Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 10

Probably not the best source - certainly not at the level of a newsmagazine like U.S. News & World Report, or even The New Republic. It does seem to have a fairly high circulation, assuming the figures are accurate. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I am extremely skeptical of those figures. It seems highly

implausible that a fringe magazine for a 6,000-member cult has higher circulation than The Nation, The Weekly Standard, or The New Republic, just to name a few. Cults have a reputation for exaggerating membership and publication figures (with Scientology, for instance, they often buy books en masse off the shelves and then re-sell them, to juice their sales figures). *** Crotalus ***

15:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Those figures are extraordinary. 300,000 copies per month for an organisation with 6,000 members works out at 50 copies per member. It's most likely that those reflect free distribution copies rather than commercial sales figures (Scientology's

WP:V's requirement that sources should have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." I've done a search of news archives and Google Books but found negligible use of the Trumpet as a source. The few sources I did find used it mainly as a source on the PCoG, which is fair enough given that it's the official organ of that outfit, though I was amused to see that one source described it as "hopelessly fundamentalist"! It seems to me that if other reliable sources are not citing the Trumpet as a source for information on general issues, we should not do so; I've found nothing that suggests it has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." -- ChrisO (talk

) 22:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Are parody news sources, like The Onion, SNL News, The Daily Show, The Colbert Report considered reliable sources for criticism of people or organizations? They cannot be easily rebutted because of their satirical nature. Arzel (talk) 01:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

They are sources only about themselves. If they are a canonical example of a notable or widespread form of satire regarding the subject, then they could perhaps be cited as an example thereof, but ideally only if there is an independent source identifying it as such. Guy (Help!) 23:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

How about a third party using then as a source for criticism. For example. B criticizes A regarding some scenario, A responds to B about that scenario. C (The parody source) lampoons the scenario which makes A look stupid or relfects badly against A and subsequently makes B look good. B then uses C as evidence against in its criticism against A. Can the Paradoy source C be used as a reliable source for B to reflect the POV of B against A? Arzel (talk) 01:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Having drawn a small flowchart on a table napkin, I am ready to answer you now: No, not unless D, a reliable secondary source, tells us that C is a notable expression of the reaction to A and B's conflict. Could we look at the specific example to see if I got that right? Relata refero (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Arzel, you wouldn't happen to be talking about this topic would you? (link) R. Baley (talk) 07:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is the example. B is Media Matters criticizing A Limbaugh (who, don't get me wrong, I think is an arrogant jerk). A responds, claiming his word were taken out of context. C parodies the situation, which B uses to criticize A from a type of strawman point of view. My main problem with this use of a parody in this sense is that those that do parodies could be used as a reliable source in many situations to denagrate one side or the other. Arzel (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't think that that would be an appropriate source for a genuine report on the disagreement between A and B. (Though I am sympathetic to the view that C's opinion of the disagreement might in itself be notable.) Relata refero (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• My view is that Parodies are works of fiction, and cannot be treated as evidence of real-world evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

So, would the general concensus be that parodies cannot be used as a reliable source for describing a real-world situation. Or to put it more bluntly, parodies cannot be used as a reliable source of criticism against a real person, unless the parody itself reaches a level of notability itself, in which case the parody becomes its own story? Arzel (talk) 02:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a debate going on over on

Originally, the argument seemed to be over whether certain kinds of statements, supposedly based on the content of a court opinion in a case, were valid on their own or should be considered "unsourced". That's why I first brought up the question on WP:ORN. Now, though, I'm wondering whether maybe the point at issue would be better characterized as where the line should be drawn between reliable and not-so-reliable sources.

If some people who hang out on this noticeboard might take a moment to hop over to WP:ORN, read what's already been said there on this issue, and offer some guidance, I think we would both be grateful. Or, if people here think that this topic really ought to be discussed here instead and want to move it to this forum, that would presumably be fine too. Thanks. Richwales (talk) 04:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Are these reliable? They change regularly and can vary by channel. For example NBC, ABC, and CBS all broadcast soaps which are rebroadcast on SOAPnet. The credits are different on the broadcast stations from what they are on SoapNet. So, are screen caps considered reliable? KellyAna (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Since they are created by the show's producers, I can't see why the credits from the latest first-run episodes wouldn't be the most reliable sources possible for the names of characters and the actors and actresses that portray them. Unless there's a large body of evidence that can be posted on Wikipedia from the show's dialogue itself that contradicts the latest credits, those credits should be the most reliable source for information regarding television programs. -- Dougie WII (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The credits should reflect the attached show (similar to the "cite the book you're holding" standard -- base your edits on the paperback you're holding and tell us it's the paperback and not the hardcover edition). Being different on different presentations may be due to contractual, style, or editing differences. It's possible for the appearance to be different while having the same content; there are now advantages to using reformatted credits so they can be displayed in different formats (so the next show or commercials can fit on the screen during credits). I don't know how much detail is needed in articles; I don't know if movie articles describe all of the alterations made to fit a movie to broadcast TV or airline requirements. -- SEWilco (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you please expandon or link to that "cite the book you're holding" standard please? It seems that KellyAna is making the assertion that anything you see on a television program yourself (or in secondary sources) is less important than the website associated with it. Thanks. -- Dougie WII (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The "cite the book you're holding" standard basically means that, using KellyAna's soap example above, you would specifically reference the credits you are citing as being from ABC, SoapNet, etc., so that even if they differ for a given day for some reason, it is clear which source the info is from. In the case of books, obviously a page number referenced for a quote will differ from edition to edition, so noting the edition/ISBN would be crucial when citing page numbers. — TAnthony^Talk 18:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a violation of

WP:NOR to me. Dlabtot (talk

) 18:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't a television screen capture a published source, just as a book is? -- Dougie WII (talk) 19:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Not according to my understanding of the word published. Published by whom? A television station, cable or satellite company broadcasts a program, and a Wikipedia editor screen captures the closing credits of that program. Who is the secondary source? It seems like the epitome of original research to me. Dlabtot (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

We can certainly cite the credits listed at the end of a television program... The airing of a program is considered equivalent to "publication", and the TV program itself is a reliable source for what is stated in that TV program. As to the NOR issue, citing something you see on a TV program is no more a NOR violation than citing a book or webpage you read. It isn't a conclusion or synthesis originating from a Wikipedia editor. Blueboar (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe I'm misunderstanding

WT:NOR. Dlabtot (talk

) 20:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

If a screenshot couldn't be used as a reliable source, how could any exist on Wikipedia then? How could anyone prove a screen shot picture of, say, Darth Vader was really accurate? Under your scheme it would all be original research. -- Dougie WII (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the discussion may be getting off track with this "other stuff exists" argument. I can't imagine a situation where someone would dispute the accuracy of this screen shot. However, I definitely take issue with the proposition that a production's credits should automatically be considered reliable as a source for an encyclopedia article about that production. Many credits are fictitious, jokes, pseudonyms, etc. Who played the "Victim in the Field" in Fargo? If you went by the credits you would never have heard of J. Todd Anderson. Dlabtot (talk) 20:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The key word is "interpretation". Simple statements of fact (such as who played what role, who the director was, or where the show was filmed, etc.) about what appears in the credits do not involve any "interpretation". In fact, the similarity to a book or website is more exact here... unlike the rest of a TV program, the credits are in print format. We can read them in exactly the same way we read a book. No, looking at the closing credits is "Sourced based research" not "Original research". Now, if you were to go "beyond the source", and state (for example) that all members of the production team were of Irish descent, because everyone listed in the credits seems to have Irish names... that would be OR. Do you see the difference? Blueboar (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, if we assume that referencing the credits is not OR, I am wondering about verifiability. If I were to state in an article that Meryl Streep played Erica Kane on All My Children for a day on February 4 2008 based on my viewing of the episode and noting the credits, is that verifiable if the episode will probably never be broadcast and never be available on DVD? Or is the threshhold that a copy of the program exists somewhere, and although an everyday person may not have the resources/access to confirm it, the possibility exists? Although we know that a source does not have to be available online to be reliable/verifiable, KellyAna has more or less made the convincing argument elsewhere that if a website does exist, it should perhaps trump an "as seen on TV" reference (which is not so easily verified), regardless of which source is technically more accurate.

I am just thinking that as much as a screencap is obvious "proof" that could be used between editors to clarify a dispute, I doubt that in most cases a fair use screencap of credits would have an appropriate place within an article just for the purpose of such clarification. This actually is one element of the discussion that prompted KellyAna and Dougie WII to dicuss the issue here. — TAnthony^Talk 18:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Your question is good in a general sense, but in this specific case of Passions, the episodes are available for up to eight weeks online, a source already determined to be valid. -- Dougie WII (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but months from now when the series is no longer airing ... I'm also looking at the bigger picture, there are several articles which reference things like "so-and-so noted his birthday as May 15 in the May 1 2007 episode" which are not noted in the official site recaps, and so are not readily verified. — TAnthony^Talk 21:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

When a TV series no longer airs, it is extremely rare that it completely disappears. It may be available on Video, it may be accessible at a public repository such as a Museum of Film and Television. As long as someone could access it without undue difficulty (and that someone does not have to be "you"), the information is still verifiable. And as long as the information is still verifiable, the show itself remains a reliable source for such statements.

Sure, it might turn out that the episode completely disappears for some reason, and if that happens (ie if the show becomes unverifiable) we would need to revisit the question of reliability of the source. But I think we should deal with that question when and if it actually happens.

In this specific case, because it is available on line... we can probably recall it through Wayback Machine, which can retrieve the information that was on a web site on any given date... (Truth in Advertizing: I am not sure how Wayback works, never having used it, but I gather that it does work.) if so, then the show will never be completely lost. Blueboar (talk) 01:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wayback will indeed recover historical pages that have been archived by its bots, but you can't recover the kind of video material we're talking about, which is copyrighted and thus protected from this kind of archiving (I'm talking about the legitimate network sites and iTunes). Not to beat the hell out of this argument (too late, LOL) but obviously with a book, movie or a great deal of TV shows, a regular person could hit a library or a video store. The only place to find an outdated daytime soap episode (outside of a viewer's personal recording) would probably be the network and/or studio's own archive (assuming the Museum of Film and Television doesn't have every episode of the shows that have run daily for 30+ years). Obviously someone can access such tapes, but are they accessible enough? I do think with non-controversial info not likely to be challenged, we can take information on good faith. However I'm not sure whether this level of verifiability could withstand a challenge, as is happening at Talk:Theresa Lopez-Fitzgerald#Requested move. I personally am compelled to agree with Dougie WII and Blueboar that if it exists somewhere accessible to someone, it is verifiable. But again, is there some precedent or consensus somewhere with which we can back this up? — TAnthony^Talk 15:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Rare out-of-print books available in only a limited number of private hands and locked up in special areas of few libraries would still be verifiable no? -- Dougie WII (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

In (yet another) wholesale rewrite of this highly-unstable article, all the above-discussed sources have been replaced, rendering this issue moot. The replacements aren't wonderful (Spanish-language magazines) & only infrequently support the material, but that's an issue I can handle on my own. I would therefore like to close by thanking this noticeboard for the deep and detailed insights it offered. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Are Bruce Dixon or www.blackcommentator.com reliable sources regarding Israel? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... I don't know about reliability... but my Norton anti-virus flags it as a potential scam site (in fact, including a link to it made Norton flag this page as a potential scam... removing the "http:" prefix seems to fix that problem). For this reason, we should probably disallow it. Blueboar (talk) 13:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Dunno about reliability, either, but it's a site for advocacy of afro-american rights, so it will be very biased and POV when treating those topics --Enric Naval (talk) 14:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It is clearly advocay site of more than just one subject. Zeq (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Oooops, you are right, I misread their "about us" page. Well, anyways, it makes no claims for fact checking, only for advocacy, so it still wouldn't be reliable --Enric Naval (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting question you've raised, Jay, but it has no bearing on the dispute which you are presumably referring to. The original wording, over at

On the contrary, Eleland, it's quite relevant. If a "critic" is non-notable or non-reliable then we don't quote him or use him as a reference, it doesn't mean we throw

WP:GAME-ing and policy abusing behavior, I'm afraid, of the sort which has plagued AoIA for some time now. Jayjg ^(talk)

03:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: you're comparing one of the longest-term critics of the DLC and former colleague of Barack Obama's to David Duke? Relata refero (talk) 07:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea who Bruce Dixon is, that's why I brought him to this board. Is he notable? Is he a reliable source? What's your view? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he's a reliable source, though he may be a valuable opinion for a particular sort of of thinking. But the point is that if you compare people about whom you know nothing to neo-Nazis reflexively, nobody is likely to take you very seriously. Relata refero (talk) 08:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Good thing I don't "reflexively compare people about whom you know nothing to neo-Nazis" then, isn't it? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait, David Duke isn't a neo-Nazi now? Relata refero (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Mu. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you want to exclude all "cyperpropaganda sites" from Isr-Pal articles, it's an interesting proposal. But clearly this is not what you're proposing.

Nobody is claiming that EI is a reliable source for contentious claims of fact. We want to include its attributed commentary. The JPost reviewer praised EI. The JTA reviewer criticized it while acknowledging that it is useful for understanding the Palestinian cause. Lots of sources are criticized by other sources, often in much harsher terms than the JTA used. For example, the editor-in-chief of Ha'aretz dismisses CAMERA as a "McCarthyite" group issuing "tendentious statements and comments" not worth responding to. [6] Yet you're currently

WP:GAME par excellence, and your lamebrained mimicry and non sequitors about David Duke don't change that. <eleland/talkedits

> 11:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You are making a distinction that is nowhere reflected in actual policy; if a source is not reliable, then we can't use it, even for opinion. For example, here an editor argues that we can use Stormfront as a source, not for fact, but merely for their own opinion regarding the race of ancient Egyptians. However, as a number of other editors later pointed out to him, if a source is unreliable, then we don't quote its opinions (outside, perhaps, its own article). Wikipedia doesn't reproduce the opinions of non-notable, non-reliable sources - or at least it shouldn't. Also, the source for this claim really is Bruce Dixon, not Electronic Intifada, but in any event, are either noted for third party fact checking? Regarding the Ouze Merham article, the last time I added a source to the article it was the

Chicago Sun Times. And, in my personal experience, Electronic Intifada is significantly less reliable than CAMERA, but that's just my personal experience. Regarding MEMRI, you keep claiming they're particularly unreliable, but you have singularly failed to prove it As for the Jewish Virtual Library as a source, I don't know why you're bringing it up - I don't recall having any discussions about it recently. In any event, people can certainly disagree about the relative reliability of sources (obviously no source is 100% reliable 100% of the time, while even a stopped clock is correct twice a day), but there's hardly a need for this vitriol and rancor about it. Finally, if you don't want to have your own words fed back to you, I'll make you a deal; stick to discussing whether or not sources are reliable (which is the purpose of this board), instead of insulting other editors, and I won't mirror your words back to you. Fair enough? Jayjg ^(talk)

01:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

IS there somewhere where I can !vote in favour of Jay's proposed exclusion of all cyberpropaganda sites? Relata refero (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

What is the term used to describe falsely attributing a proposal to someone who hasn't actually made that proposal? I believe it's trolling, isn't it? In any event, if you are indeed keen on removing all cyberpropaganda sites, here are several hundred articles you can start on: [7] [8] [9] [10] Jayjg ^(talk) 01:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No, Jay, its called a "joke" in this context. Look up the word if unfamiliar with it. That was also a joke. And believe me, I remove CounterPunch wherever I find it unless it is hosting an article by an avowed expert. (Though I don't see how it is cyberpropaganda, merely biased. Also the difference between MEMRI/CAMERA and WorldNetDaily.) May I point out that accusations of trolling and diverting attention from the subject in this manner are not generally considered good practice, to put it mildly. Relata refero (talk) 08:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't "diverting attention from the subject; if anything, your proposal to "!vote in favour of Jay's proposed exclusion of all cyberpropaganda sites" was. And of course, my reference to "trolling" was a "joke" in this context, exactly as your statement was - and just as funny! Jayjg ^(talk) 03:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

To what extent are general-purpose dictionaries considered RS with respect to inherently complex topics? For example, in the current insurgency article, several respected dictionaries are used as examples of "historically accepted" definitions of insurgency. My sense is that the space limitations of a dictionary make a definition there much less reliable than a discussion, of the same word, in a peer-reviewed report, journal, or monograph. Is there any guidance here?

