I think we have an ongoing problem with facts in opinion pieces. If the author of the opinion piece is an expert in their own right, then their opinion pieces could be treated as SPS, but perhaps they can sometimes be given more weight than that. I would think, for example, that Timothy Garton Ash's column in the Guardian would be RS for most things even if it is not in the news sections. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the partial reply Itsmejudith, but I didn't mean to say in any essense that academics in generall are unreliable because of their world view. It would be largely incorrect for most scientists in exact sciences and also for many scholars whose expertise is within the fields of Humanities. However, just as JP is reliable source for news mainly, when it comes to political issues academic studies which are not based on hard evidence should be handled carefully.--Gilisa (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to get into an abstract discussion when Blueboar has already suggested a compromise that might be acceptable, but just to note that we should not be judging whether an academic study is based on hard evidence or not. We would be in difficulties with our philosophy articles if we did that! Our criteria for academic work in the humanities and social sciences should be on the lines of how experienced the scholar is and the quality of the journal in which s/he is publishing. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that I'm a bit troubled by the assumptions of reliability for factual information in JPost opinion pieces that have been expressed here. Is there any evidence that JPost fact check their opinion columns and that they are subject to the kind of editorial oversight they implement for their reporting ? If not shouldn't we assume that the opinion columns aren't fact checked by JPost and don't go through the same editorial oversight process used for their reporting ? I haven't seen a statement on the JPost site that clarifies their position. I've always assumed (because I have no reason to believe otherwise) that JPost, like many other major RS, leave it to the opinion piece writer in which case the reliability of factual information is dependent on the reliability of the individual columnist with respect to the subject matter itself as Itsmejudith said i.e. the information in an opinion piece doesn't inherit the reliability of the RS in which it appears. This kind of factual information in an opinion piece related issue seems to comes up frequently for all sorts of RS. Attribution seems like an absolute minimum requirement in cases like this with finding better sources being the preferred option. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, not exactly true-philosophy stand for itself, it's a pure theoretic field of research and can't be comparable with political science or even history. If Ruth Kark say A and Martin Van Crefeld (just for the sake of the argument) said B then we may well find ourself in problem when we used them in articles of political relevance. This is much less like this with other fields of research.--Gilisa (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Gilisa, Ruth Kark is a professor of geography at Hebrew University. Her PhD thesis was on The Development of the Cities Jerusalem and Jaffa from 1840 up to the First World War (A Study in Historical Geography). She is therefore a high quality RS, being an expert source on Jerusalem's geography and history, of which Sheikh Jarrah forms a part. Interestingly, she has co-authored works with Seth Frantzman. Those works, published by academic presses, would be RS. His opinion piece in the Jerusalem Post, is in my opinion, not. Tiamut^talk 17:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Tiamut, as I wrote in one of my posts here-I've no idea who she is. More than that, I didn't state an opinion regarding her works relability just note that publications with straight political assertion which are in controversy are not to be taken automatically and without further scrutinizing as RS. And in the other direction, how did you conclude that Frantzman's assertions aren't? after all, he's professional--Gilisa (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Gilisa. What I am trying to say is that its not just who authored the piece that is important. It is who published it, and in what context it was published. I would not support the use of an op-ed by either Frantzman or Kark for information of this nature. I would support citing such information to artciles they published in academic journals or in books published by academic presses. Capisce? Tiamut^talk 21:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Gilisa. You seem to be unaware of many Wikipedia policies regarding reliable sources particularly those concerning academics. As itsmejudith stated, "Our criteria for academic work in the humanities and social sciences should be on the lines of how experienced the scholar is and the quality of the journal in which s/he is publishing". It does not matter whether the work may be taken to be politically controversial by laymen or not, and that cannot be used as grounds to reject an academic as a reliable source. No offence intended, but perhaps you should revise your knowledge of Wikipedia policy before debating in WP:RSN in future? Factsontheground (talk) 03:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me re-iterate: Seth Frantzman is apparently a PhD student of geography. He is not a journalist. He writes a blog which is published by the Jerusalem Post. In fact he is a prolific blogger, continually pushing a strong point of view. The newspaper would undoubtedly check his copy for potentially libelous material, but blogs are opinion pieces, not factual reporting. He has no known expertise in the pre 1948 history of Palestine/Israel. His opinions are not reliable for any historical statements such as those used in the article. Definitely not a reliable source. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Frantzman's blog is not published by the Jerusalem Post, but he is an opinion columnist.[114] An opinion editorial is just that - opinion. Blueboar's suggestion above, attributing the opinion to the author, is inline with Wikipedia policy. Stating his opinion as fact isn't, especially in this case, as what he wrote is likely to be challenged. ← George ^talk 02:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Unacceptible references (use of blogs) at article Charles Karel Bouley

Editor, User:JoyDiamond is (in my opinion) editing disruptively and tenditiously by continually citing unencyclopedic sources in order to support what I believe is a POV based on COI (she is a personal friend of the article subject - see article name below). Along with this, she seems to not want to "get the point" in regard to edit warring, policy, and editing in general. See this for an example (in the last section, "Not "orders", just advice for the good of the project as a whole") and [115] (at the section, 8 March 2010 Comments) of how she deals with any suggestions I may give her. I am honestly trying to work harmoniously with her, but anything I say or suggest or show her isn't proper editing, she balks at and rather than taking good advice, she wants other opinion. The problem is, she only likes opinion that favors her POV and agenda (which I believe is cleansing the Bouley article from anything she sees as negative). Her refusal to listen to good advice on editing includes her insistence on using blogs as references and continuing on with issues that are clearly against Wikipedia policy. The quote she continues to edit and add to (and insert the unacceptible references for) is currently in the article as:

"I hear about Tony Snow and say to myself, well, stand up every day, lie to the American people at the behest of your dictator-esque boss and well, how could a cancer not grow in you?...I know, it's terrible. I admit it. I don't wish anyone harm, even Tony Snow. And I do hope he recovers or at least does what he feels is best and surrounds himself with friends and family for his journey. But in the back of my head there's Justin Timberlake's "What goes around, goes around, comes around, comes all the way back around, ya - 2007"

