Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 142

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Archive 135 ← Archive 140 Archive 141 Archive 142 Archive 143 Archive 144 Archive 145

Birth certificates in public records

Certainly not everyone ever born has their birth announced in newspapers or other media, but my thought is that a birth certificate held in

verifiable specific fact, not a fact denoting or confirming notability, and not a large block of information, the actual birth-date is not a "controversial" item, and proof is available offline to substantiate it, what is the best way to handle including it in a BLP. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q.
23:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

A birth certificate is a primary source. The reason I always find to doubt such records is not concern that the record is inaccurate, but concern that's it's not for the right person. There are many possible ways to alleviate that concern, I suppose, with confirmation from the subject being among them. I'm not entirely sure of the right way to very that part, however. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Primary. Good. As it is dealt with here at
"...though links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted), so I wrote the subject and suggested that the date be included in their own online website, giving us better options. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q.
02:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Sources must be published. Are public records considered a source of publication? Can I walk into my local library and get a birth certificate on interlibrary loan? --Jayron32 06:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Coincidentally I noticed something similar in the Kenneth Noland article yesterday and wondered what, if anything, to do about it. Noland died a couple of years ago but the issue is similar. If you look at the line "A son of Harry Caswell Noland (1896–1975), a pathologist, and his wife, Bessie (1897–1980), Kenneth Clifton Noland was born in Asheville, North Carolina. He had four siblings: David,Bill,Neil, and Harry Jr.[1][2]", ref 1 says "Parents' names and siblings from ancestry.com, found in 1930 North Carolina Federal Census as well as the North Carolina Birth Register listing of Noland's birth. Records accessed on 7 January 2010." Sean.hoyland - talk 06:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
If an archive puts its records online (or prints them for general sale) that is publication. If not, they are not published.
Birth certificates are primary sources. If a genealogical agency puts such data online, the data is not necessarily reliable: it all depends how well the work was done.
The real problem for us, as already said above, is identifying that the record is relevant: we rely on secondary sources to do that for us, otherwise we are doing original research. That's what the Kenneth Noland case looks like to me; and I'm afraid that getting a birth record verified by the subject is also original research. Andrew Dalby 10:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
This comes up quite often. I am wondering if it needs to be explained on a policy page. There is no ban against using primary sources, and for many types of government record there are reliable publications on line. Most sources can be used in some contexts, but the key point really is that if you use a primary source as proof of some non obvious interpretation, then this becomes
WP:RS
. If you use a primary source to statement something OBVIOUS, that is generally ok, but not something non-obvious. So:-
  • "A birth certificate exists with characteristics x, y, z" might be OK (but probably not often notable!).
  • "The birth certificate of John Lennon says his father had occupation x." is NOT going to be acceptable by WP norms UNLESS you find a SECONDARY source that tell you which birth certificate is his. You can not decide this yourself. This is because linking a document to a real person is NOT obvious. Even the best genealogists screw such things up all the time.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

This question is about a living person; and thus using this primary source is not permitted at all per BLP:PRIMARY. "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person". I'd also note that multiple other discussions on this and the BLP noticeboard have noted that the use birth/death certificates/census records, even for historical records, are fraught with OR danger and even outright error.Slp1 (talk) 12:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Just in case it is not clear, my post above is in agreement with Slp1, and I think in general there is a lot of consensus here. I included an example of how a primary document can be used just to show why it is not normally going to be relevant in cases like birth certificates. I think the consensus is clear to many of us, but the trick is apparently in trying to explain the logic of this consensus.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that there were various good arguments being made about the reliability and original research part of the question, I just wanted to point out that there is also a slam-dunk statement in our BLP that prohibits it. From a BLP perspective I'd also like to urge editors to use considerable caution from a privacy of information perspective too. From an ethical perspective, WP shouldn't be the means of diffusing birthdates that are not easily available elsewhere or even encouraging BLP subjects to publish them without clearly explaining the risks inherent in doing so. Slp1 (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
When we've discussed this at OTRS we've decided we can't use sources provided by the subject (I had a complainant that wanted to do this). I agree.
talk
) 13:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Appreciate the feedback. As my question has been answered, I would not mind this thread being closed. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The Men Who Killed Kennedy

  • Source: Turner, Nigel. The Men Who Killed Kennedy, Part 3, "The Cover-Up", 1991.
  • Article: Jack Ruby
  • Content #1: About an hour after President Kennedy was shot, White House correspondent Seth Kantor (who was a passenger in the motorcade) arrived at
    Parkland Hospital
    where Kennedy was receiving medical care. As Kantor was entering the hospital through a stairway, he felt a tug on his coat. He turned around to see Ruby who called him by his first name and shook his hand.
  • Content #2: Ruby asked Kantor if he thought that it would be a good idea for him to close his nightclubs for the next three nights because of the tragedy and Kantor responded that he thought that doing so would be a good idea.
  • Content #3: Ruby would later deny he had been at Parkland Hospital and the Warren Commission decided to believe Ruby rather than Kantor.

A difference of opinion regarding the reliability of the documentary series

Location (talk
) 00:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like conspiracy theory junk to me. What's the source for Kantor? I haven't heard of Ruby being at Parkland at all previously. --Pete (talk) 02:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
According to the article: Kantor, Seth. Who Was Jack Ruby?, (New York: Everest House Publishers, 1978).
ISBN 0-89696-004-8. The Warren Commission links in the article are [1][2][3]
. For full context, this is the paragraph in the article:
About an hour after President Kennedy was shot, White House correspondent Seth Kantor (who was a passenger in the motorcade) arrived at Parkland Hospital where Kennedy was receiving medical care. As Kantor was entering the hospital through a stairway, he felt a tug on his coat. He turned around to see Ruby who called him by his first name and shook his hand.[24][25][26] (Kantor had become acquainted with Ruby when Kantor was a reporter for the Dallas Times Herald newspaper.)[27][28] Ruby asked Kantor if he thought that it would be a good idea for him to close his nightclubs for the next three nights because of the tragedy and Kantor responded that he thought that doing so would be a good idea.[25][29][30] It has been suggested that Ruby might have been involved in tampering with evidence while at the hospital.[31] Ruby would later deny he had been at Parkland Hospital and the Warren Commission decided to believe Ruby rather than Kantor.[32][33][34] (In 1979, the House Select Committee on Assassinations reversed the Warren Commission's judgement, stating: "While the Warren Commission concluded that Kantor was mistaken [about his Parkland meeting with Ruby], the Committee determined he probably was not.")[35]
[26], [30], and [34] refer to the documentary. It looks like the whole paragraph needs to be rewritten to me. -
Location (talk
) 02:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
This is purest drivel. Ruby learnt of the assassination from television, whilst at the Morning news in central Dallas. He decided to close his nightclubs on the spot and placed an advertisement to that effect immediately. --Pete (talk) 03:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Kantor's book puts for the idea that Ruby was involved in a conspiracy.[4]) Based upon what one person said he saw or thought he saw, this paragraph appears to be fringe material.
Location (talk
) 04:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
It needs to be severely pruned at the least. It is undue weight in what is quite a short article. --Pete (talk) 04:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
You must know more than the House Select Committee on Assassinations who believed Kantor over Ruby. LOL. By the way, witness Wilma Tice also told the Warren Commission that she saw Ruby at Parkland. It always helps to read the article before commenting, but let me make it easy for you. It reads as follows:
Witness Wilma Tice also said that she saw Jack Ruby at Parkland Hospital during the time Kennedy was being treated there.[42] Called to testify before the Warren Commission, Tice said that she received an anonymous phone call from a man telling her "…that it would pay me to keep my mouth shut."[43] BrandonTR (talk) 08:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I read the article, which is why I called undue weight for this anecdote. I guess, if you sincerely believe that there was a conspiracy, then everything points that way. To someone with an open mind, it all sounds ludicrous. It's just hints and suppositions and theories. Where's the evidence? --Pete (talk) 09:52, 28 January 2013(UTC)
I suppose that if you take everything that the Warren Commission said as gospel, then you're going to immediately discount the eyewitness testimony of a Washington correspondent, and instead take the honorable Jack Ruby's testimony as the accurate version of events. BrandonTR (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
You suppose wrong. I don't take anything as gospel. Including gospel. The trouble with Kantor is that it means nothing. Even if Ruby were at Parkland, that doesn't make him a mob hitman. It's all supposition and very dubious supposition at that. Where is the evidence? Given the great sense of outrage afterwards, it is unsurprising that a concerned citizen murdered the assassin. We don't have to go looking for any other motive. And if Oswald was going to squeal - Oswald, what a fragile figure to have as the one key link in a huge conspiracy - he would have either done it already in the time he had been in custody, or he would have kept silent forever. Ruby had an earlier chance at Oswald, why didn't he get him then? It's just rubbish, the whole sorry fantasy. --Pete (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
From the article with footnotes: Ruby's explanation for killing Oswald would be "exposed … as a fabricated legal ploy", according to the House Select Committee on Assassinations. In a private note to one of his attorneys, Joseph Tonahill, Ruby wrote: "Joe, you should know this. [My first lawyer] Tom Howard told me to say that I shot Oswald so that Caroline and Mrs. Kennedy wouldn't have to come to Dallas to testify. OK?"[38][56] --BrandonTR (talk) 01:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
That's precisely the problem. There's no evidence at all. The article pushes out unrelated factoids and insinuates that something untoward was going on without actually saying it. Here's what went on: Oswald shot Kennedy and Ruby shot Oswald. That, we got evidence for. --Pete (talk) 08:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Really? Then why did you refer to Ruby's motive earlier? Once again, the article correctly states: Ruby's explanation for killing Oswald would be "exposed … as a fabricated legal ploy", according to the House Select Committee on Assassinations. BrandonTR (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I removed the citation from the evil, conspiratorial documentary, The Men Who Killed Kennedy ... just too much whining to listen to. BrandonTR (talk) 08:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It's only "whining" if you don't like what others are saying, but the removal is an improvement. More to be discussed on the talk page...
Location (talk
) 15:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
This article is too much weighted to conspiracism. Since the History Channel disowned the documentary we cannot consider it reliable. Of course there is evidence that Ruby was at the hospital, but we need to explain the degree of weight reliable sources assign it. Also, we should provide the mainstream interpretation that if Ruby was at the hospital it was because of obsession. TFD (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Trying to rescue an unreferenced BLP

The unreferenced BLP

Performer Magazine, but provides no citations to back up these claims. I searched around and found this link to the latter source [5]
. However, I noticed this in the page footer:

WHO WE ARE Performer has been in print for over 20 years. We are a nationally distributed musician’s trade publication, with a focus on independent musicians, those unsigned and on small labels, and their success in a DIY environment. We’re dedicated to promoting lesser-known talent and being the first to introduce you to artists you should know about.

So would this trade publication be considered a reliable source? If not, then I may have no choice but to nominate the article for deletion. Thanks.--Drm310 (talk) 06:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The Boston Globe interview briefly mentioning her is a textbook case of trivial coverage, which cannot be used in establishing notability. Being a nominee for a local music award is not even close to meeting the criteria either. There may (or may not) be good sources out there, but you need to stick to the actually rules for notability when making your arguments. Of course you've been told these kinds of things
more than once already. A strong desire to save articles at all costs is not an excuse for ignoring clear rules. DreamGuy (talk
) 02:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

More studies of Waldorf education

07:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The sentence gives very strong conclusions in the voice of Wikipedia itself, implying that editors have agreed that there is a very clear consensus amongst good sources. But the source given is a (respected) newspaper. Nothing wrong with using this source I think, but maybe if this is the best source we have we should be attributing the statements and not stating them in our own voice?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Suitability of Geopolitical Monitor as a RS in FI dispute article.

Hi. Im wondering if I can get some feedback here regarding a Canadian think-tank type site that I wish to use in a radical reshaping of a contentious section in Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute and its suitability as a WP source. here is the specific piece. War or Diplomacy?-Geopolitical Monitor http://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/falklands-2012-war-or-diplomacy-4701 It appears to be a respectable site, a specialist site with rich material on geopolitical subjects, which also provides specific reports for paying subscribers, although much of its content is open source. Among its contributors is Anne Applebaum, so there is intellectual notabilty present on the site. The actual author of the piece appears to have sufficient Notability, see http://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/about/people/ he is listed under his full name, Christopher S Ljungquist. I need it to break a source Weight conflict logjam which has developed at the aforementioned FI article. I note that material from the site has been used at least 3 times on othe WP pages, and has not been challenged as to its veracity as a RS. I would like to use the material as it appears sober (as does the entirity of the site content) and rich in material. I have managed to achieve a broad consensus regarding the material with the relevant editors, and just require the nod to go ahead and deploy it. It would also sort a major issue in an otherwise good article. I would greatly appreciate any feedback on this. Thanks

talk
) 01:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a Canadian version of Stratfor, doesn't it? You haven't elaborated on the specific content you'd use it to support, but in principle I don't see a problem with using this as a reliable source.TheBlueCanoe 05:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Yep. It does seem similar. Might be a good subject for a WP article :). Basically it would be an acceptable source for other editors to use as they deem necessary. I have acted as a facilitator more than anything past couple of days ive been involved, but I would consider its usage relevant as a framework for a reworking of an entire section (International positions section), and to get away from the over usage of low weight media sources which have been a source of citational controversy re the section in question. Thanks for the response.
talk
) 05:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Note that this has also been cited in this discussion and is a direct rehash of this blog post. So, I think we need to be cautious. Kahastok talk 22:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

www.constitutionfacts.com a
WP:RS
?

The front page of

List of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution, but I'm beginning to suspect that constitutionfacts.com is inflating some obscure political statement that was never taken seriously. Do they have a reputation for accuracy, or are they completely full of it? PraetorianFury (talk
) 22:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the List of... article, we have a sourced statement that somewhere upwards of eleven thousand unsuccessful constitutional amendments have failed to secure Congressional approval over the last couple of centuries. The vast majority received little attention and died in committee without so much as even reaching the floor for a vote. It's probably not a good idea to pad out the list of proposed amendments with every single one of those thousands; it strikes me as more sensible to limit our detailed coverage to those amendments of greatest importance (and with attendant widespread secondary coverage and commentary)—the best practice, which seems to be in place at the list already, is to discuss only those amendments for which we have sufficient material to construct free-standing Wikipedia articles. This proposal, while interesting, doesn't seem to clear that bar; we don't have any information on its wording, or its sponsor, or whether or how the House voted.
Compare and contrast with the (similar) Ludlow Amendment, which was considered before and during World War II and which received considerable public attention and debate. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I was pretty much decided at this point not to add anything. Still, it bugged me that I could neither confirm nor refute the existence of such a proposal. Oh well.PraetorianFury (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I found the book this is taken from (same publisher) [8]. None of the information looks good to me. The author was a high school teacher with a B.S. in Education (Taylor University) and a Masters in History from (Cleveland State University). Given the fact that he's not an academic, and he doesn't provide any sources for his information, I wouldn't use it. That said, some of the things he listed were true (i.e. the Ludlow Amendment). Ryan Vesey 00:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Wow, impressive. The more I hear about this, the more suspect it becomes. Thanks for looking into it. PraetorianFury (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Meh, it's one of those things that's probably true, but totally useless for our purposes because we can't verify (or identify) the date, wording, proposer, votes (floor or other), or pretty much anything else about it. If someone can ever find some good sources about this amendment (or ones like it), then it might be worthwhile to expand the 'Background' section of Ludlow Amendment. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
"During 1916-35 more than a dozen bills and a proposed amendment requiring a plebiscite before declaring war failed to receive congressional support". Not enough details about the proposed amendment to say that it is the one you have mentioned. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

references

  1. ^ Proposed Amendments

Tageo.com

Tageo.com describes itself as "a database of geographic coordinate information. Tageo.com provides information about 2,667,417 cities in the whole world !! [

WP:SPS. To me, Tageo.com does not appear to be a reliable source, but it is used rather widely throughout Wikipedia (link). -- Gyrofrog (talk)
15:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The War Chronicles

I have seen the book, "The War Chronicles",[9] by Joseph Cummins being used as a reference on a number of articles.(Battle of Navarino,Greek War of Independence,Crimean War) A cursory search for Joseph Cummins' qualifications brought up nothing. A look through, "The War Chronicles", indicates no footnotes of any kind throughout the book. Thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The author,
Location (talk
) 20:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
His books have been cited by The Washington Post (and again), The New York Times, the BBC, and have been the subject of indepth articles by Freakonomics, and NPR. Seems to be a reputable popular historian. (Accent on the popular, though, so if you have academics arguing with him, I'd give them more weight.) --GRuban (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Nice finds. How did you search to find those?
Location (talk
) 21:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Google News, Archives (under Search tools, Any time), search for [Joseph Cummins author], rather than just [Joseph Cummins], since there seem to be plenty of people by that name, and click a lot of links to find a few relevant ones. --GRuban (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Awesome. My sincerest thanks! --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
This might pass Wikipedia's RS guidelines, but its a crap source. It's a low quality mass-market work 'written' by a non-specialist (from memory, Cummins' credits multiple 'researchers'). I've seen damning reviews of Cummins' military books by professional military historians. I'd suggest replacing it with better sources; there's no excuse for using books like this as references on topics which professional historians have written about. For instance, there's a huge number of high quality works on the Crimean War. Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
As an example of the kind of professional reception this book has gained, it was reviewed in the Australian Defence Force Journal here (pages 91-92), with the reviewer concluding that "this is history for school students, war gamers and those with a general interest in military history who want to graze lightly through many conflicts rather than dine sumptuously with a Keegan or Beevor". The reviewer also notes that "Cummin’s appears to make a living turning out history for the ‘short-attention span’ reader". Relying on low quality books like this does our readers a considerable disservice IMO. Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
In that case then it becomes more important to know what the source would be used for. Superficial works can still be reliable, but we would for example avoid using them for anything controversial.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

TheFreeDictionary

I expect this was discussed before but is the TheFreeDictionary a reliable source?

