Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 160

I have been interested in the memory of water debate from the start, having heard a lecture by Jacques Benveniste on his research even before the publication of his paper in Nature. As a theoretical physicist, I have been interested in the way fallacious arguments are frequently used in an attempt to prove that the claims are impossible. In an invited lecture in a meeting organised by the Foundation of German Business (SDW), I addressed a number of these arguments, demonstrating why they are incorrect. I think it would be good if some balance were given to the memory of water article by including a link to the lecture, which has been archived on our university's media server (the section dealing with memory of water begins at 6:55).

Re the reliability of this as a source, I note first my own credentials, e.g. as having a Cambridge Ph.D. in physics, being a Fellow of the Royal Society (UK), and having published in notable physics journals such as Physical Review Letters. On the verifiability issue, my discussion of flaws in the usual arguments is very straightforward, and comprehensible to anyone with a basic understanding of the issues involved (for example, I cite the difference between ice and water, a matter of common knowledge, to argue that one does not have to add molecules to water to change its properties significantly).

This reference would support a statement along the lines of

According to Josephson^[1], many of the arguments used to dismiss memory of water out of hand are unsound.

. --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't think this is an RS question, since Josephson is presumably a reliable source for Josephson's view. The questions here would be around weight and neutrality, starting - I suppose - with a question about whether this view has been discussed (or otherwise expressed) in reliable, secondary, published sources.

COI

16:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I cannot see how a short report of a lecture (oddly, in German) can be deemed a reliable source. Assuming that you are Josephson, you should be able to place your talk on a personal blog or website which would be identifiably yours, then it would be a matter of the notability of the view articulated, as Alexbrn says. Paul B (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. That is just what I have done -- look for the link to it in the last sentence of my first paragraph ('link to the lecture'). As regards notability, I see that there is remarkably little discussion in the article as it is at present on the question of whether memory of water is theoretically possible or not, only the red herring relating to networks that really should not be there. But I can say at least that the first point re water memory in my talk, that you don't need extra molecules for there to be an effect, is very well known to people in the field and there must be many references to it. The point is so obvious (except to the sceptics who keep bringing up the false argument) that I would not expect much note to be taken of my reiteration of the same point.

Again, I would guess that another false argument, the last one mentioned in this part of my talk, that if water had a memory it would remember everything it had come into contact with, must have been addressed in the literature, even if not with the precision that an experienced theoretician can bring to bear on such issues.

Even though the meeting was held in Cambridge UK, the audience consisted exclusively of native German speakers, so it is not that surprising that the summary of the meeting was published in German by the German sponsoring organisation. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I clicked on the wrong link. I'm listening to the recorded version of the lecture now. Paul B (talk) 17:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but for me this falls into the category of "expert outside his field of expertise". With regards to weight: the fact that some fallacious arguments are used by one side in a debate is not, per se, remarkable - I'd expect this for both sides in any discussion that involves more than a very small group indeed. I'd only include this if there is evidence that the criticism has been picked up as significant by some outside sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Outside my area of expertise? You are clearly the person speaking outside his area of expertise and I demand a retraction. --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

What we have here is (I suspect) a case of an editor who (for reasons I will not speculate on here) latches on to the fact that my comment suggests that I'm not that familiar with the literature on homeopathy (not my area of expertise), and wrongly infers from this that I am not expert in the particular technical issues that I am addressing in my comments. This kind of superficial analysis by editors is what gives wikipedia a bad name. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

You suspect wrong. You are an expert in physics. Water memory, on the other hand, is a pseudo-science - it may appear to use the apparatus of science, but it's not science. Dealing with this is a special skill different from physics, or indeed science in general. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, if you say that is not your reasoning. But the 'reasoning' you give above is a textbook case of 'proof by declaration', which is no proof at all. --Brian Josephson (talk) 12:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Let the people here judge whether or not the memory of water work is scientific. A lecture given by Benveniste at the Cavendish colloquium is available on the web. In what way is that kind of activity pseudoscience? Does Schulz consider that the mere investigation of a phenomenon that most scientists dismiss is pseudoscience as such? --12:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

As Alexbrn notes, the chief issue here isn't really one of "reliability" of the sources with respect to the attribution of the opinion or any quotes—there's not really any question that Josephson said what he says he said, when and where he said it. The question is whether or not Josephson's personal opinion on this topic is sufficiently noteworthy to warrant special mention in

WP:WEIGHT past breaking to juxtapose Josephson's personal opinion (commentary made at a – presumably un-vetted, non-peer-reviewed – speech to the UK chapter of the Foundation of German Businesses) and proper, published, high-quality, peer-reviewed scientific articles. As an aside, it also strikes me as disingenuous to wax eloquent about fallacious arguments and the narrowmindedness of the mainstream scientific community while ignoring completely the fact that the American Physical Society offered to fund and carry out (another) double-blinded test of water memory in response to a challenge by Josephson himself. TenOfAllTrades(talk

) 23:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing sinister (as Randi and others try to make out) about the fact that the proposed test involving the APS never took place (by the way, you can't do 'double blind tests' on a system such as a sample in a test tube that doesn't know what is going on; 'blind test' is what you mean). Considerable negotiation about a possible test took place between Benveniste, and Park acting on behalf of the APS. The difficulty was that it was not enough just to 'do an experiment'; the experiment had to be such that if it gave a positive result sceptics would agree that the result was positive (and sceptics are very good at finding reasons for not accepting a positive result). Some proposals by the physicists were just not practical. Various possibilities were discussed and in the end Benveniste, who thought it of more value to investigate the phenomena further than to satisfy sceptics, announced that he did not want to proceed further. --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

...And I'm sure that that perceived lack of value or practicality had nothing to do with the fact that other properly-blinded trials attempting to reproduce his previous work were negative in their outcomes. But seriously, you're attempting to turn an article on a scientific non-phenomenon into a soapbox for your personal opinions on the nuances of scientific debate, and that just isn't what we're here for. Stephan Schulz hits the nail on the head up above. The fact that a few of the arguments made against 'water memory' as a plausible physical phenomenon might be specious – or might be interpreted in such a way that they become specious – is pretty much irrelevant to the topic. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with TenOfAllTrades comment of 23:27 19 November, this is a weight issue. Where is there any substantial discussion of the material from the suggested source? - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Just another vote for the "pseduo-science doesn't belong here" - as more than one comedian has noted if water had a memory, what about all the poo that's been in it? Does it forget about that?Smidoid (talk) 14:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The question is whether Brian Josephson is an expert in "water memory", as it's clear that the sources he wants to use are not reliable in themselves. This is very difficult to determine, as there is no agreement that there is a field there, at all. He has not established his expert credentials in the relevant areas of physics or chemistry, although he has established himself as an expert in some relevant aspects of physics. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Is songkick.com [19] a reliable source for concert dates, locations, and their opening acts? --Jpcase (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I will hazard a guess and say no going by what they say here: "Songkick was founded in 2007 by Ian Hogarth, Pete Smith, and Michelle You: three friends who thought it was way too hard to find out when their favorite bands were coming to town." It seems to be self-published by three friends, meaning there is no separate editorial oversight. Looks like a useful site but doesn't meet Wikipedia's RS criteria. Betty Logan (talk) 01:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'd be hesitant to discredit the site just on the basis that it was founded by three friends; any professional organization could start up that way. But I'm still on-the-fence enough about using it, that I'll refrain from doing so unless any one offers up a different opinion. Would anyone happen to know of another website that specializes in providing this kind of information and meets the RS criteria?

By the way, it's nice to run into you again Betty Logan. You may not remember, but you really helped me out a lot when I was working on Hoodwinked! and still learning the ropes of how to write an article.--Jpcase (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

• In
  The Independent Institute profile/bio here
  . Edit summary reads in part "Remove undue and non-RS content. "
• In
  Ludwig von Mises Institute bio here
  . Edit summary reads "Remove primary source description of vMI publications"
  

These are two bio stubs I just started beefing up and it seems views described by Institute sites are useful for providing a context for the article as well as a focus for further research. Thanks Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

For consideration, seeing as you 'just started beefing up' these articles, are these the only sources that make these claims or have you found more? AnonNep (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

It is not clear what you are asking for on this noticeboard. Per the instructions above, "This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context." But the two talk pages have developed very little/no discussion on the edits. I suggest the question be re-stated as a BRD on the two article talk pages. In any event, the straightforward institution descriptions of Stromberg & Raico should be considered RS in context. – S. Rich (talk) 23:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

As SRich knows so well the editor(s) in question are highly biased against the sources in question, and the subjects of the biographies, so given there are two similar incidents, it's a waste of time to hear the same biased arguments I've heard a thousand times from them on two different talk pages. And it would be against BRD for me to revert their edits.

To User:AnonNep: Really just starting and obviously better additional sources needed. I like to get a listing of all sources before I start adding more, so I start with easiest overviews like those. Unfortunately, the editor (and his close collaborators) keeps me and a couple other editors busy dealing with their activities on a number of bios of individuals they distain, i.e., deletions of NPOV material, threats of AfDs, adding of loads of questionable, often poorly sourced material that requires repeat visits to WP:RSN and WP:BLPN, etc. So it's a process of putting out the worst fire every day. With all the disruptions it's hard to get enough done given I'm just a volunteer with just a couple hours a day to spare.

