Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 127

• Take all of this with a grain of salt, the majority of this is based on guesses and opinions. So I went ahead and created an account on Drowned in Sound. It initially required me to answer what Mike Skinner is also known as and what Indie band wrote Is this it. At that point, I became a user. Note that this review was created by a "user". It appears that after answering those two questions, I am fully capable of contributing to the site. On another note, I have the opportunity to provide my full name and it "will be used for review credits". I'm not entirely sure what those are for, could they be to become a contributor? On another note, I attempted to go to the site's about page to see if I could learn more about what their process and I ended up on the Wikipedia page for Drowned in Sound. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• This demonstrates the difference between Users and Contributors. There are an awful lot of User accounts on that site and relatively few 'Contributors', some of whom are well known, established professional music writers. Don't you think 'review credits' might just mean putting your name against a review that you write? The site indicates that 'User Reviews' part of the site is currently in 'Beta'. It wasn't there in 2007. --Michig (talk) 06:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

"relatively few 'Contributors', some of whom are well known, established professional music writers." - we still have no criteria about what makes a "contributor" other than guesses. If someone is a "well known, established professional music writer" then their commentary, where we can verify it is them, can be allolwed. "Adam Anonymous" however, is not a "well known, established professional music writer" and even if he was, we cannot verify that this DIS account is his and not Randy from Boise claiming to be him. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The site doesn't meet the requirements for authorship, editorial oversight, IMO; I wouldn't claim to know a huge amount about it but I believe the lower level "contributors" are at best part-timer, probably more like glorified wiki-editors/bloggers/hobbyists. I just did a quick search of my local hometown music forums and found at least one guy posting links to reviews he'd written for it. Content by the respected regular contributors should be treated as reliable but trying to piggyback the anonymous reviews onto that is untenable if there's any question of the site's authority and editorial oversight. It should be treated as a situational rather than a blanket reliable source. In any case, saying that the work is "genius" and the "greatest" of the year is IMO

• I suggest this discussion is closed. The reference is no longer in the article, so it would be a waste of time continuing to discuss it. I don't intend to waste any more of my time addressing theories about how the site in question may be run, and I would suggest that everyone else moves on to something more constructive.--Michig (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

  The question was asked: Is DiS reliable (in this instance). It seems that the consensus is that DiS is not reliable in itself. There is great skepticism about much and perhaps most of DiS's content, which does not have editorial review. Is this a fair summary? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

  I'm not sure, I asked this question in the context of this specific instance. In this context, it seems like it has been determined as unreliable. I don't know that I'd use it as a source, but I don't think that a blanket statement on the reliability is evident from this discussion. Ryan Vesey Review me! 08:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

  Ryan,

  It is good in law to make narrow decisions. However, in deciding the scope of consensus, the question is how narrow are the arguments than others have made.

  I would suggest excluding you, Michig, and myself---since we were involved before---and read what the other WP editors have written.

  The other WP editors have evaluated this case by evaluating the site (checking out reviews of familiar artists, etc.); they have found that the site is unreliable. Almost none of the WP editors here restrict themselves to "Adam Anonymous", but rather all WP editors are arguing about the characteristics of DiS.

  I would amend my suggested consensus with this caveat: "If a reliable writer credibly posts a review at DiS (and this review does not seem like a string of cliched nonsense, "last of the great bluesmen", etc.), then the writer's reliability could be transferred from his writing in edited/reviewed fora"---as others have stated. As usual, Michig and other editors are free to revisit the general case of DiS as a reliable source (as long as the repetitiveness of such discussions are seen as good-faith and non-disruptive). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

  as an overall judgement of DIS, the contents would not appear to meet the standards of generally having editorial oversite. it may be an important community voice in the music world, but wikipedia is an important voice in the information world, and wikipedia is not a reliable source. individual posts under the standard view of

  WP:SPS may be occasionally valid. -- The Red Pen of Doom

  15:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

the wayward wind (song) page

Resolved

Boy, it's too hard to figure out where to tell someone that a mistake has been made. On The Wayward Wind (song) page, at the bottom, all Anne Murray's albums are listed. This obviously doesn't belong there. I don't know how else to notify someone that a mistake has been made. Anne Murray's information obviously is not supposed to be listed at the bottom of this page.

The Wayward Wind appears to be fine and I am not seeing any other duplicate pages. maybe there was something wrong with your browser? try clearing the cache. if the problem still exists, please post a link on my talk page User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom - your question is not really about reliable sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm a pretty big book fan and as such, I edit a lot of articles about books. Every so often (rather often, depending on the genre) I'll come across a book that has a review by Dear Author, such as this book.[15] I'm halfway between seeing the site as a reliable source and half not. It is essentially a book blog when you get down to it, but the site is also seen as a pretty reliable source in the publishing industry, with the site being quoted by other sites (not just no-name book blogs) and portions of their reviews being placed on book jackets and the like. They've also been somewhat responsible for the publishing of various authors by way of putting the first page of an author's work on their site. (Agents and the like see the page and if they like what they see, they contact DA and get the person's contact info and publish the book, which has actually happened.)

However, I know that it being a blog does sort of put a crinkle in the mix, so I thought I'd come here and ask. To me it's a RS and the reviewers on the site are considered authorities, but I figured I'd come here and ask.

WP:RS, "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." If site reviewers are established authorities, and have been published elsewhere, it would appear you are good to go. Best to cite the expert, AS an expert. For example, if Roger Ebert were accurately quoted in a blog, it would be he as the expert who lends the credence to what is being quoted... not the blog. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

08:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Incidents of zombie-like behavior in 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article has any number of issues that need to be dealt with, but is the screaming headline from New York Daily News [[16]] a reliable source to base the inclusion of a new "incident" into the article? -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Typically, we do not cite news headlines as these are (generally speaking) not written by the author, but by the editor trying to get the reader's attention. I'm not sure if there's a rule that says that, but that's typically what we do. In that particular news article, there's a quick summary beneath the headline that says, "Bus driver responsible for the zombie-like attack took a long liquid lunch before jumping on the hood of a passing woman's car, biting her when she got out, reports say." Does anyone know who typically writes these? If it's written by the journalist, I would say that it's reliable; if it's not, that I would say no. Of course, that's assuming that Incidents of zombie-like behavior in 2012 is a real topic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

re: "that's assuming that [it] is a real topic. " got any advice on how to proceed on that front? I am at a loss and just attempting to keep it from getting worse. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The actual source for this is the Shanghai Daily—there's no reason to think that the New York Daily News article contains any original reporting, so why not cite the Shanghai Daily? Of course, then you have "intoxicated man gnaws woman's face," which says nothing about zombie-like behavior. Even if the headline were

WP:RS, it doesn't say that this is a zombie attack—it asks if it was a zombie attack. I think it's important to be careful when reading articles like this to differentiate between what the reporter says happened, and what the reporter or in this case, editor, implies might have happened. These days if you want to get a lot of ad impressions, news articles have to imply things that are titillating, but of course they don't actually say these things, and we ought not to take the implication as if it were a statement. Abhayakara (talk

) 17:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Why on earth do we have an Incidents of zombie-like behavior in 2012 article? How did this survive Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Zombie controversy. Nick-D (talk) 02:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

why do we have it? the AfD process is broken + ZOMBIES. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Media's use of the word "zombie" is a sensationalism intended to sell papers and, as in none of the cases was it determined that biters/flesh eaters were actually undead. I suggest the entire stub be smerged and redirected to its parent topic Cannibalism in its subsection Cannibalism#2012. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

the middle east quarterly (meq) is publication of "the middle east forum" (mef). mef works, according to their website, "to define and promote american interests in the middle east and protect the constitutional order from middle eastern threats." one of the tools to achieve this is the middle east quarterly.[17]

this publication must surely fail our wp:rs-policies? here on wiki the meq is used as a source on primarily controversial subjects like the books of bat ye'or and so on.-- altetendekrabbe  17:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

they sound like an advocacy group and their opinions should be clearly identified by text in the article as coming from them (if their opinions should be included at all as a

significant or noteworthy set of opinions.) -- The Red Pen of Doom

17:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Since 2009 [18] its peer reviewed academic journal thus it acceptable source much like

WP:RX

17:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

i agree. their opinions are controversial and non-neutral. as a start meq-related content should be removed as it violates wp:npov and is wp:undue, in my opinion. what we need is sources that comply with wp:scholarship.-- altetendekrabbe  18:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

What is sourced to MEQ?--

WP:RX

18:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The Journal of Palestine Studies is published and distributed by the University of California Press so I'm not sure the comparison works...not that that necessarily matters. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

MEQ has come up several times before. Not to be regarded as a straightforward academic journal. What claims is it being used to support? Itsmejudith (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

As far as I see in the article the only thing that MEQ is sourced for is "Johannes J.G. Jansen, Professor of Arabic and Islamic studies at Leiden University, wrote that "In 1985, Bat Ye'or offered Islamic studies a surprise with her book, The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam, a convincing demonstration that the notion of a traditional, lenient, liberal, and tolerant Muslim treatment of the Jewish and Christian minorities is more myth than reality" IMO as it attributed to scholar in the relevant field so I think its should be OK.--

WP:RX

19:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

jansen is *clearly* a

counterjihadist, nothing more nothing less.-- altetendekrabbe 

19:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

So what he is scholar if the field thus his opinion is notable but lets hear from uninvolved editors shall we?--

WP:RX

19:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Also be careful about

WP:RX

19:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I 'm seeing WP:REDFLAGs here, but you need further opinions. Which articles are we looking at? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:RX

20:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

He was a speaker at Counterjihad Brussels 2007: European Conference Resists Islamization according to this Darkness Shines (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

There are still some

WP:RX

21:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

he was the tutor of theo van gogh, here's a pearl: ""we do not realise that the threat of violence, and violence itself, can only be stopped through the controlled and cunning use of violence". the dutch secret service (auvd) should get a special department "that gets its hands dirty, if need be".[21].

