Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 138

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 135Archive 136Archive 137Archive 138Archive 139Archive 140→Archive 145

"Darío Fernández-Morera: "The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise" The Intercollegiate Review

Roscelese talk delets

Her Spanish colleague Darío Fernández-Morera takes the opposite view, arguing that "Islamic Spain was not a model of multicultural harmony. Andalusia was beset by religious, political, and racial conflicts controlled in the best of times only by the application of tyrannical force (by its rulers)

‎saying; (a source from an agenda-based organization does not refute real sources) [1] I checked the source and found it to be OK at worst so I restored [2] again deleted as an unreliable source (rmv poor source; neutral point of view is not about "balance" at the expense of WP:RS) [3] The claim is contrary to the poets claim just above but the article is referenced and I will leave it to user Roscelese and others to make a case J8079s (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The Intercollegiate Review, contrary to its academic-sounding name, is a publication from an, ahem, "pro-Christian" and "pro-European" think tank, not a scholarly institution. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that's putting it lightly. It's religious/political propaganda thinly disguised as a scholarly journal. Not reliable for anything on WP. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
It's all about context. The bar is set very low when it comes to who holds an opinion.[4] Regardless of the direction of the "bais" they are still Reliable for the claim that the author of the article holds the views expressed. The edit summaries and talk here leads me to believe this is a content dispute.J8079s (talk) 22:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Nope. It's not an "opinion". It's a statement about a scholarly topic. Sorry, even for scholarly opinions, your going to need a genuine scholarly source, and this is most certainly not one. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry that I might have given you the wrong impression this is not a scholarly debate it is a debate among scholars. The Ornament of the World is also editorial opinion by María Rosa Menoca (a love song to the poets) she does not cite any sources and makes no attempt at balance, closer to historic fiction than a reliable source. Reducing 800 years of history to he said/she said is not how we build an encyclopedia. J8079s (talk) 04:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Exactly so! In order to avoid "he said"-"she said", we admit only reliable sources, rather than including inferior sources as "balance" to better sources. That's what I've been explaining to you the whole time. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Regardless of any perceived bias by the Intercollegiate Review's parent organization, the author's bio suggests a serious and perfectly authoritative scholar at a major university that's certainly not known as a religious-extremist institution: "Associate Professor of Spanish and Portuguese and of Comparative Literature at Northwestern University. He is also a member of the National Council on the Humanities. His most recent book is Cervantes in the English-Speaking World (2006), co-edited with Michael Hanke." I can't conceive of any neutral, non-political reason why his scholarly paper is any less acceptable than one of any comparable professor / editor / NCH member. His view can always be balanced by an opposing view. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Because it's not a scholarly paper. You're begging the question here and it undermines your entire comment. If his argument is sound from a scholarly perspective, why has he been unable to get it published by a source that meets the standards of WP:RS? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I may be misreading, but I'm afraid It sounds as if you're accusing the author of illegitimate thought because his politics don't align with yours. You may not agree with him, but to denigrate a professor at Northwestern University and say his thoughts on a subject matter in which he's well-versed are invalid I find remarkable. Perhaps it's how you're expressing yourself, but it sounds as if you're pursuing a political agenda and squelching a view in opposition to yours. Where is it said that the publication does not meet WP:RS? I couldn't find that in the Noticeboard archives. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Well, since you ask about past occasions where it's been brought up at RSN, I'll point you to the only other occasion, where it was soundly rejected as a reliable source. However, if it hadn't been - that's why we're discussing it here, to determine whether or not it's reliable. As for the other point of your comment, that he is a professor so it doesn't matter in what venue he expresses his opinions - WP:V and WP:SCHOLARSHIP disagree with you, stating that the reputation of the publisher for fact-checking and quality is the important consideration. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate you pointing me in the right direction; that was considerate, and I thank you. I don't actually read that it was "soundly rejected": I see one editor saying, "Intercollegiate Review does not qualify as a peer-reviewed journal. Therefore, it appears clear the the source is not a Reliable Source in general, although it may be considered reliable as either the viewpoint of [an article's author] or of Intercollegiate Studies Institute," while another editor says, "Meh. Peer-reviewed helps, but isn't required." No other editors commented after this, so it reads as if there was a stalemate and no consensus to reject it.

I do see at WP:SCHOLARSHIP that, "Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals." Do we know for sure it's not peer-reviewed? I'm not sure where the reputation of the publisher as having poor fact-checking and quality is coming from. I can see there's disagreement with its political stance — and I'm no conservative, so I understand and I know it's a principled disagreement. Still, it sounds as if one wants to reject this article because of the publication's politics. What do other editors think? --Tenebrae (talk) 03:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I see Taemyr rejecting it as a "very biased source" (that, if used at all, would need to be explained as such), Paul B rejecting it, LK rejecting it, and Squidfryerchef saying it's not terrible but that the material should be able to be found in other sources. (Which seems like something we could do here, too - if a scholar has published a similar opinion in a reliable source, fair game.) It looks fairly conclusive to me, but that doesn't mean there aren't other solutions.
I don't see that it even claims to be peer-reviewed, and if it did, such a claim would be highly suspect because it is not published by an academic institution. That's the problem with it - not its bias per se, but the fact that it comes from a source where bias is the point. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
I did see the back-and-forth, but it didn't seem definitive. Far more convincing is your point that it's not published by an academic institution, which does open up reasonable charges of bias. On the other hand, the author isn't an employee of the institute but a presumably independent scholar at a respected university.
I've looked around and I'm finding it's hard to say definitively whether or not it's peer-reviewed. The library software company ExLibris [5] lists it as peer-reviewed here, here and elsewhere, though it does say that the Intercollegiate Review supplement Academic Review is, indeed, not peer-reviewed, here.
It's a tough call, and I completely see your point and the need for caution. Obviously, we don't want to disseminate deliberately biased, unscientific material. On the other hand, finding and keeping jobs in academia is so much tougher these days, and the imperative to publish stronger than ever, so I can understand how a neutral scholar may not get his article into his first choice of journals and have to settle. I probably don't have much else to contribute to this discussion, but I thought I should add these considerations to the mix. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 04:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
It's exactly this "settling" for an inferior outlet that is the big red flag here. As you rightly point out, getting one's work publish in prestigious journals is a matter of academic bread and butter. Getting the paper published by the Intercollegiate review did little to further the career of the author. The fact that the author had to "settle" is a good sign that their work was of insufficient merit to publish elsewhere, and probably had been rejected by peer-reviewed journals. Or that the author realized that the work was of insuficient merit and didn't even bother to submit it to peer-reviewed journal. Away from the prying eye of peer-review, the author is free to spin just about any nonsense they please, and no one spins nonsense better than an academic who is "off the clock", so to speak. That the journal has a strong ideological mission to promote "the core ideas behind the free market, the American Founding, and Western civilization that are rarely taught in the classroom" brings into question their motives for publishing this paper, and it is much more reasonable to presume that they published it because it advanced their own ideology rather than because it had any real scholarly merit. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Not really related to this particular instance, but to the vagaries of publishing in general, I think it's important to throw out any automatic assumption that he only published it in this journal since the paper was crap and no "real" publication would run it. The point I was making is that competition is so much fiercer now that even great papers can't easily get published. I and many of my peers who work for major newspapers can still find ourselves publishing material on websites rather than real magazines though our material is as good as anything we normally write. I'm talking about film critics and writers whose names you'd recognize. It has nothing to do with the quality of the work. Try publishing a children's book or a cookbook, for example, through a legacy publishing house if you're not a celebrity — the nurturing midlist is virtually gone, and publishers only want what they think will be home runs and not solid singles or doubles. (How'd that work out, New York Yankees / A-Rod?) Whatever the merits or not of the Intercollegiate Review, please don't make assumptions castigating the author.
Unless you write for a living, you have no idea how harsh it is. I've written hardcover books, including one on a weighty topic of national concern, as well as substantive trade paperbacks on entertainment topics.Yet my very-well-paying bread-and-butter is writing about celebrity crap. I still write comics and still write substantive magazine pieces on non-entertainment topics, but they don't pay like the celebrity crap for which I'm way overqualified. Get yourself a mortgage and kids in college, and you'd do the same. So unless you know this academic personally, don't make assumptions on why he chose that venue in which to seek publication. If the cases of good, name writers whom I know are any indication, choices are limited if you're not already a celebrity or a brand name in your field. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's all just special pleading. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I wish people would read more carefully before speaking. As I said at the very beginning, my post was "Not really related to this particular instance." I was not speaking about the Intercollegiate Review, but cautioning that people should not make ignorant comments about publishing if they have no idea how it works. I really don't care about the Intercollegiate Review. But you took a cheap shot at a professor and made POV assumptions. That is what I was commenting on. Not the Intercollegiate Review, but your snide and ignorant comments about publishing. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
The "journal" is not a reliable source. Fernández-Morera may be a serious scholar, but he is a professor of literature, not a historian. Not a reliable source for any statement of fact, and I see not reason why this would be a notable and weighty opinion that should be included. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The source is WP:reliable, the scholar holds a post at Harvard university (see Darío Fernández-Morera). The opposition to it seems to be driven mainly from ideological reasons (allegedly "pro-Christian" and "pro-European" for some taste as if this were a valid reason for exclusion even if true). His critical stance on the "tolerance" of Al-Andalus is anyway echoed by several colleagues, so this discussion is pretty moot: there are other scholarly sources in Spanish which share his view and which can be quoted in support. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The Intercollegiate Review is peer-reviewed according to the database of the Colorado State University Libraries which is also used by a number of other scholarly institutions. Since WP:SOURCES stipulates that "where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science", we can close this discussion with good faith: being published by a Harvard academic in a peer-reviewed journal, "The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise" is nothing but WP:reliable. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 03:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Not quite, even if it is peer reviewed and may considered as formally reliable it still a long shot away from a reputable history journal. The latter should be used for sourcing disputed historical claims. It is true that Fernández-Morera seems to be a reputable scholar, however he is a professor for comparative literature and not for history/archeology/islamic studies. So polemically speaking we have an academic publishing on a subject outside his core expertise in a second rate christian oriented journal. That is anything but an optimal source and needs to be treated with caution. Personally I find the title and subject already dubious. Maybe his so called "myth" does indeed get propagated by some circles, but the notion that any serious historian would claim that the period of Islamic Spain (even at its peak) would have been a "paradise" of a society without violence or religious conflict is rather absurd for the reason alone that a such a thing hardly exists in history at all and certainly does not match what we know about this period. In other words the "myth" that Fernández-Morera claims to destruct seems to be a strawman to begin with.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
The scholar in question is a reputable scholar. For a source to be considered reliable, that is sufficient for inclusion, even if the journal is not quite peer-reviewed. In such an instance, the opinion should be attributed ("According to..."), but there is no reason the material should be excluded. Athenean (talk) 13:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
No, not necessarily. The domain of the scholar and the journal matters and its reputation in the domain to which the subject of the WP article belongs. To give an extreme example we usually do not include (dubious) math claims made by English professor in literary magazine into the according math article, no matter whether that literary magazine is peer reviewed or not. Now in the case at hand it is less extreme/obvious and hence a bit of grey area, that article could be included, but there may also grounds to exclude it or rather to drop it for better sources (an article in a peer reviewed history journal by some reputable historian for instance). The same thing however does not only apply to Fernández-Morera but also to the source for the opposing view (another professor for literature). It would be better for the WP article to drop such "second rate" partially agenda driven sources and cite some proper historian instead. In the end this comes to editorial discretion for the editor involved with the article. In that their consideration they should use the result of the notice board, that is that we have a reputable scholar publishing in a peer reviewed journal, but neither the scholar nor journal seem to have a particular reputation in the domain required for the article.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you: Less controversial sources should be found if available. And to state something else becoming increasingly obvious by the way new objections keep being raised ("It's not peer-reviewed." "Yes, it is." "Well, that's still not good enough.") ("The scholar's a hack." "No, he's a reputable Harvard scholar." "Well, that's still not good enough.") leads to a distinct appearance that the real objections to him are ideological: Some editors don't agree with what he wrote, and are looking for reasons to exclude him. I'm not saying that's the definite reason, but that's unquestionably the appearance. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
This is probably part of the problem. But the fact remains that the Intercollegiate Review is not a reliable source in general - it's not better than e.g. the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons or Chaos, Solitons & Fractals or the Australasian Journal of Bone & Joint Medicine. It has the outward trappings of an academic journal, but does not follow normal protocols and, to but it politely, publishes things that suit the agenda of the publisher without serious consideration of the scholarly merit. And no, being "a serious scholar" is not enough to be taken seriously in a field outside ones specialty. It's a bit like me publishing on problems with the fossil record in Creation Research Society Quarterly. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Kmhkmh, your personal view of a "formally" reliable source has, I am afraid, no basis whatsoever in the WP guidelines - unless you can cite them to support your interpretation. Likewise Stephan theorizing along the lines of "not a reliable source in general". Since WP:SOURCES holds that academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources and since it has been now established that The Intercollegiate Review is peer-reviewed, it is a reliable source, and among the most reliable sources at that. This is nothing which can be negotiated against the guidelines.

As for Fernández-Morera's scholarly background as a literary professor, you make it sound a bit as if he were daring to talk about topics as remote as the pleistocene or Japanese history. As it is, his core research interest is the Spanish Golden Age and relations to Islam. If WP were to follow your formal criteria of inclusion, it would have to remove the most notable Western scholar on Chinese technology Joseph Needham, to give but one example, as he was actually a biochemist by profession, and never received any academic training in history or sinology. Despite this, he is widely cited and rightly so.

Tenebrae has rightly pointed out how the constant changing of goalposts evident in the discussion rather points to an underlying WP:IDONTLIKEIT problem. Look, it is not like Fernández-Morera is alone in his criticism of the retroconcept of convivencia. Far from it, although he is quite outspoken, he is only one of many scholars sharing such a view. David Nirenberg, Richard A. Fletcher and Bat Ye'or (The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians Under Islam) all have attacked the idea of a "tolerant" Andalusian society on varying grounds. Islam never knew nor wanted tolerance in the modern sense but organized its societies and non-Muslim subjects on the basis of the dhimmi hierarchy which is nothing but a two-class system. Fernández-Morera says only as much.

So, instead of losing ourselves in a proxy debate about the alleged lack of reliability, I volunteer to gather more scholarly, reliable literature in the vein of Fernández-Morera. By doing this we show that he is not an eccentric loner as some editors (like to) portray him, but actually representative of a school of thought critical of what one can call the tolerance myth; we do this of course on the basis of WP:WEIGHT which requires us that "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" should be proportionately included in the article. Since his article is somewhat polemic as he seemed to feel the need to address particularly the laymen, I readily agree to put him at the more radical end of criticism in an attempt to move on. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

You seem to overlook the word "usually" in your quote of WP:SOURCES. The Intercollegiate Review is not a "usual" scholarly journal. It's published by a political organisation with a very determined outlook, and publishes papers supporting that outlook. You are welcome to try to find better sources, but what you describe is a classical fishing expedition feeding into confirmation bias. Given the amount of scholarly publishing, you will find some support for every preconceived notion. This might work on Wikipedia, since WP:V is all we have, and WP:RANDY roams freely, but it is not an approach likely to give you a reasonable overview of the state of the field. The predominant scholarly view is for more nuanced than the straw man "Andalusian Paradise", and also much more nuanced than your "nothing but a two-class system". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
It is true that personally "don't like" the source since it's content & structure seems somewhat questionable to me as a outlined above. That is a reason why personally would stay away from such a source. However in addition to my personal suspicion, which is not really relevant for the policy but just some context information, I've given policy based reason and is that the domain and reputation matter, which you neglected above and which is essentially the same as Stephan's argument. Fernández-Morera is primarily a reputable scholar for literature not (medieval Spanish) history, you may however argue that there is a certain overlap, that's why I called it a grey area above. If his article had been published in a reputable history journal then there wouldn't be any grey area, but he hasn't. The journal he published is not a reputable academic journal, but a think tank publication, that might apply some sort of peer review. Clearly there are much better academic sources for that period of Spanish history and those should be used in the article. If you think Fernández-Morera's opinion is widely shared but academic historians, just cite such a historian.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Then we found common ground because this is exactly what I already announced to do, namely finding and citing more scholars sharing his overall critical view (actually, Fernández-Morera cites some of them himself; googling for "convivencia mito andalus" gives a first idea of how much criticism of the concept of convivencia has made its way from scholarship into mainstream). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:SOURCES and WP:IRS both say that reliability can reside with the author, rather than the publication. Journals don't have to be peer-reviewed to be reliable sources, but regardless of that, we can focus on the author, not the journal, per IRS (bold added): "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both."

So the question is: can Darío Fernández-Morera, Associate Professor in the department of Spanish and Portuguese at Northwestern University, be regarded as authoritative in relation to the history of Islamic Spain and "The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise"? That boils down to whether he has been published before about these issues by independent publishers, per the "expert exemption" of WP:SPS. If he has been published before in this field, then his essay can be used as a source.

If (a) this is the first time he has written about this topic, and (b) he chose to make his only appearance on it in a journal that some say is not an RS, and given that (c) his qualifications (PhD Harvard, comparative literature) are only indirectly related, then no. (Another factor would be what his PhD thesis was on; if it was related to Islamic Spain, that would change things.) SlimVirgin (talk) 00:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Use of Census-Designated Places as geographical authorities

Once again I've come up against the use of a CDP map as an authority for saying that some location is within a certain town. In this case, the claim is that the Howard County Public School System is located in Columbia, Maryland (see this edit for an example). The truth is that the board of education buildings sit on a state road just outside Columbia and are not part of the "new town" land (i.e., they aren't taken from land that the Rouse Company owned and applied it CA covenants to). The post office gives the offices an Ellicott City, Maryland zip code, which is equally misleading.

Howard County, Maryland has no incorporated areas, so truly definitive boundaries for any community are impossible—except in the case of Columbia, because its boundaries are generally bounded by what land the Columbia Association controls through covenants. The Columbia CDP is much larger than that area, and incorporates large areas which anyone who actually lives there never considered part of Columbia (e.g. they simply ignore the town of Clarksville, Maryland and assign all of that area to Columbia). This has led to a lot of implication, particularly in the article on the town itself, that various things are in the town of Columbia proper when they actually are not. All of the former Simpsonville, Maryland surroundings were given Columbia zip codes, but that area lies outside of and preexisted the new town. Clarksville is a somewhat distinct place with its own zip code.