Note that I understand that certain "dictionaries" are actually specialized monographs, encyclopedias, or textbooks. Here, I'm referring to things such as Merriam-Webster or the OED. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Dictionaries are reliable tertiary sources. We try not to use them too heavily, but comparing/contrasting a couple of dictionary definitions should be fine near the beginning of an article, to explain what a word means. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I am just wondering, is it a reliable source? It has lots of users. http://www.accesshollywood.com/ Thank you. --Kanonkas, Take Contact (talk) 01:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to specify an aspect of it. Some or many of the news items it publishes are in fact republications from reliable sources. Other parts of the site contain blogs (unreliable). Someguy1221 (talk) 02:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, what I meant was. Articles submited by their staff, not bloggers. For example, http://www.accesshollywood.com/article/8864/three-rising-stars-land-coveted-high-school-musical-3-roles/ Is this a reliable article? --Kanonkas, Take Contact (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, given that

access hollywood is itself notable, there seems to be a system of editorial oversight present, and its parent company (NBC) is a reliable source, I'd assume it to be reliable in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary. Someguy1221 (talk

) 02:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

In the Great Scale of Celebrity Gossip, Access Hollywood is more

US Weekly. Relata refero (talk

) 15:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Do Holy Books count as Reference for an religous article and is it possible to insert text straight out of Holy Books and then summarise it into an article ? Or would Actual Pictures from an holy book be listed as an reliable source? i mean the text mentioned in a holy book should have the right to be inserted into an holy article and the text is the absolute truth. so do Actual Text and Actual Photos straight out of holy books become an reliable source or is an Summary Book from somebody else point of view better ? so either Holy Book or Summary of Book from an author which are reliable, Or are the two of them reliable sources? please let me know before i make movements and get into conflicts. --Mohun (talk) 05:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The original text of a religious scripture is a

WP:PSTS. Relata refero (talk

) 09:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• In many cases, articles about religious subjects need to cite
  neutral point of view. Descriptions of the summary of a religious text may also be useful as reliable sources for describing the teachings of that religion. I am not sure which holy books you are thinking of that contain actual photos, given that most religious texts predate the invention of photography. Furthermore, Wikipedia could only use such photos if they are no longer in copyright or if they are freely licensed. If you have a particular text that you want to cite for a particular point, please provide further details and someone may be able to advise you further. --Metropolitan90 (talk)
  09:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

For the background to this see Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Mah.C4.81mada. Mohun is a sock of DWhiskaZ. Paul B (talk) 12:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

"Actual photos" apparently means scans of textual illustrations in books, such as can be seen in this old version of the article in question. This is more than a little dubious. First, since the purpose is to show text, the text can be quoted directly. Second, in this particular case, the "photos" in the source book are of poor quality and possibly not sourced themselves to reliable versions -- for example, this image not only has a typo, it also betrays a non-standard numbering in the "original" source from which the illustration was made for the book. rudra (talk) 14:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

An editor is particularly keen to use this document .[11] in a number of articles related to sexuality. The booklet is entitled "Masculinity for Boys, Resource Guide for Peer Educators, Published by UNESCO, New Delhi, 2006". As this indicates it is published through UNESCO, but the second page clearly states, "The opinion expressed in this documents [sic] are the reponsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official positions of UNESCO New Delhi".

The text of this document is full of grand ex cathedra assertions. For example:

"The masculinity with which boys are born is natural masculinity. This is given by nature. However society has created a mechanism by which it does not acknowledge this masculinity."

"modern heterosexual societies take sexual exploitation of men to new heights - often with official sanction. Grown up boys and young men in the west are required to strip naked before female doctors, nurses and officials"

"Now ragging in the West almost always involve [sic] boys being forcibly stripped by girls (with the backing of male seniors) or being forced to masturbate in front of them".

I could add more passages, which seem to me to be very...eccentric. The general argument seems to be that it is natural for men to bond with other men, and to sexually desire them, but that the western distinction between "gay" and "straight" identity causes confusion for boys, who are also being sexually humiliated by over-assertive women, who are given power by this "heterosexualised" culture. In India traditional models of gender and sexual behaviour do not involve these problems, but India is being tainted by Western ideas.

However, my personal opinion of course is not a good reason to reject a source which has at least some claim to authoritative status via UNESCO. Any thoughts on how to evaluate this source? Paul B (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If its not a position paper by UNESCO Delhi, it doesn't have the UNESCO stamp. I don't see an author's name, so its totally unreliable. It doesn't appear particularly well-researched to me either. Relata refero (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Given the prominent UNESCO disclaimer and unknown authorship, I don't see how this document can be regarded as a reliable source for the subject. A little web sleuthing suggests that it was written by Alok Srivastava of "Youth Alliance for AIDS removal" (YAAR, an Indian NGO), but even if that proves to be true, it does not help in establishing the documents reliability. I think its use on wikipedia in not warranted especially since innumerable scholarly books and articles are available on the subject. Abecedare (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

• I would strongly avoid use of this document because (1) the author is anonymous, (2) the publisher disclaims endorsement of the views expressed therein, and (3) its claims are contentious. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

An organisation like UNESCO doesn't just publish anything. If it has given its name to a document, and has published it using its own money, and is using the book in several of its programmes, and has gone out of its way to advertise the book on its websites as well put the entire text out on the net on its own website -- it is not an honour that it gives to many of its documents -- then it would be foolish or outright questionable to question its reliability.

Several UNESCO websites claim quite clearly that "The publication has been brought out jointly by UNESCO New Delhi and YAAR (a New Delhi based NGO working with youth), which deals with the issues of gender and sexual health of youth of India." Do you think UNESCO would give its name just to any document and risk its credibility. I would say, if UNESCO has given its name to something, then even if its seems an outright lie, one has to take it seriously.

Then again, its a general policy to put a note on books published by UNESCO that the views expressed in the document are of the author(s), even then the above fact holds true that if UNESCO Delhi didn't trust fully that the contents are 100% true, they won't publish it without at least editing out the doubtful points. (Masculinity (talk) 16:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC))

The document clearly states that the book is the result of a series of Consultations held with young people. It cannot be relegated to the opinion of one or two authors. UNESCO doesn't usually pay for publishing personal views or ideologies of people, especially if they are disconnected with reality.(Masculinity (talk) 16:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC))

The above mentioned book is being used extensively not only by UNESCO and UNIFEM in their various projects, at least in India, but also by several other social intervention agencies, including Jagori, SAATHI, YAARI-DOSTI etc. The Hindi version of this book called, "Mardanagi, purushon ke liye ek Margdarshak" is being used widely as well. (Masculinity (talk) 16:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC))

The group YAAR has been working with men on the issues of gender and sexuality for several years with important agencies such as UNESCO, Government of India, Government of Netherlands, Various state governments in India, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, and several national and local level agencies of repute in India. The organisation has a grasp on the core issues and has a respectable position amongst NGOs in India. It has presented several papers in national and international conferences (including on this issue of sexual identities vis-a-vis men) and several of these abstracts are available on the net (e.g. http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/MeetingAbstracts/ma?f=102241127.html

Addressing the issues of male-to-male sexuality in India)

Its work has been acknowledged by several documentations, even on the net, e.g. by this one entitled:

“Oh! This one is infected!”: Women, HIV & Human Rights in the Asia-Pacific Region. Paper commissioned by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, from ICW 2004 By Susan Paxton, with Alice Welbourn, P Kousalya, Anandi Yuvaraj, Sapana Pradhan Malla and Motoko Seko. Excerpt: "Examples such as the YAAR project, working with young men in schools in Delhi to explore gender and sexuality issues, should be more widely disseminated."

Its members have been invited to present papers at international conferences and even to facilitate workshops on gender and sexuality issues. E.g., K.Vidya from YAAR was invited to South Africa conference of IPAS to facilitate a workshop on Gender. http://www.iwtc.org/ideas/9a_gender.pdf.

In fact, one report on a set of workshops conducted on male gender and sexuality with adolescent boys in Delhi received world-wide publicity and is today stored in several universities and libraries all across the world. It can be read at this site of UNIFEM: www.unifem.org/campaigns/csw/documents/MenAndMasculinities.pdf

(Masculinity (talk) 16:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC))

It's true that the book isn't about anthropological study or a scholarly research. However, it doesn't become invalid because of that. In fact, there are limits/ gaps of scholarly researches, which can only be filled by action researches such as those conducted by intervention agencies working at the grassroots level. The scholarly researches are severely limited because of several factors, and may be too much quantity oriented -- meaning concerned largely with statistics (like the Shivananda Khan's study that says 72% truck drivers in north pakistan have had sex with other men). However, the researches/ evidences presented by intervention agencies working at the grassroots level can be extremely important, since they have a reach where scholars cannot go. And this is where the UNESCO document is extremely important -- for its empirical evidence, which is invaluable. So stop questioning the validity of the document.(Masculinity (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC))

And then, its not as if this document is the only one I've used ... or even the primary one. Whatever is being quoted from this document in the article, has been validated by several other references (provided here) -- including anthropological studies, newspaper and other articles, published papers in reputed international conferences/ universities, etc. The UNESCO document is unique only because its gives the 'qualitative' picture or the 'EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE' of the stuff that all the other scholarly references have clearly enumerated, but more as quantitative data. (Masculinity (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC))

to say it's not a reliable source is an understatement - it should be removed on sight. --87.114.149.247 (talk) 17:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope this is not a personal discomfort with the book? By the way, unsigned remarks don't count.(Masculinity (talk) 03:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

No it's professional discomfort - I'm a academic and it offends me to see such crap used as a source here, it fit for toilet paper and that's about it. Don't attack me as a person again or I'll move to have you blocked. --87.112.64.140 (talk) 11:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Please keep your professional issues with yourself. I'm afraid, we're here as just editors helping out Wikipedia. You've no right to question a source like UNESCO. You can discredit this UNESCO document academically, and then discredit it here. I doubt you will be able to do that, since this document does not claim to be an academic work and thus is not bound by academic rules. What this book does claim, is to be based on years of social work, actual ground level work with youths of India on gender and sexual health issues, and bring to us enormous wealth of empirical data, which has also been valued in the academic circles. (124.30.94.10 (talk) 05:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC))

Oh and it's massively overcited in this article - that needs some major clean-up.

I don't see the issue here. It is commonplace to have that disclaimer. It clearly is a UNESCO paper. And while there are many scattered Anthropological studies easily accessed by a google search, the field of anthropology itself admits to having lagged behind in their studies of this topic and that it has become an issue within that community to remedy that. No one anthropological study has put it all together in one document as has UNESCO. I can't help but wonder what is so threatening about this information to have it undergo so much undo scrutiny.

It does not "put it [research] all together in one document as has UNESCO". What 'anthropological research' states that in 'the West' men are 'almost always' forced to masturbate in front of girls during 'ragging'? It is unreferenced drivel, and profoundly misogynistic drivel at that. Nothing is more vivid in this document than its author's pathological fear of women. Serious sources - of which there are indeed many - say nothing like this. Paul B (talk) 11:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

leaving aside the fact that it's dire - no author is identified, no sources are presented within the document - it's unreliable by our standards. What about it says "anthropology study" rather than "ravings of a crackpot" to you DezNChris? --87.112.64.140 (talk) 11:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Again. No bibliography; prominent disclaimer; un-named author = not reliable. Relata refero (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

UNESCO is all the name you need. Besides, Alok Srivastava of YAAR NGO has been listed as the main author.(124.30.94.10 (talk) 05:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC))

This guy has massive WP:OWN issues that need to be dealt with - he's seems intent on just reverting anyone who tries to clean-up articles that contain that document (and other unreliable sources). --87.112.38.211 (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The final word hasn't been said yet, so don't be in a hurry. You can't just dismiss a UN document. I think, first we should wait for more people to comment and then the issue may have to be referred to administrators. (Masculinity (talk) 02:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC))

The book doesn't claim to be based on anthropological research. The book is based on action research. Apart from the ground situation in India, it also talks about the perceptions amongst the male youth regarding different issues of masculinity. Ragging is known as hazing in the West, and it is not uncommon for guys to be made to masturbate in front of girls. There have been several such cases in India recently, as our society is heterosexualised and hostels made common for girls and boys. There are several evidences (not researches but personal accounts and pics) available on the net for that. The idea is totally against the Indian ethos, and so the anger of Indians to a forced Western practice is understandable.

However, the merit of the book is about the various case studies that it has presented, and the empirical evidences. I am only quoting the document for facts for which other resources (e.g. anthropological studies) are available. It gives a much more detailed and empirical information about those issues.

Besides, like I said, the editors here are not supposed to review a book for its validity as a reference. That is dangerous. We have to go by the rules. And as per the rules, UNESCO is a valid source. Whether or not we agree with the information.

It works both ways, I have to withhold or delete a lot of information that some aggressive elements in LGBT don't personally like, eventhough it is common knowledge across the non-West, just because no references from reputed sources was available. But, when they're available, you can't dismiss it because you don't agree with the content.(Masculinity (talk) 02:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC))

We're still on this? Masculinity for boys appears to be very idiosyncratic. It cannot be considered a reliable source. If other sources can be cited for points currently sourced by Masculinity for boys, those sources should be swapped in. Otherwise those points are effectively unsourced and should probably be removed.

It would be interesting if there were some scholarly evaluation of this document as representing the views of a particular culture, but as presented it appears to be the ambitious opinion of a single author. UNESCO Delhi funded this, but gives no evidence of peer review or oversight, even an editor's name. What would be (to use Masculinity's term) "dangerous" would be to accept Masculinity for boys as a reliable source. / edg ☺ ☭ 02:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Masculinity is convinced that there is an International Gay Conspiracy, which is really, to confuse matters more, an unwitting part of a wider "heterosexual" conspiracy to construct rigid separation of gay and straight identities in both Western and non-Western cultures. It is therefore 'dangerous' for those who promote this ideology on Wikipedia to have this fact revealed. Supporters of this gay/hetero ideology therefore have to 'suppress' the evidence. In fact there are many genuinely good sources that do discuss the legitimate aspects of the issues to which he is referring, but in a balanced and measured way, without resorting to wild hypoerbole and conspiracy theory. We have already included these here and it would be good to be able to progress on this without having efforts at NPOV destroyed by the promotion of fringe theories. I wonder if this issue would be worth raising on the Fringe Theories noticeboard? Paul B (talk) 09:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Edg, again, we as editors are not supposed to give our own opinions about the references if they come from a valid source. If the cultural values of others seem idiosyncratic to you -- and if these 'idiosyncracies' are being given a place in a UNESCO publication, and is widely being used in a specific culture, then you have to give repect to it, and live with that 'idiosyncracy', till you discredit it using a valid platform. Wikipedia is not a valid platform to discredit a UN document.

Also, this is not an academic work, so there is very little academicians can do to discredit this. You don't need peer-review of books in this field. Your credibility is judged by the platform that supports you, and agencies that use your work, and this book is doing excellent on those counts. This is based on action research and social work, and only through this platform can this book be discredit, which is almost impossible, because this book is based on solid ground level facts.

Then again, there are numerous other sources provided for things quoted from this book, which are scholarly works, the references from this book are only used as empirical evidence to back up those more academic sources, which I guess is perfectly valid. There might have been an issue, if this was the only source used, and things claimed in this book were countered by other scholarly references or even unsubstantiated by them, which is not the case. Whatever is said in the quotes taken from this book has been reverberated by several other important academic works.

(124.30.94.10 (talk) 05:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC))

If it's not already obvious, I should point out that 124.30.94.10 is user:Masculinity, not a separate editor. Paul B (talk) 09:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Tend to agree with the above. --Haemo (talk) 03:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Paul, your personal vendatta against the book is clear from the your baseless accusations against the book/ author. Had the author been misogynic, UNIFEM would not have included his book or his name on their website, nor would they use it in multitudes of programmes they conduct with men.(Masculinity (talk) 05:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC))

Is this still being argued ?! Lets compare how this report compares to an unarguably reliable publication from UNESCO.

Hope this establishes what a reliable publication from UNESCO looks like, and curtails further arguments along the lines, "UNESCO is a reliable source" [sic]. Clearly these two reports represent two extremes on the reliability scale, and as is the consensus of all uninvolved editors above, the "Masculinity" report fails wikipedia's

Is Mazin Qumsiyeh and his personal website http://qumsiyeh.org a reliable source? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

He is an activist a board member in the "Association for One Democratic State in Israel/Palestine" which is a political advocy group who work to undermine Israel's right to exist Zeq (talk) 10:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Or, of course, he is a tenured scientist at Yale who happened to write a book praising a particular solution to the Israeli-Palestinian issue apparently favoured by a fifth of Israeli citizens. Whatever. Either way, not a particularly notable figure for this problem, though his website claims he has written "over 30 op-eds" on the issue, and his book was published by a well-known publisher, though one with a distinct "socialist" POV. Quotable whenever that particular POV needs to be expressed, I suppose. For facts, not so much. Relata refero (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No way.

