Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 27

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

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

I have seen the website Mariners, particularly its 'Empire' ship section increasingly used as one reference for ship articles, like SS Empire Abbey (to pick a fairly recent example). The index page lists sources consulted, but the sub pages (this one for the Empire Abbey article) don't reveal where the specific information is obtained. The website seems to have copiled information that's not otherwise available in the internet. So can the Mariners website be considered a reliable source? — Bellhalla (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably not. I can't find anything about their editorial policies. A few books mention them.[1][2] A description of the author[3] doesn't seem to make him an expert as we define it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The "editorial polices" bit of

WP:RS

than I am on e.g. politics or religion.

Do a follow up on the claims made at Peter Christian's page. If they stand up, Peter Christian is a recognised authority on genealogy and his recommendation looks good for genealogical content at the Mariners site, and I'd accept it when doing a GA review.

Follow the same sort of approach for other topics at the Mariners site, e.g. ships, incidents. Sites that link to Mariners may be helpful, boks that mention it even more so.

Document what you find that supports the status of a source, both on (a) your User pages, a sub-page of that, a relevant Wikiproject page or sub-page; a note with citations on "why this is reliable for this topic" within articles that use the source. --Philcha (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment The Mariners-L website information is generally backed up by other sources. I used the basic info in the creation of

ISBN 1-85044-275-4. {{cite book}}: |first= missing |last= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link), which I have managed to get on loan from my local library. Mjroots (talk

) 20:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Industrial sponsored research

How much weight does research have that is paid by the manufacturer of a product when it comes to the safety of the product versus independent research. Is there a wikipedia policy on this? If there's sourced evidence that a study was paid by the industry, is it okay to purposely withhold that information to the reader? Who benefits from withholding the industrial sponsor, the industry or the public? In the article I'm contributing to, this is a regular issue among certain editors. How do other editors separate industrial propaganda from independent information and more so, is it important to make such a separation? Immortale (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

In general, I think the reliability of published research that is sponsored by someone with an agenda (whether its an industry or some political advocacy group) is going to depend more on the method/location of publication than on the source of funding. A good peer-reviewed journal will eliminate propaganda and (ideally) even subtle bias. If, for example, industry sponsored research is reported in a quality journal such as Nature, I don't think it would be necessary to mention the sponor (and doing so may in fact bias the reader to discount important findings). But if it is published in a trade industry journal, mentioning the sponsor could be a good idea and put the report in appropriate context. This is the kind of thing that really needs to be addressed case-by-case, in my opinion. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

external link;

Is this a reliable source regarding the legal requirements regarding disclosing information on the illnesses of top executives in "publicly-held" corporations? See first paragraph of "health concerns" in [this version] of Steve Jobs. --Rogerb67 (talk) 17:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Normally a self-published source shouldn't be used. Normally,

WP:BIO requires extra care, so I would say in some cases he would be an RS, but maybe it shouldn't be used in this case. I bet a better source exists for the claim in question. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs

) 18:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Gale Group Source; Reliable or not?

Resolved

I found a source from the Galegroup Databases, and have provided the following citation for it (Which attempts to be as close as possible to the MLA style of citations):

(ref name= Diego_Perez) (in Spanish) Perez, Diego. “Genios: De Sudamerica salieron las maravillas del futbol.” El Pais (Montevideo) Mar. 2008. Gale Group Databases. 19 Jan. 2002. <http://infotrac.galegroup.com>.(/ref)

Of course, I've replaced the usual "<>" tag with the "()" in order for you to see the content within. The information is factual and can be found within the database. An editor has challenged the reliability of this source, and I would like to hear your opinions on the matter. Thank you in advance.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 02:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure

Gale (Cengage) is reliable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs

) 02:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

That's also what I thought. Thank you very much.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Intelligence Report is a national magazine published for many years by the Southern Poverty Law Center which tracks hate crimes and other activities of white supremicist, nativist and "patriot" groups throughout the United States. Is it considered a reliable source on such issues? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It appears to qualify as

reliable within the area of investigative journalism. It has been named at least twice by the Society of Professional Journalists in their Green Eyeshade journalism excellence awards [4] [5]. Unless there is a specific reason for questioning the content of one of their articles, I don't see any problem in using them as a source. --Jack-A-Roe (talk

) 03:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I asked because a couple of editors WillC and 96.239.140.104 (who has no user page or talk page) are disputing it as RS on the article pages for Morris Dees, Southern Poverty Law Center, Sierra Club, and Federation for American Immigration Reform, for information concerning activities of anti-immigrant hate groups. And the manner of their dispute is rather disruptive, perhaps an edit war? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 04:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Where it presents opinions, they ought to be marked as opinions. This is being and has been discussed in several other places on

WP:BLP/N where extended information will be found. Collect (talk

) 12:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

SPLC is a reliable source, but it is a political watchdog group and should be used carefully. Would be a good source for in-depth analysis of how different groups operate. But it should be quoted with attribution ( SPLC says ... ). We've had a discussion before, in archive #22, about whether it's appropriate to use it to label organizations as "hate" groups.[6] It shouldn't be the only source for "hate group", and in my opinion that's an inflammatory term and should be avoided anyway; terms like "anti-immigration", etc are more encyclopedic. That's for articles on organizations; I have doubts on whether watchdog groups should be used at all on BLPs. Also, the intro paragraph to Federation for American Immigration Reform is sourced almost exclusively to SPLC, which is an NPOV problem, and some of that material should be moved down to the criticism section. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

To add a bit of context, the intended use is to refute allegations of improprieties by the SPLC. It would only be tangentially true to say that it's being used about hate crimes and racial issues. arimareiji (talk) 05:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Does this website meets WP:RS. As I would like to use material from http://www.rocketboom.com/rb_08_dec_24/ ( an investigative journal type web video published by rocketboom ) for a WP:BLP. The subject is related to

) 16:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Based on my separate WP:OR of the subject, I will put foward that, as far as I can tell the source is NPOV and seems to me, to be trustworthy and authoritative. I need a second opinion. AuricBlofeld (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

If it had been Joanne Colan speaking, it might have been reliable. I don't think that just anything that rocketboom.com can be considered a RS. It's too bad, I've seen some Magibon videos; they're weird but mesmerizing. Good luck, though. I got KevJumba to Good Article status, and it wasn't easy. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, anyways, I will try WP:BOLD. AuricBlofeld (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

In the

.

However, the most concerning part of all of this, and the reason for my post here is the fact that Anson Shupe himself was called to the stand as an expert witness in the Jason Scott case, which illustrates a very obvious potential for interpreting related past events in his favor.

Now, it is clear that

the "anti-cult" movement.

In addition, according to a paper by Stephen Kent published in Skeptic Magazine (Vol. 6, No. 3, 1998), Shupe's relevancy in the case is called into question:

When asked about how he gathered his evidence against CAN, Shupe admitted that he had never attended a CAN meeting, did not know the names of its officers, had not conducted formal research on the organization since 1987, and had not formally interviewed anyone on the "countercult" movement since 1979. Moreover, he had never subscribed to CAN's newsletter, although he "was able to obtain copies now and then from various people around the country" (Scott v. Ross, et.al., 1995a, 83-87).

←Spidern→ 04:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

If he participated in that trial/case, then no, unless it is attributed as his opinion/involved party. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to get some views on this link [7] and would like to know would it be considered a

19:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, the cite does not look like a very convincing RS. Collect (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. That site is not

WP:RS, but you can check the sources he used to see if they have value (as long as they are RS). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs

) 19:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that, and I agree with using the sources if they have value. Both sources would be considered

WP:RS but one of them is dubious. Thanks again for your help. --Domer48_'fenian'

20:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Reliable source for a critique of Eric Lerner's book?

Resolved

 – Sources are reliable, but may not be properly weighted

[8]

The claim is that Alex Macandrew, a PhD in physics, is not a reliable critic of Eric Lerner's book. I beg to differ. Can others opine?

) 23:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

[9]

The claim is that his evolution blog is not a RS, when there are plenty of other published (not self-published) sources that we can rely on. Even if he is an expert and therefore reliable for his opinion, it is inappropriate to heap on so much criticism; sticking to great sources doesn't really limit what can be said about the criticisms at Eric Lerner. Dicklyon (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Now, the claim is that Feuerbacher and Scranton, physicists/astronomers, are not reliable sources simply because they published in TalkOrigins Archive. I beg to differ again. Can others opine?

) 23:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Same issue. Isn't there a policy about piling on? Dicklyon (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

ScienceApologist has reported my comment above as "disruptive" in an appeal to get me blocked. I hope that it wasn't seen that way by others; let me know if so and I will apologize if appropriate. Dicklyon (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

If the text is already supported by better ciations, why do you want blogs and newsgroup sources? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The text is supported best by these sources which are of equal or better quality per

talk

) 15:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The question to me would be the editorial standards of the website they were published on... at a glance http://www.evolutionpages.com/ looks no more reputable than peswiki or any other self published source. Anything on TalkOrigins Archive would be the same, unless of course it were published somewhere else as well. Certainly the authors aren't tainted by their involvement in those sources, but I would argue against using anything strictly published there Guyonthesubway (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with it being published there? Do you have any reason to think that this is not representative of their positions on the matter? Do you have any reason to doubt the veracity of those sources? This isn't an amateur comment on PESwiki, these are credentialed, acknowledged experts on the subject.

talk

) 18:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I can have some confidence that something posted on the scientificamerican.com was written by who it is credited to. I have no information about the credibility of evolutionpages.com. Perhaps the credited author wrote it, perhaps not. Perhaps it was posted as they wrote it, perhaps it was edited by someone other than the author. Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

What rationale is this? Your "trust" of the website is irrelevant. The situation is, simply, that experts comment on an obscure book through webpages because it's not worth publication at scientificamerican.com. See

talk

) 19:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

If you do not like established precedent against using blogs and newsgroups, work to change the guidelines. At this point, however, neither blogs nor newsgroups qualify as "reliable sources." The issue is not whether a person holds a position, the issue boils down to WP standards and practices on this. Collect (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, these are neither "blogs" nor "newsgroups". Secondly, other articles on Wikipedia use the TalkOrigins archive which is considered a very good source for many issues relating to the creation-evolution debate. Thirdly, we make explicit exceptions at

talk

) 19:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

"Alec's Evolution Pages" sure sounds bloggish to me. Gawrsh -- it even says "BLOG" on the home page. Now let's see what "talkoriginsarchive" is ... gosh it says "Talk.origins is a Usenet newsgroup devoted to the discussion and debate of biological and physical origins. Most discussions in the newsgroup center on the creation/evolution controversy, but other topics of discussion include the origin of life, geology, biology, catastrophism, cosmology and theology." Now why the heck would I think it might be a newsgroup? Just because it says it is? Now if a blog is not a blog and a newsgroup is not a newsgroup, I am significantly puzzled <g>. Collect (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not a weblog, but it is a private webpage. He does run a blog, but this particular page is NOT a blog. Also

talk

) 21:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

"If you are that bad at understanding English and dealing civilly with others, you really shouldn;t be commenting on this noticeboard." is how I read the prior comment SA. Wouldst thou like to refactor? Collect (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Explain to me what you want refactored.

talk

) 23:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd also love a clear explanation of the difference between a 'blog' and a 'private website', since the distinction is so obvious to you.... Guyonthesubway (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

If you need a tutorial: Go to Alec's Evolution Page and click on the "blog". Then compare it to the other pages that link there.

talk

) 23:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well lets see... both are published by a guy named Alec... neither has any editorial control that I can see, other than the same guys say-so.....both are completley controled the same guy Alec... some text on one seems to be credited to other authors, according to Alec... oh! the dates! One has dates! that must be the distinction. Guyonthesubway (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

If you continued to be confused as to what a

talk

) 18:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

SA... I am trying to understand why you feel strongly about these particular sources... assuming that you are correct and that they are reliable, are they the most reliable sources for the given viewpoint expressed? Blueboar (talk) 19:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

In a sense, yes. There are essentially four detailed critiques of Lerner's book available and these two along with Ned Wright's happen to be the most recent and up-to-date.

talk

) 19:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

“

Self-published work is acceptable to use in some circumstances, with limitations. For example, material may sometimes be cited which is self-published by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

”

Both of these sources are "self-published" in a sense because they are done on-line. However, both sources are written by established experts in the relevant field previously published by reliable third-party publications. Furthermore, the sources are useful because they address this parochial and marginally notable book directly while referencing the broader context. Can we link to sources that explicate the larger context? Sure, but to remove these sources and to link to those sources is something of a

) 19:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you reliably source these articles to their authors? Guyonthesubway (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

In what sense?

talk

) 23:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Do your sources meet the literal requirements set forth in

WP:RS without any cavil at all? I fear not. Collect (talk

) 23:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

They definitively do, according to my judgment, and there is certainly no caviling I offer here. I grant that your opinion differs from mine, but I've pointed out that you've got some unfortunate misconceptions and you have essentially ignored the quote provided from policy above.

talk

) 23:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at these sources, I would say they do indeed "meet the requirements set forth in

WP:RS without any cavil". They are not "blogs" or newsgroup postings, but essays written by noted scientists and self published on their websites. WP:RS allows for such self-published material. Yes, it would be nicer if these were published in a peer reviewed accademic journal or some other high quality publication, but that is not a "requirement". The only question is whether there are better sources for the viewpoints expressed. If there are better ones, then the better ones should be used... but if these are the best, then I see no reason why they can not be used. Blueboar (talk

) 00:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It's really more a matter of weight. If these were the only cosmologists who had something bad to say about Lerner's book we would use them. But since we already cite other non-self-published sources, the negative reactions are well represented. Piling more on is not going to make the article better. Dicklyon (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Weight is a matter best left discussed elsewhere. The real issue is that you removed these sources claiming that they were not reliable. I am saying that they are reliable and in spite of some misconceptions that have gotten thrown around here about how these things are either a "blog" or "newsgroup", I am proposing plainly and clearly that they are reliable sources for this particular use.

talk

) 00:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I had not gotten any pushback on cleaning up the David Talbot article by removing those same sites as unreliable sources, and I didn't expect any here; since you now claim their expertise trumps the self-published-blog problem, it becomes a weight issue. It's really both. We can talk about it wherever you like. Dicklyon (talk) 05:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Could www.happycow.net be regarded as a reliable source for the eating habits of celebrities, specifically if they are vegetarian? --Rogerb67 (talk) 18:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so, the site seems to a bit of a private club/volunteer type thing. Also if these celebrities are living, then by

WP:BLP a careful line almost certainly rules this one out. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!

