Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 100

• While I have been skeptical of the reliability of college newspapers for controversial topics, I do think they can generally be trusted with regard to non-controversial factual information about their own school's football season. (I'm referring to game results and statistics and who was on the team, as opposed to reports of players being involved in scandals.) If we were in doubt about the notability of this football season (and maybe we are at the AfD), I wouldn't count the college newspaper as independent coverage, but presumably sufficient other news coverage of the season exists to overcome that problem. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
• What Metropolitan90 said. School newspapers are reliable sources for facts, but not for notability (because obviously school newspapers cover school organizations which however are not notable outside the school). They are not independent. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
• I strongly disagree with Roscelese. These things must be determined on a case-by-case basis. In the case of a sports event — particularly one from over a century ago — reportage by a school paper does indeed provide verification of factual data. It is not produced by the team itself and is therefore independent and does indeed add to the case of defenders of the encyclopedia-worthiness of a challenged article. Wikipedia is about verifiable facts presented in a neutral manner. Carrite (talk) 06:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you've misread my comment; I did say that I think it's reliable for facts. It is for notability that I discount it. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Are letters from the school to the parents of the children attending that school OK to use as a primary source? If so, what type of statements can they be used to reference? The article in question here is King's College School, Cambridge. The school was the subject of a ruling concerning the Freedom of Information Act in which it was required to release the finding of an emergency inspection by the Independent Schools Inspectorate to parents (the first time this has ever happened to a public school). It transpired that the inspectors had found failings in regard to the school's handling of child protection issues. User:Kitty101423 wants to include several statements concerning events that can not be sourced to the newspaper articles which covered these events. I've asked about sources and she says that she has various letters from the Provost and from the DCFS. I have no particular reason to believe these not to be genuine (note that I have not seen any of these source myself, this is just a gut feeling) but I'm wondering if they're OK here and which of the statements they can be used to reference. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 21:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

If this is in the public domain, has it not been noted in the press anywhere? The education press, the Cambridge local press? If not, I am wondering how notable it all is. Also, will the Independent Schools Inspectorate publish the findings in due course? If so, can we wait till then? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The background portion of the above (the court ruling, the child protection issues) are documented in the press. We have sources from the Times, the Times Educational Supplement and the Cambridge News. The problem are some statements about what the Provost wrote to the parents, whether this was misleading given what the FOI request eventually revealed and whether the Provost has subsequently apologised to certain parents. Since the court ruling was made in October 2010 it doesn't seem very likely anything more will be published on this matter (unless there are subsequent problems at the school and I think everyone hopes that isn't the case). Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 22:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The section should be based on the press accounts, which are reliable. You can refer or link to any primary documents that are already discussed in press articles, but not to ones that haven't been mentioned. With that section, the solution is probably to go for less detail, not more. Readers can follow up from the linked press articles if they are particularly interested in that aspect of the school. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

This is the first time I have commented on the Wikipedia: I am questioning the the naming of a page entitled "Data Dredging." The page equates "data dredging" with "data snooping" and "fishing." The latter two terms are well established, and I consider them to be appropriate in this context. In my opinion, "Data Dredging" is not consistent with snooping or fished, which describe the process of "sifting" through the data to find patterns that support one's hypothesis, and not "dredging" which implies scooping up stuff from the bottom.

I searched the literature (at SMU's online databases) and found no instances of the term "Dredging" in titles, keywords, or abstracts. (I may have missed some.)

I have a personal interest in the name "Dredging." I refer you to the SMU Tecnical Report SMU-TR-373 at: http://smu.edu/statistics/TechReports/tech-rpts.asp. This paper has been submitted to The American Statistician, where it is currently being reviewed.

Coincidently, the first keyword in the paper is "Dredging," which refers to the Staffing Strategy of "Dredging the Silt," or getting rid of the "deadwood," the poor performers, while retaining good performers. The use of the term "dredging" in this context is consistent with the dictionary definition. Our hope was to put "Dredging" into the lexicon of Staffing Strategies (personnel selection processes) in the workplace. The two other Staffing strategies we describe in our paper are Skimming ("Skim the cream", or promote the best performers and keep all but the very worst), and "Trimming" (a combination of Skimming and Dregdging.)

My request is that the page entitled "Data Dredging" be deleted, and the concepts therein be incorporated into, say, "Data Snooping."

Thank you for you consideration.

John R. Michael [email redacted]

We can look at the issues, but lexis/nexis gets a good number of hits for "data dredging". After skimming a few, it seems that the term is used in the popular press in a manner similar to what you describe in regard to fishing and snooping. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

With 2,800 results in Google Scholar it looks like a pretty well established term. "Data snooping" is a slightly different sin, in that you piggy-back your analysis on data from a different project. At some point we might want to split the current article. Your work on human resources management is a different field and I doubt if there is much danger of confusion. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

On a related note, the term "data mining" is used in some circles with an interference that it is an analytical term, but, on occasion, I see it used as if it were pejorative. The WP article on data mining doesn't seem to emphasize the pejorative usage, but I agree the term on data dredging does. Having said that, while I've seen the term data mining thousands of times, I hadn't come across the data dredging term before today, so I can't offer any personal light on the meaning.--SPhilbrickT 20:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Investopedia.com is used in a lot of economy articles. For example Economic globalization, Capital intensity, and Necessity good. Is this website a reliable source for this subject? P. S. Burton (talk) 23:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a first remark. It is clearly not a wiki, with un-named editors. It is owned by Forbes, it seems, and has named editors etc. It claims to be widely used. These are all good signs at least.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Correction, Investopedia.com is NOT owned by Forbes: "Forbes Sells Investopedia To ValueClick In $42 Million Deal" Aug 2010 and ValueClick has had issues in the past (ValueClick to Pay $2.9 Million to Settle FTC Charges)--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Investopedia is still a reliable source considering most of the content is from the period of Forbes-ownership and there's been no noticeable decline in quality since then. --69.165.204.50 (talk) 06:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

What information does it provide that can't be found in less controversial sources?--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of scholarly sources that cover economics. There is no reason to ever use Investopedia as a source. ~ Mesoderm (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Availability of scholarly sources notwithstanding, investopedia is a good

tertiary source because of its Forbes vetting. As such its use should follow referencing for noncontroversial content.Divide et Impera (talk

) 15:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I need some input from RS specialists on the content of this edit. The content relating to a website, Failed Angle, is sourced purely to that website. So far no independant reliably published sources have been produced to identify this site as relevant (here and here have been produced as sources, but I am not sure if they are reliable either). My feeling is that this is a SPS and using it to support its own inclusion is problematic. This view has been disputed by a couple of other editors. The material is a bit contentious so some input on how best to proceed would be useful. --Errant ^(chat!) 19:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

See Also: Talk:Larry_Norman#Where_is_the_decision_that_FailedAngle.com_is_a_RS_or_not.3F --Errant ^(chat!) 19:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

None of those sites are Reliable Sources, at least by Wikipedia standards of "third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The site being used as a reference might be "relevant", but it isn't WP "reliable". First Light (talk) 21:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I looked them over and I agree, neither the video or the website comes close to being a reliable source. I think that you could get away with mentioning that the video and the website exist, (or maybe not, I am open to debate on that) but it would be wrong to use the content of either in the article. Mentioning just one or just the other seems unfair to my eyes, but again I am open to debate on that. Using the content I am sure of: Don't. (Full disclosure: I met Larry Norman on the street of Hollywood in the late 60's. Don't remember much other than him advising me to stay away from drugs, which I was already doing)

talk

) 04:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that the documentary does have coverage in other reliable sources. The web site doesn't appear to. I'll see if I can find refs for the documentary. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

To ensure there is no confusion I am Becky Northey with a potential COI as I'm co-founder of Pooktre and an artist in the field of Tree shaping.

This cite Jiwatram, Jaya (2008-08-25), We're going to Live in the Treees, Popular Science Magazine:- link

Was used in Tree shaping. I believe this source can be used as a reference to pooktre use as a generic name for this art form Other names section. Here is a list I complied in Feb 2010 when SilkTork requested evidence for the use of pooktre generically. diff.

Would this reference be considered reliable and could it used as one of the references for pooktre used generically? Blackash have a chat 11:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems OK to me. Popular Science is a well established magazine, and this ought not to be a particularly odd or controversial claim (that an artform has an alternative name). The only problem might be circularity, if the article writers had obviously used Wikipedia as their source. In this case there's no way to tell, they might have looked at Wikipedia or might not have. Can you find one more reference of equivalent quality? (Not the dozens given for one of the other names.) Itsmejudith (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

For the Popular Science ref, the wikipedia article name at that time was arborsculptue. article at that time Pooktre only appears in the image caption of our mirror and a link to www.pooktre.com.

Is this any good DRB? Wikipedia article name was Tree shaping article at that time Pooktre doesn't appear as alternative name in the wikipedia article then. Blackash have a chat 16:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't look so good. I can't see an About Us section that would cite some publisher's credentials. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Found this, the writer of the article on DRB is Dylan Thuras who is co-founder of Atlas Obscura. [23] At DRB site I found this quote "we will ask you to send your article to [email protected] and our editors will prepare it for publication on our site." [24]. In an interview DRB founder states "we try to keep the quality of posts uniformly high, with content not easily available on other sites." [25] Does that help?

Popular Science I trace this, popular science credits physorg who credit Tel Aviv University who own the copyright. So would that mean the Popular science ref is reliable? Blackash have a chat 12:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

This one www.associatedcontent.com/article/980052/plan_your_fall_arborsculpture_and_enjoy.html?cat=32 plan your fall ?

There is also a 3 page spread in the Beijing newspaper Culture where pooktre is used through out even with other practitioners.

This one future horizon ? Blackash have a chat 12:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments? Blackash have a chat 11:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Popular Science reference is OK. The others aren't. DRB is a blog and Future Horizon is a consultant's opinion about the world in general. I think you probably have enough for "pooktre" to be given as a name of the practice, but nowhere near enough for an argument that it is the usual name. Hope this helps. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks I was in no way was asking about this ref as a means to imply that pooktre is the usual name used, just that pooktre is an alternative name of the art form. Blackash have a chat 12:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, the problem we have as neutral editors, with the use of this citation, is not whether it cites the use of pooktre as a name for Pooktre's works and Pooktre's techniques and practices, which it clearly does. It is that the Popular Science reference is circular, not with wikipedia, but with a number of other commercially-based press releases for another artist, Ezekiel Golan, that had originally been presented around the same time as separate references: Golan Patent/AFTAU/Plantware-Treenovation/PopSci: Golan Patent & American Friends of Tel Aviv University & Plantware (now called Treenovation) & Physorg & PopSci-Jiwatram. We had covered that company's root shaping work in the main article using the aftau citation and the patent, and we didn't feel that repeated use of the same content by the other circular references (beyond that) offered anything new to the article, beyond their repetition of the original source's incorrect use of Blackash's brand name without capitalization. As far as we can determine, the only sources which use Pooktre generically are those which have apparently been either directly or indirectly influenced to do so by the Pooktre artists themselves. That has been problematic. Pooktre is not a generic name for the craft, but a brand name for Northey and Cook's works of art, their artform.duff 17:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Duff as you know we have always stated Pooktre is our word for our art not the overall name. The only place where I have modified that view is at wikipedia due to SilkTork pointing out wikipedia in not about my truth but how the world at large is using pooktre. The people in the real world who have decided to use pooktre generically have done so of their own choice. Duff please stop creating these bald face statements. Wow I can't believe Duff that you make that claim that this citation is about our trees, which it is not! It is about creating homes and children's playground by using tree roots to form the shapes then they grow thicker. It just happens to use pooktre generically. Which is my question about this ref. Blackash have a chat 07:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

A couple of questions, which might seem tangential here at the RS noticeboard, but they do relate directly to what is being discussed:

1. There is an arbcom vote/ruling in progress here, which might have the effect of banning Blackash for one year from possibly even discussing this issue. There are various proposals being voted on right now. Should this discussion be put on hold until there is a result from arbcom? Should they be notified?

2. The term "generic", when applied to the name of a product or process, has a very specific legal meaning. Blackash, do you have a trademark on the name "Pooktre"? If you do, then by legal definition it isn't generic, because then you would lose the trademark. If it is trademarked, then the Wikipedia article probably needs to point that out, or have the TM symbol by the word, so that it's clear that it is a created word that is trademarked and not generic. Here is an article that discusses the issue of generic vs. brand names.[26] Even though it's not a reliable source, and I don't remotely resemble a lawyer, I think we need to respect the fact that "generic" has a widely used meaning that would conflict with the existence of a trademark on the term "Pooktre". Also, the photo caption at the top of the article refers to the "Pooktre method"—if it is a specific method for shaping trees, then it is not a generic term for the general concept of shaping trees into furniture, art, etc. First Light (talk) 15:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

1. As arbcom is about behavior and this is a content question I didn't think it is a problem to ask this here. Hopefully the admins at arbcom are already aware of this, as I would expect them to be checking editors' history to see what we all are doing.

