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

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.[1] 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)

I'm not sure what value there is in an apology that comes only after sanctions are handed down. In fact, that they actually funded a birthday party for a child killing terrorist is beyond repair, IMHO. You can't just shrug it off since the people behind this party are still working for them.

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 00:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. But al-Jazeera is a reliable source as defined by WP:RS#News organizations. nableezy - 01:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Which part of that section are you referring to exactly? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 01:39, 8 October 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)

If one source mentions a genre, that's OK. If their choice is a little different that what you'd consider the genre of the band, then attribute. "Source X described band B as style G". Where articles run into problems is when they get five different sources each describing a band as a different but overlapping genre. That leads to edit conflicts. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the main problem here is in infoboxes which list the genre(s) of bands, musicians or the particular work which is the topic of the article: these genre classifications are sometimes cited but often not, and in many articles they are frequently changed. If every genre label ever applied to a particular artist is listed in the infobox it can get a bit silly sometimes. Allmusic.com is generally accepted as a reliable source for most Wikipedia purposes, but their artist pages have the headings "Genre" which appears to list almost everything as "Pop/Rock" and "Styles" which can include several subgenres. In the article prose it may be appropriate to mention and attribute differing views where applicable, but we can't (or shouldn't) write whole paragraphs in the infoboxes. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 03:31, 10 October 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)

As one who has a degree in political science and is almost done with his masters in poli sci as well...I'm a bit disappointed in Fifelfoo, but I understand he was probably just joking. As I've mentioned about journals, newspapers, and book publishers- they dont fact check!!!!!!! Wikipedia needs to stop thinking that these reliable sources out there are double checking like Santa Claus on Christmas Eve ("yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus" as one NY newspaper once said to a little girl who wrote in). Historians, political scientists, authors, and journalists arent perfect, get sloppy sometimes, and take things at peoples and websites words without always doing the legwork they should do; and of course being human they have their own biases and POVs they are pushing in their work even subconsciously. We need to lighten up here in Wikipedia about this type of thing or it will get to where nothing is allowed. Perhaps Wikipedians need to learn how "the sausage is made", it aint pretty but in the end the product tastes yummy.Camelbinky (talk) 02:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad our disappointment is mutual. I like to know the name of my butcher, the address of his store, and to be able to post his name in libel bills if I get food poisoning. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a number of sites online that archive primary sources, such as political documents, FOIA-obtained documents, and the like. We should check to make sure that the repository has a good reputation for hosting documents. One way to achieve reputation is to see that it is cited by other reliable sources. The book citations that John Z found satisfy this. So, 4president may be cited. If people continue to debate this, it could be attributed as "4president, a repository cite quoted by X and Y", or we create an article about the website to wikilink to. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the feedback! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:04, 9 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)

See Yellow journalism and United States journalism scandals. The Chicago Tribune under Colonel McCormick said that Franklin Roosevelt was as commnistic as Stalin. In the 1960's the Tribune published a photo of nailheads in a door and claimed they were bullet holes where black militants had fired at police before being shot to death. The New York Times had reporters who simply made up stories, which is true of numerous other major news sources, such as CBS News and the bogus memos about Bush's National Guard service. College papers can be reliable sources. Edison (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

College newspapers can be RS. They have an editorial board, and some of the writing in college newspapers is better than what I've seen in conventional newspapers. I definitely wouldnt characterize them as training grounds so they can "make tea for proper journalists". Their next stop might be writing penetrating analyses at a business consulting firm or at the U.S. State Dept. As far as establishing notability, I would treat them like a local hometown newspaper. A mention in a student newspaper wouldn't count towards notability for things that happen at the same college, just as a mention of the local Little League team in a small town newspaper doesn't establish notability. But, like Metropolitan90 says, if the newspaper at another college runs an article about something, then yes that does count towards notability. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The criticisms expressed above about college newspapers might as easily apply to commercial newspapers in towns of comparable size to the college (or to big city newspapers in many well documented cases). The editors of "real" newspapers often get things wrong, often play favorites and promote issues they favor, or write flattering puff pieces about family members or favorite causes of major advertisers, and engage in boosterism. A small town paper may hire reporters of less intellectual ability and no more honesty and diligence than staffers at a college paper.

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)

Do you have a pre-2005 classification? Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

U.S. News and World Report is still an RS, and is influential in its college rankings, though of course it should not be the only authority. I thought that the definition of a liberal arts college was that it didn't offer professional degrees, but if both U.S. News and the college itself say "liberal arts" then we have to go with the sources. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

USNWR does not qualify the school in question as liberal arts, the school still claims this despite offering many pre-professional degrees (so many that less than half the students receive a liberal arts degree). It should not be allowed to call itself liberal arts any longer. The USNWR standard of half of degrees granted being liberal arts to be called a liberal arts school follows the old Carnegie classification and is as good as any other. See Marietta College and the discussion there for further information on this. 165.123.30.95 (talk) 20:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that USNWR is in fact, for certain information and generally is a RS (though there will be matters in which it wont be reliable). As for saying if a college is liberal arts or not, the best that can be said is that it is that magazine's opinion. If a college wants to call itself something like a "liberal arts" college, which to my best knowledge isnt something defined legally in any state, then that's what it should be classified as, and if that classification is contradicted by someone's RS definition then that contradiction should be noted in the next sentence. Regarding the title of this thread "Using US News and World Report as an academic authority"- that magazine is, in my experience has never been acceptable as a source in any academic paper whether written by a freshman in one of the classes I TA or by a grad student in a published article. It is a reliable source however for Wikipedia, generally, and I'm a bit confused as to why someone in this thread has said its not and that it is generally "maligned". Some political groups have maligned it in the past for percieved "conservative" beliefs, and then for percieved "liberal" bias; the fact that it has been attacked in the past for biases from both sides shows its pretty mainstream/fair, though it still has a reputation for being on the conservative side (which I dont see too often anymore, though sometimes some writers do, though that's mostly in the opinion articles and not the news parts). I'm extremely liberal and I have a subscription.Camelbinky (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If editors disagree with the college describing itself as "liberal arts", they can use attribution, as in "According to XYZ, it's a liberal arts college". Or if the professional degrees were added recently, it would only take a little more sourcing to get "was originally a liberal arts college". Though I am a little confused why USNWR isn't allowed in academic papers at your school. Do they have some sort of list of "good" and "bad" publications? Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It would of course be up to the professor, but to my knowledge every professor I have ever had, first as an undergrad at the University at Albany (SUNY) and then now as a grad student at the University of Missouri-Columbia, none have ever allowed USN&WR as a source (and poli sci is my discipline) because it is considered "soft news", though not as soft as, say the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, it still has a reputation of not being a serious journalistic endevour on par with published books and poli sci specific peer-reviewed journals. Younger professors may have a different take, but whenever it has come up in my academic career I've always gotten a negative answer on using that source. Newspapers and magazines are generally frowned upon anyways for research papers, its nothing specific to that one mag as far as I know.Camelbinky (talk) 00:37, 9 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 [2] [3], 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)

Reliable, at least for information relevant to Idaho. News reports indicate it is operated by the Idaho Department of Corrections. KBCI Boise: IDOC launches website to help identify Idaho gangs Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, so we trust the news reports that idahogangs.com is authored by the Idaho department of corrections. I'm still somewhat concerned at the way the web site doesn't mention a single person's name or provide any of the kind of background information that we normally associate with good sources, like attribution, dates, and other references. For example, if the site were wrong about something important, who exactly in Idaho would be held accountable? I'm just wondering if there is any further policy or guidelines that help with handling an odd-duck source like this, that at first glance seems to fail WPs criteria.--Dbratland (talk) 20:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It is published by the IDOC, according to multiple news reports. We don't usually apply the stringent criteria that you suggest to other sources. They have a contact page if you are concerned about specific information on the website. I suspect that they have deliberately avoided giving out too much information on the site's workers due to risks of harassment or other activities carried out by supporters of the organisations profiled. You should probably undo this edit and any others where you have removed them as a source. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Resolved

There is a dispute over the reliability of the Ottawa Citizen, specifically this anonymous op-ed [4]. 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 [5], [6]. 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.[7] So it should not be used. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

But the edit in question - read it here [8] - 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)

In this instance how would you tell what is a fact "Stork is a hero to the anti-Isralie lobby", and an opinion "Stork is a hero to the anti-Isralie lobby" without other RS backing up the contention? this seems to me the nissue with Opp-edds by their nature they are opinion pieces, even when reporting facts.Slatersteven (talk) 13:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

using this source to back up a summary of "The United States and the other great powers that resumed negotiations with Iran this week"? No. We use the best available sources and there are countless better sources to back that up than an editorial. I really can't imagine a situation where we would want to cite an opinion piece or editorial to verify a fact. Dlabtot (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

But in then instance we are discusing the only source provided is an opp-edd piece. Now should we try to look for better sources, reject the opp-edd based facts, accept them them as facts or just make it clear that this is only an opinion and not a fact?. Now it would seem to be the later is the case, but would need carefull wording.Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Our real question has been whether it is appropriate to include this op-ed which is making unverifiable claims in a BLP. The source is reliable for its opinion. Is the opinion of the editorial board, which is making unverifiable claims, appropriate for a BLP?--69.208.131.53 (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The number 88 has many meanings. In CB radio slang, 88's means "love and kisses". 88 could mean a piano player or maybe a billiards player. It's a lucky number in Chinese culture, and I've been to Chinese shops with "88" in their name. I don't think the alleged skinhead usage is even particularly common, and isn't what most people think of when they hear the number 88. Sounds like just a case of people seeing what they want to see. The op-ed may technically meet WP:V, but as it contains unprovable insinuations, I don't believe it meets WP:BLP. Much of that undue weight would have to be cut down for that article to meet BLP. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

So the quote is verifiable for the opinion of the editorial board but may be WP:UNDUE for a BLP. How would be fix the issue? Remove the claim, find an op-ed with a differing opinion, or seek input at WP:BLP/N, etc?--69.208.131.53 (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's undue weight for a BLP, and it should be removed. We aren't writing a book-length biography, and there's already too much space taken up by this brouhaha about collecting WWII artifacts. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:26, 9 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)

Actually that talk page comment is totally irrelevant original research. It doesn't matter what some editor claims was said in a phone call. Dlabtot (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Just so, Dlabtot. I acknowledged this in my 3 Oct 2009 posts (see below) previous to this your 4 Oct 2009 post, which you placed above, out of temporal sequence. Not really "top posting" in such a case, since you were responding to Fifelfoo, but I did want to reiterate that I do understand the WP:OR concern, and that I had commented on this previously. Thanks for your comment, Ohiostandard (talk) 14:01, 9 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)

Latin Americans in the UK population estimates

Some time ago, I posted here asking about the suitability of a source which estimates the number of people from various Latin American countries living in the UK. The source itself uses the term "guesstimates" to describe these figures. It was agreed that it was OK to use the figures, providing that they were flagged as guesstimates. However, there are two current problems with the use of these statistics at present.

Firstly, a number of articles (such as Colombians in the United Kingdom) are using the figures to describe the Latin American population "regardless of birthplace", which I take to mean including UK-born descendents of immigrants from Latin America, despite the fact that the source does not make clear whether the estimates include these people or not.

Secondly, the Office for National Statistics has recently published population estimates for the largest 60 foreign-born groups in the UK (summarised at Foreign-born population of the United Kingdom) which are significantly lower than the "guesstimates". This source is surely more reliable (it includes 95 per cent confidence intervals, for instance) and only Brazilians feature in the top 60, with 56,000 Brazilian-born people as the central estimate, compared to a guesstimate of 200,000.

Any thoughts on this? I'm inclined to think that the guesstimates are now redundant. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed using the Office for National Statistics is a far more reliable and accurate. Official stats should always be given priority. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

So what about an article such as Colombians in the United Kingdom? There are no statistics from the ONS to quote, but the very fact that there aren't means that there are fewer Colombians in the UK than the guesstimates suggest. Do we remove the guesstimate from the article? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd say leave them out. The article already has plenty of detail of the official figures. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

What is the actual source that's being debated? Also, I wouldn't get too worked up over the term "guesstimate". Perhaps it's more common in the US than the UK, but describing it as an "estimate" is just fine. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The source is Sofia Buchuck. "Crossing borders: Latin American exiles in London". untoldLondon. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It's technically RS, though it's kind of an "off the cuff" figure. The article also says there are 800,000 salsa classes happening in the UK every night(!). You may be able to find other estimates, perhaps from where that article got its figures from. "These numbers are guesstimates from embassies, community centres and refugee groups" So you might see if the Brazilian embassy publishes a figure of their own that contradicts the UK figure. I'm not aware of all the issues involved. Does the UK not ask about ethnicity or nationality on its census? - "there has never been a precise census of Latin Americans in the UK" And are there many undocumented immigrants in the UK? Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The UK census does ask about ethnicity, but when published the data is categorised into what most of use would understand to be races, not ethnicities (white, black, Asian etc.), albeit with some differentiation (i.e. white British, white Irish, white other). There is no way to tell if anyone has Latin American ancestry from this question. The census also collects data on country of birth, but again this does not help with identifying people with Latin American ancestry. It's clearly the most reliable source for statistics on Latin American-born people though. I've tried to find the original statistics used in the article but to no avail. I guess the author just called up the embassies and community organisations and asked them to take a guess. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

As for the Office for National Statistics statistics quoted at Latin Americans in the United Kingdom, these just cover country of birth and nationality. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikileaks

Sorry if this question has been asked before. It probably has, but is Wikileaks considered a reliable source? Thank you. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 14:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Context please. Article and source. Fifelfoo (talk) 15:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I can probably hazard a guess without knowing the context: no. There is no real way to verify that documents leaked to wikileaks haven't been doctored or made from whole cloth. Often, the usual way people find out that the documents are real is the subject of the documents (some company or person) sues wikileaks, asserting that the material is covered under trade secrets--meaning that they are willing to tell a court the material is true. Also, when we have articles which mention wikileaks, they should only do so because some third party (e.g. a newspaper) mentions the leak. In that case we would point to the newspaper for evidence of the leak. We should almost never source material to a document on wikileaks unless the leak itself is the subject of the article. Protonk (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll mention the context, if it is still needed but the explanation provided really clears things up. I was always unsure of Wikileaks as a source because of its controversial nature. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 16:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It might be worth adding that material on Wikileaks is probably WP:Primary and may well also be WP:SPS. You need to find a secondary RS that comments on or uses the leak item.Martinlc (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I would say only if the leak itself was covered by another source; then the Wikileaks article would become citable as a primary source for that information. It may also be usable as an external link. But I wouldn't quote Wikileaks the way I would quote a newspaper article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking at our own article on Wikileaks#Technology, it appears that they now actually have an editorial board. I believe it's still more of an anthology of primary or SPS documents than a true secondary source. But an editor-reviewed anthology would give some measure of notability to the reports, which means maybe they could be cited without being discussed by another source. But we should consider that usage on a case-by-case basis. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the context for this debate was for fraternity mottos, secret handshakes, and the like. ( I thought this was about something serious like the Pentagon Papers. ) I could go either way on this. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, that is where the debate came from. However, those supposed "secrets" are not actually contained in the uploaded documents themselves. I already checked. Rather the information is on the description page and can be seen as conjecture and falls in the realm of OR because they are user submitted. Even if it is just a fraternity motto etc. I was unaware that wikileaks can be used as a reliable source and wanted to know for future reference for other articles. ----Ðysepsion † ^{Speak your mind} 00:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not normally an RS, though there are exceptions as described above. It would be up to the editor who wants to use something from Wikileaks to show which document ( not a description page or edit history ) they want to cite and why it belongs in the article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

ACLU?

We have an editor over at 2009 G-20 Pittsburgh summit who's saying that the ACLU does not meet the reliable sources guideline. More specifically, whether the ACLU of Pennsylvania can be cited to say it successfully sued to allow [some?] demonstrations near the convention.

Claiming it's non-RS doesn't ring true to me. There's ample precedent in the RSN archives for citing political advocacy groups such as the SPLC, NRA, MEMRI, etc, provided the citations use proper attribution. Besides, this goes further because this is citing the ACLU for a statement about the ACLU. I think the ACLU is reliable enough to report on its own activities. Any opinions? Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

More context would have been nice. Two removed ACLU PA sources are:

1. url=http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/g20case.htm |title=Code Pink vs US Secret Service |date=2009-09-11|author=ACLU-PA
2. name=ACLU-PA-G20> |url=http://blog.aclu.org/2009/09/24/fighting-for-free-speech-at-the-g20-in-pittsburgh/ |title=Fighting for Free Speech at the G20 in Pittsburgh |date=2009-09-24 |author=ACLU-PA

The first looks like a trivial data mirror of court records.

The second is an official blog. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Both sides are wrong here. There were two refs in question: one from ACLU legal, another is from ACLU-hosted blog by a Sara Mullen. While the first one is OK, the second is not, since we don't know Sara Mullen and she does not speak of herself. - Altenmann >t 00:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

To Fireflo: trivial or not, it is a verifiable statement of fact. - Altenmann >t 00:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Moreover, the original contribution also included the statement not evident from the sources cited: "After numerous denials of permits". - Altenmann >t 00:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

P.P.S. Still more, the statement "successfully sued" is also kinda colored too pink: ACLU didn't get all what it wanted. And I am pretty sure that the mentioned "numerous permits" were stated too broadly, and sure thing, the officials were only happy and possibly right to refuse them. We don't hear both sides here. - Altenmann >t 00:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

My conlcuding opinion: since the piece of text in question is a POV of the ACLU side in a 2-sided controversy, it must (1) strictly follow the sources, (2) always properly attribute the opinionated phrasing (such as "successfully"; BTW, this judgment is absent in the sources), and (3) of the two sources only the first one is IMO admissible, but I may be convinced otherwise regarding #3. - Altenmann >t 00:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at the blog's window title. "Blog of Rights: Official blog of the American Civil Liberties Union." Mullen is speaking as an authorised agents of the ACLU when writing that blog, she wrote it over the ACLU's signature. So you could quote that blog post for the ACLU's opinion. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Official or not, it is still a blog. I don't understand the phrase "she wrote it over the ACLU's signature". And I still don't know who is she. There are plenty of angry radicals around, not all of them have an ability to stick strictly to facts. For example, Mullen writes "to intimidate members ... minor traffic violations". OK, may be. But... You have rights to protest by sitting in the middle of the street, but don't whine when you are jailed: you were probably looking towards this, to make more noise. While ACLU will call this episode "intimidation", other will call it "drama queen", regardless the cause is noble. In other words, ACLU members are not a neutral party to report its activities and any way they want. While they may present basic facts correctly, the opinions are heavily biased and better be seconded by independent sources. If the event was notable, I am sure the sources will be abound.- Altenmann >t 00:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

She is "Sara Mullen" who you just made reference to. Official statements of organisations are owned by the organisation. The fact that Sara Mullen has a by-line is nice, but the ACLU purports the blog to be an official blog: an utterance of the organisation's opinions. "Writing over a signature" is an office metaphor, often senior staff (those who voice for the organisation) will sign blank letterhead, allowing other staff to write letters or opinions on the page, effective "over" in hierarchical space ordering, the signature; the metaphor is used to describe delegations of speaking authority. The content of the blog doesn't go to its reliability. The opinions are generally best sourced from the primary source, "The ACLU believes,"..."". As you rightly point out, statements regarding fact are in wikipedia best sourced from non-self-published sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see it was an official statement of the organization. It was an opinion of a Sara Mullen. I.e., "Sara Mullen believes, "..."", rather than "The ACLU believes,"..."". Sounds less impressive, eh? Please don't tell me that ACLU allows its members to blog only views endorsed by the ACLU. - Altenmann >t 23:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The title is unambiguous, ""Blog of Rights: Official blog of the American Civil Liberties Union."" Fifelfoo (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

And...? - Altenmann >t 00:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Its a clear an unambiguous statement of corporate authorship. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Not clear. Also not clear what you mean under the term "corporate authorship". All posts are authored by named individuals. Unless you prove otherwise I assume that "official" merely means that only members may blog, unlike various blog-hosting websites. - Altenmann >t 00:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Given that two disinterested editors can disagree over if official blog (without clarification from the publisher) means official statements of the organisation to the outside world, or the only authorised blog for members to blog in relation to the organisation, I think we can fall over towards the case with lesser burden of demonstration. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No, just two random editors disagreeing on something, no wider consensus. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Use as source for opinion of named author. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Both are RS. One is a press release from a chapter of the ACLU, which is a valid primary source about a particular protest march during the G-20. The attached court documents are also valid primary sources for G-20; the ACLU is reliable enough to serve as a repository for public documents. The second source is a staff blog of the national ACLU; While I prefer the first source be used, I doubt that any ACLU member could post to that blog. This is just like the staff "blog" of a newspaper, which is generally an RS if the newspaper is an RS. In this case, it would be the staff blog of a political advocacy group, and political sources can still be reliable secondary sources. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

What Squid says. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No evidence it is staff blog. You still not answered what is Sara Mullen and what's her weight. If she is a notable person, the character of the blog is irrelevant. Political sources cannot be 100% RS: there is such thing as propaganda. So one has to carefully judge whether to use them and how, rather than indiscriminately throw links in. - Altenmann >t 15:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you want, a notarized affidavit? Are you familiar with the ACLU at all? It's huge. Of course it's a staff blog, it's not for the thousands and thousands of members to post on. And yes, the author is the assistant director of the Pittsburgh chapter and the head of community organizing.[9] And I suppose you're unaware that newspapers and academics publish biased stories and "spin" all the time. I'd rather quote from political sources, at least then you know what the point of view is. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from mockery towards colleague wikipedians. Yes, I want a notarized affidavit, which is called "reliable source" in wikipedia. A Wikipedian's word ("of course it is staff's blog"- why?) is not. No I am not unaware that ..., and I see no disagreement here. Anyway, thank you for clarifying the personality. This should have been done at the very head of this thread to avoid the waste of time.. From my point of view the issue is closed: info from an ACLU chapter assistant director is reasonably reliable, if stripped from anti-establishment spin. - Altenmann >t 19:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

[10] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

#Voice of America. - Altenmann >t 23:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Is the unsourced conference report a reliable source?