CDPs are lines drawn for statistical collection convenience, because the census has to say that everyone is somewhere. They shouldn't be treated as if they were municipal boundaries. My parents' house appears, from the CDP maps, to lie in Scaggsville, Maryland, but that is incorrect; in fact as far back as I can recall there's never even been a post office for the town. The post office calls the area Laurel, Maryland although it lies outside that city's incorporated limits. I would like to see this use of the CDP maps deprecated. Mangoe (talk) 13:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you make an excellent point and would agree that CDP maps aren't reliable for this use. TimidGuy (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

What kind of sources do we need for simple dictionary-style definitions?

Sorry to post here again, but I've seen another problem come up a few times, where a simple definition or etymology of a word is tagged as needing a source. I know Wikipedia is supposed to rely primarily on secondary sources, but for simple dictionary definitions is a literal dictionary definition not enough? elvenscout742 (talk) 02:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

It would be useful to know what you are talking about exactly. Generally, a well-regarded etymological dictionary or an academic paper will be the best sources for etymological information. For definitions, dictionaries are generally reliable but (1) the circumstances in which they are useful is limited and (2) the community has rejected the use of dictionaries as imprecise in the past. But there is no way of saying for sure without knowing what the particular issue is. Formerip (talk) 02:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
The article is tanka, and the specific issue was highlighted in my recent edit here. That the word waka (poetry in Japanese) is used as a distinguisher from kanshi (poetry in Chinese) is given most Japanese dictionaries; it isn't even really an etymological issue, since it is a core part of the definition. (I will probably be removing the statement, with its source, to Waka (poetry), where a similar statement already exists, sometime soon anyway, though. I'm asking here for clarification.) elvenscout742 (talk) 02:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Tough Crowd with Colin Quinn

Good day, I hope this is the right place to ask, but I would like to verify whether YouTube videos of this old TV show (posted by apparently anonymous individuals and not an official broadcaster's account) can be: 1) citations for a table of episode casting and 2) listed as a channel listing in the External Links section? Most of these videos are of entire episodes of the show. I was of the opinion that such is a copyright violation (regardless of the fact that the copyright owner has clearly not taken efforts to enforce their copyright)? I'm sorry if this has been asked/resolved before; I was unable to find any policy that directly speaks to this. DP76764 (Talk) 21:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

You're right: these are copyright violations (almost certainly) and for that and other reasons we should not cite copies of TV shows found on YouTube. I am sure this has been discussed before. I haven't looked back, but I don't believe there was any serious opposition to this conclusion. Andrew Dalby 14:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the sanity-check assistance; much appreciated! DP76764 (Talk) 18:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

School of Advanced Military Studies use of PhD dissertation

In a recent A-Clase review, the article School of Advanced Military Studies was denied an A rating because of use of a PhD dissertation. The final comments in the discussion, which can found here, were:

I understand the concern about the citations from the 25-year history of the school. If those passages were replaced with similar (but probably not exactly the same) passages sourced from Kevin Benson's dissertation (the same author, but oversight by a dissertation committee from the University of Kansas), would that be acceptable as a source? --Airborne84 (talk) 07:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
No, as there's no getting around the problems with the former director of this institution writing a history of it (I'm surprised that the University of Kansas permitted him to write a PhD thesis on this topic). Nick-D (talk) 08:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

To me, that logic would seem to run against WP:SCHOLARSHIP which states "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. They have been vetted by the scholarly community", and "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable."

I am trying to get a non-copyrighted version of the dissertation and upload it to wikisource so that the community can better judge the work. However, I wanted to start a discussion concerning the use of the dissertation in the article. I asked for a WP:GA review, so I am hoping to come to a consensus on the use of the dissertation and how that should effect the articles quality rating. Thanks. Casprings (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

As I understand that the issue is not that the source is not scholarly enough, but that is may have a conflict of interest regarding the subject. Whether such an conflict of interest matters depends on the particular context. As general rule of thumb: The more controversial or disputed a topic/piece of content is, the more important it becomes, that sources are from a reliable/reputable 3rd parties without a conflict of interest.
Another thing to consider, is that various reviews & rating processes might apply a higher set of standards than the one we ideally expect from normal articles and codify the our policies, which are the ideal minimal standards an article should adhere to.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Rather that one of my comments being posted slightly out of context (I think), I'd suggest that other people read my full review and the comments left by other editors. My overall concern was that the article was highly sympathetic to this institution, and was largely referenced to works which were either published by the institution or written by people closely associated with it. Given that the source in question here was a history of the institution written by its former director, my concern was that it contained a significant conflict of interest which had probably contributed to the tone of the article (which other editors raised concerns about). As I noted in the above quote, I'm amazed that the university allowed the former head of the institution to submit a history of it as a PhD dissertation (particularly as the University of Kansas is a well regarded university). Nick-D (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I would agree with your overall concern, at least concerning the text of the article. I think a recent copy edit has reduced that a great deal. On the topic of the PhD dissertation, I am not surprised that the university of Kansas allowed that. Most committees judge the work, not ones connection or lack of connection to the subject of the work. Casprings (talk)
Like Casprings, I'm not surprised the University accepted the PhD proposal.
In practice, I'd say, detailed histories of currently active institutions are usually written by employees, retired employees, or authors funded by the institution. COI in all cases. In that context, a retired employee who submits his finished work to an independent PhD committee -- and they accept it -- is about as good as you might expect to get. I'm not saying we on Wikipedia shouldn't strive for balance, find a neutral point of view, and seek independent sources -- we should, of course. Andrew Dalby 12:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
The general topic isn't that controversial. SOme aspects, war planning for the Iraqi war for example, might be controversial. Casprings (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree at first glance i confused it with another (controversial) school.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Are Frontpage Magazine and Steven Plaut reliable sources on Bolshevik?

On the article Bolshevik, two editors (one subsequently blocked as a sock of the persistent Runtshit vandal) have repeatedly to the lead added a questionable assertion, sourced to an article by Steven Plaut in Frontpage Magazine. The assertion is "Some authors have claimed that Bolshevism was actually a theology", subsequently amended to "Some authors have claimed that Bolshevism had strong features of theology"; the source cited states "Bolshevik thinking in the early days carried strong features of theology" There are several problems with this. In the first place, the source does not actually described Bolshevism as "a theology"; rather that, in the early days, it "carried strong features of theology". Second, this is not "some authors", but one highly conservative and notoriously POV polemicist (Steven Plaut). Frontpage Magazine has been discussed several times on this board, and the consensus has been that it is not reliable, and certainly not withpout attribution. Eg: "On the simplest possible grounds FrontPageMag.com fails the WP:RS test. It's self-published & it's making an exceptional claim while being an "extremist" source (extremist in WP:RS's terms)"; "FrontPage magazine is essentially one big editorial that pushes a conservative political agenda"; "FrontPage is never reliable for news purposes. Some of its columnists may, if they are established experts in a given field, be useful for analysis or commentary. As a whole, FrontPage may be useful sometimes for criticisms or commentary, but given its highly dubious reputation I would recommend a "ten-foot pole" rule, ie, don't report lurid details or uncorroborated allegations, and certainly not about living people.". To my considerable surprise, Plaut himself has never been discussed here, though there have been several discussions about use of his opinions at WP:BLPN, where the consensus appears to be not to use him: "Plaut appears to have a reputation as an extremist and a defamer."; "Judging by the articles by Steven Plaut turned up by a Google search, it's hard to believe that any publication with aspirations to be a mainstream reliable source would, approvingly, publish any of his politically-oriented work. It's very difficult to see any reason why his opinions on anything apart from himself should be quoted in Wikipedia.".

My question is, should we allow the inclusion in this article of such an extraordinary claim, linked to a highly unreliable source which does not even support the claim? RolandR (talk) 12:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

RolandR, "Some authors have claimed that Bolshevism was actually a theology" is an extraordinary claim for you personally since you are a self-declared Marxist. As an article by me and Steven Plaut was published on the FrontPage Magazine, I cannot impartially argue about its reliability. As for keeping the claim in the article, more sources can be found to support the claim. Anna Geifman, a leading Historian of Russia, has a whole chapter in her book Death Orders: The Vanguard of Modern Terrorism in Revolutionary Russia about how Marxism is actually a pagan theology. I will cite the book after I find it in my university's library. Nataev (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't know what the hell you're talking about, except that your first sentence is an inappropriate ad-hominem characterization that should be struck-out or removed. 24.177.121.29 (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
It says "This user identifies as a Marxist." on RolandR's user page. So, don't accuse me of an ad-hominem characterization. Nataev (talk) 18:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Even if you're correct (I haven't checked, and I don't really care one way or the other), your statement is still an ad-hominem characterization. RolandR's beliefs have no relevance to this discussion. 24.177.121.29 (talk) 18:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I didn't understand you: if consensus appeared not to use this source, what is the reason to return to this issue again? Just delete this source, and if someone will try to re-insert it, go to AN/I.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Because the consensus related to other articles, and a source's reliability depends on the use that is made of it. I raised the issue of the particular source's validity in this particular article. Also, because the editors re-adding the text (including another blocked sock whose comment on the talk page has been revdelled) were responding in a very hostile manner, and I had no intention of allowing them to lead me into a 3RR trap. RolandR (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
3RR is not a dogma. You may report them even without that. It seems to me that the consensus was about the source as whole, therefore, if it is being used as a sole source to support some non-obvious claim, you may freely remove it, and, if someone will try to re-insert it once or twice (despite your explanations on the talk page), go to AN/I.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
This board and can't be used for blanket exclusion of sources.Each case should be examined separately.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Material in FrontPage magazine is not generally regarded as an RS, so everything depends on the author's credentials, and to what extent he can be regarded as an expert on Bolshevism. Has Steven Plaut been published elsewhere on this issue before? If we treat FrontPage mag as self-published, WP:SPS says: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."
If Plaut's opinions or research on Bolshevism (or very closely related issues) has been published by third-parties, and if commentators would generally regard him as having expertise in this area, I would consider using his article as a source on it (note: I haven't read the article). If not, then no. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree with SlimVirgin. Breaking it down the way I see it:
  • The source can be used as a source for the opinions of Plaut, as long as we do not think the source would fake such a thing.
  • The two concepts to be considered about whether to cite Plaut would normally be whether he is likely to have a reputation for expertise and accuracy on this subject (i.e. reliability, the subject of this noticeboard), and secondly whether he is WP:notable. These are linked concepts but not identical. For example (using a deliberately extreme example for simplicity) Hitler's opinions about what Aryan means are perhaps very notable, in the sense we can hardly ignore them, but not necessarily accurate.
  • In any case, both notability and reputation for accuracy are things which as SlimVirgin remarks, can be assessed by studying whether a person is widely cited by third party sources in any way.
  • Non-neutrality, the initial basis of the concerns in this discussion, is not really a reason not to use a source. Reliability and notability are possible for sources which are not neutral - not only Hilter, but in fact some people would argue that there are no non-neutral sources.
  • We use non-neutral sources in a neutral way on Wikipedia by trying to assess how sources reflect mainstream and well-regarded opinions about a subject. We then balance our reporting of opposed non-neutral views, for example by reporting two sides of an argument. But we do not need to report every argument that exists. It should be notable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Plaut is considered notable. He is a professor of Business Administration, so his expertise is in neither Marxism nor theology. But he is far better known as a conservative and pro-Israel polemicist; indeed, it is this, rather than his academic career, for which he is notable. In this case, a remark by him has been ascribed to "some authors", and is being added, without any explanation or qualification, to the lead section. The person doing this has identified himself as a graduate student of Plaut. I am arguing that, if this is to be added at all, it should be in the body of the article rather than in the lead; that it should be ascribed to Plaut rather than to "some authors"; and that some context should be given, rather than the bald statement that Bolshevism had "strong features of theology". I would also argue, though that is not within the scope of this noticeboard, that the entire issue is undue and fringe; but what I raised here was the reliability and citation aspect. RolandR (talk) 10:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Your style of reasoning sounds very logical to me. But it seems to be a matter of balance which is best dealt with at the article talk page. I think the comments above clarify the RS aspects which might be relevant.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I did raise this in the article talk page. The response was personal attacks (some now redacted), while one editor repeatedly re-added the material, without responding to the points raided. Nor has the editor responded here, although I posted a link to this discussion on the talk page. RolandR (talk) 13:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

ISM and Palestinian News Agency as source on Israeli settler violence

Is it not blatantly obvious that the International Solidarity Movement and the Palestinian News Agency aren't reliable for claims of fact regarding occurrences of vandalism in the West Bank? See, for example, this press release, which is currently citation #48 in said article.

24.177.121.29 (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Why is it blatantly obvious that the Palestinian News Agency is not reliable for this? nableezy - 19:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Does it government agency?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
It's obviously not a reliable source for claims of fact because, as an organization, it clearly has an axe to grind. Does the list of martyrs to the Palestinian cause they maintain on their Arabic (but not English) web-site convince you? Twentyfour-dot-something (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
And the Jerusalem Post or Yedioth Ahronoth dont have an axe to grind? nableezy - 19:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Please remember that reliability (the subject of this noticeboard) and neutrality (another aim of Wikipedia) are two different things. Arguably, most sources are NOT neutral, but we still have to use them. We do this by trying to report the mainstream and WP:notable views from all sides. (It is sometimes accepted that extremely non-neutral publications are obviously unreliable as well, but here I am not taking about for example being pro-Palestinian or pro-Israel.) Therefore, for more effective discussion, please reconsider what arguments there are about whether these sources are un-reliable, as opposed to being non-neutral. That is how discussion on this noticeboard should be framed. The other two issues relevant are due weight/ balance (WP:NPOV) and notability (WP:NOTE), which can be --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, neutrality is a distinct issue. That said, press agencies in general fall into two broad categories: the ones that are in the business of syndicating content between established news publishers (e.g. Reuters, AFP, United Press, etc.) and those that are effectively advertising agencies (e.g. Hill & Knowlton). The first group are often republishers - the reliability of their stories is as good or bad as the reliability of the original publisher. The second group have next-to-no reliability. Their job is to find ways to distort, select, and spin the facts presented to readers to the advantage of their customers. Even for these, the basic tests remain the same as for any other publisher. Do they have a reputation for objectivity and fact checking? Do they publish corrections or retractions when they get their facts wrong, without being forced to by outside actors? Do they clearly distinguish editorial opinion from factual reportage? Do they provide space for opposing views or just publish one side? LeadSongDog come howl! 20:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree Twentyfour-dot-something. Any source that has a list of martyrs cannot be used as a reliable source for facts. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
And why is that exactly?--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
That is an activist thing to do. It glorifies giving one's life for a cause. We are interested in knowing whether the source is reliable. If the source compiles a list of people that it is characterizing as being martyrs for a cause, it is playing an activist role. I think that should be seen by us as undermining that source's reliability. Bus stop (talk) 02:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Not necessarily, in fact whether some source contains a list of martyrs says in doubt little to nothing regarding its reliability. Calling someone a martyr might indicate a lack of neutrality, but that's about it, but as pointed out above neutrality and reliability are too different things. Depending on the exact context (possibly in this case) you might argue that the lack of neutrality leads to lack of reliability. However the general claim "Any source that has a list of martyrs cannot be used as a reliable source for facts" is more or less nonsense. The are probably quite a number of scholarly (and otherwise reliable) publications, that contains a list martyrs. We assess reliability by reputation and fact checking/error control mechanisms. LeadSongDog explained that nicely in the posting above AventurousSquirrel.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I think that everyone is right here: first, it is obvious that a list of martyrs is a possible sign of a probable "POV". But well respected media often contain such idealistic material concerning national heroes. The use of the word martyr has of course become an emotive thing but national heroes and people who sacrifice themselves for a cause etc etc are subjects that all nations are fascinated by, for better or worse. It is not Wikipedia's job to criticize that, except to the extent that we report the criticisms made by notable published people. But second, is a list of martyrs and a strong POV a sign of being a second rate publication? The Wikipedia "answer" is clear: there is no single simple answer. We should discuss which type of information is being sourced. We should discuss real cases.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Neutrality and reliability are two separate issues. TFD (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Misha B Music Genres

I regret that I have been involved in a content dispute with another editor, regarding which genres to include in the [Misha B]] info box. Currently the are no major first division music sources that define this artist genre, just the ones we have got.

Most sources we have point to including soul music in her genres They may not be the best sources but they are independent and neutral and wide variety sources listed below....are they good enough?


http://www.qxmagazine.com/feature/the-queen-b/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UlWJxY_49Y

http://www.flavourmag.co.uk/sneak-peak-shots-from-misha-bs-debut-single-home-run/

http://sosogay.co.uk/2012/singles-of-the-week-16-july-2012/http://www.dailystar.co.uk/playlist/view/263170/X-Factor-star-Misha-in-B-line-to-top/%7Caccessdate=21

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gu0AYRj7mxA

http://www.last.fm/music/Misha+B/+tags

http://www.dvdlyrics.com/lyrics-m-misha_b.htm

http://hmv.com/hmvweb/displayProductDetails.do?sku=484410

http://www.allgigs.co.uk/view/artist/71723/Misha_B.html

The sources covering her other genres like R&B are weaker, so if these are not good enough for 'Soul' then maybe all her genres ought to be removed.


See (sorry these are not neat Wikipedia internal links...i forget) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Misha_B ... Genre Changes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Zoeblackmore_reported_by_User:Jennie--x_.28Result:_.29.....Zoebuggie☺whispers 00:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Swaggernewyork

Hi fellow members, can you tell me if this website is a reliable source? My bait is it being a WP:SPS but I would want to have a better POV from you guys. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 04:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Far-left politics

I wanted to expand the Far-left politics article with some parties, movements and people described as far left on the political spectrum. I had previously noted how the article has expanded and then contracted repeatedly and was going nowhere. I used Google Book and searched for far left, radical left and extreme left. However my additions excluded but I am not sure which policy or guideline I am breaching. The reason provided was that while my statements are supported they aren't discussing the same topic as the article. The claim is asserted without providing any proof the topics aren't the same. The implication being that they aren't reliable. Could someone provide a policy page or guideline which explains why my additions should not stay? - Shiftchange (talk) 09:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. "In Wikipedia, things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by. In a dictionary, things are grouped by what they are called by, not what they are." You need to be clear that the authors are talking about the same thing. Other editors do not have to provide proof they are not the same. TFD (talk) 13:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Scientists in Forbes article

There is a debate at Talk:Prometheus (film) in regards to using this Forbes article.

In the Forbes article, scientists give their opinions on certain scenarios in the film Prometheus.

