Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 167

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

On the

Since I have much less history/experience on Wikipedia than Gaba, I am deferring to him and not reverting his change, but I think this case is pretty clear. Can we get the opinion of an outside editor? Thanks! Turnout8 (talk) 19:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• Desmog is just a PR blog and advocacy group, certainly not RS for any contentious statemens of fact. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for opening this section
  WP:RS given its notability
  and I don't see this fact as being "contentiuos" at all, it's simply a sentence mentioning two of those entities who have provided funding for the organization.

PS: regarding the statement "Exxonsecrets (...) a source other editors had previously agreed on the

CFACT talk page should not be used in this context", I fail to see where this was discussed and/or agreed upon. All I see is a single comment about this but nothing more. Regards. Gaba ^(talk)

20:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see what notability has to do with reliability. I also don't see how that responds at all to the 3 points I gave above. As for your PS, there were several comments after the one you mentioned. Ultimately the Exxon info was removed because it was outdated. See the talk for more details. Turnout8 (talk) 20:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Turnout8 point me to those comments please? I checked again and again I found that single comment I mentioned above about Exxonsecretes. Please provide diffs so I can see what you are talking about. Thanks. Gaba ^(talk) 00:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• Obviously not a reliable source for a conntentious statement about an organisation for the reasons given by Turnout8 and Darkness Shines above. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Should the website "Celebrity Net Worth" be considered an RS for a

No. Personal information needs the highest quality sourcing and that aint it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Is wetpaint.com a reliable source? It looks like it probably is, but I'm not very familiar with the site and don't see anything about it in the noticeboard archives. According to

Not look into this too deeply but I would be tempted to say no. It looks more like some sort of aggregator / link farm. --Asterion^talk 20:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

no, wetpaint is user generated content - no editorial oversight. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Users Steeletrap and SPECIFICO keep arguing that this self-published piece, filled with undocumented opinions, by an author who only is notable for a few articles published in a metaphysics journal is a more reliable source than information from books published by reliable publishers; they even have removed such info. Anyone want to try to disabuse them of that notion?

• Anthony Flood, "Murray Newton Rothbard: Notes toward a Biography which he admits here was his researched but unwritten book.
• vs: Raimondo, Justin (2000). An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books.
  ISBN 978-1-4411-4209-2
  .
  

Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

• Comment – This RSN is unneeded. There has been no defense/justification put forth to keep the Flood material in the article. The only reason it has not been removed is because the page is under protection. (Specifico & Steeletrap have not argued that it should be retained.) – S. Rich (talk) 05:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

When people put back material that has been removed twice, and come up with personal accusations that avoid the issue as at Talk:Murray_Rothbard#Anthony_Flood_not_RS.2FRemoval_of_Casey_info, than what other choice is there? Plus if I want to ask the Admin who protected the article to insert the properly sourced material, it would help to have an opinion here. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I requested an edit request on the page and the Admin declined to implement it. And once he did, I closed the edit request. We do not need other editors or another Admin to take a look at the edit request. (Also, coming to this noticeboard can be seen as forum shopping.) In any event you will not see editors coming here to defend the Flood material. So, the best course of action is to let them post justification for Flood on the article talk page (which they will not do), and then remove Flood when the page protection expires. Keep in mind that I have characterized the Flood material as RS-crap. It will go, but we do not need more drama here to complicate the discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 05:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Admins can be wrong, can't they? Of course, if you had asked to add the properly sourced info at the same time that you asked to remove the poorly sourced info, the outcome might have been different. It didn't occur to me that the Admin was a forum, however, so if other editors agree it's forum shopping to bring it here, then I guess we can close it - til 3 weeks have passed, if ArbCom still can't decide what to do. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

The content cited to Flood has no controversial claims -- indeed it's obvious that the Rothbard family moved from Bronx to Manhattan because we have multiple other sources which discuss the subject's origin in the Bronx and subsequent coming of age in Manhattan. SPECIFICO talk 18:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, Flood's piece is a SPS/blog, and such sources "are largely not acceptable as sources." He is not recognized as an expert in the field of biography or the history of Rothbard. The policy does not distinguish about controversial claims or vanilla statements. If there are "multiple other sources", please provide them. – S. Rich (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The other sources are cited in the article, please refresh your familiarity with the discussion. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 19:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

As there are "other sources ... cited in the article" there is no need to add Flood. – S. Rich (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Either way, the content is OK. SPECIFICO talk 20:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

The content is sub par but obviously we aren't going to get a third opinion at this point. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• lawyersupdate.co.in

Seems to be a website for a print magazine, being linked in multiple articles, for example [3] in Mary Bell. Examples [4] [5] [6]. Any thoughts? Яehevkor ✉ 19:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Probably not reliable for any contentious matters or for BLPs. What evidence is there of a policy that places a priority on fact-checking? Dezastru (talk) 19:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

In the past few weeks during the Crimean crisis, many sources have reported a systematic crackdown and enforced bias on Russian and Crimean media.^[7][8] For example, though even in 2005 they were unpopular with Reporters Without Borders,^[9] the popular network RT (TV network) and associated web content have gone from being seen as more or less just another network in archive 39^[10] to biased like other news channels only more so in recent discussion.^[11][12] But in the past week or so, there has been unprecedented criticism of the network and allegations that it is nothing more than Russian propaganda period,^[13] though as that source points out, there are some holdouts like Larry King who disagree. For their part RT has some content about censorship in Ukraine^[14] - admittedly, it is not so simple to be sure sometimes how much of the bias is on the "Western" end and how much on theirs.

Anyway, though the world may discover it is unable to pass sanctions against Russia no matter how much of the Ukraine they take, I'm wondering if it may be time for us to pass one of our own - to formally demote the status of RT and other Russian publications to that of a press release or other primary source, with all the concomitant policy restrictions for BLPs and other uses. This would be on the basis that, if they are really being told what to do by some government official in the shadows, they are no better than his own self-published statement. I'm not confident enough of my judgment here to say we should do that - only that, as someone who has used them without much discrimination in past editing, I'm starting to worry that I've been wrong to do so. Is there any way to develop some confidence about this question? Wnt (talk) 01:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

If RT is a reliable source on the matter, they're not a reliable source according to one of their own. Even before Crimea, I thought they were on par with post-Fox Glenn Beck when it came to their use as an RS. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I had reverted this edit but the IP has reinstated the text and sources [15] so I'm asking for outside input: Are these Twitter and Facebook pages a reliable source for adding the text ["or simply Joy"] after the subject's name? ie. Joy Williams (or simply Joy) [16] [17]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Possibly in other cases, but not in this case. First, the actual alternative version of the name shown on Facebook and Twitter is "JOY" not "Joy". Second, is there any other source, such as an interview, that says she is also known as or prefers to be called JOY? Since she is primarily notable as a vocal artist, has she made any recordings that list the name "JOY" rather than "Joy Williams", or has she had any performances in which she was advertised as "JOY" rather than "Joy Williams"?

(It seems she would like to join the one-name artists club, like Madonna or Adele, but the name doesn't seem to have caught on quite yet. And the name Joy isn't unique enough among artists - unlike, say, Adele - for everyone to immediately recognize who it is that is meant by the name.) Dezastru (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree with your analysis. Any other views?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:04, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting moving the page, just making people aware of the aka, so it doesn't matter if it's not immediately reconizable. The name she personally presents to the public (if only very recently, so yet to catch on) is surely worthy of a mention. 123.243.242.213 (talk) 03:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I've been editing the page The Upper Footage. There's been a bit of a history of edit warring on the page, so I'll state that up front. I originally had a new user come on and try to edit the page and tweak it to be more promotional for the film. Accusations got thrown around fairly freely by this editor (you can see some here) and I seem to remember them trying to add various things that weren't RS. The reason I mention this is because one of the things brought up was that I was deliberately trying to sabotage the film by making it less positive than it was. I do not have any ulterior motives. It's just that the coverage is not exactly glowing for this film. I kind of feel that if I don't mention this, someone might say that I'm trying to discredit every review brought on the page.

OK, that said, one of the reviews is from Daily Grindhouse. ([18]) It looks to be a non-usable blog source, as I can't really tell the editorial process for the site. I've read their stuff before and I like it, but I don't think it's really a RS.

The article is

No, there is too much interpretation of events required for that to be a sufficient source. It's a source for what the constitution says, not for what happened or whether what happened violated what the constitution says. Podiaebba (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Obviously not. To say that the Constitution has been violated is a legal analysis or interpretation of some event that has occurred; the Constitution cannot include an analysis of an event that occurred after it was written/adopted. Dezastru (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

However, after you find a reliable source you might be able to quote the relevant section, at least in a footnote, to make the point clear. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

No, per Podiaebba and Dezastru. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I removed it, got taken to ANI (no problem really), but the current edit, although unattributed, doesn't use it any more and is certainly better.

talk

) 10:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Better but heavily contested at

talk

) 10:32, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The SOHR's Facebook page[21] is being used to back factual statements of deaths, etc at

Disallow. Not a valid source. --Asterion^talk 20:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Ive attempted to clean up the non-neutral, non-reviewed source but Ive been reverted. Werieth (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Someone thinks SOHR is a reliable source? What? Where? I'll help with the clean-up if need be.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 14:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

talk

) 19:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Added it to my watchlist to help out whenever possible!