2. Trade marking doesn't stop a word being used generically, it just gives the holder of the trademark the right to try and stop people using it. Think about the The_Hoover_Company or the fact a lot of people here use the term google instead of search. Check this link it talks about the hoover issue and how Google is trying to stop it's trade mark being used generically. [27] Words can and do have more then one meaning and is why wiki has disambiguation pages. Blackash have a chat 15:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

"Google" and "Hoover" are not used in a generic sense in WP encyclopedia articles interchangeably with "web search" and "vacuum". They might be used in informal discussions, but I doubt that "pooktre" is even used generically in that way (I would be surprised to hear someone say "I'm going to go pooktre that tree", in place of "I'm going to go shape that tree"). First Light (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

FirstLight, that issue was also raised last week, at Blackash's first presentation of this citation to the RS Noticeboard, in a package of 3 presented simultaneously here. I suggested then that we settle the matters in arbitration first, before attempting to resolve the issues peripheral to the reliability of these sources. Blackash was advised to post one citation verification request at a time, so here we are. This citation was item #1 on the prior post of three and there is some interesting detail there as well. duff 22:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Clearly the term is not in use as a generic description. It is the preferred term of two practitioners; that's adequately sourced from Popular Science, but whether it's worth including is not in the scope of this board. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear I raised the point about arbitration when I first listed the 3 content questions. FirstLight, Hover is used in the real world as both a trade name and generically. The wikipedia article about Hoover the company notes both uses. Does someone say "I'm going to go bonsai that tree"? If so I don't see why someone wouldn't use pooktre the some way. Just to be clear I think pooktre should have this ref as one of the cites in the other names section. I don't think it is appropriate to use any of the alternative names interchangeably though out the tree shaping article or related ones. Thou I believe AFD Hero had a valid point about listed some of them in the lead of Tree shaping. Blackash have a chat 06:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Itsmejudith where in the ref is pooktre used to relate to Becky Northey and Peter Cook (co-founders of Pooktre) or our art?. As it doesn't talk about us or show our art, how did you come to the conclusion that this ref uses the term pooktre only in related to us? Or where in the ref does it state pooktre is the preferred term of two practitioners? The term pooktre is used as a descriptive term quote "The process of shaping living trees to create objects, referred to as arborsculpture and pooktre," then the article talks about some else's art and their tree shaping ideas. Wouldn't this then be showing pooktre used as a generic description? Blackash have a chat 06:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

We are here just to comment on sources. The Popular Science article is reliable to support the idea that pooktre is an alternative name for tree shaping but it doesn't support the idea that pooktre is a generic name for the practice, if "generic" is used in the sense that "hoover = vacuum cleaner". All the other issues need to be resolved at ArbCom, not here. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that pooktre is not even remotely "generic". For that it would require widespread use of the term, with multiple reliable sources stating that it is "generic". It certainly hasn't reached the widespread generic usage that Hoover, Google, or even Bonsai have reached. It's still just a made up term mostly used by two practitioners to describe their particular method. First Light (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I agree that pooktre is being used as an alternative name which is what I meant when I stated pooktre was used generically. I do not intend to mean that it was in common use this way, just that it has been used as one of the alternative names. Sorry I wasn't clearer, Just to make sure there is no confusion:- Is this a reliable reference for pooktre as an alternative name of tree shaping? Blackash have a chat 00:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Since the RsN editors have judged PopSci a reliable source, with what it supports narrowly construed, I added the PopSci source back, at both Pooktre and arborsculpture in the Other names section, as it supports both words.

While we are on this titled heading, could the good RsN folks also consider and evaluate the other :citation being used to support precisely the same point, please? Citation| unused_data | newspaper = Culture| title = The art of Tree shaping| author = Hao Jinyao | date = 11 May 2009| publisher = We haven't seen a copy for study yet. Thanks, duff 07:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Blackash, I don't think that you can use a single source to make any sort of declaration that pooktre is an "alternative name" for "tree shaping" (also, this is a source that may be reliable but isn't a known authority on this subject). Looking at the other sources in the Tree Shaping article, I think the best one could say is that "pooktre is a word coined by two practitioners of tree shaping to describe their method, just as numerous other practitioners use different descriptive names for tree shaping." The fact that pooktre is an invented word that has no descriptive meaning, while the others are descriptive of tree shaping in some way, is also notable, imo, but not an issue for here and now. First Light (talk) 15:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

First Light one of the people quoted in the main source article Tel Aviv University is a noted Aeroponic root scientist who specialize in this field. It is not the only ref for pooktre. Really I had argued against pooktre, until SilkTork (who was meditating the article) pointed out wikipedia not about how I use Pooktre but how the world at large uses it. Also there are only 4 books in english on this art, two are self published so there is not a lot on this art form yet. Blackash have a chat 16:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that article indicates that pooktre is an alternative naming for tree shaping. But here is where I'm confused, and why singular sources aren't always the best: Your own website seems to indicate that "Pooktre" is your specific method of tree shaping, not just a general alternative name for "tree shaping". Even the title of your site adds to that confusion: "Pooktre Tree Shaping". If "pooktre" is just an alternate name for tree shaping, then your site is essentially called "Tree Shaping Tree Shaping". Let me put it another way: if I learned tree shaping from a popular book and started making furniture, could I call it "Pooktre", since it's just one of the several alternative names for "tree shaping"? Could I call my company "Pooktre Furniture", since "pooktre" is just one of the general alternate ways of saying "tree shaping"? First Light (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

First Light, it is not the only ref and there is also some other online stuff as well. My partner and I created Pooktre as a term for our art. We never intend to name the art form, and will never push to have the art form titled Pooktre. We have always believed that the world will decide. Also our title is Pooktre Tree shapers Tree shapers is a descriptive term for the people who shape trees. So no we not essentially using Tree shaping twice. If you learn a tree shaping method different to ours I would prefer you didn't call it pooktre, but here is the thing it is very hard legally to stop people using a term in a way you don't intend. Just look at the trouble Google is having and they have heaps more money then us. As to "Pooktre Furniture" even if Pooktre was trade marked you would still be able to trade mark "Pooktre Furniture" due to the how the trade mark laws work. If interested this Trademark article may help. Here the thing why can't a word have two definitions? Blackash have a chat 00:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

When all is said (a lot) and done (this is my last comment), I still don't see that "pooktre" is anything but a word created by you to describe what you call "tree shaping". I would have to see multiple references in expert reliable sources — sources that are expert on "tree shaping", wood art, or pruning — before I would be convinced otherwise. First Light (talk) 03:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I note that Hajong, which was tagged for inter alia, not having enough references, now has many. Unfortunately, several are references to two different unpublished manuscripts.

However, typically suggests there could be exceptions. Are there any, or should I:

1. Simply remove the references to the unpublished manuscripts or
2. Announce my intention on the talk page to remove the to give the editor a chance to make a case. (Should that case be made here?)--SPhilbrickT 20:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'd recommend notifying the editor who added those references on their user talk page and asking them if they can provide more information about those unpublished manuscripts, in particular, where they are available to be read and what reason there may be to believe that those manuscripts are reliable. I suspect that these sources will eventually get deleted from the article, but it's worth asking the editor to explain their use of those sources first. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I posted to the article talk page, I'll add a link to the contributors talk page.--SPhilbrickT 16:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, those are both unreliable. Expanded all refs, noted these two dubious refs in edit summary and article talk, with analysis. --Lexein (talk) 05:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I the examiner article was whitelisted as is only being used to say that "the United States legal definition of terrorism excludes acts openly done by recognized states." and it's backed by several primary sources. The entire reason it's up there (besides being an elegant explanation of the situation at hand) is because it's a secondary source. Jrtayloriv has been repeatedly trying to exclude US law on the subject [28] as it's not a part of the narrative he wishes to present. Regardless, this was whitelisted and is only being used to back the primary sources. V7-sport (talk) 06:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of high-quality secondary sources, and we don't need to be cherrypicking snippets from primary sources (whether they are quoted in Examiner.com, or pulled directly a legal document). Please use reliable secondary sources in the article, and stop trying to insert your original research from primary documents.

That said, I am not "trying to exclude US law on the subject as it's not a part of the narrative I wish to present." First, let's provide a little context for the diff you just shared with everyone. This discussion was taking place right after this edit by V7-sport. He was disruptively trying to blank the entire article against consensus and include nothing but a misrepresentation of source #1, and original research from U.S. legal codes (source #2) and claim that this made a balanced article. That's the type of crap we were all dealing with when that conversation was going on. My comment in that diff clearly has nothing to do with "pushing a narrative", and is simply a response to the preceding statement by V7-sport which claimed that one of the U.S. government's definitions of terrorism should be the only definition in the article. I was trying to explain to him why we couldn't have nothing but the U.S. definition based on his personal opinion that it was the only legitimate definition. (We're still dealing with this type of garbage from him on the talk page today, and I'd really welcome anyone here that isn't currently involved to step in and do something about it).

This type of disruptive editing, use of low-quality sources, misrepresentation of sources, and original research from primary documents has been stalling progress on the article for months, and really needs to stop. V7-sport: I suggest that you stop arguing about why you think it's OK to use

primary sources, examiner.com, and student essay contests. Instead, why don't you go and try to find reliable secondary sources that talk about the subject? Wouldn't that be more productive? -- Jrtayloriv (talk

) 07:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Jrtayloriv's thoughts fully. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, and examiner just doesn't make the list. Examiner's reference comes from about.com, a blog, and I can't find anything that supports the claim here. Please try to find a scholar that will back up your claims. Divide et Impera (talk) 15:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• "There are plenty of high-quality secondary sources, and we don't need to be cherrypicking snippets from primary sources (whether they are quoted in Examiner.com, or pulled directly a legal document)" Where? That's the second time you have written that.
• "That said, I am not "trying to exclude US law on the subject as it's not a part of the narrative I wish to present." So then you wont have a problem in pointing me to one of these "high quality sources".
• "Let's provide a little context for the diff you just shared with everyone."

Lets provide the diff of what you just did. [29] Notice the edit summary which is, par for the course, untrue: "Removing sources misrepresented by V7-sport". There was nothing misrepresented there.
The sources that you removed are this which was supposed to go toback to this (yes, the link was broken) which states: Defining terrorism is the most ambiguous component in terrorism studies, with no universally accepted definition that differentiates attacks against civilian noncombatants or armed military or takes into account the latest trends in terrorist objectives and warfare. In 1983, the U.S. Department of State (DOS) formulated one of the most widely used definitions of terrorism. According to this definition, terrorism is "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience." [1] As part of this definition, the term "noncombatant" includes civilians and military personnel who are unarmed or not on duty. [2] The term 'international terrorism' refers to terrorism "involving citizens or the territory of more than one country," [3] while the term 'terrorist group' refers to "any group practicing, or that has significant subgroups that practice, international terrorism." [4]
That's a reliable, secondary source for what is being presented.
You removed this Which is a state department document stating the Methodology Utilized to Compile NCTC's Database of Terrorist Incidents. It references US law and defines it.
You removed this. It's a "These definitions are set forth in US law, Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d)." It existed to further confirm the secondary documents.
You removed this. A cornell university reprint of US legal code on the subject. It existed there to back what was presented by the secondary sources.
You removed this.Which was a secondary source that "concluded with the fact that terrorism " is perpetrated by a subnational group or non state entity. (This should be attributed to author however)
You removed this Which was there to establish that there is no international consensus on the definition of "terrorism".
You removed this. The UN hasn't agreed on a legal definition of terrorism.
You removed this. "an analyses the anti-terrorism measures undertaken by the United Nations".
All of that in addition to the disputed whitelisted Examiner article and the essay from University of North Carolina/American deplomicy.org. So the misrepresentation here has been on your part. Anyone can see that the text was sourced and verified in triplicate. You have simply used the whitelisted article, which was backed by both primary and secondary sources as a pretext for gutting the definition section, as you have wanted from the onset. In bringing it here you have used the good will of other editors to push for something you wanted all along, something beyond just the reliability of a whitelisted article.. V7-sport (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC) And I see that the Joshua Sinai reference, which alone went a long way to confirm what I had posted, made it back up. Guess it was reliable after all. V7-sport (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

V7-sport, you don't need to go through all those links in this discussion. All we are discussing here is the reliability of Examiner.com. If you have anything related to reliability of examiner.com, please state it in this section. If Jrtayloriv's removed other, reliable sources, please post those diffs, possibly in another, new section.Divide et Impera (talk) 22:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

@V7-sport --

• Regarding you misrepresenting the news sources, I was not saying something untrue. Those sources were not only low quality, compared to the scholarly sources that I replaced them with, but two of them (from IPSNews.com) did not support the statement that cited them, and the one that did was an opinion column from Pravda. Again, you need to start using higher quality sources, and stop using op-eds and news articles. I understand that you only recently learned that there is such a thing as a terrorism scholar, but I suggest that you go an read up a bit on who these scholars are, and which publications they have written, and use those from now on.
• Regarding the primary sources that I removed, and replaced with scholarly secondary sources, I don't see the problem. Could you please explain why you think we shouldn't be using secondary sources in place of primary sources?
• Also you claimed that I have "gutted the definitions section", which is a lie. I actually expanded the definitions section, and dramatically improved the quality of sourcing, replacing your collection of Pravda op-eds, misrepresented IPS News articles, examiner.com articles, and school essay contests with high-quality scholarly sources such as Schmid and Williamson. I really can't believe you are questioning the validity of me doing this.

Anyhow, I'm going to go back to working on the article now. I'll let other people here decide whether my edits were problematic. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Re. Divide et Impera,

• All we are discussing here is the reliability of Examiner.com.

Indeed, however the original text could have been preserved without the examiner.com reference (which again was whitelisted because it was backed by several other references.) Instead he has chosen to remove the entire US legal section of the text which is what he has advocated for previously.

• "If Jrtayloriv's removed other, reliable sources, please post those diffs, possibly in another, new section."