I'd appreciate some views on whether it is reliable for the claim that that scientists have "criticised the science" in the movie. On one hand this is a Forbes article which is generally considered an RS, on the other the piece starts with "I talked with five scientists and described scenarios in Prometheus that relate to their respective disciplines. Then I asked them some frankly leading questions", which suggests that some of the scientists may not have actually watched the film itself.

Is this article appropriate for the claim that "scientists have criticised the science in the film" even though the article implies they may have not watched it, or is the fact it is a Forbes article good enough? Betty Logan (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

It's a reliable source but it could be summarised a bit more carefully. I would use the "some leading questions" in quotes. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
This is a film about scientists who follow ancient star maps to mankind's original home. The article criticises the film because its scientists do not behave like real scientists. The real issue is weight. Unless the article was written by a prominent film reviewer or has received widespread attention, it is probably safe to ignore. Odd that the article concentrates on this aspect of why the film is scientifically implausible and ignores such issues as snake venom that melts metal and aliens who impregnate sterile women with killer "squid like" children. Let alone the basic premise of the film. TFD (talk) 09:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Use of ASAN source in Autism Speaks article

Autism Speaks (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Source: "Autism Speaks – Consider the Facts" (PDF). Autistic Self Advocacy Network (Flyer). Autistic Self Advocacy Network. May 16, 2012. Retrieved 2012-11-07.

Statement: Autism Speaks is often criticized by autism rights advocates including many autistic people who claim that it excludes autistic people from leadership positions, uses stigmatizing rhetoric, and focuses on issues that are not relevant to the autistic community.

Is it inappropriate to source claims that autism rights advocates/self-advocates make to an autistic rights/self-advocacy group? Would sources from multiple autism rights groups be better? - Purplewowies (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

If the criticisms have been covered by third parties, then the specific criticisms attributed to the specific speakers / groups making the criticisms probably can be included. basing a generic claim of "criticism" on self published "rants" is probably not acceptable. Again, the specific article content and the specific sources matter. the particular flier is probably not on its own an acceptable source for article content.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Okay, then I'm confused about the meaning of self-published, then, I guess. Thanks. - Purplewowies (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Billy Brandt

I am married to Billy Brandt and I have noticed that his ex's who have issues continue to change his biography to untrue information. What can be done about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrsBillyBrandt (talk • contribs)

Any biographical claims in the article Billy Brandt that are unsourced or poorly-sourced can be removed immediately. What information should be removed? Zad68 14:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
i blanked all the unsourced information about kids, but cannot do any more editing as the article flags "adult content" nannyware and I cannot get in anymore. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
This is a specialist bio covered by WP:PORN, I have notified the project. In my review of the bio I can't tell exactly what is contentious or how difficult it would be to source. Zad68 15:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Primicias 24 to dispute other sources

I have been involved in a discussion on the Derwick Associates page and a press release posted on Primicias 24 has been used to dispute the reports given by a few other sources. Some of my connections in Venezuela say that this is a government propaganda site, but they think every news site is a government propaganda site. All the advertising seems to be from the government and the content seems to be, at the very least, questionable in my opinion. Having said that, I'm still not sure. The other sources say that the sites have been abandoned and that they may not be in business while the press release and a government source suggest otherwise.

Here are the sources:

Justiciero1811 (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Caramba, amigo, thanks for asking for my help! I am not sure what to say except that all the sources are from Spanish sites. I was wondering if we could find a source in English. Also, do they think WIKIPEDIA is a government propaganda site, or Derwikk and associates? Antonio Boberto de Bienvenidos Martin (dito, dimelo en esta pagina) 13:01, 3 January, 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your response! My friends in Venezuela tell me that Primicias 24 is a government propaganda site. They also tell me that all the credible news agencies in Venezuela (the ones not run by the government) describe Derwick as a corrupt company that launders money for the government of Chavez. Personally, I'm inclined to believe the free press like El Universal, but that's why I'm bringing it up here! Justiciero1811 (talk) 18:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I am posting a response from User:Hahc21, which was on the talk page:
"Okay. When talking about news from Venezuela, the most reliable sources are well-established newspaper and several websites. As far as I can see, El Universal is the one to trust and follow. It is a very well establshed newspaper (I buy it every week or so although it is daily) and it rarely publishes false information. Press releases are to be treated with extra care if they come from the Venezuelan government, which has been the subject of many controversies regarding the veracity of information published by them (take the current health of Hugo Chavez as an example). My guess is to always try to find information from the most reliable sources, and those with no relationship with the government (if possible)." Justiciero1811 (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh)

This article has a section[14] sourced to a PDF[15] from the UN which is hosted on a blog on the international law bureau website. Does this fall foul of WP:PRIMARY? It is currently used as a source on information about BLP's. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

That material appeared to be an accurate reflection of the content of the UN report, and rightly placed it in that context. I'm not seeing the BLP implications given that a) the report is about government institutions and b) the material in the article seems to be an accurate account of what's in the report and c) I'm not seeing any reasons to doubt the credence of the hosting website (what are your specific concerns?). UN reports are often a good source for this kind of topic - I've used comparable UN documents in the FA Timor Leste Defence Force to discuss the failings of that institution and allegations of bad behaviour by named individuals. I note that you'd removed the material in question here, and I've re-added it per the above. Nick-D (talk) 01:06, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Reliable. UN documents are good for positions taken by UN. If there was press coverage use that as well. Remember WP:RECENT and draw on academic research papers when they become available. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Editor claims secondary source not reliable? Need consensus

Are the following secondary sources good sources for the content listed below?

Source: Youth Connection charter set to fire teachers, union cries foul

Source: Chicago Charter Teachers Fight for Their Jobs, And a Union

Article: Pilsen Wellness Center

Content:

In 2011 the teachers at Latino Youth High School formed a union with the Chicago Alliance of Charter Teachers and Staff (Chicago ACTS) in response to what they believed to be administrative mismanagement of the school. Although the union was certified by the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board and the National Labor Relations Board made clear that charter schools are public schools and are allowed to unionize under Illinois state law the administration of Pilsen Wellness Center has refused to negotiate with the school’s teachers.

Kausticgirl (talk) 05:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

What article does this relate to? Itsmejudith (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
To the article for Pilsen Wellness Center, the owner of the school. An editor has removed the above content because he feels the sources are biased and won't permit it to be reinstated until RSN states that the sources are acceptable. Kausticgirl (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Chronicles of Chaos

Is Chronicles of Chaos a reliable source from music reviews? I was removing nonprofessional reviews of some music articles, and was wondering if this one is appropriate to stay or not. The website: Chronicles of Chaos. Thanks. The1337gamer (talk) 13:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

If the lead in that article is true, then it seems acceptable for the specialized audience it caters to, as those music releases would presumably not receive reviews from the more mainstream, professional review sources. If more professional sources are available for a particular article/album, then they should be used instead, as WP:STICKTOSOURCE suggests, "the most reliable sources on a topic". Dan56 (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
You're using it to make statements about a reviewer's opinion, not to cite facts, right? Assuming that's the case, there shouldn't be much question of reliability. An opinion is an opinion. Maybe there's an issue of the notability of the review, but you can judge that case-by-case. TheBlueCanoe 02:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

How do we determine which paleontology theories to report?

We have an expert, Michel Laurin (talk · contribs), who wants to add paleontology content to the encyclopedia. He needs guidance regarding how we decide which current hypotheses to include in our articles. In medicine it's easy: we generally rely on scholarly reviews and textbooks. In the more poorly-funded sciences, where an important topic may languish for a decade or more between reviews, how do we best serve our readers? Do we wait the ten or fifteen years, or rely on number of citations and article talk page consensus?

The editor has published in the field, and has had WP:COI explained.

What is the status of Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(natural_sciences)? Does it reflect our usual practice in that area? If so, should we point Michel Laurin there? If so, should it be upgraded to guideline status?

The background is at User talk:Michel Laurin#Sources in medicine and paleontology. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC) Modified by Peter Brown (talk) 22:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The usual standards apply. Yes, point him to the essay. No, it does not need to be upgraded, as it explains how a policy is applied - the policy is what has the force, the essay doesn't need it. KillerChihuahua 15:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm asking whether it should be a guideline, not whether it should be a policy. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
The essay is concerned, throughout, with whether it is warranted to make a definitive claim. As noted, such a statement must be based on a consensus. Much of the material in paleontology that is of interest to the general reader, however, is uncertain, and neutrality requires presentation, not of a consensus, but of the major competing viewpoints. Which group is more closely related to the birds, the lizards or the turtles? The turtle theory is gaining adherents and may someday become a consensus position, but​—​as with a huge number of issues​—​no definitive answer can responsibly be stated. Besides an exposition of settled matters, an ideal paleontology article will contain snapshots of the current state of research in the major areas within the article's scope but cannot present a consensus that does not exist. The essay does need to be upgraded. Peter Brown (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Where and why exactly does you description require a change of the essay?--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Let's leave the essay/guideline question for now - perhaps to another thread - and focus on Michel's perceived problem. (I've restored this thread to its original title.) He and Peter above are saying scholarly publication in paleontology is very slow to review even highly-cited taxonomy or phylogeny theories, and there is a lot of contention in this unstable field. I'm suggesting that it may be appropriate in such a field for us to include theories that have been highly-cited but not yet subjected to independent scholarly review. That is, in medicine, reliable sources are almost exclusively secondary; are we more inclusive in fields that are unstable and slow to review? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I concur with Peter and Michel; the situation is similar in paleobotany. One exacerbating problem with independent review taking so long is that someone outside the field might discount a new and widely cited theory as having undue weight based on the absence of independent review, when in fact the contrasting theory is merely older. Textbooks in these fields are few and far between, and review articles are most often written by the authors of the primary literature (something common in many other areas of the natural sciences as well).--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Curtis, is there a Wikiproject that covers these fields? If so, should we point them to this discussion? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
WikiProject Palaeontology?--Curtis Clark (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Generalising is quite tricky. Outside medicine, I have no problem with reporting a primary source and describing it as "Dr X reported Y.." if it has appeared in literature, depending on how far off currently held consensus it is. We really need a link to each example folks are discussing over as it can be hard to generalise. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes it is a common challenge and definitely requires some good discussions between editors about how to properly balance things.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Punknews.org

I'd like to hear opinions about punknews.org [16] as a reliable source. I'm a little uncomfortable with the writers doing articles under psuedonyms (please spare me the historical examples, just because someone notable did it doesn't mean it's ok across the board) and the pro-am feel of the site, but I could be wrong. Opinions? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

i dont see that it would fall into the buckets of sites that we consider generally reliable. In particular instances perhaps. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
hmm it looks like it has been considered one of the acceptable sites at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Review sites. You may want to check with the Album review project and see if it is truly acceptable or if it got snuck in at sometime and no one has yet questioned it to cause its removal. the pseudonyms are troubling to me. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Only staff reviews are accepted from punknews.org. Non-staff reviews are listed under the non professional. It appears that anybody can submit news to the website; if this is the case I wouldn't consider it a reliable source. Maybe the listing of staff reviews from punknew.org as a professional review should also be contested? The1337gamer (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Huey P Newton

The following source: [17]

Is the reason for some contention on the article Huey P. Newton: [18]

There is also substantial discussion on the Talk page

This is the text:

Despite some involvement in social programs, the Black Panthers in Oakland, California, as well as other U.S. cities, never transcended their reputation for violence and criminality.[1][2][3]

As outlined in my comments on the talk page, this reference seems to have some POV issues, some WP:V issues, WP:PSTS issues, and does not appear necessary to support the statement, as other references are there. However, this position appears contentious, so I would appreciate some guidance on whether this source should be included or not.

Not a good enough source for contentious political biography. An opinion piece or essay that is part of the cut-and-thrust of the debate, not commentary standing apart from the debate. The author may have published more detailed material elsewhere that might be reliable. The viewpoint she is writing from is a mainstream one that probably needs representing in the article, but better sources are needed. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Creationist site studylight.org - is this really a reliable source?

Studylight.org is a creationist site affiliated with the Institute of Creation Research.[19], [20](which offers courses run by the ICR[21]. I ran into this at Thomas Chalmers where I discovered that the link that I thought would take me to the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition took me instead to studylight.org. It seems to be being used extensively as a source[22] and if I'm right needs to be added to the cleanup list at the top of this page. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Doug... hold on, I don't think this is the problem you think it is. (It's actually a different problem!) Studylight hosts a number of public domain reference works, including the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. The reference at Thomas Chalmers is supposed to point to this article, which is the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica article for Thomas Chalmers, and supports biographical background info. I don't see any problem with using Studylight for this purpose--to make public domain reference works available. It's like Bartleby. It would be a problem to use some essay at Studylight to support a theological point in an article, but I did not see that happening in the half-dozen or so uses of Studylight that I clicked on. The problem this might be is that we're using very old public-domain reference works in articles, but that's a different problem. Zad68 13:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I fixed the broken link at the article, check it out now. Zad68 13:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

There's an essay that discusses this issue: Wikipedia:Convenience link. Convenience links can be used, but should be replaced when better convenience links are available. Some of these links could be replaced with links to Wikisource or Google Books. I'm confident that Wikisource hosts the entire Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition.--xanchester (t) 14:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
And it does: wikisource:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica, although many of the entries are missing.--xanchester (t) 14:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
xanchester, thank you for those, both the Convenience link essay and the Wikisource reference, I will be making good use of both of those!! Zad68 14:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Another free copy of the EB 11th ed., complete I believe, is at www.1911encyclopedia.org (example page). One reason for avoiding the studylight link, if others are available, is that studylight has a nuisance popup asking for subscriptions. Andrew Dalby 14:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Lulu-published sources

I have a recurring problem with certain users insisting on the inclusion of references to works published by "Modern English Tanka Press" through Lulu Press on several articles related to tanka, haibun and tanka in English. My pointing out that they are effectively "self-published" has been met with rather irrelevant arguments that Lulu is a "print-on-demand service" rather than a self-publishing resource. I clearly expressed my concern here and here that since the books and "journals" have not actually been printed and hard copies do not actually exist until after a customer has paid, then they are effectively self-published. The "publisher"/"editor" for most of the works is Denis Garrison, but I have seen no evidence that he screens works or tries to insure that the information presented is factual -- and why should he? He doesn't actually pay to print them, unless they have already been sold to customers. However, when I pointed this out, the users claimed this is "my opinion" and should not affect article content. But it seems to me that that is the reason Lulu's website is blocked from Wikipedia is for this exact reason... elvenscout742 (talk) 06:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, it seems to me that it's irrelevant where a book is printed. I'd leave Lulu out of the discussion and focus on MET Press. TimidGuy (talk) 16:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Lulu publishes (nearly?) whatever anyone wants to have published. It's effectively not a publisher, but a press. It does no confer reliability. The "real" publisher in this case is MET Press. They also have an agreement that looks more like a self-publishing house, and they specialise in poetry, so I don't think they confer any reliability. In short, unless the author is a recognized specialist, the books in question are not a reliable source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry Stephan, I misread your comment and noticed after posting my general response below. My question is whether their being a self-publishing house that specializes in poetry (i.e., not academic literature) confers unreliability. I know that that is not necessarily the case, but it still seems inappropriate for encyclopedia articles to be citing those kinds of works in general. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
The default state of any piece of writing is "unreliable source". Unless there are good arguments for its reliability (establishing "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"), it is unreliable. That said, being published by a self-publishing house does not automatically make something unreliable - if Steven Weinberg publishes (hypothetical) On Fundamental Forces in Physics via Lulu, I would at least tentatively accept it as reliable. But the reliability in this case comes from the author, not the publisher. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Yup - I've just come to the same conclusion. Books from MET Press are self-published by any reasonable definition. As Stephan Schulz says though, the key issue is the credibility of the author, not the publisher, and without recognition from credible secondary sources, or evidence that the author is a recognised expert in the subject, it matters little who publishes a work. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Agree about focusing on the author, not the publication. WP:SOURCES and WP:IRS say that reliability can rest with the author. WP:SPS says we can use self-published sources if the author is an expert in the field who has previously been published in that field by independent publishers. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
I have tried to focus of METPress, but I have faced the problem that no matter how many faults I find in works they publish, and no matter how many reliable sources I find that contradict them, it still doesn't seem like absolute evidence that material published by METPress is not reliable in general. My argument has traditionally been that since they do not actually print the books and magazines that they claim to "publish", and do not therefore incur costs of production until after they have received payment (because they publish through Lulu), they seem to generally be lacking in editorial standards. This method of publishing gives them a motivation to put out as much stuff as they can, in the hope that some of it sells.
The authors of most of the questionable material are Jeffrey Woodward and "M.Kei", neither of whom are academics, and both of them are writing in fields that seem to be unqualified in. They generally do not cite sources, and have on numerous occasions made ridiculous assertions about classical Japanese literature despite neither of them understanding Japanese.
However, my problem remains -- is pointing out 100, or 1,000 inaccuracies in a particular author's work enough to discredit him/her as a source on Wikipedia? The reason I went with Lulu was that these authors' refusal to go through mainstream academic publishers seemed to be a decent indicator that they are not reliable academic sources for an encyclopedia. Any thoughts?
elvenscout742 (talk) 01:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Have the authors been published on this issue before in independent mainstream publications? That is, can they be regarded as authoritative in the field? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
No, they have not. METPress's Author pages for them[23][24] seem to indicate that neither of them has a strong academic background in the field of classical Japanese literature). They both appear to be career-poets, and have never published scholarly articles in mainstream academic publications. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Then I don't see much that would suggest this meets the standard for a reliable source. TimidGuy (talk) 11:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Lulu published stuff can never be considered a reliable source. It is purely user-created material that the user pays to have published. This is not to knock Lulu, however, I have used them to print my own calanders in the past. Arzel (talk) 16:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
If a known authority chooses to self-publish, the material is usable no matter how or where they publish it. But they have first to be shown as an authority. So it isn't actually "never" I think it likely we will see much more of this, especially in the arts and relatedfields, and we will need to find better ways of judging. . DGG ( talk ) 21:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
while it may come up more, it is already covered in the WP:SPS - without being published first by someone with reputation, self published stuff is not gonna cut it for an encyclopedia.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Trying to use state of Illinois audit as secondary source for article

Is the following secondary source a good source for the content listed below? All the relevant information is taken from Chapter One, Introduction and Background - Report Conclusions, pg. 1.

Source: MANAGEMENT AUDIT PILSEN-LITTLE VILLAGE COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, INC.

Article: Pilsen Wellness Center

Content:

In 2008 a special audit conducted by the Office of the Auditor General for the state of Illinois uncovered a number of expenditures, which were inappropriately charged to State programs at taxpayer expense and sometimes without documentation. Additionally, the auditor discovered that a third of employees did not have documentation to prove they were qualified for their positions. At the time of the audit 48 percent of the files also lacked documentation on performance appraisals.

