Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

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

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

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

If your question is about whether material constitutes original research, please use the No original research notice board. This noticeboard is not a place for general discussion of issues or for disputes about content.

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

Click here to start a new discussion thread

The Orlando Sentinel on Rifqa Bary. She wants to be a prophet

The article in question here is on the topic of Rifqa Bary and all the controversy over her conversion and custody. I have found some sources which contain block buster information. These are the websites of news papers, they are not opinion pieces. One declares Fathima Rifqa Bary: Rifqa's personal writings indicate she wants to be a prophet Rene Stutzman and Amy L. Edwards Sentinel Staff Writers 12:14 a.m. EDT, September 17, 2009. They are not the only ones reporting this. It has been picked up at least by the desert news [1] But they re relying on the reporting of the Sentinel.

My question is should we run with these sources or should we wait? Wait for some kind of independent forensic examination of the writings to be sure they are hers and not written after the fact to make her look batsh_t crazy, loco, cattywampus. Though I would not write that conclusion, what else would the majority of our casual readers conclude? She is a living person after all so WP:BLP rules apply. What say you all?--Hfarmer (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Newspaper sources are in general reliable. However, letting this factoid be your primary use of this source (singular, the second is a reprint) would be to violate WP:BLP by failing to write in a style more conservative than the sources. On this aspect, the main message of the source is that she has embraced "fundamentalist christianity". My reading of the article is that the author doesn't know enough about Christianity to have gotten the label correct, but that is the label the author chose to use, so it is the one you can use this source to support. I read it that way because the evidence they present contains nothing to support the label fundamentalist, and because fundamentalist Christianity largely broke up and became fragmented a few decades ago, but the evidence the author presents would support either of two other and different labels that the author didn't use. GRBerry 14:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok but what about using that as a source for what she wrote in her Diary? As far as it being a factoid, as you put it, that makes it a fact. Perhaps one that could be put here but given very little weight. Like a sentence which said... Rifqa Bary according to one published report wrote of wanting to be a prohphet for christianity (Cite:orlando sentinel). --Hfarmer (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Neverwinter Nights 2 Vault

Hi- I was wondering if I could get some more input on a number of references used in Neverwinter Nights 2: Mysteries of Westgate, before taking it to FAC. Specifically: [2], [3], and [4]. My feeling is that most of NWN2Vault is unreliable because it is user-contributed content, but the first of these seems to be an official press release or the like (so it would be a primary source, but not otherwise an unreliable one), and the latter two are interviews with the game's designers which appear to have been conducted by the site's operators or somesuch, but I'm not positive. Here again, what the game designers said is probably primary but reliable. However, before going to FAC and then having this come up, I was wondering if I could get some feedback beforehand. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

*ping* (just don't want this to be forgotten with all of the discussions below). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Should I just take the article to FAC without any discussion on this? It would be really great to hear some more opinions on this first, though... –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Worthy of note here is that this is an IGN website. While fan-submitted content may not be reliable, some of it certainly will be. The first link is certainly a press release (and so a primary source). It is linked at that location from Atari's own website under "News" ([5]). It's reliable for anything else a primary source is reliable for. I believe that the two-part interview should be usable as well, given the standing of the hosting website, but it's not quite as clear-cut as the press release. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the input! It is much appreciated. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Just chiming in with agreement with Moonriddengirl. Hobit (talk) 21:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree w/ Moonriddengirl as well. Sorry I didn't see this earlier, the watchlist got kinda clogged w/ whatever IPA dispute is going on below. Protonk (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all very much for the input! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Source in Oscar Wilde

See Talk:Oscar_Wilde#Maynard for the discussion that led here.

Oscar Wilde has been on my watch list for a long time (both because he is an LGBT writer and because I'm generally a fan of his). I just popped in from a long wikibreak and discovered that an editor's sourced additions to the article were reversed with the comment that "this article is not a reliable source".

I was curious, so I checked out the source in question. It's published in a collection of essays from a very reputable academic press (Blackwell). The article's author is John Maynard. After a quick Google search, I found that Maynard is a professor at NYU with a rather impressive CV in the field of Victorian literature (of which Wilde is a part).

Confused at the dismissive tone of User:Ottava Rima's talk page post, I commented that we shouldn't so blithely condemn the article as "non academic" and I expressed surprise that Ottava Rima would act so disrespectfully to what seems to be a notable academic. You can see the talk page to see how the discussion went (i.e. not well). I made no edits to the actual article, as I felt that would probably just devolve into an unproductive edit war.

The question I want to ask here is this: Ottava Rima seems of the very strong impression that s/he can dismiss this article as reliable based upon disagreeing its content. From what I remember of my tenure here long ago, we cannot simply dismiss such an academic source without referring to other reliable sources which would argue the point. In other words, editors are not allowed to make evaluations of the content of sources that come from reputable, peer reviewed presses.

I have seen piles of utter crap in published articles before, but I always thought that the standard on the Wiki was to counter those articles with other reputable sources which discuss the topic. Editors cannot simply rule on the content of sources by their own fiat (unless, in my opinion, they have some sort of credentials, but even THAT is not policy!). Whatever shape the final article takes, dismissing peer reviewed sources is dangerous at best. --CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 21:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The source appears fine to me, I'm not sure what ottava rima's problem with this is. I have placed a note on the talk page to say this is being discussed here. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

1. The source lacks references. 2. The source only mentions Wilde in passing. 3. The source presents a fringe point of view. 4. The writer is not an expert in Wilde studies. These four things show that the source cannot be used in the matter attempted (in order to declare that Oscar Wilde was a pederast). As I stated, find the material in an actual Wilde biography by an expert who studied the matter and then it could be added. Otherwise, this source fails the requirements. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima, you do this repeatedly, and will argue unrelentingly that an author is not acceptable because you, OR, (OR by initials, OR by nature) think so, rather than because the author is a problem. I see nothing remarkable or problematic in John Maynard's statements. They are simply a summary of established knowledge. That is the nature of companion books of this kind. Established experts contribute. As for the assertion that Oscar Wilde was a pederast, that's hardly in dispute by anyone. I am by profession a Victorianist. Paul B (talk) 23:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Established knowledge? Please, find a source for that. You cannot just make things up. He had no source for his statement. If you can't find it in a Wilde biography, why are you even claiming it is established? Come on, at least pretend to have some intellectual integrity before arguing for the inclusion of a source. There is no legitimate way to claim that -that- source represents common or majority view, and guess what? If it did, you would use the -other- sources. Either way, your argument has no merits and your pushing it is disturbing. "that's hardly in dispute by anyone" That is a pure fabrication and it is disturbing that you would claim such. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

John Maynard's CV looks fairly authoritative to me. What is the issue with citing his opinion in the article? Jezhotwells (talk) 00:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

So, would a physicist be able to speak on engineering simply because they are close? That CV proves that he has -nothing- on Oscar Wilde. At least two of them are collections of essays, which further undermines his statement as an expert. The section is not about opinion furthermore. Plus WP:FRINGE states that only -notable- opinions are included. His opinion is not notable. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

That is not a meaningful analogy, as you well know. Paul B (talk) 09:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The source is fine. I do not have to find a source, since this board is about determining the value of specific sources. This specific source is fine. Your arguments are spurious. The absence of footnotes in the source has no bearing on its reliability. Wilde is mentioned in the context of a discussion of the relevant issue. The source does not present a fringe point of view, but a mainstream one. There is in practice no such thing as "Wilde studies"; there are studies of various aspects of nineteenth century culture, including literature, social attitudes etc in which Wilde's life and work are implicated. For example, an expert on Wilde's verse may well be less qualified than an expert on the sexual underworld at the time to comment on his sexual behaviour. Paul B (talk) 00:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW we do not expect a reliable source to "find a source" either. Nor do we accuse them of making things up just because we feel like it. Paul B (talk) 00:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you understand how WP:FRINGE works. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you do. BTW, I am a regular contributor to the relevant board. Paul B (talk) 00:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

What is fringe about Wilde being homosexual or a pederast?

• "Creating the Sensual Child: Paterian Aesthetics, Pederasty, and Oscar Wilde's Fairy Tales" by Naomi Wood in Marvels & Tales, Volume 16, Number 2, 2002, pp. 156-170
• Michael Matthew Kaylor, Secreted Desires: The Major Uranians: Hopkins, Pater and Wilde (2006)

Jezhotwells (talk) 00:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The flow of conversation seems broken here, but I am responding to the above and indenting enough to make sure it's clear. From what I've seen, the actual topic under dispute is under what terms Wilde perceived his own homosexuality, not that he was homosexual in general. The sentence under dispute makes VERY specific claims. If those claims are supported by other sources that are reliable, great. Otherwise that's an indication that they are, in fact, fringe. 14:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

And please don't dismiss legitimate biographers as an "expert on verse". This individual has not proven themself an expert on -any- aspect of Wilde. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

No one has done so. Your misrepresentations are as plain as day. I gave an illustration of a general point about the nature of sourcing and expertise. Paul B (talk) 00:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Maynard is an established expert on Victorian literature and sexuality in the same. That should be good enough for Wikipedia. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

If Ottava Rima can produce sources that disagree with Maynard then please do so. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

And lets not forget that "[Wilde] thought of himself as in a tradition fostered by Greek pederastic love, expressed guilt for his same-sex acts/desires." is the statement in question. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

That is not how Fringe works. You must prove that it is the dominant view. There are dozens of biographies. You have to prove that the reliable biographies that are recognized by critics do view it as a dominant theme. Maynard is not an established expert on Wilde. He may be an expert on -Browning-, but that does not make him an expert on Wilde. The fact that you would try and claim such shows that you don't understand the field. It is clear that there are three people who aren't respecting the rules. You guys go to push this forward and I will ask AN for blocks for pushing such nonsense. Respect the rules or stop. It is clear that the source for reliable info on Wilde's biography comes from Wilde biographies. The fact that none of you seem willing to stick with them is really telling that you are not here to improve the page. My record in the articles on the field verifies my knowledge. I even have an FA on a biography of a Victorian individual that was related with pederasty. That shows that I know what I am talking about. So stop the nonsense. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima, kindly stop threatening other editors. I am merely pointing out that an opinion in an essay by a respected expert on Victorian literature and sexuality is a good source. There may be other opinions that counter this. If so please produce them and have both in the article. Please read up on WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Jez, you are not showing how this works. Controversial points of view must demonstrate that they are mainstream. This would require at least referencing one standard Wilde biography claiming it. The fact that you are ignoring this is really problematic and shows that you are not acting appropriately. This is a major problem. Everyone knows that biographies are build off of biographical sources. Biographical sources are not those that merely state things in passing. They are major works devoted to the topic. Please stop now. And your referring to the above is only verification of disruption. I suggest you go find a biography or don't respond. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me, personally, if I find an FA on Wikipedia slightly less impressive than a Ph.D. from Harvard and an appointment to NYU...Regardless of whatever qualifications you think you might have, you're not empowered to make these estimations without outside sources to back it up. Those are the rules to which you refer. The very idea that Oscar Wilde being homosexual or being a pederast is "controversial" is ludicrous on its very face. The briefest of glances at your edit history shows a blatant disregard for WP:CIVIL that I am sure AN would be very interested in. Your clear habit of bullying people by calling them "disruptive" and threatening AN actions against them approaches the level of ridiculousness. --CaveatLector ^{Talk Contrib} 02:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

No, you don't get it. WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:FRINGE make it clear that -you- need to provide a legitimate source and prove that it is mainstream within the field. This means that the source must be on the topic and must deal with the subject in a major manner. This is not three lines in an uncited source by a guy who has no publications on the individual. The only sources that are legitimate to make such claims are scholars who have devoted themselves to studying Wilde. That is how RS works. This is a historical individual, and historical standards apply. You must use biographies which are -historical- works when talking about a biography. If you don't like that standard, then you don't like how Wikipedia works. That FA proves that I know exactly how to measure reliable sources and it deals with this very topic. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Your understanding policy is wholly wrong for reasons that have already been given and which in your usual way you choose to ignore, preferring to repeat yourself ad nauseam. No one agrees with you. Get over it. Paul B (talk) 09:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Lets see - I have multiple FAs with one being in this very field (a Victorian biography dealing with claims of pederasty). I have also proven how this is not an expert on Wilde studies and, with the hundreds of biographies -on- Wilde, it is rather obvious that you haven't checked any of them. Every post you make like the above only verifies that you are here to disrupt. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Jezhotwells that Maynard, an academic in a good university, publishing with a university press, is a good enough source for the article on Wilde and I think this will be the consensus of uninvolved editors on this page. By the way, a physicist might very well be citable on an engineering topic. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You honestly think three lines in a publication -not- on Wilde by a professor who does't have a background in -Wilde- is able to trump hundreds of biographies on -Wilde- by professors that study -Wilde-? There is no possible way, and to claim such is disruptive. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

It does not trump them. It agrees with them. It is you view that is fringe. You are trying to deny that Wilde qwas homosexuual with the utterly fantastical claim that "At least 50% of the critical biographies I have read state that the "attracted to men" was, at best, homoerotic and not homosexual and is based on a misunderstanding of what "Socratic/Platonic" love means (i.e. love of friends that try to help each other attain spiritual completeness)." That is an outright falsity. No recent biographer would make any such ludicrous claim. It exists entirely in your fantasy world. Paul B (talk) 16:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

First off, I understand that editors here might have had histories of personal conflict and both sides are using aggressive language, but people need to take things back a notch here, as the comments above on both sides are not helpful.

Second, this person MAY may be a reliable source (I do not know yet, leaning toward it, but would need more info), but it'd only be reliable for his own opinion. We do not present the conclusions of single sources as if they were facts, especially when they are considered controversial. The statement in question is a pretty strong one, and academics are known for making conclusions others don't agree with. Before we say that it's a fact we should have more sources. If there's any currency to this opinion then it should be trivial to find other sources saying the same thing. If not, then we either cite it as being that one guy's opinion... or maybe it is fringe and doesn't belong at all. It needs to be hammered out more.

And, seriously, this is pretty basic stuff so I'm surprised at the comments above. Maybe the hostility above made people forget our standard procedures on sources. DreamGuy (talk) 13:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy, a few months ago people were pushing pederasty across multiple pages. These people were misusing sources, violating weight, etc etc. There were blocks. This is just a redux of it with nonsense claims. They can't find the statements in actual biographies so they are trying to claim that they don't need to rely on biographies. They refuse to find another source because there are none. It almost came down to a topic ban against these individuals before but they stopped. However, it seems like they are back again. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy, your cooling down advice is very helpful, thank you. Ottava Rima, when you have a moment to consider, I do hope you would like to withdraw what you said above: "to claim such is disruptive". The purpose of this board is to ask uninvolved editors, interested in sourcing, to comment on the quality and appropriateness of sources. That's what I did, and it can't count as disruption. I suggest that we remember also that questions on this noticeboard are only about the suitability of sources for articles. There follows afterwards a further series of questions about whether a sources is used properly, whether it needs attributing, needs balancing etc. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, your blatant disregard for standards has no place here. You cannot make an argument claiming that a source that is not an expert on a field with only three lines has some validity to trump biographies devoted to the subject. Furthermore, itsmejudith, this belonged on the -fringe- noticeboard, not reliable sourcing, and anyone with a clue would realize that it has everything to do with that subject. You can claim all you want about this noticeboard, but your comments are absurd and improper. WP:FRINGE applies to the reliability of a source to make a claim within a topic, and, as DreamGuy pointed out, this can only be taken as the opinion as the author and only as the author. As such, RS is a secondary component to Fringe and should be dealt with appropriately. You would have to know that if you truly understand what these noticeboards are about and what the policies are about. As such, your comments are highly inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• Uhhh...does the cited claim raise any WP:REDFLAGs to anyone else? FRINGE and all that aside. I can agree that Maynard is reliable enough to talk about Wilde but I can't agree that he is reliable enough to anchor the claim that Wilde was a pederast. Is there another source that makes a similar claim or a review article that addresses his claim? Protonk (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Protonk - there are only a few sources that do, and most claim that Wilde's "Socratic love" was a claim of pederasty. I have many major biographies that explain how the "Socratic love" deals with "Platonic love", which means non-sexual and deals with education and spirituality. So, the foundation of it is very wrong. (and the one citation used to claim that Wilde had a gay love affair is amusingly misused in the article as the quote even makes it claim that they never had any sexual contact). Ottava Rima (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with you completely, Protonk. Maynard goes nowhere near saying "Wilde was a pederast". In fact he says "we are all social constructionists now", and the main thrust of his argument is that sexual orientations are constructed within the cultural and social contexts of their time. Maynard's chapter is in no way whatsoever a fringe text. It is serious academic work and can be used. But if it is used due care must be shown for its complex set of arguments. It must not be quoted out of context or treated as if it was a collection of facts. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

"It is serious academic work and can be used" - No. Publisher does not make something not fringe. Fringe is based on its point of view among the majority of works. Maynard promotes the idea of pederasty on these biographies. That is in the minority of -Queer Theory-, let alone -all- literary theory. It is not grounded in fact nor evidence. He is not a biographer of Wilde. There is no way to claim he is an expert on Wilde, and the fact that you would to claim otherwise is a severe promoting of something that clearly goes against our policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

And Itsmejudith, please don't make directly false claims like you do above claiming that "Maynard goes nowhere near saying 'Wilde was a pederast'." It has already been shown that Maynard wrote that Wilde "thought of himself as in a tradition fostered by Greek pederastic love". It is very clear that Maynard is promoting that Wilde is a pederast while not having any background in Wilde or having any legitimate way to claim such. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

What does "pederast" mean anyway? I mean today, to recent writers such as Maynard and to contributors to this encyclopedia? Surely it's widely agreed that Wilde was romantically/sexually attracted to men (alongside being married of course). After all, he was convicted of homosexual activity in a British court. But there is no suggestion - in Maynard or anywhere else that I know of - that he was attracted to boys, the other sense of the term coming down to us from Ancient Greece. The current sentence in the article attributed to Maynard seems fine. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

At least 50% of the critical biographies I have read state that the "attracted to men" was, at best, homoerotic and not homosexual and is based on a misunderstanding of what "Socratic/Platonic" love means (i.e. love of friends that try to help each other attain spiritual completeness). His conviction does not prove he was homosexual, nor is there any way to claim such. There are many arguments that say he was convicted of being homosexual merely because he was an Irishman who had strong Catholic sympathies, and the laws against Catholics were toned down enough so they accused a man with two kids of being gay merely to persecute him. Pederasty has nothing to do with being a normal gay man. It has everything to do with a man who has sex with males under the age of 18. That is the use of pederasty by Maynard and the use of pederasty by most critics who use the term. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Trust me. I don't treat anything that can trace its lineage to Lacan as a collection of facts. Protonk (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think you would, Protonk.

Ottava Rima, your latest post clarifies your position for me. It does seem to revolve around the multiple meanings of "pederasty". This word has had a long and very chequered history, as I'm sure you know. In Ancient Greece it had a whole series of meanings that our article pederasty in Ancient Greece starts to unpick. Then by the 1890s it had another usage (= homosexual). To complicate things, Oscar Wilde, as a literary person, was well acquainted with the Ancient Greek concept as it was understood in his day - he didn't have the opportunity to read Foucault (pity). Finally, there are the meanings the word may have today.