The sources that he has removed are listed above. The diffs are as follows. [30][31] [32] [33]

As you can see the changes go far beyond removing the examiner link. Further, he's gone on to take this to other pages (terrorism and state terrorism) and has blanket reverted (violated the BRD cycle) to preserve his changes.V7-sport (talk) 00:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Re.Jrtayloriv,

• "Regarding you misrepresenting the news sources, I was not saying something untrue."

That's an untrue statement.

• Those sources were not only low quality, compared to the scholarly sources that I replaced them with

Again, this is what you have removed: [34] [35][36][37][38][39][40] ALL reliable sources. Of course you realize that it's not just the sources you removed but the US legal section. When at the onset of this you stated "That said, I am not "trying to exclude US law on the subject as it's not a part of the narrative I wish to present"... guess that was not accurate.

• "but two of them (from IPSNews.com) did not support the statement that cited them, and the one that did was an opinion column from Pravda. "

The statement that was removed was: "There is no international consensus on a legal definition of terrorism, state-sponsored terrorism, and state terrorism." Backed by, [41][42] and [43]. I don't object to removing the pravda citation or adding that there was no consensus in UN conventions, however, saying that it's a misrepresentation of what is written or that it is not backed by reliable sources is flat out false.

• "I understand that you only recently learned that there is such a thing as a terrorism scholar,"

Isn't that a condescending misrepresentation of what I have written? You bet it is.

• "Regarding the primary sources that I removed, and replaced with scholarly secondary sources, I don't see the problem."

You removed the whole lot, Primary and secondary and changed the text. This forum didn't authorize that. As Divide et Impera pointed out, this was about the whitelisted examiner article. (Which again, was just there as a back up)

• "Could you please explain why you think we shouldn't be using secondary sources in place of primary sources?"

And once again, It's about changing the text, getting rid of the legal definition section and purging sources that are reliable. There is no policy for purging primary sources just because they are primary, especially when they have been backed by secondary sources.

• "Also you claimed that I have "gutted the definitions section", which is a lie."

Where's US legal code section on the subject? It was spelled out before. It was clear that The

states

. before... When you wrote " I am not "trying to exclude US law on the subject as it's not a part of the narrative I wish to present." Was that a "lie"? By the way, it's not just the"The U.S. State Department" that has defined terrorism as it is stated but congress. That was written into law, not just a definition from the state department. What you have posted is not backed by the sources, reliable or otherwise.

• "improved the quality of sourcing, replacing your collection of Pravda op-eds, misrepresented IPS News articles, examiner.com articles, "

The additional sources you excluded to get rid of the US legal code section are up there for anyone to see. They are reliable sources. The text could have remained essentially the same without the examiner or Chapel Hill articles. Really, it's an insult to peoples intelligence to put on this display, call other editors liars and then go about doing what you stated you wanted to do from the beginning and use this forum to legitimize it. The smarmy routine couldn't be more obvious.V7-sport (talk) 00:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

tl;dr

Examiner.com and the student essay contest should be removed. You should replace those with the cornucopia of reliable sources you are saying support them. Since this board is about reliable sources and not about

other things I will leave my comment at that.AerobicFox (talk

) 02:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I will. V7-sport (talk) 02:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The directory page for their listings contains the following disclaimer: "Faqs.org does not guarantee the accuracy or timeliness of any information on this site. Use at your own risk." I would think that this would render it an unreliable source, but an editor on Generation of Youth for Christ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is insistent that a whole section be dedicated to its 'coverage'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Some intro: The article is currently in AfD, and some editors are trying to improve it so that the AfD may survive. It seems to me that this source is being disputed. Faqs.org brings material which is claimed by the website to be coming from public records, but everyone can contribute on it, so errors are possible. As such the website is unreliable as a source, so I would invite the editors Generation of Youth for Christ to use better sources. By the way, the data seems to be correct, judging approximatively by the numbers (see the 990 filings of this organization by a reliable source), but the source itself (faqs.org) is not one of the best and I would avoid it. Hope I clarified and not confused furthermore.Divide et Impera (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your input. I am the editor that Hrafn is talking about. Hrafn and I have not had another editor help up til now. He knows the rules far better than I do. I agree that a site that cautions about the information has problems inherent with that. However, imagine the amount of work necessary to do the comparison available at FAQS.ORG. by examining all those 990 filings. A disclaimer does not nullify the value of the information, does it? Also, their graphs are very effective. It probably would help to include the disclaimer in the information. Also, I am not insistent on a separate section for the information, but the information is of interest to Wikipedia readers, IMO. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

My task here is to verify the source at hand and provide an opinion on its reliability in accordance to wikipedia's policies. My judgement is that the source is poorly defendable, and although it may "get it right", it shouldn't be used. However, since the financial statements are public, they should be available. Probably an email to them at [email protected] would be more than sufficient to have them.I still don't understand how these things are important to the article itself though. Divide et Impera (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I would welcome comments or criticism about this edit, but first a bit of background:

Over at Secular Organizations for Sobriety, (which has been discussed her before; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reliability_of_Master_Thesis_as_a_scholar_source ), There is a section titles "Processes", which includes info such as "SOS recognizes genetic and environmental factors contributing to addiction, but allows each member to decide whether or not alcoholism is a disease" and "In order to change, members must make abstinence their top priority; not drinking despite changing conditions in their lives" -- pretty standard stuff that one would expect from an organization that helps alcoholics to stay sober. The question is, what is considered to be a reliable source for the above information? It is my understanding that the official literature published by an organization (including the organization's website, but not including user-generated comments on said website) is a reliable source on that organization's position. This is true even if the organization's website/literature is considered unreliable otherwise. It is also my understanding that any citation allegedly establishing what the organization's position is must either be from the organization itself or by a recognized expert on the organization.

For example, take Scientology. That article has the following statement: "Scientology teaches that people are immortal beings who have forgotten their true nature." This is supported by a reference to World Religions in America by Jacob Neusner - a reliable source of what Scientology teaches. In contrast, the article on Heaven's Gate (religious group) says "Heaven's Gate members believed that the planet Earth was about to be recycled...", with a citation to the Heaven's Gate Web Site. We wouldn't accept the Heaven's Gate Web Site as a reliable source for most things, but as I understand it it is a reliable source on what Heaven's Gate members believed.

Getting back to

So, was I right or was I wrong?

talk

) 10:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there any reason to believe that SOS might be misleading on their web site about their actual teachings? I have no particular reason to believe that SOS might do so, but there may be other organizations that might conceal some of their teachings from the public so as to look more presentable. However, unless there is a reason to believe that SOS is the kind of organization that conceals its teachings from the public, I would assume that its web site is a reliable source as to the organization's own teachings. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a very good point, and one I had not considered. There is no hint of SOS doing that (they appear to be a straightforward clone of Alcoholics Anonymous for those who object to the religious "Higher Power" aspects) but I can imagine, say, a Nazi group or some sort of criminal enterprise that would lie about their true beliefs. In such cases, of course, we couldn't just let anybody be a source, but instead would need to look for someone who is an expert - a bit of a problem considering that most experts would tend to be enemies of the organization, or at least claimed to be by the organization. Still, things like exposes in The New York Times would be considered reliable sources. Thanks for the insight! ---

talk

) 03:50, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Everyone who's taken the trouble to follow political debate with some regularity knows that political parties, and pundits and editorialists who are more or less clearly linked to those parties, often present a clean-scrubbed version of what they want or how their reasoning goes. It's not so much that they are putting plain lies out, but they pass over some sensitive issues, present reasons that they know will appeal to their target audiences and lump together apples and oranges in ways that is hardly consistent in terms of their professed principles. This is common practice and I'm not thinking of extremist parties but of everyday reality in how mainstream parties and think-tanks present themselves and argue in the media. So it's really not safe to just say "this guy wrote in the New York Times or Le Figaro that 'everyone is thinking so-and-so' or that 'the Democratic party wants X because Y' and he's aligned with the party and the paper is RS in itself, so this statement must be accepted at face value". There's every reason such a statement could be biased, or part of a deliberately skewed description to gain something.

Also it is not the case that everything printed or re-reported in certain papers, written on certain websites or said on certain tv channels is reliable in the same way, in the same dgeree. Papers and so on house lots of stuff that's not meant to be scientific research or checked ten times before publication, and I would say standards of accuracy (and of drawing a sharp line between reporting, personal points of view and editorial comment) have been getting more and more blurred in most parts of the media in the last ten to twenty years, especially newspapers and magazines (most blogs don't even pretend to draw that line or to be objective). I'm not saying things were at all perfect before but it's much more pronounced now. Look, statements have to be judged and weighed in a critical way from their content and from possible bias, not just judged generically from where the statement appeared. And irrespective of whether a particular point of criticism has been seen in another RS.Strausszek (talk) 02:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

A question has arisen as to whether or not sources are required to establish ancestry for persons included in Irish immigration to Puerto Rico (or, are Irish-sounding surnames enough). Please provide any input at Talk:Irish_immigration_to_Puerto_Rico#RfC_on_photos_in_infobox. --Noleander (talk) 13:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I have two questionable source in this article:

• (1) IslamOnline.net was added to this site quoting a scholar; however, they've even mistaken in the scholar's title. My removal was reverted two times. In general, is the website (that doesn't present itself, neither in English nor Arabic) reliable?
• (2) The Jerusalem Post mentions a scholar's opinion that I can only find in political books. Is it reliable too? ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 09:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

As with the recent discussion of Zakah, we do not need to resort to inferior sources here. There is an enormous scholarly corpus on Islam and its tenets; we don't need to use an article by a non-expert published on a website with no known editorial policy, nor a newspaper article by a modern historian (not a religious scholar) who sits on the editorial board of an anti-Muslim journal. If the view also appears in a scholarly book, then it can be cited. I notice that the editors you're disputing with are the same ones as in the previous discussion. Davidelah and Misconceptions2, I'll say the same thing I said earlier: it's not the end of the world if you can't find a reliable source to help you push the idea that Muslims are worse than other people. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. A noticeboard is the only place they get convinced from. I'm removing both sources (for the third time). ~ AdvertAdam ^talk 06:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

@AdamRce, you failed to mention that

AdamRce removed content from

Offensive Jihad, claiming that this noticeboard "decided both sources are unreliable. Please find reliable sources first". Yet in this RSN, the word unreliable is not even mentioned once, as of July 8 2011--Misconceptions2 (talk

) 21:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Find a secondary source about

Yusuf al Qaradawi, period. ~ AdvertAdam ^talk

02:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Gotta cite the date. A link to somewhere where readers could view the episode is preferable, but I recognize that's not always possible - however, it is absolutely necessary to provide an episode/date. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I'll remember it for future reference. Turns out in this case, an editor had added a statement that the TV commentator "had meant to say" but not actually said... so it was thrown out. Thanks again, Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amina_Abdallah_Arraf_al_Omari&diff=438267942&oldid=438192472
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Minal_Hajratwala&diff=438267759&oldid=438172552

He accused the edits to Minal Hajratwala of "RS violations, possible OR"

The source is: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/22/while-posing-as-a-syrian-lesbian-male-blogger-tried-to-get-a-book-deal/ - A New York times article reporting on the content on Minal Hajratwala's blog.

Because the source is a New York Times article reporting on a blog, I consider it to be a reliable source. The source talks about Minal Hajratwala's interactions with Tom Macmaster through her blog.

Please also see User_talk:WhisperToMe#Minal.2FAmina and User_talk:Joatsimeon#Minal_Hajratwala WhisperToMe (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The blog hosted by the New York Times appears to be a reliable source. The usage of said reliable source, and whether it belongs in either article, should be discussed among active editors on the talk pages of those articles. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Good. Now, MacMaster posted a response to the Hajratwala NYT article on Gawker: http://m.gawker.com/5814664/fake-syrian-lesbian-tried-to-get-book-deal

I would like to clarify and add some things, especially regarding the disputed claims. But I think it's against BLP for Wikipedia to say that MacMaster said that Hajratwala "gushed" over his work, since AFAIK Gawker is not an Rs, and also I think MacMaster's claim that Minal's friends threatened him would be against BLP too, since it's only on Gawker. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is that either the whole section needs to be axed or rewritten to include both the claims of Hajratwala AND MacMaster. At present, the article reflects Hajratwala's POV (which raises questions in my mind of whether WhisperToMe is either Hajratwala or an associate) based solely on her word. Personally, I don't think her blogging is of especial importance and is not terribly relevant to the article, though I am sure that WhisperToMe, whether or not s/he is Hajratwala, will disagree. Joatsimeon (talk) 13:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

The importance of her blogging is decided upon by reliable sources. If no media sources covered the blog, it wouldn't be important. But the NYT did cover the blog, and MacMaster himself contacted the NYT. The NYT and MacMaster himself think that the blog is important. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

but _unreliable_ Joatsimeon (talk) 16:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Other Wikipedia editors say NYT = reliable. Citing an article reporting about a blog entry = RS. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

NY Times is

This appears to be the same question as #Question about a possibly self-referenced source. Perhaps we can have the discussion up there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:33, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I noticed an editor, Agentakki (talk · contribs), placing references in various media-related articles, all going to a relevant article on the same website, akshul.com. Feels kind of spammy to me, but I'd like some feedback before I go stripping them all out. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 03:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

So for example, on

Pottermore, there's this diff with three links. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs

) 03:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The site is essentially a blog, and the links quack a lot like linkspam. I'll remove them myself if someone else doesn't beat me to it. First Light (talk) 05:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed the links, and some older ones he had added. It appears to be a single purpose account, and I'm guessing he has a relationship with that site. There is no reason for links to that site to be added to Wikipedia articles. First Light (talk) 05:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Gay Nigger Association of America#GNAA as a citation for information about itself. Prodego ^talk 02:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

This is some sort of a self-indictment: I have argued on Talk:Leuren_Moret and on Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Leuren_Moret that newspapers of a certain impact and circulation should be reliable sources even if their political agenda is known, and even if their views are not shared by many in the developed world. I got quite some opposition in this regard, so I would like to solicit feedback here on two points:

1. General question: Am I wrong to assume that a topic that receives considerable coverage in ideologically not neutral publications, and no significant coverage elsewhere, can be a notable topic for Wikipedia? I am particularly concerned about the situation of countries that do not have any independent press--does that mean they cannot have articles of only national interest, because strictly speaking they never appear in reliable sources?
2. Specific question: Is the Tehran Times a reliable source for the claims in the article Leuren Moret? It sees itself as the "Voice of the Islamic revolution", but then, Iran is an Islamic republic and therefore these views could be seen as mainstream for Iran.