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 00:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

@

It had been discussed on the RS noticeboard Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_163#Reliability_of_Education-related_PhD_thesis:_School_uniform_.22study.22. My impression was that the noticeboard here saw it as "reliable" and the noticeboard therefore was indeed in favor of it being included

There are secondary sources that discuss it, either about the study, or about uniform implementation (referring to the study):

• "Study says school uniforms might help attendance, graduation rates." (Archive) Associated Press at 19 Action News. 2006.
• Weiss, Jennifer. "Do Clothes Make the Student?" The New York Times. September 16, 2006.
• Cunningham, Peter. "Chandler Magnet students to wear school uniforms this fall." Worcester Wired. June 27, 2011. (It refers to both the 1998 study and the 2005 Draa study)

School districts themselves talk about the study

• http://www.mcfarland.k12.wi.us/uploads/file/MHS/mhs_office/newsletters/Public%20School%20Uniform%20Statistics.pdf

According to Google Scholar, this study is cited 11 times. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I searched the University of Houston library database after reading a textbook page that said that a Columbus Dispatch article talked about the Draa study, and I found this entry. I can get it off

• "Dressed for success ; Study shows high-school graduation rates rise when kids wear uniforms". (Home Final Edition)
  Columbus Dispatch
  , ISSN 1074-097X, 01/16/2006, p. 6.A "[...]for the young people involved. A high-school diploma is a key to success beyond the classroom. Most significant, this particular study examined data in 64 high schools[...]"

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The general consensus seemed to be that the study is reliable. But we did not - and almost certainly wouldn't on this noticeboard since we're operating without a lot of context and expertise - address the issue of weight. But someone claiming that there was a clear consensus that the source isn't reliable based on our previous discussion is very confused or dishonest. ElKevbo (talk) 13:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

"But we did not - and almost certainly wouldn't on this noticeboard since we're operating without a lot of context and expertise - address the issue of weight."

This is clearly false. The issue of weight was frequently mentioned and there were multiple judgements on whether or not inclusion of the source would constitute undue weight. Anyone who has read the discussion and thinks otherwise is very confused or dishonest.

"But someone claiming that there was a clear consensus that the source isn't reliable based on our previous discussion is very confused or dishonest."

Really? Please explain.

Furthermore

here

) with relevant emphasis and comments added by me:

"Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used (Zarlan: i.e. it is not clear that they should be used, just because they are a dissertation) but care should be exercised. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. (Zarlan: i.e. a PhD dissertation does not count as a peer-reviewed paper, unless there is verification of that having happened) If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by third parties."--

ZarlanTheGreen (talk

) 13:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

1. The issue of weight was discussed but not resolved because that's not the purpose of this noticeboard nor is this a good venue to do so.

2. You made the claim that "No noticeboard was in favour of including it." That's a bit confused because it's pretty rare that any noticeboard would definitively be "in favour" of including anything; our typical role is to help editors determine whether or not a particular source meets a rather narrow set of criteria that are necessary but not sufficient for inclusion. In any case, it isn't necessary for any noticeboard to be "in favour" of including material for it to be included so that's a completely bogus reason for removing anything.

3. Anyone who makes the blanket statement that doctoral dissertations are not peer-reviewed is woefully ignorant of the entire dissertation/thesis process and unqualified to hold an opinion on the subject of their reliability. By definition, dissertations from legitimate (e.g., accredited) universities are peer-reviewed unless there are highly unusual circumstances or aberrations in the process. The material you are quoting above clearly (a) addresses this issue and (b) speaks more to weight than to reliability. ElKevbo (talk) 13:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The thing about the noticeboard came in the edit in which I added the content: "Integrate Draa study after noticeboard posts were mostly in favor of including it" - Most of the posts determined that a PhD thesis counts as a "reliable" study and the secondary sources that discuss the Draa study do exist, adding the notability factor WhisperToMe (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

"The issue of weight was discussed but not resolved because that's not the purpose of this noticeboard nor is this a good venue to do so."

So you admit your error in stating that the issue was not addressed, then?

"You made the claim that "No noticeboard was in favour of including it.""

That was not addressed in that comment. You're reply is misplaced (never-mind, I'll let it slide this time) ...and fails to address the relevant point. Please note that WhisperToMe's sentence where he/she mentions it, makes it clear that I am clearly not the editor in question. Rather it was some unnamed wikipedian.

"so that's a completely bogus reason for removing anything."

Perhaps. I admit I expressed myself in a bit of an sloppy, oversimplified and exaggerated manner. I'm still fairly new to these noticeboards, so a bit of clumsiness is hardly unexpected. I'll add that your words are just as valid towards WhisperToMe's argument for the re-inclusion, however ...and WhisperToMe's attitude seems not to have changed: Note what he/she says above "/.../and the noticeboard therefore was indeed in favor of it being included"

Either way, there is ample reason to remove the citation, aside from issues of reliability, that I have pointed out in defence of the removal in the talk page, swiftly after removing the relevant bit ...making this noticeboard discussion rather pointless and irrelevant.

"Anyone who makes the blanket statement that doctoral dissertations are not peer-reviewed is woefully ignorant of the entire dissertation/thesis process and unqualified to hold an opinion on the subject of their reliability."

What you are arguing against are not just my words, but those of

WP:RS

. You are arguing an article of Wikipedia policy. An article that is subject to very strict, important and valued consensus. A consensus that is against your view.

"By definition, dissertations from legitimate (e.g., accredited) universities are peer-reviewed unless there are highly unusual circumstances or aberrations in the process."

Citation needed.--

ZarlanTheGreen (talk

) 13:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

You say "a Wikipedian said "No. No noticeboard was in favour of including it.)"", yet you do not provide a link to the statement? Then that is a mere rumour. Not something worthy of Wikipedia.--

ZarlanTheGreen (talk

) 13:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I provided a link to the diff above :) WhisperToMe (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

So you did, as I later realised. On that point I was in error ...but the sentence still doesn't make any sense.--

ZarlanTheGreen (talk

) 16:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

"There are secondary sources that discuss it, either about the study, or about uniform implementation"

That might count as valid, for mentioning the study in terms of the discussion about the validity of school uniforms, but not the the validity of the source for talking about the actual efficacy of school uniforms (which is the context in which you are trying to include it). Please note that the articles you mention are newspaper articles.

Those are generally not all that reliable

, especially not if the issue is controversial. (even where it might not necessarily be controversial in the academic world)

"School districts themselves talk about the study"

That is completely irrelevant, other than possibly when it comes mentioning the discussion about the validity of school uniforms. What the schools talk about is a matter of politics. Not research or science. The people involved may be policy makers, but they are not academics, in the field of studying the effects of school uniforms.

"According to Google Scholar, this study is cited 11 times."

I followed that link and found no evidence of that. In fact, I saw no mention of Draa's study, whatsoever. Thus your claim is nonsensical.--

ZarlanTheGreen (talk

) 14:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I think there a misunderstanding. I provided a Google Scholar link that is a list of the number of sources that cite Draa's study. You can individually count the number on the page. Page 1 of the results list shows 10 articles, and the final page shows 1 more. That's 11 articles citing the Draa study. If you look at the title of the link, it is "Draa: School Uniforms in Urban Public High Schools." - When you search Google Scholar for "School Uniforms in Urban Public High Schools." the results say that "School Uniforms in Urban Public High Schools." was cited by 11

"Please note that the articles you mention are newspaper articles.

WP:NEWSORG

, I like to quote from them to show that I understand them and I'm not using them inappropriately. So, NEWSORG says... "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact (though even the most reputable reporting sometimes contains errors). News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact. Most newspapers reprint items from news agencies such as BBC News, Reuters, Agence France-Presse or the Associated Press, which are responsible for the accuracy. The agency should be cited in addition to the newspaper that reprinted it." The 19 Action News one was written by the AP.

To be frank, the fact that other school districts discuss and tout the Draa study is absolutely relevant. I bring up the school district pages to show that people expect to see it on here.

WhisperToMe (talk) 14:39, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

However, I took a look at the Brunsuma study. It's cited 99 times according to Google scholar. The Journal of Negro Education article (also brought up) is cited 6 times. There seems to be a wide disparity in citations between the Brunsuma one and the others. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

"I think there a misunderstanding. I provided a Google Scholar link that is a list of the number of sources that cite Draa's study."

I see no reason to believe that it is. Even if true, that isn't much.

"In the social sciences, Zarlan, newspapers are usually considered "reliable sources" and are signs of verifiability."

I see no reason to believe that.

1. Social Sciences are academic ...and they are Sciences. Please do not disrespect "soft" sciences.

2. I see no policy or guideline that indicates that Social Sciences don't count as sciences or academic fields, or that they are to be treated differently to other scientific fields.

3.

WP:NEWSORG

does not specify that it only applies to academic fields.

"The medicine field is a special case."

No one has mentioned medicine.