Anyone know any way to get them to hold off for a while as we actually get some constructive addition of material done? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I was a bit nonplussed when I saw this. Stick with the processes and (how many more times?) skip the sniping, please, If people are being disruptive then

get some admins involved. The sources s/b ok for basics such qualifications unless they are contradicted by other sources. I don't see any particular problem with using them for the quotes that you give but it probably would be better if you could find other sources because someone, somewhere might say that it is just publishers' spiel etc, the sort of stuff you see on the back cover of a book. - Sitush (talk

) 00:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Striking whining. Thanks for advice. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you review the rest of your edits for the past week or so and strike the rest of your PA and other off-topic remarks. You have able collaborators here and your fellow editors are here to strengthen WP -- even when you disagree with, or do not understand, their thinking. SPECIFICO talk 01:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Stepping away from the nonproductive personal sniping, what is the supposed problem with the sources here? In both cases it appears that the sources in question were previously used in each article and continue to be used after the reverts. @SPECIFICO:, since you mentioned "non-RS content" in one of your edit summaries, can you explain what the concern is? Superficially the claims don't seem particularly controversial, and for non-controversial content an organizational bio seems acceptably reliable. If they were making claims of stature, like "widely renowned" or "recognized expert", then I would think differently, but that's not happening in these edits. --RL0919 (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing us back on topic. My original posting gives the edit summaries but the editor or deleted the material has not chosen to defend them here. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello @RL0919:. I think the primary-sourced bio text about special interests in whatever is gratuitous. These bios frequently contain promotional or boilerplate items. Presumably if Mr. Stromberg specializes in these areas we can find publications to add to his pubs list and secondary independent RS discussion of his contributions in these areas. Thanks for the question. SPECIFICO talk 04:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like a concern about the reliability of the sources. I would think an institutional bio page should be reliable as to what types of topics the subject works on. Whether the mention of that is gratuitous or promotional is a legitimate question for discussion, but it isn't a matter of source reliability. My two-fold suggestion is 1) for User:SPECIFICO, don't say "non-RS" in edit summaries when the concern is really POV/due weight, because it confuses the issue; and 2) for User:Carolmooredc, do try to use the article talk pages, because discussion there would have refined what the dispute was, so that even if it didn't resolve it, you could have escalated to a more appropriate forum. --RL0919 (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. My understanding of RS is that it relates to our confidence in the truth of what the source states. I have found in general that primary sources which describe various institutions, their affiliated individuals, or their programs may stretch the truth or state subjective views and evaluations as if they were fact. If the site stated that an associated writer is 6 feet tall or that he was born in Detroit, or some other verifiable/falsifiable fact that seems easy to accept. When the site states here are his interests or here's what he's noted for or some other subjective statement, even when its not intrinsically extreme or controversial, those statements seem problematic. I wouldn't have a POV/weight problem with stating his specialty if I were sure that independent sources considered it to be as identified. I agree with you, RL, that there was no reason to jump the gun and post this RSN to sort out a straightforward issue about a simple statement. Should we agree to close this and move back to the article talk page? SPECIFICO talk 20:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the claims in this case are particularly subjective (as I stated above, I would have a different position if the wording was evaluative/promotional), but I agree that this should go to the article talk pages. --RL0919 (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Because this is similar edits related to two articles and because SPECIFICO, the editor who removed the material, even objected to almost a dozen WP:RS for one factoid in this bio brought to WP:RSN, it seemed like a waste of time to discuss it on the talk page since the discussion was predictable. No one has made a substantive comment on the talk pages since I posted notice of this. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Even if you don't expect great results, it is still best to start with article talk. If there is problematic behavior by one or more editors, shortcutting isn't likely to resolve it. --RL0919 (talk) 16:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Good point. Thanks. Left a note on both threads couple days ago that, given no objections, I soon will revert back material, so we'll see if there are any. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

The source for the genre is from this link, [20], in which I think is a not reliable because the whole book is not about The Simpsons, nor if I think the book is completely fiction. The source is referencing this content:

The Simpsons is an American adult animated sitcom created by Matt Groening for the Fox Broadcasting Company.

As of that sentence is the first from the article is which is supporting the reference. The user who added it claimed that the source is reliable, in which I'm opposing to the statement that it isn't.
Blurred Lines 23:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't waste time over this. It's common knowledge that The Simpsons is appreciated by both children and adults. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith: Exactly, so does that mean the reference is not reliable? Blurred Lines 20:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind, by saying No in the edit summary, you were probably trying to say that it's not. Blurred Lines 20:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The book was published 1994 and it's categorised in Amazon as Crafts and Hobbies. Not reliable. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

That's what I thought, thanks for responding! Blurred Lines 20:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The non-fiction book: Fashion & Merchandising Fads (Haworth Popular Culture) by Frank Hoffmann and Beulah B Ramirez (Aug 11, 1994) is a reliable source and supports the information except for the "Adult" portion. I would say to exclude that or source it better to a specific citation. It has a reliable publisher (Routledge (August 11, 1994) ) and the authors appear to be notable for works on pop culture.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you on that one, because I noticed that something was wrong when I was looking at the adult part. Blurred Lines 20:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

*Update: The user AmericanDad86 has taken Mark Miller's suggestion to choose a different source, and this is what he choose, [21]. Now is that source reliable, or it's just the same? Blurred Lines 22:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Steven Hassan is a cult specialist, who has been criticised by another specialist, Rick_Ross_(consultant).

the section therefore read:

Hassan became involved in a dispute with fellow cult critic

Rick Ross when Ross posted a disclaimer on his Web site after receiving what he stated were “serious complaints” regarding Hassan’s fees for his services.^[1] Hassan responded that the charges were “inappropriate and completely inaccurate,” stating that Ross had misstated Hassan's current fees.^[2] Ross's response was that Hassan's fees "were $500.00 per hour and/or $5,000 per day" but that after "Hassan publicly posted his fee schedule, which was reduced to $250.00 per hour and/or $2,500.00 per day...the RI disclaimer was taken down." Hassan stated that "my current fees are not $500 as Ross claims. I charge half that for an hour of counseling and have done so for quite some time."^[2]

Furthermore, included is Hassan's response to Ross's criticisms [48]

The sources clearly support the content, are in line with

Zambelo (talk) 16:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem here is that this entire passage is only sourced to

primary sources. There's no independent secondary source to establish that any of this is worth documenting in an encyclopedia. Gamaliel (talk

) 16:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

OK... we have two separate issues here... The first is a matter of

WP:RS) issue... Is Ross's website a reliable source for Ross's opinion. The answer to that is: Yes... it is an appropriate use of a primary source. Blueboar (talk

) 17:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58] including on two occasions the exact text which states that a self published source is NEVER allowed on a BLP unless it is written by the subject of the article.Coffeepusher (talk

) 17:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Coffeepusher, perhaps it would be more productive to give your arguments why the content doesn't belong in the article? I wasn't aware of BLP when I first added the content, but I subsequently defended the inclusion of the material in the talk page. Zambelo (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

that's easy,

biographies of living persons. Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk

) 18:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

This would be true if I was trying to establish the criticism as fact "Steven Hassan charges $1000 a session" (ref: Rick Ross). This isn't what is happening here. The context is that I am including Rick Ross's opinion. This isn't material about a living person; this is another person of import's opinion about this person, and it is being presented as such. Zambelo (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

please read

WP:BLP policy applies to. Do you need me to extract the exact passages again, or can you do it yourself?Coffeepusher (talk

) 18:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I've read it, thanks. Zambelo (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Source: [59].

Article: The Simpsons

Content: [60]

Due by too many unconcerned content made by AmericanDad86 that had nothing to do with the source whatsoever, I have made a newer discussion. Blurred Lines 00:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The source is reliable, but not in this context. A book dealing with issues of psychology is not the best choice for determining the particular genre of a television series. There has been plenty written about The Simpsons so it should be an easy matter to find such a citation in a book about the show itself, or a work of media studies. Gamaliel (talk) 06:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Gamaliel, per

WP:SOURCE, that the subject matter of the entire book doesn't focus solely on The Simpsons or animation isn't a breach of Wikipedia's policy for reliable sources. Scholarly sources can range from mainstream newspapers, magazines, tertiary sources sources, etc., which do not focus completely on one particular subject matter but rather a multitude of subject matters. If sources had to focus completely on the subject matter, tertiary sources

, newspapers, and magazines would not be considered reliable. Although this technically does indeed qualify as a reliable source for the edit in question, I can understand your desire to have a bit of a stronger focus on the subject from a subjective standpoint. So per Gamaliel's comment, I have gone ahead and sourced the edit with books directly related to The Simpsons and animation.

