Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 206

A balanced view means talking peer reviewed secondary source information that have different views. So we already have a psychologist called Luis Cordón in his published book on psychology saying past life regression may cause delusions. Now we have Professor Ursula James in her book with a chapter saying that past life regression technique is helpful in healing. We also now have Mário Simões, Professor of Psychiatry and of Consciousness Sciences saying in a peer reviewed article that it does not matter if past lives are real or not because they clear emotions in a personal way.

The Skeptics Dictionary is not peer reviewed and was written by Robert Todd who is qualified in philosophy. This is a totally different subject from psychology or psychiatry which Luis Cordon, Ulusa James and Mário Simões are all experts in. As this part of the article is about the use of the techniques of past life regression the views of Robert Todd are simply not relevant.

We also have it stated on the University of Aberdeen website that Professor Ursula James will be using her book in several universities to teach medical doctors including Oxford and Cambridge. So I think it is safe to remove a skeptics personal comment ‘The technique is not taught as part of any medical internships.’

Guy - if you looked at the index of the Clinical Hypnosis Textbook version 3 (the lastest one) past life regression has a whole chapter (ch 21 pages 283 to 294). About your comment ‘some wacky folks who believe in it’. Did you know the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life 2009 survey [3], found 51% of the world believe in reincarnation as do 25% of American Christians.

As I said before lets get this article balanced with peer reviewed secondary courses by experts in their field.Andy Tomlinson (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Andy Tomlinson. Clearly reasoned and elegantly stated. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Andy Tomlinson: Have you ever heard of an Argumentum ad populum? You may successfully claim that many people believe in reincarnation, but that does not make it true. Now, I'm willing to accept that there might be some benefit to past-life regression therapy, but no-one has ever demonstrated that this is due to reincarnation being true. A balanced article might (I haven't done the research for myself, so I don't know) validly claim that this form of therapy is widely used, or is even effective, but it may not under any circumstances claim that reincarnation is true, or that the past lives being 'remembered' are factual. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 21:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The distinction here is a fine but important one. This Wikipedia article takes no position on past lives, angels, or whether pigs have wings. And in fact, it needs no official position. The article is about a form of therapy. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia does have an 'official' position, which is that the hypothesis that reincarnation is true has no empirical evidence. This is because this is the only position which is

verifiable. With this in mind, statements in wiki voice which implicitly discount the possibility of reincarnation would be permitted, whereas statements which implicitly or explicitly confirm it would not. The only limitation on this is that WP doesn't exist to debunk false claims (but rather to explain and promote verifiable true claims), so verbiage which explicitly denies the possibility of reincarnation would be unnecessary and a waste of space, so it could be removed as readily as statements which explicitly or implicitly confirmed it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it.

22:32, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

That about sums it up. Iechyd da! Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The therapeutic perspective as explained by professor Marion Simone is that it does not matter if past life stories are real or not, it’s the power the stories to assist in healing that is important.

On the question of proof that reincarnation is real you can start with looking at consciousness surviving physical death. Research by Dr Pim van Lommel and his colleagues from Rijnstate Hospital in Arnhem, Holland, over 13 years investigated the experiences of 344 heart patients resuscitated after cardiac arrest. All had been clinically dead at some point during their treatment. Of these 62 patients reported a near-death experience. During this period many had no electrical activity of the brain. This meant that their memory recall of the experience could not be explained by traditional scientific explanations. This was published in the peer medical journal Lancet. (Van Lommel et al, Near-death Experience in Survivors of Cardiac Arrest; a prospective study in the Netherlands, The Lancet, 15 Dec 2001.) Another area supporting consciousness surviving death and reincarnating is the work of Dr Ian Stevenson, the former head of the department of parapsychology at the University of Virginia. He has specialized in collecting the past life stories from young children around the world by interviewing them and all the witnesses to their experience. This includes looking for inconsistency or fraud by doing follow-up visits later to check for signs of any personal gains that could account for deception. In all, Ian Stevenson and his colleagues have painstakingly collected over 2,000 cases from a wide range of cultures and religions around the world.

Whilst this may suggest reincarnation may be possible, the other side of the coin is what evidence is there that reincarnation does not exist? A Wikipedia balanced view surely should be neutral and present evidence for and against.Andy Tomlinson (talk) 21:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Whilst this may suggest reincarnation may be possible, the other side of the coin is what evidence is there that reincarnation does not exist? I have it in my files. I will upload it to wikipedia 24 hours after you provide proof that I am not God. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The Turtle told me. Conversely, turtles are notorious pranksters, so the issue is not settled. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Never trust a turtle. That's what gramps always told me. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

That's bull. Turtle is the most trusted one:

talk

) 22:57, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I thought it was four pillars... MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

It's been updated to five. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Damnit Larry... I told him four. You'd think it's such a small number it would be a simple thing... MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

MjolnirPants you may be God or you may not, all I'm asking is that if you have peer reviewed secondary source evidence and not an individual's view that reincarnation does not exists share it, because it may need to go into the article too.Andy Tomlinson (talk) 13:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

So you'd be fine with editing God to show that he edits wikipedia under the user name MjolnirPants then? Or at least editing it so as to suggest he may be editing WP under that name? Because that is what you are suggesting here. I would have expected anyone with a degree in medicine (or psychology) to understand one of the most fundamental principles of science: Falsifiability. Of course, if you can find peer-reviewed secondary sources published in a reputable journal (which haven't been subject to extensive criticism in other peer-reviewed articles published in reputable journals) which show that reincarnation is a legitimate phenomenon, then by all means, add them. Until then, Wikipedia will continue to take the Null hypothesis as correct. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Because of all that "likely" and "not likely" language, the "null hypothesis" on religious subjects defaults to the cultural presumption, or the individual's presumption. In other words, whatever you thought in the first place, keep on thinking. Universal truths cannot be subjected to computations of probability. Universal truth is a special case of particularity, and no one can compute the "likelihood" that an event in the past did or did not take place. TLDR: Every poker hand is as likely -- and as unlikely -- as every other poker hand. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Where those religious views do not intersect with reality (in that their impact is limited to the adherent's behavior), I agree. For instance WP doesn't need to say that God doesn't exist, even though there's no evidence that God exists. But this is because one can construct a version of God which is unfalsifiable (the standard deist view is of a god that does not involve itself in reality, but is rather the 'remote creator' of it), yet still meaningful (in the case of deism, that the penultimate result of all of science and philosophy would be to confirm this sort of god's existence). With a subject like reincarnation, that is not possible. If reincarnation works in a way that is unfalsifiable, then it by definition is not meaningful (note that this may have meaning to a person in that it serves as a sort of afterlife, but this matters only to the individual), and if it is meaningful (if past lives affect our current lives), then it is, by definition, falsifiable. Since this falsifiable version has been the subject of much testing which has shown that it is either false or that its effects are better explained by much simpler and better understood phenomenon, we must assume that it is false and write from that perspective. Of course, this is bearing in mind what I said earlier about WP not existing to debunk, because the unfalsifiable version may, in fact be true, and WP cannot state a position on this. If someone were to write something like "Since reincarnation is known not to be true, this therapy is of dubious use." I would be the first to revert it.

Regarding your tl;dr version, I might point out that this isn't true. A royal flush is far less likely than one pair. This aspect of the analogy extends to reality, as well. For example, the Hindu creation myth as an explanation for humanity is far less likely than evolution. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

(Back on safe ground with the discussion of Poker!) You are not reading what I wrote as I wrote it. The probability you cite is a factor of semantic generalization and nothing more. A hand containing 2s, 2c, 5d, 9h, 10c is no more or less likely than one of 10s, Js, Qs, Ks, As. Only by giving the latter a special meaning (You WIN!) and a special name does it seem so rare and special. Thus it is with science and philosophy. The "demons" of ancient medicine were invisible hostile entities that infect the infirm and the idea was terribly unscientific because it was "an unfalsifiable hypothesis". But that unfalsifiability was a product of extant technology and nothing more. Positivists hoot and howl in derision at demonology, and then point with triumph to Pasteur with his discovery that disease is caused by "invisible hostile entities that infect the infirm". And so it goes. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

No, I think you're demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of probability and falsifiability here. I'm not criticizing you, because they're not simple subjects and it's not everyone

schtick to really grok

them.

