Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 147

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

I'm starting to get frustrated with explaining reliable sources to someone in an AfD. Can someone please check out

Hello!

An user is attempting to remove Category:Antiziganism in Hungary from the article about the Hungarian political party named Jobbik, on the basis that the provided sources are political opinions by left-wing or Jewish websites and non facts.. The referred texts are sources 14-17. Can you please present your opinion on this? Newnou (talk) 12:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I can only comment on the Lisiak source since one of the sources has a dead link and two are in Hungarian, which I sadly don't know. Lisiak is an academic more or less in the field concerned and thus should be citable for this. It makes no difference if she is of the policitcal left or Jewish. Hope this helps, --Dailycare (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Do the various "Examiner" websites, which are currently I believe blacklisted, qualify as Reliable sources for the purposes of establishing notability? I am referring to the website which includes any number of irregular online editions which go by such names as the Los Angeles Examiner, Sioux Falls Examiner, Kansas City Examiner, and a huge number of others. John Carter (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, i can understand if for whatever reason they would be unreliable, but blacklisted seems too far. I recently attempted to use. Examiner dot com but it didnt let me. Why are they blacklisted/unreliable?Lucia Black (talk) 23:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I should specify that I am thinking in particular about what seems to me to be a huge number of articles, which could perhaps (I haven't checked) not unreasonably be seen as almost a form of evangelization for what seems to be the modern "deist" religious philosophy. John Carter (talk) 00:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Examiner.com is very plainly not a reliable publisher, and there is truly no reason to ever link to it outside of its own article. Before being placed on the blacklist, there was a brief discussion here. I can see one other "Examiner" that was blacklisted, due to a spamming campaign. I don't see any other Examiners blacklisted. There is no blanket prohibition against citing an examiner, just Examiner.com. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• And specific entries can always be whitelisted. There are many Examiner entries that have been. But Examiner dot com should remain blacklisted. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I have an editor who is insisting that Stephen A. Kent is not a reliable source for wikipedia his explanation is here. This is the second time this section has been removed from another editor who questioned the source. I am convinced it is a reliable source, but before it gets ugly I thought I would double check. here is the article

• Kent, Stephen A. (July 1999). "Scientology – Is this a Religion?" (PDF). Marburg Journal of Religion. 4 (1): 1–23. Retrieved March 3, 2013.

Coffeepusher (talk) 01:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The concept of an online-only, peer reviewed, academic journal is hard to wrap my mind around, but is is published by a university, and the Kent article at

Fladrif (talk

) 01:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I actually think your suggestion is closer to

the manual of style when it comes to long quotes than what is currently in the article. I will fix that and make sure to attribute the quote to him specifically within the article and not just rely upon the citation. Other opinions are still welcome.Coffeepusher (talk

) 01:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the Marburg Journal of Religion, but being online-only and peer-reviewed is perfectly normal these days and does not indicate lack of quality. Most commonly it indicates lack of control by some greedy commercial publisher. Kent's article is clearly acceptable as a source, but it would not hurt to say "According to Kent.." when citing it. Zero^talk 11:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

When someone writes an article for a peer-reviewed publication, the expectation is that the article has been fact-checked and that there is clear distinction between facts, opinions, facts about opinions and opinions about opinions in the article. TFD (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Lots of journals are stressing their online editions, and considering this source is from Germany but apparently has an English language audience, it doesn't surprise me that it might opt for online only, as that gets faster distribution. It is published by a university, and seems to qualify as peer-reviewed in some way, so I can't see any good reason not to consider it a reliable source. John Carter (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Kent is an expert source, but considering how controversial the subject is, his statements must be attributed, and are not appropriate to be just used in Wikipedia's voice or in the article lede like you would have it. The lede should say that there are arguments on each side, possibly sketch them out briefly, and refer the reader to more details below, it should not endorse one side. --GRuban (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The statement "Overall, Scientology can be seen as a "multi-faceted transnational corporation that has religion as only one of its many components" is clearly opinion, which is independent of rs. Unless the source says that this opinion enjoys consensus support, it should be attributed in the text. For proper weight, it is best to use a source that presents the different opinions, and explains their relative degree of acceptance. TFD (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

In the Church of Scientology I would say that this particular statement is less problematic since the church does specifically and transparently break off into several transnational corporations to manage both the religious and business sides of the organization, and the fact that this is being discussed on the Scientology as a business page.Coffeepusher (talk) 00:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure most Scientologists, and their supporters, would object to that statement. Therefore, it is problematic, and needs to be given as Kent's view, not as ours. --GRuban (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

In response the the statement "The concept of an online-only, peer reviewed, academic journal is hard to wrap my mind around ..." there are many, as part of the

Stuartyeates (talk

) 10:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

See for instance:

Wikipedia talk:MED#Dubious open-access publishers. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email

) 15:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

http://longstreet.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83542d51e69e2017c375306fc970b-pi

:) --Guy Macon (talk) 02:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I am interested in Prof. Campbell's theories, and would like to subscribe to his newsletter. Resolute 04:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It appears that back in 1917 the good professor was less than happy about this...

Higher resolution version: http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83045396/1912-10-13/ed-1/seq-31.pdf

Letter from William Wallace Campbell about a similar article: http://books.google.com/books?id=GMVNAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA86

Text version of both: http://zapatopi.net/blog/?post=201202207190.the_mammoth_eye_of_mars

THE TRUTH: http://zapatopi.net/blackhelicopters/

--Guy Macon (talk) 09:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely a reliable source. It is as solid of a source as you're ever going to find for this. On par with the Chicago Tribune.[2] Great research! Go with it!

Fladrif (talk

) 16:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

This website describes itself as a news aggregator Does such an organization have editorial control? I ask as it has been used in a BLP to link in a roundabout way to hacked phone conversations. But the article used as a source does not say where it came from, they have not attributed the story from what I can see. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

This is an interesting question. The way I am reading the site is that they do contain some published articles which the editorial board is directly responsible for, while in other cases they aggregate sources from other news agencies. I am inclined to say that it is a reliable source, however reading through that addition reveals some blogs used and should be looked at.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

News aggregators typically have very little editorial control - they grab interesting-looking stories, but don't have any factchecking capabilities. As such, if they're not saying where they got the source from it shouldn't be considered reliable - especially in an article which falls within the scope of

WP:BLP. Nick-D (talk

) 08:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a difference case. Yes, on the whole, News from Bangladesh is an aggregator. However, In the example DS is pointing to where they show the YouTube option, the source is not aggregating. If it were, then the original source would be closed down in Bangladesh. Censorship of any reporting of the Skype video makes aggregation impossible in this example.Crtew (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

An editor and IP recently added reviews from reviewbol. I reverted the edits by IP stating, "Don't think that's a reliable source" [3] since this was the first time reviews from that site had been used. Another editor (User:Girish1inn) added same site's review in Himmatwala which I haven't yet reverted before getting conscious whether to use that site as reliable source. I also asked TheRedPenOfDoom regarding this and he said that although the site's reviews are quality but he dont really know if they have any repute expertise. So, I am here taking the issue, hoping to resolve doubts. Tolly4bolly 12:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

just to clarify my position a little bit. i think it would be a great thing if we had a source like rottentomatoes or metacritic for films from india. i also think that a lot of the sites that Reviewbol is including are reviews that are clearly appropriate (TOI / Hindu ) or are sites that have been determined by the community to be appropriate review sites. However, it also includes sites that i have questions about like Glamsham. But i have no insight on the people behind Reviewbol or their methodology (and they do not have an "about us" link to provide that info) and therefor have some big questions about whether it has the "bona fides" of having a reputation for editorial oversight, fact checking, and recognized expertise in the field to be considered a "reliable source" at this time. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

and i am also concerned about the effects of the spamming of the site across wikipedia in falsely leading a feedback loop of "well Wikipedia considers them an OK source". their utility needs to be established from outside before we use them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: The review aggregators might be cherry picking their words from the bigger review articles. They would not alter the ratings given in numbers, but ratings through words could easily be changed by them. I prefer using original sources just for this purpose. Also, if we are going to quote something, it would be better to provide reference of, say, TOI directly instead of giving ref to such unreliable aggregators. One good thing about this particular site (reviewbol) is that it provides links to the original sources. Use these aggregators as your source of finding other sources. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Is Eurasisches Magazin RS?
• What about this article by Hans Wagner?

Can I use Eurasisches Magazin's articles as reliable sources? And what about that article by Hans Wagner? Thanks.

To back what statement? The German Wikipedia seems to have an article on it http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasisches_Magazin - I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be a reliable magazine; but it is a magazine, while that article seems to be on the history of the Scythians, which I'm sure there are piles of scholarly books on. What's the statement you're trying to use it for, and in what Wikipedia article? --GRuban (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

For

talk

) 16:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The dispute is about whether Scythians should be called "Iranian" or "Iranian speaking" people. Two things tell me this is a POV issue: use of obscure tertiary soures and multiple cites. The correct approach is to find a secondary source discussing the usage of the two terms. TFD (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, it's a hair splitting issue. In that case, since it seems there are reliable sources on each side, we almost always give both sides of the story. "...were an Iranian[ref1][ref2][ref3] or Iranian-speaking[ref4][ref5][ref6] people..." BTW, I hope both sides here realize that there is a strong argument to be made that there is not much of a difference between "Iranian people" and "Iranian speaking people", since any definition of "Fooian people" is always a bit fuzzy (no single government, since that changed, no single region, since they moved, no single ethnicity, since people interbreed quite a bit), and "speak Fooian" is a very large part of that definition. --GRuban (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

GRuban, I agree with you. They are ethno-linguistic terms. Because of sources, maybe it's better to use both.

TFD, your suggestion is good. So you think citing multiple sources with similar views is unhelpful?

And what about the mentioned article (Wagner)? Beside your suggestions, my question is more focused on the reliability of magazine and that article:

• First: Eurasisches Magazin (RS or not).
• Second: Reliability of its published articles is based on authors?
  talk
  ) 19:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Eurasisches Magazin looks OK, and has some scholars on its editorial board, but any journal has to get its reliability in the scholarly world established. This article is an editorial (meaning, simply, it's written by the editor). Unless I'm mistaken, we don't know anything about the editor -- see de:Eurasisches Magazin. So we should (I think) treat this as an opinion piece. Is Hans Wagner's view of the terminology of Iranian(-speaking) peoples either expert or notable? We don't know.

In general, multiple source citations are not useful. What do we expect the reader to do? Count up the footnotes, or hunt among them to see which scholars prefer which name? Either way, it's a cop-out. I agree with TFD: the proper source would be an academic article or book that discusses the terminology. Andrew Dalby 09:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

As an aside, treating this article as an opinion piece (as I suggested just above) would correspond with a fairly common practice among scholars who are editors of peer-reviewed academic journals. They often sign editorials, but, quite generally, they don't publish their own academic articles in their own journal: they submit them to another journal, thus guaranteeing proper peer review. Andrew Dalby 10:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Your first question ("Eurasisches Magazin (RS or not)") doesn't make sense. Sources are not "RS or not". A reputable medical journal is an excellent source for medical information. It is an impossibly unreliable source about poetry. You can't just say "it's RS" about any source. A source is only a reliable source for some purposes. Without saying exactly what you want to use this source for, the only thing anyone can really tell you is "nobody knows". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Editorials are not reliable sources for facts (see

WP:NEWSORG). Although peer-reviewed sources generally express opinions, the facts are checked. Zheek, I think citing multiple sources for the same facts is unhelpful because if we assume rs already are fact-checked. For opinions, it is more helpful to cite facts about opinions rather than opinions, to conform with weight. So a source that says "they are usually called x, but sometimes y" is better than presenting sources that say x and sources that say y, which implies that both are equally accepted. TFD (talk

) 00:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

SOURCE: A book review by Tom Morrow in Reports of the National Center for Science Education.

ARTICLE: Richard L. Thompson

CONTENT: Quoted below.

Thompson was a mathematician who co-authored a book, Forbidden Archeology, reviewing evidence for the existence of anatomically modern humans millions of years before the dates scientists now almost universally accept.

Our article presents a delicious quote (well sourced) from the noted paleoanthropologist Richard Leakey dismissing the book as "humbug."

This is followed by the sentence I bring up here for consideration:

Tom Morrow says that, in what he refers to as a publicity stunt, Forbidden Archeology was mailed, unsolicited, to dozens of paleoanthropologists and that Leakey wrote the above assessment in response to a request for a book blurb.

The statement is true; Morrow does say that. My question concerns the content of what he says (and his credentials for saying it).

Morrow's publisher is the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), an advocacy group self-described as "dedicated to keeping evolution and climate change in the science classroom and to keeping creation and climate change denial out." The Center is affiliated with the rock-solid American Academy for the Advancement of Science. The publication has a well-credentialed editorial board. In short, I would acknowledge it as a WP RS.

Just by way of giving background, though, this is clearly an advocacy publication, not a journal of scientific findings.

To illustrate: An NCSE journal called Creation / Evolution, later merged into the present NCSE Reports, includes a 4-page piece of mockery, in rhymed verse, entitled "What Inerrists Believe." It ends:

It's hubris to think that, by studying science,

God's mysteries all can be known.

One finds revelation through total compliance

To Orthodox clergy alone.

Such faithfulness, our leaders say, is the rarest

Fulfillment a man can achieve,

And I am an Orthodox Bible Inerrist,

And that's what Inerrists believe.

I grant the cleverness of this put-down, and biblical infallibility isn't part of my worldview. I cite this only to illustrate that what the NCSE publishes is not on the level of what we'd find in, say, the Journal of the American Chemical Society.

Now, to the author of the article (a book review). From the "About" copy given for him, he appears to be a layman. That's not a problem.

But by definition a reliable source is someone we can depend on to know what he's talking about. And it seems to me that here Mr. Morrow offers "facts" we can't confidently rely on him to know.

In reverse order:

(1) Leaky was responding to a request for a blurb.

(2) The book was mailed, unsolicited, to dozens of paleoanthropologists.

(3) The mailing was a publicity stunt.

The review offers no references to support any of these assertions. And I haven't been able to find any other source that confirms them.

Regarding (1)--Leakey was responding to a request for a blurb: Such a request, though not impossible, would certainly be strange. And how did Mr. Morrow know? Did he ask Leakey? (Unlikely.) Did he ask Thompson or Thompson's colleagues? (Unlikely.) And did Morrow's publisher fact-check by asking either of these sources? (We have no evidence that they did. And again I'd say: Unlikely.)

Regarding (2)--dozens of unsolicited copies were sent to paleoanthropologists: Though this is not an unreasonable assertion (publishers typically send out review copies), I don't know where Mr. Morrow would reliably get his information.

Regarding (3)--the mailing was a publicity stunt: This presumes that Mr. Morrow knows the motives of those who mailed the book. And how does he know?

Moreover, we have indications that on this point he's wrong.

In a follow-up volume, Thompson's co-author, Michael Cremo, reproduces several letters he sent to scientists who received the book. Typical comment (to the paleoanthropologist Colin Groves): "What I most missed in your 'review' was your opinion on how your own work was cited in the book. That was, after all, the reason I sent it to you." This reason Cremo gives doesn't match the reason given by Mr. Morrow. And it doesn't sound like the stuff of a "publicity stunt."

Morrow even writes, at the beginning of his review, "He [Cremo] mailed a copy of this [follow-up] book to the NCSE because it includes a voluminous rebuttal" to a review the NCSE had published earlier. This sounds more like Cremo was seeking to provoke dialogue than to stage a "publicity stunt."

In fairness, our article says Morrow refers to the mailing as a publicity stunt. And that's true. But the phrasing might lead readers to believe that Morrow's opinion was that of "somebody" -- some sort of authority (a reliable source). But he's just Mr. Tom Morrow. (And other editors have objected to my proposal that we identify him as "a layman.")

In short (my apologies for having been long): Accepting that the publisher and publication are generally reliable, can we consider Mr. Morrow a reliable source for the specific assertions made?

Since the editors for the article differ about this question,

Thank you.

Cordially, O Govinda (talk) 08:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

PS: Our article includes a second quotation from Mr. Morrow I wish to ask about, in which he seems to overstate what his source says. I'll put that in a separate section.

1. Requesting blurbs is very common. It's almost the only way to get them from anyone except the author's close friends.
2. This is very common. We don't care if the source doesn't tell you how they came to this conclusion.
3. Something can be a publicity stunt without every single person intending it to be a publicity stunt. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I think

WP:NEWSORG applies - it is an opinion piece and therefore we should not rely on factual information. I do not see the importance of explaining the circumstances that led to Leaky's comments. TFD (talk

) 05:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, TFD. That makes good sense to me. Cordially, O Govinda (talk) 08:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I have no comment either way on the reliability of this particular source in this context, but I will note that the mere fact that they published one not-so-serious bit of humor should not be taken as license to dismiss the entire journal.

BMJ, for instance, is a high-impact, highly-credible medical journal that devotes one issue per year to humor and spoof articles. (Possibly the single best medical article ever published is Smith and Pell's 2003 BMJ report "Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials".) The extraordinarily prestigious journal Nature now runs one science fiction story – often with a decided tongue-in-cheek tone – in every issue's Futures section. TenOfAllTrades(talk

) 04:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your point, TenOfAllTrades. And thank you for the delightful article from BMJ. --Cordially, O Govinda (talk) 10:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Please check the sources are reliable or not at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/KingsRoad Arghya Roy (talk) 04:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

This article appears to be replete with unreliable sourcing, such as MySpace, performance venues, YouTube, etc. I've tried removing one item but got a vociferous reaction from the original contributor. If anyone would care to take a peek it would be appreciated.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  05:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I took a look and removed that same section, it was several sentences which was based on myspace with playbills to back it up. But you are correct that the rest of the article needs an overhaul.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

1. The Encyclopedia of Christianity, which he claims is RS for this claim.
2. An article about religious terrorism which states, "Most Buddhist leaders in Japan, for instance, distanced themselves from what they regarded as the pseudo- Buddhism of the Aum Shinrikyo sect."
3. A book called Understanding terrorism in South Asia, which he claims is RS for this claim.