Thanks for your consideration, Pgallert (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

(I'm involved in the other discussions). With my RS hat on, I would say that yes, the article in the Terhan Times is a reliable source in the general sense, although one with a strong POV that would have to be considered. The question is always is a source reliable for which statement. But in regard to that particular article, it is an interview of her, and would thus only be reliable for her views. The article isn't about her, so it can't be used for anything controversial, and all we could use it for is sourcing her opinions. The blurb at the top of the article is pretty minimal and there's no evidence of any fact checking. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:12, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

"mainstream in Iran" is as irrelevant a concept as "mainstream in North Korea" or even "mainstrean in Arizona". it has little or nothing to do with reliability. Reliability depends on context. I see no evidence that this is anything other than conspiracy promotion. Paul B (talk) 15:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Pgallert - you agreed on the Moret talk page that no newspaper should ever get "Carte-Blanche" acceptance as a relible source. That the information, especially when used in a biography must be considered on a case-by-case basis. No newspaper should automatically be considered a reliable source. PRONIZ (talk) 22:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely, it is not automatic. I did not attempt to use the newspaper to okay her views, just for the evaluation that she's sufficiently well-known to warrant an article. At least in Iran. I do, in principle, not see any difference between "had coverage in Iran" and "had coverage in Norway". And I am sure there are articles about topics only well-known in Arizona. Any way, thanks for the feedback so far. --Pgallert (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not coverage of her, it is an interview with her. That she was interviewed and made claims about herself does not contribute to her notability as we use it here. My read of GNG is that interviews with the subject are not reliable for information about the subject. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Half right, I think: The interview is reliable (=we assume the interview is not a hoax), but it is not either an

WP:Independent source or a secondary source, and so it is not really useful for GNG purposes. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 19:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right, and I should have been more explicit. The interview is fine for sourcing what she has claimed, but not for supporting that what she said is accurate or true, nor does it establish notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey, we are trying to improve the article and get it ready for GA status. Ten Pound Hammer had concerns about the Equestria Daily and DeviantART references, but Faust maintains the highest level of interaction with the fanbase through her DA account, so could this be considered a reliable source? Equestria Daily also occasionally recieves information from The Hub and Hasbro personally, and I think this might qualify Equestria Daily as a reliable source. I want the opinion of the community on this matter so that we can easily get this article to GA status.

See previous discussion. ED as a SPS would be difficult to qualify for fact checking - the only possible reliable posts there are the interviews it has with production staff. --MASEM (t) 15:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Seconding Masem's assessment. Anything that can be directly sourced back to the creators or the companies behind the show could be usable, but with

WP:PRIMARY caveats. Siawase (talk

) 15:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as Equestria Daily goes, I would be careful with using Equestria Daily absent other reliable websites using them as a source (which gave the Doctor Who News Page a general sense of authority for Doctor Who news), and try to find sources elsewhere. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Per that previous discussion the creator of the Equestria Daily site was cited by Wired and NPR so I would think it could be trusted as far as the interviews and other materials straight from the creators go. That Wired article also links to Faust's deviantart account, by the way. Just to confirm it's really her. Siawase (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

What about her DeviantART then? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Since the DeviantART has been confirmed by a RS as belonging to Faust, it should be usable under

WP:NPOV, ie take care not to overwhelm the article with her personal views on the show. Siawase (talk

) 01:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

A dispute has been ongoing for some time at the Beatles' Help! Talk Page as to whether the intro to the album is properly credited as the "James Bond Theme". The single supporting link provided is to a music review by William Ruhlmann at AllMusic.com. There is some question as to whether Ruhlmann's claim is appropriately authoritative, or whether it's closer to hearsay. Opinions? CNJECulver (talk) 07:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it would take more than just a singe album review to make the claim that the intro wasn't properly credited. Wouldn't that be

musical plagiarism? The review later calls the album "a spoof of the James Bond films", which really is all the intro is—musically it is quite different, it just uses similar instrumentation and rhythm to spoof the sound. The far more authoritative Walter Everett gets it right, referring to the addition of "...George Martin's "James Bond" spoof from the Help! soundtrack to the beginning of Help! for the U.S. album releases."[46] First Light (talk

) 15:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, there are sources that describe that intro as "James Bond Theme", without crediting the author - perhaps indicating it's a spoof of the James Bond Theme?[47] First Light (talk) 16:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

If a notable source made a comment, but there debate about whether that is enough to be sure, maybe the opinion should be mentioned but with an "according to..." attribution attached.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

An editor (

I should add that I can find nothing about the editorial board. I clicked on one of their presumably "peer reviewed" published articles in the the list ("Application of the Swastika In Mughal Architecture of India" -click on "essays"), as I happen to know something about the subject (

George Birdwood). The first words I read in this "well written and researched study" were: "Gorge Birdwood interpreted that the word Swastika as the limbs that turns towards the right is male principle the limb towards the lift denotes the female principle. It said the first represents the mail principle represent God Ganesha, the second the female principle represent the Goddess Kali." Paul B (talk

) 18:44, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

A "journal" that does not have information about its editorial board raises a huge red flag. Without it, we cannot know what editorial process articles undergo - one of the basic requirements of being a reliable source. Yobol (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I spoke too soon about that. Though rather difficult to find on the website, the journal does contain a short list of names [51]. I can't link directly to it. You have to click on "The Journal" and then "Editorial board". Paul B (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – The source used is actually a translation of Studies in Early Islam: Lectures delivered in honour of Professor M. J. Kister on the occasion of his ninetieth birthday, published by the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Therefore it does meet rs

Is this document Non combatants in Muslim Legal thought, a reliable source to use as a source for the views of Muslim scholars on "non combatants". The document was authored by Professor Ella Landau-Tasseron, he is a proffesor of Islamic and Middle Eastern studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, see here. I used the document as a source, in the the Abu Bakr article, i used it for this edit. Its seems to be associated with the Hudson Institute.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely usable if the opinions are ascribed to the author. "Views" are essentially "opinions" in any case, I suppose. Collect (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the response, does anyone else support Collect views. I ask this because the user Wiqi55 has claimed "Hudson Institute is a partisan neo-con think tank. Doesn't seem reliable", here and removed the source. But the think tank advises the US Department of Defence and has got grants from the US Department of Justice, according to its wiki article, it does not seem like a partisan/prejudice think tank. I guess whats important is that i am presenting the views of an Academic scholar, and not the Hudson Institute? who seem to have published it--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not think that it is in the spirit of neutrality to use think tanks, which are designed to promote certain perspectives on subjects. Rather we should use

peer-reviewed journals and books from the academic press that work within constraints that make them more useful in building neutral and accurate articles. Using sources like the Hudson Institute we will get a lot of articles written from the viewpoint of the U.S. State Department. The other problem with this type of source is that it does not typically explain the degree of acceptance of various opinions in academic writing. TFD (talk

) 00:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

@TFD, please see the source yourself if you have time. It does give an idea of how much a particular view is supported,infact, that is one of the things it mainly addresses (view points of Muslim scholars, mainly those of Imam

4 schools of Sunni Islam). It does not however give an idea of how supportive academics are of certain view points. Unless you consider Muslim scholars who lived 1000+ years ago as academics, then it does "explain the degree of acceptance of various opinions in academic writing"--Misconceptions2 (talk

) 00:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

One reliability problem of think tank articles is that they do not enter academic discourse and therefore errors are not picked up. However, this article is actually a translation of an article published in Studies in Early Islam: Lectures delivered in honour of Professor M. J. Kister on the occasion of his ninetieth birthday, published by the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Therefore it does meet rs, but you should provide a reference to the original article. TFD (talk) 00:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I must thank you. You are very sharp eyed :) , thats meant to be compliment. I completely missed that. I will mention that it is a translation and will cite the original source--Misconceptions2 (talk) 00:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

In a protracted discussion at Talk:World_War_I#Addition_to_.22Backgraund.22:_July_29.2C_.281914.29_Nicholas_II_sent_a_telegram_to_Wilhelm_II.2C_with_the_suggestion_.22to_transmit_the_Austro-Serbian_question_to_the_Hague_Conference.22 an editor has flatly discounted every reason I have presented. Other eyes would be appreciated. LeadSongDog come howl! 23:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

If I can follow the discussion, it seems that a copy of a telegram that was sent but never acknowledged has been recovered and published, but there are no secondary sources to discuss its significance. Therefore it appears that rs and syn would exclude the use of the telegram in the article. TFD (talk) 02:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I've been trying to find a reference for the statement over at

I'd also like to find out if the following references would also be valid for the same claim:

1. UW CENPA Annual Report 2006-7, Article 2.19 "A Test of Quantum Nonlocal Communication", J. G. Cramer, Warren G. Nagourney, and Skander Mzali, April 22, 2007
2. An Experimental Test of Signaling using Quantum Nonlocality

Both are technically self-published sources, but neither source is fringe or obscure (as the anon asserts [54]). As Cramer is a well-known and notable physicist, his self-published webpage and the UW nuclear physics lab where he works should also be, in my opinion, good enough references for one of Cramer's current research endeavors. Am I wrong? Thoughts and help would be appreciated. --FyzixFighter (talk) 00:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

"FamousDockets.com" is being used in this BLP as follows:

Shortly after the acquittal of Anthony, Mason was photographed purportedly making an obscene gesture of

extending his middle finger

to those who gathered to view him and his legal team patronizing a local restaurant in Orlando, Florida, on July 5, 2011.<ref>[http://famousdockets.com/Famous_Dockets_Spectacle_Archive_List_Cheney_Mason.htm Picture of Mason's Extension of Middle Finger. FamousDockets.com. Retrieved 7/7/2011]</ref>

Is the source given RS for purposes of the claim made? Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I would say not, looks like just another web site. Do they have an editorial staff? The article already has a reliable source for that assertion, and I don't think anything is added by linking to the picture. As an aside, I see no reason to have that in the article at all, really, seems very trivial. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a reliable source, by any stretch of the imagination — doubly so for a biography of a living person. Even if a reliable source is found for this, it is so un-notable that it fails

Undue weight. Someone giving a reporter the finger, probably a tabloid reporter at that? Give the man a barnstar, if anything. First Light (talk

) 02:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Can someone tell User:Diligent007 about this then? He has littered my UT page with all sorts of accusations about me being on Mason's staff or the like [55] <g>. The less interaction I need with him, the better, I suspect. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to dispute your decision to deny to others access to such information. It is of considerable significance for an attorney of such stature to have done something as alleged. It is of public interests, and that is incontrovertible. Moreover, to put an end to your debate, let's remember that this matter was picked up by news sources throughout the nation, and, as a result, it need not be belabored further as to its need to be noted in the subject article.

Also, your argument that it is in violation of

Also, Collect, just so that I can put your disparaging mark about me (i.e., my littering your talk page, so you say) into perspective, know this: You did not FIRST engage this discussion before you removed content from the site. You did so AFTERWARDS, attempting to seek cover for your previous action that should have been prefaced with discussion. Consequently, you received a prerequisite warning. Do not get offended by the warning--it's standard procedure. I appreciate your attention to this matter. Diligent007 (talk) 04:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Diligent007 (talk) 04:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

How do we feel about that? It seems common sense to me that an editor should not use a source they haven't actually read. User:Miradre contends here (at bottom of section) that this is fine since he can read the abstract of the source.

In any kind of academic setting if a student tried to pass off a source without having read it that'd definitely result in points off, if not outright failure. Additionally in context of Wikipedia specifically this kind of practice seems to be somewhat dishonest - a reader will reasonably presume, when they see a sentence and a citation at the end, that whoever put that text and citation in the article actually DID bother to read the source. I guess someone could write something like "According to the abstract of such and such a study..." but that would be embarrassingly unencyclopedic. Finally, since abstracts are by necessity limited in length they can be misleading as to the actual contents of the source.