When I search RSN archives unfortunately I just get all the discussions that User:The Four Deuces (TFD) was involved in, which is a lot.Volunteer Marek 02:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

A meaningful answer would need to first consider the context: an example of information in an article that is claimed to be verified by TFD. In a very quick look at the site, I failed to find any information about editorial procedures, but it appears the site is an aggregator. For example, http://www.tfd.com/evolution has definitions from three dictionaries, and each of those dictionaries would be a reliable source for a dictionary definition (although such definitions are only really useful for etymology—see my comment here for one case of that). Johnuniq (talk) 08:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
The dictionaries used at TFD generally are WP:RS. If we want to, we can cite those dictionaries with a convenience link to TFD. But dictionaries are tertiary sources, and even within that category they are less useful to us than encyclopedias because their aims are so different from ours. I'm agreeing with Johnuniq -- but even in the etymology section of an article I wouldn't rely a general dictionary for the etymology, only for the range of meanings of a word. For the etymology we need to go to a specialised etymological or historical dictionary. [Added afterwards: Senra in a thread below mentions the Merriam Webster website, which has good etymologies and is certainly RS.] Andrew Dalby 10:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Habilian Association

There is not much in reliable sources to be found about the Habilian Association, but The National Interest states that it is a fake human rights organization.[10] I am wondering if I could get some input regarding three primary source passages from www.habilian.ir/en/ and a fourth from www.americanfront.info/ . Thanks!

-

-

  • Source: http://www.habilian.ir/en/News/habilian-starts-publishing-rah-nama-monthly.html
  • Content: "To investigate and examine dimensions of terrorism together with informing people of various types of terrorist groups and organizations, Habilian publishes the first special journal in the area of terrorism, Rah Nama Monthly Magazine. Covering a wide range of topics from the study of terrorism to all the terrorist groups across the world, Rah-Nama magazine released 10 issues in 2012."

-

Location (talk
) 20:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The Iranian regime is obnoxious, its human rights record is appalling, and it's hard to believe that it would countenance a human rights organization dedicated (as is, say, Amnesty International) to the impartial investigation and publicizing of human rights abuses by any and all. That said, it is plausible that the enemies of the Iranian regime include organizations that themselves have appalling human rights records, and whose separate investigation isn't necessarily improper. But all in all, my own opinions, and yours, and those of anybody here, should carry little weight. Rather, what has been said about this Habilian Association by/in reliable sources? I'm unimpressed by an article in The National Interest, as this appears to be a pretty solidly right-wing US publication and thus can be predicted to demonize anything sanctioned by the Iranian regime. Has anything been written about the Habilian Association in sources that can be expected to have approached it without prejudice? -- Hoary (talk) 02:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC) PS I find that the article about the association is at AfD. -- Hoary (talk) 03:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, The National Interest is the closest thing to "reliable" or neutral that I can find.
Location (talk
) 04:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
There's no coverage at all of this organisation in the New York Times, BBC News or academic papers available via Google Scholar or my university's online multi-journal search. This search engine also provides coverage of news archives, and only news sources which report this organisation's claims are the Iranian Fars news agency and the "Asia News Monitor" which appears to be an aggregation source (it may be repeating the Fars articles). A BBC monitoring service report describes the association as "an organization formed to launch a campaign against the presence of the Mojahedin-e Khalq Organization MKO - in Iraq" in parentheses as part of a summary of an Iranian news report. As such, I don't think that this organisation should be considered a reliable or notable source of information. Nick-D (talk) 05:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I'd now agree. -- Hoary (talk) 06:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Abd al-Aziz ibn Baz

Bin Baz was a controversial Muslim cleric from Saudi Arabia (died 1999) who issued a "fatwa" in 1966 claiming that the sun orbited the earth. Multiple mainstream well-known sources have also said he believed the "earth is flat" (but they are not in the article, with the exception of Lacey) with two sources saying he didn’t say this (that is in the article). Details of these sources are here. Lacey, in his book, discusses Bin Baz's position and acknowledges that Bin Baz didn't issue a fatwa saying the "earth is flat" but gives an explanation (over 2 pages) for why, notoriously, the view has been attributed to Bin Baz i.e. because, says Lacey, he said it in a 1966 interview even though he didn't include it in the fatwa. As discussed in his article, Robert Lacey is a journalist and a well-known and respected commentator on Saudi Arabia. The Washington Post described Lacey as a "trusted source" in its review of the book.[11]. Is Lacey a reliable source for the the "According to Lacey" statements in the article? DeCausa (talk) 11:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

At first sight I see no problem for this source and this subject. It looks pretty straightforward?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Generally, Lacey is regarded as a reliable source; notwithstanding that his conclusions in a number of instances have been challenged by subsequent scholars. Since the actual belief of ibn Baz is a matter in dispute, the matter should be presented in an NPOV way, and saying that "Lacey concluded X" and citing Lacey would be better than saying "X is true" and citing Lacey. The current article text seems to give undo verbiage to this issue, and specifically to Lacey's qualifications. --Bejnar (talk) 18:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
The way I see it, is that we're dealing with an
exceptional claim that needs better sources. On one hand, we have two sources claiming that Bin Baz "never asserted" that the Earth is flat and that this was "mistakenly reported" (i.e., hoax or rumor). On the other hand, Lacey claims that Bin Baz only ceased asserting this after 1985. However, Lacey gives no source for this statement and there is no record of Bin Baz ever asserting this before 1985. The interview mentioned by Lacey is anecdotal at best, and mentioned without a source (i.e., no paper, no publication date, etc). It is only mentioned in two lines, not two pages. The information about it is so lacking to the point that DeCausa thought it was a television interview and wrote that in the article, while in fact we still have no idea how that interview was conducted (e.g., television, radio, paper, etc). There are other issues with Lacey who made other exceptional claims that can be easily shown to be false. For example, in his conclusion he wrote that many thought Bin Baz secretly held the belief that the earth is flat and he "never formally recanted" what he had previously said. But Lacey completely missed a fatwa[12][13] issued by Bin Baz on a famous radio program stating that the earth is round, which later has been used many times to debunk this hoax. In short, Lacey, who doesn't seem to be an expert on this subject and can't read Arabic (p. 352, n.87), is not a high quality source and his exceptional claims happen to lack basic sourcing. Wiqi(55
) 18:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
The two editors who have just posted appear to be offering the benefits of other research, perhaps their own or perhaps not, which may or may not be correct. Has that research or anything like it been published anywhere? If so then why not use those sources also? If different sources disagree, then we can report several perspectives with attribution.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. That's how the issue is currently handled in the article - Wiqi55 wants to excise Lacey, and leave one side only.
@Bejnar - I take your point on the verbiage. It should be just one sentence or so without the reference to his qualifications. I was trying to forestall Wiqi55's objections! I'll edit down.
I'll let others comment on Wiqi55's post except to say it's not an exceptional claim given the multiple mainstream well-known sources stating it and detailed here. On the "missed" fatwa, as can be seen in the thread on the article talk page, the primary source used is unsatisfactory in several respects, but in particular Wiqi55 can't date it. Based on Wiqi55's own assessment it looks to be about early/mid 80s - much later than when Lacey is talking about. In any case, Lacey said Bin Baz changed his mind and accepted a round earth in 1985. (Btw, the discussion in Lacey is over 2 pages not 2 lines, as everyone can see.) DeCausa (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Andrew, contradicting scholarly works using Lacey might give the wrong impression of him being an expert, or that he cites sources for this claim; both are false. I also don't see the value of mentioning a fictionalized narrative of an interview while we know that no reference was given for it in the source. DeCausa, the dating argument is specious since Lacey concludes that Bin Baz "never formally recanted" and "ever truly abandoned his belief" (even after 1985). So Lacey isn't just talking about 1966. It is rather obvious that he missed that very relevant fatwa. Wiqi(55) 00:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Er, that's selective quoting to the point of misrepresenting Lacey. What Lacey actually says is "many doubted whether, in his heart..[he]...ever truly abandoned his belief". There's no evidence it's a "fictionalized narrative". Even if you're right in putting your interpretation of a later primary source above what a secondary reliable source says, it's a minor "tail-end" point. If he "missed" it, that doesn't mean he fabricated the main point of what Bin Baz said in the '60s. You've provided no secondary reliable source that explains why Lacey is wrong, or directly that he is wrong. (It's overstating to say that Lacey "contradicts" scholarly works since I think it's clear from the context that Ruthven is referring to the contents of the 1982 book, and who knows what exactly Ende is saying since he only gets a 2 line mention in a footnote.) That is why the current solution is the best: state what each of the sources say and let the reader decide. DeCausa (talk) 09:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
That would be misleading to the reader because Lacey gave no source for his information. Thus it is a "rumored" interview (with no source, no publication date, no information on how it was conducted, no full text, etc). Lacey probably just heard about it from others. Why would a rumor repeated by one journalist, which makes it a very fringe view held by a non-expert, should have a place in an encyclopedia? Wiqi(55) 19:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Because he's generally recognised as reliable and because he provides an explanation why a wide variety of news publications, writers, scholars, and commentators report that Bin Baz thought the earth was flat e.g. As'ad AbuKhalil [14], Bruce Riedel [15], Kai Bird [16], Ziauddin Sardar [17], Sadiq Jalal al-Azm [18], The Economist [19], The Independent [20], and Freedom House [21], and others in these Google books searches: using “Bin Baz” or “ibn Baz”. DeCausa (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

@Wiqi, yes Lacey gives his sources, they are in the "notes" section in the back of the book. In my edition the endnotes for "Chapter 10: Stars in the heavens" are on p. 352:

88 'seemed to be flat' Memory of someone who read Bin Baz's writings

and

90 felt beneath his feet: These paragraphs are based on Bin Baz's fatwa of Shaaban 1389 and on conversations with his son Ahmed Bin Baz; with Dr Sheikh Mohammed Al-Shuwayl, the sheikh's close friend and assisstant,; with Prince Turki Al-Faisal; with Prince Sultan bin Salman; with Dr Abdullah Al-Muallimi; with Dr Ghazi Algosaibi; and with Fouad al-Ibrahim--whose differing perspectives I have sought to reconcile in this narrative.

There is more about the fatwas and translations and so forth. —Neotarf (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

@Decause, the other sources do not refer to this interview, hence irrelevant. They're more likely referring to the hoax about his book/articles. As mentioned by Lacey, the interview doesn't even use the word "earth" but uses "ground". The statement that the ground "seemed to be flat" is only ascribed to the "memory of someone who read Bin Baz’s writings.", with no indication who that someone was and what are those writings. As you can see, this is clearly just a rumored interview. As for Lacey's reliability, I think his claim that Bin Baz "never formally recanted what he had said" coupled with his failure to mention Bin Baz famous fatwa (often used to debunk this same hoax), is a good indication that Lacey is unreliable.
@Neotarf, I'm aware of these notes, and they support my conclusion that this is a rumor. Note also that the multiple paragraphs being referred to, and DeCausa two page claim, are not just about the 1966 interview or the flat earth issue, but also include information on a gathering in 1985 and Bin Baz's other cosmological views. Wiqi(55) 14:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Wiqi55, I'd be far more sympathetic to what you're saying if you stopped talking about a "hoax". You have absolutely no evidence of a hoax. A hoax is not the same thing as a misrepresentation or a mistaken report. It's a deliberate attempt to put false information out there. Where is the source that says that has happened? Where is there even circumstantial evidence that this has happened? The point about the other sourced references to ibn Baz believing in a flat earth is relevant for this purpose: Lacey is not making an "exceptional" claim in a vacuum. It's a widely reported claim about ibn Baz that "he thought the earth was flat". IMHO, what Ruthven and, I suspect, Ende (if we were ever able to get hold of what he actually said) put forward is that he didn't say that in his 1966 fatwas/1982 book. Lacey is necessary because he gives a credible reason why this assertion is abroad. There is no source to say that, in terms, Lacey is wrong because that interview never happened. DeCausa (talk) 20:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
The "1966 interview" is indeed an exceptional claim (regardless whether Lacey was right or wrong). It is only mentioned by a single journalist and sourced to the "memory of someone who read Bin Baz's writings". There is no indication who that "someone" was, whether that "someone" is reliable or not, or whether the issue is about an interview or about some "writings". Unless we find more sources about this interview, it should be ignored. Or are you suggesting instead that we should write in the article "according to the memory of someone"? :-) And neither Ruthven and (what we know about) Ende limited their statements to his fatwas, so I'm afraid that's just
wp:synth on your part. As for the hoax, this is well-known and I can certainly find a reliable source or two in Arabic discussing it, even with Bin Baz himself. For example, see the first reference quoted here. We also know from his two replies, already cited and quoted in the article (although badly translated), that some anti-Saudi writers in Egypt and elsewhere accused him of rejecting the roundness of the earth in his first article form 1966, which he denied, "And there were no mention of the earth's roundness ...", etc. It is clear that some politically-motivated sources have been making false claims about his cosmological views since 1966. Wiqi(55
) 22:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I've had a chance to take a closer look at the rest of DeCausa's "flat earth" quotations and they seem to fall pretty much into repeating an internet meme without explaining further. Lacey's research seems a lot more solid, as he has looked both at the public documents and at what Ben Baz said about his views to his family and associates. Lacey also goes into detail about what exactly Ben Baz did and didn't say, and seems a lot more fair than some of the other authors because of the detail he offers into something that apparently had some nuance. I don't see any reason for not using Lacey as the basis for this section of the article. As far as the websites Wiqi is showing, they don't look like RS. The topic seems significant though, perhaps better sources can be found. Here is a site I ran across [22] (scroll down to "Sheikh Ibn Baz on the Flatness of the Earth"), can't vet it for accuracy, but it does have some titles for various fatwas that may yield more information with a little googling. —Neotarf (talk) 02:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Entirely agree with everything you say. I haven't suggested putting those other sources into the article for just that reason. But they are relevant to the context of Lacey's comment because (1) the view that ibn Baz said it is "notorious" (rightly or wrongly) (2) Lacey is essentially explaining why that may be so while confirming that ibn Baz didn't actually "formally" say it. DeCausa (talk) 09:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
@Neotarf, Lacey's research is only solid compared to the poor sources listed by DeCausa, but not solid when examined separately, and especially not for the 1966 interview claim. Do you really think sourcing an interview to the "memory of someone who read Bin Baz's writings" is solid research? Any reasonable reader would think this is an indication of a rumor being repeated, not solid research by any measure. And how come a fatwa published by Bin Baz's official website (often used to debunk this same hoax, see [23]) is considered by you as unreliable? The other link also just quoted a book written by an academic who discusses the hoax with Bin Baz. Wiqi(55) 20:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Robert Lacey is certainly a reputable author, and much read in the diplomatic community. The other citations are from the Judith Miller book. While I'm not aware of anything negative about the 99 Names book, her subsequent reporting of WMD in Iraq was totally inaccurate. She found WMD when there weren't any. [24] Certainly her ties with various members of the Bush administration and with neo-conservative politics are cause for concern about NPOV issues. —Neotarf (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Micronations: The Lonely Planet Guide to Home-Made Nations

  • This book has its own page on Wikipedia:
    WP:NB
    is debatable.
  • The authors are John Ryan, George Dunford, and Simon Sellars. (No wikilinks for these three gentlemen).
  • The ISBN-13 is 978-1741047301. It was published in 2006 by Lonely Planet.

Please bear with me, as this is a fairly verbose and mildly caustic analysis, but the outcome of this discussion could be substantial enough to justify a thorough discussion. I don't want to proceed on an intended course of action without getting a definitive answer about this book and some of its associated commentary. From what I have seen from the last six+ years of editing on Wikipedia, the general topic is one which receives disproportionate interest from the WP community in comparison to the general public as a whole; since the WP community is the final arbiter of notability and inclusion standards, I want to make sure that I'm not tilting at windmills here. Please don't make one argument here, and then argue against it in other fora.

This book, which (contrary to its appearances) is not a travel guide, is a look at the concept of Micronations, written more as an entertaining armchair read than as a scholarly treatise. The three authors are all freelance writers who have worked with Lonely Planet in the past, but a cursory search indicates that only one has an advanced degree in *any* field (Sellars has a PhD in Comparative Literature and Cultural Studies, awarded three years after the publication of this book, according to his CV from his personal site. Dunford does not have a CV at his personal site, and John Ryan's consultancy business biography does not list anything that would indicate an expertise, other than as a travel guide editor).