See here:

Are these three sources reliable enough to change the designation of Aum from "

For the first and third sources, such a claim would lie outside of their area of expertise, so I wouldn't consider them reliable, especially if they conflict with more qualified expert opinion. The second source is better, but the statement quoted does not support the contention that Aum is Buddhist. I would be synthesis to use it for that purpose. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be DUE to mention its relationship to Japanese Buddhism, and any of these sources would be sufficient to make a very limited claim of a relationship (e.g., "is partly derived from", not "is exactly the same as"). After all, no source is saying that it's completely unrelated, orthodox Buddhists are going to the trouble of dissociating themselves from it, and it's certainly not Muslim, Jewish, pagan, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, there's probably more Christianity in the mix than anything else, but it's such a mix-up that it would be impossible to identify it with any single one of it's sources. Buddhism is at best a minor component. I looked through a couple of sources, and I really couldn't find anything identifiably Buddhist about it. You say it's certainly not Muslim, Jewish or pagan, but it's certainly not Buddhist, either, or for that matter, Christian. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

You deliberately misrepresented the context of the quote from the second source. The source states "This position—that religion is essentially innocent—is supported by many mainstream religious leaders in the faiths in which violent occurs. In these cases they do not explain away the religious motives of the violent activists, but they deny that these extreme religious groups represent the normative traditions. Most Buddhist leaders in Japan, for instance, distanced themselves from what they regarded as the pseudo- Buddhism of the Aum Shinrikyo sect." What the author is saying is that Aum Shinrikyo is a form of Buddhism, but that leaders of larger Buddhist sects in Japan tried to distance themselves from it's violence. 46.7.236.155 (talk) 01:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It says nothing of the sort. If Tibetans believed that "Tibet is innocent" of Aum's crimes (they are) and called Aum "pseudo-Tibetan" (because it is), that would not make Aum authentically Tibetan, no matter how the statement was worded. You are making up claims and attributing them to the author. Shii (tock) 03:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

No I'm not. You need to re-read the quote and stop twisting both my words and the author's words. 46.7.236.155 (talk) 13:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, Blood That Cries Out From the Earth: The Psychology of Religious Terrorism devotes an entire chapter to aum shinrikyo as representing "Violence and Terrorism in Japanese Buddhism" 46.7.236.155 (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

And if you read the book, it says, "While often mentioned in books on religiously motivated terrorism because of its roots in the syncretist Japanese religious milieu ... Aum Shinrikyo relies as much on science, science fiction and idealization of high technology as on religion" (86). Also, that's not one of the three sources you claimed was RS. Are you admitting that you were wrong? Shii (tock) 03:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

No. Are you admitting you're wrong? 46.7.236.155 (talk) 13:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Con you point out where any of those sources explicitly state that Aum Shinrikyo is a form of Buddhism? I'm not seeing it. They may imply, and you may conclude, but that would be synthesis on your part. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The first source states "the radical-Buddhist terrorist cult Aum Shinrikyo released sarin gas in a tokyo subway in 1995" and the third refers to "the Buddhist terrorism of Aum Shnrikyo in Japan." 46.7.236.155 (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to enter a mixed response here. First, if we're answering Shii's question, no, of course those sources aren't enough to define Aum Shinrikyo as Buddhist: The Encyclopedia of Christianity may be a reliable source on Christianity, but surely not all the other world's religions as well, and Understanding Terrorism in South Asia may be a reliable source on terrorism in South Asia, but I don't think that South Asia stretches to include Japan. However, Shii's question isn't the one we should be answering. The question we should be answering is "Should Aum Shinrikyo be mentioned in any way in our article

Violence in Buddhism?" And I think it should, because our readers who are interested in violence in Buddhism will be interested in this. Even though it's not a Buddhist sect per se, it did grow partly from Buddhism ("...basing many of its teachings on compassionate doctrines of Buddhism..."[4] "...combines tenets from Buddhism..."[5]) We should not say it is Buddhist, and we shouldn't devote a huge amount of the article to it, but we should mention it, and say just that. --GRuban (talk

) 15:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, if it is the Encyclopedia of Christianity published by Brill and Eerdmans, it has a really impressive list of article developers, and I tend to myself think that particular source probably does qualify as reliable for most of what it covers, given its drawing its editors from, basically, specialists in their fields, much like Brill's Religion Past and Present. Having said that, I note that the synoptic outline of the most recent Lindsay Jones Encyclopedia of Religion includes the article only in the "new religious movements" section of its synoptic outline. Now, having not checked the specific sources themselves, I suppose I could see that some sort of combination of "syncretic" and "Buddhist" might be acceptable, like perhaps a "syncretic movement of Buddhism and other faiths," but at this point I myself have to agree that unless highly regarded reference sources specifically include Aum Shinrikyo in their content on "Violence in Buddhism" I can't see any really good reason for us to do so. John Carter (talk) 01:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oxford Scholarship Online: "“Aum Shinrikyo: Violence and Religion in Japanese Buddhism.” This chapter traces the movement of Aum Shinrikyo from a yoga and meditation center, indistinguishable from countless other New Age centers in Japan and North America, to a cult that released deadly nerve gas in a Tokyo subway. Various avenues of explanation for this transition are explored, and Aum is compared with other religiously motivated terrorist groups. Aum’s roots in Japanese religion, especially Buddhism, are discussed, and the idea of Buddhism as a purely nonviolent religion is critiqued."[6]
• Religious Violence in Contemporary Japan: The Case of Aum Shinrikyō By Ian Reader "it is important to recognise theat Buddhism and Buddhist motifs were central to Aum's make-up and sense of self-identity, and that Aum's followers believed firmly that they were following a Buddhist path. This is a point that the various members and ex-members of Aum whom I interviewed have been uniformly clear about."[7]
• Buddhist Warfare By Michael Jerryson, Mark Juergensmeyer "Buddhist messianic violence persists in contemporary times, with the latest violent outbreak occurring in Japan. In 1995, Asahara Shoko's Aum Shinrikyo unleashed Sarin nerve gas into the Tokyo subway...."[8]

So are they Buddhist? No. Are they talked about when people talk about Buddhist violence? Absolutely. --GRuban (talk) 13:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Of those sources, the first is to my eyes pretty clearly the best. It would however be useful to know when the individual sources were written. The Brill Encyclopedia of Christianity referenced above, for instance, was if I remember correctly dated 1999 for the English translation. It would certainly be possible that largely Western sources might well misrepresent Aum as Buddhist for whatever reason, at least in the first few years after the major sarin event. Maybe. I doubt it, but weirder things have happened, like, for instance, me. ;) Also, personally, I would think that there is generally an issue regarding duplication of content. Most of the Aum sarin material would probably belong best in an article on violence and NRMs, not violence and Buddhism, although the criticism of Buddhism as purely nonviolent in the Oxford source clearly belongs in the article on violence and Buddhism. I honestly wish we had an article clearly devoted to the major issue of violence and NRMs at this point, but we don't seem to. When and if such an article is developed, the majority of the material relating directly to Aum would probably best be placed there, but, until then, including it in the article on violence and Buddhism would I guess be acceptable, although I would definitely include the qualifiers that Aum is not purely Buddhist (and, if such is said in sources, may not actually clearly adhere to central Buddhist principles, if such is said) in the beginning of the limited discussion of the material in that article. John Carter (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The late Professor Binney wrote extensively about the

I think the problem is that anything material regarding Tuhoe, and especially anything regarding them and Treaty claims, cannot really be verified by Binney's book. If it was, then material could be challenged quite easily; obviously because she has a significant conflict of interest. This makes any material added on these topics (that use only Binney's publications as a source) unverified. I see how this is a problem, especially when communicating it to new editors. I'm not sure what the best course of action is. Maybe a note should be added to the talk pages of the appropriate articles articulating the possible problems with this source. I would be a shame for people to spend a lot of time adding material that may be challenged. - Shudde ^talk 10:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the background to this, but I am uncomfortable with the concept of what appears to have been a well regarded academic historian's work being judged unusable simply because of her involvement with some of the issues she covered. Do any reliable sources argue that her work is now generally considered unreliable or biased? - the NZ Herald and Stuff.co stories you've provided for background all state that the book is well regarded as a work of history and won several prestigious-sounding awards and that Binney was one of NZ's leading historians. Professional academic historians are meant to be able to put their personal views to one side when conducting research, and most do this successfully, so being outspoken on political issues doesn't necessarily stop them from being good historians (eg, Eric Hobsbawm and Niall Ferguson are generally well regarded as historians). Nick-D (talk) 05:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The source sounds reasonable to me as long as it is used with caution and is accurately quoted. The main issue here would seem not to be the source but the use being made of it by a reasonably static (i.e. remains the same for weeks or months at a stretch) IP editor (henceforth "Claudia" after the name she sometimes uses) whose editing behaviour has already been examined here: [12] and here: [13]. Claudia has in the past added material claiming it to be referenced when in fact it is not, as seen with this material [14] cf. the claimed source [15] (note that as well as making claims not found in the source, the whole is deeply racially slanted).

Claudia, the only editor casting aspersions on Michael King is you yourself as you do here [16], just as you make up wild conspiracy theories about other highly respected historians such as Belich as you do here: [17]. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not saying that Binney's publications cannot be used, but I am saying there should be caution when using them in regards to certain topics. That she was a respected historian is not in doubt, however there is a reason that good journals ask authors to declare conflicts of interest. I think it is important that editors are aware of this one. Unfortunately Māori and New Zealand history is not as well covered on the wiki as it could be, and there are only a limited number of sources. This makes relying on single sources more common, but that can raise doubts about reliability. Unfortunately politics can muddle academic work in these areas; so we have to approach with caution. It doesn't mean something is wrong, it just means that we should be sceptical of anything controversial. - Shudde ^talk 14:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• Do any reliable sources actually say that Binney's published works are biased or unreliable? Historians often write scathing book reviews of works they don't consider to be up to scratch, so if there's concerns about her work it should be possible to find reliable sources (including from other relevant experts) to substantiate this. Given that NZ historians might be reluctant to criticise the book, I'd suggest checking reviews in international journals. Nick-D (talk) 22:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• This review is critical of Binney's independence: "Of course, this is a book with purpose. Binney tells us her text was developed from the reports she wrote for the Crown Forestry Rental Trust to support Tuhoe claims before the Waitangi Tribunal." Is that the kind of criticism you're looking for?
  Stuartyeates (talk
  ) 09:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, exactly: it seems to support a position of using the book with great care (nothing factually wrong, but her interpretations of events need to be interpreted critically). Thanks for providing this. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Binney is the foremost historian in the world in regard to Tuhoe and their various issues.If you actually read her work she is very fair handed-often Tuhoe do not come out smelling of roses.To suggest that she be blackballed is beyond incredible! She is an expert. She cant help it if she represents the Tuhoe position very well. Tuhoe can pay who they like to represent them- that is a side issue.It is insulting to her memory to say or infer that she cannot be trusted or is biased. The Treaty of Waitangi Tribunal employ a team of historians-many of them Maori and most of them very inexperienced in researching history especially in the early days of the settlement. The Tribunal is repeatedly quoted as a reliable source. To follow your logic none of their findings should be admissible. Im beginning to wonder who is admissible! In the last few years nearly all historians have been attacked by some group or another on wiki-we cant blackball the lot! YOUR biased POV is amply displayed by the absurd statement that government "faked the transfer of land." That is an absurd statement and just plain wrong.If you read Binney's works you can see how Tuhoe lost /sold much of their land. For instance Tuhoe lost their small coastal strip because they took up arms against the government at Orakau. Then they compounded their rebellion against the government by releasing Te Kooti after having taken him prisoner. Later in the early 1900s Rua Kenena sold huge areas of land to the government to fund his new Ringatu" Jerusalem"in the Urewera blackblocks. He had gathered the names of all(or nearly all) adult Tuhoe in a petition to the government. Rua really made life difficult for himself and his Tuhoe followers when he committed treason by publicly backing the Germans in WW1. If he wanted to avoid trouble with the government why was he running an illegal alcohol still?"Whitemans"" history?????That is just plain racist! What planet are you on? Given a bit of time I can put on page numbers for the Binney quotes from various essays she wrote for the topics mentioned. Next you will be saying that Michael King is unreliable because he never revealed the fact that he was Maori.

I would like to see REASONABLE discussion, not displays of prejudice or ignorance.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.226.243 (talk • contribs) 13 April 2013

• Comment: checking out the claims above, I noticed a number of IP additions to the historian
  Stuartyeates (talk
  ) 09:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Can CNN transcript pages be used as reliable sources? Here is an example of what I'm referring to: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1304/14/fzgps.01.html

Reliable source for what? You didn't indicate which article you're referring to or what the content would be. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

What he said. We need to know what article and what text this is supposed to support. Given the nature of this particular transcript, I'm going to have a hard time imagining anything in it being a source for a statement of fact....but let's see what exactly you have in mind before jumping to conclusions.

Fladrif (talk

) 03:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

It's reliable showing how crappy CNN has become.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I would like to know if this web page [18] could be a reliable source to be used in the [Three storey tower] subsetion of tree shaping. Blackash have a chat 12:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a reprint of a press release from the University of Stuttgart. Therefore, it is not independent of the subject. I wouldn't use it. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

By the way, the source currently used for the Three Storey Tower also seems to be derived from public relations material, namely the article A very special sort of tree house[[19]] in Biopro, which appears to be website dedicated to promoting local research. Try to find reliable INDEPENDENT non-promotional sources. If there aren't any, then we must assume that the topic is not sufficiently noteworthy to warrant inclusion in the article, because we aren't able to assign any weight to it per

WP:NPOV. Dominus Vobisdu (talk

) 16:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for checking this ref and the one in current use. I'll look into finding some good sources for the tree storey. Blackash have a chat 07:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I think this book may be good source. Material Computation: Higher Integration In Morphogenetic Design Architectural Design Here it is talking about the tower. ISBN: 9780470973301 Publication Date: 2012-03-02 Series: Architectural Design Ser. Publisher: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Pages: 144 [20] What do you think? Blackash have a chat 09:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Much better. It's a relaible source. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see dispute at Talk:The Spirit of '43. User:Lx 121 is claiming that this Internet Archive video page and this IMDB trivia page are reliable sources for claiming this cartoon is in the public domain in the article. The Internet Archive video collection is a collection of 1.2+ million user uploaded videos with descriptions provided by the uploading users. The users can state anything they want about the copyright status of the video in the description without providing any evidence. These pages should not be cited as reliable sources as it is the equivalent of citing a Wikimedia Commons page (with even less fact checking). The IMDB trivia page is also completely user contributed, and thus should not be considered a reliable source. My removal of these sources has been reverted twice, so I would appreciate a 3rd party opinion on these. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Neither source is a reliable source for the copyright status of this WWII Disney short. IMDB is based on user-generated content, and thus fails WP:RS on multiple counts. The Internet Archive's statement on the copyright status of this short is anonymous, and lacks any rationale. The copyright status of this cartoon is actually a very complicated matter, which I would not venture to detail here. Suffice it to say that all of the characters are clearly subject to current Disney copyrights; I would find it an astonishing conclusion that, by virtue of the US government commissioning Disney to make propaganda films, that films involving copyrighted characters would be removed from the protection of copyright. This is sufficiently complicated that I wouldn't accept anything short of a court decision directly ruling on this as a reliable source for the copyright status of this short.

Fladrif (talk

) 01:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Faldrif's analysis. This is a rather extraordinary claim and requires a very high quality source. Both of these sources fall short by a wide mile. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

ok, having finally been informed that there is a discussion about this going on here, in addition to the discussions ongoing elsewhere, i am now jumping in.

we need to settle this question: is imdb a reliable source, YES or NO?

& in this case it looks like we also need to settle the question "is the INternet Archive a reliable source, YES or NO?"

frankly i'm surprised @ anyone here questioning the internet archive, because it's cited endlessly on wikipedia & in many ways & contexts.

AND, no it's not "ok" to try & finesse this into a "narrow-band" question; either we accept these sites as "reliable sources", or we do not.

because it is NOT ACCEPTABLE to have a rule that 'SOMETIMES WE WILL ACCEPT THIS SITE AS A RELIABLE SOURCE & SOMETIMES WE WILL NOT (depending on how certain editors/admins feel about it), when it is THE SAME WEBSITE, & it is being used in ARTICLES ON THE SAME TOPIC.'

that makes a 'JOKE' of the entire "reliable sources" rule.

Lx 121 (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

i also wish to note for the record, that my primary dispute is not over te question of whether the film is actually in the public domain, or not. i agree that it's an interestingly tang;led skein.

MY ISSUE is that user-admin kildari has repeatedly removed sourced material from this article, which has been in-place since 2009 (in an article which has seen dozens of edits since then). user-admin kildari does not provide ANY sources to support their position that the information is incorrect, & is relying exclusively on the "unreliable sources" arguement, to remove the information.

"unreliable sources" IS NOT meant to be used as a blunt tool to remove material from articles; the fact that it is being used in this way (by "savy", suggests that it may be time to have a proper cummunity discussion about this rule. that doesn't seem to have happened in a long time, & it looks like such a debate is long overdue.

ADDITIONALLY; user-admin kildari has decided to edit the article to remove the PD claim, AND nominate all the files in its category @ wommons, AT THE SAME TIME; creating the definite appearance that the user is seeking to "shape the facts" @ wikipedia, in order to win the debate @ commons.

whether that was their actual intention or not, THE APPEARANCE OF DOING SO is unacceptable, & an experienced administrator should know better than to "stack the decks" when opening a deletion discussion. to put it more simply, the user should have done these things ONE AT A TIME; either settle the question in the wikip article first, or resolve the issue @ commons first.

probably the user should have settled the point @ wikipedia before moving on to commons.

as far as the commons debate goes, for the images containing copyrighted disney characters (i.e.:donald duck), the user may have a point re: derivative works (except that for "scrooge mcduck" this was a "first appearance"; which complicates things even further...). for the frames not showing any copyrighted characters, it goes back to determining if the film is PD or not.