"So, NEWSORG says... "

That's all beside the point, given that NEWSORG says:

"News reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact.", "For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports. News reports may be acceptable depending on the context." and "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article will be assessed on a case-by-case basis."

"To be frank, the fact that other school districts discuss and tout the Draa study is absolutely relevant."

You just say it is relevant, and expect people to accept it, just like that, with no argument or explanation!? On what possible basis? Just because you say so?--

ZarlanTheGreen (talk

) 16:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

1. I haven't heard of Google Scholar being wrong in their citation counts. If this is so, I would like to see examples. As the school uniform article currently stands, in School_uniform#Efficacy much more of this section is discussing the article with six citations.

2. I see no policy or guideline that indicates that Social Sciences don't count as sciences or academic fields, or that they are to be treated differently to other scientific fields." - On the medicine part:

Wikipedia:MEDRS

(it's clear what it's talking about!) - On everything else, a search of the archives of this noticeboard will show consistently that, other than medicine, newspaper articles are RS sources, especially when the AP is the author. Do I need to do more work than is necessary and show this to you?

3. All the cautionary stuff NEWSORG says doesn't apply to an article written by the AP (it's pointed out in this very policy that it's the AP that's responsible for the quality of such an article). And those passages are there so people cite The New York Times instead of the Small Town local newspaper (much of RS is about using better sources when they exist)

4. "You just say it is relevant, and expect people to accept it, just like that, with no argument or explanation!? On what possible basis? Just because you say so?"

• They are school districts, and they say so, Zarlan. They say it's relevant. They are the ones who get parents to do the school uniform thing and get media publicity when they adopt uniforms (and newspapers write articles when the local schools adopt uniforms). So a parent points to the Wikipedia page, the school district, if savvy enough, will look at the edit history and they can tell the parent "it's just being scrubbed by somebody, it's not telling the whole story" and the parent will no longer take the article seriously. I know in the case of
  Flat earth theory is also not given undue weight, so Wikipedia fairly represents viewpoints. But in this subject, I haven't seen a consensus that a "popular public view" on uniforms should be sidelined for being "determined wrong by the scientific community" and therefore I don't think it's a good idea to sideline a contrary study instead of addressing it through reliable sources. The Worcester Wired
  article says:

• "Novick points to a study published in the Journal of Education Research in 1998. It’s an older study that tracked a national sample of 10th graders in 1988. The study concluded that the only positive result that could be found is a .05 percent improvement on standardized test scores for students who wore uniforms.[...]But a 2005 study often cited by proponents looked at school uniforms in six of 64 public schools in Ohio. The study’s author Virginia Draa, assistant professor of human ecology at Youngstown State University, said she found although uniforms did not appear to improve academic performance in reading and math, schools that had uniforms did have increased attendance and graduation rates and fewer suspensions. Critics say the six schools with uniforms in the study did not constitute a large enough group and that the improvements could be credited to other factors as well" (this article is about a school committee vote to adopt uniforms - one member brought up the 1998 Journal of Education Research study but the member was outvoted by everyone else)

This is how the school uniform debate is currently set up in the public sphere. If we don't mention Draa there will be a significant element of people who will accuse Wikipedia of being biased or trying to ignore something it doesn't like. Likewise people in the uniform debate point to Long Beach USD and not mentioning it will be perceived as a huge omission. This article does say "Critics say the six schools with uniforms in the study did not constitute a large enough group and that the improvements could be credited to other factors as well" in regards to Draa but I want to know who those critics are and where this info is published

WhisperToMe (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

"I haven't heard of Google Scholar being wrong in their citation counts. If this is so, I would like to see examples."

that's not the issue. Please demonstrate to me, that Google Scholar indicates that it has that many citations ...because you haven't.

"As the school uniform article currently stands, in School_uniform#Efficacy much more of this section is discussing the article with six citations."

First of all, which article is that (there are three separate articles from The Journal of Negro Education, that are cited in the School_uniform#Efficacy section), and secondly: Please demonstrate to me, that Google Scholar indicates that it has that many citations.

"On the medicine part:

Wikipedia:MEDRS

(it's clear what it's talking about!)"

Again: No one mentioned either medicine or

WP:MEDRS

. How is it, in any way, relevant?

"On everything else, a search of the archives of this noticeboard will show consistently that, other than medicine, newspaper articles are RS sources, especially when the AP is the author."

...

No.

"Do I need to do more work than is necessary and show this to you?"

...

I think we rather disagree on what is necessary.

"All the cautionary stuff NEWSORG says doesn't apply to an article written by the AP (it's pointed out in this very policy that it's the AP that's responsible for the quality of such an article)."

...

I fear you are mistaken. Note that it says "Most newspapers reprint items from news agencies such as BBC News, Reuters, Agence France-Presse or the Associated Press, which are responsible for the accuracy."

This means that when a paper reprints a AP article, it is AP, who are responsible for the accuracy, rather than the paper who reprints the article. It does not, in any way, indicate that AP articles are to be regarded as any more reliable or unreliable, than any other news source.

"'They are school districts, and they say so, Zarlan."

So what? That has no impact on what is true about the actual efficacy of school uniforms.

"So a parent points to the Wikipedia page, the school district, if savvy enough, will look at the edit history and they can tell the parent "it's just being scrubbed by somebody, it's not telling the whole story and the parent will no longer take the article seriously."

The same could be said about evolution, climate change and September 11 attacks (among many others).

Are you saying that we should treat unscientific nonsense seriously, to pander to creationists, climate change deniers and truthers?

If you do, then you are in complete defiance of Wikipedia policy.

If you don't, then you are clearly a hypocrite.

"I know in the case of evolution and the like the Wikipedia articles are engineered to fit scientific consensus instead of the public debate in the United States, and rightly so."

...yet in this scientific debate, you think that the science should take a back seat to peoples uninformed, knee-jerk opinions? That is rather hypocritical.

I remind you: The section is called "Efficacy". Not "Debate".

"The

Flat earth

theory is also not given undue weight, so Wikipedia fairly represents viewpoints."

It is interesting that you mention that fringe idea, specifically.

To quote from

WP:DUE

(with emphasis added by me):

"For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it. /.../ Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth)."

The Flat Earth concept (it is not a theory, BTW) is mentioned on Wikipedia, due to it being notable, yet it is not, and should not be, mentioned in the Earth article. If you wish to use

Flat earth

as an example, then that would suggest that Draa's study should not be mentioned.

Please try to make arguments that are not self-contradictory and self-defeating.

Speaking of "flat earth", this seems somewhat relevant:

Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia cannot claim the earth is not flat

"I haven't seen a consensus that a "popular public view" on uniforms should be sidelined for being "determined wrong by the scientific community""

I have:

WP:Why Wikipedia cannot claim the earth is not flat

...

Do you want me to go on?

Besides: The section is called "Efficacy". Not "Debate".

"This is how the school uniform debate is currently set up in the public sphere."

What is debated in the public sphere has no impact or relevance to the science.

"If we don't mention Draa there will be a significant element of people who will accuse Wikipedia of being biased or trying to ignore something it doesn't like."

First of all, I am far from convinced of that ...but more importantly: So what? That's not relevant ...as I've explained above.--

ZarlanTheGreen (talk

) 00:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

"What is debated in the public sphere has no impact or relevance to the science." and "So what? That's not relevant ...as I've explained above."

Wikipedia is absolutely under the scrutiny of the public, so we have to address what's in the public debate. I am very well aware of how Wikipedia deals with the flat earth theory. It has a place where it goes, and it is not removed entirely from Wikipedia. That's why the articles like Barack Obama have FAQs. It's fine that Barack Obama doesn't mention the conspiracy theories (because there's another article that houses those) and the FAQ does a good job telling the public why this is the case.

"I have:

WP:Why Wikipedia cannot claim the earth is not flat

..."

Throwing policies without explanation won't stop this fact: In the case of "flat earth theory" and creationism the Scientific community has explicitly made statements against these things. It's easy to verify that scientists don't care for the flat earth. That's what I'm looking for. Wikipedia has articles stating that explicitly. Without a sourced claim that Draa's study isn't scientific enough, a random Wikipedian can't claim it's not scientific when other Wikipedians in an RS noticeboard will claim that it is indeed scientific.

You can say all you like that, for instance, Long Beach USD study is not scientific but people in school board meetings keep bringing it up. Wikipedia has to address it somehow. The readers expect to see it somewhere. Then shouldn't Wikipedia state somewhere explicitly that educational commenters argue that Long Beach USD's promotion is flawed? Readers expect to see the Draa study too. Shouldn't we find evidence of any problems in Draa's study instead of trying to hide it from everyone? So the pro-uniformers can't accuse us of trying to hide this info. Instead they have to deal with counterarguments.

• And if you bring up weight and say that "it shouldn't be in
  flat earth theory
  and a special article for conspiracy theories on Barack Obama. If there is no "other article" then pro-school uniformers will criticize Wikipedia and get voting parents to ignore it. We don't want that. We want voting parents to understand the whole issue and make informed decisions. If the pro-uniform arguments are not scientific, don't hide them! Show that reliable sources say they are not scientific.

"Please try to make arguments that are not self-contradictory and self-defeating." - How are they self-contradictory and self-defeating? Explain??