Today, after having been shown that blogs are not acceptible references or sources[116], she inserted three blogs as references in the Charles Karel Bouley article[117]. (blogs are here [118], here [119], and here [120]. The blog "reference" she used before these was [121]. I am at a loss as to how to get across to this editor that her edits are not just frequently inappropriate and not in line with policy (whether official policy or otherwise), but that the references she insists on including are not kosher (as far as I understand WPs standard of not using blogs for BLP articles). I have no desire to get into another edit war with her would like some input (and hopefully other editor intervention) on how to proceed here. I fear that if I take out the blog "references" she provided, I will get slapped with a block for edit warring. Any thoughts, ideas, input? (just so you know, as far as I'm concerned, no longer editing the article is not an option; and in case you were wondering, I've been at the article at least a year before she came along). Thanks. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Since this is the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, and not Wikiquette Alerts, I'd suggest you edit the above down quite a bit. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Not entirely clear to me which sources we should discuss here, but admittely your post was a bit too long to read. In any case I agree that there seem to be some major problems with this article, and that a major cleanup seems necessary. Could you say which sources specifically are problematic in your opinion? Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 10:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If the issue is one of blogs as a reliable source, two things should be noted. First, the quote as it appears here[122] is unsourced, though it initially referenced a blog at the National Review Online.[123] Second, the full quote can be found at the Media Research Center, in a special report regarding the Huffington Post.[124] -FeralDruid (talk) 15:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

WORLD NET DAILY final answer needed

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Swift_Vets_and_POWs_for_Truth#World_Net_Daily_-_RS.3F As detailed there its come up again and again: [125] [126], [127], [128], [129], [130]. Is it an RS or is it a conspiracy/hate site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon Osterman (talk • contribs) 15:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily does not have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. It is not a reliable source. Hipocrite (talk) 15:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Hipocrite, and with the others below: World Net Daily doesn't meet the fact-checking and accuracy standards expected of most journalistic entities. It is non-RS. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Of course, we can find fault with everyone from the NY Times (see Jayson Blair) to NBC (like exploding pickup trucks). If they are being used to source something not terribly controversial, I don't have an issue with them. If it's controversial, a second source would be preferable. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• The question was not "Are sources 100% faultless?", but "Does WND meet the required standards of fact-checking, accuracy and oversight to be considered a reliable source?" Your two examples illustrate exactly why I would rely on content from NYT or Dateline NBC, and not from WND. Follow the links you provided and observe how heads rolled; editors, producers, even presidents were fired for the transgressions; lengthy apologies were issued; investigations were launched and new processes and procedures were implemented to prevent similar problems - because they do have standards. Show me a similar display of concern for journalist integrity from WND. Aside from quietly issuing a "correction" or disclaiming responsibility for opinions and commentary, I don't believe WND has ever shown the expected responsibility. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think they effectively fact-check even basic uncontroversial statements, certainly not when it gets in the way of their agenda. Things that you could take for granted in a more reliable source, like stating a person's occupation, affiliation, educational status, are questionable here. In most cases, if it's noteworthy enough to put in an article a statement should have a better source than WND. It's hard to say categorically that they're unreliable for all purposes, but for the most part if it appears only in WND or if WND contradicts reliable sources, I would discount the likelihood that WND has presented a fair account. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• And yet we routinely use advocacy groups (Media Matters for example) or media outlets with a clear bias (Huffington Post) as sources. It is not an uncommon believe that much of the mainstream media has a bias/agenda of their own. As Blueboar said below, it's about context. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed multiple times... and each time we have stated the same thing: As a source for an assertion of fact, WND is not reliable. As a source for an assertion as to what WND's opinion is and what WND says about something, it is reliable. (Of course, this opens the secondary issue of whether discussing what WND says about a topic in the context of a specific article is appropriate or not. That is really a WP:UNDUE question, which needs to be asked at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard). Blueboar (talk) 16:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

What "final answer"? This final answer has been given over and over again. WND is not a reliable source, period, for anything other than reporting what it says about itself. Woogee (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Woogee, that is precisely the issue below. WND is being used a source for a column that they printed (ie, evidence that the author said it). Not a question of what the author said was true, but that they said it. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this. World Net Daily seems to fail miserably against the policy here which is "a reputation for fact checking and accuracy". SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe, by anyone's standards, that a reasonable and legitimate indicy of the reliability or reputability of any publication is the participation of noted journalists/commentators who choose to associate their name, professional reputation and standing within the journalism community with the publication in question. Just for the record, here's a few who contribute their work to WND...Roger Hedgecock, Pat Buchanan, Dennis Prager, Thomas Sowell, John Stossel, Larry Elder and...yes, Bill Press. It somewhat strains credulity to suggest that individuals with established credentials such as these would associate their names and professional reputations with an enterprise that is widely regarded as "unreliable" within the established journalistic community. It is inconceiveable that the wholesale repudiation of WND as an RS under Wikipedia guidelines should or could even be considered. That is POV at its worst. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• If the political talking-heads that have associated themselves with the publication (Chuck Norris, Ann Coulter, Jerome Corsi, Jerry Falwell, Hal Lindsey, Roger Hedgecock, Bill Press, Dennis Prager...) are an indication of reputability, or lack thereof -- thank you for strongly making my point. None of those political commentators are journalists, by the way, and the one or two contributors that do have journalist experience (i.e., Stossel) are contributing as commentators and not as journalists. WND does not claim any responsibility for the accuracy or content of its columnists contributions. Most of those columns, by the way, are syndicated and printed in any and all publications that pay for them, including WND - regardless of the reputations of those publications. As noted above, WND might be used as a source in a Wikipedia article for "opinion", but not for statements of fact. When factual information sourcing (on other than exercise equipment) is required, we should cite not Chuck Norris, but actual reliable sources. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

None of those political commentators are journalists, by the way...