Lx 121 (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Please do not

wp:SHOUT, it doesn't help at all to convince anyone that your argument is valid. The idea that any website would always be reliable is clearly unsupportable. We recognize that any publisher has publications, authors, and topics for which they either are or are not reliable when cited in support of specific assertions. This is not arbitrary, it is perfectly sensible. In any specific case, arguments can be made here, but the general principles are by now well understood. LeadSongDog come howl!

19:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• IMDB is not regarded as a reliable source (see
  WP:RS/IMDB). Betty Logan (talk
  ) 20:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Betty Logan. IMDB is not a reliable source. Using it as an External Link is fine, and standard practice. It should not, however, be used as a source. I don't care how many times it has been used as a source. See

Fladrif (talk

) 20:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

http://www.mmobomb.com/review/kings-road

No.

Fladrif (talk

) 03:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely not. No even close. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I've commenced an RfC on a three paragraph subsection of

Hello, there is a question about whether Bart Ehrman's recent book "Did Jesus Exist?" is sufficiently notable for inclusion in the article on Oral gospel traditions. Below is the complete citation:

• Ehrman (2012). Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. HarperCollins.
  ISBN 978-0-0622-0460-8
  .

May we have independent verification of its notability or a lack thereof? Thank you. Ignocrates (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

the book itself cannot be used to determine its notability or relevance. That would need to be determined by third party commentary and reaction. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know. That was the whole point of bringing the matter to RSN. Btw, here is the diff of how the source was used to support article content before it was deleted. And here is the talk page discussion associated with its deletion. Ignocrates (talk) 17:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

What I presume TRPoD meant by third party commentary and reaction was commentary and reaction in independent reliable secondary sources, not commentary and reaction by Wikipedia editors on this board. RSN doesn't decide notability questions. What we can decide is that Harper Collins is a reputable publisher, though a popular rather than academic press, that

Fladrif (talk

) 17:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

oops, I posted my comment based only on what turns out to be inaccurate assumption and reading about what the initial poster meant and I had not done the appropriate investigation into the actual article. I had assumed the article contained a listing of various texts on the subject and the question was whether or not Ehrman's should be included on that list. My bad.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Fladriff. This sounds like a weight issue more than a reliability issue. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Sorry if I was unclear. The claims that are being advanced are (1) Christian oral traditions likely preceded and were concurrent with the written gospels, and (2) some of those oral traditions were transmitted in Aramaic. Hope this helps. I understand that determining the proper weight is another matter for another forum, unless of course the weight = 0, which is in essence what I am asking here. Ignocrates (talk) 17:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I would opine that this source is reliable for that purpose. I apologize for not reading the footnotes above more carefully first time through.

Fladrif (talk

) 18:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time. This helps a lot. Ignocrates (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm at a loss to understand what this discussion is doing here. The book doesn't have to be "notable", and Ehrman is used in many related articles without dispute. Paul B (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I know. Nevertheless, the issue was raised on the talk page and I want to put it to rest. Is it fair to say, based on the facts presented here, that this published work is a reliable source? Ignocrates (talk) 18:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The work clearly falls within the realm of "presumed reliability unless the claims are specifically countered in academic sources or need to be placed in context as a minority view by the existence of multiple non-academic but otherwise reliably published voices." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. It helps a lot to have a definitive call on reliability so we can move on. Ignocrates (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to concur: Ehrman is clearly reliable for matters of fact, if not necessarily for his opinions (which he will clearly state as such), and if anyone disagrees they should come to this forum and explain why not. Shii (tock) 11:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

A few points. First, despite Ehrman's reputation as an academic, this source is a popular, not an academic source. Therefore, while it would be acceptable to use it as a source, it is in no way necessarily the best source to use. Academic sources would clearly be preferable, particularly regarding contentious claims. Also, although I have yet to see them yet myself, and my access to JSTOR is through a public institution which isn't open yet today, I believe it would be very reasonable to try to see exactly how this source was received and regarded in academic journals. If the journal views indicate that the book goes far afield on a lot of points, then that should be definitely taken into account as well. I would be very, very dubious about including anything from this source which is not substantially duplicated in some of the other recent academic sources which relate to the subject at hand, and, honestly, I can see absolutely no reason to prefer it to those other academic sources. Without a clear idea regarding which statements in an article this source is to be used to source, as is requested at the top of this page, however, any statements made here can only deal with the broader topic of the general reliability of the source, and support for it being generally reliable should not be interpreted as indicating that any individual statements sourced from it are necessarily reliably sourced. If the specific statements the source is expected to be used to support were to be presented, as is requested at the top of this page, that would be very, very useful. John Carter (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

This "popular" vs. "academic" pseudo-criterion is similar to the "mainstream" (my way) or "fringe" (the highway) arguments I see all the time on FTN. It is completely subjective, and therefore, meaningless for RS purposes. Ignocrates (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I was using "popular" vs "academic" with "academic" meaning "peer reviewed". The distinction and identification of some works as "academic" vs "non-academic" is in fact a criterion that is

expressly specified in the Reliable Source Guidelines. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom

17:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

If "popular" is used in that way, then yes, I agree with you. However, I believe John Carter is saying Bart Ehrman's books are not RS because they are popular. That is just silly. His primary and secondary references are generally just as good as some so-called "academic" books that are far less readable. Ignocrates (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Ehrman is an academic, and most of his books are academic books. About 80% are published by Oxford University Press or Harvard University Press. The dichotomy "academic" vs. "popular" has less to do with actual popularity, but with the target audience and the presence and depth of references. In general, a monograph by an academic like Ehrman, published by a university press, is an academic source, although it is not necessarily peer-reviewed. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd be grateful for comment on the reliability of this site. It lists a large number of medallists in "Art Contests" at the

Well, it's refreshing to be completely, diametrically wrong from time to time. I have now found and read our article on Art competitions at the 1928 Summer Olympics, which seems well-written and authoritative, and to cite a good number of what are quite obviously reliable sources. So I'll use one of those to replace databaseolympics.com, and hope to have provided a little amusement to those who read this. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

In the same article, Richard L. Thompson, we have this:

Tom Morrow, citing an earlier review of the book by archaeologist Kenneth Feder, states that a large proportion of the book is devoted to "absolutely useless" analysis of outdated and poor-quality documentation, in obscure literature, of archaeological specimens that no longer exist.

Reading Morrow's review, this is fairly close to what Morrow says. But our article overstates Morrow's reliance on Feder. Regarding Feder, Morrow only says:

Kenneth Feder frets that these illustrations [of stone tools] are absolutely useless because it is impossible to determine whether these Paleolithic tools are drawn to scale or accurately rendered.

But -- more relevant to WP:RSN -- Morrow overstates Feder. Here's what Feder says:

All of their drawn figures of eoliths are taken from original sources, but not from the objects themselves. We have no way of knowing how accurate the drawings are, and none has a scale. The authors, I am certain, would complain that I am demanding a higher level of proof than I might for evidence that supports the current paradigm, and they would be right. But claiming that this is unfair, as they do throughout their book, reflects a lack of recognition of how science must work. Extraordinary claims have always required extraordinary levels of proof in whatever the field.

Feder does fret about about the scale and accuracy of the drawings. But does he fret that they're "absolutely useless"? Not that I can see. What I see is that Morrow has overstated, in effect putting his own words in Feder's mouth.

Make no mistake: Feder's review is strongly critical. But he doesn't say what Morrow attributes to him.

Reliable source?

Cordially, O Govinda (talk) 08:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

We are not responsible for fact-checking Morrow. For all we know, Morrow spent a week carefully interviewing and double-checking his work with Feder. If Morrow said it, then that's good enough for us to report that he said it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

My apologies, WhatamIdoing (talk). I guess I cut the start of Morrow's quote too short. What he wrote was:

But in his reprinted review on page 103, Kenneth Feder frets that these illustrations [of stone tools] are absolutely useless because it is impossible to determine whether these Paleolithic tools are drawn to scale or accurately rendered.

(The italics are mine.)

Feder, in his review (quoted above), doesn't say what Morrow says Feder says there.

That considered: Can we still consider Morrow a reliable source for his specific statement about what Feder says in his review?

And, to ask a tougher question: If he's unreliable here (and, more than unreliable, if he's stating what isn't so), can we count on him as a reliable source for what he says in the previous section?

Cordially, O Govinda (talk) 09:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Again: we are not responsible for fact-checking Morrow. Morrow gives us Morrow's interpretation of Feder's view. We do not decide whether Morrow's view is right or wrong. We accept Morrow's view as being Morrow's view. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I confess, WhatamIdoing, that here and in the previous section your chain of thought doesn't quite compute for me. But from what I understand, this is a page where we ask advice from more experienced editors, rather than argue. So thank you for your input. Cordially, O Govinda (talk) 08:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

You should have mentioned this and the thread above at the article talk page so that editors watching the article but not this board would know that there is a discussion here.

talk

) 06:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

an editor wants to use an article (an interview) from a hebrew weekly newspaper called "Iton Yerushalayim". all agree that the paper exists. however, there are no online versions of it anywhere. and there are no offline versions either (unless, i suppose, you go to jerusalem and purchase one?). it is not archived in a library (not even in israel).

to complicate matters, the editor wants to use quotes from the interview which were translated by

and to complicate matters even more, the editor is citing as the source an email sent out over a list serve for a university in canada which contains some of the interview as translated into english by memri. and apparently, that same email is "all over the internet" so it is being claimed as being acceptable (since it is all over!) but i think this is just a circular looping issue.

the wikipedia article where it is being used is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiram_Goldblum

the content as placed by the editor is:

In an interview with the Jerusalem weekly Iton Yerushalaym, published on June 8, 2001 during the second Intifada, Goldblum discussed the disillusionment of Israel's peace camp, supported unilateral separation, called for the annexation of 50% of the settlers, and opposed exercising the Palestinian 'right of return'. Among other issues, goldblum said "...What is really important to me is that this should be the state of the Jews, not a mixed state and not a state of all its citizens..."

i have asked for a scan of the original so that others can see it, read it, review the translations, see if anything is missing (or added?), etc. but a second editor has been quite insistent in dissing me and my request. he has said that it is sufficient to only say that the source of the quotes being entered by editor #1 is "iton yerushalayim". i have quoted various wiki rules to follow, but alas, they don't apply, apparently? unclear.

here is the discussion from the wiki article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Amiram_Goldblum#RS_of_list_serve_quoting_memri_quoting_a_hebrew_local_newspaper

oh, and one more thing: this "iton yerushalayim" is used but in only one place in wikipedia, and there are issues there as well. and for that article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magen_Lacholeh - they provided a pdf of the scanned item.

therefore, i am asking here:

a) is iton yerushalayim considered RS? (it apparently is a local weekly sold/given away mostly for its advertising, and not for its articles. but that is a comment made by someone i asked if they know about it).

b) if it is RS, then is it acceptable to use it without seeing the original?

c) is it acceptable to use it with a translation by a group considered not-RS on wikipedia?

d) is it acceptable to use it with a source from an email list (where anyone along the way could've easily tampered with the text)?

thank you. Soosim (talk) 11:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems to be used as references in printed books often enough. [21][22][23][24][25][26] So other reliable sources treat it as reliable. So a) Yes. The answers to the other questions are: it depends. For example, I haven't seen the ink-on-paper original of any of the books I just linked to, yet I'm pretty sure Google Books is providing a reliable scan. On the other hand if all I have is an email from my cousin Herb who insists that such and such a book does say this, then no. --GRuban (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

This source should be avoided if at all possible because it will prove very difficult to confirm what MEMRI has posted. I don't know of any instance where MEMRI has made mistranslations, but it is still a blog. Forgetting the quote, and finding a less controversial source to say a similar thing, will prove helpful to readers. Shii (tock) 10:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

For a newspaper not to be archived in any library is quite astonishing. If it is of the type of local newspaper known as an "advertising freesheet", not reliable. If it is a normal local newspaper then we would need some indication of that. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Soosim says it is not archived in any Israeli library, but I don't think that assertion should be accepted at face value. Especially when a catalogue search of the National Library indicates a set of results. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

yes, nomo, i am lying. thanks for pointing that out. and if you do the search you indicate, you will see that the paper itself is not archived. so, happy, once again, to ask for a scan of the original. and then we can all decide. Soosim (talk) 17:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

By the way, a Nexis search on the term "Iton Yerushalayim" gives a couple of results that indicate the nature of the newspaper. Apparently I'm not supposed to copy the text here, but the results clearly indicate a serious newspaper. (Which is very much in line with the recollections I have of reading it in the 1990s; I know that personal impression won't count for much here, but the Nexis results will.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

And: a Gbooks search using the Hebrew "עיתון ירושלים" also gives a good many results that would be difficult to reconcile with the idea that this is an "adverting freesheet". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• Fladrif (talk
  ) 15:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I admit to disbelief of the assertion that no copies can be found anywhere. It's a real newspaper, that authors of reliable published books rely on for references, as has been demonstrated by the above links. Clearly they found their copies somewhere. The specific article in question has been quoted from, online, translated, in multiple reasonably reliable sources: Israel Academia Monitor Our Jerusalem. Clearly these sources found it somewhere. The original poster's objection seems to be that he, personally, couldn't find it, though, of course, he didn't look in Jerusalem. Following that logic, we might exclude all Egyptian newspapers, since I personally have never read any, so I doubt that any exist. Though, of course, I never looked in Egypt, and I scoff at the suggestion that I should. --GRuban (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

It does seem implausible that this newspaper isn't archived in any library anywhere. It doesn't look like issues from that specific year are included it the archives shown above, but perhaps I am misreading those search results. I suppose that it might be archived by the newspaper itself. Someone interested in this as a source should inquire about that. I thought for a moment that the two sources GRuban mentioned above might suffice, but neither of them look like that would pass

Fladrif (talk

) 15:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

a few comments if i may: it does exist. but not online or even in the israel national library at hebrew university in jerusalem. as for the multiple RS which are quoting it - they are all relying on one version of a translation. (see wp:circular, no?) why can't the editor just produce the original interview (of himself!) and then all will be solved, no? Soosim (talk) 15:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

But how would he do that without violating copyright (which he surely does not hold)? Anyway wp:circular is not relevant here -- the translations are not relying on a Wikipedia mention. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

well, nomo, a couple of things. if no one can see the article (due to copyright issues, as you say), then i guess you have to apply wp:v. also, circular as a concept - not a specific. think outside the circle. Soosim (talk) 06:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It has already been demonstrated that this newspaper has been used by the authors of a number of books. You might not have succeeded in finding it, but it is clearly findable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

How is the specific article in this newspaper "findable" if it isn't archived anywhere? It doesn't matter if someone can walk up to a news kiosk in Jerusalem and buy a copy of today's paper. It doesn't matter if different articles are quoted in books. Where does anyone find a copy of the specific interview in the June 8, 2001 edition, either in-print or on microfilm or digitized? I haven't seen an answer to that question. The two sources cited above which reproduce the article are not reliable sources. The links to library archives cited above don't appear to encompass that date range for this newspaper. Unless somebody can answer that question, this source fails

Fladrif (talk

) 20:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how you're going to decide that an entire newspaper fails

WP:RS

because a single editor says he can't find a single edition of it. The fact is, one editor (the one who added the material) does have a copy of the interview, and there is good reason to think that it says what is being quoted from it, given that a translation by MEMRI has been circulated on multiple email lists.

Perhaps it's time to provide some background. Soosim, the editor complaining here, evidently dislikes Goldblum's politics (a point apparent in Soosim's editing elsewhere in the I/P area) and has been antagonising him for months by stirring the shit on this article. We don't have to worry about that in our own deliberations, but it helps explain why Soosim is being such an ass about this issue even though there's no reason to doubt that the interview actually says what our article says it does. I suggest that we consider this issue not only in formalistic ways but in connection with the substantive question: is there reason to doubt that the interview actually says what our article says it does? The newspaper itself is fine for

WP:RS -- that's what this board adjudicates. Nomoskedasticity (talk

) 04:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

But there has been a plausible suggestion: approach the newspaper itself. And I certainly don't think we've exhausted the list of possible suggestions. Soosim hasn't succeeded in finding a copy -- so what? What I'm suggesting above is that he is more interested in causing trouble than in editing the article constructively, so I don't find much of value in his lack of success. In any event, this is exactly the sort of thing covered by

WP:SOURCEACCESS. No one disputes that the article exists (and there is even a good way to know what it says). Nomoskedasticity (talk

) 15:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Then, I would suggest that those editors interested in including this material contact the newspaper, get a copy out of its archives, get permission to post it on

Fladrif (talk

) 15:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

But the burden of making a source accessible to others is not on those arguing for inclusion. That is the opposite of what

WP:SOURCEACCESS indicates. If Soosim is genuinely convinced that there are doubts as to whether the interview says what is reported in our article, then he is welcome to get a copy. (And if it then works out that Rastiniak has deliberately misrepresented it, he can suffer the consequences, e.g. at ANI.) Nomoskedasticity (talk

) 16:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

ah, nomo, sourceaccess says "Other people should in principle be able to check that material in a Wikipedia article has been published by a reliable source." - but there is no way to check. we are not talking about 'ease of access', but rather, access itself. again, i am only asking to see the article. habeus pagina Soosim (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

If you're going to repeat yourself ("no way to check"), I'll be happy to do the same. The only conclusion we can draw here is that you're not trying hard enough. And I'm not sure you understand what "in principle" means. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

nomo - really? whatever happened to

WP:NPA? (not the first time you have done this to me and to other editors, even in the past few weeks. why are you being rude?) and by your logic, i should love to be able to quote from the interview since it paints goldblum in a bad light. not sure what you are trying to hide here? Soosim (talk

) 05:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The issue is whether or not this article [27] is an RS. It is used to support the following statement in the

In the article, she outlined many of the measures that Republicans would later push through the House of Representatives, including

fetal pain

laws, and the effort to defund Planned Parenthood.

