Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 126

... Yes, van Warmelo definitely does say that^. The editor of Mankind Quarterly, incidentally, did seem keen to try and discover and present the truth, as far as that is possible. --DLMcN (talk) 10:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

"Dr D L McNaughton is a South African meteorologist and astronomer working at Dubai Airport in the Meteorological Office." http://alhafeez.org/rashid/eclpart4.htm . No. His musings on this topic, published in a racist journal, don't pass muster. You're welcome.

talk

) 20:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

If it passed muster in Mankind Quarterly, it has already been disqualified as reliable. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

No, FRINGE content, from a non-expert in a FRINGE journal should not be used to support claims regarding an archaeological site. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Initially, it did seem strange that the Wikipedia 'Jury' should be able to condemn an article without even reading it - but, believe it or not, I actually find some consolation from that fact! - i.e., my reaction would have been different if one of you had highlighted serious flaws and errors in the text. Putting it differently, I am genuinely anxious to ascertain the truth regarding Ancient Zimbabwe, and would therefore welcome specific comments and even criticisms of my attempts to examine the evidence.

OK - I appreciate that Wikipedia does not regard that^ as its function. However, looking now at the other side of the controversy - it would be constructive, helpful and illuminating if Wikipedia could explain in more detail exactly what are the arguments which (allegedly) justify the "Shona" theory. Is that a permissible suggestion within the Wikipedia context? --DLMcN (talk) 09:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You might benefit from looking generally at Felipe Fernández-Armesto's Millenium, Bantam Press, 1995 on African empires. Eurocentrism is written all over this area, or more generally, the idea that Africans never built civilizations off their own bat. It has four excellent synthetic pages precisely on Mwene Mutapa's empire (pp.185-8). No mention of Islam, which is not an argument. But the point is, the existence of impressive ruins in Africa does not immediately suggest that outsiders, or people from a 'higher civilisation' must have been responsible.Nishidani (talk) 10:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I read your article. Interesting to see that a racist journal published an article that claims the credit for the incredible genius behind Great Zimbabwe may not have been that merely of black people but was... ta-da... black Jewish people. --Dweller (talk) 12:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Note that the editor DLMcN appears to be canvassing favourable editors on this issue: [17] [18].

I read the article. I noticed that the main thrust was to say that DNA evidence supported a theory now considered discredited. The people one would expect to get such a paper published in an academic journal are genetics researchers, not someone who's simply read the secondary sources. The genetics findings are already published in two papers. You present no arguments why the Lemba rather than the Shona speakers of the area were responsible for the building of Great Zimbabwe. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

To quickly respond to that - I've become indirectly involved in this but only to help inform DLMcN about how and where to raise his queries. I have no association with him, other than he saw my name as a member of the WP:Alternative theory Project and wanted to know how to link the project to this page. I made responses on my talk page and on the project page, advising him on policy. His approach to me was not 'canvassing' and my responses have been entirely free of any favouritism towards his cause.

As a result of his query I looked at his article and did a little light copy-editing on the page, though the topic is something I know nothing about and have never had a personal interest in. Though IRWolfie finds it hard to AGF, it seems to me that DLMcN has been open and appropriate about the fact that he authored the article. So I think we can set that aside, noted as a matter to be aware of. In addition the journal is listed as one which can be referenced but only with extreme caution applied. Putting these two points together my own view is that some reference to the alternative theory would add to the information value of the page providing

1) it is clearly reported to be an alternative view which is not currently accepted by mainstream academia, and

2) DLMcN does not introduce the text directly on the points where his own work is referenced, but makes the proposals on the talk-page, for other non-involved editors to critcally assess. I have seen that Dougweller has been helping and advising him, and I would be happy to lend a hand on that myself if it helps, to ensure that policies are appropriately applied. This is not because I am favourable to his views, but because an editor has asked for help in the article he is working on, and I am happy to give it if I can -- Zac Δ ^talk! 17:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I see you're acting in good faith, Zac, but not every alternative theory ought to be presented. This one is pseudo-history, and close to racist pseudo-history, at that, and in no way notable. We cannot put every crackpot idea in. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Judth, let's refrain from assuming that because a theory is alternative it's "crack-pot". WP does have a place for fringe views, and it was notable enough to be published in a journal deemed acceptable so long as extreme caution is exercised. From what I understand (via the alternative views project) it's since 1972 that the Shona theory predominated, largely due to the work of one influential author. So long as we put the relationship of this theory into proper relationship with that then we are adhering to the policies of

WP:FRINGE. -- Zac Δ ^talk!

17:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• A self-published site on a personal website of someone who is not a recognized authority in the field (fails
  WP:RS
  on multiple counts)
• Mankind Quarterly (we don't cite Klan publications, so I don't see why we'd cite this).

Until a reliable source comes up for it, we can't cite it. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

That's because Klan publications are completely disreputable, but this journal is not completely disreputable; it is one to be used with extreme caution. I'm not ignoring the concerns but let's not forget that our article on the journals says "The Mankind Quarterly is a peer-reviewed academic journal dedicated to physical and cultural anthropology and is currently published by the Council for Social and Economic Studies in Washington, D.C. It contains articles on human evolution, intelligence, ethnography, linguistics, mythology, archaeology, etc. The journal aims to unify anthropology with biology."

Note that Robert Gayre is listed as a founder of the journal. It is Gayre's views which are currently dominating mainstream opinion and the ones that are being opposed in the said article. Hence it's illogical to suggest that reference to this article necessitates racial bias in this issue.

The article was not self-published. The author was taken seriously enough to have his work published in a peer-reviewed journal which is dedicated to that field of study. If he were a recognised authority then his views would be mainstream and we wouldn't be talking about how to incorporate reference under the rules that dictate

WP:Fringe policies. The point this board established is that the source is listed - not as one to be rejected, but as one to be used with extreme caution. -- Zac Δ ^talk!

20:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You're mistaken there. Gayre's views aren't and weren't mainstream. They are representative of a current in scientific racism that flourished until WW2. The article under discussion tries to resurrect them, in a racist pseudo-journal. When I say "crackpot" I am being generous. "Racist" is nearer the mark. He does not have any peer-reviewed publications yet. He says he has one in press. That wouldn't make him anywhere near an expert on this topic. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You're right - the article is resurrecting Gayre's theory not opposing it, which is what I thought added some credence. But still, I'd hesitate to use the terms you use. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 00:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Gayre's views are not mainstream. But neither are the views of the article by McNaughton. Mankind quarterly is completely disreputable as a source on anthropology and history. It is perhaps a reliable source on the current ideas of the US racialist right wing.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Produce evidence (from real reliable sources) that this source is peer-reviewed or reliable for anything except as an example of extreme kookiness. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Mankind quarterly is not a reliable source for science, especially not for African anthropology or history. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• A "journal" with an evidently strongly racist platform is not a reliable source for science. Now, if the theory can be shown to be notable in its own right, probably independently of the Manking Journal itself, then it might qualify as an acceptable source for an article relating to the theory or some similar more focused article than Great Zimbabwe itself. Beyond a possible article for the theory itself, the source might be acceptable as a source for, for instance, people involved in arguing the theory. Knowing the context in which the source is to be used is crucial. But I cannot see this source being in and of itself sufficient basis for the inclusion on any of the more central articles on Great Zimbabwe and its history or culture, or similar articles. John Carter (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I was routed to this conversation, which I was previously unaware of, by a nice little prod on my talk page from DLMcN, whom I have had the pleasure of editing alongside on subjects like this before: I am sorry to see this has been interpreted by some above as "canvassing favourable editors", but never mind. I have to say I am surprised by some of the opinions here, which seem to me to be biased against DLMcN, the article and Mankind Quarterly, and actually appear to have a far stronger racial agenda than that which David is purported to have. I was taken aback by the sarcastic input of Dweller, an editor I have known for a long time whom I know to strongly sound, but the tone taken by Bali ultimate frankly shocked me ("No. His musings on this topic, published in a racist journal, don't pass muster. You're welcome.") Nishidani at least appeared to want to be constructive, offering a source on pre-colonial African empires which I think we would do well to include.

I admit that I am no expert on the journal Mankind Quarterly, but a quick glance at our page on it gives me a good summary of why other editors appear hesitant. It appears to be that some contributors to this conversation consider the article's appearance in Mankind Quarterly as grounds enough to disqualify it as a reliable source. While I agree that many articles published in such a journal are likely to be somewhat spurious, I do not believe that this is grounds to simply abrogate legitimacy from them all without individual consideration of their content. I quote here our page on potentially unreliable sources, which includes Mankind Quarterly in its list of scholarly journals that "should be used with extreme caution". This is not the same as "should not be used at all". DLMcN's article, while it may trigger alarm bells for some of the more racially-conscious members of our community because it dares to question the credited achievements of the pre-colonial Shona nation, appears to me to be well-sourced, neutrally-presented and good enough to be cited – so long as it is made clear that this is not the mainstream theory.

The article itself does not claim this theory to be the mainstream, actually giving the modern scientific consensus (that Shona speakers created Ancient Zimbabwe) twice, in the section "Trying to identify the builders" and in the article's conclusion. This is not "racist pseudo-history ... in no way notable ... [a] crackpot idea" (in Judith's words above); it's an alternative to the mainstream which some people find uncomfortable, essentially on racial grounds (the same racial grounds, incidentally, that DLMcN is accused of having in writing the article). I would not be so receptive to DLMcN's article if it were unsourced and blatantly racist (it is neither). Certainly I think that he has been perfectly forthright here about his authorship of the article and has done his damnedest to have it assessed through proper Wikipedia process, going through the talk page with other editors then bringing it here, rather than simply adding it to articles surreptitiously with the forlorn hope that nobody would notice.

I would understand the vehement opposition displayed above if DLMcN were proposing to dedicate the entire Great Zimbabwe article to these views, but he is not trying to do that. He has simply written an article summarising a widely-published, albeit rather old, theory, and attempted to have the views contained therein represented. Some of us are interested in knowing the truth about pre-colonial Zimbabwe, which, ultimately, barring some kind of wondrous future scientific advance, will forever remain a mystery. It is unfortunate that some seem more preoccupied with discrediting various aspects of the article's publication rather than providing critical analysis to it with a view to adjudging its suitability. I don't believe for a minute that my input here will not draw a hail of accusations of being biased myself, but I still feel I should comment, as it does not appear to me that justice is presently being done. —Cliftonian (talk) 01:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

First, with scholarly topics, it is not our job to review articles and judge their suitability. We rely on the academic peer-review process for that, or at least rigorous academic editorial review. This article has received no such review. Second, nor is it noteworthy, as it has never been cited or even commented upon in the scholarly literature. There is therefore nothing to discuss. End of story. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The question of reliability is only a side issue here. The real show stopper is whether the theory is notable, which would depend not on the respectability of the journal in which it was published, but rather on the number of mentions of the study in other reliable sources. Fringe theories that have not generated attention do not merit inclusion at all per

WP:FRINGE.·ʍaunus·snunɐw·

02:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict):I don't quite understand how you (Dominus) can say it is not noteworthy as it has not been cited, as it has only very recently been published. The text contained therein has been cited in Ian Kluckow's A History of the Great Zimbabwe Mystery, in any case, so this claim is spurious at best. Regarding your other point, the article did receive peer review when it was submitted to Mankind Quarterly, with several changes and additions made before it was published. I presume you are alluding here to this peer review being somehow illegitimate. —Cliftonian (talk) 02:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC) Edit: Fifelfoo posted on my talk page suggesting that I indicate that this could be interpreted as representing a conflict of interest (he hinted that I might somehow have been involved in the article's peer review at the journal, which I was not). I would like to qualify my comment regarding the article's peer review by saying that it was based purely on DLMcN's opening comment at the top of this section, and nothing else. —Cliftonian (talk) 02:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I said the book has never been cited or mentioned in the scholarly literature, and it hasn't. Lucknow's book doesn't even come close to being scholarly. And yes, the "peer-review" conducted by Mankind Quarterly is a sham. If you disagree, the burden is on YOU to prove otherwise. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not feel I can comment extensively on Kluckow's book, which I have not read, though I do feel you are probably right that it would not pass as "scholarly", so I apologise for previously misinterpreting this point. I still maintain that it is somewhat fallacious to expect numerous citations for such a recently-published work, however. Regarding Mankind Quarterly's peer review, I don't feel that either of us can prove its legitimacy either way. Certainly I don't know quite what evidence you could expect anybody here to present on this matter that would not be immediately dismissed as a conflict of interest. The article appears balanced to me, though of course this is just my opinion. —Cliftonian (talk) 03:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The information can be used in Lemba_people#Construction_of_Great_Zimbabwe where it is relevant. The article is an appropriate source for speculative theories about the Lemba people. User:Fred Bauder Talk 02:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it can't, until it has been cited or subtantially commented on by the relevant scholarly community. See: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Unwarranted_promotion_of_fringe_theories Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, let's start over. We have an article in a

Okay, I'm happy with that. I'm sorry I made a fuss. I still think the article is solid, but I acknowledge the conversation is going nowhere, essentially for the reasons you described, so I agree it's probably best we drop it now. —Cliftonian (talk) 03:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I am happy to drop the subject now. I would like to thank all contributers - even if I did wonder whether some of them were perhaps violating the Wikipedia "Ad Hominem" code. I am not going to register a formal complaint about that - but instead of hurling personal insults at one another, surely it is better to focus on hard facts and evidence? --DLMcN (talk) 05:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Is [The Top 200 Chomsky Lies by Paul Bogdanor a reliable source for this edit at United States and state terrorism? RolandR (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I notice that there was once a Wikipedia article on Bogdanor which was deleted at AFD. Doesn't say much about the notability of his opinions... Zero^talk 15:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
• Not even a question,
  WP:BLPSPS rules out such a source. nableezy
  - 15:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Blogs do not count as reliable sources unless they are by recognized authorities in the field (easy way to check that is to see if we have an article about the blog's author). So, they wouldn't count towards notability, either. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

In the article

There are two sources cited in this section:

• Lott, John R. Jr. "Women's suffrage over time." Washington Times, November 27, 2007. [n.p.]
• "Where There's Life There's Hope." Life, November 15, 1906.