everything is, of course, "islamic propaganda" [22]. here's another: "hans jansen criticised the subservient role he considers the churches and the government are adopting towards islam". wow, the churches *and* the government in netherlands? really? what kind of a conspiracy is this? :P no wonder he is found of bat ye'or.-- altetendekrabbe  21:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed we must be careful about BLP. Writers have a right to express their opinions. At the same time, we have to take care about which sources we can use. If this professor really is close to Geert Wilders, that's a possible indication of extremism, in our definition. That's a red flag for me. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

he's in the

counterjihadist-movement where you have worse people than wilders.-- altetendekrabbe 

21:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

OK but it can be complicated. The animal rights movement has some advocates who are definitely extremist and some who definitely aren't. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The main question still stands can be used for his opinion on Bat Ye'or book?--

WP:RX

21:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Need more uninvolved opinions. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Middle East Quarterly is included on the HighBeam Research site, so I assume it meets minimum standards of a reliable source, at least in their eyes, and considering that is a site owned by Gale Publications, that's a fairly good recommendation. That leaves the specific quote quote Shrike produced. , it seems to me generally acceptable, barring possibly the use of the word "convincing". On that site, in the Journal of Ecumenical Studies, in a review of her later book The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam, it says of this book, "Her earlier The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam (reviewed in J.E.S. 25 [Winter, 1988]: 104-105) was a ground-breaking work that gave definition to the hitherto unexplored sociopolitical and religious concept of "dhimmitude." So I'm guessing the favorable view of the book is supportable as well, although I might prefer the 1988 review of the book, which unfortunately doesn't seem to be on the site. John Carter (talk) 22:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Is HighBeam really anything other than a centralized Archive system? Yes, Gale is very relible to accurately present previously published content, but I am not sure they are doing anything other than "this is what was published in that source". -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

HighBeam is very handy (I declare an interest because I got free access for a year as a Wikipedia contributor) but it doesn't guarantee reliability. We have to judge individual publications as we always would. Andrew Dalby 08:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

agree on that. in addition, book reviews like jansen's are not necessarily scholarly pieces, as pointed out in our wp:rs-policy. they can be opinions and summaries as well. given the fact that jansen is involved with the

counterjihadist-movement his views on bat ye'or are neither neutral nor reliable... both authors are part of the same extremist political movement.-- altetendekrabbe 

09:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC would be inappropriate because this is the place to get comments about sources. Opening further discussions elsewhere would be "forum-shopping". My view, after considering all the issues, is that this is not reliable for reviews of the subject's work. Scholarly reviews exist, positive and negative, as well as some reviews in mainstream news media. This source is much more of the nature of political commentary, and it is a tiny-minority view. Therefore exclude. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

i agree. filling up articles with minority partisan political commentaries is not good way to build an encyclopedia.-- altetendekrabbe  11:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Not a reliable source. Their statement on peer-review is deeply troubling. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

And note that, even if we were to accept that, as noted above, MEQ has been peer-reviewed since 2009, the article in question[23] was published in 2005. So the journal's current status is irrelevant; when the article was published, it was not subject to peer review. RolandR (talk) 16:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

very good point. thanks.-- altetendekrabbe  17:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

While I think that the right decision has been made in this context, a then unreviewed journal of doggerel is not the best place to "appreciate" a controversial academic's work in a highly politicised domain—particularly where the journal of doggerel claims that the academic's work is actual reality, rather than theory—we should remember that reliability is not undercut by politics, it is undercut by politics that lacks the scope to discuss the content and claim. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

People in the beef industry have referred to the additive as "pink slime" due to the product's unique appearance.<ref>{{cite book |title=The great food robbery: How corporations control food, grab land and destroy the climate |last=Genetic Resources Action International (GRAIN) |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=2012 |publisher=Pambazuka Press |location=Oxford |isbn=9780857491138 |page=57 |pages= |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=7-XSc2znVFoC&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=pink+slime&source=bl&ots=_arUmvz0HO&sig=kaYqn5WE9Z-HMBNDYQ1bNBNv27o&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FegJUMv5JsjBrQGLvLHBCg&ved=0CEMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=pink%20slime&f=false |accessdate=July 2012}}</ref>

Has a minor problem - the source uses Wikipedia as one of its sources. The book was issued on 28 April 2012 by "Pambazuka Press". [24] demonstrates that one of the listed sources for the new book is Wikipedia. The book has no named authors, and is not from a peer-reviewed or recognized academic publisher. "GRAIN.org" is not recognized as any sort of authority on anything that I can find. [25] it appears to be mainly a political organization.

The book is described:

This book is intended to reveal the ways in which corporations seek to increase their control over the food system so that they can be more effectively challenged. It aims to provide information and analysis that enables and inspires people to take action to take the food system back from corporations and put it in the hands of people.

I suggest that where a book is so recently issued, uses Wikipedia as a source, and is not written nor issued by a publisher known for editorial control per

WP:RS, that it is, in fact, not a reliable source. Collect (talk

) 22:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Your suggestion is excellent RS/N reasoning. CIRCULAR concepts only apply when a work does not have independent review processes sufficient to overcome the stigma of citing wikipedia. For example, a scholar published in Routledge is free to cite wikipedia. An unauthored work published by a lowgrade press is itself unreliable due to the lack of publishing and authorial competence. The core problem is the lack of editorial review of the book, and as such we ought to reject its claims in relation to food science. (GRAIN.org might be competent in relation to food politics, but this is not the issue at stake.) Fifelfoo (talk) 03:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I have a few concerns concerning the sourcing for Nazareth, (see article talk page for details), but I would like an opinion about one source in particular. The article says:

"James Strange, an American archaeologist, notes: “Nazareth is not mentioned in ancient Jewish sources earlier than the third century AD. This likely reflects its lack of prominence both in Galilee and in Judaea.”[30] Strange originally speculated that the population of Nazareth at the time of Christ to be "roughly 1,600 to 2,000 people", but later, in a subsequent publication, at “a maximum of about 480.”[31]"

with the citations being:

[30] Article "Nazareth" in the Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

[31] E. Meyers & J. Strange, Archaeology, the Rabbis, & Early Christianity Nashville: Abingdon, 1981; Article “Nazareth” in the Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

(Wikipedia does not have an article on James F. Strange or Eric M. Meyers, but Strange is mentioned at Yahad Ostracon and Meyers is briefly mentioned at The Jesus Family Tomb.)

Is the Anchor Bible Dictionary a reliable source for archaeological claims that have no citations to peer-reviewed science? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Without genuine academic peer-review, neither of these sources meets our requirements as a erliable source for archeological claims. All the more so as Strange seems to have no qualifications as an archeologist. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Dictionaries produced by non-scholars and aimed at non-scholars, such as the Anchor Bible Dictionary, are not suitable places to publish scholarly archaeological conclusions. Scholarly archaeological conclusions are required to support claims about historical Nazereth's population and importance.

Abingdon press is a mass sectarian press, with no indication it has the competence to support the publication of scholarly monographs. Seek scholarly reviews of Archaeology, the Rabbis, & Early Christianity in scholarly peer reviewed journals, bring such reviews here. If they're positive they may overcome the limits of Abingdon's capacity to publish. Until you find indication that Archaeology, the Rabbis, & Early Christianity is accepted by the community of scholars, don't use it. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a bit outside of the scope of my question, but would someone be so kind as to take a look at my other concerns on the article talk page? It's pretty short.

If this was in my normal area of editing (engineering) I would just edit the page to reflect what reliable sources we have and take out claims that aren't backed up by a RS. I suspect that trying to do this on a page which touches on religious beliefs like this one is very likely to unleash a storm of protests, so I want to make absolutely sure that I have all my ducks in a row before trying.

There appears to be a large amount of debate on the internet about this, mostly from blogs that freely admit that they have an agenda. A few of the more widely-quoted (and, of course completely unreliable other than for documenting that a controversy exists) blogs are:

PRO:

http://www.ichthus.info/CaseForChrist/Archeology/intro.html (Search on "Nazareth")

http://www.facingthechallenge.org/nazareth.php

CON:

http://www.nazarethmyth.info/

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html

--Guy Macon (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

When making claims about the contents of religious texts, the appropriate sources are scholarly theologians (and in some cases truly Expert practising contemporary theologians), scholarly religious studies academics, and scholarly literary criticists of religious texts. When making claims about the historical past (

WP:HISTRS), appropriate sources are scholarly archaeology, scholarly history, and occasionally scholarly historical anthropology etc…. We have a responsibility to properly attribute and weight all non-FRINGE scholarly opinions, based on their acceptance in the preponderance of scholarly literature. I would suggest doing research on the scholarly opinion regarding Nazareth's historical significance before editing, so you're aware of the scholarly context. Fifelfoo (talk

) 23:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• One should generally avoid things with names like "bible dictionary", but each case has to be considered on its merits. Contrary to what Fifelfoo claims, the Anchor Bible Dictionary is one of the most scholarly publications in this class, edited by a well respected scholar and containing articles signed by many eminent academics. The multi-volume series it appears in was recently taken over by Yale University. The reliability of this should be treated about the same as the best encyclopedias like Britannica. Zero^talk 00:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• The comments about James Strange that Guy Macon is posting are completely wrong and probably a violation of
  WP:BLP. The fact is that James Strange is an archaeologist, involved in actual excavations. See for example this, this, this, this, and this. Very very obviously a reliable source. Zero^talk
  00:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• You just made a very serious accusation against me. Before I say or do anything further, I would like to give you the opportunity to retract it. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

You have been arguing that Strange is not an archaeologist due to being unqualified. For someone whose profession is archaeology, such statements are false and defamatory. So, no, I won't retract it. I don't have any sympathy with your ignorance either as it takes about one minute with google to determine that Strange is an accomplished archaeologist who is frequently cited by his peers. His coauthor in the book you don't like is even more eminent. It is also easy to determine that they are both specialists in the required subfield of archaeology. Zero^talk 10:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth. I am not "arguing that Strange is not an archaeologist due to being unqualified" I am asking whether there is a reliable source that supports the claim that Strange is an archaeologist. The citations you list above do not support that, and your argument that they do is