) 04:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Cheers, --Rogerb67 (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

This looks like a dating service first; could articles in the "local scene" section be regarded as reliable sources? --Rogerb67 (talk) 05:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources for saying what? The articles there look to all be op-ed pieces, and they do seem to be signed by and large. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I realize this may be an inappropriate question for this noticeboard, since it's a little more "is this edit acceptable?" than "is this source reliable?". If this is inappropriate, please let me know and accept my apologies.

I've attempted to cite this blog post[[10]] as an example of media coverage of Oom Yung Doe. My edit was reverted, on the not-wholly-unreasonable grounds that blog postings aren't at all reliable for anything. However, because the topic is specifically what media coverage of Oom Yung Doe is like, and because the post is by a Seattle Spectator staffer on that paper's blog, I can see this one both ways.

Should this be considered a reasonable citation, or no? Subverdor (talk) 06:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It's just a blog, not subject to editorial oversight. Not something you can cite to assert notability, nor as a

WP:RS. Dlabtot (talk

) 06:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Newspaper blogs by real reporters are reliable. This seems to be a blog from a student newspaper. Is that right? If so, it's debatable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is a student paper, yes. The reason I'm raising it here is because we're debating it -- finding out that it's debatable doesn't solve my problem :-). If it's uncertain, I'd be inclined to err on the side of not including it as a source, since there's some dispute about it. Subverdor (talk) 13:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely hosted by a student newspaper; that of Seattle University. It's a blog post, and an op-ed (see the tags for the post), and posted in something called "SU Communities", which is "a forum for University groups to communicate with the public by encouraging moderated, two-way communications through blogs and discussion groups". I also note that the site says "All that is needed to get started is to create a free user profile" (see here). So I'm not sure if we can call it a staff blog, but it is worth noting that the person who wrote it is at least a journalism student. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

He's a journalism student, and also apparently an editor for the Seattle Spectator[[11]]. Subverdor (talk) 14:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

This blog is almost entirely cut-and-paste from two unverified emails; effectively it's as reliable as a comments board in my opinion - i.e. not at all. That an editor of this newspaper thinks to publish this with apparently unverified details (occupation, experience etc. of writers) as fact makes me worry about the reliability of the publication in general. Either ofthese emails could have come from anyone, perhaps even both from the same person with an unknown agenda.

In the more general case, I agree that newspaper blogs are less subject to editorial oversight. I would say that in general, for a reputable and reliable publication, staff journalists' blogs are "self-published sources from an established expert" (

WP:BIO indicates that care should be taken using such sources for living people. Notability requires "significant coverage". If there really is "significant coverage" in multiple newspaper blogs, by different independent journalists, I would say that enhances the case for notability. To get significant coverage, all or most of the blog would need to be about the subject, and it would need to be of a reasonable length. But if this is the case, I would expect the newspapers to be running stories alongside that unequivocally establish notability. --Rogerb67 (talk

) 14:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point -- since the author does make pretty clear that his whole knowledge of the organization is based on these two emails and a little bit of research on the internet, I can see a clear case that using this source doesn't add any verifiable information to the discussion. Thanks! Subverdor (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, my question is regarding this source which was very recently added to Roxette discography to support the act's sales-figure of 45 million albums and 25 million singles. The source in question seems very much like a site created by Roxette's fans who post anything about the act that might catch attention regardless of whether the contents are taken from reliable sources. I have to add that just recently I removed numerous sales-figures from Roxette discography which were being supported by another unreliable source. I studied Roxette's Gold/Platinums by taking seven larger music markets including U.S., UK, German, French, Canadian, Dutch, Austria's and Swiss, and the total figure that I came up with does not suggest that they could have sold as many as 75 million records (even if one exaggerates it in order to include the sales within smaller markets) as the provided sources claims. Thanks. --Harout72 (talk) 00:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks very much like a group blog to me. I don't think that comes close to being a reliable source. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I need a reality check ... For more than a year, the Freemasonry article has cited the OED for a definition of the term "Anti-Masonry" in our "Opposition to and criticism of Freemasonry" section. The use of this term and definition is now being challenged. Apparently, while previous versions of the OED (I have the 1979, two volume "Compact Edition") contained a definition of this term, the newest version (after 1989) omits it. The more recent version contains the related term, "Anti-Mason", but not the word "Anti-Masonry".

The challenger is now saying that we can not cite the 1979 version, as that is really just a reprint of the 1933 OED (as if that in some way makes the citation outdated or something). (see this dif. He insists that we must use the related term "Anti-Mason" instead (even though that is not what the section is discussing).

I agree that, if possible, we should use the most recent version of reference works... but if that version has dropped a word, is there anything wrong with going back to the most recent version that does contain it? I would think the OED (even one published in 1979) is going to be the most reliable source for the definition of an English word. Am I off base here? Blueboar (talk) 16:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't see any problems with using the 1979 version so long as the citation clearly notes it, particularly in a historical discussion. At best, add a note to the prose that "in the 1979 edition of the Oxford English Dictionary..." with a ref/note indicating that the word is no longer included. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually For more than a year, the Freemasonry article has incorrectly cited the 1989 OED as the source when it was not (Talk:Freemasonry#Anti-Masonry 2). I double checked and added the updated definition which does encompas anti-masonry:

• Anti-Mason (U.S.) One who is opposed to Freemasonry, used esp. (in the U.S.) of a member of the Anti-Masonic (political) Party. So Anti-Masonic a.; Anti-Masonry

PS "The 1979 version" is simply a reprint of the "1971 Edition" itself a 1933 reproduction (see Oxford English Dictionary#Compact edition). I believe Blueboar's outdated (and previously misquoted definition) Here is a misrepresentation as it stands in the article. Also Blueboar has provided an alternative definition from Websters which I would be happy to go with. I certainly believe, at the least, Collectonian's provisos should be included. Lucian Sunday (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Lucian, if anyone is misrepresenting things it is you. Yes, the citation erroneously listed 1989. I corrected it. As it currently stands, there is no misrepresentation. The definition used in the article is correctly cited to the 1979 OED.

You repeatedly miss the point here... the definition I prefer is not "outdated". It has not been replaced with a newer definition. You keep posting the definition of the word Anti-Mason... not the definition of Anti-Masonry. Not having the 89 OED to hand, I am assuming that this is because the '89 OED has omitted the term Anti-masonry (if I have misunderstood... if the '89 OED does in fact contain an entry for the word Anti-Masonry... then we should certainly use that.) Blueboar (talk) 18:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah Right. How about

"Opposition to Freemasonry, used esp. (in the U.S.) of a member of the

Anti-Masonic (political) Party

"

Lucian Sunday (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not "Avowed opposition to Freemasonry" (cited to the 1979 OED). It's short, it's accurate. Blueboar (talk) 19:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This is WP:RS What is the ISBN of your reference so I can check it? Lucian Sunday (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It is also a reliable source (I don't think you can get more reliable than the OED)... There is no ISBN listed in my copy (had they invented ISBN numbers in 1979?)... it does give a Library of Congress Catelogue Card Number of 76-188038, which should help you check it. Blueboar (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

OK... I have found it at Amazon UK... here... that does not give an ISBN either, but it does give an ASIN of B0011SBCKC

and here it is on Google Books. Blueboar (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

10-digit ISBN code was used in the UK after 1974. 76-188038 gives The compact edition of the Oxford English dictionary Oxford University Press, 1971 . Other than that I am happy with the article as it now stands. Lucian Sunday (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

me too... glad we could finally agree. Blueboar (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we could get some input about the reliability of a source for a discusion at [[12]]. There is an argument that this is a reliable source [[13]] inpite my having used the linked forum to ask the author about the issue of Obama's denomination here [[14]]. In her reply, the author of the page admits she needs to update the page. In this one instance, would this be a reliable source for Obama's current denomination?Die4Dixie (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Note that Die4Dixie's challenge to the reliability of about.com is based on a forum comment, not allowed as a source of information on Wikipedia (and even the forum comment does not say anything about whether Obama's denomination should be changed in the article). There probably are thousands of reliable sources cited on Wikipedia whose authors would like to update the source. That does not render the source unreliable. To challenge a reliable source, you need another reliable source. And a forum is not a reliable source. Ward3001 (talk) 20:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I expect they can read. I did mention that. Also the forum is sponsored by the article's author and about.com, where she is the moderator. The forum links from the page and also the author's name on that page. So your argument is that we should use a source that the author says is inaccurate and needs to be updated. I guess we'll just let these good folks do the job the volunteered for.BTW, I don't want to use the forum as a reliable source to use in mainspace editing like you reference to policy would indicate, but rather to refute the reliability of the source in question. A very different matter.Die4Dixie (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Snide remarks are uncalled for and counterproductive. This is a discussion page. I can expand and clarify as much as I feel necessary. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth. My argument is that we follow Wikipedia's policy of not using a forum as a source of information, and that reliable sources are challenged with other reliable sources. And your argument that you "don't want to use the forum as a reliable source to use in mainspace editing" unnecessarily oversimplifies the issue because you are challenging the reliability of about.com, which might be used to challenge another source that you have "used in mainspace editing".
I can accept it if this noticeboard concludes that about.com in general is not reliable. But let's try to do it honestly without distorting my position or obfuscating the issues. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Please. It's not oversimplification. It's really just that simple.Why don't we just give them a chance to answer. No one has put words in your mouth. Die4Dixie (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that others should be given a chance to discuss this, and without your oversimplification (which it is) and twisting of my words. You don't speak for me. Ward3001 (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I would certainly not consider about.com to be a reliable source ... it is, however, a good place to start your background research and to locate reliable sources that (after you read them) might be used. Sort of like Wikipedia in fact. Blueboar (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The parallel to wikipedia is apt. Citing About.com isn't quite as incestuous as citing wikipedia, but fails RS in the same sort of way. PhGustaf (talk) 22:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, given how often about.com quotes and cites Wikipedia articles, I would say that "incestuous" is a good word to use... More to the point... I would say about.com is even less reliable than Wikipedia... since about.com rarely bothers to update it's database when the Wikipeida articles they quote and cite are updated. Blueboar (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think that About.com should be used as a source for that kind of information (or for much of anything, actually). Even if this claim was undisputed, the editors should find a much better source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

About.com can be reliable. Here are some posts from the archives. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree they can be used in many circumstances. The original argument referred to here was about their use for a disputed point of BLP, and for that purpose I would certainly not consider them reliable, but the standard for such is particularly high. But, otherwise it would depend upon what their source is: to quote their "about" page,"We start with 180 trusted... reference publishers, and we add ... original articles researched by Answers.com's in-house editorial team, community-contributed articles from Wikipedia, and user-generated questions & answers from Answers.com's industry-leading WikiAnswers "... where "Anyone can ask, answer or edit questions, " In all of this, some of the material is cited. The material is under some degree of editorial control, by a hierarchy of volunteers. I haven't seen anything disgracefully wrong, and the quality I would say varies from WP quality upwards. DGG (talk) 04:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

About.com can be used under some circumstances, but facts about Obama's religion are best cited from a newspaper. WP has higher standards for sourcing BLPs. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

We've been here several times before with this, but we finally seem to be having a specific case worth looking at: Talk:The_Man_Who_Would_Be_Queen#Academic_freedom_section.

Brief background: the "academic sexologist" clan, including

said that Dreger article was "peer reviewed" but that he took all comers for the commentaries (not quite true), and that therefore those have to be treated as self-published (an absurd stretch, in my opinion). Furthermore, he argues that if one of those authors is not among the academic sexologists, in the sense of not having published in a peer-reviewed journal on sexology, then they're not expert enough to have their "self-published" writings cited in wikipedia.

Now, Cantor and User:WhatamIdoing seem to be going even further, and objecting to citing Charles Moser (physician), a notable sexologist, as "not an expert on academic freedom," while Dreger "is demonstrably an expert on ethics and on the activism of sexual minority groups." One thing we can't deny: they've got balls!