The second is a clear primary, and via the advice at

WP:HISTRS

I would suggest it be removed. Argumentative use of primaries is OR.

The first is more complex. Lott has published in Journal of Political Economy on this topic (Lott, John R Jr.; Kenny, Larry "How Dramatically Did Women's Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government?" Journal of Political Economy [n.v.; n.i.], 1999, [n.p.].). The question is, why are we citing a non-peer reviewed publication when a peer reviewed publication exists. Lott's speculations on women's sufferage in the Washington Times hasn't suffered the scrutiny of political economists. Lott and Kenny's findings have. Replace with Lott and Kenny 1999; and if the content isn't found there, remove it—Lott knows how to get peer reviewed papers published, if the claims exist only in the Washington Post, then they're obviously not capable of withstanding the peer scrutiny process. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't disagree but the statements are plausible. Women's suffrage is likely to have favoured prohibition. Since Lott is published elsewhere on this topic, my instinct is uncontroversial and reliable. This is not carte Blanche to Lott or Washington Times on history. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. And maybe minor, I'd be a lot happier if it had been the Washington Post.

talk

) 15:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Lott emphatically does not have good academic credentials. If he can't get it past a peer review, it is inherently questionable. Hipocrite (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Our article on him says "He has previously held research positions at academic institutions including the University of Chicago, Yale University, the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Maryland, College Park, and at the non-academic conservative American Enterprise Institute. He holds a Ph.D. in economics from UCLA". Are we now saying that anyone with similar credentials can't be used unless they have published in a peer reviewed source?

talk

) 15:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Evidently

Well, there's archive.org.[20] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Obviously in this case it can be checked out, but ordinarily I would suggest any source that is not verifiable from the time of its addition should be pulled. Betty Logan (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I remember having an encarta CD when I was younger. Is it possible that someone could be using the CD to access it? Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds likely. The CD shipped with Windows in the 1990s. Tertiary source, not RS, but not dreadful and an editor might find it useful to consult for ideas. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Itsmejudith here. Encarta is problematic, but not highly so. Its use should be depreciated, but not worried about. If you come across an editor inserting Encarta, chat with them about the desirability of using secondary sources, etc. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Encarta is not a good source, but acceptable in doubt (like Britannica or any other encyclopedia formally would). Being available online is not a necessary criterion for in general and hence not for Encarta in particular. There plenty of Encarta CDs and the webarchive mentioned above, so in doubt Encarta needs to be treated like a book being out of print.

However if some editors adds problematic or dodgy material sourced on Encarta, I would revert that until a better source is provided. For serious content dispute it is certainly not acceptable to base your argument/desired content solely on Encarta.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Well if editors are using the CD version then it's the CD that needs to be cited, preferably with the version number and any other relevant citation details. At least the CD is verifiable to some degree; citing a dead website is incorrect referencing. Betty Logan (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes but cited a dead website is possible if the site was still alive at the time the citation was introduced or if the content in question is available in an archive (of course in that case a link to the archived version should be provided).--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

You are right. However, when an editor manages to find an url that doesn't work and uses that as a source, it does look as though they may have just copied it from somewhere else without checking it.

talk

) 15:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

If a link dies that's a fairly common problem, we don't pull the source, but if an editor is referencing claims with dead links then obviously the information is not coming from the cited location. If it's coming from an archive or CD then those should be sourced directly as per

WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Betty Logan (talk

) 18:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• Source. Lange, Karen (September 2007). "Tales From the Bog". National Geographic 212 (3): 80-93.
• Article. Bog body
• Content. "An article in a German archaeology journal called "Imaginary People" concluded that many of the cases (my comment: of an archaeologist named Dr. Alfred Dieck) were fabricated."
• I have no strong views on the assertion itself. My concern is that as the content stands, we lack the name of the German journal, page references etc. or the author of the original conclusion. National Geographic is not a specialist archaeological journal itself. Hchc2009 (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Locate the German source. These are original and extraordinary theoretical claims in archaeology. The correct place to find original and extraordinary theoretical claims in archaeology is a peer reviewed archaeological journal. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• • I agree with Fifelfoo, but National Geographic is a RS in its own right. While it's obviously not a specialist archaeological journal and is aimed squarely at the mass market, it does have a very long track record of publishing articles on archaeological topics and can be assumed to hire writers who know what they're talking about and undertake fact checking. Given that a claim like this is potentially libelous, it can also be assumed that National Geographic's lawyers would have required confirmation before giving this article the OK to publish. But yeah, citing the original journal article would be the best option. Nick-D (talk) 00:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Nick's right, I was being a bit hard. Even when you find the German source I'd suggest leaving the National Geographic cite as further reading. The difference between a source for a claim, and a reference to a source for ordinary readers to follow up. A good reason to use the further reading section, when the article doesn't rely on a citation but a citation may help readers. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Alfred Dieck is dead so libel is not a concern. Roger (talk) 15:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The source in question seems to be this one: VAN DER SANDEN, Wijnand A. B.; EISENBEISS, Sabine: Imaginäre Menschen: Alfred Dieck und die Moorleichen in Nordwesteuropa. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt,

You might also check out Alfred_Dieck (the source is used there as well) and corresponding German Interwiki. Apparently several German TV documentation covered the subject as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Cheers guys - will take the source back over to the article! Hchc2009 (talk) 05:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Does this page meet RS standards or not? It seems to be from a "blogspot" of the Riverdale Press, which appears to be itself an at least basically reliable local newspaper in the area. John Carter (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

RS for what? Someguy1221 (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Good question, actually. I've asked the editor who added material based on it, User:Catflap08, to indicate exactly what he wants sourced from this article. John Carter (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Well what I can see is that ceratain articles form the Riverdale Press are available online also for people to comment on them ... in my eyes not a blog as such which is more like a diary.--Catflap08 (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Actually, I think the

1/ Wikipedia guidelines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS#Usage_by_other_sources indicates: “Never use….blogs as a source for material about a living person” . The mentioned source in dispute is a blog, with a defaming rumor involving a living person (the teacher).

2/ In Citing Sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sourcesources we find: “the information given is supported by reliable sources, thus improving the credibility of Wikipedia”. Here we have an information about “controversy about proselytizing” supported by a blog which defines the information as a mere rumor. I disagree with the editors (involved in supporting the blog) on accepting a rumor as a reference in Wikipedia article, whether it is on a blog or on a rumor spreading -self confessed tabloid.