The reason that this discussion could be of substantive importance is that it is the primary source for a whole host of articles on the various

constructed language just received an ISO 639-3 language code last week, which is an exceptionally notable accomplishment). However, quite a few of the other "nations" rely heavily on this book (or related content, such as reviews of the book or information from the personal websites of the authors) to establish their notability. See this AFD as an example of this single source being spun into a whole host of references; the book, a review of the book, a Wikipedia scrape from Business Insider and essentially the same material from the book from Simon Sellars' website became "sufficient" coverage to justify retention. There are plenty of other micronation articles which rely on equally flimsy sourcing, and if this book is in fact not a reliable source, then it stands to reason that these articles should be discussed individually, rather than having this book brandished as a talisman against the evil eye of requiring adequate sourcing. Some of them may have adequate sourcing to justify retention, but I suspect that tragic articles such as List of anthems of micronations will not make the cut. Horologium (talk)
02:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty difficult to have a discussion of this in the abstract. What is it that you're proposing/seeking views on? Lonely Planet is a major firm with a reputation for fact checking the books it publishes, so while the book may not be a great source (I've borrowed it from the library but returned it unread as it seemed over-long for its content and some sections seemed a bit overblown; based on this I personally wouldn't use it to reference articles except with great care) it can't be dismissed outright either. If your concern is that these 'microstates' aren't notable, that isn't a discussion which should take place here. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
As a further comment, have you looked for what professional reviews of this book said? I couldn't find any references to the book in academic journals through searching in Google scholar, which is never a good sign! Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Agree that this seems more of a notability issue, and in any case one difficult to comment on here unless we have specific example. It seems unlikely that we'll get any consensus that a publisher like Lonely Planet is going to get facts flatly wrong, if those facts are simple ones such whether a micro nation exists? And BTW what degree would you need to have to be an expert in this subject? :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
The reason I brought it here is because it has been argued that this is a reliable source and therefor is enough to justify notability, whereas I question the notability despite the fact that there is a single book discussing most of these subjects. (The AFD to which I linked above gives a pretty good idea of the arguments used to keep this sort of trivia.) And, and FWIW, I won't even need to worry about List of anthems of micronations, which was deleted and userfied after an AFD, and then a now-blocked sockpuppet moved it back into mainspace without consensus. I've tagged it as a G4 with a link to the discussion. And as a response to Andrew Lancaster--I have no idea what degree (if any) would be relevant, but this looks like the work of three guys who worked for a travel book publisher, were intrigued by the idea of micronations, and got a green light to put something together. There doesn't seem to be any serious research done here (and it's not footnoted); while I don't doubt the accuracy of what they relate, I also don't think that it rises to the level of a serious source. Outside of the history sections for each "entity", it is set up as a travel guide, with lists of accommodations, restaurants, and points of interest. The notability discussion (which had been my planned second step) was to have come after a discussion here of the merits of this book, since it's likely that any discussion would immediately come back to that issue, which is appropriately handled here. While there is a distinction between notability and reliable sourcing, they intersect in a rather spectacular fashion for this topic. Examples of articles which rely almost entirely on their presence in this book include Empire of Atlantium, Kingdom of Elleore, Westarctica (not linked as a ref, but mentioned in text), and Kugelmugel. There are plenty of others, but that should give you a feel for the issue; a couple of these have no citations other than this book and self-published documents of no worth. Horologium (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
As another example, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akhzivland, in which this book is cited as two separate sources in the discussion; without that, there is a single article, from an online magazine. Horologium (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd suggest that you look for professional reviews of the book (especially reviews written by experts in geography and international relations) and use that to guide your consideration of it. This board isn't a good place for discussions of notability, though circular referencing is always a problem in situations such as this. Nick-D (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Anyone tried merging the insignificant ones into something like List of Micronations? That might be a good compromise, and eliminate articles like Empire of Atlantium, which seems to be large chunks of trivia from the Atlantium website. Gamaliel (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Obviously it might be a problem if it is the only reference in a whole article. (Aside: recently I saw a whole list of articles with only one reference to the same book in a certain category; when I questioned this, the entries all mysteriously disappeared and I hadn't noted what they were, so they were saved from a possible guillotine.) However, in general I am an inclusionist - and pro-secession - so if there are other refs, and you feel a desire to delete, you'd have to bring it here or to WP:AfD to find out what others think. CarolMooreDC 22:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree that articles with one source are generally considered problematic but that is not really an RS issue. If I understand correctly reliability is being said to cause notability. That is not really logical. Sources can be reliable and not notable themselves. So as per the advice of Nick D you need to find out how notable the books are, not how reliable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

List of best-selling video games

I found an new and good source that lists best selling Xbox360 and PS3 games. Here are the links (http://www.statisticbrain.com/playstation-3-best-selling-game-statistics/) and (http://www.statisticbrain.com/xbox-360-best-selling-games-statistics/). I think this source is reliable maybe. It's not totally up to date but still better than VGchartz. Can it be used as a valid source. KahnJohn27 (talk) 09:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

What we look for is editorial oversight. See their About Us page.[25] It does appear that they're serious about the information they present. Maybe email them and ask them the sources for their information and how they assess its accuracy. TimidGuy (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Ridenbaugh Press Northwest Wiki

Source This page from the Ridenbaugh Press Northwest Wiki. Before the project went offline, the wiki's homepage compared it to Wikipedia and made it clear that anyone could contribute content.

Article

Frank L. VanderSloot

Content User:Rhode Island Red added the source and the following accompanying text: " In 2006, Ridenbaugh Press listed VanderSloot as the fifteenth most influential person in the state of Idaho." I removed it but the user reverted my removal.dif

Andrew327 06:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it is a BLP violation to use such a source in a BLP. I have removed that edit per
WP:BLP Darkness Shines (talk
) 09:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate the removal. Andrew327 17:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Karma and particle physics

I volunteered to review Karma in Jainism recently. Towards the end of the article, there is a section titled Scientific interpretation. It uses the following two authors as sources for most of the content in that section:

  • Mardia, K. V. (1990). The Scientific Foundations of Jainism. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publ.
    ISBN 9788120806580. [26]

This author is an accomplished statistician writing on karma and

WP:FRINGE
theory.

The other author is:

I could find only the following information about this author online:

HERMANN KUHN, born 1950 in Berlin, Germany studied Indian philosophies and mysticism for extended periods directly at their sources in Asia. After his translation of the Tattvarthasutra - the central scripture of the Jains - he became recognized as one of the few experts of this ancient wisdom.
Parallel to his research he built up a computer company and a Europe-wide distribution network for modern water-purification equipment. 1991 he authored a book on water that became a standard introductory work on this subject. For major corporations he developed and conducted advanced management courses.
Hermann Kuhn lives in Greece, Germany and the USA. He holds pilot-licenses for airplanes and helicopter.[27]

For both authors I was not able to find or access any papers or articles or books by these authors which have been accepted by or reviewed by the peer community in fields such as South Asian studies, journals on Indian religions, peer reviewed conference proceedings.

Based on the information I've gathered, I feel these sources are not reliable and should not be used to substantiate claims being made regarding the scientific interpretation of karma in Jainism. However, I would like others to comment on this as I may be wrong.

GA review and related discussion is on the talk page Talk:Karma_in_Jainism#GA_Review. Articleye (talk) 09:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

That it is an Fringe theory is not disputed. It is also a fact that many Jain books often discuss the scientific aspect of Karma. Motilal Banarsidas is a very reputed publisher and a reliable source. Many other others have also quoted Mardia in their books. In fact this small section is well balanced and also reflects the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community as per WP:FRINGE. The section clearly states that:
  • However, most scientists do not consider karma and reincarnation to be within the bounds of science, as it is neither a testable nor a falsifiable theory.
  • However, these and other elementary particles that have been either discovered or postulated cannot be equated with karmic particles. (This sentence was removed on request of the reviewer Articleye)
If more sources are required, I can add it--Indian Chronicles (talk) 14:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Crosswind is clearly a
boutique publisher at best. Kuhn is their only author AFAICT. [28] LeadSongDog come howl!
18:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
The relationship between causality, karma, chance and quantum physics has its own subculture and even a few well known physicists have wandered off in there - often after too may drinks. By and large it remains a fringe topic, and there is zero scientific basis for it. It is not just Jainism, but a general trend - which has become less emphatic now. Most authors in that area would not pass a basic test in quantum mechanics given to first year graduate students. But the public who even know less physics do seem to have an appetite for reading about it. History2007 (talk) 00:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

A U.S. National Gang Intelligence Center document on 'Juggalos'

Nothing good is likely to come out of this thread, so I'm going to NAC it. A document that is certainly reliable has been brought up, and it seems to be citable for much of the same information the questionable document was being used for. Interested editors are encouraged to replace the questionable document with the one that is certainly an RS where possible. If it turns out that the questioned document does contain important information that cannot be found in the indubitably reliable document, then interested editors should feel free to open another section about the questioned document, highlighting particular instances where it will be used, and paying much closer attention to decorum then was paid here. I can't enforce a waiting period, but would suggest that any future thread about this wait at least 7 days so that everyone can cool off. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
}}}

A document apparently originating from the U.S. National Gang Intelligence Center concerning supposed 'Juggolos' gang members has been cited as a source in multiple articles (see search results: [29]). Though there are several possible issues concerning the use this source has been put to, I would first of all like for it to be determined as to whether the document can be cited as a source at all. The document was originally cited as being sourced to publicintelligence.net, [30] which as a previous WP:RSN discussion noted, [31] is a tertiary self-published source, based on user's submissions, and as such possibly shouldn't be cited at all. Having discussed this with User:Niteshift36 on my talk page [32], the suggestion has been made that the U.S. Department of Justice be cited as the publisher - but Niteshift has provided no further details, and suggested that it may be necessary to "file a FOIA request" to access it. Given this response, and given that the document (or at least the document as presented on publicintelligence.net') states that it is "FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY", I have to query whether the document could be described as 'published'? Accordingly, I'd like some guidance as to whether either the DoJ or publicintelligence.net can be cited as a source for the document. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

  • First off, I said file a FOIA request. That doesn't mean it's the only way to get the document. It's not my responsibility to hold your hand and walk you through it. Second, how can you even ask if the DOJ can be cited as the source? They published it. Of course they're the source. This is just sour grapes on your part and bad faith. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Assertion isn't evidence. Provide evidence that the DoJ published the document. Provide evidence that it can be accessed without filing a FOIA request. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
The only thing that immediately strikes me about this dispute is this quote from
WP:ONUS
:

Sometimes editors will disagree on whether material is verifiable. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material

So it's not Andy's job to find the source. Assuming that it can be established that the DOJ did publish the report, you generally shouldn't rely entirely on one source.
WP:NOTABILITY, so that would not necessarily be enough to delete the information entirely, but I think a fair compromise would be to attribute any facts coming from this document to the DOJ. Again, assuming that its validity can be established. I hope that helps. PraetorianFury (talk
) 23:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
the publisher is the US government. The US Department of Justice. I have the report. Perhaps you can get yourself a copy. I also own a book called "And Justice for Some". Just because you don't own a copy of it doesn't mean I can't cite it. The fact that Andy doesn't have this report doesn't prevent it from beiing cited. I have provided the title of the report, the date of publication, the agency that pubished it and even the page number. What EXACTLY is missing? Further, this was never only one source making the claim. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
So where did you obtain/purchase this document from? Why when I do a Google search for the article can I not find an official source for it? Why can I not find it by searching the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications? [33] As I have already pointed out, it appears to be an internal document. It states "FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY" on the front page. It also states "The information contained herein remains under the control of the National Gang Intelligence Center (NGIC). It is being disseminated for authorized law enforcement purposes only. Requests for use or further dissemination of any material contained herein should be made to the NGIC, (703) 414-8600". Why would such a statement be placed on a published document? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I didn't purchase it. One rarely has to purchase government documents. I got it in the mail, from the NGIC. Pretending that it doesn't exist just because you can't find it is the Wikipedia equivalent of covering your eyes and pretending that I can't see you. You seem to have a personal standard of what "published" means. If something is printed and disseminated to people, it's "published" as far as I'm concerned. You are confusing "published" with disseminated or even distributed. It might not have been distributed to you, but you could try to track down a copy for yourself. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
So why did get it through the mail? Did you request it, and if so, from where? Or was it sent to you because of your employment? Are you employed by the DoJ, or otherwise in law enforcement? If you are claiming that the document has been 'published', but not 'disseminated' or 'distributed', I think you will have to clarify this further - I cannot see how any reasonable definition of 'publication' could exclude 'distribution'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I've told you how I got it. You're questions are bordering on pedantic at this point. How does "published" not necessarily mean wide distribution? Well,
    WP:SOURCEACCESS
    meantions "some print sources may only be available in university libraries" as an example. this whole thing is based on your bad faith presumption. And frankly I'm starting to get pretty tired of it. 16:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
At this point, I'd rather we didn't get into discussions regarding what the source is being cited for - it will be a waste of time doing so if it can't be cited in the first place, as seems possible. You are of course correct, however - if there is reason to doubt that a published source exists, the onus must surely be on those citing it to show that it has indeed been published. As far as I can tell from the publicintelligence.net version (which almost certainly isn't WP:RS anyway), it is an internal document, and hasn't been published at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Off topic AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
My personal test for the reliability of a source is to search Wikipedia for it. I figure a publication that passed all the notability checks a new article goes through and without any mention of "leaning" (IE conservative or progressive leaning) in the lead is good enough for most facts. publicintelligence.net fails that test in this case, for the record. PraetorianFury (talk) 00:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
PraetorianFury, I see that you are a new contributor - can I suggest that you familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policy on sourcing (i.e.
WP:RS) rather than offering off-topic comments here. I am trying to get input on the validity of a particular source from experienced contributors who understand the finer points of policy, and frankly, I think that your input here is being less than helpful. AndyTheGrump (talk
) 00:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Lol, this is year 3 for me. I'm afraid that my knowledge of policy can't be inferred by the date of the first edit with this account. And I don't see how my comments are irrelevant. It's the same old dispute, is it not? You want to remove some material, Niteshift wants it to stand and justifies it with a source that you think is suspect.
WP:ONUS says that it is up to Niteshift to prove that the source is reputable or find another one, and that by default, the information should stay out until that proof is provided. But if you want to condescend to people trying to help you, that's definitely an option. I was considering heading over and giving you one revert if there was a stalemate, but now you can get each other blocked for all I care. gl hf. PraetorianFury (talk
) 00:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Again, the title of the report, the agency that published it, the date of publication and page numbers are provided. What else is needed? You want me to prove that the US Government is a reputable source? seriously?Niteshift36 (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • No - I want you to provide evidence that the US Government published it. It appears to be an internal document, and thus not WP:RS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • What evidence Andy? It was put to paper by the government printing office. What "evidence" of it do you need? EXACTLY what will satisfy your unreasonable stubbornness? And what policy states that internal documents aren't reliable? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Internal documents aren't published, by definition. If they were, they wouldn't be 'internal'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • When something is printed and handed out to people, it's published. I do not work for the US Dept. of Justice, yet a copy was sent to me. So it's tough to call it "internal" since I am not in that agency. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • What is nonsense is your reinvention of the word. How is it an "internal docusment" if it's being sent to people outside of the DoJ? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I see things like this quite frequently among the conspiracy-minded who cite ancient cherry-picked CIA documents obtained through FOIA for various things.
Location (talk
) 05:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I didn't say this article was conspiracy-minded. The point is that there is a precedent for this issue.
Location (talk
) 14:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Without taking too close of a look at what the document was being used to support, I suspect that this published report by the FBI could be used to cite a decent bit of the material that the FOIA'ed document was previously being used to cite. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Possibly - though of course it is a primary source, and as such would need to be used with caution - something that has been singularly lacking in some of the 'Juggelo'-related articles so far. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • You keep dismissing it as a primary source. It's not. It is a SECONDARY source. This is not written by first hand account. It is written by analysts in a cubicle in DC. They take information gathered from other sources, analyze and compile it. They even list the sources they use. The definition of a SECONDARY source is "It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them". That is precisely what is happening for the NGIC report. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
You have yet to demonstrate that the source you have cited has been published at all. AS for the FBI document Kevin Gorman links, that needs to be looked at on its own merits. I am not going to discuss it here, as so far it has been cited for nothing, as far as I'm aware. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