1) he was never tenured at Yale, he was merely on the clinical research faculty 2) he was fired, for sending racist political messages over his Yale email 3) he was a professor of genetics, which gives him no authority on foreigh affairs 4) several of his op-eds were followed by published corrections on the editorial pages that ran the op-eds, because his facts on palestine are bad American Clio (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)American Clio

Unless you cite all that except 3, I'll have to redact it from this page per

WP:BLP. Relata refero (talk

) 18:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

How about this for (1) and (3) (Associate Professors are not tenured at Yale)? (2) and (4) may have some basis here. rudra (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: "racist" seems to be charges of Anti-Semitism in a campus brouhaha [12]. rudra (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Associate Professors can be tenured at Yale. See this internal report. Whether or not he is, I don't know, though he might very well not be. (Update: according to the Herald, he wasn't at the time of the brouhaha.)

About the Yale Herald report, he sent "an e-mail to a Yale anti-war group listing the membership roster of the Yale Friends for Israel and labeling it a pro-war cabal." If that's a racist political message.... *Sigh*. People seem to think that if they use words like "racist" to describe things like that its OK with our policies. Whatever. Since this page now has the actual facts on it, I don't need to redact American Clio's edit, though this sort of thing is par for the course with him/her. (Note 4 is still open.) Relata refero (talk) 19:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

documenting the corrections newspapers have had to print after publishing a Mazin Qumsiyeh op-ed. http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=22&x_article=1019American Clio (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)American Clio

There was another flap about Qumsiyeh's bad facts. Here Professor Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum , calls Qunsiyeh's writing anti-Semitic :

Anti-Israel Screed in Official Magazine of Davos Forum

Update: The head of Davos apologized and indicated that the viewpoints in the article were contrary to Forum's mission and values. More

_________________________________________

New York, NY, January 25, 2006 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today condemned the publication of an outrageous anti-Israel screed that appeared in the official magazine of the World Economic Forum in Davos, and urged the organization not to give legitimacy to such extremist approaches in the future.

The article, "Boycott Israel" by Mazin Qumsiyeh, an extremist anti-Israel activist, appeared in the current issue of Global Agenda, the official magazine of the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland. Qumsiyeh is the head of Al Awda, an organization that supports terrorism and advocates for the abolition of Israel.

"The article is full of outright false statements about Israel, Zionism and Israeli policy towards the Palestinians and crucial omissions regarding the situation on the ground, Palestinian attitudes and actions, and Israeli public support of Palestinian statehood," said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director. "Moreover, it is permeated with anti-Semitic insinuations of Jewish craftiness, control of the media and American and international policymaking."

In a letter to Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum, ADL called positions presented by Qumsiyeh, "…well beyond the scope of acceptable discourse."

"We find it hard to believe that Global Agenda would include an article calling for the dismantlement of the United States, or that the Davos meeting would convene a panel questioning the legitimacy of Egypt, Venezuela, or France," Mr. Foxman said. "Yet, Mr. Qumsiyeh's denial of the State of Israel's right to exist and his appeal for international actions to counter the state and Zionism – bald calls for the elimination of Israel – are given legitimacy through the imprimatur of the World Economic Forum." http://www.adl.org/PresRele/IslME_62/4852_62.htmAmerican Clio (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)American Clio

• The Yale e-mail incident, acccording to the Yale Herald:

Sat., May 24, 2003, Mazin Qumsiyeh, an associate pro fessor of genetics at Yale, sparked a controversy that is still raging.

GETTY IMAGES Qumsiyeh's email puported to show an overlap in student membership in a group which the war in Iraq and one which supports Israel.

After many students had already left for the summer, Qumsiyeh sent an email to all Yale Coalition Peace (YCP) members, an anti-war group, in which he linked Jewish support of Israel with support for the then current war in Iraq.

In the email, Qumsiyeh wrote that "the U.S. occupation of Iraq illegal and immoral (sic)" and that the YCP should "continue to challenge the hegemony of the U.S. on the Arab world." Although such opinions are certainly acceptable and even welcomed at a university that encourages the exchange of ideas, Qumsiyeh closed his email with a chilling statement: "I include here the list of members of Yale Students 'for Democracy,' the pro war cabal . . . I think you will find the list informative. Note that there is significant overlap of this list with the 'Yale Friends of Israel' listserve."

Qumsiyeh then listed the Yale email addresses of 64 students, which contained students' full names, whom he claimed belonged to Yale College Students for Democracy (YCSD), a group that supported the war in Iraq.

However, the people he listed belonged not to YCSD, but to the Yale Friends of Israel (YFI) itself.

http://www.yaleherald.com/article.php?Article=2377

the articl econtinues. The reason why this was widely viewed as an expression of anti-Semitisam is that Qunsiyeh accused Jewish students who belongec to a pro-Israel group of being automatically pro-Iraq War. But, Anti-Semitic or not , it certainly demonstrates the Qumsiyeh plays fast and loose tithe fatcs and evidence.American Clio (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)American Clio

Relax, it was decided long ago that he wouldn't be used for facts.

Meanwhile, CAMERA again. I suppose them being all over

the conflict of interest noticeboard is unsurprising. I'm beginning to think that 90% of our problems would go away if we just banned all these damn quotefarms and advocacy sources, all these op-eds and opinions and articles based on "controversial" terms. I'm sure its beginning to bore everyone to have to make the same comments about the same type of sources all the time. So: listen up people dealing with Israel/Palestine/Islamophobia/Anti-semitism: CAMERA, MEMRI, CAIR, PalestineMediaWatch, Electronic Intifada, are all unwelcome as sources, OK? Any articles structured around their quotefarms are likely to have major, unfixable POV problems so nobody do that either, OK? Not to mention that they are unreliable sources even for quotations, OK? And just because I've left Abraham Foxman and Juan Cole and Robert Spencer and suchlike others out that doesn't mean that you can add their random opinions either. Nobody here should care what various partisan hacks think, because they're completely unencyclopaedic, they're advocates, not analysts, and nobody will care what they thought a hundred years from now. Is everyone now clear on this? Relata refero (talk

) 23:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The CAMERA article collects instances where newspapers that have run Qumseyah's op-eds have aubsequently run corrections of bad facts cited by Qumsiyeh. American Clio (talk) 11:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)American Clio

And nobody is suggesting we use him for facts! But meanwhile, can everyone just lay off quoting CAMERA, who are as unreliable as everyone else, plus they're using us to host their theories and quotefarms! (Note - minus the CoI this applies to all the other advocacy sources mentioned above and elsewhere on this page and the archives. The reason they are here all the time is that they are all crap. Relata refero (talk) 12:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I've come across a few references to CounterPunch which, I note, has a number of links from article space. I see from this page's archives that CounterPunch's reliability has been discussed briefly before, but I'm unclear as to what the general view is of this source's reliability. Any thoughts? -- ChrisO (talk) 01:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

It has a strong political agenda and bias. It's probably about as reliable as FrontPage Magazine, which would be its counterpart on the right. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

My expsriance froma personal angle: CounterPunch is a valid source for opinions but not for facts. Zeq (talk) 04:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I prefer to remove links to CounterPunch unless the individual writing for them is notable enough in his or her own right. Jay's comparison to FPM is apt. Relata refero (talk) 07:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

None of these should be used as sources in contentious articles related to political/social topics, unless the author is particularly well known and their opinion is likely to be of substantial interest in and of itself. *** Crotalus *** 15:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Blueboar (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly how I approach it. Relata refero (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. <eleland/talkedits> 20:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Relata refero. It depends on who writes there. In itself it cannot be called a reliable or unreliable source (the same goes for mainstream papers though). One might add that, contrary to what was asserted, it doesn't have a 'strong political agenda', except for those unfamiliar with it, since the views expounded in its pages can not be affiliated with those of any political party. Its regulars include an (ex?) economist who was an undersecretary for the Reagan Administration (e.g.Paul Craig Roberts), former analysts for the C.I.A., libertarians, ex-Wall Street Journal journalists of repute, historians of repute, senior officers of the American military (Col. Dan Smith), many academics, etc. It opens its pages to what are called fringe views, but also to quality analysts from all areas of controversy. It is equally critical of the Democratic Party as of the Republican Party. It has a strong record for quality reportage on certain key issues that has proven, in retrospect, more accurate of the inside-stories in matters like WMP in Iraq, the politics of the war on Terror, and the invasion of Iraq, prescient on the present economic crisis long before 'mainstream' newspapers starting to talk about possible sub-prime problems and the structural dangers of derivatives-trading. It is, yes, highly critical of Israel, but most of that material comes from varied voices within Israel or the north-American Jewish world, from Uri Avnery to Michael Neumann. It does not have a 'line', however, since its regular commentators have disagreed quite vigorously on a one or two-state solution. In short, Counterpunch is what is called a muckraking magazine, hosting a great diversity of prominent critics, academics, writers and journalists, from Diane Johnston, Gore Vidal, Uri Avnery, Ralph Nader, Paul Craig Roberts, Robert Fisk (one of the West's best writers on Lebanese affairs and history), Oren Ben-Dor, Frank Menetrez, Gary Leupp, etc., to name a few off the top of my head. The comparison to FrontPage Magazine, is completely off-key. If it has an agenda, it is in getting informed reportage from around the world that is not on the Front Page, and cannot be qualified as a 'left' wing mirror of a right-wing rag, for the simple reason that many who write for it are far too critical of the ideological or political left to be denominated under that vague and lazy rubric. What applies to it, applies to all sources: a judgement of quality, which can vary as much there as it does in the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, mainstream papers which have proven to be far less reliable as sources on several major events of the last decade than Counterpunch.Nishidani (talk) 21:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC).

Nishidani's point about the heterogeneity of views and reputations on offer is well taken. I agree, too, that some of the sources most reliable by our standards have shown themselves to be somewhat problematic recently when it comes to the bigger picture. (Read Michael R. Gordon for gory details.) But the difference is that (a) CounterPunch prides itself on heterogeneity and giving space to marginal views; by focusing on the things in which they were right about facts, we would be subject to selection bias, and would not get useful information about the probability of them being right about facts. (b) As a self-defined muckraking magazine, it cannot be expected to hold itself to the same standards of fact-checking and confirmation using multiple independent sources that newspapers we consider reliable by our metric at least nominally honour. (c) As a magazine devoted to heterogeneity of views and reputations, it cannot be immediately assumed that publication in it makes the opinion of the contributor notable by our standards. Its strength as an unaffiliated, "independent" voice is a weakness as far as meeting the criteria here are concerned. Relata refero (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Applying the

WP:V criteria of having "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", is CounterPunch cited as a reliable source by other reliable sources? -- ChrisO (talk

) 00:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed a good point. In the end, that's all that matters. We must all resist the natural tendency to see publications we agree with as inherently more reliable and neutral (really, any mag that publishes Chomsky, Fisk, and Churchill is left-leaning, and these days paleoconservatives have more in common with the left on major foreign policy issues than anyone on the right). I agree with those above we should only reference an article in this mag and others like FPM if that article's author is notable in his own right (e.g. Chomsky for Counterpunch, Pipes for FPM). - Merzbow (talk) 05:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Since when is Daniel Pipes notable in any way similar to Noam Chomsky? Chomsky has a very wide and international notability in several areas of scholarship and political commentary, whereas Pipes certainly does not. Do you mean that within arch-conservative cultures Chomsky is regarded as a wackjob the way that Pipes is amongst those of the far left who even know who is? While I get the similarity here on Wikipedia in terms of perceived POV lets not delude ourselves about the notability of minor ideologues (vs. quite major ideologues).PelleSmith (talk) 11:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

To quibble a minor issue in Merzbow's point above: Fisk's main output is for The Independent which isn't left-leaning but centre. OK, UK centre = US far left, but we have to live with that. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This source for the material below appears to be on the edge of what may or may not be acceptable for the content. It is a transcript from a radio interview of one of the principals that seems to confirm the content. However the tricky part is the transcript and website appears to be self published by the producers of the radio show that is no longer in operation.

From

Also Infectious venulitis (IVN), this term was used to describe an outbreak at the

Having a problem on this article:

Self-published sources are acceptable, though for style - not RS - reasons, the article should not sound too press-release-y. For the other issues, have you looked at

WP:COIN? Relata refero (talk

) 12:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

and my libray has many encyclopedias from old books and new books and many different publishers. could you provide me with proper guidelines. --99.237.254.245 (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide some information about the publisher, editors, contributors etc, a link to an online description, or at least the ISBN ? It is difficult to judge the reliability of a source based solely on the title. Abecedare (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure easily no problem here

Book Name - Encyclopedia International

Copyright- 1974, 1973, 1972, 1971, 1970, 1969, 1968, 1967, 1966, 1965, 1964, 1963 by Grolier Incorporated

Copyright - Grolier Incorporated 1974

Copyright in Canada - Grolier Limited

Encyclopedia International

Includes bibliographies

1. Encyclodeias and Dictionaries

AE5.E447 1974 031 73-11206

--99.237.254.245 (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well that seems to be a somewhat obscure and outdated tertiary publication that according to World cat is directed towards a "Juvenile" audience. As such it doesn't appear to be an appropriate source for wikipedia. Do other editors want to chime in ? Abecedare (talk) 21:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Whats the difference if its based on 1970 or whenever, its still actual Encyclopedia that holds enough information to calim what i need on articles. --99.237.254.245 (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• One problem is that the book you have referenced is the Encyclopedia International instead of the Encyclopedia of Hinduism. In other words, it's a general interest juvenile encyclopedia, instead of a subject-specific encyclopedia as suggested above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Essentially, my take on it is that an encyclopedia should be where we start our research on a topic, not where we end it. A high quality encyclopedia will have references to show where it got its information. We should read these references and cite them, rather than citing an encyclopedia which summarize them. Good research is a multi-step process. Blueboar (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

In the article

• [13]German newspaper editor outlining the claims of Polish atrocities against minorities

My question is, is this a reliable source? Can I too use this and similar material to source articles?--Stor stark7 ^Talk 20:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It purports to be a translation of the affidavit by

Hanz Fritzsche at the Nuremberg trials. Given that the original source the volumes of Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression, (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office; 1946. Office of United States Chief of Council) are all in the public domain, I see no reason to doubt that this is an accurate reproduction of the original report. Fritzsche is, of course, a reliable if primary source on Nazi propaganda. Relata refero (disp.

) 08:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, definitely on both counts. It may be preferable in some sense to link to the Library of Congress (page with pdf) distribution, but the text appears to match. It should, of course, be kept in mind that this is a primary source, but it is certainly reliable and citeable. -

talk

~ 23:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Is The HistoryMakers a reliable source for information about its subjects? TheslB (talk) 03:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, biographical information. TheslB (talk) 19:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

As silly as it sounds, I need input from the wider community as to whether

• Yes, they are reliable sources for business topics. If they have published incorrect information, then the company needs to take it up with them and request a correction. Jehochman ^Talk 21:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• Ditto, in the absence of reliable sources to the contrary, info published by the IHT and Forbes is reliable. If the company's literature contradicts this, include a note to that effect as a caveat. Attribution/transparency is always a good move in sourcing disputes. Skomorokh 23:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with Jehochman and Skomorokh. Not only are Forbes and the IHT reliable sources unless there is evidence otherwise, but there isn't even a contradiction between them and the company's literature. The company's web site indicates that it is majority owned by Temasek Holdings (Pte) Ltd which is consistent with what Forbes and IHT say. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Thanks people. The SIA annual report states the following, Singapore Airlines Limited ("the Company") is a limited liability company incorporated in the Republic of Singapore which is also the place of domicile. The Company is a subsidiary company of Temasek Holdings (Private) Limited, incorporated in the Republic of Singapore., meaning that SIA is the subsidiary, Temasek is the parent, so no caveat would need to be placed, because even the company acknowledges this relationship. --
  Диалог
  10:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Is the official website of a sports tournament or a film festival considered to be a primary source as mentioned in

This issue was raised on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/1928 Summer Olympics medal count by User:Matthewedwards. It does not only involve this list, but also lists that are already featured, such as:

• Golden Globe Award for Best Director - Motion Picture
• Golden Globe Award for Best Original Score
• List of Academy Award winners and nominees for Best Foreign Language Film

My reasoning was the following:

For a sports tournament such as the 1928 Summer Olympics the authority of the organization is decisive in recognizing medals, and therefore I believe that the medal count can be based on these sources.

in which "these sources" refers to www.olympics.org and the official report of the 1928 Summer Olympics, written by the Dutch National Olympic Committee.