I think it's about time for someone to push back a bit on this transparent bias based on conflict of interest. But for now, a simple opinion that if Dreger is "reliable" then, for opinions, so are the other articles in that special issue on the topic, would be helpful. Dicklyon (talk) 02:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It would help if you stuck to the issue rather than adding digs at other editors. For example, I can see no point in the debate where James Cantor has raised an objection to the inclusion of Moser; only WhatamIdoing has done so. It's a moot point whether an academic has to be a specific specialist on the subject of academic freedom for their views to be included. I don't think there has been any clear determination made about that. Typically we have included the views of notable persons in the relevant field of study, which would seem to be the case here. Paul B (talk) 10:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me to stick to the point; I agree. The reason I mention Canter here is that his diff that I linked was in support of WhatamIdoing's argument, and against mine, even though as you note he did not specifically reject Moser there. Dicklyon (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The issue here is simply whether a

chilling effects

on free speech).

I also believe that Dicklyon misrepresents the overall tenor of Moser's letter, but that's a separate issue.

The good news here is that the disputes around these articles have been accepted for formal mediation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the

) 20:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking at that talk page, it sounds like the sources used would not be able to tell a reader whether or not the guy actually contributed to those ads. Time magazine is normally a reliable source, but if it cannot back up the claims, it should not be used. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The above single purpose dynamic IP number

21:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Not only is Richard right here, but the anon's actions seem to violate

WP:AN).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk}

23:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

How does noting the absence of credit defame Richard Tylman and violate

WP:BLP?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.160.225 (talk · contribs

) 22:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to wait and see whether the disguised user continues with his/her attempts at trying to discredit me in real life, but if not, I think WP:RPP would be in order, or perhaps a permban, as suggested by Piotrus. Please see my replies at the article's Talk page. Be well, --Poeticbent talk 17:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

My behaviour, motivations and honesty and the relevance of

WP:POINT, I’ll leave for impartial parties. I do want to make one thing perfectly clear. Not one of the ads cited gives credit to Richard Tylman. Not one. Whether or not his signature appears on them is another matter. I didn’t see any, but then I was looking at decades old black and white microfilm on a microfilm reader. Poeticbent, are you saying that the ad you’ve identified on the talk page is clearly signed “Richard Tylman”? If so, I think they should be considered valid sources. And what about the ads published in ‘’ Business in Vancouver’’, ‘’The Vancouver Sun’’, ‘’The Calgary Herald’’, ‘’The Edmonton Journal’’, ‘’The Winnipeg Free Press’’, ‘’The Globe and Mail’’, ‘’The Ottawa Citizen’’, ‘’The Montreal Gazette’’, ‘’The Toronto Star’’, ‘’The Financial Post’’, ‘’ he Official Guide to Expo 86’’, ‘’ Feel the Excitement of Expo 86’’? Are all of these also legibly signed “Richard Tylman”? 99.242.160.225 (talk

) 19:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

This is what I was afraid of while waiting. The anon takes days to respond trying to use an inconvenient IP number for maintaining his/her disguise. I'm tired of these stabbings in the dark, and would like to request some form of assistance from the noticeboard, please. Questioning the truthfulness of a plain list of references with obvious proof of my track record and my signature in it, and thus questioning my professional standing as an artist, is defamatory, malignant and infantile, and ought to be dealt with through official remedies. However, I believe, this board is already best equipped to put an end to any further pointless exchange with 99.242.160.225 causing me unnecessary stress. Thank you. --Poeticbent talk 21:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don’t think my previous questions can be worded more simply, but I will boil it down to one: Since not one of the ads credit Richard Tylman, are they at least clearly signed “Richard Tylman”? 99.242.160.225 (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. A lot of small artwork pieces are not signed by artists in a legible manner. I'd assume that there are legal documents attesting who is the creator in some cases, but I am not an expert on that.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Pietrus & Poeticbent separately asked me for an opinion. To allege that artwork signed by the last name is not that of the artist of the last name claiming it, who is known to work in that field, when there is no other person by that name prominent in the field, or indeed apparently in any field of the fine arts, is the sort of extraordinary statement that does indeed need some very strong evidence. The very least necessary to even consider it is an assertion of what other person by that name it is likely to be. A resort to this as an attack on the sourcing for the article is extreme, so extreme that unless supporting evidence can be presented, it does cast doubt on the motives involved. DGG (talk) 00:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Given that it is dynamic ip, I have thought it wise to semiprotect the article and the talk page. DGG (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The question of whether uncredited commercial art signed legibly or illegibly should be considered as a source is an issue I hope this board will address. I believe that a clearly identifiable signature should count - whether it includes the full name or not. However, there is still the matter of which ads here feature any signature at all. I didn’t notice any, but have said that I may have missed something. On the talk page, Poeticbent identifies one ad as printed with his signature. What about the others? Do they each feature his signature? Questions concerning these ads have not been answered. Piotrus, as the user who introduced this material to the article, you must surely know the answer. Are all of these ads signed?

There seems is a rush to silence queries posed by myself and others. I end my participation here and leave the matter for others to deal with if they so chose.99.242.160.225 (talk) 19:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Are chambers of commerce reliable sources for a thumbnail description of the economy of a community, or are they not sufficiently independent? Specifically, I am considering using information from the lead paragraph of this web page to draft something more general and informative than the present

) 20:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Generally, yes, unless it's disputed in which case you will need a local government body. For uncontroversial facts it should be no problem. Their sources may not be cited, but they are pretty good and they do have an incentive to be at least reasonably accurate. Guy (Help!) 22:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the feedback Guy. I feel
    bolder now. ~ Ningauble (talk
    ) 15:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

'Scots Language Centre' & 'Dictionary of the Scots Language'

Please see below a reply I posted on the talk:British Isles page with regard to the Scots Language Centre being a reliable source for the use of a Scots language term which (currently) appears on the British Isles article:

"For those with issues as to the SLC being appropriate, I can only venture to suggest that for an organisation:

• whose representatives are held in sufficiently high regard to not only be invited to participate fully in, but also to act as "Secretary" to, a Scottish Parliamentary Cross Party Group
• which can meet the strict criteria necessary for obtaining funding from public bodies
• whose academic staff include those who are held in sufficiently high regard in their field of expertise to act as Honorary Research Fellow at one of Scotland's leading Universities
• whose Director is sought out by the national press in order to comment upon matters pertinent
• which is variously described on a multitude of other reputable sites as having being principally "founded to promote the Scots language, giving people who speak Scots the chance to learn more about their own language", (source)

not to be regarded as being appropriate for source material for Wikipedia, frankly demonstrates a failure to apply

WP:UCS

".

I have also included a reference from the Dictionary of the Scots Language, (see also "About the Dictionary of the Scots Language").

The references used on the British Isles article from the DSL and SLC are as follows:

"For "Breetish" see Dictionary of the Scots Language (DSL) & Scottish National Dictionary Supplement (1976) (SNDS). For use in term "Breetish Isles"' see Scots Language Centre website ("Show content as Scots")".

Q: Are these legitimate to use as examples of the Scots adjective "Breetish" and descriptive term "Breetish Isles"??? Endrick Shellycoat 21:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• You won't get that fixed here - there is debate about whether the Scottish Language Wikipedia should exist, and a lot of what is purportedly Scottish is simply a phonetic transliteration of someone reading te material in the style of Ivor Cutler. Your best bet is to contact the Scottish Office and the Scottish Parliament and ask them for their official positions on it, and work from there. It will take time to reach consensus on that basis, but I think it will be time well spent. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but the point I'm trying to establish is regarding the sources: DSL & SLC. The "official position" on Scots is that it is recognised by both the British and Scottish Governments under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, (ratified in 2001), and recognised by the Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body (SPBC) under the SPCB Language Policy (See 3rd para Intro' & Section 12.). (See also example 1, example 2, example 3). The status of the language is not in question, I was looking for guidance as to the legitimacy of using the DSL and SLC as sources for use on Wikipedia. Endrick Shellycoat 09:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Goverment recognition or otherwise, this is a single source which uses a spelling that we cannot find anywhere else.

As I wrote at Talk:British Isles: "Does it really have any true meaning to say the spelling of British Isles in Scots is "X", where the spelling "X" is seen in only one source and isn't standard anyway? The reader at the very least might be misled into thinking this has some attested written use - but won't see this spelling anywhere, and won't be able to use it for searching for material. Are we really going to promote quasi-hypothetical namings - saying that although we can't find any sources, we're sure that if they existed then this is the spelling they'd use?"

We do not ignore all evidence to the contrary and then write that "le weekend" is never used in French because the Académie française says it isn't French. The SLC may say "Breetish Isles" is the correct usage in Scots, but we can't ignore the total absence of its usage. Knepflerle (talk) 10:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. If I may remind you however that there are numerous sources for use of the term "Breetish", (See my own and those posts by "Bill Reid" at Talk:British Isles), and it was not the use of the word "Breetish" that was being contested, but rather this word being combined with the English and Scots word "Isles", which was. The reference from the SLC was being challenged on the basis that it was the only online example of the term "Breetish Isles", which I can produce. (This does not mean that the term has not been used elsewhere, for example, in the Scots language journal Lallans, which does not have an online catalogue. But if it does exist elsewhere online, perhaps on another bi-lingual site such as the SLC's, I have yet to find it).

However, I don't want to bring the Talk:British Isles discussion over here, rather what I was hoping to receive was guidance on whether the DSL and SLC were legitimate for this and future use on Wikipedia as sources. For example, if the SLC stated that "recent studies indicate that approximately 45% of Scotland's population use Scots in every day conversation," could I include that in an article and reference it accordingly? Or, as was described by one individual, are these websites "of unproven quality". My own summary of the SLC's credentials, (see above), and the detail regarding the DSL are what I was hoping to receive guidance for as to whether they are "reliable". (The other discussion can continue elsewhere). Endrick Shellycoat 11:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I agree "Breetish" seems well-enough attested as (one) way of writing "British" in Scots. My problem is in stating it is the way of writing it, particularly in combination with Isles. I think we now understand where each other is coming from though, which is good.

Secondly, it is always dangerous to label a source as reliable/unreliable per se. A source is reliable for a given fact to be shown. For example, strongly partisan political websites are reliable sources as to ascertaining what the party's stated beliefs are, but may not be reliable sources for events, say.

The SLC is is the canonical source as regards its own work, and a reliable source for many facts related to the promotion of Scots - to give it a blanket label of unreliability is obviously nonsense. But this does not afford a carte blanche of reliability.

As with any source, if somebody reasonably challenges its content we should check the provenance and sourcing of their information, and whether it agrees with or is supported by other reliable sources.

In the case of "Breetish Isles": all we can say is that we don't know about the exact sourcing of their material or direct authorship (but I suspect this would check out perfectly fine given the institutions involved); the agreement and support from other sources is entirely lacking however and hence doubts are being expressed.

I hope that sheds some light on how I view these questions! Best, Knepflerle (talk) 12:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It does, thanks very much. Endrick Shellycoat 22:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Is the UK news magazine Private Eye a reliable source for information, particularly on living persons, to use on Wikipedia?

Please note that I am talking about the factual sections at the start & end of the magazine (such as Hackwatch & In The City) and not the satire section in the middle.

My opinion - based on my observations over the past year - is that the factual sections of the Private Eye are a reliable source. The magazine's position is also strengthened by the fact that it has successfully fought off libel charges on several occasions. When mistakes are made it publishes clarifications/corrections in the immediately following issue.

I would be grateful to hear the views of more experienced Wikipedia editors who are also familiar with the magazine. Should we use Private Eye as a source when something is published in it, or should we first wait 2 weeks for the next issue, to see whether the article is corrected or clarified? --Buyoof (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't see why it wouldn't be a reliable source - it meets all of the normal criteria for investigative journalism - editorial oversight, reputation for fact checking etc etc. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• It will depend very much on what is being cited and about whom. Private Eye has a long history of being right about some very contentious things, and a very strong reputation in the field of investigative journalism, including co-sponsoring the Paul Foot Award. But they also have been spectacularly wrong on occasion, and on other occasions have been right on the money but without strong enough evidence (e.g. Sonia Sutcliffe, who won substantial libel damages when they alleged she had sold her story to the tabloids and then later admitted that she had done just that). Hackwatch is op-ed, In The City much less so. In The Back is also pretty reliable. As always, you will need to use
  WP:BLP material either, please. When in doubt, two sources are better than one, and discuss on Talk first. Guy (Help!
  ) 22:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

agree completely, both + and - . DGG (talk) 02:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree too. Not good for BLP without corroboration by another source. For a bit of background, see [22] Jayen466 03:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Cameron, Guy, DGG & Jayen - Many thanks for your comments and advice. I'll be careful and will look for at least one other reliable source to back up material. --Buyoof (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Story here (subscription required) by

11:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

To give examples of Waynes other work, he claims Bush is a blood cult Christian. Oh, and he acctually tables the idea that Bush is literally the Anti-Christ and that the Pope wants to be younger to fight him (Man, I'd pay to see that), that is available here. He also claims the US government sent the anthrax to itself (not as derisable perhaps, but definatly conspiracy theory-esque) here. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

His views seem to be notable, if on the fringe. This is more of a weight/npov thing. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I cannot see the point of examining this tiny snippet for RS, when the USS Liberty incident article has been carefully written to completely disguise what's in the reliable sources. As you can see here, there are at least 5 well-regarded books that say Israel intended to attack the US ship. The only book that says differently is very poorly regarded, judging by Google Scholar, which gives it just a single citation (which is for "Background Paper For Israeli Cabinet 11 June 1967" by V ChoMUN - how did that get in there?!). This compares with 57, 26, 8, 5 and 10 cites, respectively, for the hard-copy of the other books by Bamford, Green, Bregman, Ennes and Loftus. (Meanwhile, Cristol's book has lost the citation it did have for the web-version - the very existence of which smacks of self-publishing, and might be considered a black mark for RS purposes).