• Regarding probability: In any given hand of cards, it is far more likely that it will contain a single pair (or even more likely, that it will contain no poker hand) than it contain a royal flush. The reason for this is that (with a 5 card hand) there are only a 4 possible ways to achieve this, out of 2,598,960 possible hands. Conversely, there are 1,098,240 ways of putting together a single pair out of a five car hand. Think of it this way: There are only 4 suits, so you could only conceivably have 4 types of royal flushes, as it takes subsequent cards in the same suit, starting at 10 to make this. This takes the odds of getting 5 subsequent cards, the odds of getting 5 cards in the same suit, and the odds of getting all cards with values of 10 and higher and multiplies them together. However, there are 4 suits and 13 values, and all it takes is for one of them to be the same value as another in your hand. So while the odds of getting any specific card are the same, the odds of getting different combinations of cards are quite different.
  • Regarding the probability of past events: The probability that an event that did happen actually happened is always only 1. That is to say, there is a 100% possibility that it happened. The probability of a past even that did not happen is always only 0, meaning a 0% probability. With my reference to the Hindu creation myth above, I was using the term more loosely (apologies for any confusion), to refer to the fit between the hypothesis and the evidence. Now, it is possible to construe the Hindu creation myth in such a way as that it would leave the exact evidence we have seen for the existence of man, but this is extremely unlikely, because it requires an astronomically specific interpretation (which, itself requires ignoring certain parts of it as having been incorrectly interpreted over time) which doesn't seem to follow any natural laws. Conversely, evolution quite neatly explains it all, starting only with the presumption that simple self-replicating proteins once existed. Also, there is the issue of a theory's ability to make predictions. A theory which makes no predictions is not falsifiable, because one would have to prove it wrong to demonstrate its failings, and we all know, one can't prove a negative outside of mathematics. A theory which makes predictions however, can be shown to be wrong if it's predictions are wrong.
• Regarding beliefs about demons as a cause for illness: No, it wasn't only technology that made those beliefs unfalsifiable. For instance, it takes little to no technology to see that if a person drinks water from a specific pool that they get sick every time. It only takes observation. This would then inform a hypothetical primitive shaman that there is something about that water which makes people sick. Now, that person could then presume that there is a spirit in the water, but that beliefs is not as wrong as you might think. This shaman could then try exorcism rituals to cure the sick people, and see that it does no good, whereas people who stop drinking from that pool, drink plenty of clean water, and get plenty of rest would get better. If we were to then go back in a time machine with a microscope and show the shaman the micro-organisms in the pool that were making people sick, he wouldn't be thinking "Oh, I was wrong about the evil spirits!" but rather "Oh, so that's what those evil spirits look like!" and he wouldn't be wrong. At that point, it's just a semantic difference. He calls them evil spirits and we call them micro-organisms, but neither of us is wrong, and the reason he's not wrong is that he has an accurate picture of what micro-organisms are and how they work in mind whenever he thinks 'evil spirits'.

Now, nothing in that last point is to say that advancing technology doesn't allow us to test more predictions and hypotheses. They absolutely do. But what they don't change is whether or not something is fundamentally unfalsifiable. Getting back to the evil spirits 'hypothesis', the problem for much of human history wasn't that it wasn't falsifiable, it was that no-one made the effort to do so. Even after the discovery of the scientific method (which came about at different times in different cultures, but we're in the west, so I'm referring to the beginnings of the

miasma theory of disease was more widely held). But -and of course, there's a but- it wasn't technology that saved us. The germ theory of disease was put forth initially in the mid sixteenth century, about a century before the discovery of the cell

. It didn't take knowledge of micro-organisms, which weren't discovered until a few decades after the discovery of the cell.

I hope this helps. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is surely about presenting information in a balanced way, and with controversial topics like this definitely not with a cultural bias as GrammarsLittleHelper points out. So in the examples above I've shown there is some scientifically gathered evidence suggesting that reincarnation may exist. But so far no one has resented any evidence that reincarnation does not exists. Andy Tomlinson (talk) 18:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

First off, no, there is no scientific evidence that reincarnation exists. Second, as already explained, asking for evidence of it's non-existence is fallacious. Please read

Philosophic burden of proof (a concept which, given your claimed background, you should already be familiar with). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it.

18:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

To return to the subject at hand, therapists have discovered that some patients benefit from "past life regression" therapy. Those benefits are not contradicted by other therapists, and the argument that those patients are "just plane wrong" is not to the point. The issue is not whether past_lives are verifiable in the lab, but whether past_life_regression_therapy is verifiable in the lab. (Surely Wikipedia is not so nervous about its cosmology that it must rush to denial with every mention of "past lives.") Do we have RS that document that PLRT didn't work when properly conducted by those who claim they know how to make it work? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 19:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

You are missing my point. I have said quite clearly that I don't think WP needs to debunk anything, but Andy is saying WP needs to give

undue weight to the idea that reincarnation is real, which will not fly. I've said before; text that explicitly denies reincarnation should be removed as unnecessary, but text that explicitly or implicitly affirms reincarnation should be removed as well because there are no RS's for such claims. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it.

19:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Good. And the answer to my question? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea. There almost certainly are documented cases of it not working, but I'm only participating in the discussion here. And again, I don't have any burden to disprove anything. It's on the editor who wishes to insert content to prove that content. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Clinical Hypnosis Textbook: A Guide for Practical Intervention is

Can you offer a source on the proposition that "psychology is a branch of medicine"? Psychiatry, yes, but I cannot confirm psychology. Though one branch of psych is termed "medical psychology", it is only one branch of psychology, and the distinction seems to be significant. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Apologies, but I think you should be the one to cite a source because you appear to be making the positive assertion: that mental illnesses aren't health issues. For example, would you see a difference between a claim of using homeopathy to cure either (1) arthritis or (2) depression? I don't see the difference, except that the mishandling one of those illnesses is more likely to be fatal than the other, which is why I think that MEDRS should apply here. There's a threat of causing harm to the readership in using poorly sourced medical information. Also, diluting a claim by making it vague doesn't make the essential, medical nature of the claim go away, or the potential for harm, it only makes it harder to dispute the accuracy of the claim itself. Geogene (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I expect that proving the negative in this case (as in many others) is a difficult issue. We might note, however, that medical practitioners (nurses and orderlies excepted) attend medical school and get an MD. Psychologists do not. All medical practices in the US are licensed by the AMA. Psychology is not. Conversely, you might have to search a very long time to discover a statement by the AMA or a peer-reviewed medical journal denying that patients have past lives. It might be in the realm of psychology, but Medicine does not officially venture an opinion on the subject because the subject is not within the field of Medicine. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe this distinction will help.

I'm not sure what that has to do with MEDRS, but since you mention it, in the US not all doctors have MDs, some, mostly primary care physicians, attended

osteopathic medical schools and earned DO degrees. That undermines your point somewhat, because the DO curriculum unabashedly includes extensive training in pseudoscience/quackery, many of those doctors are currently practicing the same, and are able to do so primarily because of laws and tradition, not science. Not all regulation is science-based, and just because the AMA doesn't license psychologists doesn't mean it's a good idea to give bad advice on how to treat mental illness. It's a bad enough idea to fall under MEDRS. Geogene (talk

) 01:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• Psychology as a whole is not a medical field, but an applied science on it's own. However, PSRT falls under the aegis of clinical psychology, and as such, absolutely requires MEDRS sources. I never even noticed the publication details of this book, but Geogene is right. This fails MEDRS, and cannot be used for medical claims. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
• This is not really an issue of reliability, but of neutrality. Any mention of reincarnation needs to contextualize it properly as being the obvious fringe nonsense it is, per
  talk
  ) 05:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that the process of writing balanced articles on a controversial subject like this in Wikipedia are just not working. Evidence from experts in their field is dismissed yet information from a skeptic dictionary by a non expert included. Does anyone know how issues like this can get flagged up to those in charge of Wikipedia, or even the creator of Wikipedia? Andy Tomlinson (talk) 15:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Sources that support New Age nonsense are unreliable by definition. 172.56.29.186 (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@

medically reliable sources. However, even if the answer is "Yes, it works," that cannot be used as an excuse to include pro-reincarnation claims. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it.

00:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

MjolnirPants I agree the use of past life regression as a therapy needs to be separated from the question of ‘is reincarnation real’. If you read the WP article on ‘past life regression’ you will find a chapter on therapy called 'techniques' and on reincarnation called 'source of the memories'. So both areas need addressing. About therapy – it was explained above that a therapy does not need to be from “medically reliable sources” because most medical professionals have not been trained in past life regression or had there own personal experience. Just sharing their personal views is not good enough. So we also need to also turn to psychologists and psychotherapists and with quotes from reliable sources. Above I mentioned two professors who are leaders in there field and 6 medical doctors trained in past life regression that take the view that past life regression is helpful whether past lives and real or not. About past lives being real – currently we have the personal views of skeptics that they are cryptomnesia etc. OK we can leave this in because that’s one side although some of the refereces are out of print and not verifiable. But we need to include evidence of a professor from a US university who studied over 2000 children’s spontaneous past lives, many just stating to talk, that cannot be explained away with cryptomnesia. Also the work with near death experience research published in the medical journal Lancet. This is what I call balanced, leaving out one side or the other is unbalanced or subjecting the article to the personal views of the editors. If we cannot all agree with this then it needs escalating to those that manage WikipediaAndy Tomlinson (talk) 12:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

About therapy – it was explained above that a therapy does not need to be from “medically reliable sources” because most medical professionals have not been trained in past life regression or had there own personal experience.

You are wrong. Please read

WP:MEDRS

. Medical claims required MEDRS sources, regardless of whether and to what extent their practice is legally regulated.