"1. Social Sciences are academic ...and they are Sciences. Please do not disrespect "soft" sciences." - It's not disrespect. It's simply: the media gets them right, while the media gets medicine wrong. The media is incompetent with medicine.

I'm going to show you another quote from the Worcester article:

• "School Committee member Brian O’Connell said he believes uniforms will have a beneficial effect on Chandler by improving personal attire and that they would help the students focus on academics. O’Connell cited the education facilities in Long Beach, Calif. as successfully applying a uniform policy with several positive results."

Wikipedia has to reach and be of use to the parents who sit at school board meetings and hear these arguments. The question of efficacy of school uniforms cannot ignore the Long Beach arguments even if they are "not scientific" and the question cannot ignore Draa's study as it is being cited too. If there is some alternate article which can discuss these aspects I would like to know what it is.

WhisperToMe (talk) 03:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is absolutely under the scrutiny of the public, so we have to address what's in the public debate."

Irrelevant.

"It has a place where it goes, and it is not removed entirely from Wikipedia."

Yes. It has it's place and it is not allowed outside of that place. You accept that, yet you want the Draa's study to be included where it does not belong. That is the very definition of double standards or hypocrisy.

"Throwing policies without explanation won't stop this fact"

I could explain. It would make for a very long comment though, and I fail to see the point in doing so. I've already pointed out several parts of policies, that back me up already. There is no need for me to waste any more time on it.

"It's easy to verify that scientists don't care for the flat earth. That's what I'm looking for. Wikipedia has articles stating that explicitly."

...

It is one single, methodologically flawed, study and all other studies contradict it.

The

burden of evidence

is on anyone trying to argue that it is relevant. To demand evidence that it isn't relevant is to misplace the burden of evidence and to ignore the clear evidence that is already shown.

"Without a sourced claim that Draa's study isn't scientific enough, a random Wikipedian can't claim it's not scientific"

Without a sourced claim that Draa's study is scientific enough, a random Wikipedian can't claim it is scientific.

"when other Wikipedians in an RS noticeboard will claim that it is indeed scientific."

Neither RS noticeboard has agreed with you (at best the first one was inconclusive on the issue or it being a RS), as many (even ElKevbo, who argues that it is a RS) have pointed out to you already ...and there is still the issue of undue weight, which frankly makes the issue of reliability, a moot point.

"You can say all you like that, for instance, Long Beach USD study is not scientific but people in school board meetings keep bringing it up."

So what? Creationists/climate change deniers/flat earthers/truthers keep bringing up their stuff.

Again: you are arguing for a double standard. Special pleading is a fallacy, you know. However much you repeat your arguments, they are still completely invalid and hypocritical.

"Wikipedia has to address it somehow?"

Has to? No.

"Shouldn't we find evidence of any problems in Draa's study instead of trying to hide it from everyone?"

What is this nonsense about "hiding" the study? Please stop using such

loaded language

.

"So the pro-uniformers can't accuse us of trying to hide this info."

Again: Evolution, Climate Change, 9/11, Obama, Scientology...

Why should we pander to conspiracy theorists? What they think should not effect Wikipedia policy.

"where does all the information go?"

Well a mention in a Debate/Controversy section would be okay. (note the short little Social and cultural responses section at the bottom of Evolution)

"don't hide them! Show that reliable sources say they are not scientific."

Again. You are being very dishonest an thus very uncivil. You are also being hypocritical, as you don't think that the lack of mentioning the Flat Earth concept in Earth, counts as "trying to hide it".

Your arguments and logic on Flat Earth and creationism can be used to show why Draa's study doesn't warrant inclusion, while your logic for its inclusion would also work to completely transform Wikipedia articles to include any and all fringe ideas, conspiracy theories and pseudo-scientific nonsense, everywhere ...in complete disagreement with Wikipedia Policy.

You have not presented a single valid argument. Almost all of them are instances of special pleading.

"How are they self-contradictory and self-defeating? Explain??"

You brought up the Flat Earth concept, to defend mentioning the Draa's study in School uniform (just like how Flat Earth is mentioned in Earth), yet the Wikipedia article about Earth makes no mention of that idea, and your logic would thus argue for the same being the case here: No mention of the Draa's study in School uniform. Thus your logic worked perfectly against the position you argued for ...which is the very definition of an argument being self-contradictory and self-defeating.

Did I not explain this already?

"- It's not disrespect. It's simply: the media gets them right, while the media gets medicine wrong. The media is incompetent with medicine."

First of all, that is pure nonsense. The media messes up social sciences at least as much as any other science (often far more) ...but also: There is no mention in any Wikipedia Policy, Guideline or Essay, that says that social sciences should be treated any different to any other science.

In other words, there are no Wikipedia rules that say so, and no reason why those rules should.

Thus you have no grounds for saying that they should be.

"Wikipedia has to reach and be of use to the parents who sit at school board meetings and hear these arguments."

Wait what!?

...

No. No it doesn't. That is not the purpose of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia was not set up, with the purpose of being the foundation for school board meetings ...and any school boards that treat it as such, are utterly terrible.

"The question of efficacy of school uniforms cannot ignore the Long Beach arguments even if they are "not scientific""

...

It can and it should ...just like how explanations of the nature of evolution ignores creationism, explanations of what happened during 9/11 ignores conspiracy theories, explanations of Climate Change ignores the nonsense that climate "skeptics" spout and explanations of Obama's early life make no mention of any thought of him being born in Kenya.

Studies that cannot reliably say anything about the effect of school uniforms (as the Draa's study has explicitly been pointed out as being) has nothing to say about the effect of school uniforms.

"and the question cannot ignore Draa's study as it is being cited too."

Citations by newspapers do not make it any more scientifically valid.--

ZarlanTheGreen (talk

) 15:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I note that there was a points that you failed to address:

You claimed that the cautionary stuff

ZarlanTheGreen (talk

) 16:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The latter contributors were talking about this particular thesis. TFD said: "You are confusing rs and weight. The thesis is a reliable secondary source for the development of school uniforms, the arguments offered for and against them, and the academic literature on them, which is the subject of the first 50 pages. It is also a reliable primary source for the study carried out and the author's conclusions." and Doug Weller said in response to the entire post by TFD: "I wasn't confusing rs and weight - I was commenting on using peer-reviewed studies, not whether they were RS - I guess I wasn't specific enough with my wording but I thought the point was important to make here. But I agree with everything else you've said here." WhisperToMe (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

By "latter contributors," who challenged the idea that theses are all automatically reliable, I meant those such as SlimVirgin, MASEM, and Dougweller. Dezastru (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok. TFD analyzed the actual document, and Dougweller ultimately agreed with what TFD said. I read what Masem and Slimvirgin had to say.

• Slimvirgin: "I think we should be wary of using PhD theses as academic sources. If nothing hangs on it and no one objects, it should be okay, but for anything contentious it's worth bearing in mind that there's a big variation in quality between mainstream universities, and even within the same university between different departments." - I haven't read about any published challenges to the Draa study. If there were any, though, I'd imagine it would be in the context of a "uniform debate" and could be used to contribute to the article (The
  Long Beach USD
  promoted uniforms in the 1990s and caused a lot of media attention but there were very public challenges to that district's arguments)
• Masem's comment was early in the thread and it was posted 3 hours after my post (the final post was 6 days later).

• He said: "I've been through this, and no, this is not true across the board. Yes, the thesis will have been reviewed by the advisory committee and a good committee will be critical but others will be more looking at the scientific process rather than the claims of the results. As such, by default, thesis should be considered unreliable. But that said - if the committee includes a known expert in the field that might be a reason to assume reliability. And in many places, publication in peer-reviewed journals (which might become part of the thesis) is a necessary requirement, so finding a thesis of a topic of interest, one should seek out papers by that person that were part of the thesis." - But over the course of the discussion it seemed like in general the view that a thesis should usually be considered un-reliable was not shared by the other participants.

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Long story short: I fully agree with Dezastru and find that the quotes that you provide, do nothing other than to confirm what he/she says. Sure some others did not share that view, but that only shows that there was disagreement. Not that there was anything that even comes close to a consensus.

Besides, as I've said:

ZarlanTheGreen (talk

) 17:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Is there a quote from a policy that states that PhDs are not automatically reliable in a way that disqualified the Draa study instead of analyzing it? After all an RS commenter did exactly that with the Draa study. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

"Is there a quote from a policy that states that PhDs are not automatically reliable in a way that disqualified the Draa study instead of analyzing it? After all an RS commenter did exactly that with the Draa study."

I fail to understand the question. Your words are not clear: What exactly are you saying?--

ZarlanTheGreen (talk

) 15:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

This article may have sourcing issues (I can't tell for sure, as 2 of the 3 are books and all are in Russian, a language I don't speak). The article's opening sentence is:

The Kinzelyuk Waterfall (Кинзелюкский водопад) is probably the highest waterfall in Russia, after the elusive Talnikovy Waterfall (which may not exist any more).