I am interested to know if the following document [11] can be considered a reliable source. This is a text of a report on the Discussion Panel at the Annual Meeting of The Polish Institute of Arts and Sciences in America (PIASA), June 8, 2002 Georgetown University, Washington DC. It contains no references, so it is impossible to verify author's claims. According to google.scholar.com, the author, Iwo Cyprian Pogonowski has been cited 2 times, according to Tompson institute (ISI) he has been cited 0 times. Therefore, he is not a prominent historian.

My primary concern is that the above mentioned text contains statements like that:

"About four-fifths of all victims (In Soviet occupied Poland. -PS) were betrayed to the NKVD by local leftists mostly of Jewish background."

thereby attempting to connect Jedwabne pogrom and Soviet repressions. This seems strange, because this directly contradicts to what reliable sources say (e.g., Joshua D. Zimmerman, Contested memories: Poles and Jews during the Holocaust and its aftermath, Part 804. Rutgers University Press, 2003, ISBN 0813531586, 9780813531588, on p. 67-68 directly states that such attempts are "historically false and morally untenable").
In connection to that, my question is whether the equal weight can be given to the unsourced report presented by non-notable historian and the book published by well-known university.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a wikipedia article about Iwo Cyprian Pogonowski. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

For researchers in science disciplines, 'quality' journals have been equated with those indexed by Thomson Scientific ISI (ISI), and particularly journals with high impact factors. Journal impact factors (JIF) are published by ISI each year and have gained the attention of research funding bodies, higher education institutions, and academics as a means to rank journals in a field. However, ISI indexes less than 50% of peer-reviewed journals published world-wide (2) and, of these, less than one third are humanities and social science journals. Quality Australian journals in the humanities and social sciences. Australian Academic & Research Libraries | June 01, 2008 | Haddow, Gaby

I'd take that as a strong indication your ISI search is not an indicator here.

The PIASA source doesn't indicate peer review status, assume non-peer reviewed. Academic standard in History is peer reviewed conference publications (academic practice is, in most history fields, to spurn conference publications and seek journal publications, edited collections, but most especially monographs). By claiming historian status in his bio-line Pogonowski's statements are not-very reliable: he hasn't (in this source) uttered them in the standard form for his profession. WP:MILMOS#SOURCES which sets the standard for the History project through the b-class criteria is very clear about there being a hierarchy of sources when dealing with history archives. I feel it isn't reliable as its SELF (to my mind). Even if it is reliable it shouldn't be used, because sources which do meet milmos are available. If Pogonowski has published this in a milmos standard source find it, mention the dispute on the article page. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Fifelfoo. I fully agree with you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

pay up or shut up

Are subscription websites RS, the point has been rasied (sort of) here [[12]]? Why should a user be expected to fork out to check a source?Slatersteven (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It's no different from having to buy a book. Paul B (talk) 16:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Insufficient context to determine which journal article you're talking about as there are three or four mentioned in those discussions. Please specify. RS is about publication and provenance, not accessibility or cost. Fifelfoo (talk) 16:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Except that a book can be borrowed from a libuary, a web site cannot, however as it seesms that RS is about publication and provenance, not accessibility or cost then there nis not issue.~~

Websites can sometimes be accessed from libraries which have subscriptions, but essentially the point is as stated: that the source is judged on its merits not its accessibility. Paul B (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'd have to see the article/source, but the basic idea is that sources behind a paywall are just as valid all else equal as sources which are free on the net. Protonk (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

As my question about the payment (and I am not party to this particular argument) I am happy to close this.Slatersteven (talk) 16:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Another thing for people to remember... information on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable by anyone... but this does not mean that the information is verifiable by everyone. Blueboar (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

In really dubious cases, I would recommend to request a quote from the cited paid source to be delivered by the contributor. - Altenmann >t 21:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Most if not all universities and college libraries (and I would imagine a fair number of public libraries as well) have subscriptions to JSTOR which should cover just about any journal publication Wikipedia would need for scientic and humanities based articles. There are probably similar things to JSTOR that many libraries have. Perhaps contacting your local college library is a start. Since this issue about paysites comes up so much (fourth time in a couple months I can think of) and Blueboar, Protonk, and I have to keep repeating ourselves that "verifiable does not mean verifiable by YOU, RIGHT NOW, THIS INSTANT, FOR FREE, FROM YOUR COMPUTER CHAIR" is there perhaps a place in policy that we can point to in the future when this matter comes up again (and it will). I hate quoting policy and those that do, but in this case it may be preferable to just throw a policy out and get it over with next time. If there isnt a section in policy that explicitly states it then we should perhaps think of adding a sentence that comes out and says it.Camelbinky (talk) 02:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's an essay to work off, summarising at least this incident and a couple I've had with non-English sourcing issues: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Cost. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Very nice Fifelfoo! I think it definitely has the ability to be more than just an essay and be incorporated into an existing policy such as WP:V since it is more about the verifying of a source than the reliability of it. You may want to mention museums in your list of potential reliable sources that need payment for them and how a publicly accessed document or information may only exist at a reliable museum and yes that it may be 1,000 or more miles away and also have admission fees doesnt make it unusable in Wikipedia. I remember one thread regarding a naval museum in Texas is why I bring that up. Wikipedia, being a global effort, is of course going to every once in awhile use as a reference something that can only be seen in a limited geographical area. Our editors in the PRC have the problem of not being able to access information regarding the Tiananmen Square Massacre on Google or other search engines (or anywhere in that country for that matter), that doesnt make such information unreliable as far as they are concerned, just because they cant themselves check out the websites. I am sure there are similar websites based out of France that here in the US we cant access.Camelbinky (talk) 02:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Updated to clearly indicate: Time; Location; Cost as three separate reasons why not everyone can verify a reliable source. I'm not willing to take it forward in being incorporated into policy. I've recently stuffed up some wiki-bureaucracy / procedural behaviour and don't feel confident with it at the moment. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

OK... I have added a statement on "Access to sources" at WP:V that should cover this. Don't know if it will stick the way I wrote it, but the idea is there. Blueboar (talk) 03:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Wesley Charitable Foundation

Would a link to 2 different PDF's from the State of Mississippi Secretary of State Office be a valid secondary source for an article?

the PDF's prove the existence of the foundation and its function as a foundation, and a non-profit at that.

http://www.sos.state.ms.us/regenf/charities/charannrpt/2007%20report/j%20-%20registered%20charities%20in%20mississippi%20contact%20information%202007.pdf

Please help me with this I would like to keep the Wesley Charitable Foundation article from being deleted if possible

Those would be valid sources, but those would be primary sources not secondary sources. You'd want for example newspaper articles about the charity's activities. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You should look at the criteria for notability listed at WP:ORG. I am sure this Foundation does very good work, but that is not a reason to keep an article. It is not Wikipedia's job to promote worthy causes. Blueboar (talk) 21:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

They're reliable sources in that they're published by the State, an external body, not the foundation in question. They just don't go to notability. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Open source intelligence websites as reliable sources - WorldNetDaily

Hi,

On the talk page of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and seem like that in the article itself very soon, few editors suggested that this site [13] which relies on this payment website [14] is a reliable source to use in support of the assertion that the MI6 checkedand approved Jewish roots for the Iranian president (in fact it's claimed that the MI6 tracked his roots down to 3000 years ago).Your evaluation is needed.--Gilisa (talk) 07:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

wnd.com is edited in chief by a professional journalist, Joe Kovacs (the line editor)'s biographical snippet on his book site claims he's a professional editor and journalist. (His book reveals amazing Bible secrets like Underwear didn't disintegrate despite 40 years of heavy use. Whatever your taste regarding their politics, they meet a professional criteria to publish, a presumption in favour of them. I'd want to see circulation figures and / or media reviews of their newspaper (discussing the quality of the journalism, not the quality of their ideology) to trust them as a credible source. They seem dangerously close to being the right wing equivalent of a Trotskyite party newspaper: Trotskyite papers can be RS, but the presumption would have to be against them until you can point to evaluations of the quality of the journalism. Obviously the claim they're being used for is an exceptionally controversial one (and of little journalistic importance if you ask me), so I'd want to see circulation figures and appreciations of their journalism. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Fifelfoo! The alleged involvment of MI6 in this matter seems like a fairy tale to me (and like one which need special verification before being added as a fact to any article). I can't see reliability for this assertions, also, few major newspapers (like the Guardian) already cited well known experts (and not concealed sources) which refute the sugesstions of Jewish background for Ahmadinejad.--Gilisa (talk) 07:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest you use UNDUE then if dealing with it (until an appreciation of the journalistic quality of wnd is available). Even after that, UNDUE implies strongly Grauniad and other papers with a firmer journalistic (if not typographic) reputation should be used to dismiss the claims as not widely respected. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Gilisa that this source - wnd.com worldnetdaily - should be banned as a reliable source in Wikipedia since it is right wing and publishes dubious facts. However, a simple Google search reveals that it is already considered a reliable source for many articles. How can it be a reliable source when commenting on some things e.g. Iraq Study Group Report, Los Angeles County, California, Glenn Beck, West Bank, 2006 Lebanon War, Live Prayer, Blood libel, Hezbollah foreign relations, The Obama Nation, Foreign relations of Syria, Religulous, and 2005 University of Oklahoma bombing?. It is ridiculous to assert that WorldNetDaily can be considered a reliable expert source on the West Bank, the 2006 Lebananon War, Hezbollah, and Syria, and yet somehow, magically, should not be considered a reliable source for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Josh Keen (talk) 14:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read them, but there's lots of discussion on the site in the archives.[15] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It is my opinion that WorldNetDaily is not a reliable source for disputed and possibly defamatory (though I wouldn't consider it defamatory, I believe that the subject would) information about a living person. Hipocrite (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, not for biographical details. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

WND has come up several times. As far as I can remember, it has never been found a reliable source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The WorldDailyNet article in question was written by one Joseph Farah, a known birther and conspiracy theorist. Just as he wouldn't be a very good source for Obama's birthplace, he's hardly a reliable source for the exceptional claim that MI6 was involved in this somehow. All Hallow's (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

WND has come up before, to mixed reviews. For those that aren't familiar with it, it's in the U.S., paleoconservative, pro-Israel, and has an Evangelical Christian point of view. And for some reason they really don't like Obama. I wouldn't ban citing them completely, but I would treat them more like a political advocacy group ( as I would the ACLU, SPLC, NRA, MEMRI, etc ) than a newspaper. Which means there will be some caveats about citing them for a BLP, especially for extraordinary claims. The "G2 bulletin" section would be treated the same, like a staff blog in a newspaper website.

Sometimes they do cover things that the mainstream media misses. They may be OK for facts that come from public records, but I wouldn't use their analysis or their reporting of unverifiable claims (i.e. what MI-6 is up to).

WND would be usable in articles about conspiracy theories if their views are notable in that field (i.e. Obama's birthplace), but not in the article about Obama himself. And it should be cited with qualifiers and attribution, i.e. "The conservative news source WorldNet Daily said X about Obama". Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

So short answer, leave it out for this particular article. There are other sources that weigh in on these claims. But I do find it odd that currently in the bio, there is no mention of the debate over his ancestry, which has been in the news for weeks. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

In an interesting coincidence, I'm wathing Rachel Maddow on MSNBC right now, and she just gave a long list of bogus statements by WND and said it isn't a reliable source. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect her to see eye-to-eye with WND. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Can the NYTimes be used in the Global warming article?

User:KimDabelsteinPetersen reverted this edit, stating in the edit summary that "Evidence? Not sourceable to an article in regular media. Science gets sourced from journals not NY Times..." This is the first I've heard that the New York Times can't be used as a source in an article. The NYTimes article in question is here. Does policy back Kim up here? Cla68 (talk) 14:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Most certainly not. The NYT isn't opining on science, it's reporting the consensus of "most climate scientists". I've reverted with a note to that effect. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that scientific journals are more reliable than the NYT... especially for statements of scientific fact. However, that does not mean that the NYT is unreliable. In this case, it is not being used for a statement of scientific fact, but for a claim that "climate scientists generally agree" about something. For such a claim, the NYT is absolutely reliable.

That said... If there is any real debate about the claim (in other words if someone can reasonably argue that climate scientists don't generally agree on the issue) then the claim should be attributed... as in:

• According to a New York Times report, although evidence suggests that temperatures have been relatively stable since 1999, climate scientists generally agree that global temperatures are likely to continue to increase in the long-term. <ref>citation to NYT.</ref>

I don't think there is debate on this claim, so my personal opinion is that attribution is not needed. It is an option however. Blueboar (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry I have to disagree about the absolutely reliable comment. When anyone is giving a subjective opinion couched in statistical terms that does not make it a reliable source for data. You have to consider the context and semantics. --BozMo talk 14:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Sarek and Blueboar, thank you for the input and suggestions, helpful as always. Unfortunately, another editor, User:Tony Sidaway doesn't agree with you and has just reverted Sarek. Cla68 (talk) 14:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd no idea that Cla68 had referred the problem here. As this is a scientific matter for which there are many reliable scientific sources that discuss this issue directly, it seems perverse to me to quote a sidelong comment from New York Times in an article which is about the problems of communicating the science to the public. The consensus on the talk page is against inclusion, or at the very least not significantly for it. The problem is that undue attention is being given to short term events in the context of a multi-decadal climate shift. That is to say, undue weight to this source would give a misleading impression. --TS 16:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree - the statement "Although evidence suggests that temperatures have been relatively stable since 1999," is a scientific one. The reason that popular media aren't useful on science articles, is lack of scientific editorial oversight. In this particular case (as i stated on the Talk page) there is also a significant problem with WP:WEIGHT. Finally it doesn't seem to have occurred to anyone that this is written by a columnist (thus editorial oversight is even smaller). And even though Revkin is rather accurate on this particular subject - it still falls short of the mark. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It's reliable. How to use it is editorial discretion. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I've reworded and added a quote from a Met Office press release,[16] but I agree that there are problems with weight here. --TS 17:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thats an interesting absolute statement. Are you saying that columnists in the NYT are reliable on all topics? Or is it Revkin in particular? I had the (apparently wrong) assumption that reliability was based upon editorial oversight, and context. (both of which are a problem here). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Newspapers are notoriously unreliable. A wiki article on a scientific topic should therefore not cite newspapers. If you write about something that is covered in a newspaper and you can't find a better source for it, then you could give a citation to the newspaper temporarily until a better source is found. In case it is clear that the newspaper article is in conflict with results published in peer reviewed journals, then you can't include that in the wiki article at all.

Example: A large number of newspapers reported that Special Relativity had been violated in an experiment. All these newspapers reports were wrong. Count Iblis (talk) 17:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I would rather see scientific sources for scientific articles. Readers who want to know more about the subject would be better served by information sourced to scientific journals. What does it mean that the climate has been relatively stable or that scientists generally agree? What is a scientist? A scientific article would explain what these terms meant and how they reached their conclusions. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

What's useful about newspaper articles, and this particular NYTimes article is a good example, is that they can aggregate and summarize in one location the opinions expressed by scientists and scientific organizations. Anyway, WP policies currently allow this source to be used in this way, so until the policy is changed, I believe the editors who keep removing the content in question are in violation of WP policy. Cla68 (talk) 22:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You are confused. We don't have to include everything that is reliably sourced. Reliable sourcing is a necessary, not a sufficient condition. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I find spurious claims of unreliability such as this one to be extremely annoying. Dlabtot (talk) 01:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully, it won't happen again. Cla68 (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it will happen again, believe me. Dlabtot (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Das Kind, der Tod und die Wahrheit

Das Kind, der Tod und die Wahrheit is a German television documentary made by Esther Schapira. In it, she questions whether Muhammad al-Durrah, a twelve year old Palestinian boy from the Gaza Strip, was actually shot by Israeli soldiers in 2000, or if the incident was a hoax, staged by the Palestinians. The original video that she concludes is staged was broadcast by Charles Enderlin of France 2, and can be viewed here (original broadcast in French). Her film can be viewed on YouTube (only available in German - part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5).

My stance is that it's the video equivalent of an op-ed, and should be treated as such - cited as Schapira's opinion, directly cited for relevant quotes taken from interviews, but not used as a source for facts. In reviewing previous noticeboard cases, I felt there was some consensus around that stance for similar documentaries. Others (such as ChrisO) feel that it shouldn't be used as a source at all, per WP:UNDUE, since it's the investigation of the fringe conspiracy theory that the boy's death was faked. Still others (such as Jaakobou, IronDuke, and SlimVirgin) feel that it's an invaluable source of information, and should be treated like any other reliable source because other reliable sources discuss it.

How should we treat this source? ← George ^talk 14:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that you're correct in your outlined treatment above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The documentary on its own is unreliable and should not be used as a source. However the story was written about in the New York Times which mentions the documentary.[17] If you want to mention the documentary I would use the NYT article as a reliable source. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this question is about the inclusion of material from the documentary, not just mention of it. Cheers. ← George ^talk 14:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Notes:

• Fringe - The theory that the report was staged (to various degrees) was reported on by many reliable news outlets and has gained some consensus among a number of them (e.g. no 9. James Fallows - "It now appears that the boy cannot have died in the way reported by most of the world's media and fervently believed throughout the Islamic world."[18]).
• RS - Schapira has made two well researched documentary news-pieces about the al-Durrah incident, and spoke personally with everyone from the boy's parents and the Palestinian doctors to the Israeli soldiers and the external investigators. She's done this for the German broadcaster ARD - which is considered a reliable source.
• Opinion vs. content - The source is not used to say "the video was staged". It is used, however, for some basic facts that are mentioned in her research. For example, a statement that 'about 20 photographers gathered at the Netzarim Junction to film the clashes between protesters and a military outpost' is used in the article with her 2nd documentary as citation. This info is not contested by any other sources. I do agree that when it comes to opinion or even to material where other RSs clash, then it should be attributed.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised to see this here. Of course this is a good source, much better than out of date or hastily written newspaper articles in what we usually call RS's. We would, of course, be sure to make it clear that the material we're using from the doc is from the doc, and not present it as unvarnished fact. But it's still an important part of the reportage/scholarship surrounding the case. If you don't think docs are significant sources of info, ask Randall Dale Adams his opinion. IronDuke 16:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Esther Shapira's two documentaries are now part of the story. From what I can tell, she seems to be a respected journalist and not someone who has worked only on this. Articles about her documentaries have appeared in multiple reliable sources, including The New York Times, [19] as has the hoax theory in general (which is, no doubt, why she made the documentaries). It's therefore a reliable source within the meaning of V for information about its own contents, and for the hoax theory in general, though any references to it should be attributed in text. With a story like this, it's actually a good idea to attribute all material in text, unless it's about some aspect of it that no one disputes. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to provide greater publicity for theories than they have received in the mainstream media and academic sources. A documentary that presents an unorthodox view of an event is unrealiable. While hastily written news stories may later be found to be false, professional journalists rely on the best information available and have professional standards in news reporting. Reliable newspapers provide retractions when their stories are found to be false. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, but this is a mainstream media source. IronDuke 16:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not the "mainstreamness" of the media source that is at issue, it's whether the material belongs in Wikipedia in the first place. WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP are strongly insistent that views held by tiny minorities do not belong in articles, especially if they implicate living people, as is the case in this instance. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, "mainstreamness" seemed to be an issue for TFD. But to your point: I disagree with the notion that the view that something very odd happened on the day in question (possibly even a hoax) is held only by a "tiny minority." It is, to be sure, not the majority view, but a significant (and increasing) number of scholars, journalists, and analysts are entertaining this notion -- not necessarily in agreement with it, but engaging it. I think attempting to censor out legit sources amounts to an endorsement of the majority view, which we shouldn't be doing in any article, BLP or no. IronDuke 01:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• I've imported material about Esther Schapira from the German Wikipedia and added it to her article. I didn't realize that she's the politics and society editor at the German public television network, the Hessischer Rundfunk. I had assumed these were independent documentaries broadcast by them, but if they were actually produced by the network, as now seems to be the case, they definitely count as reliable sources. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Please don't make unverified assumptions. If she is an editor at Hessicher Rundfunk (which is just a regional TV station, btw, not a national network) that doesn't automatically mean that a documentary in which she appears was commissioned by HR. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Shameless bump. Hoping to get some additional input on this (especially from third parties not involved in the dispute). ← George ^talk 23:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

From what I can see, this documentary is a reliable source. However, it should not be the only source on an issue where what happened is disputed. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment—it seems that this is a fine source: it is mainstream, because it was produced and broadcast on a mainstream network, and shares a view that, while controversial, is not fringe in any way and has been advanced by a number of notable individuals who are not extremists. It is also reliable, based on Schapira's other work, indicating that she has done serious research. I cannot find any strong argument against this source. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

A handful of adherents worldwide makes the conspiracy theory non-fringe? I've seen documentaries investigating whether aliens built the pyramids, that were broadcast on a mainstream network - would that too be a reliable source? ← George ^talk 06:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thus far, not counting myself and the other editors involved in the initial dispute, it would appear we have two editors in favor of considering it a reliable source (one with the caveat that it not be the only source for disputed statements), one who favors treating it like an op-ed, and one who opposes using it as a source period. Would appreciate the input of additional editors so that we can try to achieve consensus on this issue. Thanks! ← George ^talk 06:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, Schapira's first film on the subject can be viewed in English here. Enjoy. ← George ^talk 06:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's unpack this a bit. The concern is not simply WP:RS but WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP. The "documentary" in question promotes a conspiracy theory that a French TV station and an Arab cameraman are involved in a nine-year conspiracy to fake the death of a boy in 2000. The specific angle being promoted in the "documentary" is that the boy was somehow substituted for another boy of remarkably similar appearance who was killed at an unreported time previously, but whose death has somehow never been reported by any other source. The "documentary" is literally the only source, as far as any of us have been able to discover, for this particular conspiracy theory. Its use as a source raises several issues:

• Is it a reliable source? It may have been broadcast by a reputable outlet (ARD in Germany) but it has been sharply criticised by the German media. Its specific claims have not been cited or repeated elsewhere, as far as I'm aware. This sets it apart from other documentaries broadcast by reliable outlets which have conspiracy theories which are reported elsewhere. For instance, the 2001 Fox documentary promoting Moon landing conspiracy theories simply repeats claims made elsewhere. This particular documentary actually promotes new conspiracy theories originating with this individual journalist.

