Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hi

I'm interested in expanding the article on the conductor Jascha Horenstein as my first foray into a non-trivial addition to Wikipedia. Would liner notes from CDs in the BBC Legends series be considered reliable sources ? They are often written by people who knew the subjects of the CDs, for example Joel Lazar, who was Horenstein's assistant in the last years of his life. On a related note, I'd like to add examples of different schools of critical thought regarding his Mahler recordings. Would quotes from a website such as http://www.musicweb-international.com/Mahler/index.html be appropriate ?

Thanks

MuppetLabTech (talk) 01:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why not. I see some of the other notes are written by people such as Jeremy Siepmann and Graham Melville-Mason. I'd say they are impeccable as sources. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Religious sources are reliable sources for religious viewpoints, so it's not uncommon for religion articles to use religious sources to explain the meaning of any religious title and nature of the role that religious leaders have in the religion or religious organization (which are, after all, religious matters). Can someone confirm that for the above usage books[1][2] and recorded sayings by

I would see those as RS for articles on related topics; in the same way that books published by the Catholic Church can be used as RS for topics related to Catholicism. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Can this be confirmed by some of the admin? Wikidās ॐ 08:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This depends. Religious documents are often primary sources. If e.g. the Bible had one obvious meaning, we wouldn't have had the persecution of the

Roe vs. Wade. Secondary sources published by a religious organization can be reliable sources about this organization's public position. But selective quotes can be misleading - try to justify the Crusades with the Sermon on the Mount ;-). Also note that the Catholic Church does not speak for Christianity, and that e.g. Scientology has dissembling about the "truth" as a religious tenet, as mundanes are considered to be not ready for the truths. I would be very careful about proper attribution here. --Stephan Schulz (talk

) 08:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: And please note that admins have no special role in questions of content. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

So how does one see if one publication is RS and the other is not RS, as the case be is with secondary sources or commentaries on primary that are the basis of a certain religion? Thanks - clarity will be very much appreciated. Wikidās ॐ 09:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has its own religious mysteries. I'd say the appropriate chapters and verses are

WP:AGF. Smallbones (talk

) 11:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Primary religious works, such as the Bible, Koran, Vedas etc. These should never be used alone to support a statement of fact or, particularly, analysis. However if a secondary source makes reference to a specific passage in these texts, it is fine (and perhaps even a good idea) to add an additional reference to the exact text. Even then, one should take care of the translation and edition that one picks for the primary religious sources. Certain religious texts have significantly different redactions, translations, attached commentaries or are of unknown provenance; in such cases even greater care is required in quoting them.
2. Writings by sectarian leaders/teachers such as some Baptist pastor (Daniel Taylor), Shia Ayatullah (Muhammad Hussain Najafi), or ISKCON author (Bhakti Tirtha Swami). These sources can be useful to express the sect's own views of itself and the world. However great care should be taken that these opinions are carefully attributed, and the sectarian authors views on what Christians, Muslims or Hindus believe in general are not stated as facts (such as, "Christians believe that grace is the only path to salvation"). Finally, academic writings (by neutral scholars) that summarize or analyze such leaders' view should be preferred, whenever they are available.

Of course, particular applications of these "guidelines" may require discussion on the article talk page. Any comments on the summary and my understanding are welcome. Abecedare (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Abecedare hits the nail on the head. This is a fairly accurate description of good practice on-wiki regarding these matters. A red flag for religion articles is heavy reference to and/or quoting of primary religious texts, especially when dealing with a particular sect of a religion. His second point is equally valid. It's very important to note when views presented are those of a particular leader within the faith or of the organization itself. It's very good practice to rely heavily on reputable academic descriptions and analysis of sects and faiths. Vassyana (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Religious sources tend to have big problems in seeing their own religious beliefs, practices, rituals, texts in contexts. For example, often they do not know the basiscs, let alone mention, that their religous movement was an off shoot or influence by another organization decades ago. Andries (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, the uncritical use of religious souorces to desribe beliegs and practicies tend to yield very bad articles. For an example see

I endorse Abecedare's first point 101%.Bless sins (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm also with

s

23:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'm having a bit of a dispute with an editor, and would like some advice about a source, as I'd really like to keep things civil. The source is Saylor, Jane. "The Road You've Traveled", AuthorHouse, 2006. I think both of us have agreed that it is not a reliable secondary source, as it is self-published. The dispute revolves around whether or not it is a primary source in regard to whether or not AuthorHouse should be described as a vanity press. The other editor argues that the book is published by AuthorHouse, and is therefore a primary source on this issue. My argument is that it would be a primary source in regard to "claims made by Jane Saylor", but not as it is being used. Currently the sentence reads "AuthorHouse, formerly known as 1stBooks, is a vanity press that provides print on demand services". Any help to clarify this either way would be much appreciated. - Bilby (talk) 23:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

AuthorHouse has published a book, "The Road You've Traveled," which states on page 63 that AuthorHouse is a vanity press. Since this information is coming from the publisher itself, this qualifies as a primary source for the fact that AuthorHouse is a vanity press. Qworty (talk) 05:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I did acknowledge that above, I thought, but perhaps not clearly enough. I guess I have two concerns. The first is that just because it was published through AuthorHouse does not mean that it is a primary source for AuthorHouse. AuthorHouse do not hold themselves responsible for the content of works published through them, and do not edit the books - a point that has been main elsewhere in regard to this type of publisher, very often by you. Second, even if it is a primary source, it is still not a reliable source, and cannot be used to support the line as it stands. I can reasonably see "Jane Saylor has described AuthorHouse as a vanity press", or maybe even "An author published through AuthorHouse has described them as a vanity press". If it was accepted as a primary source I could even see "AuthorHouse have described themselves as a vanity press" (but for that we would have to consider the times when AuthorHouse stated that they are not a vanity press), but not "AuthorHouse is a vanity press". Either way, I'd like to hear other opinions on the matter. - Bilby (talk) 08:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

A book published by AuthorHouse is not generally a reliable source. But it is an acceptable source for statements about the publisher itself, in the same way that the website of a political advocacy group is an acceptable source for statements about the stance of the group. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yet a website by a political advocacy group is written by the political advocacy group, and therefore can be said to be represent their views. A book that a publisher prints is not written by them and does not necessarily represent their views, especially when that publisher does not have editorial control. Perhaps a better comparison would be with a forum, where the comments made by users do not represent the views of the owners, even if though the owners are providing them with the means to speak? - Bilby (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Having edit warred about this for too long, I'm belatedly asking for an opinion on whether this counts as a

I am not sure why I have to repeatedly correct you, however it is the institutes page, Bourabai Research Institute. They are located in Kazakhstan, perhaps which accounts for the bad design, however as pointed out above, the United Nations used a report issued by the research institute. I have asked William to state why its not reliable, it seems he has had a personal issue with Lanscheidt since they are in the same field, and recently filed a failing AfD on the subject. The institute further states they had specific permission from the family of Lanscheidt to publish the information. The subject of their research is a red herring as they have information about scientists in various fields which they feel made significant contributions. I have asked William to show something that would prove the information is false, fabricated, or something other then personal opinion which seems to be gauged in their web design ability, he has either refused, or is unwilling. --I Write Stuff (talk) 23:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to add, the non subdomain page is: [4]. The Narod.Ru page should not be the one pointed to. William has also stated "is likely a reliable source for forest fires; thats what the FAO used him for. But not for L" L being Landscheidt, so apparently we can trust them about stuff, just not about stuff William does not want to see on Wikipedia. The site, which William admits is reliable in some form, states they received the information from Landscheidt's family as well. The information is not particularly gratifying either, just a mention of an award from an institute he is a member of. --I Write Stuff (talk) 23:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[this originally posted to the RS talk page; I've moved it here William M. Connolley (talk) 07:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)]

Basically a "Private research institute", which in Central Asia-speak means that it isn't recognised by the government or the local academy of sciences. In this case, the hobby horse of Karim Khaidarov, so exactly as reliable as he is reliable. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Whatever it is, on the very home page they push Aether theory, they disprove the

Theory of Relativity (and show that the vacuum speed of light is not constant), they claim that much of Southeast Asia was created during a 2.5 hour cometary bombardment (and, interestingly, apparently little to no continental drift has happened since then - the maps show India snuggly against Asia all the time), they show that Quasars are near and red-shift is an illusion, and so on. Sorry, that is an international collection of kookery. If they conned the FAO into citing a report, good for them and bad for the FAO. They are not a reliable source on anything. --Stephan Schulz (talk

) 08:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately your personal opinion on their work does not decide if its RS or not. Its also not appropriate to state they conned the FAO into anything, as you obviously have no proof, however if you do have proof of some perpetuated fraud, please post it here. --I Write Stuff (talk) 12:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

By posting here, you ask for my personal opinion. And I'll take a bet that almost anybody with even a marginal scientific education who spends five minutes looking at their home page agrees. This is a collection of not even convincingly masked pseudo-science. It's the kook side of talk.origins ca. 1992, with images added. Ted Holden would be proud of it... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping more for policy based arguments, not "I don't like what they study", but it has been resolved none-the-less. --I Write Stuff (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It is clearly not a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 13:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Found better source, thanks for all who participated. --I Write Stuff (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this brief mention in the San Francisco Chronicle sufficient to attach the epithet "left-wing" to the Israel peace organisation Gush Shalom? Itsmejudith (talk) 13:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You can find a few books sources identifying Gush Shalom as 'left-wing'. But the question is, why does one have to label invariably a movement that is not clearly politically alligned as 'left wing', particularly when 'left' and 'right' wing parties in Israel tend, much as in the US, to share policies that peace activists oppose? It is rather anglocentric to do this. Live on another continent, and you find this far more complex. The Catholic Church in Italy, in political terms, tends to support the right wing in politics. In matters of international politics and issues of war, many of its activists and even political representatives, can be found on what might be called the 'left'. In the dumbdown word this kind of language passes muster. It's hardly good descriptive language for a gloabl encyclopedia Nishidani (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The Chronicle is quite reliable. Of course, I fail to see how "left-wing" is in any way necessary in an article about it, which would presumably discuss its views in more detail rather than as a brief caricature; and if a modifier for the times they are mentioned in other articles is required, surely "Israeli peace activists" or "vile traitor peaceniks" or whatever is more appropriate, as that is their defining characteristic? --Relata refero (disp.) 14:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both former comments. I would point out that :

1. In Israel, left and right doesn't mean anything.

2. on wikipedia, we should avoid writing : this group, who is ..., claims that.

Whatever are the 3 dots, it is completely pov and tends to say something that is not needed.

Personally, when I feel it is important for the reader to understand who claims something, I just put this between brakets : [[ ... ]] assuming the reader is "adult" enough to click to go and read if he likes.

(this being said, I would say Gush Shalom is far-left :-)

Ceedjee (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

When I see these type of questions, it always raises a red flag for me. Use the best sources available, look for consensus of sources (or lack thereof), avoid WP:UNDUE, and always use good editorial judgment and look for consensus of involved editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Wise advice. I think we're all being careful here. There is a great deal of room for improvement in this and related articles.

Israeli peace camp is dire by any account, and has been tagged for a long time. Itsmejudith (talk

) 15:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I see they are cited in the lead as describing themselves as a 'national camp', presumably a calque on a Hebrew term. But 'camp' in the sense being used here in the title, in English, meant primarily 'a body of adherents of a militant doctrine, or theory'. It was common during the cold war, predominantly to describe the left. Perhaps editors should reflect on its appropriateness (to my ear it jars in slightly POVing things) to describe a 'peace movement'. Good luck Nishidani (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Physical attractiveness (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch There is a dispute between me and

The general principle is no, you do not need a source to justify the inclusion of a picture. Of course you need to ensure that you do not create a

WP:copyvio and you should also be careful not to introduce bias in your captions. You should use the talk page to try and reach consensus about the criteria on which pictures should be selected. I would say that the article could do with a greater variety of pictures. A Rubens painting would be nice because his work is often cited as an example of changing standards of beauty throughout time. Also, you should really have at least one dark-skinned person. And what about someone who is ageing beautifully - with or without surgery? Itsmejudith (talk

)

The problem is that in this particular article, images are automatically statements on what beauty is. Including an image of e.g.

complain) 17:15, April 28

, 2008

In this case, I would fully expect the relevance of an image to be cited to reliable sources. Michele Merkin may indeed be physically attractive, but an illustration here should be encyclopaedic as well as - er- pretty. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You'd be on safe ground with Marilyn Monroe.Itsmejudith (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks all so far. I think I'm requesting an RfC at the article talk page.

I am currently attempting to improve the dredg article. As the band is sub-mainstream and only recently gaining media acclaim, I am having trouble finding sources that Wikipedia might consider "reliable". The following are sources that I have used that I would like comment on:

• traversing.net - This is a fan website that, within the dredg fanbase, is regarded as a trustworthy source. I host and administrate the associated message board, so there may be some conflict there, but I have provided none of the information on the page. At least one member of the band visits and posts on the message board.
• Numerous interviews from websites such as absolutepunk.net and thepunksite.com, where the band provides much of their background.

Any input one can provide on where to search for better sources or how to resolve any current problems would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. --Ars Sycro (talk) 01:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Can this source be reliable for squeeeezing out info?

All it gives is five words: "Religious Apartheid in Saudi Arabia" (which isn't even a full sentence), no explanation, no rationale, not even references to published works. While Freedom House is generally a good source, are we obliged to quote it in such cases?

I think the very fact that users have to resort to five word sources shows that this view is not covered by better sources, and thus should not be in wikipedia.Bless sins (talk) 03:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

What is it supposed to be a reliable source FOR? It seems to be the title of an image that was hosted at Freedom House. If the claim was that "There was an image labeled 'Religious Apartheid in Saudi Arabia'", perhaps. Otherwise, I wouldn't think it would meet WP:RS. DigitalC (talk) 04:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It is to be used to say that there is "religious apartheid in Mecca". I too would agree that this source can be used to describe the webpages of Freedom House (though how notable it is to the organizations reputation I don't know) . But the question is, can this source be used at Mecca to accuse the city of practicing "religious apartheid", when there are no explanations, rationales, references. There isn't even an author, i.e. this is an anonymous composition.Bless sins (talk) 04:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The soruce was used to say that according to Freedom House, there is a religious apartheid in Saudi Arabia. This is fully attributed in all articles where the source is used. In that sense, it can be used. And the author is, obviously, Freedom House. Yahel Guhan 04:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"The soruce was used to say that according to Freedom House, there is a religious apartheid in Saudi Arabia." No it is being used in the Mecca article. Thus Mecca is being accused. Last I checked "Freedom House" isn't a person. All works are written by a person. This personis called an author.Bless sins (talk) 05:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It is being used in the Mecca article, to state that Freedom House believes that the law forbidding muslims to enter Mecca is apartheid. Freedom House is an organization of many people conducts research and advocacy on democracy, political freedom and human rights. Sounds quite reliable to me. Show me the policy that requires a "one person author" for reliability. Yahel Guhan 05:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi,
Yahel, this is not a WP:RS source. This is just a comment !
Bless sins, you perfectly know there are strict religious laws in SA and that they could be linked to some sort of segregation or apartheid, so, as a wikipedia's editor, you are assumed to look for RS sources and add all relevant informations related to the topic. If you don't bear critics toward Islam, you should avoid editing this topic on wikipedia -> here are dozens of references, you (both) can just try pick up more relevant ones to give a fair picture of the matter, without political agenda.
Ceedjee (talk) 06:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

An

Presently, there is no reliable source available to describe a particular

The question: can the film be used as a reliable, primary source (a self-reference) to describe a trivial sound effect that appears in the credits, and if so, should the time parameter in the cite video template be used to note its appearance? We can support the trivial sound effect with the film as a primary source using the cite video template, but the editor continues to remove it.

Another problem emerges. The editor who keeps adding the sound effect to the article and removing the reference, has a history of trying to draw a relationship between the use of the sound effect in the credits and the appearance of the closing title credits, claiming in many discussions that it has special meaning and importance. But, there is no reliable source that supports this relationship. To support this relationship, the editor removed all elements in the closing credits section except the sound effect in question (which can only be sourced to the DVD) and the mention of the closing title credit, which has RS, but does not discuss the sound effect in any of those publications. Viriditas (talk) 10:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

With respect, that a sound effect happens could reasonably be sourced to the video. But everything beyond that is OR, and while a little latitude might be granted in uncontroversial cases, this isn't uncontroversial. Now, I'm not going to pass judgement on an editor without hearing his say, but... have you considered

WP:ANI? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk

) 12:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for not responding earlier. I should endeavor to point out that much of Viriditas' post is a bit skewed, but considering our mostly unpleasant past interactions over the past year, I am not terribly surprised that I would be painted in the worst possible light by him/her. It is not the first time such has occurred. However, I'm not going to address that here

The specific "trivial" sound effect is the laughter of children during the closing credits at the end of a film about the human race dying out from infertility. While the reader can draw their own conclusions as to what that laughter and shouting means (that the human race did not die out, that the laughter of children was the Upanishad prayer, that a sound editor fell asleep at work, etc.), no citation in fact exists that explains the sounds. However, the source of this problem has apparently been raised a number of times at this noticeboard, most recently here.

The determination (a clear prior consensus) is that the sound, as observable phenomena that is not contested as to what it is (though dissent clearly exists as to its meaning and importance) is allowed. It would appear that this consensus has grown out of discussion here spanning the past year, and were therefore not available at the time this matter first came up for discussion in the CoM article talk page. I was certainly unaware of it until just recently. As well, I certainly don't consider the notation of laughter to be uncontroversial, though notable and contentious discussion has shown it to be otherwise. It was a knife fight just to get the source noting the presence of the shantih words at the end of the film into the article.

However, Viriditas added the section on phenomena in the closing credits that discussed the presence of the children's laughter (as observable phenomena) and the shantih (with quoted citation as to meaning). I disagreed that the cite video template, time-stamping the instance of the laughter, was necessary. The section is called 'Closing Credits', and the laughter and shouting of children runs throughout; there seems little ambiguity as to where the laughter occurs, so citation seems like overkill - especially so when the laughter is observable phenomena. I am not aware of any FA articles that currently utilize the cite video template, and FA is what the article should be aiming for, right?

I removed the statements about the music as non-notable bloat (as there was no citation speaking to the plot-worthy weight of them), and removed the cite video template timestamp (as we know precisely where the laughter is). The specifics of the template say it is useful to include time-stamps to navigate to a particular area. As the section specifically names the section, and the children's laughter occurs throughout the closing credits, the usefulness of the template is redundant to the section text.