I would appreciate your feedback on this issue. Best regards, Ilse@ 10:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

To me,

WP:PSTS says care should be taken when using primary sources and the information garnered from those should be verifiable by secondary sources, which Wikipedia articles "should rely on". Maybe I'm interpreting it wrong, in which case can someone let me know. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ•

@ 13:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I think we can agree that the topics on which these lists are based are notable. Secondly, these lists serve as sub-articles to the main articles about the topics. The question would be if it is OK to have a sub-article based on primary sources to complement the article based on secondary sources. Databases can contain indiscriminate information, but I think that if one can establish the criteria for certain types of information to be important, it can be brought in. For example, I am pretty positive that the general notion of medal counts is accepted in the mainstream, whereas a compilation of all Olympic athletes' height and weight may not be types of information as indisputable. In the cases of the examples provided above, I doubt that the information would truly be challenged. I do not see what kind of controversy these particular lists could foment. There are probably examples of lists where primary sources would be questioned, but I don't think these are a problem. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I am Ga reviewing

• [14] retrieved 9 Mar 2008
• [15] retrieved 2 Mar 2008

--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

According to

panda (talk

) 17:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource is not a normal wiki... It contains material quoted from other sources. So... While it should not be used as a source... the material posted on it can be. Cite to the original work, and link Wikisource as a convenience link. Blueboar (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

Is it okay to directly cite Answers.com except obviously for its Wikipedia mirror? I'm having a debate with another editor over it. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 19:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless the host of the content is suspect, it's utterly irrelevant. The actual source is whatever Answers.com is mirroring from. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia must contain references from original sources, not from numerous content aggregators all over internet. This is the basic rule of respect to authorship. Just as wikipedia is not

The reference is the Russian Encyclopedia, answers.com is simply the

convenience link

, which is allowed, as long as one does not have reason to belive that the the hosting site is violating copyright. For clarity I would suggest that the link be marked something like:

Rusnock, K. A. "Agitprop". Encyclopedia of Russian History. Gale Group, Inc. (hosted on answers.com)

Abecedare (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

In general, citing to tertiary sources such as another encyclopedia is discouraged (but not forbidden). Other encyclopedias are great places to start your research on a topic... they are not great places to end your research. A good encyclopedia will contain citations to well reguarded secondary sources, from which the encyclopedia got its information. We should take a look at those sources, and cite from them, rather than simply being satified with the summary provided in the encyclopedia. Answers.com is essentially a quatiary source (if that is the right term)... summarizing the summaries. It is a useful tool, but not really the best of sources (even if we call it reliable, which is iffy). We strive to be better than that. Blueboar (talk) 23:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Blueboar, I agree with your general sentiment that even better sources may be found, but in this particular case two factors make me think that the publication satisfies the requirements of being a reliable source for wikipedia:

• It is a specialized encyclopedia (though aimed at a general audience), which means that the editorial board consists of people knowledgeable about the particulars of the subject it covers. [16]
• The entry is a signed article by an academic

Also the fact that the article is hosted by answers.com, is similar to newspaper archives being hosted by Lexis-Nexis or journal articles being hosted by several indexing services. That does make the hosts, quatiary sources, or reduce the source's reliabily - unless, of course, one suspects that the host is not quoting the source correctly.

PS: I know that the Amazon link above lists the publishers as MacMillan, but I have verified that we are talking about the same publication. Abecedare (talk) 23:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This sounds quite ridiculous: you do know the original source and you know it is written by an academic, yet your goal is NOT to provide the original reference, but a ref to some repository which makes money on mouse clicks. I start smelling a vested interest here. Not to say that answers.com fails to give credit to the original editor of the encyclopedia in question: James Millar `'Míkka>t 23:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you read my comment dated 23:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC) above ? Feel free to add the editor's name to the citation. Abecedare (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you understand my objection at all? The original book is known. Why you insist on convenience link? When we citing a book we citing the book not the amazon.com barnes and noble or whatever. We may provide a "convenience link" to the online excerpt if exists, but our primary obligation is to provide a reference to the book itself. `'Míkka>t 00:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess we are somehow talking past each other, because I sincerely didn't understand your objection. As you say, "We may provide a "convenience link" to the online excerpt if exists, but our primary obligation is to provide a reference to the book itself", which is exactly what is my recommendation too!

Question: do you have objections to the following being used as a reference ?

Rusnock, K. A. (2003), "Agitprop", in Millar, James (ed.), Encyclopedia of Russian History, Gale Group, Inc,

ISBN 0028656938

Abecedare (talk) 00:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This would be perfect. This is exactly what I meant: a repository is not a reference; and what you meant: a convenience link, i.e., I understand in addition to true, author-respecting full reference. `'Míkka>t 01:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Glad to have resolved this (I would have added the editor name, ISBN and year to my earlier proposal above, if I knew them then) ! Abecedare (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been engaged in 'debate' (with someone very heated) about a particular source used for the Baghdad Battery article. The other party involved seems to have written most of the article (he did its 3rd edit) and says he used this source to write it -- see [17]. It's not just that the source is a Swedish UFO web page, it is that the article itself [18] is also very bad. The stuff about its discovery and Gray is well sourced elsewhere, the stuff at the bottom about someone called Thatte is apparently fictitious, or at least I cannot find any references to anything there except the word Maitravaruna which seems to mean priest. I removed it twice and he put it back giving me some abuse. He's now created a new section on "World Wide Web sites that were used by some editors in the construction of this article." which he seems to think gives him carte blanche to add any links he wants so long as he has used them in the past for information. While I'm at it -- some of the other links I'm not sure about. Youtube? http://www.answersingenesis.org? The Unmuseum? And the images - a bit OT here - how do I check whether they are licenced? I'm pretty new here and still coming to grips with what meets policy/guidelines and what doesn't, so any help is appreciated especially as I hope to spend more time improving articles (such as the Terracotta Army one) then sorting this sort of thing out and want to practice what I preach. —Preceding

The information in the article from the Swedish UFO web page apparently came from "Teknik i Forntiden (a book in Swedish), by Henry Kjellson and C-A Matsson. Amateur Astronomy and some other articles" (see the bottom of the article), which appear to be reliable sources. You could also try emailing the chairman of UFO-Sweden (Clas Svahn, [email protected]) and ask if he could put you in contact with the article's author (Anders Persson) so that you can ask where the info about Thatte etc came from. (The article mentions that the Thatte info came from an Indian technical publication called "Shilpa-Sansar". You may want to ask someone who knows Hindi about that publication.)

Keep in mind that the article was originally written in Swedish before being translated to fairly poor English -- it makes a lot more sense in Swedish. I haven't bothered to check what the article is/was being cited for in the

panda (talk

) 22:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

YouTube is not considered a reliable source according to

panda (talk

) 17:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I assume that "Teknik i Forntiden" is fairly reliable since it is cataloged under "Teknik, industri och kommunikationer" (Technology, industry, and communication) at the library vs books by Däniken, which are cataloged under "UFO". Also, sv:Henry Kjellson was a Swedish engineer interested in ancient technologies. Kjellson didn't write about UFOs, he wrote about how ancient technologies may have been as advanced or more advanced than today's technologies. According to the description of the book at Parthenon, when his book was first published in the 1950s they created some lively discussions in technical publications around the world. (Författarens påstående att tidigare civilisationer tekniskt sett stått på lika hög nivå som vår - om inte högre - gav anledning till livliga diskussioner i tekniska tidskrifter runt om i världen när denna bok kom ut på 1950-talet.) So people seemed to take the info in the book seriously. Having never read the book, I wouldn't be able to state for sure if it is reliable or not.

There is quite a lot of info that doesn't get translated into English that comes from reliable sources. If you question the Thatte info, my suggestion is to (1) find out where that info originally came from, (2) ask someone about the reliability of info from "Shilpa-Sansar" and (3) ask someone who knows Hindi to check a library in India. One place you could try this at would be

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject India

–

panda (talk

) 17:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

A site that establishes celebrity MySpace pages

Resolved

Many anonymous IP editors add information to articles relating to the TV shows

Is the person writing that blog someone with connections to the show or other credibility to be a good source for this kind of stuff? In general a fan blog unconnected with those who produce the show would not be a good source, I feel, unless they are a noted authority on the subject - and by that I mean more than lots of online links to the site. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If the information on the MySpace page is not negative or controversial, then it is OK to include the information, as long as you identify its source in the text. "According to a MySpace page registered in Bloggins' name, his favorite food is tiramissu" is fine. "According to a MySpace page registered in Bloggins' name, he was sexually abused by his uncle at age 11" is definitely not! <eleland/talkedits> 11:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I am going to have to say no to this... the page is a personal blog by an annonymous blogger (just who is "Mr. Real World"?). Since that blog is definitely not a reliable source, I don't think it can be used to establish that the My Space pages are in turn reliable. sorry. Blueboar (talk) 12:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks.Nightscream (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

But the book received severe criticism as being a one-sided, biased. In my opinion if

This article indludes huge "Criticism" section which is bigger than "Support".Biophys (talk) 21:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

A good bulk of that criticism is coming from socialists, communists, anarchists, and otherwise highly questionable sources, so I'd say take it with a grain of salt, especially in light of the positive reception from the mainstream media. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The articles which use The Black Book of Communism as source, should also include the views of the people who criticized the book. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It's reliable enough I don't think every usage of it need be followed by a bunch of generic criticism of the book. It's published by Harvard University Press. If, however, somebody cites statement X in an article to the book, and there is notable criticism of that statement X as made by the book, then the criticism can certainly be mentioned for balance. - Merzbow (talk) 22:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The way to make sure that readers know about any criticisms of The Black Book of Communism is to include a wikilink to the article in our citation. Blueboar (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It isn't really completely mainstream. The papers included in it were not representative of majority views at the time in the subfields in which they were printed, and scholarly reviews tended to reflect that. That being said, it is reliable enough; though if it is the single reference for a contentious point, I would ask for additional substantiation as it might raise

WP:UNDUE issues. But that's not a reliability problem. --Relata refero (disp.

) 14:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

(Also, my attempt to point out the types of things he has said in the article has been reverted, so the article just says "According to Boris Berezovsky..blah blah", meaning anyone who doesn't click on his name and read up about him might actually take his claims seriously.) Krawndawg (talk) 07:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Berezovsky is notable enough, and the opinion is clearly attributed to him. That is exactly as it should be. Using him as a reliable source in an absolute sense would be misguided, using him as a source for his own statements is fine. I also find your interpretation ("has basically admitted publicly that he's a liar") to be a bit far-fetched and not supported by the sources you gave us here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with the indiscriminate use of patent applications as sources. IMHO they are a typical primary source and should only be cited as far as they are cited in secondary sources. And especially in the area of strange and wonderfull invention, they just don't prove anything, besides the fact that a patent is granted.

Nevertheless my attempts to remove them and the article parts only referenced by them, often meets fierce resistance.

So I would like to hear more opinionions on this issue.

A typical example article would be Oxyhydrogen, the non-mainstream second half.

--Pjacobi (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, you got it right on the dot. Patent applications, by themselves, represent absolutely nothing more that what the person who filed it claims to have invented. Patent offices do not require working prototypes, they no longer require models, and they don't review the design to make sure it makes sense. They're happy to take your money, and holding a patent doesn't actually mean anything until it's tested in court. So except when a patent has actually been reviewed an evaluated by independent experts, which does happen sometimes, it's no better than what the inventor posts on his personal blog. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

What are the proper rules for citing film credits for a released film? I would think that it would be self-evident that the listing of the credit on the screen itself would be the first and overriding source. There is significant disagreement on this subject in and of itself. Not discussed but I believe understood would be those instances in which SAG dictates additions or deletions to a films credits, this would obviously override the wiki infobox and merit a specific mention in the entry. There is also some discussion of background on this subject at [19].

Should a films displayed screen credits be used as the dominant source? A standard should also require that changes to this come from a reliable source. SAG would be reliable, a NYT interview with the writer giving writing credits to another might also be, but IMDB which relies on submissions should not trump the displayed screen credits automatically.

I also second a suggestion,if the WIKI editors agree and will create it: Wikipedia:Film citation guidelines15:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Here's a basic fundamental question: Is citing a released films screen credits a primary source, which would be original research?15:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's a primary source, but no, this does not make using it automatically original research. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• • So a released films list of the Director, Producer, Writer and Editor are what? A reliable source that takes precedence or not?15:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it should not "take precedence"... it should be presented as equal to other reliable sources. If there is a discrepancy between the film credits and credits listed at other reliable sources, both should be mentioned. Blueboar (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Here's some additional background on using IMDB from the wiki above:

* Users are not compelled to submit any sourcing for their submissions (in most cases; adding a new title usually requires one) * Editors do not identify which user is submitting the data, making it impossible to evaluate the reliability of a user's submissions * The mechanism of editorial oversight and fact-checking is unclear

IMDb should be regarded as a tertiary source, and generally treated accordingly. It is unsourced, which makes it borderline acceptable with regard to WP:RS and WP:NOR

Would it be fair to state then that a released films published credits are a reliable and accepted source? That IMDB, in and of itself, does not take precedence and is a debatable tertiary source?16:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• • • Upon further reading of the wiki policy page on IMDB it looks like all my questions are really answered. In short it states:

The IMDb should only be used as a tertiary source for "hard data" on released films. However, if the IMDb is found to contradict another source that meets WP:V (preferably a primary or secondary one), then that source should be considered to trump the IMDb.

Resolved: A released films displayed credits are a reliable source for Infobox credits.16:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I see that in this edit, a cite from Antiwar.com was removed on the grounds of being self-published. It was removed from the bio of

I also can see no difference. It appears to be a case of goose and gander. --

talk

) 15:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Echos of the disparate treatment of Frontpage Magazine and MMFA and FAIR. But it's hardly news that Wikipedia editors have net group biases. But

WP:NPA ·:· Will Beback ·:·

05:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, antiwar.com doesn't count as self-published. It might count as a source of dubious reliability; however, there is certainly no difference between quoting the editor of that site and the editor of Publiceye.com. I'd like to disassociate myself from Andy's remarks above, though, as I don't know the facts (also, its clique). Certainly, if PRA is overused, people should feel free to remove it. Relata refero (talk) 05:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, claque does work in this context. --

talk

) 18:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Heh, you're right. Relata refero (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any conclusion here that PRA is an unreliable source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

We were discussing self-publishing, actually. And we usually wait a bit before deciding there's no consensus. People check this noticeboard on irregular schedules. Relata refero (talk) 06:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Some editors are pointing to this thread as a reason to deleted sourced material. I was simply pointing out that that is premature. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Did anyone have particular cases where they felt the PRA was used improperly as a source, for comparison? AliveFreeHappy (talk) 06:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. PRA is overused as a source, and often in ways which violate

talk

) 07:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Dennis King and Chip Berlet have been professional investigative journalists, and are the acknowledged experts on Lyndon LaRouche and his movement. They've been quoted at least dozens of times in the mainstream press. King is the author of the only full-length biography, which was published by a major publishing house, Doubleday & Co. Berlet is a longtime researcher for Political Research Associates, which also meets our standards of a reliable publishing source. Some editors have tried repeatedly to have these two authors considered unreliable sources and have never succeeded.(Isn't there a statute of limitations?) Yet they haven't proven that the authors have been factually incorrect in any straighforward reporting. The reason that they are used in all the LaRouche articles is that they are the leading researchers of the LaRouche movement. Their viewpoints on LaRouche are not different from all the other reliable sources, and are consistent with the usual reporting. What erroneous material has PRA published that shows they are unreliable? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Who "acknowledges" them as "the experts"?

2. It looks to me like King's website was rejected as a self-published source at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 3#www.lyndonlarouchewatch.org.

3. PRA is loaded with what WP:BLP calls "a conjectural interpretation of a source," i.e., rampant editorializing and conspiracy theory. PRA might be acceptable in many cases for non-controversial material, but what King, Berlet and Will Beback have consistently done is use it as a source for a fringe theory that behind every utterance of LaRouche there is a hidden agenda of neo-fascism, which has been noted by outside observers as a particular tactic of Berlet and PRA against all of their targets. As is noted at the beginning of this discussion, Activist

talk

) 15:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Do you want me to plaster a talk page with all of he times that Berlet and King have been cited? I'll do so if that convinces you.