They are columnists", if you prefer, by anyone's definition, and "columnists" are "journalists"...or do you now propose to edit Wikipedia in support of your assertion? --JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am. Oh, wait - I just checked, and while all of the above have Wikipedia articles, none of them are described as journalists, so no editing necessary. User:Xenophrenic|Xenophrenic]] (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Of course not. It would be redundant to say they are a columnist and journalist. But if you look at the article about journalist's, you'll see " A columnist is a journalist who writes pieces that appear regularly in newspapers or magazines.". And in the article columnist you'll read "A columnist is a journalist who writes for publication in a series, creating copy that can sometimes be strongly opinionated". So I guess you DO have some editing to do. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I assume there's a point in there somewhere, but perhaps it's some nuanced attempt at hair-splitting that simply eludes me. You asserted that none of those "political commentators" (by anyone's definition, "columnists") "are not journalists". Wikipedia says you are mistaken...as probably do many other sources. Your error appears to be rather evident. Perhaps you might care to clarify? --JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Again, you are missing the point. Look at the specific example below. If Jerome Corsi (or Chuck Norris) says something in WND, the question here isn't whether or not you don't find what they said to be true (or if you just don't like it), but whether or not it was said in WND. And WND is most certainly a reliable source for whether or not they printed something. This complaining about WP:UNDUE etc is not an issue for RSN. Go fight that battle at BLPN or on the articles talk page. And while you are so flippant in your dismissal of Chuck Norris, I could think of a number of topics he could be a very good source for besides exercise equipment. Probably more topics than either you or I. BTW, you have a stilted definition of what a journalist is. Opinion columnists, writers of books about current events or issues and filmmakers about those topics are all journalists. Journalists are not solely "reporters". Using the correct definition (not your myopic one), Ann Coulter (syndicated columnist and author of 7 best selling books) is a journalist. So is Jerome Corsi (author of 2 best sellers), Dennis Prager (syndicated columnist and best selling author), Bill Press (former TV reporter, author) and even Chuck Norris (author of a book on current events/issues) are all journalists.Niteshift36 (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• I have a stilted/myopic definition of journalist? Opinion writers are journalists? Chuck Norris is a journalist? Corsi is a journalist because he published 2 political agitprop books during presidential elections, and they sold? Come again? You'll excuse me if I stick to my myopic interpretation of what journalism is, thanks. From the link you provided: "Foremost in the minds of most practicing journalists is the issue of maintaining credibility, "Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility," and "...they are often expected to report in the most objective and unbiased way to serve the public good." Oh, I get it... I'm being punk'd. Good one, you got me! ;-) Xenophrenic (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Laugh all you want.....on your way to edit the article about journalist, since that article says opinion columnists, writers of books about current events or issues and filmmakers about those topics are all journalists. I'm sure you'd want to correct it, wouldn't you? But hey, Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. Merriam Websters dictionary is though. They say a journalist is "a writer or editor for a news medium b : a writer who aims at a mass audience". Don't synidcated columnists and writers of best sellers not only aim for, but actually reach, a mass audience? And if they are writing for WND, they are writing for a news medium. Or wait, let's ask the US Government what a journalist is: "Some journalists also interpret the news or offer opinions to readers, viewers, or listeners. In this role, they are called commentators or columnists."[131]. Maybe you'd like some other references. Or maybe you'll just accept that a "journalist" doesn't mean "reporter" and move along. And don't hand me the ethics definition and expect me to be distracted by the smoke and mirrors. I have no doubt that you would call folks at Dateline NBC "journalists", despite the number of times that program has been caught doing unethical things. Or Dan Rather and the forged paperwork? Stephen Glass was caught serially fabricating and still managed to get work as a journalist again. The ideals of a profession aren't always the reality of it. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Neither of your cited sources contradict what I have said. Perhaps you should, as you suggest, move along - since "journalist", regardless the myriad definitions, isn't a requirement of meeting Wikipedia's reliable source standard. All of this is irrelevant to the question about WND meeting Wikipedia's RS requirements. Using your standards, I, too, can find citations supporting the notion that The National Enquirer and The Onion are bastions of journalism because they cover current events, or that J. K. Rowling is a journalist because she penned a best-selling book. No, I'll stick to my interpretation of journalism, thanks. While you are correct that the ideals of a profession aren't always the reality; the actual issue at hand is the difference between sources that try to meet those ideals versus sources that flout those ideals. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• So stick with your definition. It matters little to me if you want to base your views on an overly narrow and outdated point of view. Just remember that 15 years ago, nobody would have considered anyone publishing on solely on the internet to be a journalist, yet we have case law protecting them as journalists now. I'll progress with the times. Say hello to 1950 for me. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• WND has a reputation, and it is very much not for fact-checking and accuracy. I would say no, not RS. Dlabtot (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Lots of things have "reputations". But the question still remains (despite the prolific echoes inre WND as an RS) does the "reputation" stand up to scrutiny. Two years ago John Edwards was Clark Kent. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No, the question does not still remain, as it as been answered repeatedly to the point of ad nauseum. Dlabtot (talk) 03:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Funny you should mention him. I remember that battle here when the Enquirer or Star (I forget which) broke the story about his affairs. They can't be trusted. They suck. They aren't reliable. They were right....and the first ones to cover the story. (No, I'm not suggesting that was the wrong decision then, nor am I suggesting the Enquirer should normally be a RS, so everyone spare me the lecture I don't need.)