Lastly, I think the addition of songs to the section are in fact trivial, as no citation exists as to their special meaning to the movie. I haven't seen any FA articles that note - uncited - any soundtrack's song being intrinsic to the movie's plot, though I know of a few non-GA articles where a song that appears in the soundtrack is important to the plot (Eddie and the Cruisers, for example). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Response from Viriditas

My apologies for not responding earlier. I should endeavor to point out that much of Viriditas' post is a bit skewed, but considering our mostly unpleasant past interactions over the past year, I am not terribly surprised that I would be painted in the worst possible light by him/her. It is not the first time such has occurred. However, I'm not going to address that here

I have never once mentioned your name above, so I have no idea how you could have been "painted" in any light. Every single claim I've made can be substantiated by dozens of diffs, past RfC's, third opinions, discussion by the film project, etc. You have not pointed out how anything I have stated above is "skewed" in any way, and I look forward to your evidence. Viriditas (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The specific "trivial" sound effect is the laughter of children during the closing credits at the end of a film about the human race dying out from infertility. While the reader can draw their own conclusions as to what that laughter and shouting means (that the human race did not die out, that the laughter of children was the Upanishad prayer, that a sound editor fell asleep at work, etc.), no citation in fact exists that explains the sounds. However, the source of this problem has apparently been raised a number of times at this noticeboard, most recently here.

And here we get to the crux of the issue. Arcayne's pet theory about how the audience draws some kind of conclusion from the sound effects in the credits, belongs to him and him alone. Not a single film critic, author, journalist, or reliable source has commented on this pet theory except Arcayne, and he's been talking about it for a year in the talk page archives, edit warring and trying to push his POV, which is essentially classically-defined as original research. This has been explained to Arcayne by at least a dozen different editors with absolutely no change in his editing behavior. What's even more bizarre, is that he claims to have raised the issue previously on the noticeboard, where he said, we cannot list an observable phenomena...the laughter of children during the end credits of the film Children of Men. Observable phenomena cannot replace citation. So, he's arguing the exact opposite of what he argued here before. I think the facts are really clear on this issue. Arcayne has engaged in a repeated pattern of OR and using unreliable sources to support his POV for over a year, including edit warring and gaming the system. Viriditas (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The determination (a clear prior consensus) is that the sound, as observable phenomena that is not contested as to what it is (though dissent clearly exists as to its meaning and importance) is allowed. It would appear that this consensus has grown out of discussion here spanning the past year, and were therefore not available at the time this matter first came up for discussion in the CoM article talk page. I was certainly unaware of it until just recently. As well, I certainly don't consider the notation of laughter to be uncontroversial, though notable and contentious discussion has shown it to be otherwise. It was a knife fight just to get the source noting the presence of the shantih words at the end of the film into the article.

This is not true. The trival sound effects have been contested on the talk page for a year, because you've consistently been trying to include them to support your OR. You've never done the slightest bit of research on the article. That is what is required to find reliable sources. Erik found the RS for Shantih for you and you still have not used them in the article. Viriditas (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

However, Viriditas added the section on phenomena in the closing credits that discussed the presence of the children's laughter (as observable phenomena) and the shantih (with quoted citation as to meaning). I disagreed that the cite video template, time-stamping the instance of the laughter, was necessary. The section is called 'Closing Credits', and the laughter and shouting of children runs throughout; there seems little ambiguity as to where the laughter occurs, so citation seems like overkill - especially so when the laughter is observable phenomena. I am not aware of any FA articles that currently utilize the cite video template, and FA is what the article should be aiming for, right?

This is not true. You added the material to the plot section against the consensus of the active editors. Recently, you returned to your old ways and you added it to the themes section. No reliable source could be found to support the inclusion of the sound effects in the theme section. As a compromise in good faith, I moved your material to an "end credits" section (later changed to closing credits). Your disagreement with using a cite video template to show when the sound appears is completely spurious.

WP:V is pretty clear on sourcing controversial statements, which is exactly what this is in your own words. You claim that the laughter and shouting of children runs throughout, however there are at least three songs that break those sound effects up, two of which only appear in the credits and are just as important to the closing credits as the sound effects of children laughing. You claim you are not aware of any FA-Class articles that use the cite video template, and that is one of the most absurd argument I've ever heard. The cite video template wasn't even used until 28 July 2005, which is why older FA's might not have it. All you would have to do is visit what links here to see how incredibly silly your statement reads. Many FA-Class articles cite films as primary sources, with or without the cite video template. The FA-Class article Chaco Culture National Historical Park cites the film The Mystery of Chaco Canyon three times, and it was added before the article became FA. FA-Class article Final Fantasy uses the cite video template and it was added to the article years before it passed FA. Same with J. R. R. Tolkien and many other FA-Class articles. So we see that contrary to what you say, the cite video template is used by many FA-Class articles. After having this discussion with you again and again for over a year, I'm getting the strong sense that you just make stuff up without thinking that people will actually take the time to look into what you are saying. How many times have I checked up on you, Arcayne, only to find that you had invented and manufactured claims out of thin air? What's going on here? Viriditas (talk

) 02:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the statements about the music as non-notable bloat (as there was no citation speaking to the plot-worthy weight of them), and removed the cite video template timestamp (as we know precisely where the laughter is). The specifics of the template say it is useful to include time-stamps to navigate to a particular area. As the section specifically names the section, and the children's laughter occurs throughout the closing credits, the usefulness of the template is redundant to the section text.

There are no citations "speaking to the plot-worthy weight" of the sound effects of "laughing children", so why is it in the article? The fact is, there are citations in multiple sources discussing the three songs used in the credits and their relationship to the film, even in the current article (for example: Crust, Kevin. "Unconventional soundscape in `Children of Men'", Chicago Tribune, 2007-01-17). These sources discuss the songs you removed: John Lennon, Jarvis Cocker, and John Taverner. So again, we see the opposite of what Arcayne claims to be true. What the heck is "non-notable bloat"? The songs you removed from the credits have been discussed in multiple sources. The "sound of laughing children" has not been mentioned in any reliable source. Viriditas (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Lastly, I think the addition of songs to the section are in fact trivial, as no citation exists as to their special meaning to the movie. I haven't seen any FA articles that note - uncited - any soundtrack's song being intrinsic to the movie's plot, though I know of a few non-GA articles where a song that appears in the soundtrack is important to the plot (Eddie and the Cruisers, for example).

The entire section on "closing credits" is trivial. Since I have been following your edits to the article for the last year, I am aware of what you are trying to do. You removed the songs from the closing credits section to bolster your pet theory of some kind of relationship between the sound effects of laughing children and the use of the closing credit that reads, "Shantih". You've discussed your personal beliefs and pet theories at length in at least five separate talk archives. There is no reliable source on the planet that supports your original research. Read what Shoemaker's Holiday wrote. Sound effects can reasonably be sourced to the video, but everything beyond that is OR. And a quick look at the cite video tag shows that multiple FA-Class articles use it, as well as many other citation styles. The songs that you removed can be sourced to critical commentary in multiple reviews, one of which already appears in the article. Your reason for removing them doesn't hold water. Viriditas (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The reasons given for removing an accepted method of citation are flimsy and it does appear that there is an attempt to push some original research. "I am not aware of any FA articles that currently utilize the cite video template, ..." is either Clintonesque wording (not aware?) or just an uninformed statement. Many FAs use cite video: just access

I did look at the long list, Sandy. Are you aware that many of those do not use the cite video template in the way that Viriditas seems to think its used? Let's take Dungeons & Dragons, for instance. No real cite video template to be found. Odd, that. Not in Batman, either. A few others garnered the same result. Now, I am not saying that cite video is never used, or that it cannot be used to specifically note time-stamps of important events (especially when they would be otherwise hard to find), but I am not going to comb through the 500+ article list to find an FA article that just as likely doesn't use the template in the way being suggested. Perhaps 'Clintonesque' is an unfair characterization of my roundabout asking for examples of when cite video is used; I imagine characterizing your claim that than I "can scan down the the list to take (my) pick: there are quite a few" as McCarthy-esque would be received the same way. Maybe you do me the favor of pointing out a few Featured Articles that use the cite video template in the way that Viriditas seems to think is appropriate.

The main point here is that are observable phenomena are exempt from NOR rules; they are from the film itself, much like the plot, which requires no citation whatsoever. The only reason it is exempt is that editorial consensus agrees the shape that the plot summary takes, so as to remove any speculation or incorrect events. When no one disagrees as to the plot summary, then its reasonable to believe that the plot summary is accurate. By the same token, any observable part of the film, from nuts to soup, falls under this same exemption. So long as there is no meaning prescribed to these events without secondary citation, noting the existence of the event is not OR, and is verifiable by anyone who sees the film, which is the primary source. As everyone (even Viriditas) agrees that the laughter and shouting of children does indeed occur in the film, it is not a contentious point.

That Viriditas continually calls the addition of this info my "pet theory", I think it notable that I did not add the info into the article recently - Viriditas did that. I have not in three days, three weeks or three months added any theory as to what the laughter means into the article, and without citation, I am not likely to do so.

The argument of triviality has been raised and is, in my estimation, the only real issue here. Yes, we can note the laughter of children without citation, as it is observed phenomena. Yes, we can note the instance of the 'shantih' phrase, as it has multiple citations speaking to it. What remains is whether these are trivial or not. Personally, I don't think they are, but I have admitted bias in the matter, and Viriditas has made it clear over a year and a half that he feels they interfere with what direction he feels the film article should take. I'd long since settled in to await citation about the meaning of the laughter. I don't intend to add any theory ("pet" or otherwise) about what it means without a solid citation. In fact I haven't in recent memory, which is why the instances being recalled by Viriditas are over a year old.

Honestly, I think the laughter and the shantih are worth noting, as the reader can make up their own minds as to the value of them. I don't think we need to time-stamp pointing to where it occurs, since the section named 'Closing Credits' is the only place it happens, and happens throughout. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I will repeat my comments from the NOR noticeboard... stating the blunt statement "the laughter of childred can be heard during the closing credits" is not OR. We can cite the film itself (a reliable primary source) for this fact. However, I really do not understand why this fact needs to be mentioned at all. The reader is left with the question: "Why was this mentioned? Why is it significant?" The problem is that any explanation of the significance would be original research unless it is backed by a reliable secondary source. It would be best to leave this information out until such a source can be provided. As a blunt statement of fact, it really does not add anything to the article. Blueboar (talk) 04:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is OR - it's an interpretation of a primary source. If it's true, and significant, some reliable secondary source will have written about it. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI...some of the proponents are treating the credits section as a "plot section", citing

WP:V, the films guideline allows for exceptions where citations should be used, especially for ambiguous material. Arcayne has argued for a year that there is a connection between the sound effects of laughing children and the conclusion, but in fact, there is none; on the other hand, there is self-referential evidence (from scene 12 in the film) that the sound effects are used in the credits to remind the audience of the missing sound of children throughout the film. The question becomes, is this important to the viewer? It could or could not be, we really don't know, which is why I have asked for secondary RS. To date, there are none. Arcayne wants to leave it in using the citation-less standard of the films guideline for plots. But this still doesn't override WP:V, as the guideline makes clear. Viriditas (talk

) 02:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any edit I've done within recent memory has added any interpretation (or "connection") of the laughter of children to the outcome of the movie. Sure I did such over a year ago, but who here can say they are the same editor they were a year ago? Lol.

As the question has shifted from whether it can be noted to whether its trivial or not, maybe the RS noticeboard is the wrong place to discuss this matter. Since it is an observational part of the film, it fulfills the same criteria as does the plot, which is kept reliable via consensus. And consensus in this case agrees as to the existence of the laughter. So long as (uncited) interpretation is not added along with the observation, it seems appropriate to present the full picture of the film to the reader. We don't chew the food for them by providing out own interpretation, but we do in fact give them the actual food to chew themselves. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty easy, Arcayne. The three songs you removed from the credits are supported by a RS. (Crust, Kevin. 2007-01-07. "Sounds to match to the 'Children of Men' vision". Los Angeles Times) The trivial sound effects of "children laughing" that you find so important, are not. Viriditas (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty sure your citation doesn't say the laughter sounds are trivial. but please, feel free to actually post a link that can verify that statement. If they are instead citations about the music, they might be better off in a section about music - which there already is in the article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, the burden of proof is on the editor adding content. The content you added about "laughing children" is not found or supported by any reliable source. Because it is unsourced trivia that you are using to push a POV about the conclusion of the film (in the words of User:80.192.175.116: As the screen fades to black, sounds of lots of children laughing is heard, showing that her baby was the answer, and humans are able to conceive once again) we can't use it. If you can find a RS, great, but until then, it doesn't belong in the article. Viriditas (talk) 01:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, what do the words of an anon active since 2006 have to do with this conversation? You keep bringing anonymous users who add the laughter of the children - I am quite sure what you are saying, aside from pointing out that the casual editor has added in observable info. If you are suggesting that the anon is a sock-puppet of mine, could I trouble you to present a SSP or RfCU report to back up that accusation? The anon appears to still be active - you could file one today. I could accept your apology as soon as it's complete. :)

For the nth time, could you point to a recent occurrence within the last year when I have advocated adding an unreferenced evaluation of the children laughing in the article? If not, then might I suggest that you stop introducing it?

In regards to the songs I "removed", you might want to examine the edit a bit closer. They were moved, not removed - to the section called "Music" - which, oddly enough would seem to be the place where the reader would go to find information about the music from the movie. Information about the different themes is found in the section that they fit under, be they hope, religion or other contemporary references - no matter where they appear in the film. Same thing about "Production". We don't move around the bits

battleground

.

I have provided the burden of proof, despite your misinterpretation of the phrase. I have shown you policy and guidelines, discussions that you began on two noticeboards (here and NOR) clearly indicate how your opinion is in the minority, despite your attempts to mislead them. It is not unsourced trivia - name other movies that have children laughing during the end credits or have the words 'shantih, shantih shantih'. You can't? Guess what, that's notable, not triivial. You are allowed to disagree with that assertion, but consensus has formed. You have already agreed to cite the instance of the laughter using cite video. It is supported by the primary source of the film, and I advocate using cite video to time-stamp it (which is what you did in the first edit before engaging in this distraction).

I would urge you to make an argument that doesn't constitute accusing me of sock-puppetry or using my fourteen month old newbie edits to reinforce your arguments. It has grown rather tendentious. Do not mistake my deference in not filing a complaint for unwillingness to do so. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You're not making any sense. A consensus has formed. MovieMadness, MPerel, Blueboar, and others agree that the music can appear in the credits section and that sources are acceptable. In other words, you are not following consensus. Viriditas (talk) 22:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I am, and your 'refusal to understand' is growing tedious, Viriditas. The consensus formed (of a great many more than you seemed to have noted - hmm, odd that) noting that the only issue here - I repeat, the only issue - is about whether the laughter of the children should be cited, or does it fulfill the criteria of exception afforded to the plot. I am compromising as to the usage of the cite video template (which I had previously opposed). You might recall that this is the same edit you offered less than a week ago yourself. This compromise does not include placing a musical section in the closing credits. It is cited, and doesn't fall under the aegis of this discussion. It has since been moved to the music section, re-written and citation work was tightened up by yourself. It's fine there. Are you of the misconception that I think the music should be removed? If not, I think we are done here. Go ahead and add the cite video template to the laughter. Nothing else, though. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

Not sure why Viriditas was quoting an anon IP whose comments do not appear in the article, but I guess its immaterial. As mentioned preciously, discussion on no less than four articles (two of them noticeboards) has considered it 'clear consensus' that the children's laughter is observable phenomena and as such, doesn't require citation. The shantih is cited, but even if it weren't, it too would be includable, as it is also observable. Now, if we wish to change policy as to how we use at

WP:PSTS

, we have to address the following:

"Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source."

As the source of the laughter (and the Shantih) both fulfill this criteria, let's read on:

"Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:

• only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
• make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source."

and since there is no interpretive value being added to the observation of the laughter. check and check.

Okay, that was from

WP:V

, we see:

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."

Since the phrase 'burden of proof' has been tossed around willy-nilly a few times, lets put it into the context intended by the actual policy. The burden of proof, such as it were, is to prove that something actually occurred, or that a citation is in fact what it claims to be and represents what is claims to represent. As there is no editor who challenges the existence of the laughter or where it occurs in the film (any more than someone challenges the plot of a film) the burden of proof has been clearly met. Were someone to say, 'golly, that sounds like a string quartet there at the end' or 'are those dogs I hear barking?' there might be an issue. However, it is not. Everyone agrees that the sound is indeed laughter, and the laughter is indeed from children.

Lastly, the contested information has been contested as being

trivial

. Okay, let's look at that, as well:

"Trivia sections should not be categorically removed. It may be possible to integrate some items into the article text. Some facts may belong in existing sections, while others may warrant a new section. Migrate trivia items to prose, or to focused lists (such as "Cameos" or "References in popular culture"), whichever seems most appropriate. Items that duplicate material already contained elsewhere in the article can be removed in most cases."

Though we aren't dealing with a list of trivia, I think the intent remains the same. Even were the contested statements to be considered trivial, we usually try to incorporate them into the article text. This was already done, as presented in the Closing Credits section already present in the article.

Were that not persuasive enough, the guidelines on

handling trivia say almost the same thing about integrating stand-alone trivia

This would mean that the trivial bits about the music previously added to the Closing credits question should likely be added to the aptly-named section 'Music'.

It is quite likely that the editor taking issue with the inclusion of this information is seeing this as a sourcing or content issue, which might be part of the problem. It is instead a citability issue, which I think has been resolved through a closer look at the actual policies and guidelines. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Bravo. That's a wonderful example of

gaming the system. In reality, the "observable phenomena" of what you describe as "children's laughter" is your interpretation of a sound effect. To me, it sounds like children talking and playing on a playground, and it was apparently not significant for any reviewer or critic to make note of it. Please place your interpretations of trivial sound effects aside, and focus on finding reliable sources for your claims. Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source. All challenged material. There are no exceptions. Viriditas (talk

) 09:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess I am exasperated by your behavior, Viriditas. You have asked me to provide policy and guideline reasons why the info should be included, and when I do, you accuse me of wiki-lawyering and gaming the system. I have made all the point I really need to here. Your misinterpreting phrases from those guidelines aside, I feel I am on more solid ground here. You of course are free to disagree. I would suggest that you pursue DR or mediation, as you have yet tointroduce a single shred of policy that refutes mine. In the interest of staying cool, this will likely be my last post on the matter. If you should rebut with an uncivil remark, I will take that as an indication that further administrative action will be necessary, as you will not be wishing to dial down the incivility an personal attacks. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I wrote the following, then was told that it included a blacklisted link. Is there any info as to why it was blacklisted?