I'll quote here my concerns as stated on the War on Women talk page:

My biggest concern over this article is with its tone. There are plenty of things one can say about Randall Terry while sticking to facts. Terrorist is not one of them. And the article says that a Democrat held up health care reform in order to extort certain demands. And pro-lifers are repeatedly referred to as forced birthers. To turn things around, suppose that an article referred to the Democratic party's racist decision to filibuster Miguel Estrada, Planned Parenthood as baby killers, and said that Obama was closing air towers as part of the sequester in order to extort additional spending from Congress. Would that be an RS?William Jockusch (talk) 14:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It's just an opinion piece as far as I can see. It's clearly hyperbolic. It starts saying that a "war is coming" and then the next sentence is: "Congressional Republicans have already made clear that their top priority, once they take control of Congress in the next session, is to make sure President Obama is a one-term president." Wow, so Republicans were trying to ensure that a Democrat would not be re-elected. You mean thay wanted their own candidate to be President?! The fiends! Next we'll be told that the "top priority" of the Democrats was to stop them. It's just the opinion of the author, usable if her view is notable. Is it being used for factual statements? The actual facts referred to in the article are sourced to other newspapers and policy publications of various kinds, which, IMO, should be used in preference. I assume that the article's mentioned because the title uses the phrase "war on women". It's properly attributed to the author. My only problem with the sentence itself is the implication that the author correctly predicted Republican plans, which implies some sort of powerful predictive insight on her part, though it really says nothing that was not public knowledge. Paul B (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree with the original poster; this source is clearly partisan and hyperbolic, and thus it should be used carefully, if at all. Additionally, it initially appeared in Daily Kos, a partisan blog. In general, we should avoid relying on partisan blogs wherever possible, except in very carefully limited and attributed settings. Surely there are better encyclopedic sources than this covering the topic, which was after all a major theme/talking point in the 2012 election? MastCell ^Talk 15:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

A couple of observations that have nothing whatsoever to do with tone. First, the cited source is not a news organization; it is an advocacy group aggregating stories from other sources, and specifically says that the opinions expressed are those of the authors. So, the editorial oversight would appear to be limited to deciding what articles to include or not include, and doesn't involve fact-checking, etc. So, I wouldn't regard rhrealitycheck.org as a RS as a general matter. Second, the real source is DailyKos, from which the article was reprinted and where the author is one of the regular bloggers. If we were going to cite the article, that is the source I would cite. DailyKos and similar sites of all political persuasions have been discussed here many times before. Generally, these don't pass RS muster. Third, the article is an opinion piece, as noted above. Generally, we don't use editorials and opinion pieces as sources for statements of facts. They can, however, be used with attribution to support a statement regarding the author's opinion on the subject, if the author and their opinion is sufficiently notable. Kaili Joy Grey probably doesn't rise to the level of notability that her opinion is automatically something that we are going to be reporting in an Wikipedia article. If this particular article, however, is something that has been extensively picked up, repeated and commented upon in reliable sources outside of the blogosphere, then it might rise to the level that it would be appropriate to include. I haven't looked at whether it has been or not. If somebody can show that this is getting extensive coverage elsewhere, post some links.

Fladrif (talk

) 15:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The sentence under discussion is in a section called Development of the term. It's entirely appropriate to discuss use of the term in partisan sources, and rhrealitycheck.org is a RS for their own articles.

Stuartyeates (talk

) 21:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I did not suggest that this source is excluded on the basis of partisanship, but on the basis that the original source is a group blog, and that the author is not a notable person who would meet the exceptions of

Fladrif (talk

) 13:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Surely one issue is whether it is being used as a source for information or as an example of the phrase. I think the current phrasing pushes it towards the latter, but that it could legitimately be used for the former. In a sense, it's like saying "Hitler used the phrase 'Jewish menace' in Mein Kampf, claiming that Jews sought to control Germany" (footnoted to p. x in Mein Kampf) as opposed to saying "Hitler pointed out the existence of the Jewish menace and explained their plans to control Germany" (footnoted to p. x in Mein Kampf). At the moment the sentence says "In the article, she outlined many of the measures that Republicans would later push through the House of Representatives, including personhood laws, fetal pain laws, and the effort to defund Planned Parenthood". I think that comes dangerously close to presenting her argument that there is a real 'war on women' planned by Republicans, as if the article were an RS on that topic. If it were rephrased to, say, "In the article, she linked the alleged war to proposed legislation including personhood laws, fetal pain laws, and the effort to defund Planned Parenthood" that would be less biassed. It could also serve to clarify how the term is used by its proponents, which is what the sewction is about. Paul B (talk) 13:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I looked through the edits of Bacliff, Texas and found that an editor removed unflattering information about the community saying that the article was an opinion piece. See Special:Contributions/Bayshorebabydoll - The first edit summary is "Removed information associated with the Houston Press article, which is an opinion piece and not based on fact"

This is the article content in question:

• Bacliff,_Texas#Crime - It had been removed before by drive-by editors. Diff
• Bacliff,_Texas#Demographics Diff
• Bacliff,_Texas#Geography and climate Diff

This is the source in question:

• Gangsters in Bacliff - Houston Press

The Houston Press is a weekly alternative paper under the Voice Media Group (previously under the Village Voice Media). Bacliff is within the Houston area and would be in this paper's realm of "expertise." This article is not labeled as an opinion piece and it was indeed published by the Houston Press. From my understanding the paper has not retracted anything it has said about the community.

There is another article published by the same paper on the same subject.

• Bacliff Wiggers - Houston Press

Would anyone mind confirming that the source is/is not an "opinion piece" or adding insight into the use of this source? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the Houston Press in general, but the Gangsters in Bacliff article sure looks like straight reporting to me. I see no sign that it is an opinion piece - neither in style, content, or via the section is was published under. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok. In the meantime [Reworked History section with information taken Texas State Historical Association and Galveston County museum, began updating outdated census information, removed non factual content the user again removed unflattering information], saying that the Houston Press source is non-factual (edit summary says "Reworked History section with information taken Texas State Historical Association and Galveston County museum, began updating outdated census information, removed non factual content"). WhisperToMe (talk) 22:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It's an investigative report. Your text should make it clear (within the body) that it's a report by staff writer John Nova Lomax.

talk

) 23:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

In that case, the citation in the article already included (see diff because the Babydoll user has removed the Houston Press citations from the article) the journalist's name, the article title, the date published, and each individual page number. Another user back in 2010

nom de plume of someone else, the article is still published by the Houston Press. WhisperToMe (talk

) 00:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

It's now shifted to a discussion page:

WP:V in my reply. WhisperToMe (talk

) 02:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment at: Talk:Gun_control#RFC:_Section_on_Association_of_Gun_control_with_authoritarianism

Is the section "Associations with authoritarianism" in Gun control neutral? An editor has suggested that:

• the section is too long
• the section is poorly sourced (e.g. one source is the website of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Protection, another source is Lethal Laws: Gun Control is the Key to Genocide-- Documentary Proof that Enforcement of Gun Control Laws Clears the way for Governments to Commit Genocide, published by Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership)
• the section exists in order to imply
  guilt by association
  about gun control
• the section includes extraneous, selective factoids, such as
  • an anti-gun control statement made by a non-notable Holocaust survivor, which is in the article in order to "balance" a pro-gun control statement by a notable Holocaust survivor
  • various selected studies done by anti-gun control groups which "prove" the association of gun control with authoritarianism (here primarily meaning Nazism). — goethean 12:54, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Why is this at RSN? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Neutral is not what RSN does. What RSN can do is help decide if the JPFP website is a reliable source. It isn't. Next question.

Fladrif (talk

) 13:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The section uses a great many reliable sources on all sides of the issues - singling out that particular one is odd - especially since the New York Law Journal published an article covering much of the same territory without the baggage of the group. Collect (talk) 23:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Occidental Observer, would this publication be considered a reliable source for anything? Specifically recent additions and changes to American Freedom Party, the addition of "white nationalism" where all reliable sources describe them as "white supremacists". On their own site they (O.O.) state : "We reject labels such as “white supremacist” or “racist” that are routinely bestowed on assertions of white identity and interests as a means of muzzling their expression."[28] So, can this biased publication be used to "whitewash" and hairsplit Wikipedia coverage of racist groups? Heiro 05:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

No. The sourced used is a letter from the an AFP board member.[29] It is an unduly self-serving claim that, by it's own admission, contradicts what reliable sources say. Thus, it fails

WP:ABOUTSELF. Dominus Vobisdu (talk

) 09:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The Occidental Observer is a reliable source, but in this case it cites an AFP member, which is not ok. There are other sources, however, which are proper, as the Independent Political Report. --Jonund (talk) 07:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

No, it isn't. It's just a reprint of a press release from the party itself. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, no, the Occidental Observer is not remotely RS in general. It's a racist blog, no matter how pretentious is tries to sell itself. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

 – All editors other than proposer unanimously agree that Cracked is not a reliable source.

Fladrif (talk

) 13:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Would Cracked.com be considered reliable? Yes, it is a humor website, but its information is accurate and I'm pretty sure that the writers are professionally employed by the website. I am considering mentioning the fan theory detailed here [30] in the

Er - no. I don't see any reliable source going to Cracked.com as a source of reliable critical commentary about anything; especially not that article. It's a humor website, and that article is a list of unattributed and admittedly "insane" fan theories; stop there. Ask yourself, if the author of that article completely made it up from whole cloth, himself, that day before breakfast, would Cracked's reputation suffer in the slightest? No. --GRuban (talk) 19:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• I can't see where that article would be reliable for anything. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Well the author did not make up the theory (I first came across it several months before the Cracked article was published) and I can't think of any time that the website contained misinformation. In fact, the website has several articles on serious topics that are actually quite informative. Just because they are written in a humorous manner does not make them unreliable. Is Cracked as highly esteemed of a reference as Time Magazine or the Washington Post? No, of course not. But it is a professional website, that employs a paid staff to write its articles. Obviously, it would be ridiculous to use the site as a reference on major world events, science, history, etc. but I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be used for pop culture topics. --Jpcase (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Quite simply: not a RS; if you believe they are getting their info from reliable sources, then find these sources and use them directly.

talk

) 21:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hgilbert - Why are they not a reliable source? I am willing to accept that they aren't, but only if someone gives me a good reason. So far, the only reason I can see is because their primary intent is to entertain, instead of to inform. But that does not change the fact that they are a professional website that contains informative, accurate articles, written by professional writers. --Jpcase (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Good question. Read

Why do you say that there is no attributed author? The article was written by M. Asher Cantrell and Mohammed Warsame. Cantrell has also been published by mentalfloss.com, Film School Rejects, and thesmokingjacket.com. I'm actually not entirely sure what you mean by "peer review" (sorry for my ignorance) but according to this [31], the website does have editors who decide on what gets published. --Jpcase (talk) 21:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a comedy and satire site, not a news organization. It does not have a reputation for fact checking and editorial control. It does have a reputation for publishing things that are deliberately false, for satirical ends. Same as The Onion. I assume that Hgilbert meant editorial review rather than peer review.

Fladrif (talk

) 13:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The website does have editors though and it is very different from the Onion. Yes, they are both humor websites and yes, Cracked does include a lot of jokes and sarcasm in their articles. However, I have never come across an instance where the website presented misinformation. Take this article for example [32]. There is a lot of true, interesting information in there and anything "untrue" that they say is an obvious joke. Now, I would never suggest using that article as a reference for say, the life of Andrew Jackson, since there are countless other articles that could be used and a more scholarly one would certainly be more appropriate to the topic. In the case of a children's cartoon series though, there aren't as many available references and personally, I don't feel that the topic demands one that is written in a serious style, as long as it comes from a professional source (which it does) and the content that it contains is accurate (which it is) --Jpcase (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll show you some instances where the website presents misinformation. It's not hard. First link right off the front page of http://cracked.com: "You might be a zombie". No, I'm pretty sure I'm not a zombie. Here's another: "4 'Superpowers' Everyone Thinks They Secretly Have" - Actually, I don't actually think I have any of these superpowers. http://www.cracked.com/video_18415_3-weirdly-specific-things-that-happen-in-every-movie-trailer.html No, they don't. These articles aren't meant to be taken seriously. Just like yours. --GRuban (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

You Might be a Zombie is the title of a book containing a collection of articles, none of which are actually called You Might Be a Zombie. Rather, it contains articles focused on non-fiction topics, such as misunderstandings that occurred during the Cold War and the quirks of past U.S. presidents. The "superpowers" referred to are not actual superpowers; hence why the word is enclosed with apostrophes. That article simply discusses things like people believing that they can influence the outcome of a sports game by performing certain rituals. "Everyone" and "every" are hyperboles. Cracked did not literally mean every single person and every single movie trailer. They just meant a lot. --Jpcase (talk) 01:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, an Internet meme that no source more reliable than Cracked has seen fit to comment on is not a notable aspect of Ed, Edd n Eddy by Wikipedia standards. - Cal Engime (talk) 01:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

You don't think so? By what criteria are you basing that judgment on? Whether the fan theory is notable enough to include in the article or not is really a separate issue though. My main question is whether Cracked should be considered a reliable source. Again, I am willing to accept that they may not be, but so far, I do not feel that anyone has given me a reason. --Jpcase (talk) 01:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Not reliable - no evidence of fact-checking and the fact that its written in a sarcastic (for humor) tone, it's difficult to judge when they are using humor and stretching the truth, and when they are legit. That said, I've seen information from a Cracked article, asking myself "is that true?" and finding a RS that confirms it. That doesn't infer anything on Cracked, just that until you're talking about Cracked's opinion pieces , any data of encyclopedic value can likely be confirmed from other sources. --MASEM (t) 01:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I feel that it is quite obvious when Cracked is using humor. Can you provide an example of an instance where it is unclear whether they are making a joke or presenting actual information? You are right that much of the information on Cracked can be found in other sources, which is why I feel that the website should only be used as a reference as seldom as possible. Some topics on Wikipedia however, such as cartoons, unfortunately lack a wide selection of sources to choose from. In these instances, I do not see why Cracked could not be used, especially if these topics are of a less scholarly nature, as is the case with Ed, Edd n Eddy. --Jpcase (talk) 02:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The information on Cracked is often surprisingly accurate, but you could make the same argument for citing Wikipedia itself, and the very fact that we've all checked information we read in Cracked shows that none of us considered it a trustworthy source of information. It may have editorial oversight and millions of readers, but it does not have a reputation for fact-checking or accuracy, and the authors are not authoritative in relation to Ed, Edd n Eddy. It's a comedy site, and its only source is a submission to Know Your Meme that "is currently being researched & evaluated". - Cal Engime (talk) 02:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that it is fair to compare Cracked to Wikipedia, since it is written by professionals and as you yourself mentioned, has editorial oversight. What exactly would make an author "authoritative" in relation to Ed, Edd n Eddy? One of the authors has been published on multiple, professional websites. Does that not give him the qualifications? I am unfamiliar with Know Your Meme, so I am not sure what "currently being researched and evaluated" means in this context, but if it simply means that the fan theory has not been proven to be official, than that is irrelevant. The whole point of a fan theory is that it is not official. Cracked is not saying that the theory is true; it is just saying that the theory exists.

Just because lots of people decide to check other sources to verify claims made on Cracked does not mean that the website is unreliable. Theoretically, lots of people could decide that the New York Times is unreliable and look for other sources to verify all of its claims, but that would not make it unreliable by Wikipedia's criteria. The strongest argument against using Cracked as a reference seems to be that they do not fact-check. What exactly is meant by this? If you simply mean that they do not include sources for their information, than actually, they do fact-check. Look at this article [33]. Just briefly glancing through it reveals that they have included articles from the

Science Daily as references. --Jpcase (talk

) 03:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source to use a BLP article to defame the court?--FreemesM ^(talk) 17:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

It appears to be a reliable source - a real magazine, and not just a blog. The statement from Rahman's attorney printed in that source is sufficient for the purpose it is being used for in the article - that Rahman claims that he was tortured by police. I am at a loss to understand why you think that is defaming the court.

Fladrif (talk

) 17:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Fladrif, this part seems odd to me In Bangladesh it is very common practice to claim torture by police at custody, specially for political persons. More over the whole article seems biased to me. As there are few good reason to capture MR, as he was spreading religious instability by publishing fabricated news. But most of the article is engaged in blaming government! That's why I want to check the authenticity of the sources. Thanks again.--FreemesM ^(talk) 19:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Question, is this source a

The convention is the largest of its kind in the Americas and the fourth largest in the world after the Comiket in Japan, the Angoulême International Comics Festival in France, and the Lucca Comics & Games in Italy.

It was added here, and this is the source:

• Ylenia Caioli (November 5, 2012). "Lucca Comics and Games 2012: record visitatori con oltre 180.000 presenze!". Obiettivotre (in Italian). Retrieved April 4, 2012. Lucca – Oltre 180.000 presenze in soli 4 giorni: Lucca Comics and Games 2012 ha battuto ogni record.

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd say no, and even without checking whether Obiettivotre is reliable for the statement - the problem is that the source cited doesn't say that. The source doesn't mention San Diego Comic-Con at all. So it's

synthesis to put together a bunch of figures from different sources and come up with an ordering of "cons of its kind". Even if we believe all the sources, we don't know whether they're counting the same way. --GRuban (talk

) 21:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

In the Rudolf Steiner "Talk" page discussion about the category designation "pseudoscientists", Tgeorgescu writes (in response to hgilbert): "You say that his status as a pseudo-scientist would be controversial. Controversial according to which sources? Anthroposophical press and books cannot be taken in consideration, since they are considered self-published, per ArbCom...This means that anthroposophists cannot be considered part of the controversy. A controversy has to exist among independent, mainstream academics who live by publish or perish."

This author does not define "anthroposophists," but I imagine it is used to mean people who are interested in and generally sympathetic toward Rudolf Steiner and his work (anthroposophy). Therefore, if there is a controversy among academics about whether Steiner is a pseudoscientist, it must at least two sides: "anthroposophists," who would not call it pseudoscience, and "non-anthroposophists," who deem it pseudoscience. To exclude "anthroposophists" excludes one side of the controversy. By definition it rules out a fair assessment.