As a last and final note, BlurredLines clearly needs to read over

WP:SCHOLARSHIP and educate himself on what and what does not qualify as a reliable source. He has contended many times now that these scholarly books I've been using to source material aren't at all scholarly. He clearly is unaware that books published by established publishing houses are considered reliable sources and needs some lessoning in this department as it is making his editing obnoxious to deal with. At the end of the day, all my sources used for this particular edit have been from reliable books unbeknownst to BlurredLines which has been quite irksome. And to make such an elaborate fuss over the reliable sources I've used for this edit that has nothing to do with a living person or medicine but over a television's genre is honestly quite disruptive. AmericanDad86 (talk

) 11:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

This strikes me as a bit odd. Does this book really say (in straightforward words) that the Simpsons is classified as adult programming? Sure there is no non-obvious interpretation required there? Even then, in a case like this we have to be careful of using one single source for an obviously unusual claim.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

User:AmericanDad86, this comment isn't remotely helpful. It appears there is a lot of backstory here that I am unaware of but there is precious little discussion on Talk:The Simpsons and a lot of threats and borderline namecalling. Unless you and User:Blurred Lines are willing to discuss this with each other instead of talking at each other, this matter will not be resolved, and if the edit warring continues without appropriate discussion, I'll lock the article until the editors on that talk page can sort this matter out. Gamaliel (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this is getting out of hand, however, Blurred lines has not been acting in the total right here. I also think that they (and perhaps all involved) need to review

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. A source basically has 4 points that determine the strength and reliability. The publication itself (the book or article), the author , the publisher and the context. In this instance the context of the source is simply very weak. But that is the limit here as everything else seems to meet RS. The source does come out and call "the Simpsons" an adult cartoon, but I would rather a source that is written by an expert in media or television be used, but Andrew Lancaster is mistaken in that this is not an unusual claim. Calling the Simpsons an adult cartoon is not controversial or unusual as the series did begin as a segment of an adult entertainment series not meant for children. However, in media and entertainment the term "adult" has other meanings that many may object to. I suggest editors work this out on the talk page. Also, I really don't like admin threatening editors. Put your mop back in it's holster there Gamaliel. Your job is clean up, not proactive threats. Thanks.--Mark Miller (talk

) 00:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Locking articles to encourage discussion is a pretty routine way of cleaning up disputes. Gamaliel (talk) 02:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

After you properly warn the editors in the appropriate place and in the appropriate manner. This is not AN or AN/I and you are not the sheriff, but a janitor. Wait for the spill before you take the mop out. But please do not create a chill effect by making editors feel that they will have issues if they come here to ask about sources. Thanks.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

There's already been a spill. If my comments have a chilling effect on combatants who want to bring their slapfight to this forum, I consider that a benefit and not a drawback. Gamaliel (talk) 04:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Then take your mop where the spill is and stop making threats to editors on this noticeboard.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed the overflow above? If you want to concern yourself about chilling effects when editors seek assistance at noticeboards, then you should be concerned about responses like this one. If it is inappropriate here to "threaten" editors with routine article locking, then surely it is inappropriate refer to their editing as "obnoxious" as well. Gamaliel (talk) 06:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you shouldn't make assumptions because that just makes you look like an...well you get the point. It is inappropriate to threaten editors on this noticeboard. Page protection is a preventative action and threatening that action is punative.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

You have a very broad definition of "threaten" here. If I was threatening an editor, then I would be threatening to do something to them, and since it is

not their article that I would be locking, I have made no threat against them, only a warning about possible administrative action regarding the article. Regardless, your point has been made, repeatedly. If you're not willing to engage in discussion beyond that and just want to beat that dead horse over and over again, please take it to a different forum such as my personal talk page. Gamaliel (talk

) 16:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no further discussion. That was not a warning, but a threat of punative action, something that makes most editors uncomfortable when the are attempting to work within the guidelines and policies the community has set. This is where you made the statement and where the discussion belongs. If you feel the point has been made there is nothing further to discuss. Happy editing.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Blocking an editor is a punitive action. Locking an article is a preventative one. For it to be punitive, it would require the article to belong to one of the parties involved in the editing dispute. If it is in any sense punitive, it punishes the entire community because they are unable to edit. But then edit warring and disputes between editors also have negative effects on the community. Gamaliel (talk) 22:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Editors- If this content dispute continues, please use Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard or attempt compromise together. (We commonly refer cases from one noticeboard to another).--Mark Miller (talk) 03:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I was reading Boil and noticed that the section that claimed that Tea Tree Oil could be used as a treatment was sourced to [61]. There's not much content here - just about everything is behind a paywall. It occurred to me that this source might not even be a legit source of pharmaceutical data. Could anybody with experience of this kind of thing weigh in? --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

An IP is insisting on including " On the other hand, the authors Górny and Rosikoń state that in case of some relics "the results of numerous time-consuming and comprehensive analyses, conducted using the most technologically advanced equipment available, seemed to coincide with assertions prevalent in Christian tradition."

I'm going to fall with not a reliable source on this one. Górny is the only author here, despite what the sentence says (there is another issue with how the claim is represented, but never mind). I'm sure Górny is a great person, but this claim is specifically about the results of these comprehensive analyses with the "most technologically advanced equipment available". What makes Górny an expert on these? I don't see anything. The publisher does not establish any reliability for the source either: This publisher is almost entirely an apologetics outfit. Jesus is a major historical research topic: There are many recent indubitably reliable sources which say that there is no physical evidence for Jesus (e.g., Bart Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, p. 45): If this book is saying otherwise, and it is taken seriously, why are there no academic reviews commenting on it? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

It is RS. The book is not academic, but popular one, based on other sources, not always available in English, and does not need academic reviews (by whom? -Ehrman for example, has its own ideological bias, and is not an expert in relics whatsoever), besides it was released in English only a couple weeks ago. It has a positivie recommendation from Barrie Schwortz, former

"the results of numerous time-consuming and comprehensive analyses, conducted using the most technologically advanced equipment available, seemed to coincide with assertions prevalent in Christian tradition." - for this statement to be taken seriously it needs to be properly explained. Whose analyses, using what technology, when? And what exactly is meant by "seemed to coincide with" - a phrasing that may be innocuous, or carefully chosen to obscure issues? Without further information, such comments, from a non-academic source, can only be used very carefully (with due explanation of the sourcing), and certainly not presented in the lead of an article as if the statement is definitive. Podiaebba (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Schwortz was a photographer for STURP, yes, but he is largely a fringe character. His whole work revolves around his claim that the Shroud of Turin is authentic, which is an archetypal fringe theory. I don't think he has any credibility as a reviewer. And what is telling you that that particular webpage was written by Schwortz? Because he runs the whole site? There is a lot of material there which is not written by him. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 01:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Read the book, fools! Here you have some excerpts:

http://en.rosikonpress.com/dzial_51/towar_karta_150/Swiadkowie_Tajemnicy.html http://shroudstory.com/2013/11/30/new-book-recommendation-on-steras-facebook-page/ http://shroudstory.com/2013/10/31/new-book-about-christs-relics-from-ignatius-press/ http://shroudstory.com/2013/11/06/of-similarities-the-tunic-of-argenteuil-and-the-shroud-of-turin/

The whole thing looks like you don't like the statement (because it is contrary to your ideological views) are just looking for an excuse to do not include the book.

83.29.181.170 (talk) 10:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

And your whole argument seems to be that since you like it, and since some random bloggers you found like it, we should consider it a reliable source. I stand with Podiaebba's statement, especially. The authors refer to technological analyses, but they are not themselves scientists, so they must be citing someone else's work. Whose work? Furthermore, the publisher of this work, Ignatius Press, is not an academic publisher - rather, Ignatius Press's mission is to "support the teachings of the Church". This is not the sort of book that should be used to write a neutral article. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you read that book? If not, your ignorant opinion is meaningless. Ignatius is a serious Catholic publisher, I don't know why books published by them should be excluded from Wikipedia -except someone's hostility to Catholicism. If we exclude Górny, then we should also exclude Carrol-Cruz -catholic writer as well, and Nickell, sceptical writer, who is much more biased (against any relics) than any Catholic source -so his book is not the sort of book that should be used to write a neutral article. The statement is an opinion cited, not a fact. Besides there is no such academic discipline as study of the relics yet -anyone can publish whatever wants. In the lead, we have two negative opinions, by Erasmus from 1500s, and by Thurston from 1913. So the lead is not neutral. To balance it, we have posititve Górny&Rosikoń opinion from 2013 -much more recent, after several researches on some relics (described in their book) have been published.

83.29.181.170 (talk) 13:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

IP is continuing to replace this material despite discussion here and having had 3 editors revert them, so clearly no consensus (but we do have some nice insults). I've reported to 3RR but as the IP changes I realise we will need semi-protection.

talk

) 15:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I see no constructive discussion here, only censorship. I am under impression that the statements from that book are simply inconvenient for someone's worldview. The trouble is, that Ignatius is catholic, not reliability of the book. Whoever has even read it? 83.29.181.170 (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Three comments:

1. First a question: Does Górny state his own conclusions about the relics, or does he merely report on the conclusions of others?
2. If the answer to that question is that Górny states his own conclusions, then we must ask whether he has the necessary professional expertise to draw whatever conclusions he makes. (I don't think he does).
3. If the answer to the question is that Górny reports on the conclusions of others, then his expertise is irrelevant (since he is not the one actually drawing the conclusions). Reliability would be based on the expertise of those others (note... and to determine that, we would need to know who those others are). Blueboar (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

1. The quote is taken from the prologue of his book. You can read it here: [63] The longer version:

"In accompanying their efforts, we conducted our travels rather more as investigative journalists than as pilgrims. We spent more time learning from scientists equipped with highly modernized technical apparatus than we did listening to the stories of religious preachers. And yet, it turned out that these two perspectives often found a common ground. The results of numerous time-consuming and comprehensive analyses, conducted using the most technologically advanced equipment available, seemed to coincide with assertions prevalent in Christian tradition. Science and religion, it would seem, need not contradict each other."