Being cited in an article isn't the same as being "acknowledged as the experts." I would be interested in seeing reliably sourced commentary that says they are "the experts." --

talk

) 16:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

2. I don't see a consensus there. I see one editor piping in, but without a full understanding of our policies.

3. I don't think you are accurately describing my actions. The whole concept of "fringe theories" concerning LaRouche is a bit humorous, considering how many fringe theories he's come up with and how frequently he's describned as "fringe". Raimondo is hardly an objective commentator. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

How would you describe your actions? What is inaccurate in Niels' description? --

talk

) 22:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been advancing the "fringe theory that behind every utterance of LaRouche there is a hidden agenda of neo-fascism". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You have supported King and Berlet when they do it. --

talk

) 16:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you substantiate that accusation? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

For example, you have vehemently defended the use of King's book as a source.[25][26][27] King's book is simply a very long essay defending this fringe theory. The mere fact that something has been published by a large publishing house does not make it automatically a suitable source for BLP. --

talk

) 16:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That book is the best, most reliable source we have for the life of Lyndon LaRouche. Being published by a major publishing house does, in fact, make it a suitable source for a BLP. I have certainly not sought to advance the theory that that "behind every utterance of LaRouche there is a hidden agenda of neo-fascism". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

But the book you are promoting does advance that theory. --

talk

) 21:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that using the book as a source is the same as "promoting" it. I haven't written an article about it, or any other promotional actitivity. I have defended it's use as a source. No one has presented any verifibale factual errors on the book, and Niels Gade himself has confirmed facts from it. No one is suggesting that there's a more reliable 3rd-party source for the life of LaRouche. If you call using the book as a source "promotion" then are those editors who use LaRouche-published books and articles "promoting" them? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say yes, if they are using them in articles outside of the "LaRouche-related" articles. King's book is a reliable source on King's views, and would certainly be acceptable in the article on

talk

) 15:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Using a reliable source isn't promoting it. The job of Wikipedia editors is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. Dennis King and Chip Berlet's books and articles are reliable sources written by acknowledged experts on the topic of Lyndon LaRouche and his movement. Using their work is no different than using a NY Times or Washington Post article. Though, of course, I know you regard those as unreliable too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. May I ask how you happened to arrive at this conclusion about me? --

talk

) 04:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Am I wrong? Do you consider such mainstream media as the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, or NBC to be reliable sources on the topic of Lyndon LaRouche? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes to both questions, and I have said so explicitly. --

talk

) 15:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Break

<unindent-Perhaps I misunderstood this comment of yours:

• Major publications are not above conducting dirty tricks campaigns where politics is involved -- this has been true for a long time, and not likely to change soon. [28]

It appeared that you were denying that major publications were a reliable source. What did you mean and in reference to which publications? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I meant just what I said. We have to use major publications as a source, unless there are peer-reviewed journals or some other, stronger source available. As you may recall, in my request for arbitration[29] I proposed that "when [King's or Berlet's] views have appeared in mainstream publications, those may be used as sources and would not be disputed (this satisfies the requirements of

talk

) 21:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not say that I have "confirmed facts" from King's book, as if that makes it a reliable source. The book may correctly say that February is the second month of the calendar year; that doesn't in any way excuse the fact that it is full of outrageous, propagandistic speculation and innuendo. --

talk

) 15:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You have confirmed facts from the book. You have not offered any evidence that there are factual errors in it. The book meets WP's standards for a reliable source. However that book isn't the topic of this thread. It has already been discussed before and there's no need to keep bringing it up. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to put things in perspective, has anyone offered any evidence that there are factual errors in the LaRouche publications? I don't believe that this is the sole criterion for use of a source. --

talk

) 21:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Clippings of factual errors promoted by LaRouche.

• On the talk show, LaRouche blamed the Soviet Union for engineering what he termed the the AIDS "conspiracy." "There is no question that it can be transmitted by mosquitoes," LaRouche said, citing as supporting evidence the high incidence of the disease in Africa, the Caribbean and southern Florida.
• On the KGO talk show, LaRouche pointed to the "insect-bite belt," which he said includes Florida and the Caribbean. "In the insect-bite belt, we have a very large transmission of AIDS among poor people," he said. "The Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta has been suppressing this evidence."
• Indeed, Secretary of State March Fong Eu said last week she would challenge in court "blatantly false" sections of the ballot argument for Proposition 64 submitted by LaRouche backers, including claims that "AIDS is not hard to get," and that potential insect and respiratory transmission of the disease and transmission by casual contact are "well established."

Do you want to argue that he was correct? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You aren't addressing Marvin's question. The issue is not LaRouche's personal opinions. The question is about fact-checking at Executive Intelligence Review or other LaRouche publications. Do you have evidence of factual errors in those publications? --

talk

) 21:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

We can spend more time investigating the LaRouche movement's claims about diseases if we ever seek to use the EIR as a reliable source. Of course, if you have any citations from EIR disputing LaRouche's incorrect statements then that might help their reputation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If EIR is accurately reporting an opinion by LaRouche, that does not discredit EIR as a source, regardless of whether LaRouche's opinion is credible or not. I asked you for examples of cases where EIR reported something as fact which turned out to be incorrect. You are applying a completely different set of standards to LaRouche publications than you do to the self-citing by King and Berlet. --

talk

) 03:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have access to an archive of back issues of EIR or other LaRouche periodicals. Since no one is proposing using EIR as a reliable source, it seems like moot point. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I would propose using EIR as a source, judiciously and appropriately, just as I would use King and Berlet as sources, judiciously and appropriately. Alternatively, I would propose using none of them. --

talk

) 23:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Treating EIR as a relaible source would require overturning or altering an ArbCom case. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Which arbcom case? If there are restrictions on the use of EIR as a source, the same restrictions ought to apply to PRA et al. --

talk

) 21:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting question. I'd like to know whether Wikipedia applies policy consistently. --

talk

) 11:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you please link to the arbcom case you mentioned? --

talk

) 21:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for this as well. --

talk

) 14:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Since when was the Arbcom given authority on any content matters...?

t/e

15:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it

t/e

15:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom decisions don't come out of thin air (though sometimes they may seem that way). One of the issues with the LaRouche articles that was discovered in the three ArbCom cases involving them is that most of the "pro-" editors are socks of a clever puppeteer, and that he's a tireless promoter of the ideosyncratic ideas of LaRouche. I wouldn't call it a content decision so much as a content-based behavior remedy. It's a practical way of dealing with a behavior problem that otherwise would be impossible to enforce. I don't see any reason for the ArbCom to review their decision. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

So the only Arbcom sanction specifically involving content, which limits what any editor can do with a subsect of valid material, was done to stop one lone editor? That's wildly disproportionate, and still seems to be beyond the boundary of what the Arbcom is permitted to do.

t/e

19:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there some reason that the decison should be reconsidered, aside from a desire for consistency? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that there are certainly some circumstances where it would be appropriate to use EIR as a source. If the ArbCom decision is being interpreted as a blanket ban, that should be reconsidered -- particularly if it is a unique case, where EIR is being singled out for some reason. --

talk

) 06:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The EIR and similar LaRouche sources are determined to be self-published sources. Like other SPSes, they can be used in articles about themselves. They just aren't allowed in other articles. It's only s lsight modification to normal procedure. Even its proponents here can't think of a single example of how it would improve the project. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

EIR appears to have a staff of 35-40 people[30], appears in numerous languages, gets cited frequently in other publications. If it is considered a SPS, then PRA web pages qualify in spades. --

talk

) 14:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

While the LaRouche movment isn't generally considered a religion, the thread titled "#Religious sources" below appears to apply. The EIR is a fine source for the views of Lyndon LaRouche. It is not suitable as a source for neutral, reliable facts on other topics. Since LaRouche is the Editor in Chief, it's hard to imagine that the editing staff (no matter how large) would ever contradict him. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Your reference to religious sources appears utterly irrelevant to me. EIR is a conventional newsmagazine, but with the editorializing a bit more blatant than one finds in Time or Newsweek. Also, I tried my best, but I was unable to imagine any circumstance in which the editorial staff at

talk

) 13:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

More imagination, please. Both the research director and the editor of The Public Eye edit my work all the time, as do other PRA staffers, plus outide scholars and journalists asked to review what I write. I get edited and contradicted all the time. Makes for better text.--Cberlet (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, OK, it's coming to me. "You call this an analysis? Where's the damn innuendo?" --

talk

) 21:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

LaRouche is the editor in chief, while Berlet is not. Berlet is quoted in mainstream papers as an authority, while LaRouche is quoted very rarely and in a very different context. The two aren't comparable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This thread seems to be going in circles. Unelss there's some new argument to be made I suggest it's time to archive this thread. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Why the haste to terminate this discussion? The matter does not appear to be resolved. I just did a google search for citations from Berlet on Wikipedia, and the number seems disproportionately high. I would like to propose a moratorium on any additional use of Berlet as a source for BLP-related edits until there is a consensus. By this I mean the use of materials published or posted by PRA or Berlet personally -- I have no problem with those instances where Berlet is quoted in a mainstream source. --

talk

) 21:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Haste? This thread has been open for five months. Unless there's a new point to be made we should archive it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that my proposal for a moratorium is just such a new point. --

talk

) 22:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "moratorium" on use of a reliable source, including PRA. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the same request to invalidate PRA that has been made since December. I don't see anything new. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Do the two of you have some sort of ideological affinity for PRA? You seem eager to dismiss a rather extensive discussion and debate on this topic. A source cannot be "invalidated" if it wasn't "valid" or a Reliable Source to begin with. BLP policy says be careful with sourcing. You endorse a guy "whose specialty is smearing anyone outside the traditional left-right categories as an extremist, at best, and a nascent Nazi at worst"? --

talk

) 21:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That quote is the same that started this thread five months ago. Nothing new, time to archive this thread. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

And it shouldn't be repeated all over the place either. (There's no need to use Raimondo if other sources are available.) I too, however, would prefer that we cut down on the PRA cites. Chip's written extensively off his own website, so that shouldn't affect too much how he's cited; but the case has not been made that publiceye has a demonstrated reliability equivalent to the other places Chip's published. Of course, any comparison to EIR is ludicrous. Will's comparison to #Religious sources below is spot-on. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Other thread

1. I have no problem with using King and Berlet as a source when they are cited by legitimate publications, because those publications may be expected to excercise some discretion about which of their theories are suitable for responsible publication. The Kronberg interview you mention below has not appeared anywhere, to my knowledge, outside of the PRA site.

2. I see a consensus.

3. Actually, I think it is quite appropriate to compare LaRouche with Berlet as "fringe" commentators. In fact, both of them frequently describe their opponents as neo-fascists or proto-fascists. The difference is that I have not seen quotes from LaRouche plastered all over Wikipedia. The quotes from LaRouche appear to be confined mainly to the articles about LaRouche and his organization. I think it would be appropriate if quotes from PRA and Chip Berlet were largely limited to articles

talk

) 21:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

2. Who are the participatns in this consensus you see?

3. I'm not sure what the point is of comparing the reliablility of two sources. As for Raimondo, he appears to be more of a commentator than an investigative journalist. Michael Rubin of

Frontpagemag.com says, "Citing statements replicated in recent Mujahedin-e Khalq publications brings as much credibility as quoting from Lyndon LaRouche’s Executive Intelligence Review. Quality of sourcing always matters: Justin Raimondo is hardly a trustworthy authority.[31]" His footnote goes to an article titled "Justin Raimondo: An American Neo-Fascist", written by Stephen Schwartz. Do you think he's a reliable source? ·:· Will Beback ·:·

23:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. You're now quoting FPM, unquestionably a fringe, unreliable source, to point out that another source is too fringe to talk about a third fringe source notable only for studying a fourth fringe source. Listen to me very carefully: theyre all unreliable. Will, there's nobody else opposing that statement. Relata refero (talk) 13:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

FPM is about as "fringe, unreliable" as CounterPunch. Perhaps you'd like to remove the hundreds of citations we have for CounterPunch at the same time you take on FPM? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Why? I'm talking about the problem's with Will's argument. I'm not using Twinkle to suppress links to FPM. Relata refero (talk) 07:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about the problems with your argument. FPM is no more "fringe, unreliable" than CounterPunch, and Wikipedia seems to have decided that CounterPunch is neither "fringe" nor "unreliable". Jayjg ^(talk) 04:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Eh? When was this? rudra (talk) 05:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Here. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Kronberg interview

The dicussion above is rather vague and compares the position of one source versus another. On a more specific point: is there any reason why this interview on PRA with Marielle Kronberg should not be considered a reliable source for her words? Does anyone assert that the interview is faked or altered? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

As long as this interview is not considered

the absolute truth as is quoted only to show the opinions of Marielle Kronberg, and if the opinion of this lady is relevant for the Wikipedia article where it is intended to be added, I don't see any reason to avoid the usage of this interview as a source.--MariusM (talk

) 20:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I have indicated elsewhere that I don't object to it appearing in one article, but spamming it into every LaRouche-related article is undue weight. --

talk

) 21:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

If you don't object to the sourcing why did you just remove it from an article, claiming a sourcing issue? "the sourcing issues are discussed at WP:RSN#Antiwar.com vs. Political Research Associates. The only actual criticism is sourced to PRA. The rest of the paragraph is context."[32] If there's no sourcing issue then please restore it. ·:· Will Beback ·:·

Robert Latimer

What do people think about the reliability of this court transcript of a witness hosted on Robert Latimer's website? [33] I don't have any reason to doubt its authenticity but would like to know if we should be using it given that I can't actually find it on a more independent/reliable source. --Slp1 (talk) 01:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I would say no... nothing indicates that it is a "true" copy of the original. It does not even indicate basic information that will be found on any official transcript... such as the case name or the date. I note that a few lines are highlighted or underlined... this would not be the case on an official transcript. All we can say in an article would be that Latimer's website prints something that appears to be a re-typing of part of a court transcript where the witness said X, and that is definitely not reliable. Sorry. Blueboar (talk) 03:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

(the following was posted by IP user 70.66.167.249 in the discussion below... I assume that it was simply misposted and have moved it Blueboar (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)): If any of you have doubts as to the veracity of the court transcript, you need only to refer to your local library, a place where they have books available for reading by the public. If they don't have it on hand, they will certainly bring it in for you. Any respectable law library, such as McGill University, will certainly have it available.

The problem isn't actually the court transcript, but the copy of it that is found on Latimer's webpage. If someone cites to a verifiable copy of the actual transcript (as might be found in a respectable law library) that would be fine. Blueboar (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I actually have access to McGill's law library and it isn't available through them electronically or on the shelves. Not sure where that leaves us. Can I also clarify one additional thing? I believe that for an editor to use the transcript as a source we must actually have seen and verified a reliable version of the transcript, not just that on Latimer's website. In order words, we can't just cite a verifiable copy of the transcript unless we have actually seen that copy in some way (electronically or physically). Is this correct? --Slp1 (talk) 21:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct. Whoever adds a citation must have seen the document they cite too. That is part of

WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Blueboar (talk

) 22:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

From what you are saying, it appears that there is no transcript of the trial and that Dr. Dzus never did testify. Supporters of Robert Latimer just made the whole thing up to fool the public. If that is the case, you should delete all reference to this transcript hoax, and while you are at it, everything else that could in any way be interpreted as favourable to Robert Latimer. If you are going to have a public lynching, which would obviously be your first choice, don't stop halfway :::::—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.66.167.249 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 28 March 2008

No... this is not what I am saying at all. All I am saying is that we can not use the version of the transcript that is on Latimer's Page, as that version is flawed (it is incomplete and with non-original markings). In all of this, I am assuming that there is a clean verifiable copy of Dr. Dzus's testimony somewhere out there that we can cite to. All we need to do is locate it. Has anyone tried seeing if there is a public record at the court where the trial took place, or contacting a court reporting service? It does not need to be available on line... just accessable to the public. Blueboar (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, not just "accessible to the public", but also accessed/verified by the editor who adds the citation to the article, as Blueboar mentioned previously before. --Slp1 (talk) 01:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is how the information could be accessed, I believe.[34]--Slp1 (talk) 01:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

What are you trying to use the transcript for? Primary sources like court transcripts need to be used with great care, particularly on BLPs are they can easily lead to OR, UNDUE etc. You may want to read

WP:BLP about the use of primary sources. I would take particular clear if you are trying to advance a position, whether negative or positive, which is not already supported by a secondary source. If the primary source is simply be used to back up the secondary source then fine. Nil Einne (talk

) 18:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Actually, I wasn't really wanting to use the transcript for precisely the reasons you mention [35]. However, the IP address was/has been, and to advance a position just as you describe. I have now replaced the unreliable and overused transcript with secondary sources, but I would be glad of any extra eyes on this article, since it has been a bit lonely over there dealing with some clear soapboxing and lack of civility (check some of the edit summaries and archives!) Slp1 (talk) 23:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Google Scholar

Google has a section called "Google Scholar"[36]. While it seldom provides much detail text it does provide (IMHO) good references. Is there any official WP:RS position on this search engine? -- Low Sea (talk) 09:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Google Scholar is a great tool for finding RS, but not everything it finds is an RS. I know it lists at least one abstract for one of my informal talks at a university. Now I consider this an excellent RS of course ;-), but I also know it did not go through any formal peer review or even editorial process. In any case, you need to go to the original publication, you cannot reference a sound bite from a GS search result. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I've found some clearly fringe stuff there (pseudoarchaeology) as well as some gems. I worry that some people may be copying bits that they can see from GS and then using it as a reference - as it is rarely with a page number, this is another good idea to try to get people to add page numbers to references.--

talk

) 15:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yaoi references

I've been working on yaoi and have come across two sites that I'm not quite sure are RS. The article has had a list of futher reading for quite some time, and I've been incorporating that into specific references. The first, Akiba Angels, I don't know anything about, and the articles were put in there by the author. They are quite unique in terms of the articles we've got on yaoi, as they purely analyse the content, without trying to make the fandom out like crazy people, so it's probably not just a case of self-promotion. The second, Aestheticism.com, has a decent glossary, and has had a shout-out by an academic in a journal article which I'm assuming is peer reviewed. Also, I'm citing two honours theses - how well-regarded in general are these? Most of the rest are news sites or anime news sites and so should be fine. -Malkinann (talk) 04:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Akiba Angels is a doujinshi information site copywrited by CuriousFactory, a company that provides product localization, translation, PR service and market research regarding Japanese entertainment. Akiba Angels offers reviews, news, articles, interviews, and essays on doujinshi works and related topics. They do the required fact-checking and are accurate so the site is reliable.