A simple request for Niteshift36. You claim that the document we are discussing has been published. Prove it. Provide evidence that the document is directly available to members of the public, without such members of the public having to file a FOIA request. Give us all the necessary details by which the document can be obtained from a government department. The onus is on you. Vague handwaving and contradictory comments don't cut it - if it has been published, it must be available to the public somewhere. Tell us where. Specifically. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Oh, hold on sport. You're just making stuff up now. First off, let's assume for a minute that it does require a FOIA request. That doesn't exclude it. We can cite a source that I'm required to pay for (see
    WP:PAYWALL, so requiring you fill out a free form to get a free publication shouldn't exclude it. Again, I'm not saying a FOIA request is the only way. I'm simply using that example. Where is it available? Send a request to National Gang Intelligence Center 935 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington DC 20535. Please scan the addressed envelope and the proof of mailing receipt to prove you're not engaging in "vague handwaving". Or you can drive there. Here is the Google map [34] There. You've been told EXACTLY where to obtain a copy. Now my pedanitc friend, the onus is on you to actually obtain it (and provide proof that you did request it). Any further help for you might need to come from Dora the Explorer.Niteshift36 (talk
    ) 16:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • You can assume whatever you want. Don't, however, claim that I said a FOIA was the only way to do it. You want evidence to prove a negative? Have you tried to obtain a copy yet? Where is your proof of the attmept? If you remove the source from PI, I will replace it with this government document, which is a reliable source and you haven't proven otherwise. I've complied with your progressively ridiculous demands. You are simply in
    WP:IDHT mode. Niteshift36 (talk
    ) 17:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Ok, since you have once again resorted to obstructionism, rather than providing the necessary details to determine that this is a published document, I am reporting your behaviour at WP:ANI. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
  • What details haven't been provided? I gave you the EXACT address to contact. The EXACT name of the document. The EXACT date of publication. I even gave you a map to the place. What do you want? Stick figures? Have you even TRIED to obtain it? No, you haven't. You haven't tried at all. You got an answer and you've completely ignored it. So yes, I called you lazy and I'm not afraid of your little trip to ANI. More time wasting. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Ahem. A perfectly good reliable source published document that backs up the information that we need to be backed up has been presented. That means you two can stop arguing over the other one now. It's moot. --GRuban (talk) 16:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The FBI source will need to be discussed on its own merits. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
It's published by the same people. You're only willing to discuss this one because you can access it without having to get off your ass and work on obtaining it. All info isn't obtained by mouse clicks my friend.Niteshift36 (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
If you do not have new information pertinent to this noticeboard, please stop commenting. Excessive interjections are disruptive as they make it hard for others to follow the discussion, and they discourage uninvolved comment—the point of RSN is for uninvolved editors to comment on the RS aspects raised. Asking whether a document claimed to be available under a FOIA request satisfies RS is a very reasonable question, and I would have thought the answer was "no" as such a document is not published in any common sense of that word. It's true that there might be just one library in the entire world that holds a certain RS, and it's still an RS—but does that apply if an editor claims to have a document that they claim is available under FOIA (and if it is not verifiable that such a document exists without making such a request)? Judging from the above comments, there is another source so the original question is moot. A new discussion regarding use of the new source is now required (assuming the old source has been removed). Johnuniq (talk) 07:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Similarly, if the other poster has nothing else to say, then he isn't helping it either, so breezing in here and lecturing me alone isn't really helpful. I don't know if it takes a FOIA or not. I never claimed that it did. It could be as simple as asking. I have the report, so I don't need to ask. The thing here is that the complainant hasn't even tried. How can he (or you) claim it hasn't been published or can't be obtained when no effort has been made to obtain them. This notion that all information can be found via Google is absurd and not in keeping with Wikipedia policies about reliable sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Niteshift, I see that you have now admitted that you don't know whether it would take a FOIA request to obtain the document. Which amounts (per Johnuniq's comment above) to a statement that you don't know whether the document has been published. The burden of proof is on you, as it always has been. Provide evidence that the document has been published, and can be obtained without a FOIA request, or accept that, as an unpublished document, it cannot pass WP:RS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

And incidentally, Niteshift writes above: "I don't know if it takes a FOIA or not. I never claimed that it did." This is untrue. On Jan 29, Niteshift wrote on my talk page "As for being verifiable....well, file a FOIA request". [35] A clear statement that a FOIA request would be needed to access the document. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Uninvolved editor comment: I agree with Niteshift36. He gave exact instructions on how to get the source, what more is needed? AndyTheGrump seems to assume an unreasonable amount of bad faith. --Cyclopiatalk 14:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Given Niteshift's statement above that it may well take a FOIA request, obtaining a document from that address (if indeed it is possible) would be irrelevant. Unpublished documents aren't WP:RS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
WP:RS is met. --Cyclopiatalk
19:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
"A group of people" isn't "the public" - and as
WP:RS policy - and I doubt very much that you'd get community consensus for that. AndyTheGrump (talk
) 19:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
transfer of ownership to the public That would cover a FOI request. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Again, you are citing WP:Published, which isn't policy, and contradicts itself. It follows that statement with "(see Wikipedia talk:Published)" - and the talk page discussion (which certainly cannot be policy, unless the entire concept of 'policy' has been revised recently, without me noticing) mostly dates to 2006, and fails entirely to clarify what 'published' means - there is a clear disagreement, and no consensus whatsoever. I repeat what I've already stated - if people are claiming that 'published' means 'potentially available under the FOIA or similar legislation', I contend that it will make a nonsense of the intent of WP:RS - which is policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually the point is that
WP:RS?", that's meant to be the reference page. Now, about the intent of RS: The intent of specifying "published" is to avoid using my own personal scrapbook as a source. The intent is certainly not to exclude an official document for a government agency, meant for an audience, which can be obtained by the public at will. To think that the intent of WP:RS is to make impossible for us to use official government analysis to be used as a source is tendentious wikilawyering. --Cyclopiatalk
21:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Did they ask you for a fee for this document? Oh, that's right, you haven't asked so how would you know? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I see nothing in that PDf which cannot be sourced to this one[37] Darkness Shines (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Possibly - though the disclaimer on page 1 of the document needs to be taken into account. But that isn't the source that Niteshift has claimed to be WP:RS, and isn't under discussion here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
It is an alternative source. Personally I think the source NS is using is reliable as it is a Gov doc. But an extra source is always useful Darkness Shines (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
WP:RS makes clear that sources have to be 'published'. NS has failed to demonstrate that the document has been published. If it hasn't, your opinion is entirely irrelevant - we go by policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Darkness, your opinion isn't irrelevant. Having people look at policy and opine on how it applies to a case at hand. That's how consensus can be built. And, as you see above, others who aren't using andy's personal opinion of what "published" means feel that this has been published. Thanks for your input. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, put your money where your mouth is, and propose an explicit clarification/amendment to WP:OR policy which states that if a contributor can obtain a document under the FOIA, it is considered as 'published' for our purposes. See how far that gets you... AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Why would I? There is no need for it. Most people understand that when a govt. agency prints something and mails it to thousands of different people outside of their own agency, not to mention the copies within their own agency, it's pretty much published. Besides, we haven't determined this even take a FOIA request. Why don't we know? Because you still haven't gotten off your behind and actually tried to obtain a copy. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • (Given that Niteshift has chosen ignore Beyond My Ken's suggestion below, and to comment here, I shall respond) Kindly explain how you know what I have or haven't done? And no, WP:RS doesn't say that documents have to be 'near enough published' - it says that they have to be published. And since I contend that material obtained via a contributor's FOIA request wouldn't meet WP:RS, obtaining the document in the manner you suggest would achieve nothing (except of course possibly costing me money - you are incorrect in asserting that such documentation is always provided free of charge). What I have done (some time ago, as the links above demonstrate) is show that if it is published, it isn't listed on the U.S. Catalog of U.S. Government Publications, [38], and that a Google search finds no such document listed under any government agency website [39]. This is actually more than I am required to do - the burden of proof is with you, as the person wishing to cite the source. I see no reason why I should be obliged to do your work for you. Of course, as has been pointed out below, there appears to be a published document available on a similar topic, and there seems to be no obvious reason why you aren't using that as a source instead. Is there a reason that isn't obvious? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you for clearly announcing your intention to edit-war. Good to know, plan to see it later if you do. Further, I'd like to point out a hole in your alleged search using the GPO catalog. We already have another link in this discussion, leading to the FBI site. Even you believe it is a legitimate document. That document uses the word "juggalo" in it more than once. However, when you search the GPO site that you linked to and search the keyword "juggalo", you get zero returns. Hmmmmm......maybe that isn't the best way to find the document. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Maybe it isn't - but it is your job to find it, not mine. Or you could always use the FBI document as a source instead, since there is no question about it being published. What exactly is stopping you? Why are you so insistent on using a document that may or may not need a FOIA request to access, when you have one that anyone can access freely? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Incidentally, you have been asked several times why you are insistent on using this source, rather than the FBI which we know for certain has been published
  • Why do you think I need to justify everything to you? You haven't formed a consensus here and you have announced an intention to edit war. So I really don't need to do much more with you than sit back and watch you work yourself into another block. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
FOI requests are used already in wiki. [40] I think you need to rethink. Darkness Shines (talk) 04:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Um, the publisher cited there is WhatDoTheyKnow.com, a website run by a registered charity. AS for whether this meets WP:RS I have no opinion one way or another - but previous discussions on WP:RSN have made a clear distinction between material obtained by FOI requests from reliable sources who then publish them, and FOI requests from Wikipedia contributors - which appears to be seen as not meeting WP:RS, since contributors are not themselves publishers. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Two things, one you are saying you may have to pay to see this source, there is nothing in WP:RS which says a source must be free,
WP:SOURCEACCESS Second, once it has been printed or put into PDF it is published by whichever agency is fulfilling the FOI request. So it is both published and reliable. Darkness Shines (talk
) 09:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I am well aware that there is no requirement that access to sources be free - I was merely indicating that Niteshift's repeated statements that FOIA requests were met free of charge wan't necessarily true, and that his suggestion that I do his donkey-work for him might involve me having to pay out money for something I considered irrelevant anyway, as I have already explained. As for your later point, I'd rather wait for input from people who have yet to comment, there is little point in us all repeating ourselves... AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • You're pointing out it MIGHT cost money? More evidence that you have in fact not even attempted to obtain the document by contacting the agency. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Have you? You are the one wishing to cite the document as WP:RS - you are the one who has to demonstrate that it meets WP:RS The burden of proof is on you. Why do you keep insisting that others do your job for you? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Have I what? I HAVE a copy. I've had it for 2 years. I didn't pay for it. I'm not asking you to do shit for me. I already have it. YOU are the one who wants to verify something....so go verify it. I have told you where to go. No policy requires me to write them on your behalf. Of course, since I'm a nice guy, if you post your name and mailing address here, maybe I'll send them a request to mail you a copy. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
@ATG: Your behavior here is extremely
WP:Tendentious. You need to stop, because you're disrupting any chance of this discussion actually determining anything. Beyond My Ken (talk
) 00:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


Break from more of the same

It would be best if Andythe Grump and Niteshift36 did not participate past this point except to answer specific questions from other editors.

Is there any information in the original document in question that can't be sourced to the obviously published PDF I linked previously? Unless any major facts can be cited to one but not the other, then this is an utterly pointless argument. Regardless of the fact that it wasn't the document originally brought to question in this section, if the same information can be sourced to the obvious acceptable document that has been linked here, there's no point arguing about the first source. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, given that I have asked the same question, and got no response whatsoever, I think that it would be best if Niteshift did participate here - and explained why exactly the published FBI document cannot be used instead of the disputed one. What is the problem with it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry....where did I EVER say the other one can't be used? I'm not the one excluding anything here. But once again, you simply fabricate something and claim I said it. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been off wiki for few days, just coming to this thread. Official United States government documents are usually highly reliable. But I don't think we have been shown any such document. I don't see any source mentioned in this thread that seems like a reliable source at all. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The source that I have linked above is clearly reliable. It's an official US government publication explicitly disseminated to the public. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
  • The source is the DoJ, NGIC. The title, publication date and even the page numbers referenced were provided. When you say a "source" hasn't been provided, it sound like yu mean an online source. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
  • You don't seem to have given them in this thread - and does this need a FOIA application to access or not? You haven't said. 86.143.95.191 (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Online Etymology Dictionary

talk
) 09:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Well assuming his Wiki article is correct & his bio on the site[41] I would say yes. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
OK Darkness Shines. My opinion is same as your comment. I think it's a good and reliable source.
talk
) 10:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It looks like good information. It's tantalising, but it doesn't meet WP:RS criteria. The author is a Pennsylvania local historian, not a historical linguist (which you have to be, to be an expert on etymology). The Wikipedia articles about him and his dictionary give no reason to suppose he's an expert: note the Chicago Tribune quote, it's one of the "best resources for finding just the right word" -- nice, but nothing to do with etymology. He himself doesn't claim expert status: he says that he has compiled the material from certain sources. Well, those are good sources, but unfortunately, articles in Online Etymological Dictionary do not specify which source was used in each case. So, we should go to reliable sources, including those that Online Etymological Dictionary used. Andrew Dalby 11:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Andrew. I couldn't say it better. It's not a reliable source.
talk
) 12:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
You're right Andrew. I agree. Do you know a reliable etymology source written by experts (Indo-European etymologies)? A source with online version similar to "Online Etymology Dictionary" website or has an online version to find words.
talk
) 15:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I have access to what I believe to be the authority on this topic: the online version (subscription required) of the Oxford English Dictionary—I can provide low-volume lookup if required. I am certain that many other UK editors have similar access via their county library card. Merriam-Webster publishes a free online version of their dictionary. Both these dictionaries show the etymology of their entries --Senra (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I didn't know the Merriam-Webster site. It's really useful: definitely RS. Its etymologies seem to me easier to understand -- and therefore more useful for us to quote -- than those in the Oxford English Dictionary.
Senra's offer is a very good one (I understand why you say "low-volume", this could become a full time job!) I don't have that access.
Since you mention Indo-European, look at Carl Darling Buck, A dictionary of selected synonyms in the principal Indo-European languages (1949). It seems to be online free. But not alphabetical, and I don't know how well the search function would work. You might have to use the index a lot. I have that book at home; a great work, and definitely RS!
The Indogermanisches etymologisches Wörterbuch ("Indo-European etymological dictionary") by Pokorny can also be found online (just search for the German title) but it's a really difficult work to use. Andrew Dalby 19:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Senra and Andrew.
talk
) 08:14, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Royal Aeronautical Society brochure as a reliable source

Resolved

  1. The success of the

    P.1127
    . In 1959, Chaplin became ‘Chief Designer’ and an Executive Director on the Hawker Board.

  2. In 1939 ... Chaplin was formally promoted to ‘Assistant Chief Designer’. In 1940 Chaplin and most of the Hawker Design Office moved down the Portsmouth Road from Kingston to Claremont, an 18th century mansion at Esher. From 1937 and on until after WW2, Chaplin was involved with the design of the Typhoon, Tempest and Sea Fury aircraft. In 1946 Chaplin’s share in the design and development of the Hurricane was acknowledged when he was awarded the Order of the British Empire

A new editor,

conflict of interest which is why I am assisting. As I do not have access to the source, I am unable to confirm which parts of the above paragraphs are being attributed to it. The source is currently cited at the end of each of those two paragraphs. If the source is being used as attribution for the whole of the sentence in paragraph 2 beginning and ending thus: "In 1946 Chaplin ... was awarded the Order of the British Empire", then there is no issue; that sentence can be sourced to "No. 37412". The London Gazette (Supplement). 9 January 1946. p. 277. {{cite magazine}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) If the source is being used as attribution for all the quoted content above, then there may be cause for concern. Please direct us to the Wikipedia policy or guideline that specifically addresses such ephemeral sources --Senra (talk
) 15:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The Royal Aeronautical Society is certainly a reliable organization. The question becomes whether or not a 1960 pamphlet is a reliable source.
WP:Paywall addresses access to sources, and concludes that a source can be reliable even if it is difficult to locate. This source is far from ideal, but it appears to be usable. Is there any way to source the content to another RS and avoid relying on this particular one? Andrew327
17:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry @Andrew. Perhaps I wasn't clear. Neither the reliability of the
the reliability of such ephemeral sources. I recall being told by an editor two-years ago that I could not use a brochure as a source. I cannot now find such a statement within our policies nor our guidelines --Senra (talk
) 20:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any such policy on emphemera or grey literature, and I think you may have been misinformed if you were told there's an absolute prohibition. It's often something you need to be a bit more concerned about than with conventionally published material, as there's a lot of ephemeral junk out there, but the same rules still apply - context and the reputability of the author/publisher count for a lot. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Given the
verifiability of this particular source material, along with your note on the importance of context, I have marked this query as resolved. Thank you --Senra (talk
) 18:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Citing "a lack of comment"

Our article on

Opposition to Freemasonry within Christianity starts with the sentence "While the majority of Christian denominations are either supportive of Freemasonry or take no stance on it, there are a several that are outwardly opposed to it, and either discourage or outright prohibit their members from joining the fraternity." The first part of this sentence (about the majority of denominations) has been challenged as needing a source. I am not sure how to go about doing so... how does one cite a lack of a stance. We can cite those who have been actively supportive... and we can cite those who are actively opposed... but how can we cite those who make no comment at all (who take no stance either for or against)? It is important to Neutrality that the article not give the impression that the majority of denominations oppose the fraternity... so some sort of comment about the majority needs to be made here... but any comment we make without sources is make is bound to be challenged as unverifiable. Advice? Blueboar (talk
) 20:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