Above I mentioned two professors who are leaders in there field and 6 medical doctors trained in past life regression that take the view that past life regression is helpful whether past lives and real or not. MEDRS requires published reviews (of clinical trials, case studies and primary studies), and prefers it when said review is both the newest such review, and several years old, as this means the results are as iron-clad as possible. Medical claims require much better sourcing than any other subject on this site (with biographical claims being the second) because people will cite and refer to Wikipedia when making medical decisions. We cannot do anything to lead them astray. So find a 5 year old review of a large number of studies and trials of PLRT which has passed peer review and been published in a reputable medical journal, and where there are no more recent reviews contradicting it, and cite that. If you can't find it, then you can't make the claim here. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

P.S. *Their. Both times. I thought you were supposed to be college educated? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

http://powerbase.info/index.php/Mark_Kennedy:_A_chronology_of_his_activities [4] appears to be a Wiki - used for:

"Powerbase", a wiki-based website run by free-lance journalists, started logging accounts of Mark Kennedy's infiltration activities, restricting itself to the political aspects in 2011. The aim was to establish a chronology of his activities.[20] In 2015 this was integrated into more general research into undercover police activity, covering a number of other people accused of being "police spies". This research is being added to the Powerbase Wiki by the Undercover Reserach Group.[21] Kennedy is one of several now-exposed undercover police profiled in the book Undercover: The True Story of Britain's Secret Police (2013). A planned television drama series is based on the story of the undercover officers.[22]"

As well as a number of other Wikipedia articles.

Is it a reliable source for the claims attributed to it and to claims made about it on http://spannerfilms.net/undercovers (which does not appear, on its face, to meet

I fear I mistrust Wikis - especially ones which do not use "reliable sources" for claims, but rely on facts provided by involved persons (?). Note the subject appears to be a living person. Collect (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. With no visible authorship, fact-checking, or editorial oversight. Looks like a libel bomb waiting for a home. I don't see that WP policy would allow it. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

To use it we'd need so much caution it might not be worthit. People should know a source on Wikipedia is good, or at least one they can't have been faulted for trusting. If this source turns out to be wrong about something, we'd be the sheep for trusting it, it seems. 172.58.224.235 (talk) 06:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't find a previous discussion on this site [5]. Specifically, it's being used to source a year of birth and birthplace for the BLP of Frank Dux, a controversial figure with a history of fabrication. Most things about him are self-published. This site is third party, but I question the reliability of it. Opinions? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The site itself gives no indication of where its material comes from, so we are left with the question of whether or not they have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. I can find nothing to support them there either. Their apparent parent company "CTF Media" also doesn't turn up anything useful.

The burden of proof is on anyone who wants to use the source.

This is a

WP:BLP

.

All of that says, to me, that the source is not reliable for this. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

This is just a heuristic, but in my experience any source that contains biographical information about Frank Dux (or Ashida Kim) and isn't devoted to trashing his name and debunking his claims is going to be incredibly unreliable. That being said, I could see this site one day becoming reliable, given its subject matter. But right now? No. This site has no reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I think I'd steer clear of this one. Anything giving credence to his claims not being total fabrication we can bet is unreliable. 172.58.224.235 (talk) 06:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Any issues with using an interview that was on the Perfect Sound Forever website, furious.com, as an external link in a music article? 63.143.230.53 (talk) 00:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Not a thing! (^_^)b 172.58.224.235 (talk) 06:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Our article states: "Dalessandro's Steaks & Hoagies is a cheesesteak eatery that was founded in 1960 on Wendover St in Roxborough." For reasons that I can only ascribe to

Two questions: 1) Are any of these sources reliable for the claim that it was founded in 1960? 2) Is there any reason to cite these sources in the lede? - SummerPhDv2.0 02:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The answer to the question in the section heading is "no", obviously. The website for the business says it was founded in 1960. The New York Times reference does not, strictly speaking, verify the 1960 date but at least it verifies that it is not completely wrong. So, that might be of some slight value. The other sources are of no value, at least with regards to this specific claim. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Per NYT and SPS website: "The restaurant website says it was founded in 1960" is what could be used. One of the cases where an SPS may actually be used, as far as I can tell. Collect (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I've added the official site as a source for the date, in the body of the article. Any reason to keep these three non-source sources in the lede sentence? - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Note: There are a number of independent sources that confirm the founding date of 1960:

• http://www.thetowndish.com/2014/01/15/roxboroughs-dalessandros-named-visitphillys-top-10-authentic-philly-cheesesteaks-roster/
• https://books.google.com/books?id=t9TRCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA50
• http://www.myphillyalive.com/blog/dalessandros-steaks-hoagies/
• http://patch.com/pennsylvania/roxborough/dalessandros-lives-up-to-its-reputation
• [6]
• https://books.google.com/books?id=-OJwqEwNfP4C&pg=PA119
• http://www.smallbusinessdb.com/dalessandros-steaks-hoagies-philadelphia-pa-19128.htm

-- Softlavender (talk) 11:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I would like an advisory opinion on whether it is ok to use the

The report has been picked up by numerous high-end reliable sources such as

WP:PRIMARY it would be better to cite one of those sources rather than citing SOHR directly. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk

) 02:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• Please see discussion here. Yes, it was quoted by numerous mainstream sources on many languages and therefore can be used, but preferably by quoting other secondary sources which refer to SOHR. However, data in the diff above are slightly outdated. According to SOHR, "about 1800 civilians are among the nearly 4650 killed by Russian air and missile strikes in Syria" altogether [8]. My very best wishes (talk) 03:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

That's not a "discussion". And I am more interested in other users' opinions. I'm already familiar with yours.

talk

) 04:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

No, this post is exactly on the subject of your request here. It did not cause anyone's objections so far on the article talk page. My very best wishes (talk) 04:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• I'd say SOHR itself should not be used directly as a source, only reliable sources that quote SOHR. It is a highly partisan outlet, and its methods have been questioned. FunkMonk (talk) 04:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Especially on something as divisive as the Syrian Civil War, multiple sources should be quoted. Including here with each side on the matter of how many have been killed in Russian airstrikes. TheLogician112 (talk) 06:07, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I did not see any official estimates by the Russian "side" of the number of civilians being killed by their bombardments. If there are such estimates, then yes, they should also be noted. Obviously, no one objects to using multiple sources. My very best wishes (talk) 13:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The book Blown for Good is self-published by "Blown for Good, Inc." See the publication page. As such, it is a self-published book. How much credibility should Wikipedia grant it? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Articles about books rely on whether the sources writing about the book meet

WP:RS. If the book is intrinsically "not notable" then the proper course is to go to AfD. If the book is notable, the fact it is "self-published" does not make it unworthy of an article. So - is the book noted in outside reliable sources? That is what you need to ask. BTW, it is OR to look up the publisher and make a big deal that a book is self-published -- what counts is whether it meets notability as a book. The Book of Mormon is "self-published" as is Science and Health - yet both are "notable" even though "self-published". Collect (talk

) 23:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Credibility is different from notability. The Last Unicorn is notable, but not credible. How credible is Blown for Good? Next? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:BLPSPS explicitly says it's unacceptable for statements about other people, so it definitely couldn't be used to make statements about Scientology or Scientologists. NinjaRobotPirate (talk

) 02:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 05:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid your view isn't entirely accurate. I agree that making statements about Scientologists would be excluded by

WP:BLPSPS. However, Scientology is not a person (obviously) and is not covered by BLPSPS. Given that the author is a former Scientologist, it's entirely legitimate for him to report his own personal experience of Scientology and of places he's seen first-hand, and for us to report that, as long as we're clear about attributing it. Prioryman (talk

) 09:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Prioryman: This is the discussion you missed. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 04:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd say it's good in the absence of serious challenge to any of its claims. But of someone does, we should remove that claim. 172.58.224.235 (talk) 06:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

That is not the way Wikipedia works. No one has mounted a "serious challenge" to hundreds of thousands of works of fiction, but that does not require us to treat them as all true in the absence of a "serious challenge". But in this case, Headley tried to prove his story in court, and he failed miserably. The Church apparently mounted an "serious challenge" to his major premises and Headley lost by a landslide. The court of appeals found "overwhelming evidence" that the Headleys were happy in the Sea Org, they did not have to escape because they lived off base, they had many opportunities to leave, and that there was no major coercion or threats to keep them.^[1][2] Since those are the major premises of the book, it looks like a dead duck.