I don't know Aestheticism.com too well, so someone else will have to help you there. Kazu-kun (talk) 19:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources for Routemaster buses in current service in London

Please can somone comment on the sources being posted in Talk:Routemaster#Restoration_Of_Section. Sources are being put up for the re-inclusion of data, namely the identity of the Routemaster buses that are currently in service in London, that was essentially first added by someone who 'wrote them down by seeing them out their window'. (aside from whether the 'current' nature of this info makes it relevant to wp at all) MickMacNee (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The vehicle list in question contains data consistent with those on other specialist websites and publications which are verified by fellow enthusiasts. Searches on specific vehicles also show the buses to be in service today. 82.46.143.181 (talk) 10:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It is the nature of those websites, and 'verification by enthusiasts' that is in question. One site you quote lists WP as an external link, causing a possible circular reference. MickMacNee (talk) 10:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Stalinist sources

Resolved

I don't know if this has been addressed here before, but given the issues of

talk

) 21:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Settled already. Biased but reliable source. See

WT:Reliable sources/archive 16#Nazi and Soviet sources. --Relata refero (disp.

) 11:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Rundata

Resolved

Before I even embark on trying to get some rune stone articles up for FA or GA, I should perhaps verify whether the Rundata database qualifies as a reliable source per WP:RS. Having observed the GA discussion on Talk:Sif, I noticed that page numbers appear to be required by at least one evaluator. Rundata is a freely downloadable database in both English and Swedish where some of the world's leading runologists at Uppsala University have added information souch as provenance, runestone style, dating, etc. It is not possible to refer to Rundata by adding page numbers, but I think that the runic inscription IDs (e.g. U 123, DK 123 or N 123) provide sufficient verifiability in themselves. Any opinions?--Berig (talk) 11:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be OK, especially if there is not likely to be any controversy. Page numbers are not required for web sources or where the source does not carry page numbers. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Great! Thanks, --Berig (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

TalkOrigins Archive

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

self-published source

, with the authority of individual authors determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus on article talkpages, per suggestions by Stephan Schultz at 12:28, 6 April 2008, Filll at 14:12, 7 April 2008 among others.

---

Over at Darwin's Black Box I got into a bit of a disagreement over the use of a review cited to the above website. As the name implies, the website hosts the archives of talk.origins, the usenet newsgroup that discussed issues related to evolution and abiogenesis.

I am a supporter of the use of newsgroups by and large, especially for those areas, such as speculative fiction and anti-Scientology protest, where they were significant sources of information and major props of the community at through the 1990s. Consensus is consistently against me on this at

WT:RS

, and particularly when it comes to negative or contentious materials about living persons.

The item I removed was a 1996 posting at talk.origins and preserved at the archive, written by a then-grad student in biochemistry at Harvard who now works at a start-up. I was reverted with the argument that the archive is itself not usenet, and that it has received multiple website awards and some nice writeups elsewhere. I'm bringing it here for overview. Note the entire talkorigins.com website does not consist of an archive of usenet postings; I am not claiming that all that it holds would fail RS.

As I see it, the question is simple: are usenet postings by non-authorities, even if archived elsewhere, considered reliable? --Relata refero (disp.) 11:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Relata refero is misrepresenting this. The source is not "a 1996 posting at talk.origins", but a review published on TalkOrigins Archive, in which the author mentions that he originally posted some of the material on talk.origins. The author in question was at the time a Harvard scientist who had published in Nature (journal). Oh and the correct name of the book is "Darwin's Black Box" not "Darwin's Black Book". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm misrepresenting it? I never misrepresent. Right at the top it says "Last Update: December 11, 1996." Its the same article with responses to Behe's response added. It has received no additional revew, nor does it have an editorial board standing behind it. I clearly laid out the author's background above. That he was published should not come as a surprise, most grad students are at some point.

The point remains: this is a usenet post. Are we saying its acceptable now? Because I have a few more I'd like to add. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say

WP:SPS applies. That is, a Usenet article is acceptable under the same conditions as a blog post or a self-published book: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". The talk.origins archive is not really an archive of talk.origins, but rather a collection of material, some of which has been produced from the newsgroup. There is at least some editorial oversight, so I'd be willing to accept at least some of the material there. --Stephan Schulz (talk

) 12:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Quite so. I wouldn't agree to removing parts of the FAQ, for example. I too think

WP:SPS has traditionally not applied to usenet postings because of the possibility of spoofing, but I don't think it is rational to extend that too far. --Relata refero (disp.

) 12:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has taken place repeatedly here. The result has always been that this is a reliable source.--Filll (talk) 12:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

So you say. Link it, and I'll review it, and point out how either I am wrong now or how the earlier participants are wrong then. Or have it again. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Relata refero has not established how much of this review was directly published as a usenet post. He is merely surmising.
   1. Even if the entire review was previously published on usenet, that does not taint its reliability if it is published elsewhere, and sourced to that secondary publication. The question is therefore is
      WP:RS
      ?
2. Relata refero has not established that Keith Robison was "a then-grad student in biochemistry at Harvard". Given that two years previously he'd been the lead-author of this article in the prestigious Nature (journal), he must have been an exceptionally precocious grad-student.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear God, all this for one out of what are thousands of negative reviews of a creationist book!

Right, one-by-one:

1. Even if the entire review was a usenet post, if it is "sourced to that secondary publication". Yes, except the secondary publication is partly a usenet archive! You might know this, its in the name.
2. Keith walked in the April '97 commencement at Harvard. This I know personally. Whether he got his PhD that year or earlier, I admit I don't know, I assumed. I can check right now, but I don't know if the information will be publicly linkable. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"Keith Robison" of the "Department of Cellular and Molecular Biology, Harvard University" published in Nature (journal) in 1996, and a "K Robison" shows up as co-author with the co-authors of that paper in a number of other papers in the mid 1990s. It is therefore highly unlikely that this Keith Robison was a simple grad student at the time. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Per "except the secondary publication is partly a usenet archive", I refer you to Stephan Schulz's comment above: "The talk.origins archive is not really an archive of talk.origins, but rather a collection of material, some of which has been produced from the newsgroup. There is at least some editorial oversight, so I'd be willing to accept at least some of the material there." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, See also my response to Stephen, agreeing with him. You see, some of it is produced and has oversight and some of TalkOrigins archive is an archive of talk.origins. As I agree, nobody things we should remove the FAQ portion, which is mostly what is linked throughout WP. What we are trying to determine is what makes something that is essentially a usenet post written by a grad student into a source reliable enough for negative contentious information about living persons. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Why are we required to accept your personal assertions of anything ? Do you have a reliable source showing Keith walking in the April 1997 commencement ceremony?--Filll (talk) 12:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

No you aren't, which is why I said I was checking, right?

And you can tone down the rhetoric, you know. Not everyone who has a momentary disagreement with you is a dotty POV-pusher. This is the kind of thing that turns well-disposed people into people who chime in with "Endorsed" at AN/I when blocks for incivility come up. (Not that I would do that.)

Since you don't take my personal recollection as a reliable source, which is deeply personally distressing to me: does this open for everyone? If it does, scroll to the bibliography and note the date of Robison's thesis in bioinformatics. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

If this is such an unreliable source, why do academics typically use TalkOrigins as a source? Why is this very review quoted by academics? For example, look at this article in RNCSE [37].--Filll (talk) 12:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It is also cited in this article in the Journal of Theoretical Biology: [38]. Hmm...--Filll (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure

Reports of the National Center for Science Education count, and the JTB uses it how? --Relata refero (disp.

) 12:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realise the JTB link was Thornhill-Ussery. I'm amused that you use that example, as that, IIRC is the only article in a peer-reviewed journal to take irreducible complexity seriously (if only to refute it) and was thus justifiably grumbled about for using unreliable sources... --Relata refero (disp.) 13:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is this even being discussed? This topic has been vetted at least a dozen tmes over nearly every single article involving evolution/creationism/ID. And every single time, without fail, the result has been that it is a reliable source. Why does this editor want to continue his disruption? Baegis (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Can we please have someone who is not a veteran of this particular set of battles weigh in, please? I have never participated in that area, and if I did there's no doubt that I come down on the anti-fringe side. All I ask is that the simple questions raised above are answered. If that is disruption, I'm afraid you have a surprisingly low bar. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The interesting argument here is the claim that a review, published in a respected source by a graduate with expertise in the subject, is unsuitable as reviews by "non-authorities" are deemed by Relata to be unacceptable. That seems a very shaky argument, and note well that this graduate with a much better publication record than Behe has revised the original review and not found it wanting, while others with expertise in both science and creationism have accepted it as a suitable review to be included in TOA, a source which demands much higher standards of science writing than, say, a newspaper reviewing a creationist book aimed at the general public. .. dave souza, talk 21:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

A very valid point, but could you respond to the quote from the TOA FAQ about its own "review" process below? Note also the fact that this reviewer is several hundred times more reliable than the person he is reviewing isn't really relevant....

--Relata refero (disp.) 13:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

A "usenet post"?

Relata refero repeatedly, and to my mind fallaciously, refers to the Robison review as "a usenet post". As to the specifics of this accusation, can Relata refero demonstrate that the review in its entirety was posted on usenet? If not, then it is not "a usenet post", but merely material that is in part based upon material previously submitted to usenet by the author (of both the original posts and the review). I see no reason under

WP:RS

why this (purely historical footnote) should be problematical. Per Relata refero's other caveats, it would seem to be highly unlikely that this material has been "spoofed" and it is in fact part of the FAQ (which Relata refero has explicitly assented to), specifically the FAQ on Behe.

As far as Robison being a grad student at the time, I present his publication record at that time as evidence that he is qualified to review Behe:

• Cloning and sequencing of thiol-specific antioxidant from mammalian brain: alkyl hydroperoxide... -- HZ Chae, K Robison, LB Poole, G Church, G Storz, … - Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. US A, 1994
• Large scale bacterial gene discovery by similarity search -- K Robison, W Gilbert, GM Church - Nature Genetics, 1994 - nature.com
• Discovery of Amphibian Tc1-like Transposon Families -- WL Lam, P Seo, K Robison, S Virk, W Gilbert - Journal of Molecular Biology, 1996
• Novel Gq alpha isoform is a candidate transducer of rhodopsin signaling in a Drosophila testes -- C Alvarez, K Robison, W Gilbert - Proc Natl Acad Sci US A, 1996

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

So you accept he was a grad student at the time of the posting. Several grad students have publications. We do not necessarily believe that such grad students are authorities in their field yet.

Here is the original posting. I think we can see for ourselves that it is practically identical, particularly the section quoted in the article, with a couple of interpolations that are from later postings in which he replied to Behe's criticisms. So I don't think that that dog hunts.

I agree about the unlikeliness of spoofing, and said it did not apply here.

What remains is a usenet posting, substantially unaltered, hosted on a web archive of such postings that also hosts material subject to editorial control, (being used, I may add, not to as a source for useful scientific information about flaws, but as a source for a relatively petty and unencyclopaedic one-liner about a living person, of the sort that almost certainly wouldn't be considered necessary or appropriate in an academic forum, where the criticism would be more direct and less flippant.) I repeat, I'd like some eyes on whether that's considered appropriate now. As I said, I'd be happy if it was, as I have been arguing for certain reputable, moderated usenet groups as a source for some time.--Relata refero (disp.) 18:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, nobody has accepted that Robison was a grad student, although I think it quite likely from the information presented. As you point out, "we do not necessarily believe that such grad students are authorities", but then that is not what is required by

WP:SPS. What is required is that they are experts. There can be little doubt that someone with 4 publications in high-class scientific journals is an expert. Also, the fact that something was posted to Usenet has no bearing whatsoever on its status as a reliable source. I can post a couple of papers tonight - does that magically make them unreliable? Of course something only available via Usenet may have problems, but that is not the case here. --Stephan Schulz (talk

) 20:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see the attached pdf and the date of his thesis.

Different fields have different standards for publication. There are undergraduates in computer science who have more than four publications. Which is not relevant to my main point.

This particular posting is available only on usenet and, in a minimally modified form, on a usenet archive. Explain to me how that is the same as me posting a peer-reviewed article on usenet tonight. Relata refero (disp.) 20:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see the attached pdf and the date of his thesis.

Why? Doctoral degrees do not confer expert status or knowledge, although they hopefully demonstrate it.

It may well be possible that in computer science there are undergrads with four publications. In my experience, this is exceedingly rare however. And if these four publications are real research papers in high-class journals, I'd gladly grant expert status to the student in question. Robison was the lead author of a paper in Nature, not of some low-key workshop paper.

"This particular posting" is available from talkorigins.org, and, since it has been modified after its original posting, is not a simple archived Usenet post. For one, it is verifiably attributable to the author. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I find this entire episode bewildering. We can of course mount a very large defense of this review. The review is cited repeatedly in assorted academic sources, and by notable experts in the field. We can extinguish these incredibly silly attempts at disruption quite handily; that is very clear. For example:

• It is basically irrelevant if the reviewer was a postdoc, or a graduate student, or faculty or on the research staff when he wrote the review. This review was cited over and over by other notable and reputable sources, so it cannot be of so little value or so easily dismissed.
• It is exceedingly clear that TalkOrigins is a reliable source; it has been cited in academic journals repeatedly and is used in academic coursework.
• Relata refero has yet to produce clear and convincing evidence from policy that (1) we are violating BLP by citing this review and (2) that this review itself constitutes some BLP violation or attack on Behe personally.
• His attempts to besmirch and dismiss the RNCSE and Journal of Theoretical Biology border on the comical.
• His assorted sniping at other editors in connection with this campaign of his is completely puzzling; what is it to him whether we cite one out of thousands of negative reviews of this long discredited work of Behe or not? --Filll (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• Please, let us by all means examine the occasions when it was cited, and how it was cited, and what parts of it were cited. Note I have done so with some examples above and found it wanting.
• The discussion need not extend to all of talk.origins archive, merely the section that is the archive of talk.origins.
• The BLP problem is irrelevant to this board, it is only the reason I brought it up. In due course, if this is ruled as unnecessary, I will point out how BLP is involved. I have in fact already done so elsewhere, but weary of repeating myself.
• The RNSCE is not an academic forum, but the newsletter of an advocacy group, the National Center for Science Education, which I have no desire to besmirch, as I pay $30 annually for membership. (I'm certain of this, as I'm doing my taxes right now.)
• The JTB article is an exception to the rule, as I mention above. I notice this point is avoided.
• What sniping? I was bitten by article owners. It isn't the first time. I am aware that civility is at a premium in this area, and I think that all concerned would be wise to start paying more attention to it. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I invite you to continue down this path if you want to find out what biting is.--Filll (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

!!?! --Relata refero (disp.) 14:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's look at Talk Origins past history

Let's examine the use of Talk Origins Archive (TOA), to better understand this matter.

It is used as an EL and a ref (3x) on the ID article, which by the way, is a featured article.

It is used as an EL and otherwise talked about on the Creationism Article. It is even featured as an important organization in that same article.