You take it as given that it is identical to "paedophile". I wouldn't say so. I agree that today we distinguish rigorously between "normal" gay sexuality and paedophilia (which may be heterosexual or homosexual). Therefore most people writing today if they mean "paedophilia" that's what they say. They don't say "pederasty" because it is no longer a term in regular everyday use, let alone in academic use, let alone in use by academics defending a social constructionist viewpoint. So when Maynard says that Wilde identified with the Greek tradition of pederasty, that is precisely what he means. He knows - and expects his readers to know - that Wilde understood that the relationships that the ancient Greeks celebrated were meant to be a meeting of minds. There is no way that I can construe his text to mean "Wilde was a paedophile", no way at all. And I don't think that many people who are used to reading literary criticism will accept that reading either. Having said that ... Wikipedia is not just meant for people used to reading literary criticism. It is read by many, including those who think that "pederast" is a synonym for "paedophile". Therefore, I don't think it is appropriate to mention anything from Maynard about "pederasty", because it could be misconstrued. That leaves the question of whether the article should say that Wilde was gay or bisexual. You say that 50% of biographies say he wasn't. Presumably then 50% say he was. The standard solution is to give a sourced summary of both views. The irony is that Maynard, currently the source for Wilde being gay or bisexual, is specifically arguing against the application of such categories. Whatever, IMO Maynard is RS for this article, which was the point originally brought here. Whether and how his text is used is a question for the talk page, or for RfC if you can't agree. Hope this helps (!) Itsmejudith (talk) 22:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

"your latest post clarifies your position for me. It does seem to revolve around the multiple meanings of "pederasty"." This quote right there verifies that you do not understand the Pederasty Critical Analysis movement within Queer Theory Criticism. As such, the rest of your statement is meaningless. Pedophiles are not pederasts. Pedophilia deals with little children. Pederasty deals with pubescent boys. Your claims about what Maynard is saying is not even close to what Maynard claims nor is it pertinent at all. Maynard in his work is very specific that he is talking about Wilde wanting to have sex with young teen boys. It is impossible to state otherwise. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It is totally wrong to take a passing mention of a person in an article that is not about him and use it as a source. I come across that sort of thing all the time. Someone wants to put information into an article then does a google search to find support. I can understand why Ottava Rima is upset. If you want to learn about Wilde, read a book or article about him and, if it is an RS use it as a source. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This comment mrerely displays a misunderstanding of the source and an uncritical acceptance of OR's tendentious version of events. It is not a passing mention in an irrelevant article. It is a summary of accepted opinion in an article on attitudes to sexuality in the period. A specialist on this spubject is entirely appropriate as a source and nothing he says is controversial or fringe. Paul B (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Either cite the sources Maynard uses on Wilde to make the claim or strike the above as a complete fabrication. I have looked through the article four times and there are no sources and no possible way for you to claim the above. You do realize that directly fabricating information is a violation of WP:CIVIL, right? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you completely irrational? The author does not need to use footnotes to make his claims. His authority and the authority of the publication is the source of the information as far asWP is concerned. Paul B (talk) 08:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes it's very important that our biographical articles should mainly be written up from biographies specifically about those authors. And I do recognise the phenomenon of people scrabbling around for a source for some point they want to push. What we may have come across here is the limitations of this noticeboard. Here, you will be able to find people who understand what a scholarly source is in general. Only with a lot of luck will you find that combined with a detailed knowledge of a subfield within a subfield. So you probably need to take the content dispute back to the article talk page, for now. Or an RfC, or ask for advice within a project. More than one project - I don't think in this case it would count as forum shopping. I don't think anything I have said was disruptive. With all the anger around, it seems to have needed a fool stepping in where angels feared to tread to arrive at this point, where we have a much clearer spelling out of the objections to the use of Maynard's text. For info, I am taking out a user RfC on Ottava Rima, after a heated discussion on the Wikiquette alerts board and multiple threats of bans and blocks. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Admittedly I haven't had coffee yet this morning, but I find it difficult to figure out who is saying what and why. Can we graph it out on the article talk page (i.e. text from source and quote on page?) and then vote on it? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

This was the removed diff. This is where it came from. The diff is making the claim that Oscar Wilde was a pederast, which hundreds of biographies argue over if he is gay and -none- of them claim that he had a desire to have sex with young boys let alone acted on it. The source of the statement is not from a biographer on Wilde nor, as you can see from above, is there a source from a biographer on Wilde, to verify such claims. The guy has no experience in Wilde studies. To "vote" on it would be to go against multiple policies. I have already submitted evidence to you and to ArbCom that at least part of this is being furthered by people simply intent on disrupting. It is obvious that this is a non-issue being pushed for a reason that is not for the betterment of the encyclopedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Paul B, I don't need to read a lot about this to form an opinion. You are trying to insert a comment on an article about Victorian poetry into the article about Oscar Wilde. If the comment is true then it would appear in biographical material. Wilde was hardly an obscure person and there are countless sources you can draw from. On the other hand if your source is in error there is no way of knowing because it does not cite its source. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Four Deuces, you are merely displaying your unfamiliarity with this topic. Firstly, I am not trying to insert anything. Ottava Rima is trying to remove a source weitten by this person. My activity is confined to comments on this board. Secondly, the article is not essentially about "victorian poetry", though why it should be a problem if it were, I do not know. Wilde is a Victorian poet. It is about sexuality in the period, on which this author is leading expert. Thirdly, a reliable source does not need to cite its source. That's nonsensical. It is the source. The scholar does the synthesis, having looked at the evidence. Every sentence in an academic publication does not have to be cited to another academic publication. We'd get into infinite regress if we adopted that point of view. Many reliable sources such as encylopedias do not use footnotes at all. Others use them sparingly. I am currently correcting an article I have written for the Cambridge Companion to the Pre-Raphaelites. The editor has specifically asked me to minimise the number of footnotes. This is entirely normal. Paul B (talk) 08:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

(outside opinion) It does seem to me that if Maynard is merely summarizing accepted opinion it should be easy to find several sources that make the same claim. If no such reliable sources are available then any claim by Maynard about what tradition Wilde thought he came from is a 'singular opinion', which is less than a minority opinion and would be undue in this article.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it's not hard to find sources that see Wilde's sexuality as pederastic. One such is Michael S. Foldy, The Trials of Oscar Wilde: Deviance, Morality, and Late-Victorian Society, Yale University Press 1997. I quote at length from p. 119: "It is apparent from the trial testimony that Wilde preferred having sex, not with men his own age, but with young men who were usually somewhere between the ages of seventeen to twenty-two. Technically then, Wilde could, and perhaps should, be viewed as a pederast. Defined very broadly, pederasty signals the love of an older man for a younger man. It is important to note, however, that by late-Victorian standards, a young man of sixteen or seventeen years old, especially one of the working classes, would have been considered a fully emancipated adult. I believe that Wilde's behavior with Charles Parker, Wood, and the other young men can be best understood if his sexuality is discussed within the aesthetic context of the ancient Athenian discourse on male homosocial desire and in terms of his personal 'ontological aesthetic of dissent.' As a prize-winning classicist at Trinity and Oxford, Wilde had been weaned academically on the culture of ancient Greece and Rome, and was thoroughly steeped in its virtues." (Foldy goes on to summarize David Halperin on ancient Greek pederasty, and claims that it was a model for Wilde's behavior.) You can find this text at Google Books: "oscar+wilde"+pederasty&ots=PwzDr_nZNZ&sig=66cWrhOoZNEDi6at2rrJoMDGSek#v=onepage&q=%20pederasty&f=false. Notice that Foldy does not bluntly label Wilde a pederast, but rather is interested in the cultural background of Wilde's sexuality (including the influence of Wilde's classical education). --Akhilleus (talk) 03:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

That source has been dismissed as wrong when it was pointed out by many critics that Wilde said that he had a Platonic belief, which meant that there could be no sexual interpretation. The excerpt of the trial on the biography page makes that very clear. There is no admittance to having sex so an author cannot claim that the trial testimony claims that he preferred to have sex with anyone. The previous page, 118, states "he wanted to keep the homosexual aspects of his life private and hidden" and that Wilde was "lying in the witness box". As such, that directly contradicts what he claims in the next page. Self contradictory sources that are fringe are not reliable. He also claims that Wilde cites the Symposium's discussion of Pederasty when the actual reference is to Diotima's speech, which the author later verifies by admitting that it is actually talking about "Platonic love". He blatantly conflates the two in order to push his argument. The logical holes and outright falsehoods in the source only verify that it is not a reliable source.

Don't take my word for it. From reviews - Deborah Wiggins in ["Having no evidnece with which to continue this thread, Foldy proceeds to fabricate a convoluted tale of blackmail, influence, and murder. This is fantastic, indeed." Law and History Review] "Having no evidnece with which to continue this thread, Foldy proceeds to fabricate a convoluted tale of blackmail, influence, and murder. This is fantastic, indeed."

Martha M. Ertman Law & Social Inquiry, "At its strongest, the book is a compelling expose of government blackmail and a detailed portrait of how a private tragedy became a catalyst in the social construction of sexuality. At its weakest, it represents what Joyce Carol Oats has called pathography, or the spurious portrait of a person through ones despised character traits." and "If, as I suggest, Wilde's significance for many contemporary readers lies, at least in part, in the way his story resonates with post-identity understanding of sexual orientation... then the extent to which Foldy's approach coheres with queer theory is an appropriate measure of the effectiveness of the volume. In this light, Foldy's work falters when he abandons post-identity social construction analysis, instead reverting to an interpretation of same-sex sexuality as a sickness when he ambitiously tries to reconstruct how Wilde himself viewed his deviance. Just as the statute criminalizing gross indecency focused on sexual conduct, Foldy constructs an elaborate speculation about Wilde's view of his own deviance, assuming with little or no evidence that Wilde engaged in anal penetration to express what Foldy dubs his 'ontological aesthetic of dissent'... He also describes Wilde as a 'pervert'"

William A. Cohen Victorian Studies "Foldy presents evidence for the gradual emergency of 'the homosexual' from earlier formations of sodomy without reconciling the apparent contradictions between this argument and the one that Wilde's case produced the transformation... Foldy's study is caught between the Scylla of an anachronistic 'homophobia' and the Charybdis of a superannuated 'sodomy'... he himself appropriates Wilde to the contemporary 'homophobia' model. At the same time, a number of imprecisions mar the historical clarity Foldy seeks to bring to the matter, beginning with the text's second sentence, which states that 'the alleged crime' of which Wilde was accused was 'sodomy'"

Need I continue? I have many more debunking that horrible source. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, blah. I can find favorable reviews of Foldy's work (just start at the book's webpage on the Yale U. Press site). I could also point out that some of the reviews you just quoted accept that the trial record tells us that Wilde engaged in sexual conduct, such as Cohen's: "Although Wilde's trials were the most widely reported vehicle to date for disseminating information about sex between men,..." And really, the idea that a "Platonic belief" means "that there could be no sexual interpretation" beggars belief--as indeed, I'm sure many scholars who study Wilde, Victorian sexuality, or Plato would tell you. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Please note that there is a difference between trial records and Wilde's own testimony. Other people testified that there was homosexual conduct. I would recommend you read Diotima's speech in the symposium for the lack of sexual contact. The wiki page is incomplete but shows the emphasis on the intellectual over the physical. Now, I have only given excerpts from the first three reviews on Jstor. They all point out the intellectual dishonesty in his process and method, where he gets things wrong, and where he promotes a homophobic agenda during discussions of sexuality, which suggest an inappropriate bias. Now, for reviews that could be seen as positive to the work:

Melissa Knox, in Journal of the History of Sexuality does provide a positive review but does not go into the work. Instead, she merely says that the book is a welcome addition to scholarship.

Judith Fingard, The American Journal of Legal History: Says the "book is a valuable addition ... as we approach the one hundredth anniversary of his death and as the gay rights movement embraces him as the first modern victim of homophobia" and "The resulting moral panic remained the prevalent public response until the decriminalization of homosexuality in the 1860s" Suggest a biased view. However, even this author glosses over the claims of pederasty by saying "The author then explores Wilde's decadent aesthetic, his debt to the classics for his class-based sexual exploitation of young men", but not Pederasty. Notice that in even an article that is favored towards the writer that the term is ignored.

Frank Moliterno Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies]: For the events of the trial, "It is a tantalizing theory, but Foldy admits that it is based on circumstantial evidence. No documentation exists". The article points out how it is applying of theory to speculate a claim.

All of these works point out that there is little evidence backing up his claims about Wilde as being "factual" instead of "speculative", and half of them point out that he was making claims he had no grounds to make. While they appreciate his advancement of -theory-, this is not about speculation and the theory of homosexuality in a 21st century perspective. Instead, this is a biography that deals with the factual history of his life. Queer Theory is a minority within academia, and a minority within biographies on Wilde. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for providing links to all these reviews. Surely one thing these reviews demonstrate is that Foldy's book has not been ignored. Also, I think that you are misinterpreting some of these reviews. For instance, Moliterno's review, which is generally positive, does say "It is a tantalizing theory, but Foldy admits that it is based on circumstantial evidence. No documentation exists"--but Moliterno is talking about Foldy's conjecture that the death of Lord Alfred Douglas's brother, Francis_Douglas,_Viscount_Drumlanrig was a suicide, spurred on by the impending revleation of his relationship with the Prime Minister Lord Rosebery. Moliterno doesn't say that Foldy's entire work is speculative, but only a particular aspect of it; in fact, he begins the last paragraph of his review by saying "Foldy's book is a valuable resource for historians of the Wilde era." That's hardly a debunking, a demonstration that Foldy is a "horrible source", or an accusation of intellectual dishonesty.

You're quite right to point out that these reviewers don't use the term pederasty. My guess is that most who write about Wilde will talk about homosexuality, sodomy, same-sex desire, and so forth. However, the reason I quoted Foldy in this thread is to demonstrate that Maynard is not alone in connecting pederasty to Wilde. Perhaps more importantly, let's return to the disputed text from Oscar Wilde: "Wilde himself felt he belonged to a culture of male love inspired by the Greek paederastic tradition"--I don't really like the way this is worded, but it indicates that ancient Greek thinking about male love was important to Wilde's own sexuality, and this is something that Maynard and Foldy both discuss, and something that other scholars discuss as well, for instance, Linda Dowling's Hellenism and Homosexuality in Victorian Oxford.

By the way, I know Diotima's speech quite well. And yes, "the love that dare not speak its name" is supposed to be a pure, spiritual affection. You can take that at face value if you wish, but not everyone does! --Akhilleus (talk) 04:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

None of the reviews discuss where the source claims that Wilde was a pederast. What the reviews do is discuss his -method-. This is key. As I have pointed out, even the positive ones show that his method is to promote Queer Theory, is mostly theory based, and filled with conjecture on items that he cannot know. This is not a biography or a history book. This is a philosophy book. There is enough in both positive and negative reviews to establish that this individual does not have a basis to make such claims about sexuality. Also, your statement that "You can take that at face value" is exactly the problem - people are assuming one way or another on things that lack information. That is not scientific or appropriate. That is where a work transitions from fact into opinion. "it indicates that ancient Greek thinking about male love" - there is no proof of such. There is only conjecture. As I have shown in the references, this can never be known. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of rumors that are held in the minority of scholarship. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Isaac Bonewits as a reliable source

I've recently been arguing with a tendentious editor about the use of books by Isaac Bonewits as reliable sources, particularly on the subjects of Neopaganism and various Neo-druidism type articles. An example of Bonewits' influence and expertise might be his classification of types of Paganism but that is hardly his only contribution to understanding these subjects. I'd really like some feedback and other opinions on whether Bonewits can be considered a reliable source. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 02:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Any book in particular in question? Cirt (talk) 03:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, this one: Bonewits's Essential Guide to Druidism. (2006) Citadel ISBN 0-8065-2710-2, ISBN 978-0806527109. Pigman☿/talk 03:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

(And, by the way, does anyone else think that the particular possessive "Bonewits's" looks wrong? Seems to me it should leave off the last "s" but I'm unclear whether that is proper convention or my personal confusion on the issue.) Pigman☿/talk 03:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Citadel Press seems like a reputable publisher, cited in a few other books, but I'm (so far) unable to come up with any book reviews of the work... Cirt (talk) 03:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

What is the page you're having the dispute on?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Bonewits' (as some English style has it for possessives with s ending words) works appear to be Reliable Sources on: His practice of druidism; His scholarly opinion as a religious officiant on religions within his core tradition. I would not consider Bonewits as a RS for sociology of contemporary pagan practices, and, as he is obviously an involved thinker, I'd suggest you look for a second independent source using / critiquing his new theoretical / theological constructions before use. Bonewits is not a historian or archaeologist: his opinion on paganism before 1950 should be less esteemed, and historians and archaeologists should be sought out. His typology of pre 1950s paganism is acceptable, as it is in itself a theological construct (and as long as its discussed as an idea, not as if an actuality). No inherent problem in Bonewits as a religious commentator on the modern. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Excellent precis of his areas of expertise, Fifelfoo. I think I agree pretty thoroughly with your assessment in all particulars. Thanks for the feedback. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 04:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, may I ask you to clarify "I would not consider Bonewits as a RS for sociology of contemporary pagan practices" a little? As far as I can see, it is precisely in this capacity that Bonewits is being called upon in the article Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism, which is the only use of him I am questioning. Not sure why Pigman pointed to other articles. Thanks in advance. Davémon (talk) 09:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Further to this I am also in doubt about Bonewits' independence from celtic-neopaganism and whether his writings can be used to help establish wp:notability of the subject of Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism. Again, any external input on that would be good.Davémon (talk) 09:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Urgh, just, urgh. He's an involved party, he's not an academic sociologist. Bonewits should really be treated as a PRIMARY source at Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism. (I checked the usages, they're using him to comment on the validity of practices, and to classify them... he's way to involved as an advocate of a theology here.) Fifelfoo (talk) 10:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC) (Being treated as PRIMARY doesn't mean he's wrong, it just means you can't use him as an RS, seek SECONDARY sources).

Thank you for clarifying your position. "urgh!" is the right word. Davémon (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is my take on this. After doing a bit of research on Bonewits and Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism, I am going to cautiously suggest that this author can be used as a reliable secondary source. Here is my reasoning: 1. Bonewits does not self-identify as a Celtic Reconstructionist, but as a Druid. Druidry and Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism are not the same religion - this is implied in Bonewits' own book (the one that is question). Bonewits at one time seemed to have practiced something that could be termed, for lack of a better word "eclectic polytheism" and was a founding member of Ár nDraíocht Féin: A Druid Fellowship (ADF), but has never identified as a "Celtic Reconstructionist Pagan". Therefore, I think he can be used as a secondary source if his credilbility can be established. To suggest otherwise is to imply that the writings of someone of a Christian persuasion cannot be used as secondary sources simply because the individual is a Christian. We would not make such an assertion under that case and we must apply the same rules here if we are to be neutral. 2. Whether or not Bonewits is a reliable source is a bit more complicated. Obviously other writers have agreed that he may be used as reliable source as a commentator on modern paganism and I agree with that. I do not, however, agree that he is involved in the "Celtic Reconstructionist Pagan" religion, but in Druidry. While they may be two differenct sects of neo-paganism, the two are clearly separate religions and should be treated as thus. In other words, while the differences are subtle, they are there to any obvious readers. Modern Druidry had its start in the Druid Revival of the 1800's which was more akin to Freemasonry and such. Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism had its roots in the polytheistic reconstructionism that went on in the 1960's or 1970's. 72.94.173.25 (talk) 12:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

NGO Monitor as a source for Marc Garlasco

Resolved

NGO Monitor is a political organization which monitors and responds to what it perceives to be anti-Israeli bias. Marc Garlasco is an analyst for Human Rights Watch. Are allegation made by NGO Monitor suitable for a BLP if they are outside of NGO Monitor's expertise and not picked up by reliable news organizations? Should tags on the statements be removed instantaneously? Thanks, --99.130.161.159 (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

NGO Monitor is a propaganda mill and is in no way acceptable as a sourcce for claims of fact in a BLP. L0b0t (talk) 15:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I have attempted to remove the material and have been rebuffed, and then I have attemped to place tags on the statement and article and I have been repeatedly reverted[6][7][8][9][10]. I am attempting to have a discussion on the article's talk page with limited success and have been told that including tags about the discussion of credibility is POV.

To clarify, I originally questioned all usage of NGO Monitor. I am now questioning the use of it as a primary source for the article.--99.130.165.46 (talk) 15:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well it seems to me that they are RS for their views, but that they do fail somewhat as RS for BLP. Given that they do seem to reply on Rumour and inuendo (and unchriticly report blog accusations) for their facts about people.Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

To me there is a very strong burden for inclusion in a BLP and if they have any negative reputation for rumour and innuendo then they aren't appropriate for a BLP.--99.130.165.46 (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The above two users - the latter IP editing under multiple IPs, by the way - have POV reasons for stating that NGO Monitor is political and unreliable, namely that the international press have quoted NGO Monitor's criticism of Marc Garlasco's work at Human Rights Watch, as well as the recent notoriety NGO Monitor has had during the outing of Garlasco as an avid German/Nazi war memorabilia devotee, and they seek purging these references. Best, A Sniper (talk) 15:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

According to NGO Monitor's article, they were founded by a Jewish public relations group and they are run by an Israeli political scientist who was formerly paid as a consultant to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Nevertheless, I don't contest they have been quoted by some media for an Israeli response to the incident. I don't feel this qualifies them as a primary source for a BLP.--99.130.165.46 (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Well it seems to me that they are RS for their views, but that they do fail somewhat as RS for BLP. Given that they do seem to reply on Rumour and inuendo (and unchriticly report blog accusations) for their facts about people. "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it may include original research and unverifiable statements, and could lead to libel claims. See Wikipedia:Libel.