Would w-w-w.suite101.com be considered a reliable source? I'm not familiar with it, so I don't know their level of scrutiny for the things that are written. (Specifically--someone wants to use http:// preschool-tv.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_caillou_controversy (commented out the link) to illustrate the existence of a controversy re: whether the cartoon character of

Gladys J Cortez

19:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I know this isn't the proper place, but I can't navigate; The article for Austria has been replaced with the article for Australia, with all instances of the country name being changed. I know nothing about Austria, so I can't fix the article, but it is compromised to a severe degree. Mods, please erase this entry as needed, but please do try to fix the Austria article

It's been fixed. Blueboar (talk) 02:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Note I beefed up the Monthly Review article recently myself including 3rd party info and refs and removed POV wording, to make it clear it is an independent (not organizationally tied) Marxist socialist publication with notable contributors.
• User:Zeq wrote: My expsriance froma personal angle: CounterPunch is a valid source for opinions but not for facts. Is this generally a distinction one can draw? i.e. OK to cite more political publications like these if just on opinions?
• Would this be considered an "extremist" publication? Ie more so than Frontpage.org or Antiwar.com or Political Research Assoc?

Carol Moore 23:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Nothing about this publication says "extremist". It takes a strong political stance and if it is cited great care should be taken to ensure balance. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Marxist views are extreme, and this is no exception. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you substantiate that? Passe perhaps, but Marxism considered "extreme" in this day and age? Try to tell a political economist, a conflict sociologist or a literary critic that Marxism is "extreme." Marxist isn't just some synonym for being a "pinko" you know, Marxist thought has made a pretty substantial impact across the social sciences and the humanities.PelleSmith (talk) 02:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I want to use a Monthly Review quote in an article where Jayjg doesn't want me to use it, claiming this publication is "extremist". While there certainly are extremist pubs this one has published over 60 odd years a bunch of academics and high profile writers. FYI. Carol Moore 02:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I think its up to Jayjg to do more than just resort to "Marxism is defacto extremist," because that's not necessarily true. Like all such statements this one needs to be substantiated. From what I can see this publication is far from "extreme."PelleSmith (talk) 02:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It has quite high academic standards, and an impressive legacy of influential authors who have written there over the years. People like Andre Gunder Frank, Immanuel Wallerstein, Harry Braverman, etc. have made significant impacts on their fields.BernardL (talk) 03:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Monthly Review is an academic journal. The fact that its contributors employ Marxian analytical methods, many of them quite notable thinkers on the left within their field of specialty, is not relevant to its high academic standards. Those who call it "extremist" simply reveal their own political bias, and quite frankly, ignorance on the influence of Marxist thought within the mainstream in this day and age. In many fields its like saying someone who accepts and applies "Einstien's"theories, an extremist. Historical materialism, in its non-crude form, is quite accepted among the mainstream. Nothing extreme about that. Its political views are well within the mainstream of the anti-capitalist left, and come in various schools of thought. In my view those who call this publication "extremists" are in fact the real extremistGiovanni33 (talk) 05:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Einstein's theories weren't political (or politically motivated). That's a particularly weak analogy. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Marxism is not just political class struggle, its also economics, philosphy, a theory of history, and sociology. Marx's influence is quite wide. To reduce it to one crude dimension is not to fully apreciate the real mainstream influences that are accepted by all reasonable mainstream academics in various disiplines. Therefore to cast Marxism as extremist does it a diservice that no informed person of this day and age would make. By your logical you might as well call all mainstream sociologists, even if they is not of the "conflict school" extremists! Likewise for historians, who can not be considered modern historians without resting on quite a lot of Marxism (historical materialism).Giovanni33 (talk) 08:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Monthly Review may be small-m marxist, but that doesn't mean that it is "extremist" in terms of academic work. Just another way in which dastardly pinkos continue to close the American mind. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, how would you characterize Marxism? Centrist? Right-wing? Left-wing? Extreme right? Extreme left? I'm voting for

extreme left. Jayjg ^(talk)

00:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Do us all a favor and familiarize yourself with Marxism. Maybe then you'll understand that it is not only some hyperbolic vestige of the extreme political left but also a highly influential orientation in the social sciences and humanities. Marx's theories were not all simply "political" either in the fashion that you are utilizing the term, and this is exactly the problem with your claims. Bring something substantive to the table here to back the idea that Marxism is de facto extremist. It would be much more appreciated than these empty statements.PelleSmith (talk) 03:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Do us all a favor and familiarize yourself with

WP:CIVIL. Maybe then you'll understand that is the purpose of this board is to discuss sources, not editors. Now, where on the political spectrum would you place Marxism? Towards the center, or towards the extreme ends? Jayjg ^(talk)

03:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you call it when someone comes back to a discussion over and over repeating the same empty point without substantiating it? What do you make of the various answers you've gotten above about the very mainstream nature of fundamental Marxist theories within academia? Coming back as if this hasn't been clarified already, and/or as if you're not capable of reading up on the breadth of

WP:CIVIL just because someone isn't dressing their retorts up with sugar and spice and everything nice. The basic point remains a valid one.PelleSmith (talk

) 04:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

PelleSmith, the fact that you claim someone else is making "empty points" doesn't make it so, and the "various answers" and "clarifications" I have gotten have been, in fact, unsourced claims, nothing more. It's ironic, and rather amusing, that you accuse me of the exact things you are doing yourself, but in any event, Marxist publications have a specific and strong polemical orientation, and Marxism is on the far left of the political spectrum - a point which you rather tellingly fail to acknowledge or address. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing extremist about many Marxist contributions. Please see "Ideology," "

Frankfurt school's "critical theory." But the list of social and cultural theorists whose theorizing has been significantly influenced to varying degrees by strands of Marxism is much longer and includes names like Jürgen Habermas, Raymond Williams, and Pierre Bourdieu. The point, Jay, is that seminal ideas from Marxist philosophy are now entirely mainstream in academic disciplines that deal with social and cultural theory (feel free to look up Karl Marx in any current general sociology text book), not to mention even broader cultural arenas (where no one denies the workings of economy in determining class and distributing power--even if the scale of determination is contested). It may be important to note a basic distinction made in the entry Marxism, between "Marxist school of thought," and "Marxism as a political practice. You could have discovered most if not all of this had you simply gone to Marxism to do some good faith reading, as I suggested. Within the political cultures of the United States and Europe, Marxism, as a political practice may be considered as existing on the extreme left end of the political spectrum. Americans equating any Marxist political practice with Communism, will clearly call Marxism "extremist," again as a political practice they know only through our own anti-communist ideologues. These people have no grasp of differentiating between Soviet Era "communism" and various contemporary strands of political Marxism. In Europe, especially on the continent in former "Western" Europe, this isn't even true. While Marxism may occupy the left end of the spectrum it certainly is not considered "extremist," even as a political practice. As a school of thought, influential throughout the academy and to varying degrees other social institutions and cultural spheres, Marxism is not remotely extremist. As a political practice it is at best, in certain contexts, "extreme." Either way, the Monthly review is an academic journal, and it includes writers from across the spectrum of Marxist thought. If the contributers are respected academics in their fields, then their factual statements should be considered just as reliable as any other. By the way, other than the insinuation we may infer about your equation of all Marxist thought with the anti-communist tunnel vision of Western citizens (to varying degrees) you have yet to produce any semblance of a substantiation that Marxism is de facto "extremist." PelleSmith (talk

) 11:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you imagine I need to read about these things, as if you are somehow vastly more informed on the subject, and that my reading them will somehow miraculously shift Marxism to the political center. The popularity of Marxism among academics, and your continued protestations regarding Marxism and Marxist thought are all very well, but it hardly changes where one finds Marxist thought on the political spectrum. And, rest assured, it is not in the center - nowhere close, in fact. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Marxism is not "popular" amongst academics as a political affiliation (this isn't the 1960's). On the other hand aspects of Marxist thought have been highly influential in the development of social theory, which is what everyone here has been telling you. I very naively imagined that you would want to get up to speed about these things instead of wasting everyone's time with opinionated and uniformed commentary. Please feel free to read all the other commentary here concerning you extremism claim.PelleSmith (talk) 03:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Marxism, and Marxist thought, is in Western academe, vastly more popular than it is among the general population. And if you are "naively imagining" anything, it is that I need to "get up to speed" on these matters. I do note, however, the irony of you claiming I am "wasting everyone's time with opinionated and uniformed commentary"; a neat bit of psychological projection. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Jay, if you're turning into one of those people whining about how all academics are biased and don't reflect the sturdy, commonsensical view of the American population, and so reliable sources that don't reflect that view are POV, you need to take a step back, perhaps. NPOV doesn't care what the "general population" thinks. It cares what the best sources think, or 80% of our evolution article would be about how its a vicious atheist hoax. You really need to stop beating this horse, which died some time ago. Monthly Review is fine. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Tut tut, RR, we've talked before about

civility. This board is about sources, not about me. Jayjg ^(talk)

23:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes we did, Jay, and it breaks my heart to see you learnt nothing at that time. To recap: if you believe that all academia is biased, blah, blah, blah, this entire discussion ceases to be about sources and becomes about you, as you're the one with the problem, not the sources. --Relata refero (disp.) 10:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

RR, I'm quite serious. I've made no such claim, your straw man arguments are not mine, and discuss sources, not editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 11:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"Marxism, and Marxist thought, is in Western academe, vastly more popular than it is among the general population." What is that, precisely? Again. NPOV does not reflect what the "general population" feels. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What is that? A statement of obvious fact, I would think. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't bother, Relata. Jay has always had an idiosyncratic notion of what a strawman argument is; it includes any paraphrase, extrapolation, etc. of his stated position, no matter how warranted, no matter how responsibly and transparently performed, if it's part of an attempt to discredit that position. In other words, just about any attempt to argue with Jay will result in what he calls a "strawman argument," insofar as it will involve, as all intelligent disputes do, reframing your opponent's position in order to reveal its weakness. If Jay were a senator introducing a "tax relief" bill that dramatically reduced government revenue, and you criticized it as "a proposal for increased deficit spending precisely when we can least afford it," Senator Jayjg would call that a strawman argument, because he didn't say "deficit spending," he said "tax relief." Down that rabbit-hole Humpty Dumpty awaits you.--G-Dett (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

How astonishing, G-Dett. You've followed me to a third page. Do you imagine that by claiming I abuse the concept of a straw man argument, you have suddenly become "immunized", and can now present them on my behalf with impunity? Rest assured that is not the case. Jayjg^(talk) 00:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you've accused someone of breaching policy again instead of addressing any of their points. Astonishing.PelleSmith (talk) 01:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you've completely ignored a lengthy personal attack directed at me, and instead complained that I had not addressed "any of their points". Which "point" did you mean, the "Senator Jayjg" point, or the "Down that rabbit-hole Humpty Dumpty awaits you" point? Astonishing. And in the future please don't modify my comments and break my signature. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

No, Jay, marxist theories are central to much mainstream academic work. There is absolutely no way that well-known, academic, peer-reviewed journals that are known to have marxist theories in their makeup can be ruled out as unreliable; it is a misreading of "extremist". Relata refero (disp.) 08:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that most editors agree with me. I'm a

libertarian

but I'm still able to differentiate between mainstream/RS and extremist marxist pubs, just like I can do with libertarian ones.

Second question - also does any author published in the publication automatically become a RS? Or more specifically: Allen Ruff described in the article in question as: "historian and long-time Madison political activist, author, staff member at Rainbow Bookstore Cooperative and radio voice on WORT (89.9fm, Madison), is a founding member of US Out Now, the Madison Area Peace Coalition, Jews for Equal Justice, and a member of Solidarity." Or do I have to research and find out how many academic degrees he has. Thanks. Carol Moore 13:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

What the answers above point to is that the publication should not be considered extremist, and that it can be a reliable source for facts. This does not mean that anything included therein is a reliable source for any and/or all types of facts. I don't think the author you mention has any degrees of note, and by the looks of his myspace page he's more of a novelist than a "historian." That's not to say he's incapable of writing accurate historical essays or books. Could you tell us what piece from the Monthly Review you want to use, and what content you are using it to cite. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've done some looking around and I suspect this is the link in question, which is a book review. It is being used for the following statement: What sets Petras' work apart, first off, is his dropping or blurring of distinctions. The terms "Jewish lobby," "Israel lobby," and "Zionist lobby" are used interchangeably. Others, at least on the Left, have worked to mark the important distinction between Jews, as Jews, regardless of their differing ideologies, and those supporters of Israel, Jew and non-Jew alike, who actively promote and support Israel's racist and expansionist practices. Petras facilely drops that distinction in the article titled "Jewish lobby". I don't see any prima facie reason why he isn't quotable here. I note that Chip Berlet has quoted Ruff in the past on the subject of antisemitism in extremist political movements, so I would think he seems to be a reliable source. Wikipedia certainly does trust Berlet extensively on the subject. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oddly enough, that quote of Ruff from Berlet was removed, on the basis that he was "non-notable" or "unknown" or something. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Seriously? That's pretty disappointing Jay, I'd expect more than that, and for the record, as concerns that edit, there is nothing in this thread that suggests Emmanuel Branch is notable.PelleSmith (talk) 01:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Disappointing? How so? As for that edit, Branch doesn't have to be, as long as Ruff is. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Disappointing because it shows beyond a reasonable doubt that your concern is not with the reliability of a particular source but only with pushing a POV, however you can slice it. That is disappointing in general, but even more so here, on the "Reliable Sources Noticeboard."PelleSmith (talk) 03:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Err, no, that's utter nonsense, however you slice it. The fact that someone decided to remove Ruff from that article a week and a half after this discussion started was an unexpected bit of luck really: I didn't even realize he had been cited there, but it certainly showed beyond a reasonable doubt that people here (including you) want to have it both ways, so they can push whatever POV they prefer. Ruff is reliable and notable when it suits them (and you), and not so when it suits them. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

WTF? "People here"? Do you mind being a little more direct instead of insinuating things in this unpleasant, indirect manner? Who, for example, is arguing in favour of retaining Ruff in one article and removing him from another similar one, apparently on the basis of POV? It sounds like its just you. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Really? When does it "suit me" Jay? Please do enlighten. My problem was with your claim that a particular publication was de facto extremist because it is Marxist, and not with its particular contributors. You have not raised any concerns with my other later commentary, about the actual use of Ruff in Carol's case (see below). You may infer what so ever you wish about my hypothetical opinion regarding the validity of using Ruff in other instances when it suits you, but the fact remains that I have yet to offer such an opinion. So let the record be unequivocally straight that I do not in fact wish to use Ruff for anything, nor have I offered any guidance on using him for anything with the exception of what you see below. Mindboggling I know, but I think if you pay attention it might turn out pretty clear.PelleSmith (talk) 04:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I pay attention to everything worth paying attention to. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for tracking down quote in question - amusing response. If more specific is better here, will do :-) Carol Moore 19:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Yeah I can't see a reliability issue here at all. Correct me if I'm wrong but Ruff's review problematizes the way that Petras actually uses the term in his book. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad the we are having this discussion since the publication in question is quite clearly not extremist, but how was this ever an issue of RS?PelleSmith (talk) 10:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The complaining editor wrote: "Ruff's claim to be a historian rests on his book about "Charles H. Kerr & Company", a socialist publisher, not about the topic of this article." Carol Moore 12:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

For the purposes at hand in the entry I don't think Ruff's status as a "historian" actually matters, and I don't think it relates to reliability either. From a notable Marxist publication, that publishes notable Marxist academics and intellectuals, we have the critical review of a book in which the critic takes issue with (as part of a larger argument) the author's use of the term at hand, "Jewish lobby." The fact that the critic is an essayist published by this journal is absolutely fine for this purpose unless I'm missing something. I could see Ruff's status (or alleged status) as a historian, and his known area of expertise, brought up in regards to reliability only if he is being cited on factual historical claims. This is simply a critical opinion published in a journal.PelleSmith (talk) 14:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Pelle is correct, both about this final point and about the distinction between Marxist scholarship and Marxist politics, a distinction the complaining editor – who would presumably argue that Eric Hobsbawm is not a reliable source – is ignorant of.--G-Dett (talk) 09:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, it's really best not to presume about "the complaining editor", or even discuss him, per

WP:CIVIL. Discuss the sources. Now, regarding your argument, I wasn't aware that Marxist scholarship and Marxist politics were unrelated concepts. Presumably Marxist politics are based on the political theories of Karl Marx. On what, then, is Marxist scholarship based; the political theories of Groucho Marx? Jayjg ^(talk)

23:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Harpo would have been the best Marx of all to respond to this nonsense, as no words are needed – just a toy horn blown in your face and a fish dropped down your trousers. But you are there and I am here, alas, so words will have to do. Political Marxism holds that workers will come to control the means of production and supports revolutionary movements directed toward that end. Marxist scholarship is a different thing. It offers rigorously materialist accounts of history, literature, art, etc., is skeptical of grand meta-narratives (often, oddly enough, including the meta-narratives of Karl Marx), and emphasizes the role of systems and institutions over that of great leaders, artists, geniuses, etc. Both have genealogies tracing back to Karl Marx, yes, but those genealogies are as separate as yours and the orangutan's are to the ancestor you have in common. No offense.

Example: When commentators describe HBO's hit show The Wire as Marxist or "neo-Marxist" [5] [6]they don't mean the show or its producers are subtly advocating a workers' revolution, or even garden-variety wealth distribution, or indeed any kind of political program at all. They don't even mean it's liberal. They mean this:

The Wire is a Marxist’s dream of a series, actually, precisely because of the emphasis on exteriority you identify here: it’s not that the characters don’t have psychologies, but that that’s not what Simon is currently interested in. He wants us to pay attention to the systems of the city, and so he shifts attention away from the individual psychologies of the people involved...