WP:SYNTHESIS. --Guy Macon (talk

) 20:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• • So cite the YUP edition, it is more recent anyway, and cite it properly. A wide variety of scholarly encyclopaedia articles are less than desirable: the unsigned ones for example. Doubleday (and before them Anchor) simply don't have the capacity to supervise scholarly outputs. Similarly, I'm less than willing to accept Expert arguments about scholars when they're publishing in non-scholarly presses. Reviews of the work in question in the scholarly literature are far superior to demonstrating that the scholar has indeed on other occasions published scholarly content. The issue is if the article desired to cite from in scholarly. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC) As discovered below YUP takes full responsibility for all Doubleday and Anchor elements of this series. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a more recent edition. The article on Nazareth is signed by James Strange. As a summary (2 pages) by an expert, it is fine for the few uncontroversial things being cited to it. It could be replaced fairly easily, but there is no urgency. Zero^talk 10:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

"The few uncontroversial things being cited to it"? You call a speculation that the population of Nazareth at the time of Christ was 480 -- a claim that I have shown that there is a huge debate about -- so uncontroversial that we are to accept it without a citation to a reliable source? I can think of only two possible explanations for you making such a claim. The first possibility is that you don't understand or verifiability policy. Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines#Uncontroversial knowledge clearly defines uncontroversial knowledge: "Some statements are uncontroversial and widely known among people familiar with a discipline. Such facts may be taught in university courses, found in textbooks, or contained in multiple references in the research literature". Either add a citation to a reliable source for the population of Nazareth at the time of Christ, or the statement must be removed. The second possibility is that you are unable to overcome a bias that causes you to be willing to ignore Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and should recuse yourself from editing this article. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Anchor Bible Dictionary arbitrary break

• • I haven't been able to find specific reviews, however this work has been cited admiringly regarding its extensive analysis of language use in New Testament Studies ( http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0028688500006056 ), "For the latest over-all survey of the languages in first century Palestine we refer to E. M. Meyers – J. F. Strange, Archaeology, the Rabbis & Early Christianity (Abingdon-Nashville, 1981), ch. 4, pp. 62–91." This methodology paper also treats its conclusions on Greek versus Aramaic as standard: McIver, Robert K., "Methodology and the Search for the Historical Jesus: A Response to John Dominic Crossan" (1999). Theology Papers and Journal Articles. Paper 23. It is relatively widely cited ( http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?cites=8951557329322791848&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en ), but a quick check of citations indicates potentially superior sources for historical Nazereth, ( http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=7_rtx8zTBOAC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&ots=96a7yGl450&sig=IiKMzKLMQ8VL1W4IAHPaKWL7_GU#v=onepage&q&f=false ). YMMV. I think it seems like the text is treated as a member of the scholarly publications in its field. (I wish they'd find better publishers than minor, non-scholarly, sectarian presses for this stuff). I re-emphasise: Anchor/Doubleday isn't an appropriate scholarly text, cite the YUP version if, and only if, the piece is signed; regarding the Abingdon work, I believe it to be reasonably accepted in the scholarly literature, but by checking who cites the work in scholar I found multiple potentially superior works whose primary focus is on social and economic history in the region (for example). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC) As noted below YUP has taken full responsibility for the scholarly quality of all Doubleday and Anchor impression works in this series. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

    Our policies do not require the citation of a "scholarly text", and if the two editions say the same thing, by the same author, then demanding the one with the fancier-sounding publisher is silly, bureaucratic hoops to jump through. We normally prefer (NB: not require) scholarly sources because we think them more likely to get it right. So long as the facts are right, then any minimally reliable source, even if wholly non-academic, is acceptable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

    The quality of the source needs to match the quality demanded by the claim. It is that simple. You can take your personal truth regarding facts and shove it up your personal original research. If you want to meet policy and consensus regarding V in areas covered by scholarly work, guess what you need to cite? And mass market paperback publishers aren't that. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Per

WP:CONLIMITED)? What you have said is arguably the best practice, but neither policy nor consensus requires it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK

) 16:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

"Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made."

WP:IRS. Think about "appropriate to the claims made." in the context of a pulp presses' dictionary. Fifelfoo (talk

) 22:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Yale University Press describes the six-volume ABD and its companions as "a prestigious collection of more than 115 volumes of biblical scholarship" and thought highly enough of it that they bought it and promised to keep publishing every volume.

But Fifelfoo seems to be saying here that if the version in your hands was published before the 2007 acquisition, then it's not scholarly on the grounds that the enormous original publisher has some non-scholarly books in its list, but the minute that the same book, with the same contents, says "Yale University Press" instead of "Doubleday" on the copyright page, it's okay. This is silly. We have a reliable source saying that ABD is a scholarly publication. YUP—Fifelfoo's preferred publisher here—is selling the exact 1992 volume being cited here. We don't need to rely on Fifelfoo's personal opinion about whether Doubleday is capable of having a scholarly source in its list. This is a scholarly source and should be treated like any other scholarly tertiary source (which is to say, it's reliable-but-not-best for most purposes). There is nothing "inappropriate" about using a prestigious scholarly encyclopedia (IMO it's more encyclopedia than dictionary) as a source for basic information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

That is exactly what I am saying, and your quotation of YUP makes me reverse my position because you've demonstrated that the acquisition is due to the scholarly quality of the entire series (not just "new" YUP releases). How can you demonstrate it is scholarly? Do you have reviews of the Anchor edition in scholarly theological journals? I'd accept these as proof that it is scholarly. Do you have reviews of the Doubleday edition in scholarly theological journals? I'd accept these as proof that it is scholarly. Can you point to the YUP acquisition document praising it? You did! In fact Yale points out my criticism is valid when they say, "This sale will enable Doubleday to enhance its existing focus on publishing general religious titles for the trade market." Doubleday and Anchor are not scholarly presses, they work in the trade market. But when YUP acquires a work because, "Yale University Press will publish all backlist and new volumes in the series, to be renamed Anchor Yale Bible, going forward. […] Yale University Press will be adding a highly-regarded line of books that strengthens its existing publishing program and serves its mandate to publish serious works that further scholarly investigation and advance interdisciplinary inquiry." Then this for me counts as YUP taking responsibility for the editorial content of the entire series. I'm sure we're all familiar with now reputable sources that began in the gutter press. New Left Review began as the unreviewed dissident communist Reasoner within the Communist Party of Great Britain (possibly in the CPGB historians group...). NLR is scholarly. Reasoner ain't. YUP's acquisition statement demonstrates that all of the Anchor series were scholarly. RS/N needs a process to use for demonstration of source reliability. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

A lot of these sources that we are talking about are not available online. I would very much like to read the sources we are basing this article on in context. I believe that it would be well within fair use for someone with access to these sources to quote a paragraph or two on the article talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Guy, most humanities works have a "long tail" of tens or even hundreds of years; they are also very much paper library oriented (except for the past two years of publications). You may have to hit a high quality scholarly library. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I found this[26], for what its worth. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Alarmed to see top editors falling out so quickly. There are some complexities here, and it necessarily takes a few posts to work it out properly. Itsmejudith (talk) 01:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it's the usual problem for the regulars here: someone asks whether a source is reliable, and half the group says, no, it's unreliable because it's not the best imaginable source, and the other half says yes, obviously it's reliable, because it meets or exceeds the minimum standards set forth by the guidelines and policies. And when you throw in a suspicion that the "unreliable" answers are knee-jerk anti-Christian bigotry (which would be appalling in this context, because modern archaeology was practically invented by Christians for the purpose of studying religious history), then you get prompt a falling out.

In the future, I suspect that we could reduce this miscommunication by saying "best" when we mean "best" and "reliable" when we mean "complies with WP:RS". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it was not that at all. All posters were addressing the criterion of a fully scholarly source, essential for an archaeology article. It was about haste, probably. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that party of the problem is an unexamined assumption. Zero0000, who is no stranger to wikiconflicts, seeing me question the reliability of his sources assumes that I want to remove material from the article. My actually my goal is, if at all possible, to keep the material and add a new and better citation. Removal is only a reluctant last resort. My main issue is that the sections that are about archaeology really do need to have citations that can be traced back to a peer-reviewed source for all controversial (likely to be challenged) claims. Claims that there was a population of 480 there in the first century -- or any population at all -- are very likely to be challenged and need to be backed up by peer-reviewed science. I really do think that previous editors accepted poor citations for religious reasons, and that the article will be far stronger if we only report what is in the peer-reviewed science. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Judith, there is no rule requiring every single source in an archaeological article to be "a fully scholarly source". Every source must be reliable, meaning that every source must meet or exceed the minimum standard set forth at WP:RS. Some sources should be fully scholarly sources, but "some" is not "all", and "reliable" encompasses far more than "fully scholarly". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

(e-c) Guy, this is a different point from the one first made. Now the question seems to be not whether the source is a reliable source, which it pretty much clearly is, but whether it is one of the best sources on the subject, which in fact is the kind of sources we would prefer to use. Standing on its own, I would have to say no, it is not one of the best possible sources. The question then would be whether we can find better sources. This might not be as silly a question as some might think. Remember, we are talking about Israel here. A lot of material relating to this subject might not have been translated or made easily available in English. The problem is whether anyone has access to those better sources, wherever they are. I would agree if possible better sources, including academic ones of some sort, would be preferred. Even some non-scholarly books might be preferable. This page lists a book by Charlesworth, generally regarded as a very good scholarly author, and mentions a few others. But, at this point, I don't see any good reason to necessarily remove the information, although admittedly it would be a good idea if better sources were found. John Carter (talk) 23:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Anchor Bible Dictionary second arbitrary break

I have a followup question. Let me know if it belongs in a new entry. Is this page

http://web1.cas.usf.edu/main/peopleDetails.cfm?ID=9537&DeptID=0-1259-000

a reliable source for the claim "James Strange is an archaeologist"?

On the yes side, are these statements:

"He was Montgomery Fellow at the W.F. Abright Institute for Archaelogical Research in Jerusalem in 1970-71 and NEH fellow at the same Institute in 1980."