• There is no contradiction between not being a reliable source and being "right" on a particular story – a stopped (12-hour analog) clock is right twice a day, but is hardly reliable overall. Reliability has to do with a source's long-term, overall accuracy, and the procedures and infrastructure they have in place to ensure it. A source can easily get the facts correct in spite of not having those in place, and therefore be correct in any particular instance. If they continue to be correct over the long haul, and for most of the stories covered, they can then be re-considered for their reliability, but one or two successes doesn't make a source any more reliable than the stopped clock. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's get this clear... the only reason to do a blanket across the board deletion of a source is when it is placed on the Wikipedia black list.... and we never put sources on the black list because of reliability/unreliability (the black list is for spam sites, links that pass on viruses, etc.). Every citation to a source... even the most unreliable source... needs to be examined and challenged seperately. This because the context of how it is used, and exactly what it is supporting is vital in determining whether it is reliable or not. The exact same source may be fully reliable in one article and completely unreliable in another... because the context is different. Blueboar (talk) 01:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree there is no justification for complete removal of all citations to WND as a source, since it is generally accepted that WND may be cited in cases of opinion specifically relating to WND, for example. Each instance of usage should be evaluated separately. Xenophrenic (talk) 02:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• And thats what I did but I think people are upset that consensus will lead to minimal use of this source in only niche cases... its like TMZ or the Weekly World News. Sometimes good, often not. Jon Osterman (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• Nobody is upset about that. The whole reason I got involved in this is the one we are talking about specifically, which should be left. They can reliably source what they've printed, so if you want to source what someone saind in their publication (as in the case of Mercer), they can be used. But you removed it a number of times. BTW, I never hear the mainstream media reference Weekly World News, I do often hear them reference TMZ. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• So there IS consensus then except from Jake, but we don't have a filibuster here, so he's out. Its only reliable to say Jon Osterman said such and such on my own article, but not for anything else. So if Chuck Norris calls me a communist on WND, we will never use WND as a source for that. Jon Osterman (talk) 14:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• One should simply look who authored each specific publication in WND. For example, if it was published by Bill Gertz, the claim should be attributed to Bill Gertz. This is almost as good (or as bad) as any other publication by Bill Gertz. There is absolutely no justification for complete removal of all citations to WND as a source. Doing so is disruptive.Biophys (talk) 03:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• No, there is consensus here that WND is fundamentally not suitable under WP:RS and you're spinning that. But who wants to completely remove it? For every one I nuked correctly yesterday I was leaving 1 or 2. But then you have situations like this nasty bit where it's publications are used as secondary sources in a BLP... it can't be used. It will come out as we find them per this consensus. Since I also read up on consensus, it doesn't ever have to be unanimous, so we're good. Jon Osterman (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• One that you removed is the one we are talking about and there is not a consensus that it should be removed. Even some who generally disapprove of WND conceed that they can be used as a source as so what they've printed. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• We could care less about what they publish, anyone can register a site and churn out blog posts. But for example these two removals: [132][133] are fine even though they're events invoked by other sources. It doesn't make WND any more reliable.

• You do know that they print a magazine too, don't you? That's a little more involved than just having a blog, don't you think? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think this entire discussion is partly misguided. According to WP:RS, The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself, the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work.. The reliability criterion can be applied only to a specific publication. A specific publication in WND can be reliable if it was written by a highly qualified author. But another publication may be garbage. This should be judged on the case to case basis. There are no "final solutions".Biophys (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Specific case: WND & Mercer

FYI: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ilana_Mercer&action=history —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon Osterman (talk • contribs) 17:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Help needed at the fight here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ilana_Mercer#WND_disallowed BLP or WND? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon Osterman (talk • contribs) 18:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Has anyone looked at what is being sourced in the example just given? They are sourcing the subjects own words in a column she wrote for WND. How on earth is WND NOT a reliable source for what they printed in their own publication? As a source for what the subject (Mercer) wrote, they are a reliable source. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If we have to source a statement that she said X on WND to WND, and it hasn't been discussed in other sources, then it probably fails WP:UNDUE. Guy (Help!) 18:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Both points are exactly right... In this case it IS RS... but mentioning it is probably UNDUE. Blueboar (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Why does it sound like we're discussing if what she said was true or correct? That's not the issue. She wrote a column for them. They printed it. They are a reliable source for what they printed (and what she wrote for them). THAT is the issue here. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

But that Guy said it fails UNDUE so it needs to come out anyway.

No... we said it probably fails UNDUE... if you want a definitive answer on that, go ask at WP:NPOVN or at WP:BLPN. Blueboar (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Also isn't that a deflection from the fact that everyone agrees they need to be purged as sources otherwise?

• The question was, are they a reliable source. For sourcing what they've printed (and what those that write for them said), it is a reliable source. The weight question should be seperate and on the BLPN, not here. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• OK, so we can source them for their own odd opinions if they printed it and that fits other rules, but for sourcing anything else, they have to go immediately. I think I get it now.

• First, please start signing your responses. I'm getting tired of the edit conflicts. Second, this isn't resolved. It's been what? An hour? Let some other people weight in. Don't be in such a hurry about it. Lastly, no, it wasn't said that they can't be a RS for anything else. The whole fallacy of this was trying to get people to say that they never are a RS. It depends on what they are being used to source. BTW, your bias against them is pretty evident. If you want to appear to be doing this out of some neutrality concern or sheer concern for reliablity, you might want to try a different approach.Niteshift36 (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No, this discussion has not run an hour. It has run months, if not years, and the decision has never changed. Niteshift, WND will never be allowed for any use other than to source what they say about themselves. Ever. Woogee (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• First, that is exactly what they are being used for in this case, a source about what was said in their own publication. Second, this editor is now running around to numerous articles, removing WND sources on sight and using this discussion as his justification for doing it. He's not even listening to what is being said here. And a blanket rejection is not realistic. Take John Stossel for example, a regular contributor to WND. The man has earned his reliable source "bones". Just because he chooses to publish a piece in WND instead of at Huffington Post doesn't mean that piece must be rejected out of hand. Stossel has an established reputation and the venue doesn't automatically change that. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, let's take John Stossel for example. He is not a regular contributor to WND. He is a regular syndicated opinion writer who distributes his pieces (and the rights to post his name) to any outlet that meets his fees, whether that is WND or the highschool newspaper down the street. He didn't choose to publish in WND, and not in HuffPo — quite the contrary — WND chose to publish his pieces, and HuffPo chose not to. Let's keep this factual, please. Just because WND has paid for the right to be one of many outlets to publish copies of Stossel's stuff doesn't make WND a credible source for factual information, although it apparently works on some folks to improve its facade. If you want to cite content from Stossel, you'd probably be more successful to cite a copy of it from a reliable source. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Wow, you couldn't have missed the point more. Done trying to explain it to you. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'll hold you to that. (And I got your point, worry not. I was simply correcting a gross misstatement of yours.) Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 02:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• No, you missed the point, that's why you think there was a misstatement. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The case of fluoride in the water/global control crazy conspiracy theories