You don't cite the lack of comment, you should find a source that references the fact you are stating, i.e. a source should say "the majority of Christian denominations are either supportive of Freemasonry or take no stance on it". If a source doesn't say that, or some derivative of that, it is OR. Ryan Vesey 20:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that sources never mention denominations that don't say anything (indeed... few sources bother to cover the denominations that actively support). If the article only covers the views of the few denominations who actively oppose then we end up giving a minority view point UNDUE weight. How do we balance an article when the majority view ("No comment") simply isn't discussed in sources? Blueboar (talk) 21:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Let's start with the underlying question. How is it that you know "the majority of Christian denominations are either supportive of Freemasonry or take no stance on it"? Ryan Vesey 21:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Simple math... Take the set of all denominations ... subtract those who oppose ... you are left with those who either support or take no stance. We are allowed to make statements based on basic mathematical calculation. Blueboar (talk) 21:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Still synth. There are so many problems with that phrase. (1) It's not cited. (2) "Vast" majority, really? (3) "are supportive of' or don't mention". (4) It ignores the fact that by number of adherents the situation is undoubtedly majority against. JASpencer (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Ryan Vesey. Lack of evidence for "A" doesn't prove "Not A". If this statement is included in the article, it needs to have been made in a
WP:RS published analysis. --Orlady (talk
) 21:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I also agree with the above, and frankly find the "simple math" statement laughable. Blueboar, you clearly have no idea how many widely disparate churches there are out there, with more being created every day. Having been looking in religion-related reference books for some time now, I note that even some of the reference books devoted exclusively to one faith tradition, like, for instance, Anglicanism, or Lutheranism, that are only a few years old still don't even refer to all the groupings out there. On that basis, any attempt to try to describe it as "simple math" seems to be to anyone who actually knows the field probably more accurately described as perhaps "simple-minded."John Carter (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
How many church bodies are we talking about, anyway? Are they mostly in a few denominational groups? Mangoe (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree that the statement is problematic. As noted above, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, in this case it would be unreasonable to have a footnote to the overt statements of every denomination which has made statements regarding Freemasonry, nor would we have any way to know if any had been omitted in such an analysis. No, what we would need is a reliable source which makes functionally the same claim as is trying to be made here. You can't jump from "I found only X statements which outwardly oppose Freemasonry" to "All the rest must not..." Statements like this need direct support, not mere inference from the lack of citations. --Jayron32 06:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
My 2c on this is that this type of sourcing question tends to come down to that grey area of "what is obvious?" Very often editors allow stuff like Blueboar is proposing and I do not think we should loose sleep about that. But if there is any dispute about a passage, it becomes very hard to argue for keeping anything that is arguably not obvious. No doubt WP looses some quite useful and reasonable material because of this, but opening the gates would cause other types of problems. In summary I think this board can not really tell editors much (clearly the editors involved know the policies involved and how they can be argued for and against) but only encourage editors to try to find good consensuses that make Wikipedia as good as it can be.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Having read the article I think any numbers statement is really problematic. Of the big three communions, the Catholics are loudly against the Masons, the Orthodox (from what I can see) are similarly opposed, and only the Anglicans don't express a negative opinion (and it wouldn't surprise me that, if pushed, the African Anglican churches might give a negative statement). The evangelicals and fundamentalists appear to be generally opposed. That pretty much leaves the Methodists and Lutherans giving a mixed message and the Presbyterians saying nothing, and maybe the historic black churches in the USA (I don't recall where they stood). Sorting that out differently, the mainline Protestant groups are the only ones who aren't negative. Counting denominations is pretty hopeless because there are many, many, many more conservative Baptist polity groups and weird African fusion sects (for whom this is probably not an interesting question) than there are organized mainline denominations. If you count heads, then the Catholic/Orthodox opposition swamps everything else. I think we really need a secondary source to state any assessment. Mangoe (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The most problematic matter of all is that the lede as it exists was sculpted by Blueboar himself, and there are and have been for some time some extremely serious questions in the minds of several as to whether that individual is capable of adhering to
WP:POV
on this topic. Having said that, the following quotation from the Encyclopedia of Religion by Mircea Eliade, in the article on "Freemasonry" by William H. Stemper, Jr., on page 418 of volume 5&6 (bound together) in the edition I have available, in the "Masonic Teachings" section at the end of the article (in whatever edition) should be useful: "More recently [since the time of Bolivar], the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod U.S.A., and the General Conference of the Methodist Church in England and Wales have legislated claims that Freemasonry is a system of faith and morals outside of the magisterium of the church. Protestant opposition to Freemasonry stems from the elements of deism and Hermetic Rosicrucianism in Masonic rituals and is thus more theological in tone. Confessional churches and churches with strong traditions of scholastic orthodoxy, such as Lutheranism, have deemed the humanistic and Neoplatonic elements in Masonic philosophy to be inconsistent with Christian teaching. Churches that have maintained a less exclusive understanding of revelation have been more tolerant of Freemasonry's belief in a universal brotherhood of man under the fatherhood of God."
This source is, honestly, one of the most widely praised and highly regarded independent reference works on any subject out there. I find it nothing less than remarkable that Blueboar and others who are most concerned with this topic are themselves self-declared Freemasons and seemingly rarely if ever seem to apply
WP:POV to themselves. Also, honestly, I can say that, based on the material being included in one of the most widely available reference works out there, I have to question whether they even seemingly bother to check any independent sources. I personally very strongly believe that there may well be more than sufficient grounds for ArbCom to look into this matter, as this seems to me to be one example of I believe several over the years in which Blueboar and others seem to display little if any interest in independent reliable sources, but rather only those which are published by or supportive of the Freemasons themselves. John Carter (talk
) 15:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
P. S. I would also welcome any input on a the matter of a fairly clearly expressed conflict of interest directly relating to this topic at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Freemasonry. John Carter (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Your concerns about this are apparently being handled elsewhere, and no problem with raising it, but I think that we can separate out a relevant RSN subject here which was worth discussing. I do not think anyone is being tricked for example, if that is what you are claiming.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
John... you are way overreacting here. I am not complaining about your challenge... I am asking for advice on how to appropriately react to it. How do you cite a statement about what people don't say? Lets take Freoeemasonry out of the picture... what if we had an aritcle on Opposition to the Boy Scouts within Christianity and someone wanted to add a statement that said "The majority of Christian denominations either support or take no stance on the Boy Scouts" to an article. I doubt we could find sources to support the statement. Blueboar (talk) 02:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Then we shouldn't say it, right? We say "X,Y,Z groups have opposed the boy scouts", and/or "the boyscouts are controversial", or whatever else the sources say. If we find some that stake out the majority opinion, that's when we put it in the article. Not before. I understand the concern that we will publish (obviously) untrue information, but consider this another way: if all/nearly all our sources say that churches are opposed to the boyscouts, and none say the opposite, then what should that say about how "obvious" the truth of church support is?   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
It would have helped if you had bothered to notify me about the discussion, which Ryan Vesey did, but you did not. It is your starting this thread which was a huge overreaction, and your failure to notify me of this discussion about the templates I added certainly doesn't speak for your conduct at all. Frankly, Blueboar, as someone who took part in the discussions about Whelan's book before, which I indicated in my own comments on the talk page of the article in my comments, I had thought you might remember them. You filed a complaint about an "incident" without notifying the party involved, over something which was not an incident. And in your above comment you seem to be trying to divert attention. The sources were known for some time, as you should remember. Please do not try to divert attention from the matter of your own conduct here. Frankly irrational comments about Boy Scouts do nothing to address the matter. At this point, I think it would very much be in your own best interests to review the source I provided above, which you should have very ready access to, and make the required changes yourself. The source for this matter was proposed, and actually quoted verbatim, above. Please deal with the realities here, which include lack of proper notification, apparent refusal to engage in even the most basic research, and attempts to distract from the subject. This is not the first time in recent weeks you have demonstrated a truly pathetic inability to review for reliable sources, as I think can be demonstrated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solomon's Lodge. There are serious questions at this point regarding whether you are here to improve wikipedia according to its policies and guidelines, or your own beliefs, and I think it would be most useful for you at this point to provide us with some real evidence that you are primarily interested in improving the encyclopedia in a neutral, NPOV way, which I regret to say I haven't seen any evidence of from you lately. John Carter (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
To be fair, this is RSN, not ANI. Discussing content instead of editor conduct is not "diverting attention" on this board. Editors should probably be encouraged to come here (or seek other forms of DR in disputes; for contentious disputes this is even more true). I wouldn't see that as a hostile action, or him filing an "incident". I'm obviously not speaking to editor conduct at all, just commenting on the offense taken by this section and his focus on content over conduct.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Exactly... I am not saying that John did anything wrong in challenging the statement... indeed I think he was correct to do so. So I come here to ask "Now what?"... This is a classic "Verifiablility, not truth" situation. How does one write a balanced NPOV article about opinions within a given group when only a (significant) minority has made a comment on an issue (whether positive or negative)... when the majority has made no comment at all on the issue. It is possible to compile a list of all the Christian denominations that have not commented on Freemasonry (one way or the other) ... and it would be a "true" statement (it is "true" that these denominations have not commented), but that list isn't something we can source, because no source ever bothers to mention the fact that comments were not made... that a stance was not taken. Sources only mention the comments that were made, and the stances that were taken. Blueboar (talk) 14:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
My answer is, in essence, that denomination/church counting is going to get us into UNDUE/bias territory. Church polity varies so much that much of the time official statements can only be made by individual congregations, while the Vatican can speak for half of Christendom all at once. Likewise the fact that a statement hasn't been made doesn't necessarily signify acceptance, but merely a lack of situation prompting such a statement. If one cannot find a secondary source giving an analysis of the attitudes over the range of churches, then about all that can be done is to list reactions from the major groups as examples. Mangoe (talk) 15:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. The two things we need to do are (1) to have the subject addressed by indidivuals were are not driven by their own POVs, and second, to probably start an RfC. Also, I regret to notice that once again Blueboar above is jumping to conclusions. His statement about the vast majority fails to address two separate issues. One, as an example, I rather doubt the Maronite Church has ever addressed the matter specifically, although its parent entity, the Roman Catholic Church, has. On that basis, I would conclude that in this case, as in other similar cases, the opinion of the parent body also applies to the subordinate entity.
Also, I very much have to question the to my eyes seemingly irrational emphases on the number of groups or denominations. First, that is itself a rather arbitrary criterion, as groups merge into other groups or into each other on a regular basis. Many of them, honestly, don't even have articles here yet. Others, like the Church of Daniel's Band, whose article I was one of the creators of, probably wouldn't merit mention in any event, given their small numbers, both now and historically.
Lastly, I regret to say that I think Blueboar is once again trying to spin the content his own way. There is no clear need for the article to present the possible opinion of "Christianity" as a whole. If there was, honestly, probably the better way would be to have the article deal not so much with denominations as with percentage of the Christian population. And, of course, the relevant policies and guidelines, including SYNTH and others, would apply as well. If something hasn't been spoken of by a group, and that lack of comment has not been specifically noticed by an independent reliable source, then there is no way for us to address it, nor should we even try, as per policies and guidelines. This is a regular problem we have with any number of articles of this type, and, so far as I know, it is the way it has so far as I know always been dealt with before. I see no reason why the practices that have been followed, rather effectively, with other groups would not also apply to Freemasonry. John Carter (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Quality of sources

I have encountered several articles using the Gatestone Institute web-site as sources for, often quite radical, claims diff. Looking at the web-site of the institute it claims to be independent and impartial. Looking at its subject matter and published articles it is quite clearly highly partisan with very strong and uni-directional political views. I have concerns about the wisdom of using this as a source in Wikipedia unless it is balanced by other more mainstream views. It is most commonly used as a source in the context of Israeli/ Palestine issues and getting the balance right in Wikipedia seems very important. I would welcome views or a direction to take my query. Thanks  Velella  Velella Talk   09:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The Gatestone institute seems indeed to be extremely partisan and on a brief inspection I'm not convinced of the habitual reliability of its sourcing. The article on their European chair and member of the governing board, Amir Taheri, does not inspire me with confidence in Gatestone. I'd suggest that we can use their website as a source for their own opinions (so the fact of people being attacked by Gatestone may well be reliable). I would personally not describe it as a reliable source for anything else. I hope this helps. Civis Romanus (talk) 11:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. I would avoid it, except when trying to illustrate the extreme range of opinion on a topic. DGG ( talk ) 06:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Freedom of information requests on whatdotheyknow.com

In a thread above someone pointed out that there are already multiple references to whatdotheyknow.com, a website that publishes requests under the Freedom of Information Act UK, perhaps other Freedom of Information acts as well, and the responses to those requests.

It seems to me that those documents are definitely going to be primary sources, and usually not reliable sources for WP, but I think we should have a full discussion, possibly amend WP:IRS and WP:NOR to give guidance on these cases, and if necessary launch a clean-up campaign. What do people think? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Just to correct something you said... Primary sources are usually very reliable... for documenting what the primary source itself says. You cannot provide any analysis of the primary source; even the inclusion of the information form a primary source would require a valid secondary source to establish relevance to the article. However, you shouldn't make statements that "primary sources (are) usually not reliable sources for WP". Government documents are very reliable. They just aren't very useful for most of what we do at Wikipedia. It's their utility, not their reliability, which is the problem. --Jayron32 02:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Citing documents released as a result of a FoI request seems intrinsically problematic for several reasons. Firstly, for a request to be successful it generally needs to be quite specific, and the agency releasing the information will normally provide only the information requested. As a result there's a real risk that the documents will provide information only on one aspect of whatever the topic is, and not the topic more generally. Secondly, many requests are motivated by an agenda (eg, to prove that the government did the wrong thing, or to provide details on some issue which the requester is campaigning in relation to), and as a result the information which is released through such processes may only be relevant to a single viewpoint, leading to WP:NPOV issues; this is especially the case as in some jurisdictions people who lodge FoI requests are required to pay at least some of the costs of retrieving this material, with the result that the requests which are fulfilled may be those lodged by people with an axe to grind (and this cost recovery, in turn, tends to limit the scope of requests as broad requests obviously cost a lot more to fulfill). Thirdly government agencies typically have discretion to refuse requests or redact parts of documents on various grounds (eg, commercial in confidence information, personal details, information with legal or security implications, etc), meaning that the results may not provide a full picture. I imagine that there are cases where FoI documents are useful references, but in general they seem a source to avoid. Nick-D (talk) 03:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Nick, I agree with what you say. Jayron, I meant to say that these reports are always primary sources and also they are not usually reliable for us. It seems we may have consensus on both of those points. Thanks, both. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Ah. I thought you were saying that government documents in any form aren't reliable. It may be true that these government documents may suffer from certain problems (for example, the specific ones that Nick notes). It makes more sense after your clarification. --Jayron32 02:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
"even the inclusion of the information form a primary source would require a valid secondary source to establish relevance to the article."
This is an interpretation that does not seem to be supported anywhere in the rules I have read. Can you please site the Wiki source for this? I have not read anywhere that a secondary source has to establish the relevance of a primary source to a Wikipedia article before that primary source can be used as a reference. The subject of the article (paragraph, section, etc.) establishes relevance. There are restrictions on the use of primary sources (e.g., no interpretive claims not claimed by a secondary source), but this is not one of them.
Cheryl Hugle (talk) 06:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle
"Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary..." Cheryl Hugle (talk) 07:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle
Add, from
WP:BLPPRIMARY, "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person ... Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source ..." Perhaps this is what Jayron had in mind in the sentence you quote above? It seems relevant to me, as many of these documents will relate to living people. Andrew Dalby
10:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
It is unclear to me that Jayron was limiting his statement to cases involving living persons. But if that is true, it makes perfect sense to me too. But, it should be clarified. Cheryl Hugle (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle
Without valid sources to establish relevence, then we're open to dumping any number of completely irrelevant and pointless trivia into articles. The gateholder for what we include in Wikipedia should be what exists out in the world; that's the entire point of
WP:NOR. Editorial decisions need to be made all the time, the fact that some random fact can be verified doesn't mean that it is mandatory that a Wikipedia article must include it. Editors need to make editorial decisions all the time about which information to include, and which to not, and the lest problematic way to make those decisions is to rely on existing literature and reliable analysis to do it for us. If literally no one else has noticed some fact about a subject, then by what basis should Wikipedia notice that same fact? --Jayron32
21:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

High school yearbook as a reliable source

Is the image from a high school yearbook a reliable source to show that someone attended a high school to be listed as a notable alumni on the school page? It is a primary source which should be used with caution, but what we have is a reliable primary source showing an image of the person in 1976, easily compared with their modern image online. And of course their online Forbes biography stating that they were born in that town, and doing the math for confirmation. Born in 1958 + 18 = 1976 graduation. So, are yearbooks reliable sources, even though they are primary sources? We use the social security death index, which are primary sources to find birth dates all the time. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd say for the very limited application of establishing their attendance (NOT graduation or getting a degree or diploma or anything like that) at the school. The article should not speculate on the date of graduation or even on the years spent there or anything like that, just the fact that they attended the school. --Jayron32 02:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Alumni does not mean graduation when we use it for notable alumni, we use it to mean atended,it literally means nourished. We list Zuckerberg and Gates as Harvard alumni. I agree it cannot be used to say they graduated, since the photos were taken and printed up months before graduation. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm really not comfortable with this type of thing. Strictly speaking it's original research, and we've run into trouble before with overenthusiastic editors misreading primary sources, conflating different people with the same name, etc. That said, I suppose it would be okay with the usage strictly limited to the parameters suggested by Jayron32. Incidentally, I ran a local newspaper database search without success, but I did turn up some interesting information about his brother, which I will add to the article. Gamaliel (talk) 03:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Has anyone tried looking him up in Who's Who? Gamaliel (talk) 03:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I've twice used yearbooks as sources: once to establish a name accurately (when there was no question as to attendance) and once to counter an inaccurate statement from another source. I would generally agree that they shouldn't be used as sole sources but we do find other sources making mistakes which have to be verified against more primary sources. Mangoe (talk) 05:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Not a good source. The information may be inaccurate and it is possible to confuse two people with the same name. If the person's high school is that important to their biography then a secondary source would have mentioned it. TFD (talk) 01:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Which I would agree to excepting that secondary sources are prone to the making the same sorts of mistakes. Mangoe (talk) 02:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
(
WP:OR. A Quest For Knowledge (talk
) 02:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, yearbook pictures generally have names underneath them. They're certainly no less reliable than any other directory. For example, a cast list which establishes that a person appeared in a movie. It can't be used for anything more than that, but it doesn't seem problematic for a VERY limited usage. --Jayron32 02:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like everyone is saying something like "not a good source, but possibly useful in particular cases"? But if that is the consensus then it is obvious we need to discuss particular cases?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

www.yourbrainonporn.com as MEDRS-quality source about masturbation, pornography, addiction and human sexuality

On Talk:Masturbation#Endorphins an editor wants to include the idea that masturbation is addictive by quoting http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/rethinking-wonders-adult-masturbation and other yourbrainonporn.com resources. This is what I found about the website:

* ''Your Brain on Porn,'' which weaves together Biblical themes and information from scientific studies about the effects of pornography on one's beliefs.<ref>[http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/12/prweb9034565.htm “Smut in the Sanctuary: New Guide From Covenant Eyes Blends the Bible and Scientific Research to Teach Christians About the Threat of Pornography ”]. PRWeb.com. 2011-12-13. Retrieved 2011-12-13.</ref>

— 
Covenant Eyes

Since the website is neither mainstream science nor mainstream medicine website, but a faith-based initiative against theologically perceived sexual perversity, I see also a problem with quoting it in respect to

WP:MEDRS
requirements.