And this is not the only serious problem at this article - even when 5 to 2 agreement is reached that a particular clip does not belong in the article (two editors calling it a lie, something very easy to verify) it's proved impossible to edit it out. (There's been a complete refusal to have an RS discussion at the page on this subject either). A wide-ranging accusation of antisemitism was made at ANI against those dissatisfied, and a whole lot more potential editors were driven off with 4 blockings.

I will add that I'd not rate the possible contribution from "Wayne Madsen Report" very highly, even though its intriguing and could perhaps be true. It will only waste your time checking it out, since honest editors and gatekeepers of this article Justin and Narson are so demoralised that nobody's ever tried to include this theory in the article. PR^talk 17:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

This website: http://www.aspartame.info is a PR website for aspartame, being provided by Ajinomoto, a producer of aspartame. Is an (unsigned) opinion that is published on this website a reliable and verifiable source? The opinion cited in the Aspartame_controversy article has not been published anywhere else, while opinions from experts published in peer-reviewed journals are not accepted in the Aspartame_controversy article. Immortale (talk) 16:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The aspartame website is a reliable source for the opinions of the producer, as long as the opinions are cited as such. The website also contains links to many peer-reviewed journal articles and as such would be a good source for further reading, particularly since it could help to balance what appears to me to be a conspiratorial slant to the current article. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be good to get a neutral opinion here and not from an editor who already showed its bias in the Aspartame controversy article. Why would the industry say anything negative about their own product? How reliable is it when it's not verifiable? It's propaganda. A website linking to many peer-reviewed journal articles is not a reason to make it reliable. In that case, http://www.dorway.com or http://www.holisticmed.com would be also reliable sources and it was already concluded that they were not. There are many double standards used throughout this article. Immortale (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

We have an editor who appears to be struggling with Wikipedia's basic requirements for

(he self-published a book outlining his novel medical ideas) and his apparent goal in editing Wikipedia is to share his personal ideas and knowledge with a wider audience. He has created an 'ideal version' in his userspace, and, despite knowing of strong opposition to it, he attempted to replace the existing article with his preferred version today.

The specific source in question is http://www.anapsid.org/, a website created and maintained by Melissa Kaplan. Most of the website is about caring for

), which is the part that is at issue.

Her website is clearly

self-published under Wikipedia's rules

. Kaplan has no medical or veterinary qualifications, and she has not published anything except her website. She is simply a person interested in the subject because it affects her own daily life. She is therefore not a recognized expert in the relevant field.

The following four statements are sourced to a webpage titled "The disease of a thousand names" on Kaplan's website:

• "...more than 80 different theories and labels have been proposed and scientifically investigated."
• "Other popularly used labels included ... post-viral fatigue syndrome."
• "Opinions [on the etiology of Da Costa's syndrome] ... change regularly."
• "The name of Da Costa’s syndrome has changed so often...that it has created confusion in the study and diagnosis of the condition,^[34]as is evident from...a recent website which lists what it claims are more than eighty synonyms."

The question for editors at RSN is whether this self-published/non-expert source should be used to verify any assertions about medical ideas on Wikipedia, and specifically for these four statements. It is my opinion that this source does not meet Wikipedia's basic standards, and that the source must be removed (and with it, any statement that can't be sourced to something that does meet Wikipedia's standards). Does this seem like the appropriate application of Wikipedia's policies to the other editors here? (Please: even if it seems as cut-and-dried to you as it does to me, please respond with your view.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not a reliable source and shouldn't be used for any claims on WP. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes WhatamIdoing, I agree with your assessment. For medical articles, we need medical journals or books published by reputable publishing houses. Jayen466 04:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed; Chronic Neuroimmune Diseases and its subpages on anapsid.org are not reliable sources (in the Wikipedia sense) for medical information. Please see
  WP:MEDRS for guidelines about reliable sources in medicine. Eubulides (talk
  ) 05:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing; I have already responded to your ridiculous and offensive suggeston that Wikipedia should exclude the opinion of medical consumers when their page is compiled in co-operation with four doctors here[23] and here[24], as it is an extremely serious violation of NPOV principles. That webpage is also supported by the following references which list four or five synonyms in their introductions here ^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12] [13]} and are used as refererences on the subpage here[25]Posturewriter (talk) 07:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)posturewriter

WhatamIdoing is right that www.anapsid.org/ is an unacceptable source (on wikipedia) for any human medical condition. NPOV does not require that we use both reliable/expert and unreliable/lay sources in order to produce some sort of "balanced" picture; and being a medical consumer (!) is certainly not a qualification that establishes the requisite expertise in medicine (wish it were that easy! :) ). If the disputed information can be sourced to some other reliable medical sources (journals/book from reputed publishers in the field), as you seem to suggest in your comment, you are welcome to do so. Abecedare (talk) 08:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, should be removed and replaced with reliable sources. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

A self-published source is not reliable. And that's without getting into the special requirements for medical articles. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Reliable Sources Editors; I have considered your comments and would like you to know that if you want the Mellisa Kaplan page of CFS synonyms[26] removed as a source I will do so. However, let me first explain that there are more than 10 reliable sources to support that here[27], and that I was including a medical consumers input for NPOV purposes, and the list was reasonable according to my knowledge of the history of the syndrome. You might also like to consider that WhatamIdoing has previously argued aggressively that it was appropriate to use hatnote policy to add the title of a childrens fiction novel to the top of the page to give prominence to WhatamIdoings preferred label - Soldier’s Heart here[28] - and that when I asked for page numbers that were relevant to Da Costa’s syndrome Gordonofcartoon and WhatamIdoing changed the subject to avoid criticism -see the full conversations and the last three paragraphs in the section here[29].

Please also note that as my contributions were being slab deleted from the Da Costa's syndrome page, someone else (not me) started anonymously adding similar information to the Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome page as seen in the history of edits from 31-12-07 here[30], and added a long list of medications as treatments. Nobody complained about the anonymity of the contributor, or the obvious sock puppet possibilities, or the obvious COI implications, and there were only five references to 9-4-07 when WhatamIdoing edited it here[31] and none of them were linked to the text. When I mentioned this I was told that WhatamIdoing had too many other pages to edit to spend time on it. However, since then only 2 more references have been added and only two have been linked to the text, which is an example of very sub-standard sourcing and editing. Please note that I have produced a subpage for Da Costa’s syndrome which has 60 numbered WP:MEDRS references with 400 links to the text which provides a far superior sourcing standard here[32]. My conclusion is that WhatamIdoing has a strong opinion here, and is not interested in sourcing policy, so much as using sourcing policy to disrupt my contributions for the purpose of maintaining control of content.

Please also note that at 15;15on 30-5-08 WhatamIdoing asked "Are you satisfied with the current list of labels" here[33] and it only contained five synonyms in the opening paragraph, and at 7:59 the next day 1-6-08, I added the Mellisa Kaplan list of 80, so it is quite likely that WhatamIdoing is arguing out of spite Posturewriter (talk) 08:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)posturewriter

Posturewriter, this source does not meet Wikipedia's standards. All sources must meet the requirements of

reliable source

that includes this information, then the information may be included. But this source itself may not.

For the other editors: PW is currently blocked for COI violations and edit warring (including edit warring to restore this source after being told that 100% of editors here opposed it). He will therefore be unable to respond for a while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Is Findagrave an appropriate link for External links? If this is not the appropriate place for this question, could somebody direct me? Thanks in advance, --Tom 22:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

If you're talking about listing it at the end of an article (not being used to support a specific piece of information in the article), you might ask at

the talk page for the external links guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 03:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that was exactly what I was looking for. Thank you! --Tom 14:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at user Carl.bunderson edits in Haq movement article, this user try to insert only official government newspaper [www.gulfnews.com] point of view which cannot be considered reliable since it is used to make propaganda only about the country opposition--77.69.195.220 (talk) 05:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a source at the biography page of Cher, which claims that that Cher's single "Believe" has sold 10 million copies world wide. Personally, after checking her Certification-Awards in U.S., UK, Germany, France, Austria, The Netherlands, Sweden and Australia, I came to the conclusion that the sales of "Believe" could not have surpassed 7 million units world wide. The source was tagged as a dead link for many months; however, was found through a web archive just recently. In my opinion, this cannot be regarded as reliable at all, but I need to be sure before I remove it along with the statement which it supports. I would really be appreciative if someone could comment on this. Thanks.--Harout72 (talk) 04:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like they may be reliabel.[34] We need to know more about their editorial policies. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't use that source for this purpose in the face of all the evidence you cite to the contrary. Yilloslime (t) 16:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources aren't always correct. I had to remove cited info from ESPN the other day because it was wrongs. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah... but how do we know that cited info is "wrong"? We can only judge by comparing it to what other sources say... sources that are considered even more reliable. And even then, it may just be a matter of opinion and not "error". It's a slippery slope. Blueboar (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, in that case it was just comparing numbers, which is pretty straight forward. I take your meaning, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

But what the Certification-Awards suggest (which I am demonstrating above) should not be viewed as someone's opinion, those are facts. I listed music markets which pretty much should cover 80% of the sales on the single "Believe"- U.S.Sales=1 million, UK=1.2 million, Germany=1 million, France=750,000, Australia=210,000, Sweden=90,000, The Netherlands=80,000, Austria=40,000. Then we can simply exaggerate the total number (which is about 4.5 or 4.7 million) slightly in order to include sales coming from smaller markets. All in all, the figure should not exceed 7 million or 7.5 million in the best case scenario.--Harout72 (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

If a review of an album which originally appeared in a magazine such as

) 11:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd happily use Metacritic for its summaries of reviews, e.g. "generally favourable". For specific reviews, Metacritic doesn't give enough detail to build a valid reference, e.g. the date and author of a review. Most of the reviews shown at Metacritic are or were online. Some are subscription-only, which would be an obstacle to using them unless you already have a sub. If the problem is simply that the reviews are no longer online, you can extract the URL from Metacritic (in many browsers that's right-click on the link and then select "copy link address / location" in the pop-up menu) then see if the Internet Archive has saved a copy. If so, you should omit the url parameter in the citation template and instead provide archiveurl=(of the copy Internet Archive showed) and archivedate=(date of that copy) - as well as the usual accessdate= and the other basic info such as author, date of publication, etc. --Philcha (talk) 11:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. The problem is that the reviews I specifically want to cite seem to have never been online to begin with. Annoyingly, they're the only two negative reviews listed at Metacritic, so I'd really like to put them in the article to ensure balance. Does that mean the only option is to try and find (heaven only knows how) four-year old copies of NME and Q.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

British Library?[35] Or wave your wikipedia wand and ask the publications directly if you can access their files. Ty 05:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Cheers for the heads-up on the BL, but travelling all the way to London to look up information goes a bit above and beyond my level of dedication to WP :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Slacker! :)

Two possible solutions: Check if the magazines are archived by LexisNexis or some other databases. Alternately, you can attribute the reviews something like, "Metacritic quoted Q's review as 'X is a poor excuse for an album'." Not ideal, since the we/reader cannot access the context of the quote, but acceptable in my opinion. Abecedare (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Would the following count towards establishing notability for Dave Carlock?

• http://www.visitshoremagazine.com/articles/2008/07/28/features/doc487e23e8cabf2450362273.txt
• http://www.eqmag.com/article/rogue-pogue/oct-05/14512

--Rogerb67 (talk) 14:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Also:

• http://www.bentonspiritnews.com/default.asp?sourceid=&smenu=103&twindow=Default&mad=No&sdetail=1779&wpage=1&skeyword=&sidate=&ccat=&ccatm=&restate=&restatus=&reoption=&retype=&repmin=&repmax=&rebed=&rebath=&subname=&pform=&sc=1935&hn=bentonspiritnews&he=.com

--Rogerb67 (talk) 14:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I would say yes, maybe, and yes. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be an edit war going on at Gareth Penn involving the removal of a number of what appear to be credible sources. This entry, for instance:

Portrait of the Artist as a Mass Murderer drew national media attention, and led New York Press reporter Alan Cabal to arrange an interview with Penn that never took place. In a book review of Robert Graysmith's Zodiac Unmasked, Cabal wrote that his efforts to meet Penn were a "a run down the rabbit-hole of Northern California weirdness."

...came from a NY Press book review here, written by journalist Alan Cabal: http://www.nypress.com/article-5757-graysmiths-zodiac-unmasked.html.