"WND Exclusive Fluoride: Miracle drug or toxic-waste killer? Safety debate over public water treatments heats up with release of shocking new studies"[134]

How does this affect their status as RS for the rest of the world? For example at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Water_fluoridation_in_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=349044154

Unlike the previous situation ... In this case, WND is not a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

JakeINJoisey violates John Kerry in the BLP with his Worldnet daily

Is this a BLP violation then if WND is an illegal source? Jon Osterman (talk) 20:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Clearly not a reliable source in that case, and stop calling it a law, it's a policy. Woogee (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think this entire discussion is partly misguided. According to WP:RS, The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself, the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work.. The reliability criterion can be applied only to a specific publication. A specific publication in WND can be reliable if it was written by a highly qualified author. But another publication may be garbage. This should be judged on the case to case basis. There are no "final solutions".Biophys (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Spartacus

There are an enormous number of citations to spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk (Special:Linksearch/*.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk, well over 2,000 links); in the early days quite a lot were added by the site owner as John Simkin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and anonymously but not all by any means. I have had reservations about this for a while as I can't trace the peer-review or fact-checking policies and as the site has grown it seems to be straying out of the professed core expertise of the owner and into stuff which, if it was authored by him, does not cite its sources and in some cases (e.g. [135]) includes verbatim transcripts which are almost certainly violations of copyright. It was identified as unreliable in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RPJ/Proposed decision. We deleted the article on the site owner, John Simkin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). A recent blog post by a Daily Telegraph journalist calls the site's neutrality into question: [136]. The site owner is also on record as calling Tony Blair a "criminal" (defensible but not exactly neutral). Guy (Help!) 18:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Generally unreliable, I'd say, because there's no evidence of systematic fact-checking, although it does carry some well written and accessible history articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I used this site a few times and found it very helpful, as it usually provides good bibliography and interesting quotes, frequently from academic publications. Here is a publication about this site. It is fine to provide links to this site, simply because they are helpful for the reader. These are good links rather than "links to avoid". As about the sourcing, one should usually look at the original sources quoted in Spartacus and make references to them. This is great educational resource, something like MicrobeWiki, but only on History. It is very useful, and it can be used even as a source per se, with attribution to John Simkin, a teacher and author of several history books. No reason to remove any links to Spartacus, at least in the cases I am familiar with.Biophys (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/

JewishVirtualLibrary.org be pro-israel & pro-jewish advocate organization but fail WP:RS in my and many other opinion. It state it purpose be:

To provide a vehicle for the research, study, discussion and exchange of views concerning nonmilitary cooperation (Shared Value Initiatives) between the peoples and governments of the United States and Israel. To facilitate the formation of partnerships between Israelis and Americans. To publicize joint activities, and the benefits accruing to America and Israel from them. To explore issues of common historical interest to the peoples and governments of the United States and Israel. To sponsor research, conferences and documentaries. To serve as a clearinghouse on joint U.S.-Israeli activities. To provide educational materials on Jewish history and culture. To promote scholarship in the field of Israel studies.

It not neutral 3 party source like American Research University or media New York Time, there fore it fail WP:RS. It have no editorial over site, information it present be specific for promotion of Israel and Jews and Israel-USA relationship. WP:RS State: Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Since no over site provide, much of material be slant toward Pro Israel and Jewish POV, and not neutral source for encyclopedia article. WP:RS say that reliable source must be unbias and cover to all perspective, but JewishVirtualLibrary not do that, according to it mission above, it purpose be to "publicize joint activities and the benefits" of Israel.

It also not main stream publication. WP:RS state: Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications.

Thank you. Ani medjool (talk) 00:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, see [137], and the consensus seems to be that it is reliable. You are confusing potential bias with unreliability. WP:RS does not say that reliable sources need to be unbiased - in fact, you'd be hard pressed to show any source that lacks some bias. I'd also point out that as someone who thinks that Jewish sources can't, by definition, be considered unbiased, your opinion on what constitutes bias should not be given too much weight. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 02:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, the JVL is very one-sided on controversial issues (as one might expect), but much (perhaps most) of its content is non-controversial. When it comes to controversial issues, we should be using better-quality sources than partisan websites, so I think the issue of JVL's bias is, or ought to be, moot.

One pitfall is that some of its articles use Wikipedia as a source, and those articles shouldn't be used at all (since the JVL articles just list sources at the bottom of the page, and don't attribute specific facts to their sources). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

jewishvirtuallibrary is an unreliable webiste for several reasons, its a clear advocacy site, pro-israeli, jewish-centric and Israel-centric, If you take a look at this you can see that its a website that lies and a website that copy's stuff from Wikipedia:[138] and also the discussion her also shows its unreliable:[139] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, it is an excellent and generally reliable source for biographies. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Mitchell Bard is the only person associated with the Jewish Virtual Library and his article shows that he has no mainstream academic credentials in the field of history. In fact his CV consists mainly of political jobs advocating for Israel. That should be enough to dismiss JVL as a self-published source by a non-expert under WP:SPS. Factsontheground (talk) 11:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

JVL is a real mixed bag of material. It includes some excellent articles from respected experts alongside some appalling propagandistic junk. In my view, we can use articles on JVL if they have an author clearly identified and that author is an acknowledged authority on the subject of the article. Otherwise we should look for other sources. Zero^talk 11:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Seconded as a good summary. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Please note that not all articles are written by Bard: Kovno. Chesdovi (talk) 13:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

So the answer seems to be that no blanket decision should be made one way or the other. The reliability of the material should be gauged by considering the merits of the individual authors as recognised experts in themselves and any citations should be careful to record the authors.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Realy don't know where all the complains come from. Sure, it's a Jewish site and it make nothing to hide it, but in my experience it's unbiased. The articles are detailed, not trying to embellish what may seem as embarrassing and so forth. It's not less reliable than the BBC or the Guardian or Al Jazeera, even all of these are news sources it may well help to illustrate the point. It's not less reliable than any other encyclopedia and many times it include rare original and sourced information.--Gilisa (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