"

Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely unacceptable as a source in a BLP. User:A Sniper should give WP:AGF a thorough reading as well. L0b0t (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

And you should sign your posts LoBoT ;) A Sniper (talk) 16:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The question is not are they RS for their views, they are and I do not object to their use on a non BLP. The question is do they breach the rules for RS on BLP, I think they do. But I agree thyat signing posts here would avoid the invetialbe accusations.Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Inevitable accusations aren't part of a civil discussion.--99.130.165.46 (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

They are not a reliable source, especially for a BLP. That said, if what they have said about Garlasco has been repeated by reliable secondary sources it can go in. But you cant use NGO Monitor itself as the source, you have to show that a secondary source actually cared about what they said. (Also, a note was left at WT:JUDAISM asking for others to help oppose a zealous effort at Marc Garlasco to purge all references to NGO Monitor. Just dont be surprised to see some people come in and just say "Support". nableezy - 16:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

NGO Monitor has been referenced by many mainstream news sources, even allowing Steinberg to write articles: Wall Street Journal, The National, The Guardian, The Telegraph. Yes, I alerted a user project to the discussion, without stating one way or the other how folks should edit. All the above is is an attempt to censor by a small band of four users, POV-motivated. A Sniper (talk) 16:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

and in accordance with the rules on BLP'S where they are referenced by third party sources the reference can be used. But they are not suitable to be used as a source according to those same rules. Slatersteven (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The first NGO Monitor reference is based on Garlasco's work, not on Garlasco himself. Similarly, the second reference is about a noted news story that broke concerning allegations made about Garlasco that were carried internationally. How is this in violation of BLP? A Sniper (talk) 16:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

If it’s not about Garlasco then why is in on the page about him? If it is not about him then it should be removed. The second is not in breach of the rules because it is a reference to a third party source reporting what NGO monitor said.--Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I only have issues with the first reference, but on reliability grounds. They are making allegations outside their field of expertise and the allegations aren't being carried by a reliable source.--99.130.165.46 (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

How are they "making allegations outside their field of expertise"? Steinberg is a university prof specializing in Middle East diplomacy and security. NGO Monitor lawyer Anne Herzberg has assisted at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and has published on the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia. How is this any more or less than the expertise of Marc Garlasco himself, based on his own credentials studying International Relations? A Sniper (talk) 17:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

If a third party source referances the allegations use that, argument over. If not then it breaches the rules on BLP.Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

NGO Monitor's primary purpose is to offer defense of Israel, not evaluate human rights. Further, they have no third-party recognition evaluating human rights. Their work is still appropriate on their own article page or when it is picked up by a main stream news organization. I just removed a blog from someone representing HRW and replaced it with a quote which was carried by NPR, so see if you can do the same for NGO Monitor or find a quote which did appear in a reliable publication.--99.130.165.46 (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

If you all want to just continue the same argument with the same participants do it on the article talk page. If you want to get uninvolved opinions stop arguing. Make your points and see what others have to say. This type of arguing makes it exceedingly unlikely that others will even try to get involved. nableezy - 18:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nableezy - this is just a re-tread of what we're already doing at the talk page for the article. Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thirded. IronDuke 22:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Fourthed as we have determined they are unreliable as a source by themselves but ok if attributed from a reliable source.--70.236.45.99 (talk) 01:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Al Jazeera

Is Al Jazeera a reliable source for 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt? A user has recently deleted material from this article arguing that Al Jazeera is not a RS.diff. --JRSP (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Al Jazeera is generally considered a reliable source. I also find the referenced article to be unsurprising and without any red flags. Good source. If you want to strengthen it further, try finding the AFP/Reuters/AP reports of the Carter interview - typically, these are taken over more or less one to one. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely a reliable source. The only thing that I could think of where it may be a questionable source is the internal politics of Qatar where it may be a reliable secondary source or it may be a primary source as it is state funded. nableezy - 21:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes Al Jazeera is reliable. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, RS for uses in the diff. Please ref-improve by providing full citations. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a solid reliable source with a good reputation. Dlabtot (talk) 03:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Al-Jazeera has often been criticized for its lack of neutrality when it comes to Arab-related matters (being an Arab source, such criticism would surface whether or not it is justified), but here we are talking about a topic that bears no relation whatsoever with the Middle East, and Al-Jazeera being the Middle East's CNN, it is as reliable as any other major news source. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, they did pay for and held a party for a released child killer.[11] Not something you'd expect from a journalistic source that tries to uphold a semblance of neutrality. The problem with Venezuela's stories is the country's leadership is, much like al-Jazeera, what analysts call "pro-Mukawama". Putting this into consideration, I think they should be avoided where possible in this topic. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

al-Jazeera is a RS, regardless of what you think of their editorial stance on issues. nableezy - 21:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

When a source issues a public mea culpa for a mistake, that is an indication of reliability, not unreliability. Unless we are in Bizarro World. Dlabtot (talk) 01:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

bookrags.com

Is bookrags.com a reliable source? It is used on hundreds of Wikipedia articles, either as a reference or as an external link. Our article BookRags says the content is written in part by students. I would be inclined to think bookrags.com shouldn't be used as a reference, but it might be OK as an external link. I am interested to hear others' opinions. Also, many of the pages linked to at bookrags.com have nothing but ads on them, and many just have links to content hosted on other sites (including Wikipedia itself). These seem like links that violate Wikipedia's external links policy. What should be done? Peacock (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit hesitant to say that its an acceptable external link; as most information on there can be properly cited into articles. A blanket ban isn't in order, as there are always exceptions to the rule, but most of the pages on the site don't really add anything that cannot be incorporated into our articles, which is the point of WP:ELNO #1. I also doubt that it's a reliable source, as it doesn't give attribution to its writers nor does it publish any sort of quality control guidelines. Also, I note the site has an "as is" warranty in their terms of service [12] where they don't guarantee the accuracy of any of the information posted there. ThemFromSpace 19:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I think a blanket ban would be appropriate, as I can't imagine any page on the site meeting WP:RS or WP:EL rules. DreamGuy (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

What then do you think should be done about the ~2000 links to bookrags.com? Peacock (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Communist genocide

Is The Lost Literature of Socialism[13] by George Watson, a Fellow in English at St. John’s College, Cambridge, published by the Lutterworth Press a reliable source for Communist genocide? Google scholar returns 8 hits.[14] I am unable to find any reviews of the book in mainstream publications. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's a quick reference to it in the American Thinker.[15] AmateurEditor (talk) 22:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's an article by Watson about his book in The Independent.[16] AmateurEditor (talk) 22:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe that page survived it's AfD… Irbisgreif (talk) 22:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It should be relisted. It's quite possible that the AfD discussion was derailed by an orchestrated attack in violation of Wikipedia policies. csloat (talk) 07:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I have put a 2nd nomination for AfD up. Simonm223 (talk) 16:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The publisher's page lists blurbs from these five publications: Contemporary Review, The Salisbury Review, Chronicles, The Freeman, and The Review of English Studies.[17] AmateurEditor (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Per the instructions at the top of the page, here is the relevant talk page discussion.[18] AmateurEditor (talk) 22:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

No academic publishing outside of their field in an inappropriate (vanity) press, their status as an academic is lost as they've violated disciplinary and peer review structures that ensure academic quality. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

He wrote a book on early socialist literature and is an academic specializing in literature. Literary history is not exactly outside of his field. It was reviewed in Contemporary Review, Salisbury Review, and The Review of English Studies. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

"Genocide" as a literary concept? Its nawt but new times. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The advocacy of acts of genocide in the historical literature of socialism. And why they are there. AmateurEditor (talk) 01:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Which is why I'm attacking him for being a literary scholar. Genocide is history, sociology and politics. The literary analysis of socialist texts is not disciplinary history, nor disciplinary sociology, nor disciplinary politics. He doesn't have RS standing on the basis of academic speciality; much as if he read Mutual Aid and started discussing genetic inheritance. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

How is Lutterworth Press a vanity press?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, rechecked the Press, modified opinion (as struck above), still stand by inappropriate press for putting forward major controversial historical interpretations. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I think that this is a minor controversial historical interpretation - which certain editors have tried (but failed) to establish as a major mainstream interpretation. (The page has an identity crisis.) I would argue that it is suitable to mention in passing so long as the page is balanced between those who agree on the link between ideology and large scale kilings, and those who do not.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that's far too narrow. History and politics are far, far more fluid and accessible subjects than molecular biology or some such specialized hard science. The analysis of historical socialist literature stands at the intersection of the disciplines of history, politics, and literature. Anyone who writes there must be familiar with all three. If you look at the other books Watson has written, you will find others in a similar vein: "The Idea of Liberalism", "The English Ideology", "Politics and Literature in Modern Britain".[19] He has specialized in historical, political, literature. This book is within his realm of expertise and the material from it included in the Wikipedia article is as well. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

So he has a habit of making crank claims outside of discipline and shopping them to small inappropriate presses where he won't receive appropriate peer review? Fifelfoo (talk) 03:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Crank claims? Inappropriate presses? Where are you getting this from? AmateurEditor (talk) 03:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Lutterworth Press "The Lutterworth Press is one of the oldest independent British publishing houses. It has been trading since the late eighteenth century initially as the Religious Tract Society (RTS). [...] The main areas have been religion, children's books and general adult non-fiction." If you're intending on making large claims, you'd take it to an appropriate press. Lutterworth isn't an appropriate press for a historical or political academic claim. That similar quality work has been published in the past, simply means that the author's choice of press is similarly poor. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

So this would fall under the "Adult non-fiction" area. Are you saying that Lutterworth is an unreliable publisher of non-fiction that publishes cranks? Did the reviewers mentioned above lie about the book? The author is a respectable academic, the book is within his expertise, and his claims are verifiable and appropriate for the article. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I've stated my case that he's outside of his field, that the publisher is not a peer-reviewing academic publisher of history. If you're trying to use him for history, then I don't particularly care what reviewers of the discipline literature say. "Adult non-fiction" is clearly not the ambit of an academic press. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You've only made the assertion that he's outside of his field. At St. John's College, his area of research is "Political literature and critical theory" for pete's sake.[20] Not an academic press does not mean unreliable. AmateurEditor (talk) 04:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. This is a perfectly acceptable source for the claim in question. If editors are just going to make snarky comments about authors and not bother to actually read the work in question then they really should go edit elsewhere; they are not being helpful. L0b0t (talk) 03:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

AmateurEditor, I have been reading your arguments and I can't help laughing. (You are really funny.) Please get back to legitimate arguments as it is a serious matter whether or not to accept this book as an RS. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a thought from someone that stumbled on to this discussion: Since Watson's field of expertise falls into a gray area, why not simply state after George Watson's name[21], his field of study and if appropriate his employment in the academic field? There is a link to Engels' Neue Rheinische Zeitung, for the reader to peruse and decide for themselves if Watson's interpretation is correct or simply poetry. This way the readers will know for themselves Watson's qualifications and decide if they believe he is qualified or not. Sorry to have interupted your discussion. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

No need to apologize. You're actually the first person to comment here who wasn't already following the article in question. AmateurEditor (talk) 07:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops, overlooked L0b0t. One of the first... AmateurEditor (talk) 07:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Good proposal. Let readers judge for themselves. --Anderssl (talk) 01:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

In the interests of not making anyone here look like a mule, I'd suggest you read Robert Grant "Reviewed work(s): The Lost Literature of Socialism by George Watson" The Review of English Studies, New Series, Vol. 50, No. 200 (Nov., 1999), pp. 557-559 Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/517431 (probably requires a JSTOR account). There is a summary of the Review's points in article at: Article's section ¶George Watson..., and there is a summary of the Review's esteem of the press at Talk ¶If you wanted... Fifelfoo (talk) 03:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I think what you have done is the best way to handle it. Present one RS and another that disagrees. The whole thing is a bit long and so UNDUE. I've taken out the statement that it hasn't been reviewed by historical peer-reviewed journals, as it's OR (or you need to source it).VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

[Copied comment from the talk page] It seems Grant is not a fan. I don't have any problem with including criticism in the article. I will read the review when I can get to a library. However, so that people don't think his opinions are universal, and in the interest of the discussion here and at the RSN, I want to reproduce the five blurbs from the publisher's website (which include one from his review):

"A stimulating book and if it sparks genuine debate, it will have done much good."

-Contemporary Review

"George Watson’s stimulating contribution to the problems of political theory is most welcome. It is a pity it is not a longer book."

-The Salisbury Review

"George Watson has devoted many thoughtful hours to the problem of the crimes, privileges, and general behaviour of the socialist elite. He has succeeded in producing a startlingly simple explanation of the otherwise inexplicable. A fascinating, very readable book, filled with deeply satisfying quotations from the perpetrators themselves and their publicists. Lively and fascinating account of current forgetfulness."

-Chronicles

"George Watson has been re-reading this literature as a professional literary critic, with strong interests in both political affairs and the history of ideas. Many of his findings are astonishing."

-Antony Flew, The Freeman

"The merits of Watson's book are its brevity, its admonition to socialists ignorant of what has been done in the name of their creed, and a few discoveries."

-The Review of English Studies

AmateurEditor (talk) 03:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Please get hold of the actual reviews if you can - blurb can be very selective.

Should we take this all back to the talk page? I think we're back on track now.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

(out) I think you may be missing the point. The reviews do not represent academic criticism, they are merely opinions by people who have read the book. The fact that a writer said in Contemporary Review that it was "a stimulating book" does not really tell us how it has been accepted by the academic community. It is unfortunate that you are not familiar with how academic theory is developed. Academics write articles, they are reviewed by other academics and then their theories are categorized as generally accepted, minority or fringe. Watson has not submitted his work to academic scrutiny and so there is no academic criticism. Also, most of these sources are not even academic publications. Wikipedia should follow the same high standards as other encyclopedias and should not give any weight to fringe theories that receive no academic support. It would be helpful if you would familiarize yourself with academic procedure. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, reviews in academic journals can help to give us a lead into RS critical reception of the book. It's not just anybody reviewing them. However, for this book, only Flew's opinion is kind of significant, but that's about it (and Flew is not an expert in the field). Another check is to see how many times the book is cited by other books and articles. On this count, the book doesn't appear to do so well. Compare it to Valentino's published only five years ago, at least through what's available on google books and scholar, and the two are clearly considered to be of vastly different quality. I also note that it's predominantly libertarian and conservative journals reviewing this book. It hasn't received much attention elsewhere, in terms of reviews or cites at least not in academic imprints. I'm beginning to think it's undue except as a passing reference, (as a nod to the fact that it is actually a Cambridge literary scholar).VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The basic approach of this book seems unusual. It focuses on lost literature, which are writings that were ignored and did not influence socialist thought. Although it is a legitimate study and may be helpful in explaining socialist thought it seems peculiar to base an analysis of 20th century governments on forgotten 19th century texts. It seems paranoid, that somehow there are secret writings that were only shown to the initiated, or that the main writings somehow conceal secret plans. The Four Deuces (talk) 10:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Deir Yassin Remembered board of advisors for opinion on IDF modus operani

The following text was inserted for criticism towards Operation Defensive Shield:

• Cheryl Rubenberg writes that data and records held by Palestinian civilian institutions were systematically destroyed by the IDF and among the institutions affected were the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS), the Palestinian Authority's Ministries of Culture, Education and Health, and the Palestine International Bank.[22][23][24][25][26]

Cheryl Rubenberg is on the board of advisors of "Deir Yassin Remembered," an organization founded to commemorate the 1948 Deir Yassin Massacre and its mythos. As a board member of a Palestinian commemoration blog which advocates -- outside the scope of the sad historic incident -- that Israeli-Jews are Zionist murderers and ethnic cleansers who should not be in Israel to begin with, it is misleading to quote her as if she were an unbiased source for "writing" (read: accusing) the IDF of working "systematically" to destroy Palestinian records. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou, using the word "mythos" to describe the commemoration of the Deir Yassin Massacre is insensitive and provocative.

And are you talking about this Deir Yassin Remembered? Which Elie Wiesel was invited to join, but declined to? Tiamut^talk 20:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

She is more than just a member of the board of advisers of Deir Yassin Remembered, she is also the writer of books published by high quality university presses on the topic. She also is associated with the Middle East Policy Council. And the source is not citing Deir Yassin remembered, it is citing a book published by Lynne Rienner Publishers. nableezy - 16:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't this organization previously called American Arab Affairs Council and keeps promoting the idea that the US shouldn't support Israel? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Whats that have to do with whether or not this book, from a reputable publisher, is a reliable source? What does her being a board member of Deir Yassin Remembered have to do with whether or not this book, from a reputable publisher, is a reliable source? nableezy - 17:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this publisher university affiliated and has its publications fact-checked or is it independent? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Independent publisher of "academic and scholarly books and journals in the social sciences and humanities". There is no requirement that it be from university presses. nableezy - 17:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Does the publisher have any requirement for fact-checking? They obviously don't check the political activism situation of whoever they publish. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

What you think is the "political activism" of the writer is not an issue in their reliability. nableezy - 18:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

A) So the publisher doesn't have any requirement for fact-checking? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

B) So if someone on the board of members of Arutz Sheva publishes analysis on Palestinian activities in an independent publishing company, it would not be an issue in their reliability? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

They are a respected publisher. As to your second question, seeing as how Arutz Sheva is comically used as a "source" in many articles I dont see how that is relevant, but for your amusement I would answer that if that person where otherwise qualified and published a book by the same publisher it would be a reliable source. nableezy - 23:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

She sounds like an expert. We might want to use attribution, since everything about the conflict is controversial. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm worried even with an attribution since the Deir Yassin group advocates that Israel shouldn't exist. I'm sure far better sources can be found if this is issue is notable enough. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not cited to Deir Yassin Remembered. And even if the author does feel that Israel should not exist bias is not equivalent to unreliability. nableezy - 18:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Please don't twist my words, I was referring to the Dier Yassin organization as the one who opposes the existance of Israel. Her affiliation with this organization puts a major dent in the subjectivity of her "analysis" on how the Israeli army conducts itself. Considering how much emphasis is put to everything Israel does and if this indeed occurred "systematically" then better sources would be easy to find. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Please note that what Rubenberg is being used for is the detail as to what institutions were affected (which I added above), alongside her opinion that they were systematically targeted. Please also note that in the context of the UN report which says that PA institutions were destroyed and Amira Hass' article, which also says institution databases were targeted and destroyed, Rubenberg is not being used for an exceptional claim, but a well-established one. Tiamut^talk 19:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

If it is a well established one, then better sources can be easily provided. We (read: you) wouldn't need an independently published political activist for pushing POV (and faulty) opinions (read: allegation theories). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

p.s. please don't confuse between destruction of terrorist supporting institutions with destruction of data. In fact, the data was collected by the IDF as evidence to prove that these institutions were indeed financially supporting civilian targetting organizations as well as giving out orders. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Cheryl Rubenberg's opinion is a legitimate one, and the detail she provides as the institutions destroyed complements the existing text on this subject (from the UN report and from Amira Hass). I see no reason not to include this material, which is cited a reputable academic publisher. Your assumptions regarding the political positions of Deir Yassin Remembered, and your view that Rubenberg is somehow guilty of something by her association with this organization to a degree that disqualifies her from being a reliable source, fall afoul of basic principles like WP:NPOV. Tiamut^talk 20:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

And Jaakobou, here is the page for the board of directors of Deir Yassin Remembered. I don't see Rubenberg's name there, do you? Tiamut^talk 20:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You bring a highly suspect interpretation of NPOV to this issue. Rubenberg is mentioned as actively affiliated with them on multiple sources (e.g.) and I remind you again that you're under WP:ARBPIA restrictions. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

???

So your position is that because a 1995 article mentions Cheryl Rubenberg as sitting on the board of the organization Deir Yassin Remembered - whose board members today do not include her, but do include people like Salman Abu-Sitta, Hedy Epstein, Paul Findley, Ilan Pappé, and Mordechai Vanunu - we should disregard that she has published six books in this area of study, and consider her an unreliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiamut (talk • contribs)

Vaanunu was in Israeli prisons for 20 odd years and Pappe was asked to resign by his own university after promoting an academic boycott on the school he was teaching in. Rubenberg is published under an independent publisher who does not fact-check her (bogus) claims. I seem to be repeating myself here, but if this is such a notable issue, then I'm sure better sources would be easy to come by. Wouldn't they? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Having a POV and being an advocate doesn't stop people from being reliable sources. Cheryl Rubenberg is a former associate professor in political science at Florida International University, the author of four books on the I/P conflict, as well as numerous papers and book chapters, and she is or was the editor of the Encyclopedia of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. [27] If you're saying we can't use her because she's an advocate for the Palestinians, we'll likewise have to stop using anyone who's an advocate for Israel. That would leave us with almost no sources for the I/P conflict, and perhaps none. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure there'd be a few out there who are respectable enough journalists and scholars that we can use without resorting to the likes of this "systematic"ally biased commentator who's published independently without any semblence of fact-checking. She is assciated with more than a mere adocacy group but with one that is opposing the existance of Israel (no less). I am willing to compromise to adding her with a 'pro-Palestinian advocate' descriptive if we're to insist on her "systematic" approach to the issue but it doesn't strike me as a good source to take if the issue is indeed notable. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I've seen you support all kinds of pro-Israeli sources, some with some pretty extreme views. The point is not what the POV is, but whether the person is acknowledged by others as a knowledgeable source for the issue at hand, and whether the publisher is a decent one. I don't know where you get the idea that Rubenberg's publisher has an editorial process that's different from any other. If there's any issue about a source, use in-text attribution, but do that for all the sources who express a POV or engage in advocacy, not just this one. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ad hominems aside, you're side stepping my above comment completely. (a) there are enough people who research and criticize Israeli actions who are not associated with groups that advocate that Israel shouldn't exist -- if this a notable issue than it should be easy to provide one. (b) Rubenberg's publisher, much like the author, is independent and does not fact check what its authors publish. I will also add that (c) the IDF collected data rather than systematically destroy it - which makes Rubenberg's claim of a destructive modus operadi towards data an exceptional analysis. Anyways, I can see that we now have 3 voices coming to an agreement on adding the advocacy status descriptive and I can live with that.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Nobody came to an agreement about adding "advocacy status". If you want to explicitly cite her you give her name, you dont call her a "pro-Palestinian advocate", unless of course you would like to make it so any mention of Dershowitz carried a similar disclaimer. And you are making up rules that dont exist. The publisher is a quality publisher specializing in academic texts, the author herself was a professor at a University and has been published by high quality academic presses. The book is a reliable source. nableezy - 01:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

And do you have any evidence at all that the publisher "does not fact check what its authors publish"? Any at all? nableezy - 01:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Nableezy,

(A) Was the citation used published by a quality academic publisher or by an independent non-academic one?