"Dr. Strange's research interests are in Biblical Archaelogy,"

"Strange has participated in field archaeology annually since 1969 and has directed the excavations at Sepphoris, Israel annually since 1983"

On the no side is this:

"James Strange is Professor of Religious Studies and Director of Graduate Studies. He has served both as Chairperson of Religious Studies (1990-93) and as Dean of the College of Arts and Letters (1981-89). He earned a B.A. in Philosophy from Rice University in 1959, an M.Div. from Yale Divinity School in 1964, and a PhD. in New Testament Studies from Drew University in 1970."

...no degree in archaeology, and nowhere does he claim to be an archaeologist.

Related questions: would the above justify calling him a "biblical archaeologist" or "amateur archaeologist"? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

First, the Anchor Bible Dictionary is a reliable source. Depending on the date of publication, and the length of the material included, and the potential bias of the author of any individual article (which happens rather often), and other things, it may not be the best source, but it is reliable. Second, Strange I think could reasonably be described as a Biblical archaeologist, given his status as a director of excavations. However, if one wanted to get really OCD about it, one could describe him as a biblical historian who has directed archaeological digs. John Carter (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

People who are paid to do archaeology cannot be described as "amateurs". Amateur vs professional is all about the money. University degrees are not relevant: Abraham Lincoln, for example, was a lawyer despite having attended school for only a total of 18 months in his life. He was a professional lawyer because people paid him to do the work, not because he spent years in a classroom. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Counterexample: "Dr. Carl Baugh, Director of the Creation Evidence Museum, began his excavation project on the Paluxy River in Glen Rose, Texas in March 1982. Since that time, Baugh, along with teams of volunteers, has uncovered over 400 dinosaur tracks and over 80 human footprints in Cretaceous limestone." Source: Creation Evidence Museum People pay Baugh to do archaeology, but he is no archaeologist. Baugh is a creation scientist, and Strange is a Biblical Archaeologist (not to compare the two - Biblical Archaeologists are real scientists)

Also, Abraham Lincoln became a lawyer in 1836 when he passed the bar exam which was administered to him in Sangamon County Circuit Court and obtained his law license. It was then and still is no illegal to practice law or call yourself a lawyer just because someone is willing to pay you to practice law. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I am addressing only the question of amateur vs professional: You don't become a professional _____, no matter what _____ is, until you get paid for doing it. An unpaid attorney, archaeologist, or armadillo hunter is an amateur. The word derives from "doing it for love", i.e., not for money. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

If he's published archaeological conclusions in scholarly peer reviewed archaeological journals, then he's an archaeologist. If he's got a PhD in archaeology then he's an archaeologist. If he's published archaeological books in a University Press (or similar) and they've not received hostile reviews in the scholarly peer reviewed archaeological journals, then he's an archaeologist. If he's published archaeological findings in the mass-marked non-fiction presses, and these have been reviewed positively in the scholarly peer reviewed archaeological journals, then he's an archaeologist. Membership of the practicing scholarly community is the criteria, this is most easily evidenced by research publications that meet the standard of scholarly acceptance. (This answer in terms of considering expertise in terms of reliable sourcing, not in terms of reliably sourcing wikipedia claiming he's an archaeologist) Fifelfoo (talk) 02:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The claim in question is both extraordinary and controversial, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. Furthermore, the claim is archeological in nature, and thus requires a genuine archeological source. The Anchor Biblical Dictionary clearly fails as a source because it was not compiled with the intention of being an authoritative source on archeological matters, nor did it receive any sort of review from an archeological standpoint. The author of the article is also not a recognized expert in the field of archeology to the extent that his claim should be given any weight, published as it is in without the benefit of peer-review. He seems to be a minor character in the field of archeological research in Israel, with no formal training and a modest and unspectacular pubication history. He has never particpated in excavations at Nazareth, nor does he have the training, expertise or stature to give his claims about Nazareth any special credibility. In fact, his claims sound like little else than armchair speculation. Sorry, but claims about archeology pertainign to Nazareth by an archeological lightweight who has no special knowledge about the site in question that are published in a non-peer reveiwed, non-archeological source carry little weight, especially since no one in the archeological community has bothered to comment on them in independent reliable sources. The claims do not appear to be part of the schlarly debate on the topic, and thus should not be mentioned here in WP. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

This paragraph should get a prize of some sort. Zero^talk 12:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It is really quite absurd to imagine that someone who has been the director of several archaeological excavations in Israel is not an archaeologist. The State of Israel issues excavation permits carefully and sparingly, of course he's an archaeologist. Incidentally, he also wrote the article on Nazareth in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, under the auspices of the American Schools of Oriental Research (one of the most respected academic organizations in archaeology) and published by Oxford University Press. I guess Dominus Vobisdu will tell us it is really a children's book. He spent three years as Fellow at the Albright Institute of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem, the most famous institution in Middle East archaeology, of course he's an archaeologist. His coauthor Meyers was even the director of the Albright Institute for a while. Can we stop this nonsense now? Zero^talk 12:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

People stumbling on this section might not realise what is going on. There is a fringe theory that Nazareth was uninhabited at the time of Jesus, and some of its adherents have been trying for years to push it into Nazareth. It must be true, but the archaeologists refuse to cooperate. They even do things like digging up houses from that time period, bad bad archaeologists! Zero^talk 12:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• The confusion may have resulted from the fact that his son, James R. Strange, helps him do his field work. James F. Strange is the one qualified in archaeology. is/was a lead archaeologist at the site of the ancient city of Sepphoris. Notice these links: University of South Florida, A blog of someone working with the Strange family (second generation includes the son and a daughter): Here; James F. Strange has published in peer-reviewed journals. He is leading in excavations at the site of the ancient city of Sepphoris, three miles from Nazareth. His opinion most-likely is biased in favor of the existence of the ancient Nazareth of Jesus, but there seems no doubt that James F. Strange is a competent and respected archaeologist. Note these search results from Google scholar here. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
• Regarding evidence for the existence of Nazareth, it may still be FRINGE to doubt that it existed, but the lack of evidence is a valid concern. This helps explain why the excavations at Sepphoris hold significance for these Christian archaeologists. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, nobody ever claimed that Nazareth didn't exist. The claim is that there is no evidence of human habitation between the Late Iron Age (c. 700 BCE) and Middle Roman times (c. 100 CE).[27][28] I personally doubt that claim, based upon arguments by Richard carrier,[29], but the fact remains that the only citation to a RS the article has on this[30] dates the artifacts found to "the first and second centuries CE". All I am saying is that if Wikipedia says that there were people living in Nazareth at the time of Christ, we need to have a citation to a RS that says that. Right now we have no such citation. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• That is cutting an awful fine line. If there are no humans, then Nazareth, as a human construct did not exist during that time. So there is no ongoing question regarding James F. Strange's credentials as a bonafide archaeologist? If a reputable archaeologist, such as James F. Strange, speculates about Nazareth at the time of Christ and is quoted in a reliable source, then his opinion is okay to cite, I would think. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone questions James F. Strange's credentials as a biblical archaeologist, but as a reliable source for the claim we are examining there are at least two participants in this discussion who question his qualifications. First, Dominus Vobisdu above, who wrote

"The author of the article [James F. Strange] is also not a recognized expert in the field of archeology to the extent that his claim should be given any weight, published as it is in without the benefit of peer-review. He seems to be a minor character in the field of archeological research in Israel, with no formal training and a modest and unspectacular pubication history. He [does not] have the training, expertise or stature to give his claims about Nazareth any special credibility. In fact, his claims sound like little else than armchair speculation. Sorry, but claims about archeology pertainign to Nazareth by an archeological lightweight who has no special knowledge about the site in question that are published in a non-peer reveiwed, non-archeological source carry little weight, especially since no one in the archeological community has bothered to comment on them in independent reliable sources. The claims do not appear to be part of the schlarly debate on the topic, and thus should not be mentioned here in WP."

I myself also question the claims, partly because Richard Carrier, who I have found to be very reliable when he reports a fact (his conclusions are another matter), wrote "some peer reviewed discussions of late seem to concede the possibility that there is no definite evidence of an early 1st-century Nazareth" That statement is enough for me to require actual peer-reviewed science that supports the claim. Nobody has pointed me to a peer-reviewed paper where James F. Strange makes the claim, and nobody has pointed me to a peer-reviewed paper that James F. Strange may have consulted before making the claim, and nobody has shown me that James F. Strange is enough of an authority on this that I am willing to accept his word that there are -- somewhere -- peer-reviewed papers that support the claim. In fact, I suspect that if I had access to the Anchor Bible Dictionary article on Nazareth, I would find the he presents the claim as opinion or speculation, not as a fact that is backed up by peer-reviewed science. I also question the fact that this is the only source that anyone has come up with that gives a population estimate for the period in question. Where did Strange get this data that nobody else can find? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• Haven't investigated James F. Strange enough to defend his credentials. Archaeology in the Middle-East has moved away from biblical reference points. There are some very good older archaeologists who are very reputable but still could be called "Biblical" archaeologists. Regarding Nazareth, I am okay with a strict skeptical standard. Wikipedia is served well by such. I have tried to find any kind of information about early 1st-century "Israel". Outside of the biblical manuscripts, there isn't much available about anything. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be a cut and dried case of an article basing a claim on a source that does not meet our criteria for being a reliable source for that claim. Think about what we are being asked to accept here. We are expected to accept a Wikipedia article giving an estimate of the population of Nazareth at the time of Christ. Everything about our reliable sources policy points to a requirement that there must exists a peer-reviewed archeological paper that makes that estimate for that period. We are being asked to accept that somehow Strange knows the population without any sort of evidence, based upon a statement he made in a publication that is not peer reviewed. Given the high visibility of this particular topic, if there really was a peer-reviewed paper backing up Strange's claims, we would know about it. So how, exactly, does Strange know what the population was? Unless he has a time machine, he must base his opinion on peer-reviewed science, and we know he does not have any peer-reviewed science to back up his claim. To accept Strange as a reliable source for the the population of Nazareth at the time of Christ goes against everything our verifiability policy stands for. Verifiability means that we can verify that he knows what he says he knows, when in actuality we know that he has no way of knowing that. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