As with many publications, JVL has strong merits as well as shortcomings. Establishment of reliability of material should take into account the context in which it is presented as well as the qualifications of individual authors. When editing any controversial article, regardless of the source used (be it JVL or New York Times) extra care should be taken in interpreting sources presented, however one must also be careful not to dismiss a source simply because of the nationality/religion of the author or place of origin of the publication. If an editor objects to the use of JVL (or any other controversial source) in a particular article, a clear consensus among editors should be reached; arbitrary or unilateral decisions made by individual editors contribute to article instability and should be avoided. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 15:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The Mordechai Kaplan page has a single source, which is simply another web page. The author then adds a paragraph abouut his supposed founding of Young Israel that is not in the source, is false (I DO have a source), hysterical, and alleges a cover-up. The result appears in the lead of the Kaplan article AND the Young Israel article in wikipedia, the latter including his bioography as a (general, I suppose) reference for Yound Israel (!). See the comment at the bottom of the Young Israel talk page for more info. If this is typical of the library it is not a source at all.Mzk1 (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Humor/satire articles

General question. If an otherwise RS publishes a humor or a satire article, what kind of statements is it reliable for? There's this article specifically, but I'd like to hear people's thoughts in general as well. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I know nothing of Pokemon, so will judge this as if its about something else. How can we know that the statement is not an exageration for the purposes of humour? If there is a fact in this article that is true will it not be mentioned in other RS? If its not mentioned elsewhere then what evidacne is there that its all not just joke?Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd say satire is a RS for nothing except its own existence. The trouble is we can't know where the truth stops and the satire starts. Barnabypage (talk) 15:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, a humor article wouldn't be good for hard facts. It would be hard to tell if they were true or not. But, it seems to me that you could describe what the article is about. Using this Dave Barry article, couldn't we say something like 'Humorist Dave Barry wrote an article about the cow methane production. He said "So there is a certain risk involved in the Australian research. But however it works out, I think we can all agree on one thing: ``The Moos of Derision would be a good name for a rock band."' - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

In what context would we use this humour as an example of the humour? For example why do we need to know that Mr Barry wrote this article, is it any more note worthy then any of his other saterical material? Moeover where are sugesting this goes, into the article about Mr Barry, or cow methan production? Is his view on this matter notable?Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Anarchist publishers can't publish WP:RS?

Here MutantPlatypus has removed a reference from Skirda, Alexandre. Facing the Enemy: A History of Anarchist Organization from Proudhon to May 1968. AK Press 2002. p. 183. explaining "Removed unreliable sources. Books published by anarchist publishers and not cited by other literature are not reliable sources." He did the same thing with a Colin Ward book! While one can argue about some publishers and some authors and some books and some quotes, this looks like POV deletion of material that the author doesn't like. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that the book by Ward was published by the notorious anarchists at the Oxford University Press.

The idea that books by anarchists, or published by the anarchist press, cannot be considered reliable is rubbish. They are being cited as sources for the fact that the word "libertarian" was synonymous with "anarchist" for more than a century—and still is, in most parts of the world—until American free-market types took the name as their own. Surely anarchists are reliable sources for anarchist history at least! — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Remember who owns the keys to the Wikipedia server. If you think Prince Jimmy of Wales is going to allow a Randroid to be overruled on matters of Objectivist dogma, you're pissing in the wind. SmashTheState (talk) 10:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If that was true some private property grabbing collectivist religionists in the middle east wouldn't be so well organized and effective on wikipedia :-( But enough SOAPBOX. A good source is a good source, and an anonymous article on an activist, mostly self-published site, isn't - whether it's INFOSHOP or MISES/Blog entry by an intern. CarolMooreDC (talk) 10:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

First, I'd like to help explain the "named reference" (if that's what it's really called) feature of Cite.php. When one removes a references that says <ref>Colin Ward, Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction. ...</ref> and replaces it with one that says <ref name=AnarchismVSI/>, it generally means the editor gave the reference a name, and the full citation is somewhere else in the article. This is often done to place the reference in a more appropriate context, for example, moving a reference that appears in a "History" section and the lead section into the "History" section, because the lead section is supposed to be a summary, and the full text is a more appropriate place for the full citation. It could have, however, replaced the reference with a totally different one. This is cause for investigation.

In most browsers, the key combination ctrl+F will open a feature generally called "search" or "find". This feature is great for finding where, in an an article's source, a certain combination of letters appears. If one types in "AnarchismVSI", your browser will happily find, in a microsecond, everywhere in the text that "AnarchismVSI" occurs, and point them out. Doing this, one can search kilobytes of text and quickly find where "AnarchismVSI" occurs near a full citation. For instance, in the article in question, one would find the following reference:

<ref name=AnarchismVSI>Colin Ward, [http://books.google.com/books?id=kksrWshoIkYC ''Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction''], [[Oxford University Press]], 2004, p. 62. "For a century, anarchists have used the word 'libertarian' as a synonym for 'anarchist', both as a noun and an adjective. The celebrated anarchist journal Le Libertaire was founded in 1896. However, much more recently the word has been appropriated by various American free-market philosophers..."</ref>

Note how this ref tag is not immediately closed with a "/>". Also note that the reference is, in fact, the same reference that was alleged to have been removed. Now the reference occurs in only one place in the <references> section, instead of in several.