Kausticgirl (talk) 05:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

As a primary source document, the audit report itself is of limited value. Such a finding should have been covered by the media, though. Use them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the advice. This report by Fox News mentions the audit. Would it in combination with the audit be valid sources? Or should I use only the Fox News report? Kausticgirl (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
The coverage in FOX does seem to be reliable coverage (as reliable as FOX gets). note that the article does have a lot of quotes of involved persons and so the coverage will need to be very careful to simply report the "factual" parts of what FOX and the audit specifically present as facts and not opinions or personal experiences. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Total Immersion

Total Immersion includes the following statement:

Total Immersion's popularity with triathletes is evident by the many interviews with the founder that have been done by various triathlon coaches, including Kerry Sullivan of the Triathlon Summit and Rockstar Triathlete Academy,[1] Patrick McCrann of Inside Endurance,[2] Simon Gowen of the Simon Gowen Triathlon Show.[3]

The three citations point to webpages: [1] http://www.triathlonsummit.com/index1.html, [2] http://www.xtri.com/all-articles/detail/284-itemId.511710350.html, and [3] http://www.latalkradio.com/Simon.php . Are these links sufficient to support the assertion in the statement? Thanks! Location (talk) 04:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

No - absolutely not. Citing a list of dubious links to 'demonstrate' popularity is WP:OR. Furthermore, the whole article is far too promotional, and frankly I doubt that it meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. Incidentally, 'using gravity as a propelling force' as claimed in the lede looks like utter bullshit too - classic WP:FRINGE material. The article needs a complete rewrite if it is to remain on Wikipedia - starting with evidence from independent reliable sources that it is in any way of encyclopaedic note. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback! Location (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia

Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia was a regional offshoot of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia. The latter might be a decent source on non-political subjects, but in general it was a Soviet propaganda source. I would like to ask whether the sources like Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia or Azerbaijani Soviet Encyclopedia could be considered reliable in history related articles. ASE was used in many articles in en:wiki: [25] I feel that the use of this source in controversial articles about the history is not justified, and more recent and neutral propaganda free sources are preferable. I would appreciate opinions about this source. Grandmaster 20:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Just because a text has been used in an article does not mean that text has been used as a source. However—generalist encyclopaedia should not be used as sources in history articles as they fail to represent the account of history constructed by appropriate experts. Generalist encyclopaedia have a purpose other than the best representation possible of the current scholarly account, and do not employ as a matter of course persons who can appropriately represent the current scholarly account. See WP:HISTRS for the kinds of sources you should be using in history articles. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I would just like to mention that the editors of the Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia placed their primary emphasis on articles on Armenia and the Armenians. Most of the contributors in the field were prominent and internationally recognized scholars and thus the authoritative figures on topics relating to Armenia's history and culture. I wouldn't use the encyclopedia's article on the United States as a source on its counterpart on Wikipedia, but these guys were the head honchos of the topics they studied. A number of scholars outside Armenia have consulted and cited the encyclopedia as a reliable source numerous times in their studies.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
The example I typically give there is Kropotkin's article on Anarchism for EB. I would suggest going through an SPS evaluation (in your head, or on the Talk: page of the article) of expertise in relation to such articles by such persons. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Just wanted to add few things. Viktor Hambardzumyan, an internationally recognized scientist so is considered on the founders of the Astrophysics, was the Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia's head editor. Most of the historical articles were written, obviously, from the Armenian point of view and the modern history, especially the era concerning the First Republic of Armenia was mostly from the communist standpoint and was anti-Dashnak, but its reliability cannot be argued, in my opinion. --Երևանցի ասելիք կա՞ 01:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I think there's a contradiction in what you say, because you admit that the ASE's historical articles were written from the communist standpoint, but then you say that its reliability cannot be argued. Grandmaster 06:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia should be avoided only in cases when it criticized people and events that were considered anti-Soviet in action or spirit. It is, however, a top source for research on non-modern historical topics. It has been widely quoted internationally and edited by the top internationally-recognized scholars of the time. User Grandmaster who posted this dubious request has been trying to cast doubt and discredit good sources in order to open way to push Azerbaijani nationalist propaganda. His actions should be curbed as he is acting in bad faith. As for the Azerbaijani Soviet Encyclopedia, it should be avoided both as a source for modern and ancent historical information since it was edited and managed by the Soviet era's most infamous plagiarists and revisionists such as Ziya_Bunyadov#Critics, who were widely criticized in the West for egregious violations of academic ethics and racist attacks . Sprutt (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
ASE cannot be considered reliable for a number of reasons. First, it is tainted by Soviet propaganda. Second, it is quite outdated. There are dated sources that have not lost their value to this day, for example Vladimir Minorsky who is widely referred to in the international scholarly community, but ASE is not a source of similar international acclaim. Third, ASE authors like Bagrat Ulubabyan are criticized for promoting nationalist agenda by experts on nationalism such as Victor Schnirelmann. And it is very difficult for people outside of Armenia to verify what ASE actually says, since as far as I know it is available only in Armenian. Also, I find the personal attacks and bad faith assumptions by Sprutt to be in violation of a number of wiki rules. Please comment on content, not the contributor. Grandmaster 06:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
One more reason why Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia can't be used as reliable source: Anti-turkism was one of the directions of USSR propaganda and it is one of the directions of Armenian propaganda as well, therefore USSR supported all efforts of Armenians on this issue. Best, Konullu (talk) 07:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The influence of Soviet propaganda is only seen in an article relating to the modern period (topics on the economy, the Cold War, the advent of Bolshevism in the Caucasus, etc.). What propaganda value can be attributed to a district belonging to a kingdom established two thousand years before the USSR was created? (Am I'm not talking here about Marxist interpretations of history and society). The ASE is found to be used in dozens of Western sources, as a Google search yields hundreds of results either as Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia or Soviet Armenian Encyclopedia. Third, the fact that some mild criticism at Ulubabyan does not condemn the rest of the contributors of the encyclopedia, many of whose works have been published in peer-reviewed journals. These include Aram Ter-Ghevondyan, Hrach Bartikyan, Karen Yuzbashyan, Suren Yeremyan, etc., with none of the opprobrium that has accompanied scholars from Azerbaijan.

So what is all this hoopla about if not simple disgruntlement that the history the world accepts as part of Armenia's history does not quite fit with narrative of lies and falsifications fabricated in Azerbaijan? And Konullu's comment deserves a huge "LOL".--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Shnirelman is quite critical of Yeremian's articles in ASE. He critically mentions at least 2 of Yeremian's articles in ASE, "Armenians" and "Greater Armenia". According to Schnirelman, Soviet propaganda forced all the ethnicities declare themselves to be autochthons in the areas they inhabited, and Armenian Soviet scholars were actively involved in this process as well. And that includes ancient history. Grandmaster 18:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
As demonstrated by Arsen Melik-Shahnazarov in his book, Schnirelman, who directed his criticism mainly against Azerbaijani pseudo-scientists, reluctantly extended his criticism to some Armenian scholars as well in order to fight accusations of one-sided analysis. As mentioned before, you can therefore safely discount Schnirelman's discussion of Armenian scholars as an awkward attempt at false balance. All this ASE thing is just one big bad faith hoopla. Sprutt (talk) 18:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
The opinion of an Armenian politolgist Arsen Melik-Shahnazarov is not sufficient to discount criticism of Schnirelman, who dedicated large chapters in his book to the criticism of the Armenian historical revisionism, substantial part of which related to Soviet times. Plus, Schnirelman is not alone. You can read about Armenian nationalist scholarship in the book by professor Philip Kohl, for instance: [26] Grandmaster 19:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

This is from an article by Ronald Suny, an ethnic Armenian US historian. He cannot be accused of anti-Armenian bias:

While from one angle historical writing in Soviet Armenia can be seen as part of a general marxisant narrative of progress upward from class and imperial oppression to socialist liberation, in the post‐Stalin years scholars promoted insistently national themes. Occasionally the regime would discipline the bolder voices, but Soviet Armenian historians waged an effective guerrilla war against denationalization of their history. The story of the republic of Armenia was told as a story of ethnic Armenians, with the Azerbaijanis and Kurds largely left out, just as the histories of neighboring republics were reproduced as narratives of the titular nationalities. Because the first “civilization” within the territory of the Soviet Union was considered to have been the Urartian, located in historic Armenia, the ancient roots of Armenian history were planted in the first millennium b.c. Urartian sites and objects of material culture were featured prominently in museums, and late in the Soviet period Erevantsis celebrated the 2700th anniversary of the founding of their city (originally the Urartian Erebuni or Arin Berd). Although the link between Urartu and Armenians took hold in the popular mind, most scholars believe Urartu to have been a distinct pre‐Armenian culture and language and, following Herodotus, argue that the original proto‐Armenians were probably a Thraco‐Phryian branch of the Indo‐European‐speaking tribes. Nevertheless, a revisionist school of historians in the 1980s proposed that, rather than being migrants into the region, Armenians were the aboriginal inhabitants, identified with the region Hayasa in northern Armenia. For them Armenians have lived continuously on the Armenian plateau since the fourth millennium b.c., and Urartu was an Armenian state. A rather esoteric controversy over ethnogenesis soon became a weapon in the cultural wars with Azerbaijan, as Azerbaijani scholars tried to establish a pre‐Turkic (earlier than the eleventh century) origin for their nation.



Ronald Grigor Suny. Constructing Primordialism: Old Histories for New Nations. The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 73, No. 4 (December 2001), pp. 862-896

Grandmaster 19:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Soviet Armenian scholars, Yeremyan especially, never claimed that Armenians were autochthons. Up until the late 1980s, they still adhered to the belief that Armenians had migrated to the Armenian Highlands during the second millennium B.C. (see vol. 1 of the History of the Armenian People series). It was only with the publication of Ivanov's and Gamkrelidze's book that there was a noticeable shift in thinking among the academic community, and this in the twilight years of the Soviet Union. Sprutt makes a good point in remarking that Schnirelman's "criticism" comes off as an attempt at false balance than any real, substantive condemnation of Armenian scholars, who having countless Armenian and non-Armenian primary sources on the Armenians during the ancient and medieval periods, never had any reason to exaggerate or distort history (barring one or two exceptions).

Suny was, by the way, trained as a scholar of the Soviet Union, not of Armenian history and culture. His works are not above reproach and have been criticized by more than a few scholars.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 19:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

And Yeremian wrote such works as "Проблема этногенеза армян в свете учения И.В. Сталина о языке // Изв. АН АрмССР. Сер. обществ, наук. 1951. N 6.". Translates as "Problem of ethnogenesis of Armenians in the light of the teaching of I.V.Stalin about the language". And you say that this author was free from communist influence while he tried to introduce it into ancient history? You might know that the communist ideology treated history as that of the class struggle. As for Suny, as a scholar of the Soviet Union he is well aware of what was going on in the historical science of the USSR. Again, Suny is not an ideal author either, but at least he is capable of impartial assessment of certain periods of Armenian history. Grandmaster 20:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Our discussion of course is after the Soviet state stopped micromanaging so heavily the interpretation of history, i.e., following Stalin's death. I don't have to mention the Japhetic theory, do I?
Again, this conversation is largely derivative. It spawned from the recent edits done on the Goghtn article, for which I have yet to see any significant objections to in the the sources consulted and cited.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Yeremian did claim that Armenians were autochthons. According to Schnirelman:

В своем подходе к этногенезу армянского народа Еремян исходил из автохтонистской концепции, начинал историю армян с Хайасы и доказывал, что их предки не имели никакого отношения к Фригии. С этой точки зрения, мушки не представляли для него никакой ценности, и он щедро отдавал их грузинам.


...

Иными словами, по концепции Еремяна, армяне являлись безусловными автохтонами на Армянском нагорье; они были носителями государственного начала с рубежа VII-VI вв. до н.э. и являлись как бы прямыми преемниками Урарту; к этому времени они ассимилировали все остальное население бывшего Урарту, которое перешло на армянский язык. Тем самым, формирование армянского народа и возникновение армянской государственности резко отодвигалось в глубь веков и предшествовало возникновению Персидской державы. С этой точки зрения, персы оказывались захватчиками, нарушившими естественный ход этнополитической истории армян. Положение улучшилось лишь во II в. до н.э., когда арменизация продолжилась, охватив Араратскую долину и более северные территории. Еремян настаивал на том, что к II - I вв. до н.э. процесс этногенеза завершился и сложилась Великая Армения с одним народом и одним языком (Еремян, 1951. С. 49-50).

Note that Yeremian made those claims before 1980s. Grandmaster 20:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I would have made this request regardless of Goghtn. We discussed ASE a lot at various articles, and never reached any consensus. This is why I want the community to express their opinion about this source. Grandmaster 20:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

What I see is that Grandmaster is reluctant to follow wiki rules and reach a consensus in Goghtn, and instead has decided to discredit an entire range of valuable sources in this post through demagoguery and needless hoopla. Sprutt (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Please mind WP:AGF and WP:NPA. This is a board for discussion of reliability of the sources. I have every right to ask the community opinion about questionable sources. Please comment on the subject, not the contributor. Grandmaster 07:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The way I read it, we have two editors here conscientiously defending very reasonable positions. I think this is basically a difficult balancing decision for the two of your to work out, but here are some pointers:-

  • Neutrality and reliability are two different things according to Wikipedia norms. No sources are truly neutral, and anyway very non-neutral sources can be important to report in order to give a neutral report of what is said about a subject.
  • On the other hand, there is a fine line and where we talk of old propaganda, from a past era that is now disowned even by some of the authors who were involved in that era, we can say that its reputation for accuracy is reduced. (But propaganda which is still happening and believed in is of course another subject, because obviously one person's propaganda is another person's real belief.)
  • From the discussion above, it seems clear that both editors agree that the source in question well-known and frequently discussed. In that case it is possibly WP:Notable even if no longer of the highest reputation for accuracy. One way of representing such sources, common in politically divisive subjects, is simply to "attribute" the opinion. So instead of saying simply "Armenian history is X", you can say "According to the Soviet era works of Mr Smithsky, Armenian history is X. This has been disputed by more recent publications such as Y." --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. I just wanted to note that this source is not very well known outside of Armenia, as it is written in Armenian. For the person who has no knowledge of Armenian it is not the easiest source to use. This source is mostly mentioned by the authors from Armenia or the Armenian diaspora, but even their opinion about this source is not always favorable. For instance, here's a quote from an Armenian author, [27] who wrote the following about ASE:

In the 1960s too, social science publications in Armenia and Azerbaijan did refer to the border conflict between them over N-K. In general, historians whose articles were published in a journal were considered "winners", which also meant that their national views did not contradict the general Party line. As such, they became the 'gatekeepers' of their national past. Indeed, different versions of the histories of nations and territories appeared in national historiographies. For example, Armenian historians in the Armenian Encyclopedia emphasized the Armenian myth regarding the contested territories of N-K and Nakhichevan. Only a short explanation was devoted to the existence of the Azerbaijanis in these territories. A short column referred to Azerbaijani music in Nakhichevan without praising the wise leadership of the Azerbaijani Communist authorities. Instead, the success of the flowering of Azerbaijani music was accredited to the 'Soviet era', meaning after 1922.

As you can see, even the Armenian authors admit that ASE was promoting the Armenian myth with regard to the history of the region. Grandmaster 06:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I mostly agree with Grandmaster here. This is a notable, but not a reliable source. The problem was not scholarship, but censored of everything by Glavlit. Yes, everything was political, and especially nationalities, where Stalin was such a great "expert" ("Проблема этногенеза армян в свете учения И.В. Сталина о языке" tells it all). Quoting by other sources does not prove reliability. For example, Kavkaz Center, a notoriously unreliable source per se, was quoted in many reliable sources. Same is here. My very best wishes (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

No one here is contesting the extremely powerful influence of Soviet propaganda on topics from the modern period, but to claim that the ASE is notable and yet unreliable at the same time is perplexing. There is a certain unevenness to an encyclopedia when its scope consists of everything from Armenian poets executed by Stalin in the 1930s to geographic regions from the ancient and medieval periods, which is where the ASE is mostly cited. Its individual authors consisted of modern historians, forced to adhere to the party line, but many of them were also widely respected outside of the Soviet Union (see the names I mention above). I don't know what Nagorno-Karabakh "myth" Geukjian is specifically referring to, but it seems to me that too wide a brush cannot be applied to all articles and entries. We have to evaluate a source and judge its appropriate for a certain article as it comes and goes. If a strong enough argument is made against its usage, only then it can be excluded.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 17:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

It is not just modern history, I think the sources that I quoted demonstrated that ASE was quite biased when it came to the ancient history as well. So in my opinion it is obvious that instead of using this dated Soviet source it is better to find a more recent and preferably third party source not tainted by communist propaganda or nationalism. Grandmaster 21:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
I think it should not be used as RS with regard to anything related to Nagorno-Karabakh, other ethnic issues in Caucasus (Chechen-Ingush, etc.) or other highly politicized events. I am not really familiar with N-R dispute, but Soviet Encyclopedia is also notoriously unreliable with regard to ancient history (Ivan the Terrible being probably the most famous example used in Soviet propaganda). My very best wishes (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
What I see here is a well-known approach widely used to demonize, blackball and exclude ideas, sources or even people by appealing to their "Soviet" provenance. Anti-Soviet, anti-communist and anti-Russian biases remain unusually strong in the West, and it is only too easy to find people ready to lash out again anything remotely Soviet or Russian. If anyone can bring examples showing exactly how ASE promoted unreliable information then we can debate what is at issue there. Sprutt (talk) 04:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
All perceived "political" publications, even such as descriptions of sports events or pure fiction (like books by Mikhail Bulgakov) were censored very literally, by removing paragraphs and phrases. One could not publish even a biology paper without approval from the First Department run by the KGB, and they would always approve it, unless your data contradicted official statistics or theories by Lysenko or anything else of political significance. So, I am not telling that all Soviet sources are unreliable, but the articles on political subjects in Soviet encyclopedias are definitely unreliable. My very best wishes (talk) 14:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
The censorship that you describe belong to the times of Josef Stalin while ASE started in the mid 1970s, when the Soviet intellectual environment eased up a lot. I agree that Soviet encyclopedias should be avoided as references to contemporaneous political issues. Ancient and medieval history, however, is fine unless articles are written or influenced by specific individuals or academic cliques known for fraud. Using a big brush in this case is unwarranted. Sprutt (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
No, the censorship I described took place in 1980s. Of course Lysenko was gone, but Glavlit remained. Every month every library in country received a list of books that should be destroyed. Those were actually books that already passed censorship and therefore were printed and distributed. For example, when Korchnoi left the country, sport calendars with his photo had to be destroyed. P.S. There is an interesting book, "The KGB plays chess" which tells a thing or two about this, and even about Tigran Petrosian. My very best wishes (talk) 06:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I quoted criticism of the articles in ASE by Shnirelman and even the Armenian diaspora historian Geukjian, who wrote that the ancient history related articles in this source were tainted by the Soviet propaganda and ethnic nationalism. I think the quotes I provided speak for themselves. Grandmaster 18:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, this propaganda/censorship/my-country's-info-is-better-than-your-country's-info debate is full of smoke and mirror and running in circles:

  1. What is the exact passage are you trying to cite with ASE?
  2. Is there an equivalent English or non-Soviet sources that supports the same passage?
  3. If there is no equivalent English source that support the passage, is the passage you are trying to cite is notable enough among modern scholars to be included in the Wikipedia?