(If WP:RSN isn't the proper venue for this question, please point me to the appropriate place, thanks).Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Abstracts are meant as a guide to see if a particular paper is worth reading; it is not meant to be a substitute for reading the actual paper. There are very often nuances to conclusions and interpretations that are in the actual body of papers that are not in the abstract that can be critical to the correct interpretation of the paper. Frankly, I thought it would be common sense that papers should not be used as a source without actually reading the paper. Yobol (talk) 14:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I would think so too (that it would be common sense that papers should not be used as a source without actually reading the paper) , but the user is arguing that there's no specific Wikipedia policy which prevents him from doing this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with citing the abstract, which is part of the article. If the abstract says "we conclude that the moon is made of cheese", then that can clearly be stated to be the views of the authors, whether or not the whole article has been read. One does not have to read a whole book to cite passages from it, as liong as one is not misrepresenting the author by taking material out of context. The abstract is intended to be a summary of the whole. Paul B (talk)

Well I agree with both positions. It is common sense that you should read the source, but I am not sure whether there is, or whether there needs to be, an absolute restriction against citations of abstracts. After all reading an abstract is also reading a publication. I am certainly not recommending it, but I can imagine that there might be cases where it is better to cite an abstract for a while until you get a copy of the article. (Weakish sourcing better than sourcing.) The abstract should be properly written (and able to be understood in self-contained format) just like any publication intended to be understood when on its own, so if it is really misleading then that is also a problem that can happen with other types of publication.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

As Yobol points out There are very often nuances to conclusions and interpretations that are in the actual body of papers that are not in the abstract that can be critical to the correct interpretation of the paper.

Second, as I've stated it would appear to me that citing text to a source of which one has only read the abstract is dishonest and misleading as that's not what the reader is going to think (unless you specifically state in text you've only read the abstract).

Citing an abstract is also different than citing a book one hasn't read fully, though honestly, here that would depend on the type of book.

I also happen to think that "weakish sourcing" can be worse than no sourcing - why not just keep the text out of the article, until one gets a copy of the article? Wikipedia's not gonna end tomorrow.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a question of what is being cited. There will inevitably be subtlties in the text that are not in the abstract, but if the abstract makes clear statements about conclusions, then those statements can be legitimately attributed to the author(s). It's no different from citing statements in the conclusion of a book rather than the complex arguments and evidence in the main body of the text. Paul B (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Quotes taken out of context can also technically "be legitimately attributed to the author(s)", but they shouldn't be. The problem that arises is that out of the many, many papers I have read, too many have small, but significant differences between the text and the abstract. Is the general gist right in the abstract? Sure. Is it completely right in detail? Not always. Do we really want to encourage behavior that usually gets it right, but because of laziness (and let's face it, with public libraries and interlibrary loans, as well as fellow editors with the Wikiproject resource exchange, the only reason -with very few exceptions- not to read the paper if you have the abstract is pure laziness), can get the details wrong? Let's put it another way - is Wikipedia supposed to be a high quality scholarly source? If yes, would you expect a high quality scholarly source to be published based on material only after reading the abstracts only, or after a comprehensive review of the literature including the actual papers? Yobol (talk) 17:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not for us to interpret what authors "really" mean. Abstracts are written by the article's authors, just as conclusions of books are. It is not for us to say that they have somehow missed the subtlties of their own research! Quoting out of context is something entirely different. That can be done with any kind of text. If an author wrote, "one could say that the moon is made of cheese, but we propose that it made of butterscotch", then quoting only the first half of the sentence would be to misrepresent the author. That's true if an article, abstract, book, website or anything else is being quoted and is not pertinent to this question. Paul B (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

What part of "the abstract too often differs in small but significant ways from the actual text of the paper" do you not understand? Yobol (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

When people write remarks like this, you know they have nothing left of value to say. What part of the above do you not understand? As I have already explained, it does not matter if they differ in "small but significant ways". The conclusions of books often differ in "small but significant ways" from detailed discussion in the chapter content. What matters is that abstracts are part of the content of articles. I repeat "Abstracts are written by the article's authors, just as conclusions of books are. It is not for us to say that they have somehow missed the subtlties of their own research!". We can legitimately quote what authors say about their own conclusions. Yes, an abstract can be misrepresented by an editor, as can anything else. But that is a different issue. I will not bother to repeat the same points again, since we appear to be entering IDIDNTHEARTHAT territory. Paul B (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

No one said that they couldn't cite information from the abstract. The point is that they should read the whole article to get the full picture of what the authors intent and reasoning are. How would one know if they are taking the information in the abstract out of context in significant ways if they didn't read the article proper? Yobol (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Scientists are people and they want their papers to get noticed; getting noticed is often essential in winning the next gig. They know you don't raise attention by being endlessly fussy about the subtleties of interpretation, page up and page down, especially not when there is vital matter in the equation that can never be directly measured in a final way (as often in history, many branches of economics, in geology and paleontology, environmental studies). Even if the ideal image of science is that nothing should ever be overstated, and results should only be judged on the merits of the research, the reality is often different. Actually, scholars and scientists today often tend to act on the maxim "if you're subjectively 70% sure, write as if your conclusions are objectively 100% sure and as if only an idiot could question what you say". And this stripping down of uncertainties and subtleties tends to happen especially in abstracts, final-conclusions chapters and when scholars present their findings in non-academic books and in the popular market. '

It's not the least scientific to think supposed scientific results can only be discussed from the way they are stated by the guy who claims to have made the finding, or from his abstract, or what he says in an interview. And it doesn't lead to reliable reporting either, in case you try the line "wikipedians are no scientists and should have no personal points of view whatsoever about which arguments are valid, only look to what has been pronounced valid by real scientists and other 'reliable sources'". An argument developed from the actual texts of articles always beats the text of an abstract or a journalist, if it can be shown that those two versions of the findings, the full one and the notepad, do not square at vital points. No matter if the original article is rare or behind a paywall.Strausszek (talk) 23:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's be clear that what you are saying is wholly contrary to WP policy. You are stating that Wikipedia editors are better qualified to interpret the results of a study than are the authors of the study: that the authors will be motivated by some form of vulgar sensation-seeking or desire for 'hits' when they write up their conclusions, whereas selfless Wikipedia editors, free from the need to worry about citation indices or the urge to get on TV, are fit and proper persons to decide what authors "really" meant. That turns the very basics of Wikipedia policy since the invention of

WP:NOR on its head. Paul B (talk

) 17:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Nope Paul, I'm not placing WP editors above researchers, far from it. What I'm saying is that researchers and scholars don't always state their case as if they were all alone with a bunch of friendly peers. The way they describe their findings is contextual to some degree, it depends on what they want to achieve, what kind of text the statement is made in (the same claim can be made in a variety of texts by the same person, by people repeating his claim, or by journalists and bloggers, but this happens to mean a huge variety of types of texts, not just names signed under the texts) or what ideas they want to pitch - and on what kinds of resistance (rational or not) they know they may encounter. In that process the nature of the claim, or the arguments or implied facts underpinning it, are sometimes tweaked a bit to make the morsel go down more easily.

Concerning Wikipedia: yes,. some wikipedians are aware of that statements have to be judged on their own terms and not simply parroted per "it must be a verifiable fact because I read it in this or that string of publications and these are normally reliable, so the statement is reliable at face value". Facts, supposed truths and theories have to be judged on their own merits as findings, not simply on where you can look up a citation for them. That's absolutely basic but poorly understood by many wikipedians. If you prefer to think parroting any and every "sourced statement" and outlawing any real discussion of the statements involved, whether they make sense, in what situation they were made etc equals WP law, then that's your own WP subculture and nothing more.Strausszek (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I just want to respond to what I think is the main point for the strongest "anti" arguments, "Quotes taken out of context can also technically "be legitimately attributed to the author(s)", but they shouldn't be." The critical difference is that abstracts are self-contained publications, written to be read on their own. That makes them different, at least in theory, from pulling quotes out of context. (They can be badly written, but we can do nothing about that.) Mind you, every time someone pulls a quote of any kind, they are always looking at only part of a publication, and they risk being accused of pulling something out of context. I think the most important thing about such questions is to avoid taking positions which are extreme? Just to remind, I do agree that using an abstract is not ideal, but I would suggest resisting the urge to delete citations of abstract just on pure principle.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Essentially I agree on that distinction, *but* abstracts have to be brief and they are sometimes written in a way that implies the findings of the book or article were more clear-cut and final than they really are; they also tend sometimes to state theoretical points as if these were empirical matter, as if they described a checked state of facts. Which, again, makes it sound as if outward reality is being discussed when it's really more of a narrative or a construction put in motion by the scientist (this applies especially to social studies and economics, but it can be done in many disciplines).

Besides, if an abstract claims "Supported by data from B and C and P-theory, I am demonstrating that (q) can be inferred to have happened and that (r) is true" then most people, except specialists in that field, will read it as if the text has proven (q) and (r); many wikipedians will read it that way too, certainly if they like the general idea. In reality, this is simply the shorthand way of outlining how the method of the study was crafted. Journalists also tend to jump on the bandwagon if they find (or are contacted by) someone who claims to have shown something spectacular and who is not an obvious leftfield type.Strausszek (talk) 19:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I would say that unless you have access to the paper in question in full, you have no reason or legitimacy for saying that the abstract is wrong. You can't say that the abstract is wrong just because it's an abstract. Unless you can get a full copy of the paper and show that it actually ends up with different conclusions or information, you have no right to reject a source that just has its abstract available. Silverseren^C 19:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

What would be the difference, say between someone summarising the findings of a paper in an academic book (which we can cite), and the author of the paper summarising their findings in an abstract? Surely an abstract is a form of secondary source, in that it offers an interpretation of the findings of the primary research? We prefer secondary sources for that very reason, so in one sense an abstract that offers an interpretation of the findings may be more appropriate than directly citing the results of the paper. An abstract may not so much take conclusions out of context, than put them into better context than an editor directly citing raw data! Obviously it is better it is always better if you read the whole paper, but I don't think it's a requirement because editors shouldn't be interpreting and analysing data anyway.Betty Logan (talk) 20:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Betty, an abstract is not a "secondary source", not in any useful definition of the term. Saying that is like saying the lead of a WP article is a secondary source for the body, or the introduction in a textbook is a secondary source for the remainder of the book. Terms like "secondary source" aren't some magic dust that improves a source. That good sources for WP are typically secondary sources, and rarely primary sources, is an observation; it doesn't mean all secondary sources are good by virtue of being secondary.

An editor giving a full citation to a scientific paper is claiming their source is the scientific paper, not the abstract of that paper. Any editor doing so after only reading the abstract is just as dishonest as someone citing a book or film after only reading the back cover or watching a trailer. If someone really must use an abstract as a source (and it makes for a weak source), then they really should say something like "Abstract of ..." in the citation. Colin°^Talk 20:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Generally speaking we use academic papers as sources for what earlier writers have said about a topic and how accepted these views are, rather than what the paper's writers have to say about their own views. A paper is a secondary source for the first and a primary source for the second. The abstract however is merely how the writers summarize their opinions, which does not elevate it to a secondary source. Bear in mind too that since the purpose of new papers is frequently to challenge established views, it frequently violates

WP:WEIGHT to explain these views, since we have no evidence that they have become accepted by the academic community. TFD (talk

) 21:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Observation: medical review papers make good (secondary) sources (and deal with the WP:WEIGHT issue) but often have useless abstracts, merely pointing out the scope of the review rather than any useful observations or conclusions. Colin°^Talk 21:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

an abstract is not a "secondary source", not in any useful definition of the term - this is a very good point, though somewhat different than the one I raised above. It might be worth including on the relevant policy page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Wondering - does this discussion make practical sense? Will there be check box in the citation template saying "click here to confirm that you have read and understood the full paper"? We could just as well require that people click to confirm that they are experts. Richiez (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

does this discussion make practical sense? - You'd be surprised. The whole issue arose because someone explicitly stated on an article's talk page that they hadn't bothered to read the article they were citing, that they weren't going to bother reading it, and yet insisted that they can include text based on the article in Wikipedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is a point, since we don't require editors to produce quotes, translate sources, etc. That being said, I would strongly endorse Marek's suggestion that we work 'an abstract is not a "secondary source", not in any useful definition of the term into the policy. It is partly an educational issue, and we want people to read and understand sources before adding material to articles. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who actually writes papers and abstracts, reviews articles, and edits journals, the conversation above blows my mind.

I think I know what you mean, but can you articulate a bit?Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Try looking at the various things sourced to google books pages. In many cases people have done no more than google the phrase and inserted the ref, if a cursory glance appers to support what they wanted William M. Connolley (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

One of my pet peeves. Blueboar (talk) 22:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Are abstracts unreliable? No. Are full journal articles more reliable than an abstract? Yes. Should you cite an abstract as if it were the full journal article? No. When we take information from an abstract, we should say what it is we are citing... an abstract. Blueboar (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

I think the question is, for what are they reliable. I think an abstract is generally reliable for what the article behind it is about, but how much further should it extent? And generally, abstracts will be associated with primary academic sources. I'm also concerned a bit about the slope--if we accept abstracts as reliable sources, do we also allow a comments about a book's content by a reviewer? A review is may be reliable for information about the book, but if a reviewer claims the books claims X, can we use that as a source for X? --Nuujinn (talk) 22:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

The real trouble begins when people on WP equate the source value of abstracts and of actual full-text papers or seminar discussions, and at the same time try to force the view that no editor may be permitted to use their brains or sound judgment to point out a weakness in something that is claimed by some WP editors to be verified (='proven until further notice') by some abstract. Or even allowed to compare key incremental claims made by two scientists/writers who are citing each other or discussing each other's ideas, claims that are clearly interrelated in some way. - Arguing with what is said in some study that someone has gotten accepted carte blanche as RS ("it's valid and true because I read it there" though they may only have read the abstract, or just have heard of it in a tv programme but never actually read it, though they claim to have read the lot: effectively they are working from the tv show) is only allowed (in the eyes of these people) through the proxy of finding some other reliable source that makes exactly the same reasoning that one would have wanted to make - and which might be quite obvious.