That's just not true. There is absolutely no "requirement that there must exists a peer-reviewed archeological paper" that says anything about this. Wikipedia requires reliable sources. We do not require "peer-reviewed papers". Peer-reviewed papers happen to be one of the many types of sources that are typically reliable, but we do not require a peer-reviewed paper for every fact about history or archaeology. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone have access to this? It says something about estimating the population using Safrai's method, but I can't see what the answer is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I can get ahold of the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, but it would take a few days. But I also agree with WhatamIdoing above. Guy Macon said we can only use academic journals. We can and do have other sources available, and they are of sufficient quality that they can be used as well as academic journals. Also, yes, we are not obliged to use exclusively academic journals anyway. But, back on point here, Google books here lists several books which discuss the matter. One of which I just pulled out, the Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible also edited by David Noel Freedman. It says something about the respect an editor is given when two different encyclopedia want him as their main editor, right? I have started to get together a list of dictionaries on religious topics at User:John Carter/Religion reference, but haven't gotten around to adding them all yet, and having looked at the reviews I found as I pulled them up, and the general academic opinion of the editor, it is basically counted by academics as being on a par with academic journals in terms of reliability. Quoting Eerdmans page 951, in the article on Nazareth written by Jonathan L. Reed, "At the time of Jesus, Nazareth was an obscure village S of Sepphoris. ... Evidence for a necropolis helps determine the extent of the 1st-century-ruins, which correlate to a populataion of well under 500. Nathanel's exclamation in John 1:46, 'Can anything good come out of Nazareth?' aptly symbolizes the town's obscurity in the 1st century." The bibliography for the article includes B. Bagatti, Excavations at Nazareth I (Jerusalem, 1969); E. M. Myers and J. F. Strange, Archaeology, the Rabbis, and Early Christianity (Nashville, 1981); J. E. Taylor, Christians and the Holy Places (Oxford, 1993). Maybe it is a bit of a guess, but I assume those sources support the content of the article. Now, by saying this, I am in no way saying that the article should not include some information regarding how this conclusion is apparently questioned, because that seems to be valid as well. However, that quote, "some peer reviewed discussions of late seem to concede the possibility that there is no definite evidence of an early 1st-century Nazareth" explicitly uses the word some. "Some" is not all, or even a majority - it means some. So based on the evidence I have seen, there is sufficient evidence to include the material on both sides, using the language "some" used in the source regarding the numbers of those who question it. It might be better if someone found on the secondary sources included in the Eerdmans bibliography, but I think we can use either that book, or the Anchor, as a reliable source in its own right. John Carter (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I have the article from Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus and it does indeed address the population of Nazareth. Thanks to WhatamIdoing for finding it; it will improve the article. The author (Paul Foster of the University of Edinburgh) says that one method would give 630–720 and another method would give 200–220 which "appears to be an underestimate". Then he cites Strange's estimate of at most 480 from the Anchor Bible Dictionary. Note two things: one is that Strange is very widely cited on ancient Nazareth because he is regarded as an authority on the subject, and his article in Anchor Bible Dictionary is one of those which is widely cited. Second, not in this article nor in any other article I have ever seen in the professional literature since the 1950s excavations of Bagatti is there any credence given to the possibility that Nazareth was unoccupied in the time of Jesus (let alone for many centuries as Salm's amateur theory insists). The possibility of it being unoccupied is hardly ever even mentioned. There is in fact no controversy over this question among archaeologists. People who want to write the article on the basis of there being a dispute should first prove that there is one. Of course there are disagreements over details, but that is how science works. Zero^talk 06:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

And by "prove that there is [a controversy]", we mean by citing sources rather stronger than http://www.nazarethmyth.info and http://www.jesusneverexisted.com, which seem to be the only "sources" cited as proof that these academic books and journal articles are all wrong.

It seems to me that we've determined that both the ABD and the article from Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus (1) are reliable sources for statements about the population of Nazareth during the time in question and (2) represent the mainstream academic views on the subject (i.e., the population was a couple of hundred, and exact estimates vary according to the method used). Does that sound like the consensus to everyone else? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Is snopes.com considered reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editorofthewiki (talk • contribs)

Yes, sort of, in certain contexts. Are you talking about this? The snopes article is based on Dave Marsh's book Louie Louie. You may be able to find it in your local library. Arcandam (talk) 03:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I'm sure this has been asked a bajillion times, but what about about.com? Specifically http://oldies.about.com/library/weekly/aa091602a.htm and related links? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 03:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

My initial guess was that it wouldn't be; however, it appears like it is reliable. It is a part of the New York Times Company. Check the page for a random contributor Aaron Gold. This appears to be the contributor who added the information. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I would say that Snopes is reliable but not About.com. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Why? Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Too expand, if we can trust the information they provide us about their contributors, the author of the link given is "an entertainment critic and journalist who has been published nationally for over a quarter century, and has written about oldies music for most of that time". Aaron Gold, who I linked to earlier, works full time for about.com and is a consulting producer for

Top Gear. Ryan Vesey Review me!

14:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I don't understand the site well enough to comment conclusively ... my impression is that about.com contributors are well chosen for their expertise and the site is professionally managed. I'd incline towards saying "yes, reliable". Andrew Dalby 08:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

To be more precise, About.com itself is not reliable, but the individual authors fairly often qualify for expert status (see

WP:SPS) and are thus reliable sources no matter where they publish. That's why we say that "source" has three meanings on Wikipedia (author, publication, and publisher). Only one of the three needs to be acceptable. In this case, the overall publication (About.com's website) is unreliable, but some of the authors are. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 15:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Inre: February 22, 2010 interview in free alternative newspaper Campus Circle as used in the article The Last Hurrah (2009 film) for sourcing non-controversial information in The Last Hurrah (2009 film) "Production" and "Critical response" sections:

From "Production":

The movie is filmed in one single, continuous 88 minute shot. The film is considered part of the mumblecore movement because of its shooting style, emphasis on dialog, and focus on Generation Y relationships. The director states that the film was inspired by Richard Linklater and Woody Allen, with dialogue intended to be "a lot of fast-paced one-liners. A lot of philosophy."[3] Obstacles encountered while shooting the film as one take included coordinating a film crew in a party scene filled with extras, and equipment limitations such as cameras with 30 minutes shot length. Filming took five nights of shooting attempts - on the fifth night, "the film came together."[3]

From "Critical response":

Campus Circle wrote that teen comedies have become reviled due to their becoming "synonymous with cheap laughs and awkward, over sexual punch lines,"[3] but that Last Hurrah "reminds audiences of what has since been lost from the high point of ’80s filmmaking."[3]

Refcite: Stokell, Spence (February 22, 2010). "Jonathan Stokes: The Last Hurrah Director Takes Five" Campus Circle. Retrieved July 15, 2012.

Campus Circle's "about us" and "media" pages stress that their target demographic are readers between the ages of 18 and 34, gives company history and background leading to the formation of "Campus Circle Media" in 2000 as a group of 33 alternative newspapers nationwide that are distributed both on and off college campuses in their respective cities, and offers that they now network with over 34 different publications in 32 different markets.[31][32] Their "contact us" page shows that they have different editorial departments and, in serving college and university age students on campuses across the US as part of their target demographic, they have main offices at a non-university address in Los Angeles.[33] The bottom of their main page shows that along with the online version, hardcopy issues are published 49 times a year.[34] So... is the source reliable enough in context to what is being sourced? Or not? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any reason here to think that it is less reliable than any other weekly entertainment rag.

I assume that you're worried about it being considered a student newspaper. It's not. We accept sources that young people read. We worry about sources that inexperienced people write. That's why we have a general dislike for student newspapers: the students who write, edit, and publish those papers don't normally know what they're doing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Would a blog post by David Jay Brown be considered a valid "expert" self published source for a commentary about the mainstream media and cultural views of use of drugs? Specifically His commentary here for use in Incidents of zombie-like behavior in 2012?

Absolute, definite, imperative NO. Not reliable for anything at all except for what cranks think. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Why not? He's written non-self-published works about marijuana. That's the definition of "expert" under

WP:SPS, isn't it? WhatamIdoing (talk

) 16:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

In the articles, the source in question is the Tome of Horrors sourcebook. What is the difference between the Tome of Horrors [35] and the Monster Manual that makes it independent? Both are sourcebooks for Dungeons and Dragons, and both are nothing more than a list of entries for monsters to be used in the Dungeons & Dragons game, and both require other Dungeons & Dragons books in order to be used. The only difference is that one was published by a company that owns the rights to Dungeons & Dragons game system, and the other was published by a company that uses the rights to Dungeons and Dragons game system. That's the only difference.

There is not a single policy, guideline, essay, or even consensus that comes anywhere close to suggesting that using the rights as opposed to owning the rights makes any difference when establishing the independence of a source. The fact that rights to the game system are used at all makes it not independent of the game system whose rights this sourcebook is using. How is a sourcebook written specifically to be used with Dungeons & Dragons independent of Dungeons & Dragons? Having a different publisher does not make it independent; two publishers being independent of one another is not the same as a publisher being independent of a game system it's publishing books for. There seems to be a confusion among editors between third-party publisher (i.e. not the rights holder) and third-party source (i.e. unaffiliated with the subject, in this case Dungeons & Dragons). We don't use a video game to establish notability for the same video game, so why would it be different just because the medium changes to a table-top format? Third-party publishers have created video game content for games before, this doesn't make it an independent source, and if an article about a video game creature only cited the video games themselves, I don't believe anyone would seriously argue that those would be independent sources.

Am I wrong in this line of thinking, that something is not an independent source on the sole basis that the sourcebook's publishers do not own the rights to Dungeons & Dragons? (and this is ignoring the fact that this only contributes to a single line in an "Other publishers" section in these articles, and that the articles aren't based on third-party sources per

you are correct - "third party" sources need to be fully independent. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

While Dungeons and Dragons sourcebooks may make for useful citations as in references to works that discuss the topic, they are not good as sources in the sense of works that we write wikipedia from. They are certainly not useful for establishing notability. For example, if Lamia (Dungeons and Dragons) were widely discussed in sources providing notability, it would certainly be appropriate to have the sourcebooks where Lamia are described "in universe" under the Further Reading section; but, it would not be useful to base the content of the article on the sourcebooks. We are an encyclopaedia where readers are interested in Lamia (Dungeons and Dragons) as culturally notable; not as in-universe. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Your first sentence is self-contradictory. Sources are the only thing we cite. That's why the page on how to type up a proper bibliographic citation is called WP:Citing sources. I think that what you meant is that we want articles to be based primarily on independent/third-party sources, just like WP:V says ("Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources..."). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Disappearance of Robin Graham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is this webpage from The Charley Project a reliable source for these statements in Disappearance of Robin Graham:

The case of Robin Graham's disappearance has been included in television specials about missing persons. It remains an unsolved mystery.