A letter to the editor from the same source, the NY Press at http://www.nypress.com, was also deleted.

Why is the NY Press not a credible source? I don't edit enough Wiki articles to know and would appreciate any assistance. Scijournalist (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The argument is not that the New York Press is not reliable (I have no opinion one way or the other). The argument is: A quasi-literary first person narrative written by a freelance, self-described

talk

) 21:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

What Bali ultimate seems to be saying here is that he simply doesn't like the encounter that went on between Gareth Penn and Alan Cabal. Not only does he get it wrong (the entry does not describe Cabal drinking with a man he imagined to be Penn) but his interpretation of this event isn't relevant to the entry. What's relevant is that it is a concrete, well-sourced, event in the subject's life that has stood the test of 2 years and numerous edits. For one editor on Wikipedia to so inject his own opinions on what is or is not relevant to a BLP is amount to the worst cases of original research, unsupported by verifiable fact. I agree with previous editors. To throw out a legitimate source based on one editor's opinion is a violation of everything Wikipedia stands for. Scijournalist (talk) 01:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Cabal says explicitly "The fellow I met turned out to be an impostor, a shill". Its trivia about Cabal, and nothing about Penn. This is not the forum for this. KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to step away from Wikipedia a few days, but these drew me back in: "Worst case of original research" and, this gem, "Violation of everything wikipedia stands for." Thanks for the laughs.

talk

) 01:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

So that's what this is about? An editor decides that he or she doesn't like what a legitimate source reports, about a person they know nothing about no less, so they scrap it? If an editor is permitted to get away with this, then anyone else should be able to push their own thinking on any other Wiki entry. I, like many others, have tried to be civil with Bali ultimate, but that's pretty tough. It appears he "took a few days off" in order to close down his page, apparently because he doesn't like the history of chronic disgruntlement his Talk page reports. Scijournalist (talk) 04:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It's odd. You keep attacking me.... and then you attack me for attacking you (which i havne't)? Believe me, you won't get far with ad hominems, focusing on other editors, and misrepresenting sources. But knock yourself out. (as for my talk page, the history is available to be read by anyone who cares to).

talk

) 04:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) To address a single issue: The "letter to the editor from the same source, the NY Press" is considered

) 04:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes it's clear that Cabal says "The fellow I met turned out to be an impostor, a shill", but it's also clear from the context that he means Penn was an imposter - that it became clear during the evening they spent together that Penn's claims to be an expert were all sham. He's not saying that he met some unknown person who was pretending to be Penn! It's explained that the meeting was set up after long correspondence, and he later refers to Penn's own account of "his meeting with me". It's surely a legitimate source for Cabal's opinion of Penn. Paul B (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I have two

) 05:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone who knows Japanese will probably have to look at it. Have them look for information on their editorial policies, or if their a newspaper or a fan generated site, etc. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

What is the reliabilty of WikiFur to verify information about conventions? See Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of furry conventions. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

In a word: None.

If the information in the wiki is referenced properly, and the reference complies with

our reliability policy, use the citation instead. Abecedare (talk

) 15:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Republika Srpska

Questionable sources regarding:

unsourced commentary by onyxig

"It is important to note that although Republika Srpska is a quite young entity, its history, and the History of Bosnia in general, has begun centuries ago and the geographic region on which the entity currently resides has been deeply affected by numerous wars from medieval ages, Ottoman Empire occupation to WW1, WW2, and finally the Bosnian war." [36]

unviewable source article, undue weight

"The leading Bosnian Serb party, the Alliance of Independent Social Democrats (SNSD), called on other political parties in Republika Srpska to organize a referendum on police reform in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The SNSD said the referendum should give a clear picture on whether the Bosnian Serb police should be dismissed or not in the process reforms under which a single police force is to be created on the state level.[21] "I do expect that the answer of most of citizens of Republika Srpska would be no," Rajko Vasić, member of the SNSD leadership said. He also said the party, which won exactly half the seats in the National Assembly of Republika Srpska on October 1, 2006, would suggest the referendum on police reform as an issue to be discussed at the first next session of the entity's parliament. Earlier last year the leader of the SNSD and the current RS Prime Minister Milorad Dodik said he would be ready to sacrifice negotiations with the European Union on the eventual integration of Bosnia and Herzegovina into the Union, if the RS police is to be abolished as part of the police reform on Bosnia's state-level." [37]

-

) 19:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

iexplore (the first ref) is a travel agency web site,and obviously cannot really be relied on. There should be many better sources for the general history of the nation. I consider stratfor (the second ref) reliable, and there is no need for a source to be free. However, again,there should be more accessible sources available for something like this. The best thing to do would be to go find them. DGG (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to know if tabloid magazines, in this case: People Magazine, are considered 'reliable sources'. There is a quote used from People Magazine for the Biography of a living person that I would like to have deleted from this person's page.

The article written by People Magazine appears to be unresearched, and further more this article is not a 'neutral point of view' - most clearly because it only includes information and the perspective from one side of a dispute between two people.

I wasn't sure if I was supposed to give the actual example in this forum - let me know if that's appropriate. Zoegolightly (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Please give the example, and any relevant links. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK,

WP:NPOV is a policy that applies to wikipedia articles, and not to the sources used to write them. Abecedare (talk

) 21:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The edit in question is [38]. I think this is exactly the sort of negative BLP that must have impeccable sourcing. I am surprised the magazine published it, as it is a libelous quote from an involved individual without any real backing--and I do not use that word lightly. In the context of the article, along with other such quotes, though, it does not have the impact hat it does isolated it WP. The entire article quoted from [39] does not impress me as responsible journalism. Perhaps their standards are higher today--this was in 1988. DGG (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

People in 88 was reliable, but that's a pretty strong statement. Other sources mention this.[40][41] I would find out what they all agree on, and cite 2-3. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Peregrine is right, it made the LA Times. [42] I would not quote the allegations verbatim, but would rather follow the LA Times in stating that sexual allegations were made and denied. Jayen466 00:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Where do associated blogs belong? Like this:

celebrity-babies.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

The pages are often poorly sourced snippets of generic info and a lot of user-generated comments. Flowanda | Talk 00:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Are The Skinny (magazine) (some information about it here) and The Aquarian Weekly reliable sources? They obviously seem to be, but I would like to be sure whether they really are. Thanks everybody for answering :)--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 19:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The Skinny is a "listings" throwaway, it appears. I suppose it is valid for dates something was scheduled to happen, but not much else (no sign of "editorial oversight" to be sure.) Aquarian would depend on when the cite occured in its strange history. I would not recommend using it for political facts when it was unchecked radicalism <g>. Collect (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Some album reviews like this or this...?--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 20:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The Aquarian might be reliable, based on this jobs page. It's hard to say since it may be they want to hire editors, but don't have any now. The Skinny doesn't give enough to go by on there about page. I would say The Aquarian probably, The Skinny probably not. It would be nice to know more about their staffs and editorial policies. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Skinny seems like a ragtag thing that is dumped in pubs for bored people to pick up. It doesn't look RS to me. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Alternative weeklies like

Boston Phoenix, and The Village Voice are reliable secondary sources just like other newspapers. A listings magazine like The Skinny is probably reliable but the listings section would be a primary source. You could use it to say when a band was playing or for uncontroversial reviews but not to demonstrate notability for the band. Squidfryerchef (talk

) 13:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

But there are not only listings on The Skinny homepage. There are also reviews like this or even propper articles like this. These are secondary sources...--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 15:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Guardian.co.uk. states:"The Skinny is the online wing of one of the best listings mags in Britian. "Fresh journalism from a talented and expanding pool of over 50 locally based writers … actively involved in the different cultural scenes they cover." So … the skinny straight from the hipster's mouth, as it were."[43]. Are their reviews and articles from the online wing of The Skinny non-reliable?--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 10:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I would say it is probably reliable, based on this. They appear to have at least one level of editor above the writers. Probably two, since Jamie Borthwick (from the above review) isn't on the editor list. In general, this is the kind of thing you want to look for. Everybody has writers, what we require is editorial oversight, someone checking the writing for accuracy. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks...--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 09:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Is the Freedom of Mind page on Chung Moo Doe[[44]] a reliable source? Subverdor (talk) 06:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see it as a reliable source, it's a personal website, the guy doesn't seem famous as an expert.

talk

) 21:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting -- I was objecting to it on the grounds that the statement, "The following information has been provided by former members of Chung Moo Doe" made it effectively secondhand, unverified information from anonymous sources. Objecting to the entire web site in general hadn't even ocurred to me :-). Subverdor (talk) 15:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

There are few/no academic sources in English for martial arts (particularly for events since the 1980s). Perhaps most of the citations used in Wiki Martial Arts articles are not acceptable. jmcw (talk) 12:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Oom_Yung_Doe#FMC:_.22Monitoring_by_the_Freedom_of_Mind_Center.22 could be of interest in this discussion. jmcw (talk) 21:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

With regard to the Freedom of Mind web site, it is important to note that much of the information being used in the Wikipedia article Oom Yung Doe are actually reprints of newspaper articles available online, for example here [45] and here [46]. I believe that there is no reason to suggest that the Freedom of Mind web site may not be used on Wikipedia. In fact, the same web site is used as a source in other Wikipedia articles, such as the highly-trafficked and edited article on Scientology.[47] [48] It seems to me like there is plenty of precedent for its use on Wikipedia.Cjim63 (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The owner of Freedom of Mind is a professional expert on cults and I think it's also an organisation, not sure. Obviously the writings are his own opinion, as are all writings, however as an expert in his particular field (cults) he could be briefly mentioned, obviously in the context of a cult rather than martial arts expert and with other opinions expressed for

WP:NPOV. We did have the problem with the Rick Ross site, however, of people claiming newspaper articles he hosted there had been altered. This may not be true, but it would always be better to find original or other mainstream news sources of such articles. Sticky Parkin

23:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

he is well known and notable enough in the field that he has his own article

WP:NPOV wikipedia article.) Sticky Parkin

23:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I noted above that the specific page in question contains a disclaimer at the top specifically saying that the information is contributed by a third party, which strongly implies to me that it is not his own opinion. In fact, you can clearly see from reading the text that it's written by a former student, and not by Hassan. What's being sourced in the article is not any opinion or judgement attributed to Hassan, but specific facts that are presented in the (apparently anonymous) account posted on this page. I feel that making the leap from "this web page exists" to "these facts must be verified by Steve Hassan", even if he is a trustworthy source, simply isn't justified. If you do feel it's justified, then why exactly? Subverdor (talk) 06:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Cjim63 seems to believe that rickross.com and freedomofmind.com are interchangeable -- I'm only speaking of the article on freedomofmind.com here, not anything on rickross.com. Subverdor (talk) 06:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

While this paper is by an academic who might have otherwise have qualifications, this particular paper (apparently published) is extremely problematic as any kind of reliable source, especially as a cite in Scientology as a state-recognized religion where it was used around 20 times as a 3rd party RS ref:

• It cites Wikipeda.
• It cites the Church of Scientology, which was removed as a primary source in the article in the first place.
• In some places it cites nothing at all.
• It's hard to evaluate "Zeitdiagnosen: Religion and Conformity" as a publication. Editorial or peer review certainly didn't seem to be part of the process.

Someone will probably jump in that Derek Davis is an academic with many many page hits in GoogleBooks. So what? This paper is badly referenced and sourced. Not everything by an academic is automatically RS on Wikipedia. AndroidCat (talk) 09:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this something that we are not allowed to determine, per NOR? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 09:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors mustn't commit OR, but neither should we be blind either. And is Zeitdiagnosen: Religion and Conformity a real publication, a scholarly journal with solid peer review, or some vanity-press style publication? AndroidCat (talk) 09:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a better question. Remember that inclusion is based on whether something can be

verified, it's really up to the reader not editors to decided the standard of sourcing. Trusted sources are trusted, we can't really resort to picking and choosing based on our personal opinions of the pieces. --neon white talk

21:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Here some publishing background:

Lit Verlag is a German academic publisher, with bases in London, Hamburg, Berlin, Vienna, Zurich and Münster. They cooperate internationally with Transaction Publishers (USA), Palgrave Macmillan (USA) and James Currey (UK). Zeitdiagnosen is not a journal, but a series of books on prominent topics in sociology and political science.

Here is a write-up on the author, Derek H. Davis.

Derek H. Davis, B.A., M.A., J.D., Ph.D., is a graduate of Baylor University and Baylor Law School and holds a Master of Arts in Church-State Studies from Baylor University and a Doctor of Philosophy in Humanities from the University of Texas at Dallas. He is Professor of Political Science and the Director of the J.M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies, Baylor University, Waco, Texas, which offers M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in Church-State Studies, conducts research and publishes books on church-state relations and religious liberty in national and international contexts, maintains the largest research library in the world pertaining to religious liberty and church-state relations, and sponsors conferences and lectureships on various church-state themes.

In addition to serving as editor of the award-winning Journal of Church and State, Dr. Davis is a fellow and director of the International Academy for Freedom of Religion and Belief, serves on the advisory council of the Interfaith Religious Liberty Foundation, is on the advisory board of The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, is a member of the Religious Liberty Council of the National Council of Churches U.S.A., is listed in Who’s Who in American Law and Who’s Who in the World, and presently serves as Special Counsel to the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs. In 2000, he was awarded the Human Rights Achievement Award by Freedom magazine. He is also a former Baylor football captain and all-conference receiver.