In conclusion, with your new knowledge of the search feature and some of the features of Cite.php, you can more easily understand the actions taken by other editors. Colin Ward was not removed as a reference, and the allegation that he was removed is either an honest mistake (most likely) or an accusation made in bad faith (something not usually assumed on Wikipedia). MutantPlatypus (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, this method should only be used for books where you aren't referencing several, separate pages. So if one reference is from page 3, and another from page 33, you shouldn't use this method. Right? Dougweller (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You can use the {{rp}} template to cite a page outside of the reference tag. To cite page 3 use <ref name=AnarchismVSI />{{rp|3}}, which renders as . --Enric Naval (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Colin Ward's book was referenced to the same page multiple times. I think there's a few others floating around in the article to different pages and different quotes, but I hadn't integrated those into a single citation. Also, someone before me had felt the need to include the quote, so I left it in. I assume it's because its relevance was challenged, so to prevent further challenges the text from the book was copied. The rp template doesn't handle multiple quotes from the same source, only multiple pages. The choice here is to still have duplicate entries in the reference list, differing only by their quote, or to use reference groups. Or it could be quoted directly in the text of the article, I suppose. MutantPlatypus (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I would consider AK Press a reliable source, though I would also be careful about attribution (to the author not the publisher). They've published works by Chomsky, Bookchin among others. In particular, they should be considered reliable for the subject of Anarchist history.radek (talk) 10:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The AK Press is not a fact-checking publisher. Anyone can pay to have a book published, and simply being published does not make one a reliable source. If the Press published a work of some known scholar, (such as Chomsky) then that source is acceptable based on that scholar's reputation, not the Press' reputation. (If you have trouble finding the policy page that says this, please leave a message on my talk page and I will gladly find it and give you a link.) Publications by the AK Press, thus, need further scrutiny. Alexandre Skirda only has 89 citations on Google Scholar (GS). Most the entries appear to be his, but some may be by other persons named "A Skirda". The first entry in GS is, in fact, the very same book that is under scrutiny. The book cited, "Facing the Enemy...", is cited by 7 other publications on GS. Now compare this to Colin Ward. His name seems to be more common, as several medical articles appear. If we remove "CR Ward" and "CW Ward", we are left with 465 entries. Over 5 times Skirda. One of his works is cited over 100 times, and his others between 10 and 30. The work in question, "Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction", is cited 17 times and published by Oxford University Press, a more reputable press. It's also published in 2004, two years after "Facing the Enemy". It's cited more in less time, so it's a much more reliable source. Citing Skirda alongside Ward gives Skirda undue weight, which is against Wikipedia policy. Hence, when faced with either Skirda or Ward, Ward is the better choice. In fact, Skirda may never be an appropriate source except as a primary source. MutantPlatypus (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"Anyone can pay to have a book published, and simply being published does not make one a reliable source" - but not anyone can have a book published by this publisher, whether they pay or not. Are you suggesting this is a vanity press? If so, then you're incorrect. I'm not sure what your comparison between Skirda and Ward is supposed to illustrate. Certainly Colin Ward is far better known than Skirda. But that doesn't make Skirda any less reliable. It's not like there's mutual excludability clause somewhere which says only one of these can be considered reliable at any one time.

I'm also not clear what you mean by saying that AK "is not a fact checking publisher". Is Oxford University Press? In what sense? I'm pretty sure they do the fact checking that they need to do, but it's not like they can travel back in time and interview Proudhon.

The point about Skirda being a "primary source" also doesn't seem to make sense. Is this work a reprint of an original document? It was published in 2002. How is it a primary source? Am I missing something?radek (talk) 15:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

AK, together with Freedom Press is one of the major anarchist publishers in the UK. Obviously care should be taken as to identifying their allegiance when they publish material that praises anarchism over other political philosophies or which describes a struggle such as that against the community charge. Similarly care should be taken to be aware of on-going feuds within the movement. (A 1980s or '90s Freedom Press mention of Albert Meltzer should only be used with due regard to their being on opposite sides of one such feud involving personal, financial and political differences.) However the fact that AK publishes non-fiction by an author should be taken as evidence in itself that that author is regarded as knowledgeable about anarchist issues by those within the movement. It is not a vanity press.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for , which renders as [4]:3 I've put it on my personal cheat sheet for future ref. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The context in which Skirda was used to establish that libertarian is synonymous with anarchist today, which Skirda does not even say. In fact, he sets out "modern terminology", and says he prefers to use "libertarian communist" over "anarchist communist" because the two words have acquired different meanings in "modern terminology". Skirda would seem to refute the assumption. Anyway, even if he did say that, I still don't think he's a reliable source. I compared him to Ward because we could easily agree that Ward is a reliable source, no matter his publisher. Skirda seems to have very few works and his works don't seem to be cited much (in the English Google scholar, I haven't checked French). If Skirda is within the lower bounds of what is a reliable source for claiming what the current state of affairs are concerning the use of anarchism/libertarianism throughout the world, then the lower bounds of what is reliable seems to be especially low. Even if you think he's reliable, citing him alongside Colin Ward would give the impression that's he's just as notable as Ward, which he clearly is not. MutantPlatypus (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"Professional" biographers

Is there a consensus on acceptance or denial of biographies authored by, shall we say, professional biographers like Henri Troyat or Pierre Stephen Robert Payne ? Authors who, quite obviously, could not seriously study their subjects like real historians do, and produced dozens of bio books, year after year... Not that I really need to cite them, but these are available online in English and so preferred over academic sources of far better quality. NVO (talk) 08:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

What do you want to use the books for? Is there any reason to think they are unreliable as to dates and places and other hard facts? As for analysis and interpretation, if there is material available from more distinguished scholars, the editors here might decide to give those more weight when appropriate, but I don't see any reason in the abstract to preclude the use of books like these. --Arxiloxos (talk) 08:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

They are consistently unreliable on minor hard facts. They would write something like "Terminal illness struck our subject November 4", omitting the fact that, according to physician's records published back in the 19th century and never contested since, the onset of the disease occurred October 27; November 4 was just the first of incapacitating bouts. This omission or error is unimportant for the subject's bio but it is hardly acceptable for an article on the circumstances of the subject's death. NVO (talk) 11:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem you are dealing with is that our citing the physician's records to correct the error of the professional biographer would constitute Original research by our standards. Yes, the physicians records do indicate that the biographer is not giving complete info... and if some other biography gives dates that are in line with what those records say, they can be used behind the scenes to help us determine which of the two biographies is more reliable... but if no reliable source has noted what the physician said, then neither should we. Blueboar (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not a matter of a particular factoid, it was a general question. Biographies in this context are quarternary information compiled by writers, not historians, and I see absolutely no reason why they should be preferred over the whole body of secondary and tertiary works. The secondary (original academic research) and tertiary (academic compilations) sources don't note the fact. They just use it. They note and discuss contentious issues, unreliable narrators, gaps and omissions in their sources etc., but in this particular context the physician's memoirs are corroborated by independent accounts. No one wastes their time noting the obvious. So for the last 160 years there was no need to discuss or note anything... unless of course Randy comes a different opinion... NVO (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Reliability of Baseball In Wartime