2 Although he uses own words, he expresses the views of the others who investigated those relics. Remember, the opinion is vague, and not in case of all relics such examinations have been performed yet, but in some (

Holy Tunic of Argenteuil, Manoppello Image

) have.

3 See for example, some citations posted on Dan Porter's blog [64]

The book can be considered RS, definetly.

83.29.181.170 (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

OK... if Górny is acting as a reliable journalist, and merely reporting the findings of experts, then he should tell us who those experts are. Does he? Blueboar (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Example from citations posted on Dan Porter's blog [65]:

pp. 190:

In 1998 scientists at the Optics Institute in Orsay decided to compare the bloodstain patterns on the Tunic of Argenteuil and on the Turin Shroud

pp. 191:

Because of these results, interest in the tunic steadily grew throughout the scientific community. In 2004, the Institute of Genetic Molecular Anthropology in Paris commenced tests on the relic.

83.29.181.170 (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

How many tests of how many relics, how many of those tests did not confirm they are relevant to Jesus, who says they all had the latest technological equipment, what assertions? This is all extremely vague and made by someone with no qualifications in science or it seems the history of Christianity. The items identified by them as probably or identifiably genuine include the true cross and 2 at least holy nails. "Relics investigated, and photographed, for this glorious volume include: the Cross, nails, crown of thorns, pillar of scourging, Christ's tunic, the Veil of Manoppello, the Sudarium of Oviedo, the famous Shroud of Turin burial cloth ". And "In addition, some of the objects that were tested exhibit characteristics that completely challenge contemporary scholarship and research on the subject of relics. From a scientific point of view, it’s nigh on impossible to account for the way in which they came into being. Likewise unbelievable is the fact that, despite the technology we have available to us today, these relics cannot be copied".

talk

) 19:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

You make an unbelievable high criteria for inclusion of the opinion cited. Which simply states, that some of the relics have been examined, and are quite likely to be genuine. You dislike that idea -it doesn't matter. The book is about relics, anyway. So do we inlcude this (or similar) quotation in favor of some relics, or only negative opinions of Erasmus, Thurston, Nickell etc have the right to be included in Wikipedia? Because the current lead is definetly not neutral anyway.

PS: "In addition, some of the objects that were tested exhibit characteristics that completely challenge contemporary scholarship and research on the subject of relics. From a scientific point of view, it’s nigh on impossible to account for the way in which they came into being. Likewise unbelievable is the fact that, despite the technology we have available to us today, these relics cannot be copied"

This is a quote about Acheiropoieta.

PS2: The items identified by them as probably or identifiably genuine include the true cross and 2 at least holy nails. This is based on historical investigations of Michael Hesemann and Carsten Peter Thiede from around 2000.

83.29.181.170 (talk) 19:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Speaking as a rather serious Roman Catholic myself, I would have to say that per

WP:WEIGHT, and I see nothing in the statements above which indicate to me that this source, or even necessarily this opinion regardless of source, necessarily meets such requirements. John Carter (talk

) 19:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to restate a point I and several others made: these authors claim to be summarising scientific research. The standard for scientific research is publication in peer-reviewed academic journals - so where, if anywhere, was this research published? Y'know publication bias? Well "some scientists did some research and told me about it" bias is a lot worse. Podiaebba (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

European reliquaries claimed to hold so many pieces of the True Cross that, together, they would be enough to build a ship. We should not take these claims seriously, until we have very strong evidence. By the way, which head of John the Baptist is real? Or are they all real? (Scripture doesn't describe him as pentacephalous, but it's hard to argue with relics) bobrayner (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

In response to the last point above, in a recent book on the

Holy prepuce, the book indicated that there are several different classes of relics recognized, so that a nail which at some point might have been touched to one of the purported nails of the Crucifixion, or for that matter to any recognized relic, became itself a relic of the lower grades, although those who tried to hawk them tended to omit the exact "class" of relic any given item might be. The same probably applies to the apparently Hydra-like abilities of John the Baptist, which I don't remember having heard of before, and noting that specific superpower apparently failed at least once. John Carter (talk

) 20:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

And for your info, since 1870 study of Rohault the Fleury, we know there is not enough for a QUARTER of the True Cross.

83.29.181.170 (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

As a rather serious Protestant Christian, I concur with John Carter here; this just doesn't meet our standards. And abuse by an anonymous fanatic does not help your case, 83.29.--Orange Mike | Talk 21:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know -the Wikipedia is a tool for anti-catholic propaganda. This is the current standard for Wikipedia. Just see the article on the Shroud of Turin or Church of the Holy Sepulchre. I actually knew it before I even edited this article. How can I discuss with idiots who haven't even read the cited book.

83.29.181.170 (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

This abuse suggests that you've given up to trying to participate in a rational debate... but on the off-chance that you haven't, and as it appears you have access to the book, I'll restate my point even more clearly: tell us exactly what research the authors claim to be summarising. The quote you want to put in is simply no substitute for that information - if the scientific research is so wonderfully convincing, then Wikipedia readers should be told the details of it, not given a vague one-sentence summary. And once we know what the research is, we may not need to rely on this book at all (or at least not as much, if the research is published elsewhere). Podiaebba (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Because there is no rational debate on part of you and the buddies. Only harassment and arguments of force. To quickly summarize the book, the reasearch of the Shroud of Turin and Sudarium of Oviedo are quite widely known. The researches of the Acheiropoieta images (including Manoppello Image) can be found there [66]. The research of the Tunic of Argenteuil is described in the book 'Le linceul de Turin et la tunique d'Argenteuil Presses de la Renaissance' by Andre Marion from the Optics Institute in Orsay and Gerard Lucotte from the Institute of Genetic Molecular Anthropology in France. And so on. The Titulus Crucis was paleographically dated to the 1st century by Israeli specialists on behalf of Hesemann, while the nails where compared by himself, to the one that belonged to Jehohanan. But for the biased ignorants this will never be enough -so the "unproper" facts cited by Górny must be removed.

83.29.181.170 (talk) 22:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Noting that the IP editor has been blocked for 24 hours, I think it not unlikely that the discussion might start up again after that time has elapsed. Should the IP editor return, I strongly hope he acquaints himself with

WP:WEIGHT, are also relevant to the content of our articles. Personally, there is no clear reason to believe that the sources are not reliable for use somewhere in wikipedia, possibly in an article on the book at the very least, but that is a completely different matter than the question of its reliability for the article in question. Also, yes, I haven't seen any particular reviews of the Gorny book in question yet produced, and if it is the case that the reviews from academic sources are less than flattering in some way, that would definitely impact the amount of attention that source gets in any article. Once again, should the IP return, I urge him/her in the strongest possible terms to familiarize himself or herself with the guideline pages linked to above, and refrain from further, really pointless, attacks on others such as he or she has engaged in to date. John Carter (talk

) 23:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, there is no academic review of the book. From Google searching, it looks like only 27 unique websites even mention it, almost all of them blogs and sales outlets. So I would say this work is basically ignored by every field, not just academic fields. To be fair, the book is only a month old, so maybe it's just not enough time for something published outside of academic circles to have received any attention. But in conclusion, I see no reason to use this as a reliable source. A journalist and a photographer publishing outside of their field, a book that has received precisely zero attention, through a publisher with stated ulterior motives, should not be cited on Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

the "unproper" facts cited - no facts are cited in the disputed quote: that is precisely the problem. You've begun to provide some of those facts about research done, and making sure that those facts are appropriately covered in Wikipedia (with the best possible sourcing for those facts) is worth a lot more of everyone's time than arguing about this quote. For myself, in the face of continued wanton abuse from you, I decline to aid you any further in this endeavour, on a topic I don't give a monkey's about. Podiaebba (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (27 September 2007). "Zusammenfassender Bericht des Unterausschusses "Ärztliche Behandlung" des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses über die Bewertung gemäß §135 Abs.1 SGB V der Körperakupunktur mit Nadeln ohne elektrische Stimulation bei chronischen Kopfschmerzen, chronischen LWS-Schmerzen, chronischen Schmerzen bei Osteoarthritis" (PDF) (in German). Retrieved 5 November 2013... This a review of the GERAC and several smaller acupuncture trials. There is a summary in English, on page 2.
• German Acupuncture Trials
• The source is supporting a description of the trials' set-up and results, e.g.:

  In this trial, a total of 960 patients was randomized; immediately after randomization, however, 125 patients (almost all of them from the standard group) withdrew from the study. Primary outcome was defined as reduction in migraine days in week 21 to 25 after randomization. Treatment for the standard group consisted of medication according to the 2005 therapy guidelines issued by the German Neurological Association, usually comprising a beta-blocker. Regarding efficacy, no statistically significant difference between the groups was observed.