Sometimes one kind of Marxist is also the other, sometimes not. Much as a psychoanalytic literary critic should not be confused with an advocate of Freudian psychotherapy and leather-couch talking cures. Nor should it be assumed that a Nietzschean philosopher (say, Richard Rorty) believes in a race of supermen to whom ordinary morality does not apply (he certainly does not). Ideas evolve, Jay. Sometimes they evolve dramatically, and yet are still known by the name of the "ancestor" whose intervention made them possible. The process is known as dialectic. It's the main intellectual engine of something called the Western tradition. You might want to look into some of these things before posting your next scandalized omigod it's Marxism! Call the cops type of response.--G-Dett (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Jay, I've already written and then erased three responses to the above statement, each as dry as possible, and decided that all of them, while covered and protected by

WP:SPADE, would also be extremely hurtful to you. The simple truth is that you don't appear to know very much here, so perhaps you should do a bit of reading first. May I suggest the introduction to the five-volume Routledge Historiography series, which quite clearly lays out the differences between Marxism and marxism, and the degree to which the latter is part of mainstream thinking. As for that nebulous area called "critical theory", which has influenced and lies behind so much of sociology, anthropology, literary criticism and the humanities in general - well, some people view it as a subset of marxism, some as a bastard stepchild that run away from home, whatever. The point is that I think you aren't making very much sense, and are arguing past the point of rationality. Perhaps if you don't believe me, you should try and check yourself. for nobody else will agree with you. --Relata refero (disp.

) 10:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

RR, we are here to discuss sources, not editors. This is not about me, and never will be, because this is the Reliable source Noticeboard, not the "Discuss Jayjg board". I can't be any plainer. I've removed the personal attack from your recent comment. Stick to sources. Please explain, in your view, why "Marxism" is something completely different from "marxism". Jayjg ^(talk) 11:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Jay, it is clear to me that you don't know what you're talking about, or you wouldn't have asked the question. It would be equally clear to anybody else with any experience of the humanities - and my experience is hardly as deep as those of some other people on this board. There isn't anything wrong with not knowing, only in an expectation that if it were true, you would know - the sort of expectation that leads you to read a bald statement of fact (a repetition of something you yourself have said) as a personal attack. Both PelleSmith and I have first explained it; then directed you to reading that would help you discover it for yourself, if you're unwilling to extend us a minimal amount of good faith; what else do you expect us to do? We aren't here to re-teach the history of modern critical theory for you. Still, since you are apparently require "soundbites" - as rudra would put it - here are Sil and Doherty: "in the 20th century, the Marxist legacy itself became somewhat bifurcated: as its call to action became appropriated by Leninism and then..by totalitarian Stalinism, Marxist thought in the west survived in nontraditional circles through a focus on its analytical dimensions.... in this form alone - the Communist Manifesto as theory - does Marxism survive in many mainstream academic departments." Andrew Abbott: "..academicization brought Marxism into the mainstream. Once the serious academicization of Marxism began.. Marxists joined, indeed often led, the large-scale social scientific swing towards the cultural and the immaterial we observe today". (Obviously, this is limited to certain fields: in economics, in particular, the Paul Sweezys of the world have long disappeared.) Right, hope that helps. The check's due at the registrar's office next week. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

RR, I'm going to have discussions with editors who are better able to stick to the purpose of this board, discussing sources, not editors. Hope you don't mind. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There isn't any discussion left to have. There comes a point when it stops becoming about discussing sources and becomes about the person who doesn't accept consensus. That point has been passed. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No, this board is never about discussing other editors - it's only about discussing reliable sources. Period. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, when you actually bring more than one easily dismissed point to the board instead of complaining at length about how nobody is paying you due respect when you haven't quite earned it from your statements, this board will have something to discuss aside from speculation on the reasons behind your obstructiveness. I note that at least five editors have pasted long explanations, and answered questions patiently, without you responding. This board is for discussing sources and sourcing. Try doing it, and we won't discuss why your sourcing is usually terrible. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Jay, you haven't actually "discussed" the reliability of sources, instead you have trolled the discussion others are having with what amounts to this--Marxism is de facto extremist, and should you divert attention from this claim with substantive argumentation I will either repeat myself or when possible throw policy at you. There have been several good faith efforts to help you understand "the differences between Marxism and marxism," but you have told us that it is naive to think that you "need to get up to speed" on anything while making us believe that these efforts were perhaps not "worth paying attention to" in the first place. Regarding your policy diversions, quit playing the victim, its getting really boring.PelleSmith (talk) 13:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If Monthly Review isn't RS then New Left Review, a UK journal that is pretty much equivalent, may not be either. And NLR is cited on the Ludwig Wittgenstein page and probably on dozens of others too. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The absurdity of this discussion, and the ignorance behind it, can be seen in the earlier comments about Albert Einstein. Jayjg is evidently blithely unaware that Einstein submitted an article to the very first issue of Monthly Review and it was dutifully published in the May 1949 issue[7]. I suppose in Jayjg's cosmology this makes Einstein an "extremist". The fact is, outside of the United States, Marxism has been a mainstream movement in much of the world for most of the 20th century. The German Social Democratic Party considered itself Marxist until the late 1950s as did many social democratic parties in Europe (Marxist as opposed to Marxist-Leninist - Jayjg may be unaware of the fact that there is a difference). Jayjg may also be interested to learn that the Mapai party in Israel, its forerunners, and many of its leaders including David Ben Gurion also called themselves "Marxist". According to Jayjg's worldview, this makes them all extremists. Jay, the Cold War is over and Joe McCarthy is dead. Your attempt to stigmatize "Marxism" as "extremist" and dismiss any Marxist source as unreliable doesn't belong in a serious encyclopedia. Time to take off those ideological blinkers. 207.245.2.34 (talk) 03:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, Einstein's expertise lay in physics, not in social theory or politics - and what he writes on matters of political theory has essentially nothing to do with his writings on physics. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Just came across the discussion on Talk:Enclosure where someone distinguishes "marxist, Marxist and neo-Marxist" historians. Seriously, the encyclopedia would not be able to cover the transition from feudalism to capitalism in English history if we were banned from using the work of academic historians in these categories. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting to see this discussion, since at the Talk Page on the 1929 Hebron Massacre we were told that "JewsAgainstZionism" were extremist - but repeated requests for evidence produced nothing whatsoever. The problem appears to be that JAZ carried an eye-witness account (from a Rabbi who later founded a respectable school in the US) blaming the Zionists for the 1929 Hebron massacre. All reference to this account has been ruthlessly edit-warred out of the article, even from external links. (The article on the JAZ itself was later deleted, despite it being a much, much bigger and more notable group than many of which we have articles, far more credible than eg the cheating CAMERA, and is generally stuffed with useful references). Knowing what we do about editors who set out to cheat, and who have held up editors in this discussion as being admirable, it might be worth revisiting many of these articles. PR^talk 09:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Great non sequitur, PR. Is your point that The Monthly Review is as reliable as the anonymous "JewsAgainstZionism" website, or that Marixsm is no more radical than anti-Zionist

haredi philosophy? Either way, I don't think you're making the point you intend to. Jayjg ^(talk)

00:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No, he's also implying something about you which is increasingly obvious to everyone else here, so I suggest you ignore it magesterially, rather than focusing on the one comment that is not directly addressing, and crushing, your argument. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The question of what happened to the page on JAZ is not one for this noticeboard, but I will have a look at it as there does not appear to have been a merge discussion before the redirect. As for whether it is a reliable source, please note that the case is very different from that of Monthly Review. Monthly Review carries articles by academics and by political commentators who are also published by other serious publishers. JAZ is an advocacy group and its website is not likely in itself to be a reliable source. Such websites are sometimes used as convenience links, however, so it would be useful to work out if it is extremist or not. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

A comment like 'Marxism is extremist' is a non-argument, based on philosophical ignorance (Marxism refers to a great variety of movements, from Salon-Marxismus to lumpenintelligenstia fringe rants, from refined analysis to revolutionary activism), and thus evinces lack of familiarity with the Western intellectual tradition, in short, it is nothing more than a personal opinion reflecting a popular cliché, pushed as though it were a consensual historical verdict, and confusing in that it muddles politial history with analytical tradition. I think this has been amply demonstrated by many editors here. If the point need further hammering home, look at Ernest Gellner's work, one of the finest polymaths of modern times, intensely liberal in his outlook, yet in constant dialogue with Soviet analytical traditions derived from Marxism, in his own chosen field of anthropology. In Soviet anthropology, society is 'submitted under the concepts, terms, and ideas of Marxism', he writes, and follows up:-

'But what kind of Marxism? Here, once again, the visitor from the West is liable to get a surrise - an agreeable surprose as far as the present visitor is concerned. . .The Marxism of Soviet anthropologists is entirely and refreshingly clear, and it is about real things, namely societies and their organization, and not about cloud-cuckooland. . . What it says about society and social forms, from primitive communism via patriarchal clans, slave society, feudalism, and capitalism to socialism and communism . .it is not obvious at all that there is nothing to learn from Marxism, or that no plausible anthropology can be erected within the dframework of these doctrines. Indeed, the Marxist five-stage typology seems to me rather comparable, in logical status, to functionalism. . .I have offered a tentative defence of the Marxist typology - it gives a coherent theoretical approach, where the rival vision has none.' Ernest Gellner, State and Society in Soviet Thought, Basi Blackwell, Oxford 1988 pp.4-6

What of

Leszek Kolakowski's indispensable trilogy? Kolakowski is a life-long opponent of Communism and a historian of the intellectual traditions that make up Marxism. At the conclusion of his work he remarks, nonetheless,

'Marxism as an interpretation of past history must be distinguished from Marxism as a political ideology. No reasonable person (please take note User:Jayjg

) would deny that the doctrine of historical materialism has been a valuable addition to our intellectual equipment and has enriched our understanding of the past. . . If Marxism has led towards a better understanding of the economics and civilization of past ages, this is no doubt connected with the fact that Marx at times enunciated his theory in extreme, dogmatic, and unacceptable forms. If his views has been hedged round with all the restriuctions and reservations that are usual in rational thought, they would have had less influence and might have gone unnoticed altogether . .From this point of view, the role of Marxism may be compared to that of psychoanalysis or behaviourism in the social sciences. By expressing their theories in extreme forms, Freud and Watson succeeding in bringing real problems to general notice and opening up valuable fields of exploration; this they could probably not have done if they had qualified their views with scrupulous reservations and so deprived them of clear-cut outlines and polemical force.' Leszek Kolakowski, Main Currents in Marxism 3 vols. Oxford University Press, vol 3 (1978) 1981 p.524

One might add that most of our ethics come from extremisms, in that all religious cultures, from Judaism, Christianity and Islam, to Buddhism, can be traced to orginative contexts that marked them as extremist. Most people who read books know this. I don't know why one has to frig round arguing the point. One should edit pages whose subject matter one knows well, and not bring to bear on them formal objections based on finicky rule-waving and generic clichés about what are often intricately nuanced topics in academic literature Nishidani (talk) 10:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Kowalski's quote is kind of interesting. He basically says "Marx's theories were ridiculous, but he was so loud and stubborn about them, that the people refuting them were able to actually write something valuable". Anyway, is Allen Ruff's book review an "interpretation of past history" or is it written from the POV of "Marxism as a political ideology"? Given the fact that he quite openly writes from a political agenda (he discusses terminology in terms of whether or not it "serves any progressive purpose", and insists that the view that "Jewish-American opinion is monolithic in support of Israel... is precisely one of the falsehoods that the Left needs to demystify") and concludes by stating that the book he is reviewing "should be examined as a case study of what happens when even a prominent left intellectual abandons a clear class-based, anti-imperialist understanding of politics," I think it would be obvious that it's the latter. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't. A "class-based, anti-imperialist understanding of politics" is precisely what underlies this form of political and cultural theory. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg He basically says the opposite of what you deduce from the quote. Even Gellner's famous attack on Wittgenstein could be labelled, as it was by offended Oxfordians, 'extremist'. Were you familiar with the trilogy you would see an immense amount of work showing how deeply Marx's thought is embedded in traditions deriving from thinkers as diverse as Plotinus and Eriugena. You're too young to remember Goldwater's remark back in 1964 'Extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice'. He lost: the most recent President underwrites the dictum. Extremism can refer to anything pushed to its logical conclusion, even, in epistemology, commonsense can take on 'extreme' forms without people waving sticks at it. I would remind you that everything is written from a POV, and you simply dislike Buff's, but that is no reason for suspecting the source.Nishidani (talk) 09:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's the irony, Nishidani. Your write that I "simply dislike Buff's [POV]"; but in reality Ruff (not "Buff") actually supports my so-called "POV" in the article in question! That's right, Ruff says that the term "Jewish lobby" is a misnomer, and that Petras' book on "the Lobby" is a sloppy, poorly-edited, error-ridden, wrong-headed work. You see, it turns out that my concerns over the source had nothing whatsoever to do with its POV, and everything to do with whether Ruff and Monthly Review were reliable sources. I guess that's the kind of mistake one can make when one

assumes bad faith. Jayjg ^(talk)

00:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty bogus. You clearly didn't and don't like what Ruff has to say despite the fact that he is critical of the term. Here is what he says: "Others, at least on the Left, have worked to mark the important distinction between Jews, as Jews, regardless of their differing ideologies, and those supporters of Israel, Jew and non-Jew alike, who actively promote and support Israel's racist and expansionist practices. Petras facilely drops that distinction ..." Now, I'm pretty sure you don't support the notion that Israel might have (in Ruff's words) "racist and expansionist practices." You proceeded later to use a comment Ruff made about a non-notable member of the left uncritically as it suited your POV. The fact that you continue to disrupt this noticeboard with trolling, accusations of policy violations, and various forms of misinformation makes it particularly hard to stomach your latest suggestion, that someone else has now violated policy in not assuming your clearly "good faith editing." Just give it a rest.PelleSmith (talk) 01:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I actually agreed with most of what Ruff says, particularly about Petras's book, which is a poorly written conspiratorial mess, and about his sloppy use of the term, which is appalling. The fact that you continue to disrupt this noticeboard with your egregious

bad faith make it particularly hard to stomach your last suggestion, that I, in fact, did not like what Ruff said. Please regain control of yourself, and comport yourself in a way that is appropriate for this board. Jayjg ^(talk)

02:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Are editorials reliable sources for extreme claims? In particular is this editorial a reliable source for claiming that there is "

Please note that the above is an opinion. For the author JONATHAN V. LAST, though he makes political commentary, I could not find any credentials in religious studies or Islam.

While I understand that some may argue that this comment may be notable enough to quote and attribute (is it?), but can it be used unreservedly as fact? Bless sins (talk) 04:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

An editorial is only a reliable source for the author/publication's opinion (see this for a thoughful comparison between columnists and news reporters). There may be exceptions, but I can't think of any for mainstream media sources. I am not talking about "editorials" in medical journals etc, which AFAIK are considered to be reliable reviews of the field

Of course, if the opinion is thought to be notable enough, it may be included with proper attribution; and if it cites sources, those may be usable. Abecedare (talk) 06:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. Is there any doubt that there are specific religious prohibitions on non-Muslims entering Mecca? There are surely dozens of sources attesting to that, we don't need a random op-ed, surely? Could you explain a little further?

The piece by Sohail Hashmi in the 2003 Buchanan-Moore book might help if a discussion of the origins of the prohibitions, which appears to be a puritanical extrapolation of the status of the cities as haram, might help. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok I should've explained: This editorial is being used as source to claim that the prohibition constitutes "aparthied". There are not a lot of sources that say this, infact, this is the only I've seen so far. Bless sins (talk) 12:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If it is a matter of a extreme minority opinion, it's more a consideration of

otherwise fringe sources make a claim, we can be fairly assured it is similarly an extreme minority opinion. Cheers! Vassyana (talk

) 02:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The extreme minority opinion is that excluding all people not of a particular religion from an entire city is not discriminatory. The (relevant here) argument seems to be that it is not, because that the authorities and the members of the included religion(s) refuse to call it such -- which is not surprising, given the nature of discrimination. However, multiple third party RS and V sources ascribe it as such. Bless Sins and other revisionists are making weak attacks on all posted sources in order to render them invalid and thereby avoid both the objectively definable as well as commonly described categorization of this phenomenon as religious discrimination. Moreover, this is involving the inclusion of a picture on a Portal, not an article. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Also the content makes no mention of the Quran nor does it attribute religious discrimination in Mecca to it. That is a hyperbolic straw man and not part of the dispute. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The article sure does make reference to the Qur'an when it says:

What are the roots of this apartheid? The Koranic revelations were given to the prophet Muhammed in Mecca, which was then a pagan place. Soon after...God's command to him, that the environs around Mecca should only be for Muslims...

Thus the article is calling religious beliefs of the Muslim people to be the "roots of this apartheid", which can be considered to be a bigoted statement itself.