(B) Is the author directly connected with a Palestinian "commemoration organization" that utilizes anti-Israeli notables Vanunu and Pappe ?

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 02:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Question 1, by an independent publisher specializing in academic works and scholarly journals. 2, wholly irrelevant. Though I note that Pappe is a reliable source as well, and that a discussion on this noticeboard said the same thing. nableezy - 02:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you clarify what does "specializing in academic works and scholarly journals" means? Do they fact check these journals? Is there a peer review proccess?

p.s. Ihaven't addressed the Dershovitz comparison because he's a responectable non-independed teacher at Harvard and his opinons are, unlike independently published opinions, quite notable. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Rubenberg was a professor in the actual topic of conversation, Dershowitz is not nor has he ever been. And yes, journals they produce are peer-reviewed, such as the Journal of East Asian Studies. If you have any evidence that the publisher is not respected please present it instead of making proclamations without evidence. nableezy - 04:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Setting aside the false and irrelevant comparison, Rubenberg's current status is independent political activist. Both groups mentioned in association with Rubenberg are severly anti-Israeli. One promotes that Israel shouldn't exist and the other tries to persuade the US to stop backing Israel. This activist is pushing the POV that Israel destroyed data "systematically", an inherantly false analysis. If this analysis is accurate, it should be easy to find better sources. (see 'exceptional claims' on the WP:RS). If you insist on using a political activist, due to her teaching it for a couple years somewhere and then leaving the school to live in Gaza, then we have an agreement that they should have a proper attirbution to this factv(e.g. her activist status). Personally, I think there's better sources out there for an encyclopedia to use. Call me crazy for not liking sources who are active/motivated on fringe groups that would take the likes of Vanunu, a man who sat in Israeli prison for 20 odd years, on board position.. and the other group that calls Israelis "colonialists" is just plain silly. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I would be inclined to accept Rubenberg as an authority for an ordinary claim, though to be used cautiously. However, I agree iwth Jaakobou that this is an extraordinary claim and if true, there should be some other source possible, high level media sources not derivitive from Rubenberg.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely no agreement that you call her an "activist" in the text, people said attribute to Rubenberg, not make judgments about her in the text. And her most recent position wass editor of the Encyclopedia of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. This book is a reliable source and nothing you have said, besides attempting to poison the well with irrelevant fallacies, changes that. nableezy - 13:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Heyo Nableezy,

Is it untrue that she is connected with two pro-Palestinian advocacy groups? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It does not matter if it is true or not, it has nothing to do with the reliability of this source published by a respected publisher. Nothing at all. nableezy - 14:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Do what SV says. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Self-published book

Can we use a self-published book for citing as sources to Wikipedia articles. The content is related to population of Non-indigenous ethnic groups in a specific country. As far I know, population of a particular ethnic group obtained respectively from their diplomatic missions and I don't think so, it is a sort of original research. Please comment. Wikipedia:VPM#Book --Gaikokujin  talk  17:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't sound right. Would need to try and have this source published by someone reputable or to be recognized as an authority on the subject involved, preferably with scholar credentials of some relevance. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Although there are circumstances when self-published books are allowed, this is not one of them. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Can't evaluate, requires context Like the article, the book, the talk page. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I have noticed, especially on this noticeboard, that most editors here on Wikipedia seem to have this false notion that publishing houses routinely do research on the books they publish to make sure that they have reliable sources and correct interpretation of the facts they present, thereby making those books reliable and "self-published" books not. Publishing companies worry about 1- will it sell and make money; 2- does it fit in with what the publishing company is known for, in topic, interest, and quality; 3- copy-edit for spelling, grammar, etc. And they worry about those three things in that order. They dont care if the book is factually true, unless they are a publishing company that specializes in a certain topic and has a reputation to maintain in that topic. Look at the frings history books out there, like that 1421 book that says the Chinese circumnavigated the world before the Europeans did. It was published by a reputable publishing company, because they knew it would be a best seller and make lots of money, being true was not a concern of theirs. We need to realize this in an era when self-publishing will become more and more popular and big publishing companies less relevant (anyone who doesnt think so, go and ask the newspaper publishers, editors, and journalists what they thought about "bloggers" and online self-published "news reports" in the 1990s, oh that is if you can find someone who works for a newspaper now-a-days since newspapers are dying left and right).Camelbinky (talk) 02:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but you can't change the attitudes at this noticeboard. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Scholarly presses (CUP, OUP, UChicago) send volumes out to specialist readers who determine if the work's method and conclusions lie within the disciplinary practices of that field. Then reviewers in journals whose articles are peer reviewed, publicly review the monographs. It works, and when it doesn't, you tend to find public reviews attacking the works in dispute. As far as non-scholarly presses go, even the respectable non-vanity presses, all bets are off. Works are reviewed at precis stage for marketability, and depending on the house by the sponsoring editor for readability but not for facts. This is why RS is about scholarly and peer reviewed works. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I've certainly noticed that to be true about Arcadia Publishing - the quality of books published through Arcadia is essentially the same as if they were self-published. --NE2 07:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, do I understand you correctly that unless a book, or journal, is scholarly and peer reviewed it is not a reliable source? If so there are alot of citations that need to be removed, including just about every historical book from Google Books I've used on history as they predate any notion of peer reviewing by publishers (who back then were really just printers). As NE2 mentionas anything from Arcadia would be out, and I am going to assume there are plenty of uses of their books as RS. I am interested in your opinion and if I read too much into your post.Camelbinky (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

(opinion) RS is an ordered list. Wikipedia's preference amongst RS is to use scholarly peer-reviewed and scholarly press monographs. I was responding to a comment which labelled published books as having less reliability, and was pointing out the varying reliability of various book publication methods. It is important to check books to see if they're published in a vanity press, ie SELF published. Works published prior to 1950 are dubious as RS for Historical articles due to Primary, or having lost disciplinary currency (hell, history as a discipline begins around 1900). If you're reliant on texts published before 1900 for historical articles, I would suggest you look strongly at why you're not using recent scholarly articles; or, if you're actually using secondary texts as Primary. As far as my opinion goes: if its an academic field, and nobody's publishing appropriately, why the hell are you writing an article on wikipedia. Popular culture articles have a different criteria, necessarily. Additionally, I am rather angry about non-experts getting google-books / scholar and cherry picking crap out of discredited sources. The sciences articles don't seem to have this problem to the same extent as the social sciences and humanities. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

How to deal with scientific papers from the 1800s?

This has come up at Boiling frog; basically, contemporary scientists say frogs behave one way, while some papers from the late 1800s/early 1900s say another. There is one contemporary newspaper source commenting on studies from the 1800s[28] but an editor now questions on the talk page why this is used instead of the original Nature article from 1873. Any advice? Siawase (talk) 05:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be cool to discuss what old science sources said, and then what new ones say about them. A history section, and it should prevent any OR problems. There may be some rules I don't know about, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The modern papers do not replicate the old experiments, because they boil the frogs over 9X as quickly. This was mentioned in the article before somebody removed it, calling this calculation original research. The Atlantic article used an 1873 news article that cited an 1869 paper in which frogs jumped when they are heated to disprove the boiling frog story in general (which is not what the 1873 article intended to do), but ignored or missed other research from that era that supports the story. But my comment was more general annoyance with the practice of citing the popular press instead of journals when they are appropriate and freely available.Rsheridan6 (talk) 06:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I love this: "German physiologist Friedrich Goltz demonstrated in 1869 that a frog will indeed remain in slowly heated water, but only if its brain is removed." I wonder who funded that groundbreaking study. Seriously, I would suggest that material is presented chronologically. It would also be interesting to know if the early studies created the story, or if the story predated them. The Victorian experiments are interesting for their historical significance, but it is very difficult to say whether they can still be taken at face value. Unfortunately there is no clear answer to the question of time limits on RSs. I think the sensible solution is present this as an unfolding history of ideas rather than a conflict between sources. The text as it now stands is barely intelligable. Paul B (talk) 11:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

When using historic sources modern reinterpretation is needed because the context and language changes. However the 1800s is not far enough back that this necsarily is an issue. If using old scientific papers, then we should refer modern sources as well in order to document current scientific consensus. Taemyr (talk) 11:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The argument here is that modern experiments do not discredit the earlier ones, since the methods differed significantly. The context of the brain removal, is of course the creation of convusive movement in dead frogs following Galvini's experiments. I suggest that context is what is needed. Paul B (talk) 11:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, the context is the topic of the article - an anecdotal urban legend type story, which in simple terms lay out an everyday scenario of one frog thrown in a boiling pot and another frog in a pot with the heat on low. It does not describe a controlled laboratory environment where a meticulously designed scientific experiment is performed. Rsheridan6 appers to want to use the 19th century science papers to verify the anecdotal story as "true", ie this edit summary "Another source stating that the story is true"[29] which to me seems very problematic as they are completely different beasts. Siawase (talk) 14:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I want to use the papers to show that the story is true because the papers show that the story is true, or at least verifiable. It's not just an urban legend, it's the result of scientific research which was forgetten, and then called an urban legend by people with poor literature searching skills who couldn't find the reference. The papers I cited did not precisely describe a controlled laboratory environment because they are review papers. If that's the standard we need, none of the sources quoted in the veracity section, pro or con, meet it, and they should all be deleted. The original experiment where the normal frog allowed itself to be heated to death is here [30], behind a pay wall and in German, if anyone wants to clear this up some more. Rsheridan6 (talk) 14:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

My point is that the "urban legend" either predated the experiments of the 1860s or was created by them. This is the historical context that would be useful. I appreciate that editors are unlikely to know the answer to this question, but that would be the ideal solution. The article in The Atlantic strongly implies that the story originated as a result of Goltz's experiments ("he begat the familiar story of the slowly-boiled frog"). I am suggesting that the science should be integrated into the history of the story. Goltz was demonstrating that even a brainless frog will react to direct contact with hot water - that this bodily reaction does not need to be decided upon by the brain. There is nothing to suggest that the hot water in the experiment is "boiling". A frog dropped in boiling hot water would die before it could jump out. The way the story is presented in the current article just confuses matters. We can surely show how and in what context the story is "true" and when it is "false". It depends on the variant of the story that is told. Paul B (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, Nobody here has been able to find a reference to the story before those experiments circa 1870. As for the Atlantic, I'm saying that it's wrong - the origin of the story was not Goltz's experiment, but Heinzmann's 3 years later. Your point that there was never any boiling water used in the experiments is true (the frog would have died long before gradually heated water reached the boiling point), but, on the other hand, if you continued heating the water to boiling after the frog died, we can safely assume it wouldn't jump out. Rsheridan6 (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that The Atlantic is wrong, since Goltz's experiments started the debate on the issue. It's just that they don't have the full information. That's all the more reason to present events coherently. The quoted scientists who "debunk" the story by saying that dropping a from in boiling water will kill it are right. It's just that they are right about an exaggerated version of the story rather than the facts on which it is based. It's also worth noting that the current lede states "The premise of the story is not literally true", while the article content contradicts this assertion. Paul B (talk) 15:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Reverted the lead to re-add "According to contemporary biologists" as context for that sentence. Also, note the deliberate ambiguity of "an actual frog submerged and gradually heated will jump out" - it takes into account Melton's assertion that the frog will jump regardless of temperature: "it will jump before it gets hot — they don't sit still for you". I think clarifying the 19th century sources in the article itself will make it easier to summarize them to add those to the lead too. Siawase (talk) 00:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

One more thing about the truth of the story - I mentioned truth on the talk page, but in the actual article there's just a description of the experiment from which this story derives, and a quote from a scientist explaining why different experiments show different results, both cited from scholarly publications. I think it's satisfactory the way it is - the reader can make up his/her own mind. Even if it is true, the so-called debunking and James Fallows' jihad against it is part of the story. Rsheridan6 (talk) 15:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The research was about figuring out which functions belong to the brain and which ones are spinal reflexes. Not really very silly if you ask me, and their actual results were not obvious if you look closely at them (a brainless frog moves if you put just its foot in the water, but not if you put its whole body in the water). As for whether they can be taken at face value, I don't see why not. They had thermometers back then, and clocks, water, and pots. That's really all you need to do this experiment. Nobody has attempted to properly replicate the experiment (see my earlier comment about how the modern debunker heated the water 9X as fast), so I don't see why they shouldn't be taken as the last word. It's not like these were medieval alchemists. Rsheridan6 (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

As you can see from the above, I am aware of the purpose of the research. My original comment was a joke. The point is that this is exactly the context that is needed, not a lot of fragments that present a pro and con "argument". In the current article Goltz is just thrown in absurdly and Heinzmann's name appears out of nowhere. Paul B (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Publications from before 1900 should, for the most part, be treated as primary sources - they are reliable only in claiming that they claim something. They should only be used as distinguishing opinion and not fact. If there is some uncontroversial information, then it would not be a problem. However, science based articles should only use them when discussing them in history or putting forth older opinions. They should not be held as fact but can help distinguish notability as long as they are independent from the topic (so, a paper by Newton is not a proof of Newton's notability). Ottava Rima (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima: I agree with you in principle, but in practice how do you copy-edit to reflect that? Add "such-and-such claimed" in front of every sentence? It would be great if you (or anyone else interested) would take a look at Boiling frog#Biological background as it appears now (Rsheridan6 just cleaned up and clarified the 19th century coverage greatly) and give input on how the 19th century sources are represented. Siawase (talk) 11:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The current version of the article seems fine to me... it discusses the various claims and theories in chronological order, which places them in an historical context (which was essentially Ottava's point). Blueboar (talk) 12:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources to demonstrate that claiming a "Gay Agenda" has been used as "Propaganda"

The following 3 sources have been quoted on Gay Agenda as they describe the use of the term "Gay Agenda" by right wing groups as "propaganda".

• Martin B. Duberman (1997), Martin B. Duberman (ed.), A queer world: the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies reader, NYU Press, ISBN 9780814718759 (from Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies CUNY)
• Linda Kintz; Julia Lesage (1998), Linda Kintz; Julia Lesage (eds.), Media, culture, and the religious right, U of Minnesota Press, ISBN 9780816630851 (both authors from English Department of the University of Oregon)
• Gail Mason; Stephen Tomsen (1997), Gail Mason; Stephen Tomsen (eds.), Homophobic violence, Hawkins Press, ISBN 9781876067045 (originates from research at the Australian Institute of Criminology)

It has been argued in the CFD for category:anti-gay propaganda and on Talk:Homosexual agenda that these sources are biased and do not prove the point that the "gay agenda" argument has been termed "propaganda". I believe the debate is spurious and created in order to "prove" that classifying anything as propaganda causes too much argument for the classification to be used on Wikipedia.

I welcome independent views on whether there is any merit in the opinion that these sources are not factual or they should be treated as biased sources in their analysis of the political and religious arguments that a "gay agenda" has been used as anti-gay propaganda. I hope that consideration is given to the fact that some of these sources have undergone academic peer review before publication.—Ash (talk) 11:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Why not just use attribution? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The question is whether these sources are sufficiently independent to justify the classification (anti-gay propaganda), not just a mention in the body of the article.—Ash (talk) 16:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

We just report reliable sources, and don't generally care too much if the source (not us) has a POV. Use attribution if you think they're saying something controversial. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Review aggregator sites

Apologies if this has been discussed a million times before, but I would like to solicit thoughts on the proper use of review aggregator sites such as Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes. It is standard practice in high-end articles to use these for their aggregated scores. Examples:

Mulholland Drive (film): "reviews of the film were mostly positive (receiving an 81% rating on Rotten Tomatoes)"

Unbreakable (film): "Metacritic collected an average score of 62/100, based on 31 reviews"

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone: "Reviewers' comments were positive, as reflected by a 78% Fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and by a score of 64% at Metacritic representing "generally favorable reviews"."

These sorts of uses seem unproblematic; what I am interested in is whether these sources can be employed more authoritatively. I am thinking specifically of two instances:

1. Using the summary of critical consensus disquotationally. For example, the Metacritic page for the film Inglourius Basterds gives it a rating of 69/100, signifying "Generally favorable reviews". Would the following be appropriate sourcing in the Inglourious Basterds article?

   "The film was mostly well-received amongst critics.<ref>[the metacritic page]</ref>"

2. Using their summarized data as support for a synthesis. For instance, the Rotten Tomatoes summary page for Quentin Tarantino gives a list of his directorial credits, with Pulp Fiction getting the highest rating of 93%. Would the following be acceptable sourcing in the Pulp Fiction article, or would it be original research?

   "[As of date] Pulp Fiction is the most widely critically-acclaimed of Tarantino's feature films"

Nuanced responses appreciated,  Skomorokh  22:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Speaking in the abstract, I think I'd prefer to keep the explicit attribution of such numerical ratings. These sites are extremely useful, but only to a point. There are lots of different types of critics (respected, popular, logrolling, academic, etc.), not to mention that these days the relevance of film critics to what people actually choose to see--or what they like--is in greater and greater doubt. It appears to me that Rotten Tomatoes lumps together reviewers we'd all agree are authoritative and others that are . . . well, not so much. Metacritic seems to be more restrictive (although I don't as much experience with it). The numerical ratings are concise and can be meaningful, but also subject to over-interpretation if not clearly attributed. Of course, in a particular situation a different outcome might be appropriate. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably should say stuff like "According to metacritic, Pulp Fiction was the most critically acclaimend of tarantino's film's." I don't think "The film was mostly well-received amongst critics." is too much of a stretch, though. We actually say that kind of thing now, with less to back it up. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposing something simular with regards to albums here --Iron Chef (talk) 03:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Conflicting sources

When this conflicts with this, which one should we believe? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Are they usually reliable? If so, use "A says x, while B says y". I suspect they are of dubious reliability, however. You might want to ask for input from the fine fellows at WP:MMA.  Skomorokh  23:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

If you want to be safe, I would recommend what Skomorokh points out (listing both). Wikipedia doesn't choose sides unless there is a clear right and wrong, or that there is a major consensus either way. There doesn't seem enough information to determine in this case. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I'll follow Skomorokh's suggestion and take it to the WikiProject. Thanks, guys. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Sungazing

hi, i was wondering if i can use the source Hira Ratan Manek Sungazing DVD to support information about the actual practise of sungazing. ie. guidelines, rules, safety precautions etc... on the Sungazing page. Sungazing is a practise and there needs to be some form of defining a "safe" practise in order to distinguish it from staring at the noon sun for hours.
For example, the DVD states one should only sun gaze during "safe" times when UV levels are below 2. Usually within one hour after sunrise and one hour before sunset. The practise also entails a very gradual start. One begins with sungazing for 10 seconds (during a safe time) and each day increases the time by ten seconds, to a limit of 45 minutes.

there is also information here... http://www.sungazing.com/652.html http://phoenixtools.org/sungazing/practise.htm

youtube has copy of the DVD http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlCJPxxKoaY these sources are just for the facets of the practise itself. Thanks!