Therefore I propose that, in general, "anthroposophical" authors be included in any assessment of controversy concerning Rudolf Steiner's work, such as the present question of whether he earns the label "pseudoscientist". (The normal criteria for judging sources -- such as treating academic sources as generally more reliable -- would still apply.)

As an aside: I also question whether it's useful to speak of "anthroposophical" and "non-anthroposophical" sources, if other criteria of reliability are borne in mind. To the extent the "anthroposophical" distinction can be made meaningfully, unreliable sources can be found in both groups.

Specifically, concerning the question of the "pseudoscience" label, I submit that there is a controversy, and I provide the following examples of academics who would not characterize Steiner as a "pseudoscientist":

1. Arthur Zajonc: "As long as the observations, experiments, and thinking of natural science remained strictly objective, Steiner felt that no conflict could arise with spiritual science. Often, however, natural science extends its reach beyond its observations, refusing a place for the spirit. Such a position was, to Steiner, philosophically untenable and morally bankrupt. He felt the time was ripe for a spiritual science that could move from sense phenomena to spiritual phenomena without lapsing into vague mystical utterings. He rejected the then-fashionable approach of spiritualism and psychic research as simply a displaced materialism of the spirit, and sought rather to follow Goethe's scientific methodology, which implied the development of organs of congition suited to every domain of experience, including domains of the spirit." (Zajonc, Arthur (1993). Catching the Light: The Entwined History of Light and Mind. New York: Bantam. p.219)
2. Bo Dahlin: "Steiner, in contrast, argues explicitly against materialist ontology while at the same time acknowledging the results and possible usefulness of neurophysiologic research. Steiner never denied the dependence of consciousness and ordinary mental processes on the brain. However, he interpreted it differently from reductive materialism. He often resorted to the metaphor of the mirror to illustrate the nature of this dependence....This interpretation is easy to harmonize with known empirical facts pointing to the loss of mental functions as a result of brain injury." (Dahlin, Bo (November 2009), "On the Path Towards Thinking: Learning from Martin Heidegger and Rudolf Steiner", Studies in Philosophy and Education 28/6: 545-546.)
3. Henri Bortoft: "Goethe spoke of the particular individual plant as being a 'conversation' between the living organism and its environment. This metaphor draws our attention to the plant's active contribution to the form which it takes in specific conditions, emphasising the fact that the individual expression of the plant which we see is the outcome of the active response of the organism to the 'challenge' posed to it by the environment. This is stated very clearly by Steiner: 'We must conceive at a deeper level than the influences of external conditions something which does not passively allow itself to be determined by these conditions but actively determines itself under their influence'." (Bortoft, Henri (2012). Taking Appearnce Seriously: The Dynamic Way of Seeing in Goethe and European Thought. Cornwall: Floris. p.78)

Other examples could be provided, but I believe these are enough to show that Rudolf Steiner's "status as a pseudo-scientist" is indeed "controversial" among academics who have studied his work. Hence the category designation "Pseudoscientists" on Wikipedia's "Rudolf Steiner" page is controversial and should not be applied. Those who would stand by that label should perhaps express their point of view in the body of the article, with proper citations, rather than as a category designation. --Macam14 (talk) 00:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know the context of these quotations, but none of them seem to be asserting that Steiner's views are legitimate science. They are either placing him is a cultural and intellectual context, or saying that his view about the limits of materialism is philosophically defensible. Goethe, whose views on plant morphology are referred to in the last quotation, was certainly considered a legitimate contributor to science in his day, but his views are entirely obsolete. It can be difficult to be clear about the distinction between obsolete science and pseudo-science, as obsolete views can look "mad" in hindsight. In the case of Steiner we would need commentary on the place of his thinking debates of the time, and the extent to which it was taken seriously within mainstream science of his day. Your initial argument that both sides of the debate should be included seems to me untenable. By your logic, we could never characterise a view as pseudoscience, since we'd always have to accept that supporters of the theory - however marginal they were - wouldn't characterise it as such. So there would inevitably be a "debate" or "controversy" with two sides. If you can show that Steiner and his supporters have been or continue to be taken seriously by legitimate scientists then there is a real controversy. Paul B (talk) 00:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

First of all, Steiner was primarily a philosopher and social critic. He never claimed to be a scientist in the sense it is meant here, the natural sciences, and to assert that he did because he called what he did "Geisteswissenschaft" is to misunderstand the German word "Wissenschaft", which is used to describe many fields we would not include in science. For example, Rechtswissenschaft refers to the study of law, Geisteswissenschaften to the humanities, etc.

He did, however, make various claims about scientific ideas; his ideas about medicine are particularly controversial. But homeopathy looked much more promising in Steiner's time, than it does now...according to Wikipedia's

talk

) 02:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The "time" referred to in that quotation is the early 19th century, with reference to the cholera epidemics of the era: at the birth of homeopathy. By Steiner's lifetime Pasteur, Koch etc had transformed medical understanding and treatment of cholera, so the quotation is wholly inapplicable. Paul B (talk) 10:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

--Macam14: the links [8] - [10] from the quotes 1-3 seem to be inoperative. Can you fix so that we may see contexts? Agree with hgilbert, and note that this section is a continuation of "Categorization" which has now gone to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive146[34]. Qexigator (talk) 07:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I would point that by ArbCom decision sources published by anthroposophists or the Anthroposophic movement are considered self-published and therefore cannot be used as reliable sources. So they cannot be considered part of mainstream academic debate. If my employment would depend upon it, I would be very careful not to criticize Steiner. Even more so if I were persuaded that he spoke the divine truth and that mainstream scientists are deluded because of ignoring such revelation. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

About Bortoft: being a professor of Holistic Science is more likely to tell mainstream academics that he was a supporter of pseudoscience than it is likely to say that he was an authority on distinguishing science from pseudoscience. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you please provide a link to the ArbCom decision you refer to? Also, I believe all the "anthroposophists" I quoted had academic jobs where their incomes did not depend on any relationship to Steiner or his work. Perhaps we mean different things by the term "anthroposophists". Again, none of the people I quoted imply that Steiner spoke the divine truth. Macam14 (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

If he's referring to this ArbCom [35], I don't believe it went so far as to say that these sources could never be used for any purpose. The decision did note that there are reliable sources for articles related to Steiner. This discussion is getting quite far afield from the original question.

Fladrif (talk

) 01:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It is true that it did not say that they could never be used for any purpose. It just said they are self-published, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, and should never be used as neutral, academic sources, but only as pro-Steiner biased sources which can only render the viewpoints of the supporters of Steiner. They can be used in order to say how Anthroposophists think of themselves and define themselves, but they cannot state any objective information (as in independent scholarly study) about Anthroposophy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, I can't find anything in the decision at the link Fladrif posted above, which supports your repeated statements to the effect that sources which are in some ill-defined way "anthroposophical" or "self-published" are somehow less valid (as if guilty by association). Could you either provide a correct link (if the one Fladrif posted is incorrect), or quote the relevant passage of the ArbCom decision? Macam14 (talk) 04:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Quoted from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education#Verifiability. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed the references -- apparently the < ref > tag doesn't work on this type of page, or else I was using it incorrectly. Macam14 (talk) 00:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Paul: Many academics in a range of disciplines would dispute your assertion that "[Goethe's scientific] views are entirely obsolete". A small sampling can be found in this special issue of the interdisciplinary journal Janus Head: http://www.janushead.org/8-1/index.cfm . The editor, Brent Dean Robbins, writes: "As each of the scholars argue in this issue...the delicate empiricism of Goethe is not merely a historical curiosity but anticipates and meets some of the most pressing challenges in contemporary philosophy of science." To say Goethean science isn't "mainstream" is a far cry from calling it "entirely obsolete". To the extent that Rudolf Steiner is a scientist in this tradition, it may be legitimate science, although still not mainstream.

"If you can show that Steiner and his supporters have been or continue to be taken seriously by legitimate scientists then there is a real controversy." That is what I have briefly attempted to do. Arthur Zajonc is a physicist who takes Steiner seriously. Henri Bortoft was another such physicist. Bo Dahlin is an education professor, and in addition to publishing his research in pre-existing journals (such as the one quoted above) has founded an academic journal titled Research on Steiner Education. These are the first three I thought to quote. How many further examples would be needed to demonstrate that there is a controversy? Macam14 (talk) 01:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Zajonc is (or has been) General Secretary of the

COI

06:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm writing from Newcastle, so I'm not sure that I should be talking to a Macam at all, however, even over there Goethe's theory of plant morphology is obsolete. I said nothing whatever about "Goethean science" in general, because there is, of course, no such thing. There is only science. A quotation from an obscure "interdisciplinary journal" would not alter that, and in any case it says no such thing, just that Goethe - some claim - anticipated some later ideas. That's not especially controversial. And it has no connection to any claim that there is a distinct type of "Goethean" science. I have already answered the argument about your first set of quotations. They say nothing about the scientific validity of Steiner's theories. Paul B (talk) 17:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

--Apart from anything else, it is noticeable that side-tracking proponents for asserting the category, against fact and reason, have not been able to counter the encyclopedic citations now archived in the section Categorization at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 146 . --Qexigator (talk) 21:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I even understand this sentence. Macam brought a bunch of sources here that are (IMO) irrelevant. The purpose of this board is to discuss/answer questions that are raised here, not in some archived discussion that isn't mentioned. Paul B (talk) 13:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The encyclopedic quotations do not claim that Steiner wasn't a pseudo-scientist. Besides, Wikipedia should rely on secondary sources rather than on tertiary sources (see

WP:PRIMARY). Tgeorgescu (talk

) 00:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Once more:

talk

) 04:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The phrase "central and defining" refers to the topic of the category, not the life of a person whose article the category appears in. It is not central and defining fact about Steiner that he is, for example a "20th-century painter" or a person "from Donji Kraljevec" (a place his parents just happened to be briefly present in when he was born). Yet these categories are quite properly included. Paul B (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, WP:Categorization states the opposite: "Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate. A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc." We see the pseudoscientist categorization failing two clearly stated tests: the category's topic has certainly "sparked controversy", and it is not a characteristic "reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having".

That he is from Donji Kraljevec is both uncontroversial and would certainly be in a standard biography. I share your doubts about the appropriateness of the 20th century painter category, and would heartily agree that it should be removed, as it is not a central or defining aspect of his life.

talk

) 15:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Again, it has not been shown that "Steiner is a pseudo-scientist" would be controversial among mainstream academics. The knee-jerk reaction of a mainstream academic (scholars of religion studies excepted) in respect to clairvoyants is that they should be considered intellectual frauds. To say that a topic has been researched through clairvoyance is to make it totally ridiculous. I have shown in the article clairvoyance that mainstream psychiatrists consider that clairvoyance is hallucination. So, mainstream academics believe that knowledge obtained by clairvoyance is knowledge obtained through hallucination. If that does not compromise a thesis, then I don't know what could compromise a thesis. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

It is common sense that mainstream academics deride clairvoyants without showing any mercy. So I don't understand what's so controversial about the fact that they do so. What they do could be morally controversial for certain people, but it cannot be denied that they do it. Even for religion scholars who study occultism, the clairvoyants are by comparison in the position of the frog which is dissected by biologists. Scholars don't have to buy the idea that clairvoyants were divinely inspired in order to analyze/dissect their teachings. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Can it be that some of those who purport to know all that needs to be known about mainstream find difficulty when it is pointed out that they are at issue with the language of a person whose own language is not theirs: see above "Geisteswissenschaft" etc. Qexigator (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The label pseudoscience does not apply to Steiner's philosophy or to his musings about supernatural beings, but strictly to what he attempted to contribute to various sciences. I am inclined to think that the Philosophy of Freedom is a good book, but it is so as philosophy (ethics), neither divinely inspired nor supernaturally revealed. It fits very well with Maslow's pyramid and with Heidegger's concept of authenticity. As a graduate of Dutch "scientific education" I know quite well that such label applies to law and humanities. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

"...what he attempted to contribute to various sciences." Please specify factually, with reference to sources for the information. Qexigator (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Steiner's longest-lasting achievement is the Waldorf educational system, which was preceded by his 1913 Goetheanum in Switzerland, a "school of spiritual science" (Robert Carroll, The Skeptic's Dictionary, page 26.) He believed that puberty was caused by the astral body being drawn into the physical body. He also believed in a sort of reincarnation in which Africans were the lowest and Europeans the highest (page 27.) He taught that the heart pumped because of the flow of blood, not to create the flow of blood. He believed in Atlantis and Lemuria; that living creatures inhabited the Sun, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. He said he that he projected himself in his astral body which enabled him to read the Akashic Record (Brian Regal, Pseudoscience: A Critical Encyclopedia, page 29.) In his day he was accused of pseudoscience; he answered his critics by giving a lecture called "The Pseudo-Science of the Present Time" (Guenther Wachsmuth, The Life and Work of Rudolf Steiner, page 367.) (Note that C. S. Lewis, for one, was impressed by Steiner's "case against the common modern pseudo-scientific attitude". The Collected Letters of C. S. Lewis, Volume 3, page 198.) Steiner's contemporary, Ernst Horneffer, Nietzsche Archives editor and professor at the University of Giessen, wrote "Monists and theosophists... insist that their pursuit is true science, and that everybody else's science is pseudo-science. You will find this stated in the writings of Haeckel as well as of Rudolf Steiner" (Steiner, Aspects of Human Evolution, page 53.) Steiner denied Horneffer's assertion. Biologist Lee M. Silver says that Steiner's theory of biodynamic agriculture is a "scientific-sounding argument" for organic agriculture. In his book Challenging Nature, Silver follows this assertion with a section heading "Spiritual Science and Pseudoscience" to begin a detailed discussion of Steiner's theory. Later, Silver talks about spiritual author Gary Zukav who "like Steiner... claims the mantle of science" (page 230.) British historian Janet Oppenheim wrote in The Other World, page 197, that "the manipulation and misuse of scientific language for spiritual purposes" was practiced by Christian Science founder Mary Baker Eddy and by Anthroposophy founder Rudolf Steiner. Professor Yuko Kikuchi of the Department of Media and Cultural Studies Birkbeck, University of London, takes the same view; she writes that "various pseudo-scientific occult movements were led by such people as E. P. Blavatsky who founded Theosophy and Rudolf Steiner who founded Anthroposophy" (Japanese Modernisation and Mingei Theory, page 5.) Journalist Todd Oppenheimer identifies audio engineer Dan Dugan, a critic of Waldorf schools, as one who believes Steiner promoted "cult pseudoscience" (The Flickering Mind, page 384.) Historian Karla Poewe writes that Steiner's Anthroposophy was viewed by German Faith founder Jakob Wilhelm Hauer as an "occult science", a mix of science hypotheses with magic, spiritualism and mythology (New Religions and the Nazis, pages 14–15.) Swedish professor of religious studies Olav Hammer writes that Steiner "explicitly sided with Goethean science against materialistic science", meaning Steiner was opposed to objective science performed according to the scientific method (Claiming Knowledge, page 329.) Hammer agrees that Steiner combined eclectic elements to form his Anthroposophy, including Christian mysticism, esotericism, rosicrucianism and Goethean science (page 64.) Steiner taught that "psychic powers could be used with scientific precision to restore humanism to a materialistic world", according to Professor Walter R. Hearn in the Journal of the American Scientific Association, September 1974. Hearn points out the danger of propping up philosophical or religious arguments with analogies from science, to create pseudoscience.
All of this emphasis on Steiner's use of the language and concepts of science to bolster his spiritualism shows undeniably that he is considered a pseudoscientist. Binksternet (talk) 17:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Descriptors such as "spiritual science", "occult science", and "Goethean science" applied to Steiner's work indicate a system which is not hard science based on the scientific method. This pushes Steiner into the pseudoscientist realm. The final shutting of that door is the observation that Steiner used elements of scientific study, and the language of science to shore up his spiritual or philosophical work. He donned the "mantle of science" to gain undeserved credence, and he taught a "science" thoroughly laced with unscientific notions. He is certainly a pseudoscientist. Binksternet (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Science used to mean essentially the same thing as knowledge. The "science means hard science" notion is a very modern idea. Less than a century ago, academics would have felt comfortable talking about taking a "scientific" approach to literature or history, knowing that their audience would easily understand it as meaning something like "objective" rather than "running controlled experiments in a lab". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

that writings about a philosophy are not 'hard science based on the sceintific method' does not mean that it is pseudoscience. Even when the words of 'hard science' are used. In addition, translation of things written in late 19th/early 20th century German philosophical language are always going to be difficult to translate to the way we use words now. Is pseudoscience a defining characteristic of his work? or is his work philosphy that includes ideas about science that come off a bit like Michele Bachmann talking about science? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet's remarks at 20:25, 9 April 2013 confirm the surmised difficulty which some have when the point at issue is not with American/British English but with the language of a person whose own language (German) is not theirs: see above "Geisteswissenschaft" etc. Qexigator (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I see the difficulties encountered by Qexigator, Rocksanddirt and WhatamIdoing in locating reliable sources saying that Steiner is not a pseudoscientist. The man taught false biology, false anatomy, false astronomy, false geology. What does it take to counter all the reliable sources saying he did so? A bunch of other reliable sources in contradiction. Binksternet (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Rather than lamely repeat what has been rebutted, can you specify factually, with reference to sources for the information, where Steiner claimed to practise scientific research of the kind described in Scientific method. Qexigator (talk) 23:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no requirement for a certain Steiner claim before we can label him a pseudoscientist. He taught false science; that is enough. Binksternet (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

First, I saw no rebuttal of those reliable sources, not by other reliable sources anyway (but only in sources considered self-published by ArbCom decision). You are not a reliable source, nor is any Wikipedia editor in his/her role as editor. Saying that Steiner cannot be considered a pseudo-scientist means that Anthroposophists lost touch with reality and no longer know how mainstream academics judge people like Steiner. According to Non-overlapping magisteria, religion is not pseudoscience as long as it does not make any scientific claims, i.e. any falsifiable claims which fall in the realm of empirical sciences. Steiner drew practical conclusions from his clairvoyance which he sought to apply to real-world science, technology and medicine. In a way I understand that Steiner claimed that he was no pseudo-scientist and an Anthroposophist who would admit that Steiner was a pseudo-scientist would therefore admit that Steiner was deluded, and for an Anthroposophist to say that Steiner was deluded is like contradicting a lecture by God Almighty brought down from heaven by angels and written on golden plates. But a minimal sense of reality requires a knowledge of how your social group is seen by the rest of society and by the academia. No reliable source has been presented that the multiple scientific, technological and medical applications of Anthroposophy are seen as something other than pseudoscience by mainstream academia and chances are that according to the ArbCom decision no source which claims otherwise can be taken seriously (since by definition Anthroposophists do not feel like contradicting God Almighty). About the Waldorf pedagogy it can be argued that education is not a science and there is no such thing as pseudo-pedagogy, therefore the point that Waldorf pedagogy would be pseudo-science is moot. However, when a rational skeptic analyzes the occult foundation of the Waldorf pedagogy, he/she cannot do otherwise than shake his/her head as a sign of dismay. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

For the idea that the mainstream scholarly view is that Steiner was a pseudo-scientist reliable sources have been presented, no mainstream sources have presented which state otherwise. What Wikipedia does not discuss is whether the mainstream scholarly view is right or wrong. Wikipedia does not question the mainstream view, it just takes for granted that it is true or at least that it is the best approximation of truth available today. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The man taught false biology, false anatomy, false astronomy, false geology.