"However, multiple third party RS and V sources ascribe it as such." That is the point of the discussion. Use third party RS sources (if you can find them), not this editorial that has marginal reliability.Bless sins (talk) 20:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It's as reliable as most of the sources used for these "apartheid" claims. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

For whatever the article says about origins, source it to, as I said above, Sohail Hashmi in the 2003 Buchanan-Moore book. Better, yet, start an article on the historical position of non-Muslims in the two cities, which will give you sufficient space to explain nuance. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I tried to mediate an editorial conflict here but get in trouble. I think this boils down to a simple question: if a book qualifies as a reliable secondary source, and therefore a claim from this book should be included per

According to the book, the KGB conducted certain special operations to promote the nuclear winter theory. However, all references to this are repeatedly deleted from the article. Actually, this book has been used for reference in many WP articles, but it was challenged as a source only in nuclear winter. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Published by Penguin, it would seem to be reliable. If another reliable source contradicts it then both should be mentioned. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, but User:William M. Connolley repeatedly deletes any references to this book by Pete Earley in different articles claiming the source to be "unreliable" [8][9][10]. What can I do? He does not even pay attention to a standing ArbCom request about him.Biophys (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You have to start by asking him why he is deleting the material (even if there has already been a lot of discussion, no harm in asking him to briefly re-state his position on this text). Then if you can't get a sensible conversation going, you need to go through the appropriate stages of dispute resolution (RfC, mediation).Itsmejudith (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, we talked, had a sensible conversation going, but did not come to an agreement. If I understand correctly, this source is reliable.Biophys (talk) 02:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That's my first impression. I would be interested to read views to the contrary and other contributors to this noticeboard may have a different view. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

ToS - http://corp.ign.com/user-agreement.html

I can't see an accuracy disclaimer, but the style and tone of the site makes me uneasy because it's being used as a reference for personal details on biographies. Thanks -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 11:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Might be reliable for some aspects of videogaming. Definitely not for biographies. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

They do conduct interviews [11] so personal details may possibly come direct from the the person concerned own mouth . Garda40 (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Interviews are clearly RS because they're (almost certainly) verbatim. It's the star biographies which are the problem - http://uk.stars.ign.com/index/people.html I've investigated further, and found that they are publicly editable so the content disclaimer does come in to effect, denying responsibility for inaccuracy. Am I correct in thinking that they cannot be considererd RS in a similar vein to Wikipedia and Internet Movie Database (IMDB) ? -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 13:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like the analogy to IMBD is apt. The parts of the site that are publicly editable are not RS. Other parts might be. Use with caution. Blueboar (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. Maybe use it the way that students use Wikipedia; maybe not cite it, but use the info as a path to find better sources. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That said, what on earth is someone using an agreement as part of a biography for? Do you hae any more info on that? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Like similar sites, the bios are usable for uncontested uncontroversial routine details. Obviously the bios are not sources for negative or controversial content. On the other hand, the reviews are by their staff, and I think acceptable both for information an=bout the games and for notability. The reader blogs are, as general, essentially useless. DGG (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That's at odds with what others have said and my understanding of RS. The bios are publicly editable, doesn't that make them uncompliant with RS whatever ones view of the information ? -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 17:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Kind of a provocative title, I know, but this subject seems to keep coming up, and I am wondering if it isn't something that we can stem the tide of confusion with by tweaking the policy.
Currently, when writing film summaries (or, I would imagine, book summaries as well) we write from an observational point of view. 'This and this happened', and so on. Sometimes, like in

I think that in movie and TV shows plots a bit of leeway is given as it relates to descriptive aspects of the primary source (i.e. the movie or TV show itself), but caution should be exercise not to indulge beyond making descriptive claims and into analysis or other OR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, how would you apply that reasoning to the examples above? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed above... but I will repeat... film credits are text... no different than the text of a book. The fact that this text happens to appear on film and not on paper is irrelevant. When reading film credits we do not use an "observational point of view" the way we would with the rest of the film. Film credits are something we can read and cite... just as we read and cite information that appears in a printed book or on a website. Now... that text is a primary source for that information... so all the cautions discussed at PSTS would apply. We should stick to relating the basic facts listed in the source, and not use it to support analytical or conclusionary statements. For those we need reliable secondary sources. Blueboar (talk) 01:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Which I believe were presented for the third example, Fitna. The citation notes that the 'Scarlet Pimpernel Productions is an alias for a (Dutch) production company. As the infobox should contain the most concise info, we should note that production company. It is furthermore noted in the body of the article. How would you deal with the CoM example, Blueboar? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I think that the article should list "Scarlet Pimpernel Productions" (cited to the credits) in the info box, and discuss the disclosure that this is really an alias for a dutch production company (cited to your source) in the main text.

As for CoM... I don't think your comparison is quite apt. The fact that one hears the laughter of children while the credits roll in CoM is an observational statement. It is possible for different people to make different observations. Technically, stating this observation is a form of Original Research (however it is an exception to our NOR polcicy). The fact that the credits of Fitna list "Scarlet Pimpernel" does not depend upon observation. It is not Original Research. It is verifiable Fact. Blueboar (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

So, are you saying that noting hte laughter in CoM is an exception to our NOR policy. Might I trouble you to point to where in the page it says that? It would be awesome to memorize that particular nugget.

I guess I should have mentioned that the laughter in CoM is noted in the closed-captioning versions of the French (and presumably the Spanish version as well, as the US/UK version provides for all three, including

subtitling notes the laughter as well. I am not sure how we deal with subtitling and how they should be interpreted/used in film and tv articles, though. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell})

20:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Material observed in films is

original research, the source being the person who observed it. Personal observations of Wikipedia editors are not considered reliable. Jayjg ^(talk)

03:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg... By your logic, we could say that material observed on a website or in a book is OR, the source being the person who observed it. No... the source is the film, not the person who watched the film. Now, since the film is the primary source, any interpretation of the film by our editors is clearly OR... but basic facts about what occures in the film is not. The only hesitation I have about Arcayne's CoM laughter example is that I could see two different editors disagreeing as to whether the sound is actually the laughter of children or not (could it be some other noise... or could it be adults laughing?). In other words there might be interpretation involved in the statement. My guess is that if we were to raise this example at NOR, the consensus would be that it is not OR.

Arcayne... the exemption is not specifically stated in NOR... However, the topic has been discussed numerous times on the talk page and at the NOR/noticeboard. There has been a clear consensus on those pages that stating basic observations (such as the plot) is not OR. I am confident that they would say that stating that one can hear laughter at one point in a film is not much different than stating something about the plot. Feel free to ask on either of those pages if you wish confirmation of this. But to repeat my main point: citing the text of film credits is not the same... as it does not involve "observation". Blueboar (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No, the analogy doesn't work. Books can be read and quoted exactly; one cannot do the same for a film. "Basic observations" are indeed OR, as is a claim that one can hear laughter at a point in the film. The fact that so many articles violate the

WP:NOR policy is neither here nor there; in the fullness of time they will be brought into line with policy too. Jayjg ^(talk)

03:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it works quite well; both are observed phenomena, not an evaluative processing of that phenomena.

Using your reasoning, any plot summary is OR, which is just plain silly. Its the reason that observed information that meets a consensus (ie, 'yep, all that happened in the movie') is excluded from the NOR policy by both time and consensus. I would suggest that if you are aware of a new or emerging consensus regarding this, perhaps you could illuminate us as to where it can be found. The film is the explicit and implicit source for the film. So long as we are not evaluating what these observations mean, there is no original research. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

the analogy is off because we are not talking about 'observed" phenomina in this case, but about the printed text of the credits. This is material that can be read and quoted exactly... just like a book. The laughter in the CoM is more analogous to how we deal with plot elements in the movie... we can bluntly state that this laughter occurs, and cite the movie as the primary soruce for this statement, but we can not discuss why the laughter occurs or what it might mean. That would be an analysis that goes beyond simple observation, and for that we would need a secondary source. So while both the apperance of "Scarlet Pimpernel" in the credits of one film, and the sound of laughter in another are both cited to a film... they are really different issues with different levels of reliability and OR. Blueboar (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Blueboar on citing the film as a primary source for the laughing children. In case it isn't clear to people not familiar with

MOS:FILM, the reason plot sections do not use sources is because they focus only on the most important (such as non-trivial) elelments of the film. This means, that every aspect of a plot section can be sourced in reliable sources. Exceptions to this guideline encourage the use of sources to solve disputes about the plot. The sound effects of children laughing in the credits are supported by primary source references to closed captioning. But there are no secondary sources which support their inclusion. And, since their inclusion is being used to advance an implicit theory about the conclusion of the film, it is OR to include them. I have tried to compromise by including a closing credits section that includes all major elements. Arcayne removed the two most reliably sourced elements (songs whose importance was sourced to the LA Times), and instead chose to focus on the elements he personally believed to be important. Viriditas (talk

) 22:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could point to any recent article space addition where I have suggested an interpretation, Viriditas. I have asked you to do this at least a half-dozen times. You can't because it hasn't happened in over a year. You would do well to avoid making assumptions about what I am implying; you've been rather solidly wrong for the past 16 months. The children's laughter is not trivial. The fact that the credits are black and white is trivial. As it is something markedly different from other films, it specifically becomes non-trivial.

Perhaps you might wish to actually present the entire truth, as the music was moved from the closing credits section to the section called - oddly enough - Music. lol. In fact, I reworked the sections to compensate for the rewrite.

In case I am accused of something else equally unlikely, I wasn't on the

the Grassy Knoll" in Dallas. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell})

06:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure you are in the position to speak of "truth". You've been repeatedly asked not to move the information out of the credits section. By doing that, you are deliberately emphasizing your personal theory. And could you please answer why you think the sound effects of laughing children is important to the article? You have the burden of proof, here. Without reliable sources, we can only go on your personal opinion, and that's not how Wikipedia works. So, please answer the question. Why is the sound of laughing children in the credits important to the article, and why have you spent a year defending its inclusion? I can of course answer that by going into the archives and quoting your reasons, but that would just bring up the OR allegation again, so please explain in your own words. Responding with "it's an observable part of the film" is not a reason. We have eliminated dozens of "observable", trivial aspects of the film, and we rely on RS to tell is what is important, not the personal opinions of editors. Viriditas (talk) 08:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

According to which

original research. Please rely on secondary sources that discuss the film. Jayjg ^(talk)

02:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Jay, I agree, but Blueboar is treating this like the film project treats plot, which means, in an undisputed synopsis, plot sections do not require sources. Now, this particular piece of material has been disputed for a year, with extensive discussion in the archives. It has been repeatedly added to the article not because it is simply an observable part of the credits, but because the editor who keeps adding it is convinced it is a commentary on the film. So, for that reason, it is OR. Unless we can verify that the information is important with a RS, I don't understand why it keeps getting added. Now, I have offered to compromise, and allow it in the article as long as the editor allows sourced descriptions of the credits as well. He refuses to do this because by allowing the credits to be discussed in full with sources, it throws a wrench in his attempt to specifically isolate and highlight a selective aspect of the credits, and by including the credits in full, it diffuses his OR. It is interesting to note that the version the editor in question is arguing for came directly from an anonymous submission to the IMdB. Viriditas (talk) 02:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, but that is an inaccurate assessment of the issue, Viriditas. Blueboar's assessment is an accurate one. The material to which you speak - the existence of the laughter and shouting of children heard in the closing credits - is undisputed. You yourself have on many occasions referred to it and have even added it to the article with a cite video template. What is in dispute is the idea that you feel including posits some meaning (or interpretation) of the laughter. You continually suggest that I want it in as part of some plot to add interpretive value to the simple statement, referring to edits of mine from over a year ago. You cannot find anything more current quite simply because I am not the same editor I was a year ago (hell, who is?), back when I was a relative newbie to the Project.

I would submit that you are the only person believing the inclusion of this information is a representation of interpretive value, and it is that perfectly speculative thinking that we cannot allow here. We cannot include speculation any more than we can disinclude something for speculative reasons.

I think that the compromise suggested by Blueboar - ie., noting the laughter without any interpretive weight to it - is a fair one. However, the remaining sticking point is apparently the inclusion of to musical selections to the closing credits which better serve the article (and thereby the reader) by remaining in the section appropriately titled 'Music'. This is not a denial of the multi-layered value of the musical choices by Cuaron; it is instead an arrangement of related material for the ease of reference for the reader. This is why I oppose the omnibus addition of the musical selection to the closing credits. It is not part of some wacky conspiracy or whatnot to "isolate and highlight" the credits; show a bit more AGF, please. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a secondary source that shows that the sound of children laughing in the credits is a notable topic for inclusion. To date, there are none. The two songs that only appear in the credits are unique, and do not appear in the film, like the rest of the music. These two songs also take up the majority of the credits, whereas the sound effects of children laughing and end titles do not. I can see no reason not to include the two songs in a section about the credits when these songs only appear in the credits and are reliably sourced to the staff writer of the LA Times who discusses them in the context of the credits,. In the same way, the theme section includes a discussion about religious themes found in the music. It is your selective use of material and sources that is problematic, as it coincidentally supports, promotes, and furthers your POV. That's just not how we edit Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 10:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I am interested in hearing second opinions on the ongoing discussionto Carry, timeline.gif where I am concerned that the chart 'image:Right to Carry, timeline.gif' is based on data drawn from the website Radical Gun Nuttery! not being a reliable source. My instinct is that this private website, with unclear fact checking, is not a reliable source. There is also the argument that the

Unreliably sourced material is still unreliably sourced. There's a difference between snapping a photo of a celebrity or landmark (two prominent examples of user-generated free images) and making an animated diagram based on a unreliable source. For images regarding statistics and the like, they should cite reliable sources like anything else. I will raise this issue at

WT:NOR, as the clear statement that images do not generally advance unpublished ideas arose out of nonsense like this. Vassyana (talk

) 02:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is the graphic in question. It does not advance any unpublished idea. The year in which a state enacted a concealed carry law is an uncontroversial fact and can (tediously) be sourced (about 40 citations needed). The idea that many states have enacted such laws in recent years is also public record and is already sourced in the article. A timeline is not an unpublished idea that needs a source in and of itself. There are plenty of user-constructed timelines in Wikipedia. By way of comparison, please see the article

There are tons of unquestionably reliable sources covering the gun control debate and associated laws, many of which discuss issue-laws and the timeline of their development. WP:OI is not intended as a free pass on using unreliable sources and to assert otherwise is simply absurd. It is even more ridiculous to assert that unreliable and self-published sources are acceptable in the face of abundant, easy availability of highly reputable sources. Such an assertion simply flies in the face of the core content principles of Wikipedia and common sense. Is it easier to find information on self-published and unreliable websites through Google than to actually use library resources? Sure it is, but the concept of using reliable sources is a principle of Wikipedia, while the concept of using the most convenient sources is most certainly not. Vassyana (talk) 05:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

So what solution do you propose? If the to Carry, timeline.gif Right to Carry, timeline.gif page contains citations for all of the 40 states, is that sufficient? I am willing to do this provided that nobody moves the goalpost at the last minute. kevinp2 (talk) 05:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

That should probaby be enough, IMHO. You can make a list of citations and data on the "source" field. Make sure they are reliable sources like links to government sites. Wait for more users to confirm this, please. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt it should require 40 separate citations. Give me a day or two and I will check for sources to see if we can simplify matters a bit. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 08:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The original sources were two, Clayton E. Cramer & David B. Kopel's 1994 paper, Laws"Shall Issue": The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit, and the NRA-ILA Right To Carry Fact Sheet. Since I've been in contact with a number of people regarding the status of states that the NRA had simply gotten wrong. (A number of the states that the NRA has listed as having been no-issue prior to their adoption of their shall-issue law had, in fact, been may-issue. Since 2003, the NRA has been listing Alabama, Connecticut, and Iowa as "discretionary-reasonable." With respect to Alabama and Connecticut, that's simply a definitional difference, both have laws that could be read as discretionary, but they are enforced as if they were non-discretionary. With respect to Iowa, the NRA is simply wrong. Sheriffs in Iowa have discretion. Some issue permits reasonably, some do not. That makes Iowa no different than California.)

So, I started with those two data sources, and corrected the data based on information provided me by people with direct knowledge of the legal status of those states. And, of course, I updated the data from the news reports of the states that have passed shall-issue laws since I first created the image, in 2001.

It wasn't my idea to put my image on that page, but I was asked, and I approved it. Since then it seems I've had to periodically jump through hoops to get it to stay there, with admins pulling it because it didn't have permission from the copyright holder (which is absurd, as I had tagged the original upload with the "I, the creator, release" language. Now it's being challenged because it's not properly sourced. You won't recognize me as an expert in this area, despite my eight years of active involvement? Will you recognize Dave Kopel and Clayton Cramer? The NRA-ILA research staff?

--jdege (talk) 01:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that could part of the problem. You see, you should use only published information, and refer to where the information was published when you use it to update the information. This is what allows other editors to

WP:V verify the information. This means that you should discard the non-published information that you got personally from people, since it's not verifiable by wikipedia standards, and then list the news reports with enough information to verify them (like newspaper name, date of publication, etc) and explain very briefly what changes you made based on that source. That's probably why people was complaining of the image not being properly sourced. You just need to use the sources on a different way. --Enric Naval (talk

) 17:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You're confusing two issues. The RTC graphic and web page are published information. It's not a wikipedia entry, and it's not subject to wikipedia rules. It was included in a wikipedia entry, which is an entirely different thing. The question is not whether the image was properly sourced, but whether the image is a proper source.

And, for that matter, if you'd read the page you'd have understood that the "personal communications" I'd had were with people who could provide me with sourced information. Clayton Cramer has a fair reputation as a historian in the field of gun rights, and his information was backed up with citations to legal opinions referring to the existing permit laws in the states in question. None of the information I used in generating the image was uncited.

--jdege (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

There is currently an edit war occuring over the inclusion of this source over at veterinary chiropractic. There is currently no consensus on the page for inclusion, but I would like some outside opinion on whether this is a reliable source. I have so far not commented on the talk page about the reliability of this source and have tried to stay outside this debate. Any arguments below are quoted (but not attributed) off the respective talk page. DigitalC (talk) 00:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Source: ""Veterinary Chiropractic"". www.chirobase.org.
• Arguments for inclusion:

"...best available reference for the specific topic of risk of injury..."

"...David Ramey is a notable equine specialist in Hollywood, who has written a number of books..."

"He is a notable expert on the topic. Per WP:SPS, we can include the text and ref"

• Arguments against inclusion:

Chirobase.org is not a reliable source, nor does it meet WP:MEDRS.

"A statement from an unscientific, non-peer-reviewed, opinion piece is inappropriate for this section (regardless if the source is pro or con chiropractic)."

"It's old, unscientific, an opinion, not peer-reviewed, and unsourced to any piece of scientific literature."

"I know of no caveat to WP:RS which states that when a reliable source can't be found then you can dredge up and use whatever unreliable source is available."

":"...it is not an WP:SPS as it is not published by Ramey, but rather by the partisan website. Second, even if it were a WP:SPS it would fail some of the qualifications, especially #2 "so long as... it is not contentious;""

• Comments from outside observers on whether this is reliable or not?

Here is the current text in the article. David W. Ramey, a doctor of veterinary medicine, argues that there is a risk of injury to a horse if overly aggressive maneuvers occur. Manipulating the spine of a dog with a degenerative disk carries the risk of severe and permanent harm to the spinal cord. * David W. Ramey. "Veterinary Chiropractic". Retrieved 2008-04-15. Please note. David W. Ramey is a notable equine specialist, who has written a number books. And EVJ mentions him a few times. Per

WP:FRINGE. For example, even the American Chiropractic Association, the largest professional association of chiropractors, states the term veterinary chiropractic is a misnomer. Further, Ramey is the best source available specifically for safety information. QuackGuru

01:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The

CorticoSpinal (talk

) 05:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, Ramey certainly has published other books [12] and his credentials look excellent. To me he qualifies as an expert in the field, so that the self-published nature of the work might well be considered a reliable source. On the other hand, it is published on a highly partisan website. However, why doesn't somebody wade through Ramey's book "Complementary and Alternative Veterinary Medicine Considered" [13], published by Blackwells, a highly reliable source, and source whatever is required from there. Slp1 (talk) 01:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

PS it is also available as a search inside at Amazon.[14] So is another book of his, Consumer's Guide to Alternative Therapies in the Horse [15]--Slp1 (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

His "expert" "opinion" is dated and is supplanted by new (2008) verifiable, peer-reviewed high quality research published in a high impact veterinary journal. The case isn't whether or not Ramey is notable; it's that that he's 1) been annoited an expert without ever publishing one paper in the literature 2) annoited an expert specifically on the topic of spinal manipulation and veterinary care 3) is a dated source which has been updated by recent, robust research and 4) his "opinion" is being used to contradict what the peer-reviewed source says. Now that some facts have been laid out, let us continue this discussion with the proper context. Next?