• Is it a fringe source? Undoubtedly. It promotes claims that appear to be unique to that source. The underlying conspiracy theory it promotes (that the journalist committed fraud) is one which has been promoted by far-right activists, but the specific angle it promotes (the dead boy's supposed substitution with an equally dead doppelganger) isn't reflected in any other source that I know of. As WP:UNDUE says, "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not."

• Is it compliant with WP:BLP? Its use raises all kinds of BLP problems. It involves extremely serious accusations against living people - accusing a journalist of faking a report is about the most serious accusation you can make against a journalist. The journalist has sued his detractors for defamation; the case is ongoing, but the detractors are trying to use the media to smear the journalist. Wikipedia should not be used as a vehicle for promoting the defamation of living people. WP:BLP is clear that "The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article." -- ChrisO (talk) 12:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The above statements about the documentary are incorrect. ChrisO has been promoting his own "we know for a fact" conclusions, sans reliable secondary sources, while promoting drama on the talk page. At one point he suggested an Israeli doctor was lying, that Schapira is a hack, that Charles Enderlin make an honest error, and that James Fallows is unreliable as well.[20] An example of where he's incorrect, is the suggestion that the movie accuses Enderlin of faking his report. While there is a report on the court case and an interview with the person who made the accusation, the documentarist does no such thing and gives Enderlin a well balanced chance for rebuttal. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

A few days ago I provided German translation for a part of the footage. To follow up here, it's worth stating that reliability and undue weight are separate concepts. Although I am barely familiar with this dispute or with the producer's professional reputation, if she is generally a respectable documentary filmmaker and/or journalist who works with normal media outlets and gets serious attention in major newspapers, then reliability is not at issue. The questions become how much weight to give this work and whether it is an acceptable source for uncontroversial facts. For uncontroversial data this would be an acceptable but not an optimal source. Regarding the weight accorded to the filmmaker's interpretation, that would depend upon whether the viewpoint expressed is a minority view (in which some weight is merited but not a lot) or a fringe view (in which no weight is needed). People who understand the subject better than I would have to determine that, but it appears that this query has been posted to the wrong noticeboard. There's a fringe theories noticeboard which may be better suited. Durova³²² 16:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

One of the difficulties is that most of the coverage of the case is in the French press, and coverage of the documentary, French and German, which we don't have easy access to, and when we do find them, there are translation issues. With a predominantly English-language issue, editors who keep up with current affairs often instinctively know of an issue whether it's a majority view, significant minority, or tiny minority. In this case, we're scrambling in the dark to a large extent, because we have no easy overview of the coverage. In addition, the early converage, shortly after it happened, differs significantly from the later, even though the earlier views still prevail in terms of numbers of articles. So determining what violates UNDUE is not easy in this case. My own view is that the article should be written almost chronologically: the incident as first reported; the incident as later reported by A; as later reported by B etc, so that we have a sense of a set of evolving theories, rather than making any particular theory overly prominent. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Durova. A respectable documentary filmmaker, who produced a documentary that was aired on a mainstream German TV station is a reliable source. Other issues, such as due weight, can be discussed on the article's talk page. Millmoss (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it is best to treat documentaries as similar to op. ed. pieces or "feature stories", since they usually are interpretive, rather than plain descriptive, and unlike straight reporting, often present arguments/evidence in support of an overarching thesis, which necessarily introduces a point-of-view. So while, news documentaries (eg, the Frontline series) are "reliable" sources in general, we should, as George proposed, cite them with attribution. The issue of due-weight is best discussed on the article talk page, since it involves examining the content of all the sources in context, which this board is ill-equipped to handle. Abecedare (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the distinction you are making between Frontline documentaries and the documentary in question. Frontline documentaries often promote a certain view point. if they are reliable sources, so is this one. Millmoss (talk)

I don't know if it should be treated as an op.ed., but it definitely doesn't need to outweigh all the other sources here. Irbisgreif (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, op-ed are typically pure commentary, so I think "feature stories" (eg. the ones in NYT Sunday Magazine) are a better match, since they contain a mix of original reporting and analysis, and are written from a point-of-view (not meant as a pejorative). That is the reason I suggest that it should be used with attribution, as is anyways reasonable when addressing controversial or disputed "facts" or opinions. Abecedare (talk) 17:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Something akin to a magazine feature, perhaps? Reputable documentaries often have the tone and feel of cover stories for magazines that run in-depth pieces. Such as Harper's Magazine, perhaps. Durova³²² 18:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly; other examples include similar stories in Vanity Fair, Rolling Stones etc. We don't have any written guideline on such writing, but that is no real justification for trying to impose the constrictive reliable-unreliable or fact-opinion dichotomies on these. We should also keep in mind that these documentaries/feature stories are published only if there is some novelty to the claims or interpretation, and that's another reason to use attribution and not present their claims in wikipedia's voice. By the way, my comment applies only to reputable news documentaries (like say the Frontline series) on controversial or current topics, and not to all documentaries. Abecedare (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a very good way of putting it. I would support using it in this manner, explicitly attributed when cited. ← George ^talk 19:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If it's only her and a handful of adherents, I'd use it with extreme caution, minimising the claims. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 18:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not "only her and a handful of adherents". Read above, and see the list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad_al-Durrah/sources. Millmoss (talk) 18:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The source is not used for stating her analysis as if it were fact (i.e. to say "the video was staged"). It is used, however, for some basic facts that are mentioned in her research. For example, a statement that 'about 20 photographers gathered at the Netzarim Junction to film the clashes between protesters and a military outpost' is used in the article with her 2nd documentary as citation. This info is not contested by any other sources or contested in general. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Fox TV broadcast a documentary in 2001 alleging that there was a conspiracy to fake the Moon landings. Would this be a reliable source for an article about the Moon landings?

The UK's Channel 4 broadcast a documentary in 2007 alleging that there is a conspiracy to fake climate change science. Would this be a reliable source for an article about climate change?

This documentary alleges that there was a conspiracy to fake the death of Muhammad ah-Durrah. Why anyone consider a conspiracy theory source to be reputable? Do you think Britannica, for example, would quote a conspiracy theorist on issues of fact?

I have to say that I'm sceptical of your own ability to assess sources, considering that you've been arguing that Arab sources should be discounted because you believe Arabs have a cultural disposition to lie. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You are repeatedly engaging in the logical fallacy of begging the question. Millmoss (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem that anyone is asserting reliability purely upon a mainstream station's broadcast. The filmmaker's reputation and serious discussion in respected secondary sources are also factors. Taken together, those elements distinguish serious documentaries from infotainment. Would you agree? Durova³²² 22:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

What "serious discussion in respected secondary sources" are you referring to? A Factiva search finds only a handful of articles in the German media either trailing the documentary or criticising it for conspiracy theorising. There's no indication that I'm aware of that the documentary has been broadcast outside Germany or that its claims have been supported by any other mainstream source, though it has of course been praised to the skies by the same right-wing bloggers who have been pushing this conspiracy theory from the start. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this should have been clearer. That refers to the filmmaker's reputation as discussed in reliable secondary sources rather than discussion about this particular documentary. SlimVirgin provides a relevant link to The New York Times. This isn't an area where I'm familiar with all the specifics so please excuse if this is mistaken. Durova³²² 02:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone able to determine more concretely the relationship between Schapira and the broadcaster? (I see that she is an employee of a [regional?] network above, but it isn't clear from that where the documentary was originally shown). If she was employed as a producer for a major German network, and the documentary was broadcast under the aegis of news or similar programming, then the question is more accurately whether the network is considered a reliable source or not. Nathan ^T 22:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm told the network that broadcast the documentary was ARD, which according to our article is Germany's "primary television network" and a combination of its regional public broadcasting agencies. Serious content produced by ARD should be seen as coming from a reliable source (which is not to say everything shown on ARD, or any network, is either mainstream or ideal as the basis of a claim). The question remains though whether this particular documentary can be considered "produced by" ARD. Any thoughts? Nathan ^T 22:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I've had a look at the credits of the film. It's not clear, unfortunately, that the film was actually "produced by" ARD. It's attributed to Schapira herself and a person called Hafner.

The first documentary doesn't seem to have any credits at the end. The second documentary, as you point out, is attributed to Esther Schapira and Georg Hafner. ← George ^talk 06:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Daily Telegraph

In Talk:Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad there is a dispute over whether the Daily Telegraph is a reliable source. This article from the BBC - The UK's 'other paper of record' - asserts that the Daily Telegraph is a reputable paper, but in the Talk page it has been referred to as a "tabloid", a "low quality source", a "lone paper", a "very doubtful publication" which publishes "fringe theories", "British-flavored tabloid speculation" and "provacative", "ridiculous assertions". Any comments? Josh Keen (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It's one of the UK's most reputable newspapers and a prime example of a reliable news source. Maintain a distinction between news items on the one hand and signed/unsigned opinion pieces on the other. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to confirm that the Telegraph is one of the UK's most reliable sources. I would disagree about the distinction between news and opinion, and especially between signed and unsigned. The unsigned editorials are the voice of the newspaper's editorial board. Add in-text attribution when in doubt, always a good idea anyway for contentious issues. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Along with the Times, the Financial Times, the Guardian and the Independent, it is one of the UK's most respected newspapers. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This particular case is fast-evolving so be aware that we do not necessarily have to cover every twist and turn. Even reputable papers slip up occasionally, and since this particular Telegraph report is contested, either leave it out or ensure that both sides are properly covered. How best to do that goes beyond the scope of this board. You can consult the BLP noticeboard for further advice. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I looked at the biography in question, and saw somebody remove a quote on the basis of Per talk page and wikipedia reliable sources: don't add fringe tehories in this paragraphe or in any of the makor ones. And I was very surprised to find that the quote being removed wasn't from WND, but from the Telegraph. We never deemed the Telegraph a fringe source. I'd strongly suggest we look at the article in question and see how they're actually taking our advice. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Guardian Comment is Free commentary and collaborative blog

In Talk:Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad there is a dispute over whether the Guardian Comment is Free commentary and collaborative blog is a reliable source (relating to this entry by Meir Javedanfar). The Guardian itself would obviously be considered a reliable source. Comment is Free articles are commentary on news, not the news, and they do not go through the editorial process that news articles in The Guardian do. As there is no editorial control and no oversight, commentary and blogging posted there should not be considered as a reliable source for facts, right?

According to Comment is free: About us We carry the main comment articles and editorials from both newspapers and also host a collective group web-only blog.

From WP:RS:

“ Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person... Note that otherwise reliable news sources--for example, the website of a major news organization--that happens to publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be considered to be equally reliable as if it were published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format of a classic news story. However, the distinction between "opinion pieces" and news should be considered carefully... News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. An opinion piece is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact, and should be attributed in-text. In articles about living persons, only material from high-quality news organizations may be used. ”

This suggests that the Guardian Comment is Free blog/commentary should only be considered a reliable source for personal views (rather than factual) of Meir Javedanfar on the (still alive) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Josh Keen (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

"Comment is free" is one of the websites that falls into the category of "major news organisation that happens to publish in a blog style format". It is one of the articles that The Guardian uses to start off debate by readers. It should be treated as you say, like a signed opinion piece in the newspaper. It is reliable for the existence of this point of view, held by Mr Javendafar, possibly by others. You will have to decide whether this is a view that is notable enough to cover in the article. Please note that the reader comments following this signed piece are unlikely to be usable as a source at all. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Reliable. Not only reliable, but it's probably the most prominent source for a counterclaim to this recent controversy. Newpapers all over the world are quoting this Guardian article at the moment, go do a Google News search and see for yourself. It definitely belongs in the biography. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Troubles with the Ahmadinejad biography

Something is very odd about that biography. There is no mention of the recent controversy about his background which has been all over the news. There's a big hubbub on the talk page, with people taking straw polls and debating whether sources of the stature of the Guardian and the Telegraph are RS. The earlier query about WorldNet Daily was very odd. Nobody on that talk page was seriously proposing WND as a source. It also wasn't necessary for all the talk page editors to come up here and do most of the talking; this is a low-volume forum and the regulars here have a lot of experience with straightening out RS problems. I'd like to remind everybody that even if this story turns out to be nonsense, it's still notable nonsense, and describing how it was treated in the media is an important part of the biography.

I would recommend at least three particular articles be included in the biography of Ahmadinejad. One is the Telegraph article,[21] which popularized the idea that Sabourjian was a Jewish name. The second is the Guardian article[22], which based on expert interviews and sources says that the name Sabourjian simply means "thread colorer" or "carpet weaver". The third was an article published by the U.S. government-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in January [23], which was the first secondary source that suggested Sabourjian could be a Jewish name.

I believe that these three sources ( the third quoted with attribution that it is a US-funded source ) should be the core of any article section about the debate. If people want to add other sources that analyze these further, or if they want to add primary soruces such as the Khazali blog which RFERL quotes or the Iran state list of Jewish names that the UPI version of the story refers to,[24] that's fine, but those three seconary sources which everything else quotes should be included. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the advice from this board was clear about the status of the Guardian and Telegraph. I was a bit worried about recentism, and on that basis one user relegated the story to a footnote, but since the story is now in wide discussion that concern fades. The only area where there is some room for ambiguity is in the news/opinion distinction. We all agree that a signed Comment is Free piece is equivalent to a piece in the printed version of the Guardian. I was treating it as op-ed, but I agree that this particular piece presents sourced factual information. Perhaps we need to revisit this distinction in the policy and guidelines. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

These are relevant paras in WP:RS that I was bearing in mind. Are they adequate to deal with a case like this?

"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. When discussing what is said in such sources, it is important to directly attribute the material to its author, and to do so in the main text of the Wikipedia article so readers know that we are discussing someone's opinion."

"Note that otherwise reliable news sources--for example, the website of a major news organization--that happens to publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be considered to be equally reliable as if it were published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format of a classic news story. However, the distinction between "opinion pieces" and news should be considered carefully."

Itsmejudith (talk) 09:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, a debate about whether the Guardian article is an op-ed and what it can be cited for is part of the problem on that page. Here's what I see:

• The way I read that part of RS is that some op-eds and staff blogs are only reliable for opinion, but not necessarily all of them. An op-ed about the antics of "birthers" in The Nation is only good for opinion. A staff blog of the Monitoring Times magazine that gives the technical details behind a story is good for fact.
• I wouldn't really consider the Guardian piece an op-ed. It's an interview and an overview of other sources. The opinion would be that of the interviewees, not the columnist.
• I'm also not aware of any blanket ban on citing op-eds in BLPs or of citing facts from staff columns. Like many other areas of WP, this should be taken on a case-by-case basis.
• Technically, if the Guardian interview is cited for a fact about the name Sabourjian, not the person, we only need RS, not the extra caveats for BLP.
• In a broader sense, all three pieces I suggested, the Guardian, the Telegraph, and Radio Liberty, are, if not the opinions of their authors, ideas and should be cited with attribution. Something like "The Guardian ran an article, citing various experts, that Sabourjian simply means 'thread dyer' or carpet weaver and is not necessarily a Jewish name" would work.
• Keep in mind these aren't obscure stories. This was more of an "opinion leader" situation where the information being published became news in itself and was covered in thousands of outlets. While WP is NOTNEWS, if I walk into a bookstore ten years from now and buy a biography of Ahmadinejad, I would expect it to explain this issue. Our biography should too.
• There was another question about whether the Guardian article could be cited for details about his family where he grew up, the debate based on whether it was an opinion piece. I don't think there's anything wrong with using the article for that, but we may be able to find a book about him that has the same information. I would tag with "refimprove" rather than deleting sourced content.

Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

LA times reliable source?

A user claims that I can not use the LA times as an RS[25]. At issue is an interview with a woman who says she was full blooded Cherokee and born on the Cherokee reservation. But this woman's face is iconic, and the other editor claims she doesn't look Cherokee to him. Is this user's opinion enough to invalidate front page news at the LA times? T34CH (talk) 23:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The LA Times is a RS. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The LA Times is RS, one of the most highly regarded newspapers in the US. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

So what are you saying, anything printed in the LA times is reliable even if there is no basis for the claim given? To say she is "full-blooded" means she is absolutely pure Cherokee. Look at the pictures yourself. How can the LA Times be a reliable source for a claim about her genetics when no genetic testing was performed? If the LA Times quotes a conspiracy theorist who thinks X crazy thing, is X crazy thing now verified by a reliable source?

At most we can say "she claimed to be full-blooded Cherokee." It's a quote of what she said, not a verified fact. Fixentries (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Definitely a mainstream reliable source. I don't know the specifics of the case however, and if there is serious doubt about the LA Times's accuracy on a particular point, the WP:REDFLAG criteria should be reviewed. From what it looks like in this case though, this is unnecessary because it's only disputed by the opinion of one editor without evidence to back up the claims. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

What evidence could there be? She's dead now, nobody ever did any genetic testing on her. There is no evidence either way other than her saying she was. She is not qualified to make a claim that she is "full-blooded" (which means pure), neither is the writer of the newspaper article. Fixentries (talk) 00:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources are not just "Reliable" or "not reliable", sources are never always one or the other. Im getting sick and tired of repeating that, its clear in the policies and guidelines that this is what they say. Concerning the LA Times itself in particular, maybe its just because I'm an east coaster but I had no idea that it was "one of the most highly regarded newspapers in the country", I read the Washington Post, NY Post, NY Times, and Wall Street Journal (plus more local Albany area newspapers), have never met anyone who reads the LA Times and never knew it was a major one on par with Boston, Washington, NY, or Chicago newspapers; so I learned something new I guess, and I'm sure many others working on articles dont realize that the LA Times is so well-known (at least I guess on the West Coast). Just because the LA Times is generally reliable that doesnt mean it is always a reliable source in all instances regarding specific information they put forth. The context must be taken into consideration and whether or not in the specific case put forth they got the information right (they make mistakes and sometimes their POV may show, if any). Questions here need to be looked at in-depth regarding the specifics and not given cookie-cutter responses of "RS" or "not reliable"Camelbinky (talk) 01:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

To give more information, then, I think it is clear that the LA Times did it's research here and is reliable. The dispute is from one, OR pushing, editor. Irbisgreif (talk) 01:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

What research do you believe the LA Times did to verify that the woman is a "full-blooded Cherokee"? They appear to just have quoted her saying that. I think it is clear you haven't considered this issue at all and/or are POV-pushing yourself. I'm not trying to insert OR. I'm challenging the source and the claim. Fixentries (talk) 01:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

We don't do that here on wikipedia. If you want a challenge to this claim to stand, you'll need to get a paper on that (what the LA times does) published by another RS. In most circumstances, the LA Times is going to be reliable, and to challenge that takes other RS's, not your say-so. Irbisgreif (talk) 02:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