Some speculate that Graham was a victim of the Zodiac Killer.

Thanks!

no. a self published source can only make claims about itself (ie the website or the project) so if the website says "This could be the work of the Zodiac Killer" the website could be used as a source for a statement in the article "The Charlie Project thinks it is the work of the Zodiac Killer (citation to website)", but the inclusion of such a statement in the article would need to be based on the fact that the opinion of the Charlie Project was an important point of view

WP:UNDUE. -- The Red Pen of Doom

15:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback!

Location (talk

) 01:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Why does The Charley Project even have its own Wikipedia article? DreamGuy (talk)

I was wondering that, too. There is only one non-self published source in that article and it only mentions The Charley Project as part of a listing: [36].

Location (talk

) 02:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Some advice is needed for alternative sources that we can consider reliable for personal details in a Wikipedia article. Recently, the Brittany Binger article has included information about her engagement to a person, and we've recently had some editors who claim to be personally involved that she is no longer engaged. What sort of sources can we consider reliable here, other than mainstream media? We have a blog that has been used as a source, but it is a gossip blog. Does this engagement information even need to be included in the article in the first place? If we remove it entirely would that satisfy the issue well enough for now? -- Avanu (talk) 03:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

RS/N works through specificity. Could you please cite the blog being used to claim that the engagement took place. Personal correspondence or knowledge (for example, "I personally know that this engagement is broken off") is never acceptable. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Source for engagement: http://www.cleveland.com/tribe/index.ssf/2012/01/sorry_ladies_grady_sizemore_is.html

Source for breakup: http://www.terezowens.com/grady-sizemore-brittany-binger-call-off-engagement/

-- Avanu (talk) 04:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

So, do I have to tweet it again since the newspaper used Twitter as it's only source despite it being true? I don't want to have to do that. Jpjpstar (talk) 04:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• I have not looked at that article, but my standard response to a situation like that would be to remove any claim that is not of essential encyclopedic value and for which there is a plausible belief that the information may be incorrect. If there are multiple reliable sources saying someone is engaged (and none saying otherwise), and if that information is considered somehow valuable, the normal approach would be to include it. I underlined "reliable" because with gossipy stuff one often finds multiple websites that are merely repeating the opinion of one source. If someone is particularly concerned, they should ask at
  WP:OTRS. [When I wrote that text, the sources were not listed here. Looking at them very quickly makes me think "omit" is the right response because there are reasonable grounds to doubt the accuracy, and very strong grounds to not take the original source as a definitive statement, and the information is very dubious from an encyclopedic point of view.] Johnuniq (talk
  ) 04:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• I can't find any editorial information regarding the purported newspaper The Plain Dealer or any of the content hosted by Cleaveland.com => not reliable for BLP. The claim needs to be removed immediately as a BLP violation. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• http://www.terezowens.com/ is an unedited blog. The claim needs to be removed immediately as a BLP violation. (I have had enough of these snakes on this plane.) Fifelfoo (talk) 05:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The Plain Dealer is the major daily newspaper for Cleveland, with the largest circulation of any newspaper in Ohio, and the 16th largest in the US [37]. How does this not meet guidelines for a reliable source? TimofKingsland (talk) 06:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. It and The Columbus Dispatch were usually considered the best dailies in Ohio. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Attempt to find their editorial details on their "official" website; it is an exercise in futility. When I eventually did find something purporting to be such, on a non-official website, I was more impressed with the editorial policy displayed on heavy metal music review (edited) blogs. Reliability is about demonstrable reliability. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Have you had a look at their awards pages (via their about us) page? The newspaper has been recognised by a large number of independent organisations, such as universities, press societies, etc. TimofKingsland (talk) 08:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

That isn't their webpage, consult http://www.cleveland.com/ where the article is a) published and b) claimed to be the website of The Plain Dealer. We are not an apologia for fucking idiotic US publishing modalities: cleveland.com does not supply any editorial information. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The Facebook page for the PD contains more information. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

That is their website. Look at the bottom of every page "Get today's news (...) from The Plain Dealer, exclusively on our affiliated Web site, cleveland.com!". Or cleveland.com - "We are the online home of The Plain Dealer featuring real-time news (...) from Ohio's largest newspaper." ThePlainDealer.com is the official website of the newspaper, online versions of the article are put on cleveland.com. As stated on both of the websites. TimofKingsland (talk)

So the source as cited we're dealing with here, which was published on cleveland.com; is clearly unedited. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The source was published and edited by a reputable newspaper, who republish the content of the newspaper on their affiliate site cleveland.com. The choice to publish the material on cleveland.com rather than their own website is a business/marketing decision by the newspaper, and has nothing to do with the reliability of the newspaper, or the content they produce. This is like arguing that using a book that is republished freely on google books as a source is not acceptable because google books have not re-edited it themselves, despite the original publisher of the material being considered reputable. The Plain Dealer is a an established newspaper,

therefore the content they produce is reliable, even if they decided to publish the online version of their content through a website other than their own (like a publisher allowing their books to be read on google books). TimofKingsland (talk

) 10:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Demonstrate by citing against theplaindealer.com or a physical copy. Because cleveland.com contains no editorial information regarding theplaindealer.com, and shows no evidence that they're a credible news archive. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The evidence is on PlainDealer.com, clearly the official site of The Plain Dealer, which directs users at their home page to read online copies of their content at cleveland.com (and at ever other page on the site). Cleveland.com is clearly The Plain Dealer's official source for online copies of their newspaper, as per The Plain Dealer's website. TimofKingsland (talk) 11:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no evidence that cleveland.com is an accurate, complete, correct or true archive of anything. If we cite cleveland.com, then cleveland.com must be reliable. If you have consulted a paper copy of The Plain Dealer, containing the article in question, then proceed. But if you are going to hold to citing cleveland.com you'd better remove the content because there's no evidence that there is any editorial control over cleveland.com. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

even if it were in the NYT, we would not be printing BLP information sourced only to a report of someone's twitter feed. engagement announcements are almost always entirely trivial to the subject of the article and should not be included to begin with. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Cleveland.com is unquestionably reliable. Continuing to doubt that cleveland.com is The Plain Dealer is disrupting the function of this noticeboard. No comment on the other issues at hand. Hipocrite (talk) 12:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's a report on a tweet, but I'm not interested in whether the content is kept or not. I don't care. Other editors have been edit warring about it. I'd rather stay out of it. I'm concerned about the idea that Ohio's biggest newspaper cannot be cited on Wikipedia because the site they host their content on is different to the site they use to handle subscriptions and business matters. In the case of a major news event in Cleveland, the inability to cite the online edition of Cleveland's largest newspaper will hinder Wikipedia's coverage. It seems the argument is about a technicality - that they have chosen to use another company to host their material online, rather than handle it themselves. But this is just like using another company to print their newspaper. The reliability of a newspaper is not determined by who prints/hosts it, as long as they are appointed to do so by the newspaper. Or why is this not the case? And why should we not trust a reliable source to choose its own content publisher? Or do we have a consensus that The Plain Dealer articles sourced at Cleveland.com can be used as a reliable source? Only one editor disagrees with this. TimofKingsland (talk) 13:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

This discussion just confirms in my opinion that WP:RS needs to explicitly state that RSes are not required to publish an "editorial policy" online or to have an "editorial board". Real newspapers don't publish editorial policies in their print copies either, and many "editorial boards" are responsible solely for opinion pieces. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Off topic here. For the talk page of WP:IRS. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

from the website: "Binger, from Bellevue, Ohio, announced the engagement on her Twitter account. The former Playboy Playmate in June of 2007 Tweeted a picture of her engagement ring." yeah, its a twit. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed your post. I hadn't look that closely at the source material. You're right, it is a story on a tweet. TimofKingsland (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

To get back to the original question, sources for biography subjects' personal lives include published biographies, the mainstream media, (taking account of WP:RECENT), possibly the subject's own official website or official fan club, statements by their agents, and that's about it. We do not cover celebrity gossip. Have a look at some featured biographies. On Cleveland.com, if you dig around you can see that it is closely related to the Plain Dealer. It's annoying to have to dig around. Perhaps a reader will email them and ask them to add an About Us section on their website. Itsmejudith (talk)

OK, again, not arguing for inclusion, but out of interest, how does WP define celebrity gossip? I would have thought an engagement announcement covered in an RS would be notable as a detail about their personal life, especially if it was to someone else notable. This was reported in the sports section, which might not be the most reliable section of the paper, but it's not the gossip section. TimofKingsland (talk) 13:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Announced engagements, pregnancies, weddings, divorces (to give these celebrity-intensive events in chronological order) aren't tittle tattle. "Friends said" stories are tittle tattle, as are "she looked tipsy" stories. Even so, the announced situations are not always notable. It depends on the biography. Posh's marriage to Becks has to be included in both biographies, but in the case of a scientist you wouldn't want more than "she is married with four adult children". Itsmejudith (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

That's what I would have thought. On top of that, I would have thought if the engagement was to someone else notable (especially if they are more notable than the subject), it would increase its notability. If a scientist with an article on them here announced their engagement to Lady Gaga, I would expect this to be much more notable, and worthy of a mention in an encyclopaedia, than if they announced their engagement to their high school sweetheart. In that situation, it's quite likely reliable sources would only mention the engagement if it was to someone "notable" like Gaga, as they would consider the engagement more notable. This case is obviously different: the subject is not a scientist, and their (ex?) fiancé is not as famous as Lady Gaga. But their fiancé was more notable and well known than the subject. And the fact that the subject has made a career of being a TV personality (i.e. being paid for who they are), their personal life becomes important to their career in a way it does not for a scientist, and I would argue it becomes more notable. That seems to have been the approach taken for the "Snooki" article. TimofKingsland (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

It was suggested to make an inquiry here to verify that the following publication is reliable:

Title: Hadley: a study in fakery (version 2)

Author: Prof. Colin Rourke, Mathematics Institute, University of Warwick, COVENTRY CV4 7AL, UK^[1]. This full address is mentioned on the bottom of the paper.