6/ Question: is a web-article which is written by an anonymous person (or group of unknown people) - is this source regarded as acceptable in Wikipedia.

General question, general answer: We evaluate reliability partly on the basis of the author (Is expert? Has published reliably on subject? etc.) partly on the publisher/website (Academic? Strong on fact-checking? etc.). So, if the piece is anonymous, all depends on the evaluation of the publisher/website. Andrew Dalby 09:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

7/ The title of this thread was chosen by John as " Riverdale Press Blog" , however the dispute is not just on that questionable reference. There are 2 matters here not just one included in the title. All rasied matters should be addressed, not only the Rivedale Press Blog. I don't know whether I have to extend the second matter to a different thread, as initially I included both matters in one post (at the Dispute resolution Board). I'll continue then here with the other matter which was not addressed.

The disputed sentence referes to a claim of controversy using the words “religious tolerance”. This matter is in particular of a very important weight and I request its full examination of by Wikipedia Editors: the disputed sentence starts with a claim of “controversy regarding religious tolerance”. To support this claim, a source citing a complaint by a certain individual (about age discrimination and religious intolerance) in a case which went to the court. The reference does not mention that the Court dismissed the case, and brought the information as valid, while it is not. The Court did not rule about any breach of religious tolerance referred to in that misleading source. The answer of the editor involved who introduced the misleading claim was that the Court's decision was weak, and he reinstalled the misleading refrence again. I do not know about Wikipedia rules concerning criticising a Court’s decision as weak - as a justification of including a misleading information in the article.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 07:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Apart from point 6 above, and which was answerd by Andrew Dalby - none of the other points were discussed or answered. It seems that a general question gets a general answer quickly, so if this is the case I may as well generalise my questions, which remain unanswered. Originally, my matter was posted as a "Disputed sentence" which had 2 (two, not one only) disputed use of references as explained on the Dispute Resolution Board. It was moved here and unfairly given the title Riverdale Press Blogspot, changing thus the focus of the original matter - to just one subject.

Now, to trigger the discussion onwards, I am asking Editors the following 2 general Q below (which constitute the essence of relevant points I explained in details above - without repeating them here):/1/ Is a blog which acknolwedges that the information given on it is a mere rumor, is this blog accepted as a refrence to the wording of a sentence which makes of the rumor a fact, misleading thus readers about its low credibility. And: /2/ Is it acceptable to use a refrence about a specific legal matter (one side accusing another in a court case) and which the legal system rejected its credibility (and twice dismissed the court cases about it) - is it acceptable to use that refrence speaking only about the accusation of one side (ignoring the court's dismissal of the accusation) as a supportive refrencein a sentence virtually defaming the accused, misleading thus readers about the rejection of the whole matter by the court. I wonder whether the last question here requires a separate section - because the title given to this thread deals with one refrence only without addressing the totality of the matter as put above and as originally put on the Dispute Resolution Board.

can I also emphasise here that the problem is not just about the misleading refrences but about the wording of the sentence. Even if a refrence may be considered as reliable, the problem remains in the wording of the information in the article, which does not support the full contents of the refrences.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 05:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all I believe that the Riverdale site is no Blog as such. This is an online version of the Riverdale Press. On a side note a Pulitzer prize awarded newspaper. The site just gives the opportunity for users to comment on articles published. I would also like to say that Safwan is in no position to brand the incidents published in the Ocweekly as rumours. Even without the riverdale reference (which I took out a week ago) or the OCWeekly reference the sentence would remain the same. The lack of religious tolerance and issues on proselytising are issues brought up again and again, whether it be academics, journalists, ex-members or still active critical members. Safwan does not like the sentence full stop. As for the ongoings at Soka University the court ruling was not about if SGI is engaged in proselytising or not but on which grounds the sacking of the employee was legal or not . Proselytising to my knowledge is not forbidden in most western countries at least– its just a pain in the neck. Yet again I must emphasise that Wikipedia is not about judging, but to mention relevant information for the reader. Denying those critical issues would indeed be against Wikipedia ethos and purpose. I would also like to mention this, a draft version on a future guideline concerning religious issues, although still a draft what it underlines is that critical issues have and should be mentioned and there is no need to say things like “ but SGI states that ...” when information critical of SGI is published. It has been brought up by another user within the SGI-talk. To be honest the reader does not care actually as the article should solely describe what SGI is about how it sees itself and goals it follows. The critical issues have their own right. Yet again its not about judging, but give an idea about a religious group – and even though some may not like that, but mentioning those issues critical are important. Safwan has to acknowledge that there are people in this world who know the faith he is practising quite well, may it be due to own experience or by interest. We are talking about religious issues and what some people hold dear – and they have every right to so – is simply not equal to those who do not share that interpretation of a certain faith may it be on philosophical, organisational or academic grounds. And even though this a very private opinion Safwan, your eagerness to get rid of those critical issues perfectly underlines the old criticism of SGI as being unable to accept and tolerate those views that simply do not buy in on how SGI portrays itself. And yet again a private opinion, Safwan, you know perfectly well in which way other faiths, Buddhist or not, indeed Nichiren-Buddhist or not are being portrayed behind closed doors. So denying the obvious will just result in making the not obvious to be more visible. --Catflap08 (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The question was asked above as to what information is being sourced from the Riverdale Press blog. I'm not sure that I see an answer to that question. It would help the others who might review this thread to have a clearer idea as to what specific content is being sourced from that site. John Carter (talk) 17:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, something has been achieved here - but just partly, not completely: the disputed source (of Riversdale Press Blogspot presenting a rumor about a teacher) - this was removed from the disputed sentence (on Soka Gakkai page, Perception and Criticism):

“There has been controversy about the degree of religious tolerance[75] and proselytizing[76][77][78]practiced by some of Sōka Gakkai's members[79]”

However, the same subject of the same rumor about that teacher was copied by this source: ([77] in the sentence above: http://www.culthelp.info/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=5600

This brings the subject of my enquiry again to this Board. Is a description of a "rumor" acceptable as a reference implicating it as a "truth", that is: implicating the teacher involved in wrongdoing based solely on rumors. The sentence above is about ‘proselytizing’ while the source is about a 'rumor concerning proselytizing'.

If this reference is maintained in the disputed sentence then this is a case of presenting a rumor as a fact on Wikipedia pages.