Can somebody help out?ChromaNebula (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I've just encountered the article Natalia Turine for the first time. (I hadn't previously heard of the biographee.) At first glance, the sourcing looks insufficient yet not too bad. But click on any of the twelve references and all the text links change color (one's browser shows that it has already displayed the lot). That's because they're all linked to the biographee's own page http://www.natalia-turine.com/gallery.php?id=19

This raises at least three questions. One is, even if these are all what they seemm to be, it's not obvious that they're all present with the permission of the copyright holder. And WP mustn't link to copyright violations.

However, sets of reproductions like this are very normal these days. Let's assume for a moment that reproduction on that website isn't problematic, and move on.

Secondly, there's always a possibility that sources such as this could have been tampered with or could even be total fakes. Is there something in a guideline (or policy) about use of primary sources for (what purport to be) secondary sources? (I've a feeling I've read something, but can't remember where.)

And if, or so far as, sources/links such as this are permissible/desirable, how are they best presented via Template:Cite web?

(I tend to avoid this template myself: by avoiding it, I can easily add the text snippet as reproduced [http://www.natalia-turine.com/gallery.php?id=19 here] in Turine's website. But I appreciate its value in principle, and if it's already used in an article then I'm reluctant to do away with it.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, the article was created by somebody who has so far been an SPA within en:WP, but who actually translated the article from its French equivalent. About whose sourcing there has already been at least one discussion (Lomita asks for online sources). -- Hoary (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The way to cite, for example, the 1990 Liberation article by Pierre Briançon would be to use Template:Cite news.

(The website with the gallery is not the actual source. The link to that web gallery that includes a photograph of what is apparently the original printed edition is just a convenience link. See "Convenience links" in the

guideline on citing sources

.)

Whether the website gallery is in violation of the copyright holder's rights, and should not be linked to for readers' convenience, I don't know. This seems to be a grey area for Wikipedia. I believe the applicable Wikipedia rules are

WP:ELNEVER

says, "Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work, or uses the work in a way compliant with fair use". It doesn't look like the website with the gallery is showing any indication of having licensed the work (although I haven't scoured the entire site looking for such). Wikipedia says about fair use as it applies to Wikipedia itself (but presumably this would also apply to how Wikipedia views others' use of copyrighted material as well?): Acceptable use of text = "Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea"; Unacceptable use of text = "Excessively long copyrighted excerpts". (I would think that a copy of an entire article would seem to fall into the unacceptable use of text category, in this context.)

But I am not sure how Wikipedia treats this sort of copyright issue, so I too would like to hear what others say. (It was this same kind of issue that had me start participating in the noticeboard a few weeks ago.) Dezastru (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Are any of the reviewers of comedic video based review sites (e.g.

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_18#History_of_Science
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_107#Salim_Al-Hassani_and_muslimheritage.com
• Talk:Timeline_of_telescopes,_observatories,_and_observing_technology#Unreliable_source_-_Muslimheritage.com_material
• Talk:Science_in_the_medieval_Islamic_world#Misuse_of_sources
• User:Spacepotato/Examples of source inaccuracy (muslimheritage.com)
• User:Syncategoremata/Unreliable_sources#MuslimHeritage.com
• User:Spacepotato/Examples_of_source_problems#muslimheritage.com_.28.3D_FSTC_Ltd..29
• Their
  1001 Inventions publication has been debunked as extremely unreliable and misleading by a historian[27]. Same with their exhibition.[28]

The organisation looks and sounds reliable so keeps being used, which is why it's such a problem.--Diamondbuster (talk) 09:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I looked through most of those pages and here is what I think:

• You can't refute a reliable source with your own OR. That's just replacing one potential problem with another, definitive problem.
• Some claims might be inaccurate and they deserve to be discussed at their own talkpages. If we remove all sources b/c they had a couple of inaccuracies, nothing would remain here b/c everything, inevitably, has a problem.
• Just because a source says another source is inaccurate does not really make it so.

In conclusion, because we lack any evidence the site is massively misrepresenting history, I think it is best to bring up problems at the respective talkpages.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 15:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I do not see any arguments for why it is not rs. If the authors sometimes express opinions that differ from the mainstream, that is an issue of weight, not rs. If there are sometimes errors of fact, there are in even the best rs. If there are better sources for some articles, then by all means use them. Personally, I can see few cases where a popular website, which is a tertiary source, should be used as a source, but if you want to block its use, then you need to change the policy that allows it. TFD (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I've never heard of FSTC so I won't comment on that but what was wrong with the Edicions Universitat Barcelona source you removed [29][30][31] by the way ? Sean.hoyland - talk 18:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Certainly being published by FTSC adds no evidence of being a reliable source, since FTSC is an apologetics outfit, and has no reputation for fact-checking. If challenged material is being sourced to something published by them, and there is nothing else which gives evidence of it being reliable, then remove the material. We've had problems with boosterism on such topics before. The work of Jagged 85 is still being cleaned up to this day, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85. If you do need advice, maybe talk to User:Merlinme, as he or she may be able to help you. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 05:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how practical a "a site-wide removal and ban of MuslimHeritage.com" is. The normal procedure as I understand it is to agree that it's not a reliable source here and then deal with (i.e. remove or replace with a better source) on a case by case basis. I agree it's not a reliable source, though, and in fact is demonstrably misleading in many cases. In general it's clearly a site set-up to promote one point of view; it does give some sources, but the original sources need to be checked, MuslimHeritage does not always report them correctly. Sometimes the sources it quotes are not given proper citations, e.g. a chapter or even an entire book is given, without a page number; on some occasions when I've actually tracked down citations given they do not support what is being claimed. A trivial but revealing example is the claim that municipal litter collection was invented in

Talk:Islamic_contributions_to_Medieval_Europe#What_sense_is_meant_by_.22contribution.22.3F

, but to summarise, one of the main "references" was to History of the Moorish People, which is an 800 page book, with no page number. I found a searchable copy of the book, and on p. 619 found "[streets] were kept in a state of cleanliness unknown to the best regulated municipalities of modern Europe", which is not support for the invention of litter bins and litter collection. It's hard to know where to start, really; the comparison is with medieval Europe, so the source says nothing about other cultures, e.g. Roman, Chinese. There is certainly no support for the claim of "first". Also what is being described (in a rather throwaway sentence) sounds to me like efficient street-cleaners, yet was being used in Wikipedia to support the claim that Cordoba was the first city to have litter collection.

Interestingly when I had a look at the current 1001 inventions website, "A History of the Moorish People" is no longer listed in the sources section, however this seems to be mainly because no sources are listed to support the "litter collection" claim at all; but the litter collection claim for Cordoba is still made in the "Town" zone section.

So I do not consider 1001 Inventions (and related organisations) to be a Reliable Source, except possibly in the case where the original source is listed here: http://www.1001inventions.com/academicreferences, and even then you'd be better off checking and referencing the original source. --Merlinme (talk) 10:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Aua, the source wasn't refuted using OR, it was refuted by another academic and many others when looking up the reliable source it supposedly references. When multiple outside reliable sources show this single source as false, it's clearly unreliable.

TFD, these are not differing opinions, these are differing claims and facts not backed up by the sources they used, so is misleading in some cases complete lies.

Sean, this source are articles from the unreliable source being discussed, which have been republished by the same author.--Diamondbuster (talk) 15:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Is a doctoral dissertation apparently published by UC Davis but not nor in any peer-reviewed journal. The author [er GoogleScholar appears to be cited by very few places at all (10 cites for the dissertation total)

It is being used to present as fact that specific people were members of the "Bohemian Club" List of Bohemian Club members

This source specifies that it used lists of guests etc. to determine the interconnected nature of "elite men's clubs" and "capitalism" (i.e. it is focused on economic power and not on the actual individuals, nor does the author try to verify any memberships other than using the SPS primary sources). (Lists of guests to summer encampments at the Bohemian Grove for 1971 and 1993 is listed as a source)

Two issues -- while some doctoral dissertations have been deemed RS in the past, where living people are involved, does the\is particular doctoral dissertation meet

Second, for dead people, is reliance on what appears to be only a self-published list of members sufficient to declare that a person was, indeed, a member?