A lot of the discussion on the article's talk page centers around the question whether this source is permissible as a reliable, secondary source. IMO it is, but there are other views as well. --Mallexikon (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

1a) Three primary sources:

• Endres, Heinz G.; Diener, Hans-Christoph; Maier, Christoph; Böwing, Gabriele; Trampisch, Hans-Joachim; Zenz, Michael (2007). "Akupunktur bei chronischen Kopfschmerzen". Deutsches Ärzteblatt 104 (3): C101–C108.
• Endres, Heinz G.; Victor, Norbert; Haake, Michael; Witte, Steffen; Streitberger, Konrad; Zenz, Michael (2007). "Akupunktur bei chronischen Knie- und Rückenschmerzen". Deutsches Ärzteblatt 104 (3): C109–C116.
• Scharf, Hanns-Peter; Mansmann, Ulrich; Streitberger, Konrad; Witte, Steffen; Krämer, Jürgen; Maier, Christoph; Trampisch, Hans-Joachim; Victor, Norbert (2006). "Acupuncture and Knee Osteoarthritis: A Three-Armed Randomized Trial". Annals of Internal Medicine 145 (1): 12–20.

1b) One secondary source:

• Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss / Federal Joint Committee (Germany) (27 September 2007). "Zusammenfassender Bericht des Unterausschusses "Ärztliche Behandlung" des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses über die Bewertung gemäß §135 Abs.1 SGB V der Körperakupunktur mit Nadeln ohne elektrische Stimulation bei chronischen Kopfschmerzen, chronischen LWS-Schmerzen, chronischen Schmerzen bei Osteoarthritis" (in German). Retrieved 5 November 2013.

2.)

a) The primary sources are being challenged on the basis that according to MEDRS, primary sources should better not be used. As far as I know, that applies only to claims of medical efficiency or conclusions/results of trials. In this case, however, the primary sources are only used to describe the set-up and findings of the trials.

b) The secondary source has been challenged to be not reliable (no rationale for this assumption given yet).

Thanks, --Mallexikon (talk) 04:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• Assessment from involved editor. The primary medical sources can't be used for health related content per
  COI
  07:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
  • GERAC presents a reliability issue. Podiaebba (talk
    ) 11:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Using a primary study from six years ago to state (e.g.) "this implied both real and sham acupuncture being significantly more effective than standard therapy" is about a clear a misuse of a primary medical source as it is possible to get; even if this was a secondary source it would be getting to old for this per
      COI
      11:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

In what way is that a misuse of the source [67], which states " Low Back Pain Improved After Acupuncture Treatment For At Least 6 Months. Effectiveness Of Acupuncture, Either Verum Or Sham, Was Almost Twice That Of Conventional Therapy."??

WP:MEDDATE is also not relevant since the article is about these specific trials - you can hardly apply the same standard of "recent publications preferred" as you would to the main acupuncture article. At most you could argue that the out-datedness is an argument for deleting or merging the article. Podiaebba (talk

) 14:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a problem. The primary sources in this case are simply background information for the main point, which is that the German committee approved acupuncture for reimbursement. TimidGuy (talk) 12:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

MEDRS: "it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge"? This article takes the majority of its space relaying the findings of out-of-date primary sources which have subsequently been questioned by reliable secondaries.

COI

12:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

This is an argument for deleting or merging the article, not for complaining about reliability of the sourcing as it stands. Podiaebba (talk) 14:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have nominated it for deletion. This thread was started by an editor wishing to defend the sourcing (and keep the article as-is).

COI

14:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Using a source to describe itself is

Using a source to describe itself is

WP:OR - no it isn't, and it's absurd to say so. It's a line of thinking which basically asserts not merely that primary sourcing needs to be used very carefully (and avoided if possible) but that it's banned completely. It's a tenable position I suppose, but not one supported by WP policy at all. Podiaebba (talk

) 14:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

In terms of normal Wikijargon I think Podiaebba is right. This is a case of a primary source, and not what we would normally call an OR or DUE problem. Primary sources are not forbidden but we use them carefully.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The sources seem to support that there were trials in Germany that lead to approval of reimbursement. There doesn't seem to be an RS issue with that. It seems a due and notability issue. What source supports that this is notable? The claim of notability is a WP editor's statement, "These trials are notable because they led to acupuncture being reimbursable by the German statutory health insurances." that is an editor's opinion/OR. What source supports the statement that the trials are notable? Where is the due weight argument to support an article on such a narrow topic that is supported by outdated and disputed studies? This seems like it might warrant two sentences in the existing acupuncture article. Summary: Marginally RS for content no RS support for weight or notability. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Notability is not really a subject for this forum, but I would say notability is not normally a case of finding a source which directly says something is notable. Often it necessarily involves "common sense" discussion between editors, because notability is relative to what an article is about. If there is an article about government attitudes to acupuncture, then...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Section break

See

Using sources to describe themselves is very common and accepted on Wikipedia. That does not mean there is no other problem here, for example perhaps the lack of MORE sources in addition to that. A very common warning made about using primary sources is not to ONLY use primary sources for any specific article. Is that closer to what you want to argue? OTOH, if there are now newer sources, the best thing to do normally would be to add them, rather than subtract something else. It is not necessarily a good idea to delete sources' own primary comments about themselves.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Using primary sources to describe unimportant low level details is inappropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia.[68] The primary sources are used to discuss low levels details that are not about how a clinical trial impacted society and politics in Germany. The entire article is mess. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German Acupuncture Trials to read comments made by other editors about the many problems. There are now newer sources, but the newer sources do not verify the low levels details that do not belong in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Unreliable sources are being dumped inside the reference section. QuackGuru (talk) 01:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I made this change. The low level details remain in the article for no valid reason. I propose we delete the entire section. See

No. It's reliably sourced material, and I don't see a

WP:WEIGHT issue here. The article is about the GERAC. Check the title. --Mallexikon (talk

) 02:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

You did not address the concerns made by other editors. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German Acupuncture Trials. QuackGuru (talk) 02:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

What concerns? And why debate them here? --Mallexikon (talk) 03:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The concerns now are about the coatrack information that have been restored again. QuackGuru (talk) 02:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Federal Joint Committee source

• Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (27 September 2007). "Zusammenfassender Bericht des Unterausschusses "Ärztliche Behandlung" des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses über die Bewertung gemäß §135 Abs.1 SGB V der Körperakupunktur mit Nadeln ohne elektrische Stimulation bei chronischen Kopfschmerzen, chronischen LWS-Schmerzen, chronischen Schmerzen bei Osteoarthritis" (PDF) (in German). Retrieved 5 November 2013... This a review of the GERAC and several smaller acupuncture trials. There is a summary in English, on page 2.

QuackGuru and Alexbrn would like to throw this source out. Their rationale is that it constitutes a primary source regarding the GERAC, since based on their own report the Federal Joint Committee (Germany) decided to include acupuncture to the list of services that have to be reimbursed by the German statutory health insurances. Could I get some feedback whether the FJC source is permissible (as a reliable secondary source) to describe the background and set-up of the GERAC? --Mallexikon (talk) 03:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent what I have said. Given that the consensus is that this article should be about the event at hand (the granting of insurance eligibility to acupuncture in Germany in 2007), what I wrote about this source was this: "It's not independent of the events and so far from ideal except maybe for the most mundane facts, or things which are otherwise validated by good secondary sources; for anything in the biomedical space (details of the trials e.g.) it fails WP:MEDRS and cannot be used." The key concern here is about biomedical information; you are trying to use this source as a loophole in

COI

08:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

No, you are misrepresenting the consensus. The article of course still is about the GERAC; it's just notable for the "event" you talk about and the article should take that into account (in regard to its content)... This source is not outdated (since it's not used in regard to its assessment about acupuncture in general, but only as a source to describe GERAC itself), and it clearly is an independent, third-party review. If the article's name was "The Federal Joint Committe's decision of 2007" - yes, you might have a point about this source being primary and not independent. But it's not. --Mallexikon (talk) 08:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The key point is it's not RS for the kind of dubious health information you want Wikipedia to include such as (in Wikipedia's voice) "This amounts to significant superiority of acupuncture and sham acupuncture over standard treatment, but no statistical significant efficacy difference between real and sham acupuncture". Even it is was a

COI

08:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

You took this quote from the

Knee osteoarthritis trial subsection - it's clearly not meant as a generalized assessment of acupuncture. I'm going to be more than willing to make sure this article doesn't dole out dubious health information. And I'd like to quote an editor from the AfD discussion: "I'll just point out that if I didn't like acupuncture, I might very well want the page to remain. The results suggest that the effectiveness of acupuncture is basically no more than sham acupuncture..." [69]. You are misinterpreting my intentions here. --Mallexikon (talk

) 09:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether the information is "pro-acupuncture" or "anti-acupuncture": we don't include dubious health information (such as that I quoted from the article) on Wikipedia through using unreliable sources for it, period. That means removing all the discredited primary biomedical material that has been laundered via this non-

COI

09:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The bigger problem is this source and other sources are being used to discuss low level details. On Wikipedia we summarise the sources. The article is about the event. It is not an article about the trials itself. The medical information about the trials itself is coathook information. QuackGuru (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course it's an article about the trials... That's why its title is "German Acupuncture Trials". Can we get some feedback from uninvolved editors here please? --Mallexikon (talk) 04:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Your using the same disputed primary sources again. QuackGuru (talk) 05:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's clearly a secondary source... --Mallexikon (talk) 05:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it is clearly a primary source. QuackGuru (talk) 06:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Can we get some feedback from uninvolved editors here please? --Mallexikon (talk) 07:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Alright, never mind. Let's close this thread and start afresh further down below. --Mallexikon (talk) 02:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The new thread you started did not explain there are many concerns about the coat rack information. You did not explain to other editors that it is an article about the event according to comments made by uninvolved editors at the AFD. QuackGuru (talk) 04:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I have a specific instance here, but generally speaking what happens when (so far as I can tell) the only source of very specific claim - cited in an article - vanishes from the web? Smidoid (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Link rot. Someguy1221 (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• The source in question: 25thframe.co.uk
• The article: List of highest-grossing films in the United Kingdom