The edits which have been reverted are at [42]. The reverted editor said hopes to reinstate his edits through quoting yourbrainonporn.com as a reliable source. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Nowhere near MEDRS, of course. I also wondered why it did not address the health benefits of masturbation during "penile-vagina intercourse". Itsmejudith (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
It's
WP:MEDRS-compliant reliable source and so cannot be used to source general biomedical claims. It is theoretically possible that the material there could be used with attribution as the opinion of Wilson but only if it can be shown that Wilson's opinion is notable. Zad68
22:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
It's an
WP:SPS which are largely not acceptable as sources. There are a couple exceptions, but neither of which appear to be the case here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk
) 01:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
BTW, this thread seems to be unnecessary. Going through the talk page discussion, the editor has said that they plan to replace the source with a reliable one[43] and the discussion is focused on whether the content is correct, not the reliability of the source. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
What I have understood from that editor is that he/she sees yourbrainonporn.com as a reliable source and intended to use it in order to reinstate his reverted edits. See the quote below. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

This ref seems reliable and references other medical studies, and I was going to use it to cite the content.

— User:M0rphzone, [44]

Adnanites

Does anyone see anything in this article that isn't OR? Note that if the link to

talk
) 18:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The line of descent in question is now at
talk
) 21:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Agree with that but the article gives the impression that Adnanites and Qahtanites are factual categories, whereas they are
Origin myths invented probably in the Umayyad age. Added to article with source. DeCausa (talk
) 23:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Boost Mobile article

Is this source [45] reliable for this statement "The Media Watch report did not include a response from Boost Mobile and the report did not indicate that Media Watch had ever contacted Boost Mobile for comment." which an IP editor has been adding to the 'Marketing controversy' section of the article

talk
) 01:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, that claim is not an appropriate addition. Andrew327 01:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Etymology of Assam

Source: Gupta, Gupta, K.R , Amita (2006). Concise Encyclopaedia of India - Volume 3. Atlantic Publishers & Dist.. p. 1104
Article: Etymology of Assam (diff)
Content: "The word asama or assama was used during the time when

Bhaskar Varman ruled Kamarupa. At that time the present Assam used to emit poisonous gases and was uninhabitable. Some of the Kamrupi
criminals used this land as shelter to hide and avoid punishment. Those people were also called asama or assama."

Discussion: Is the book mentioned above reliable source? The question arises because:

I may add that I have not found these claims in the other references I have examined, listed at end of Etymology of Assam. Chaipau (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Very interesting. It looks as though you are correct -- the Concise Encyclopaedia of India (2006) borrowed from Wikipedia (2004). The only possible primary narrative source for Assam at this period is Yuan Chwang (Xuanzang), who wrote in Chinese. Any Indian names and words he used are discussed by Beal and Watters in their translations and comments, and there is no mention of as(s)ama. So, you're right, we have no reliable source for this material. Andrew Dalby 16:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for such a quick resolution! Chaipau (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
No problem, but I'm only one editor :) Better wait and see if others add their opinions. Andrew Dalby 18:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
OK, it seems no one disagrees ... Andrew Dalby 17:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, again. I shall treat this as settled now. Chaipau (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Comment: It's not an issue for this notice board, but as an FYI, that publisher did not credit Wikipedia for its content. When I've seen this occur in the past, I've listed it at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
(And I've just YesY Done it for this book; see
Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Abc#Concise Encyclopaedia of India.) -- Gyrofrog (talk)
20:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Barry Manilow, crunkcore

This source is being used to support that

gaming the system. Gobōnobō + c
09:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

That looks like a pretty good example of someone taking a joke seriously. I'd have no problems with objecting and removing that - just because it's citable doesn't mean we have to believe it :-) Andrew Gray (talk) 10:12, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
If it was me, and I am not an entertainment specialist in any way, I would use the Dallas News article to say "The Dallas News characterised Barry Manilow as a crunkcore legend in December 2009". For the record, I can find no other sources to support this assertion. Incidentally, the contributors used by the Dallas News for that article were People.com, TMZ.com, Huffingtonpost.com and news services --Senra (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Come on, people: did anyone read the source? It's breezy collection of minor celebrity news. Anyone who is American and is as old as I am remembers what Manilow's music sounds like: the antithesis of crunkcore. The 'DMN writer is being sarcastic. Mangoe (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
The author of the article is trying to be funny. We shouldn't take jokes seriously. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Movie Review Intelligence

WP:ELMAYBE #4 to be removed from the blacklist. Erik (talk | contribs
) 20:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Outside coverage on this site is irrelevant to the reliability of their links, nor does outside use prove it now should be included. Wikipedia has an enormous amount of external coverage, however links to Wikipedia articles as references are not considered reliable sources. MRI's reliability hasn't magically changed over the years, its still patently unreliable. Additionally, simply pointing out that a Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic exists on Wikipedia doesn't prove that Movie Review Intelligence should also exist in order to "offset the duopoly". This type of "nich" site is inherently unreliable in several ways. First, Movie Review Intelligence is nowhere near Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic, David A. Gross (owner) even admits that fact; "The other sites are giants...". Metacritic.com (owned by CBS Interactive, Inc.) RottenTomatoes.com (owned by Warner Bros/flixster inc) both have been around since about 2000. Movie Review Intelligence, on the other hand, is new (2009),
link farm Wikipedia en mass (16-17,000 links) with this unreliable site. I'm not convinced MRI site is reliable enough for inclusion or bring much encyclopedic value to Wikipedia.--Hu12 (talk
) 03:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I've responded to Hu12's concerns in the threads I linked. We can indeed look at outside coverage to assess reliability per
WP:OR to a website; the policy applies to what editors may try to include. The issue of abuse is not relevant here either (and has been responded to in the aforementioned threads). The question is whether or not the website can be considered a reliable source. Erik (talk | contribs
) 04:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't see where WP:USEBYOTHERS would be an appropriate measure to asses reliability in this case due to the nature of what MRI is and how it functions and operates as a site. Outside coverage or popularity in this case, is irrelevant, however what trivial coverage does exist, appears to be used in a novelty capacity/context rather than an academic one. Any statistics, consensus, analyses or score produced by Movie Review Intelligence is
WP:OR). MRI has neither control or editorial oversight over the content it aggregates. What it does produce has very limited encyclopedic application in verifying article content. You discussed those facts with Dagrossla (talk · contribs
) (David A. Gross, Editor & Publisher, Movie Review Intelligence) previously;
"I cannot expect Movie Review Intelligence to occupy the same ranks as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic in film articles." -- Erik
While you have stated your opinion has changed since, the reliability of Movie Review Intelligence hasn't. An unreliable source does not become reliable simply because you now wish to use it. I just don't see a valid case for inclusion.--Hu12 (talk) 06:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I do not see the need to have an academic context here; would the same barrier apply to Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic? In addition, aggregation is not a bad thing as you indicate. And to reiterate, the policy of WP:OR is being grossly misapplied in this context. I do think that the website can be reassessed with the more recent coverage. We've repeated a lot of these arguments in previous threads, so I'm trying to keep my remarks brief. (Obviously we feel the need to respond to each other and hope for input from others.) Erik (talk | contribs) 12:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


Legal document analysis

I seeking input regarding whether or not a particular legal document justifies a specific claim. There is an ongoing heated discussion on the

multilevel marketing, and this is a small part of that discussion. In the '90s, the BLP subject signed an "Assurance of Voluntary Compliance" with the Idaho Attorney General. Mother Jones posted a copy of the Assurance
which reads, in part, "The Attorney General is informed and believe that Melaleuca sells various nutrition, personal care, and homecare products, pursuant to a multi-level marketing plan, in Idaho."

Rhode Island Red has repeatedly made claims similar to this: "Vandersloot acknowledged that his company is an MLM when he signed the consent agreement with the Idaho AG[46] -- why are you ignoring this fact?"

HTownCat provided a response: "As for the legal document you've linked above, it says 'The Attorney General is informed and believes that Melaleuca sells various nutrition, personal care and homecare products, persuant to a multi-level marketing plan, in Idaho.' I will leave it to the attorney general to have any 'belief' that he or she wants, but VanderSloot isn't admitting to an MLM in this 'assurance of voluntary compliance.'"

The question: is this a reliable source for the claim that Frank VanderSloot has stated that his company, Melaleuca, is a multilevel marketing company? Andrew327 01:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

No. As you imply, VanderSloot has only agreed to the fact the AG said so. That's paragraph numbered 3. Compare to the one numbered 1, for example, that states "Melaleuca is an Idaho-based business..." That said, however, I don't think we strictly require that the CEO of a company call it something before we can call it that thing; we're not required to restrict ourselves to the company line, so to speak. We merely need to restrict ourselves to what reliable sources say. From doing a cursory web search, I can see a large number of reliable sources saying just that, that it's an MLM. --GRuban (talk) 02:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
We should avoid using primary sources. Whether or not signing a agreement amounted to a concession requires interpretation. Would a court accept the statement as proof of a MLM scheme? You need a secondary source. TFD (talk) 05:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
the opinion of the AG is not irrelevant, but it has to be cited as their opinion, not as proven fact. In particular, that the subject agreed to the settlement doesn't mean that they agreed to the allegations, just to settling the issue. Anyway, whether the CEO says or denies their company is a MLM is only relevant as their PR, and proves nothing. DGG ( talk ) 06:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
The Idaho code (Title 48 Chapter 6) says, "(2)Such assurance of voluntary compliance shall not be considered an admission of violation for any purpose. (3) The assurance of voluntary compliance shall provide for the discontinuance by the person entering into the same of any method, act or practice alleged to be a violation of this chapter.... (4) A violation of such assurance of voluntary compliance shall prima facie establish that the person subject thereto knows, or in the exercise of due care should know, that he has in the past violated or is violating the provisions of this chapter."[47] It seems that signing an agreement cannot lead to prosecution for a violation, but is evidence of past conduct if the conduct continues. It does not say whether it has value as evidence in a lawsuit by a third party. It would be helpful to examine case law to see how this is interpreted. Since that would be OR, it would be better to rely on secondary sources for interpretation. TFD (talk) 08:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

TrekNation

Hi there,

I've currently nominated a few Good Articles, and a question has come up over the referencing of

Hearst Corporation". TrekNation is a collection of sites, including Jammer's Reviews. The main site is TrekToday, which is here, Jammer's Reviews is here
.

Jammer's Reviews has not been used in any GAs previously (my initial Star Trek related articles did not include it as I was concerned that it was simply a fan site). However upon investigation, I discovered that the opinions of the writer and editor of the site was held in such esteem by the Star Trek: Voyager crew that they flew him out to Los Angeles to pitch story ideas to them at one point. Admittedly they didn't use any of his ideas, but they cared about his opinions enough to do that, and so I think that he can be considered a reliable source due to that context (in this case, he went back afterwards and reviewed each episode of The Next Generation after the series ended - I believe he started with Voyager).

Would it be possible to get some opinions on whether or not you think these would meet the criteria to be considered reliable? Thanks. Miyagawa (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

eeggs.com, a source about computer program easter eggs, 3rd RSN

The site eeggs.com had been brought here twice. Once in 2010 and again in 2011. The latter only resulted in one opinion. Currently, dispute is regarding its use in

WP:INDISCRIMINATE matter. I believe examples should have been covered in reliable secondary source before they're even considered as worthy line item. Cantaloupe2 (talk
) 10:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Because the claims the source is used to support is not about
themselves, my interpretation is that the use is inappropraite. Cantaloupe2 (talk
) 11:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
(I same-indented the two above comments by a single editor, as the indented "reply" resembles a response by a different editor).

    • Don't go striking out my comment. You raised objections that 3O was not to your liking because another editor was involved. You listed this source here to advocate for it in 2011, and in 3O you argued "it has been decided reliable" in 3O comment based on ONE opinion while in 2010 had three opposition. It seems that you have vested interest in this source. You left a comment that you will "revert" every removal of this source. You are the one who listed this in 2011 here advocating this source as well. You're the one who struck out my listing intended to gather consensus. Please do not tamper with my posts. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Editors may strikethrough or revert, with explanation, any false start, such as your premature forum shopping/canvassing. No, 3O is not "binding", but it is always a bad idea to split discussion, and jump ahead of a dispute resolution process. As it stands now, you've lied about my words (reread them), and twice about my motivations. Oh, and I was in the right to undo your misleading indented comment, too. --Lexein (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

      • As the RSN opinion in 2011 said, it's still reliable for this subject. Per
        WP:SPS. "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable 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." In this case, eegs.com has written a published book [48] and has been cited multiple times over many years by classic reliable sources such as the New York Times (200119982002
        ...) Sites like this are the entire point of that sentence.
While easter eggs are user submitted to the site, they are individually reviewed before being displayed, as can be seen trying to enter one. "Your Egg will be reviewed and added to the archive quickly, usually within a week. If possible, we will also try to verify the accuracy of the Egg. If you elected to provide your email address, you will get an email confirmation when your egg is accepted. If it is not accepted, you may receive a notification of why it was not accepted. Often, this is because the submission doesn't meet the qualifications listed below. Just for safety, The Easter Egg Archive reserves the right to modify your Egg in any way, and reject any Egg for any reason." But that review process isn't what the site a reliable source. It's that their work in this field has been previously published by reliable publications. --GRuban (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Have a look at this example. It makes no explanation why the relationship between what the user contributor claims is "farting sound" resulting in device announcing "air conditioner". He claims its "easter egg" but its his opinion. The contributing registered users' post is reviewed by user reviewers, not the editorial board. This is no different from message boards where moderated appointed users have the censoring/editing authority. The site is like wiki. Its contents are not positively tested by known staff editors. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 10:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Also look at this. It's reviewed by other users, again much like forum posts. The contents are NOT written by the authors. The site/author apparently acts as a self-moderating community. So, while submitted contents "become the webmaster's blah blah" claim, it remains a fact that contents are written by contributing user and only moderated by other screen named editors. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
The above examples only show that you don't know the Wolfs' usernames, or the usernames of the Wolfs' employees or most trusted moderators, easily found by simply looking. On eeggs.com, search for Reviewed by: David Wolf; results: 382. Search for Reviewed by: Webmaster; results: 6782. The lowest-numbered item I found, http://www.eeggs.com/items/3.html, from 1999, was reviewed by "webmaster". I wonder who the webmaster might be. So much for "only moderated by other screen named editors". Also, in Easter egg (media) five out of the six eeggs.com citations were reviewed by . . . webmaster. Not that that makes one shred of difference to the as-established-by-independent-reliable-sources reliability and notability of the site as a source, as noted by GRuban. --Lexein (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The contents are still written by users, so they're user generated and the number you provided does not provide for contents that becomes published, but not directly overseen. This is like many other user generated contents. Some forum posts are valid, some are bunk, just like eeggs.com and this is the very reason why userg isn't permitted here. Your proclamation that you'll revert every removal appears to show
affiliation with eeggs.com Cantaloupe2 (talk
) 20:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Step away from the
WP:PRESERVE, pro-WP:Five pillars, and decidedly anti-deletionist. I allowed the deletion of the forum entry source after (not before) determining that the author could not be confirmed to be a notable person, or affiliated with a news organization (whereas you performed no such due diligence). No, you have contributed nothing of value to the article, even going so far as to belligerently delete unambiguously reliable sources such as Time, USA Today & NBC, and others, without lifting a finger to check source authority. You're oblivious to how much you're embarrassing yourself, and I sincerely suggest you give it up, or change your damn attitude. --Lexein (talk
) 02:26, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