Thanks for any input thereon. Collect (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi collect. Our guideline per

WP:SCHOLARSHIP

states: "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised. Some of them will have gone through a process of academic peer reviewing, of varying levels of rigor, but some will not. If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature; supervised by recognized specialists in the field; or reviewed by third parties. "

The dissertation does not need to be found in a "peer reviewed" journal to be used as a source. It also does not need to be peer reviewed itself, however you do point out that the work is cited ten times and I see that as well, however I would point out the ten citations are to THAT particular PDF version made available on Angelfire. It appears the work has been cited more than that, but ten is enough. This appears to be an acceptable source by our standards.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

What may be at issue is the fact that to be invited to the club and attend....I believe you have to be a member. It is by invitation only and I believe that is the working idea behind the list of guests being used as a membership list. This may not be the best method, but it may still be accurate with this organization.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The dissertation used lists of "guests" and noted that members could bring "guests" - thus assuming that a guest was a member seems quite improbable. In fact the author makes a specific point that he was a "guest" more than once - thus overtly stating that one need not be a member to attend. In the case of living persons, the standards for making contentious claims are a bit higher than a doctoral dissertation provides -- and membership in this group is decidedly "contentious." Thanks. Collect (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Now you make a good point, but the question is "a guest" where? To the club or to the grove? How was the list used? Can you ascertain that? If not how claim something is contentious? The standards for making a claim about a living person, whether that information is negative, positive or just neutral rests in having sources. I am one who will look further into how a source is used so, as long as you can demonstrate that the sources the author used, were not used in accordance to our standards and that inclusion of guests were added inaccurately, I think you would have a case. Can you make such a demonstration?--Mark Miller (talk) 22:42, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The source stated "guests" to the "encampment" which I trust is the term generally used for the gatherings of that organization, and rather clearly stated that guests did not magically become members -- else the author ought well have listed himself as a member. As he did not, the claim can not be made that guests become members. And if an organization is absolutely pure, but that rumours circulate about the organization making it notorious way, that the claim is contentious -- "truth" has nothing to do with it. And there is clearly an abundance of notoriety about the organization. In short, I regard it as clear that the membership in that organization is, indeed, contentious as a claim. Collect (talk) 23:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure...as being listed as a boy scout can be contentious...but here we are attempting to claim this source is mistaken or taking its information out of context. The encampment is Bohemian Grove located in Monte Rio, California. The club is located in San Francisco. No, the term "encampment" actually means...the camp. It is not a general term for "gatherings" of the organization but a yearly gathering of members. It may or may not be part of the private ritual to accept new members to what is considered the most exclusive club in the world. Just because the author does not add his name does not mean anything to our look at the source. there are a number of reasons they may not have added their own name.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion here. The "Club", generally speaking, means the organization, not the building in San Francisco (although there is at least one use of "the Club" in a specific context to refer to the clubhouse building – see note 6 on page 23). The term "encampment" refers to gatherings at the Grove (for example, "For many of the demonstrators the issues they were concerned about were perceived as being planned and discussed in the Grove during the actual summer encampment they were protesting." page 10). "Guests" were not "members" of the Club at the time that they were guests (someone who had been a guest might presumably have later become a member, however). The author used various sources for documenting that individuals were members, some of which included reviews of the work of other scholars (eg Dumhoff), examination of personal archives of members, and official lists of members of the Club. More specifically, for the latter he used "Active Bohemian Club membership list for 1941, 1971, and 1991" of which he said, "Active Club membership means that I included only those members who were listed on the annual summer encampment lists. This includes 90% of all Club members (Baxter 1987) but excludes any new members and inactives." For guests he used "Lists of guests to summer encampments at the Bohemian Grove for 1971 and 1993" obtained from the Club's records. He distinguishes between "members" and "guests" when describing the relationships individuals had with the Club. Page 98, for example, lists the Secretary of Defense as a "guest" 1991–1993 and the Secretary of State 1970. On page 25, he lists H.F. Stone as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice who was a guest in 1928, as recorded in a San Francisco Chronicle article. Similarly for members, on page 25, note 7, he says, "Joseph A. Moore, shipbuilder, had been a member of the Club since 1904"; page 35, Jack London was a member 1904–1915; page 57, note 15, "Charles Coburn was voted in as a Club member on October 25, 1948 (Bohemian Club members 1951)." The appendices list members ("Bohemians"), not guests, drawn from the Club's 1941, 1971, and 1991 records. Dezastru (talk) 16:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly the claims at question are here: The first claim that someone is a member of the Bohemian Club at

Stephen David Bechtel, Sr.. The source is reliable for this claim. P. 147 says that Bechtel was a member. The dissertation was successfully defended for his PhD at the Sociology department at UC Davis, which is a completely respectable department, and the university published it as such, and there does not appear to be any controversy concerning the piece: It is just a run-of-the-mill piece of standard scholarship on the Bohemian Club. I don't understand the condition that a journal publish the piece: The piece is 245 pages long; I've never seen a journal publish a single piece that long. E.g., the editors at AJS say: "Authors should note that many referees balk at reading papers larger than 10,000 words (i.e., 50 pages at 200 words per page)" [32]. Whether a claim is contentious does not affect whether a source is reliable for a claim. That's getting the method precisely backwards: First one determines what reliable sources there are for a claim and its contradictions, then one uses a full comparison of those to decide whether the claim is contentious. If one didn't depend on the reliable sources to judge on the reception of a claim in the scholarship, then one could only depend on unreliable sources, which is forbidden by core policy. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions

) 23:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

the dissertation was about numerical values -- the "list of members" was not done by his own research, but specifically using self-published (by the BC) primary sources, including lists of "guests." The gist of the dissertation was a correlation between money, position, and membership -- but that does not mean he actually researched individuals and the organization is, indeed, "contentious." Nor would any of those at his defence have asked about individuals at all. BTW, most of the dissertation is in appendices. As it is public record that some who have been listed in the past have denied membership, I find that it requires stronger sourcing. Lists used from other sources do not automagically become "reliable" unless they have been checked. Collect (talk) 00:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry Collect, but attempting to draw your own conclusions are simply not appropriate. We've answered your question, the source is reliable for the content. My attempt was to see if your were able to demonstrate your claims. It does not appear you are able to. I tried to see what you were saying but this entire situation is based on another editor's moral ideology and interpretation of the organization which is simply false to begin with.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Collect is mistaken in saying that the author used only sources published by the Bohemian Club. On the contrary, the author says he perused archival materials found in several libraries, even boxes of archived personal papers belonging to past members. The author says he interviewed some 200 people about the club. All of this adds up to a wealth of research including much corroborating data. Finally, the club's own publications should be considered the best source of who was a club member. Who else would have better information? That's the part of Collect's complaint which puzzles me most. Binksternet (talk) 23:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

And you are mistaken in ascribing something to me which I did not say. Sorry --- doing such is a teensy bit disingenuous. the issue is that the only source which has been found for at least two people was self-published by the club. Period. The sources which state they used that source are therefore precisely as reliable, and only as reliable, as the source used. Checking many sources, we found two errors out of two checked -- which is not a teensy error rate AFAICT. I wonder what would happen if we tried looking at all the redlinks in the list, for which there are no biographies in many cases. Cheers. And please avoid saying I wrote that which I did not write. It makes it very hard for people to figure out just who really said what. Collect (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

What two names are you talking about? Binksternet (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Disingenuousness incarnate -- as the topic is at the article talk page and includes Mark Twain whose myriad biographers were quite thorough, and not a single one of whom makes the Bohemian Club membership claim, that his papers which are pretty thorough make no reference to any such claim, that his published letters make no such reference, and where the only "sources" all appear to require using the self-published lists from the club itself. Cheers -- I rather think you knew the examples I referred to though. Collect (talk) 13:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The two names are what? I don't understand what reference you are discussing. If Samuel Clemens a.k.a Mark Twain is one of the names, then a handful of other references support the inclusion of Twain as an honorary member, so Phillips is not really on trial for that. If it's not more trouble than typing "Disingenuousness incarnate", you can type out two names and enlighten the discussion here. Binksternet (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

This thesis is a reliable source for membership in the Bohemian Club, per

Do organizations ever list non-members as members? That is the gist -- with one asserting that a club's claim that a person was a member is absolutely to be taken as truth. The problem is that organizations have frequently asserted that noted persons were "members". The "thesis" specifies that the club's own publications were used as a source -- we can not assert that the thesis found any other evidence whatsoever for the "membership". Including the Rosicrucians insisting Franklin was a member, onwards. The tendency is to present a "higher level notability" for an organization by asserting that famous people were members. In the case of Twain, absolutely no Twain-related source makes the claim that he ever knew anything about the club, and the anecdotes which had him going to meetings are poor as he was not in San Francisco to "meet Bret Harte at the Bohemian Club" between 1868 and 1906. Indeed, he was in San Francisco for a few hours for a benefit on 21 April 1906, and never otherwise even visited any of California. Few people are as thoroughly documented as Clemens at all. [33]. His famous world wide lecture tour was 1895-6. The chronology of his speeches is at [34]. And there are no records of any "Bohemian Club" in any of the Twain archives AFAICT. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

"Mark Twain" does not appear anywhere in the dissertation, as far as I can tell (please cite the specific location if that is wrong). "Samuel L. Clemens" appears once, on page 21, where it says that he was listed as an honorary member in the 1887 roster. (This appears to be cited to a 1977 work by Starr, although I am not sure if that is a correct reading of how the dissertation's author intended for that citation to be used.) You seem to be assuming Clemens would have had to have been present at a meeting to have been inducted as an honorary member; what's the evidence to support that assumption? Dezastru (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: "The Annals of the Bohemian Club" printed in 1898 [35] make the claim that Twain became a member on 17 October 1873 (before his major works were published) -- quite a feat since he was in Hartford, and no correspondence indicates anything of the sort. (took a whole to find the alleged date -- which is first mentioned a quarter of a century later). [36] which deals with Twain, Harte and the Bohemian Club specifically makes no such claim about any connection between Twain and the club. So what we have is a PR book from a quarter of a century later asserting that Twain was in San Francisco to become an Honorary Member in 1873 -- with the trivial problem that not only was Twain not there, we know quite well where he was. Collect (talk) 17:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Collect has posted here requesting feedback on his query. It's apparent that he doesn't like the feedback he has received and will continue to dispute with people who take the view he dislikes no matter how many they are. I'm not sure there's much point in carrying on with this. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Collect stands on the assumption that Twain is required to have been present to win the honor, or to have visited the Bohemian Club at some point in his life. Because this assumption is wrong, it invalidates the whole position. We know that Twain was made an honorary member on October 17, 1873, around the same time that Bret Harte was made an honorary member. I think we're done here. Binksternet (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