He is the author of Original Intent: Chief Justice Rehnquist & the Course of American Church-State Relations (1991 by Prometheus Books), and Religion and the Continental Congress, 1774-1789: Contributions to Original Intent (2000 by Oxford University Press). He is the editor, coeditor, or coauthor of twelve additional books, including The Role of Religion in the Making of Public Policy (1991), Legal Deskbook for Administrators of Independent Colleges and Universities (1993), Problems and Conflicts Between Law and Morality in a Free Society (1993), Genesis and the Millennium: An Essay on Religious Pluralism in the Twenty-first Century by Bill Moyers (2000), Welfare Reform and Faith-Based Organizations (1999), and Religious Liberty in Northern Europe in the Twenty-first Century (2000). He has also published more than eighty articles in various law reviews, academic journals, magazines, and other periodicals.

His frequent magazine, radio, and television interviews have included those for Time Magazine, First Things, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Philadelphia Inquirer, National Public Radio, Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, The Christian Science Monitor, CNN, the Fox News Network, CBS News, and ABC News. In recent years he has been called upon by the U.S. Congress, the Texas legislature, and United Nations emissaries for testimony relating to legal measures needed to protect religious liberty in national and international settings. He has lectured extensively before academic, public, and religious audiences on a wide range of topics including religious liberty (national and international), church-state relations (ancient, medieval, and modern), human rights, ethnic cleansing, the political role of Christianity and other religions, civil religion, nontraditional religions, religious dimensions of the American founding, law and morality, law and religion, and religion and education.

Gerhard Besier, the editor of the book this appeared in, is a Protestant Christian theologian and historian. He runs the Hannah-Arendt Institute for Research into Totalitarianism at Dresden University. He has been controversial in Germany for taking the view that Scientology should be recognised as a religion in Germany, as it is in the United States and many other countries.

While Davis' paper/book chapter does contain a reference to Wikipedia, which is obviously not citable here, it is the only paper I am aware of whose subject matter correponds exactly to the topic of our article, "Scientology as a state-recognized religion". Jayen466 00:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly the type of source we want. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Only if the paper's sources are credible. AndroidCat (talk) 04:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have read the source, it appears to be what it purports to be, an academic analysis of the subject. One may disagree with it, and where necessary attribution may be appropriate, but yes, this looks good at face value. The only thing that would render it inadmissible would be some conflict of interest on the part of the author, for example if he were a Scientologist himself. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed with JzG. It looks to me basically like a standard academic paper. I acknowledge that sometimes academic papers are themselves possibly less than neutral, but that doesn't disqualify it from being used. Actually, I've seen worse academic papers, and certainly wrote worse myself. If evidence could be presented that the writer had some sort of conflict of interests, that would be useful, and possibly make its use dubious, but I think we'd need evidence of that conflict in advance before making any judgements on it. John Carter (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
    • The opinions and conclusions of the article are moot. We're using it to reference official recognition in various countries and the author hasn't done any homework. Part of the paper had to be be disallowed because it was based in citing Wikipedia, and part of it had disallowed to be because it was citing statements by an official of the Church of Scientology. I know that we're not supposed to judge academics (they get a free pass, it seems), but how sloppy and badly referenced does a paper have to be before it gets bounced? AndroidCat (talk) 04:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• • • Thanks. To resolve the matter, I propose the following:
      • For countries other than the US, I believe I have independent, mainstream foreign-language media reports or scholarly sources backing up the assertions sourced to Davis (with the exception of the one relating to Taiwan). Suggest we restore Davis as a source, add foreign-language secondary cites where available, and attribute any remaining assertions sourced to Davis alone.
      • For the US, I believe the facts sourced to Davis in the article are common knowledge, uncontroversial, and can be reported without attribution. Jayen466 00:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Davis teaches at a Christian (Baptist) university. I think it improbable in the extreme that he is a Scientologist. Jayen466 00:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Looks good to me. I doubt that AndroidCat will go through the sensational books and articles commonly cited as sources in Scientology articles and vet the sourcing to this degree. Or to any degree. I wish he would. The argument that we would discount this because it uses primary sources that we have disallowed here is especially specious, this is exactly how a primary source becomes a "secondary source". --Justallofthem (talk) 02:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment I'd feel upset, if I could remember all your various aliases (even the official ones), and figure out who to be upset with. I can't, sorry. AndroidCat (talk) 04:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, please with the cattiness. You know perfectly well who I am and need only look at my userpage to refresh your memory. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering if anyone here migh take a look over

) 01:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I have two questions. Sorry if this has been asked already, 1. Are Alternative News Weeklies, such as those published by Village Voice Media, or local weeklies, such as the Bay Area's 'East Bay Express' considered reliable? 2. Also, is anything that is not Op/Ed, such as an arts interview written by a stringer for national publication like the San Francisco Chronicle, considered reliable?

Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 06:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

w/r/t/ #1: Generally, yes, but it depends on the specifics. For example, the features in East Bay Express are certainly reliable when it comes to news in the Bay Area. It's reviews of music, theatre, art, etc, are citable too. But it's opinion pieces, columns, and such are probably not reliable sources for factual information. Opinions expressed therein may be citable under certain circumstances, though.

Specifically, if a reporter for one of these outfits interviews another person for a piece and the person is quoted as saying, "I did X, and worked with Y person" can we assume it's fact-checked and reliable? Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 07:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Without specifics I wouldn't want to say for sure, but can't you just phrase it like, "So and so told such and such paper that ..."? Yilloslime (t) 06:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

w/r/t #2: what's a stringer? Yilloslime (t) 07:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Stringer_(journalism) Uwishiwazjohng (talk) 07:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

An article came up at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests that was using The Chambers Guides as a reference. Chamber's claim that the rankings and editorial comment about lawyers are independent and objective. You don't have to look at many entries to come to the conclusion that they are anything but. Does anyone know if this is actually a paid-for directory listing, it certainly reads like it. SpinningSpark 18:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

They're not reliabe. Their evaluation of themselves is as objective as their evaluation of firms. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I am curious of other editors opinions about an instance where two editors are reading, seemingly, the identical book but a specific sentence occurs in one editors copy of the book and that sentence is missing from the other editors copy of the book. Ongoing discussion here[49]. SaltyBoatr (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, a general reply without a look at the specific problem: Could you add something like "..., a claim missing in some instances of ABC's book "XYZ" for unknown reasons"? --Novil Ariandis (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Saul Cornell's book published by Oxford University Press in 2006,

ISBN 978-0-19-514786-5. Here is a scan of the title page of my version of the book[50]. In the middle of the top paragraph on page 150 is a sentence beginning with the words "The case was...". Here is a scan of page 150 of my version of the book with the sentence underlined in pencil[51]. This sentence is important to User:Yaf, I should let him speak for himself, but as I understand it, he favors a point of view that involves a favorable finding of that court case. Yaf has said[52] that his copy of the book, sharing the identical ISBN number, does not include this pivotal sentence. SaltyBoatr (talk

) 01:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ask Yaf to scan his page of the book. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I have asked him twice, no response as of yet. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

It can occur. Publishers are not required to use a new ISBN for each edition of a book. And edits are made between "editions" for some odd reason. Cites in such cases should specifiy the dition number. Collect (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This thing that baffles me is that if there was much editing of text, with word wrap, the paragraph in question would likely have shifted from page 150. Though, of course, sometimes strange things can occur. Additionally, I appear to own a first printing of the book, and the edition visible at Amazon.com is presumably the latest version. Both of these show the sentence on page 150. The version Yaf is reading must be an intermediate version, and it is missing the sentence. So, the sentence was in, then out, and then back in. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I wanna expand on Brown Sugar (album), but i'm not sure if dis a reliable, propa reference to use. MusicianGuide: D'Angelo What do u think?

) 07:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting site with lots of info, but I don't see anything to show their sources or their reputation for fact-checking though - no authors listed, no "about us" or other details about the organization that maintains the site. Without that, there's no basis for considering the information reliable.

Looks like there are lots of other good sources available though - check out the Google hits for this search: "Brown Sugar" +D'Angelo - and lots of hits for the album on Google Books also. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

On The Chaser APEC pranks in the "The Chaser's response" section, there is an entire section cited by the radio interview on Source 44. The problem is that the website containing the media file is not dead linked. Since then there has been two tags added questioning the reliability of the source.

Now I listened to that radio interview, and while I couldn't possibly remember it, I know that all that information is correct when it was written. I suggested this source on the talk page to another editor (Jasewese) who then wrote that section and sourced it.

Now while archive.org does store the website, the media file dosen't play. So it is probably lost.

Is there a way to get rid of the citation questions around that source.  The Windler talk  20:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I think if there's no way to access a source, then it cannot be used anymore. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Then, What is the point of having the "Retrieved on <date>" parameter. Isn't that supposed to say that on that date the source was accurate? This is a very flawed policy, which means that in five years, Wikipedia will be very outdated.  The Windler talk  01:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Generally, if you have an entire proper citation -- author, title, publisher, date -- then the ref is still considered valid, even if the internet link dies. With a proper citation, one could in theory contact the publisher (or perhaps a copyright registry) and verify the information.

If you only have a link, then that's not good enough, because it's not reasonable to expect a publisher to keep information about which information used to be at every single URL. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

On the one hand, there's no requirement for sources to be available online. On the other hand, I've argued before in another one of these RSN's that radio programs have a problem with WP:V if there's no archives or transcripts available. See if

Burrelles has a transcript of this or there's a compilation album sold anywhere. If it's in libraries it should have an OCLC number. Squidfryerchef (talk

) 02:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Family surname projects

I'm a little worried about this and would like community input. I don't think that these sorts of projects can be considered reliable sources, these sites are not fact checked or peer reviewed, as is normal for sources to be considered reliable on Wikipedia. These sources were originally all included at

Haplogroup E1b1b (Y-DNA)

Examples include:

• forum
• self published onlne "book"
• data uploaded to internet by private individual.
• privately maintained family genealogy project
• haplotype
• Harvey Y-DNA Genetic Project.^{[dead link]}
• forum
• Double~Helix Forum
• Wright surname DNA Project
• can be found
• their DNA Project
• 3AC8Z is a descendant
• Hatfield DNA surname project. (Kit number 79827 is decended from Ephraim Hatfield.)
• information posted
• E-M35 Phylogeny Project
• Denis Savard
• Savard DNA Project

I'd like to know what the community thinks about the reliability of these sorts of sources, both for specific sources and more generally. Thanks for any help in advance. Alun (talk) 10:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the above call for opinions could be quite complex because it names so many quite different types of source, some no longer even being used, and some described by Alun incorrectly, and it does not name what types of claims Alun thinks they should or should not be used for. Alun has not really looked at them in detail before coming here. The reason for this is that Alun's own approach on this is very broad in that he sees this as a general problem to be eradicated, not only related to sourcing, but more generally concerning the role and interest of "hair brained" genealogically oriented research (looking at recent as opposed to very ancient versions of a lineage) in a haplogroup article. In his own account, the problem is that the information is "trivia [53]" and not "population genetics" (which is an area he feels qualified in [54]). The problem with that approach has been that this disagrees with the relevant Wikiproject

Guidelines as has been discussed to some extent on their talk page [55]. So the next step is to try to get a blanket ban on all the normal types of sources which hair brained genealogists (anyone trying to relate a haplogroup to modern branches of that lineage is apparently conducting genealogy and not science [56]

) might use in Wikipedia.

I believe the focus should really be upon sources being used now, (see

Haplogroup_E1b1b_(Y-DNA)#List_of_famous_claimed_E1b1b_members

) and the questions have to be phrased in terms of what each different source would be acceptable or not for - case by case. I'll start with a few more detailed remarks though...

1. http://www.familysearch.org and http://www.smgf.org are widely respected independent organizations who claim to employee researchers to check pedigrees. Whether or not they ever contain mistakes is another question, which is not Wikipedia's problem because that can be said of any source.

Concerning these two, I do not believe any clear argument has been given yet.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

2. http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~harvey/library/harveybo.htm is clearly not a "self published online "book"". It was published in 1899, and this can be cross checked. See for example http://books.google.com/books?id=RiiYHQAACAAJ, or check amazons etc. Previously Alun's complaint about this source seemed to be that he thought old books should not be trusted, and so his new description of this book is odd.

Just to point out, I do not believe any clear objection has been made about this book. Is it still being claimed not to be a book?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

3. The most dubious sources surely are the message boards, as I have discussed myself with other editors before Alun's became interested in this article. See [57] and [58]. There have been efforts to try to avoid using these. But the ones being used are all non-anonymous posts by DNA Project administrators posting in a role as members of the E-M35 phylogeny project, which is an organization with >1000 members, most of the active ones (including all the ones cited) being identifiable ("notable") figures in their genealogical fields. These are structured and moderated forums, and the remarks are only being used to add what is posted elsewhere, ans if we look at the relevant WP policies about when web resources can be used, they seem to come under the right criteria.