What research do you believe the LA Times did to verify that the woman is a "full-blooded Cherokee"? Fixentries (talk) 02:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. We do verifiability, not truth. If the LA times says so, then we should say so. There might be reasons to not use them, but because she doesn't look like a Cherokee ain't one, in fact it's totally irrelevant. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I see misconceptions about WP:RS on both sides of the argument here, so I'd like to help clarify a few points. Firstly, I'll acknowledge that I don't have access to this news article, so I'm going to take it on faith that the LA times writer merely reported that the article's subject claims to be full-blooded Cherokee. Anyway, the most important thing in these sorts of debates over the reliability of newspapers has to look at the claim in the correct context. When a newspaper reports that some or another fact has been claimed by someone, that in no way is an endorsement of the validity of that fact. If the paper only reports that the person claims to be full-blooded, and the newspaper makes no effort to back up or express support for the claim, then the newspaper cannot be used to source that she is a full-blooded Cherokee, because that's not what the newspaper says. It can, however, be used to source the claim. Additionally, original research is fine for determining the reliability of a source. Although we are restricted from publishing our own research on an article, that research can form the basis of consensus with regard to which sources are used. We're also free to use discretion in disregarding a source when it has made an obvious mistake, if there is consensus to do so. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I completely and utterly agree with Someguy1221's points. The sentence in the article should probably clarify that this is the opinion of the woman herself (with or without stating in the article that it was reported in the LA Times, but the reference section will show that anyways) instead of making a blanket statement asserting that this woman is in fact "full-blooded Cherokee", which of course none of us are "full-blooded" anything except for HUMAN, or do we have a verified family tree (backed by paternity tests) showing this woman's great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grandmother hadnt had an affair and resulting love-child with an Iroquois or Athapascan? The truth is relevant to what we put in an article, we dont put false (or dubious, or in this case questionable and extraordinary) information in our articles even if it is reported in a reliable source. A claim such as someone being "full-blooded" anything falls under the category of "extraordinary claim", which even by a RS merits it being disclosed that this is the opinion of the reference and not necessarily standard fact. If Blueboar is reading this I would like to hear his opinion.Camelbinky (talk) 03:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

There are many reliable sources that she was a Cherokee, born on a reservation to parents who were both Cherokees, which is pretty clearly the meaning of "full blooded" in this context. There is nothing disputing it, and nothing extraordinary about the claim in light of the photo; it's not as if she were clearly african-american in the photo. "Full blooded" as an imprecise word may not be the best, practically no one is full blooded anything, as pointed out above. The LA Times is clearly reliable enough for what it says, (don't have access either.)John Z (talk) 03:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Check the dictionary if you aren't sure what "full-blooded" means - it's a very explicit and strong term. It's definitely not clear what full-blooded means in this article. It is just as if it were clearly African-American in the photo - she's clearly partly or perhaps mostly Caucasian. Look at pictures of people who are undoubtedly Native Americans if you're confused about this. Here we have a source that 1) we know didn't verify the claim in any authoritative or reliable way 2) makes what we all know is an impossible claim, even without reducing it to absurdity 3) and obviously disagrees with the available photograph. At what point do we say hey, this newspaper had no way of establishing the fact and gee, it doesn't match with what we can see. What would you say if this appeared to be a picture of an African-American? Fixentries (talk) 04:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, no, to all three points. She doesn't look "clearly partly or perhaps mostly Caucasian" to me. Looks perfectly reasonable, not at all impossible, that she is mainly of Cherokee ancestry, and that is what all reliable sources indicate. If she did appear to be African - American, something much easier to see and less disputable, then it is perfectly OK to use OR to keep stuff out of the article, to not use or weaken a RS statement as much as we can. She was stressed and probably not well nourished when the photo was taken, this can make a large difference in appearance, and the photographer was going for an everywoman effect.John Z (talk) 05:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Native Americans are mongoloids or asiatic. See the pictures below. There is no question the woman in the picture is not a vaguely pure mongoloid. It is just as if the picture were of a black african. I guess if this isn't obvious to the average editor then it's hard to question the source on those grounds... Fixentries (talk) 15:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)How controversial or impossible is the statement "full blooded Cherokee". If we look to reliable sources to answer this (like the LA Times), and not our opinions, it appears to not be that crazy. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

From what I understand the LA Times clarifies its statement by saying that she says she's full-blooded Cherokee, it does not just say "she's full-blooded Cherokee". The fact that they clarify it means we should as well, otherwise we're adding context that the LA Times does not. If there are other sources then provide them, all I've seen talked about is the LA Times which in the context of deciding who is "full blooded" or their ethnic background the LA Times and any newspaper is not a RS on that topic, this isnt something they would routinely investigate and verify, they are taking a person's word at it. Newspapers dont do the background and research many on Wikipedia seem to think they do, we shouldnt continue this naive belief that if they publish it that it must be fact, if news organizations were as perfect as we portray then Dan Rather would have his job and the NY Times (an even MORE respected and well-known reliable source than the LA Times) wouldnt have gotten caught in that scandal regarding a writer not being in the places he claimed when writing (along with other stories with factual errors).Camelbinky (talk) 03:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

A quote of the article would be nice. That said, we're not here to say "I think LA Times article isn't well reasearched" without proof from another reliable source. That opens a door that cannot be closed. "I don't think that New York Times article about Israel/Palestine is well researched." "OK, then lets not use it." Doesn't work. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll ask you the same: what would you say if this appeared to be a photo of a black african? Fixentries (talk) 04:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I would do what I'm supposed to. Find verifiable, reliable sources and use those, not what I interpret about a picture. Irbisgreif (talk) 04:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Peregrine, its absurd to think that we need a reliable source to dismiss another source and in the absence of another source we cant dismiss it. We make judgement calls all the time, that's the purpose of this noticeboard. What is wrong with simply stating that "she refered to herself as full blooded cherokee"? That way we are more accurately portraying what the source says. By saying the LA Times is not a reliable source to specifically cite as stating whether or not a person is of a certain ethnic group is not the same as saying "I think the LA Times isn't well researched" as you put it. As stated in our policies- a source must be reliable in the context in which it is being used to cite a statement, a generally reliable source may not be considered reliable for statements in which it is not an authority on. Science magazines cant be used to state the beliefs of the Catholic Church and vice-versa even though on articles about those topics they may otherwise be reliable.Camelbinky (talk) 04:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I should point out that there are several sources now. Irbisgreif (talk) 04:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

For your reference Florence [26] and a clear Cherokee [27] (looks like an indigenous mexican more or less). Also, this may be losing track of the fact that the articles are only reporting her own self-reported ethnic identity. There's no problem with saying that she's Cherokee - the problem is the "full-blooded" claim and stating it as bald fact. -- sorry this was mine Fixentries (talk) 15:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Comparing photos in this way is OR. Irbisgreif (talk) 04:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree and the post is not signed. Anyways, are you telling me the editors on the article cant find a better RS for the claim and have to resort to this LA Times article? Nobody ever wrote a book on the lady, a journal article, anything that doesnt clarify its statement by saying its something she says? If this LA Times article is the best out there then give up, its not a reliable source for using as a source claiming for fact she was full-blooded Cherokee. It can only be used to state what the actual LA Times article says, that is all, you can not use it to state it as fact if the LA Times does not portray it as undisputed fact, and by stating it was her statement they arent. Tell me why you have such a problem with simply having the article simply state what the source says. It seems like some are trying to defend the misguided belief that if something is an RS it is RS always and therefore sacrosanct, like to give in would mean the LA Times would never be allowed as an RS ever. Policy is clear and I'm not going to repeat myself again, it must be reliable on the particular topic and context, it doesnt matter if it is generally perceived as reliable!!!!! That is fact, if you dont like the policy bring it up at the policy talk page or Village Pump (policy). This LA Times article is not a reliable authoritative source regarding the ethnicity of individuals, that is a fact, therefore it is not automatically given that it is RS. I dont know how you can argue that the LA Times is an authority on the ethnic backgrounds of individuals, but that's pretty much what you need to prove to prove your case. Otherwise find a new source, there's no other discussion needed. Camelbinky (talk) 04:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

@CamelBinky: Attributing the statement is a reasonable thing to do. Not that big of a deal. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

So why are we arguing? LOL. Ok, I've made my points, its up to the article's editors to decide. I'm through, I think Peregrine and I agree and that's all that matters to me, because I know that if Peregrine agrees with me then I must be on the right side.Camelbinky (talk) 04:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I must add this update- a second source has been added to the article to "verify" the statement- however I would like to point out to that editor that the new citation may not be acceptable, it is a mediawiki powered site, which means it too is edited by individuals in the same manner as Wikipedia by users/editors in the same manner as we use here. I dont know off the top of my head whether all wikis are banned and if it is ever ok to use a non-Wikimedia Foundation wiki since it is explicitly stated that you can not use Wikimedia Foundation websites as a source. I defer to Peregrine's decisions if he wants to get into that whole area, it is too late at night for me to research this.Camelbinky (talk) 05:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Without a link to the wiki, it's not a totally closed matter, but in almost all cases, a wiki is not reliable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Update

Here's the woman's grandson's website claiming that she was full blooded Cherokee. How can I use this source, given that it looks like the website is no longer active? T34CH (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the LA times does not qualify the statement as "she claims" or anything: "The full-blooded Cherokee Indian said, "She didn't ask my name."" T34CH (talk) 14:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's yet another source:Dunne, Geoffrey (2002). "Photographic license". New Times.

The author of that piece has a PhD in Sociology, so I'm assuming he knows how to do field research. Not sure if anything will please Fixentries (because she doesn't look "mongoloid" enough???!!!), but let me know when someone can unlock the article so I can put this new source in. T34CH (talk) 15:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Can we use the most explicit source you've already provided, as I detail below? Fixentries (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably not, as detailed above. Also, I know you have a problem with sociologists[28], but that needs to remain a personal issue. T34CH (talk) 15:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You don't want to use the most explicit source you provided yourself? Why did you offer it? If you don't want it anymore, I'm offering it as a counter-citation to your wording. Fixentries (talk) 16:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize it was a mediawiki site at the time. But if you want to suggest it after it was spoken against above, and after there are at least three other clearly RS citations stating something different, you can keep flogging the horse all day. Have fun. T34CH (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Nah, you can have the article. If you're happy with the misleading phrasing, enjoy it. I hope it confuses very many people. Fixentries (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The third citation you offered gives the following explanation: "Both of her parents claimed Cherokee blood rights to the land making her a full blooded Native American of the Cherokee Nation". This logic does not make for a claim that she is a "full-blooded" (dictionary says it means "pure") Native American. Could we possibly change the wording to something more like this source? Fixentries (talk) 15:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixentries, everybody, please remember in context: this was 1936. Not sure anybody except maybe the Nazis had a concept of "genetic purity". Heck, with the current genetic assays available, nobody on this Earth is able to claim to be "pure" anything. This was another time, when people could indeed be called full-blooded without the need for a genetic assay (and is there anyone who can tell from a genetic assay who is and who isn't Cherokee?)--Ramdrake (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Ramdrake, you might find our article on Eugenics to be enlightening reading. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Eugenics wasn't about being a genetically pure something or other. The idea was basically to try to eliminate deleterious genes from the gene pool (and got carried way, way too far). In any case, my point remains: nobody in 1936 had heard of genetic assays, so obviously "full-blooded" had to be based on some other criteria.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I must have misunderstood the nature of eugenics, then - I thought it was intimately tied to ideas of racial purity. None of this has to do with the question of sourcing, of course, but you may find this Google book search for "genetic purity" in books published before 1936 to be interesting. And, yes, many of those books are dealing with humans, not plants or livestock. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Eugenics is about culling undesirable features and promoting good ones (though it was connected with racial theory). The term "full-blooded" dates from 1774 though and clearly implies that she has no white ancestry. So basically these guys are pushing for the article to read in a way they know is misleading. Big surprise. I don't see any way for truth to prevail in this case, as apparently wikipedians are unconcerned with truth and don't mind spreading what they know to be lies. Fixentries (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

There is one unreliable source ambiguously stating something that could be interpreted the way you are suggesting. There are 3 reliable sources claiming unambiguously that she is full-blooded. I really don't see a problem here, other than your continued assumption of bad faith and insistence that your OR trumps everything else. T34CH (talk) 22:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you have sources that state an obvious lie. Great work. I'm sure everyone who reads that article and thinks natives look like caucasians will thank you. Enjoy. Fixentries (talk) 22:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Cherokees have had contact with Europeans since the sixteenth century. Since they had no written language during most of that time, doubts about mixed descent are probably unanswerable. The concept behind WP:RS does not depend upon absolute accuracy, but rather on the source's overall reputation for fact checking. Yes, the Los Angeles Times is on par with the leading newspaper in any other major US metropolis; it is a paper of record. At Wikipedia the editorial standard is verifiability, not truth. Occasionally that generates slightly odd results, so if an editor wishes to rebut a point which no reliable source substantiates there are plenty of reliable small presses whose editors vet submissions. After first publication elsewhere, Wikipedians may consider including the information in articles. Durova³²² 19:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Fix, if there isn't another RS that contradicts the LA Times, the best you can do is attribution if you have issues with the source. Something like "According to an L.A. Times article" or "In an interview with the L.A. Times". But be careful of belaboring the definition of what "full-blooded" means. It might be a tribal definition rather than a genetic definition. I would also recommend the San Luis Obispo New Times article that T34CH provided over the L.A. Times because it goes into more detail about ancestry. You may simply want to word the quote as "both her parents claimed blood rights" while avoiding the problematic term "full-blooded". Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I would be OK with this if it was something that only came up once. But there are tons of sources calling her Cherokee, including a book and art exhibit which used the main image as an important example of "white America" mistakenly projecting its self-perception onto iconographic images. Further more, the '78 interview with Mrs Thompson, the 2002 interview with her family, and her grandson's website all use the term "full-blooded" in a non-hedged manner... and the 2002 interview uses both "full-blooded" and "parents claimed blood rights," suggesting that both are important distinctions (again, that journalist was no hack). Delving too far into what exactly the term means turns the article into a coatrack (after all, who in the world is full blooded... besides a Brahmin friend of mine who complains that her family inbred so much over the past 2000 years to keep their line "pure" that she's falling apart at age 34). T34CH (talk) 01:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yowzers, this thread has gotten long! Just attribute the thing, and take any further conversation to the article's talk page. Fixentries, this is how we do things. We don't care that much about personal opinions and observations. There are probably lots of wrong statements in Wikipedia that come from reliable sources (3 million articles, after all), and we don't care. It's just how we roll, because there is no alternative. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

T34CH, it might be best to use the New Times source in a section about her early life, and let the readers come to their own conclusions. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources for special meaning of the word "outlaw"

Resolved

 – no discernible RS question

From the article Outlaw motorcycle club:

The word outlaw carries a specific meaning within this subculture that is different from the mainstream use of the word. It does not imply criminal intent, but rather means the club is not sanctioned by the American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) and does not adhere to the AMA's rules, but instead, generally, the club enforces a set of bylaws on its members that derive from the values of the outlaw biker culture.

Are two sources given sufficient citation for the special use of the word "outlaw" by those who call themselves "outlaw motorcycle clubs"? On the talk page the objection was raised that Dulaney and Drew have a "personal stake" in the issue. As far as I know, their only stake is that they write on motorcycling topics, which is to be expected of anyone who could possibly be a reliable source on this.

If not, what would be a reliable source to explain what "outlaw motorcycle club" means? --Dbratland (talk) 00:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll post here to try to keep this all in one place. A.J. Drew is a pagan author and rider/self-proclaimed member of a one-percenter club (that he never actually names). If we assume good faith, then his book is actually hard to claim has able to really truly say what the word "outlaw" implies to people not of the Outlaw MC subculture. Dulaney is a noted professor and great author who readilly admits his self interest in the subject, and this would still be fine, but the noted reference doesn't say what it is being purported to say. The jump of logic that is used to utilize his writing as a reference with this statement constitutes OR. It should be noted that the user wishing to keep this in has a history of contributions of a pro-"one percenter/outlaw biker" stance and anti-"99 percenter" stance, as can be seen via his contributions. I do not mean to imply anything via this statement, just that the user may not be able to look at this particular issue from the proper perspective. Hooper (talk) 00:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a problem of sourcing, but of misleading writing. In normal usage, the word "outlaw" doesn't imply criminal intent, but rather it refers to the status of being shunned or exiled, and often nowadays with a glamorous overtone.

For instance. Shorter Oxford:

One put outside the law and deprived of its benefits and protection; one under sentence of outlawry. b. More vaguely, An exile, a fugitive.

Merriam-Webster's online dictionary has a similar definition.

The outlaw motorcyclists need not fear being mistaken for bank robbers or muggers. Being an "Outlaw" doesn't mean you're up to no good. --TS 00:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree to a bit, and tried this diff version as a better wording and to lose the information that really isn't needed. Thoughts? Hooper (talk) 00:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello. A.J. Drew is unreliable because he isn't a Christian? Is that the issue? And what is the source for the accusation that he is in an outlaw (or criminal club)? He was a member of the Harley Owners Group, according to his bio on his book. Where are you getting your information?

I've added three more sources saying "outlaw" is intended to mean disassociation from the AMA. I have no objection to improving the wording of the article to make clear that these clubs use "outlaw" to mean one thing while the normal sense of the word is different. --Dbratland (talk) 01:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

With regard to Hooper's passing comment, I am unaware of any formal "One Percenter" motorcycle club. One percenter is a term within North American motorcycle culture that arose several decades ago from an AMA statement that 99% of motorcyclists are upstanding citizens. In reaction, various individuals started adding "1%" patches to their jackets and "one percenter" became a catchall designation for a certain type of rider. Durova³²² 18:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

That version of the one percenter story is apocryphal, as the article explains. The term was actually a garbled retelling of these letters to Life magazine in response to this photo. The AMA spokesman quoted does admit that it doesn't matter that the AMA never said that -- everyone thinks they did and the story reveals a certain amount of truth about both bikers and the AMA. All of which I consider a lot more encyclopedic (and interesting) than these articles we currently have which merely report every time a biker is arrested anywhere, as if Wikipedia were nothing but a lot of crime news. --Dbratland (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, the Hollister incident and its aftermath is at the root of the thing. You may be right about the element of misattribution in the term's original genesis, but the point is that I'm unaware of any formal club that uses the term in its name. Durova³²² 20:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance of motorcycle culture and jargon, but I believe that in general usage "outlaw motorcycle club" is synonymous with "outlaw motorcycle gang". Saying that these clubs are not sanctioned by the American Motorcycle Association seems to ignore the worldwide nature of outlaw motorcycle clubs (and gangs). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Delicious carbuncle (talk • contribs) 19:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed! The central point is that when these groups call themselves outlaws they are not intentionally admitting to being criminals. That's all that's being said here. While non-bikers, the media, and law enforcement authorities have their opinions -- which are well represented in the article -- the bikers themselves define the word in a special way. It is not meant to argue one way or there other for the truth of what they are or are not. The point is just to enlighten readers that within this subculture's own jargon, the word has a particular definition. The article has lots of negative information about outlaw bikers, but it should not be turned into an attack page, and if multiple sources (I've given five so far, and will be happy to add more) state the jargon means a certain thing, then telling readers what the jargon means is encyclopedic. --Dbratland (talk) 19:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that if the general public sees "outlaw motorcycle club" as synonymous with "outlaw motorcycle gang", then the article should reflect that. That wouldn't make it an "attack page", just an accurate one. The fact that within the community the term may be used differently should be noted, but right now the article uses a lot of words in the introduction to distinguish these theoretically non-criminal "outlaw" clubs from the more common understanding of outlaw clubs. It is only much later in the page that there is a section describing "outlaw motorcycle gangs". This section misrepresents the nomenclature used by law enforcement. I think you will agree that the news media generally uses "outlaw motorcycle club" to mean the same as "outlaw motorcycle gang". Wouldn't you? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Ideally, a neutrally-written article should tell the reader both what the general public thinks, and what the subject has to say for themselves. Now, if you have sources that show the actual criminal "outlaw motorcycle clubs/gangs" outnumber the non-criminal ones, please cite them. I'd be thrilled to include that kind of data in the article. The sources I've read seems to lean the other way: there are more "wanna-bes" and poesurs who join so-called "outlaw" clubs, wear the outfits and act tough, but only very few of these clubs are real criminal gangs like the Bandidos or Pagans. Best guess is that there are around 4,000 Hells Angels worldwide [29] while attendance at the Sturgis rally alone, where the "outlaw" image is the norm, exceeds 100 times that number [30]. But seriously, if you have good data on this question, be bold! Edit it into the article. All help is most welcome.

Note that yesterday I added this charity events section to try to bring in further balance. There's plenty more that needs to be done. --Dbratland (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The charity events section only serves to further cloud the issue by presenting these mythical non-criminal outlaw clubs as distinct from the "outlaw gangs", something which is done throughout the article and is also beginning to stray into related articles. The very definition of the word "outlaw", as shown above, involves a rejection of the law. The apparently mistaken origin of the 1%er term comes from the percentage of bikers who are not "law-abiding citizens". Ideally, a neutrally-written article doesn't get co-opted by those who want to distort public perception, but it can happen if people let it. There's a place for your minority viewpoint in the article, but it should be noted that it is a minority viewpoint. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The media calls Brother Speed an "outlaw" club [31], and they accept this title -- by the definition I've cited. Yet there is not a shred of evidence that Brother Speed is a criminal organization. Brother Speed is perhaps the poster child for guilt by association.