Publisher: Aulis (including link to the paper)^[2]

The paragraph “Anomaly 2: The outward shadow” is the topic of the Wikipedia article

When Prof. Colin Rourke wrote this paper he was working for the University of Warwick. He made several publications. Such further information can be found on his private homepage, via a link from his university homepage.

My recommendation: Reliable. The only reason why it might not be judged as reliable is the content of the paper which is contrary to the “published opinion”. But this is never stated to be a criterion. Andrew199 (talk) 07:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

References:

Aulis describes itself as a "flexible outlet" for publishing anti-orthodox content. In other words, it is a peer-review-free zone that publishes

significant if there is some special reason for caring about that author's opinion, such as in an article on himself.. Someguy1221 (talk

) 07:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It is the author who is responsible for the content of a paper. And here we have a paper from the University of Warwick. The question is therefore whether the Warwick University is reliable or not. Andrew199 (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Warwick University is exceedingly reliable. Has the uni put its weight behind this particular paper. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

This appears to be the self-published (except through Aulis.com, as noted above) work of a professor of mathematics there; it's also available through his personal ftp page as hadley.doc, but interestingly enough is not mentioned on either his personal web page there or in his (badly out of date) CV linked from that personal web page. While he appears to be an expert in

forensics in general. There's no peer review or university endorsement of this paper that I can find. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK

) 21:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The examination of photographs, as any examination, can be approached from different sides. A mathematical contribution on behalf of Warwick should therefore be welcome, even if the concerning review process is not known to us. Andrew199 (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

We have to printed, reliable sources for the outcome of Talk:Battle of Dirschau, as a Polish victory ([38] and a book by historian Leszek Podhorodecki. There is also a website ([39]) that calls it a Swedish victory; it does not cite any sources, through the author seems somewhat reliable ([40]). I think that the website is less reliable, and without support form other sources, it claim is fringe-ish. Another editor uses it to argue that the battle outcome should be changed from Polish victory to indecisive. What would our resident experts on reliability suggest? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Easy. Wikipedia does not call the "winner". We cite the opinion of each source to the source itself. And we only use "reliable sources" per the strange Wikipedia usage. Collect (talk) 12:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

a quick scan on google books shows quite an array of interpretation on the battle. wikipedia should

present the notable views in the proportion that they are held by mainstream scholarship, generally determined as by how they are presented reliable sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom

13:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I was not seeing any interpretations other than Polish victory/Swedish defeat. Could you point me to those you found? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

it was a "quick scan" and I saw things like "was a minor swedish vicotry" (which on closer inspection turns out to be self published and so not reliable unless Robert Firth is a notable historian)

and its only a snippet view so you cannot really verify exactly what is in the work but [41] "Battle of Dirschau: Swedes defeat Poles " in The northern wars: war, state, and society in northeastern Europe, ... by historian Robert I. Frost.

a close inspection could very well show that those are non-notable and/or fringe interpretations. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I saw and discarded the first source a while ago, as it was self-published (as you note) and also got the date wrong. Robert I. Frost is a reliable historian, but I'd like to see a little more before including him in the infobox; he may merit inclusion in the text, however. (He also gives the date wrong, same as Robert Firth; I wonder if they are using a different calendar?) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

[Edit conflict:] We can't count the website [42] as a reliable source, though I agree it looks good. The Robert Firth book has no claim at all to be reliable in our terms. The Robert I. Frost text, assuming Red Pen of Doom cites it correctly (I can't verify) is potentially a reliable source allowing us to say that the result has been called both ways. And it would be good to say that, because, clearly, if you read the text of our page and of other narratives about this battle, it was not really conclusive and it isn't surprising that evaluations differ. Andrew Dalby 14:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I would not use the Frost claim without having some one be able to verify the actual text. The content in the snippet view appears pretty straightforward, but without being able to verify it in full context it is not really supportable other than as a discussion point that there are apparently alternate views. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

[43] "The History of the Swedes" seems to state that Dirschau was "restored" to Poland in 1629. This strongly suggests that Poland was not in control of Dirschau and that Sweden was, as of 1629. It may be of interest that different countries in Europe may or may not have adopted the Gregorian calendar at that time -- Poland appears to have used it from 1582, and Sweden from 1700 (sort of - it took 44 years to fully align). Interesting reading for sure. Collect (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

If the sources disagree, I would suggest putting something like "Disputed" or "Interpretations vary" for "Result" in the Infobox, with a link to the section of the article or a footnote which explains how the sources diverge on who won the battle and why. Cla68 (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Or just leave that field of the infobox blank, and explain the differing accounts in the lead and final sections of the article. Nick-D (talk) 06:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

In the dhimmi article, is Abdullahi Ahmed An-Nai'im, Toward an Islamic Reformation: Civil Liberties, Human Rights and International Law, Syracuse University Press 1990' p 90 reliable for the statement "In classical Islamic law, dhimmis were treated differently from Muslim men in the administration of criminal law and would also face humiliating and discriminatory distinctions in personal law."? Is An-Naim not writing specifically about punishments for fornication? Would such a statement be cherry-picking? The book is scholarly; as the title indicates it is also advocacy (haven't read it in full, but seen Google books preview). At the start the author describes it as "a preliminary work introducing a revolutionary approach to Islamic legal reform". p xiii. The author is a legal specialist, PhD in law, and a former political activist, not a historian. There were major differences between the letter of the law and how it was implemented, as he recognises on several occasions, and as historians stress. Itsmejudith (talk)

For reference his webpage[44] and his wiki page

WP:RX

14:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

in the main text, *perhaps*. in the lead, no.-- altetendekrabbe  14:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Looking for uninvolved comments, thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The author is an academic expert in the field of Islamic law and human rights, with numerous books published on the topic of Islamic law by academic presses. The specific source you are using is an on-topic book, published by a university press. If thou want to edit the sentence win question to better reflect the specific claim (wrt fornication) - do so, but there is no doubt this is a relabel source. 71.204.165.25 (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The source may be 'reliable' in the abstract, but that is not what is at issue. Is it 'reliable' for the material it is cited for? I say clearly not, simply on the basis that the word "would" is unsupported - or more accurately, is contradicted by the source, which argues that such discrimination 'might' have occurred, but was by no means a universal given in the practice of 'classical Islamic law'. I'd also point out that the material under question is in the article lede, and as such should summarise what is said in the body of the text - it doesn't, so regardless of its validity, it doesn't belong there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem with this sourcing seems to be the claim that formal distinction existed in law which is necessarily actual social discrimination. The source doesn't adequately support this claim. It supports most of the rest of the content, this is "AndyTheGrump"'s would. The author appears to hold the opinion that formal distinction in law is necessarily concrete discrimination at all times in all places, this claim could be attributed, but then we are forced to ask if the author is competent for such a claim. I'd say yes because this claim is a trivial argument in law. But in history it isn't a trivial argument, and it certainly isn't widely accepted (it'd be accused of anachronism out of the box). Correspondingly the concept that this was "humiliating" is a more historical than legal claim, that I worry about. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Am I right in thinking that al Qattan in the International Journal of Middle East Studies is a better source, and can supersede this one? Itsmejudith (talk) 22:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest using scholarly peer-reviewed journal articles in preference to this source, and replacing this source with such articles as they exist. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems

All the astrology articles need cleanup. If you can find sources for Chinese astrology that would be helpful. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

From what I can see from

talk

) 14:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I've taken a lot of the b*ll**ks out of the Chinese zodiac now, and made suggestions for further improvement in a discussion already open on the WikiProject Astrology talk page. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Something that bothers me about zodiac sign articles, which are mostly astrology but sometimes contain elements of astronomy, is reliable sources for the dates on which the sun enters and leaves a given sign. A pattern in these articles is that someone will quote an online astrology source which gives definite dates. For reasons stated in the next paragraph, these dates are necessarily an approximation, but at least they are a verifiable approximation which vandalism-fighters can refer to when dubious changes are made. Then some well-meaning IP comes along and changes the dates to a different approximation, which while plausible, disagree with the cited source.

The dates are necessarily an approximation; the two biggest factors causing different dates are the time zone and the place of the year in the four-year leap year sequence. I imagine the various online sources are using

Encyclopedia of Race and Racism by Gale group [45] in article about "Anti-Semitism in the Arab World" says the following "Manifestations of anti-Semitism erupted in the Arab world during the late twentieth century. However, discrimination against Jews has relegated them to second-class status under Arab hegemony (“dhimmitude”) since the successful uniting of the tribes in the Arabian peninsula by Muhammad (570–632) in the sixth century." I want to use it as one of descriptions of dhimmitude in

While not an outright bad source, that appears to be a tertiary source from a publisher which, according to its website, is focused on e-research and educational publishing for libraries, schools and businesses. A secondary, and preferably scholarly, source would be much superior, especially given that this is a sensitive and disputed topic - our

WP:PSTS for background on the relevant policies here). I hope that this is helpful. Nick-D (talk

) 06:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The thing is there already some secondary sources its not the only source.Maybe it could be used with conjunction with other sources?--

WP:RX

07:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

As a non-authored article in an encyclopaedia aimed not at scholars I don't see why we should pay this any attention under WEIGHT and exceptional claims (claiming a tenuous theoretical construct is reality). These claims are meant to come from scholars. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It does authored by him [47]--

WP:RX

07:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Steven L. Jacobs has no experience in Islamic history in the 6th and 7th century. An article authored by a non-specialist in a generalist encyclopaedia is irrelevant to exceptional claims (such as a historical theoretical construct actually existing in reality). See WP:HISTRS for suitable sources regarding establishing one historiography (particularly tenuous ones) as actual fact. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding narrowly this diff showing removal of a link to a Dept of Justice document the Institute for Research Middle East Policy obtained through FOIA and put on its website (along with many others). The document supports statements by two other WP:RS. (For your convenience, here is the actual document link: Photostat of November 21, 1962 letter from U.S. Assistant Attorney General to American Zionist Organization regarding registration as foreign agent.)