The other subject is not dealt with by any editor,: it is the first part of the disputed sentence which claims that controversy about ‘religious tolerance’ is supported by this information:[75]: http://www.ocweekly.com/content/printVersion/932823/ . This source presents an information (dated March 2011) about an alleged discrimination claimed by a staff (discrimination based on the complaining staff's age and also religious beliefs) - submitted in a legal case to the court system. The court dismissed the case in April 2011. This means that the allegation of religious intolerance (which the editor involved put in the disputed sentence) -, does not support reality of the case upon which the editor relied. If the court dismissed the case, the question here to Wikipedia editors, on whether : an information speaking half the truth and ignoring the decision of the court in the matter - is it acceptable within Wikipedia practice. In other words, is it acceprtable to publishes that "X was accused" in a court case, deliberately avoiding and ignoring the fact that "the accusation against X was invalid".SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The court did not decide wether SGI is proselytising or not. Actually I am tempted to reinsert the Riverdale quote - both are examples where prsoelytising became an issue - in both cases not the focus. The Cult watch article describes also what happened in that school. At any rate I slowly getting the impression the editor tries to withold information. The article on SGI is NINE pages long. What I finally would like to know if the editor wants the word proselytising not to appear in the article? The idea that this was a rumor soley is being voiced by the editor in question --- both newspaper articles report on issues - as newspapers do.--Catflap08 (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)I would also like to know finally disclosing on what basis he believes the Riverdale Press and OC Weekly are to be regarded unreliable sources? They are newspapers - as anyone can see.--Catflap08 (talk) 21:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Please try to cooperate and acknowledge that Wikipedia editors have not voiced their views about the 2 matters presented here. I have explained the matters in details here (and also: in "Two Unresolved Matters"). Going into circles is not helpful. Giving nonsensical arguments is not helpful (such as: "The article on SGI is NINE pages", shouting the number 9 to validate your points).

Again I am asking Wikipedia editors the 2 questions: /1/ is it acceptable for an editor to give information relying on a source - which speaks about an accusation to someone (or organisation) - but without mentioning that the claimed accusatin was in a court case which was dismissed by the legal system. This is a matter about Wikipedia rules and gudelines - it is a general question regarding a sentence giving a false claim the impression as being a true claim - which can mislead the reader- is acceptable by Wikipedia.

The second question is also general: it is about using a refrence which presents a rumor about someone, a rumor by confesstion of the writer of the blog - not any final or true fact. Rumor spreading sources - in this particular matter - was used in a sentence, treating the rumor as a confirmed fact against the person involved. Is this acceptable in Wikipedia? ( For confirmation of my impartial approach please understand the following: I have no objection at all to that sentence about proselytizing. It should not be deleted, not at all, because it has other acceptable by Wikipedia sources (I will examine their contents in the future), so these acceptable sources can remain in the same sentence. But the other 2 sources which are specifically dealing with a rumor - are the subject of objection). My 2 questions are of general nature.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

1. Source. The book or web page being used as the source.

If it's a book, please include author, title, publisher, page number, etc.

If it's an online source, please link to it.

2. Article. The Wikipedia article(s) in which it is being used. 3. Content. The exact statement(s) in the article that the source is supporting. Please supply a WP:DIFF or put the content inside block quotes.

I am looking for views on whether A Genealogy of Evil: Anti-Semitism, from Nazism to Islamic Jihad by David Patterson is WP:RS.

The book is currently being used to source a variety of statements:

• Nazi relations with the Arab world
  "In 1932, immediately before Hitler's rise to power, Hitler was given the name Abu Ali in Syria, and Muhammad Haidar in Egypt" and "In 1941 the Mufti orchestrated a coup d'état, with Nazi support and financing, led by Rashid Ali al-Gaylani."
•  1941 Iraqi coup d'état " The Mufti Amin al-Husayni was one of the orchestrators of Rashid Ali al-Gaylani's coup d'état, with Nazi support and financing."
• 1947 Aleppo pogrom
  "The Jews of Aleppo had suffered previous pogroms in 1853 and 1875"
• Arab nationalism "In 1941 Rashid Ali al-Gaylani staged a pro-Nazi coup in Baghdad, Iraq. The Mufti Amin al-Husayni of Palestine was one of those who, together with pro-German Iraqi officers, obtained finances and support from Nazi Germany."
• Haj Amin al-Husseini
  "Al-Husseini was involved in the organization and recruitment of Bosnian Muslims into several divisions of the Waffen SS and other units. The largest was the 13th Handschar division of 21,065 men, which conducted operations against Communist partisans in the Balkans from February 1944."

Having read parts of this book, it appears to be a polemical work with an extreme POV. Whilst it has a reputable publisher, this review questions it in the strongest possible terms:

"Indeed, the flaws of Genealogy of Evil are so extensive and visible that regrettably one cannot but ask serious questions as to how it possibly got through the Cambridge University Press vetting process. The limited truths—that some influence was wielded by Nazism over certain Islamic extremists, and that exterminationist anti-Semitism continues to motivate many of them—do not disguise the overwhelmingly propagandistic nature of this book. Its appalling abuse of interpretive method, and Patterson’s transparent promotion of an analytically blinkered political and religious agenda, have no place in anything with pretensions to academic work."

The review is by an appropriate scholarly expert. This review in DOMES: Digest of Middle East Studies rips the book a new oriface from the first line, "A strongly normatively characterized analysis of two political phenomena… Patterson, an academic specialist on Holocaust studies (University of Texas, Dallas) and apparently a subscriber to the foundational school of Islamic studies, holds onto the “pre-modern” acceptance of absolute values. Hence, for him there is such a thing as “evil,” which of course presumes the existence of the obverse ancient Greek goal of achievement of “the Good.” The nature of evil itself, however, is treated with scant examination, but is a necessary condition for purposes of the thesis here to understand and appreciate extreme violence and genocide." I would say that these hostile scholarly reviews invalidate the work's capacity to maintain a weighty opinion. I would also say that the hostility of the scholarly reviews to the work's factual basis constitutes an definitive attack on the capacity of the work to be used for fact on wikipedia reliably. (This opinion would change based on the preponderance of scholarly reviews of the work proffering a different opinion). Fifelfoo (talk) 23:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

This makes no sense. The "hostility", at most, might require us place less emphasis on its theories, but not its facts, as you strangely proclaim. This is an book written by an academic in its field and published by an academic publishing house.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Just you have provided one review from a student newspaper that is "hostile" towards this book, it doesn't mean that the book is automatically non-RS.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC))

Response - Two negative reviews doesn't make a book non-RS

The book may be polemical, but that doesn't mean that the specific facts it cites aren't accurate. Using two hostile reviews as an excuse to remove all mentions of this book in Wikipedia seems a little disengenous. You have neglected to mention that the book itself is written by a recognized expert - David Patterson has published over 30 books, holds a chair at a major university and that the book is published by a University Publising company. This more than meets the requirements of RS - and this doesn't change just because two people do not agree with the book. Numerous other books written by experts that have subsequently been criticized by other experts are cited in Wikipedia.