CorticoSpinal (talk

) 04:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It sounds as if Ramey's book published by Blackwells is a reliable source and so also is the 2008 paper. The article can present both. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

CorticoSpinal seems confident that Ramey should not be considered expert in the field. However, I disagree. He has written two recent books (1999, 2004) on the subject of alternative/complimentary vet medicine published by reputable publishers, has written at least two articles in peer reviewed journals on the same subject [16] as well many other books, including a 2007 book on evidence based practice in the field. He has also been on the AVMA committee responsible for the guidelines of use of alternative/complimentary vet medicine. It is clear to me that he meets the bar as an expert in the field whose opinion is notable. As I said before, it would be better to use his peer-reviewed books/journal article as sources, however. If you think his opinion has been supplanted/updated by recent research than you should argue that on the talkpage, though my personal take would be that the very small studies reported currently in the article, both of which clearly suggest that further research is needed, are not a slamdunk showing that Ramey is out of date.--Slp1 (talk) 12:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

My main contention was that his sourced material was being used to dispute and supplant the 2008 peer-reviewed research. Also, the source being used from Ramey was specifically a 1990 piece from chirobase as opposed to one of his books. These were also noted in the talk page. The research section clearly said that "further research is needed" (it is the research cliche, after all!) but the section on "safety" proposed by QG using a 1990 chirobase article from Ramey which was used to contradict a 2008 research paper is a non-starter.

CorticoSpinal (talk

) 17:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Once again, I don't share your certainty about it being a 'non-starter'. The sentence in question talks in part about dogs, and the two studies that are supposed to "contradict" it both concern horses. The studies are in fact extremely weak methodologically (e.g. no control group in one case, and the horses didn't actually have back problems in the other.) In neither case was the issue of safety addressed as far as I can tell, which is Ramey's concern, and the studies couldn't possibly have any meaningful data on the subject in any case given the very sample sizes. But this part of the issue isn't a question in fact a discussion for this page. My view of the subject in question is that the website document is likely a reliable source given its authorship. However, since Ramey repeats his concern about the possibillity of injury on p. 95-96 of "Consumer's Guide to Alternative Therapies in the Horse " at least that part can be sourced to a very clearly reliable document.Slp1 (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ramey is not be used to contradict a 2008 research paper. This is the only source of informatiom about "safety" in the article. We should continue to use the Ramey source. If another source becomes available we can consider replacing the Ramey source. There are books written by Ramey. We can't use any of the Ramey books unless someone actually reads it. There is a lack of research on Veterinary chiropractic and we are using one of few available sources. QuackGuru 18:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh but you can read them, QuackGuru. Click the links I gave above to electronic copies of the books on Google books and Amazon, sign up to Amazon, and get reading! Both books will be very useful for the article.--Slp1 (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

So that I am clear on your position Slp1, do you agree that the currently used source is not reliable, due to its age and the fact that it is published on a partisan website? DigitalC (talk) 23:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually no, quite the opposite. Ramey has been published widely by peer-reviewed sources. The article in question therefore appears to qualify under per

WP:SPS. I don't see anything more other, more reliable sources, regarding safety issues that would indicate the article is out of date. Having said that I believe that there are better, more clearly reliable sources by Ramey that can be used to source the issue of safety in the article, and these should be used where possible.--Slp1 (talk

) 23:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

How can it qualify under

WP:SPS when the source in question isn't self published? DigitalC (talk

) 03:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Self-published does not mean it has be be published on Ramey's website. See

WP:SPS for the lists of content it includes (self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources.) In this case, self-published means Ramey wrote something and somebody hosted it for him. But once again, I have pointed out that there are several, clearly reliable sources for the safety issue which still have not been included in the article. It seems more and more to me that people are arguing about this particularly source because they want to keep what they see as 'negative' content out of the article, rather than being committed to a well-rounded article that presents all the notable, reliably sourced content in a NPOV way as they should.--Slp1 (talk

) 23:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at the talkpage page: that's in part where my questions about what is going on here comes from. But I would be thrilled if the pro-chiropractic editors would prove me wrong by

writing for the enemy using reliable sources.--Slp1 (talk

) 23:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

In this case, we have no way of knowing that he wrote this, let alone WHO published it. I have tried looking through the links you posted above Slp1, but have NOT found relevant sections of his book. DigitalC (talk) 02:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

We know who published it: the chirobase.org website, managed by Stephen Barrett, MD, and Samuel Homola, DC. They have legal and technical advisors listed at their home page, and host many signed, dated articles and reports. Do you have any reason to doubt that Ramey authored the article as claimed? It seems totally in keeping with his other writings to me. Try this [17] for the book link to some comments on safety in horses.--Slp1 (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that link doesn't work for me. I get " You have requested a page that is not available for viewing. In order to view this page, you must be signed-in to an Amazon.ca account that has made a purchase in the past.". I have never purchased through amazon.com. I have reason to doubt ANYTHING/EVERYTHING that comes from S. Barrett, MD and Samuel Homola, DC. DigitalC (talk) 05:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

What is your reason to doubt anything/everything that comes from S. Barrett, MD and Samuel Homola, DC? QuackGuru 01:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Because I have read factually inaccurate statements presented as truth on their websites in the past. However, that is not the point of this thread. DigitalC (talk) 10:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] Agreed with Fyslee that articles can't all be about pizza and fairy tales (to quote John Lennon). That being said, we need to have decent sources to suggest it and if there's something BETTER than Ramey in terms of scholarlyness, than we should find it. Also, it's unfortunate that many people seem to have been "educated" on chiropractic care from Barrett and Homola. That actually explains a lot of the shenanigans around here.

CorticoSpinal (talk

) 17:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Skip Mason Website Reliable Source or personal website? [18]

Would this be considered to be either a reliable source or a non reliable source personal website? also would this be considered to be NPOV website [19] (read here for a better idea of NPOV question) ? [20]

"DISCLAIMER: THIS PAGE IS NOT AFFILIATED WITH THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION. ALL COMMENTS ARE THOSE OF THE EDITOR. SOURCES ARE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST. APOLOGIES IN ADVANCE FOR ANY SPELLING ERRORS. " IS stateed at the bottom. [21]

He also states here [22] ". As a historian who recognizes that laying a foundation for any period of history, I find their omission inexcusable and without merit. " I believe this violates NPOV. Any opinions? [User:Ireallylovethis|Ireallylovethis] (talk) 02:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• I would say not. It looks like personal opinion with no editorial review process. Guy (Help!) 14:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

alright, well over here there are some of his articles that he has written [23]. Does this make it more of a personal website or a reliable source website? Going thru some of the articles it seems as if it may read as a column due the questions and answers that exist with every article [24]. With sources only available by request how can we be sure whether or not this is fiction or non fiction? [25] Ireallylovethis (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

So I'm basically rewriting the entirety of Metal

What I'm going to do is, since the whole article's unsourced junk, is just rewrite the whole damn thing in

Ziggy Sawdust

14:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It should definitely be possible to get an article on this subject to FA. Your three textbooks sound like just the right place to start from. Some editors might be able to add some other facts from different sources, but if you stick to the principle that the article should be basically in line with what is being taught at undergraduate level then you are on the right lines. Contact the appropriate Wikiprojects to let them know what you are doing. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

When is it appropriate to stub an article?

A user has recently removed most of the content of

WP:RS. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs

) 03:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend reverting the editor's action, and encouraging him to work on a full revision in userspace. But I haven't been active for the past year; perhaps things have changed. -- Visviva (talk) 08:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend listening to people on the talk page who show evidence of knowing what they're talking about on the subject. Ewenss (talk) 05:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Unpublished papers presented in academic conferences

Can we consider unpublished papers presented in academic confererences as reliable? More specifically, could we consider the papers listed on this page as reliable? For more information on this specific conference, please check this and this. The question is arising because the reliability of one of these papers has recently been challanged on the ground that the paper has not been published. Any comments, please? Arman ^(Talk) 03:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The quality of conference papers varies hugely. They are often accepted on the basis of synopses alone. I'd suggest that their reliability depends entirely on the established status of the person giving the paper as a specialist on the topic. Paul B (talk) 10:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Varies hugely. See #Conference proceedings RS? above. This gets asked so often I think we should add a footnote to RS. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Historical cost and inflation - editor conflict of interest, grateful views on reliability of own material (single-source, exceptional claims)

Editor Nicolaas Smith, an advocate of what he refers to as real value accounting, has his own website and self-published book. There were several episodes of promoting his own work (with warnings about conflict of interest, questions about self-published material, and an episode of sockpuppeteering and some blocks for disruptive editing and personal attacks under different names).

After these rounds of issues, he had an article published in a South African accounting journal, and since that time has taken to referring continuously to his own (single) published article.

I would like others to take a look at these articles and comment, if at all possible, particularly on historical cost. My view is that exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and this user has a conflict of interest (he is promoting his own theory on which he has patents pending). It is a single issue which is being promoted (the Truth, of course).

To declare my own issues and interest in having other editors' comments: a) I have had conflicts with this editor before, on his periodic returns to promote his agenda again; b) these have led to personal attacks on me; c) This editor seems to take any intervention on my part as a personal affront (leading to some previous blow-ups); etc.

Please note that I am explicitly NOT attempting to turn this into a re-run of his issues before with sockpuppeteering and personal attacks, etc - just making the history clear regarding the one-issue agenda. Perhaps there is some content that can be contributed, but various articles seem to be turning into his personal agenda-promotion pages.--Gregalton (talk) 18:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

He certainly seems to have massively rewritten both articles, with dozens of successive edits, but I'm not an expert on the subject so your best bet is probably an article RFC. Guy (Help!) 19:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Vanity Press Publishing

Are books published by a vanity press considered reliable? They are self funded but not self-published. How much editorial control do vanity presses exert and are some more reliable than others? --neonwhite user page talk 22:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Books published by a vanity press essentially fall under

WP:Self published sources. The editors check things like spelling and poor grammar, but rarely edit content or check facts. So there is little editorial control as this guideline intends. That said... Such books can be reliable for some things, but not for others. For example, they are usually reliable for statements of the author's opinion, but may not be reliable for statements of fact. We would need a more specific example to make a clear determination. Blueboar (talk

) 13:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Being published by a vanity press does not add any reliability at all to the base work. Hence, consider them self-published, and judge accordingly. There are a small number of books - the ones I know of are Terence Rees' reprints of obscure works by W. S. Gilbert with a few pages of scholarly commentary - that are self-published, but written by acknowledged expert on subjects that are simply too esoteric for a major publishing house to take up, and, if the subject itself is notable, these can be useful sources for adding depth to an article. But the key here is that the author is an acknowledged expert already, and the subjects can be shown to be notable through other sources. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that they arent actually self-published merely self-funded. Obviously this could not be used as evidence of notability of the author but i assume the content would have to be fact check by the publisher as any publisher would do. As far as i know some of the bigger reputable vanity presses act in the same way as other presses and in that way are probably as reliable as say the press. --neonwhite user page talk 21:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure as to what you mean by the bigger publishers - if you're referring to Xlibris, Lulu, iUniverse and the like, then I'm led to believe that they aren't generally fact-checked by the publishers, and hence the AuthorHouse court case. But you may be referring to someone else. - Bilby (talk) 03:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually i was incorrect AuthorHouse and iUniverse both describe themselves as 'supported self-publishing' and 'a simple and effective self publishing process' so this does mean they come under SPS. Though it is concievable that a vanity press could fact check, it's probably best to assume they don't unless evidence to the contrary is available. --neonwhite user page talk 12:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Vanity presses, buy definition, are simply in it for the money that the author provides. I don't think that eveen the best vanity press would do much more than spellchecking, maybe minor copyediting. Fact-checking? Ain't gonna happen. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

burjdubaiskyscraper.com

Over at the

Three Revert Rule and being close to me requesting they be blocked (again). Astronaut (talk

) 13:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree that this site doesn't seem to be reliable. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hogenakkal Falls

There is an ongoing controversy regarding the exact location of the falls in question relative to the borders of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. The details can be found in the extensive discussion of the talk pages. Several sources have been produced to justify inclusion in one or both states. However, in several cases, there seems to be a question of original research regarding some of the sources. If anyone has the time to read the rather lengthy discussion, and it includes much of the recently archived discussion as well, I think we would all be more than grateful. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Raw Story

Hello all, I would like to get some opinions on

The Raw Story. Is this a reliable source? Ham Pastrami (talk

) 02:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say not usually, when taken on its own. OK, so some prestigious news media are using it, but I think we can assume they use it mainly as a primary source and they make their own checks on facts before going to print. If a story is very important then it will eventually appear somewhere else. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Retrosheet as a reliable source

Copied from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/J. R. Richard:

• Reliable sources unresolved: the article is almost entirely sourced to retrosheet.org, the personal hobby site of a baseball fan, which says "Retrosheet makes no guarantees of accuracy for the information that is supplied"; the site gathers data from volunteer baseball fans,[26] and says,[27]

  In order to volunteer or to obtain more information, contact David Smith at the address, telephone number, or e-mail shown below. Retrosheet is an all-volunteer organization and the costs of daily operation are largely borne by individuals who generously cover their own expenses for postage, photocopying, etc. There is one substantial continuing expense for the organization and that is the DSL connection for our computer server, which holds our website. We do request donations to help us with the monthly cost of the Internet connection.

  Sports Illustrated as cited above says, "It now operates from the basement of Smith's Newark, Del., house, which holds 11 file cabinets of data and a DSL server." and "All Retrosheet's data is proofed and checked against day-by-day and season totals maintained by the Hall of Fame," yet the website itself "makes no guarantee of accuracy". This needs to be resolved, because the article is almost entirely sourced to this site. Is this over-reliance on internet research, and can the article not be cited to better sources ? The other question is why he isn't covered by reliable sources? Is this the standard of referencing we expect in a featured bio? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • What sort of reliable source could you have for statistical data? I doubt MLB or organizations like
    SABR would actually upload logs for every single baseball game ever onto the Internet. Remember, who are the people behind sports organizations like Retrosheet, Baseball-Library, and Baseball-Reference? They're all a bunch of average Joes who are deeply interested in baseball. I don't see how one person can be more reliable than another when all they're doing is recounting numbers, not facts or opinions. Do you have any alternative suggestions? I will fix the dash issues. I think MFC changed all the dashes in the refs a while back from en to em. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama}
    ) 00:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I wish I had a solution, but I'm stumped. If it were one or two statements, I wouldn't be so concerned, but I'm not yet convinced it's reliable, yet I'm realizing that almost the entire article relies on this one source. SI says "checked against ... Hall of Fame", but does that statement have any meaning for non-Hall of Famers? If Hall of Fame really had the data, you could get it from them, and it would be reliable, which is why I feel that SI statement appears meaningless. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
      • How about a query at
        WP:RSN? I've pulled out all of the relevant info about the site in my post above. SandyGeorgia (Talk
        ) 00:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
        • The Hall of Fame has data for every single baseball game and stats for every single player. Retrosheet just takes the HoF's data and uploads it to the Internet. I wish I could reference the stats to the Hall of Fame, but they have not made their stats available online. I'll see if there's some sort of huge baseball encyclopedia with game logs. Anyway, inquiring at RSN would hopefully resolve this matter. As I mentioned before, Cricinfo was similarly started by an average Joe, who just began compiling statistical data for matches and player careers. Should we bring this site up as well? It's the most common reference in any cricket FA. Dashes fixed now, by the way. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 00:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Could I get some opinions here? Essentially, Retrosheet is taking statistical data collected by the Baseball Hall of Fame and uploading it onto the Internet. Since humans are involved in this process of uploading numbers and other data, the website notes that they don't make any guarantees regarding the accuracy of the site. But seriously, what's the difference between an expert inputting simple data and an amateur baseball fan doing it himself? Since this site is just a repository of numbers and names, I'm thinking this may warrant special circumstances with regards to the reliable source policy. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 01:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Is the data actually collected by the Hall of Fame, or by fans? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I realize that the Hall of Fame data is not online, but would it be possible to get a hard copy of their information? That way you could cite the Hall of Fame information directly, and forget Retrosheet (or use it merely as a courtesy link) Slp1 (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The actual data is collected by MLB. To my knowledge, the Hall of Fame holds this information. These baseball fans then chose to upload the HoF's data onto the Internet. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 01:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that. It's just that the Hall of Fame has a research centre [28] who could presumably provide someone with the same information provided by the website. If someone could get to see hardcopies from the HofF, then one could cite them as the source, rather than the website.--Slp1 (talk) 01:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Technically, yes. But how would we attribute it? "Hall of Fame"? I doubt these documents are part of some formal compilation. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 01:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, what now? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 01:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well the hard copies wouldn't be on the website, so no affected by this. But I actually do have another idea. The retroweb references are talking about specific performances in specific games, right? These would have been reported in daily newspapers in articles and box scores the day after. These would be, guess what,

Lexis-Nexis or something similar, or microfiche at libraries, I guess.--Slp1 (talk

) 02:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

We found a whole lot more data on the FAC; have a look there, or bring that info over. It may be enough to establish the author of retrosheet.org, David Smith, as an expert published by reliable third parties, per

WP:SPS. SandyGeorgia (Talk

) 03:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

standingstrong.org

I've just reverted User:Jayjg, removing the following text from Hamas:

In Hebrew, the word "hamas" translates "to frighten, terrify, confound, stun, confuse, perplex." "Hamasim," whose root word is hamas, translates "violent men."(ref)[29] http://www.standingstrong.org.(/ref).