If the answer to the above three questions is "no", then what the hell are people blabbering about? Provide some hard evidences (like providing author names, ISBN numbers and poll surveys) and no more frigging propaganda/censorship/my-country's-info-is-better-than-your-country's-info debate please! Jim101 (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem here is not just one article. You can see that this source is used in a large number of articles on ancient history of the South Caucasus, sometimes as the only source for particular claims. Therefore I would like to ask for the community assistance with evaluation of the general reliability of this source in the articles about the ancient history of the South Caucasus. I can cite examples, but it is not just one article, there are quite a few when this source is used to support the claims not found in any third party source about the same subject. Grandmaster 19:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
The community cannot issue an blanket ban on sources. For example, the official Chinese/South Korean history on the Korean War is deemed to be both censored, yet extremely valuable source among Cold War scholars. In such case, a blanket yes/no answer will not suffice. You have to bring out those examples one by one so that we can evaluate exactly what is going on according to the above three questions I raised. The current debate feels more like a shadow war among nationalist than a real RSN discussion. Jim101 (talk) 19:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not asking for a blanket ban. I understand that this source could be used in the articles about Soviet propaganda, or Soviet Armenia, etc. But this source received substantial criticism for promoting a nationalist narrative, and its counterpart Azerbaijani Soviet Encyclopedia is not much better. I just want to know if ASE could be used as a sole source to support a controversial or unusual claim, or a more recent and internationally acclaimed source is preferable. If you want examples, you can see for instance that in the article Barda, Azerbaijan ASE is the sole source for the following claim:
In 768, Catholicos of All Armenians Sion I Bavonats'i convoked an ecclesiastical council at Partav, which passed 24 canons largely concerning the administration of the Armenian Church and marriage practices.
In Gardman:
During the reign of the Arshakuni kings of Armenia (66-428 A.D.), Gardman was the seat of the nakharars of Utik' (and for this, it was sometimes called "Gardmantsvots ishkhanutyun", or the principality of Gardman).
Gugark, does not even provide the page number:
Gugark (Armenian: Գուգարք, Georgian: გოგარენე, Latin: Gogarene) was the 13th province of Greater Armenia. It now comprises parts of northern Armenia, northeast Turkey, and southwest Georgia.
I can continue. For a person who is not familiar with the region this may not seem important, but there's a parallel nationalist war between the academia of Armenia and Azerbaijan. So reliability of the sources from the region remains an issue, in particular of those published in Soviet times. Grandmaster 19:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Okay, now I actually see the situation behind the smoke...I think the answer you are looking for is WP:REDFLAG. In short, since it is established that ASE is not a the highest quality source around on the topic, then it should not be used alone to support a controversial or unusual claim. A double cite with ASE accompanying an independent source is a minimum in such scenario. IMO If that standard cannot be maintained, then remove the controversial or unusual claim the ASE is supporting. Jim101 (talk) 19:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, that's what I wanted to know. Grandmaster 21:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

This whole conversation is getting out of hand since it revolves around a very strong aversion found exclusively in Azerbaijan that tries to deny the presence of Armenians in the medieval and ancient periods. The controversy surrounding the examples cited by Grandmaster are fabricated by himself entirely and it's unfortunate that his argument is receiving more attention than is truly warranted. All the information cited in those three articles are based on primary sources, i.e., chronicles and histories written primarily from the fifth to twelfth centuries and if an editor truly had the time, they could dust off the published volumes from libraries and cited the works themselves. But then someone else would find another excuse to try to exclude the information – the source being in a language other than English, the source being unreliable, or the editor being accused of original research by reading too much into a source. I say this because I have had to deal with these tired tactics because some editors (and readers) are unsettled by the fact that their history does not quite match that found on Wikipedia, for which they must then rectify. I can name the primary sources for each of the three examples given (1. Movses Kaghankatvatsi's History of the Caucasian Albanians; 2. and 3. Anania Shirakatsi's Geography). If a statement is in wanting of more citations the appropriate tag should be added, but unless compelling evidence can be shown that the ASE is seriously mistaken in regards to a certain topic or article, this conversation is much ado about nothing.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 06:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

If the information could be found in primary sources, it is not up to us to interpret those primary sources. We need to find a reliable secondary source to do that. The question here is if ASE is such a reliable source. And I do not appreciate accusations of fabrication, etc. Do not take it to the personal level, and mind WP:AGF. And I do not think that Armenia is immune from denying the historical presence of other ethnicities in its territory. The article by Ronald Suny that I quoted above describes inter alia how the author was almost physically attacked in Yerevan for saying that Armenians did not constitute the majority of population of that city at the turn of the 20th century (which is a well known historical fact). This is exactly the reason why the sources from the region should be treated with care. They are marred with communist propaganda and ethnic nationalism, which is described by many international experts. Note that I treat sources from both Armenia and Azerbaijan the same way, not taking one over the other. Grandmaster 15:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
For crying out loud (I feel my brain cell is committing mass suicide). Is ASE a controversial source? Answer: yes. Can a controversial source be used to support controversial claims? Answer: WP:REDFLAG. Is user conduct/systematic bias discussion fell in the scope of RSN? Answer: no. What is the moral of the story? Answer: drop the frigging stick and move on. Jim101 (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately I have to confirm Marshal Bagramyan's point that User:Grandmaster is engaged in fabrications in his attempt to fight his nationalist war against Armenian Soviet Encyclopedia. He cites fake quotes and makes ridiculous statements that must be inspired by the speeches of Azerbaijan's ultra-nationalist president Ilham Aliyev. It should be noted that Grandmaster has been routinely accused - with evidence - of being the head of a coordinated tag team which attacks good edits and wages ridiculous nationalist wars in Wikipedia. It the time to close this discussion. ASE is a controversial source on some topics and on some topics it is not. Sprutt (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
It is not acceptable to resort to personal attacks when running out of arguments. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Sprutt, I would really appreciate if you could demonstrate which exactly of the quotes that I provided is fake. Otherwise I expect an apology for the false accusation. And since this is not the first time that you made a personal attack on me despite the warnings, I'm afraid I will have to take this issue to an appropriate admin board. Grandmaster 06:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Erowid

Many articles use this unreliable source. Erowid is a database that collects primary sources from a number of different sources without attribution. It is self run. It itself accepts contributions and works from sources which we consider unreliable. It will take a lot of personpower to remove all the sources.Curb Chain (talk) 06:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

If this website is just providing convenient online versions of materials published elsewhere, then in effect this is just a convenience link and not the source as such. So we probably need to discuss each of those publications in isolation, unless (a) you are saying that this site actually might be faking sources or (b) you are saying that we are sure that ALL publications it reproduces are unreliable (which would be difficult to prove). Probably more relevant (and this may in fact be your intention) it might be necessary to clean up some of the references to this website to make it clear whether the website is the source the website is just a convenience link. I think this type of "convenience link versus source" confusion is going to come up more often as the internet develops more, but generally speaking it is a tidying up issue and we should be careful not to delete material too quickly in such situations (WP:PRESERVE).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:45, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Erowid.org never gives attribution to the sources. This makes it impossible to verify the veracity of whatever is being cited by using erowid.org. That was my argument for removing all prose using erowid.org as it`s citation/source.Curb Chain (talk) 10:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
That sounds problematic indeed. If Erowid has no independent reputation for accuracy then this approach would make it difficult to use it as a source.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:18, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually, that's not true. Erowid is indeed a mixed bag, with their own original research mixed in with attributed reprints of reliable sources. It's articles on drugs are sometimes attributed enough to verify. I don't know about the spirituality stuff. In any case, it is a valuable resource for WP editors searching for sources and for an orientation into drug-related topics. I'm afraid that each use of the site would have to be evaluated individually to determine whether it is being used as a convenience link or not. Again, I have to stress that my knowledge of Erowid is restricted to its psychoactive drug section, and I don't know anything about its other sections. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
In the cases where Erowid has provided the evidence to back up the original publication, we would use the original publication, and not link to Erowid at all unless there is evidence that they have permission to post the copyright material. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but they could be useful as a convenience link, and as an aid to research for WP editors. Might they in some cases be ok as an external link?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
convenience links must be 1) absolutely trustworthy as posting accurate copies 2) absolutely guaranteed to be legitimate hosts of the copyright material. Erowid is questionable on both accounts. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Curb Chain, you appear to be confused about what Erowid is and how it is used. There are numerous reliable sources attributed to their respected authors. Are you confusing the Erowid archives with the user generated part of the site? Essentially, Erowid is a tertiary source, like an encyclopedia. Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I also suspect that he is basing his judgement on the "Mind and Spirit" part of the project, and overgeneralizing. I've taken a look at that section and have to agree with him that it is of poor quality compared to the drug-related section I am more familiar with. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Most parts of the site that discuss individual drugs have a list of information, but I can't find anywhere this information comes from. It does not list references like we do on Wikipedia.Curb Chain (talk) 15:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Not a reliable source for any information beyond something like "teen dies after trying concoction he read on a website Erowid" Even if it's in a medical journal like that, it does not make it worthy as a reliable source for the information that's in it. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 03:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

YouKnowIGotSoul

I'm working on Aaliyah (album) in my sandbox and wanted to make sure if the blog YouKnowIGotSoul, specifically this interview of those involved in the album, would be acceptable if I nominate the article for FA. I came across it after looking through clearly reliable sources such as this LAtimes article referencing the source in question. Just want to be sure before I use any of it at my sandbox, as the actual Wikipedia article on this album is a mess and happens to have it incorporated, among other blogs. Dan56 (talk) 05:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Disclaimer: I was asked to comment here on my talk page. After a brief run through the interview, I think it would qualify under WP:SPS; the quotation in the LA Times blog entry suggests more traditional RSes consider it fairly reliable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Articles on Serama chickens

An editor is, among other changes, adding information to the page Serama based off some personal sites and a forum: [28][29][30][31]. This has been going on for awhile, with various editors and IPs, and I have posted on the talkpage at Talk:Serama#Early Breeders section explaining our sourcing policy with links. The editor who is repeatedly adding information with those sources says they are reliable "as has first hand experience seeing the breed both in Malaysia and here." Can I get further opinions on whether these sources are reliable? Thanks, CMD (talk) 00:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I haven't looked at all the sources, but the other editor is mistaken as to WP policy and should be gently reminded of it. He or she probably thinks his or her changes help to improve the encyclopedia. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Herald Sun columnist blog

Hi. Is the following source, [32] reliable for this statement, which will be added to the 'controversies' section of the article Council for Christian Education in Schools: "The organisation attracted criticism for replacing Christmas carols at school Christmas concerts with songs that have been described as "creationist anthems"." I note the author is a columnist from the Herald sun, and this article is hosted at the Herald Sun webpage, but it is after all a blog, so I'm not sure if that deems it unreliable. Freikorp (talk) 04:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

That's been reported in standard news stories, so there's no need to quote from blogs. Nick-D (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
She's a columnist, not a reporter, so she is not a Reliable Source: "Susie O’Brien / See what Herald Sun columnist Susie O’Brien says about the things that matter to you - work and family, parenting, social issues, celebrities, politics, schools and the media." GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Are these sources reliable?

Hello I am just sending this message to see if the following sources are credible. From the research I have done they all seem to be credible and reliable.

The American Journal of Psychiatry - http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/

This what the website of The American Journal of Psychiatry says –

The American Journal of Psychiatry is the most widely read psychiatric journal in the world. Published monthly, it is an indispensable journal for all psychiatrists and other mental health professionals who need to stay on the cutting edge of virtually every aspect of psychiatry.

Current Dermatology reports/Springer Link - http://link.springer.com/journal/13671

The Springer link website says it provides scientific documents from Journals

Natural standard- http://www.naturalstandard.com/

The reason why I wanted to know if the above source was credible was because I made an edit to the page Omega 3 and someone reverted my edit requesting a secondary source. The link above (http://www.naturalstandard.com/) is the secondary source I provided. Its website says it provides high quality evidence based information.

Thank you in advance for the help.--CR.ROWAN (talk) 11:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is the diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Omega-3_fatty_acid&diff=528013087&oldid=527998767. I am assuming that User:Jmh649 believes that your source was Primary and not Secondary. I notice he or she already answered your query on his or her Talk Page. GeorgeLouis (talk)

Is Academics Review a reliable source for criticism on Jeffrey M. Smith?

Is Academics Review [33] a reliable source? And if so, is it an appropriate source for this text (below) currently in the Jeffrey M. Smith BLP?

  • Several academics have launched campaigns to dissect and review Jeffrey Smith’s claims and criticize organizations and media outlets who characterize or present Smith as an "expert" source on issues of biotechnology.

The source describes itself as:

  • "an independent 501C3 non-profit organization, was founded by two independent professors of food-related microbiology, nutritional, and safety issues on opposite ends of the planet: in rural central Illinois, and in urban Melbourne, Australia. Bruce M. Chassy, Ph.D.,[34] and David Tribe, Ph.D.,"[35]
  • And invites people to join: "Membership in Academics Review is open to academics interested in helping address the lack of credible and qualified review of content that uses scientific claims to influence public opinion. The organization simultaneously helps to illuminate and further credible and reviewed findings too often ignored in public dialogue. We seek peers in all areas of academia to help provide, publish and effectively promote open peer review to a growing body of content invoking scientific and academic claims without merit or expert consideration. Members may submit materials and provide ongoing comment on published reviews for inclusion consideration by the community of reviewers. [no indication as to who the reviewers are]
  • It's purpose is "We stand against falsehoods, half-baked assertions and theories or claims not subjected to this kind of rigorous review. This is the mission of Academics Review."[36]

However, I'm skeptical.....

  • Its domain ownership is hidden by proxy [37]
  • And 100% of its content is criticism about Jeffrey M. Smith. No other content on any other person or topic has been added in the 2 years since the site was set up in the fall of 2010
  • There is no listing of editorial staff or names of members or names and credentials of its "community review" team, so it appears to have no editorial oversight.

Comments??-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

'"Academics Review" is not a Reliable Source. It is the website of an advocacy group. The other source, the Chico News Review, is a reliable source because the author, Christine G.K. LaPado-Breglia, works for a reliable news-gathering organization which vets its news before it is published and (probably) corrects any mistakes. Nevertheless, the source is defective for the sentence to which it is attached before it says nothing about 'Several academics have launched campaigns to dissect and review Jeffrey Smith’s claims and criticize organizations and media outlets who characterize or present Smith as an "expert" source.' GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

James Files

The article James Files states:

Other critics have questioned the historical accuracy of some of his claims,[13] plus inaccurate descriptions of the weapon he says he used.[14]

Files has been implicated by various conspiracy theorists in the assassination of JFK. Citation 13 refers to http://dperry1943.com/lettermn.html by Dave Perry and citation 14 refers to http://www.manuscriptservice.com/Headstamp/ by Allan Eaglesham. I am wondering if these sources are sufficient for the statements made. I have a lot of trouble with the sources in articles related to Kennedy assassination conspiracies in that a lot of the characters, theorists, and debunkers appear to be notable within that circle (i.e. they frequently reference each other in their self-published books and websites), but not outside of it. (A related discussion on the RSN may be found here.) Location (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

List of monarchs of Korea

This list and most articles linked from it are almost completely unsourced and most of them are tagged since 2007 ! Of course it's all notable. I don't see any errors but that's because I know nothing about the topic and won't be able to help much. Furthermore a good deal of the articles is written in very bad English sometimes even hard to understand. So my question is how do you usually go about such stuff ? I know there is no deadline but it's been quite some time with no progress. 80.132.87.244 (talk) 01:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The list article does not have many inline citations, but it does have four books and three other sources in its "References" section. Regarding the others, there are many different ways to approach unsourced material. If material appears to be true and does not appear to be contentious, self-serving, or there to fulfill an agenda, I typically leave it for someone who is interested in the subject matter. In this instance, you could look at the article's history and attempt to contact the original editor of the material in question or you could post for help in Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea. Location (talk) 01:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Zeno of Citium

Hi, it could be that i should take this to WP:NORN instead, if thats the case please let me know. Here it goes:

  • Source: This book available online page 15.
  • Article :Zeno of Citium.
  • Content : The exact statement in the article that the source supports is as follows: "Zeno of Citium was a Greek thinker of Phoenician descent".
  • Diff:1, 2 and 3

On page 15 the author of the source uses the following narrative: "That Zeno himself is a Phoenician is implied, i think, in our records". The statement it supports is not explicitly stated by the source, thank you 23x2 φ 08:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC).

The source gives several items of evidence that seem to say that Zeno was probably of Phoenician descent, but it's hedging its bets, it doesn't come right out and say it as an absolute fact. Therefore neither can we. But we can use it to say "probably". --GRuban (talk) 22:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree with GRuban, but put the source in the text, along with quotation marks, not in the footnote: "According to XXXX, Zeno was 'probably' a Phoenician." GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Ok thank you both 23x2 φ 10:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Question about trimet using self published online sources.