The above website is used to source the first chart in the article. I have reservations about this source because i) there seems to be a couple of corrections in our chart attributed to other sources and ii) I can find scant information about who runs this site, and the level of editorial oversight. I've been overhauling the list with an eye on FL promotion but I have concerns that the source in use would not withstand an FL review. So in a nutshell does this source pass muster or should I look for an alternative? Betty Logan (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any identification of who is responsible for the website, how they get their numbers, what editorial board or oversight there is. This alone makes me think this is indistinguishable from any other self published OR. Are there examples of RS's using this site for numbers? Any discussion of the site or its numbers in RS? What gives the site reliability specifically for that matter credibility? Without answers to these questions I'd suggest looking for another source. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I agree with your points. It doesn't look wrong—it looks like an SPS site that simply duplicates the charts. However, the the lack of insight into its publication process doesn't really enable us to ensure that it is correct either. Betty Logan (talk) 23:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Bladesmulti's main reason for asking this appears to be his statement "Dundas is a pro-jain source, certainly lacking the account for writing about other religions." Writing about Jains doesn't make one anti-Hindu. And of course that he (Bladesmulti) disagrees with Dundas's view. He's reliably published academic and the only objection seems to be a disagree with his views (and a claim that he is fringe, which doesn't seem to have any basis).

talk

) 07:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Dougweller, I didn't called his claim to be Fringe, only questioned that if he's presenting wrong information about Vedas, it should be accepted? Like other user had pointed too. Bladesmulti (talk

) 07:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Then attribute it. If other academics disagree, show their views also, attributed.

talk

) 08:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

In subjects where there are differences of opinion amongst experts, the best solution is normally to find MORE sources, showing the other arguments, not to try to delete the sources we have on the basis that they have a POV. In such cases, trying to argue that one source is more POV than another is often a never ending discussion, so not very practical.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Dundas is an established academic, working on Indian religions generally. Reliable for such topics Itsmejudith (talk) 23:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Dundas in many people's opinion may be a reliable academic but I find his knowlwdge of Hinduism shallow or he has not gone into depth of Hindu philosphy -

For example in article

The scriptures known as Vedas are the foundations of Hinduism. As per Hinduism, these scriptures do not have any author and are present since the beginning of the universe This position was countered by Jains who said that saying vedas as authorless was equivalent to saying that anonymous poems are written by nobody. Jain scriptures, on the contrary, were believed by them to be of human origin and hence had greater worth (citation given :Dundas, p. 234.)

The above line in article seems to be

If Dundas wrote anything like that, I'm a Dutchman. (And I'm not, as it happens.) Based on your citation from our article, I think the first question is: what did Dundas really say? Can anyone verify? Andrew Dalby 10:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

@ :Andrew Dalby - I do not have resources to verify that as I do not have the book. But I had raised this same question at

Talk:Jainism and Hinduism earlier and the editor, who is also creator of article said he has quoted same from the Dundas book which is available with him. That is why I raised the question that perhaps Dundas knowledge of Hinduism is shallow or poor. Jethwarp (talk

) 13:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Also some of the claimed information from the book of Dundas certainly can't be verified either. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I have provided the full citation in the page

• Dundas, Paul (2002). The Jains. Routledge. p. 234.
  ISBN 978-0-415-26606-2
  . Yet, despite such evidence of social and religious interaction, the Jains consistently attacked the foundations upon which Hinduism rested. The prestige of the Veda, the supposedly revealed collection of scriptures whose mastery enabled the brahman class to exercise ritual and social authority, was challenged by the Jains on the grounds that it was of the same human provenance as any other type of literature and that the brahman claim of absence of an author for it could no more be sustained on any logical grounds than an argument that anonymous poems were not written by anybody. The Jain scriptures, on the other hand, through being conveyed by the omniscient teachers, were deemed to be of human origin and manifestly greater worth (VTP pp. 72–101).

That's very useful, thanks ... and, yes, it is difficult material to summarise or paraphrase. Dundas is not saying directly what Hindu views are. He claims to report the opinion of "the Jains" about the views of "the brahman class" and also about the origin of the Jain scriptures. I was, to be frank, most uncomfortable with the phrases "as per Hinduism" and "are present since the beginning of the universe": well, in fact, they are not in the source anyway, which reassures me :) So, I'd say, this sentence could serve us as a source for Jain opinions, including Jain opinions about Hindu arguments, but not directly for Hindu opinions. Andrew Dalby 12:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Andrew Dalby, so you indirectly said that Dundas is only good for the topics that are 100% jain, and if it involves Hinduism, he should be avoided? Bladesmulti (talk) 06:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, that's not exactly what I mean, Bladesmulti. I'm commenting on this sentence -- which is far from being an easy read :) -- and pointing out that it does not claim to say what is Hinduism: it claims to say what Jain thinkers considered to be Hinduism. That's how I read it, anyway. Let's remember that the book is about The Jains, after all.

This board deals in specifics, but in general, I would certainly say (like Judith, I think, above) that Dundas should be regarded as reliable on Indian religions. Andrew Dalby 12:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

@Andrew Dalby, So it means that Dundas is not making any comparison between Hinduism and Jainism, per say. He is only expressing opinion of what Jains thought of Vedas or Hindu scriptures. He himself, therefore, is not drawing any opinion, is what you feel ? Also he is not going into depth weather what Jains thought of Hindu scriptures is correct as per Hindu philosophy. Correct!!! Further, he also has not bothered to go into detail, which Jain philosopher said that (Vedas) were....anonymous poems were not written by anybody. Am I right ? Jethwarp (talk) 08:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Up to your last sentence, I agree with you 100%. As to that last sentence ... it really is difficult material to summarise ... He says that Jain philosophers argued as follows: the Hindu claim of "no authorship" (of the Vedas) is as illogical as a claim that "anonymous poems" (in general) "are not written by anybody". This is not a statement that any Jain philosopher said that Vedas or anonymous poems "are not written by anybody": it is the exact opposite, in fact. It is a statement that Jain philosophers would have regarded such an opinion as nonsense. Andrew Dalby 10:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your views. It means that Dundas is not comparing

Jainism and Hinduism and even if he is he is doing it into superficial basis. Which means he is saying what Jains thought about some Hindu scripts but is not saying What Hindus thought of Jain scripts or views. And therefore, as said earlier and also agreed by you that Dundas not going into depth weather what Jains thought of Hindu scriptures is correct as per Hindu philosophy. Now, that exactly was the point of argument - Whether Dundas can be cited as a reliable source - when we are comparing two religions of Indian sub-continent like Jainism & Hinduism or Hinduism & Buddhism or Budhhism and Jainism. In my opinion and also of Bladesmulti - he is not a Reliable source when comparing two Indian religions. Jethwarp (talk

) 14:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Non sequitur argument. --Rahul (talk

) 14:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

He lacks the knowledge about Vedas, when compared to the scholary sources that are listed all over in the pages such as hinduism, vedas, etc. So it should be noted already, that he can't be used as a source when it's about comparing Jainism with other theory. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but that opinion isn't justified by the quotation and discussion above. Andrew Dalby 17:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: The following is clearly a separate query, hence I have moved it into this new section. That's all I know :=) Andrew Dalby 17:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Why does this article state that the masonic lodge is and ENGLISH entity when the "Mother Lodge " and NO 0 Kilwinning is Scotland please see

The Mother Lodge of Scotland is situated in the Ayrshire town of Kilwinning. This old and ancient Lodge of Freemasons dates back to the building of Kilwinning Abbey around 1140 and has a unique history second to none in the Masonic world.

Before the forming of Grand Lodge in 1736 Mother Kilwinning was a Grand Lodge in her own right issuing charters and warrants to Lodges wishing to enjoy the privileges of Freemasonry

www.grandlodgescotland.com/.../masonic.../lodge.../172-lodge-mother-k... I though everyone knew that the Masonic order was started as a union to protect the stone masons who were building Kilwinning Abbey against the influx of itinerant workers from Ireland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.120.66.254 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 3 December 2013

Sources: John Lynn (2013-03-28). “HIPAA Compliant, Secure Texting Doc Halo App Lands Key Contract with Premier Healthcare Network” (http://www.emrandehrnews.com/tag/doc-halo/). EMR, EHR & HIT News. Retrieved 2013-11-05.

Joanne Maly(2013-09-27). "Doc Halo Reports That Omnibus Implementation has Healthcare Organizations Scrambling for 100% HIPAA Compliance for Secure Messaging" (http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/9/prweb11164305.htm). PR Web Retrieved 2013-11-05.

• These sources and the majority of the content were deleted from the Doc Halo page by an editor. But I believe them to be reliable, legitimate references and informative content.

Article: Doc Halo

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doc_Halo&diff=582291368&oldid=582289527

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doc_Halo&diff=582289527&oldid=582288153

25.35 (talk) 14:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the sources, EMR, EHR & HIT News: "EMR, EHR and Healthcare IT news is an extension to the EMR and HIPAA network of blogs.""The genesis of this EMR, EHR and healthcare IT news site is that I get a couple emails every day with EMR related news. This website is an outlet for me to post the various EMR news that I receive." A reposting of emails recieved by a blogger. NOT RS.