Given prior history I expect some kind of argument over whether this standingstrong.org is reliable, as silly as that may sound. Can we agree that what is apparently the personal website of a Messianic Jewish activist with no relevant academic qualifications and a strong political bent is neither reliable nor significant to this subject? Especially when he explicitly cites the very Wikipedia article he is being cited to support? <eleland/talkedits> 01:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That source should never be used unless we find that the opinions of that source are worthy of inclusion in which case we should attribute the opinion cited to that source. E.g. "Standingstrong.org says that God wants Israel to be in the possession of the 'chosen people'."

talk

) 17:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm also very concerned that a WP editor thought the added sentence actually contributed something of note. The translation of "Hamas" into Hebrew results in the same meaning that it had in the original Arabic and the same meaning as when it is translated into English or into Navaho. That is what translation is. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a remarkably shoddy source. It also appears to be inaccurate. A Google Books trawl finds numerous sources discussing the word "Hamas" in the context of the Hebrew Bible; apparently it's usually translated as "violence". [30] -- ChrisO (talk) 08:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Play party (BDSM)

There is an edit war on

WP:V says, it's frustrating to get such resistance to sourcing. --Rividian (talk

) 11:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Though I am not extremely experienced with this, my opinion concurs with yours. If the information is not sourced, it is the responsibility of the user who added it to cite it, not anybody else's. If the person keeps reinserting the material, do not edit war with the person. If simple explaining on the talk page does not work, and the person has been repeatedly reverting, consider reporting them to

WP:3RR (thought I think an admin already warned the user so you do not have much to worry about, if he continues to behave inappropriately, contact an admin and he will be blocked). — Parent5446 ^{(t n e l}

) 02:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Use of interviews from AvatarSpirit.net

Resolved

Currently, the Avatar: The Last Airbender article is having a dispute over AvatarSpirit.net as a citation. Though it is only the secondary issue that is being argued, the reliability of the site is questioned. The site is a fansite for the show Avatar: The Last Airbender. Though fansites are automatically tagged as "unreliable", this site holds actual interviews with the staff of the show (sometimes at Comic-Con, sometimes privately). It is being argued that the site, just because it is a fansite, made up the interviews (there are about ten to fifteen interviews in total). Should this source be used, or is it really probable that the interviews were created out of thin air? — Parent5446 ^{(t n e l)} 19:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

My understanding from the Avatar FAR is that it was being argued as unreliable because it violates copyrights? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That is a separate argument. Here is whats happening. User:Collectonian is arguing that this source is BOTH a copyvio and unreliable (examples of the unreliable argument are on the article's talk page). The copyvio argument is being settled elsewhere. I just wanted to ask about the source's reliability because Collectionian brought it up and one user suggested I ask here. — Parent5446 ^{(t n e l)} 01:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

As I understood it, the question is, can a fansite that engages in copyvios of others' works be reliable? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, basically. Keep in mind that copyvios and reliability are two separate entities. So please do not say it is unreliable simply because it has episode transcripts and screenshots that are considered copyvios. — Parent5446 ^{(t n e l)} 01:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Parent5446, the problem is that the reliability of the site is being questioned not just because it is a fansite, but also because it has copyright violations featured prominently on the site. It is possible for fansites to reach the level of reliability if they themselves become known for their knowledge of the topic (say a fansite of a sports team that is often quoted in the local media), but the question here is how can you trust a sources information if they do not respect the laws of the country in which they are located... --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see what you mean. So in the end, this would not be considered a reliable source? — Parent5446 ^{(t n e l)} 02:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the copyright violations make it difficult to call it a reliable source. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I do see your point, but can copyvios make a source so unreliable that not even their interviews can be trusted? — Parent5446 ^{(t n e l)} 03:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read our definition of a reliable source at

WP:V and then justify their reputation knowing that they break the law. Besides, I thought we resolved this on the FAR? It's citing a minimal bit of text that can be cited to another source, and over-relies on one source. Rewrite it, re-cite it, done. SandyGeorgia (Talk

) 03:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I get the point (though I still have some objections). BTW, the issue was partially resolved at the FAR, but it is still cited in the article. I do not know what Rau J's status is with replacing it (he said he knows some other site). — Parent5446 ^{(t n e l)} 03:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Energy & Environment

I am being told this entire Journal is never to be used as a WP:RS source for information. They published some background information on a scientist and it was removed stating they are not permitted to be used, is this the case? For more information you can see publishers page: [31] your feedback is appreciated.

Wikipage on the journal:

Energy and Environment, editor Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen

. The staff also seems to be highly documented in Google scholar:

• Editorial board: B W Ang [32], Maarten Arentsen [33], Max Beran [34]
• Book review editor: Debra Johnson [35]
• Editor: Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen [36]

Comments appreciated. --I Write Stuff (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

E&E is not carried by any science citation index I know off. It is barely "published", being available in extremely few academic libraries. The journal has been heavily criticized, even by some of the authors it published, for sloppy review standards. The editor in chief has publicly stated that she publishes paper based on political preference. This is not a reliable source for anything controversial. It is usable as a primary source about the views of published authors. On a different angle, in my experience even high-class journals don't usually fact-check the author blurb unless it is extremely implausible. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Choosing what to publish based on political leaning is the nature of publishing. If we are to take you correctly, you are stating that we can never find a WP:RS source for the information, since everyone could have possibly received the information from Theodor directly, of which you haven't shown to be true in the first place, and everyone who would publish the information could have simply decided not to check it. Doesn't that put the information into a convenient black hole? --I Write Stuff (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

At first sight, it looks like an academic journal, but a minor one. And the editor is a geographer; the editorial board are mainly social scientists; the articles concentrate on economics. Furthermore, if there are indeed criticisms of the journal by academics then this should be taken into account. Looks like it is not a good source for scientific fact. Particular articles may be good for summarising viewpoints in energy economics. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It is being used as a source for information about one of the people who contributed. An award he won is noted in the journal, would the journal not be a reliable source for basic information regarding the people they publish? Further its not an extravagant claim as the award is from an institute that the person is a member of. --I Write Stuff (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

First, in scientific publishing the decision what to publish is usually based on blind peer review. Of course an editor has some influence, but the process is reasonably transparent, and doubtful cases cause quite an uproar, as e.g. the Sternberg peer review controversy and the Climate Research controversy.

Sourcing the award to this paper is a different question than accepting E&E as a reliable source in general. I'd put this author blurb at about the level of a self-published CV as far as reliability is concerned. This means it's ok for uncontroversial claims only.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as Theodor is a member of the society, long term member prior to his death, and they have published his work, would you consider an award by them to fall under controversial, or uncontroversial? --I Write Stuff (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If someone has won an award, one would expect a better source than an author blurb in a journal. The normal source would be the award-making body. The question of how reliable the journal is may not actually be relevant here. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

See discussion below:Schulte's 2008 extension of Oreskes' 2004 study of Global Climate Change articles for further discussion on Energy and Environment

• Journal: Engineering and Environment is published 8 times a year. ISSN 0958-305X. It has been running for 19 years. Energy & Environment’s editorial board includes 11 professors and 5 PhDs. Energy & Environment has a Google rank of 5/10. It has an Alexa ranking of 1,373,807 with 125 in links.DLH (talk) 02:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I commented at the Schulte discussion to the effect that, that besides not being covered by Web of Science, it's subscribed to by only 23 US/Canada/UK libraries, according to worldcat--7 being national libraries that take everything--for a popular field like that, this is negligible. Certainly not usable for statements of scientific consensus. An author blurb in general is less reliable than a CV, because it's more condensed, often by the journals publicity people. If the award is significant, there should be a better source. DGG (talk) 13:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Verification

I'm wondering if this would count as a reliable source.

http://www.thelostworlds.net/index.html

The site contains a great deal of originally published content, but also contains an archive of deleted materials from a video game series, which is what is being sourced. In some cases they also provide the cut content itself, such as screenshots and audio clips, etc. I've looked around and this site seems to be the only one devoted to archiving such materials and thus is the only reliable so source for this material. So, can I use it as a source? The Clawed One (talk) 23:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

So,um...can anyone help? The Clawed One (talk) 04:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Schulte's 2008 extension of Oreskes' 2004 study of Global Climate Change articles

The proposal is to cite this Schulte 2008 reference under Naomi Oreskes as follows:

---

Klaus-Martin Schulte reviewed 539 papers on "global climate change" from the Web of Science from January 2004 to mid-February 2007, updating research by Oreskes. ^[1]

”In the present review, 31 papers (6% of the sample) explicitly or implicitly reject the consensus. Though Oreskes said that 75% of the papers in her former sample endorsed the consensus, fewer than half now endorse it. Only 7% do so explicitly.”

---

DLH (talk) 04:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

See discussion at Talk Naomi_Oreskes. Particularly: Criticism and Controversy

• Evidence relating to this being a reliable source:
• Article: Scientific Consensus on Climate Change? Schulte, Klaus-Martin, Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, March 2008 , pp. 281-286(6)
• Author: Klaus-Martin Schulte, MD, FRCS, Consultant of Endocrine Surgery, King's College Hospital NHS Trust, Denmark Hill, London SE5 9RS UK. Further of Schulte's publications.
• Journal: Engineering and Environment is published 8 times a year. ISSN 0958-305X. It has been running for 19 years. Energy & Environment’s editorial board includes 11 professors and 5 PhDs. Energy & Environment has a Google rank of 5/10. It has an Alexa ranking of 1,373,807 with 125 in links.
• Editor: Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen is Research Associate in Political Ethics at the Institute for Applied Ethics. She has written International environmental policy: Interests and the Failure of the Kyoto 2002 ISBN:184064818X.
• Summary: Klaus-Martin Schulte reviewed 539 papers on the phrase "global climate change" from the Web of Science from January 2004 to mid-February 2007, updating Oreskes research from 1993-2003.

In the present review, 31 papers (6% of the sample) explicitly or implicitly reject the consensus. Though Oreskes said that 75% of the papers in her former sample endorsed the consensus, fewer than half now endorse it. Only 7% do so explicitly.

Schulte applies the same scientific methodology as Naomi Oreskes' paper - objective statistics about all scientific papers in Web of Science in a given time period citing the prescribed phrase “global climate warming”. Oreskes' Letter was one page long. Schulte's paper at 6 pages long provides more detail.DLH (talk) 03:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Scholarly Searches: Schulte's paper is now indexed by Google Scholar. DLH (talk) 04:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Article Posted: A public PDF of Schulte's paper has now been posted. It can be publicly reviewed and compared to Oreskes' LetterDLH (talk) 02:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. Exactly what are you proposing to use where? (i.e. there is obviously some big dispute behind this so please crystallize the issues for us, and somebody from the opposing side should do so as well). At first glance, "Consultant of Endocrine Surgery" does not inspire huge amounts of confidence in the ability of said author to write about climate change. - Merzbow (talk) 03:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, here is the related discussion. Consensus there was heavily against inclusion of the above material in that article (a BLP). For future reference, it's a good idea to notify existing venues if you bring up discussion of an issue in a different venue. Personally, I've nothing to add to what was said there. - Merzbow (talk) 03:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

---

The references under the proposed text above are:

• 1 Scientific Consensus on Climate Change? Schulte, Klaus-Martin, Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, March 2008 , pp. 281-286(6)

---

DLH (talk) 04:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The major controversy as I see it is that Naomi Oreskes published a Letter in Science claiming scientific consensus for global warming. She particularly claimed there were no papers objecting to anthropogenic global warming. This scientific "consensus" was picked up by IPCC and Al Gore. Schulte extended Oreskes' study, finding significantly different results. Since these more recent statistics on published papers do not uphold Oreskes' claimed global warming scientific consensus, there appears to be a systematic censorship of the paper even being cited at Naomi Oreskes web page. Every possible excuse is given that this is not a reliable source, that this author is not reliable, that the journal is not reputable etc etc. I believe that published scientific studies sufficiently defined to be readily reproducible by another scientist should be sufficiently "reliable" to be cited - especially when published by a senior credentialed scientist with other publications. I request Wikipedia refereeing on this issue. PS Thanks for the note on linking it. I have done so both ways.DLH (talk) 04:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I edited the proposed text above to focus just this one reference by Schulte to start with to focus the discussion.DLH (talk) 04:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Energy_and_Environment is not indexed by the ISI and was created to promote global warming skepticism. --TimLambert (talk

) 10:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You made an assertion and cited Wiki policy. The only eidence shown is that it is not indexed by ISI. IT is indexed by Google Scholar. Skepticism and testing is the essence of Science and critically important. Please address the substance of the evidence above. Even if Energy and Environment were a minority publication, it could still be reliable within its minority position. Wikipedia does not exclude minority positions. A look at the table of contents shows articls on both sides of the global warming debate. e.g., Reducing Anthropogenic Atmospheric Carbon Loading

I see someone began a discussion on Energy and Environment above at 41.DLH (talk) 02:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

With respect to the science: the quality of scientific journals is judged by other scientists in the subject, who are the relevant experts. But anyone can see what they think, by comparing the measures of citation. One can also see the auxiliary factors that reflect it: listing in standard indexes, the reputation of the publisher, the library holdings, and the apparent quality of the editors and contributors. Within the natural sciences, the basic criterion for any established journal is being covered by Web of Science & the 2nd is the citation impact factor there (it takes 3 years until there is enough data for an impact factor). this journals has been published for 19 years, and is not even included. That alone is enough why no scientist would take it seriously--it fails the two basic tests. "Multi-Science" is a very minor commercial publishers. Fails the 3rd test. subscribed to by only 23 US/Canada/UK libraries, according to OCLC worldcat--and 7 of them are national libraries that take everything as a matter of principle--for a popular field like that, this is negligible. Fails the 4th, very decisively. The editor in chief has never published a paper anywhere cited by more than 9 other papers, even including his own journal. Fails the 5th. Conclusion: an extremely low quality scientific journal. Certainly not usable for statements of scientific consensus. DGG (talk) 13:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Poles.org aka Pinkowski-Institute

See Pinkowski-Institute which hosts Poles.org website. Article is up at AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pinkowski-Institute. I had created this article because this "Institute"/Website is used as source on Wiki to promote POV, and I want to have this investigated properly. Should have found this board here earlier. The case is loosely connected to Edward Henry Lewinski Corwin. -- Matthead  Discuß   19:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Personal website of Edward Pinkowski. Exactly as reliable as he is reliable. Which doesn't appear to be much, as he doesn't seem to have any formal affiliation/training. However, his self-published history of Polish-American soldier Leon Jastremski was reviewed in a couple of historical journals. If necessary, he could be used as a source for Polish-American history, and that's it. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Sources for technical facts in computing

The knee-jerk reaction to a link to a forum post seems to be the immediate quoting of the Wikipedia Verifiability policy and the section: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions."

While I respect the concept that chat forums are not reliable sources, I suggest that a chat forum as a repository for computer source code, that can be immediately compiled and run by anyone, is an exception because it becomes a place to verify the truth of a statement like: computing 6.13 + 3.45 takes longer than computing 6 + 3. (The reason is because floating point operations just take longer.)

This is different because it is *NOT* a statement in a forum that "floating point calculations take longer", it is referencing code that proves this. That is a very different matter.

I suggest that another way in which a website forum can be used as verification is as a basis for historical data pertaining to that website.

In making an argument for the lack of support offered by a small software product, I qouted the number of posts made by support staff in the "official" Powerbasic forum.

Since there are, and most likely never will be any "Reliable sources, like third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy... peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." that take an interest in small technical details of minor software compiler, a moderated "offical" company forum that requires posters use their full real name would seem to be a good source when used, as described above, as a repository for computer code.

in the case of Powerbasic, I contend that it is also a good source for statements and actions of the powerbasic staff. Comments welcome. RealWorldExperience (talk) 08:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"These specific examples cover only some of the possible types of reliable sources and source reliability issues, and are not intended to be exhaustive. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context, which is a matter of common sense and editorial judgment."

Given that there are no published sources of technical computer science details for minor compilers like Powerbasic in this day and age, the companies technical forum IS a source of "reliable" material. The arguments I make are "directly and explicitly supported" by the COMPUTER CODE or SIGNED STATEMENTS on this forum. It is hard to imagine a more reliable source for information on this subject. RealWorldExperience (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

As a programmer myself with some familiarity with this subject, I would say that a 'floating-point addition necessarily takes more calculations, in any formal system (because you have to move the point around), and thus more circuitry to get done in the same number of clock cycles, as compared to a fixed-point or integer addition of the same bit width. However, this is far from saying that "computing 6.13 + 3.45 takes longer than computing 6 + 3." as we do not know how complex the circuits are, and we don't know if 6.13 is stored and treated as a floating point number. It may be correct to say, in the reverse, that 6+3 can always be done at least as fast as 6.13 + 3.45 (floating-point or not), because even if for some odd reason floating point is faster on a given integrated circuit, then one could simply do 6+3 as floating point arithmetic and get at least equal speed because you're using the same circuit. The same could be set for software - an algorithm that makes integer arithmetic at least as fast as floating point is always available regardless of the hardware, because if all else fails, an integer can be stored as a floating-point number.

But all of this, however true it may be, constitutes

original research. And you really need to cite a book or a paper or something like that. A forum isn't acceptable as a reliable source, as anyone could be responding in the forum. Even if the forum is specifically about that topic - one can assume a little more expertise from the contributors because it's more likely to attract that kind of base. But the same holds true for a wikipedia talk page, and articles don't cite their own talk pages as reliable sources. Kevin Baas^talk

19:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The kinds of forum run by some software houses, where users post questions and technical experts employed by the software house reply, might be RS, but most kinds of forums aren't. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Kevin your point is well taken, and you are correct that it is possible for floating point calculations to be as fast as integer calculations under unique circumstances. I tried to pick an example that would be easily understood by non technical people in the general case. I would argue that your point makes the case for using computer code to determine the actual results, since it IS possible to count the clock cycles used for both operations fairly easily with software.

I submit this is not original research as it is dealing with the INTRINSIC nature of the product. It is like making the statement "gasoline can burn when ignited". If you imagine for a moment, that gasoline is a esoteric product that few people have even seen, and of those, most are not interested enough, don't have the time or have never thought of dropping a match on it, then it becomes clear that the resulting combustion is not original research, but one of the INTRINSIC natures of gasoline.

As it turns out, a few people have dropped a match on the gasoline, and as you or anyone else can instantly verify (in this case with computer code) the results might lead you to determine that you might not clean the BBQ with it.

Your question about the user base of a forum being unknow is Mu as the forum is a resource for the code NOT the opinions of people.