Would it be appropriate for trimet to use info such as http://www.trimet.org/pdfs/publications/factsheet.pdf as a source? If you read it the first paragraph is self serving. "TriMet is a national leader in providing transit service. TriMet carries more people than any other U.S. transit system its size. Weekly ridership on buses and MAX has increased for all but one year in the past 23 years. TriMet ridership has outpaced population growth and daily vehicle miles traveled for more than a decade" Then it goes on to state "Most riders (84%) are choice riders: they have a car available or choose not to own one so they can ride TriMet." and then "Clean air Each weekday, MAX eliminates more than 87,000 car trips from our roads, easing traffic congestion and helping keep our air clean. That adds up to 28.6 million fewer car trips each year. TriMet’s MAX and buses combined eliminate 207,300 daily car trips, or 65 million trips each year. For each mile taken on TriMet, 53% less carbon is emitted compared to driving alone." I do not believe that 86% of people riding trimet choose to. I for one am part of the 16 percent and the bus is rough. Especially considering all the service cutbacks. That sounds like a lofty statement and I would like to see a source to back that up. So if the source is self-serving can this page be used on trimet's page? PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 09:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

OK as a source so long as you avoid the self-serving bits and stick to the facts. Even then, be careful. Statistics are unlikely to be actually wrong but may well have been cheer-picked. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. Could you maybe explain that last part about statistics? I'm not sure what you mean. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I meant "cherry-picked". It's like at the top of your quote: Trimet carries more people than any other system it's size. Very likely, only Trimet is exactly the same size as Trimet. But somewhere there may be an official table that has the number of passengers carried by different systems. Use that and leave out Trimet's self-serving interpretation. We would want to use a more careful and meaningful summary Itsmejudith (talk) 10:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
It looks like a press-release piece just by skimming. It isn't as black and white as "the page can/can not be used as a reference". The contents that advance position should not be or anything else that would allow the page to look like a spokesperson for the agent. Official pages are often very reliable sources for hard numbers where the company has no vested interested in portraying things in a certain way; for example revenue, number of buses in service, etc. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Yahiya Emerick

Yahiya Emerick is a book writer. i have doubt that his book The Life and Work of Muhammad is a fiction book or academic book ? can we use this in islamic history articles? --Espiral (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I would not use the book because there are many academic books about Islam. TFD (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
but i saw someone used this book as history book in wikipedia. i want to sure about type of this book. --Espiral (talk) 05:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
No, unless it has had strongly favourable reviews in academic publications, it would not qualify as a reliable source for us in history/biography articles. As TFD says, there are many academic texts in this subject area: we should use them. Andrew Dalby 11:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
How can we totally rule out this person's scholarship credibility? He has a graduate degree in history and this particular book by him is kept by many libraries around the world. I can see some credibility per "Books published by academic and scholarly presses by historians, as reviewed in scholarly historical journals or as demonstrated by past works of a similar nature by the historian" as well. Amazon and B&N have some good reviews for some of his books and this guy recommends his book, too (not sure how credible the guy is, but he is a scholar). Definitely, his opinions should not be presented as facts in the article. Taha (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
We don't totally rule people out -- that's not what this board does -- but if this history book has not yet had any reviews in reliable academic journals, and if the author has not yet published in this same subject area in reliable academic media, then the book won't be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia yet. If you find evidence in that area, you can change this.
Library holdings don't help, because libraries acquire books for lots of reasons. Amazon and Barnes and Noble don't help, because anyone can write that stuff. I've never heard of askthescholar.com from which you quote "this guy" (Ahmad Kutty), but he may help you if he really is a scholar in the field. You'd need to find evidence about that -- his own publications, to begin with. Andrew Dalby 09:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, you are right, in the sense that although his works have been cited in some academic venues, but the citations are not from historical community. Thanks, Taha (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

obamarecords.com/

Is http://obamarecords.com/ a reliable source to support the contention that the purported sworn affidavit which it quotes at http://obamarecords.com/?tag=fraud-obama-affidavit-bishop-ron-mcrae-obama is not bogus? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 17:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The info on the About page Makes the agenda of the web site clear: " My goal is to expose the fraud obama. I want to document his lies and his ties to communist comrades." Moreover, it appears to be the work of one person with no editorial oversight. So unless I'm missing something. From what I can see there is no indication that this is a reliable secondary source. It is certainly not a valid source for a topic as contentious as the president's birth records etc. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

International Biographical Centre

In an article about a living person, awards they received from the International Biographical Centre were cited as evidence of notability. Based on the Wikipedia article about this Centre, it appears to be an organization that sells "awards" to anyone who pays for them. The awards have now been deleted from the article; they included "Noblest of the World", "Outstanding People of the 20th Century," and "International Man of the Millennium." It seems clear that this outfit is not a Reliable Source, and it was suggested at the article's talk page that we should call to the attention of other Wikipedians the fact that this is not a reliable source. Is there some kind of listing, somewhere on the pedia, of sources that should not be considered reliable? --MelanieN (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Spam blacklist? GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Exaro

Exaro is a British investigative journalism website, apparently highly regarded - [38]. Is it a reliable source - for example in adding material to the article on Operation Fairbank? An IP is trying to add material to that page, claiming it's sourced from Exaro. Actually, it isn't - it goes way beyond what Exaro have published - but there is material freely available on the Exaro site which could be added to the article if it is deemed to be reliable. Is it? Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes and no. Yes because it is Exaro carries out genuine investigative journalism. No, because stories breaking on Exaro are just that: breaking news. Best to wait for the stories to be picked up by other media. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
That seems fair enough, thanks. I'll copy your response to the article talk page for future reference, if that's OK. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
PS: The full text of articles on Exaro are only available through subscription. We have a current problem at the Operation Fairbank article of a new user adding material, claiming it to be based on the full version of the article. Is there a policy on the use of subscription-only websites like this? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Subscription only sites are not a problem providing they are WP:RS. Consider using {{subscription required}} after the reference to alert readers to this fact (a subscription only site is just like a book in that an effort (in this case a cost) is required to access) --Senra (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
If you want access you can try and ask at WP:RX--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Faces of Goa

In a discussion I cited "Faces of Goa, it is written by a Fulbright scholar, and the project has been supported by the foundation.[39] Is the book non-reliable because it is published by Gyan? Diffs of the discussion are [40] and [41] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure who Gyan is, but if the publisher is a reputable book publisher, then that would have nothing to do with its Reliability. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Previous (a few quick examples) discussion on Gyan[42][43][44], Gyan Publishing isn't apparently very reliable, treat with caution is the disclaimer, is a book written by a Fulbright scholar, an unreliable source? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Was he a Fulbright Scholar? What is so special about being one? What was his specialism? How many others cite him? There have been several examples of seemingly reputable authors being published by Gyan where it is absolutely evident that plagiarism and copyright violation has gone on, eg: compare:
with
The problems with Gyan are numerous and it is not all about the manner in which they have mirrored Wikipedia stuff. I am not at all sure that we can be confident that the named authors even are the authors. - Sitush (talk) 13:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually the author is a female. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, that is the claim. Might be an asexual alien for all I know. Gyan are a very weird outfit and I am astonished that they get away with publishing what they do. I'll try to do some digging on this specific book but, honestly, the omens are not good simply because of the publisher. - Sitush (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
The book has been cited in a Georgia State University M. A. Thesis.[45] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Independent confirmation of Karin Larsen's status as Fulbright scholar.[46][47][48] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
So? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Almighty Vice Lord Nation

There is a disagreement at Talk:Almighty Vice Lord Nation, where a citation to the Chicago Crime Commission Gang Book [49] is being questions. A sentence that explains how a gang's founder named it is being called "dubious" by another editor. First, is the source reliable? Second, is pinpointing the exact page number that sentence appears on mandatory or is it ok to use one citation and simply provide the page range that encompasses the entry covering this gang? Third, is it ok to claim an entire source is dubious simply for lack of an exact page number? - Who is John Galt? ✉ 17:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Balph has misrepresented this. First of all, I put a dubious tag on it. I didn't remove it, only tagged it for discussion. The fact that it was tagged seems to piss Balph off. The book itself is not really being disputed. But what we have is a single source that makes a claim that no other reliable source makes and the claim doesn't make sense. The claim is that the "Vice Lords" used "vice" because the dictionary defines "vice" as a "tight hold"....except that's false. A "vise" is a tight hold. Again, no other source I can find makes this claim. I suppose it's possible that the founders of the Vice Lords were idiots and unable to understand the difference. Similarly, it is possible that some well-meaning person at the CCC took some urban legend to heart and published it as fact. When a single source makes a questionable claim and no other source backs it up, we are irresponsible to not at least question it. The notion that this non-profit has discovered the secret (and illiterate) origins of this name while no other government or scholarly text has done so should be questioned. As for requesting a page number, the book is being relied on too heavily anyway and Balph, who says he owns the book, is simply being obstinant by refusing to provide that simple request. The page thing, however, is beside the point. The point here is that this claim is bordering on WP:FRINGE. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  1. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vice vice (plural vices) A mechanical screw apparatus used for clamping or holding (also spelled vise). http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vice?s=t vice or vise 2 (vaɪs) — n 1. an appliance for holding an object while work is done upon it, usually having a pair of jaws — vb 2. ( tr ) to grip (something) with or as if with a vice
  2. http://chicagostreetgangs.webs.com/vicelords.html - As Dawley informs us in A Nation of Lords,... “At first, the name was Conservative Lads, then Imperial Vice Lords. But Pep didn’t like the Imperial part because they had iced him, so Conservative was added to Vice Lords. Calloway had thought of the Vice and the Lord because he had seen these words and looked them up in the dictionary. When he found that “vice” meant having a tight hold [. . .] that was it” (Dawley, 1992: pg. 11). http://www.amazon.com/Nation-Lords-Autobiography-Vice/dp/0881336289
  3. http://books.google.com/books?id=TR9HAAAAMAAJ&q=%22tight+hold%22#search_anchor Google Books confirms the quote, from page 11.
Of course all that doesn't necessarily mean the CCC book ref is correct, but it does make it pretty likely. --GRuban (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Here is the part you continue to miss (and misrepresent) while you post your ridiculous personal attacks on the talk page: The information wasn't removed. It was simply tagged as dubious and put up for discussion. But you got sand in your panties that someone would have the audacity to question anything. You finally did what I've asked all along, which was to quit being so lazy and provide a specific source. But instead of doing that in the first place, you whined, bitched, name-called, postured and generally contributed to the toxic environment that you complain about. Again, all while ignoring the fact that the info was never removed and was simply tagged. (Spare me the lecture on civility. After your last talk page response, it's clear you lack the ability to be civil and shouldn't expect it in return). At least this wasn't a loss. You learned how to actually cite something and I got to laugh at your hypocrisy. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Austrian School

  1. Sources:
  1. Austrian School
  2. diff

The content is being opposed by three editors: User:Byelf2007, User:Darkstar1st, and User:North8000. Byelf2007's most recent argument is that Krugman's post does not actually refer to the Austrian School of Economics (although we agree that Krugman explicitly and specifically calls it out several times by name), because since Byelf thinks that Krugman's account of the Austrian School's account of inflation is not accurate --- therefore, Krugman is not referring to the Austrian School, at all. Byelf contends that Krugman is talking about something else, even when Krugman specifically names the Austrian School. The basis for this argument appears to be that Byelf simply disagrees with Krugman's critique. Keep in mind that Paul Krugman is the recipient of the 2008 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences[52].

This argument and edit war has been going on for 11 days now. I encourage other editors to join the discussion, which has been continually plagued by digressions, irrelevancies, and flights of fancy. Thank you for your help in clarifying this matter. — goethean ॐ 13:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Which exactly is the Source whose Reliability is being questioned? GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Darkstar1st for further examples of such behaviour elsewhere by one of the editors involved here. RolandR (talk) 11:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Byelf2007 claims that the first Krugman source, "Varieties of Error", isn't really about the Austrian School because Byelf thinks that Krugman's account of the Austrian School is inaccurate, and therefore, Krugman isn't talking about the Austrian School, he's talking about something else. — goethean ॐ 17:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
This is a discussion about the correct interpretation of sources. Krugman's statements are reliable for Krugman's opinions. However, for detailed, complex and scholarly evaluation nothing beats a field review or a review article (multiple works reviewed simultaneously). Seek these out in orthodox and heterodox scholarly peer reviewed journals. When sources of good enough quality contend, seek better sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Irregular Freemasonry: Speech to UGLE

The question is whether this source:

http://web.archive.org/web/20071010130228/http://www.ugle.org.uk/news/gc-englefield120907.htm

in the the Continental Freemasonry article can backs up the use of the alternate term "Irregular Freemasonry". A diff showing it's usage is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Continental_Freemasonry&diff=528363537&oldid=528362558

The quotation that's provided with the source says

"At the same time in what was becoming an increasingly politicised world there was a growth of irregular Freemasonry with bodies springing up claiming to be Masonic but not accepting our Basic Principles, in particular the bar on Grand Lodges or brethren in their Masonic capacities making public statements on matters of religious, political or social policy."

The wider dispute is about the use of "Irregular Freemasonry" as an alternate term for "Continental Freemasonry". If you are interested in the wider dispute itself then I would suggest that you go to the Wikipedia:NPOV/N#Irregular_Freemasonry entry on the NPOV noticeboard, there have as yet been no outside views on this. However to avoid forum shopping, this is about the acceptability of this single citation and not the dispute on the term.

I don't believe that the quote (which is the only instance within the source that uses the term "Irregular Freemasonry") does actually make it clear that it is referring to the Liberal Masonic tradition. It says that one of the particular cases was that these lodges made "public statements on matters of religious, political or social policy". This could refer to Liberal Freemasonry - and this is one of the points of contention - but it could also apply to right wing, occultist or avowedly Christian groups - none of which are in the Continental tradition.

I've been told that the lack of a plain attribution of the term is not a problem by Blueboar and MSJapan as it must be Continental Freemasonry as the term is almost never used in any other way. No further evidence has been offered. There is also the claim that the meaning is clear for those who are Freemasons or have an understanding of it.

So is an inferred meaning understood by one party, but not by another, acceptable?

JASpencer (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

To my mind the source clearly uses the term "Irregular Freemasonry" in the context of discussing the Continental branch of the fraternity. No other branch of European Freemasonry actively engages in politics, so I have a hard time seeing what else the author could be referring to? I have difficulty seeing how anyone familiar with the history of European Freemasonry in the last 50 years could see the reference any other way. Still, it would be nice to get a neutral third party on this. Blueboar (talk) 22:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
"No other branch of European Freemasonry actively engages in politics". Propaganda Due? I don't raise this to make you look silly, but just to point out that inference from a source is a dangerous game. The alternate term needs to be used and it needs to plainly and unmistakably refer to the phenomena of the article. I also notice that you didn't refer to religion as this is definately something that various jurisdictions get involved in. JASpencer (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
For it to apply to "right-wing, occultist, or avowedly Christian groups," those groups would need to have a Lodge/Grand Lodge structure, as otherwise the context of the quote would not be so specific as to form, as there are Masonic groups with other designatiions but the same function. I would further posit that under those requirements, groups such as may fall under the right-wing, etc. banner, should they indeed meet as a "Lodge", are not large enough to have a "Grand Lodge" - what is referred to as continental Freemasonry, however, does. As to it being "better understood by Masons" this is because this is a contextual issue; the audience is not the public, and therefore the tone is different that what one would expect for a general reader. This is no different than any other speech made to an organization. MSJapan (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
So the point that you are both making is this is what it implies and I'm saying that this is not what it is plainly saying. So by default you're both agreeing with my point that it's not what it is plainly saying. Can we please agree that first? It will make it easier for admins and third party editors to decide on this. JASpencer (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
No quite... I am saying that to anyone knowledgeable about the history of Freemasonry since World War II, there is no "implication" involved. During the era that Englefield is talking about, there were numerous overtly political "Continental style" Masonic bodies "springing up" across Europe. What did not "spring up" during this era were lots of right-wing, occultist, or avowedly Christian groups... The source is obviously referring to the rise of those "Continental style" Masonic lodges. There is nothing else that he could be referring to. (Note... yes, the right-wing Propaganda Due (P2) did exist during the era that Englefield is discussing. However, P2 was a unique situation... a "one-off"... and Englefield is using the term Irregular Freemasonry the plural. Also, the adjective that Masons use when referring to P2 is "Clandestine", not "Irregular". This too, anyone familiar with the topic would know. Thus, we can be sure that Englefield is not referring to P2 in his comments.) Blueboar (talk) 13:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
If it's so cut and dried (which it's clearly not) why are you spending all your time trying to defend a citation that does not plainly equate the phenomena (Liberal Freemasonry) with the term "Irregular Freemasonry"? But that's not the question. The question that I'm posing to the third party editors is whether an alternate term should be shown to be used or whether we should infer it? You are saying that it's obvious but unlike all the other alternate terms it needs to be explained. JASpencer (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually, the other terms need explaining as well. For example "Continental Freemasonry" does not call itself "liberal" because it espouses left-wing political views... but because it takes a more liberal stance regarding who can be admitted (Atheists and Women)... as opposed to the more conservative stance of the Masonic majority. So if we are going to start excluding labels and terms because context is needed to understand usage, then we can probably remove all of the alternatives. Blueboar (talk) 03:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
With respect, this is not the point of this question. The point is whether whether a plain equation is needed or wheter an inference that may only be instantly clear to a minority of editors is sufficient. JASpencer (talk) 09:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but if it is not explicitly stated, then it is inference, which runs afoul of WP:SYNTH, as I have stated before. Unfortunately, no one but the four of us is getting involved in the discussion, so there is little chance of getting a disinterested party to look at this. In short, I feel like giving up, as it seems perfectly clear to me that we haven't got a reliable source directly stating that continental masonry is commonly called irregular masonry, and, these articles are NOT supposed to be written with "to anyone knowledgeable about the history of Freemasonry" taken into account, but precisely the opposite, but it seems like this is going to get ignored again and again and again - in short, making it look like there is a UGLE cabal controlling Masonic wikipedia articles.--Vidkun (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
On the use of the alternate term "Liberal Freemasonry" which Blueboar claimed also needed explaining this is the quote that has been within the citation:
"This new concept of Freemasonry - of Absolute Freedom of Conscience which was born on the " Convent " (Annual General Meeting) of 1877 and whose gave birth to a new form of practise in Freemasonry which is called Liberal Freemasonry."
It's taken from the website of the Grand Orient of France refering to their type of (Continental) Freemasonry, and it plainly refers to Liberal Freemasonry. I've no idea why Blueboar thinks it's a bad quote. You don't need to understand the context in this quotation, they call their type of freemasonry "Liberal Freemasonry". Plain and simple. Now provide us with a plain and simple source. JASpencer (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I was actually referring, or intending to refer, to the use of the word irregular.--Vidkun (talk) 22:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Is Current Dermatology reports which is published by springer links is a relaible source? I used this source to make an edit and i want to make sure it is a reliable source.

This is the source - http://www.springer.com/medicine/dermatology/journal/13671

Thanks in advance. --CR.ROWAN (talk) 11:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Is Fox News reliable?