J929 (talk) 02:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

As I have outlined on Talk:Sungazing, I disagree with citing Hira Ratan Manek's DVD as fact because the medical sources I have found unanimously state that staring into the sun is bad for you. Outside opinions are welcome. Skinwalker (talk) 02:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Skinwalker, plus Wikipedia is not a "how-to" guide, it is beyond the scope of Wikipedia to outline how to do something and when it safe to do so and how to do it safely, especially something that is so complicated you have to start with a predetermined safe time and you can increase your time over time. We dont want to be held liable if we are (or our source) is wrong and damages someone, nor do we want someone to get damaged if a vandal should change the wording or time allotments on a page even for just an hour or day before before the correct information is reverted back. Better safe than sorry I think. Sorry, but really you shouldnt put the information is, even though I think it is very interesting information.Camelbinky (talk) 02:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing of band genres

A discussion is going on at Talk:Nightwish#Genres.2C_part_2 about what would be an appropriate way to source the genre of a band. Is a single review enough? As this is potentially a wider issue than just at this article, I'm interested in getting the opinions of a wider audience. —Ruud 10:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the number of sources necessary to make a specific statement seems to be a question beyond the scope of this noticeboard. Gabbe (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The discussion I linked to is one specific instance of a more general problem which repeatedly appears at a large number of articles, so I don't think "specific statement" really applies. I'm also looking more for a qualitative than a quantitative answer. —Ruud 16:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that this is beyond the scope of this noticeboard.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

If only one source mentions the genre of the band, then examine the quality of that source, and perhaps wonder why other sources don't mention it. If other sources give a different genre, then you should either report both sides or go with what the majority of reliable sources say. Refer closely to WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

A Wordpress.com interview as a source

Hi, I have been editing and improving this article for some time and currently I am using this interview with some of the band members as a source. Now I know as a blog Wordpress is usually not reliable but as this is a primary interview with the band I'm unsure whether or not to remove it. The blogger is named Nadine O'Regan, who is a journalist, and I'm fairly confident the article is not a fake interview. Considering that parts of the article may contain her bias I'm only using some of the quotes from the members. As such I'm wondering is it acceptable to use the interview just for the band quotes.
Thanks, --RavensFists (talk) 18:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

No, that's not an acceptable source, as per WP:SPS. Dlabtot (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up, --RavensFists (talk) 20:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

www.catholic.org

I've seen this website cited on wikipedia already but I wasn't sure whether it is actually a reliable source and thought it might be considered biased. Munci (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It does not give any indication to show that it is anything other than a personal website (dispite the ".org" suffix)... the website gives no listing of editors or staff, it lists no office address, and there is nothing to show it represents the "official" views of the Church (no "stamp of approval" from any Diocese, or from the Vatican). So, no... I don't think it can be considered reliable by our rules. Blueboar (talk) 21:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit hard to see at first, them being linked to halfway down the page rather than at the top like on most websites, but there are "About", "Contact Us" and "Writers & Contributors" sections. The contributors include a deacon so that maybe sorts the stamp of approval issue. I don't see anything in the way of the Vatican supporting it though. It seems to be (almost) exclusively American as well which makes me doubt it even more as an official Church website. But the list of contributors also includes Robert Spencer, who is already decided non-reliable so I think at the least, any articles cited to pages on the website written by Spencer should no longer use that as a citation. Munci (talk) 23:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a private, for-profit, website based out of Bakersfield, CA, as per here and here, and, so far as I can tell, the site doesn't list the names of anyone involved in its operation. My guess, on that basis, would be that it probably shouldn't be used as a source. Somehow, I rather doubt that it is the only possible source for material relevant to Catholicism out there, so I can't really see any reason for it being used, except, maybe, in rare cases, if it is the only place that reprints an article from some very low-run newspaper which can't be accessed otherwise or if for whatever reason one of the signed contributors to a given piece it runs is considered separately reliable. John Carter (talk) 00:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Not reliable source: A very expensive example of SELF publishing and a Vanity press. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I am just so surprised that even with their money woes resulting from the whole "touching boys" problem that the Catholic Church has not found it worthwhile to simply buy that domain name, and that they didnt think about that long ago and snatched it up over a decade ago before anyone else. Kinda a commonsense name they shouldve bought long ago.Camelbinky (talk) 02:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

"eNotes"

The Mezzanine is exclusively sourced to something called "eNotes", which looks at first sight like snippets from the forest-slaughtering Gale production Contemporary Literary Criticism with extra wobbly bits and GoogleAds for $cientology on the side. Is this really CLC (and if so, is the reproduction authorized) or is it merely something akin to a well-written wiki? -- Hoary (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Not acceptable, SELF. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

NY Times Survey as Reliable Source for Shakespeare Authorship section?

Can this NY Times Survey of Shakespeare professors [[31]] be used as a source for this line in the Authorship section of the William Shakespeare [[32]] article: "Although in academic circles these doubts are held by a (small) minority". The inclusion of an article note, reporting the survey results, has generated a discussion[[33]] about the validity of the note itself, and in the course of this discussion, the Times survey has come under question as a reliable source. Comments from the editors of this page might prove helpful. Smatprt (talk) 05:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with using the NY Times survey, so long as you don't over-interpret what it shows. The newspaper explains how the survey was carried out, and from their description it was done properly. The response rate was good. We can trust that the NYT actually did what it said, and that the results are accurately reported. Interesting question; there may be other views here. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You could try attributing this directly and add a "probably", "Although the New York Times reported that in academic circles these doubts are probably held by a (small) minority." Tim Vickers (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree w/ itsmejudith. The methodology is clearly laid out, the questions are reasonable and the source is reliable (in other words, I don't really expect the NYT to fudge or falsify data). the authorship question in general is entangled with a lot of other issues which the polled professors may find valuable (e.g. which versions of the plays were authored alone, how the revision process worked, etc.), so I think the usefulness of the survey is limited. Protonk (talk) 21:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I have a followup question. Here is the note that was attached to the article:

"A March 2007 New York Times ("Education Life" section) survey among Shakespeare professors at 556 American colleges that offered degrees in English Literature found that 17 percent of the 265 respondents answered either "possibly" or "yes" when asked if there was "good reason to question whether William Shakespeare of Stratford is the principal author of the plays and poems in the canon"."

Do you feel that this accurately reflects the survey in relation to the line in the article ("Although in academic circles these doubts are held by a (small) minority")? Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 15:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

17 doesn't seem that small of a minority. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Academics often like to take questions literally. A lot of the professionals who answered "yes" might believe that William Shakespeare of Stratford was the principal author of the plays: they could be answering "yes" just because they know that literary attributions can be incorrect and/or just because they think some of the works might have been misattributed. They may not be convinced that someone else wrote all the plays in the canon. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 13:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

We have to be aware of the context here. Firstly, the auithorship of many Shakespeare plays is in dispute. For example several collaborators may have worked on the Henry VI plays, and Pericles, Prince of Tyre is generally accepted to have been part-written by other authors. These claims about collaborations, alterations, cuts and other attributions are a standard part of Shakespeare scholarship in just the same way that they are of other authors and artists. To give an analogy, art historians will dispute whether this or that painting is the work of Rembrandt, or by one of his pupils or imitators. There is a whole "Rembrandt Project" dedicated to this. This is wholly different from the claim that the entire works of Rembrandt were actually painted by the Prince of Orange, or whoever. In other words there are two "authorship" debates, the mainstream one concerning attribution, and the "conspiracy theory" one that says Bacon or Oxford or whoever wrote the entire canon. The problem with this survey is that the question as asked does not allow the respondent to distinguish between the two controversies. The wording was, is there "good reason to question whether William Shakespeare of Stratford is the principal author of the plays and poems in the canon." Note the phrase "principal author". There is good reason to believe that he was not the principal author of several plays, so we don't know whether those who answered 'possibly' or 'yes' were accepting that he was not the principal author of some of the plays, or of poems such as A Lover's Complaint. The question seems to be carefully phrased to produce a positive response from some scholars. Furthermore the "possibly" respose may imply simply an acceptance that we can never wholly rule out anything. Possibly Milton did not write Paradise Lost. Who can be absolutely certain? The 'possibly's may simply reflect the scholars' need to indicate their open-mindedness. Also, the survey, as reported merges the 'possibly' responses with the 'yes' responses. And as I said above, even the 'yes' responses could easily be a result of the respondents acceptance that Shakespeare was not the "principal author" of some of the plays. So the problem here is that the survey itself is fundamentally flawed and misleading. Paul B (talk) 16:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be fundamentally flawed and misleading unless you start from the premise that authorship of the plays is in dispute and then reject conclusions that are contrary to that premise. Protonk (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I am at a loss to understand what you are saying. It is flawed because it confuses the different "authorship controversies", the mainstream one and the conspiracy one. It's not people who "start from the premise that authorship of the plays is in dispute" who are questioning this survey. It is people who start from the opposite premise. The survey appears to have been designed by people who want "the premise that authorship of the plays is in dispute" to be more widely accepted, though I admit I don't actually know who commisioned it. Paul B (talk) 16:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it conflates the two at all, though if the questions were asked in the order they were printed, the first answer might be skewed somewhat. I trust that the population from which the sample was drawn would take "How much thought have you given to the controversy over the authorship of the Shakespeare works?" to refer to controversial assertions that Shakespeare wasn't the principal author of the works outside the Apocrypha. The following questions would seem to make this abundantly clear. Listing of authors advocating various alternative principal authors (Mark Anderson (writer), Delia Bacon, etc.). Asking specifically "Do you think that there is good reason to question whether William Shakespeare of Stratford is the principal author of the plays and poems in the canon?". These are not ambiguous questions and the response seems to be fairly clear: most of the surveyed professors don't give much credence to the authorship question. Protonk (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the survey as a whole places the issue in the context of the "conspiracy" authorship question. But it is this specific question that is being used and is at issue, and this question refers to whether WS was the "principal" author of plays in the canon, and thus includes room for varied interpretation. (ps, it's not just the Shakespeare Apocrypha that are in mainstream dispute, but several 'canonical' First Folio works). Paul B (talk) 17:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many valid interpretations there can be of the responses to "Do you think that there is good reason to question whether William Shakespeare of Stratford is the principal author of the plays and poems in the canon?". 82% of the surveyed professors said no. Yes was third, behind possibly. For the relatively narrow question of "what does a survey of Shakespeare academics say about attitudes toward the authorship controversy" there seems to be only one real answer. It obviously can't answer questions about mixed authorship, revision, or plays outside the canon. Protonk (talk) 17:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

While I think Paul raises a good question, I think the results of the survey clearly show that the professors knew what they were answering. With a distinct and large majority answering "no", it's pretty obvious that these Shakespeare professors (who all certainly know about collaborations, Apocrypha, etc.) took the question in context of the whole survey, which was all about the "conspiracy" authorship question. If not, then the yes answers would have been 100%, and not the 6% that answered "yes" and the 11% that answered "possibly". I do notice that Paul has focused on the phrase "principal author". What I don't understand about Paul's argument is that even given the circumstances he describes (that some canonical plays are in mainstream dispute), that number is only a handful of plays out of 37 works in the canon, so no matter how you look at it, the mainstream feeling would still be that Shakespeare of Stratford was their principal author. In fact, even if he were credited for only 20 of the 37, he would still be the "principal" author. I also don't understand the accusation that the survey was designed with a hidden agenda. If it was, after all is said and done, it failed miserably! If the NY Times really wanted to influence the survey, they would have done a far better job in creating more leading questions. Smatprt (talk) 18:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The question referred to "the principal author of the plays and poems in the canon." That might be interpreted to mean EVERY play or ALL plays. There's just enough room for ambiguity that a small number of academics may interpret it in the way I suggested. Simple. BTW, I now notice that Protonk above has already noted that "the authorship question in general is entangled with a lot of other issues which the polled professors may find valuable (e.g. which versions of the plays were authored alone, how the revision process worked, etc.), so I think the usefulness of the survey is limited." So I don't really understand why he now appears to be saying something different. Paul B (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying something different. The survey answers the questions it poses pretty completely and legitimately. It doesn't, obviously, resolve the factual consideration of authorship (we can't now say that authorship critics are wrong by virtue of the survey). It doesn't resolve any of the other authorship questions which are not related to the main "authorship controversy" (which I and the NYT take to mean the assertion that someone not shakespeare wrote the bulk of the work we consider canonically his), the question of revision, memorial reconstruction, alternate ur-texts, and so forth. All of those questions relate to some meta-question of "how Shakespearean are Shakespeare's works" and none of them are connected to the survey. So I could really only use the survey to support the assertion that a large majority of Shakespeare experts polled by the NYT felt that there was no good reason to question Shakespeare's position as principal author of the works in his canon. That is a relatively strong statement, but it is pretty narrow given the breadth of textual questions around Shakespeare's work. So as a general source, its usefulness is limited. But I don't agree with your repeated assertions that the boundaries of the canon are so diffuse that we should reject the results of the poll. I also don't agree with your assertion that considerable academic consensus exists that Shakespeare is not the author of some plays in his canon. Protonk (talk) 22:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the survey is attached to a note referencing this line in the Shakespeare article's "authorship" section:

"Although in academic circles these doubts are held by a (small) minority"

I still don't understand the objection. The paragraph leading up to, and the line in the article itself, is all about "doubt" the "doubters". The survey results, in regards to these doubters are reported accurately in the note, and are then linked to the full survey results. The bottom line of the survey is in complete agreement with mainstream academia. Where are these huge mistakes?Smatprt (talk) 23:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the survey is fundamentally flawed, but I am not opposed to mention of it. I can no point whatever in putting brackets round the word 'small'. Either it is or it isn't small. Paul B (talk)

I agree with the "small" comment (not that the comment itself was "small"!). I didn't post the original note so have no idea why the brackets were used. But Paul is right - there is no need for them.Smatprt (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Re:(small). "Small" is subjective, see for example user Peregrine Fisher comment above: "17 doesn't seem that small of a minority." The brackets were to avoid pushing an interpretation. Afasmit (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a lot smaller than 49%, which is also a minority. And you only get 17% if you add "yes" and "possibly" (from q. 15) together. If you just take "yes" it becomes 6%. So given the margin of error and the possibility that everyone who answered "possibly" meant something like "yes", we could say that the most support among the population likely (indicated by this poll) is ~22%, which is still a small but not insignificant minority. Protonk (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I objected to the note because it actually overstates the proportion of academics who think there might be something to antiStratfordism. Here are my reasons:

1. The survey misleadingly overstates the support of antiStratfordism among college professors. It suffers from selection bias in that it states the results only for those who deigned to answer the survey, which logically selected out those who considered the survey's topic too ridiculous to spend time answering, and given the evangelical nature of antiStratfordists, it included a larger percentage of them than is actually the case in the academic population. 2. This article is about Shakespeare, not about antiStratfordism. A misleading survey done by a newspaper is not the place for it. 3. The note is misleading because only 16 out of 265 surveyed answered “yes” to the question, while 217 answered “no,” about as close to “universally rejected” as you’re going to get. I think a good case could be made that a lot of the non-respondents thought it was a silly waste of time because of the survey topic, and that the true percentage of antiStratfordians is closer to 3-4 percent instead of 6 percent, especially given that 93 percent of those surveyed called it "A theory without convincing evidence" or "A waste of time and classroom distraction." 4. The note is misleading in the context of the statement because it surveyed only American universities. 5. The note is irrelevant to the article because the article accepts the authorship of William Shakespeare of Stratford; it only includes the mention of antiStratfordianism to avoid a tedious edit war; and it is not the place for misleading statistical campaigns. 6. Finally, the form of the authorship mention was hacked out in a long and contentious dispute during the drive to promote the articleto feature status, and the person who wants this note included has defended it from others who wanted to add more material that questioned the primacy of Oxford as the leading contender. Introducing another change will do nothing but cause another long and unnecessary dispute, as this discussion illustrates.Tom Reedy (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

In regards to Tom's comments above:

1) There is no data to support any of Tom's assumptions. (And I am mystified at the complaint that the survey only provides results from those who took part in it. I mean, duh!)

2) Yes, the article is about Shakespeare, and includes numerous sections on various speculations: Authorship, Religion, even supposed Paintings. The survey is entirely relevant to the Authorship section, and the article itself. The fact that it was done by a newspaper is immaterial, and as it is the NY Times, it is obviously a Reliable Source, with oversight and review policies.

3) Again, there is no data to back-up these assumptions, logical or not. As has already been noted, the term "universally rejected" was misleading and an extremely poor interpretation of available data, especially considering the NY Times survey.

4) As long as it is acknowledged that the survey was taken at American universities (which the survey does), I don't see how the term "misleading" applies.

5) This is addressed in my note #2. Labeling the survey as "irrelevant" is simply personal opinion or OR.

6) This has nothing to do with this discussion, the survey as a RS or the article. But it does show the long-lasting ill will involved on these pages, as well as a lack of Good Faith.

On a related note, I find this discussion helpful, not exceedingly long, and certainly necessary -- especially given the fact that the non-aligned editors of this page have all generally agreed that the survey is indeed a Reliable Source for the purposes of the sentence in question. In fact, the only arguments are coming from the regular long-term article editors who have a strict Stratfordian POV. Given these circumstances, input from neutral editors is invaluable and quite necessary. Smatprt (talk) 23:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Judging by your answer to No. 1 perhaps I haven't explained myself clearly when I say that the survey is skewed because of selection bias. As you know, antiStratfordism is held in contempt by a large proportion of Shakespearians because of its unscholarly methods and double standards, so much so that they won't even talk about it in classes when asked, nor do they acknowledge that there's any authorship "controversy" to be discussed. AntiStratfordians, on the other hand, are usually so fanatical about their beliefs that they flood comment forums when the subject is broached in the media, as can be seen in this recent example [[34]] or in this one: [[35]]

given these conditions, it is highly likely that a good percentage of those college professors who believe antiStratfordism is nonsense are among those who failed to reply to the e-mailed survey, and that close to all of those sympathetic to antiStratfordism did. The only way to get an accurate percentage of both sides would be to either keep pestering the nonrespondents with more requests until they answered, or actually go around and and interview each one. As far as I can tell with this survey, no follow-up e-mails were sent out nor were they even contacted by telephone. Consequently the percentages are skewed upward for the antiStratfordians and downward for those who believe the prevailing view is correct. That in itself should be enoough to disqualify the survey as a reliable source.

As you can see, I am not arbitrarily making an assumption that the survey is inaccurate; I am critically examining the evidence using what I have learned about the authorship community in the 10+ years I've been around it.

As far as No. 2 goes, I have no objections to you using the survey in the authorship article, a link to which is included in the Shakespeare article, but I see no reason why the main Shakespeare article, which is a featured article, should be forced to use a source of a quality considerably below the rest of the sources in the article. We had a similar discussion when you wanted to use a marginal source to show that Shakespearians weren't unanimous in their dating of the plays, including Hamlet.

No. 4: The survey acknowledges that it was taken among American academics, but the sentence you're referencing specifies "academic circles." As you know, Americans are much more susceptible to crank theories than the English are, and on the average English academics are even more opposed to antiStratfordism than American academics are. I think that as far as Shakespeare goes the English are at least as important as the Americans.

No. 5: No, it is not just my "personal opinion," as I hope I have made clear.

Responding to your comments, I think that once the non-aligned editors who have commented on this page think about my points, they will see that the source is not reliable for an article with feature status. And when it comes to matters Shakespearian, I would hope that the opinion of actual Shakespearians (or strict Stratfordians, as you call them) would carry more weight than those who have not studied Shakespeare to the depth that we have. I know this goes against the modern mindset, which values the opinions of radio talk show hosts over the opinions of professional climatologists and scientists and economists, but I hope and pray that the culture of Wikipedia has not yet traveled down that road of madness. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You can't just assert the existence of selection bias without some justification (presumably the company the NYT contracted to do the survey understands selection bias) or some inference as to how selection bias would skew the survey results. Protonk (talk) 04:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

As I tried to explain (not assert), sending out an e-mail survey to a group of which a large percentage is not likely to respond because they think the topic is nonsense is selection bias. As to how that skews the survey results, I think I covered that point pretty well.

As far as I know, NYT's Education Life staff did the survey themselves. They sent e-mail invitations to 637 college professors who teach Shakespeare at some unspecified level to fill out an online survey. 265 responded and answered the survey. Since the respondents were in effect self-selecting, I hold that a large proportion of those who hold the topic in contempt--sure "no" respondents--probably didn't bother to answer, while those who believe in the theory would be sure to answer it, since it is an evangelical community, as those who are familiar with it know. Tom Reedy (talk) 05:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

265/637 is a response rate that any pollster would kill for. Also a sample size of 265 for a population of (probably) <5000 is pretty solid. I agree that there is the possibility for selection bias in response, but it isn't much worse than selection bias in phone polling and it isn't anywhere near as bad as selection bias in web polls (where the selection occurs very early on and is unrelated to the poll question). Also, I'm not sure I agree with your assertion that the selection bias results in underrepresented Stratfordian professors. I could construct a line of logic to say that anti-stratfordian professors may have thought the questions unduly marginalized some important view and wouldn't deign to respond (Or alternately that professors would respond because they didn't want the profession sullied by bias from the other side). Neither is more compelling to me. And honestly the claim we are supporting just says that the views are held only by a small minority. Unless you have some reason to believe (Another poll, a literature review, a collection of cv's) that 6% grossly overrepresents the number of professors who would answer "yes" to the question "Do you think that there is good reason to question whether William Shakespeare of Stratford is the principal author of the plays and poems in the canon?" (which is not as strong as it first appears) then I suggest we just accept this and move on. Do you have reason to believe that 6% would be a gross over-representation? I'll reiterate my point from way above that the existence and results of the survey can't actually lend credence to a particular theory or hypothesis. Just make a claim as to who in the academe may agree with a given theory. Protonk (talk) 05:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I have already told you why I think 6% is a gross over-representation, but just like your statement that I was making an assertion without justification, you didn't catch it on the first read-through.

Two things, and then it's to bed for me.

Yes, you could construct a line of logic as you say, but it would not be consistent with what I've learned about about antiStratfordians. An informed theory is much closer to reality than an imagined intellectual exercise.