If it were possible to cite a book or a paper then this problem would not arise. but it isn't. Why would anyone spend the time and money to publish a book when more information than you could fit in ten books is available with the click of mouse?

RealWorldExperience (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I submit this is not original research as it is dealing with the INTRINSIC nature of the product ... snip

Unfortunately not. It's counterintuitive, I know, but without published verification, that kind of appeal to personal ability to verify is still original research. If, say, I wanted to add to the Margarine article the not-widely-known fact that "the melting point of Snibbo margarine is 40°C", there's no way I'd get away with the argument than anyone can verify it by buying a pack of Snibbo and a thermometer. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

If 200 people, actively engaged with margarine on a daily basis had independantly performed these tests and written about them extensively on a various websites, I would argue that this is not original research. It is a documented attribute of margarine. The only stumbling block is the source.

Wikipedia CURRENTLY has HUNDREDS of articles that make very specific technical statements that are absolutely true yet do meet the letter of the verification requirement. At some point it will be encumbant upon Wikipedia to acknowledge this and adapt with the times. You are never going to see these kinds of details in print unless their scope impacts many people in a tangible way.

You will get contributions from all over the world (in many languages often translated to english) on specialized internet forums. In the case of computer code, this is not ambiguous nor an opinion, simply a set of machine instructions that lead to a consistent, repeatable result (the requirement for scientific fact) RealWorldExperience (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Edward Henry Lewinski Corwin

I had created Edward Henry Lewinski Corwin as this author's 1917 book is used as source on Wiki, and the author turned out to he a NY based physician. Article was since expanded by a new user, which is kind of odd. See also mainly Talk:First Partition where this author was quoted often. -- Matthead  Discuß   19:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It's quite common for someone to become a WP author when they find an article on a topic they know about or have an opinion about. This isn't anything suspicious or wierd or odd. New users do, of course, often not know site policies, but they can learn and generally do. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Morven is talking about, but if Corwin is being used for anything contentious, I'd remove him. Or someone should, I don't want the Poles and the Ukrainians angry at me in the same week. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Morven talks about new user Adalbercik (talk · contribs). For controversy, see Talk:First Partition (of Poland). -- Matthead  Discuß   23:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup, that seems obvious now. Wonder what I was talking about. --Relata refero (disp.) 05:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably a copycat of

User:M0RD00R and User:Boodlesthecat in English Wiki. Main theme: anti-semitism - a rare merchandise to peddle these days - where there is none - someone must invent it, lol. greg park avenue (talk

) 20:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Your Archives wiki

Could anyone advise on the reliability of the Your Archives wiki? I want to use the list here for the Albert Memorial article. The list seems to be a direct transcription from the official source mentioned here: "The subjects are listed in the official history." (ref to "N.M. pp. 65–90."), where "N.M." is "The National Memorial to His Royal Highness the Prince Consort, 1873." Unfortunately, this official history does not appear to be online. So is it acceptable for me to refer to the wiki as a source for the list, while still making clear that the ultimate source is the official history? Carcharoth (talk) 10:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Working list is here. Carcharoth (talk) 10:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Stark's book

Is Rodney Stark's book,

Victoryof Reason: How Christianity, Freedom, and Capitalism Led to Western Success. New York: Random House.

a reliable source on historical facts? More specifically can we use Stark as a source on non-Christian religions (such as Islam, Hinduism, Judaism etc.)?

The reason I'm asking this what I found on the back of his book:[37]

[...]Simply put, the conventional wisdom that Western success depended upon overcoming religious barriers to progress is utter nonsense. In The Victory of Reason, Rodney Stark advances a revolutionary, controversial, and long overdue idea: that Christianity and its related institutions are, in fact, directly responsible for the most significant intellectual, political, scientific, and economic breakthroughs of the past millennium[...]Christian theology, Stark asserts, is the very font of reason: While the world's other great belief systems emphasized mystery, obedience, or introspection, Christianity alone embraced logic and reason as the path toward enlightenment, freedom, and progress. That is what made all the difference. In explaining the West's dominance, Stark convincingly debunks long-accepted "truths."[...]This is a sweeping, multifaceted survey that takes readers from the Old World to the New, from the past to the present, overturning along the way not only centuries of prejudiced scholarship but the antireligious bias of our own time[...]

Notwithstanding Christianity's inherent superiority of all other other religions, as argued by the book, what really raises the

WP:REDFLAG

is that this book claims to be "revolutionary" and to "debunk long-accepted truths", calling "centuries of scholarship" to be "prejudiced." In my opinion the clause

Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included.

is applicable, since this is not a "high quality source" on Hinduism, Islam, Judaism or non-Christian other religions. What do others think?Bless sins (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Blurbs tend to make overblown claims, even in academic literature. However, Stark is a respected figure, so is as reliable a source on historical facts as any other qualified scholar. As for his theories, they should always be specifically be attributed to him. Paul B (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Stark is certainly reliable. This particular book, however, if described as above, is indeed likely to be ruled out of most articles per

WP:UNDUE. --Relata refero (disp.

) 23:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow your argument. The Undue Weight rule refers to the importance or influence of particular theories. The inmportance of Stark's theories are to be determined by considering the extent to which he is deemed an important commentator on religious history. The facts on which he draws are a different issue. If Stark says a certain text religious published in 1500 contains certain content I see no good reason why it should not be footnoted to this source. Paul B (talk) 06:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct, and I should have expressed myself better. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Paul, I agree with you in theory, when you say "Stark says a certain religious text published in ..." However, on the occasions that Stark is accurately representing a historical document (etc.) there are much better and less theoretically invested sources to use here, and I would say those other historical sources are always preferable. It is also not easy to disentangle his presentation of historical facts from his theoretical aims, and as such it is hard to know how selective his historical presentation is. While he certainly isn't creating historical facts out of thin air he also makes more analytical statements based upon his own selection of such facts. These types of statements, based upon analysis and interpretation of a selective set of data, will inevitably be presented themselves as more or less factual. When and how do we tell someone using Stark that this claim is ok and that one is not? Again I think it is simply better to stick to less theoretically invested, and more historically adept sources for basic information. Then Stark's claims can be used but only when attributed. At that point it does become an issue of

WP:UNDUE and not necessarily one of reliability.PelleSmith (talk

) 12:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Rodney Stark is a very well respected sociologist of religion, and should be considered an extremely reliable source in that capacity. In terms of "historical facts" he is much less reliable, and please note that he is not a historian. Almost all of Rodney Stark's historical argumentation comes about, or came about at some point, in order to buttress his various notable, but by no means popularly accepted, theories religion in modernity (which again is his true field as a sociologist). With that in mind I would not consider him a "high quality source" on the history of any religion, but most certainly a high quality source on contemporary religious trends. I would treat any historical claim he makes as "exceptional" and therefore either find an alternate source (or two, three, etc.) or not use him if there is none. On this contemporary sociological work, if you utilize any of his more contested theories or approaches I would attribute as necessary (as in don't use him in an unattributed way as to imply that theories of modern religious behavior derived from rational choice theory are the status quo throughout sociology).PelleSmith (talk) 00:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add that this does not mean that he does not theorize historically, as he and other sociologist of religion clearly did and do with frequency (see

Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, or Peter Berger). This historically informed theorizing, however, does not make him (or Durkheim, Weber, Berger, etc.) any more so a recognized authority in religious history. In fact I would say that those three, along with Stark, all exemplify a high degree of historical (and cross-cultural) cherry picking of facts convenient to their respective arguments. Again, I would say don't turn to a sociologist as your only reference for historical facts.PelleSmith (talk

) 01:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say Stark would be a reliable source for the fact that fish farming was common in French monasteries of the eleventh century, and such similar straightforward facts. An interpretation of Jewish or Islamic scripture, for example, does not count as a similar straightforward fact. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I would agree. In other words facts that are easily sourced elsewhere.PelleSmith (talk) 11:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

He is not the highest quality source for historical facts, for sure. However, I can see no good reason to exclude the book on that ground. The difficulty is determining where fact ends and theory begins. Also, it's worth comparing this blub to those on books by Niall Ferguson, for example, who is Professor of History at Harvard University. They make similar claims for radical new interpretations etc, etc. It don't think it is appropriate to judge reliability of sources by publishers blubs. Paul B (talk) 06:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Niall Fergusson should certainly be used with similar caution! Counterfactual nonsense is still considered very marginal in the profession, and so is NF. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, people really didn't like it. Alan Wolfe in the New Republic:

The Victory of Reason is the worst book by a social scientist that I have ever read. Stark's methodology has nothing to do with history, or the logic of comparative analysis, or the rigorous testing of hypotheses. Instead he simply makes claims, the more outrageous the better, and dismisses all evidence that runs contrary to his claims as unimportant, and treats anyone with a point of view different from his own as stupid and contemptible, and reduces causation in human affairs to one thing and one thing only. How in the world, I kept asking myself as I read this book, could someone spend so much of his life trying to understand something as important as religion and come away so childish?

He also says: "Stark's proper academic discipline is what used to be called apologetics." Wow. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Wolfe is harsh, but not without good reason. His reservations about Stark's use of historical data are quite to the point in my own view and this is why using Stark as a source for historical facts is problematic, especially if, as Paul B hints, theory and data are not easily untangled.PelleSmith (talk) 11:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that this book was not reviewed by any of the publications one might consider the standard barers in sociology and/or religious studies. In fact it has barely been reviewed by academic publications, which is noteworthy because of who the author is. Here is another blurb about the book from First Things:

WHILE STARK'S technological and economic history seems sound, at least to a nonspecialist, the intellectual history that undergirds the argument is shot through with preposterous assertions and glaring omissions. To declare reason the invention of Catholic theologians is absurd. To speak slightingly of classical Greek "learning" and "lore" without making clear that the signal Greek achievement is philosophy, the effort to understand the world by reason alone, is a travesty. Stark makes Aristotle and Plato sound like bumpkins whom no truly reasonable man would think of taking seriously.

The more I look the more "exceptional" I find this book and its contents.PelleSmith (talk) 11:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Bless Sins,
You are right to wonder if and how this material could be used. This is indeed an exceptionnal claim. I would suggest to keep this analysis and only add it to an article if there are several other ones, claiming the same or the opposite in order to have the npov picture of the analysis carried on this issue.
From what I know concerning this matter, it is not christianism who carried on western alleged advanced culture but rather greek philosophers whose teachings came back in Europe after the Middle-Ages through islam philosophers and some monastary archives. But this is certainly not the christian religion. Some talk about the judeo-christian culture too but this is not exactly in this context; this rather refers to the western conception of the world that takes its roots in judaic and christian conception of life (and once again, not religion).
Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 10:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Some comments.

1. Stark has not, to the best of my knowledge, recently self-identified as Christian. That is, he's freely identified being raised Lutheran, but doesn't write as a Christian or an apologist, let alone a Christian apologist. Thus, we have no particular reason to suspect what he has to say about non-Christian religions is biased by his own personal belief system.
2. Stark quite amply footnotes his books. If there's something he's argued as a tertiary source, it shouldn't be too hard to track back to a secondary source.
3. Likewise, he's also relatively careful to present detailed records of what he's found empirically.

Based on these, I think the clear answer to the question as asked is "yes, Stark is reliable."

However, none of this should mean that any of his conclusions can be taken as anything more than the conclusions of one, sometimes minority, scholar. When he presents one interpretation of the facts, it should properly be presented as such. The book in question was rather open in proposing an alternative interpretation of Western success than that provided in Guns, Germs, and Steel Jclemens (talk) 06:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Michigan Highway website

The http://www.michiganhighways.org/index.html website is being used on numerous Michigan Highway articles. I would like to get an opinion on its reliability. It is a self-published source and it states this here [38] with the statement "this entire website was created and is maintained by a single individual." Any feedback is appreciated. --Holderca1 ^talk 20:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually it is used on more than 200 articles on Michigan state trunkline highways. The most common usage is for the highway length and historical data. The highway lengths we've been able to re-source to GIS data or MDOT Control Section/Physical Reference Atlas maps or even Google Maps which have shown that his stated lengths are accurate normally to the tenth of a mile over what the State of Michigan gives currently, a difference we chalk up to rounding and changes in accuracy of GIS data over time. As to the historical data, he lists [39] for his list of sources, which sadly isn't complete.

Chris Bessert, the website author, works in transportation planning in the Grand Rapids, Michigan area. His site has appeared in the Detroit Free Press three or four times and in the Traverse City Record-Eagle once. He has also been hired by the Mackinac Island Tourism Bureau to produce [40]. According to User talk:CBessert though he has taken some issue with usage of the information on his site back in 2005. Recent attempts by myself to enlist his cooperation though to help establish exact dates of publication for articles in the newspapers has until recently proven fruitless. Perhaps someone else from Wikipedia would have more luck contacting him for further information.

His claims as to how much the source materials for his site are credible given that a FOIA request by myself was returned by the Michigan Department of Transportation asking if I had a dollar limit. MDOT's FOIA officer stated:

The information you are seeking will contain quite a bit of researching and could produce hundreds of pages of documents. This could end up being quite costly to you. Do you have a dollar amount threshold. Under the FOIA statute, we charge $19.80/hour of labor and $0.15/copy. Your request could take 50+ hours of research along and I have no idea how many copies it would produce. Can you try and be more specific as to what type of information you are looking for?

even though I requested specific documentation on 10 specific historical changes to M-28 and M-35. Such request was phrased in such a way to produce around 10-15 specific documents each of which should be around a page or so maximum. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide links to where you have found that he works in transportation planning in Grand Rapids and links to the newspaper articles mentioned. I think the part I find most troubling is the last three bullets of the sources page that state: "Information provided by Michigan citizens and travellers across the state," "Information gathered by myself over third-century of travels around the Great Lake State" and "Hundreds of other sources..." These three basically sum up the main problem of using a self-published source. Simply working for a transportation planning organization does not automatically make one an expert in the field. Also, you really haven't address the "whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." You mentioned the map, but I think just having a map published only makes one an expert on making a map, not on documenting the history of the highways. I still would like to see these newspaper articles to see what they are all about. Are they articles that he wrote? Simply having a newspaper article written about the site does not satisfy "whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" since it isn't his work that is being published. --Holderca1 ^talk 14:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Self-published does not automatically equate with unreliable. The Michigan highways site is without question the best single source of information for historical details of Michigan roads. Yes there are occasional errors and in some places the tone of the writing is speculative or advocating some position. The editor has proven willing to correct any errors that are pointed out and as for the tone, that is pretty readily identifiable and can be routinely addressed through WP's own content and style guidelines. Disqualifying high-quality sites such as this on the basis of a guideline intended to keep out spurious self-pubs would be a disservice both to editors and readers. older ≠ wiser 20:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I would think referencing a self-published site that may have errors would be a disservice; the reader should ideally be able to trust the cited sources. Imzadi1979, you might want to see if you can visit MDOT's offices and browse the meeting minutes; then they wouldn't have to do the research. --NE2 03:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Eh? Any source, whether self-published or not contains errors. The NYT, WSJ and many other venerable sources contains errors -- and many go uncorrected. So what? We have a highly knowledgeable resource, that is for the most part quite accurate and is willing to update information that is shown to be incorrect. What exactly is the problem again? The purpose of WP:Verifiability is that any reader can verify that the information presented in the article corresponds with the cited source. It does NOT require that readers must be able to independently verify all the information contained presented by the cited source. However, I also agree somewhat that this single source should not be so heavily relied upon, especially for details that are somewhat conjectural. older ≠ wiser 12:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

What meeting minutes? MDOT isn't AASHTO. I need the transfer of jurisdiction resolutions. I requested those resolutions for M-28 and BUS M-28's history (which includes on change for M-35) under the FOIA and was quoted a $1,000 estimate for research fees since all the documents are in a storage warehouse. MDOT also requires a 50% good-faith deposit to begin the research. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The Highway Commission is newer than some of the changes that Michigan Highways documents. So even if they have minutes, jurisdiction isn't transferred until approved by the State Administrative Board and logged with MDOT and the counties and/or cities involved, but I don't know how long that arrangement dates back. MDOT has the records... if you're made of gold to dislodge the copies. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Minutes of whatever meetings they approve highway changes at. Hopefully these minutes will be in a format such as microfilm that you can access. Do you know where Chris got the information? I assume he didn't pay $1000 per highway, so there's obviously a more-easily accessible source. It's also possible that they have a single list of all transfers located somewhere, but you asked for the specific resolutions, and they may have thought you needed all the details in legalese. --NE2 04:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Chris got his information from MDOT, a vast collection of the old state road maps and interviews in the field with people, according to Patrick Allen at MDOT. There isn't any single coordinated source for the transfers. Currently, the State Administrative Board approves resolutions transferring or assuming jurisdiction over property by state departments. There is a PDF online from 1940 on for these resolutions, but only the transfers between the City of Ishpeming, MDOT and the Marquette County Road Commission affecting the realignment of BUS M-28 (notated as M-28BR) in July of 1996 are listed there. That resolution is cited. The 1989 extension of M-28 past I-75 to terminate at M-129 would have necessitated a similar transfer from the Chippewa County Road Commission (unless MDOT still retained jurisdiction as unsigned trunkline) but it's not listed even though older transfers are. If anyone can suggest another avenue outside of FOIA requests to MDOT at the tune of $19.80/hr. for research and any necessary redaction of exempt materials under Michigan's version of FOIA, I'm all ears. Until then though, the research has been done already and published online. I've been wrangling e-mails back and forth with MDOT's FOIA Officer so I apologize for not researching the 4 articles that cite the website already, but the website's author has yet to reply to my e-mails. Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Information from interviews with what people? Employees of the DOT? Locals that live along the road? The main problem with the site is that he doesn't properly cite his sources. So it is practically impossible to verify the information on it. As mentioned above, the site has been known to have errors that were corrected, but what about the errors that haven't been found yet? From looking at some of the information that is sourced with this site, it appears that a lot of realignments are being sourced. I would think this info would be able to be found by comparing the route on old maps. Also, the M-28 extension in 1989 seems like it could be simply sourced with a map showing the extension. --Holderca1 ^talk 15:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is a source for the 1989 extension of M-28: [41] --Holderca1 ^talk 16:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

1. ^ http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mscp/ene/2008/00000019/00000002/art00006 Scientific Consensus on Climate Change?] Schulte, Klaus-Martin, Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, March 2008 , pp. 281-286(6)