I am working on a project to complete the redlinked articles in the "Roster" section of Whiz Kids (baseball). All of these players meet WP:ATHLETE, so it's just a matter of making the articles, but I want to ensure that they are well-written and complete. For my next project player, Jocko Thompson, there are several good pieces of information on him at Baseball in Wartime, a website written and maintained by Gary Bedingfield. Given that the author is notable and respected enough for his own Wikipedia article, and that he is recognized as an authority in baseball during World War II, and that he has published three books and several magazine articles on the aforementioned, would his website be considered reliable in this context? Thompson's career was interrupted for four years by WWII, and this site contains a lot of good information on both his baseball and military careers. I certainly do not want to use it as the only source for this article, but as a supplements to such reliable sites as Baseball-Reference, as well as newspapers, books, and the like (I have a book by Robin Roberts that is the starting point for most of my research). As to the sources used by Bedingfield to compile his information, see the bibliography page of his website. There's also a relevant talk page discussion at the WikiProject Baseball talk page. Thanks for your time. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems fine, serious historian of baseball. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Wendy Doniger a Sanskritist?

Wendy Doniger translated the Rig Veda, The Laws of Manu, and Hindu Myths: a Sourcebook Translated From the Sanskrit for Penguin Classics,[140] and co-translated Kamasutra for Oxford Classics.[141] She has also been successfully demonized among conservative Hindus by entrepreneur Rajiv Malhotra, who sports a Master's degree in computer science. Doniger has a PhD in Sanskrit from Harvard University.

I have added to Wendy Doniger several citations to books published by university presses which call Doniger a Sanskritist. My addition has been removed four times now, each time being replaced with the text that Doniger "describes herself a Sanskritist" (text which I had added earlier).[142][143][144] I also have a citation to an academic journal which I have not yet tried adding to the article, but which would be rejected by the policy creatively constructed by the folks on the talk page.

Huston Smith, "Wasson's 'Soma:' A Review Article" Reviewed work(s): SOMA, Divine Mushroom of Immortality by R. Gordon Wasson; W. D. O'Flaherty Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 40, No. 4 (Dec., 1972), pp. 480-499[145]

Also, when it became apparent that the Vedic references would be crucial, he could employ a talented Sanskritist, Wendy Doniger O'Flaherty of the School of Oriental and African Studies of the University of London, to trans- late the relevant passages.

And there are plenty more citations available.

• 52 Google books hits for sanskritist wendy doniger OR flaherty -inauthor:"Wendy Doniger"
• 7 Google news
• Google scholar hits are all false positives

I engaged the editor on the talk page. He claims that none of the sources are relevant to the question of whether Doniger is a Sanskritist, because the books were not written by Sanskritists. It seems that, according to User:Rudrasharman, in order for the article to describe Doniger as a Sanskritist, I must quote a Sanskritist saying "Wendy Doniger is a Sanskritist", which seems like something that is too obvious to spend time writing.

Here, User:Buddhipriya removed the 6 citations which source the claim that doniger is a Sanskritist, as well as large amount of other content sourced to the relevant academic journals. At the same time, he also adds negative content sourced to an opinion-editorial piece with the edit summary "(please obtain consensus on the talk page)". Unfortunately, the talk page is dominated by people who are committed to changing the current section on the reception of her career to a character-assassinating criticism section, filled with every negative thing that anyone has ever said about her 40-year career, and with all of the positive material removed.

My guess is that what is going on with the Sanskritist thing is that they are deliberately wasting my time and energy so that I will not be able to edit the article. — goethean ॐ 19:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who challenges you repeatedly on Doniger's credentials should be reported, not argued with. She has exceptional qualifications and is an extraordinary productive scholar of Sanskrit and Indian culture whose academic brilliance is widely esteemed by her peers. Such challenges to the obvious have no place in serious editing and constitute abuses WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, stalling, removalk of RS, refusing to acknowledge RS, etc.Nishidani (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If you need any material from her essay 'The Post-Vedic History of the Soma Plant' in Wasson's book (pp.95ff.), and cannot access it, I can help there, as I have a copy of it.Nishidani (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

How about "Wendy Doniger is a controversial sanskritist"? The reliable sources say she is a sanskritist. Other (seemingly) reliable sources say she's controversial, so the controversy deserves mention. This may be more of a weight issue. MutantPlatypus (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that reliable sources call her controversial. Which source are you referring to? — goethean ॐ 20:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Doniger's credentials are mostly puffery. Her work, as a "Sanskritist", has been quite pedestrian, all the ballyhooing by non-Sanskritists (who however do know the value of publicity) notwithstanding. The issue here is actually one of POV-pushing, or perhaps more accurately, POV-counterpushing.

The Wendy Doniger article has seen periodic assaults by editors trying to introduce material from a controversy with which she is onlyindirectly associated. The material is clearly derogatory, and impugns, inter alia, her credentials as a Sanskit scholar. The POV-counterpushing, thus, is the hagiographic insistence on "proving" that she is a Sanskritist, in effect giving her the recognition she has not had from the peers in that field. (See this thread on the Talk page for some examples of known Sanskritists commenting on her work in Sanskrit.) The hagiographic intent is revealed all the more clearly by the refusal to accept a self-description by Doniger herself, simply because it puts that precious word "Sanskritist" inside quotes, substituting for it instead random offhand complimentary quotage from a whole bunch of people who are not reliable sources for competence in Sanskrit (and had no intentions of being such, either, as they were focused on matters other than precise description or evaluation of Doniger.)

This whole "case" is a joke. rudra (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

As usual, User:Rudrasharman cites no sources in his confident assurances that Doniger is a fraud, only his own "expert" opinion. This is not how Wikipedia works. — goethean ॐ 21:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Cardiff as a 'primate city'

User:Welshleprechaun recently added Cardiff as an example of a primate city, citing what appears to be a self-published website on climate science.[146] I would welcome comment on whether this meets WP:RS criteria or not, especially as the source is not directly relevant to the topic.--Pondle (talk) 21:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)