We also know Twain was not there, that the Club made a practice of electing honorary members solely to enhance the prestige of the Club and that some people were quite surprised to learn they had been elected viz. Riley telling the Club representative to see his business manager! Cheers - the Club in those days was a bit of a fraud and humbug. Collect (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Collect, I think I missed where you presented evidence that Twain would have had to have been present to be inducted as an honorary member. Incidentally, SF Weekly, 1996: "La vie boheme of the 19th century was not limited to the Latin Quarter of Paris. The new Bohemianism, with its emphasis on literature and the arts, flourished in the San Francisco of the 1860s as well. The locus of that activity was a weekly newspaper, The Golden Era. Edited by Bret Harte, the paper included such contributors as Mark Twain, Adah Isaacs Menken, Charles Warren Stoddard, Ambrose Bierce, Ada Clare, and Ina Coolbrith. While researching the Bohemian Club for his doctoral dissertation, Gary Graves discovered this amazing congruence of artists and writers. The result is his new play, The Golden Era, which opens at the Berkeley City Club July 12."[37]

Mark Twain: Unsanctified Newspaper Reporter(p 218): "Unlike the Californian, The Golden Era above all promoted Pacific Coast writers.... Bret Harte and William Wright were regular contributors by 1862, and Lawrence took early notice of a talent on the rise, Sam Clemens, by publishing original Mark Twain material when the pseudonym was but a few months old."

So whether Twain actually visited SF or not at the time, he was known in the literary circles, which would have been reason for Club members to extend an honorary membership. Whether he was impressed by that at the time (and made a note of it in a journal or in correspondence) is a separate matter. You also seem to be assuming that every word he ever wrote in private has been preserved and thoroughly indexed, which seems rather far-fetched. Anyway, I've wasted more than enough time on this one. Dezastru (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Being "Bohemian" in 1868 did not make one remotely a member of a club started in 1872. Twain did live in SF for three or four years -- well before the Club existed. So that bit makes no sense here. What we have is that a source states the purpose of "honorary members" being elected was one of promoting the club, and that members were "elected" without their knowledge at all. (read the cite below) but was a game of "collaring celebrities" without them having any forewarning. Collect (talk) 17:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

One more: [38] " Early in its career the Club developed a mania for collaring celebrities. At first the organization was content with designating notable personages of letters as their honorary co-Bohemians. In 1873, Mark Twain and Bret Harte were elected honorary members. Shortly afterwards, on a Winter evening, the Club sent telegraph greetings across the continent to Oliver Wendell Holmes. The members must have been either drunk or absent-minded at that moment. They did not take into consideration that darkest night reigns in the East while it is early evening in California. Dr. Holmes was got out of his warm bed and away from his slumber by the telegram." In short, people were made "honorary members" for the specific purpose of enhancing the Club's perceived status. "This boast grew more shrill and fantastic as the years rolled by. A painful surprise came in 1892 when James Whitcomb Riley was accosted in his hotel by a proud representative of the Club. (Riley told the person that it would have to go through his business manager!)" Garrets and Pretenders: Bohemian Life in America from Poe to Kerouac Albert Parry; Courier Dover Publications, Jun 17, 2013; 480 pages. the Club comes of as being basically a fraud when it came to adopting "honorary members". Did the Club assert that anyone it named an honorary member was one? Yes. did that make them actually a member of any sort? Not as far as actual Twain researchers are concerned. Cheers - I think this is dispositive. Collect (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

You have once again proved that Twain was made an honorary member. Keep digging, you'll continue to find more proof, all of which buries your case. Binksternet (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Read again please. It shows that in 1897 or so the Club asserted that they had been "elected" as honorary members, but if you think that makes them members in any logical sense, I fear I demur. I suggest that being elected a member of a society which one does not know about, and where the election was not only not sought for, but not even with any notification that the membership is pure humbug. If the KKK "elected" Obama as an "honorary member" of the KKK would that make him one? Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I can see that the source affirms Twain as an honorary member. What other issue is there? Oh yes, your opinion otherwise. Thanks for sharing your opinion about what makes for membership in a club, but it has as much bearing on this question as a plague of frogs. Binksternet (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Where I come from, if an organization makes you an honorary member and does not necessarily even tell you that it has done so, the "membership" is wertlos utterly, and the organization is a bit of a fraud. Or perhaps if a KKK chapter made Obama an "honorary member" you would add that as a "fact"? The concept of being a "member" of something is that you specifically are willing to associate yourself with that organization. I think the quote given above from Parry might reasonably be added to show how the Club treats the concept though. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

You have no proof that the Bohemians failed to send Twain an announcement of their decision to make him an honorary member. Such proof would be damn near impossible to assemble, since many of the documents in Twain's life were discarded and are lost. Especially ephemeral are telegrams. At any rate, your notion that this is an important point to consider is not supported by all of the reliable sources which happily report Twain's honorary membership, without worrying about his being notified. Binksternet (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Um -- what we do have is the lack of notification of intent for Holmes and for Riley. Two individuals. Do you need proof that they never notified anyone that they were to be elected as "honorary members"? That would be outré. Collect (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Just in: [39] "Mr. Peabody" is an "honorary member" of Mensa. Collect (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Give it a rest. Even the plague of frogs stopped after a couple of days. You're not getting any further toward your goal with Peabody and Mensa. Binksternet (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics> & <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Ivashov>. Both of these entries cite as reference 1, John B. Dunlop. "Review: Aleksandr Dugin's Foundation of Geopolitics" and link to pdf., <http://lisd.princeton.edu/publications/wp_russiaseries_dunlop.pdf>. However, this website just gives a list of various publications, none of which includes the cited work.

The link is wrong (at least in the first Wikipedia article you listed). The intended source is John B. Dunlop, "Aleksandr Dugin's Foundations of Geopolitics" Demokratizatsiya Winter 2004 12(4):41–57. Whether that article, presumably written by this Russian/Soviet expert, is reliable for the statements in the Wikipedia articles is a different question. Dezastru (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

How has The 100 been received? Is it cited by other bio or history sources that are typically considered authoritative?

And how did Hart come up with his list and ranking? Was it just his own opinion (as opposed to based on a survey of historians, for example)? Dezastru (talk) 15:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I would say keep it for scientists at least, as his white seperatist beliefs do not appear to be reflected in the list.--Diamondbuster (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep the citations for the scientists based on what criteria? How can anyone argue to keep the citations without answering the questions I posed in the preceding post? Dezastru (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Um, if we want a source for the "Most Influential Persons in History", we should look to historians, not astrophysicists - White supremacist or otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Which is why I asked how he came up with the list. Was it just his own opinion? Dezastru (talk) 17:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

On investigation, yes, it was his opinion. I think it has as much academic standing amongst historians as my list of favorite foods would to a registered dietitian. In other words, purely subjective ranking and selection with no content verified to be relied upon generally or by scholarly experts.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason to "keep it for scientists at least". Right now it's being used to support the idea that Edison was an influential figure in a completely general sense. This is not obscure scientific knowledge that needs any more expertise than what's available to the next person you happen to meet. I don't think his opinion is needed to verify any assertion beyond his own opinion, and I don't even see where that would be relevant. The book cited was originally self-published then re-published with a z-rate novelty-title/copyright-infringing book packager. It's not scholarship. Our article for that book cites no external sources regarding the book's notability, it only cites the book itself.__ E L A Q U E A T E 16:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

It's also a book that spreads fringe theories, such as the idea that Edward de Vere wrote the plays of Shakespeare. I see no evidence here that anyone uses Hart's opinion as in any way authoritative anywhere else. I don't see why it has an article of its own, frankly, beyond some promotional aspect.__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Help with cleanup would be good, see [40]. Hm, maybe the list is smaller than that suggests, see [41]

talk

) 19:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hart's competence as a historian is reflected in the fact that he identifies

Edward de Vere as one of the list, because, of course, he was the real author of the works of Shakespeare. Paul B (talk

) 18:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Oops. I see that point has already been made by Elaqueate. Paul B (talk) 19:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Isn't this book self-published? It could be a coincidence that the author and publisher have the same name, but the identifiable "Hart Publishing" is based out of Oxford, not New York, and focuses on law. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The lead used to say

"Traditional sources state that Aisha was married to Muhammad at the age of six, but she stayed in her parents' home until the age of nine, when the marriage was consummated with Muhammad, then 53, in Medina;[8][9][10] with the exception of al-Tabari who records that she was ten years old." but now says

"Traditional sources state that Aisha was the only virgin Muhammad married and claim that he married her in Mecca at the age of seven, and consummated his marriage with her, when she was nine or ten, after his migration to Medina.[11][12] However, most these sources attribute the figure of the age of Aisha to only one man whose name is Hisham ibn Urwah which makes this claim weak and unreliable.[13] Both Ibn Ishaq and Ibn Hisham mentioned in their books, which are the earliest written books about the biography of Muhammad, that Aisha was born in the pre-Islamic era and converted to Islam when she was young girl among the first people who converted to Islam.[14][15] This indicates that Aisha was at least 18 years old when she married Muhammad."