You're the only one who is vigorously defending this source, so far. We should be clear that it is not THEIR work that was cited, but that of some of their contributing anonymous internets editors and I feel that we can't really conclude "if host A's source A's work had been cited by a reliable source, source B on the same domain must be reliable". Do any other Wikipedians have input? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Facepalm False, again: I am obviously not alone in affirming eeggs.com RS for this article. See RSN 2011 and RSN 2013 for quite reasoned, proper, and complete defense of eeggs.com. So much for me being "the only one". Vigorousness is no fault; it is a virtue: ever heard of "bold"? You know, if you stop with the misrepresentations, egregious errors and falsehoods, maybe I'd stop replying to your every comment. --Lexein (talk) 08:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Not a reliable source per Wikipedia
    WP:RS standards. Might be reliable to individuals who use it for their own personal use, which is a different thing entirely. It looks like we have some impassioned discussion above, but I skipped all that without letting it influence me one way or another. The simple facts are that a search of the web for eeggs.com doesn't show other reliable resources trusting it as having a reputation for fact-checking, etc., and the site itself is open to the general public to post whatever they want. It looks like the submission process form itself has some checks to see if a submissions meets the site owners' personal definition of an easter egg (which has some issues itself) but there's no indication that it is checked beyond that (by verifying). It looks worse than IMDB or other sites of that nature. DreamGuy (talk
    ) 18:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Hey. You write "doesn't show other reliable sources trusting it as having a reputation for fact checking", but you can't prove that they don't trust it, so don't just claim they don't. Shallow first-glance-only analysis is what was wrong with the 2010 RSN. "No indication that it is ... [verified]"? To say that, you have to ignore/disbelieve the site text about egg verification as described/linked by RSN responder GRuban above, and you have to ignore/disbelieve the site's legal statement that the owners/editors "make a best effort to eliminate false and harmful instructions", as described on their FAQ since 1997. That's at least as good a statement of oversight as most periodicals. Plus, there's the numerical evidence that over 6400 items were reviewed by Wolf (as webmaster or David Wolf), and 5 of 6 items in the article were reviewed by webmaster. As for verification, Wolf is described as testing eggs himself "on his own machines to be sure they exist" in a 1999 university newspaper (this is a toehold independent source for that, and could be better, I know.)
IMO web search results are poor evidence for or against source reliability. On the other hand, I can prove that lots of sources trust eeggs.com is reliable enough to cite. Searching news, news archives, books, and scholarly sources provides a better measure of citation frequency, for notability and reliability purposes. Don't ignore that per
WP:RS, Wikipedia reliability is achieved by citation by others, in addition to having an editorial process and fact checking in-house even for self-published sources, and published works, under the auspices of a name publisher, count toward author expertise. Google Books citations here and here. New York Times (3x). Recommended [49]. Quoted by the Ledger [50]. NPR interview [51]. Google News Archives [52], [53] Google Scholar citations [54]. David Wolf, the site owner published Easter Eggs: Software Surprises Abacus Publications, (1997), and here's a 1999 PC World ref for that. There is just too much evidence to ignore that the author has enough expertise (experience) and that eeggs.com is a regularly, uncontroversially cited source, considered reliable by broad national publications, scholarly articles and books, and security industry books and articles, over multiple decades. --Lexein (talk
) 14:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

This is not a accusation,but a question. Because of mentions of paid editing in your user page. Do you have any affiliation whatsoever with Wolf, direct or indirect? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
  1. Facepalm There are no "mentions of paid editing on [my] user page", and your assertion that there are any such things is a stupid, trolling, disgusting lie. I wrote the essay Paid content tax in which I propose very tight restrictions on, identification of, monitoring of, and content creation requirements of, editors who are paid to edit articles on Wikipedia. Which you would have known, if you had bothered to look, or bothered to even quote the title correctly. I'm against paid editing, PR editing, in general. I want articles where it has been done to be tagged as such, and the editors who perform such edits to declare their affiliations and obligations, and to volunteer prolifically at other articles which are unrelated to their paid work, in order to benefit the encyclopedia, not just their paying clients.
  2. Facepalm No, I have no affiliation, direct, or indirect, with any source I've ever cited on any Wikipedia article. Your slimy sideways accusation (don't say it isn't, it is), has happened three times now, and I've answered it now twice. Done yet, slimer? --Lexein (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Simmer down. Though it may have been worded oddly, it was a perfectly reasonable question considering the circumstances. Your response was highly uncivil and all out of proportion. If your intent was to allay fears that you might not be acting objectively about inclusion of this site you didn't do a great job of that. DreamGuy (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Hm. "Simmer down" after being lied about three (now four) times. Thanks. I'll be sure to get right on that. I'll address the specific false allegations, in order:
  1. Falsely accused here on Jan 26: "It seems that you have vested interest in this source."
  2. Falsely accused & replied to
    affiliation
    with eeggs.com",
  3. Falsely accused & replied to definitively here on Jan 28: "Because of mentions of paid editing in your user page" (also a lie - just look).
  4. Falsely accused at RFCU now.
There's no good faith reason for any such allegation or even the question here: it has nothing to do with whether a source is reliable. So my answer was not out of proportion, since I am being falsely accused. I look forward to your more complete response above, as opposed to "random" as you explained at Talk:Easter egg (media), where you also propagated the false accusation further. --Lexein (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

So, you mentioned in talk that its "vetted" process, but that process is through users. How exactly is it different from wiki with many editors overseeing it? Here, we don't usually allow other wiki pages. On eeggs.com many user submissions are posted in verbatim, therefore does that not make individual contributors the author and

WP:UESRG? I think it does. Cantaloupe2 (talk
) 20:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, you don't know the difference between a directly editable wiki and a published, database-driven website which is not directly editable. We get it. Since you've repeatedly stated that, and you've repeatedly shown that you truly don't know the difference, it's probably too late for anyone, especially me, to explain it to you. You don't know the difference between "other users" and "owner/administrator and trusted users authorized to approve entries". We get that, too. You've refused several explanations of the difference. You'll never accept the notion that anyone in charge(or anyone trusted by those in charge) has verified and vouched for the claims made in the "eggs", so you'll never accept the notion that there is an ad hoc, but extant, "editorial staff." Further, you'll never accept that the site is accepted by established media outlets as reliable, even though that fact is patently obvious. Trouble is, your opinion is substantially less weighty than their repeated and nationally published acceptance of eeggs.com as a source. I'll stick with the fact that many RS have used and not found false claims approved for publication at eeggs.com. IMHO, if the site was found wanting, or unreliable, NO RS would quote them, and in fact, RS would have pointed out eeggs.com's flaws. But, apparently, that is not the case. Yet you persist in tarring the website with baseless labels like "wiki" (false) or "just like a wiki" (false) as if citations by RS over decades have no standing in the matter of the website's established reliability. There's your fundamental mistake, and it undermines everything else you've said. --Lexein (talk) 05:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

A study in Waldorf education

  1. Source: Bo Dahlin, The Waldorf School - Cultivating Humanity (Research Report). Karlstad University Studies, 2007
  2. Article: Waldorf education
  3. Content: Bo Dahlin, a Professor of Education at Karlstad University, found that Waldorf pupils are more likely to have a positive learning attitude, less likely to have passing tests as the goal of their learning, and had a "more in-depth study style" in higher education. He also found that they showed more tolerant attitudes to minority groups and less tolerance of racist ideologies, were more involved with social and moral questions and were more likely to believe in the social efficacy of love, solidarity, and civil courage as opposed to legislation or police control.
  4. Note: The use of sources in this article is subject to a ruling by the Arbitration Committee.

— Preceding

talk • contribs
)

Follow-up note is that the report also mentions other differences between Waldorf and non-Waldorf pupils, why weren't those mentioned? How were the particular differences mentioned in the report selected for inclusion? Zad68 19:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Adding -- I'm also concerned that there's a conflict of interest between the report author and Waldorf resources and organizations. Zad68 19:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
More doubts about this source... Has this research been used and cited anywhere else? Was it published in a peer-reviewed journal? What was the editorial review process for this study? The basic requirement we are looking for to meet
WP:RS is "a reputation for fact-checking," what evidence do we have that any fact-checking or external independent review was done? Zad68
19:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
To follow up what I said on the article talk, the source is a "research report". The publisher's web site has a note saying that theses and dissertations are reviewed, but makes no mention of research reports, which in my field at least, are generally not reviewed. Hgilbert has also suggested that the author might be a RS under WP:SELFPUB due to other publications. (Bonus points if this discussion goes better than the one for Sheldon Brown (bicycle mechanic)). a13ean (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
One more thing I'm finding uncomfortable about this source is that it gives comparative evaluations of things that are not obviously quantitatively evaluable, like "more tolerant attitudes to minority groups". You can show differences in demonstrated behaviors but how do you quantify "tolerant attitudes" and "[belief] in the social efficacy of love" to say Group X has more than Y?

OK... I'm not really following the article Talk page. Of course a publication that can demonstrated to be produced by the source it's attributed to can be a reliable primary source for something that person said per

WP:SELFPUB as discussed. But even in this case "Waldorf pupils" is a larger scope than the study cited, which is Swedish Waldorf pupils as compared to Swedish traditional education pupils.

The question is whether it's important to cite in a general encyclopedia article on Waldorf education what Waldorf insiders say to each other about Waldorf education - I'm sure they think it's great. It probably is important to have the article state what Waldorf proponents believe is good about Waldorf education. But again we need a secondary source - who says Dahlin's voice is the most important on this topic, and who says that these particular beliefs of his are the most important things? Getting out of here... have a good one. Zad68

21:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's suggested that this can't be used to cite Dahlin's opinion, but it was suggested that this becomes a generally reliable source under the "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable 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" clause, which I would contest under the terms of the arbitration decision. The current phrasing is "Bo Dahlin found that" which implies a finding of fact, not an expression of an opinion. Phrasing like "Bo Dahlin argues that" or "Bo Dahlin suggest that" would resolve this issue, but not necessarily those related to weight and undue. a13ean (talk) 21:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I am amused to find that Bo Dahlin has his own page here, which shares many of the same issues related to this source. OK apparently I'm the only one who didn't notice this. a13ean (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Dahlin is reporting the results of an empirical study he conducted. It is not at all unusual to study people's attitudes rather than behaviors, incidentally. In any case, it is certainly not his "argument" or "suggestion", but rather findings of an empirical study which he conducted, and the methodology of which is available for anyone to refer to by reading his research report.
talk
) 23:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
What the editors of this page need to know in this instance, and in general, is what to do with white papers or research papers published under the auspices of a university department or university-based institute but not in a peer-reviewed journal. In this area of scholarship, it is often not possible to cite the finding in a third party peer-reviewed source so we are working with this kind of source. In this case, it is a single authored paper reporting empirical results although the research was conducted in collaboration with scholars at other universities. Jellypear (talk) 01:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
The essence of "Reliable source" is a reputation for fact checking. Somebody independent from the group producing the work needs to be checking the work. A study produced by (someone or a group working at) a university, and which is not checked by an independent peer-review panel, can't be used as a reliable source for anything other than that group's own opinion (for lack of a better word). To be clear, expert opinion has its place as a reliable source, but it nearly always has to be attributed back to that expert as that expert's opinion, and cannot be stated as unattributed plain fact in Wikipedia's narrative voice. What's not good is: Dr. Yip working at Central University published a study of some sort as a freely-downloadable PDF on his own university-hosted webpage, and then taking a quote from that and using it to support some claim stated in Wikipedia's narrative voice in an article. Was this study peer-reviewed? Was it published in a peer-reviewed journal?

If "expert opinion" is the case, then that brings up the question of whether that expert's opinion is notable, and to establish that we would like to see (once again) some independent notice of that expert's opinion, and using a primary study produced by such an expert will be a case of using a

original research. What independent sources have reported on these findings?

Another way this rule of "reputation for fact-checking" might be applied is (and I have seen this for some Wikipedia articles I've worked on): A group working for a prestigious academic institution produces and publishes a primary study in that institution's own journal, and then over the years that study is so well-accepted by other experts in the same field that it is cited by them over and over again. Here the fact-checking might not be a formal pre-publication journal peer review, but rather the independent peers in the field find the work acceptable so they cite it. In this example, we'd be looking for non-Waldorf education researchers to generally accept and use the results of this study. Has this happened? Zad68

03:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

What I hope is my final comment on this RSN request: hgilbert and jellypear are both saying it's an "empirical study", but to that Wikipedia says, "So what? That's not enough." Getting published in a peer-reviewed journal is a good step toward being

WP:RS but even that is not enough, because many journals have disreputable peer-review processes, or somehow the study ended up in a decent journal but not one directly relevant to the field of study. Even when you have a study produced by a PhD and published in an appropriate, reputable peer-reviewed journal, that's not enough, because the study may have had undetected confounding problems or just be a statistical outlier. It's not until the study has been picked up in a review article or meta-analysis and combined with many other high-quality studies in a good secondary source that you can finally have some confidence in using it in a Wikipedia article. The Dahlin study is really at the very bottom of this hierarchy, as it appears to be a primary research study not published in any journal and not subject to any kind of peer review, and it was done by someone with a signficant conflict of interest. As such, the answer is: Dahlin's report is only useful as attributed to Dahlin for Dahlin's own opinions, and without an independent secondary source picking up on Dahlin's findings, it's a very open question as to whether Dahlin's findings are notable enough to be quoting as suggested in the "Content" line at the top of this RSN request. Zad68
03:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Zad68 eloquently voices the concerns about the source. I think we should wait until the study is discussed in a secondary source; until then it is impossible to determine its accuracy or importance. Binksternet (talk) 04:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I certainly recognize that unpublished studies are in a different group than published studies. Having said that, we're in danger of having a double standard regarding two types of evaluations of the education. If it's a published empirical study, we're suggesting it should not be cited until it is picked up in a review article or meta-analysis. If it's an opinion piece, even if published in a non-peer reviewed publication such as a newspaper, it is directly citeable. I'm not clear why unsupported opinion should have a far lower threshold than empirical studies. Or are opinion pieces also only citeable when taken up by a review article or meta-analysis?
talk
) 12:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
It's simple: Wikipedia takes published works over unpublished. Your supposedly "empirical" study could have been so flawed that nobody wanted to pick it up and put it in their publication. Binksternet (talk) 12:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
It's because facts are sacred, but opinions (like arseholes, as they say) everybody has. So there's a different between Wikpedia saying "Dr Basil always said drinking whisky all his life is what kept him sane", and "In a study Dr Basil found that drinking whisky lowered the chance of suffering early-onset dementia by 41%". The bar for opinion is - quite rightly - much lower than the bar for what looks like fact; this is a "double standard" that WP needs.
COI
18:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Controversial statements such as the findings reported by Bo Dahlin are not allowed at the Waldorf education article after the 2006 ArbCom ruling against Waldorf-related sources. Dahlin is Professor II at the Rudolf Steiner University College in Sweden, and he is a supervisor of the master's thesis students who want a degree in Eurythmy, a Steiner/Waldorf topic. In 2006, the Arbitration Committee gave this final decision: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education#Final_decision. It said, in part, "Editors of these articles are expected to remove all original research and other unverifiable information, including all controversial information sourced in Anthroposophy related publications." Also, "As applied to this matter, except with respect to information which is not controversial, material published in Anthroposophy related publications, especially by persons deeply involved in the movement such as teachers or theoreticians, are considered self published and thus not reliable sources." Dahlin is "deeply involved" in Steiner matters and is thus not reliable for Wikipedia purposes. His findings are controversial and thus fall afoul of the 2006 ArbCom ruling. Binksternet (talk) 12:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

If there was indeed an ARBCOM decision on this, then that takes precedence and you have to go with that. I didn't pore through the ARBCOM case but it appears what Binksternet brings up applies and so the source and content need to be removed without further discussion. Zad68 01:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
I would just like to say, thank you very much Zad for the time you took in making your thorough comments. You have put forth exactly the considerations we need to be thinking about with regard to the essential question of what to do with "white papers or research papers published under the auspices of a university department or university-based institute but not in a peer-reviewed journal." Your explanation clearly outlines the important role that external peer-review is expected to play in creating wikipedia pages. Thank you. Jellypear (talk) 17:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad the input was well-appreciated! Zad68 01:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Note that the ARBCOM decision spoke of "material published in Anthroposophy related publications". This is not even remotely the case here; the material is published as part of Karlstad University's monograph series. Dahlin is a professor of education with an impressive list of publications on education.
talk
) 14:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Dahlin is "deeply involved" in Steiner/Anthroposophy/Waldorf promotion. He cannot be considered a reliable or even neutral observer. Binksternet (talk) 03:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Crap multi-misuse websites

Here (archive 95, late 2011) is what I think is the most recent discussion of wisegeek.com as a source. Quite why it needed discussion isn't obvious to me; it clearly lacks credibility. Anyway, the discussion -- in which I didn't participate (I first heard of wisegeek.com only today) -- seems to conclude that wisegeek.com is junk.

That had little or no lasting effect. Today, dozens of articles cite wisegeek.com.

Of course wisegeek.com is but one of a fair number of content/essay farms. Consider the little article on Johann Theodor Jablonski. It currently sports five footnotes, each to a different source. The first source is not problematic. Here are the second to fifth:

After my laughter had subsided, it occurred to me that these were such obvious crap that I should simply add

  • wisegeek.com
  • voices.yahoo.com
  • customessaymeister.com
  • directessays.com
  • antiessays.com

to the spam blacklist. But though this stuff is garbage, it's not spammed garbage. Stuff may be added to the list if it simply violates Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. However, this may just mean copyright violations, porn, goatse, etc; I'm really not sure. How about worthless sites that aren't being spammed, whose content won't shock, but that have no credibility and that a lazy, naïve or slow-witted editor could link to in any of a huge range of articles and thereby impress the naïve or slow-witted reader? Can these be added to the spam blacklist, and if they can't, shouldn't they be addable? Or is there some other solution that I am overlooking? -- Hoary (talk) 10:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)... slight alteration 08:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I have to confess to not being familiar with the blacklist rules, but I thought that some low quality sites were blacklisted on those grounds? I'd certainly support adding the above sites, as well as similar sites. Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Here are the blacklist rules. I quote (italics), with my own comments:

Before blacklisting, please consider the following:
1. Does the site have any validity to the project? I don't even understand the question. Perhaps it's "Does the site have material that can be intelligently and usefully cited for articles?" If so, no these sites don't, although there's always the chance that one would want to link to one of them when at some time in the future writing about it.
2. Have links been placed after warnings/blocks? No.
3. Would referring this to our anti-spam bot, XLinkBot be a more appropriate step? XLinkBot seems an unnecessary complication. It reverts the additions of new editors, and perhaps a human should then look at these reversions. And it permits additions by "established" editors, who of course aren't universally good judges of whether or not to add junk sources.
4. Is there a WikiProject Spam report? No. Not spam.
5. Have all other avenues for dealing with the problem been explored or tried?
1. Can the problem be controlled by page protection? No it can't.