As these are perhaps the weakest link, and they have been mentioned a few times in the running debates in a sneering way as if they can obviously never be acceptable, I'll post the relevant types of WP comments which show how this case seems to come right into the zone for an exception. This is from [59]...

Material from bulletin boards and forum sites, Usenet, wikis, blogs and comments associated with blog entries should not normally be used as sources. These media do not have adequate levels of editorial oversight or author credibility and lack assured persistence.

• An Internet forum with identifiable, expert and credible moderators with a declared corrective moderation policy may, exceptionally, be considered reliable for some topics. In this sense, where moderators act as editors to review material and challenge or correct any factual errors, they could have an adequate level of integrity. This exception would only be appropriate to fields that are not well covered by print sources, where experts traditionally publish online.
• In cases where self-published material has been published by a professional researcher or other expert in the field, a source published in one of these media may be considered reliable in some cases.

Numerous other quotations can be made to show that the chief concern is on the one hand whether the web resource is anonymous and therefore very possibly not what it seems, which is not the case here, or on the other hand whether the information being sourced is non controversial etc. Remember the information we want to source here is "pedigree x corresponds to DNA test y". It is not rocket science and it is not controversial.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

4. The true controversy which makes or breaks things is whether DNA surname projects can be used for anything at all, including even stating what results they have collected. If these can not be referred to at all then a whole field of respected mainstream research, "genetic genealogy" is being banned from Wikipedia on the technicality that it needs to use the web a lot in order to gather data in the way it needs to. Alun's stated position is that these are simply blogs [60]. This is clearly an unhelpful exaggeration. These are recognized organizations which any googling will show are referenced widely and respected, including by commercial testing laboratories and umbrella organizations such as [61]. These are neutral organizations who have nothing to gain by false claims. (A Wright DNA project admin will cause no surprise by saying that the Wright brothers had the surname Wright, and are related to some modern Wrights. Note that for privacy reasons they normally do not identify the people tested, except by who is in their pedigree.) These organizations are the specialists in their fields. If

notable

in their fields. What does an academic or a peer review system have to add to there basic neutral collections of data which is being updated daily and gathered from people all around the world? I know of no academic conflict with the genetic genealogical community and they increasingly refer to them in their own work. (For example genetic genealogists keep the most up-to-date listing of UEP discoveries on the www.isogg.org website, which is often now footnoted in journals.) In summary I believe no good case has been made to make any broad ban on using information from surname projects, and all discussion so far on other forums has been burdened with too many exaggerations and extreme remarks. What is that good case?

Having a look over discussions so far and considering Wikipedia guidelines it is probably also worth pointing out that most DNA surname projects are not "self published" in any meaningful sense. Yes, you could make a webpage and call it a surname project, but this would not get the recognition. Most of these research projects in fact make use of webspace or webspaces of testing companies to some extent, meaning that you can actually see exactly what test results were reported to the project from the lab. The project admins can not edit those lab results in those cases. (Many projects have an "all labs" webpage to unite different results, but still keep a presence in the webspace of each testing company.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

DNA surname projects are original research. The reliability or otherwise of these projects is not the point. Wikipedia:No original research is one of the core Wikipedia policies, and we should not be using original research as a source. To put the matter in context for those not familiar with DNA projects, the vast majority of such projects are hosted on the commercial Family Tree DNA website.[62]. There are in excess of 5000 such projects, ranging in size from one participant to over 700 participants. The results published on these websites are primary source material in the same way as parish registers and censuses. The conclusions published on a surname project website will be those of the surname project administrator. These websites are therefore self-published sources. They have not undergone any third-party checking. Furthermore the projects are ongoing so the conclusions will change over time as more results come in. If the results from surname projects are to be used they must be published in a third-party reliable source such as a family history society publication or the Journal of Genetic Genealogy. A good example of a reliable source is the paper relating to the case of the American president Thomas Jefferson paper and his slave Sally Hemmings.[63] Genetic genealogy is a fast-moving science. It might not yet be possible to write proper Wikipedia articles on haplogroups until more results have been published in the academic and genealogical press. Publication will inevitably lag a few years behind the original research. Dahliarose (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Dahliarose, I think the above is only intended to apply to surname projects, so I hope you do not mind that I moved it. You know I find your interpretation of Wikipedia policies extreme and wrong, so just one remark about a point of fact. I do not believe the following is correct: "The conclusions published on a surname project website will be those of the surname project administrator." Actually administrators get information together from testing companies and members, and you can often see who wrote what. For example where projects use testing company webspace you can see exactly what results were received. Any comments an administrator makes about pedigrees on the other hand are going to be reviewed by a majority of all people in the world interested in that surname, whose input is going to be welcome. These are group efforts, and highly visible within their fields of study.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not that my views on Wikipedia policies are not extreme and wrong. You are trying to adapt the policies to make a special exemption for the publiciation of original research from surname projects. It makes no difference if the work is done by a single person or by a whole group of people with an interest in the surname. The research still has to be validated by publication in a third-party source. Dahliarose (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The webpage of a reputable and qualified organization which is known to gather and supply a certain type of non-controversial data and/or analysis of that data is a third party publication in the sense intended. So I am sticking very much to the letter of the policies. The E1b1b article must be one of the most highly criticized articles in Wikipedia by now, and what we are talking about is a proposal to delete a whole category of very basic information which is currently inserted in very couched terms partly simply because it is

WP:Notable and partly because the Wikiproject guidelines call for it. It is beyond common sense to try to imply that we are dealing with unknown self-publications trying to explain highly complex information that no one can check or understand. This is extremely basic stuff. A controversy is being created here where there was one, by people who apparently do not know this subject matter well, and I might add that by implication it is questioning the reliability of some quite well respected people who do not deserve it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk

) 15:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If an organisation is publishing something about itself on its own website then that is a primary source. Have a look at

The Genographic Project which is widely acclaimed and respected. Note that it does not publish its research results on its own website, but submits papers for publication in peer-reviewed journals. The Genographic Project have a list of publications on their website. [64] It is only common sense that amateur genealogists (such as the vast majority of DNA project group administrators) should be expected to submit their research to the same review procedures as those which respected scientists have to follow. No one is questioning the reliability of surname project administrators. They just have to follow the same rules as the scientists and publish their research. The problem is that most genealogists are not used to publishing their research, so the reliable sources don't exist. Dahliarose (talk

) 19:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Peer reviewed sources are not always available and are not always even the best sources. Wikipedia also does not insist on them, and if it did it would cease to exist.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No wikipedia does not insist on peer reviewed sources. it insists on reliable sources. Peer review is considered a way to ascertain reliability for academic journals. When it comes to other sources we use well respected publications and publishers that have a reputation for fact checking. Please try and understand the difference between peer review, a process used in academic journals, fact checking, a process used by reliable news organisations and book publishers, and reliable sources, which is Wikipedia's criterion, and uses a variety of different methods to determine reliability, including peer review and fact checking. Wikipedia does not accept self published sources. Alun (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This is fine and clear. So I am saying then, that at least some of the websites now in question have a reputation for reliability and checking their information. It would be great if they had peer review of course, but they do not. But this is where we always get stuck and instead of answering a good intentioned position with arguments about the case, you start to say that I am gung-ho and hair brained and want to make special exemptions to core policies. Just in case it is not clear I want no blanket ruling either positive or negative because I believe these types of sources are only sometimes OK , and in a limited way. I am arguing against any blanket ruling, which is what you apparently want, given your way of presenting a whole category of dissimilar types of resources together with no explanation about find points of when they might ever be suitable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well please explain which of these sources you do consider to be fact checked, because saying that you consider only some to be reliable, it might help if you actually stated which ones you are talking about. If we can agree that those ones do represent reliable sources, then we might actually get somewhere. Of course now you seem to be saying that you accept that some of these sources are not reliable, which begs the question, why did you use them if you knew they were unreliable?

No source is reliable for everything. Look at other examples on this page and you'll see that normally people give precise explanations about not only the source, but also what exactly is being sourced. This is where I think we parted ways, and where, with the best of intentions I am sure, I humbly submit that you have erred concerning Wikipedia policies. First we must define which type of information we are trying to source in the cases we are discussing - this being me saying how I think the problem should be addressed. The information we are trying to confirm is extremely basic: is there a record of correspondences between test kits and pedigrees. We need some sort of custodian of this information, neutral and trusted. Some one respected for at least checking those particular simple facts. Surname projects are exactly this. It would be very difficult for a surname project to fake this specific type of information, and they have no obvious motive to do it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

As for the accusation that I have called you "gung-ho" or "hair-brained", those would constitute

personal attacks. I suggest you provide diffs for that claim. It's a very serious thing to accuse other editors of personal attacks without providing evidence. I don't know what you mean by a "blanket ruling". This thread was posted to determint the reliability of the sources that I have included above. Some of these sources might be reliable and some may not, that's for the community to decide. I obviously have some problems with these sources, primarily because they are not fact checked. Most of these sources discussion boards and self published sources by family genealogy groups. Neither of those things meets our normal criteria for reliability. Can you explain why you think they do meet our criteria for discussion. Dahliarose and I have extensively discussed Wikipedia policies and guidelines regarding why we think this represents a problem. I can't remember you doing that a single time. As far as I can see you are exactly saying that Wikipedia guidelines for reliability shouildn't apply to your posts and to the sources that you want to use. You have even used the argument to me that because you believe them to be "true" then they are reliable sources. That isn't good enough. You have to convince the community they are good enough, not just yourself. Alun (talk

) 18:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Alun, but to try to respond to all this other stuff will not make you agree with me anyway. It is all off topic, all feigned ignorance about disagreements and prior discussions between us. Let's stick to the subject matter and read over the other stuff later.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

So it's off topic to ask you why you think the sources are reliable on the reliable sources noticeboard? That "logic" doesn't make sense to me. Alun (talk) 12:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Clearly that is not what I meant Alun. What I think is pointless is to respond to circular and rhetorical accusations. Surname Projects are considered reliable by the community of experts in the relevant field. Pure and simple. If you write to a geneticist and ask about a surname, they'll send you to the recognized Surname Projects. It is not true, as you seem to believe, that these projects exist in a vacuum whereby anyone can set up a webpage and make any claims they like. This is a highly critical and alert community of experts. Try Google.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

5. E-M35 Phylogeny Project, like www.isogg.org is one of the many linking organizations of genetic genealogy. It's very existence therefore shows that we are dealing with a large and inter-linked community of researchers who can be checked using Google.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You may be right that these sources are not self-published, but are they academically published? My first instinct is that they should be treated as primary sources, as we treat tables of statistics. Drawing inferences from them may be original research. An analogy in family research is the use of old censuses, e.g. the UK 1901 census which is searchable online. We would treat that as a primary source. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

None of these sources are academic journals with peer review. No doubt about that. But they do not have to be. Concerning whether they are primary or secondary, I guess it depends what they will be used for? Generally, the cases in hand merely involve noting what these organizations understand to be their findings on fairly basic subjects such as "this kit number of results can be associated with people with these ancestors in their pedigree". Such subjects are recognized areas of expertize for these organizations, and their basis of judgment is not opaque either because (as I have tried to show in the latest sourcing footnotes in that article) both the test results and the pedigrees can be cross checked with other sources. Also, if you look at the current

E1b1b article for example, the wording is careful to try to say that the article is just reporting what these organizations report to be the case.--Andrew Lancaster (talk

) 15:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

These sources are indeed all self-published. In the case of the famous people section of the E1b1b article quoted above the surname project websites do not even make the claim to fame on their own website. The sources used are mostly from DNA discussion forums. Extensive footnotes containing original research with numerous external links to surname projects have been used to back up the case. Dahliarose (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

1+1=2 does not make necessarily make original research. It is not fair to push for more and more justification and then say that the web of information provided looks like original research. As mentioned already, I think you are taking positions to an extreme, very far from common sense. You and Alun have not once argued that these sources, and these famous people links, are unreliable, un-respected, un-notable etc. You have merely made insinuations. You've both seemed to admit that you'd accept citations from Burkes Peerage, which clearly could be criticized in precisely the same way you are attempting to do here. Indeed open any page of Wikipedia and you'll find most citations would not stand for a second under all the fire now being directed at the genetic genealogy community. This is a fabricated POV controversy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

That's just plain daft Andrew. It's a

synthesis of information. I agree that in many Wikipedia articles the content is not well sourced. I agree that OR goes on all the time on Wikipedia. Where I disagree is that you seem to think that just because this goes on in some places, that it is acceptable. It's never acceptable. Alun (talk

) 17:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Alun, the sources for the information about which pedigrees link to which DNA test results involve no synthesis. The fact is that you think that the most straight forward sources are not reliable sources. That is all that should be discussed here. For claims of synthesis, I guess we'd need another forum, but it would not be necessary unless we assume (as you do) that you know the truth, and need not convince anyone of anything.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

There are, as mentioned above, at least 5 quite different types of source being questioned here. Will anyone actually bother to comment on each one in a clear way rather than just making vague generalizations? The type of information needing sourcing is simple. It is about connecting a DNA test result with a pedigree, or in the worst case scenario, just about saying that someone has made the connection. It is not about developing a new way of testing DNA, or highly complicated statistics.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