Let's also take a look at the two reviews cited. The first is by Jonathan Leader Maynard, who is described as "reading for a DPhil in Political Theory at University College, Oxford." (i.e. he is a student). The second is by someone named "Sanford R. Silverberg" but there is little information on him. No offence, but trying to use these two reviews as evidence that the book is not RS is a bit of a stretch. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC))

Hi Hyperion, you say he is a "a recognized expert" - the link to his personal page at his university says his areas of specialization are "Holocaust, anti-Semtism, Jewish literature, Jewish history, modern Jewish thought". None of those have anything to do with the quotes his latest book is being used to support (i.e. those typed out above).

talk

) 07:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

It's taken about 5 years to get the article on

WP:NPOV. For a good part of that, the problem was edit-warring by POV-warriors who saw in him the Arab incarnation of Hitlerian evils (see the Novick quote at the end of the page), who used poor sources, or generic sources of quality that quoted poor sources. Patterson is an example of the latter. He knows nothing of al-Husseini scholarship, and inadvertently picked up a poor source. al-Husseini is the most intensively studied figure in that area: specialist books and articles abound, by distinguished Israeli, Arab, and Western historians. There is simply no need to use tertiary sources as her that happen, through oversight, to ignore the best scholarship and rely on bad sources written with a polemical thesis. The only reason I have not removed it yet is because it's published by CUP. But Patterson is simply not acceptable for this page, because he himself has used a notoriously unreliable source. I hope it is not discourteous, Hyperion, but I have, I believe, fixed the problem on the al-Husseini page in the meantime by replacing Patterson there with an excellent Yugoslavian historian's work, which has more details. Nishidani (talk

) 08:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I still respectively disagree with you regarding Patterson's reliability. However, the new source you cited seems to be reliable as well, so using it as the citation shouldn't be a problem.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC))

Supportive reviews

It seems that at least two sources have reviewed this book and have praised it [21] - Jeffrey Herf, University of Maryland, College Park and, Alexander Zvielli in The Jerusalem Post.

Just for the record, Cambridge University Press (which published the book) seems to have no problem in promoting this book on their website. [22]

Hi Hyperion, you have quoted the editorial references that the author/publisher uses to promote the book, likely "connected" (i.e. solicited) reviews. That doesn't prove anything - every popular book on Amazon has the same. Look at the same for From Time Immemorial, known to be one of the most intellectually dishonest books on the subject, and definitely not RS.

talk

) 07:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Three points:

1) The author of "From Time Immemorial" was not a full professor at a recognized university and the book was not published by a University publishing company (unlike a Geneology of Evil, where both of the above are in the affirmative)

2) There is extensive research from recognized sources that debunks "From Time Immemorial". In contrast, there is a grand total of one negative review (from a student newspaper) and one selectively quoted review.

3) These reviews may be solicited, but that doesn't mean that aren't accurate or valid.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 13:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC))

Selective quoting of Sandford Silverberg

It seems that you have selectively quoted Sandford Silverberg (above). According to his review on Amazon.com, Silverberg goes on to state that "The substance of Patterson's work reifies those who project a similar political agenda, but will be subject to strong criticism from those whose expertise is Nazi-Muslim relations. Nevertheless, this comment aside, there is a rich trove of material for others to mine and insert into the historical record and controversy that has raged on for some decades, but one that certainly is currently in vogue." -Sanford R. Silverburg, Digest of Middles East Studies"[23].(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC))

"there is a rich trove of material for others to mine." We are an encyclopaedia, not a publisher of original genealogy studies. If you wish to conduct a genealogy based on someone else's work, feel free to publish elsewhere. We don't rely on half-baked works, because we don't want unformed dough, we want the research to be fully risen. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

What does your above rant have to do with the issue at hand (i.e. whether this book should be considered non-RS based on two negative (actually one negative and one selectively quoted) reviews? I've noted that this book was written by a University professor, published by a University press, and has been both positively reviewed by at least two sources. I think I've made my case that this book can be considered RS, and that the rush to remove any reference of this book in Wikipedia is at best premature, and at worst, disingenuous.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC))

Hi Hyperionsteel, thanks for your contribution. I don't think that the term "rant" is fair against Fifefoo's post - we could all be accused of that. Nor do I think suggestions of disingenuity are appropriate - the clearly linked edit summaries were intended to bring in any editors who disagree. Therefore I am glad you are here, so we can debate this properly above.

talk

) 07:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I used the term rant because Fifelfoo's above statement didn't address the point I was trying to make (i.e. that Silverberg's review of the book was selectively quoted). Instead, he makes bizarre comments about my supposed desire to engage in "geneological studies" using "unformed dough" as opposed to "research [that is] fully risen." I'm not sure what Fifelfoo's point was, but it has nothing to do with whether or not Silverberg's review (selectively quoted or not) can be cited as definitive evidence that this book is (or is not) RS.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC))

Also, I used the terms "premature" and "disingenuous" because you immediately removed information from about five Wikipedia pages based on these two reviews (I have since reverted them). Removing so much material sourced from this book because of the two reviews you cited seems premature to me, but I admit it was my cynicism talking when I used the word "disingenuous."(Hyperionsteel (talk) 14:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC))

I stand by my assessment. The DOMES review tears this book a new oriface. The fact that Hyperionsteel may be deeply unfamiliar with reading academic reviews is frankly beside the point. I haven't read a more hostile review of a work in quite some time, particularly the section where it is suggested that the work is not of any use except for potentially further primary research. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome to your opinion about the new oriface. Many books receive hostile reviews (especially when dealing with sensitive topics like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict). However (and I'm repeating myself), just because a book has received a hostile (or even an very hostile) review by a student in a student-run newspaper, it doesn't automatically mean that the book is non-RS. The book was written by a full University professor, published by a University press, is actively promoted on the University press' website, and has receieved at least two positive (and one mixed) reviews from RS sources. Also, and no offence intended, you did selectively quote Silverberg's review in your above justification.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC))

Domes is a peer reviewed journal published by Wiley-Blackwell, mate. And I didn't quote it selectively, which is an offensive euphemism and an accusation of misconduct. When you extended the quoted material, I demonstrated that the material you chose to quote to support the validity of the work in fact undermines it. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, Silverberg is stating that while the book's conclusion "has yet to be firmly established" and that "the substance of Patterson's work reifies those who project a similar political agenda," he acknowledges that the book contains "a rich trove of material for others to mine and insert into the historical record and controversy." How does this further undermine the book? In fact, Silverberg is stating that the facts cited in the book are accurate, but that Silverberg's conclusion based on those facts isn't well-supported (i.e. your claim that this review undermines the book's "factual basis" is clearly disputable, if not incorrect.)

Also, I've read the full review, and while it is certainly critical of Patterson's conclusions, it is hardly the "hostile" attack that you make it out to be and certainly does not provide the book with any kind of perforation or aperture that it didn't have before this review was published. I've seen reviews of books that are far more "hostile" than this one. In any event, nobody is arguing that the book is perfect or that it does not contain flaws, but the point is that it does meet (as I have cited above) the requirements for RS in Wikipedia.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC))

A source dispute has arisen at

can you please cite the source in question; your diff provides no indication of what the source under discussion is. Similarly can you directly point to (hopefully quote here) the contentious claims. The source appears to support 10-20 claims. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Lets go through the claims:

• ...one had an AK-47 and another an RPG-7

Article says: WikiLeaks also does not point out that at least one man was carrying an AK-47 assault rifle. He is seen swinging the weapon below his waist while standing next to the man holding the RPG.