Is Fox News a good secondary source for the content listed below?

Source: Workers Say Pilsen Wellness Center Director is Packing Payroll With Family Members

Article: Pilsen Wellness Center

Content:

In 2010 a Fox News investigation alleged that the Executive Director of Pilsen Wellness Center hired numerous family members to work at the agency. According to internal agency documents and interviews obtained by Fox News the director’s wife, mother, son, three brothers, four sisters and two nieces all have jobs at the agency. The investigation also revealed that two adult children of Illinois State Senator Martin Sandoval are also employed by the agency. Senator Sandoval is one of several lawmakers who have provided state funding to Pilsen Wellness Center.

Kausticgirl (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Fox news is reliable source, its mainstream news outlet that meets every criterion of WP:RS.So there no reason to doubt it.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
It is rs, but investigative journalism often poses neutrality issues. It is best to use sources that report on the story, rather than the original story itself. That way we can see what attention the stories have received and what responses there are. TFD (talk) 00:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Fox News is a reliable source, except where it's commentators are concerned; they may or may not have vetted the stuff they say. The investigative piece you cite above was undoubtedly checked and rechecked before it aired. Note: I disagree with The Four Deuces comment. Sources that report on a first-hand story should not be quoted unless the original account is unavailable. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but notice that all original "investigative news" is technically a primary (and non-self-published) source per WP:PRIMARYNEWS. You therefore need to use the source carefully, being careful not to exceed what it says or imply things beyond what it says. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
You could attribute it to Fox News investigative reporting, in order to let readers know that it comes from an investigative report.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Laying out the facts as reported in the paper presents bias, because it is an implicit accusation of nepotism. Attributing the facts to Fox does not help because there is no question that the facts are accurate. We need a source that analyzes these facts. OTOH, if no other source has picked up the story, then it lacks significance and it would be biased to report it. We are then promoting a story that otherwise had been ignored. TFD (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree with everyone but TFD here. The story is a reliable source; since it's controversial, we should attribute it, and make sure we don't say more than what they say. It's not secondary, it is primary, but that is all right; the Pilsen Wellness Center is not such an important place that we can demand that there be stories reporting on stories reporting about it, ad infinitum. It is not bias to report the results of investigative journalism by reliable sources. --GRuban (talk) 19:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The question is whether or not Fox News is reliable. Unfortunately, most of you are falling into the trap of thinking that local Fox affiliates and the Fox News Channel are the same thing. They aren't really the same. Local affiliates operate separate from the FNC. Whereas FNC is typically conservative, my local Fox affiliate is often fairly liberal. In either case, yes, FNC and Fox affiliates are as reliable as ABC/NBC/CBS. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Francis E. Dec

Francis E. Dec needs a complete overhaul in that it is built upon primary source material and other sources that are generally considered unreliable (i.e. blogs and personal websites). Given that this forum is supposed to address specific sources, I'll simply jump in.

Is http://home.pacifier.com/~dkossy/decvisit.html a reliable source for the following comments:

  1. Dec apparently suffered a stroke in late 1992 and was transferred early 1993 to the St. Albans VA hospital in Queens, New York[15][32] by his brother Joseph I. Dec. He was still residing there in December 1995, at which time he was visited by Forrest Jackson, David Hanson and Ean Schuessler who had come across tape recordings of some of his rants at Dallas in 1993 (see Legacy section) and went to New York to ask him about their origin and meaning;[32] as far as is currently known, these individuals were the only fans of Dec ever to have met or spoken to him at any length, and videotaped the only documented encounter with Dec. Dec was entirely unresponsive to the presence or inquiries of his visitors, and the visit produced no answers whatsoever.
  2. Francis E. Dec was dubbed... "the Gnostic God of these End Times"[32] by his 1995 interviewer Forrest Jackson,
  3. Dec also entered the folklore of the Church of the SubGenius, which contributed[32] to his underground popularization since at least 1993:

Thanks! - Location (talk) 05:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

It is not a reliable source, period.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll likely be back with more. Location (talk) 07:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Is http://web.archive.org/web/19990117002658/http://www.cs.monash.edu.au/~acb/discordianism/saints.html a reliable source for the following comment:

  1. Additionally, he was canonized as "St. Francis the Incoherent"[43][44] among Discordian Saints.

Thanks again! -Location (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

No. Not RS. See the disclaimer at the bottum. Personal web page with no editorial oversite by the University.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

One link, http://web.archive.org/web/19990209200027/http://www.teleport.com/~dkossy/dec.html , appears to be a self-published source and is cited in the article as "Kossy, Donna (1999). "Francis E. Dec, Esquire: Your Only Hope for a Future!", Kooks Museum, Schizophrenic Wing, www.book-happy.com, copyright 1999 with a 2006 addendum, consulted February 2009 — Updated online summary of the Dec chapter in Kossy's book." As such, is it a reliable source for anything? Thanks again! Location (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly clear on the above, but it sounds like you are saying the non RS is being cited as a book on the article itself on Wikipedia?--Amadscientist (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion. I'll rephrase: Is http://web.archive.org/web/19990209200027/http://www.teleport.com/~dkossy/dec.html a reliable source for the Francis E. Dec article? I would say "no" since all available information suggests that it is self-published material. Location (talk) 00:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Correct. Not RS.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

ConsumerLab.com as references for materials of nutritional supplement interest.

Source: ConsumerLab.com User Absander had been adding sections about supplement qualities into articles that is sourced around a source Consumerlab.com

Articles & diffs:

Contents: It has been noted that one editor Absander exhibited a pattern of adding ConsumerLab.com as references serially and it is my suspicion that there's a conflict of interest. Based on edit pattern, I find that the edit is focused around disseminating ConsumerLab.com's visibility more so than improving encyclopedic value. Claims are such as Consumerlab.com found Consumerlab.com's own tests (based on their proprietary testing standards) "according to tests by" when it does not in fact do testing as established by a reliable source. The notability of the company was questioned for its existence on Wikipedia, however even if they're notable enough for Wiki article, its use as WP:RS is questionable. It may receive media attention has a company that takes leads, but there's no indication that it is a reliable source to be used as a reference. Access to many of their contents require subscription payment and the use of references are quite obviously for WP:PROMO to add contents that might allow for their use rather than supporting worthwhile contents. It may order tests on products it choose, but then the method of selection or questionable and ConsumerLab.com does not appear to have recognition as a provider of scientifically accepted research data. As their test results, pass/fail criteria are based on their own proprietary system that is not generally recognized as industry benchmark or regulatory standards, the source of data is not disclosed, I find the use of this source as supporting claims on supplements is improper. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with most of this. I don't have any problem with using a site that requires payment to acccess its information as a source, but in this case, ConsumerLab.com seems far from the best we could do. Their tests are indeed subject to their own criteria, which I doubt would stand up to scientific scrutiny, especially concerning claims made about herbal supplements and the like. Absander is obviously an SPA whose purpose here is to get puffery about ConsumerLab.com into our articles; seems very sketchy. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I noticed Absander's edits and was first to post to that editor's talk page with a concern (see User talk:Absander), but I don't believe that one person's edits should influence decisions on whether ConsumerLab.com is a reliable source - there are Wikipedia articles not edited by Absander that also include references to ConsumerLab.com, and in general, one editor's behavior shouldn't change the perception of a source. The notability of the company (and Cantaloupe2's nomination of the company article for deletion) is also unrelated. In several discussions since noticing Absander's edits, including discussions with Cantaloupe2, I've been trying to determine whether ConsumerLab.com is useful as a source. See Talk:Fish oil#ConsumerLab.com for a detailed discussion where User:Epipelagic and I agreed that it was a useful source, and see Talk:ConsumerLab.com#Appropriate coverage of notable findings and Talk:ConsumerLab.com#Some additional sources I found for more of my work evaluating it. According to my research, ConsumerLab.com reports have been cited by medical journals, newspapers of record, and lawsuits as a source for information about the contents of dietary supplements, and I haven't found any notable disputes about the accuracy of their tests. The company maintains a brag page listing some examples, and you can find more by searching Google Scholar, searching Google Books, and searching the New York Times. It's best to cite freely-available material though, so citing secondary sources is more useful, but I believe that it's a reliable source for material on dietary supplements. We also cite newspapers and journals that require subscriptions to view their articles, because they're useful sources - this is a little different since those sources are often accessible via public libraries, but in general I believe that a source being paid shouldn't entirely disqualify it. Dreamyshade (talk) 04:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I think that WP:RS is quite clear that paid sources are allowed. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
  • This discussion has got off to a bad start. The heading suggests it is about whether ConsumerLab.com is a reliable source. But instead of dealing with that, Cantaloupe2 focuses on inappropriate entries made by Absander which appeared to promote ConsumerLab.com. That is a completely different issue. This thread should be withdrawn, and started afresh so the issue of whether ConsumerLab.com is a reliable source can be examined without prejudice. As can be seen in an earlier discussion (referred to above), Cantaloupe2 does not focus on the issue at hand, but persistently obscures things, kicking up dust as he is here, and failing to separate the issue of Absander's inappropriate edits with the status of ConsumerLab.com as a reliable source.
The facts are easy to demonstrate. ConsumerLab.com is extensively used as a source by publications that we accept on Wikipedia as reliable sources, such as the New York Times, a wide spectrum of established book publishers, and a large number of peer reviewed scientific articles. Even QuackWatch, that most skeptical of all organisations, recommends ConsumerLab (scroll down to "Links to Recommended Vendors" at the bottom).
There doesn't appear to be anything on the net suggesting that the reports published by ConsumerLab.com are anything other than reliable. In the US the government does not monitor the quality of nutritional supplements. It is important for Wikipedia articles on nutritional supplements that there is at least one watchdog organisation, independent from the nutritional supplement industry itself, that can offer reliable reports. ConsumerLab.com at present seems to be the only widely accepted organisation in that category. Wikipedia articles will be significantly compromised if Cantaloupe2 succeeds in his campaign to have ConsumerLab.com rejected as a reliable source. His relentless and unbalanced crusade against ConsumerLab.com is consistent with him having a COI himself. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Cantaloupe2 also canvassed Joefromrandb, presumably as an editor he thought he would support him. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
For the love of God, you can't be serious. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Looking at WP:Canvassing, limited notification is acceptable; I think it's hard to detect bias from one notification. It'd probably be OK to notify other people who have participated in ConsumerLab.com discussions, if you'd like to do that. Dreamyshade (talk) 08:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I asked one editor who is somewhat familiar with whats going on and left a thorough edit comment; to please take a look at the discussion. I didn't ask the said editor to please take sides with me and make arguments in a way I like. Look on my talk page about 3 ph power. I was notified of something they thought I'm interested in, so I went in and comment. This is nothing sketchy about it. A proprietary paid-subscription source is obviously a problem as it hinders the ability to verify even if its not strictly forbidden. Contents that are added specifically to get wrapped around in certain gift-wrapper "reference" in mind is a cause of concern and so far pretty much all of prose added by Absander are like that. Now, if we have to pay to verify what was created around the paid contents, it would simply feed on what they're looking to get and that's a serious bait trap. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 08:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

As for the pay-wall, half of the medical content here is supported by subscription journal articles. I have no problem with them being used in conformity with Wikipedia:Verifiability. I've emailed ConsumerLab.com, in case they want to add something to the discussion. If a company representative chimes in here let's ask them for a handful of free subscriptions for some of the regulars at Wikipedia:Resource exchange, so someone here can check our article content against cited reports. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

"I've emailed ConsumerLab.com". Now, OFF WIKI solicitation. that might be inappropriate. Care to disclose the entirety of your email here, so we can keep track of whats going on? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 09:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
It was surely a good idea to ask for their comments. Cantaloupe is right that in practice it is more difficult to verify a source that's behind a paywall: Anthonyhcole's initiative may help to solve that. Andrew Dalby 10:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

My email said

Hi.This discussion might interest you. It seems that your reports will be judged reliable sources for Wikipedia articles, but I thought you might like the opportunity to contribute to the discussion, if we've missed something. If the question arises again, this discussion will probably be referred to then. Discussions are automatically archived after 2 days of inactivity.

If you would like to join the discussion, just click the [edit] button next to the section heading "ConsumerLab.com as references for materials of nutritional supplement interest", and add your comment to the bottom of the "edit box" at the bottom of the page.

Regards

They have pointed me to summaries of all of their reports, including key general findings here and a description of their testing methodologies here. I have pointed them to the relevant contact here, should they wish to offer some free memberships.

Anyway, back on topic. They seem to me to be a reliable source for the quality of health and nutrition products. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Would you post the email it sent you sans email addresses? Unless of course it was a extremely long copy-paste canned email.
Yeah back on topic. I have not seen the full reports anywhere, but contents that are like what they have on JAMA like THIS is acceptable, but sources they have available on their public-page are not. The source of data ("third party lab" ) is not disclosed and integrity of this publisher's editorial is questionable on public sections of website where CL had sole and absolute editorial control over contents.
news this is what I would call their "brag page" as coined by another editor in article talk page. Much of the contents there shouldn't be used as sources.
So, I think with careful selection they could be used, but I don't think we should be allowed to link to any of their press release like essays. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
No. I won't copy their reply here.
I've left a note at Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#ConsumerLab.com, --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
(Came here from above posting.) I have no prior knowledge of ConsumerLab, but for-profit companies tend to give me pause as an independent arbitrator, especially as a source for medical claims. It's probably my own bias showing here, but commercial companies that have a "Where to buy" prominent link raises serious doubts on my part as to how objective they can be. I would like to see what independent sourcing says about ConsumerLab; if multiple independent reliable (preferably MEDRS) sources say they are reliable, that would go a long way to showing them to be a reliable source for our purposes. Yobol (talk) 01:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Any input from those familiar with GLP? Someone who writes reports based on samples they provide to labs, but won't refuse to name the sources used to write an article breaks the chain of custody of sample. This deliberately obfuscates transparency. From my understanding, having a fairly solid chain of custody of samples is expected. As it stands, there is the "trust me, its correct" "trust me, our labs use GLP" "trust me they're accredited", etc. This makes their report scientifically dubious. One of the summary on notable findings written on Wiki by its alleged PR editor reported "found to have hundred fold difference" when the JAMA source read "0.10 to 10mg /tablet" using outlier min and max samples when STDev was something like 2.5mg. which I consider as misleading with data. secrecysecrecy2 So, there's a lot that can go within the black box "CL.com" that is not disclosed and not open to public auditing which makes the integrity of their finding highly questionable. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 01:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Just addressing the above: Regarding "breaking the chain of custody", I see no evidence of that. Do you have evidence that the chronological documentation demonstrating custody, control, transfer and analysis of the samples is broken? In the source (secrecy2) that you cite, their president, Tod Cooperman, says the reason that ConsumerLab.com does not publicly disclose the names of the labs is because he claims members of industry have threatened several with loss of business; and "before we publish a failing test result, our protocol requires us to confirm the results in a second independent laboratory."
I've never seen standard deviation expressed in mg. before – but I'm not a statistician. Can you provide a diff for what was "written on Wiki by its alleged PR editor" so I can try to better understand your point, please? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Here's the diff that I believe Cantaloupe2 is referring to. The relevant text: "Tests by ConsumerLab.com in 2008 of ten red yeast rice products showed a 100-fold range in amounts of total lovastatins. This finding was subsequently published in The Archives of Internal Medicine in a paper co-authored by Dr. Cooperman and William Obermeyer, PhD." Dreamyshade (talk) 12:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't have much experience with evaluating MEDRS, but here are some individual sources that may be useful for this discussion:
It looks like CLs finding is mentioned in brief statement in conclusion, but does not validate the accuracy. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
This then conflicts with another JAMA source that I referenced and HighBeam business' description and the common sense that there is no lab at a UPS Store mailbox. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I think that is a credible reference to say that CL fails or passes products based on its own proprietary criteria. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • NYT article from 2000: "In the meantime, tests by ConsumerLab.com and others are a useful effort to fill the information gap, said senior researchers at the United States Pharmacopeia and the institutes...ConsumerLab.com's results are consistent with those found by Good Housekeeping and Consumer Reports."
  • NYT article from 2007: "Where, then, can you look for reliable, unbiased information? One place to start is ConsumerLab.com, an independent research organization that tests supplements."
I've done some digging on this. Phys-ed appears to be a column which means that its personalized with the author's opinion. This is not an endorsement of CL.com as credible reference by the NYTimes. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Dreamyshade (talk) 02:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
It appears from the above sources that various medical sources have used it for determining the content of supplements. However, the ones presented here do not use it for the more MEDRS related information such as safety or efficacy. As such, it appears to be reliable for as a source for specific chemical composition of supplement, but not as a secondary source for material such as safety or efficacy (and should be probably be inline attributed to ConsumerLab.com rather than used in Wikipedia's voice). Thoughts? Yobol (talk) 02:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
What do you think about the option of saying "independent laboratory testing showed" or similar when referring to ConsumerLab.com results in an article on a supplement? While attempting to fix some ConsumerLab.com-related material, I found that referring to "ConsumerLab.com" in the text was sometimes distracting due to the awkwardly self-promoting name. I'm not sure what's best here. I agree that it should be attributed in the text in some way at least. Dreamyshade (talk) 08:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
That's pretty much how it's being used [in our articles] now, I think. In the three articles I've looked at, they basically say, "ConsumerLab found that nine out of seventeen products tested contained less than the stated quantity of essential ingredient, one contained none of the essential ingredient" or similar. We certainly shouldn't rely on them for efficacy or safety claims. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Bracketted text added 07:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Some references also corroborates that "CL did this" but not if their findings are relevant beyond samples that were tested. In another JAMA article, it is noted that CLs severe limitation lies in its single batch test methods. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Here's a link to that article, for anyone interested in checking it: 2010 article in the journal Archives of Internal Medicine. Dreamyshade (talk) 04:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
The milk thistle article mentions periodic testing of milk thistle supplements. Although single batch testing was a limitation in the JAMA article, are you sure single batch testing is CL's usual practice? That article also mentions currency: manufacturer practice may have improved (or deteriorated) since the batches were analysed. But, provided we mention the date of the report, and don't single out manufacturers, the thrust of the findings - that there is inconsistent quality in the self-regulated supplements industry - is worth reporting, I think. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I believe so. Noone will know. They're not transparent about this kind of thing. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I tried looking around to see what available sources had to say on the batch testing issue:
  • This ABC News article includes manufacturers responding to ConsumerLab.com tests and mentioning batch issues: "In response, two manufacturers blamed the problem on a labeling mistake. One wrote, 'We simply goofed when the label was made for this batch.'" It seems important to avoid having labeling problems.
  • This 2011 CNN article includes a comment from another challenged manufacturer on batch testing, with context: "The company routinely conducts its own tests, and some variation in electrolytes between batches (or lots) is normal, he added." It seems like the manufacturer decided to settle the suit instead of continuing to say that the ConsumerLab.com tests were flawed, but it sounds like there were other factors involved as well.
  • This 2008 post by an athletic website columnist says: "ConsumerLab operates only on a secret-shopper basis, that is, the product to be tested is purchased from a retail outlet as a consumer would buy it. In this way, the manufacturer has no part in the testing process; however, there is no assurance that a reliable cross-section of production batches will be tested."
  • This 2007 article in American Journal for Clinical Nutrition says "US regulations require that the amount of a vitamin or mineral is always equal to or greater than the label declaration after batch-to-batch variations and expected shelf life losses are taken into account." and later cites a ConsumerLab.com web page for the statement "However, underages have also been reported in US and Canadian products."
This sounds to me like more emphasis that we have to be careful to not exaggerate claims cited to ConsumerLab.com - to avoid saying "most x supplements are low in x" and citing it to them - but it doesn't seem to discourage citing ConsumerLab.com results as "an independent laboratory test in 2011 showed that 6 of 25 tested products didn't have the listed amounts of x" or other limited claims. The medical journal article acknowledged batch variations and still cited ConsumerLab.com for limited claims. Dreamyshade (talk) 08:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