Almost from the moment of my first edit on these motorcycle gang/club articles, I've been under constant criticism from both pro- and anti- outlaw motorcycle partisans, each saying my edits are biased in favor of the other side, each assuming I must be either a cop or a gang member. So I think I must be doing something right.--Dbratland (talk) 21:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Your statements are simply untrue. The article you linked says of Brother Speed: "Most of the victims belonged to the Brother Speed motorcycle club, officials said. The Oregonian reported that the group is identified by the state's Department of Justice as an outlaw biker gang". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes? And? If you have any evidence that Brother Speed is a criminal organization, please post it at Talk:Brother Speed or add it to the article. It's probably my fault this has gotten so far off topic. I really only want a clear answer my original WP:RS question.--Dbratland (talk) 22:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I just gave you a quote from a reliable source which states that Oregon's Department of Justice considers Brother Speed to be an outlaw biker gang. Note that it says "outlaw biker gang" not, as you misrepresented above, "outlaw club". You inserted a paragraph about a general term which most readers would interpret as pertaining to Brother Speed - in essence, you were negating the perception that they are deemed to be a criminal organisation. Why you did this is unclear since references already present in the article clearly identify Brother Speed as an "outlaw motorcycle gang". Why do think I need to bring this for discussion in the article's talk page? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not interested in supporting a wikicrusade to present outlaw MCs in any light, whether favorable or inflammatory. Let us just have NPOV articles on them. These additions and arguments are stretching and grasping and arguably OR and overly-pro on the subject. Hooper (talk) 23:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

From The Oregonian "Police define outlaw motorcycle clubs as gangs that band together, often with bylaws enforced by violence, and periodically commit crimes". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources not available in English

I know I have read something about this somewhere, but I can't find it. Where is there information about how to find and use sources that are not available in English? Bielle (talk) 03:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:VUE, perhaps? Gabbe (talk) 07:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! That's exactly what I wanted. Thanks so much. Bielle (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Another Gerald Ford Question

OK, here's another one. Gerald Ford, during his days in Congress, had a reputation as a "Congressman's Congressman". The source currently cited is an overview of President Ford's life from the University of Groningen which, while it may be reliable, is far from the high calibre source we need for the FA (Owing to being an unsourced html summary, not a scholarly work or relevant news article) Congress itself, in a resolution celebrating what would have been Ford's 96th birthday, noted this reputation as follows:

Whereas Gerald R. Ford's contributions to the Foreign Operations and Defense Subcommittees of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives earned him a reputation as a 'Congressman's Congressman';

Since the reputation was held by congress and congressmen, and since the resolution naming the reputation also comes from congress, and since it's officially passed legislation, is it reliable to back the term "Congressman's Congressman"? Phrasing and context would be key, obviously. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The source is here, and is authentic, as it comes from the Library of Congress. I'm not seeing passage, though; just a referral to committee with 53 co-sponsors (!). So, hmm. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

If those co-sponsors didnt vote yes label them flip-floppers!Camelbinky (talk) 23:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The resolution appears to be a reliable source. Also, it is uncontroversial. There was a more collegial atmosphere in Congress then. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Great. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

BNP

Is the BNP a reliable source for A: thier opinions B: thier statements C: Thier ppolicies ?Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I assume you refer to British National Party? Depends on the context, I'd say. What specific source are you looking for? Speeches, Official Website, Press Releases...? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeo thats the lads. As to context. As an example [[32]] (the source is ironicly not from the BNP (so does beg the question did the person who removed it even check it)) but clearly states tyhat the BNP could not considerd a source for this claim. So the context is. Are statemtns issued by the BNP either as press releases or on thier web sire RS for thier views or opinions?Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It depends. The BNP has been accused of hiding its true agenda, so care must be taken in reporting their statements at face value. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Very true, but it is an accusation (made maiinly by those who have a publicly stated anti-BNP agenda. Also all that is, mbeing asked is are they RS for their statments, not that we take them at face value, but that we can qoute and say "the BNP say this"?Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• I looked at the edit cited by Slatersteven above. The first link discusses a quote from a New Year's message by Nick Griffin. However, it is cited to Heretical.com, which appears to be another white nationalist site and thus a fringe source that should be avoided as a source. Since the statement was being included in the article just to establish that Griffin made the statement (not necessarily that the statement was true), it should have been cited to the BNP web site at [33] instead. The second link is a claim that the British government is denying information to the MEPs from the BNP, which is cited to the BNP web site. That should not be cited to the BNP web site, because they are an opposition party to the government and thus are biased with regard to this issue. On the other hand, the Guardian has discussed this issue and this information could be cited to there. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Is the BNP RS for their response to this? Also on a wider popint is the BNP RS for what they say? This point has still not be answerdSlatersteven (talk) 13:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The fact that a statement of the BNP appears on the BNP web site is reliable evidence that the statement was actually made. But the BNP is considered a fringe source, and as The Four Deuces says, they have been accused of trying to clean up their image with their public statements but not necessarily sincerely. So the fact that the BNP has made a statement is not necessarily good evidence that they believe the statement, much less that the statement is true. Their status as a reliable source is, for most purposes, not very reliable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

So if they say they did not beleive something we cannot use them as a source for the fact they say they do not beleive it? Or as a source for their denile of an accusation (as long as the accusation if in the article)?Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You may want to provide details as to exactly what source you want to use and what you want to use it to support. That would enable us to give you a more specific response. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I was asking for a general rule of thumb. I fail to see why it is so hard to say if the BNP are RS for thier claims, not RS for those claims being true but RS for the fact they have made those claims. In a way I aqm asking are they RS for thier opinions, not for teh veracity of those opinions.Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Input welcome

We have an issue over at WT:Record charts#Request for more input from other editors where WP:RS is a component. Most of the background can be found at WT:Record charts#Latvian Airplay Top. The WP:RS issue centers around whether the sources found referencing a chart which is apparently maintained as a private hobby are sufficient to categorize it as a reliable source. Comments are welcome.—Kww(talk) 21:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

TeleSUR

An editor on 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis has questioned the use of TeleSUR as a source in the article. I'm aware of its orgins and history and don't feel they disqualify it from use as a source. What do others think? Rsheptak (talk) 22:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Cite it with attribution. "The Venezuelan-backed TeleSUR reported X, Y, Z". In journalism intended for people who really need to know what's going on throughout the world (i.e. people working in politically risky countries ), such as reports from Control Risks and Stratfor, they typically use that style of attribution. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Voice of America

An editor in comments on the talk page of 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis has questioned the use of VOA news stories as sources for facts in the article. Other opinions.? Rsheptak (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Answer to this and the above thread- in any instance in which a media outlets independence, motives, leanings, or neutrality is questioned you can always use it as a source as long as you make sure in the article you attribute it to being what that media says, instead of wording it as fact and using a citation to that media. Example- "FOX News reported Obama is a terrorist and wasnt born in the United States" is, regrettably OK; whereas saying "Obama is a terrorist and wasnt born in the United States" with a footnote sourcing it as fact to FOX News is not OK.Camelbinky (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, "Voice of America is the official external radio and television broadcasting service of the United States federal government. [...] Various sources consider Voice of America an instrument of the United States' propaganda campaigns." -- Rico 03:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of Air America, which is like FOX. VoA does do propaganda. Not sure what that means for RSness. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

One of the three sources cited to substantiate the statement that, "Various sources consider Voice of America an instrument of the United States' propaganda campaigns,"[34] is:
Shulman, Holly Cowan. The Voice of America: Propaganda and Democracy, 1941-1945. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press, 1990. -- Rico 04:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Even if VoA still does propoganda, so what? So does FOX. And yes Fox is proganda. As I said- use attribution regarding the statement and it is ok. I dont know what else there is to discuss. If you are going to keep the statement in the article the attribute it to being the opinion or statement of VoA or whereever. It's that easy. Any other use of a statement from that source is not RS, but being attributed it is being used as RS. What else do we need to discuss? I think we've pretty much got it covered with that.Camelbinky (talk) 06:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Works for me. Rsheptak (talk) 16:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Cite it with attribution. "The U.S.-funded Voice of America says..." There's nothing wrong with using goverment-funded sources. It would be impossible to cover some parts of the world without them. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why using Fox News or VOA or RFE, or any other sources that is either government funded, or leans right is seen as negative. However, that being said that doesn't mean that the references cannot be backed up with additional references from sources that are seen as neutral such as Reuters, AP, or AFP. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Non-English Review (With English Abstract)

The following issue surrounds the Acupuncture page.

I had cited 4 different reviews for a statement that reviews show the effectiveness of acupuncture in treating osteoarthritis symptoms under the evidence-based medicine section. Originally 3 sources were removed with the change summary: "don't need four references when there is one specific, detailed study" Later 2 were returned because another editor intervened commenting on how we should have lots of MEDRs for a controversial topic, but 2 were left out in the end because: "removed the less specific English one and the Hebrew language one for accessibility and specificity and combined it to one reference only since it is unnecessary and ugly to have four references after a statement."

Now, the Hebrew article has an english abstract as one can see in the link below. It stated: "The studies have shown that acupuncture serves as an effective complementary treatment to standard care, improves function and provides pain relief for people with osteoarthritis of the knee."

The article is published by Harefuah, which is published by the Israel Medical Association, which I believe makes it reliable enough and peer-reviewed. Harefuah provides their abstracts in English. Now, my question is: Are reviews that are in a Non-English language, but have an English abstract that summarizes its conclusion in a straight-forward manner not allowed on Wikipedia?

Here is the link to the review: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17674552 - 99.229.146.30 (talk) 04:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

An editor has expressed concern that this IP address (99.229.146.30) has been used by User:CorticoSpinal. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that would be possible since I am on an Rogers, an ISP that uses dynamic IPs, so I probably have an IP that was used in the past by someone else. I am not him though if that's what you're suggesting.99.229.146.30 (talk) 06:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

IP guy here. Does anyone have any feedback besides accusations of me being an IP sock?JohnCBE (talk) 03:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Eliseo Soriano

In the Awards and recognition section of this article, the awards listed are cited as coming from www.eliseosoriano.com. My understanding of policy is that lacking reliable third party sources, this should not be included. Am I correct in this? - 4twenty42o (talk) 05:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Is Daily Mail UK RS?

Hello. Is Daily Mail UK a RS? Daily mail gives Rachel Zoe's birthday as 1 September 1968. Zoe tweeted her birthday being 1 september; many fasion mags reporting on her parties also reported birthday as being 1 september it. Thus many editors have added 1 sept 68 as her birthday, but one editor keeps reverting/deleting it out; but then doesnt add a source. 70.108.85.109 (talk) 05:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried asking the reverting editor directly about their sources?

I do not consider the Daily Mail a reliable source: however if it's the only third-party source of information which happens to be true then I suppose it's better than no source at all. I had a similar problem with Vitas' date of birth: apparently his real D.O.B. (19 Feb 1979) is common knowledge among Russian fans, but trying to find Reliable Sources is another matter entirely. Sources agree he was born 19 Feb but disagree about the year. Most sources about Vitas which are not Wikipedia mirrors or blogs etc. are foreign and unfamiliar to me so I have no idea of their comparative reliability. I vented my frustrations on the talk page. If a celebrity chooses not to publicise their real age you could spend a great deal of time and effort trying to verify it. Or you could run away, fast. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 07:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

By reading the edit summaries the sources given dont meet their standards, yet they dont add a source. The NYT also says her age/dob : http://themoment.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/04/chic-in-review-how-old-is-rachel-zoe/?pagemode=print . 70.108.85.109 (talk) 07:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, the Daily Mail would be a reasonably reliable source for information of this kind. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Life University

The sources used at the article, and the discussion on the talk page, all need attention. The major editor, User:Abotnick, doesn't seem to get the point. User:Risker as tried to remove improperly sourced material. Would some editors please take a few of the refs being used and explain to Abotnick why they don't meet our standards here, and why his reasoning is faulty? Personal letters and unverifiable information aren't legitimate as sources here, even if the truth thus can't be told here.

He's actually right about what he writes. There is a cover-up, but if we can't find V & RS to document it, we can't really write about it. I have tried, but he needs to hear from others why other sources need to be used to tell the story. It should be possible to tell part of the story using V & RS. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for recognizing the severity of the problem Brangifer. The nature of a cover up is to hide information. Barring a news publication on it in the future I don't see indirect sources forthcoming so the article will remain a shill for the diploma mill.Abotnick (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The "severity of the problem" at the moment is that the article included many sources that don't qualify for use here. While I agree that there is a cover-up, and that the school and Big Sid are far from clean, Wikipedia has some rules that must be followed. I don't think that the article has to "remain a shill" (and it isn't a diploma mill, even if the DC degree is considered bogus by many). It should be possible to tell at least part of this story using acceptable sources. Start digging for them and propose them on the talk page. Don't give up. Learn to do things properly here and it may well work out better than anyone could expect. Use the talk page rather than make dubious edits. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Race Intelligence, NYT and bloggers

Resolved

 – Captain Occam has acknowledged that the actual research studies are better to cite than blogs that speculate about their meaning.

19:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This is not RS question anymore. The NYT is RS, the blog is not. The NYT reporting on the blog does not make the blog reliable. End of story. The rest of the dispute belongs elsewhere - the talk page of the article or WP:NPOVN if you cannot solve it there.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

---

There is a current controversy at Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Analysis_by_bloggers concerning a particular source. Genetic databases of human populations are now publicly available. In 2007, a few bloggers started "stitching together highly speculative theories" about genes that may be linked to intelligence. The New York Times picked up on the speculation and wrote an article about the bloggers. The problem is that actual peer reviewed scientific studies have not published any confirmed link between genes and intelligence as was speculated by the bloggers. In fact, some recent studies appear to have refuted the speculations by the bloggers. One editor User:Captain Occam, is insisting on using the New York Times article that refers to the blogs and is deleting the latest peer reviewed publications that state otherwisediff. Under normal circumstances, blogs are not given the time of day on scientific articles. However there is the technicality that NYT wrote about the blog, and therefore some are insisting that NYT is always a reliable source. Wapondaponda (talk) 04:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Give both sides of the story, since you seem to have both sides. Use attribution for anything controversial (probably all of it). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it ought to be mentioned here that the New York Times article being cited is one that has received a Pulitzer, so there isn't much risk that it's just an example of unusually shoddy reporting. There are a few other points I've made on the article talk page about why I think this article is not an exception to the NYT being a reliable source, so anyone commenting about this is recommended to read my comments there first. --Captain Occam (talk) 05:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

If there are different sides of the story at the peer review level, then yes it is appropriate to give both sides of the story. However, an analysis done by unqualified bloggers is not reliable. The most reliable peer reviewed studies use use sophisticated statistical techniques to try and detect relationships between genes and traits. These techniques referred to as Genome-wide association studies are performed to rule out false positives and false correlations because correlation does not imply causation. The rudimentary analysis by bloggers do not do so, they do not have a standard methodology. What the bloggers use is mainly guesswork and speculation. Typically the general consensus is not to use blogs on scientific articles. The only catch, is that NYT wrote a story about the blogs. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing against a position that no one on this board is taking. The existence of an article on the folks doing the independent research doesn't justify that research or give its conclusions any weight. However, the NYT article is obviously a reliable source of reporting on the subject. Protonk (talk) 07:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The NYT is a good source on the discussion that is taking place. But it is only reporting "some bloggers claim", it does not take a stance on the claims itself. So I think the source is misused in the shown diff, despite the disclaimer. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, my arguments are a spill-over from the R/I talk page. I wouldn't call it "independent research" because that implies some serious research. I've looked at the blog and the "research" is a bit of a joke, when compared to actual scientific studies. With regards to the NYT being a reliable source, the policy at (Wikipedia:Rs#News_organizations)s states "For information about academic topics, such as physics or ancient history, scholarly sources are preferred over news stories. Newspapers tend to misrepresent results, leaving out crucial details and reporting discoveries out of context.". In general, for most of the scientific articles on wiki, the bulk of the sources are peer reviewed publications. News sources that report preliminary results can sometimes be used, but these are typically replaced by the actual studies once they are published. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

From the diff provided by Stephan Schulz it certainly looks like the source is misrepresented. There is no mention of who made the "research" or on what grounds, in fact it almost makes it look like it was the NYT itself which had done the research. The disclaimer is also problematic "the speculative nature of these results, because the relationship between these alleles and IQ is as-yet unconfirmed", suggests that this is serious research that only needs additional experiments to confirm it, not that it is most likely spurious research that will never be confirmed. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Ramdrake and I have edited the article to make this aspect of it clearer, so hopefully this isn’t a problem anymore. --Captain Occam (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think one can declare a problem resolved without input from the rest of the parties in the dispute. The NYT article is problematic in the way it is being used. There are a lot of peer reviewed publications that discuss the genes and intelligence, including some of the genes mentioned in the blogs discussed by the NYT article. For example the blogger cited stated that the gene Dysbindin is responsible for an 8 point drop in IQ. However at least 3 recent peer reviewed studies, some from 2009, have found no connection between Dysbindin and IQ. Occam is deleting references to these studies that found no connection between [[Dysbindin and IQ, and replacing them with the NYT article. Doesn't this qualify as POV pushing. Wapondaponda (talk) 13:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I already addressed this point on the article talk page. I reverted your edit because you had removed several sentences of properly sourced information, including a sentence cited from a paper in the peer-reviewed journal Behavioral and Brain Functions, not because I was specifically trying to prevent you from including whatever new information you were adding to replace the content you’d deleted.

These sorts of concerns really ought to go on the article talk page, since they have nothing to do with whether or not the New York Times is a reliable source, although I have already addressed them there. The topic that’s relevant to the RS noticeboard, which is how to properly cite the NYT article, has been resolved. --Captain Occam (talk) 14:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, another RS issue is whether the article demands that every source be a peer-reviewed journal, a kind of super-RS that some of the scientific and medical wikiprojects have been pushing. There shouldn't be anything wrong with mentioning that since the genetic databases have become available, bloggers have been doing their own research, and citing the NYT. A single sentence like that wouldn't be undue weight, and readers who are interested in the bloggers' opinions can click through to the NYT article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, the NYT paper is used as if to support that evidence has been found linking some genes with IQ when reading the (NYT) paper itself, it is indubitably clear that the author of the paper finds the whole proposition dubious. To me, this borders on misrepresenting the source through selective quoting.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Use quotes, and make it clear it's the NYT talking about some bloggers and some research done by the bloggers. Make it clear it is non-scientific blogging. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The real issue isn't whether the NYTimes is a RS. It's that the NYTimes article itself is about how non-scientists have (or potentially will) misrepresent scientific studies to support racial discrimination. The blog post mentioned in the NYTimes article was there simply as an example of how this has already happened. The NYTimes article isn't actually about the blog post. It's about misuse of scientific data. In our article, the source was being used to support a statement about the blog post's analysis, instead of what the NYTimes article as a whole was about. Shouldn't that be avoided? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 16:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that this is the main topic of the article. The article can be found here.

To me, the main topic of the article seems to be the fear that prejudice will result from genetic research, even if the research is valid. It gives several examples of valid genetic research where people are still worried about this. Anyone commenting on this aspect of the issue should read the article for themselves before forming an opinion about it. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not too far from what I'm saying the article is about, so let me ask this: If that's what the article is about, how does that translate to a statement that the NYTimes is reporting on a blogger's analysis of a study? That's clearly not what the article is reporting on. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 16:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting article. "highly speculative" "the link between I.Q. and those particular bits of DNA was unconfirmed" are some things you may want to put in our article if we're going to talk about the blogger. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Both of those phrases were already in the Wikipedia article. Could you please look at this version of the article, and tell me whether you think the article supports what I’ve said about it there? The relevant part is at the bottom of the “Genetic hypothesis” section.

I’ll quote the part that covered this:

A 2005 literature review article on the links between race and intelligence in American Psychologist stated that no gene has been shown to be linked to intelligence, "so attempts to provide a compelling genetic link of race to intelligence are not feasible at this time". Another 2007 study in the journal Behavioral and Brain Functions found that a gene which influences risk for schizophrenia also appears to influence intelligence, depending on which allele of it a person carries. The New York Times has reported on an analysis of this study performed by a non-scientist blogger, which compared its results to an online database of allele frequencies in various ethnic groups, and claimed that the alleles of this gene which influence IQ are distributed unequally between races. The New York Times emphasized the speculative nature of these results, because the relationship between these alleles and IQ is unconfirmed.

Ramdrake and Nealparr are claiming that this is unsupported by the article being cited, but you need to tell me whether it is or not. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, if there's something about this paragraph that's not supported by the source material, I'd also like to know what specifically needs to be changed. I don't believe Ramdrake and NeilParr that removing this information entirely is the only option. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

And the reason it is unsupported is because the NYTimes article is not report[ing] on an analysis of this study performed by a non-scientist blogger. As you said above, and I've said, the NYTimes article is reporting about something entirely different. The above text divorces the blog mention from the context of what the article is actually about.

Removing the blog information is not the only option. The blog information can be put into context. Something like, "In an article reporting on X, the New York Times mentions an analysis in a blog..." But then, I'd have to wonder about the notability of the blog mention. Why not mention the comments posted to the blog as well? The NYTimes quotes comments from the blog. But, to the point, a mere mention in a NYTimes article, does not, in itself, give notability to the blog, or enough notability to require its mention in our article. The NYTimes, as reliable as it is, points out how unreliable the blog is, and just pointing this out doesn't automatically create notable information that needs to be included in our article.

If the article is about X, why not simply report in our article about what the NYTimes is actually reporting on, X. That's what's notable concerning this source. The blog mention is included in their article to simply illustrate a point, not to impart facts about the topic. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 17:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll quote here another excerpt from the article:

Nonscientists are already beginning to stitch together highly speculative conclusions about the historically charged subject of race and intelligence from the new biological data. Last month, a blogger in Manhattan described a recently published study that linked several snippets of DNA to high I.Q. An online genetic database used by medical researchers, he told readers, showed that two of the snippets were found more often in Europeans and Asians than in Africans. No matter that the link between I.Q. and those particular bits of DNA was unconfirmed, or that other high I.Q. snippets are more common in Africans, or that hundreds or thousands of others may also affect intelligence, or that their combined influence might be dwarfed by environmental factors. Just the existence of such genetic differences between races, proclaimed the author of the Half Sigma blog, a 40-year-old software developer, means “the egalitarian theory,” that all races are equal, “is proven false.”