To people who consider anything beyond parroting what's been said in some source to be "original research" and therefore unreliable - to those who think that's the WP Law (no, it isn't, taking it like that is just a slogan) an interview or an abstract becomes irrefutable, no matter how overstated things the researcher might say in it, as long as it is not shown that this source is somehow non-notable or that someone has taken the trouble to refute those precise claims, in that form. Of course, it's often impossible to find a soundbite source that refutes an outlier claim - mainstream scientists generally don't spend time arguing with UFO watchers or people who are looking for Noah's flood - and the consequence is that those claims are seen as irrefutable if the editor/s propounding them would be stubborn enough in driving them into the article.Strausszek (talk) 00:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I saw the link at

PMID 21487086 is completely sufficient if the sentence you're writing is "Taking multivitamins has not been proven to affect breast cancer risk". Reading only the material in the citation itself is sufficient if what you want to write is "In 2011, Agnes Chan co-authored a meta-analysis on multivitamins and breast cancer". You need to read enough and know enough to be certain that you are not misrepresenting the work. How much of a book, paper, or article you need to read depends significantly on what you are trying to say about it. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 04:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not horrified, and agree with you. In fact, I was going to qualify my example above by saying that one could write "King Kong is a movie about a giant ape" based on having seen the trailer, not the movie. My main points were the

WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT honesty issue and to remove any suggestion that the abstract might be superior to the article itself. Many people get hung up on PSTS without considering, as WhatamIdoing notes, "what are you trying to say". Colin°^Talk

07:10, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a response to WhatamIdoing, Colin and Blueboar: The thing is is that if we follow the "say where you got it" or When we take information from an abstract, we should say what it is we are citing... an abstract we would have to write something like this: "According to the abstract of a study X, blah blah blah...". This is particularly true if the material is in any way controversial, and hence should be attributed anyway. There's two problems with this. First, as already mentioned, in this case an abstract is a primary source. Second - and this is what I want to point out here - this kind of writing is, well, horrible (or terrifying, if you'd like). How often do you see any other kind of resource write "According to the abstract of"? If we follow this kind of practice the articles, at least some of them, are going to read like a joke (same would apply to "According to the snippet view of a google books search of book X, blah blah blah...").

I can see *some* instances where merely looking at an abstract or a google book snippet could be sufficient, particularly if you're just trying to cite something very precise and concrete ("Mr. Y was born on a Tuesday") but it's just not adequate for any kind of scientific (or, let's be broader here, academic) results or conclusions.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The "say where you got it" applies to the citation, not the body text. Encyclopaedia articles should, by and large, state facts, not how they were arrived at or where they came from. There are exceptions, for example, when the study is notable in itself or forms part of the history. Oh, and "an abstract is a primary source" is also wrong. My point is that the abstract is at the same PSTS level as the body text. Google snippet view (just a few sentences rather than a whole page) is very likely to given misleading information. But an abstract is designed to make sense on its own, to not mislead, and to summarise the text adequately. I don't think the dangers are the same. If there's a talk-page battle going on where one side only has an abstract to go on, then the sensible thing to do would seem to be to get the paper somehow. Colin°^Talk 12:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: "Say where you got it"... we are really talking about two distinct concepts here: a) citation and b) in-text attribution. The citation aspect is dealt with at

WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. If we find some bit of information in an abstract then we need to cite the abstract. In-text attribution may or may not be necessary. Certainly if the material is at all controversial, we should phrase it as being an opinion and (in the text) attribute that opinion to the person who holds it. In order to give it proper Weight, we might note that the opinion is from an abstract (or not... depending on the specific situation). There are no firm and fast rules about when to give in-text attribution or how to do so, because each case is going to be somewhat unique. Blueboar (talk

) 13:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Some people of this kind who are out to make drastic changes to an article don't even bother to get on the talk page and discuss what they want to do, nor read the talk page in advance. They just pull the chainsaw out and retrim the text the way they want it, with some sources added for backup but essentially no real discussion of whether those sources represent a main and reliable current of scholarly opinion. Those of us who are not students, part-time workers or retired simply can't waste time on fighting a long battle on the talk page with people who refuse any real discussion, and then submitting an article for the long, slow and sometimes inconclusive process of arbitration, every time this happens.Strausszek (talk) 13:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW: A brief scan of the linked section suggests that this dispute involves

WP:MEDASSESS prohibits: "...editors should determine the quality of the type of study. Editors should not perform a detailed academic peer review. Do not reject a high-quality type of study due to personal objections to the study's inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions" (emphasis in the original). WhatamIdoing (talk

) 14:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Volunteer Marek has requested a copy of the methods section because s/he disagrees with the conclusion. - no, that is not true. I am wary of the text the user in question is trying to include in the article, text, which does not correspond exactly to the abstract s/he is quoting. I am not intending to evaluating the study (at least not on Wikipedia) nor do I suggest anywhere that this is my purpose. It is true that at some point in that discussion I let myself be drawn into a completely pointless argument about semantics (Mirardre's tactic on Race & Intelligence articles is usually to try and wear out anyone who disagrees with them with never ending discussion, red herrings, non-sequiturs, repeatedly asking questions which had been answered, and the like).Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Without commenting on anyone's behaviour, I agree that we should not analyze study methods to assess an author's conclusions, that crosses into OR, I think. Honestly, I am baffled by the notion that we would rely on an abstract for any assertion, at least for any length of time. Lots of us have access to university libraries, so getting someone to confirm that the abstract reflect the article would not be hard, and, at that point, using the article as a reference would be preferred in any case. But regardless, I think it should be an absolute requirement that the citation indicate the material is from the abstract, and not the paper itself--to do otherwise might misled people as to the true nature of the source. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

No one suggests that we should rely on the abstract to determine the conclusion, but that the abstract is useable if the author(s) make clearl statments abour their conclusion in it. The abstract is part of the article. Paul B (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

<-- In reference to WhatamIdoing's second comment above, actually this particular study/abstract illustrates the problem with relying on just the abstract quite well. The abstract states Both log-transformed GDP and measures of intelligence independently reduce fertility across all methods. Now, I'm willing to bet good money is that what he controlled for was not

No he's not, you are assuming he is. He says GSP, so unless you have reason to assume he does not mean GDP we have no reason to think GDP is not what he means.Slatersteven (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

So you think that in this study it is total, log-transformed, GDP which independently reduces fertility across all methods? I got 20 bucks which says that if you were to look at the actual study it would show that it's actually per capita, log-transformed GDP which is being examined. And no, I have not read the study myself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

What I think (or you think) the artciel says is irrelevant. Its what the article says that coounts, and unless you can demonstrate that the articel says somethiing different from the conclusion you cannot say it does not say it. Moreover are you not infact guilty of far worse then your accusation, you are tryoing to claim a source says something you have4 not read, whereas you are ibjecting to someone using an abstract they have at least read.Slatersteven (talk) 19:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

No, I am not "guilty" of anything, because I am not trying to include the text based on the study in Wikipedia. I would have neither "GDP" nor "GDP per capita" in a Wikipedia article until I actually have read the study.

And I think you're being plain obtuse here. The point is that the abstract is imprecise. If we go literally by what the abstract contains we would misrepresent the study (I'm pretty sure).

As far as my speculation that he means "per capita GDP" rather than "GDP" - look, I have not read this study but I do have sufficient background knowledge to know that including GDP in a study such as this would make no sense. If the study does in fact use total GDP rather than per capita GDP then it's a ridiculous study, quite different from other studies of similar nature (though even total junk sometimes gets published so I can't be 100% sure). I'm assuming that it is not in fact a ridiculous study and I'm basing my reasonable guess on that.

Now, *I* have sufficient background knowledge to realize that when he says "GDP" he means "per capita GDP", but our average reader, and perhaps even our average Wikipedia editor, as illustrated by yourself, do not have that kind of background knowledge and would be misled in this case were we to go literally by the abstract.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

If you have not re3ad the paper you cannot know what he means unless you are that person. It would appear that you are now very much guilty of OR, and using said OR to judge sources.Slatersteven (talk) 20:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Slater, you're confusing verifiability and direct sourcability. They are not the same, though many WPers like to think they are. If I hear someone saying "Proposal to justify him not very Friday" then I know at once he's saying something that doesn't make sense, and anyone can know he's talking gibberish. Knowing this doesn't take any kind of personal research.Strausszek (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Slatersteven, but we don't check in our brains at the Wikipedia log in prompt (well, at least we're not supposed to... I think). Our job is not to merely compile a verbatim record of abstracts of studies. Strausszek is right in making the distinction above and in this particular context it means that you should NOT try to cite text you're including in Wikipedia articles after only reading an abstract.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

If you're honestly worried that the abstract is—let's say "vague", rather than "wrong", then what steps have you taken to determine this? Have you asked for help at the

WP:LIBRARY? Pestered someone with good access to sources, like User:DGG? Merely assuming that the abstract contains a material error, and then blocking the source's inclusion on those flimsy grounds, is not okay. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 19:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

What I have or have not done is beside the point (I have in fact obtained the paper now). The question still remains - is it ok to cite text to sources you haven't read, based on the abstract alone? The example here - and keep in mind that it is just an example - illustrates the fact that going by the abstract alone can be misleading (not to mention that citing a study when you've only read the abstract is dishonest).Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

What does the source say?Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Forty bucks and you'll know.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Abstracts are not blurbs. They are meant to be concise and accessible to most people, and they do represent the study in the way the authors themselves want it to be represented. They are part of the papers themselves, despite being capable of standing on their own. I have no idea why you'd think citing a paper for its abstract would be comparable to being 'dishonest'.

If the info being cited is not found in the abstract and you know for sure that the user does not have access to the paper, that's when you worry about it. Even then, if the issue is simply ambiguity, you can clarify it easily enough without assuming that the abstract is misleading or that the user is dishonest. Similar things happen even if users had full access.

Other than that, we have no business deciding if the paper is 'ridiculous' or not. Scientists/academics who plan to cite the paper for a later study will of course need to read the entire paper, it's their responsibility. But Wikipedia doesn't. We are not the 'peers' of peer-reviewed academic papers.

If an abstract says "We conclude cultivar X produces 50% more chemical Z than cultivar Y", would you need to know how many test tubes were used for Experiment 14B in control group F in April 17, 1985 just so you can ref a sentence that says "Studies in 1985 by John Doe et al. shows that cultivar X produces more chemical Z than cultivar Y"?

It all depends of course, but I see no reason why abstracts should be treated as if they are not part of the paper.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 21:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

You have not paid attention while reading what I wrote. I am not deciding if a paper is "ridiculous". I am assuming that a paper IS NOT ridiculous and based on that I'm pointing out how someone who's only read the abstract may misrepresent the study on Wikipedia (especially someone with only a casual knowledge of a subject, or an agenda to push).

Scientists/academics who plan to cite the paper for a later study will of course need to read the entire paper, it's their responsibility. But Wikipedia doesn't. - Nice. At least we're open about the lack of standards around here. Now, can we write in this lack of responsibility into official policy somewhere. I suggest:

"Actually reading the sources which are used for citation takes up valuable time of Wikipedia editors, which may be better spent playing with Twinkle, endlessly revising the categorization scheme of the encyclopedia, arguing about whether hyphens are superior to dashes and participating in fascinating discussions at AN/I. As a result it is recommend that you don't bother to actually read the sources, just form your opinion based on abstracts, excerpts and snippets. Keep in mind that a casual reader will have no way of knowing whether or not you've actually read the source you claim to be using and hence there's no practical reason for you to do so."

Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The thing I'm not getting is this: which are you accusing of being misrepresentative? The paper's abstract or the user quoting it? By your wording it's apparently the user, not the abstract. So... um... why are you blaming the abstract?

If you think someone may be misrepresenting what the study is about by misquoting an abstract, read the abstract for yourself (abstracts are after all, universally available). Better yet, get a copy of the source and read it and see if they did indeed misrepresent the info in the abstract they wrote themselves. Then simply tag it with {{Failed verification}}. I don't see what the problem with it is. It's not as if the user is quoting an unverifiable fact (e.g. a source no one can access).

And what standards? The fact that we aren't scientists and shouldn't go around pretending Wikipedia is an academic journal?

See, the entire problem is you treat abstracts as excerpts and snippets. They are not sneak peeks or trailers, and as I've originally stated - abstracts are not blurbs. Just because they are accessible and free does not mean they are any less valuable. The abstract is part of the study. It's a verifiable credible intrinsic part of any academic paper. Generalized, but for most intents and purposes, enough for deriving the results of a study. By reading the abstract, you are reading the source, at least part of it. You don't read an entire book on Paleozoic fauna just so you can source a single sentence on a particular species of trilobite, do you? If more details are needed, by all means, delve deeper, but please don't assert that abstracts are by their very nature easy to misrepresent.

Furthermore, we don't "form opinion" from studies, we simply relay their opinion. Not ours.

Oh and I mostly write biology-related articles. I read my sources, thank you very much. I don't use Twinkle or any other special tools, don't like AN/I drama, and pretty much IAR on everything else. Even then, I tend to skip the parts I won't need anyway simply because I don't understand them and risk misquoting them. Especially for highly specialized fields like biomechanics or molecular phylogenetic studies (which are often tailored specifically for what taxa they are dealing with). Not all of us are supergeniuses or masochistic. For the scope most Wikipedia articles have, the parts I do understand (again as mentioned below, the "human-readable" parts) are enough. And human-readable parts include the abstract.