• Did you know that Blown for Good is self-published? As noted by others above,
  WP:BLPSPS applies.Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk
  ) 06:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

What information about an indentifiable living person is the Blown for Good book being used to source? Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

As noted by me above, BLPSPS only applies to material about identifiable living persons. It doesn't apply to descriptions of places. You can't (ab)use it to justify your attempt to delete his description of the place where he worked, as you did here, and court cases have no relevance to descriptions of (for instance) the furnishings of a house or the cleanliness of a lake. Prioryman (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Headley's unflattering statements about Miscavige that were reproduced uncritically in some of the WP , here for example. If you want to have a civil discussion, do not accuse me of "wanting to abuse" wp policy. Headley does not qualify for non-BLP either. "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Headley's memoirs were proved unreliable by the court case. Why do you want to use him as a source? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 15:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I noticed this website being used as a source; more specifically, a blogger with a handle being used as a source for a quote. I am not sure how we land on the topic of how reliable the reviews and statements of anonymous contributors. I've searched through the RSN archives, and it doesn't appear that this has been discussed before. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to where its used so we can take a closer look? 172.58.224.235 (talk) 06:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

"Anonymous" is very rarely a "reliable source" for anything. Collect (talk) 08:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm: Channel_Awesome#Atop_the_Fourth_Wall. The only place I see it quoted currently is All Star Batman & Robin, the Boy Wonder. -- Softlavender (talk) 08:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

That's where I saw it. The cited text:

"The internet reviewer Linkara declared that the characters in the book were so removed from the original characters that they were instead different people playing the roles of the real heroes, referring to Batman as "Crazy Steve" and Wonder Woman as "Bonkers Betty". He stated that the book seemed to believe that "rampant violence, both physical and emotional, is the solution to all of life's problems." He also criticised the characterisation, dialogue, pacing, fight-scenes and plot as bad to non-existent as well as declaring that the pacing of the comic and time jumps were so confusing that it was possible for a reader to interpret that Dick Grayson was kidnapped by Batman before his parents were murdered. He did however praise the artwork by Jim Lee, although he did say that the artwork just drew attention to how bad the writing was. Linkara also accused Miller of casual homophobia and misogyny for how some of the dialogue was written, using gay as a slur and for having the women portrayed as little more than objects for the reader to admire.[22]"

Collect voiced my main concern, in that the reviewer is anonymous. Additionally, there doesn't seem to be any editorial oversight - like its just a bunch of chatroom warriors pistoning their opinions into the fray. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Linkara is a internet personality, the main person behind Atopthefourthwall, and his real life identity is well established. He's not as "random" as suggested above, but he's also not a professional reviewer, so caution should be used to include even opinion from the site. --MASEM (t) 04:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

While reviewing the article for GA, I informed the nominator that this source, this one, and this one used to verifiy a court battle, new label change, and an annual songwriting compeition held in her country, looked like a Romanian version of TMZ and subsequenly asked him what made them reliable, for which the nominator proceceed by informing me that "the newspaper also concepted a television show which is very popular in Romania".

For this source, I didn't know anything about the website or author so I decided to further investigate the author and found that his his 'about me' page stated that he has a BA in an unknown field of study and his Twitter account says that he is a freelancer with no credibility to his name anywhere. The nominator used the

For this and this source I couldn't find anything on the website that gave me any reassurance that it was a reliable source so I researched the author and found a blog he uses for people to ask him questions on various topics and found nothing else on his qualifications.

And finally this source I too couldn't find anything on and when I researched the author I came across his personal website where he likes to write about the "private lives of celebrities" and gives no creditablilty as to where he gets his information from. Best, – jona ✉ 13:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd encourage RSN regulars to take a look at

Now this is certainly an interesting one! TheLogician112 (talk) 03:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Please remove the Han Chinese married to Hmong women. This section has no credible support. I kindly as you to remove it.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.250.140.90 (talk • contribs)

This appears to relate to this edit --

old fashioned!

07:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Complaint has some merit. All Hmong are Miao but not all Miao are Hmong etc. The sources support Han/Chinese origins for some Hmong groups, but that obviously does not apply to all Miao. There does seem to be a related issue in that section that some of the claims are more definitive than the sources (anthropogical texts for the most part) are. 'Group X descended from X' where source says 'Some of Group X claim descended from X' and so on. This may be a deliberate overstatement or it might just be a result of non-native English speaking editors - anyone who has played a 3 Kingdoms game translated into English can see what I mean - X from X claims X married X and was reputed to have been the founder of X' and so forth. Oral/Ethnic history reported as fact. The sources seem to be good however (and written by English-speakers) so what it really needs is a going over by someone with experience in Ethnic/Clan based lineages to clarify the nuances. It could be either tbh, the current lead states there is an ethnic lineage claim going on by the Hmong disapora over the Miao name so some sensitivity is needed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Leith Abou Fadel and his blog Al-Masdar News (link, link) have frequently been used as a source for battles and victories in the

"Also known as the chief (and one of the only) editor at Almasdarnews, a platform banned from this subreddit, Leith has been famous for making outrageous claims that are rarely backed up and posted on his blog, Almasdarnews. The issue is that he is often viewed as a good source by people who are not familiar with this conflict as he poses his platform (Almasdar) as authoritative and as a press outlet, whereas it is just similar to a blog. Leith does however have some contacts within the Syrian government but never quotes them or posts proof of their messages and communications. He has been very infamous for making clickbait titles in order to get more traffic to his blog, often making very extreme announcements such as the call of the start of the offensive for Palmyra 7 times or the splitting of Ghouta a similar amount of times. He is very pro-regime and will not shy away from posting outright false information about the Coalition forces, Turkey or Saudi Arabia.

Overall you only want to follow Leith if you want breaking news all day long with smileyfaces and wishful thinking about government achievements.

Accuracy: Very poor

Supports: Government" (link)

His reporting's accuracy has also been questioned by the New York Times (link).

Could we get a reliable source check for this? Thanks. NeatGrey (talk) 00:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

This source published many reliable data and on basis a collective decision of the more competent editors this source has been recognized as a reliable.here Sûriyeya (talk) 07:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Open University Press's website says, "McGraw-Hill Create™ allows you to create customized eBooks and print books to support your teaching. Create the ultimate book for your course by selecting chapters from different OpenUP books and adding your own notes to create a book that fits perfectly to your module outline." If you follow the link that says, What is McGraw-Hill create?, it says, "You can even select third-party content like readings, articles, cases, videos, and more... Combine content from multiple sources access multiple disciplines and even integrate your own content such as a syllabus, class notes, or exercises... Include readings, cases, or assignments to use in conjunction with textbook chapters... Add your syllabus or lecture notes to the textbook... Join the text and the student study guide together in one text."

A couple of books cited on

I am not well versed in WP:RS policy, but IMO this is on par with blogs of experts in some area and these e-books must be treated as such. If an author is a recognized expert, there is no reason to assume she/he peddles bullshit in the area of their expertise.

talk

) 00:57, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

It's more complicated than it looks. Rearranging chapters from a regular textbook, or including a newspaper article between those chapters, doesn't make the contents self-published (although it creates a nightmare for citations, due to page numbering problems). But we'd have to be careful to distinguish between the regular contents (=chapters and other stuff that are published elsewhere, in non-customized books) and "your own content", which should be treated the same as a webpage the instructor posted for the class. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Open University Press, despite its name, has no link to the Open University. In the absence of any indication that the contents of books it hosts are subject to editorial oversight, it would be treated as SPS. Where the book contains what is purported to be content published elsewhere, there can be no confidence that the source material has been accurately transferred. Open University Press is a printing service and its books are WP:SELFPUB.Martinlc (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Looking a bit further it appears that at the time the books were published Open University Press was a conventional imprint of McGraw Hill Education, and as a minimum would therefore have some editorial oversight, although the extent to which content would be peer reviewed by subject specialists is unclear. If there is evidence that the books were reviewed in RS then they may be usable.Martinlc (talk) 08:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

That whole section is sourced to "The Stewarts of Blackhall and Ardgowan," J.L. Olar BA, Journal of Ancient and Medieval Studies: The Octavian Society, 1997–2000. You can see the back issue indexed here; housed by this group that describes itself as "amateur and professional scholars who focus in the fields of chivalry, genealogy, heraldry, history before 1700, and royalty & nobility"

Thoughts on whether or not, this is a reliable source for

My attention was drawn to this article by this ANI thread, and I have a sense that folks who commented there smelling a fake article were on to something... Jytdog (talk) 06:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Your noticeboard link looks to be incorrect - it just lead me to the main ani page 172.58.224.235 (talk) 06:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes it has been archived. Fixed above, without redaction just to save messiness. Thanks for pointing that out. No one has commented here so I am going to remove the section based on the source being unreliable; we may end up back here if that is contested. Jytdog (talk) 22:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

This source [9], is currently being used on the political status for the 2016 United States Election. A number of editors though have questioned how reliable it is

I'd give it the snip if most sources disagree, unless it provides a good argument somewhere for why it has the true count - in which case we'd still cite both of the number. But I'd say we go with the count CNN, The New York Times, etc. report. 172.58.224.235 (talk) 06:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

• The Green Papers have had a long history of being very accurate & comprehensive in their coverage of U.S. electoral results. Guy1890 (talk) 04:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Would the French film website 'psychovision.net' [10] be considered a reliable review source (for a related movie article reference)? Thank you for your thoughts. Carnymike (talk) 08:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

This source is a copyright violation scan of US Airways magazine. It says, about getting the "real" cheesesteak experience, "You must wait in a long line, along walls tiled with autographed headshots of celebrities, and have a surly staff serve you." It then mentions Jim's Steaks. Is this a reliable source for saying specifically about Jim's, "Jim's has been frequented by celebrities. Headshots, photos, and autographs of celebrities that have dined at the restaurant can be seen on the wall."