At this April WP:RSN discussion over two dozen WP:RS discussions of, quoting from, reprinting of IRMEP materials were presented and several editors opined it was fine to link to its documents in this manner. (I can repeat the list and a number more if people really want to see them again.) Nevertheless, User:Biosketch who made the above edit claims there is no such "consensus" to link to such documents on IRMEP's site.

Unfortunately, despite the title of that first thread “IRmep: actual reliable source evidence re: FOIA docs” editors who do not want IRMEP opinions seen as WP:RS kept bring up that issue resulting in a ridiculously long thread. So hopefully if we focus on one article and one document we can have a short discussion without the histrionics generated last time. CarolMooreDC 15:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Isn't its primary source?Why it needed in the article at all?--

WP:RX— Preceding unsigned

comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Primary sources are fine to back up WP:RS and are often used to provide weight and credibility to other WP:RS, as well as to provide details missing in them. Like the date, the actual author, and the actual text. Also, when some editors are trying to downplay or even delete any mention of some fact in what seems to be a politically censorious fashion, it's helpful to provide documentary evidence. CarolMooreDC 16:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

If the statement is already supported by RS, why is the primary source required as a source and not simply placed into "Further Reading." What additional claims does the primary source support that are not already supported by other sources? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Right now sources only say that the request for registration happened in the 1960s. I'd like to put the exact year; the actual foreign agency funding the operation also is mentioned. I am not sure how that bears on whether IRMEP itself is WP:RS as a link to this primary source document. CarolMooreDC 03:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Carol; that is a legitimate use of a primary document, where secondaries already mention the fact, and the document, and we're only referring to the document to clarify points secondaries have already mentioned. Reasonable enough. In my other life, I am a historian, and regularly use archives of a variety of qualities. Looking at the separation of the archival unit from the general unit within the organisation, the archival unit's specific mission relating to the promulgation of acquired public documents, and both example documents and example collections—ie, examining the archival quality of the ILA archive of the IRMEP—I am convinced that the ILA meet the minimal acceptable criteria for an archive of primary documents (complete, context, in full, invariant, provenance, etc.) Thus I am convinced that it is reasonable to use the primary source in the above manner: 1) Secondary sources establish the point exists, and the importance of the point; 2) The primary source is only used to clarify the point (year, name) of elements already considered important; 3) the archive supplying the primary source is minimally trustworthy as a publisher of archival material (that's a high bar minimum btw). Without point 1; without point 2; or without point 3 this would be bad. See

WP:HISTRS for why I reason in this manner regarding primary sources use in historical articles. Fifelfoo (talk

) 03:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, Wikipedia's criteria for determining what qualifies as a reliable source are summarized at

WP:RS as follows: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Can you demonstrate how you concluded that IRmep has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy in determining that we can rely on its documents for their authenticity? Also, this is already the fourth or fifth time that the IRmep organization is being brought to RSN: in none of the preceding discussions was a compelling argument able to be formulated for accepting IRmep as a reliable source for anything other than the opinions of Grant Smith.—Biosketch (talk

) 04:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Read IRS closer, Biosketch. This is about the reliability specifically of ILA at IRMEP for copying documents from the US government's National Archives or from US government FOI procedures, and then mirroring them, intact complete invariant. This isn't about secondary sources regarding the actuality of the middle east and the weight or verifiability to ascribe to opinions written by a politicised author. Do you see the difference? Supply intact, complete, invariant and provinenced archival material is radically different to supplying appropriate history, sociology or political science of the middle east? This is why the claim supported issue is relevant. I would still suggest, and defend, not using IRMEP for secondary sources in connection with the middle east. I would suggest, and defend, not writing articles or facts in articles based on content in the ILA (due to PRIMARY and

WP:HISTRS's discussion of primary). Fifelfoo (talk

) 04:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

ILA (an acronym for "The Israel Lobby Archive," which is a classification not used in any of the purported FBI documents) is a component of IRmep's website. Unless IRmep is itself considered a reliable publisher, which is what I'm insisting be demonstrated per

WP:RS's criteria, ILA doesn't qualify as a reliable publisher either. ILA and IRmep are for all intents and purposes the same entity here. What has convinced you that the documents hosted at "Israel Lobby Archive" are authentic?—Biosketch (talk

) 05:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Typology and typesetting, administrative markings that archived or released documents ought to possess, degradations from photoduplication or scanning, artefacts from large digitisation actions (photographic bleed through, etc), the amount of provenance information supplied with the documents, the fact that documents in series are complete, the absence of markers of variance, and the stated mission of the ILA subgroup's mission regarding the archives in various pages discussing what it is and how they work. These reliability criteria only relate to the ILA function; not to IRMEP commentary. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but none of these features establish IRmep's "Israel Lobby Archive" as a reliable source for documents it claims to have obtained from archives of official United States agencies. Reliability is established by things like peer-review and a reputation for fact-checking. As long as the authenticity of these documents isn't upheld by sources themselves known to be reliable, our own evaluation of them is insufficient. Compare the editor User:Fifelfoo's comment re cleveland.com above:

There is no evidence that cleveland.com is an accurate, complete, correct or true archive of anything. If we cite cleveland.com, then cleveland.com must be reliable. If you have consulted a paper copy of The Plain Dealer, containing the article in question, then proceed. But if you are going to hold to citing cleveland.com you'd better remove the content because there's no evidence that there is any editorial control over cleveland.com.
— User:Fifelfoo

—Biosketch (talk) 06:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

No, let's not compare. We are talking here of a convenience link for an official document. Are we certain that this is the original? I haven't looked. Re Cleveland.com, I think Fifelfoo is probably mistaken, and have posted on talk IRS at length about local newspapers. This is quite a differentcase. I suspect that, as Carol hinted, behind this query is a slow burning war on Israel Palestine articles to "get sources on" or "get sources off" Wikipedia. Sort of 1x Ilan Pappe = 1x Alan Dershowitz. Tell me I'm wrong. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

You are right, of course. IRMEP has a lot of govt documents relevant sites are reluctant to carry for political reasons. (After I finish my IRMEP wikipedia article in the fall we can discuss whether its opinions, just like the opinions of a number of advocacy groups, also can be used in articles.) Right now I just want to use links to and info from the documents themselves.

I think the credibility of IRMEP for posting accurate documents is evidenced by [this April WP:RSN discussion listing over two dozen WP:RS discussions of, quoting from, reprinting of IRMEP materials. Since that list was made, Grant and/or his documents have been covered in Courthousenews.com, Sacramento Bee, WBAI Pacifica radio (interview) as well as a number of the sources mentioned in the WP:RSN archive. I haven't seen IRMEP challenged on the grounds it is manufacturing or messing with documents.

Just for the heck of it I just did internet search of November 21, 1962 Assistant Attorney General American Zionist Organization and this was the highest quality source making it available. (Actually what we should do is get all this stuff into the National Archives via GLAM! Thanks for inspiring that idea, Biosketch!) CarolMooreDC 17:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

{outdent}} Biosketch wrote above: As long as the authenticity of these documents isn't upheld by sources themselves known to be reliable, our own evaluation of them is insufficient. Given that request for such information, let us again list such sources that do just that, the first two very directly, the rest by simply using them:

• A Washington Post blog paragraph by security expert Jeff Stein reading: And judging by once sensitive FBI documents making the rounds in recent days, the Israelis have been at this task in Washington for a very long time. The 21 documents, obtained by Grant F. Smith, a Washington, D.C. author who has made a career out of writing critical books on Israeli spying and lobbying, detail the FBI’s investigation into the theft of a confidential U.S. document on the Reagan administration’s position going into the 1984 U.S.-Israel Free Trade Area Negotiations.
• Journalist Philip Weiss writes Smith is doing “the best investigative work” on the Israel lobby here.
• IRmep research is used in: Ben Simpfendorfer, The New Silk Road ( Macmillan , 2009); Nathaniel Minnott, Harvard Law School, "The Economic Espionage Act: is the law all bark and no bite?", Information & Communications Technology Law, Volume 20, Issue 3, 2011; Jahad Atieh, Foreign Agents: Updating FARA to Protect American Democracy, University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law, Summer, 2010, 31 U. Pa. J. Int'l L. 1051; Clifford Attick Kiracofe, Dark crusade: Christian Zionism and US foreign policy, Volume 31 of International library of political studies, I.B. Tauris, 2009, p 207; Pierre Guerlain, "Fighting for the Hearts and Minds of American Jews: Identity Politics at the Crossroads of Domestic and Foreign Policy, Université Paris Ouest Nanterre, GRAAT On-Line Occasional Papers–April 2009, peer-reviewed journal GRAAT (Groupe de Recherches Anglo-Américaines de Tours, or Tours Anglo-American Research Group), Tours, Université François Rabelais; Frank P. Harvey, Explaining The Iraq War: Counterfactual Theory, Logic and Evidence, Cambridge University Press, 2011, p. 329;

• Hart, Jo-Anne. Perceptions and Courses of Actions toward Iran  
  Military Review
  Vol 85, Issue 5 (Sep/Oct 2005): pages 9-21..

• Most recently IRMEP released new FOIA documents from the FBI (See PDF here) showing that current Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was involved 30 odd years ago in illegally purchasing United States nuclear technology for Israel’s nuclear program. Antiwar.com published Smith's article on this; Gary Null at WBAI radio interviewed Grant Smith here. I am not sure at this point if IRMEP also obtained and released the original documents which resulted in the publishing of a book on the topic (reviewed here) or relevant to this The Israel National News article. This obviously is still a developing story and I'm sure more WP:RS will use Smith's documents in the future.

I would hope NPOV editors agree that this is more than sufficient evidence that: "the authenticity of these documents is upheld by sources themselves known to be reliable." If not, we are going to have to scour Wikipedia of thousands of primary source references. CarolMooreDC 22:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)