It is used as a ref (2x) on the Evolution article, which is a featured article.

It is used as a ref (2x) on the

Evolution as theory and fact

article.

It is used as an EL and a ref (2x) on the

Introduction to Evolution

article, which is also an FA.

It is used as an EL on the Theistic evolution article.

It is used as an EL and ref (4x) on the Flood Geology article.

It is a ref or cited work (10x) for the

Creation-evolution controversy

article.

It is a used as an EL and a ref (7x) on the

Creation Science

article.

Now onto BLP's. It is used as a ref (4x) on the

Kent Hovind

article. Kent Hovind is a noted YEC.

It is used as a ref (4x) on the Walt Brown article. He is also a noted YEC.

It is used as a ref (5x) on the Duane Gish article. Also a noted YEC. The use of TOA is discussed here with the conclusion being that, on the whole, it is a vital resource.

It is used as a ref (2x) and an EL for the Ken Ham article. Ham is the founder of Answers in Genesis, a YEC apologist group.

It is used as a ref (3x) on the Henry M. Morris article. While no longer living, Morris was the founder of the ICR (Institute of Creation Research) and generally acknowledged as the father of creation science.

So, as you can plainly see, TOA has been used many, many times over as both a reference and an external link on a wide variety of articles relating to evolution, creationism, and ID. It has been used for both Featured Articles and BLP's, with no problems. This is an open and shut case here, folks. Baegis (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It has been used on Wikipedia. So has MySpace. Please make arguments as to how it is reliable. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It's used on 3 featured articles! 3! Each of those articles passed a strenious review in order to qualify for their status. Should we just not use any sources that do not support your personal views, Relata? It's reliability is reinforced by it's use on those articles. My God, I thought you had been around here for a bit and actually understood how WP operates. Baegis (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've certainly been around long enough to know how FAC operates. If you're interested, see my comments on the weak sourcing that is let by at FAC that focused strenuously on MoS issues at an ongoing featured article removal candidate,

Golden Plates. In fact, I was whining about this very same point earlier today at User talk:Risker

.

I note also that I make the point above that any objections cannot apply to the whole website. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Please also be open to the possibility that when some people are concerned about a source, they are concerned about a source regardless of my POV on the underlying issue. Above I have made the most open declaration of POV on any subject I ever have, and it stands in somewhat direct opposition to your assumption .... --Relata refero (disp.) 19:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

TOA has numerous rewards and accolades. Looking at our article on TOA (which I helped write) TalkOrigins Archive " In August 2002 Scientific American recognized Talkorigins.org for its "detailed discussions (some of which may be too sophisticated for casual readers) and bibliographies relating to virtually any objection to evolution that creationists might raise."" and we have other awards and recognition listed as well. The Archive is edited and reviewed by scientists with expertise in the relevant areas. It is easily a reliable source. Enough. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've linked that page in my first post a little earlier. I merely point out, repeatedly, something that has not yet been responded to: What parts of the archive are edited? Who are the reviewers?

What does Talk:archive itself say on the subject? While materials on the Archive have not necessarily been subjected to formal peer-review, many have been subjected to several cycles of commentary in the newsgroup prior to being added to the Archive. Most of our materials provide links and/or bibliographic references to enable the reader to evaluate the evidence for themselves. While anyone can decide to ignore our materials, the Archive has been recognized as a valuable online resource by many well-known groups, magazines, and individuals. Further, a number of college courses have chosen to use materials from the Archive in their coursework. See: Awards, Honors, and Favorable Notices for The Talk.Origins Archive.

Nowhere do they make the claim that there is any formal review other than the cycles of commentary available on usenet; in fact they specifically deny there is any such review. Why should we not consider this a self-published source?

Note: this does not mean that it cannot be used extensively in our best articles if the individual cited is himself or herself considered an expert. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well let's see. Either a PhD candidate from Harvard, or a PhD at Harvard, either way someone who is a Harvard employee. Someone who has published extensively in the best journals. Someone who writes a review that is cited repeatedly in peer-reviewed journals. And the question is, even if this review is viewed as a

WP:TE.--Filll (talk

) 14:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the "cited repeatedly in peer-reviewed journals", which is not correct as far as I can see, I don't think there's much incorrect in what you say. This is pretty much exactly how usenet posts conclusively connected to a RWI are to be used: as a self-published source, usable based on a determination of the eminence or authority of the author. Please read

WP:RS

for how self-published sources are subject to certain restrictions in their use, one of which was what set this unnecessatily overblown dramafest off in the first place.

(As a participant, under a previous account, in the framing of

WP:DE, I'm glad you find it useful, though I think you need to brush up on its applicability.) --Relata refero (disp.

) 14:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The statement that "materials on the Archive have not necessarily been subjected to formal peer-review" in no way detracts from the usage in the article. Reviews of popular books are not normally subjected to formal peer-review.

WP:BLP

prohibits reference to this book review. . . 16:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree in that the review of a popular science book can be self-published by a notable authority. I still don't see why a grad student who subsequently left academia is a notable authority, but that is not worth an argument.

If we agree that this is a self-published work from a source that can be considered an authority based on editorial judgment, we can largely declare this resolved; that is largely the position I have advocated for, in any case.

About whether this is an issue about living persons, please note that in my opinion the "quote" from the review says Behe is ignorant, and that Behe is meddling beyond his understanding. This is true. It is also a statement about Behe, rather than his arguments, and is certainly contentious - Behe himself contends it. The question of whether I am mistaken is something that can be settled peacefully on the relevant talkpage, but I'd prefer that you stopped calling me tendentious now. You haven't the slightest justification for that. I've made two mainspace edits in this subject, and have participated in discussion about it only for the past twenty-four hours in my five years on wikipedia, much of which has been spent trying to keep fringe theories and political advocacy off the project.

Note to all disinterested editors: Don't try touching an evolution/creationism article without a giant sign across your talkpage insisting that you aren't a creationist. The most charitable explanation is

that they don't want well-meaning outsiders blundering around there. Keep out, people, if you don't want this sort of sustained attack. How we expect to attract experts is beyond me. --Relata refero (disp.

) 18:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Way to get that last personal attack as you resign in defeat. That is truly a professional way to leave this issue. Good riddance, though. I doubt we will miss you on any of those articles. Baegis (talk) 19:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Point out the personal attack I made and I'll redact it instantly, OK? This is truly extraordinary. Relata refero (disp.) 19:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

How about "Note to all disinterested editors: Don't try touching an evolution/creationism article without a giant sign across your talkpage insisting that you aren't a creationist. The most charitable explanation is

that they don't want well-meaning outsiders blundering around there. Keep out, people, if you don't want this sort of sustained attack. How we expect to attract experts is beyond me". Not only are you implying that the editors of these articles are some sort of obsessive group of individuals who refuse to let others edit these articles (they aren't) but that we also attack other editors until they run out of the room! And then you go off and blame us, the ones who have led the recent charge to get the problem of editing by experts fixed, as the reason that no experts will edit? My God, you have some brass ones! Baegis (talk

) 19:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

So, which part of it is an attack precisely? I was waiting to refactor it. You perhaps you might want to take this to my talkpage. Though how you intend to argue that the extraordinary level of drama, accusations of bias, tendentiousness, misrepresentation and disruption, complaints spread across several noticeboards and talkpages, accusations of lack of professionalism - whatever that means on an amateur project! - predictions that I am yet to "find out what biting is", that my behavior "is violating all precepts of the new politically correct requirements which have been placed on Wikipedia", that I have made "vague threats and allusions", I have demonstrated "an abusive set of behaviors and disruption", that an edit summary of "OMG DRAMAZ" requires "administrative sanctions", that "over-react much?" is a "snide, sarcastic personal attack" that requires -you guessed it - "administrative sanctions" and a final "good riddance" after only two mainspace edits and in twenty-four hours is not sufficient evidence for my good-faith and remarkably polite conclusion that you would prefer not to have new editors blundering around, I can't imagine. What else do you expect a reasonable human being to think?

I, and pretty much everyone else, have made the point fairly often that an unwelcoming atmosphere of this sort turns away new editors, or slightly experienced ones looking to make fresh edits in areas where they might have some expertise. It runs directly contrary to what we are supposed to be as a project. Whatever "charge" you think you're leading will not solve the problem of minimal expertise all over this project if it doesn't involve changing this behaviour.

And believe me, if I had big brass balls I would have taken this evidence of a systemic problem to

WP:WQA

or something similar. Instead, because all of you have effectively made me question what the fuck I'm doing here giving myself ulcers instead of preparing to teach the people who actually pay for my internet, I'd say big brass balls is exactly what I lack.

I'm tagging this entire sorry heap of pointlessness as "resolved", which it was the moment that Stephan and I posted somewhere towards the top of the first sub-section. If you want to continue this, take it to my talkpage. Its inappropriate anywhere, but particularly on this noticeboard. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Book, Private Guns, Public Health by David Hemenway.

In this diff[39] I have been question whether the book Hemenway, David (2006). Private Guns, Public Health.[40]Ann Arbor, Mich: University of Michigan Press, pgs 197-207.

ISBN 0-472-03162-7. Per the edit summary: "source unreliable. please stop.. ". Does this book meet reliable sourcing policy standards for a cite as to the tense "has" versus "had" in the Gun politics in the United States? Third opinions welcome on this difference of opinion. SaltyBoatr (talk

) 02:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Published by a university press, the book most certainly meets the common sourcing standards. The problem seems to arise from the use of the book, rather than a problem with the source itself. Claims regarding current gun politics, such as what you are citing, should probably be placed under the section "Early 21st century gun politics". Besides the topical divisions, it's also most likely inappropriate to use one source to alter the cited claims of another. Vassyana (talk) 02:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Book written for students

Can I use Criminology: The Core as RS. The book is written for students, so I am confused if it can be considered RS or not per

WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk

) 13:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

If the fact that a book is written "for students" makes it an unreliable source then our system of higher education is in serious trouble.  :).PelleSmith (talk) 14:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not understand what you are saying. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Uhm, I was trying to be clever. The fact that a book was written for students is not a problem at all, but if it were a problem we'd be saying that students are usually given unreliable sources in their classes (get it?) The fact that it is published by a respectable publishing house and written by an authority in the field makes it reliable. The fact that it is a text book also means its unlikely to include anything too controversial (I don't know the book so I can't say it doesn't but its less likely in any event.) Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The book is written by Larry J. Siegel who is a professor of criminology in University of Massachusetts Lowell and has written several books in the field of criminology. My only confusion is that since this book is basically student oriented, it can be considered RS or not. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Textbooks written by academics for students are usually excellent sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I will then use it. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Post-secondary textbooks are not only acceptable, they are often useful for providing a broad overview of a subject. This is quite nice when making short summary overviews (like wiki articles) and helps in determining the balance of NPOV (by providing a "lay of the land"). Vassyana (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There may be no fully general solution. I believe books from reputable publishers are often thoroughly fact-checked; I've both authored and fact-checked several such books. Unfortunately, I finally took a Wikibreak from the computer networking project, after getting totally frustrated, every few weeks, of correcting editors that were citing the same erroneous information from one popular textbook.

I think the last straw was when I cited a peer-reviewed article of which I was a coauthor, and told I was wrong because the book said so. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 21:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

checking in worldCat, the book is in over 700 libraries. It is apparently widely used. I agree that it can be used for general statements , but specific points that are controverted may need more professional statements. It is the nature of a 1st level textbook to oversimplify. (And it is unfortunately quite usual to write them without indicating to what extent issues may be disputed). DGG (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

"The book is written by Larry J. Siegel who is a professor of criminology in University of Massachusetts Lowell" If true, then this book should be reliable in my opinion. There can be exceptions to the "professor" rule but I don't see any here.Bless sins (talk) 06:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

David Rohl article - subject using mailing list as a reference

We have an interesting situation on the

talk

) 17:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yuk. No. Best leave out. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

that entire article needs much better sourcing, both for the views supporting him and the views opposing. The article as written is essentially OR, trying to settle itself the disputed issues. It's not even based on primary sources, for it doesnt cite them either. DGG (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

So then how on earth do you report on a public event witnessed by many and filmed? Are you saying that crap written on a web site is more valid than a notice published in a discussion group? Why? What makes a web site more authoritative? Your rules are extraordinary. You allow hearsay and opinion without evidencial support but a clear public statement is not permitted. Something is very wrong here with Wikipedia and its policies. David Rohl. 22:05, 20 April 2008.

Neobyzantine website

talk

) 09:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No. I was bold and removed it. As a parallel, FA Islam doesn't link to movements that want to restore the caliphate. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There's actually a movement that wants to restore the Byzantine Empire? Party like it's 999... - Merzbow (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The Herald (Zimbabwe)

This newspaper is owned by the Zimbabwe government, how much should it be used in the

Zimbabwean presidential election, 2008 article? ^{(Hypnosadist)}

00:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Not exclusively. When quoted, it should be attributed, and the first time it is attributed, "state-owned" should be prefixed. This is the general procedure that used to be followed in China articles, though it has broken down in recent months as co-ordinated editing from within the PRC has emerged on some articles. --Relata refero (disp.)

Agree with Relata. Given the current government there may or may not be legitimate we should try for uninvolved and neutral sources.

t/e

21:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Press Only Showing

This edit summary was used in the Doctor Who article Press-Only showing fails WP:V, still needs WP:RS [41].

Since when has that been the situation in Film,TV,Books articles because wouldn't that exclude the use of pre-release reviews of such material which I have seen used in various articles .Garda40 (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing it's in reference to the addition of the paragraph about the three former companions reprising their roles on the current series? If so, I don't see a source at all used to support that claim. Perhaps the claim isn't that it was press only, but that the claim was completely unsupported by a reliable source at all? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe the source may be at the beginning "SFX" but that's not really my concern here ( I'm not trying to add the information ) ."SFX" magazine and other magazines of a similar type are used for many citations in this and similar articles and I'm fairly certain that claim is what it says "Press Only".

The reason I am concerned is that in the past BLP has been used to remove information about a possible actor appearing in the programme rather than the fact that the source may have been unreliable and this just seems to be a case again of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut .Garda40 (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If a particular source meets the reliable source standards in general, then it would meet those same standards for a "Press only viewing". Splitting hairs to say a reliable source isn't reliable in a particular situation is generally not something that is Wikipedia does at an encyclopedia level, but I have seen editors on a particular article agree to not use a reliable source for various reasons before. If no argument has been reached about not using a particular source on an article (or in a particular situation), then what could be done is to attribute the source explicitly in the text, so "According to SFX, at a press only viewing..." That way it is not Wikipedia saying it, but SFX. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ernst and Canter

In April 2006, Ernst and Canter authored a review of systematic reviews and published in the Journal of Royal Society of Medicine. This would usually be considered a reliable source that meets MEDRS. However, in August of 2006, an article was published in Chiropractic and Osteopathy (doi:10.1186/1746-1340-14-14), that refutes the conclusions by Ernst and Canter.

The conclusions of the second article were "The conclusions by Ernst and Canter were definitely not based on an acceptable quality review of systematic reviews and should be interpreted very critically by the scientific community, clinicians, patients, and health policy makers."

Would the original article still be considered a reliable source? DigitalC (talk) 04:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it would have to be presented as a "a review by Chiropractic & Osteopathy, the official journal of the Chiropractic & Osteopathic College of Australasia (COCA) stated ..." Since the whole review is available open access at the above doi, people can judge the extent to which is may show bias. I don;t think it would invalidate the original source, given the likely POV. It could be however used as a comment on it. DGG (talk) 08:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Pretty urgent help needed on

Genuki

and two others - Please!

I have used Genuki http://www.genuki.org.uk as a reference for an article currently at GAC, but its reliability has been questioned. Can anyone help me with some guidance? Is there a list of reliable sources - and is this one of them?

The Wikipedia page on Genuki says: GENUKI is a genealogy web portal, run as a charitable trust. Its aim is "to serve as a "virtual reference library" of genealogical information that is of particular relevance to the UK & Ireland". The name derives from "GENealogy of the UK and Ireland". It hosts a large collection of pages with genealogical information covering England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.

Also, I have used http://www.raybeckham.co.uk/village_map.html as a source of village information. One editor has said they feel it is a comercial site, but you can see from the page that the web editor gives away his pics for charitable donations. The guy who runs the site is a local historian, so I valued his input - but I need to know if that makes it reliable.

Lastly, the reliabity of this site http://www.templarmechanics.com/main.asp has been called into question too. How can I tell if a site is reliable or not?