1) Is US Airways magazine a reliable source?

2) Should we link to the scan?

3) Does the source support the material? - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Given that my answer to 3) is "no", then the other questions are irrelevant. "Walls [are] tiled with autographed headshots of celebrities" could just as easily mean "the manager bought some decorations on eBay", so it can't be used to say "these autographed headshots are from people who actually ate here". WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd also answer "no" to the first two questions: in-flight magazines from airlines tend to be promotional, and not a reliable source of information on their subjects, and links to copyright violations are not permitted by the policy

WP:LINKVIO. Nick-D (talk

) 00:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• No to all 3 questions for the reasons given by Nick and WhatamIdoing. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

No to all three questions as well. If the source does not support the material, then the other questions are irrelevant. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 15:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with all this. However, I would add that online links are not required as part of a source. If a print source is reliable (not in this case) but is supported by a link to a copyright-violating scan, the link should be removed but the source should remain. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I also posted about this here, but I might get more traction here. See Xiaopin (literary genre)#References for an example of my problem. This could get kind of icky if I (and other users!) keep doing it without some discussion, consensus and standardized guidelines. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no explicit policy on how to cite, only widely followed conventions. Page numbers are clearly getting outdated and they are a problem already for books with multiple editions or reprintings. Giving chapter/paragraph locations is certainly a good idea. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: You are right on all that, of course, but do you really think the formatting I gave in the above citations was ideal? An advantage of page numbers is that can give almost all academic citations in the form "Authorslastname YEAR : pagenumber." It's not so different in the form "Authorslastname YEAR : chapternumber, paragraphnumber.", but with Kindle I have an even more precise method ("Loc"s), and when I give both I wind up having to give an excessive amount of repetitive information in cites that are only slightly different from each other because the individual sentences are only one or two "Loc" numbers apart from each other, in the exact same paragraph. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think there is any point in giving Kindle locations. Kindle is a proprietary product, not an industry standard. Chapter/paragraph should be enough. Giving a quotation would be even better, when appropriate. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Most of the authoritative style manuals (Chicago, APA, etc) specifically say not to use location numbers (see here). They recommend giving the chapter or chapter section title only, with a paragraph number if you want to get really precise. The problem with loc numbers is that someone with a non-kindle edition of the same book will have no way at all to find the content. It's much better to use a less precise but universally accesible system. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Also check your software/book settings, in theory there should be a way to have the reader or reading software display the corresponding page number (from the physical book) rather than loc numbers. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The problem with loc numbers is that someone with a non-kindle edition of the same book will have no way at all to find the content. That's why in the example linked above I gave the loc number and the chapter number and the section within the chapter and the paragraph number withing the section and the paragraph number within the chapter. That's why I came here -- it's a mess. Also, that blog is quite old, and talks about an "upcoming update" for Kindle that would apparently address the issue, which is now five years old, and apparently was already out of date when I first started using Kindle... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

AFAIK, there was a Kindle update that introduced page numbers, but only books that support page numbers will show them. clpo13_(talk) 18:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

That might be the case, but if it is then none of the books I have purchased support page numbers, and the only way I could verify it is by buying a book that I know does support page numbers... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

It's hit or miss. Generally, if it is a physically published book by any medium-to-large size publisher, there will be page numbers because the electronic copy which is used to make the print book will also be used to make the ebook, and it will retain the page breaks. For self-published ebook authors, it all depends on what software they write in (there are templates, for example, for Microsoft Word that will place page breaks at appropriate locations for hardcover or paperback books) and what formatting options they use. The only 'default' option is the loc and chapters. You can check any book by doing a search for a common word like "the". If the results give you location and page number, it (obviously) has page numbers. If you can't access the page number any other way, just do a search for the passage you're citing and get it that way. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Key issue here is document uploaded to ScribD. Secondary issue is a second insufficiently cited ref, used inappropriately.

As an occupational lung disease, it is most classically associated with aerospace manufacturing, beryllium mining or manufacturing of fluorescent light bulbs (which once contained beryllium compounds in their internal phosphor coating).^[1][2]

--Jytdog (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• In my view the first source, which is a document at ScribD uploaded by account that claims to be "US army" is not reliable. Like Wikipedia, anybody can create an account on ScribD and upload whatever they like. The source is not particularly helpful as there are far better ones one that describe the various ways that beryllium was used. The second source is in my view useless as a) there is not enough detail to allow anyone to go find and read it to see if actually verifies anything - and more importantly, its sole purpose seems to be to argue with the content and other source. This all was all in the lead (only) of Berylliosis, a medical caused by exposure to beryllium, so I had just deleted it. Others have disagreed.

  Anyway, please do comment on the reliability of documents uploaded to ScribD, and what the heck should be done with the 2nd source. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

  I think the Army document can be authenticated by calling the phone number provided in said document. I don't see a reason to discard it based solely on the fact it's uploaded to Scribd without first making that check. The general case of Scribd, I agree, is unreliable without some authenticity checking. --Izno (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Glad you agree on ScribD, generally. But no, some editor calling the number cannot authenticate the source; no editor here has authority to authenticate anything - the publisher itself has to be reliable and scribD is not reliable - it is a wiki. Jytdog (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Clearly, Scribd is often used to provide documents that are copyright violations, no question. But it is often the case that these documents have been published before in some medium (often behind a paywall). If you see a document on Scribd and can verify that that is the same as the original published document, then the reliability is based on that original source, not what Scribd puts up. Of course, you 100% cannot link to the Scribd version but you can still form a valid citation to the original document and publication from it. --MASEM (t) 19:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm with Masem except with one (major) caveat. If one can verify that the document on ScribD is the same as one which was reliably published, then there's nothing wrong with using it to determine if it can serve as a source for such a claim. However, I'm having trouble imagining how the ability to verify such a document in that sense is in any way different from the ability to access the original document. So what exactly would one need the ScribD document for? (Someone could, for example, copy the abstract, title and authorship from one paper which is publicly accessible, then fill the body with anything they wanted and upload that to ScribD. In that case, you'd need to get behind the paywall to verify it, and I would not put it past anyone, even our esteemed colleagues here on WP to try such a dirty trick if it advanced their deeply held views.) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:31, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

You have nailed it, MjolnirPants. If the source is the document on ScribD it is not reliable. You have to cite the actual publication, not this secondary instance of something that may be "it" or maybe some doctored version of "it". I could upload a contract from the City of New York deeding to me the Brooklyn Bridge and stick fancy seals on it and everything. It is a wide open vehicle for mischief. As a publisher it has absolutely no reputation for fact checking etc. it is just a place for people to upload whatever junk they want - authentic, fake -- we have no way of knowing. Jytdog (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

If you look at the Scribd account "Army" which has uploaded it, they have uploaded seven thousand similar pamphlets. Now either this is a genuine Army PR account, or that is an implausibly complicated scam, merely to confuse Jytdog with seemingly accurate reports of beryllium hazards.

Sometimes, when you hear hoofbeats, it's just a pony and not a zebra. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Or perhaps it's someone who enjoys uploading fake documents. Or perhaps it's part of the setup for an augmented reality game. Or perhaps it's an archive for a fiction writer who wants to do some world building. Or perhaps it's just some guy who like uploading Army docs and who may or may not have some fake ones mixed in. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Can we simply use a different source? Say this book by the

Berylliosis is an occupational disease.^[1] Relevant occupations are those where beryllium is mined, processed or converted into metal alloys, or where machining of metals containing beryllium and recycling of scrap alloys occurs.^[2]

-- Jytdog (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

• would also appreciate comments on the 2nd source in my OP way above, which is, in my view, insufficiently described to allow anything to be VERIFIED from it. Besides its function being just to argue in a bizarre way. Jytdog (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I have not read the GE paper (I'm not in the US) but it is very widely cited in other RS sources dealing with the broad topic. As there is a direct quote from it, then I assume that some editor in the article's past history has read it. Certainly it should be easy enough for anyone with decent library access to get hold of it. I also note that it is NOT a requirement, per

Wikipedia:SOURCEACCESS

, that this source is available easily, immediately or on-line.

As to its relevance, then it shows that GE removed beryllia from the tube phosphors in 1949, on safety grounds. I was unaware that beryllia had ever been used in these phosphors, but I am familiar with the hazards of tube cleanup after breakages (which means mercury these days). The idea of this phosphor containing beryllia is something that I'm very glad they got rid of. It's entirely relevant to berylliosis.

You have described this source as both "insufficiently cited" and "used inappropriately", yet it is not clear what the problem is on either count. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes this is what you said elsewhere.