To be compared with what was in the article (and has since been modified:

The New York Times has reported on an analysis of this study performed by a non-scientist blogger, which compared its results to an online database of allele frequencies in various ethnic groups, and claimed that the alleles of this gene which influence IQ are distributed unequally between races. The New York Times emphasized the speculative nature of these results, because the relationship between these alleles and IQ is unconfirmed.

Now is the edit above properly representing the source? I believe that's the real question.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to inundate this thread with some technical detail. The human genome is 3.1 billion DNA units long. About 10 million of these units, SNPs, are known to vary. It is the variation in these 10 million that is partly responsible for all the variation in physical appearance and psychological traits in humans, which could potentially include IQ. To determine if an SNP affects a trait like intelligence, one needs to perform a statistical analysis that compares IQ scores with many or all of these 10 million SNPs. This requires a super-computer, super-software and someone trained in advanced statistical techniques and to rule out false positives and interpret the results. For example, one might detect a gene that is frequent among Nobel Prize winners. It may be the such a gene just makes people live long enough that they are able to receive a Nobel Prize and has nothing to do with intelligence, ie correlation does not imply causation. The computational cost of detecting genes that are associated with IQ and ruling out such false positives is quite high. If it wasn't, then the riddles of the human genome would have been solved by now. The typical blogger doesn't have the computational resources or the training required to detect such a relationship. The actual blog post is here. I have proposed instead to use this study

Deary (2009). "Genetic foundations of human intelligence". doi:0.1007/s00439-009-0655-4. {{cite journal}}: Check |doi= value (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

which is a compilation of all candidate genes that have been associated with IQ. I think it is more professional than referring to a blog. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The blog information can be put into context. Something like, "In an article reporting on X, the New York Times mentions an analysis in a blog..."

Most of the other details from the NYT article aren't relevant to the part of the Wikipedia article where they're being used. This paragraph of the article is about whether there's any direct genetic evidence for a genetic contribution to the IQ difference. And the answer is: nothing conclusive, but a few lines of data which have the potential to support this hypothesis if they're studied further. That's what this article is being cited for.

However, I suppose there's nothing wrong with describing the context of the article, so I've followed your suggestion about that. Does that satisfy you? --Captain Occam (talk) 17:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

No, because the way you have it written is an extremely clear breach of WP:UNDUE: you're giving half of a very large paragraph to something (a blog event) of little to no scientific notability in a science-based article.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Then how do you suggest I change this, without resorting to what the article currently does, which does not even mention what the blogger's conclusions are? The description of the blogger used to be just a single sentence, and the reason it's gradually grown is because you and other editors have continually demanded that I add more details about the uncertainty of this information. --Captain Occam (talk) 17:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Wapondaponda: I think you're overlooking something pretty significant here. It wasn't the blogger who determined that these alleles were associated with variances in IQ; that was the conclusion of the study in Behavioral and Brain Functions. All that the blogger did was compare this study's conclusion about alleles affecting IQ to an online database of allele frequencies in ethnic groups.

Therefore, your comment about how a blogger couldn't have determined this accurately isn't relevant. He didn't attempt to determine the relationship between these alleles and IQ; he just used someone else's conclusion. --Captain Occam (talk) 17:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen this post, the information is not published anywhere else

Then use the study he used, after discussion, and don't use the blog. Verbal chat 17:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

As I've mentioned several times, none of the actual studies about genes and intelligence address the topic of race. Only the blog post and the NYT article do that. --Captain Occam (talk) 17:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

If you're sourcing the NYT, and it doesn't mention what the blogger's conclusions were, then you can't mention what these conclusions were. Otherwise, you're quoting the blog, and you're actually (as I pointed out) misrepresenting the intent of the NYT article, which isn't to report that "someone claims to have found a relationship between racially-distributed genes and intelligence", but how the science of genetics has the potential to be misused (which is precisely what the blogger did with his OR).--Ramdrake (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we can use the source that the blog used, rather than the analysis by the blogger. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

@Captain Occam No, unfortunately that doesn't satisfy me. I've been thinking about it. Look, this is just bad information, the information from the blog. The NYTimes clearly points that out. Now you're saying that our paragraph is about (in part) whether there's direct genetic evidence, and that's what the article is being cited for, presumably to show that there is. All I see being cited from the article is the blog mention. If the blog information is being used as as a source for "direct genetic evidence", there's got to be higher reliability standards we're applying, if our source itself (the NYTimes) is saying their source is unreliable. The blog information is not, in any way, reliable information. On it's own, it would be considered WP:SELFPUB and excluded immediately. Being mentioned by NYTimes doesn't make it reliable and circumvent the spirit of WP:SELFPUB, when NYTimes is, in fact, mentioning the blog just to illustrate how unreliable the info is once it's reached the social sphere and left the scientific sphere. It would be very strange to include the info in the article. I think we should exclude it completely. If we use the source, it should be about what the source is talking about. It shouldn't be to sneak unreliable information into the article. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Nealparr's analysis.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Ramdrake: if you read the article, you’ll see that it does say what the blogger’s conclusions are.

NealParr: This may be part the cause of our disagreement. The way I’m reading this article is to mean not that the information in this blog is inherently meaningless, but that the blogger is inferring too much from it. That is, what the blogger ought to be saying is “this is a promising line of research”, rather than “the environmental hypothesis is proven false”. The NYT is definitely pointing out the problem with the blogger’s far-reaching inferences from this data, but I don’t think they’re pointing out a problem with the data itself.

I stand by what I said before: that they’re reporting this as a line of data which might mean something, but means a lot less than what the blogger claims that it does. The rest of the article is consistent with that general viewpoint: lines such as "It doesn't exist for IQ yet, but I can see it coming", and the interview with Jason Malloy about how society should react if the hereditarian hypothesis turns out to be true. So that’s the way I think our article should portray this data. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This is what it says of the blogger's conclusion: proclaimed the author of the Half Sigma blog, a 40-year-old software developer, means “the egalitarian theory,” that all races are equal, “is proven false.” nothing else. It says nothing about “this is a promising line of research” and unfortunately, you can't make it say that, as the NYT article doesn't say that either. You're overinterpreting, unfortunately.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep I suggest we use the more recent studies, such as

Deary (2009). "Genetic foundations of human intelligence". doi:0.1007/s00439-009-0655-4. {{cite journal}}: Check |doi= value (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help),

if it is even necessary to go into detail. The genetic information from the NYT article is now obsolete and has been superseded by more recent publications. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Actually, the article does point out that the blog information is meaningless. The single thing the blog author offers is a mashup of two data sets to reach a unique (self-published and original) conclusion. That synthesis, analysis, conclusion, whatever you'd like to call it, is not data. It's commentary. The article clearly says that the author's conclusion is, in fact, meaningless because it doesn't take all the actual data into account. The information concerning the blog is inherently meaningless, per the source, to the topic of evidence. The only meaning the article gives the blog information is that of social commentary, not data or evidence. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I also Agree with Nealparr's analysis. Aprock (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

We're getting into matters of opinion here. Nealparr, the article doesn't say it's meaningless; that's the conclusion you've drawn based on what it says about not taking all of the information into account. All that the article says is that it's "highly speculative". "Highly speculative" != meaningless.

I'm going to try and find a way to describe this article in an NPOV manner. I agree that the way it was described previously may have been biased towards the assumption that this data is meaningful. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

"Highly speculative" != "meaningful" either, and I'd argue if the goal is to include "direct genetic evidence" in the article, then "highly speculative" == "meaningless". But if you'd like to try other wordings, I'll try to remain open minded. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nealparr, the NYT article is only useful for social commentary. When we apply our standards for inclusion, the actual data presented is "meaningless". We should now be looking beyond the NYT article for other more recent and reliable discussions. There was a series of discussions and publications on Nature earlier this year in which various scientists argued for or against searching for IQ genes as part of the race/IQ debate. One article is

Rose (2009). "Darwin 200: Should scientists study race and IQ? NO: Science and society do not benefit". doi:10.1038/457786a. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

I’ve edited the article again with these newest suggestions in mind, also trying to give less space to the NYT article and more space to peer-reviewed literature. Ramdrake, I know you advised against doing this before the discussion on the RS noticeboard is resolved, but I think it’s necessary for me to be WP:BOLD about this. I suspect that the only way this article will be improved is if users actually work on editing it, rather than doing nothing while waiting for this discussion to be finished.

I think the NYT article is notable enough to be described, because as far as I know, it is the only discussion anywhere of anyone who has tried to identify variance between races in the distribution of specific genes which influence IQ. As other parts of the article state, more professional attempts at this present the best chance at resolving the question of whether the IQ difference is genetic of environmental, so it’s significant that someone is attempting to do this already. My recent edit emphasizes the importance of this analysis for that reason; not because of the data itself necessarily being meaningful.

For anyone who has a problem with how I’ve described this, I would appreciate them changing only the things that they think need to be improved, rather than simply reverting it. This especially goes for anyone other than me who’s near or past their limit of reverts for today. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I have less of a problem with this version (starting to give the proper caveats), but it is still in heavy violation of WP:UNDUE. For the record, I still wouldn't let it stand, though.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Rather that just reverting it, can you tell me what specific things you think need to be changed? As I stated before, the fact that such an analysis has been performed at all makes this notable enough to be mentioned, but I'm not aware of any way to shorten the description of it without leaving out necessary details. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Basically, stick to what the NYT is saying, summarize and you can't give any of the conclusions from the blog or his methodology, since it's not mentioned in the NYT.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

When I said I'd be open-minded to other wording suggestions, I mean on the talk page. [This] is inappropriate. The WP:3RR is a rule all editors are expected to abide by. I'd revert myself, but at two reverts I don't want to press my luck with a third. Four, five, or six reverts is entirely inappropriate and changes should be discussed on the talk page. Not conforming to the 3RR creates an environment no one wants to participate in. You can't WP:OWN the article, especially by default since others (like myself) are trying to respect the 3RR. A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) "Basically, stick to what the NYT is saying, summarize and you can't give any of the conclusions from the blog."

Why is it a problem to give the blogger's conclusion, along with the NYT's criticism of that conclusion? That seems like one of the most basic things to include if I'm going to talk about this. When readers see that a blogger analyzed this (limited) data to examine whether or not it appeared to support an unequal distribution of genes that influence IQ, the first thing they're going to wonder is whether the answer was yes or no. It seems like a very odd omission to say that a blogger researched the answer to this question, and not mention what answer they arrived at. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Because then you stop quoting the NYT (reliable) and start quoting the blog (unreliable).--Ramdrake (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

A reader will likely wonder why we're quoting science from a non-science blog in the first place before they start wondering what the blogger's conclusions were. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

"Because then you stop quoting the NYT (reliable) and start quoting the blog (unreliable)."

How so? The NYT states what the blogger’s conclusions are, even though they take issue with them. (As was pointed out in my most recent revision to this paragraph.)

Both of you: the blogger’s conclusions are mentioned in the NYT article. The NYT is critical of them, so we can mention that criticism, but that isn’t the same as saying it doesn’t mention this at all. Referring to the conclusions doesn't necessarily mean we endorse them; we can just describe them in an NPOV manner. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This is what is mentioned in the article: verbatim: Just the existence of such genetic differences between races, proclaimed the author of the Half Sigma blog, a 40-year-old software developer, means “the egalitarian theory,” that all races are equal, “is proven false.”. There is nowhere the conclusion that "a gene influencing IQ is distributed unevenly racially". There's a huge difference, and I hope you appreciate it now that it's been pointed out to you. Now, please, move on.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The relevant part of the article is in the previous paragraph. “An online genetic database used by medical researchers, he told readers, showed that two of the snippets were found more often in Europeans and Asians than in Africans.”

That’s all I wanted to include in Wikipedia’s summary of the article. We don’t have to endorse it; I just want to mention that the NYT reported this. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I don't know how else to say it. The blog information is unreliable. NYTimes doesn't make it reliable. We don't include it. There is nothing remotely reliable about information that purports to be science, but appears in a political blog filled with all sorts of social commentary nonsense. NYTimes doesn't change that. End of story. If you want to keep hammering that somehow it meets the reliability requirements, fine. We can simply move on to Notability. It's not notable. NYTimes doesn't make it so. Pick which reason it's not appropriate to Wikipedia and go with that. What you need to do is find a reliable source that makes the blogger's info notable or move on. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, I explained this multiple times on the article talk page. Do I really need to explain it again?

We aren’t reporting that the blogger’s conclusions are correct. All we’re reporting is that they exist, the same way that the New York Times does, while offering the same criticism that the New York Times offers about them. You’re still looking at this as though by talking about this conclusion, we’d actually be presenting it as something that’s likely to be correct, when in fact the Wikipedia article would be describing the conclusion in terms that make it sound like it probably isn’t.

Why is it so difficult to understand the distinction between reporting that a conclusion exists while criticizing it, and actually endorsing it?

I already addressed the notability issue also. This is notable because it’s the first time anyone has ever performed a comparison between races of the distribution of specific genes which might influence IQ. The article already mentions that this type of comparison is likely to be what will resolve the question of what causes the IQ difference, so the fact that this is happening for the first time is significant.

I think I understand what’s going on here. I’ve read the WP:TAG_TEAM page, and although I’ve never seen one in action before, there doesn’t seem to be another explanation for this. Every one of the points you’re making here is one that I’ve addressed before, and eventually other people (Such as Slrubenstein, and the first few people who commented here) agreed with what I had to say in response. But that doesn’t even seem to matter here. You’re making it clear that regardless of whether what you're saying has already been refuted, you can still prevent any edits that you don’t like from being made to the article, because there are several of you and only one of me. Is that the way this works? --Captain Occam (talk) 20:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to read WP:TE instead and see if that fits your actions.

If you just want to mention that some nobody blogger made a comparison, it would have to read, again, like: A New York times article reported that commentators in the social blogosphere have taken data from these studies and made highly speculative statements that DNA snippets links to high IQ. For example a 40 year old software developer who runs a political blog offered his own personal social commentary that said that an online genetic database proved “the egalitarian theory” “false” despite links between IQ and the DNA being unconfirmed, other high IQ snippets appearing common in Africans, the existence of hundreds or thousands of other snippets of DNA that may also be linked to IQ, or that all of these taken together may have a sliver of significance when compared to environmental factors.

Is that what you're looking for? Because that's what they reported. It is in no way reliable or notable. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, while we're at it, might as well include the other personal comments made to the no account blog, also quoted in the NYTimes, since if the blog itself is notable because it's mentioned in the NYTimes, I guess random comments made by anonymous people to the blog is now made notable too, since they were mentioned in the NYTimes. It's just a completely bizarre argument you're making. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I agree with you in principle that something of that sort would be appropriate. However, I wouldn't describe it in those exact terms, since that seems heavily biased towards the viewpoint that the analysis is not significant. We need to be NPOV about this.

Since I'm probably over my limit for reverts, I'm not going to try to edit the article again right away, but I'd like to at least make sure we're at least on the same page now as far as what's appropriate is concerned. Will you consider it acceptable if I make an edit along the lines of what you suggested here? --Captain Occam (talk) 20:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you missed my point. Even if it said the above, which is what was reported, it would not be notable. That was the point. The NYTimes article itself points out why the blog is not reliable, and not notable beyond an example of how the science can be misrepresented. It's was used as an example of how the studies can be misused once they reach the social sphere. I'd also like to reiterate that we are NPOV by unbiasedly citing the source. The source itself is clearly POV against that blog's interpretation of the data. It would be unneutral of us to misrepresent their position against the blog by watering down their criticism of the blogger's position.

No, it's not acceptible to make more than 3 revisions overwriting what others have written, even if I said it was. You've reverted multiple editors today. My saying it's OK doesn't matter. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Then let's discuss notability. This is the first time enough data about allele distributions in ethnic groups has been available for such a comparison to even be possible, even if this particular one wasn't especially accurate. Subsequent analyses will probably be performed in the future by more qualified experts, and according to the current article, these are the most likely way for the question about the cause of the IQ difference to be resolved. This analysis by a blogger marks the beginning of something which our article already states will be a very important development. That's why I consider it notable; if you disagree, can you present your counter-argument? --Captain Occam (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) As I've stated, I believe the NYTimes included the analysis as an example of how bad things can get when science gets botched by social commentators. If the analysis is just an example of bad commentary, used by NYTimes, then it's not notable. If it is notable because it's important, other reliable sources should have picked up the story and credited the blog author as making some important discovery with his analysis. It's not unreasonable to ask you to demonstrate the importance of it through other reliable sources, I'm sure you'll agree. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

All right, here's one other reliable source that talks about this. This article was published in the professional journal Medical Hypothesis. It's not available without paying, but the same article can also be found online at the author's blog. The information about Half Sigma's blog post is a little less than halfway down the page, and is in approximately the same place in the Medical Hypothesis version of this article.

Another good thing about this source (as opposed to the New York Times article) is that its author doesn't describe the DTNBP1 analysis with nearly as much skepticism as the NYT article does. This article's author seems to view these results in a neutral, if not slightly positive way.

I hadn't even considered citing the Medical Hypothesis article instead of the NYT one here, but perhaps I could have saved myself a lot of time if I'd suggested that originally. Would that be preferable, in your opinion? --Captain Occam (talk) 21:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Muntuwandi, the only thing being discussed here is whether or to include the NYT article and (if so) how much detail to go into about it. You've just removed two citations from peer-reviewed journals; please either justify this or put them back. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the table in Deary et al. 2009, you will see the two genes that are reported by the two peer reviewed studies. In short Deary et al. Discusses both CHRM2 and DTNPB1 including up to 20 other genes associated with IQ. In fact the only peer reviewed publications concerning race in the gene/IQ debate concern Microcephalin and ASPM. The others have yet to mention race in peer reviewed publications AFAIK. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This is beside the point. What I’m saying is that by including Deary et al’s conclusions but omitting Janneke et al’s and Dick at al’s, you’re deciding for the readers that Deary is definitely right and the authors of the other two papers are definitely wrong. That’s an NPOV violation. You need to present both perspectives about whether or not these genes influence IQ, regardless of which of the two you agree with, and also regardless of if you think one is factually right and the other is factually wrong. Just the fact that both have been published in peer-reviewed literature means the article shouldn’t take a viewpoint in favor of one or the other. This is a very basic part of Wikipedia’s policy. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this a science article? If so, since when do we care about what non-scientists (i.e. the bloggers) think? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

That's actually part of the problem. Currently, it has scientific sections, but it also has non-scientific sections. None of the non-scientific sections seem to be a good home for the NYT article information, and the scientific sections certainly are not. Aprock (talk) 21:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe there can be a section on "social perceptions" or "social commentary" or something, including polls on what the general population thinks. A section like that would be a good place to include the NYTimes info. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

See my suggestion above. The information I've been wanting to cite from The New York Times was also published in the professional journal Medical Hypothesis. I think this might be a good solution; I wish I'd thought of it before. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

No more blog referenced by NYTimes, correct? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd be very cautious about the Medical Hypotheses. It has been critiqued for its publication of pseudoscientific material [35][36] and has a rather odd version of peer review.[37]; check out our own article on the subject. I'd be quite dubious of accepting this as a source without some more discussion.--Slp1 (talk) 22:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Man, I was really hoping to put this to rest, but I found another problem with the source. It's a circular reference. That is, the author of the article, who writes for the Gene Expression blog, mentions that Gene Expression blogger "p-ter" is the originator of this idea that you can use the online database to demonstrate higher IQ in Europeans than Africans. That original blog post on Gene Expression is the source for the idea the Half Sigma post is using. So now we have Gene Expression quoting Half Sigma which is quoting Gene Expression. It's circular. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Slp1: You need to keep in mind that the only thing that matters here is WP:RS. Someone’s opinions about Medical Hypothesis’s peer-review process being “odd” probably wouldn’t be enough to exclude it from Wikipedia's criteria for a reliable source. (Especially since the only source you've cited about this issue is, itself, a blog.

Nealparr: does it matter where the DTNBP1 idea originally came from, as long as it’s being reported by a professional journal that's considered a reliable source? We already discussed something similar to this with The New York Times: that even though a blog isn’t a reliable source on its own, the New York Times is one, so we can use it as a source even if it’s reporting something that wouldn’t have been a reliable source on its own. I think the same principle applies here also. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Captain Occam. Yes, indeed. This is the page for determining what is a reliable source. And I am seriously questioning whether the journal Medical Hypotheses is a reliable source for facts per our definition, given that they do not have a scholarly peer-review process, and have indeed published articles about the very fringe issues that have been discounted by the mainstream medical communinity (e.g. causes of autism and AIDS). This is precisely the kind of unreliable source that we do not use here on WP because it it does not have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".--Slp1 (talk) 02:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The reliability issues of Medical Hypothesis aside, we've moved on to notability. A circular reference does not make the concept notable. You have a Gene Expression blogger saying "Try my trick with this online database", Gene Expression readers trying it, and Gene Expression readers writing about the results on their own blog. That doesn't really make for notability. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree. This is the board for discussing reliable sources. If you want to discuss notability, the discussion is likely best held elsewhere. And the reliability of this journal is, in fact, highly pertinent.--Slp1 (talk) 02:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with creating a section called "Social commentary" or something similar and tossing it in there, by the way. I think it's notable enough to fall under the WP:FRINGE guidelines. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you’re going against the standard that you already established about this. This is what you said previously:

“If it is notable because it's important, other reliable sources should have picked up the story and credited the blog author as making some important discovery with his analysis.”