This is the first RS/N discussion I've participated in, and I'm not sure what happens at this point - have we arrived at consensus? Do we need to summarize the arguments so far and try to determine a verdict? Dreamyshade (talk) 13:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not quite done. This is not a insurance claim settlement. There's no urgency to close. Chill. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
This was an honest question; I'm glad to hear that it's still considered an active discussion after a couple quiet days. Thanks! Dreamyshade (talk) 08:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Yep. we keep talking, on and off, until some kind of consensus emerges. Presently, I'm in favour of using ConsumerLabs reports - and the summaries of their reports published on their website - for claims about the quality of the classes of products they test (without naming individual manufacturers) provided we don't say it in "Wikipedia's voice" but use language like that suggested by you above. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
If the findings are notable enough, they'll probably be discussed in media sources. These could be ok in contextually appropriate places where references go around contents rather than contents built around refs in order to add them. In any case, we should not link to CLs press releases as sources as PRs are almost always unacceptable especially on claims that isn't about themselves. The raw report could of good quality, but the same can't be said about editorialized version that CL writes for its press release. For something like "fish oil" article, only a very limited amount is appropriate. Much of their US centric compare and contract and discussion of US regulations specifically for manufactured supplement product and et al are rather irrelevant to the subject of fish oil as a whole. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 09:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Propositions don't need to meet WP:GNG to be included in an article, they need to be relevant and supported by a reliable source. I understand your concerns about the press releases. I might pursue the membership thing with them and see if I can get one, to at least confirm that any claim we take from a press release reflects the original report. (I'm in Australia so they're not going to lose a potential paid member.) And I completely agree with what you say about relevance to an international readership – though the US does represent a large part of our readership, and US manufacturers do export. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Do any of you have access to university libraries? I wonder if some of them might have subscriptions to ConsumerLab.com, like they do for other subscription-only sources. Dreamyshade (talk) 12:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but mine doesn't subscribe. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
That's a good suggestion. In an Afd discussion I was involved in, the dependability of a book source came into a question and I believe user DGG somehow checked what library carried the book in question. I know that ConsumerLab.com publishes print books as well and it would be worthwhile to see if the said ISBNs are carried by any public or educational libraries. Anthonyhcole, are you willing to follow up with CL and ask if they would name some universities which have subscribed to ConsumerLab.com? We can then visit said universities' library pages and verify that it is indeed a resource they subscribe to. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Just for reference, here's a prior discussion on RSN on CL SOURCE OR SPAM? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantaloupe2 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 18 December 2012
OK. I've asked for a membership and asked whether any universities subscribe. If the membership is forthcoming I'll put a note on the talk page of articles that cite CL offering to confirm any claims. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I've got access to the reports now, apparently (I haven't tried yet). I'll have a look at Amway; Swanson Health Products; Dietary supplement; Fish oil; Noni juice; Echinacea; Omega-3 fatty acid; S-Adenosyl methionine; & Selenomethionine some time soon and make sure what we say is confirmed by the actual reports. CL told me that a number of public libraries subscribe to their reports, as well as a lot of the more technically-oriented universities. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
"some public libraries" such as? "a lot of technically oriented universities" such as? Without names, how are we going to validate their claim? Anything that goes on should be transparent to all editors. Whatever goes back and forth privately in email obscures it Are the sources available to editors via Resource Exchange? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I asked whether any libraries carry their reports, the answer was what I gave you. If you want more than that, email them yourself or check the catalog at your local libraries. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Anthonyhcole, thanks for doing the legwork on this! I'd suggest also posting on the talk page of ConsumerLab.com, since earlier we had some discussion about citing notable results on that page, and it's likely to come up again. And what should we do about articles that recently had ConsumerLab.com material but saw it removed due to concerns over promotion and the reliability of the source? Maybe move the material to the talk page for discussion and improvement? Ginkgo biloba diff, Dog health diff #1 and diff #2, Fish oil section with warning tags and Fish oil talk page discussion, Milk thistle diff and Milk thistle talk page discussion, Krill oil diff, Cod liver oil diff, Multivitamin diff. Dreamyshade (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Ah OK. I'll watchlist them too, and address any queries on their talk pages. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Close this?

I think this is nearing closure. We don't single out individual manufacturers based on CL's reports, we use the style of language suggested by Dreamyshade above, and I'll check what we say for accuracy against the full report. Have I missed something? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not necessarily the factual accuracy between their glorified PR pieces vs the report, but also if the reports and claims they make are relevantly important to add to other articles. Another issue I addressed is not inaccurate but misleading claims such as saying "found one hundred fold variation!!!" rather than disclose read "0.01 to 10" for the wow effect. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree that relevance is an important consideration, but it seems like that should be sorted out on each article's talk page, keeping in mind WP:PRESERVE ("As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a 'finished' article, they should be retained if they meet the requirements of the three core content policies"). Also, I think we all agree that the test results should be cited carefully and accurately. Dreamyshade (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Yep. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Far right

The topic of the article far right is groups such as neo-nazis and klansmen. There is a dispute about the statement "Far right politics commonly includes...racialism."[53] An editor says, "misuse of sources. book citation is about hate groups, not far-right politics per se". The source says the "far right" is "openly racist, anti-Semitic and anti-government". [Michael C. Keith, Waves of Rancor: Tuning in the Radical Right, M. E. Sharpe, 1999, p. 38] Clive Webb writes in Rabble rousers: the American far right in the civil rights era, University of Georgia Press, 2010, p. 10, "[T]he term far right...is the label most broadly used by scholars...to describe militant white supremacists."[54]. Another editor says we cannot say that racialism is part of the ideology of klansmen and neonazis because there are racists among all political groups - the federal government for example held American citizens of Japanese ancestry in camps during the Second World War. TFD (talk) 06:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

What are you asking?--Amadscientist (talk) 06:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Is it a reliable source for the article and is it accurately presented. (The issue crosses the RS, OR, and POV, but I have presented it here.) TFD (talk) 06:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The book itself is a source for media and the radical right.
  • The book appears to be reliably published from M E Sharpe Inc.
  • The first author, Robert L. Hilliard appears to be qualified as an author in media arts which is the actual subject of the book.
  • The second listed author, Michael Keith also appears to be a qualified expert on broadcast communication and media.

So, yes, this is a reliable source for the article. Give me a sec to read through it to see how it is being used.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The topic of the article seems to be "Far-right politics", not neo-Nazis and Klansmen. Neo-Nazis and Klansmen are certainly incidental to the topic, but they aren't definitive. You're trying to make a subset of the whole into the whole, which is at best a very elementary error of logic, and at worst is nakedly dishonest POV-pushing.
Regarding the revert you are complaining about... yes, you misused that source in the article and you're misrepresenting what it says here.
First off, the citation for Waves of Rancor: Tuning in the Radical Right that exists in the article refers to page 43, not page 38. Nevertheless, on page 38 the book says:

In this book we most often use three categories; right-wing, which encompasses the moderates; far-right, which includes those who are openly racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-government; and extremist right, which refers to those groups that advocate violence to accomplish the goals embraced by the far right and, in many cases by the moderate right wing.

This is not an authoritative definition. The authors are clearly setting their own definition of "far-right" for use in their own book. TFD is simply cherry-picking, without paying heed to the context.
Moving along to page 43, which is the citation actually used in the article. This is in a sub-section of the chapter labeled on page 42 "In the name of what's right", where Hilliard and Keith begin by saying:

Most designations of right-wing hate groups are limited to those that are easily identifiable as activist organizations that, in the judgment of society as a whole, are causing or intend to cause blatant physical or psychological harm to that society.

It should be obvious (to an honest person who exercises due diligence, that is) that what follows is focused on a specific subset of people: hate groups. And on page 43 (which is, again, the citation actually used in the article), they write:

Berlet and Quigley add to this "theocratic right" movement others as advocates of "regressive populism": patriot, armed militia, and white supremacy groups, the "overtly racist far right organizations" such as the "Ku Klux Klan, Chistian Patriots, racist skinheads, and neonazis and right-wing revolutionaries... promoting in various combinations and to varying degrees authoritarianism, xenophobia, conspiracy theories, nativism, racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-semism, demagoguery, and scapegoating,"

Clearly, obviously, the authors are talking about highly specific groups of people who are subsets of the far-right, NOT the entire far-right. Yet we have TFD here, cherry-picking the bits and pieces that support his ludicrous claim and trying to say that it makes a statement that the book simply does not support. Contrary to TFD's bogus claim, this book absolutely does NOT say "the "far right" is "openly racist, anti-Semitic and anti-government". What it says is that specific groups within the far-right hold those views. BIG difference. Belchfire-TALK 06:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I am afriad that I can't make any comment on the way it is being used as there is no current preview and would require an effort to locate the book through the public library system. Yes, the citation is for page 43 (its in the diff provided) but as far as the subject of the article on Wikipedia...Far-right politics it is simply an article on far right also known as the extreme right or radical right. I see no particular reason the book would not be used for this subject.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
You should be able to see what you need to see at this link: [55]
I'm not disputing the reliability of the book; I'm pointing out that it doesn't say what TFD claims it says. At all. Belchfire-TALK 07:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, give me a sec. I was reading through what you posted above and now i will check that out as well.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, both of you are right. Not a cop out but makes me believe there is a compromise. Whats missing is the balance of opinion from JUST that page. That page actually says:

Dr. Jean V. Hardisty, Director of Political Research Associates, defines the principle goals of the far right politics as "white supremecy...(the rest is about wealth, capitalism, religion and family structure.)

However, the authors go on to say:

"It is important, however, not to stereotype all organizations or movements of the far right with identical aims, or to stereotype all members of those organizations with common motivations or goals.

So, my hope is the two of you can work together to find common ground here. Both have some clear concerns about the source being used. I will say one thing. The source is good and works for the article but the way it was originally written was poor and haphazard. I could make a suggestion here and advise some prose, but you two are the ones working on the article and should be able to do so with this in mind.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is a link to a snippet view of page 38. As Clive Webb says, "[T]he term far right...is the label most broadly used by scholars...to describe militant white supremacists." (Rabble rousers: the American far right in the civil rights era, University of Georgia Press, 2010, p. 10.)[56] That is the subject of the article. How do we describe militant white supremacists (klansmen and neo-nazis) without talking about their racial views? Could Belchfire would like to suggest a different title for the article? TFD (talk) 07:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Now you're going to a source that wasn't involved in the edit you are complaining about, but nevertheless, you're making my point for me. As is spelled out very clearly in your own quote... yes, there are "militant white supremacists" on the far-right. But it is flagrantly dishonest and just ridiculous to use that quote to try and say that the entire far right consists of militant white supremacists, which is the gist of the verbiage that I removed from the article. And since neither of your sources come close to saying such a thing, thus you were misusing the sources.
I don't have an issue with saying that such groups exist on the far-right, PROVIDED that we don't try to say that all such groups are far-right, or that such groups are only found on the far right. That being said, using the wording that I reverted from the article is a non-starter. Belchfire-TALK 07:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


The OP inartfully describes the discussion on that article talk page. Which is -- should "racism" be listed as a "core principle" of the "far right." The OP on that talk page asserts that the "far right" is specifically fascist and neo-nazi, and that the far right "admires Hitler" etc.

He even says there If Collect wishes to continue his argument that racialism forms no part of the ideology of klansmen and neo-nazis then he may continue his defense there. and But one cannot be far right and not racist and Again since admiration for Adolf Hitler is a typical feature of the far right, it is difficult not to mention nazism which has absolutely no rational connection with what I post or with any of my opinions at all. In this Universe.

I would also note that the OPs "quotes" are taken freely out of context and misrepresent the discussion there, which I find a teensy bit dishonest as a debating tactic. My statement is that "racism" is not a "core principle" since it is found in all parts of the political spectrum (and presented 8 substantial cites thereon), and I pointed out the same sources he uses also make this clear -- in fact I cited quite a few sources that "racism" is not a "defining characteristic" of the right, and that some far right militias are, in fact, fully integrated. If one looks at the lead, there is no doubt that the lead ascribes to the "far right" precisely the same attributes as are found in other parts of the "political spectrum" which TFD seems quite unwilling to accept. Collect (talk) 13:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


Note: TFD shows "white supremacists" may be considered "far right." He has not shown any source for the converse - that the far right, as an entire group, is "racist" with that source. In fact, that is the core of the argument -- is the fact that the far right includes racists sufficient to say that the far right is racist as a generalization? Collect (talk) 13:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The edit is consistent with the source. Obviously various groups have been called right-wing, but the term "far right" is normally applied to militant white supremacists, which is what this article is about. Typical examples include the Ku Klux Klan and the America Nazi Party in the US. If you have a source that the ideology of these groups has nothing to do with race, please provide them. If you believe that there is a better name for the article, then please provide one. If you can name any far right groups that have nothing to do with racial theory, please name one. Otherwise your argument is basically that since racism exists across the political spectrum, we cannot say anything about the racial theories of klansment and nazis. ~ TFD (talk)
Actually -- you are trying to make "argument by tautology" that is "Far right are racists, therefore racism is a core principle of the far right." The problem is that your own sources do not make that tautological argument. And since "far right" is not just "klansmen and nazis" per your own sources, your argument fails with a thud. BTW, your straw man argument of trying to get me to say that the Nazi party is not Nazi is absurd -- it is not really a proper type of debate tactic at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
No, TFD. The article is not about militant white supremacists. It mentions militant white supremacists. Do you maybe have a different straw man that you'd like to slap around a little? You've been bashing away at the same one for quite a while now. Belchfire-TALK 16:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Then can you please name a far right group that is not militantly racially supremacist? TFD (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Robin Hood's Barn? Your own sources make the statement that they are are not all "racially supremacist"! 'When one refuses to read one's own sources, it becomes "difficult" to discuss much - so I decline to further this game here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm done with this as well, but I will at least provide the example TFD is asking for. Here you go: [57] Try not to make a mess when your head explodes, OK? Belchfire-TALK 17:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Belchfire, your link is to an article about Alan Keyes's PAC. Alan Keyes' PAC is not far right and your source does not say he is. Can you please name a far right group that is not militantly racially supremacist? TFD (talk) 05:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Not really an RS policy comment, but as a practical answer to your rhetorical question, in Europe the term "far right" is often applied to parties which advocate things like stricter migration rules, pledges of allegiance, economic protectionism, anti-burqa laws and so on. While such populist parochialism might (or might not) be driven by hidden racism, and is obviously open to notable accusations of racisms, it is obviously going one step to far to simply equate populist parochialism to racism.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll just be blunt. The source that TFD supplied simply does not support the claims that were made. End of story. Seriously. There seems to be a lot of "not seeing whats there" and cherry picking going on with that source.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

veteranstoday.com

Cited (see reflist) in Kathy Kelly to support

"Kelly stayed a week in solidarity with the arrested Greek captain until bail could be arranged, then attempted to reach Gaza by plane in the "Flytilla",[4] but was denied entry to Israel and returned to Greece."
  1. ^ Kate Coleman (June 9, 2012). "True Hollywood Story: The Producer and the Black Panther". editor's picks. Salon.com. Retrieved September 23, 2012.
  2. ^ Pearson, Hugh (1994). In the Shadow of the Panther: Huey Newton and the Price of Black Power in America. Perseus Books. ISBN 978-0-201-48341-3.
  3. ^ http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/REVISIONISM-Guess-Who-s-Mything-Them-Now-The-2609696.php
  4. ^ Wall, James M (July 9, 2011). "Netanyahu Panics — American and European activists Flytilla". Veterans Today.

The citation was deleted with the edit summary "not RS". --Lexein (talk) 04:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

A site that labels itself "the TRUE voice of the worldwide clandestine community" with articles like http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/05/30/breaking-exclusive-japan-attack-german-terror-intel-group-complicit/ and http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/12/01/secret-space-war/ means that that source has a steep uphill battle before I would treat it as a reliable source for anything. This appears to be of the same credibility as the Weekly World News.—Kww(talk) 05:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
That is correct. Self proclaimed POV site: "..representing the position of members of the military and veteran community in areas of national security, geopolitical stability and domestic policy" as well as advocacy: "VT writers and editors are veterans or proven veterans’ advocates". Not reliably published: "Publishers: The men and women of the clandestine and special operations services".--Amadscientist (talk) 05:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough, all. Just wanted it on the record. Too bad for them, and in this case citing one of Kelly's trips. --Lexein (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

National Catholic Reporter

ncronline.org - never discussed here before. I'm asking because, as above, the facts claimed seem unremarkable. Cited in Kathy Kelly to support this:

"A judge affirmed the fine in late 2004.[1] In 2005, Kelly announced that Voices in the Wilderness disbanded, and the group Voices for Creative Nonviolence was formed to continue challenging U.S. military and economic warfare against Iraq and other countries.[1]"
  1. ^ a b McClory, Robert (November 18, 2005). "Voices in Wilderness disbands; new group formed". National Catholic Reporter (via TheFreeLibrary.com). Retrieved 2012-12-20.

--Lexein (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with this. One should be careful that we've had a case in the past where the NCR was cited spuriously, but it seems clear that we have an accurate report of the text in this case. Mangoe (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_138&oldid=1142502301"