In this capacity it is not clear if the reporter is reporting or analysing. If the latter his article serves as a primary source for the claim.

• The second airstrike using 30 mm fire was directed at Chmagh and two other unarmed men as they were attempting to help Chmagh into their van.

Article says: Another point of contention comes later in the video when U.S. Apache helicopters open fire on two men in a van who had arrived at the courtyard to carry away one of the wounded.

Article doesn't actually back up the statement.

• ...and another was carrying an AK-47 or AKM assault rifle.

Not clear how this draws on the article, which doesn't mention AKM assault rifles.

• The van had no visible markings to suggest it was an ambulance or a protected vehicle.

Article says: However, the military says that because the van had no visible markings to suggest it was an ambulance or a protected vehicle, it was fair game under Army rules.

Journalist is clearly reporting what the military says. Article is definitely a secondary source for this claim.

• Assange later acknowledged "Based upon visual evidence I suspect there probably were AKs and an RPG, but I'm not sure that means anything,"

Article says: "Based upon visual evidence I suspect there probably were AKs and an RPG, but I'm not sure that means anything," Assange said.

Article is quoting Assange verbatim, so is clearly acting as a secondary source in this capacity.

• Capt. Jack Hanzlik, a spokesman for
  U.S. Central Command
  stated that the airstrike video "gives you a limited perspective, [it] only tells you a portion of the activity that was happening that day. Just from watching that video, people cannot understand the complex battles that occurred. You are seeing only a very narrow picture of the events." Hanzlik said images gathered during a military investigation of the incident show multiple weapons around the dead bodies in the courtyard, including at least three RPGs. "Our forces were engaged in combat all that day with individuals that fit the description of the men in that video. Their age, their weapons, and the fact that they were within the distance of the forces that had been engaged made it apparent these guys were potentially a threat."

Article says: "It gives you a limited perspective," said Capt. Jack Hanzlik, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command. "The video only tells you a portion of the activity that was happening that day. Just from watching that video, people cannot understand the complex battles that occurred. You are seeing only a very narrow picture of the events." Hanzlik said images gathered during a military investigation of the incident show multiple weapons around the dead bodies in the courtyard, including at least three RPGs. "Our forces were engaged in combat all that day with individuals that fit the description of the men in that video. Their age, their weapons, and the fact that they were within the distance of the forces that had been engaged made it apparent these guys were potentially a threat," Hanzlik said.

Article quoting a military spokesman. Secondary source.

There are a few issues with the source, but for the most part where the reporter is quoting either Wikileaks or the military then it is acting in a secondary source capacity. It is ok to use for those quotes, just try to refrain from using any parts where the journalist interjects any of his own analysis. Betty Logan (talk) 07:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Could you please cite the source you are discussing. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for an extensive and clam responses. I will contemplate a bit, and later do a edit based on those comments. I am/was under impression that sources independent of content should be replaced when there are better alternatives, with the goal that good sources can bubble up and make the content more trustworthy. So my goal was not to do any direct changes to the content, but rather just improve what sources back up that content, initiated by a talk comment that questioned the use of Fox news as source in this article. Is that still something worth pursuing? Belorn (talk) 08:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It is always worth improving source quality, but remember when improving sources to read them in full. New sources may indicate that current sections of the article aren't weighted correctly, or even correct. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

IMHO the article goes too far towards conducting its own investigation. Stick more closely to the accounts in the mainstream media. If CNN (to give just one example) doesn't mention a point of detail, then you should wonder whether that point is notable. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm having trouble seeing the point of the two links intending to say that Fox News is biased. The Guardian link clearly identifies the Fox News piece as "an opinion piece on the Fox News site." The Mediaite link is about a commentator, not a reporter.

None of these two links are about the Fox News reporter who wrote the Baghdad story. Note, too, that both of these links cover different POVs. That's pretty common for newspapers and TV.

If we were to toss out an entire publisher because they also include commentary then we'd have very few references from newspapers.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

You take up an interesting viewpoint, so lets look into it. News papers is considered by Wikipedia RS to have editorial oversight on content they publish, but with some limitations in regards to Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces.

Doing a second search, I found this guardian columnists article talking about the fox news agenda, and mostly in regard to Bill O'Reilly. I do not think Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) actions should be viewed as outside the editorial oversight of Fox news. On other hand, is that enough to prove neutrality issues between Fox news and Wikileaks? I would regards it as so, but I would like to hear more opinions on this.

What affective editorial control Fox news had in regards to the original two links I found should be questioned. The guardian link do point (implicitly) towards the view that it was an opinion piece outside the the control of Fox news. Belorn (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The Guardian comment that you just linked is an opinion piece published by The Guardian. The "comment is free" section is notorious for its radical off-the-wall commentary. That doesn't mean those opinion writers are speaking for The Guardian. Nor does it mean that The Guardian editors agree with anything they're saying. It does not matter that they have editorial control. They want differing opinions on their comment pages.

The same goes for Bill O'Reilly, who is *not* speaking for Fox News. His opinions are his alone.

And the same goes for the commentators that you're citing -- none of whom had anything to do with the *news* article that you're trying to get rid of.

Other news channels have their own paid political commentators, too. Their opinions do not necessarily agree with the position of the entire news channel. It is not intended to reflect on their news reporting.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not think there is any possible simple answer to your point Randy. No rule will tell us what to do in all cases. Both Fox and the Guardian are big news organizations with fact checking, so useable. Both can be described as partisan, especially on their blogs, but then again WP does not forbid us to use partisan sources, just to be careful to report them in a balanced way. If a comment from Fox is notable but potentially going to be argued as being partisan, then seek consensus. A simple way to get consensus in many cases is just to atttribute anything that a reasonable MIGHT think is partisan (According to Fox...).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

In this case, it is attributed to Fox News. But, technically, that shouldn't be necessary this time. The reference is summarizing what named sources are saying. Nobody is being confused about this being the military's position, and nobody argues that their spokesman is not being quoted accurately. Had this been done right, we'd be saying "according to a military spokesman..." and then quote or summarize that.

This targeting of Fox News is a bit more absurd than usual.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no "targeting" of Fox News. The path to this point is well described above, where a complain was made on the talk, sources to support it was clear (at least initially), no one contested those sources (See diff response) but just responded by edit warring, and the rest can be seen here. It is a gray zone what to do now. I think the bias is clearly there, and that reader will trust the Wikipedia article less because that source is used.

But to go there, that would likely require an RFC and I do not think that its worth it yet. Maybe no consensus is the best way to go for now.