So did Artistotle. So did Galen. So did Galileo. So did Darwin. So did just about everyone who taught these subjects in the past, and future generations may well say the same things about us. "Being wrong but honest" is not pseudoscience. Deliberately dressing up garbage to make it sound scientific is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Dressing up garbage to make it sound scientific is exactly what I think Steiner is guilty of. He knew that the heart was considered a pump by anatomists. In spite of this he said,

When we pay attention nowadays to ordinary science, we receive the conception, for example, that the human heart is a kind of pump, which drives the blood through the organs like a pumping machine. Spiritual science, such as we have in mind, which introduces us to a view of what constitutes not only the physical body of the human being, not as if by the action of the 'heart pumping machine,' but through the direct action of the spirit-soul nature itself; how this spirit-soul nature so lays hold upon the circulation of the blood that it is this spirit-soul element which constitutes the force that causes blood to pulse through our organism.

He says in this lecture that the heart does not pump the blood, instead, the spirit-soul nature itself is directly pumping the blood. It's hard for me to imagine a better example, though there are many just as good (living creatures on the Sun, the hidden planet named Vulcan, the lost civilization of Atlantis, the astral body as the cause of puberty, etc.) Binksternet (talk) 02:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the term pseudoscience has to be judged in the light of the scientific knowledge available during the time when such person lived. E.g., if in 2300 the theory of relativity will be considered ridiculous, it does not imply that Einstein was a pseudo-scientist. If this were the case, he simply produced a scientific theory which got accepted during his lifetime and was proven wrong in the late 2200's. So, simply because a theory is no longer considered valid, it does not follow that it was pseudo-science. Science does not work with absolute truths, but with views which tend to be less and less false. Refuting scientific theories is what scientists do for a living, according to Popper. But in Steiner's case he had access to the scientific consensus and could understand the discussion, but chose to expose views which in his time did not qualify as minority views, but were considered ludicrous by academics. And not only they were ludicrous then, but they continue to be considered ludicrous by the scientific mainstream. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

E.g., at [36] Steiner shows that he understood the quest for the historical Jesus (i.e. the scientific consensus about Jesus) and even says "We can only be considered very dilettante scientists if we do not make this concession to the science of the day." I hope that I will be excused for directly quoting Steiner, please ignore the comment if you disagree with it. The gist is that Steiner was aware of the scientific consensus and was aware of how those who posit strange new views are considered by the scientific mainstream. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Where are we

The purpose of this noticeboard is to obtain the help of those who have not been involved in editing the article previously. Four Now fivesix contributors to this section seem to fit this category: Paul Barlow, WhatamIdoing, Fladrif, DGG, Shii, and Macam14. The first three fourfive are long-standing editors.

Is there any consensus that the outside editors are able to reach? It would be great to hear from them.

Macam14 asked the question (indeed as a brand new editor, his/her sole contributions to WP have been to this section on RS/N, and removal of the pseudoscientist category from the Rudolf Steiner article).

COI

13:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

And he/she found the way to HotCat tool really quick, which tells us that he/she is not really new to Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I am new to editing on Wikipedia, but the plus and minus buttons weren't too hard to figure out. Macam14 (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

You have chosen a tack which enables you to ignore my contribution to this discussion, but my contribution brought multiple reliable sources saying that Steiner is an occult scientist, a spiritual scientist, a Goethean scientist, and a pseudoscientist. Why would you ignore that? Note that I have never edited the Rudolf Steiner page. Binksternet (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

As well, there is no clause in

WP:CONSENSUS which divides "outside editors" from those previously involved. Binksternet (talk

) 14:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet: I suggest that especially those editors who were recently warned about their editing of the related

talk

) 02:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Your suggestion has no basis in policy. All editors are welcome to comment, involved or uninvolved, and they are all welcome to bring relevant arguments to bear. If I see that a body of evidence is not being presented, I cannot be wrong in pointing it out. Binksternet (talk) 02:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree, and thank all the parties for so fully presenting their arguments. Now, however, after all the original editors' opinions have been presented above, including yours, I was hoping to hear the impressions of the people we came to this noticeboard to hear from. I don't mean to be suppressing anyone's voice, however; it was just a suggestion.

talk

) 12:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Binksternet, I appreciate your contributions. I was not aware of some of the sources you quoted. However, I am still waiting on a response from Tgeorgescu (or anyone else who knows) about the repeated references to an ArbCom decision which allegedly made a distinction between anthroposophical and non-anthroposophical sources, calling the former "self-published" and in some way unreliable. To me this is a key question. I see no reason why a scholar who, out of his interest in Rudolf Steiner's thought, associates with people who share his interest, should thereby become a less credible source. Scholars in all fields do this all the time. I deliberately tried to quote scholars published by mainstream publishers, and I believe I could quote more in this category. I still believe the examples I quoted show that there is not a scholarly consensus on whether Rudolf Steiner's science is legitimate. Unlike the authors Binksternet quoted, the authors I quoted clearly do not see fit to label it pseudoscience. However, if one includes "anthroposophical" publishers, there would be a flood of sources representing the point of view that Steiner's science is, on the whole, legitimate, and that the "pseudoscientist" label represents a controversial point of view. So, can anyone confirm or deny whether there has been an ArbCom decision against the reliability of sources whose authors and/or publishers have associated with other "anthroposophists"? Macam14 (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The ArbCom finding can be read here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education#Final_decision. It is from late December 2006. Binksternet (talk) 02:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see that pseudoscientist applies, because as WP uses it for the purpose of describing people in a brief term, pseudoscientist is someone who claims incorrectly to be a scientist using the accepted scientific methodology; Steiner does not claim to be a scientist in the usual sense. He does claim to be a philosopher of science, but such a that's a branch of philosophy not science. He may choose to call what he does at "Goethean science" but as he uses the term, it's not conventional science. (Goethe's biology is outdated--his philosophy is very much another matter.) "occult science" & "spiritual science" are just occultism and spiritualism using a fancier term. They're neither sciences nor pseudosciences. The problem here is that the term pseudoscientist is used very loosely in the literature, for a wide range of meanings, so for anyone as prominent as Steiner it is possible to find quotes saying almost anything. We should try to select the parts we quote so it gives some indication of the meaning being used, though that can be difficult. (it's just possible that his agricultural theory is a pseudoscience as we use the term. To the extent it's based on astrology, astrology is the classic example of pseudoscience. ) DGG ( talk ) 18:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

IMO this discussion itself is proof that the cat choice is controversial and therefore unlikely to comply with the guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, "Pseudoscience" is as inappropriate for this article as it would be for an article about homeschooling itself. Shii (tock) 14:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand that the category is controversial for Wikipedians. So what? Wikipedians aren't reliable sources. A controversy has to be shown to exist in mainstream academic sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Is that how you understand the following: "Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate." (from

talk

) 20:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE/PS draws the line according to reliable sources, after all this is the reliable sources noticeboard. Another editor made the point that if it were the case that controversy among Wikipedians would count as real controversy, no fringe belief would be labeled as fringe and no pseudoscience as pseudoscience, since there could always come up editors stating "I believe that my pet theory is not fringe/pseudoscience, therefore it is controversial that it is fringe/pseudoscience and it cannot be labeled as such". Real controversies have to be shown to exist in reliable sources and by ArbCom decision Anthroposophical sources are discarded by default as reliable sources, so they cannot be used to shown that the fringe/pseudoscience status of Anthroposophy would be controversial. I do recognize that there is no such thing as pseudo-religion, pseudo-philosophy, pseudo-education or pseudo-architecture so I did not say that the label of pseudoscience would apply to Steiner's occult teachings in general or to his moral philosophy, but it only applies to his attempts to contribute to various empirical sciences, agriculture and medical practice. Besides, any objective observer can notice that often Steiner's lectures contain statements which fall into the realm of empirical science, and they are beyond false, they are (and were) simply ludicrous, considered in the light of mainstream science. Tgeorgescu (talk

) 12:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Reasoning for there is no such thing as pseudo-religion, pseudo-philosophy, pseudo-education or pseudo-architecture would have a bearing on this discussion. What is it? Qexigator (talk) 07:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

An interesting discussion which may have strayed somewhat from the point; Steiner is generally regarded as a pseudoscientist, despite support from his sympathizers. The quotations supplied by Macam14 merely demonstrate that sympathizers are still prepared to entertain his ideas, not that they resemble anything in the modern English-language conception of science, which is the relevant concept here. They don't actually seem to claim that Steiner's ideas fit into (the modern English-language definition of) science. Not only are these sources not reliable for anything except their own ideas, but even if we were to accept them as Reliable, they don't seem to say anything that would help Macam14's substantive argument either. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Correct! Science curricula analyst Eugenie Scott wrote a letter to the editors of the Utne Reader (published January/February 1991, volume 43, number 10) about the pseudoscience taught by Steiner, the letter titled "Do Waldorf schools teach pseudoscience?". Scott asserted that the Steiner-based Waldorf schools do indeed teach pseudoscience; after describing the depth of the problem she expressed hope that more practical minds would help "the movement purge itself of pseudoscience". Scott continued researching the matter and subsequently wrote the article "Waldorf Schools Teach Odd Science, Odd Evolution" published in Reports, the organ of the National Center for Science Education (page 20, volume 14, Winter 1994) of which Scott is the executive director. Scott's conclusions were acknowledged in the Chicago Times article "Waldorf School Critics Wary Of Religious Aspect", which included some details about "Steiner's faulty notions of child development" including his view that children aged 4, 5 and 6 should not be taught to read "because the spirit that descended into their bodies is still adjusting to the physical world". (My six-year-old sister taught me to read at age four, so...) In the 1994 article Scott ridicules Steiner's notion that the heart is not a pump, that there are 12 senses, that the "kingdoms of nature" are mineral, plant, animal and man (somehow man is not an animal), that the main world elements are earth/air/fire/water, that valid geological stages include "post-Atlantis, Atlantis, mid-Lemuria, and Lemuria", and that each species was created as is rather than developing through evolution. For Steiner, animals are the by-product of various attempts by "spiritual beings" to create man. Scott says that Steiner's pseudoscientific notion about visible light is taught in Waldorf schools, specifically that white light does not consist of a blend of many colors, and that color is caused by the conflict between light and darkness. Scott points to Steiner's errors in racial genetics, such as his belief that "If the blonds and blue-eyed people die out" then the human race will get stupider. Scott takes issue with Steiner's wish to "go beyond" regular empirical science and combine it with unobservable (unprovable) aspects. Scott says Steiner's pseudoscientific notions should not be taught in any school science program. Binksternet (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I hate to keep running here when it comes to AfDs, but I want to make entirely sure that I'm not missing anything. I'm currently discussing an AfD

• I could really use some additional help on this AfD. I'm trying to explain why USA Today would be seen as a reliable source in this instance (they are printing the company's comic on their website), but it's not really coming across.
  (｡◕‿◕｡)
  03:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Came there, but I'm afraid I disagree with you. USA Today is printing one of the company's comics on their website, but that doesn't make the newspaper a primary source for the rest of the company, any more than every newspaper that ever ran Peanuts or Doonesbury would be a primary source about Charles M. Schulz or Garry Trudeau. --GRuban (talk) 19:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

An editor named Geebee2 has been removing reliable sources/text from the article based on the editor's own belief that they are unreliable. The reliable sources even include ABC News and CBS News. I started a discussion about it on the talk page. Here is the link.[37] There are also other sections on the article talk page, and Geebee2's talk page, showing editors trying to explain to Geebee2 that the sources are reliable and that removing them and the information they support is disruptive editing. The editor will not listen to reason. Help please. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo also recently spoke out against Geebee2 removing reliable sources.[38] Halo Jerk1 (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

This source is being used as a genre citation on Muse. It looks like some completely unreliable and random source, and it's being used to support the bizarre addition of "progressive metal" (which the band sound nothing like). I put an unreliable source tag next to it but one editor keeps removing it, insisting that the source is reliable. I call the big one bitey (talk) 03:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks like all of the material is user-contributed. The genre claim lies outside of the "area of expertise" of this site, anyway. So no, it's not reliable for this claim. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I have to differ, nowhere in the site is said that it's user generated, neither has a comunity, all the content is produced by staff members and the site has been recognized by books and printed magazines, without a doubt it's reliable. Invited (talk) 01:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Combination of group blog and user-provided content. Not a reliable source.

Fladrif (talk

) 02:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the archived discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_142#www.eurohockey.net regarding http://www.eurohockey.net that was commented on by users User:Nug, User:Djsasso, User:Resolute, User:Oldelpaso and User:Alaney2k but I didn't notice until today.

That is an inactive website. It hasn't been updated since March 2011. The proprietors of the site, based in Sweden and the Czech Republic, no longer have anything to do with it. They now operate http://www.eurohockey.com which also does player, team and league stats and transfers as well as news. Djob (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Being inactive doesn't really affect its reliability in terms of the info up to the date they went inactive. -DJSasso (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Over the past couple of weeks, a large number of links to leadledger.com have been added as references to various Wikipedia articles. At the moment, there are 69 articles with such references, and all I've checked have had the leadledger links added very recently. I really don't think the site looks like a RS at all; there may be pages on the site that are informational but the links used as refs are mainly advertising blurbs, for example here, here, and here. To be honest, I think it looks like linkspamming, but I wanted to check the potential reliability of the source before asking that the URL be blacklisted. --bonadea contributions talk 09:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, from what I can tell, this source has no editorial oversight. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - that's what I thought, too. --bonadea contributions talk 21:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

So, there's currently a bit of a disagreement over whether the name of one character is Tobias or Thomas. (Stupid...) The article is Elementary and the text is

Aidan Quinn as Captain Thomas "Tommy" Gregson of the New York City Police Department;[8] Once, when assigned to Scotland Yard to observe their counter-terrorism bureau, he and Sherlock's paths crossed, and he was impressed with his work as a detective. He genuinely likes Holmes and the two have mutual respect for each other, though he admits that Sherlock is a "pain in the ass."

The first source, which is the show's "About" page on the official website for the show, claims the character's name is Tobias. The second, a news release from a different site says Thomas. So, which is more reliable?

Show's "about" page http://www.cbs.com/shows/elementary/about/ Press release page http://www.cbspressexpress.com/cbs-entertainment/shows/elementary/about Kude90 (talk) 00:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Taking an approach that I'd never take otherwise - there are 40000+ google hits for "Toby" and only 2000 for "thomas". I'm gonna take a wild stab at Thomas being 100% wrong. I'd go with the official site and Tobias and ignore the press release and Thomas. It's one or the other; this isn't a case for teaching the controversy.

Fladrif (talk

) 01:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Problem is, the other guy keeps going on about how we have to prove to them that we're right, and not the other way around. So... Aside form asking here, I really don't know what to do. I've done my best to prove that I'm right, but...Kude90 (talk) 01:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It is rather bizarre that the show's official page at CBS would be contradicted by CBS's press releases. The name of the character in the Conan Doyle novels is indisputably "Tobias Gregson". Has the TV show modernized that to "Thomas"? Not inconceivable - after all, Dr Holmes is Lucy Liu in this version. But, LA Times says Tobias.[39] as does MSN Canada [40] NYTimes says Toby [41] as does Pittsburg Post Gazette [42] NZ Herald [43] National Post [44] Etc....On the other hand, I dont see any mainstream press report outside of those press releases using "Thomas". I'd go with these sources over a press release. A press release is a Primary Source, which we typically don't want to rely upon.

Fladrif (talk

) 02:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Bottom line: they call him Tommy on the show. 'Nuff said. --Drmargi (talk) 11:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Have you read

WP:RS for what we believe to be reliable sources?--Launchballer

12:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The names of characters in numerous articles on films, novels etc are sourced only to the works themeselves. We are not obliged to follow the "letter of the law" if it results in absurdities, including insisting that something is fact, or even in dispute, because one RS says something different from others. Surely it can be possible to find a form of wording to resolve this. Say he is based on Doyle's

Tobias Gregson, but calls himself, and is referred to, as 'Tommy' in the show. The text of the show itself is a reliable for its content. We typically accept that descriptions of events, plot summaries etc do not require reliable sources, since the drama/novel/film etc can be consulted directly to check the accuracy of such accounts. Paul B (talk

) 12:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be Original Research, which is also against the rules? Thus far, the sources say that the name is Tobias. In fact, one of them is as current as the end of February. Which seems fairly reliable to me. I don't think I remember the show calling his Tommy ever. (Drmargi, you were wrong about the desk, too.) If someone could find the episode, and the time in it...[[User--Drmargi (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC):Kude90|Kude90]] (talk) 20:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Short of finding some clip of the show where the name "Tommy" instead of "Toby" is being used, so everyone can verify it, I a bit discomfited by this situation. Drmargi's explanation seems perfectly plausible,though entirely unsourced. The news stories I cited above are from late fall and into early this year and not last May, so there are a lot of reliable sources using Tobias long after this change was supposedly made. On the other hand, we do have all those press releases, and I note that the Twitter account "Elementary Staff" (I don't know enough about Twitter to be able to tell if this is a verified "official" account or not) directly answered a question about the name just last week:

Elementary Fandom ‏@Elementary_Fans 14 Apr @ELEMENTARYStaff a couple fans were wondering what Gregson's first name is. I'd thought it was Tobias?