Maybe it's different with the (economic? social?) fields you usually deal with, but when it comes to hard sciences, what I describe above certainly hold true.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 13:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Obsidian, WhatAmIDoing and the rest, but that's not near what it takes to achieve decent, consistent, reliable and up-to-date writing about science, about contemporary events or even about your own town (adding the last one because lots of localities and buildings have their own pages here, mostly written by locals). Adding up masses of isolated cut-and-paste statements all grabbed from some places that somebody's got accepted as reliable sources, but refusing people the right to use common sense or careful analysis to see if those fact bits are reliable, credible or consistent with other facts and with scientific methods on the matter, and jumping on anything that's inserted to make the article coherent to the users, that doesn't even make readable prose, much less consistent or logical. Besides, I don't see one shred in your supposed model of how to construct a WP article that could ensure that it will improve over time. Or even that the level of reliability people have managed to give an article at one point will stay in place of itself and won't be shaken aside by a bunch of incompetent editors and admins half a year later.

The whole point of the model for science you guys are leaning on, as formulated by Karl Popper and others, was that it claimed to be a)based on verifiable experience, and b) a guarantee that knowledge would improve over time, not get diluted. Yes, keeping up quality in the knowledge you have around you takes analysis, independent checks of facts and logic, and efforts of understanding both on the part of scientists themselves and among people who are writing reference texts of any kind, even wikis. The boundary you're implying here is a fake. If this stuff is what you feel Wikipedia should be and how it should be written, in a few years time WP will be mostly as irrelevant as FidoNet is today.Strausszek (talk) 02:33, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

That's nice, but basically irrelevant. Wikipedia is not an act of science. It is an act of repeating what others have published. Volunteer Marek would have us believe that because he has not read the entire paper, that we must assume that the author significantly misrepresented its contents in the abstract. We cannot do this. "Assume authors publish seriously misleading description of their own work" is not authorized by any content or sourcing policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek would have us believe that because he has not read the entire paper, that we must assume that the author significantly misrepresented its contents in the abstract. - no, no, no. Speaking of misrepresentation, please reread what I actually wrote.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

What I saw in the abstract was a claim about "GDP" (not "GDP per capita"), and what I saw on the talk page was you asserting that, without reading the paper, you (magically?) knew that the body of the paper would contradict the claim of "GDP" in the abstract by saying "GDP per capita". Your actual evidence that the body would say "GDP per capita" rather than (total) "GDP" is easily contained in the null set.

I grant that you might be right, but you are actually asking us to assume the abstract contains a significant error, with zero evidence that your belief is correct. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with Marek that trouble often arises when people with only a casual, or outdated, knowledge of the subject and/or heavily agenda driven people try to impose their ideas of "what the article should say", because the bones of that view are 'verifiable' from somewhere, never mind if it's accurate. We've all seen that happen I believe, and my point is that putting an abstract or a second-hand reference to what some scientist supposedly said or did (this is very common in the everyday reality of WP) on the same level of reliability as the mother article, while at the same time refusing any consideration of what that guy supposedly claimed against other relevant statements in the field considered, as long as this considering (ground-level reviewing, if you like) and weeding out of misunderstandings and overstatements doesn't simply repeat verbatim what other notable scientists have said stating those arguments - that mode of operations makes it much harder to achieve good or reliable articles. It doesn't safeguard against any kind of abuse or mistrepresentation whatsoever, except for obvious misquoting when that one is apprehended. Obsidian and the rest here simply refuse to address those issues, thereby preferring junk instead of reliable writing.Strausszek (talk) 15:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok... whoa. You're both veering off into totally different directions by now.

"while at the same time refusing any consideration of what that guy supposedly claimed against other relevant statements in the field considered, as long as this considering (ground-level reviewing, if you like) and weeding out of misunderstandings and overstatements doesn't simply repeat verbatim what other notable scientists have said stating those arguments"

Er... what? Where was that stated? I think all the users opposing both your viewpoints of discarding abstracts as unreliable explicitly state that clarifying statements by actually reading the article itself is not only welcomed but encouraged. No one is telling you to read only the abstract. What others have said is to grant the abstract the same level of reliability you would grant the rest of the paper when reasonably appropriate. The abstract is not junk, but I think everyone agrees with you that reading the entire article is still the best way to do it. In fact, it's necessary when expanding upon something originally reffed to it.

If the info sourced from an abstract contains ambiguous terms, clarify it. If the user misunderstood the context in an abstract, correct it. Don't label it unreliable for what might actually be a problem with reader comprehension. As for the agenda-driven thing, I'm having a very hard time imagining some POV-pusher citing an abstract in such a way as to create a very different image than the information contained in the article. And even if they did, again the fault is the user's, not the abstract. The abstract would have to be serendipitously worded for it to differ so much from the body of the paper so as to be of use to such a user.

A simple question: can you please explain exactly why an abstract is unreliable? It's part of the paper, it's written by the same authors, it's also peer-reviewed. What else is required for it to pass your requirements?

And again, we have no business trying to decide which scientist is more notable than the other unless other papers explicitly give the same impression about the study. No amount of reading the entire paper will give you the right to dismiss it as unreliable. If and only if other papers have been published opposing the viewpoints of the said paper should you then raise that possibility. Keep opinion out of it. It seems like the main issue here is not abstracts at all - merely an excuse for disagreeing with a certain study's conclusion itself.

Tell me honestly (and apologies if I misinterpret the situation), if Volunteer Marek did get a copy of the said study and finds out (as he or she certainly will) that the conclusion is actually the same as stated in the abstract, will he or she accept that the abstract was actually not misleading after all?-- Obsidi♠n Soul 16:18, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you also require experiments be reproduced before you accept the results of a paper then?

The fact that they are already published in a peer-reviewed journal should be enough for us. Again, within reason of course. That's more in line with common sense. We can't expect to understand everything about every scientific study we come across, nor do we expect Wikipedia users to act like scientists and require rigorous checking of methodology and whatnot before we accept what is written on the conclusions and hence the abstracts.

Of course we try to be careful when citing papers, but it's unavoidable sometimes for our eyes to glaze over when reading the explicit details of a study on a topic we aren't particularly knowledgeable about. Unless you are discussing and sourcing the actual methodology, you have no reason to care for the rest of the study. All you really look at are the "human-readable" parts - the intro/background, and the conclusions. And those are already summarized succinctly in the abstract.

Besides why are we assuming that statements based on abstracts are misleading or incoeherent? There is a higher chance of taking information out of context when attempting to analyze the bulk of a study you actually know nothing about. Abstracts, as a rule, are not misleading. They are generalized, yes, but since when is that equivalent to being wrong? Any errors they might have will be a matter of language not of scientific methodology.

If information in the abstract is not credible due to methodology, reading the entire paper will not help either. Find other studies. Whatever refutations of a paper's reliability (and hence its abstract's) must come from another published paper, not from our own analysis. No matter how much expertise we claim to have, we are simply anonymous Wikipedia users, not scientists.

I could wax all day about how the test tubes used in our hypothetical John Doe et al. (1985) were not sterilized enough, but until another study actually refutes the conclusions of the former, we must treat the results of that study as reliable. Who are you going to believe? My 'expertise' or the authors of a published academic paper?

And I've actually done it before. I can't remember the exact article, but I've come across a paleontological article where all it says is "Genus X' is a species of cynodont (or something).", sourced to a paper that is not linked to an online copy. Information already present in the abstract, it'd be reasonable to assume that the original Wikipedian author read no further than that. Thing is, when I did manage to find a copy of said paper (and other sources besides), I was able to expand it easily enough without having to change the original sentence reffed to what its abstract already says.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 06:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

<-- @Obsidian Soul

I have no idea why you'd think citing a paper for its abstract would be comparable to being 'dishonest'. - Because the average reader will believe that the person who's inserted the text and the cite DID in fact read the actual study. As I said, the only way around this is to be specific that only the abstract is being cited but this causes problems of its own.

Tell me honestly (and apologies if I misinterpret the situation), if Volunteer Marek did get a copy of the said study and finds out (as he or she certainly will) that the conclusion is actually the same as stated in the abstract, will he or she accept that the abstract was actually not misleading after all? - and if I get a copy of the said study and find out that the abstract is indeed imprecise/misleading, will you accept that citing abstracts without reading the studies is not a good idea? Anyway, this thread asked a general question - the specific situation is meant to illustrate a point.

The thing I'm not getting is this: which are you accusing of being misrepresentative? The paper's abstract or the user quoting it? - the two are obviously related. Because an abstract can be imprecise, the user quoting it can misrepresent the study. This can occur either because of a deliberate desire to present the results in a particular way (because imprecision allows for wiggle room), or it can happen because the user is unfamiliar with the field.

Maybe it's different with the (economic? social?) fields you usually deal with, but when it comes to hard sciences, what I describe above certainly hold true. - I'm perfectly willing to accept that this may differ by field, and that, generally speaking, in the physical sciences one is less likely to go wrong by citing an abstract than in the social sciences. It's still bad practice IMO.

The proper way to proceed, I think would be that yes, you can cite stuff to abstracts (and even snippets etc), particularly where non-contentious stuff is concerned. But as soon as someone challenges it, you need to go out and get the whole study. And yes the challenge can simply be "the abstract is imprecise".

@WhatamIdoing

What I saw in the abstract was a claim about "GDP" (not "GDP per capita"), and what I saw on the talk page was you asserting that, without reading the paper, you (magically?) knew that the body of the paper would contradict the claim of "GDP" in the abstract by saying "GDP per capita". Your actual evidence that the body would say "GDP per capita" rather than (total) "GDP" is easily contained in the null set. - magic has nothing to do with it. You can also drop the pointless showing off of invoking the "null set" and simply say "none". But yes, I do more or less know, without reading the paper that the study uses "GDP per capita" because simply, it would make no sense for it - a published, peer reviewed paper - to use total GDP. Like I said, we aren't required to check in our brains at the Wikipedia log-in prompt.

BTW, from the point of view of this specific dispute here, it would be better for me if the study DID use total GDP, rather than per capita, since then it wouldn't show what the Mirarde is claiming it shows.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

RSN is not the right place for a general discussion—any general discussion—of what constitutes a reliablse source.

WT:RS

or WT:RSN is the place for that. RSN is for specific sources and specific disputes. This information is contained in the instructions at the top of this page.

Trusting what "I know" or what "makes sense to me", rather than what the source says, is a clear violation of NOR.

I believe you said that you've got the paper in hand now. Is your claim that "GDP" is uncorrelated correct? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

RSN is not the right place for a general discussion - well, I wasn't quite sure so that's why I asked about this when I started the thread, to quote myself: (If WP:RSN isn't the proper venue for this question, please point me to the appropriate place, thanks). People were quite happy to discuss the general issue, and now you're just getting grumpy about it for some reason.

Trusting what "I know" or what "makes sense to me", rather than what the source says, is a clear violation of NOR. - you're just refusing to get it, aren't you? Would you really knowingly put incorrect description of the source into a Wikipedia article from the abstract, simply to avoid OR? *Beats head against wall*.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

"The proper way to proceed, I think would be that yes, you can cite stuff to abstracts (and even snippets etc), particularly where non-contentious stuff is concerned. But as soon as someone challenges it, you need to go out and get the whole study. And yes the challenge can simply be "the abstract is imprecise"."

Yep. I think it's safe to say we can all agree to that, though I still doubt that scouring the entire study will turn out to prove that the abstract misquoted something from its contents. If you suspect that the study itself is actually contentious, a better idea would be to turn up with other studies refuting the conclusions of the problematic paper and then relegate it to a smaller role or nix it altogether per

WP:DUE.-- Obsidi♠n Soul

17:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

So as the source has now beenb read does it say "GDP" or "GDP per capita"? By the way saying that I should have to buy the source does not answer the question, you have been asked does the source back what you say you should answer.Slatersteven (talk) 18:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, alright, I was having a bit of fun - but also making a point. I don't see why it should be MY job to go out and actually get the study itself (and potentially pay 40 bucks, though in this case I managed to get it from my library) rather than the person who wants to actually use the source in the article (let them spend the 40 bucks!). Anyway, answer below.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Sources, reliability and sneaky POV-pushing

@ObsidianSoul

/quote from me/ "while at the same time refusing any consideration of what that guy supposedly claimed against other relevant statements in the field considered, as long as this considering (ground-level reviewing, if you like) and weeding out of misunderstandings and overstatements doesn't simply repeat verbatim what other notable scientists have said stating those arguments"

Er... what? Where was that stated? I think all the users opposing both your viewpoints of discarding abstracts as unreliable explicitly state that clarifying statements by actually reading the article itself is not only welcomed but encouraged. No one is telling you to read only the abstract. What others have said is to grant the abstract the same level of reliability you would grant the rest of the paper when reasonably appropriate. The abstract is not junk, but I think everyone agrees with you that reading the entire article is still the best way to do it. In fact, it's necessary when expanding upon something originally reffed to it.

If the info sourced from an abstract contains ambiguous terms, clarify it. If the user misunderstood the context in an abstract, correct it. Don't label it unreliable for what might actually be a problem with reader comprehension. As for the agenda-driven thing, I'm having a very hard time imagining some POV-pusher citing an abstract in such a way as to create a very different image than the information contained in the article. And even if they did, again the fault is the user's, not the abstract. The abstract would have to be serendipitously worded for it to differ so much from the body of the paper so as to be of use to such a user.