Also we're not arguing over 6%, we're arguing over 17%, which is a number that gives a false impression, since "possibly" could be interpreted in both directions, as in "possibly, but probably not," given that 93 percent of those surveyed called it either "A theory without convincing evidence" or "A waste of time and classroom distraction." Tom Reedy (talk) 05:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. The NYTimes is a reliable source for 1) the existence of the survey, 2) the methodology used to conduct the survey, 3) the results it produced, and in a very narrow context 4) the interpretation of the results. The reason we generally consider the NYTimes a reliable source is because they report the methodology used and the numbers produced so that the reader can make up their own mind about the conclusions drawn. That the NYTimes in general is a reliable source does not mean that every entertainment or cultural fluff piece they produce has scientific validity, it just means the NYTimes has editorial practices that gives us the ability to evaluate its claims. The survey itself, however, is not a reliable source for the article in question, or even the sentence in question. Tom has already pointed out the selection bias, whose impact you seem to be severely underestimating, and it only surveyed a narrow geographically limited part of the population (America is not the world). It is also not a reliable source for the scientific consensus because scientific consensus is not arrived at by simple majority vote; the survey does not measure what it is here purported to measure. What it in actual fact measures is the number of lecturers at American institutions that are willing to fill in and return an informal email poll about a decidedly fringe theory (that word is here to be construed a technical term, not a slight against those editors that find it convincing) from a publication that is part of the general category “the popular press”.
The original sentence in the article, sourced to no less than 4 books published on university presses, of which at least one author is considered authoritative in the field, said that the theory is almost universally disregarded. The survey is being used to significantly dilute this statement to the point the phrasing has changed from “almost universally rejected” to “believed by 22%” (17% actually, but I'm using Protonk's number including the error margin to emphasize my point). This survey does not support changing how we represent scientific consensus from ~0% to 22%. Period. --Xover (talk) 06:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really convinced by arguments which seem to be based on the notion that because this survey produced a result that you find distasteful it should be disregarded. I don't think folks on this board are stating that the survey be used to source any claim beyond "only a small minority of academics responding to a survey by the nyt found the authorship controversy theories offered reasons to doubt the prevailing consensus" or words to that effect noting the survey and carefully delimiting the results. So I'm intrigued by the pushback from the 'mainstream' side of things. Maybe there is a disconnect between what your sources feel the academic consensus is and what academics report to pollsters. Again, that doesn't mean that the fringe folks become right because 6% of respondents in a poll felt there was reason to question the consensus. The notions of representation and validity are almost totally orthogonal. Protonk (talk) 07:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think people are being POV here; the issue of sampling bias is clear on this survey. It actually looks like a very badly designed survey to be honest (done by someone who knows stats, but not sociological survey design). Imagine a Stratfordian seeing that long list of anti-Stratfordian books - will they feel like playing along, or will they think it's a wind up? Imagine someone who hadn't thought about it, and then is reminded of all the anti-Strafordian arguments by that list? It's a bit like being given a list of all the bad things done by George Bush and then being asked "How did you vote in the last election?" (and it's documented that people lie about previous voting choices, even unconsciously). By the way, your formulation "only a small minority of academics responding to a survey by the nyt found the authorship controversy theories offered reasons to doubt the prevailing consensus" is incorrect because no reasons are offered by respondents (the survey consists of closed questions except "what other anti-stratford works have you read"). Any interpretation of this data beyond reporting the numbers in relation to the precise question is OR. I know the survey's in the NYT, but it does look like a rotten piece of methodology.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

How about "The habit and practice in literary criticism is not to rely on surveys or samples of literary critics," and dismiss the survey as not evidentiary in the field at hand. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I still contend that selection bias has only been asserted, not established. Let's pretend for a minute that you guys are right, that the framing of the questions engendered a severe selection bias among respondents. Among the 265 respondents, 16 (just rounding up) answered "yes" to question 15. If every professor who rejected the survey would have answered no (the most extreme possible case for selection bias), then the reported percentage would be 2.5% If we extend this to the "possibly" answers we get 7% (instead of 17%) holding some doubts. Clearly these are less than what are reported by the nyt but they are also more than 0 (and the margins of error would decrease as we basically double the sample size). That's if the selection bias is total--that all rejected surveys would otherwise have answered "no". If they had sent out 1500 and gotten back 260 then I wouldn't take too much convincing, but a response rate of 41% makes me suspicious of claims of selection bias. I should also point out here that I don't really have a dog in this fight. I don't believe I've edited the articles under discussion and apart from holding the opinion that most of the authorship controversies are dubious I don't have a strong POV on the issues. Protonk (talk) 07:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, it isn't merely the framing of the question that we are talking about. I've tried to make my objections to it as clear as I can, but obviously I'm not getting through.

If every professor who rejected the survey was a "no" vote (and it's highly likely, given the reasons I have furnished), the results as they have been reported are double the correct percentage of "yes" respondents. And counting "possibly" as a positive vote is flat-out misleading, for the reasons I have given. What has not been taken into consideration is that the antiStratfordian editor of the NYT article and the antiStratfordian community at large see the 17% figure as an indication of progress for their public relations campaign (which is readily evident by reading their reactions to the poll on their various Web sites), so the perception you think the survey is conveying is in fact opposite from what they see. It's a camel-nose-in-the-tent issue for them on the way to academic respectability.

Also, if a poll is flawed to the extent this one is, it's hardly good practice to say, "Well, it shows something, so it's OK to use as a ballpark figure in a featured article," as you seem to be saying directly above ("Clearly these are less than what are reported by the nyt but they are also more than 0.")Tom Reedy (talk) 12:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced that you can explain the 41% response rate and still insist that every rejection indicated selection bias. And evidently my point was lost. Even if we assumed an unreasonable selection bias, the percentage of 'yes' responses would drop from 6% to 2.5% (with the confidence in that estimate increasing). If we make a more reasonable assumption and suggest that maybe all professors rejecting the survey were half as likely to say "yes" the result is 4.2% in total. The point here isn't that ballpark is ok, the point is that once you start approaching 50% response rate, the numbers converge toward some stable values, especially if we don't assume anything radical about the missed responses. I'm sorry that you see this poll as evidence of some change in attitudes, but that's not a sufficient reason to keep it out of the article. Protonk (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

So in other words the fact that the poll is flawed (for more reasons than you are addressing) is no reason to keep it from being used as feature article reference, even though the universe polled does not reflect the universe that the sentence references, because the response rate from the universe polled is high enough that "the numbers converge toward some stable values, especially if we don't assume anything radical about the missed responses." Stability trumps accuracy, even if it raises the percentage of positive response by 140%-240%.

While I agree it would be good enough for the authorship article, and might even raise the average quality of references used there, I submit that it is not suitable for this particular article.

So how does the general consensus shake out about this? As far as I can tell, you are the only non-aligned editor on your side of the fence. Does the number of words written trump the proportion of editors, too? Tom Reedy (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk about misleading! Tom - you might look at the comments above from Itsmejudith (talk) and Tim Vickers (talk), both non-aligned editors who are in agreement with Protonk(talk). You might also take note of Paul B (talk), a regular article editor of the Stratfordian persuasion who commented, "I think the survey is fundamentally flawed, but I am not opposed to mention of it. Or is there some reason that their comments don't count? Smatprt (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you continue to misunderstand my point. I'll try to be clear, because it is probably my fault. First, I think the response rate on the poll moots your theory of selection bias. Meaning that enough of the contacted parties responded (nearly half) to make it easier to believe a hypothesis that response was random over a hypothesis that response was non-random (especially when compared with average telephone and mail survey response rates, which are abysmal). Furthermore, if we accept your theory that means that of the staunch anti-stratfordians that responded to the poll, >80% of them felt that no good reason existed to question the Stratfordian convention. Even further, if we grant that point entirely, we still have to explain how selection bias matters if it won't shift the estimated results much. Obviously if we were worried about pro Stratfordian selection bias the numbers become more disconcerting. If 100% of the excluded contactees were anti-stratfordian then the resulting survey could, if 100% of the contactees responded, show as low as 60% for "no" on question 15. Even then the answer: a majority of scholars said no to q. 15 is still technically correct. Remember that we are assuming you are correct and that the survey is so badly flawed that selection bias makes determinate all possible responses which were left out. Even so, the survey doesn't change (on the assumption of excluded pro-stratfordian respondents) much between 41% response rate and 100% response rate. 2.5% saying yes is the lowest possible bound for the survey results given the worst possible assumption. Any less than 100% pro-stratfordian exclusion and we get closer to 6%. This is just a function of the extant response rate.

I'll also repeat my primary claim: the poll isn't badly flawed. The methodology is clearly laid out. The organization running and publishing the poll is reliable. The sample size is reasonable. I'm open to arguments as to how the poll might be flawed but I grow skeptical if those arguments appear to stem from disagreements with the conclusion. And honestly what is so bad about the conclusion? The poll states that a small minority of academics express doubts about the prevailing consensus. It doesn't lend their claims any weight. It doesn't speak to the truth value of the claims. It doesn't speak to the distribution of responses among prominent and marginal academics. It just offers some evidence that a margin exists. Why is this an unsettling claim? How is it contradicted by claims from central and prominent scholars that central and prominent scholarship doesn't lend credence to the authorship controversy? It is still possible to claim that the bulk of support for the authorship controversy comes from non-academics and the popular press (which certainly would generate a proportion greater than 6% who have doubts about the consensus view). It just doesn't seem threatening to me. And it seems misleading to leave it out. Protonk (talk) 23:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Stephen, in the heat of the moment I misspoke. We haven't heard anything from them since I posted my points, though. I honestly don't understand why Paul would go along with using a flawed survey. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Just report all the specific numbers, and let the reader decide. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

To put this interminable discussion to bed, I propose we stipulate that that the survey is a reliable source; and then go back to the original discussion on the William Shakespeare talk page to hash out just exactly what it is a reliable source for. Once we've established that yes, we do indeed generally allow things published in the NYTimes as reliable (a test to determine whether or not a source can be used on Wikipedia at all; not a blanket stamp of approval to give it undue credence and weight), this noticeboard no longer is the right venue for discussion: everyone on here will start from the specific source and view the world from that perspective, whereas the editors of the article start from the complete opposite end (the article as a whole, the sum of Shakespeare research). For instance, it's becoming clear that, e.g., Protonk will never see what the problem with the NYTimes survey is, because that source is his frame of reference in this discussion (that's an explanation, not an accusation, by the way). For instance, that the sentence relevant to this discussion had a long-standing and hard-won consensus among the editors on the page, had stood through a long and contentious FAC process, and was sourced to no less than 4 books published on university presses (of which one's author is considered authorative in the field) hasn't even entered as points in the discussion: because the context, the framing, of the debate has been this NYTimes survey and whether or not it fills Wikipedia's general guidelines for acceptance (not what it can be used for, its relative merits to other sources, etc.). We're arguing this from the wrong perspective, using the wrong test, and not getting anywhere. Seriously, where else but the RS noticeboard would you find otherwise intelligent editors arguing earnestly, emphatically, and in good faith that an email poll by a popular newspaper trumps four books published on university presses? --Xover (talk) 11:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I said this before, but it must have gone unnoticed, but the "four books" in question were not used to source the phrase in question. They were used to reference the second half of the sentence that states that Oxford is the most prevalent candidate. That is the part of the sentence that generated so much debate. And most of the contentiousness that preceded it was due to the fact that the mainstream editors wanted the topic completely censored from the article. Getting back to the four sources, at least one of these sources also refers to doubters as heretics or lunatics and other scholarly name-calling. The problem is, most of the strictly Stratfordian editors of the article page treat doubters the same way and push back to the point of unreasonableness when discussing anything having to do with the authorship issue. They completely poo-poo the notion and as a result, have done very little (if any) research into the matter and as a result are pretty uninformed. The same goes with the standard "university press" authors that are cited in the article. They no so little about the authorship issue that they make really obvious mistakes, that then get published due to the writers stature in the general Shakespeare field. I tend to agree with [User:Peregrine Fisher|Peregrine Fisher]] (talk) above - why not adjust the note to list the specific percentages and be done with it? Smatprt (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Also - as an example of the regular article editors unreasonableness, they have criticized the survey for "only" having a 48% response rate. As I understand it, in the world of surveys, a 48% response rate is to die for! When a survey is torn down with such obvious mistakes, how can a reasonable discussion be had? Smatprt (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You're pounding on the other editors because you think we're unreasonable, but what we see is controversial material added to a featured status article without any discussion at all, which you have done several times. If you want to know why you've been accused of acting in bad faith, the perception of trying to sneak something in might be one place to start. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

First, I'm not sure how anyone could "sneak" something in to a high profile article with lots of watchdogs. That seems to be rather unfounded. Second, you are the one who has accused me of bad faith, which Xover, quite recently, completely disagreed with and has taken issue with you about. You also still seem to think that I added the note in question (which I did not). THAT is bad faith. I support keeping the note, but have not objected to your rewrite of it. THAT is good faith. The only other recent issue (over the collaboration article wording and the notes associated with it) WAS discussed, so I really don't understand why you are beating that old worn out drum.Smatprt (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think you added this particular note. And yes, the other issues WERE discussed, but after you arbitrarily added material questioning the timeline of the writing of the plays and the chronology of the plays (the Cairncross affair).

And you';re mistaken about the purpose of the four scholarly references. If you would bother to check the references, Kathman, Love and Schoenbaum all say antiStratfordism is dismissed in academic circles; Kathman "universally," Love "Widely, but not universally," and Schoenbaum--well, you wouldn't like what he says about it so I'll just refer you to the book. As far as Holderness goes, I can't figure out why he's there; nothing in his book discusses authorship in the antiStratford vein. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

My mistake, but I looked at some (not all, I admit) of the pages referenced and they had to do with Oxford being the lead candidate. My mistake, but my statement about these authors still stands - they are not authorship researchers (since they dismiss the whole subject), with the exception of Kathman, whose "universally" can no longer be maintained by virtue of the both the survey (which you admit was answered by Professors with anti-strat leanings), and the ongoing petition [[36]] that does, you must admit, include academics in many related and fields including, History, Theatre Arts, and yes indeedy - English Lit! You can poke fun of some of them, but certainly not all. And that basically makes the use of "universal" inappropriate. The current article line says "(small) minority". I hope we can all (at least) agree with that and stop this nonsense about "no serious scholar" and "universal" and "dismissed by academia" and other statements being made on these talk pages, which can no longer be supported (except by the most POV Stratfordians, of course: Wells resorts to name calling, labeling any doubter as "insane"). Smatprt (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The response rate would be fine in a better written survey. I'm sure the numbers were properly processed. It's the questions that are bloody awful - or, if you like, the spin being put on the answers by editors here that is unjustified. (I really don't give a monkeys about the authorship question). "Just report all the specific numbers, and let the reader decide" doesn't resolve the issue. The point is that the question schedule is inherently biased, leading both to stratfordians not bothering to answer, and by mentioning only one side of a debate in the reading list it provides, positively encouraging a vote for anti-Stratfordism, and discouraging votes against. These are issues of basic survey design that undergraduates doing social research have to get under their belts. The "sampling error" has no connection to how good the survey is, only predict how likely it is that in a similar survey one would get the same answers to the question schedule. Reliability is not the same as validity, and there is no evidence to show that the question schedule accurately measures what it's trying to measure, and a few reasons for thinking that it doesn't.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I need to correct VsevolodKrolikov's statement concerning "only one side of a debate in the reading list it provides". This is incorrect. Both Irvin Matus (The Case for Shakespeare, [[37]] and Scott McCrea (The Case for Shakespeare: The End of the Authorship Question) are staunch Stratfordian defenders. This somewhat negates the above comment, as well as this particular criticism of the survey, does it not? Smatprt (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right, but it doesn't completely negate his observation. A better survey would have had a clear statement to the effect that some people think William Shakespeare did not write the works attributed to him and that other people, such as Oxford or Bacon, did. Then a simple question of whether they agree with the statement. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on, you seriously don't think that college Shakespeare professors know that? I can see where you are coming from on much of this, but this I can't even imagine as being the case.Smatprt (talk) 22:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, an assertion about response rates without mention of the relevant facts. If this survey was so terrible at getting Stratfordians to respond, why did 41% (not sure where 48% is coming from) respond? And why, of the 41% responding, did 82% of the professors not repulsed by the wording choose to support the prevailing consensus? Obviously sampling error isn't related to the quality of the survey and neither does survey quality improve monotonically with response rate (I don't think anyone has argued above that the margin of error should be offered as an explanation for the quality of the survey). But that doesn't mean that I'm prepared to accept what seem to be tactical arguments made by proponents of the status quo that the survey is poorly designed...or (more strongly) that it is so poorly designed that we are forced to reject the results. Protonk (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine

In this article an LA Times article is cited

• Benedict Cary Troubling Record for Anti-Aging Doctors Los Angeles Times May 08, 2000

I found a supposed rebuttal of this article (link) on "antiaginginfo.net". However, this isn't the official Academy website, and the owner David Bloom seems to have little to do with the organization, so I an unsure whether to use this as a source. Opinions? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the old version of the article is currently the subject of legal action, so if you want to provide editorial feedback to me privately by e-mail, that would be fine. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The WHOIS report says that David Bloom owns 165 other websites (though it's possible that they are conflating different people of the same name). Looking at the front page, http://www.antiaginginfo.net/, it looks like the main purpose of the site is to sell products. If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say that the webmaster has probably compiled enough text sources to give the website legitimacy, but may have copied the letter in question without permission and might not be involved directly with A4M at all. It's possible that the letter is legitimate, but we shouldn't use it unless it's posted on the A4M website or the writer's personal website. In cases like this we should be extra careful to make sure that all sides are given the opportunity for rebuttal, but this is still outside the boundaries of a reliable source. I checked the LA Times archive and there's no indication they ever ran the letter, though they did issue a correction to another aspect of the article.   Will Beback  talk  20:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, thank you. That seems sensible. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Race and crime in the United States

Could someone have a look at Race and crime in the United States? There are some sources-related issues that seem to be a bit complicated. (See also Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Race and crime in the United States.)  Cs32en  23:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Ibid is entirely unacceptable as it breaks constantly. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Shaun L. Gabbidon and Helen T. Green, Enyclopedia of Race and Crime, 2009, p. xxvii. unsigned tertiary source Fifelfoo (talk) 05:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

State University of New York - Binghamton Entirely inappropriate, an invitation to a conference is not an RS.Fifelfoo (talk) 05:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

"2006 hate crime statistics, Incidents and Offenses". FBI. 2006. is not a full citation Fifelfoo (talk) 05:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Johnson and Kiser (1940) quoted in Myrdal (1987) is not a fullcite: page numbers required for this kind of citation Fifelfoo (talk) 05:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Race and Crime - Conflict Theory entirely unacceptable unsigned free tertiary (encyclopedia) Fifelfoo (talk) 05:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Sampson, Robert J; Wilson, William J. (1995). Toward a Theory of Race, Crime and Urban Inequality in: Gabbidon, Shaun L.; Greene, Helen T. (2005). Race, Crime and Justice: A Reader. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-94707-3. please cite originals Fifelfoo (talk) 05:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Whitney, Glayde; Taylor, Jared (1999). Crime and Racial Profiling by U.S. Police: Is There an Empirical Basis? in: Gabbidon, Shaun L.; Greene, Helen T. (2005). Race, Crime and Justice: A Reader. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-94707-3. please cite originals Fifelfoo (talk) 05:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Russell, Katheryn K. (1996). The Racial Hoax as Crime: The Law as Affirmation in: Gabbidon, Shaun L.; Greene, Helen Taylor; Young, Vernetta D. (2002). African American Classics in Criminology & Criminal Justice. pp. 351-376. ISBN 0-7619-2432-9. please cite originals Fifelfoo (talk) 05:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Lea, John; Young, Jock (1993). The Race and Crime Debate in: Jewkes, Yvonne; Letherby, Gayle (2002). Criminology: A Reader. SAGE Publications. ISBN: 0-7619-4711-6. please cite originals Fifelfoo (talk) 05:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Absence of publication location in most sources in bibliography Fifelfoo (talk) 05:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Alphabetise or year-order sort Fifelfoo (talk) 05:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC) Citations fixed Fifelfoo (talk) 11:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Many of these look not like anything relevant to this noticeboard, but rather like a case of WP:SOFIXIT (incomplete, but clear citations, alphabetization), some even look like WP:WTF to me (its entirely ok to cite modern collections of older papers). Please don't use a shotgun approach. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice for W:RSN editors if we had sufficient context to actually deal with an issue. If someone points me at an article with insufficient context, then this is what they get, a general critique of the quality of their sources. Citing works in collection is inferior to citing works directly, and can cause the elision of publication date material. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You are not, mostly, talking about the quality of the referenced sources. You are talking primarily about the quality of the references themselves. No doubt these comments are useful on the article talk page (even better would be to fix them - this is a collaborative effort, not a teacher/student situation), but they are off-topic here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

That's nice that you think that. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Would Cs32en like to direct us to specific sourcing reliability issues? Fifelfoo (talk) 11:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Some of the references tagged above with "please cite originals" might be chapters in edited books. If so, all that's missing is (eds.) after the names of the book editors. I also commented on FTN and now I'll come over to the page to have a look, and hope others will too Itsmejudith (talk) 11:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I checked that they were "Readers" or "Classics" before requesting originals cited. Edited collections with original chapters tend to steer clear of those titles. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Fifelfoo correctly points out that the references to the sources can be improved. My main concern is whether the different sources are appropriately used in the article, i.e. are they appropriate and sufficient to support the respective pieces of information? The structure of the article is another issue. See the article's talk page for further information.  Cs32en  12:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Contending liberalisms

Is Contending liberalisms a reliable source for Social liberalism? The article appears in Contending liberalisms in world politics: ideology and power[38] (2001) by Professor emeritus James L. Richardson published by Lynne Rienner Publishers, an independent scholarly and textbook publishing firm that publishes in the fields of international studies and comparative politics in relation to the world. The article previously appeared in an earlier book by Richardson and was published in the peer-reviewed European Journal of International Relations (1997). A Google Scholar search returns 149 hits[39] and the article has been used as part of university political science courses. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Source is a reliable source for Social Liberalism. To improve the article, improve "reliable source" to "high quality reliable source" by citing from the original peer reviewed journal article. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Campaign Materials

OK, here's a question for the Reliable Source Gurus. I'm working on keeping Gerald Ford as a FA, and need a call on a source. The source is thus:

• "A Lifetime of Achievement". 4President.org. Retrieved 2009-09-29.