The statement "However, most these sources attribute the figure of the age of Aisha to only one man whose name is Hisham ibn Urwah which makes this claim weak and unreliable." has one source, [42], written by this person. There's no source for "This indicates that Aisha was at least 18 years old when she married Muhammad." At

This article [43] written by this person[44]has just been added as a source for "This indicates that Aisha was at least 18 years old when she married Muhammad" and "Furthermore, traditional sources state that Aisha was betrothed to another man called Jubayr ibn Mut'im before Muhammad, which makes it unlikely that Aisha was nine or ten when she married Muhammad".

talk

) 19:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2823486/?ref_=nm_flmg_dr_8

This is an Imdb credit for a major cable network credit that was passed upon by the network. Wikipedia has a policy of disregarding Imdb credits, for very good reason, but in the capacity of issuing "tv movie" crdits they have a strict editorial team who confirms with the distributors and networks. One cannot fake a "failed" tv pilot. What do I have to use this as a legitimate source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Middleamericajames (talk • contribs)

There is no "strict editorial team" confirming the existence of projects that didn't happen, with production companies that don't notably exist, for networks not mentioned. This shouldn't be used for anything at all. I don't know what article you would intend to use it, but this "project" does not seem to be notable in any conceivable way. __ E L A Q U E A T E 17:48, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Sites with user-generated content, are not reliable under

WP:IRS. This includes forums, message boards, other wikis, and websites that solicit user contributions or edits including Patch Media, TV.com, Answers.com, and yes, IMDB. Nightscream (talk

) 22:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Is the Virtual International Authority File reliable for biographical info in BLP articles? Is this VIAF page reliable for birth info for Eric Kim? I just wanna make sure. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello? Nightscream (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Your question was referred to me and I will attempt to give you an answer. Yes, both VIAF and the LC Name Authority File usually can be considered reliable sources for birth and death dates. Catalogers inputting authority records into both files do research to find birth and death information as well as other distinguishing characteristics to help identify authors. This is also very helpful with common names like John Smith or Paul Taylor. However, there are times when no information can be found. The cataloger will note that in the 670/675 field of the record (670 or 675 is the "name" of the field in which the cataloger inputs the info; it can be found toward the bottom of the record). In the case of Mr. Kim, a search was done on his own website, which had his year of birth. I hope this is helpful.--FeanorStar7 00:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The Virtual International Authority File is a professional resource for librarians. It offers authority files that can be used globally for authority control. "Authority files" establish a single acceptable name for each search term. In cataloging and databases, it's a real problem if "Clive Staples Lewis" and "C.S. Lewis" aren't recognized as the same person. So these VIAF records would be used commonly in libraries that don't or can't do their own authority control. I would judge the information to be scholarly and accurate. But since these records are relatively technical, I'm not sure they would be the first place I'd go to back up biographical information. My recommendation would be to go ahead and use the source, but keep your eyes peeled for a better source that would be more acceptable to general audiences. --Libraryowl (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, this is transparently an anti-Muslim organization whose interest in child welfare is as a battering ram against mosques, not an actual expert organization on child welfare. The source is clearly not reliable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

That has to be the dumbest question I've ever seen posted here. Is the purpose of the question just to get it "on the record"?Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 21:40, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, no insult intended. It's just that I've seen a lot of these and this one broke the proverbial camel. Perhaps I should have used "silly" instead. And if you read the title agin, it is quite silly. And to answer the question, of course not! Two kinds of pork (talk) 00:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record: the website is palpably not reliable. It states: "British common law is clear that there can be no justification for: the preaching of sedition; claims that women, Jews, homosexuals or non-Muslims are inferior and can be abused." This seriously weasley. As far as I know, it's perfectly legal in the UK to express the view that any group is "inferior", in a specific or general sense, but of course it's illegal to "abuse" any group, if the term "abuse" is understood to include unlawful acts of violence, intimidation or whatever. Indeed, the sentence is essentially a tautology. It's against the law to do things to people that are against the law. The site may contain useful links to more reliable material. The term "localised grooming" does seem to be something used in various reports, though I'm not clear what exactly it means (as opposed to "globalised" grooming?), and the idea that it was somehow created in 1990 seems on the face of it confused. Paul B (talk) 22:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Certainly not reliable. Even the brief quote from them shows their ignorance of the English legal system. TFD (talk) 02:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

This question concerns the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Food_and_drink#Notability_of_food:_are_recipes_enough.3F, and in particular, the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plums in chocolate. Are recipes listings like [49] on the internet good enough for us to 1) link to and 2) use as a reference / proof of notability? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The website you link from the BBC - certainly a reliable source regarding many subjects, and I can't see any obvious reason to think that the recipe wouldn't be reliable. As for other online recipe sources, we'd have to consider each one on its merits - we don't make blanket assertions regarding reliability. Having said that, you seem to be confusing reliability with notability - and the latter isn't really an issue for this noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

In the Instagram account of Corey Harrison reliable for the date of birth of his father, Rick Harrison? When you hover the mouse over the photo of the two of them at this page (The one under the heading March 2014), it gives the date March 22, 2014, and when you click on it, the caption indicates that it is Rick Harrison's birthday. His article already has his birth year, but not the day. Is that reliable?

Also, is this Facebook post by Harrison reliable? Is there a way to determine if a Facebook account is the verified one of the person in question, like with Twitter? Looking through the archive for discussions on Facebook used to source dates of birth, I came across this one, in which someone stated that a link from the person's official site would do this, however, the only website I know he has is the one for his business, and I couldn't find any link to a Facebook account there. Nightscream (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Short answer: Instagram and Facebook are not reliable sources. 71.139.148.193 (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The link, from Entertainment Weekly talks about how in a Barbara Walters show it was announced that singer Mariah Carey earned 500million throughout her career. My question is are these chat shows reliable at all? Most of the time its for promotion of the said guest who is appearing and has no indication of a journalistic or academic credibility behind the info, except PR fed. What are other's thoughts on this? —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 07:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Another source, courtesy of The Daily Telegraph was provided as well. Discuss what you please, however the issue has already been resolved. Cheers.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 08:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Nobody here is questioning the validity of Entertainment Weekly Petergriffon. WE are talking about PR publicized talk shows being used as source. Not all publications deemed reliable have reliable authors. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 08:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Source

Son of the Bronx

Article

Numerous articles involving cable television series

Content

Nielsen ratings

figures

The site's sole publisher is Douglas Pucci, who started the site in 2011 using the Blogger service. It specializes in compiling detailed listings of Nielsen ratings data for various major cable channels. Its data has been published by multiple third-party sources, including TV by the Numbers and The Futon Critic, who also publish data provided by Nielsen directly to them; the latter two sites are also used extensively in television research.

Below is a list of some of the site's attributions:

Its data seems to be consistent with other cable rating reports, and all of its entries cite

I too am interested in a community-wide solution to this conundrum. Television articles need reliable sources for ratings. Sources like Son of the Bronx and TVBytheNumbers, and Futon Critic provide this information, although some do it in more consistent ways than others. Son of the Bronx seems fairly consistent and I'm not aware of specific problems related to their accuracy as it relates to ratings. Contrarily, I've seen inconsistencies between reliable sources TVGuide.com and Zap2It for episode airdates (I believe CatDog and Scaredy Squirrel are two series with conflicting airdate information), yet there is no consequence for that. Much of what goes on in the world of TV article editing involves cobbling together information from disparate sources. Some sites, like TVBytheNumbers don't report ALL of the ratings for ALL of the US TV networks. They occasionally leave out days, (Sunday, I believe isn't always on their radar), and ratings for other networks, like Nickelodeon, are often submitted via the comments section in blog posts by users who seem to have some sort of authority on the matter. So my point is that there is not one central reliable source for ratings that we all have access to. Son of the Bronx is at least one more resource to tap. Otherwise, we might as well prohibit the inclusion of ratings information except for those few notable series and episodes that happen to make Variety and The Hollywood Reporter and such, since all these other new media sources have their flaws. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

This site fails

Pucci's site is indeed self-published, but it clearly meets

t · c · l

) 18:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I am missing it, but I don't see how the site meets the

WP:UGC that you feel allows for use of Son of the Bronx for ratings data. Dezastru (talk

) 18:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

"Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable

t · c · l

) 18:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

"An established expert whose work in the relevant field" means something like an historian, a law professor, a scientist, a political analyst, who has published books or peer-reviewed articles in the field and is considered an expert in the way that a scholar who is a university professor is considered an expert in his or her field of study. It does not mean someone from whom others have borrowed third-party data, as in the cases you listed above. Dezastru (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. I have no idea where you got "historian," etc. from

t · c · l

) 19:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)