I have followed up the first response, excellently made by Fifelfoo. In areas where the source article does not actually support the claims, it should either be removed or the Wikipedia article should change to mirror what it says. I have removed the source where other sources disagree with Fox news, (like was the 2 men shot in the van, or as they were attempting to help Chmagh into their van). Since this is mid edit, more edits might be made. Belorn (talk) 10:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course there is targeting of Fox News. It's been going on for years. The complaint you refer to came in from an intemperate anonymous editor whose edit summary says "Fox News isn't reliable source" and then calls the elected government of Iraq a "a puppet regime" even though the insurgents in this case had also opposed Saddam Hussein's rule of Iraq. You said your concern is that people trust what this article says, but who can trust any article written like that? I certainly don't.

Your edit summary for the diffs says the Fox News article is a primary source, which is clearly not true.

Your nitpicking about the men in a van, as not being inside the van at the time they were shot, is an overreach. I take it as merely a description of the men, as compared to the other men who'd been on foot. I can't see this as being anything other than a weak attempt to diminish Fox News.

I still don't know why you pick on Fox News's use of partisan commentators when other RS news organizations (NYT, Washington Post, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS) do this, too. You need to explain that.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 05:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

My 2 pennies: The others have imho a better reputation and are less known for (subtly) fudging stuff. However this may not matter in a specific case.However personally i wouldn't touch Fox News with a stick and there is usually a more reliable and accurate source available anyway.

I've removed some sources from a couple of articles about alien abductions (here and here, among other places) because many of them are fringe, and all of them fail

• UFO Magazine, hosted on Squarespace.com, a blog
• "Summation of evidence," which starts off with "The UFO Phenomenon is real", part of a personal website.
• Stories (1) and supposedly declassified so-called military documents (1, 2), hosted on the Computer UFO Network.
• Youtube videos, including:

UFOs and Nuclear Base Shut Down 1 of 5, a

WP:COPYVIO of the Larry King Show taken out of context and including commentary from Exopolitics.org.uk

, a UFO entheusiast site

A purported interview with a supposed UFO witness (and part 2 and 3), hosted by the "UFOsamongus2 channel"

• A self-published book on Scribd
• More purported interviews with supposed UFO witnesses, hosted by Konsulting.com, a personal website run by "a father/son partnership" "hoping to provide an outlet for some UFO publications."
• This essay from the Mutual UFO Network, that Yogiadept called a "local paper" and a "MUFON Report online," like it was a legitimate news agency.
• Another purported interview, hosted on a Wordpress blog that describes itself as "a major resource to a global audience for UFO cases," dedicated "to bring a higher level of awareness regarding government knowledge, involvement and cover-up of these historic events."
• A paper from the Omaha UFO Study group, which regards MUFON as reliable.
• What Lurks Beyond: The Paranormal in your Backyard, by Jason Offutt, which takes various paranormal claims at face value, because the author "wanted to prove that the paranormal is not just in remote mountains of the Pacific Northwest, the lochs of Scotland, in some secret lab in Roswell, New Mexico, or deep in the jungles of South America."

Yogiadept has quit using Gods, Demons, and Space Chariots and Gods and Devils from Outer Space, books advocating theories about Ancient astronauts, but I welcome any comments on those as well.

Fnord, everybody. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

None of them come even close to meeting the requirements of

WP:RS. None have undergone any serious form of editorial review or fact checking. None of them are quoted or cited in serious scholarly discussions on the topic. All appear to be notable only in-universe. Dominus Vobisdu (talk

) 19:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

All obviously way out on the fringe. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

From the same user; Aetherius Society looks like if you removed everything cited to Aetherius.org, there'd be hardly any article left. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Dear God, I'm going after that one with the pooper scooper next. I'm looking for some reliable sources out there on that group (which I kinda get the impression he's a member of), and I believe that we probably can have a (highly reworked) article. The group appears to meet

WP:NOTE ultimately. Ian.thomson (talk

) 21:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The society is notable, but the level of detail cited to primary sources is, in my opinion, excessive. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You may want to look over

Yeah, I'm not seeing anything in it's current sources or on Google Books. Prodding that, too. Thanks for pointing it out. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Mental_Transmission
• The Cosmic Concept
• The Next Master
• Shape Power
• The Nine Freedoms
• George King (Aetherius Society)
• Mary King (The Magdala Centre/The Aetherius Society)

Bit of a walled garden here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio concerns

So far I've found obvious copyvio (and a bit of pov editing) at three articles and left him warnings. I haven't cleaned up

That one's fixed and recent material added, but I haven't done more checking for copyvio.

talk

) 21:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I've merged most of the above articles to more appropriate venues, usually

George King article to the state it was in before Yogiadept got ahold of it, and readded some of the acceptable edits that were there, with some more NPOV phrasing. It could be That one I have gotten that involved in fixing the Aetherius Society article beyond gathering some Google books on the talk page. I have not checked for copyright violation, but I'm not worried about George King so much as the AS article. Ian.thomson (talk

) 21:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

An editor has been adding multiple sources to this article. I'm not sure who added a web page for the "Milton Keynes & Northampton Communists" but I removed that, plus a very large number of links to articles by this person (and this website). I'm now questioning this blog[24] and this website of photographs. Thanks.

Response

I would love better cites but, when I came across this article Soraya Tarzi, it had very few cites, especially for when the Queen, ripped off her veil in public in Afghanistan during a tribal meeting. Talk about brave! One cite might good but four cites from different POVs is better and more belivable.

Please see the article's edit summary history where I repeatedly express my concerns about the cites.

Also, in the talk page of the article under the first section, I address my concerns about POV of some of the sources early on. I say:

I added some need citation tags and will hunt for the original verifiable sources for the biography but it looks to be a needle in a hay stack. Geraldshields11 (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I removed the need citation tags and found cites but I am worried about POV and circular citations. Geraldshields11 (talk) 01:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The History of Afghanistan^[1] By Meredith L. Runion and A History of Women in Afghanistan: Lessons Learnt for the Future or Yesterdays and Tomorrow: Women in Afghanistan^[2] By Dr. Huma Ahmed-Ghosh seem to be non-circular cites. Geraldshields11 (talk) 03:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Cites

I added the communist's cite because I was worried about POV of the sources too close to the subject. Even communists in England are saying the monarch/queen was a notable person for women's liberation. When or where have you ever seen that?

The critic, Madeeha Syed, is from the region and the citation to a January 29, 2012 Urdu newspaper article^[3] she wrote was deleted, in addition to her website. Both newspaper article and website confirm her position on the text. Also, she and the Urdu newspaper are used as cites in four other Wikipedia articles (Although in full disclosure, only cultural articles).

Since I was very concerned about POV, I added multiple cites to support the text under the theory that if a professor in California, a US federal analyst, communists in England, and Muslims in the region are saying the same thing then at least one of the groups must have done original research to support the text. Which group is the best to support the text is anyone’s guess.

References