And purports to be a copy of Ford's 1976 campaign flyer. It includes, among other items, a brief biography that fleshes out some details about Ford's youth and family. Since this is essentially the candidate making statements about himself, how authoritative is it? Is it reliable enough about the claims it makes? Or should it be taken entirely with a grain of salt, since its purpose is to influence? Any insight is appreciated. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

4president.org doesn't have an about section. It isn't an archival repository. Given the passage of time (20+ years) the incidents have lapsed into history. SELF's reasonable citations have lapsed into PRIMARY sources. In this context, cite from a secondary source, preferably an academic work (though in this case, a book from a commentator outside the academic system but within the professional system of US politics would be fine). Then illustrate (ie: not verify, but expand or illuminate) the citation using the primary source. Sadly, 4president.org is not a reliable provider of primary sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The site gets 35 gbooks hits from books written by well known scholars and authors. So its reliability does not seem so bad. It seems good enough as a source for Ford's old campaign materials, which of course fall under self-publication or primary sources and should be used as we usually use them. If it says something extraordinary, attribute, if something humdrum that clarifies secondarily sourced material, maybe not.John Z (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with John Z more than Fifelfoo. I disagree with the whole presumption on Wikipedia that secondary sources are so great and primary sources are terrible and shouldnt be used. We need to change our idea on that and put each in their place. Primary sources are MORE reliable generally than secondary as they are closer in time and knowledge regarding the event/people in question; secondary sources are sometimes written by idiots who pretend to know what they are talking about in order to sell books and push their agenda. Use primary sources to VERIFY that a secondary source is truly using the information it presents without pushing an agenda. Use secondary sources to put primary source information into context. Since Wikipedia has regulations regarding synth and OR we cant use primary sources and draw conclusions, even though YES THAT IS WHAT REAL ENCYCLOPEDIAS DO, they are written by professionals and therefore can do that, we cant because we have some editors who cant be trusted. We rely on secondary sources to draw conclusions and have commentary we can use, that is all they sould be used for, primary sources should be used for the actual facts. Primary source-facts; secondary source- commentary, conclusions drawn from, and synth of, primary sources.Camelbinky (talk) 00:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Its not good enough to cite Ford's materials off there because there's no provenance of the materials, and because they're unconfirmed typescripts, rather than scans. There's no way to verify that the materials are actually the campaign materials. If well known scholars and authors have bad practice in citing primary materials, then they oughtn't to really be as well known as they are. Regarding Camelbinky's thoughts on verification strategies, the place to take that forward is at the policy and procedure pages, to change those. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I dont need to, all I have to do is convince enough people at this and other noticeboards that the way I put forth is the way we should have our consensus' come out in favor of. I dont have to change policy in order to change policy because consensus rules the day. Oh, and just about every single author out there has a "bad practice in citing primary materials" because they all have an agenda or theory they are promoting and cherry picking how they present their information, which they often dont present the primary sources correctly. I've written plenty of published articles with the various professors I've had the honor of working under as a grad student, so yea, I know what goes on in the "peer-reviewed" journals that Wikipedia holds in such high esteem. The publishing world doesnt give a crap about truth, please stop making it seem like if it is published by a reputable publisher/journal/whatever then it is "all-good". That is naive.Camelbinky (talk) 02:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a primary source and secondary sources are better. Note that there are a lot of secondary sources about Ford, so there is no reason to rely on this. It may be of value to someone writing about his 1976 campaign, but has no place here. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it can be considered safely reliable for facts about Gerald Ford, if that is your question. Even if it's a genuine archive of material, it is only useful as a primary source for materials on that election campaign. I may be stepping out on a wiki limb here, but I think campaign literature tends to have bias issues, even in apparent "facts". VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The main purpose of this board is to ascertain reliability. Primary, secondary or self-publication is tangential, and whether and how campaign materials should be used is a question for individual talk pages. The opinions above are not so far apart; primary, self-published sources are often perfectly OK for facts. It is true that it is hard to see who is behind this particular site, but I argue that it does count as a genuine archive for campaign materials, as a reliable source, according to the reliable source guideline, in particular Wikipedia:RS#Usage_by_other_sources. That well-known scholars and authors use it provides very good evidence for the authenticity of the materials therein. It does not mean that they are engaging in a "bad practice in citing primary materials" but that they are doing exactly what experts do, confirming and verifying that the site accurately presents these campaign materials. They are the subject matter experts, and on wikipedia we have no alternative to relying on their expertise.John Z (talk) 02:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Well known scholars are known to engage in all sorts of bad behaviour, like citing documents with no provenance, from a "repository" that an Archivist hasn't put their name to. Thankfully, Well known scholars aren't wikipedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said, this is not bad behavior, but ordinary academic practice. If a political scientist or author is familiar with campaign literature, and sees a website which is a good freely available source of it, why should the author not cite it? Why should we not use their knowledge and source vetting to improve wikipedia, as allowed for in the RS guideline? It is a lot easier to make up a phony "about us" page than it is to construct a site that passes the inspection of many independent experts well enough for them to cite it.John Z (talk) 06:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Ordinary academic practice, according to your statement, has fallen into a pit of horror in political science. Thankfully, Wikipedia isn't a Political scientist. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Robotics Design page

Hi i posted some more sources of highly reliable external sources mentinning my products, whatever i need to give whoever to have the lack of notable sources removed ill do. Or just see the soruces and they are notable. Thanks all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiansteve (talk • contribs)

What's the issue: Requesting editor is the business owner of the article. Wishes templates regarding source quality removed.

Decline: Article is predominantly self-sourced. Non-self-sourced references are inadequately dense. Additionally you've self-sourced a claim about a major external award, that does not look good, "The ANATERGOARM, winner of the gold medal at the 31st international Geneva Exibition" is cited in relation to one of your own publications. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The article has many sources, but most of them are what we would call primary sources. Those can stay, but more secondary sources should be added, such as newspaper articles, mentions in books, etc. Basically in our world, a secondary source is media that is independent of what is written about and has an editorial board. We like to see that all of our articles have been in at least a few secondary sources, because that's a rough indication the subject is important enough to include in the encyclopedia. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Robert F. Mullen

Robert's article "Holy Stigmata, Anorexia, and Self-Mutilation: Parallels in Pain and Imagining," will be published shortly in the European Journal of Religions and Ideologies. Comments on this article by contemporaries are provided on his personal website.

Robert F. Mullen is a published writer currently completing his doctorate in Philosophy and Religion at the California Institute of Integral Studies. He has had three plays produced and an article will soon be appearing in the peer-reviewed Journal of Religions and Ideologies. He is an editor for ESL professionals and has conducted workshops in guerrilla marketing. His CV includes working as an entertainment marketing executive as well as consultant for the creation of proposals, treatments, and other creative and professional endeavors.

No context provided: what do you want us to do? Fifelfoo (talk) 02:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this source reliable for a fact about Uri Geller's life?

Editors on Uri Geller are deadlocked about whether a Uri Geller biography is appropriate to use to source as fact Geller's claim that he is related to Sigmund Freud through his mother. The biography being used to source this as fact is Uri Geller: Magician or Mystic? by Jonathan Margolis. Looks like it was first put out by Orion Publishing Group in 1998 [40], which is, I think, a pretty large outfit. US edition published by "Welcome Rain" in 1999 [41]. Biographies tend not to be the most rigorously-sourced, but there are exceptions. Margolis bio: [42]. Welcome opinions. — e. ripley\^talk 22:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

This was brought up earlier at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Uri Geller. I have to concur with the folks over there, not really a reliable source. L0b0t (talk) 23:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Aha, I was unaware of that. Thank you for the link. Unfortunately the two most vocal people at that page are the two who are now disagreeing (Moondial and Arthur Rubin). The rest of the commenters didn't really speak to this particular book, but rather to the overall question of whether the article is biased against Geller or not. For now, I'm only asking for opinions about the book. — e. ripley\^talk 23:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. My reading of the discussion there was rather cursory and I was unaware that those were the same participants from the article. L0b0t (talk) 23:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Ahem. Although one of the participants, the article is using the book to source that Geller's mother is related to Sigmund Freud. If it said Geller stated that, it might very well be acceptable, even if not otherwise a reliable source. I'm more worried about the third reference to the book, where the book was being used for a source that (Uri) Goldstein went to a Geller performance with the intention of suing. That is a controversial statement about a living person, and requires a better source than most, even if his (Goldstein's) intent were the laudable one of defending his good name (Uri). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The Hotline

Is the daily political briefing The Hotline, published by the National Journal, a WP:RS source for info on politics? Cirt (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say, yes, generally speaking. National Journal is highly respected and Hotline is basically a news aggregation service; they mostly read other news outlets and summarize it in a digest format. — e. ripley\^talk 20:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I see now the context in which this is occurring. Sometimes their headlines are flip, but the news is accurate. Hotline certainly meets our standards for editorial integrity. — e. ripley\^talk 20:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Cirt (talk) 21:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Lewinsky scandal

There is a slightly stale RfC (with no contributions) on the talk page about the inclusion of material about allegedly widespread rumours in the middle east that the Lewinsky affair was part of a Zionist conspiracy, and a reported quote from a Saudi diplomat saying the same thing. The issues are to do with due weight and sourcing. Comments welcome.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Are student-run college newspapers considered reliable sources?

Many US colleges and universities have student-run newspapers. Examples include the Harvard Crimson and The Cornell Daily Sun. Are such newspapers considered reliable sources? I think that the answer is Yes, but can't find confirmation elsewhere. This issue has arisen in the context of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EphBlog. David.Kane (talk) 14:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this isn't something that we can make a blanket statement on... It really depends on the reputation of the specific student-run newspaper in question. Some have high editorial standards and are quite reliable, others are not reliable at all. Blueboar (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with this take. Some are highly respected and should be considered reliable, others less so. — e. ripley\^talk 15:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The specific newspaper I am interested in is the | Williams Record, but, obviously, I would not expect anyone to have an opinion on it specifically. Would it be fair to say that there is no presumption for or against a specific college newspaper and that it would depend on the topic of the article? David.Kane (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a bit of a presumption for student newspapers. They do have editors. I would say that particular one is reliable (it's 120 years old), although the particular statement and source can of course effect that. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I would say no, very loudly, except for student sports results (something difficult to get wrong). They have editors, but these are people barely out of their teens whose next newspaper job is typically making tea for proper journalists. Some may be brilliantly honest journos in the making, but we have no way of distinguishing them from the rest.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

So, you would recommend that all the citations in Wikipedia to the Harvard Crimson, say, be deleted since the Crimson is not a reliable source? David.Kane (talk) 15:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said, there are some things like sports results where they can be RS. But RS requires a reputation for fact checking, and universities tend not to sue the student newspapers (and students don't have the funds or energy to sue), so the pressure's a bit off the fact checking. My own experience of Cherwell is that student newspapers are rather like tabloids - most things are true, but...if it's anything controversial, the newspapers are simply not under the same pressure as real papers like NYT, The Times etc to get things right. They're rather like news blogs that just don't quite make it to RS.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as reliability goes, the key question is: What is the reputation of the Williams Record?... has it won awards or been recognized for its journalism. My inclination is to call it reliable (Williams College is highly respected and I would expect them to have a high quality newspaper) but I don't really know enough to make a judgement.

That said... looking at the AfD, the reliability of the paper is not the real issue... the issue is the localness of the paper (and the other sources that are cited). The key question is whether there is any coverage of the subject (EphBlog) from beyond the local area of Williams College. That is a question for WT:NOTE and not one for this noticeboard. Blueboar (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I agree that whether or not the Williams Record is a reliable source is largely orthogonal to the issue of whether or not EphBlog should be deleted. I just want to figure out, in that dispute, whether or not it is fair for me to claim that EphBlog has been mentioned in 3 reliable sources or just 2. I also find the issue of college newspapers interesting. David.Kane (talk) 15:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• I see two separate issues here. First, are college newspapers good sources for establishing notability? Second, are they reliable as to their accuracy? As regards notability, I don't think they are good sources for establishing the notability of people and things related to their own college. College newspapers cover some topics that are only of interest on their own campuses. If the Harvard Crimson printed an article about an a cappella group at Harvard, that wouldn't impress me much as to the group's notability. On the other hand, if the Harvard Crimson printed an article about an a cappella group from UCLA, that would tend to help establish notability for the group because that would mean that the group was receiving attention outside their own college community. The fact that a Williams College newspaper mentions a blog about Williams College does not necessarily indicate that the blog is notable outside the college (the blog could be notable, but it would need some attention from outside the college community as well). Then, as regards accuracy, college newspapers are not only subject to all the possible sources for error that professional newspapers are, but additional sources of error as well -- they are mostly written by amateur reporters and supervised by amateur editors, all of whom have to fit their reporting in their spare time around their classwork. The more contentious a statement, the less willing I would be to source it to a college newspaper. However, it looks like this is not a particular concern in the EphBlog article; the main reason that article cites the Williams Record is to establish that the Record has mentioned the blog, and obviously the Record is reliable as to whether they are mentioning the blog, whether or not their statements about the blog are accurate. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

As an example, no. On Dit, is from an old university, and once had gratuitous photos of students engaging in nude mud wrestling and other junk. The editors also once bragged in their column that they used the funds to buy porn and marijuana. Not RS at all. More like a troll-blog. Includes doctored images of politicians they don't like (typically right winger ones) in scandalous poses and so forth. I've seen other ones that are similar to this, YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Using US News and World Report as an academic authority.

The article Marietta College is currently edit-protected because of one IP asserting that the US News and World Report is the final authority in deciding whether the college can be classified as a liberal arts college. The IP in question has been traced to the University of Pennsylvania, and Marietta is in Ohio.

Although I do not doubt that the USNWR is highly regarded as a source, I believe that the categorization of universities and colleges (as stated in the infoboxes) should be done using exclusively academic sources, and so, the USNWR being a news source that sets its own criteria, it should not be regarded as the final authority. I still believe the USNWR "dissention" could be mentioned in the article itself, but the infobox is a different story. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

A couple of other source (the first shows that the University classifies itself as a "liberal arts college") Founded in 1835, Marietta College is a private, liberal arts college located in southeast Ohio, Marietta is the only liberal arts college in the nation offering a petroleum engineering degree. The actual rankings by USNWR should be attributed, but for classifications it should be fine, though it is not the "final authority". nableezy - 16:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I would not rely on any one source for classifying institutions of higher learning, particularly not one as maligned as USN&WR. As an accredited American institution, though, the premiere classifications are the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. For what it's worth, CFAT classifies this institution as "Bac/Diverse: Baccalaureate Colleges--Diverse Fields." That may not be terribly useful, though, as the 2005 classifications abandoned the use of the term "liberal arts." --ElKevbo (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Various football biographies are using this as a primary source,

This blog, I'm sure, does not meet our reliable sources policy as the blog has no visible authors, and therefore, no hint of fact-checking. For all we know, it could be a single guy making stuff up.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Context please Fifelfoo (talk) 22:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It is being used as a source for notability on football player articles. The blog says that it uses information from a respected author, but, as we all know, anyone could say that, and this blog displays no proof that the information is in fact from that author.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Modified opinion after discovery of Author's identity, bibliography and two cites of their authorityFifelfoo (talk) 10:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Unreliable: no named editor. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

No oversight even if notable. I know a sports historian who writes proper books, with a wikibio, but also runs an ad hoc sports journal, and there were substantially more errors in the ad hoc journal, lots of typos, a stats table formatted wrong with numbers subsequently being in the wrong place YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The site was moved to a blogspot account recently for whatever reason - it is a perfectly reliable statistics site. You are being manipulated by editors who are pointily edit warring over various Northern Irish articles. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

If the blog is reliable, it would have, amongst other lacking things, a named editor. The hosting location isn't the issue here. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Well why don't you ask them? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The first place I looked for provenance information. jcd.nifg@googlemail.com, a pseudonymous identity, isn't a named editor. Nor is a free email address the standard contact method of reliable sports score cyclopedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong to accuse me of violating WP:POINT. Per our policies on reliable sources and verifiability, the link to the blog was removed. There is nothing pointy about it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't accusing you of WP:POINT at all. I was saying you are being manipulated by people who are. (User:Vintagekits) Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with the other editors that this simply isn't RS, because we have no idea who they are. It certainly can't be used to establish notability. However, what you can do, if you think the blog is reliable, is use it to help search for respectable sources. The issue is not whether or not the site happens to have correct information, but that it's not from an organisation with a reputation for fact checking (such as a large or respectable publishing house, or an RS newspaper.) So see if the same information is held anywhere better. google books of course is a good start.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems ridiculous to me that a site that is widely used as a source on WP, can be deemed unreliable based on a four line "discussion" between two people in the middle of the night. I have taken this to WT:WPF for further input. Daemonic Kangaroo --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 06:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It's used on, as of this moment, 191 articles. Anyway, to the point, just because it is widely used doesn't make it right, or reliable, by any measurement.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It's 3.45 pm where I am. Does that make a difference?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how this is relevant.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Because two users having a short conversation without notifying anybody is not a consensus. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The comment I replied to had nothing to do with that. Secondly, in case you haven't noticed, consensus isn't how this noticeboard works. You can't establish that a source is reliable 'by consensus'. If I wrote a book and claimed to be an expert on some subject, then got a bunch of my wikipedia friends to back me up and support me, it wouldn't make it a reliable source. Go have a read of our WP:RS policy. It explicitly states that blogs of this kind are not allowed. If you want to change that, go start a discussion on the policy talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

NIFG was not a blog a few months ago; the individual pages were cut and pasted to a blogspot account from the main NIFG site. Look at the edit history of List of Hibernian F.C. international footballers. I'm not disputing that WP:RS needs consensus, but surely it require consensus to determine the status of an individual site??? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

nifg.co.uk is a Wordpress site with no authorial identity listed, or citations / description of their data sources or methods. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a farce. Felix Healy was copy pasted from that blog. Stolen. Now two years later the blog is deemed unreliable because the person who wrote is does not reveal his name. Not only is the source deemed unreliable, but it is also removed from external links. This was NOT discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football. Please stop damaging articles.--EchetusXe 07:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikiproject football doesn't decide what is reliable or not. I am simply following policy, as dictated by WP:RS. The blog says that material X is gained from source X, but it doesn't give a link to source X. The point here is that anyone could claim that they have material X from source X, but that doesn't make it so. This blog is not reliable as the information is not verifiable, I'm not damaging anything just because I'm removing an unreliable source you happen to like.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I dunno if this is any help, but the site lists George Glass as a contributor, who is a member of the board of the highly-respected International Federation of Football History & Statistics, Roy Cathcart, who appears to be an official photographer for the Irish FA, and Marshall Gillespie, author of The Northern Ireland Football Yearbook...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The acknowledgement is on the left hand side of the main page, and amounts to "NIFG would like to thank... ...everyone who has contributed to the site. Particular gratitute goes to George Glass, Marshall Gillespie, Roy Cathcart and Jim Murphy who's contributions have been invaluable." I don't see this as a really adequate account of their involvement, its extent, or reliable to demonstrate its actuality. Lets assume this acknowledgement is true, without their involvement in signing articles, or contributing as an editor of a section, we can't take their status as indicative of the authority of the NIFG as a site. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, just a thought....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Does it not make you think that established & respected football researchers wouldn't risk their reputation by contributing to an unreliable source? GiantSnowman 09:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence they actually contributed. Anyone could say 'thanks to so and so for contributing', doesn't mean they did.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

We need to look at the information provided as opposed to the contributors who provide it - to take one of Wikipedia's own mantras, "judge the content, not the contributor." Does information from NIFG match information provided by other sources already accepted as reliable? Yes. Just look at two recent examples I can remember from the top of my head, Ian Nolan and Allen McKnight. Ergo it is reliable. GiantSnowman 08:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I know the author, is a good guy and was able to find some pretty rare data about former players. It isn't the most reliable website on Earth, but it's reliable enough for my researches. --necronudist (talk) 09:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't mean it's reliable enough for wikipedia.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Few points, might help for clarification at least.