Well, that’s the case. Another reliable source did pick it up; the journal Medical Hypothesis. That was the criteria you gave for determining whether this analysis was notable, and it’s been met. It’s kind of disingenuous if you’re going to start introducing additional requirements for notability now, in response to seeing that this meets the requirements you came up with previously.

Also, my intention was to put this in the “genetic hypothesis” section, in place of the NYT coverage that’s been removed. But something as minor as where in the article it should go can be discussed on the article talk page, after the citation to Medical Hypothesis has been added to the article. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It's your material. The responsibility for providing reliable sources solely rests on you. I asked you to provide reliable sources demonstrating the notability and you pointed to a journal that self-describes as falling short of mainstream science [38] (third paragraph) and an article that complains that the mainstream media and mainstream scientific community has dumped on this idea [39]. By your sources, it has WP:FRINGE all over it. That's not my fault. It's your sources. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

As I pointed out in response to Nealparr, WP:NOTABILITY only concerns whether a topic deserves its own article. Since nobody is considering giving this topic its own article, that isn't relevant here.

Whether this journal can be considered a reliable source is being discussed below. --Captain Occam (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) A relevant policy here is WP:NPOV, which authorizes, even encourages, the reporting of facts about opinions, but instructs that the way to do so is to cite a prominent representative of a particular school of thought. That some bloggers come a particular conclusion is generally not a fact worth reporting. So, when Captain Occam asks, "Why is it a problem to give the blogger's conclusion...?", the answer is that an encyclopedia can't report everyone's opinion on every subject. Opinions on disputed subjects are generally worth including if the person being quoted has some expertise (readers might want to know the opinion because this speaker's endorsement gives reason to believe it's true) or some prominence (readers might want to know the opinion because this speaker's position makes his or her endorsement noteworthy). To clarify the latter point, Mitch McConnell has no scientific credentials, but if the top-ranking Republican in the U.S. Senate endorsed this view, the facts about his opinion could be considered for inclusion.

Captain Occam argues, "This is the first time enough data about allele distributions in ethnic groups has been available for such a comparison to even be possible, even if this particular one wasn't especially accurate." It's not clear to me whether the Times reference to the decoding of the human genome supports the first part of that sentence. If the Times article or other reliable sources state that the work already done now allows such comparisons in general (as opposed to special cases such as screening Jews for particular diseases), then that fact could be considered for inclusion in the article, if it's deemed an important development. Even if it is, however, the act of some nonscientists in putting their own spin on the data is not notable, even if they (not needing to adhere to the constraints of peer review or even the lesser constraint of not looking like fools before professional colleagues) beat everyone else into print with an "analysis". If NASA were to release some suggestive data from the SETI project, a scientific judgment that the data might reflect intelligent communication would be worth reporting, but a blogger's conclusion that the data showed the truth of the Koran or the Bible or whatever would not be worth reporting, and would not become worth reporting merely because it was the first. I don't see anything in the Times article that shows this to be notable enough even for "fringe" status. JamesMLane t c 22:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

At this point, I've more or less given up on citing the NYT article for this. The coverage of the same topic in Medical Hypothesis is considerably better in virtually all respects. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I've also took the time to check who Jason Malloy is (the author of the "Medical Hypothesis" piece). It turns out that the piece (and the author) are basically reprised from the GNXP blog. Still not a reliable source.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Why does it matter whether it originally came from a blog? WP:RS does not make any exceptions for material that was previously published somewhere that wasn't a reliable source, as long as the place to which it's currently being cited is reliable.

Didn't we already go over this for how news articles are reliable even if they're based on sources that wouldn't be reliable on their own, such as eyewitness testimony? It's the same principle. According to your logic, if someone publishes a book that previously existed as an unpublished manuscript, that book cannot be a reliable source, because it's a "reprised" version of something that wouldn't have been reliable. But that obviously doesn't make any sense, because it would exclude most books. The only thing that matters here is that it exists as a reliable source in the form where it's currently being cited, and this principle applies to Jason Malloy's Medical Hypothesis article also. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well you must admit that the author of the article being a blogger with no academic credentials makes it fail WP:NOTABILITY for a science article. Especially with the concerns leveled at the publication about its review system (i.e. it seems to be arbitrary). Please, please stop pulling at straws and give it up. What you're running against isn't a tag team: you're simply refusing to accept consensus.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This isn't consensus anymore. At this point, you seem to be the only person who's still actively arguing against the information from Medical Hypothesis being admissible. And more importantly, neither you nor anyone else has any remaining valid arguments about why this isn’t admissible. I already addressed the notability argument in response to NealParr.

I admit that my desire to cite the NYT article for this was probably doomed from the beginning, but at this point what you seem to be demonstrating is just that you don’t want this information in the article, regardless of whether it’s cited to a reliable source or not. Think about how many separate alleged violations Wikipedia's policies you came up with for the NYT article, and how many times you brought up a new unrelated issue with it after I explained why your preceding objection wasn’t valid. For as long as you've been doing this, you haven't raised policy objections about any other parts of the article (even though they probably exist), just this. Endlessly searching for any possible policy violation about a single citation does not demonstrate a desire to just enforce Wikipedia’s policies; what it demonstrates is that for whatever reason, you’re looking for any justification to keep this particular information out of the article. I don’t expect you to give up on this, but at this point you no longer have any arguments for this that haven’t been explicitly refuted. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's just let the others chime in about whether they accept your arguments. I will of course bend without hesitation to consensus.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Considering this is the reliable sources noticeboard, I encourage users uninvolved in this dispute to express their opinions about whether or not the journal Medical Hypothesis can be considered a reliable source. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I would also like them to express their view about the author of this article being a blogger with no academic standing. How does that influence reliability, if it does?--Ramdrake (talk) 23:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'd like to quote something from the notability policy page you linked to: "Within Wikipedia, notability determines whether a topic merits its own article." Since nobody is attempting to create an article devoted to this particular analysis, whether it meets the standards of notability listed on that page is not relevant. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, try WP:SOURCES then, especially the paragraphs about reliable and questionable sources. Also, I strongly suggest you read up WP:TE.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

A compromise that I think deserves consideration would be to cite the information to Medical Hypothesis, but to be clear about the speculative nature of articles there, the same way that it's necessary to do when citing an opinion article. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

There are two separate issues here. First, is the publication Medical Hypotheses (note the correct title) a reliable source? We normally feel confident in citing publications like The New York Times because, even though there's no peer review as in scientific journals, there's a careful vetting of those allowed to write for the publication, plus a fact-checking of each particular story. By contrast, our article about Medical Hypotheses states: "Submitted papers ... are chosen ... by the journal's editor-in-chief based on whether or not he considers the submitted work to be interesting and important. The journal's stated policy is that the authors, rather than peer reviewers or the editor, hold responsibility for the integrity, precision and accuracy of their work." That suggests to me that there is no vetting of authors and no fact-checking. This is essentially a source for self-published works except that someone other than the author must find it "interesting and important". That's not enough of an assurance of reliability.

The second issue is whether the particular assertion supported by the source (assuming arguendo that the source is deemed reliable) should be included in the article. The source supports only the same sort of assertion as the Times story: Some blogger(s) with no discernible scientific credentials have made assertions about some data. Per the discussion above, Medical Hypotheses isn't even standing behind the statement that any blogger has really made such assertions, but assuming the statement about assertions in blogs to be true, there's no reason to include it in our article. It doesn't advance the Wikipedia reader's knowledge of the subject of race and intelligence. JamesMLane t c 00:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this is getting to the level of spamming, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT may apply. A self published blog, whether sourced directly or indirectly is a bad source for scientific information. Mainstream peer-reviewed scholarly articles are generally good sources of information. If Occam finds some mainstream scholarly articles that have conclusively and uncontroversially found a relationship between specific genes and general intelligence, we can discuss including them in the article. I have a feeling that Occam can't find such sources, and instead has decided to look in the blogosphere, because anyone can say anything on a blog. This would then be a case of creative POV-pushing, which may warrant administrative action. Wapondaponda (talk) 00:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The standard wouldn't be "uncontroversially". If there's a good-faith controversy, we'll report the facts about all the notable opinions. Of course, I agree with your implication that bloggers' opinions don't merit inclusion. JamesMLane t c 02:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

TL;DR, but I liked the summary above, although that user was proffering it to make a point that the NYT article is unusable. Also, the thing is notable because of the NYT article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This is an unreliable source. On Wikipedia we don't even consider newspapers reliable when they report on peer reviewed science, so I really don't see how the NYT can be reliable reporting on "science" conducted by non-scientists and published on a blog.

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles)-"The popular press is generally not a reliable source for science and medicine information in articles."
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources- "information about academic topics, such as physics or ancient history, scholarly sources are preferred over news stories. Newspapers tend to misrepresent results, leaving out crucial details and reporting discoveries out of context"
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches- "the most reliable sources in medicine and biology are peer-reviewed publications in scientific journals."

I'm amazed this discussion has gone on for so long, it's open and shut by any objective measure. In fact I had been hoping that Captain Occam would just accept the evidence of his own eyes with regards to WP:RS guidelines, but clearly I was assuming too much good faith. Alun (talk) 06:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Alun, an administrator (user:Dbachmann) has requested that you stop participating in these articles, in light of your recent personal attacks on Wikipedia editors on other talk pages. I know that you've seen his request, since you replied to it. I know you don't approve of his decision, so you're entitled to appeal it, but until it's overturned you should follow it. --Captain Occam (talk) 15:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Medical Hypotheses

Would this journal be considered a reliable source for WP? It is published by Elsevier, which is a good sign. However, it has no traditional peer-review process, and the journal has been critiqued in The Guardian and elsewhere for its articles and lack of review.[40][41][42]. According to the article "20 academics and others have now written to Medline, requesting that Medical Hypotheses should be removed from their index."--Slp1 (talk) 02:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The standard of publication in Medicine is peer review. Medical Hypotheses stated policy is that the authors, rather than peer reviewers or the editor, hold responsibility for the integrity, precision and accuracy of their work. Medical Hypotheses is not a reliable source as it is publishing outside of the meaning of medicine as a discipline. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source. This topic is covered in Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) #Biomedical journals, which talks about verious kinds of journals and says "Still others, such as Medical Hypotheses, publish speculative proposals that are not reliable sources for biomedical topics." Eubulides (talk) 08:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The only thing I would use it for would be in a biographical wikipedia article where the subject had published a paper in this journal -- it would be reliable that they had indeed published such-and-such a hypothesis. The barrier for the hypotheses being accepted in the journal is very low so treat it as self-published. Colin°^Talk 11:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

By its very nature this is not a WP:RS, and doubly not a WP:MEDRS. Exceptions would be few and require justification. Verbal chat 11:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

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

memory-alpha.org

Is Memory Alpha, a fan wiki, suitable for use as a source when citing in an article? Alastairward (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Not generally, no. Protonk (talk) 19:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
• It's an open wiki, and most open wikis are not considered reliable sources (just like Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source). See WP:SPS. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • There's a big discussion on it somewhere. It's related to a Stargate FAC, so it shouldn't be too hard to find. They do interviews and articles, and I can't remember what the reliability was decided on those. Any wiki part would not be reliable, of course. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

www.trekplace.com/

I checked before as to whether a fan site claiming to hold interviews or other correspondence with experts in a field can be used to cite an article. WP:RS seems to be against their use, may I have this confirmed with the site above? The FAQ for the site doesn't seem to imply any sort of editorial process etc. Alastairward (talk) 15:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Interviews may be reliable for statements of the interviewee, if they're an expert. I don't think we've come up with a great way to say if a site is good enough to believe their interviews. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

What if it exists as the only source for this statement? Is there any way to verify that interviews or correspondence listed on fan sites are the actual text verbatim? Alastairward (talk) 08:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Allmusic

Is allmusic a reliable source if the album overview being cited is written by Stephen Thomas Erlewine? 98.66.145.167 (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think allmusic has shown up on this board before. Check the archives (see that little search box at the top of the page). I'll check back later and see what I can find. Protonk (talk) 19:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Allmusic is used a ton for something. Not sure what. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the All Music Guide a published book? Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the IP is talking about allmusic.com, which I consult frequently, although I've never used it as a source here. I personally would consider them reliable for facts like song listings, etc., not however for establishing notability, as they do attempt to catalog ALL MUSIC. Dlabtot (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

That seems to be the basic read from the archived discussions. Protonk (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe allmusic.com comes from the book. If the online version of the guide is still relatively the same breadth ( unlike, say, last.fm which seems to have something about every artist ) I would be OK for notability of bands. And in either case I'd be OK for notability of a genre. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The website does indeed cover just about every artist. Not sure what book you are talking about. Dlabtot (talk) 19:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a bound "All Music Guide" that I've seen. Our article on Allmusic explains. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

mentalblog.com

Information in the Menachem Mendel Schneerson article is being sourced to http://mentalblog.com , a blog that was apparently closed in January 2009. As I understand those who argue for its inclusion, they say that the material in question is found on a pdf scan of a document signed by Schneerson (see http://mentalblog.com/filedepot/PDF/RAMASHwills.pdf ), and is therefore reliable, regardless of the fact that the scan is found on a blog. Does this, in fact, make the source reliable? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Mentalblog is not an archive, and is not reliable for the storage and retrieval of documents with controlled authorship and provenance. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

However, the scan appears to show that the will is housed in the Harvard College Library, Widener Library. Surely someone could be dispatched to verify it there. I'm not sure what it is going to be used for, but as a primary source it's a document that needs to be used with great care. --Slp1 (talk) 02:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it is Lipkin's book which is found in the Harvard library (which I have checked online is indeed the case). Debresser (talk) 04:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

In a related discussion, is Heshbono shel olam by Binyamin Lipkin a reliable source? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Consider giving us a place of publication, publisher, year of publication, type of work (Journal article, chapter in edited collection, monograph, pamphlet) and what you're intending on using it as a reliable source for? Fifelfoo (talk) 04:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea. User:Debresser added it as a source in this edit, then steadfastly refused to even provide a page number from it, much less explain why it was reliable. He insisted asking for page numbers from book citations was "preposterous and outside of accepted Wikipedia norms". Jayjg ^(talk) 04:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Works without publication provenance are inherently unreliable. For the requirement for page numbers (which I do expect as an element of reliability), specific claims would require specific citation. A pamphlet work under 10 pages may not require a page reference. A pamphlet work under 10 pages is highly unlikely to be a reliable source. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Another option is to use this book [43] which would be a better, secondary source for the information cited.--Slp1 (talk) 02:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Good find. I attempted to use it as a source, but was almost immediately reverted. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Both the book Lipkin, Binyamin (2000). Heshbono shel olam. Lod, Israel: Mekhon ha-sefer. and the website "PDF of Schneerson's will" (PDF). 27 February 2005. Archived from the original (PDF) on 11 November 2006. bring a copy of the will. So it is not their reliability at question at all, unless we want to accuse them of falsification. Debresser (talk) 04:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain how the blog, PDF, or Lipkin's book qualify as reliable sources? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The book is a reliable source because the author has studied the subject of the last years of the Lubavitcher Rebbe extensively and brings numerous external sources. I want to point out that the website only brings a pfd copy from a few pages of the book, which are themselves only a copy of the original documents. So we are not questioning any conclusions drawn by the author of either website or book. So ultimately, unless we want to accuse people of falisification, there is no sources issue here. Debresser (talk) 04:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC) (copied from talkpage)

Sorry, could you please respond in a way that is relevant to WP:V and WP:RS? Preferably with sources? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to, if you could specify what it is you think should be provided. Plain English would be preferred to the above abbreviations. Debresser (talk) 05:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, for example, WP:SPS says "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable." Now, can you explain what makes the mentalblog.com blog an exception to this rule? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the book citation, Google ""Mekhon ha-sefer"" as a phrase shows five search results, the first is wikipedia, the remaining four are poor quality specialist book indexes. Does the publisher normally go by their Hebrew orthography? If so, could you supply that. This makes me concerned that the publisher is Vanity implying the book is Self-published and unreliable for wikipedia purposes. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. So what if mentalblog is not an archive? The document stands on its own. The signature is clearly visible, and instantly recognisable to everyone who is familiar with it. And the use to which it is being put in the article is simply to cite what it says. No interpretation at all, so no secondary source required. -- Zsero (talk) 05:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

So that's your justification for this edit? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is. What is your problem with that? So long as the will itself appears on its face to be genuine, and there is no reason to doubt it, it makes not the slightest difference where the scan is hosted; for all I care it could be at World Weekly News or some such site. -- Zsero (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is entirely wrongheaded. The source is the will. RS is about sources, not about publishers. A primary source (such as a will) is appropriate in various cases—I am not opining on whether this is such an instance. However, any issue here should be about whether the copy provided is authentic, not about whether the sources is reliable. A primary source (if authentic) is reliable on topics that are permitted under the primary sourcing policy. ^Bongo_matic 05:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think the PDF found on the blog is an accurate representation of the will? Why would this blog PDF be preferred to a reliable secondary source, written by a professor of Jewish studies, who is already cited 10 times in the article? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The real question is what makes you suspect that it is not? The signature is instantly recognisable, and the document shows no sign of alteration. The will is a primary source, and therefore by definition a better source for what it says than any book by some professor in China, who has no personal knowledge of the subject. -- Zsero (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Nothing makes me think that at all—did I say otherwise? I said that the will is a primary source and is appropriate for verifying noncontroversial material if the authenticity is not in dispute. As such, this is not the appropriate forum for discussing whether the putative copy of it hosted on a particular web site should be cited. It would be helpful if commentators would read and try to comprehend before a knee-jerk reaction. Again: this is not a question about the reliability of a source, but the authenticity of a document. You raise another question here too—also one that is not fitting for this forum—as to whether the information that this primary source is used to support is better off being cited to a secondary source instead. I have no opinion in this particular case, but generally I find primary sources to be better for demonstrating facts than secondary ones (such as awards, which are frequently unintentionally bungled by secondary sources). ^Bongo_matic 05:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see the comments below, which explain exactly why this material is not considered reliable. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion essentially takes place on the talkpage, so I'd advise all to go there. Debresser (talk) 06:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

There does not seem to be much on the talk page that is not already here. Two sources have been questioned: Lipkin's book and a PDF of a will. Fifelfoo has given standard answers in each case. The book is not reliable unless you can show that it is from a mainstream publisher and not self-published. The PDF of the will is a primary source. Are there any other aspects that editors on this page need to consider? Itsmejudith (talk) 11:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

And I (above) have provided a third, a secondary source, published by a publisher of amongst other things) academic works. [44] We should always use the best sources. I am a loss to see why this hasn't been snapped up as the obvious solution to the double issue of the questionable primary source. --Slp1 (talk) 12:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Slp1's book is published by a commercial book publisher. The publisher describes themselves as, "Today, KTAV is famous for its teaching devices, its scholarly publications and its educational texts." and from their webpage and offerings appears to be. The book Slp1 recommends, Ehrlich, The Messiah of Brooklyn, is available in English, and for sale, and is partly google accessable. I'd suggest strongly that you go with the secondary source specifically on topic, that's a RS, towards the higher grades of RS. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what I did, with this edit. I was reverted two minutes later. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

There can be no source more reliable than the document itself. The notion that KTAV has fact checkers who verified Ehrlich's claims, let alone that they're so thorough that their checking would have gone beyond looking at this scan or one like it, is ludicrous. The entire premise of the whole "RS" schema fails in a case like this. -- Zsero (talk) 16:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Your thesis depends on your confidence that the document is genuine, and in the ability and desirability of WP editors determining that the documents have not been tampered with. I don't personally doubt that the document under discussion is the genuine article, but I am not qualified to make such a determination. Example: Anyone could easily take a copy of a will, photoshop in a copy of Schneerson's signature, post it on a website, and voila, I would be very easily fooled into believing in its authenticity. Perhaps you would too? Given that there is a controversy here and even a second "unsigned" will in this case, such a deception is even a possibility, no? What happens if you say it is genuine and I say it isn't? These issues are why WP cannot and does not permit its editors to make this kind of evaluation of authenticy. In contrast, we do have more confidence that books published by mainstream publishing houses have authors and editors that do have the requisite qualifications. --Slp1 (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

What "requisite qualifications"? Do you seriously believe, and expect us to believe, that the highly qualified editors at KTAV would have insisted on seeing the original will rather than relying on a scan like this one? Do you seriously believe, and expect us to believe, that they did any detailed fact-checking on Ehrlich's book before publishing it? That is not how they work. They wouldn't even know whom to ask. And that is doubly true of any academic journal or publisher. -- Zsero (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I believe they have more qualifications and resources to do this job than you and me and the rest of WP editors. Obviously you disagree. What you are disagreeing with, however, challenges a very fundamental tenet of verifiability and reliable sources. If you want to continue this challenge, I suggest you do it on the talkpages of those articles, and try to change the guidelines/policies themselves.--Slp1 (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, a few observations. An image of a will hosted at a third-party blog is not RS, unless other RS's cite or link and vouch for the image hosted at the blog. However, it may be allowable as an EL if it's non-controversial. Another suggestion for an auxilary reference: if the will is housed in Harvard's libraries, they've probably assigned an OCLC number to it, and a cite to Worldcat would be usable to show that the will exists ( and would also be an aid to researchers ). As far as books, we generally assume books are RS unless they are shown to be fringe or self-published. I don't believe that's the case, so the book should go in as a reference. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Quite obviously not a reliable source. Dlabtot (talk) 17:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems pretty straightforward that in most cases nothing hosted on a blog ought to be used as a reliable source for any claim. There are narrow exceptions, particularly if the blog is published by a recognized expert in the field for which it is cited, but those don't seem to apply here. We have no capacity to judge whether the PDF is authentic or not; such a determination must be made by experts, publishing in reliable sources in the real world, not by Wikipedia editors who think the authenticity of the signature should be obvious to everyone. Even I can fake a will and add an authentic-looking signature. To address the book: if information about the reliability of the publisher can't be found, then the book should be assumed to be self-published and its reliability suspected as a result. Nathan ^T 19:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Is reference from a company or organisation reliable to describe a controversy about itself?