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never good reasoning in WP. Besides the way the citation is being used to make some OFFTOPIC argument about whether and when Be was used in fluorescent light bulbs, the problem is that there is insufficient information in the citation to even go find it. What is that? An internal GE specifications document? Some little piece of paper that comes inside a light fixture when I buy it? I have no idea. Andy, this is a scholarship 101 thing and goes to the heart of why we provide citations. " While you should try to write citations correctly, what matters most is that you provide enough information to identify the source." (from WP:Citing sources) Jytdog (talk

) 23:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

And what is your actual, this-is-about-providing-great-content reason for wanting to hang on to some half-cited, badly-used source when there are scads are perfectly decent sources that could be used, as Gamaliel common-sensically noted above? You are just arguing this to be

WP:POINTy. Jytdog (talk

) 23:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure, accessibility is not required, but common sense is. Should we really be citing decades old technical reports from a manufacturer when there are more current sources available digitally? And that citation is completely inadequate. Accessibility is not required, but citing your source sufficiently so people know what the heck you are citing is. I was only able to figure out what that source was after finding a proper citation to the same report somewhere else. Gamaliel (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

You've heard of General Electric, right? GE's technical report TP-111 is an unambiguous and sufficient identifier for the document, even if it's not an easy route to finding it. We should cite "decades old technical reports from a manufacturer" because it is being used to cite that same manufacturer's actions 25 years even earlier. What better source would you expect? Besides which, I had already added the 1946 J. Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology paper on the same subject, part of what Jytdog chose to describe as "crappy, OFFTOPIC content". Andy Dingley (talk) 01:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• ScribD is not reliable due to zero editorial control or verification of docs that are posted there. Documents hosted there *may* be cited but only if their authenticity can be verified elsewhere - in line with our policies regarding sourcing/citing/verification etc. Something just sourced to a document uploaded to ScribD is an obvious no-no. We would be very unlikely to use Wikia hosted material, or megaupload etc as a source for anything, the same applies. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

• ScribD is pretty much covered, so I'll address the second source. I would not generally accept this as a reliable source. It's a primary source with no signs of editorial oversight. So, at most, you could write the article to say "According to a 1978 technical report, GE has used relatively inert phosphates since 1948." However, this is still not reliable for making any claims about today and the sentence in the article, the way it is written, is an example of original research. The quote from the document doesn't make any claims on the likeliness that a person will encounter the older beryllium lamps, especially in the year 2016. So this source is certainly not reliable for the statement in the WP article and it's also not reliable for any claims made regarding the present. I hope this helps make it clearer.Scoobydunk (talk) 08:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Do we have reason to believe that Michelle Goldberg is an expert on anti-semitism, anti-semitic tropes, the Zeitgeist Movement, the Zeitgeist film series, or the movie producer Peter Joseph? Some editors here insist that her comments on the Zeitgeist film are factual and must be in the article. I am concerned that her remarks are non-factual (pure opinion) and border-line libelous about a living person, and we should not be repeating them in WP. The remarks are particularly obtuse because the films do not mention Jewish people or Israel, and the real experts on antisemitism (the ADL) make no similar pronouncement. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 06:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Wow, I would've thought this would've been resolved a long while ago since it's a fairly blatant and obvious smear. She doesn't appear to be a notable journalist or pundit, and her claims about this film or "movement" -- which are being presented as fact, clearly in violation of

WP:RS, stating an opinion is one thing, stating it as fact as another -- are not backed by evidence. I don't know similar this situation is to that of David Icke, who was also -- and from time to time continues to be -- hysterically attacked as being an antisemite, based on his claims about the Rothschild family, his outspoken criticism of the State of Israel and Zionist ideology, and some positive comments he once made in passing reference when the subject of American "patriot" militias had been brought up. He also that Queen Elizabeth, Dick Cheney, every member of the Bush family and the entire population of European royalty and aristocracy are reptilians

from another dimension feeding on our fear and sacrificing babies in Satanic blood rituals. In spite of the fact that many of Icke's beliefs and theories are so utterly bizarre and over-the-top, he was never taken seriously by the media, mainstream, tabloid and otherwise. But the few people who accused him of being a genocidal antisemite (might as well have just started calling him Hitler II) believed he constituted a terror threat and used that to try to get him banned from entering whichever country he was headed to on his lecture tour. In spite of the massive amounts of funds used to promote these claims and allegations regarding Icke, they were all total failures and no longer carry any credible weight. While the article on Icke is still a rather biased and condescending mess, it's nowhere near as biased as it was a few years back.

What I'd like to know why anyone would be aggressively pushing so hard for this one particular source to be used, when no other sources bother to even acknowledge the existence of such allegations. This is a textbook example of

WP:UNDUE. Laval (talk

) 09:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Michelle Goldberg is a well known journalist writing in a well known publication. Its reliable. The paper in which she wrote this story is notable Tablet (magazine). She is a major journalist, she has written for many major media outlets. I think people may be confused in regard to the article. Its just a journalistic piece. The information has been in the article for years. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Do we have reason to believe that Michelle Goldberg is an expert on anti-semitism, anti-semitic tropes, the Zeitgeist Movement, the Zeitgeist film series, or the movie producer Peter Joseph? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

We do have reason to believe that the Tablet thought she was an appropriate person to review the film and that the article merited publication.Martinlc (talk) 15:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

You are arguing 'reliable source' when really you should be arguing 'due weight'. Goldberg is a journalist writing for a magazine with editorial oversight, as such they would be considered a reliable source. Thats the end of the discussion for the Reliable Source noticeboard. However Goldberg is not a particularly notable journalist and the Tablet is described by wikipedia as "Tablet magazine is an American Jewish general interest online magazine sponsored by Nextbook.[1]" - neither of which make them particularly qualified for their opinions to be mentioned specifically in articles. Just because something can be reliably sourced does not make it necessary to include it. Either way thats a consensus discussion for the article's talk page. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The question is whether her opinion of "antisemitism" is qualified by any expertise, or is Goldberg simply salting her article with colorful invective and opinion, as many reviewers do. In short, is her statement an item of "information" that is of Encyclopedic quality from an expert, as the editor claims in the edit note, or is it merely throwaway opinionated barb. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

[11] Not sure why the question is being raised so aggressively about her journalistic chops or ability and it seems some editors are picking a side against her in an unreasonable emotional way perhaps because of the information she is presenting. She is well known and respected and her piece on the Zeitgeist movement has been included in the article for years. There are some editors that routinely try to alter or put a positive gloss on Zeitgeist/Venus Project articles. That has been a long standing problem. Goldberg is an important thoughtful professional writer with vast experience and is highly respected and she has written for many world wide literary publications of note.. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• I just want to point out that there are very few experts on "anti-semitism, anti-semetic tropes, the zeitgeist movement, the zeitgeist film series or their producer, Peter Joseph." If we limited our commentary of those subjects to those who are acknowledged as experts in that particular field, we'd likely not have any material on them beyond a stub or possibly a short article about anti-semitism. The suggestion that one would need to be an expert on a particular film series to be a reliable source for its article, or the suggestion that one would need to be an expert on anti-semitism to be a reliable source for any mention of it is so far beyond ludicrous that is falls squarely into "desperate argument" territory. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

• On the contrary, there are a number of recognized experts on anti-semitism. And they are recognized. Declaring someone antisemitic is a cottage industry in some quarters, but most sources do not recognize the diagnosis until someone like Dershowitz or the ADL offers a diagnosis. Only WP listens to non-experts like Goldberg. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Ahem, "A number" and "very few" aren't mutually exclusive. My point was that if claims of anti-semitism could only be sourced by -for instance- the ADL, we'd have almost no material to go by. There aren't tens of thousands of people working for the ADL and other similar groups seeking out anti-semitism and identifying it. Furthermore, the presence or absence of anti-semitism in a work is not something it requires expertise to find. Hell, there's a huge chunk of the internet devoted to extracting and picking apart the underlying meaning and themes of almost every narrative work ever produced. Sometimes, one of those themes will be anti-semitism, and sometimes, that particular work will not register on the ADL's radar. So saying someone needs to be an expert on the particular work, or on the particular theme to discern that theme in that work is ridiculous. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Pretty much the same question has been asked by the same editor at RSN before. This is largely a weight question as pointed above and given that few publications have written about the movement, this opinion has quite a lot of weight. Imagining that someone need some professional expertise to express an opinion as to whether a created work is anti-Semetic (sexist? racist? demeaning to Scots?) is absurd.