1. The site's bibliography is listed at http://nifootball.blogspot.com/2006/08/bibliography-books.html
2. Where specific information is supplied by a specific contributor, that contributor is named at the relevant point, and not just in the general acknowledgment in the LH bar: e.g. George Glass at http://nifootball.blogspot.com/2006/09/joe-connor.html . I don't think it's particularly constructive to suggest serious reputable professionals would allow their names to remain credited as contributors to a widely-used website for any length of time had they not actually done so.
3. The site's editor has been credited as the source of information for other websites, including England Football Online and Historical Kits. Incidentally, both those pages give his name. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm satisfied. I won't revert anyone's reversion of me.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

So are you content that NIFG is an acceptable, reliable source for use on Wikipedia? And if so, are you prepared to withdraw any remaining AfDs based on your previous belief that it wasn't reliable? GiantSnowman 10:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I've already tried to withdraw all AFDs I started. That said, it is 4am, and I need sleep, as my clock is going to wake me in.. three hours. siiiiiiiiiiiiigh.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 11:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Get some sleep man! I think the only one left unwithdrawn is the one on Clancy McDermott, but do it after some rest! GiantSnowman 11:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Second Daedalus969 for the same reasons,

Can we attribute Ed. jcd (pseud.) [Jonny Dewart] correctly at the bibliography citations for NIFG?

Next question, which would ease any future verification issues, is NIFG notable enough to have its own entry on wikipedia? If it is, then the talk page would be an appropriate place to cross link the archive of this dicussion. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not well enough acquainted with the notability guidelines for websites. But I will link the archived discussion to its entry in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Links#Sources, which would serve the same purpose. Thanks for suggesting it. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Just for clarification, do other users think that [43] is a reliable source? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Authorially, londonhearts.com was two clicks away from the authority for the organisation (Meeting house at The Daniel Gooch Address: The Daniel Gooch, Bayswater 40 Porchester Road, London, W2 6ES) and includes standard association information on membership rules, including an AGM. This broadly means that the website is the responsibility of a properly constituted organisation. As a supporters club, I would become suspicious if historical data was in conflict with another authority of better provenance. Similarly, the supporters club would be less valueable as a source about matters of opinion, particularly those connected with greatness, poorness, historical rivals, or the status of the supporters club itself. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

IdahoGangs.com

Is IdahoGangs.com reliable in the context of telling us how many members are in an international gang, or what crimes the gang is known to commit? It is cited in many articles such as Hells Angels [44] [45], Latin Kings (gang), Gypsy Joker Motorcycle Club, Mongols (motorcycle club), and Bandidos. IdahoGangs.com appears to be completely anonymous; there is no named person or organization responsible for its content, and it cites no sources. --Dbratland (talk) 21:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Unreliable No authorship, no indication of demographic or criminological credibility. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yahoo! news as a reliable source for military affaires

I just wanted to consulte after I had disagreement with one user on the list of operators in the article of Type 212 submarine. According to Yahoo's news [46]Israel is now one of the operators of the U-212, Yahoo based its report on Jane's defense weekly, which considerd as highly credible source. Moreover, a report of one French news agency [47] quote Israeli military spokesman and again indicate specifically that Israel now operate the U 212. Please review the sources and eveluate their reliability.--Gilisa (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Refimprove: Source Janes from Janes. Supplement with Yahoo! News and Defense News, both of which are fit for purpose, but not the most appropriate method of sourcing. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Is an anonymous op-ed in a smallish newspaper a reliable source for a BLP?

There is a dispute over the reliability of the Ottawa Citizen, specifically this anonymous op-ed [48]. The article in question is Marc Garlasco. My contention is that since this op-ed breathlessly repeats blogger's accusations, such as Garlasco (a published expert on WWII German anti-aircraft forces) chose as his online nom de plume "FlaK88" not based upon the most feared weapon of the European theater, the 88mm FlaK anti-aircraft gun but, rather, because "88" is some sort of alphabetic substitution cypher invented by skinheads to signify "heil Hitler" ("h" being the 8th letter in the alphabet) the source has displayed no attempt at fact checking and lacks the proper editorial oversight expected of a RS. That whole well is poisoned and the anonymous op-ed is no longer a reliable source for any other claim therein and should not be used in a WP:BLP. Reverts abound despite discussion on the talk page, so any extra eyes would be appreciated. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 22:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Unreliable as used. due to Editorials not being reliable sources of fact, but sources of Opinion (as Ottawa Citizen classifies its Editorial section). Ottawa Citizen would stand behind any editorial it publishes, the problem is that the editorial is making factual claims, and the article is currently quoting these, "The Ottawa Citizen, in its editorial Not-so-secret motives,[23] stated "Garlasco has made a career of painting Israel as a criminal state. Scholars and other researchers have exposed Garlasco's reports as inaccurate and malicious, but no matter -- among anti-Israel activists, Garlasco is a hero."." The following statement of fact, "Scholars and other researchers...malicious" is a statement of fact which the Editorial cannot be trusted as an RS for. Similarly "among anti-Israel activists, Garlasco is a hero" is a statement of fact for which the Editorial cannot be trusted. that "Garlasco has made a career of painting Israel as a criminal state." is an opinion which the Editorial is reliable for, if correctly attributed and characterised, such as, "The Ottawa Citizen believes, "Garlasco...state."" Fifelfoo (talk) 00:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

But as for that opinion, anonymous op-eds typically do not make for significant opinions, and so wouldn't be appropriate in any case. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, any newspaper editorial not published with a Named Meat is necessarily the opinion of the Newspaper / Chief Editor. Doesn't make it notable though, as you point out. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Right. What Dlabtot said below; I didn't catch the correction you made from "anonymous op-ed". Someguy1221 (talk) 04:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

First, it is an editorial, not an "anonymous" op-ed. Second, opinion pieces are fine for referencing someone's opinion, unacceptable for citing alleged facts. Dlabtot (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, thanks for the great work on RSN. But, could you not bold the beginning of your statements. It makes them seem more official than how the comments here really are. Again, keep up the good work. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Good point. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Would the fact that the entity that owns the Citizen, Canwest, has questionable editorial practices be germane to the discussion? L0b0t (talk) 04:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Also the Citizen itself has been accused of bias [49], [50]. L0b0t (talk) 04:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Systemic pro or anti topic bias by an author (in this case the Editorial Policy which covers Editorials) would go to notability of the opinion. It'd also go to reliability of facts stated in opinions, but editorials shouldn't be used to cite facts anyway. So all that's left is the opinion itself. Enforced opinion from above doesn't make it any less an opinion. Why you'd want to cite a newspaper's opinion about someone is beyond me though. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that editorials cannot be used for facts. I'd like to hear more opinions on this. I have a feeling we could find an editorial, and a fact, that it's fine to cite it for. Not talking about this one specifically. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This is totally misleading. The smallish newspaper is the capital of Canada's Ottawa Citizen, and the op-ed in question is the main editorial published by the editorial board of the paper. The actual fact is that a group of POV-pushers dislike, for agenda purposes, what the paper had to say about the subject of the article - hence this misleading thread. I would invite editors of all stripes to come to the Marc Garlasco page and see for yourself. It is convenient to use praising & gushing from such notable sources as Der Spiegel but a major Canadian newspaper that publishes a main editorial that counters their POV? Not allowed! Best, A Sniper (talk) 04:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The way it was used at Marc Garlasco was to claim the Editorial supported facts such as, "among anti-Israel activists, Garlasco is a hero". An Editorial cannot substantiate facts, no matter how big a newspaper, as the editorial is the official opinion of the newspaper's editor. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe you can make such a blanket statement. That statement sounds controversial, though, so you may be correct in this case. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The Ottawa Citizen is a reliable source for news however please note WP guidelines for reliable sources: Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers.[51] So it should not be used. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

But the edit in question - read it here [52] - is asserting an opinion (basically "The Ottowa Citizen editorial called Garlasco anti-Israel") not a fact ("Garlasco is anti-Israel"). I don't see a problem from a RS perspective, though there might be one from an undue weight perspective. Peter Ballard (talk) 06:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

There may be other issues, but that source is reliable for that statement. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this belongs at WP:BLP/N. nableezy - 06:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

We have to have a reason to believe that the opinion of the editorial board of the Ottawa Citizen is important enough to include in the article. Kinda seems like a lot of fuss but a high bar has to be set for broad statements like that (especially when they are so loaded). Protonk (talk) 06:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm an involved editor and as such I'm more interested in the opinions of uninvolved editors. I tend to agree with Nableezy that this belongs at BLP/N but since it's here I'll comment. I think the key issue here that has been mentioned in various ways by several editors (and is misunderstood/ignored by advocates of this information) is that the source is making a number of factual claims that are unsubstantiated. In fact they don't even come close to complying with WP:V let alone WP:BLP requirements. The factual claim for example that 'Scholars and other researchers have exposed Garlasco's reports as inaccurate and malicious' in relation to official Human Rights Watch reports co-researched/co-authored by Garlasco and edited by HRW's directors is simply nonsense. It's impossible to tell since no evidence is presented but I assume this statement refers to cases like a political scientist in NGO Monitor expressing a personal unsubstantiated opinion about PD/VT/MT fuzing options in 155mm M825A1 shells that runs contrary to an opinion expressed by HRW's military experts. It relates to one sentence in a 70+ page report which is consistent with similar reports by others Human Rights groups and does not amount to 'Scholars and other researchers have exposed Garlasco's reports as inaccurate and malicious'. Let's be clear about the proposed edit. It includes 3 pieces of information.
  • Garlasco has made a career of painting Israel as a criminal state.
  • Scholars and other researchers have exposed Garlasco's reports as inaccurate and malicious
  • among anti-Israel activists, Garlasco is a hero.

Sean.hoyland - talk 06:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Editorials and op-ed collumns are not the same as new reporting. They are statements of opinion and not statements of fact. We can include them in our articles as long as we attribute... As in "According to the The Ottowa Citizen, Garlasco is a hero among anti-Israel activists" etc. Blueboar (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, and I think that's what's being done here. IronDuke 21:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The editorial is a reliable source. This is a major newspaper in Canada, well-respected, and the piece is not an anonymous op-ed, but the newspaper's own editorial, which will have been agreed by its editor-in-chief and/or editorial board. Use in-text attribution to make clear what the source is. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It is still an opinion piece. That is what editorials are. Blueboar (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't find the fact/opinion distinction useful as a rule. The point is that this is an editorial in a major newspaper, so there's really no way we can say it's not an RS. Like anything, where in doubt, use in-text attribution, as you suggest. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparently there is wording somewhere saying don't use editorials for facts, although I imagine what was meant was don't use opinions in editorials as facts. For instance, using this source to back up a summary of "The United States and the other great powers that resumed negotiations with Iran this week" would be fine, I think. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Is a university's faculty/bio page an acceptable source?

A musician performs in a recital at Carnegie Hall. No notice or review appears in the press, and the venue's own database that could confirm her appearance isn't a published resource. The University where she later becomes a professor mentions the performance in its official "faculty bio" page about her, however. In the absence of other sources, can the musician's Carnegie performance be admitted into an article about her, based on the University's official bio page alone? If so, can other information from that bio page be likewise admitted when there's no traditional media source available? Here's the context, for those who are interested. Thanks, - Ohiostandard (talk) 11:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, no. There's a problem. University webpages are usually supplied by staff, often separately to CVs. Unipage says, "and most recently a solo debut at Carnegie Hall;" , Talkpage on article says, "I resorted to checking by phone with Carnegie Hall. I was told by an archives department employee that she had performed in a "dual recital" (ie with one other musician) in Carnegie Hall's Weill Recital Hall, on 24 Feb 2000" (User:Ohiostandard). Uh oh. That kind of discrepancy means that I am disinclined to trust the University webpage. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This is one area of WP:V and WP:RS that I don't get. If a primary source can't be used, then what's the point in allowing primary sources in the first place? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

One could focus on what is confirmed by Carnegie Hall, that she did debut there, without the word "solo". The university webpage would be OK for this, they are generally accepted for such claims, and could be used carefully as usual, for other claims. Using the email from Carnegie Hall would be considered OR to put information in an article, but there is nothing wrong with using it to leave something out of an article - the word "solo". The lack of performance date in the Washington Post mention referred to on the talk page (which says "solo debut" btw) does not make it fail WP:V. There is no doubt that she performed there; whether "solo" should be used or not is a matter of fine judgment. That Carnegie Hall says they're "still in the labor-intensive process of building their internal database" casts a little doubt on their minor doubt-casting. She might have performed a dual recital in 2000 and a solo one later, before 2005.John Z (talk) 00:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

A clarification about the word "solo" as it's applied in music might be called for here, especially since the source pertains to a living person. It's my impression that in the context of music, "solo" doesn't at all imply "alone onstage". A Carnegie Hall press release about another musician illustrates this: "Violinist Glenn Dicterow made his solo debut at age 11 with the Los Angeles Philharmonic ..." Also, the Oxford Dictionary takes note of the unusual usage in musicology, viz. "Of musical instruments, or the players of these: Playing or taking the solo part." This is quite different from the way the word is used in most other contexts, e.g. in aviation. I can't remember whether I noticed the apparent discrepancy when I first heard the term from the archives staffer, but subsequent investigation into the terms leads me to the conclusion that "dual recital" probably doesn't conflict with "solo debut" at all. I do remember, btw, that I assumed the other performer had played some complementary instrument, e.g. a piano to the subject's flute. I'm not certain whether it'll help or hurt at this point to say so, but I made that assumption after the archives staffer commented that although the subject's performance was listed as a "dual recital" in their database, he could find no database entry to identify the other performer in the recital.

No one has criticised the action, but it seems clear in retrospect that it was improper for me to have made any mention of that telephone call at all, let alone to have posted an initial summary of its outcome on the article's talk page. It has very naturally become a kind of "source" for comparison to published sources all on its own, and the fault for that lies only with my own disclosure of it. I think at this point I can best serve the cause by recusing myself from editing the article, not only for that reason, but also because I really don't know enough about music to contribute to the article at the level it requires. I imagine I'll probably have to leave some additional remarks or replies on the article's talk page, but I'll try to keep anything new there as concise as possible.

Thank you for your reply, Fifelfoo, and for recalling my attention to the phrase, "most recently", that occurs on the faculty bio page and that apparently refers to a year 2000 performance. I'd noticed that at one point, too, but had forgotten it. That error does tend to disqualify the source, even if it was a good-faith, unintentional result of a copy-and-paste from some outdated document or web page, as I assume it to be. Thanks, too, A_Quest for your comment, and John_Z for your well-considered and thoughtful reply. Ohiostandard (talk) 04:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for being such a good, source focused editor! It seems like you barely needed RS/N at all; but it was nice for you to drop by! Fifelfoo (talk) 04:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, thanks! You're too generous by half, though, to say so. I know it couldn't "show" from the above, but the process here has been very useful to me in itself, even apart from the valuable, explicitly-communicated information you (all) provided. That I had to review the matter in order to summarize it coherently was beneficial, and seeing what naturally happened because of my little WP:OR spree was still more so. To put it mildly, I have an immediate, much less-theoretical appreciation for the wisdom and importance of WP:SECONDARY than I had previously. Sorry to drag others through it with me, of course, but the process here is what allowed me to notice that I'd made a mistake at all, and then go on to evaluate it correctly as having considerable significance in its nature, if not (luckily) so much in its actual affects in this case. I probably wouldn't have "got" that anything like so well if someone had just told me I was wrong, and why. Ohiostandard (talk) 11:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, also: I didn't mean to shut the discussion down. Both more generally and also with respect to the particular article that occasioned it, the reliability of faculty bio pages is an important-enough question that anyone who has anything they'd like to contribute to this discussion should certainly do so. ( Provided the discussion hasn't been closed via the normal archiving process, of course! ) Ohiostandard (talk) 11:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• I should point out here that our bios on academics use their pages extensively to fill in details. Not sure if this is useful or proper in all cases but it is certainly very common. Protonk (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Self-published sources such as this are acceptable for uncontroversial factual details about their own authors; see WP:RS#Self-published sources and WP:SELFPUB. So, in the case in question, I would answer "yes": the information from the faculty bio can be included, as long as it does not form the basis of notability of the article and as long as there is no reason to doubt its veracity. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Publisher Nortom

A group of about 2-3 editors have been pushing stuff published by Nortom onto Polish-Ukrainian articles. The publisher is privately owned by a leader of a far-right fringe Polish political party. I made an RFC on history and policy pages discussing reliability but this would probably be an even more appropriate venue to discuss it. Any contributions to the discussion page here would be most welcome. To me, it seems clearly not reliable but I would like more opinions.Faustian (talk) 13:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I've already commented on the talk page after the RFC, so I won't opine here. I'd draw people's attentions to WP:MILMOS#SOURCES for Nortom works that fall into the History category. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Digging for the Truth: The Final Resting Place of Jimmy Hoffa

This is the book that has the latest info abou the case and should be referenced in the biblio--Spectre7277 (talk) 01:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

http://www.amazon.com/Digging-Truth-Final-Resting-Place/dp/0970919166

Not a WP:RS/N request; spam. Work is vanity publisher, not a scholarly history imprint, see WP:MILMOS#SOURCES for criteria for history source reliability. Consider as self-published. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if that book is self published, but the stuff at WP:MILMOS#SOURCES goes way beyond our requirements for RSs. We don't have any rules requiring scholarly history imprints, or similar. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Speaker Bureau Bio

An editor has started an article in a user subpage here. Some of the material also appears in a Speakers Bureau Bio here. I've already provided the caution that the article must be written in the editor's own words, but I don't want to urge citing the source if it isn't reliable (Obviously, if not reliable, the included material must be sourced elsewhere. My tentative advice is here.)

Some arguments against accepting a Speakers Bureau bio as a reliable source:

• WP:COI - the bureau has a vested interest in making the speaker sound as attractive as possible, and may not emphasize or even list negative aspects
• WP:PEACOCK - speakers bureau's are notorious for use of superlative without supporting evidence

Some arguments for accepting a Speakers Bureau bio as a reliable source:

• Speaker's bureaus want repeat business, so cannot cavalierly make false claims about speakers
• Peacock terms are only a problem is directly quoted, if paraphrased in neutral language, not an issue.
• Balance is the responsibility of the editor, and that does not mean every source used has to be balanced, only that the overall article is balanced

Intermediate possibility - perhaps a Speakers bureau bio is in the same category as a autobio - acceptable for certain facts, such as birthdate, address, family etc. but not as support for claims of being an expert in some subject area.

(I searched the archives for "speakers bureau" but didn't see that this subject has been discussed.)--SPhilbrickT 15:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Kambojas and related

Kambojas Through the Ages by Kirpal Singh Dardi is used as a source in 81 articles, mainly on Indian history, but including one on a 20th century hockey player. I could find no reference in any bookseller or library catalogue, but from discussion on Talk:Kambojas I now know it is a Punjabi-language book, title Kamboj Yugan de Aar-paar. I've asked the user who was responsible for all/most of the citations to supply the place of publication and publisher, but so far he hasn't. I also found out that the author is a civil engineer, or a retired one, rather than an academic historian. What do people think? Can it be used at all? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Not English-language and not from an academic source, either. It might be full of nonsense or it might not: it doesn't really matter, as it's clearly inappropriate to use anyway. Should be removed ASAP. Moreschi (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

That'll be a lot of work! Itsmejudith (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Semi-seriously: couldn't we program some bot to do it for us? Moreschi (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Who is it published by? It doesn't have to be in English, and the writer doesn't have to have a degree for their books to be an RS. If it's self published, that's another matter. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The author of the book (THe Kambojas Through the Ages), Kirpal Singh Daradi, is very well conversant with the ancient Sansakritic and Inscriptional sources containing most of information on the Kambojas. Further, his book "Kamboj Yugan de Aar-Paar" (The Kambojas Through the Ages) is his second and very well-researched book on "Kamboj History", having been published after over 35 years of research and about 25 after his first research book on Kambojas "Eh Kamboj Lok" (These Kamboj People) had appeared in 1980. It is notable that most of the information on the Kambojas is found scattered in ancient Sanskrit sources and Kirpal Singh Daradi is fully aware of this. He has published his book in Punjabi since his intended audience are mostly north-west Panjabi People from Indian and Pakistan Punjab. It is absurd to say that all references from Kirpal Singh Dardi's Books on Wikipedia be deleted simply because he (Kirpal Singh Dardi) has been a Civil Engineer by Training/Profession or else that his book is in Punjabi not in English. Heck, has every research book to be in English? Then, what about the front ranking Indologists, like Dr J. C. Vidyalankara, most of whose extensive and highly-valuable researches have been written in Hindi? And what about Damodar Dharmananda Kosambi who was a reputed Mathematician and Statistician by profession/training but who otherwise has also written some of the best books and research articles on Ancient Indian History?

Some basic information on "The Kambojas Through The Ages" [53].

Satbir Singh (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)