Elementary Writers ‏@ELEMENTARYStaff 14 Apr @Elementary_Fans In the Elementraverse, Gregson's first name is "Tommy." [45]

I would ordinarily dismiss sources like this as not a RS, but here we are.

Fladrif (talk

) 21:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't bother to put in the sources because they're already on the article talk page , which Kude has neatly side-stepped in his headlong rush to this notice board, as well as in the opening post - click on the second link and there's Thomas, big as day. By all rights, I should have requested an admin close this discussion and sent it back to the article talk page, where I've made two efforts to discuss and to which Kude refuses to respond, despite multiple requests to do so. But hey-ho. We're here now and the Twitter evidence (@ELEMENTARYStaff being the Twitter account for the show writers, among whom is the executive producer) simply adds additional reliability to the sources I've provided. You've got it in dialogue, from the network and from the writers. Clearly, his name is Thomas "Tommy" Gregson, not Tobias. --Drmargi (talk) 22:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I sidestepped nothing. And that twitter link is NOWHERE in the tobias/thomas conversation. I came here to clear up which source is more reliable. I now know that press releases (before now, your ONLY evidence) are, in fact, not supposed to be used. Me not responding is a blatant lie, and I'll thank you to stop. If you would bother to read the page, I believe I added several links to this discussion last night. I also responded to you IN LENGTH on my talk page, where you wrote several incorrect statements, like that your press release was more reliable.Kude90 (talk) 00:16, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I've had enough. Kude, you've completely misread what I wrote. I expect a retraction of the personal attacks both here and on your talk page, or I take this to an administrator. --Drmargi (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with bringing this question to RSN. It is by no means an open and shut case either way. This is definitely one of those "Wikipedia isn't about truth; it's about verifiability" moments. Drmargi may or may not be "right"; the sources we would ordinarily give preference to say he or she is "wrong", or at the very least "unverifiable".

Clearly, people having no knowledge of the show are making a judgment as to a character's name based on cobbled together sources --- rendering this discussion pointless. I presented more than one current, reliable source that his name is Thomas, including the most indisputable one: the show itself. I reiterate: he has been called Thomas ON CAMERA. The show's writers have confirmed his name is Thomas as of April 14, and we DO treat Tweets from show personnel as reliable sources. The media sources are six or more months old, whereas CBS Express supports the name is Thomas as of January 2013. That's three current reliable sources. Game over. --Drmargi (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Again, provide an episode number, and the minutes and seconds where they clearly say Thomas. And maybe provide the rules which tell us that tweets are reliable, since that seems suspect at best. And by the way, look at the dates on the media sources again. February=/= six months ago. All you are proving here is that you haven't actually read half of the stuff posted in the now three different talks people have had about this.

even providing a single episode where a single character uses the name once is really not sufficient - an actor could have flubbed the name but it was the best take they could get in the time allocated and they forgot to fix it with a proper voice over. a twit, even from an "official" account could just be an injoke response to the flub. to counter ALL of the reliably published sources stating otherwise, you would need something like the official credits to show the character is now "Tommy" - especially when the official "abouts" on both facebook and CBS still call the character "Toby". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree. The great, overwhelming weight of independent, reliable, secondary sources well into this year continue to consistently use "Tobias"; it is only a handful of sources that we do not recognize as reliable that support "Thomas". What we have here is an editor who is insisting that his or her original research contradicts the reliable sources; he or she may be correct, but we can't go on that original research nor the non-RS sources.

Fladrif (talk

) 16:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. If you'd actually bothered to read anything written above, you might begin to understand that your characterization of this discussion is completely wrong.

Fladrif (talk

) 17:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Their profession": Her profession does not give her any expertise on this topic.
• "academic accolades": Doing well in one field doesn't make someone an expert in every other field. Also, what academic accolades?
• "exposure to Japanese culture": If that made someone's opinion a reliable source, you could cite any random individual from Japan's 120 million + population.
• "respect within the community" How would that make a source reliable? Which community? What respect? 46.7.236.155 (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I have serious doubts about your argument or whether you view this objectively and seriously. She obviously has a specialization with Japan. She is not a regular hospital nurse. If her work was unreliable it would not be published and cited several times. She also was not a regular professor on staff.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Her profession is nursing, a profession that doesn't imbue its practitioners with expertise in cultural matters. The fact that she's published on psychiatric nursing matters would make her works RSs for topics in that field. Not this field. The fact that she's Japanese-American and has lived in Japan absolutely does not make her an expert on Japanese cultural topics. Does it make her familiar with the topics? Probably. Does it make her a reliable source for the topics? No. 46.7.236.155 (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

The argument against this source is not well founded. The source being cited is an academic press of the Japanese American National Museum, and the editor Niiya is widely published in the relevant field. The text authored by Furata, Ethnic Identities of Japanese American Families: Implications for Counseling, which is cited multiple times in the book, was published by a highly regarded academic press, now part of Prentiss-Hall and is squarely within the scope of her expertise. She herself is also widely published within the scope of this expertise, and the specific work at issue here has been cited in scholarly publications. The objections are baseless. This is clearly and indisputably a reliable source.

Fladrif (talk

) 22:11, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Remember that

context matters. Her expertise is mental health nursing, not culture. 46.7.236.155 (talk

) 22:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Her expertise is mental health nursing in the Japanese American culture and has been widely published in that field. This is squarely in her wheelhouse. Don't be obtuse. Continuing to edit war over this will land you at AN/I. Give it up. Now.

Fladrif (talk

) 22:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

She has been published, she hasn't been "widely" published. It is not squarely in her wheelhouse. I'm not being obtuse. I don't like your threatening tone, don't tell me what to do. 46.7.236.155 (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Bottom line: Multiple respected publishers, editors and authors, including academic presses and scholarly publications recognize her as a reliable, fully qualified expert on precisely the subject matter that you claim she knows nothing about. That's how we decide things at RSN. That's what

Fladrif (talk

) 00:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• "Multiple respected publishers, editors and authors, including academic presses and scholarly publications recognize her as a reliable, fully qualified expert on precisely the subject matter that you claim she knows nothing about." Being cited in one reference work on the topic is not the same as being recognised "as a reliable, fully qualified expert" by "Multiple respected publishers, editors and authors, including academic presses and scholarly publications"
• "That's what
  Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier
  . The source being used says "Betty S. Furuta asserts...". It doesn't make a statement of fact, then attribute it to Furuta. It records Furuta's opinion.
• "Unless you have respected, reliable sources that say Furuta is completely ignorant of the subject matter and her publishers and everyone who cited her and their publishers are all babbling idiots, this discussion is over." That's not how things work. 46.7.236.155 (talk) 11:11, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

You don't bother reading at all, do you? Furuda's text Ethnic Identities of Japanese American Families: Implications for Counselingwas originally part of Gettys & Humphrey eds, Understanding the Family:Stress and Change in American Family Life. Furuda's chapter is not only extensively cited in Japanese American History: An A-to-Z Reference from 1868 to the Present,, it has also been cited twice in scholarly journals [46] and six additional times in other books published by academic presses. [47] Furuta has 70 hits in Google Books, all within this field. [48], eight in Google Scholar [49], again all within this field. The cited passage is hardly a statement of opinion, it is a statement presented as fact in a textbook for counselors dealing with patient/clients from different cultural backgrounds, in her chapter, Japanese-Americans: that "gaman" is wrongly misinterpreted by non-Japanese as passivity or lack of ambition. These arguments are totally divorced from reality.

The Furuda text is RS, but not the simplistic culturally blinkered nonsense from the American Chamber of Commerce--not by a long shot.

I've expanded the lead, adding a reference to a popular online dictionary, and removed the culturally biased nonsense from the above-mentioned non-RS source.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Clearly a reliable source. Underlying disputes should be raised at another DR board.

Fladrif (talk

) 14:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

2. Article: Elazar Shach

3. Content:

The original wording on the Elazar Shach Wikipedia page was as follows:

In May 1998, following talk of a political compromise which would allow Haredim to perform national service by guarding holy places, Shach told his followers in a public statement that it is forbidden to serve in the army and that "it is necessary to die for this."^[1] All the leaders of the Haredi world united behind this stand.^[2]

.

This was later reverted and discussed on the talk page.

The specific line in question is the following:

All the leaders of the Haredi world united behind this stand.

.

The original quote in the book is as follows:

The leadership of the Haredi community made its uncompromising position as plain as it could. Rabbi Menachem Schach (the spiritual leader of the Lithuanian branch of the Haredi world) declared simply that “it is forbidden [for yeshiva students] to be drafted into the army – even if the price is sacrificing one’s life.” This is a case, Rabbi Shach continued, in which, halachically, one must “be killed rather than transgress.” All the leaders of the Haredi world united behind this stand.

.

Am I correct that this is a valid source?

Yonoson3 (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Our presumption would be that a book from this publisher is reliable. If the author makes a statement that contradicts another reliable source, it would be OK to cite both and to attribute the claim(s) to the author(s) in our text, thus indicating to the reader that a disagreement exists. Does that help? Andrew Dalby 08:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

As the particular sentence in question here represents a highly

Yitzchok Yaakov Weiss

Ovadia Yosef

Avraham Shapira

Shlomo Zalman Auerbach

Shmuel Wosner

Mordechai Eliyahu

among others. To assume that they (or any other leaders) were in agreement with a reckless and incendiary statement by Elazar Shach who, unlike them, was never even a posek is a silly fantasy which also fails common sense.--Winchester2313 (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• I really think that the disputants involved in the editing of this article are going to need to take the whole thing to some other DR noticeboard. I suggest
  Fladrif (talk
  ) 18:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment, sigh, User
    Lithuanian Jewry Shach was the head rabbi of that group without equals in ISRAEL towards the latter part of his life when he headed the Aguda and then broke off to head the Degel HaTorah party. That's just the way it was/is, IZAK (talk
    ) 11:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

As I said above, RSN can advise as to whether a source is reliable or not. This one is - prominent academic press, highly regarded authors with extensive publication history in the field. Now, knowing nothing whatsoever about the subject-matter of the article, the statement in the source that all the rabbis agreed on some point struck me as unlikely - rather like the old saying that if you get three lawyers in the same room you'll get four opinions. But, that's a gut reaction, not an informed one. If the source is wrong, the solution is to find another reliable source that contradicts it, and present both in a balanced fashion, not to throw it out. What weight it or any other source should be given in this Wikipedia article, as well as the broader disputes between the editors involved in the article is probably something that should go to RFC/Biographies

Fladrif (talk

) 17:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Fladrif. Thanks for your observations and you are are right. But as long as one is dealing with this topic in a rational manner then of course it's possible to come to agreements and consensus about sources. But just take a look for yourself at the highly charged comments right here, above, by User

WP:BATTLEGROUND. Thanks again for understanding this problem that has been going on for years. By the way, none of the rabbis cited by Winchester above ever opposed Shach on the issue of drafting Haredi yeshiva students to the Israeli army, as even events from today, many years after Shach's death prove. IZAK (talk

) 09:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

If this has already been to ArbCom once, then it is probably time to take this back to ArbCom. I think that RSN has done all that it can.

Fladrif (talk

) 14:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Fladriff: Indeed, at ArbCom a huge number of similar examples were listed, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement/Evidence, but the grey zone between "content disputes" and "edit warring" has been blurred -- to the advantage of the anti-Shach = pro-Chabad edit warriors, yet, with the level of aggressive blocking and stonewalling by the string of anti-Shach = pro-Chabad edit warriors this remains a part of an ongoing series of similar "fist-fights" that have no end. Feel free to take it back to the ArbCom if the discussion can't be concluded here or at any other WP noticeboard. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Are these sources suitable for a controversy section in a BLP? The article is Suzanne Nossel, the claims are "Organizers from the feminist peace group Code Pink formed a campaign asking the Amnesty board for Nossel's resignation because of Nossel's support of the war in Afghanistan" (Alternet) and "Pulitzer prize winning journalist and peace activist Chris Hedges resigned from PEN to protest Nossel's appointment" (Truthdig). January (talk) 11:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I would think that they are in the context of supporting uncontroversial and neutrally-written claims. The sources are not being used to make controversial, salacious or derogatory statements about the article's subject. Is there a question as to whether those sources are correct? That is, is anyone arguing that Chris Hedges didn't resign in protest, or that Code Pink didn't form such a campaign?

polarscribe (talk

) 03:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Does this article have any reliable, relevant information? --George Ho (talk) 03:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

What, that "the security services... reported that [Noel] Coward and [the Duke of] Kent had been seen parading together through the streets of London, dressed and made up as women, and had once been arrested by the police for suspected prostitution"? It may well be relevant to something or other, if it is reliable...

Seriously though, you aren't being exactly specific about what you want to cite it for, and it is hard to generalise - though given the Mail's failure to even spell the author's name right, I'd not want to cite it for anything too contentious. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It discusses his love life. Is the information accurate or dubious? --George Ho (talk) 23:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Seems to be excerpts from a memoir -- not something reliable for absolute statements of fact, but if an anecdote belongs in an article, properly ascribed to its source, there is little problem for dead people. The Daily Mail is, moreover, not actually at "fault" for some programmer misspelling a name in a URL -- it is found on almost all news sites as a matter of routine. The correct spelling redirects to that page <g>. Many RS books refer to the same affaire. Collect (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I have been actively editing pages and have come across link rots which I have addressed successfully. However, in the same process many sources that I have seen are online media portals which are mostly a collection of blogs and op-eds with minimal editorial control (

1.

These sites are just examples of the sources that I have come across. Are they valid sources in WP? I know this is a place for asking whether a source is suitable in context, but I am looking for some general comments and suggestions for these links. RomeoPapaKing (talk) 06:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I have posted extensively in the talk page, over the last 8 months, about the reference links (not the attached media outlets) used to post the article about Jung Myung Seok.

THe AP articles can not be verified at the original AP archives despite powerful search engines finding them somewhere in the WWW but not at the original AP archives. Much older articles are easily found at the AP archives with no problem.

The News Limited article is a planted article. I contacted Adam Sucking via email and his staff confirmed that News Limited has NEVER written an article about Jung Myung Seok.

A clear pattern is emerging here with the quality of reference links used to write the ARTICLE ABOUT JUNG MYUNG SEOK.

I am requesting previously univolved admins to help clean up this article.MrTownCar (talk) 13:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Supplying more detail to facilitate outside review here, MrTownCar is challenging the reliability of several sources critical of

Jung Myung Seok and used in the article about him and his religious movement. See this revision of the article as it stood before MrTownCar removed a sizable chunk of material. I advised MrTownCar

that he should ask for opinions here at WP:RSN rather than reopen a long-running edit war on the issue. MrTownCar is challenging numerous sources, but his present comment here appears to be focussing on the following:

• A 2008 article by
  Archive.org
  . MrTownCar says he has contacted someone (apparently working at News Limited) who told him that News Limited had never written any articles about Jung Myung Seok, and on this basis MrTownCar argues that this 2008 article is a fabrication (despite its apparently having appeared on News Limited's web site, news.com.au).

• A 2008 TV story by the
  Jung Myung Seok article's talk page that this article could not be found via a title search of AP's own online archive index, and has rejected reprints of this same story on HighBeam Research and LexisNexis (generally accepted as reliable sources) on the grounds that its absence from AP's own archive index conclusively proved the story was fabricated and fraudulently planted on these other sources. It should be noted here, though, that this particular link is from www.aparchive.com, a site which claims to be "the film and video archive of the Associated Press"
  — so the overall situation seems to me to point, not to fraud, but to possible deficiencies in AP's archive index.