Incidentally the passage which the editor appears to be objecting to reads, it seems like the world's first Internet-based apocalyptic cult, with members who parrot the party line with cheerful, rote fidelity." Goldberg also wrote that the Zeitgeist movement is centered around a doomsday proclaiming film saying the 2007 documentary was steeped in far-right, isolationist, and covertly anti-Semitic conspiracy theories". Anti-semitism is only one of the criticisms here and how logically can her opinions be 'factual', they might be unfair in some editor's opinions, but the counter if there is undue weight is to find equally notable journalists writing positive things. Do they exist? Pincrete (talk) 01:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Pincrete makes a good point. Are there any RS's stating that the Zeitgeist films are not anti-semitic (or isolationist, or far-right, or whatever)? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

MjolnirPantsEven if there were/are, their purpose would be to 'sit alongside'/counterbalance this one, not to invalidate it. We print the good and the bad in proportion to the coverage and weight, not decide who is right.Pincrete (talk) 01:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Addendum: The purpose of the RSN is to establish whether a particular source is reliable for a particular claim. Since the claim is Ms G's opinion of the 'movement' and film, the answer must be yes, she is RS. We cannot answer general questions about the merits or judiciousness of her judgements, which is what the phrasing of this RSN asks us to do. Pincrete (talk) 01:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The Southern Poverty Law Center is also an expert in this field. It's not like the world is crawling with so much antisemitism that you need nerve gas to take them all down. The problem is the Zeitgeist film and Zeitgeist movement are large enough that SPL, ADL, JDL, and many others would name it if it were true -- and they don't. Instead, we have one lone journalist who has no credibility in spotting antisemitism calling it from her perception of "tropes" in a work that does not mention Jews, Judaism, or Israel. This is what we normally call a "fringe opinion." And thank you, I have stated my objections: we do not need them (incorrectly) restated by others. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 02:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Wow. First I'm going to assume the reference to gassing antisemites is just a coincidence and not a tacky and deliberate reference to you know what. Second, you can't infer something is a fringe opinion because of the absence of opinions (known to you) from selected authorities. Something is a fringe opinion if it differs from the academic, mainstream consensus in a fundamental way, not just a simple disagreement or an opinion on a new subject that hasn't been talked about much yet. Gamaliel (talk) 02:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, well The Southern Poverty Law Center is also an expert in this field. It's not like the world is crawling with so much antisemitism that you need nerve gas to take them all down. What this means is unclear to me but it certainly invalidates any coherent argument pro or con. The movement is broadly reported as being a conspiracy cult type of movie. Goldberg is only one voice in that direction. Alex Jones information is part of the first movies presentation and the movie goes to all the familiar places of The Fed, Banking families, hidden meetings, etc. etc. Its hard to say what the thing is about because a lot of it is done for shock value and effect but that is just my opinion which does not count here. Goldberg pretty cleverly over views it in an intellectual critical way. [12] she certainly has a high pedigree as a writer for many significant publications. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Goldberg is a well-known journalist, and she goes into the stuff in detail to describe the anti-Semitic tropes. The WP page (permalink) attributes the opinions to her, which seems fine to me. For a categorical statement that "X is anti-Semitic", one would hope to find some more sources. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Goldberg actually describes the antisemitic tropes? No. Antisemitism is an objective phenomenon, right? Like any other objective phenomenon, either everybody can see it, or Wikipedia requires an expert. But the Zeitgeist movie lays no blame for the Crucifixion of Jesus, does not mention blood libel, ritual murder, or anything else on the

Wikipedia page on antisemitic tropes. Zeitgeist does not mention Jews, Jewish, Judaism, or Israel. So it's not right out there obvious like blue sky and wet water. Even Goldberg admits it is "covert" meaning it's hidden. Goldberg asserts she can see something the rest of us cannot see. Her recognized expertise is other subjects, like Christian nationalism, pop culture, and sexism. But nobody here can point to Goldberg's expert status in spotting "covert" antisemitism. In this case, the statement is poorly sourced, and Wales says of that: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk

) 07:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

It obviously uses a classic conspiracy theory approach to how the world is run and that include Jewish conspiracy concepts and blaming certain groups controlled by that religion. Example, [13] so its not like no one but Goldberg is pointing that out. Anyway, argument for excluding this Goldberg article is defeated and I move this discussion to be closed. Keep. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Once again, no one can find a quote in the the Zeitgeist movie that mentions Jews, Jewish, Judaism, Israel, or any synonyms, and yet Goldberg calls it antisemitic. The Kinney review says that it shares some ideas with 1890s ideas that sometimes shared ideas with antisemitic ideas -- and that is as close as it gets. If another source exists, trot it out. But Goldberg is not an expert, and yet she claims to see things that are hidden from others. And apparently they are very well hidden, because even the professional anti-antisemitics (e.g.,

Anti-defamation league, Jewish Defense League) cannot find it. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk

) 08:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

What do these experts say about the movie or movement? Or are we being asked to interpret their silence as proof that Ms G is 'wrong'? Anti-semitic ideas (racist, sexist, anti-American etc.) are NOT objectively verifiable, the notion that unless we all can see they are anti-s, they don't exist, is patently absurd. Do I take it that you have no objection to Ms G's other criticisms of Zeitgeist, or is this being used to seek to invalidate all her opinion? Pincrete (talk) 09:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC) … … ps a 'movement' is not a living person!

Is there any doubt the movement came from the original movie? The original movie is based on conspiracy theory [14] The classic idea of conspiracy people is blaming the Rothchilds, the Bush family, Mosad, the Fed, etc. etc. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there is significant doubt, as everyone familiar with the page and the sources knows by now. Both originated from the Venus movement but one did not come from the other. After all this time working on the page, why would anyone sincerely ask that question? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 16:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Or are we being asked to interpret their silence as proof that Ms G is 'wrong'? Yes, of course, if Zeitgeist were in any way antisemitic, every RS mentioning Zeitgeist would mention its antisemitic overtones. The infamy would overshadow anything else. In this case, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 16:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, of course, if Zeitgeist were in any way antisemitic, every RS mentioning Zeitgeist would mention its antisemitic overtones. That is one of the most ludicrous statements I've ever seen here. Not only is it

OR, it's a straight up informal fallacy. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it.

17:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I wholly concur with MjolnirPants. If Ms Goldberg is 'wrong' (though an opinion, can be many things, but it cannot be wrong), it is up to RS to contradict it, not us. Have they? From my limited contact with this article, some time ago, I recall the biggest problem is the lack of RS saying ANYTHING about either movie or 'movement'. Pincrete (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

As ever, this is opinion which must be cited and ascribed as such. I note that the "anti-Semitism" bit seems to be in reaction to her position that the movement appears to be one predicting "communism" which is likely thus related to her opinions here. Collect (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Would you care to clarify that last remark? Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Resolution: Goldberg's statement applies to the first movie, not the

And I have restored it. a) a movement can have more than one 'inspiration', most do … b) an Orlando Weekly feature does not take precedence over a Tablet article … c) it is clearly stated as Ms G's opinion … d)it is fairly explicit in the 'Orlando' source that the movement would not exist without the films having 'carried the message', this last point alone would justify her 'inspired by' the films. What Ms G actually says is that the movement was 'sparked by' the film. I have amended the text accordingly. Now there is no contradiction with the source(s) as to who 'inspired' the movement. amended Pincrete (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Thus Grammar, having failed to convince anyone that Ms G is not a RS for her own opinions, having failed to convince that she is not competent to evaluate anti-semitism, you simply OR a claim that she is wrong on a minor technicality Why exactly is Ms G. not allowed to do WP:OR or to interpret sources, isn't that what a columnist does? and just remove her anyway. Pincrete (talk) 20:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

You can't bring something to a noticeboard and then declare your own resolution. Gamaliel (talk) 05:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

GrammarsLittleHelper, firstly, there is no requirement that the ADL, SPLC or other outfits comment on every anti-Semitic thing out there: some are too marginal or unknown the bother. You can't deduce anything useful from their non-comment. Secondly, Goldberg's piece mentions that Jews are not specifically mentioned but it contains anti-Semitic tropes nonetheless. You may or may not agree, that is fine. If you have other RSes which take a contrary view, you can add them to the article. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/11139#.VwO64I-cHxM is used as a source for the following claim about Luke Harding:

Harding's accounting of the events leading up to his failed entry into Russia and their possible justification have been called into question by numerous sources who state that Harding has aggrandised his perceived importance to the Russian state and its security services and attributes quotidian and unrelated occurrences to them.

As near as I can tell, this is, at best, editorial commentary by Richard de Lacy on what appears to be a red-top "news site" which includes vast amounts about sex and "adult entertainment" and the like, and interesting views on paedophilia etc. Is this a valid fact source for the claims made? Collect (talk) 13:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Probably not. The Richard de Lacy article was also referenced in a piece written for Newsweek by Assange (who actually was involved in the snowden affair) who rips into Harding about all manner of inaccuracies, self-promotion etc related to his book about Snowden. But that has its own issues as while I would consider comment by Assange on Harding's book about Snowden relevant, I wouldnt cite him for his opinion on Russia's treatment of Harding. Richard de Lacy is described as "a freelance translator, based in Moscow, and specialising in ice hockey and football. He has lived in Russia for most of the past six years and has contributed to various sporting journals and blogs." So he is a freelance sports journalist who has written an editorial about another editorial he thinks is bogus... I dont think more needs to be said regarding the weight of that source. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I've noticed that this link https://business.highbeam.com/411456/article-1G1-208423917/key-releases-260909 is being used as a source on Wikipedia articles. It claims to be an archived copy of a page from Music Week magazine to substantiate album sales claims, but I find it hard to believe it is. It isn't even a reproduction of a page, simply a lot of text claiming to be so. It could have been written by anyone and I think is impossible to verify it. Should we be allowing this as a source? 90.205.153.185 (talk) 23:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