We have organisations involved in a controversy that was covered widely in the mainstream press (eg all the world's major newspapers and technology magazines reported on the controversy). For interest's sake, the controversy surrounds Microsoft and the International Standards Organisation, which passed Microsoft's Open Office XML document format as a standard. Microsoft and the ISO say the format and process was "free and open", Vs some national governments that say it was not "free" or "open". I'm not asking you to take a side on that claim. But when a fact is disputed and controversial, shouldn't we be able to demand independent references from major media organisations? I'm wary of references that come directly from the organisations involved in the controversy, which tend to describe themselves and their formats in glowing terms. For an issue so widely covered, isn't it reasonable (and essential) to ask for independent references from the mainstream media? Or, are references directly from Microsoft and the ISO reliable to describe a famous controversy about themselves? -Lester 04:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources direct from the horses' mouths are best used to further illustrate or provide direct quotes for points made by secondary sources, if they are used at all. And this is because while secondary sources don't always cover a controversy (or anything, for that matter) in the greatest detail possible, third-party, reliable, secondary sources are the major determinant for what is significant with regard to any given topic. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you please cite the source, and name the article and section, people are disputing? Fifelfoo (talk) 04:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

TO 'Someguy1221': Your advice sounds good... that reliable secondary sources are a good gauge of what is significant, compared to what is trivia or undue.

To 'Fifelfoo': Yes, I can give examples. Article is Office Open XML, in the lede. This reference from the ISO was recently inserted against article text that said it's "a free format" (free can mean anything), though I notice the article text has just been changed to "a freely available format". It's not how the mainstream media describes it, as extended delays in publishing format revisions have resulted in complaints from nations that it is not available on equal terms to all, even though it is free-of-cost. I feel that controversial subjects should be described from independent sources.--Lester 05:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a preferred orthography which isn't all caps, you can reference it by looking at my username in my sigs. The article said when I checked near 08:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC) "available to anyone for download free-of-charge" and referenced against this link which seems like a trivial and obvious claim. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the caps. Yes, the text changed again. Some are determined to get the words "free" or "open" into the article. I guess that using secondary (newspaper) references, it helps not only with accuracy, but also creates a barrier to putting trivia (or undue weight) in there. Thanks, Lester 10:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Are we still beating this dead horse? I'm aware there some controversy about whether this format is truly "open" or not, but independent secondary sources, citations from advocacy groups (with attribution), notable opinions from the governments involved, and statements from MS or ISO themselves ( primary sources in an article about themselves ) are all RS. This really isn't an RS issue. Sounds more like an NPOV or undue weight issue, and probably belongs at a different noticeboard. Just attribute everything as "X said Y" and try to avoid giving too much weight to overinterpretations of the word "free".

That said, if OOXML is covered by a patent, even if the owner grants a free license to use, then that's still a "free as in beer" situation and we should use the compromise wording "freely available" in the lead. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Squidfryerchef. I guess attribution is the key, as you say. --Lester 19:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Menachem Mendel Schneerson

I am involved in a discussion about two sources I brought. Another editor disagrees with me. Please see Talk:Menachem_Mendel_Schneerson#mentalblog.com_as_a_reliable_source and comment there. Debresser (talk) 04:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I just now saw that there is a section above, opened by my opponent without giving notification on the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 04:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hotlinkfiles

Is material uploaded to www.hotlinkfiles a reliable source? This issue has arisen in connection with the BLP of Natascha Engel; see Talk:Natascha Engel#RFC: Copyediting of Expenses section. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you please cite the document being linked to? Fifelfoo (talk) 11:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

In the present version of the article, the following links are used: [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51]. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The linked files are a number of .doc files and one .pdf. hotlinkfiles.com is not a publisher. This makes them "Any old files uploaded to the web." Ie: SELF published. Additionally, the article in question is full of a number of dubious SELF publications which look like advertspam by the Living Person in question and her family. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Removing the self-publications was one of the things I tried to do in a recent copyedit although I was reverted. You may wish to contribute to the RFC. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Are these files referred to or linked to by any reliable sources? Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Schrandit and Soulforce (organization)

I're-removed this dubiously sourced content from Soulforce (organization) but Schrandit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems intent on re-adding it.

Controversy

Christian group Focus on the Family has described Soulforce as "wolves in sheep's clothing," and has stated that the purpose of their actions is not "dialogue and greater understanding -- it's to tempt [others] to embrace a false doctrine, which will keep many from the gospel message of hope and transformation for those who are trapped in homosexuality."(http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=54626&terms=soulforce). Soulforce has responded to accusations from Focus on the Family through organixed direct action events,(http://www.soulforce.org/article/130) and by producing an article in response to statements made by Dr James Dobson (http://www.soulforce.org/article/false-focus-family).

I feel it's a textbook case of WP:Soapboxing and seems utterly non-notable. Of course Focus on the Family doesn't like a LGBT Christian advocacy group. They don't seem to like LGBT anything. This is unsurprising and sourced to www.onenewsnow.com which seems like it would utterly fail WP:RS. Is my assessment on this seem accurate? Schrandit has been edit-warring to re-insert this despite my requests that they get an opinion here first. -- Banjeboi 18:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not create this content but it is well sourced, it is neutrally worded and it only states Focus on the Family's opinion and does not treat it as fact. The previous uses has been edit warring to remove it for reasons I can only guess at. - Schrandit (talk) 18:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

If you edit-war to re-add content, especially contested content you're considered the author. The reason I, and others removed it were given at the time but let's see what uninvolved editors who specialize in sourcing have to say. -- Banjeboi 18:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

While I'm neither a) an unbiased editor on this issue [says the man with a page named after gay porn fetish slang] nor b) someone with much experience in source debates, it seems pretty clear to me that Focus on the Family's opinion would be notable if it was referred to by a reliable secondary source (such as National Review or Christianity Today or some other sympathetic site). But here is a case where all we have are what are essentially press releases from the group (going through an obscure website). I tend to think that it's not relevant to anything. I also have a clear aversion to 'Criticism' sections in the first place, since they seem to be edit war magnets.

I hope that helps. The Squicks (talk) 21:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

www.onenewsnow.com is edited by journalists, but its mission statement is to produce "the day's news from a biblical perspective". This is a non-standard view of journalism in the west, and puts the website in the same category as other politically or religiously motivated publications. The size of the organisation is also a worry. The onenewsnow source seems to be reliable in reporting the opinions of Focus on the Family. These opinions aren't necessarily encyclopedically significant to an article on Soul Force. Take it to UNDUE. Soulforce, as an activist organisation, is not reliable for reporting on its own actions. The link to the pamphlet is also miscited. Either cite the pamphlet properly as a publication, or don't include it. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The website just does not seem like an acceptable source to me. Of course, I could be wrong. But I would greatly prefer to see 2nd and 3rd party material on this and I would prefer to hold back on including criticism until then. The Squicks (talk) 21:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Daily Mail

In reference to a current dispute on Anti-Christian sentiment in the United Kingdom. Can I ask what others opinions are to the use of the Daily Mail (UK) as a source? I have previously tagged some statements which use the Mail as needing a better source. However, User:The Squicks is adamant that the Mail is a reliable source. For what it is worth, as someone who actually lives in the UK, I am of the opinion that the Mail is almost NEVER a reliable source for these types of story. Its the type of story the paper thrives on and the story rarely turns out to be even partly accurate. A tagged a request for alternatives as the problem is that these types of story, when the truth is told are invariably a non-story, so actually digging out alternatives can be quite difficult. Pit-yacker (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

We have frequently discussed the Daily Mail here (search for it in the archive), and the most recent consensus seems to be that it is so-so or semi-reliable. In this case, I think that there is more to worry about than the reliability of the DM. That is: does the DM even claim that these stories indicate anti-Christian sentiment? Or does it cover the cases to illustrate its long-standing bee-in-the-bonnet of political correctness. I think we can assume that the stories are, in themselves, accurate as reported. But putting them all together to tell a story about anti-Christian feeling in the UK might amount to original synthesis. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Islamofascism

Is Jihad and Jew-Hatred: Islamism, Nazism and the Roots of 9/11 (2007) by Matthias Kuntzel, (Telos Press Publishing), ISBN 10: 0914386360 a reliable source for Nazism in the Middle East? The book argues that the Nazis had greater influence and organization in the Middle East than previously believed and that "Islamofascism" grew directly from Nazism. Nasser, Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Gadafi are all shown to have based their beliefs on Nazi ideology. Although the book has been favorably reviewed by some conservative publications the theories do not appear to have received any peer review. The author is an academic but also writes opinion pieces, mostly for the Weekly Standard. The WP article is based almost entirely upon this book. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Given the review of Telos's publication history and its involvement with the European new right here I would strongly suggest you find positive reviews of the book in question in scholarly journals (other than Telos, obviously), before making use of it. Even then, given the functioning of humanities, attribute all claims to the author. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

linkedin

Would Linkedin count as a reliable source when referencing a list entry? The specific case is as follows:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Filipino_Americans&action=historysubmit&diff=319571092&oldid=319522349 List of Filipino Americans. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

User submitted content, could be anyone. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

lawyers.com

Lawyers.com is operated by LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell, a well-known legal company, but the website seems like a directory. The profile on David Huebner, a BLP, contains some useful information that I'm unable to find elsewhere. Does the site violate our BLP policy? APK say that you love me 23:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It's SELFPUB - lawyers send their content/information to lawyers.com for publication. It is not really an independent source. That said, it is probably fine for non-controversial biographical info. kind regards, --guyzero | talk 23:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The info is non-controversial. (years he passed the various bar exams) Thanks for the feedback. Cheers. APK say that you love me 06:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Self-Published Translation of Mein Kampf

This is preventive action (I hope). Back in June one Historyprof101 added a batch of material praising a translation of Mein Kampf by Michael Ford. Today, Historyprof101 returned and reinserted it. He then started going around Wikipedia removing references to my books and articles (I'm a fairly well published scholar in the field of Nazi propaganda). One of the difficulties of using one's real name on Wikipedia is exactly this kind of thing.

Well, I don't really want to get into an edit war, so it might be good to have a few people weigh in on the merits of self-published books like Mr. Ford's translation and its failure to meet reliable sources criteria for him to read. Help, please? Bytwerk (talk) 23:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

At the top of the page we request a full citation of the work in question. This assists us in locating it. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. It is Michael Ford, "Mein Kampf: The Ford Translation," Elite Minds, Inc., 2009. The author runs "Elite Minds," so the book is self-published,and has had no credible reviews. Bytwerk (talk) 00:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Questions: Is Michael Ford's translation republished somewhere else notable? Is his translation almost identical to other reliable translations? If the answer is no to both questions, and Michael Ford is not a German linguistic expert or certified Hitler's closest friend, then all we have here is some guy's opinion on what Hitler believes. Jim101 (talk) 01:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not published by somewhere notable, and it is not "almost identical" to other translations. In fact, he claims that his is the "correct" translation, and that others, by renowned translators like Ralph Manheim, are inferior to his. Bytwerk (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Then I would say this guy is high, borderline delusional. Definitely not a RS source. Jim101 (talk) 01:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The Origin of the Greeks, Ph.D. thesis

Please tell me whether this source can be included in Wikipedia articles: ( Poulianos, Aris N., 1961, The Origin of the Greeks, Ph.D. thesis, University of Moscow, supervised by Dr. F.G.Debets) Thank you for your help.--Monshuai (talk) 02:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Non RS. PhD theses are not published works. While they are assessed this differs from "peer review" in the sense of academic publications. There is an expectation that subsequent publication as a monograph can, but will not necessarily occur, and that publication process includes a review. Either its been published as a monograph, or it hasn't. And the work you've cited hasn't. Also ethnogenesis in Soviet historiography? alarm bells. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's your book, "The origin of the hellenes. An ethnogenetic inquiry. Aris N. Poulianos. 160 pp, 5 tables, 9 maps, 32 photographs. 1962. Morphosis Press, Athens. Originally published in 1960 by the Institute of Ethnography of the Academy of Sciences of the U. S. S. R., translated into Greek by the author with special assistance of Nikos Antonopoulos" here's your scholarly review of it, J. LAWRENCE ANGE American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Volume 22, Issue 3 (p 343-345) DOI:10.1002/ajpa.1330220326, "unsystematic" "but uses no twin data to estimate the genetic versus environmental limits" "he omits about half of the literature" "he tends to overvalue speculations based on small samples". Hmm. Unlike the PhD thesis its reliable, in that its published (if you can go read your popular modern Greek). Though I'd say that even though IEAS USSR and Morphosis have published, that you ought to strictly attribute any drawn conclusions to the Author due to the indicated review issues, the fact that its 50 years out of date, and the fact that its ethnogenesis published in 1961 in the USSR. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you think this work being published in the USSR makes it unreliable? This needs to be demonstrated. Offliner (talk) 03:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Klaus Mehrnert, Stalin Versus Marx: the Stalinist historical doctrine (Translation of Weltrevolution durch Weltgeschichte) Port Washington NY: Kennikat Press 1972 (1952) on the poor quality of studies of ethnogenesis in the Soviet Union due to non-methodologically justifiable ideological intervention by state elites in the work of historians and anthropologists. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I renamed the heading to something less verbose. Protonk (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed true that the USSR itself produced many great scientists and scientific works. There is something else worth mentioning about this particular academic study. Dr. Aris Poulianos (A Greek anthropologist and Founder of the Greek Anthropological Association) comes to conclusion that counters the official Soviet propaganda of the era. Indeed Poulianos for example concluded that modern Bulgarians are anthropologically similar to ancient Thracians, while the Soviet philosophy was to prove the opposite, which was that modern Bulgarians are Slavs (unrelated to ancient Balkan peoples). This official intent was to shape their socio-cultural identity and co-opt them into upholding the Pan-Slavic ideals whilst disassociating them with other ethnic populations and histories. This of course solidified the power base of the politburo, whose strategic intention was to expand and control the trans-national identity/idnetities in their sphere of influence with the end goal of unifying different peoples under the so-called Slavic umbrella. This itself lends credulity to the Poulianos study, as it comes to conclusions that are contrary to the official political agenda of the time. This may in part be due to the fact that neither Dr. Poulianos nor Dr. Debets were citizens of the Soviet Union. I want to thank Fifelfoo for pointing out that the source is a published academic and peer reviewed work. Also thank you to Offliner for making a good point. It is now clear that the article meets Wikipedia standards as per the rules and I will once again (as I did when I first referenced this source) "strictly attribute the drawn conclusions to the author." Again, thank you all for your help in this matter. Have a good day or night wherever you may be on our beautiful planet Earth.--Monshuai (talk) 06:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Well when we use a source that has been subject to extensive critisism we should also include that critisism. Taemyr (talk) 07:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I quite clearly rejected the source you cited, and indicated that you may wish to read in full a different source. I suggest you work out of Poulianos' modern writings, and, for that matter, look up modern anthropological review articles on the relevant ethnogeneses and assign weight out of those. If you claim that I support a PhD thesis being RS, I will be greatly offended, and make this known where I discover you doing so. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I was talking about the work being academic and peer reviewed, not whether or not you agree with its conclusions. I didn't think you're an anthropologist, thereby I was not incquiring nor commenting your views of this particular field. I would also like to make clear that I have read most if not all of Poulianos's published works in full. My first PhD was based partly on his work. Also, Poulianos is considered one of the foremost anthropologists in Greece and his conclusions about the Thracian anthropological type have not been disputed to date. If someone is suspicious about this, they are free to research it themselves. Good day.--Monshuai (talk) 07:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Its interesting you chose to cite his 1961 PhD thesis instead of... any other text. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome.--Monshuai (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I seem to have triggered this by making the initial removal of the sentence referencing the Poulianos study at Thracians. I'll just put on the record here that my removal was not even primarily motivated by my doubts over the RS status of that work – although I'm aware it's highly controversial and probably heavily outdated research. I removed it because the sentence as it stood in its context made no sense [52]. There is a previous sentence, sourced to a more modern source, stating that on modern genetic criteria Thracians were slightly more closely related to certain modern ethnic groups in the area other than Bulgarians. The contentious sentence then was added as if it provided a refutation or contradiction of this statement, but it in fact contained only a much weaker statement, namely that both Thracians and modern Bulgarians belong to the same overall anthropological type. Which may well be true – but then, so do the other modern ethnicities referred to in the previous sentence. Which means the two are in no way contradictory, and the first is certainly more informative and makes the second essentially superfluous. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concerns Future Perfect at Sunrise, but as the article is written now it is made to seem as though Bulgarians don't have a connection with Thracians. The reference doesn't contradict the other sources I included in the article years ago about the Thracian connection to Greeks and other ethnic groups. Yes, believe it or not I was the one who included the other anthropological studies detailing similarities between Greeks and Thracians. It's all in the history of the article. Furthermore, the Poulianos study simply emphasizes that modern Bulgarians are anthropologically less Slav and more Balkan/Thracian and belonging to the Aegeanan anthro type. This also connects some modern Bulgarians to some Greeks and people of other national backgrounds, which contrary to showcasing nationalistic divisions actually goes to show that various divided peoples have more in common then various sources of nationalistic propaganda would have them believe in the first place. This information can be placed in there in a way that fits perfectly with said other sources. Thank you for your comment in this discussion.--Monshuai (talk) 09:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Russell Blaylock

Is this an acceptable source to provide information that Russell Blaylock is an author and lecturer as well as being a radio guest? Thanks.163.1.147.64 (talk) 08:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

As it's an anti-vacc site, and that is a BLP, I'd say no. Verbal chat 09:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Is being an an "anti-vacc" site relevant? If it is, does that matter for a BLP when none of the information the source is suggested to support pertains directly to vaccination, it pertains to his being an author, a lecturer and a radio guest, nowt to do with 'anti-vacc' specifically. Comments from editors who have not previously expressed an opinion on the article's AfD and/or been involved in edits and reversions to the article would be most welcome.163.1.147.64 (talk) 10:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Whatever it is, its a WP:SPS and not reliable, especially not for a BLP. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be a private charity run by two persons [[53]]. It appears to be Self Published, and an advocacy organisation. it also does not appear toi have been given much in the way of medai attention (thus raising doubts in my mind as to exactly well respected the organisation is with regards to fact checking (see its own artcile here [[54]]. As it is not making any contentious claims (with regards to this question) its use is not that serious, but I would say that other sources ae preferable and that it certainly has issues.Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I will continue looking, bearing this in mind. Other sources have stated his radio appearances, but none so far so clearly as this one.163.1.147.64 (talk) 13:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

What do users think of this? It’s self published, and it has no province, but if we assume it’s by the person it claims to be it should be fine[[55]].Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, this is already being used in the article and I think isn't up to date with the radio stuff - the generationrescue source mentions more named shows and has "over 100" syndicated shows for example, whereas Blaylock's own and other sites still have "over fifty" syndicated radio shows. The intial intro line is what I'm trying to get a better balance on - for some time it was "health practitioner, author, lecturer, and newsletter editor." but was changed to "...who writes and gives interviews on talk shows." but when I changed that this morning to "...author, newsletter editor and radio show guest." this morning (on my home ip), the newsletter editoring and radio show appearances, as "neither verifiable from current sourced material nor noteworthy", which, regardless of one's view on whether they add any notions of notability, is not entirely true - his newsletter is mentioned and referenced to his own site and the radio shows are mentioned, again using his own site for reference - so I did wish to improve on using his own site for those if possible. If after another good look about, I still find no better I will re-introduce this ref (which was removed and the general college site used instead to add words about the college) and also use the generationrescue source for his being an author, a lecturer and a radio guest.163.1.147.64 (talk) 14:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Slate magazine as a reliable source for the Taliban website

An IP editor has asked to this link to the "official" Taliban website to the Taliban article.

* Taliban's website (English)

He supplied this link to a Slate (online magazine) article as a source for the information. Another editor remarked that Slate is not a reliable source for information about the Middle East. The discussion is here. I looked at Slate and it has the appearance of a reliable news magazine, but I wanted to get some other opinions here. What do you think of this as a source for the official Taliban website? Celestra (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Couple of reliability issues.

In the following diff, I've had a few concerns with sources ignored and reverted. I'll keep this note in regards to one of the concerns and expand to others if necessary:

-- Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

www.humiliationstudies.org

I've removed a link to www.humiliationstudies.org from the article and ChrisO has returned it.[56] As far as I can tell, the link (http://www.humiliationstudies.org/news/archives/2005_10.html) is to a dead archive page in a blog. As such, it would seem like an unreliable source and I figure that ChrisO made a mistake here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)