I am supplying the above details to make it easier for people here at WP:RSN to evaluate the reliability of the sources in question. I am not arguing in favour of MrTownCar's position — on the contrary, I am skeptical of his claims and am assuming for the moment that the sources in question are most likely reliable — but I want to make sure these claims can be adequately reviewed and either confirmed or debunked as authoritatively as possible. If I have inadvertently misstated MrTownCar's claims here, I trust he will set us straight. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The story referenced to the AP is not correct. It is an article titled "Alleged South Korea Rape Cult leader Arrest in China" 5/16/2007. This article can not be located in the AP archives. However, I found other articles regarding cults dating back to 1997. MrTownCar (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

This 2007 article appears to be substantiated by other sources (Kyodo, Fox, HighBeam). My opinion, for what it may be worth, is that this story, together with the 2008 articles reporting Jung's extradition to Korea, would almost certainly be reliable for purposes of substantiating the fact that Jung Myung Seok was arrested in Beijing in 2007 — and probably also reliable for establishing that Jung has been accused of coercing his female followers to have sex with him — but these articles do not prove that Jung actually did this (since these news sources would not normally have knowledge of the circumstances beyond what may have been reported by law enforcement agencies). As for the argument that the story (which Fox says came from AP) must be a "plant" because it couldn't be found in AP's search index, this line of reasoning is IMO not persuasive at all, because there may be many perfectly valid reasons why the article did not appear in your search. For example, there might have been minor changes in the headline title of an article (if you were searching for the exact title, rather than doing a full-text search for "Jung Myung Seok") — or AP might have chosen not to keep this particular story in its archives indefinitely — or there might have been a clerical error of some sort. As for whether it is permissible for a BLP to report criminal accusations against someone, this most certainly is OK if those accusations are a matter of public record, though opposing views defending the accused are also appropriate to report (per NPOV), as long as those opposing views are substantiated by reliable, non-fringe sources. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

These aren't merely accusations. There are multiple reliable, readily-available sources which support (i) that Jung was charged in Korea in 2001 with raping female followers; (ii) that he then fled to China (iii)he was arrested in China in May 2007 and (iv) extradited to Korea in February 2008 for trial (v) was then convicted of rape in August 2008 and sentenced to six years imprisonment and (vi) following appeals, his conviction was affirmed and his sentence increased to 10 years. See, eg [50];[51] The claim that other sources reporting exactly the same thing are fabrications beggar belief, and the argument that the allegedly fraudulent articles are reporting falsehoods staggering. Is the editor claiming that Jung wasn't charged, arrested, extradited, convicted and sentenced? It's fine to say that Jung and his followers deny the charges, as the sources indicate. But that is all that is required here. The sources are reliable, notwithstanding that they may now be dead links or otherwise unavailable online

Fladrif (talk

) 03:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Fladrif. In addition, personal communications ("Someone emailed me and said...") are not

talk

) 11:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

And I agree with both Fladrif and Hgilbert. One other thing that might be worth bringing up here is that I'm wondering if MrTownCar's adamant refusal to accept the reliability of these particular articles is that he might be objecting to the use of terms like "cult" in the stories and their headlines. Accepting a source as reliable for purposes of substantiating the facts of Jung's criminal case does not necessarily mean we're declaring the same source as reliable for purposes of substantiating the accuracy of a "cult" label. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 15:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

We can, however, say that various sources have called Jung a cult leader and/or have referred to his movement as a cult. Normally, we would want to ask whether a given source is reliable for purposes of classifying a religious movement, but since "cult" is an inherently loaded, POV term, there may not be any universally accepted standards for deciding this — so I believe the best approach is simply to acknowledge that some/many people consider JMS/Providence a cult, while the movement's own followers (and, if sources exist, specifically named others as well) reject this label, but without taking a position ourselves as writers of Wikipedia. Acknowleding a controversy of this sort over the use of a contentious label does not violate BLP or NPOV.

MrTownCar, given that the consensus here so far is to accept the sources you have questioned as reliable (at least regarding the facts of Jung's encounters with the legal system), do you have any other specific sources you want to ask about, or do you have any other questions to ask people here? — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• Another observation about the News Limited article now at Internet Archive. It says right on the page(upper right-hand corner) that the original source of the article is Agence France-Presse. So, even if MrTownCar was told that News Limited never wrote an article on Jung, it wouldn't negate the fact that it published an AF-P story on Jung. To claim that the article was somehow fraudulently planted is absurd. AF-P is, of course, a clearly reliable source. Also, the May 17 2007 AP article that MrTownCar claims isn't in the AP archive appears to be the same story published at the Fox News site linked above, albeit with a different headline. Again, these objections don't pass the smell test.
  Fladrif (talk
  ) 01:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I have gotten the impression that ADL and SPLC, more than most other advocacy groups, can be used for some level of noncontroversial factual information on groups it investigates in its area of expertise. An editor disputes using this low key and factual ADL article for these factoids at this diff in Students for Justice in Palestine:

• "As of 2010 SJP had more than 80 chapters at American universities."
• "Students for Justice in Palestine was first established at the University of California, Berkeley in 2001 where the group organized the first Palestine Solidarity Movement (PSM) conference to coordinate corporate divestment from Israel efforts nationwide. PSM served as a national umbrella organization for SJP and other groups until it dissolved in 2006. In October 2011, SJP held their first national conference at Columbia University which was attended by 40 chapters."
• "SJP has used Facebook successfully to do outreach to individual and organize and promote events both on and off campus. Many chapters have hundreds of members and also use Twitter and other social media."

Thoughts? CarolMooreDC🗽 13:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

What is the basis to distinguish ADL and SPLC from "other advocacy groups"? There are a wide range of such groups, on almost every topic area and across the political spectrum, that have specific expertise in unique areas. It seems that this opens up a Pandora's box.Scarletfire2112 (talk) 06:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for question, editor involved in the article in question. I'm quite willing to go through and delete the probably 500 refs (of 1200 mentions]) from ADL and SPLC of facts about this, that or the other allegedly antisemitic or racist group/individual per this search. (Some of which I felt were uncalled for in the past but had to put up with.) But I have a feeling there'd be a big objection quick and people would be reverting and running here. Sigh... CarolMooreDC🗽 14:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

The

WP:RS#Biased or opinionated sources. For some topics, and Israel/Palestine is probably the poster child for these topics, there are no unbiased sources. The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the United Nations, the United States, the European Union, and every government or non-governmental agency in the world that have ever been involved in any way with the topic, have all been accused of bias on this topic by one side or the other and often by both. So if we want to write anything at all on this topic, we have to do the best we can. In this case, we will use the best sources available, and where they differ, give both sets. Is there an alternative source that says SJP has fewer than 80 chapters at American universities? Then write: "According to the Anti-Defamation League, as of 2010 SJP had more than 80 chapters at American universities;[ref] but according to the XYZ, they only had 27.[ref]" And so forth. It does not mean we exclude all uncontroversial information from reliable but potentially biased sources if we don't have alternatives. It would be different if the information were inherently controversial, such "According to the ADL, the SJP kills puppies." - then we'd want to be sure we had many sources. But for something as inherently uncontroversial as how many chapters they have, the ADL, or the SPCL, being established and respected groups, treated as reliable sources by other reliable sources, should suffice. --GRuban (talk

) 16:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

GRuban I don't disagree with you. But I suspect, especially given her snarky comments here, that CarolMooreDC is not attempting to include ADL and SPLC per se, but rather to exclude the other advocacy groups. It seems to me that "established, respected" and "often treated as reliable sources by other reliable sources" are a bit subjective and probably apply to a lot of groups that would not be accepted even for non-controversial information. Is it possible to sharpen the criteria?Scarletfire2112 (talk) 16:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

As I said on the talk page, SPLC and ADL are exceptions to the rule on advocacy groups. Other excepts are various human rights groups frequently quoted by high quality sources. The ones brought up on the talk page by you and/or another editor are ones that WP:RSN frequently has found to be unreliable except for their own opinions that aren't about 3rd parties. My opinion is based on actually searching WP:RSN or reading opinions here in the past on those sources. I know you are new to Wikipedia, so you have to get into habit of checking WP:RSN particularly for precedents. Thanks. CarolMooreDC🗽 16:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

CarolMooreDC, I think you have me confused with someone else. And I look forward to seeing you remove all the non-RS from the pages you edit. Scarletfire2112 (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, should have specified "brand new since December" per your comment here. It took me a long time to get up to speed on many issues, so four months looks like brand new to me. Also, let's only discuss specific issues that are relevant here. CarolMooreDC🗽 18:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Both organizations are reliable sources, which is after all a function of whether they are likely to get their facts right, not the views they hold. There are a number of other groups that are rs, such as Human Rights Watch. Often they are the best sources for certain groups and activities which do not receive comprehensive coverage in the media and academic writing. TFD (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

i am not convinced that one org is more reliable than another IF (yes, "if") there are reports of mistakes they make. to say, hrw gets their facts right is problematic - see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Human_Rights_Watch -- so, i think any given org needs to be judged on what they are saying AND based on what facts/where the facts came from, etc. that is much harder to know and dis/agree with. Soosim (talk) 05:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

one more thing - i checked the adl source you posted on the sjp wikipage. it says that there are 80 chapters - which you quoted, but it also says "SJP has consistently demonized Israel, describing its policies toward the Palestinians as racist and apartheid-like, and comparing Israelis to Nazis." - seems like a fact as well. ok? Soosim (talk) 13:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Of course one org can be more reliable than another, even if there are reports of mistakes they make. Case in point: org:

New York Times; report of mistakes they make: Jayson Blair; another: Weekly World News. Clearly one is more reliable than the other, no? And your second paragraph would be a fine example of a fact that seems inherently controversial so would require some additional sourcing. --GRuban (talk

) 13:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

gruban - i took something which is perhaps more black/white than grey, but i see lots of issues with it and not sure what to do with it. the adl has proof - online sources from sjp itself - that sjp in fact describes israel's policies towards palestinians as racist and apartheid-like and compares israel to nazis. the adl is merely quoting from sjp material on its own website. so, is that ok? Soosim (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Soosim, the whole point of collaboration is to work on these fine points case by case. CarolMooreDC🗽 18:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

carol - which is what we were doing on the talk page and on other article talk pages, until you brought here.... Soosim (talk) 05:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The article

If it makes a difference, the book is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article and received some reviews from quality publications. The Daily Telegraph praised it, while the Daily Mail called it unrigorous and the London Review of Books called it "a wretched hagiography". (Citations at the book's article). -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It is clearly a vanity press. If the subject were a living person,

Fladrif (talk

) 18:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

That's my take, too. I'll transcribe this response to the review page. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd hold off on that until other people have opined as well.

Fladrif (talk

) 19:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see this note until now. I did note on the review page that further comments might be forthcoming. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to note that Peel's biography of Ken Barrington (

talk

) 19:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

There does appear to be some ambiguity about which Peel is which. I see a number of books from Kingswood Press London - most of them about cricket - but it doesn't appear to have a website, odd thing if it is still in business. The only Kingswood Press I can find in London is a print shop, not a publisher, leading me to think that it is another vanity press, but I have nothing definitive on that.

Fladrif (talk

) 19:17, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Peel's other biographies have mostly been about people in cricket - not education. The award was from the Cricket Society - Cricket Book of the Year.[55]

Fladrif (talk

) 19:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Peel was not just at a teacher at a school in Scotland: it was Fettes College. Chevenix-Trench was headteacher at Fettes College. Too close for comfort? Emeraude (talk) 10:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

There was about a 5-6 year overlap at the very beginning of Peel's teaching career and the very end of Chevnix-Trench's career as headmaster at Fettes, some 20-25 years prior to the book's publication, which explains the connection and perhaps the motivation and hagiographic tone of the biography, but it doesn't really affect reliability of the source one way or the other.

Fladrif (talk

) 12:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The book should be in the bibliography, and in view of its very strong relevance its existence should be mentioned in our article, but we really can't rely on it as a source. We know nothing firm about its reliability, the publisher was (generally agreed to be) a vanity press, the author is not known as an expert, and the reviews (so far as I've seen) are mixed. (Any one review could come from a best friend, e.g. at the Daily Telegraph, or a worst enemy, e.g. at the London Review of Books: we'd need a consensus.) Andrew Dalby 14:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The editor who created the The Full Armor of God Broadcast article is arguing that the self-published sources there are reliable because the subjects being interviewed on the program make the program notable. Not sure how to explain that's not correct. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

We don't have any specific guidelines for broadcasts, so

talk

) 12:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

And it doesn't seem to meet our criteria there, so AfD is probably the way to go.

talk

) 12:38, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Tagged for AfD.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  13:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

This has been added as a source to

It looks to me that this image is c. 1945 and was lifted from Getty Images [57]. That site indicates that this is the right person, but this photo is probably a copyright violation. Original photo by Keystone/Stringer from the Hulton Archives.

Fladrif (talk

) 19:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I was surprised to notice from my watchlist that User:Kwamikagami (a very hard working and respected Wikipedia editor when it comes to linguistic subjects) removed all mention of above-mentioned widely cited academic from two article on Afroasiatic languages apparently on the grounds that he is not strictly a linguist: [58], [59]. From what I know he is very widely cited in this area. Any comments? For now I reverted both for further discussion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record there seems to have been a sweep of edits eliminating mention of Ehret.[60] I am a big admirer of Kwami's editing that I have seen, but find it worth taking a step back here to see what others think.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

He may not be the best historical linguist, but it's quite clear that he can, indeed, be considered a linguist. He is widely cited in linguistic literature and he has a clear following in linguistic circles. While he may teach in a history department that doesn't mean anything in terms of linguistics. I teach in an English department, but I'm still a linguist. I think that in this case, kwami's elimination of Ehret's citations just because kwami doesn't think he's a linguist is unjustified and Ehret should be returned to his place. As I start with, he may not be the best historical linguist in certain respects, but we all can't be the best. --Taivo (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

What following? Linguists do not take him seriously. I don't care what department he's in – I know lots of good linguists that are not in linguistic departments, but his work is shoddy, he doesn't bother to consider the work that other, more qualified people have done before him, and he hasn't been invited to relevant conferences for years. He is perceived as dabbling in a field he has not been sufficiently trained for. From what I understand, his reputation among archeologists is similar. Perhaps Afroasiatic is an exception, but his Nilo-Saharan and Khoisan work is ignored unless an author feels the need to overtly dismiss it as nonsense. He's like Greenberg with Amerindian, though at least Greenberg was trained in linguistics and is respected as a pioneering typologist. As with many fringy writers that people don't feel are worth their time, it's not always easy to find his work falsified in publications, but talk to specialists in these fields, and if you bring up a claim that Ehret has made, the response is, well, that's just Ehret, no need to bother with it.

Ehret is, however, a good writer, better than most specialists, and his publications are easily understood by nonspecialists. Perhaps this explains some of his popularity. There was also a time a decade or so ago when Ehret published a lot of interdisciplinary papers with linguists. This doesn't seem to happen much any more, since he now claims to be a linguist himself rather than a historian and generally ignores work that does not agree with his own, even when that other work has been well received; what you do see are things like him coauthoring with geneticists who are also dabbling in linguistics and are similarly clueless. — kwami (talk) 23:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

But note the beginning of my comment--he may not be a good one, but he is still a linguist and, as you yourself admit, his works are still referred to. Whether he is right or not is immaterial in mentioning his views in Afroasiatic articles and, like Greenberg's, should not be simply eliminated from reference as if he doesn't exist and wrote nothing. That's the point here--just because he might very well be wrong doesn't mean that his works are not

reliable sources for alternate views. And despite your protestations, his works are cited and his views referenced in multiple works on those language families. We don't ignore Greenberg, we cite his views and then state that they are not widely accepted. Ehret's views fall into the same basket. --Taivo (talk

) 03:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to make it clear I am not a linguist and I have no attachment to Ehret's theories. (I know they are in some cases controversial.) But I have looked for sources in this field and I know he is widely cited, and that pretty much all sources are controversial in some of the fields he is most cited in (such as reconstructing very ancient languages). So I find it problematic to remove mention of his work. And there are apparently only a few sources everyone always cites in some of these areas, so removing a major one can quite significantly change Wikipedia's presentation of facts. Honest question: Concerning the assertion that linguists do not take him seriously is there some way to prove this? As a secondary point I would mention that one of the deletions of mention I saw is about the subject of the geographical origin of the Afroasiatic language, not that language as such.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

It is not justified for Wikipedians to remove mention of Ehret's work. He is a comparative linguist, published in major linguistic periodicals and by respected academic presses: his conclusions are widely cited elsewhere and should be cited here too. We can, of course, equally cite the comparative linguists who disagree with him. It's not up to us to reach a conclusion, for him or against him, where there is current controversy. Andrew Dalby 09:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

He is not a linguist. He is a historian who dabbles in linguistics. Rather than comparing him to Greenberg, who was an actual linguist and made contributions that are still important today, a better parallel would be geneticists who publish on linguistics without any knowledge of the subject, such as Knight et al. who wrote the article in Science that claims the original human language probably had clicks, based on no credible evidence whatsoever. They required dubunking because they appeared in Science; otherwise actual linguists wouldn't have bothered. Per WEIGHT, Knight et al. are not worth covering in articles on the topic unless the popular coverage is enough that we feel we need to report it. When we do, we would say they are geneticists drawing conclusions about linguistics which linguists do not find convincing. There isn't any real controversy about Ehret: The linguists and even anthropologists in the areas I am familiar with all say his conclusions are nonsense. Again, perhaps Afroasiatic is the exception, but I'd like to see linguistic coverage of the family that refers to him as a credible scholar

You say that the origin of a language family are not the same as a language, but you can only draw those conclusions through linguistics, and they are uncertain and contentious enough when qualified linguists draw them. — kwami (talk) 05:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm with you, Kwami, on large parts of this, but beyond a certain cutoff point it isn't up to us to decide. Ehret's work is above that cutoff point. His ideas are currently discussed by linguists (and historians and others), and accepted by some, and, even when not accepted, taken seriously. He is published on these subjects by academic presses and in peer-reviewed journals. He gets academic responses. That being the case, it doesn't matter to us -- sorry -- that Kwamikagami says he isn't a linguist. Linguistics isn't a walled garden.

What I would think significant (for what my view is worth :) ) is if reviewers and academic peers publish the view that he's out of his depth and shouldn't be dabbling in a certain subject area. If that view is visibly, cite-ably maintained, and not strongly opposed, then (for me) the balance shifts. Andrew Dalby 08:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, I do not see how we can remove mention of one of the most widely cited sources for Afroasiatic based on the heresay of a Wikipedian concerning the unpublished opinions of academics. I appreciate the problems that can happen because of interdisciplinary citations in the way academics work today, which often gives too much apparent credence to certain types of sources. But I think this is not a very subtle way of handling it, and extending this type of approach to more such controversies would surely to cause some un-needed wikidrama. I note that in the citations given, Ehret is being cited for opinions which are in themselves widely cited, and not apparently controversial or fringe, at least not amongst all specialists.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Kwami writes that Ehret is not a linguist. This may technically be true, but it is also true, to name two examples, for Bender (a mathematician) and Blench (an anthropologist), both people that Kwami is very happy to cite. And there may be lots of others who after being trained in one field worked themselves into another without formal training, and then publishing their research on it. If in linguistics I could only accept the writings of those with at least a BA in linguistics, then there would be a lot less to read in linguistics. Please, Kwami, abandon that quest of purging Wikipedia of a widely cited author, especially without first engaging in discussions on the relevant pages. Landroving Linguist (talk) 19:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

No doubt a tedious undertaking, but it would seem to be necessary to leave the refs to his work and add citations from others' work that discredits it, if that is the case, and then let everyone decide what the article(s) should reflect through consensus achieved on the Talk page(s).--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)