PR Web is a promotional site, for a fee they will publish a "press release" or for a larger fee they will write one for you. NOT RS. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I understand now, thank you for your help! I have added a few more sources that are not press releases or blogs- changes listed below. How many sources are necessary before I can remove the "notability" flag??

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doc_Halo&diff=583233681&oldid=582291748 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doc_Halo&diff=583434900&oldid=583233681 25.35 (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The articles are Wool 100% and I Will Walk Like a Crazy Horse. I had stepped in as a bystander on a dispute where editor "TheOldJacobite" has been reverted by others. It was a dispute on surrealism and I noticed no sources were given so I quickly added a few whereby he reverted me and another editor since then. He doesn't like the sources. The info given is at the talk pages at Talk:Wool 100% and Talk:I Will Walk Like a Crazy Horse. In the context of surreal, could we have another editor or two take a look at the sources? I really don't want to keep reverting or taking it to a fuller Dispute Resolution Noticeboard if others here agree with him. The diffs I added are here and here. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Your sources look very weak to me. One is a library category used in Seattle.[71] One is a self-published website called Film Threat.http://www.filmthreat.com/reviews/10279] Another is a self-published website called Horror Cult Films.[72] A fourth is a self-published website called Cinemania.[73]

Regarding whether the adjective "surreal" should be saved only for films from the Surrealist school, you should start an RfC at the film wikiproject. Make sure to include the separate question of categorization as a surrealist film. Binksternet (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Background info

• Related discussion from Dec 2012
• detailed investigation
• Wikimania 2013 slides

Request

I'd like to approach this noticeboard before actually adding any oral citations. There was a discussion in December about Achal Prabhala's (aprabhala) WMF-funded project. The community here wasn't very perceptive of the idea, partly due to concerns about intellectual property (uploading files on Commons to back up article claims), partly due to a general resistance to the idea.

My colleague Maja and I found several weaknesses in both the general approach of the en.wp editor community and in the particular roll-out by Achal. We pre-released a book chapter, and I gave a talk at Wikimania Hong Kong, both with the aim to re-activate the discussion. Roughly, we claim that:

1. Indigenous knowledge (IK) is knowledge
2. Wikipedia wants to be the sum of all knowledge
3. Wikipedia therefore should aim to include IK

and that

1. All knowledge is documented in reliable sources (RS) of some sort
2. IK is documented almost exclusively in non-written form
3. Therefore some non-written sources are reliable

I would be happy if some of you had the time to go through this argument and the supporting documents, and either prove us wrong or allow oral citations. If neither happens, which would somewhat be the expected result, :) we plan to put this to a test in 2014, taking a few topics for which no/little RS can be found, and develop content based on oral citations. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 09:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The question is too general for this board. Yes, there can be a tension between WP:V and our concern to avoid systemic bias. You should take this to the talk page of WP:V, because it goes to the heart of what Wikipedia is about. Either that or the village pump. Wherever you take it, giving some examples would be very helpful. Can you show that indigenous knowledge is not available in written (codified) form? Perhaps all knowledge is indigenous until it is codified? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Although I am sympathetic to the broadening of Wikipedia coverage, this proposal is problematic across numerous policies. In particular, oral sources are

WP:NOR by selecting the source and content that is used. Wikipdeia aspires to include all human knowledge, not 'everything anyone has ever said'.Martinlc (talk

) 23:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

In effect the aim of this proposal is to publish things for the first time, which is not the aim of this community, nor the way it is set up. It would require fundamentally different ways of working that would make the rest of Wikipedia difficult to continue. So the more obvious approach is to try to develop a new Wiki?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith: Indeed, the proposal is broad. I brought it here first because it was discussed here before. It touches WP:V --- the paper and the slide show referenced above argue that it is absolutely verifiable. A real-world example is difficult to give at this time because IK is just not available in writing. Template {{

The village of Ovitoto was founded in the 1860s by Herero Chief Tjamuaha.^[4]

The OvaMbanderu people use the fresh leafs of Securidaca longipedunculata to heal menstruation pain.^[5]

@Martinlc & Andrew Lancaster: Oral knowledge is published orally: A village elder delivers a narrative, other elders listen and correct him if necessary by telling their version of the narrative. It is not just something that happens to be said, it is a ritualised session of knowledge transfer, predictable both in time and content.

Generally, do you contest that Indigenous knowledge is knowledge? If not, do you contest that WP should be the sum of all knowledge? --Pgallert (talk) 10:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the sum of all knowledge and never can be. See WP:NOT for some of the important things that we aren't. 99% of the important and useful knowledge that you and I have is tacit and uncodified, like how to get from my house to the greengrocers, or whether the light is bright enough for me to be typing at the moment. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

You're preaching to the choir. But the matter of the fact is that there is real knowledge out there that is not available in writing, and that's what I'm talking about. Did you check the examples in the documentation linked at the top? --Pgallert (talk) 12:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the emphasis you have placed on verifiability is a distraction. To answer the question about Indigenous knowledge, my view is that it may be knowledge but it is difficult for it to be treated as encyclopedic knowledge since the criteria developed for the selection of sources and content based mainly on print culture cannot be readily replicated for oral sources. However it would be straightforward for an expert in oral traditions to select and gather information from the bes evidence as encyclopedic as a shortcut.Martinlc (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew Lancaster's point above that a Wiki could handle this kind of source, and could develop into an encyclopedia of oral knowledge, but it couldn't be this wiki. Both reliability and verifiability are at issue. Wikipedians need to be able to verify that the source is reliable and has been reliably reported: those questions arise frequently on this board, and in the two examples you give I don't see how they could be answered. Just for example, what was the speaker's name for Securidaca longipedunculata and is the identification valid? That's exactly the question that I would ask if I found such a report in a printed or online source, and I wouldn't add the information to the page Securidaca longipedunculata unless I could cite a source that (a) I considered reliable, but also (b) the next Wikipedian would be able to check, and, if necessary, dismiss as unreliable. Andrew Dalby 11:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

@Martinlc, Andrew Dalby: 'Encyclopedic knowledge' surely is what writers of an encyclopedia (=us) consider valuable. From 'IK is knowledge' and 'WP aims to present the sum of all knowledge' necessarily follows 'WP aims to present IK'. That's a syllogism; if you accept the premises you have to accept the conclusion.

As for your second argument, Wikipedians are not just the white-collar workers in developed countries. We have Wikipedians in Epukiro, in Donkerbos, in Otjinene, and for those it is not at all a simple thing to verify facts on WP. Assume they want to verify a fact referenced to the Library of Congress. They would have to learn English. They would have to travel to another country. They would have to learn how our knowledge is organised---Do you remember your first time with a library catalogue? Finding a book is by no means easy. And then they would have to convince the knowledge keeper (the librarian) to give them access. A San in traditional attire might have a hard time lending a book.

It is thus maybe not too surprising that for somebody not acquainted with an African rural IK setting, verifying an oral narrative is not easy. You would have to learn the language. You would have to travel to that country. You would have to learn how IK is organised, how it can be retrieved, and how it has to be understood. After gaining the trust of the local community, oral knowledge might be presented to you for verification.

I am slowly developing into an expert in oral knowledge, and I can already tell you that western scientists misunderstand so much that their representation of an elder's narrative is about the worst source of knowledge you can get. We miss the context, the non-verbal communication, the subtleties in translation, the reason for 'publishing' (orally), and so on. I am publishing in the field---do you want to treat my writing as a reliable source, denying the original author, who didn't get half as many things wrong, the same recognition? BTW, 'primary source' is a red herring in this case: As long as I do not attempt to abstract from an elder's narrative, my writing is still a primary source. --Pgallert (talk) 14:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The examples you give above are your "representation of an elder's narrative" ... right? So it's lucky you're different from all the other experts, or your material, also, would be "about the worst source of knowledge you can get". Forgive me if I've misunderstood something :) Andrew Dalby 20:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

:) The examples are entirely hypothetical, simply because I do not possess much IK. But no, of course not, thanks for asking. I don't speak the indigenous languages, and my representation would indeed not be better. It is supposed to come from a native speaker who is also fluent in English. We are currently busy developing them into Wikipedians, for now using written sources. I often challenge them by showing how poor certain articles are developed, and they tell me all the content. If I ask them where they know it from, it invariably is the parish priest, the chief, the traditional midwife. --Pgallert (talk) 10:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I get it now: I didn't understand fully.

Wikipedia developed quite a long way while still accepting material based on what Wikipedians know or have been told by people they trust. Some other-language Wikipedias still do, but here on en:wiki the drive towards reliable sourcing has been going for years: it is deep-rooted and still intensifying. Even the things that everybody knows have to be sourced (... if anyone asks ...) with a source that others can verify. En:wiki differs from academic writing precisely in that it is edgy about primary sources and won't accept "personal information from ...", "letter from ...". So, given this culture, can you get en:wiki to accept "information from an elder"? You have a fight on your hands! I'm telling you what you already know. Andrew Dalby 12:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

So true :) But I want even more. I want en-Wikipedians to understand that the information from an elder in all likelihood is more reliable than the respective writeup from an anthropologist. And I want to convince an audience anchored in a culture of writing that oral knowledge transfer is alive in these days and times. It happens in institutionalised settings, and if someone voices a fringe opinion, then this opinion is attacked by the listeners. It is thus not quite the same as a "letter from ...". The best analogy I can offer so far is a museum guide. When asked about a certain item, or at certain rituals (e.g. guided tour) they will always come up with more or less the same explanation.