Thanks--

seahamlass

09:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Since I recommended that you take your questions to RSN, I guess at least I should provide my perspective on the sources:

• Genuki: Can you specify what exactly you are trying to source from the geneological database ? The site has many types of information and links and they may have varying reliability.
• RayBeckham: This is, as far as I can see, a site run by the village photographer/videographer. A personal web-site may be considered a reliable source under two circumstances (1) it is used as a source for a wikipedia article on the subject, (2) the author is a acknowledged expert on the subject, for example he has written books or articles that were published by respected publishers (even then we have to be careful!). I don't think either of these circumstances apply in this case, and therefore the website would not be considered a reliable source for wikipedia. Can't you find a "official" source for the village map ?
• Templar Mechanics: IMO this is a clear case of a unreliable website. Firstly, we know nothing about the author of the website content; there is no hint of editorial control; and the subject is a
  redflag
  , we need impeccable sourcing. The website definitely cannot be used as a source for "facts", but if it is notable enough in the Templar/Pentagrams/ ... circles it may be ok to use it as a source of what some people think - although, even then, we would prefer a secondary source quoting the website.

Abecedare (talk) 19:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Individual distinct sources for what will be large amounts of text

WT:CITE

. So, here it is

In my sandbox, I'm working on

Western Washington Vikings, the first of hopefully a lot of DII sports articles. There are histories on the university's official athletic site

for all fourteen current (and one former) varsity sport. Together, they comprise well over one hundred pages of information, which surely is enough to write at least a serviceable draft.

Anyway, can I put a cite in the end of each section (I think I'm probably going to do one for each sport), or do I need to throw in a million <ref name=samesource/> tags? Or do I need to find other sources simply for the sake of having them? I have a few others; not many.

talk

) 13:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If everything in a paragraph or section is cited to the same source, there is no need to cite every sentence. Once is enough. However, I would strongly suggest that you look for other sources to supplement the one you have... especially since that source is directly connected to the article topic (and thus a Self Published Source) (See:

WP:SPS). Blueboar (talk

) 14:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

You can put a named source at the end of each paragraph unless another source is used within the paragraph, then you'll need to put in front of the sentences before the part sourced from reference 3, and then at the end. Per section would not be acceptable if you intend to eventually go for GA or FA. ALso, I also agree with Blueboar's suggestion on looking for other sources that are unconnected as sourcing an entire article from one source is far too heavy a reliance on one source and would call to question the topic's notability at all. If it has received no significant coverage outside of itself, including its history, it will not meet

WP:N.Collectonian (talk

) 14:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It meets the notability requirements, beyond question. The reason I don't have a whole lot of other sources is because I simply haven't sought them, given the exhaustiveness of the histories on WWU's website. So, are you telling me I need to find other sources just for the sake of having them? That's...okay, I suppose. They're out there, I have no doubt.

talk

) 08:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

tommy2.net

Just covering my ass here. This doesn't look like it stands a chance of meeting

WP:RS, so I've been reverting editors that have been using it as a source for the album title of Vanessa Hudgens's latest album. Opinions welcome.Kww (talk

) 23:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd probably say borderline on this one. While they've obviously got some legitimacy based on their interviews, the site looks awful lean and thin for one that's been around so long. Might just be a high-end fan site, but its hard to tell. You can probably flip a coin on this one in general. For non-controversial stuff it's probably fine, but should be replaced for a better source if one turns up.

t/e

21:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Alvin and the chipmunks

Resolved

Hey, I keep removing a sequel section on Alvin and the Chipmunks (film) because the only reference we have is is a blog. Is this blog an acceptable source? RC-0722 ^247.5/1 03:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this fits one of the exceptions to the "No blogs" rule... it isn't a "personal blog". MTV has editorial oversight, so it is similar to the blogs hosted by reliable news outlets. I would say that if there is doubt as to the accuracy of the information, attribute it as the opinion of the author. Blueboar (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Right. Thanks. RC-0722 ^247.5/1 14:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

FreeRepublic

FreeRepublic.com is by and large an unreliable source because it is a self-published source (blog). However, it does have a reprinting service where users add articles to the site from reliable sources that they find interesting followed by frequently lengthy comments on the article by the readers of the website. As an example, [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1507163/posts this link] is used as a source in Hindu nationalism. Can the reprints on freerepublic be used as a reliable source, or does the reputation of FreeRepublic and the following comments by the readers of the site eliminate the reliableness of the source. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Since the original newspaper and article publication date are provided with the FreeRepublic article, it would be better to find a way to look up the original article (even though it's no longer available free online) rather than relying solely on the convenience link at FreeRepublic. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Cite the original source, not the reprint. Wikipedia is not a method of increasing web traffic to Free Republic. Jehochman ^Talk 20:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. I wasn't considering adding links to the site (I've been slowly going through the externals links to it and removing them), just ran across a user that was repeatedly adding a link to an article on the site and was claiming it was acceptable to use it, so I came here for clarification. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Linking to copyrighted articles reproduced in FreeRepublic is not allowed because they are copyvios. - Merzbow (talk) 00:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Should the site be blacklisted then? Particularly the http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news portion of the site. That seems to be where the reprints are kept. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Relata refero (talk) 15:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I know the site pretty well and even have written on the forum, but I hadn't thought of the problems. If it should be blacklisted, how does that get done?

talk

) 06:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that the topic of FreeRepublic.com came up in the fair use discussions above, under #Use_of_rickross.com_and_religionnewsblog.com_as_external_links.2Fconvenience_links. I believe these are essentially similar cases. Our article on fair use has details of a copyright case against FreeRepublic.com: Fair_use#Practical_effect_of_fair_use_defense (they lost). I would cite the original articles only. Jayen466 08:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

FreeRepublic is notably different from RickRoss.com. From my viewing, it appears the RR.com includes the full text of articles, with little or no commentary. FR.com mostly posts excerpts, sometimes with commentary interleaved, and always with highly partisan, non-expert commentary following. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Further, the problem of FR being used for citations has come up so often that blacklisting appears to be the best solution. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the commentary adds significantly to the problem, making this a more clearcut case. Jayen466 19:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It's essentially just a forum. It's not a reliable source in any way, shape, or form (like its arch-nemesis, Democratic Underground). - Merzbow (talk) 00:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I added it to the blacklist request page back on the 31st, but it still hasn't been acted upon. I just asked for a status check. One thing, www.freerepublic.com itself should probably be whitelisted as the site itself is notable and it should be okay to include a link to the site on Free Republic's article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 17:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see my response at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#freerepublic.com. Blacklisting this, while it may be justified, would take a lot of upfront work, which I have described in my response. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Conference proceedings RS?

Are conference proceedings RS? Are they peer-reviewed? I'm wondering because I have seen some people use powerpoint slides from a conference/workshop talk as a ref in FAs. My university has hosted a few conferences etc where some PhD students have given some talks on things that did not get published in journals until a while later and were pretty informal in nature and and not really much more polished than the weekly departmental seminar. For instance this paper was the transcript of a talk and was used as a ref. There are a pile of spelling errors and some very bad grammar mistakes, including a grammar error in the title. I can't see this ever passing a journal review or a book publisher, so I wonder whether something like this can be a RS (or even notable anaylsis/POV). Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It would depend on mostly who did it. If it is a professor I'd accept it with caution. PhD student? Probably not. Also, it goes without saying that proceedings would have had to be published somehow. You can't attend a conference and then quote it (without any publsihed material on it). References need to be verifiable.Bless sins (talk) 06:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well the source is a link to his slides, as I have included. I don't know why something can be accepted simply if a prof said it. If there was no review process from a reference, he could have just said some nonsense. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he's still doing his masters. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyways, it depends on the conference. In my field, conference papers for most conferences are definitely formally reviewed, then discussed by the program committee, and, if accepted, are published by a reputable scientific publisher (Springer, AAAI, ...). Publications at

IJCAI/ECAI or LICS are certainly RS. However, you would cite the paper in the proceedings, not the slides. There are also less reputable conferences, either organized by fringe groups or by commercial entities, either for CV building or for tax-deductible vacations ("come to Hawaii and present your paper...it's only US$XXX conference fee, and we publish it on a CD!"). And there are less formal gatherings like Workshops, which range from "reputable conference in all but name" to "some guys meeting over beer and pizza. --Stephan Schulz (talk

) 07:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Conference proceedings and some speaker's notes or slides are two completely different things. Proceedings are usually a collection of papers (not just notes or slides) containing the talks given. If the proceedings are reviewed (most reputable conferences do this) and published by a reliable publisher such as

WP:RS

, as any other academic paper would be.

If, however, they are not reviewed and published, then they are not

WP:RS

.

Cheers, pedro gonnet - talk - 11.04.2008 10:02

To add to the previous comments: The reliability depends upon (1) the field of study and (2) the particular conference. For instance, (painting with a broad brush) conferences in pure sciences are seldom regarded very highly and the paper/abstract is often reviewed only for topicality and to keep out blatant nonsense (comparable to wikipedia's speedy delete criterion :) ). On the other hand, many conferences in engineering are more selective and the submissions receive a more thorough peer review; in fact in computer science a few conferences are considered as or even more prestigious than journals (see [42] or [43] or this site for a good rule of thumb). Another good way to judge the notability of conferences is to check if the proceedings are archived by many libraries and/or academic databases. Abecedare (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that the most important first thing to establish is whether they are published or unpublished conference proceedings. If they are published, especially with a major publisher, then there may well be a note about the peer-reviewing process. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Already extensively discussed at

Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/archive 17#Should academic conference papers be considered reliable sources?. The discussion there brings up other variables that must be considered, including whether the conference is sponsored (by a tobacco company? a political pressure group?); also that online conference papers are usually not the peer-reviewed versions; also that they usually explicitly fail REDFLAG. There are some broad guidelines: Computer science, the hard physical sciences usually more reliable than economics working papers/conference summaries, which are usually much more reliable than humanities conference papers. Math papers are apparently only copy-edited. (!) --Relata refero (disp.

) 13:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Free Life Commentary

Free Life Commentary[44] is an internet-only self-published "journal" which appears to only carry the "papers" of one man, Sean Gabb, the leader of a fringe UK-based thinktank called the Libertarian Alliance. Gabb describes himself as an academic, although he doesn't obviously have a position at any UK or overseas university. Gibb has appeared infrequently in the media as a spokesperson for Libertarianism, although I can't find any work by him in the serious mainstream media (all of this is from brief research done today, I had never even heard of him until a couple of hours ago). FLC is in effect little more than a blog; there is also a newsletter-style publication produced by the Libertarian Alliance called Free Life Magazine with which is not to be confused, although I stuggle to see how even that comes anywhere near being an RS except in the most unusual of contexts. His own autobiographical contributions toward his wiki entry (

Sean Gabb, see e.g. here

) include such illuminatory and modest gems as:

[Gabb is] "...a controversial figure within the British and indeed the general libertarian movement. He is an extreme cultural reactionary..."

"Many conservatives believe that his [Gabb's, speaking in the third-person] cultural tastes are a cover for an extreme ideological radicalism."

and:

"What makes Gabb somewhat more than a fringe eccentric is that he is a very clear and prolific writer..."

Material by Gibb from FLC (two separate blogs) is currently being used in

WP:FRINGE, etc.) and thus they should be included (of course the inverse of that applies- there's no positive evidence that there are mainstream viewpoints (of course they are not, that barely needs to be said)). We agreed that it would be sensible to come here for an opinion on the relibility and use of the sources in question, and all comments are appreciated. Links to the material in context on Elgin Marbles available here. Badgerpatrol (talk

) 14:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to remark that there were previous efforts by others to get Seannie's self published and self-promoting article (

Sean Gabb based entirely on FLC articles), removed which were rebuffed on the rationale that FLC is WP:RS and that he is not fringe. The same goes for another publication I consider equally problematic, The Occidental Quarterly and author James Russell who also has a WP page.Xenovatis (talk

) 15:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Blogs written by Sean Gabb are clearly reliable sources in a discussion of Sean Gabb's views. That does not make them reliable sources across the board (see

WP:SELFPUB

for an explanation of how the use of sources can change according to context).

Can you point to the discussions or AfD's that you are referring to in each case if possible, sounds like potentially useful discussion. Badgerpatrol (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I POSTED THIS ON THE ELGIN MARBLES TALK PAGE REGARDING THIS SUBJECT:

The things that make Gabb's comments relevant or not is whether they are based on fact or are just his opinion. The comments about Modern day Greeks being no more related to the builders of the Acropolis than the current British being related to the builders of Stonehenge, suggests that claims based on national heritage of individual groups of people are invalid- ie the Greeks do not have a valid claim to the marbles as it was not their ancestors that built them. Whether this is true or not, I do not know- that is just how I interpret that statement- and as such, if it is true, I think is relevant. In contrast- Gabb's personal views of the current day Greeks is only a personal opinion of them- which he is entitled to. But they remain that- an opinion of just one person about the Greeks and, as such, are irrelevant to the topic. I think there are far more people saying that those comments should not be here than those saying it should (only one person explicitly defending their place, with four, maybe 5 saying that they shouldn't be here) D666D (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

There are two questions here, relevance and reliability. Like you, I originally thought that the Stonehenge comment was relevant and hence retained it, but that was before I did my research properly and ascertained that "Free Life Commentary" is not in any way a serious academic journal. It is a blog. There are millions of bloggers in the world. If I were to update my blog this afternoon to include some stupid rant about the Elgin Marbles, I would not expect it to appear as a supposedly reliable source tomorrow on Wikipedia. We have standards, those standards are important, and this doesn't meet them. The whole of the Sean Gabb material should automatically go unless better sources can be found- in which case we should indeed start discussing relevance and weighting per

WP:FRINGE etc. Badgerpatrol (talk

) 13:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

If it is a blog-style publication, then yes, good bye (I hope it is!)D666D (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It's irrelevant what anyone wants or doesn't want. There are objective rules for what is a reliable source and this doesn't meet them. If the Stonehenge comment or something similar can be found in a reliable source then it should be put back in, if consensus so approves, since it actually does seem to pertain to the issue of the marbles. Gabb's racist opinion of Greeks is however irrelevant to the issue of the Elgin Marbles and should be excised completely (or perhaps moved to

Sean Gabb regardless. Yes, it is a blog in everything but name. Badgerpatrol (talk

) 04:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

NOTE:Both D666D and Badgerpatrol were involved in this dispute long before it was placed in this page. The point of placing it here was to get some 3rd party perspective not rehash the same arguments. I don't see the point of the above and I would hope some uninvoles users would care to offer their opinion instead.Xenovatis (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I second that wholeheartedly. Badgerpatrol (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

As, I think, the maybe fifth person calling for its removal perhaps I should add something. Gabb has a minor talent for being provocative (obnoxious would be a less kind way of putting it, when you have fringe political views I guess you need to generate all the attention you can get), but the point being made here - that there is little or no cultural continuity between ancient and modern Greece, that Greeks have added little to the dialogue of humanity in the last 2000 years and that the marbles belong to humanity and not to any particular nation state - is not uniquely Gabb's. Indeed these points were, broadly, made in this Guardian article [45] last year. If you don't like Gabb's esprit then quote from someone else, but it is an argument (not opinion) that ought to be represented.Twospoonfuls (ειπέ) 18:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is a far better source that makes the same point. Badgerpatrol (talk) 10:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Then that source should be used but the argument maust be made. Preferably in a separate subsection, moral claims or some such. Once that is done I will remove objections to deleting Gabb.Xenovatis (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Benton, Tennessee

A user named "toddyvol" is continuously making edits to Benton, Tennessee, claiming it's a "speed trap" without providing a reliable source. Several users have reverted his edits, but we're all maxing out our 3-reverts.

This user cited the "Speed Trap Exchange," which is not a reliable source, and pretty names every city in the southeast a "speed trap."

talk

) 02:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I have notified Toddyvol that he/she is in violation of

WP:3rr and can be blocked if he/she continues to edit war over this. I agree that the information needs to be sourced. Do you have a link to (or can you discribe) the "Speed Trap Exchange" so we can see why you think it is not reliable? Blueboar (talk

) 13:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS

for Oscars

I've only just discovered this noticboard exists, and I already have a question for it.

I need to source some unsourced assertions about the Academy Award nominations for a film. The assertions look correct, I just need to check and source them. Is there anywhere that is:

• online,
• free to access,
• fairly detailed, and
• considered
  WP:RS? AndyJones (talk
  ) 10:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

For your information, this noticeboard is generally used to ask other editors whether a particular source is reliable or not, per "Editors can post questions here about whether given sources are reliable" in the heading, and not to ask people to help find sources :-) But anyway, how about this? [46] --Slp1 (talk) 13:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. But that's a good one. Thanks for your help. AndyJones (talk) 15:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)