In many physical albums there are text that describes who did what on the album (who wrote the lyrics, describes performers, who mastered it et.c.) are those considered reliable sources or not? An editor claims that if a release is on Discogs then the liner notes are not reliable as Discogs is considered to not be reliable. // Liftarn (talk) 09:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Odd circular log, but as you suspect, it's not true. I see you have posted at

WP:PRIMARY source. Walter Görlitz (talk

) 13:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Normally I wouldn't have touched this website, since as a

Having failed to remove the content, he has now badgered the website owner to change the entry to say what he wanted. If a website can change information due to lobbying like this to influence content on wikipedia, I have to ask how we can ever consider it reliable as a source? Please note in Talk:Apostolic Prefecture of the Falkland Islands the editor concerned openly admits to contacting the website owner to change the content to what he wanted. WCM_email 07:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Oops. Well, that rather defeats the reliability and independence of the source. However, the editor's effort to alter that web page does not disqualify it as a source -- until the effort to change it is successful. At that point, things are seriously awry. As to the earlier changes on the website, those also present some problems in reliability if the source is now contradicting what it said earlier. Without a very good reason for changing the narrative, such as new information, a scholar who reverses himself calls his own reliability into question. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 07:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Exactly my point, the editor claimed it was unreliable, until that editor had successfully lobbied the owner to change it. There was as I can see it no good reason to change the content. To my mind, this is tantamount to wikifiddling. WCM_email 07:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

As there is no source currently supporting it I have removed it. Gigacatholic is considered reliable due to the reliable information it provides on Catholic issues. Any website is subject to revision on new information received. Commenting on a websites editorial practices which you are not a party to is pointless. For all we know they checked out the claims and found their previous information was wrong. Removing Gigacatholic as a source would still leave the information currently unsourced however. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

No it can no longer be considered reliable if it can be influenced in order to change content on wikipedia - and thats precisely what has happened. And the

WP:PRIMARY source still supports the current content, since the islands were known as the Falkland Islands Dependencies in 1952. The editor concerned is ignoring that and insisting that Argentine declarations over the territory take precadence. WCM_email

08:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

WCM, I tend to agree with Only in death's comments: if this is considered a reliable source (and I have no expertise on sourcing in this topic area), then if it revises its content surely the new material should be considered reliable? However, what do the other sources on this topic say? The church's official website (which seems to have been updated in around 2013) says "This Apostolic Prefecture, and the three Missions Sui Iuris that make up the Church in the South Atlantic [St. Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha], are under the direct jurisdiction of the Holy See" [16]. There's also a contact page which could be used to ask them. Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

If it revised its content as a result of external pressure in order to influence content on wikipedia then that calls into question its reliability. For information I have been in contact with the church and they have confirmed that South Georgia is within their diocese. But thats not something I can use as a cite on wikipedia is it? WCM_email 11:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Urgh, not really - though it obviously settles the matter! I wonder if the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism can suggest any offline sources which also cover this which can be used in the absence of clear and reliable online sources? Nick-D (talk) 12:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

First of all, please forgive me my typing errors because English is not my native language. I need to clarify the tendentious comments WCM, he not telling the truth in saying that I claim that Georgias and South Sandwich Islands are under the diocese of Rio Gallegos. I make clear that I am strictly neutral when edit in Wikipedia. They can see that I have almost 89,000 editions in several projects of the encyclopedia. WCM also not telling the truth when he said that I pressed the webmaster of GCatholic for him to change the content of what I wanted. At the beginning of the discussion with WCM I told him I would contact GC requesting information, also I did it with the website of the Apostolic Prefecture of the Falkland Islands. The second still did not answer the first answered me and changed the content of your website freely without me suggest what to put on, just gave the same information I put in the discussion of the article. WCM bases its entire opinion that the Falkland Islands Dependencies did not exist in 1952, however it is easily verifiable that is not right and I showed it effortlessly. WCM rejects my speech because of my nationality.

The encyclopedic article Apostolic Prefecture of the Falkland Islands said that these islands belonged to the apostolic prefecture. I wanted to check and found that the source was GCatholic. This web site does not mention where the data obtained. I also checked that can not be found on other Internet websites say the same. I verified that the papal bulls do not mention these islands. The other source is used in Wikipedia Catholic Hierarchy. This website does not mention to these islands and bases its information on the Annuario Pontificio. I also verified that the diocese of Rio Gallegos claims jurisdiction over those islands. In view of that, the information can not be maintained while certainly not clarify the matter.

As for the reliability of the source, as I said there are two websites that are updated daily with respect to changes in the Catholic hierarchy: Catholic Hierarchy and GCatholic. Both are widely used in the various Wikipedia projects. Obviously no one is infallible and they make mistakes, as do all websites. In both cases I have mentioned them and they have responded mistakes and sometimes I changed the information. When both websites differ it is necessary to verify the information from other sources. In general the information provided verifiable, but in some cases it is not, for example when it comes to these islands, and others like Bouvet Island.--Nerêo (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

My comment was the Falkland Islands Dependencies did exist in 1952, as such the language used in the 1952 Papal Bulls does include them. I can't in good faith accept your English is that bad you managed to completely flip the meaning.

As regards his claim that he has not asserted these are part of the diocese of Rio Gallegos [17], he claims he is neutral but his editing is very much down to POV.

The facts are he got a source to change its content so he could change an article on wikipedia. Thats wikifiddling. WCM_email 15:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

His view only expresses his interpretation of the papal bull of 1952, you are not supported by any source. The bishop of Rio Gallegos interprets the papal bull of 1961 gives jurisdiction over the islands in the South Atlantic. Who should we believe him? Pending the matter is clarified, you can not give priority to their point of view.

We can consider GCatholic as a reliable source always as his "rival" Catholic Hierarchy not opine otherwise. If both websites differ, we must verify the matter in other independent sites that do not refer to them, especially the Pontifical Annuario if available your inquiry.--Nerêo (talk) 21:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Source:

• [18]

Context:

• proposed DYK (Template:Did you know nominations/Sweetings): "...that according to chef Fergus Henderson, drinking a Black Velvet at Sweetings "puts you in the mood for romance"?"

Question:

• Can an article in a free newspaper writing of a restaurant be a regarded a reliable source?

Thank you for your comments. Borsoka (talk) 02:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The Evening Standard is a RS per our rules. The reference in the DYK is from an interview (not a paid advertisement) so thats not a problem either. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Only in death, thank you for your comment (or declaration). I only would like to understand it. Why do you think that a newspaper whose only source of income is advertisement can be described as a reliable source, that is a source independent of the topics it writes of? Borsoka (talk) 13:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Advertising income is not an indication a news source's reliability is in question. Otherwise we would not use a large variety of sources. Conversely it does not make news organisations who do not rely primarily on advertising more reliable - otherwise we would end up sourcing everything to the Daily Mail. Is the source/news article promotional in tone? No, no more than any other interview with the subject of an article. The source is being used appropriately for what it is referencing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Sincerely, I am surprised that WP can be used for allegedly commercial purposes through citing free newspapers. I am pretty sure that this can easily destroy our community, but I may be wrong. Have a nice day. Borsoka (talk) 03:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

The http://bpdfamily.com/content/setting-boundaries webpage does not have any cites. It is also more of an annex to the main subject of the website -

I can find nothing relevant to the author of that web page, "R. Skip Johnson", in Google Books or Scholar.

R. Skip Johnson is simply listed here but without any named position for http://bpdfamily.com. It does not say that he has any relevant academic or clinical expertise.

I believe http://bpdfamily.com/content/setting-boundaries does not pass

"Setting boundaries" is not an expected title for a Wiki article. Nobody looking for the article on personal boundaries would be able to guess it. The name is weirdly similar to the page from the bdpfamily practice site, as though the editor wanted Wikipedia to be a promo piece for the practice. In my opinion, the name should be changed back. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. There is a

WP:UNDUE).--Penbat (talk

) 16:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Article: BLP William Lane Craig. Content: "William Lane Craig is a philosopher..."

One user disputes that these sources calling him a philosopher are truly independent. Allegedly, the sources calling him a professor of philosophy are not to be trusted as independent because the individual himself might have written them. No evidence for the charge has been provided, and yet they remain resolutely skeptical.

Sources: University websites listing him as a professor of philosophy, and/or in the philosophy department:

• Houston Baptist,
• Biola,
• Saint Mary,
• Birmingham

1. Do these sources constitute independent sources calling him a philosopher, or should one remain skeptical?
   talk
   ) 11:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Philosopher is not a protected term and perhaps the best operational definition would be someone who studies and teaches philosophy. There would seem yp be np grounds for not following these sources.Martinlc (talk) 18:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The guy's a greasy, weaselly fast talker who thinks way too much of himself. (Though supposedly he's a really nice and charismatic guy when he's not debating or writing.) That being said, none of that prevents him from being a philosopher, it just prevents him from being a very good philosopher. I think an aptitude at something is generally not required to be a professional at it, even though it helps. If you doubt that, just go to any fast food restaurant, unionized construction site or government function. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Additional sources from HighBeam Research-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC) ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]}