Of course we could go to the OtjiHerero incubator or to the Afrikaans Wikipedia, nobody is going to ask for sources there. But I think en.wp is missing out on some really exciting and important knowledge without IK. --Pgallert (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The knowledge contained in Wikipedia is whatever a Wikipedia editor inserts. If the knowledge is not published, there is no way to verify that the so-called knowledge is not a lie. Wikipedia can never contain oral knowledge because Wikipedia does not have a mouth. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The point is that the act of predictably and reliably narrating a piece of history, technology, or culture to an audience, is a way of publishing. Or, the other way round, that en.wp's definition of publishing deliberately excludes all oral knowledge, to the detriment of Wikipedia's vision and mission. --Pgallert (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

This version of Wikipedia's vision is contrary to

WP:TRUTH. The disadvantages of the possibly-faulty transcription or summary are outweighed by the chance for editors to consider the Reliability of this secondary source, in my view. Somebody can compile oral traditions into a fixed form, and that can be used by Wikipedia editors if they consider it reliable, so it is not true that WP excludes all oral knowledge, it only excludes that knowledge which falls outside the scope of Primary, RS, and Verifiability policies. Martinlc (talk

) 23:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given access to the sum of all human knowledge --- If that was contrary to WP:TRUTH then that would be no problem, WP:TRUTH is just an essay. But it isn't contrary. Oral knowledge is verifiable. Not easily verifiable, not without an effort, but it isn't hearsay. And if I have to convert oral knowledge into 'a fixed form' before I can use it, then oral knowledge is excluded. Or did I misunderstand something? --Pgallert (talk) 07:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

In order for oral traditions to appear in Wikipedia they need to be fixed by someone. You are proposing that WP editors do this directly, and this proposal has been considered problematic as cutting across numerous policies. I have suggested you do so indirectly (ie fix first then into WP), this would be unproblematic.Martinlc (talk) 11:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Not sure I properly understand 'fix' in this context. If you mean recording the narrative and uploading it to Commons, that has been rejected by this very board in the past, for doubts on the ethical implications of indigenous communities' intellectual property. --Pgallert (talk) 08:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

No I meant transform from its primary, oral, form, into a secondary, textual, form, either as a transcript, summary or analysis. Wikipedia is a text medium, so at some point somebody has to do that transformation. If the text version exists outside of WP it can be used as a source. Martinlc (talk) 12:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

'Summary' would be tricky. If I do it myself there is the risk of misunderstanding what is important. 'Transcript' would not make it a secondary source, because in order to get from a primary to a secondary source there needs to be a level of abstraction, and a transcript does not involve abstraction. The 'analysis' I shall leave to the scientists. Any of these would have to be published, right? Which would mean that only what alien visitors to an indigenous community find important, actually is important, and that only their take on how the narrative is to be understood, counts. That does not look like a good approach to me. --Pgallert (talk) 07:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I am at this stage pondering to which venue to next take the issue, as mentioned, I brought it to this noticeboard first because it was discussed here before. I recollect the following objections:

• Verifiability
  , even if no one actually refuted my argument ;)
• WP:NOT
  as hearsay and incidental chit-chat,
• WP:PRIMARY

The core objection in my view is that oral information is not 'published' as outlined in the

Greetings! It has been a long time since I have posted here, but a new source has brought me here that I would like to bring up for evaluation for possible use on the GA article Jose Calugas. AusTerrapin notified me of a secondary source that identified a medal that was previously unidentified in published sources, the source is as follows:

• http://www.us-japandialogueonpows.org/Calugas.htm

The source appears to have been written by the article subject's son, a retired U.S. Army sergeant first class, and the President of the Philippine Scouts Heritage Society. The question is, does the website (more specifically the linked page), even though appearing to have been written by the subject's son, a reliable source?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I've had a quick look at that page and at the article's Talk page. So what's the central issue here - identifying exactly which medal he received?

It surprises me if there's not an authoritative military-maintained list of recipients of medals, but that's by the by. Barnabypage (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Correct. The source linked above says that the medal in the image is a foreign award, the Philippines' Distinguished Conduct Star, with the image being referenced being this one:

• http://navyphotos.togetherweserved.com/2093365_med.jpg

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd say it's not a fantastic source but it's not an obviously untrustworthy one either, and the author as president of the heritage society is presumably an expert on the subject to some degree. Unless there's anything really contentious about using the identification, it's okay at least until the day a better source turns up. Barnabypage (talk) 08:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

This is the page for the breed club (not a breeding kennel) of the Olde English Bulldog. My issue is, is this a reliable source for the temperament/disposition of the breed? Obviously since this is a breed club their interests lie both in promoting a positive image of their breed and in presenting an accurate picture of it; my issue is that it says things like "...generally excellent with children and the OEB is no exception", which can be found in every dog resource about just about every breed that is not a

I would say it's fine for "objective" facts like breed size, typical colouration, etc., but less ideal for qualitative assessments of this kind. Having said that, I don't know how easy it will be to find a "warts and all" discussion of temperament from a RS (no doubt there are lots on blogs and in forums etc.). I have the print version of the Kennel Club breed guide (not available online, as far as I can see), which ought to be a pretty RS, and even though it doesn't exist to promote any one particular breed, it tends to steer very clear of phrasing anything negatively.

Perhaps you could just state it as an informed opinion rather than an outright fact. "The OEB is excellent with children, according to the Olde English Bulldog Kennel Club." Barnabypage (talk) 11:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I share Tikuko's concerns. Every breed club says positive things about their breed. Ditto for other sources that cover specific breeds, and of course our articles are often edited by people who are fond of that breed. Consequently, almost all our articles on dog breeds say that each breed is intelligent, loyal, good with children &c and none of our articles say that the breed is yappy, dimwitted, or destructive. Every dog is above average. bobrayner (talk) 12:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

At this article, a claim attributed to a BLP is being sourced to an OpEdNews piece allegedly by someone who is a researcher at the Assassination Archives and Research Center regarding the JFK assassination. The claim in the article is sourced to an op-ed allegedly by a director of that Center, and includes a partial scan of a letter. There's a dispute over this in part because OpEdNews is an entirely self-published operation meaning we cannot verify authorship or the legitimacy of the scanned piece, nor has the claim appeared anywhere else we would consider reliable. The closest I can find is this book review, but it's highly conspiratorial in nature and, again, deals with a BLP issue. I would love some extra input, especially as we do not use OpEdNews anywhere else on the site. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I love that you'd rather come to RSN than follow my request to pick up the phone to the AARC and ask them to republish an article by their co-founder, Jim Lesar. That would actually be useful, whereas this - joy - can produce nothing but hot air and the removal of information that cannot seriously be doubted. You really think someone's impersonating Lesar at OpEdNews (in 3 articles)? You really think Lesar (an attorney) is forging letters? Or perhaps the widow of Gaeton Fonzi is? And to reiterate: if you'd picked up the phone when I first asked you to, we'd probably have the AARC republishing the article by now (or at least agreeing to do so soon). Podiaebba (talk) 20:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

As you see from the point here, it's actually a lot deeper than that. More eyes are always a good thing. If the consensus is that I'm wrong, we can move on from it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

it's actually a lot deeper than that. - what are you talking about? All I see is that you can't even give a straight answer about not being willing to pick up a phone and ask an author to republish an article on a different website. Instead of doing something to contribute to the sum of human knowledge that goes ever so slightly beyond the usual Wikipedia editing and endless talking, you want vindication that your removal of some information is technically correct according to WP rules. Podiaebba (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Podiaebba, while your comments might be 100% correct (I don't know), they're probably better suited for Thargor's user talk. Repeatedly criticizing his/her editing practices on this page discourages other editors from weighing in. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Additional: ex-Washington Post Jefferson Morley, who Lesar is acting for in a FOIA lawsuit, cites the OpEdNews article here. Podiaebba (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The articles are Wool 100% and I Will Walk Like a Crazy Horse. I had stepped in as a bystander on a dispute where editor "TheOldJacobite" has been reverted by others. It was a dispute on surrealism and I noticed no sources were given so I quickly added a few whereby he reverted me and another editor since then. He doesn't like the sources. The info given is at the talk pages at Talk:Wool 100% and Talk:I Will Walk Like a Crazy Horse. In the context of surreal, could we have another editor or two take a look at the sources? I really don't want to keep reverting or taking it to a fuller Dispute Resolution Noticeboard if others here agree with him. The diffs I added are here and here. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Your sources look very weak to me. One is a library category used in Seattle.[74] One is a self-published website called Film Threat.http://www.filmthreat.com/reviews/10279] Another is a self-published website called Horror Cult Films.[75] A fourth is a self-published website called Cinemania.[76]

Regarding whether the adjective "surreal" should be saved only for films from the Surrealist school, you should start an RfC at the film wikiproject. Make sure to include the separate question of categorization as a surrealist film. Binksternet (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)