And what follows is irrelevant. (It's about deliberate debasement of WP, whereas I'm asking about unwitting [I'd hope] debasement of WP.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I just spent an hour trying to remove wisegeek.com links from articles, and I only barely dented the list. We definitely need to be more proactive in preventing these kinds of sites from being added in the first place so not create so many problems trying to clean them up later. We could also use a bot or special project to remove the ones already there. DreamGuy (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for this tardy response. Yes, there are indeed dozens of links to wisegeek.com: about fifty-three dozen. Removing them will be a lot of work for a team of humans. I'm willing to be a member of such a team, IFF I can be sure that the work will have lasting effect. And the only way to be (fairly) sure of that is, after the links have all been removed, to have wisegeek.com added to the spam blacklist. Problem is, although I am entirely sure that this is the right thing to do, I can't see any justification for it within Wikipedia:Spam-blacklisting. I could of course "ignore all rules", but the history of Wikipedia is littered with cases where people's judgement told them to move unilaterally and they went ahead and the move got clobbered. ¶ I wrote about this matter at Wikipedia talk:Spam-blacklisting but there's been no reaction there and only two responses here. I've therefore brought the matter up at WP:Village pump (policy). -- Hoary (talk) 08:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Is Lady Borton's a reliable sources about the role of Vietnamese women in the Vietnam War?

Lady Borton was an active Quaker member and one of the few Americans to work in both South and North Vietnam during the war. In one of her work, "After Sorrow" the role of Vietnamese women was described, and I want to bring it to the Vietnam War article.--Zeraful (talk) 07:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's a Kirkus Review. The publisher was Viking: OK. In general the book would be a primary source. It's not ruled out as RS, but to get an opinion here you need to tell us specifically what you want to use it for. Andrew Dalby 09:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Concur, but most likely it could be used with attribution.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  10:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
I want to use the section where Lady Borton describe the role of women during the war, from the "nu chien si" (female fighters) that smuggled weapon, supplies and act as the middle-man between VC forces and the populace, and some information about those who work at US/ARVN bases as menial labourers. There's also few more interesting notes about Dong Khoi, but I don't have the time for that now--Zeraful (talk) 12:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't meet the criteria in WP:HISTRS (at least, as currently drafted). Having said that, the points you mention above don't seem to be particularly controversial. What we know from other sources would suggest that women did act in those roles. So use it with attribution unless anyone objects or unless it is contradicted by a solid academic source. You might be able to get extra help and advice from WikiProject Vietnam and WikiProject MILHIST. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Itsmejudith; while that material sounds uncontroversial, it would be better to consult some of the many works about South Vietnamese society during the war rather than this book. Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, it seem that I did not make my point clear here. For the time being, I only want to use Borton's book as a reference for the Woman section in the Vietnam War article, since the whole thing currently didn't have any sources added into it.--Zeraful (talk) 06:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

In that case, it is a improvement to add that source. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I personally question if this memoir is appropriate or suitable to be used as a source, concerning its neutrality. Burton interviews former Viet Cong women about their involvement in the Vietnam War, and elaborated of how they were victimized and caused to suffer by the American and South Vietnamese war effort and glorified them of how they fought against the South Vietnamese and Americans. From the Kirkus Review, this memoir made no mention of South Vietnamese women in their roles in the South Vietnamese & American war effort against the VC/Northern communists, and no mention of their sufferings and victimization by the communists. Burton worked at a North Vietnamese hospital during the War, so its no surprise that her memoir would be written from a communist perspective, based on information she retrieves from the communists (directly and indirectly. Burton even called the Vietnam war as the "American" War in her memoir, which is a propaganda term the VC and Northern regime uses to portray the war as an American-centered conflict and that most Vietnamese, north to south, joined together to fight the Americans, even though this is clearly false as the war was a civil war, with the Northerners and Southerners ferociously fighting each other. Considering all this, if Burton said in a small section of her memoir of how South Vietnamese women worked as menial laborers and nothing else, I found that to be belittling, insulting, disrespectful, and her attempt at denouncing South Vietnamese women in the War. Other readers have similar concerns over this book: [55]. Nguyen1310 (talk) 05:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Not all of this is to the point. We are not interested in Amazon readers' reviews, especially not ones from 1999. It is not all that important that the source takes a side in the war, because all the sources of the period take one side or the other. It may well be the case that Lady Borton is more reliable for the role of women in North Vietnam (and perhaps also the Vietcong), than women in South Vietnam, because she was, as we would say now, "embedded" with the North Vietnam side. The solution would normally be to balance, but I am not sure that we have good sources for the role of women in South Vietnam. I have found this source [56], which looks like an academic source, but not peer-reviewed. It might suggest some links or search terms. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Airlineroute.net

There has recently been an ongoing discussion at

WP:AIRPORTS on whether or not http://www.airlineroute.net should be used as a reliable source for listing new destinations/services for an airline. We are trying to reach to a consensus on whether or not we should use that as a source and the discussion has gone stale or lot of editors are having different opinions about. I don't know if this is the appropriate place to put it or we should continue discussing? Here is the link to the discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Airports#Airlineroute.net.2FRoutesonline.com. Thanks! Snoozlepet (talk
) 20:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

www.eurohockey.net

The National Hockey League maintains an official website www.nhl.com that maintain team and player profiles, game scores, statistics, etc for their league. Clearly it is a reliable publication maintained by the governing body of their respective competition.

My question is whether the website www.eurohockey.net can be regarded equally as reliable as the NHL site. The provenance of their data is unknown and the site describes itself as staffed by "around 50 volunteers"[57]. It seems to be run by a group of amateur enthusiasts and thus may not have the rigor of the official NHL site. --Nug (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Off topic discussion
What is the site being used to reference? Comparing a site about European ice hockey to a site about North American ice hockey is not necessarily useful. One would not expect nhl.com to contain information about the Iserlohn Roosters, for example. Eurohockey.net does to be a fan-run site, albeit a well-organised one. In that respect it does not appear to be a source to be used for contentious material. Notifying the ice hockey project is a perfectly reasonable step (and one that should be encouraged). That project may well have members with information about the fact-checking reputation of the site. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't have information about the fact checking, but I have not had any problems with their data. Often they do mark their reference, such as player transfers. I certainly think they are reliable when it comes to teams, team rosters and player statistics. I am a member of the Society of International Ice Hockey Research. We have a similar database and I have not found any major discrepancies between SIHR and Eurohockey.net. Questioning eurohockey.net on the basis of volunteer input alone would beg the question about Wikipedia too. We are all volunteers here. As for the data itself, I find that you have to check eurohockey.net, eliteprospects.com, hockeydb.com and SIHR for some obscure players, but I would characterize their coherence at over 95%. There will be different spelling of team names across the various sites, but nothing to cause confusion. E.g. some will use HC Dynamo Moscow, while others use Moscow Dynamo. The NHL.com web site is authoritative when it comes to player statistics after 1930 or so. Player names on NHL.com do not use the player's native spelling and do have a few errors (in the tens) in names. They use the english common name for foreign teams also, and sometimes a team is covered with slightly different names. They often don't carry stats for players no longer in the NHL, and are partially covered for players who have been minor league players under NHL contract, but have moved back to Europe, etc. The NHL does not respond to requests for error correction, when SIHR or Wikipedia members have found them. The same applies to the Hockey Hall of Fame web site, which has numerous errors, including the list of years of induction. In conclusion, eurohockey.net is a valuable and reliable resource, certainly one of the better Internet sites. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Requesting opinions on the reliability of Helen Crovetto's "Ananda Marga, PROUT, and the Use of Force"

Resolved
 – In discussion elsewhere the issue has been clarified as to one of accuracy, not reliability. Thanks to all those who contributed to this discussion. GaramondLethe 19:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi all,

We have a question at

PROUT as to whether or not Crovetto[1] is a reliable source. This article was originally published in the peer-reviewed[2] journal "Nova Religio" as "Ananda Marga and the Use of Force"[3] and a revised version (which is at issue here) appeared in James R. Lewis's book Violence and New Religious Movements (OxfordUP, 2011). Crovetto is a recognized scholar[4] in this area with several peer-reviewed publications[5]
despite not having a university affiliation. As best I can tell, this is exactly the kind of citation we want in our articles.

Abhidevananda has called the reliability of this article into question several times, most recently here
. I don't think I can summarize the objections fairly so I'll let the talk page speak for itself.

Opinions from any disinterested editors would be appreciated.

Thanks,

GaramondLethe 20:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


This doesn't appear to be a substantial objection to the unreliability of the source, it's just an unsubstantiated charge of bias. The passage quoted by Abhidevananda which supposedly demonstrates "obvious" bias demonstrates no such thing, and Abhidevananda alludes to other problems but does nothing to substantiate those claims either. Unless a serious effort is made by Abhidevananda to lay out the unreliability of this source beyond a mere longwinded claim of bias, all I see is smoke but no fire, and certainly no reason to toss out a peer-reviewed journal article, which is pretty much the top tier of sources. Gamaliel (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Gamaliel, I apologize for my longwindedness. To paraphrase Blaise Pascal, I would have written shorter, but I did not have the time. This is in large part due to other pressing work outside of Wikipedia. However, just within Wikipedia, I am currently coping with a lengthy debate on the PROUT article as well as six simultaneous AfD nominations by Garamond Lethe (the same person who filed this RSN) on other articles that I did not write but that I do nevertheless believe should be retained (see, for example,
Abhidevananda (talk
) 23:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
If you can't find sources from outside the movement which specifically address the Crovetto article, it's going to be a waste of time to present them here. Your opinions as to her biases are not going to convince us. Mangoe (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, I thought I was being asked to substantiate unreliability. But if everyone here gives no value whatsoever to their own faculty of discrimination - if everyone here only gives value to the opinions of others - then it may indeed be a pointless exercise. Thank you for pointing this out and thereby saving me a lot of time, Mangoe. It may be the first time that someone associated with
Abhidevananda (talk
) 00:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
  • I think Gamaliel has this right. A book published by a university press is reliable unless shown otherwise. You can use a source within the movement to show the movement disagrees with what is said there, of course, but that;s not enough to impeach the source. You'd need outside sources saying that it was worthless or biased on this topic. We're not going to infer it from any contradictions you claim with what the movement writes about itself or even with what others write about the movement. If you want to dispute the source based upon your own synthesis or original work, publish it somewhere, but not in WP. You are however correct that we only include the information or analysis in articles that is provided by other people. We are an encyclopedia, and summarize the positions of all responsible significant other people in published sources, but do not go beyond that.
Speaking of responsible neutral sources, the article now rests almost entirely upon the primary sources associated with the movement; these are good sources to say what the movement says about itself. That does not necessarily define what the movement actually does, intends to accomplish, or has accomplished, all of which must be shown by outside sources. The use of sources in the article is opposite to what it should be: the basic description should come from secondary sources, and illustrated by short pertinent quotations from the movement's own publications. DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

references

  1. ISBN 978-0-19-973563-1
    .
  2. ^ "Submission Guidelines for Nova Religio". University of California Press.
  3. ^ Crovetto, Helen (August 2008), "Ananda Marga and the Use of Force", Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions, 12 (1): 26–56
  4. ^ "Helen Crovetto Award for Excellence in the Study of New Religious Movements with Ties to South Asia". Nova Religio.
  5. ^ Crovello, Helen. "Curriculum Vitae".

Sourcing an entire section - with a citation in the section header?

A new editor has asked me about this, and I don't know the answer... so I am bumping this up the chain... Take a look at our article on Low-energy electron diffraction... specifically the section on "Historical perspective"... I know it is not normal to put a citation in the section header, but is there anything particularly wrong with doing so? (And if there is something wrong with doing so... are there any suggestions on where to put the citation? Blueboar (talk) 02:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Not a good idea. If someone were to add additional information to the section, it immediately wrecks the sourcing trail. Looks like it was inserted by User:Camw here in his/her only edit to the article. Might be a good idea to run it by him/her.
Location (talk
) 05:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC) edited out brain fart 20:28, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
It's actually much older: moved from the text to the heading in 2008, by a user who stopped contributing shortly after. I'll leave it alone for now and try to dig out that source or others when I have time.
So in general, you say sourcing an entire section is not good, I agree. Is there a rule of thumb on how big a chunk of text can be assigned one reference? Or how often should one repeat a reference if it's always the same source? Thanks for your input. — HHHIPPO 07:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
It really depends on the topic, on how developed the article is, lots of things. One sentence to a source is quite normal. Several sources to one sentence is also possible. Two or three sentences and then a source is fine most of the time. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Tax choice

Non-RSN discussion

The following four sources have been removed from the tax choice "Further reading" section. They've all been published by credible organizations and are relevant to the concept of giving taxpayers more of a say on how their taxes are spent. None of the content from these sources has been referenced in the actual article. I've included the editors who removed the sources and their edit summaries.

  • Source: Mae, Brandy. "Choosing Where Taxes Go". Forbes. Retrieved 18 April 2012.
  • Published by: Forbes
  • Removed by: 72Dino
  • Reason given: "with all due respect to her profession, a guest post by a bookkeeper is not exactly an RS on this topic and their is no editorial oversight over a post like this (it's basically a letter to the editor)"

Are these sources suitable to be listed in the "Further reading" section? Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

This is not a suitable RSN posting. Forbes, Analog, TNT, and CTF are, in and of themselves, RS. Two of the items Xerographica wants to post in a further reading section are letters to the editor from non-notable writers. One item is a work of fiction and the tax choice talk page has a section addressing the appropriateness of the inclusion/non-inclusion. The last item (Bird & Tsiopoulos) is tangential to the article page. – S. Rich (talk) 01:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
These organizations are in charge of determining what is "reliable"...and clearly they determined that these individuals were sufficiently "reliable" to publish. Then it's up to us to decide whether the sources are relevant. Clearly you are not disputing their relevance. Well...except for the last one. Given that Rubin removed it 4 minutes after I posted it...I'm certain that he never even read it. How about yourself? Have you read it? --Xerographica (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
The issue you raise is not one of RS.
WP:EL.) – S. Rich (talk
) 02:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
The edit summaries speak for themselves. The issue that I raise is whether the reasons given align with Wikipedia
WP:RS policy. --Xerographica (talk
) 02:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
They certainly do; none of these is appropriate for that section. (And you have a bizarre idea about what vetting publishers do for letters to the editor and op-eds.) --Orange Mike | Talk 02:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
So according to Wikipedia policy, letters to the editors and guest posts are not reliable sources? I read over Wikipedia RS policy...but I must have missed it. Can you copy and paste where it says that? Thanks. --Xerographica (talk) 02:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Editorial commentary, analysis and
statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. As to letters to the editor: I won't dignify that with a response, other than to point out the blindingly obvious fact that the whole point of letters to the editor is that any idiot, lunatic, genius, saint or scumbag may write one, and get it published, according to the whim and/or policy of the publication. --Orange Mike | Talk
02:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

RS is a threshold question – if a source is not reliable, it should not be used in the article text. To compare, please consider

dmoz}} in the EL section. Likewise, musical scores or song lyrics might come from a RS, but they are not appropriate to use anywhere in an article because of COPYVIO concerns. As for your listing of 4 items, they are problematic. If you can find some support for your concerns on this noticeboard (or better yet, on the tax choice talk page), then fine. But I think the best COA is to collapse this RSN posting as off-topic. – S. Rich (talk
) 02:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Orangemike, the quoted policy clearly states that they are reliable sources...with reasonable limits to their use. Everything that an organization publishes is published "according to the whim and/or policy" of the organization. --Xerographica (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I've seen anything quite that rediculous (sp?) on
WP:RSN in some time. — Arthur Rubin (talk)
09:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Collapsing discussion – non-RSN discussion and OP did not notify interested editors. – S. Rich (talk) 13:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Non-RSN discussion? Are you now saying that all of the above are reliable sources? --Xerographica (talk) 14:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Please answer the question. Are you saying that all of the above are reliable sources? If you say that they are then I'll re-add them to the article. If you say that they aren't then please uncollapse this section. --Xerographica (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
1. This is not a proper Reliable Source Noticeboard discussion. E.g., there is no dispute that these are RS, only as to the proper usage of them. The RSN instructions say Please focus your attention on the reliability of a source. 2. You did not notify interested editors. 3. Bringing this up again, when the proper discussion has taken place on
WP:STICK. – S. Rich (talk
) 02:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Actually, some of the discussion is related to whether the sources are reliable, although most is related to whether the the material (not mentioned here) that is sourced is relevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_142&oldid=1142578522"