A simple question: can you please explain exactly why an abstract is unreliable? It's part of the paper, it's written by the same authors, it's also peer-reviewed. What else is required for it to pass your requirements?

Nineteen times out of twenty, the circle of people who are engaged on an article over a space of á week (that's all it takes to reshape a large part of an article with the excuse of having found new and better sources) don't have anywhere near the reach needed to even get an overview of the actual scientific literature related to that article. Not in terms of the average time they're able to spend on reading books and articles and discussing with other wikipedians before they make edits, nor in the daily access they have to scholarly libraries (no, online resources most often isn't enough, friends), nor in how familiar they are with current research methods - not the basic stuff they read about at school. Note that I'm deliberately leaving out the factor "in-depth knowledge beforehand of the relevant scientific disciplines" because that is not a prerequisite for anyone to start chopping in on an article here. And it doesn't ,matter if there's two or three people with access to university libraries and training on the subject working on the article - once things get heated people tend to split into camps and confidence goes out the window, so a check with the hard-to-find sources made by one person at the big research library likely won't make a real difference.

So, why are abstracts not useful as the prime sources for something having been "proved" or established? Well, abstracts tend to state that "we prove that (p)" or "our findings indicate clearly that (p)" but within the scientific community, this is very often accepted shorthand for that the round of experiments and/or review of facts, in the eyes of the scientist writing, makes a strong case for the fact or thesis that (p). If (p) is founded just on experiments, the next step will be to see if those experiments can be repeated and other explanations for the relation ruled out. If (p) or the entire investigation includes in some way a theoretical new look at the issue, then in most cases it can't simply be said to have been nailed and written into the scientific canon by a single experiment or a single investigation. Even if that's how it gets described by the writer himself or by reporters who love spectacular news. Scientists and scholars are aware of this, and the full text of a study often makes it clear anyway, even if sometimes a bit implicitly. For this reason, scientists don't feel compelled to directly _state_ at every turn that "the idea that X put forth is not actually proven fact" or "your lab session doesn't conclusively prove this beyond all doubt" as discrete facts that some wikipedian can cite. Actually scientists are much less obsessed with blipping out discrete soundbite facts, between each other, than many wikipedians like to think. They are concerned with chains of facts, circumstances and interpretation, not with stating every single thing they think they have found as a discrete fact.

If abstracts are given the same credence as the full texts of articles and books, any article or book pertaining to an issue that would rank as RS - not just the article or book that the abstract makes a quick summary of, but the abstract would get on the same level as any full text - then many people here will prefer to cite abstracts as their sources because they're not just easier to find, they also make more cut-and-dried statements, and sometimes slightly more far-reaching statements: they remove qualifications, exceptions and underlying steps of interpretation and methodic filtering (not really scientific law) that had to be made to reach any results and which, in themselves, are likely neither inviolable nor directly grounded on fact observation or on some rock hard scientific consensus. By citing simply the abstract, but feigning to have read the full thing and liberally using injunctions against "synthesis" and "original research", the fearless wikipedian effectively removes those qualifications, theoretic deliberations and possible sources of error from sight. The pro scientists in the field will know that the matter is likely not decided once and for all, and that a few more reports or investigations may well turn the matter around, but neither most wikipedians working on the page nor most of its readers will know. The statement "(p) is true based on RS so-and-so" is all they get to see, and essentially the only thing the editor (or editors) wants in the article.

That's why abstracts are often more useful than the full text for POV pushing, or for blocking some competing perspective from an article. If the abstract says "By means of analysis of data so-and-so, we prove that gender and intelligence are linked according to the Bell curve" or "Our analysis of documents from the German and British state archives and diplomatic correspondence, some of it only recently released, proves that Germany, in the years 1910-1914, had the key intention of starting a war to achieve mastery of the world, while Britain did not aim for a conflict" those statements can be used to elbow out the other side, again and again, provided there's a strong enough editing gang for it, although those views are highly controversial and by no means mainstream or consensus in anything like such a strong form. To combat these with some sort of "statement by statement review" with every single statement you want to make sourced from historians, including counter.statements to whatever the other editors are quoting, but without any kind of pulling together of the threads with your own intellect, that would effectively be a full-time job and in most cases such a person isn't available or will not take it up. Imagine the thankless task of just mimicking in every detail what other people have said on a subject, sourcing back to their every page note by note and transposing it to respond not just to trained scientists but to the way their arguments are now rehashed by faceless wikipedia editors, more aggressive than scholars but often much less educated or expert, while being forbidden to draw a single line of connection on your own to make the arguments clear in their content and thrust here! For whatever you might say, that person would not be debating with Fritz Fischer or Martin Gilbert, but with other WP editors who don't have to own up to what they have read or what arguments really will work.

Even if the editor admits that he only ever read the abstract, the chances are often quite slim that someone will call him out on whether statement (p) was actually proved by the full text. Remember, there is no requirement here that you have to tell what your sources are on the talk page before making edits that vitally change the content. It doesn't even need to be hinted in the byline left in the editing log of the article (not that I think we should have the latter requirement, it would be unwieldy, but it shows just how easy it is to sneak in large changes on an article without telling anyone what you're doing). If you're dealing with an assertion that's already been in the article unchallenged for a long time (far too common) then it can take some time to even find out who first added it - perhaps when you find it in the editing log, it's just Mr.Anonymous.

Also, and importantly, in most disciplines of science, and near always in any kind of social sciences, history or humanities, it's not the case that every statement or every description will get proven in the hard-set way that the atomic number of an element or the reproductive habits of rabbits are proven. Trying to write articles on those subjects on the assumption that every statement must be sourced as a discrete fact, on its own (it has to be sourced but no one has to ask why it was considered a truth), is often impossible, but people using "inviolable sources" for the strategic 'facts' and descriptions they want in, often manage to block any kind of sensible articles on those matters.

That's a major problem in articles on those fields here - there is no corresponding problem in those actual sciences: every historian, linguist or business economist knows they are not dealing in stacks of discrete facts that can be experimentally proved, as if from a natural law, and built into a brick wall the way they can in chemistry or classical physics - and because many people here don't bother to think about what verifiability really means or how it works in different kinds of science, many important fields would become impossible to write about here if the "verifiability from some single RS, but without any regard for which it is or how X was stated as long as that source has been set up as RS" dogma would be stringently enforced. And Obsidian, Slatersteven and the rest don't seem to bother as long as they are free to source whatever has gotten said in an abstract. Or, face it, in an interview with somebody in any newspaper that happens to be accepted as RS, or even a quickie notice or feuilleton on that paper's website - those kinds of sources are regularly treated as verifying something beyond discussion, perhaps not in clinical medicine but in loads of other fields on WP.

But then as Marek has also pointed out, you are not really concerned with keeping any standard of scientific grounding, evenhandedness, accuracy or reliability within WP articles in general, or even within the upkeep of accuracy and truth in what is already here. Maybe on the articles you are personally committed to and have worked a good deal on, but not to protecting those standards for Wikipedia in general.Strausszek (talk) 01:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok enough with the ad hominems. What gives you the idea that I routinely source only from abstracts (or that I do it at all)? Or that I don't venture outside my areas of interest? I think the abstract supporters were pretty clear that it should only be used in cases where common sense indicates that it can be used. And no one is prohibiting anyone from digging deeper into the source if the information cited happens to be controversial.

How much of a long scientific study do you need to read in order to state that "X is Y"? And don't tell me that you've never ever cited a single chapter or even a paragraph in a book you haven't read in its entirety?

I think I was also the first to point out that in the non-empirical fields of 'soft' sciences, any conclusions they have is liable to be questionable. But here's the thing: it's not limited to the abstract, hence a bit irrelevant to the discussion don't you think? It's beginning to become clear that you have far more issues about Wikipedia's "Verifiability, not truth" policy, and this discussion is not really about abstracts anymore.

We have things like

WP:OR

. If, as you suggest, we somehow 'evaluate' our sources beforehand for their reliability, which of us become experts? Will you only accept studies that agree with your own opinions and discard the rest as unreliable? By pretending to know which source is more authoritative by personal judgement alone, you are giving yourself far too much credit for what we all really are - faceless editors. I could claim expertise on dozens of subjects, would I then be good enough to judge if this study is excellent or if that study is bullshit?

One thing you fail to mention is that the practice of personally judging the reliability of an academic paper is just as guilty of POV-pushing.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 02:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

More importantly, this is the wrong page to carry on hypothetical discussions. Either Volunteer Marek's unsupported assertion that when the source says "GDP", it didn't mean "GDP" is right, or it's not. If he's got the source now, he knows the answer one way or the other. In the absence of a contradiction, I'm going to assume that his fears in this instance were misplaced, and that "GDP" itself is correlated, exactly like the abstract said.

If you want to keep chatting about the general case, then you really do need to pick another page to do it on. RSN really is all about specifics, not hypotheticals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Nope, I'm good, heh. -- Obsidi♠n Soul 02:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that his fears in this instance were misplaced, and that "GDP" itself is correlated, exactly like the abstract said. - ok, I'm going to say this one more time. There's no way that the source uses total GDP, because it would make no SENSE for a study of this type to use total GDP rather than per capita GDP. Anyone who's familiar with the subject matter would instantly know this. People who are ignorant of the subject matter - such as yourself, or your average Wikipedia reader - would not know this and possibly believe that somehow it could be total GDP that is being talked about here.

I'm pointing this out - again - because that's actually the major underlying reason why the abstract is sloppy. The author of the abstract is writing for a specific audience - academics working in the field. He reasonably expects that members of this specific target audience will, when they see the word "GDP" in the abstract, translate that to "oh he means per capita GDP" in their heads. The problem arises because somebody who's not part of that specific audience - a Wikipedia editor - comes along, looks at only the abstract, and does not have the background knowledge to make sense of the abstract alone. And then these "OR fundamentalists" come along to insists that incorrect information MUST be included in Wikipedia. Worse, they insist that it's not THEIR job to actually bother checking the information.

Additionally in reference to your repeated statements that If you want to keep chatting about the general case, then you really do need to pick another page to do it on., well, that horse is out the barn. This is where people are talking about it and have been happy to talk about it. Your repeated calls to "move it somewhere else" (where it can be ignored) at this point just seem to be attempts to shout down those who disagree with you.

Anyway. As it turns out the paper itself is as sloppy as the abstract (there's probably a correlation between quality of the study and quality of the abstract). Within the study the author says "GDP", then switches to "income per capita", then even confuses GDP with "wealth" (a basic principles course in economics would be sufficient to explain the difference in these two concepts). But yes, the actual data he uses is on log transformed per capita GDP, adjusted for purchasing power parity. Like I "speculated". Even a sloppily written study has to make sense to get published (I hope).Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

GDP and GDP per capita

(Disclosure: Volunteer Marek notified me of this discussion.) I have seen a lot of idiocy in Wikipedia, but the claim that in this abstract, the sentence "Both log-transformed GDP and measures of intelligence independently reduce fertility across all methods, whereas the effects of liberal democracy are weak and inconsistent." really refers to log-transformed GDP as opposed to log-transformed GDP per capita is sheer lunacy. There seems to be a common misconception that disputes between editors who know what a word means and others who haven't got a clue are decided by following the sources as literally as possible. That's completely and utterly wrong, and this incident shows why. The following table shows countries with mostly 'German' culture. They have more or less the same fertility rates [56], as one would expect given that there aren't any big differences in wealth or fertility.

Now given that the European fertility statistics I linked above does not include Liechtenstein, would we expect fertility in Liechtenstein to be lower than average because it's the wealthiest country (i.e. highest GDP per capita by far), or higher than average because it's by far the smallest country (=> lowest GDP by a huge margin)? Obviously fertility has (almost) nothing to do with the size of a country, but a lot with wealth, so we would expect the former. And that's correct. [57]

This is not illegal original research, it's the kind of back-of-an-envelope calculation that is perfectly proper and should be done routinely to assess the reliability of specific statements made by sources. Among the subculture of Wikipedia editors who know what Wikipedia is about, e.g. experienced featured article contributors, this is in fact perfectly standard.

In this case, the source clearly wrote "GDP" as shorthand for "GDP per capita", which is sloppy, but does make some sense in an abstract, where one tries to be brief. We should not be sloppy in the same way in an article, so it was perfectly proper to insist on consulting the actual article to see what was really meant. What would not have been OK would have been (1) taking the imprecise statement from the abstract and presenting it as if it was precise and correct, or (2) correcting the statement while still relying only on the abstract. The problem with (1) is that by implication it would have manufactured a totally bizarre fringe claim: That, other things being equal, smaller countries have higher fertility. Hans Adler 11:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

PS: I am not an expert, I just happen to know what "GDP" means, which was enough to see the problem here. As Volunteer Marek pointed out on my talk page, I should have written about income, not wealth. While it sounds reasonable, it's not as obvious to me as the GDP/GDP per capita thing, and it doesn't really seem to matter. Hans Adler 11:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I might as well add that to the extent that there is a correlation between GDP per capita and total GDP, it's actually negative (in the way that the author's doing it, by taking logs and averaging them, it's about -.75). On average, it's the smaller countries which are richer (like Liechtenstein, Singapore, Qatar, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Hong Kong) than big countries (India, China are obvious examples). To that extent US is a bit of an outlier. That's another big tip-off that he means "per capita" in the abstract, as otherwise the relationship between fertility and income would be reversed, which goes against the point he's making.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)