From my point of view these sources are generally unreliable because they are not fact checked or peer reviewed, and these are the usual criteria for sources to be considered reliable.[65][66] I think there is a a great deal of research going on on these websites, but this research has not been exposed to the sort of academic scrutiny or fact checking that research is normally exposed to before we consider it reliable. There's another problem, many of the sources are indeed primary sources, how can this or this be considered anything other than a primary source? All they are are lists of data. Furthermore to draw conclusions from these lists of data one must be engaged in OR on wikipedia and be producing a

synthesis of these data because the editor themselves are drawing conclusions not made by the source itself. I believe that this is exactly what is going on in the footnotes of the article, a Wikipedia editor "joining the dots" to draw a conclusion from primary data posted to an unreliable source here, here, here, here and here. Now this is what I think. I have had a long discussion with Andrew about this, and we have totally failed to convince each other of the merits of our respective arguments. That's why I posted this info here, I want a broader community input. I am fully open to the possibility that I might be totally wrong and what has been done is perfectly OK. But we were at an impasse, and I think this is the best place to get some input from the community about these sorts of sources. I don't see any merit in having the same discussion over and over again. I want some other editors to have a look at these sources and tell me and Andrew whether they would consider these sources reliable. That's all I want. I think Andrew just sees this as another place to have an argument and defend his use of the sources. That's not what I want, I want a proper discussion about the reliability of these sources. If the community generally thinks the sources are OK, then fine, let's go ahead and use them. But let's discuss the sources reliability and not whether what they say is "true". Alun (talk

) 19:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Alun a small comment, but maybe important. There is no blanket ban on all primary sources, but on the other hand the raw DNA test data is not what we need a source for, for the famous people on the E1b1b page. It is the link between a set of results and a pedigree: "these kits all have pedigrees associated with these ancestors". That is all we need in my opinion, but it also happens to be exactly what these organizations are entrusted to do.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the whole crux of the problem. Linking DNA results with pedigrees requires analysis and synthesis. The pedigrees and the DNA results are the raw data for the research projects, just as they are for the Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation researchers. This is what constitutes original research, and is precisely why DNA surname project websites should not be used as sources. There might be issues with the pedigrees (self-reported pedigrees are submitted with the best intentions but might not be accurate). Some project admins verify pedigrees themselves, others don't. The grouping of matching DNA results in itself requires a degree of interpretation. There is a danger perhaps that admins might group more distantly matching results together in spite of the DNA evidence to try to prove a cherished pedigree. This is not to deny the hard work put in by project admins. Their work just needs to be subjected to the same independent checking process as that of any other researcher. Dahliarose (talk) 00:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe this is the whole crux of why there is no problem. The linking is not being done by Wikipedia editors as original research, and it is also not being published by the labs. It is being done by respected organizations who are the only possible organizations who can do it. To say that they might make mistakes, or that new data might change conclusions, or that there might be an elaborate hoax tricking thousands of people, or that some surname projects are better than others, is no problem at all. Such comments can be made of any source at all, and real accusations need to be handled on a case by case basis. This is not a valid basis of a blanket ban on sourcing from all possible organizations who are currently accepted by all experts in this field as the right ones to validate these links.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Andrew, read my comment, I didn't say there was a "blanket ban on primary sources". My complain is that these sources are not reliable and no that they are primary. My second point is again not that the sources are primary, but that they have been used to make a synthesis. We, as editors, are discouraged from using primary sources because it is easy to amke a synthesis from primary sources. The problem here is therefore twofold, (a) Unreliabiltiy (b) Original research (

WP:SYN) Alun (talk

) 17:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Alun I realize you did not say there was a blanket ban on primary sources. But if that is not what you were trying to imply then what? What I find very difficult is that you and Dahliarose keep implying such things, but when it comes to the question of why you think these sources are unreliable, there is nothing other than those implied accusations, plus very straight out assertions that this is what you think. Concerning the synthesis, see above in the discussion with Dahliarose about linking.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes I read your comments with disbelief Andrew. you say "But if that is not what you were trying to imply then what?". Immediately above this I have written "My complain is that these sources are not reliable and not that they are primary." Is that not absolutely clear? There's no implication in anything I have written, it's absolutely clear. I think these sources are unreliable because they are not fact checked, they have no reputation for being accurate. How many times do I have to repeat this? Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. (from Wikipedia:Reliable sources) In the article we are discussing that is exactly what you do, read and interpret primary sources yourself. Alun (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we should use neutral and reliable sources. That's all. What I see are constant references to the proposed sources in terms of inaccurate generalizations: they are supposedly blogs, didn't you say several times?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Alun's sentiments entirely. I've had the same arguments with Andrew and we've just been going round and round in circles. I hope that other people will be able to provide some input so that we can move on. Dahliarose (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually I agree. If the three of us could agree we would not be here. I am not really confident that all Alun's arguments are compatible with Dahliarose's though. All I can see that is consistent and clear in the rhetoric is that there is a big concern, well mixed with good intentions, that there is too much from non-scientists, people not qualified etc, in these types of articles, and this is driving an extreme approach to the sources. This is why I keep pointing out that I get a sense that trouble is being stirred up where it was not necessary. From what I see, professional geneticists and genetic genealogists and old style genealogists work in a happy network of cooperation for the most part. Each has their area of authority, but they deserve that authority.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Andrew, stick to the substantive points and stop trying to change the subject. You keep setting up

unreliable sources. To pretend that you don't understand the basic problems here is really very disingenuous.Andrew. Alun (talk

) 17:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The concern is not that surname project admins are not scientists. The concern is that they are not publishing their research in reliable third-party sources. This is not an extreme approach, it is standard Wikipedia policy. The same principles would apply to the work of professional genealogists, however respected they might be. Dahliarose (talk) 00:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not think it is helpful that you and Alun keep implying or stating that I am asking for an exemption to the rule that we should use reliable third-party sources. Obviously the reason we are posting here is because there is a question about whether some sources fall under that category. Let me clarify, as if it were not clear, that what I am calling extreme (and inconsistent) is your interpretation of what makes something reliable. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No Andrew, the reason we are posting here is because you refuse to edit in compliance with Wikipedia's normal policies regarding content. Andrew if you want to claim that Dahliarose and I are bing inconsistent, then you'll have to point out specific examples of inconsistency. That's called providing evidence. As for the accusation of extremism, that's clearly ridiculous. Terrorism is extreme, war is extreme, murder is extreme. Asking for someone to comply with our core content policies is normal practice. Alun (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Alun, do you not think you are going overboard by effectively claiming that anyone using the word extreme is doing something similar to accusing someone of terrorism, war or murder? By overboard I mean extreme by the way, and in that respect your post is a good reference for the emotion driving your concerns about this matter.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This coming from the man who thinks that anyone who disagrees with him is an extremist? Andrew, it's absurd to say I am going overboard when you've just called me an extremist just because I ask you to comply with Wikipedia policies. Again I ask you to expalin where Dahlia and myself have been inconsistent. Alun (talk) 12:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

That is silly. I have written about extreme interpretations of policies. Please step down of the pedestal of "concerned citizen" under attack. You and I disagree about some policies and sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

This is turning into a repetitive morass that is beginning to verge on personal attacks rather than a discussion of the policy, and how it applies. So far we have one editor, Andrew Lancaster, who claims that the material is not violating original research, and three editors, Wobble, Dahliarose, and Itsmejudith who are questioning this claim. Wobble and Dahliarose it seems to me have laid out there reasoning quite clearly and have begun repeating themselves (which only invits others to start skipping over what they wrote). Likewise, Andrew Lancaster seems to be repeating himself (with the same effect). Given that all three have presented their arguments at length, perhaps we can see what other editors think at this point? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think everyone would agree on this at least.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, there are only two criticisms or questions that have been raised about Andrew Lancaster's edits:

• his sources do not meet our standard for reliability (
  WP:RS
  )
• he is using these sources to make synthetic claims (
  WP:SYNTH

As I understand it, Andrew Lancaster's response to the first question is that these sites are reliable because lots of people use them. If I have inaccurately or incompletely summarized his position, I would ask that he provide an accurate and complete summary.

I read through the material twice and did not find a response to the question about SYNTH. Perhaps Wobble or Dahliarose could provide three specific examples of violations of SYNTH that Andrew Lancaster could respond to concisely? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The synthesis problems relate to the famous people section of an earlier version of the

Haplogroup E1b1b (Y-DNA) article as seen here.[67] If I've understood the relevant Wikipedia guidelines correctly the entire famous people section is synthesis and original research. The problems started when this section was removed and replaced with a simple list, and there were requests made on the talk page to address the lack of reliable sourcing for the claims being made. Andrew's response was to reformat his original research as footnotes. See footnotes 45 to 49 of this version of the article here.[68] I note that you have now intervened and removed the entire famous people section. Dahliarose (talk

) 00:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

As a native speaker of English I can not see any connection between this discussion here, and Slrubenstein's explanation on the E1b1b talkpage about the deletion of the whole famous people section. The explanation mentions that the DNA results should be tested by a lab. The intention of this should be clarified by Slrubenstein. It is my understanding that the synthesis accusations of Dahliarose and Alun are entirely based upon the assumption that Surname Projects are not reliable sources concerning the correspondences between lab tests and pedigrees of their members.

(Further explanation. This is because if they are not then all the other cross references supposedly need you to think too much to see what the links and results are. But I always explained that the extra cross references were placed in the footnotes, after the reliability discussion started, which was after it was first proposed that the problem was relevance by the way, in order to show that the Surname Projects are widely referred to as the experts concerning this question (linking a lab result and a pedigree) by a verifiable web of experts in the field, including organizations like Family Tree DNA whom Dahliarose says would be reliable. In other words if the cross referencing is OR, it is research not concerning a Wikidpedia article's subject matter so much as whether the cited sources are reliable for the information being sourced; i.e. which pedigrees can be linked to which DNA tests.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You guys have a disagreement that this page cannot handle. Here, we look at on reference and decide if it's reliable. That's all. I haven't worked on the NPOV noticebaord, but I imagine they would have trouble with your huge argument as well. Wikipedia doesn't have a magic process to say someone's right, and the other is wrong. You'll probably have to work this out between yourselves. You guys are the ones who really care, after all. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 08:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

With respect Peregrine, my original post was exclusively about the reliability of some sources that had been used. That is the purpose of this noticeboard I believe. Anyone can click on one of those links and see clearly where they go, and determine for themselves if they think these links are to reliable sources. Andrew has deliberately come here and confused the situation by referring to other concerns that I also have with the use and relevance of these data. But those concerns are orthogonal to the reliability of the sources. The upshot of this is that this discussion has become bloated and unattractive to anyone who wishes to comment. Effectively Andrew has succeeded in derailing the discussion and confusing the situation. I suspect that this was a deliberate tactic in order to prevent any serious scruitiny of the sources. Please, I urge you to click on a few of the links in my first post above, and judge for yourself. If you think I am wrong, then I'd very uch appreciate knowing that as well. But I do think we should make our judgment based on the links above and not the claims of extremism Andrew has made here. Alun (talk) 12:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:AGF. Alun you are very upset (you stated this yourself on my talkpage, so I am assuming nothing) that when you posted on this noticeboard about your concerns I proceeded to post my interpretation of the background of your concerns, as per discussions on other forums. I am sorry about that. But I did not intend to upset you, only to present the full case. Of course you want to appear neutral, in order to present your case, but frankly you are not. My own concerns are clear: I do not believe that a large number of specialist sources can be handled in a single general discussion like this, without even defining the details. My experience has shown that concerning these sorts of specialized topics, forums like this one on Wikipedia rarely draw good helpful assistance from the greater Wikipedian community, but instead either a yawn, or else a knee jerk reaction leading to increased problems. As far as I can see it is very likely that your "concerns" will end up causing a lot of deletions of good material by people who do not know this field, including deletions you have recently claimed you are not aiming to achieve. Wikipedia always works far better when the community is working.--Andrew Lancaster (talk

) 14:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

This basically seems to agree with my position which is that these sources are not of a type which should have some sort of blanket ruling, but rather one that needs case by case discussion by people interested in the field and knowledgeable about who is who in it. However the case has come here because two Wikipedia editors clearly believe, and are editing upon that basis, that there is a breach of Wikipedia core policy occurring, by citing surname projects in order to make claims about links between DNA test results and pedigrees. This is where it was felt we needed an outside opinion. The accusation being made is that the policies leave no room for doubt. Below are some concrete examples about some of these accusations. Any remarks may help us break our circle.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the following opinion of Dahliarose is worth citing just in case it leads to better understanding, one way or another...

• "You could therefore state in a Wikipedia article that all the members of the Bloggs surname project tested to date belong to haplogroup G. However if the surname project makes the claim that President Bloggs who died in 1760 belongs to haplogroup G, then that claim should not be used unless it has been published by a third-party because it is original research."[69]
• My reply was "For example, what if the claim was simply "according to the Bloggs surname project, families linked by pedigree to President Bloggs who died in 1760 all belong to the same haplogroup G lineage"? Please explain if that changes anything."[70]
• Dahliarose's reply was a reversal of the previous apparent compromise and a hardening of tone: "If you quote direct from the Bloggs surname project you are quoting unverified original research. It makes no difference whether the claim relates to a president or to a tramp - the reliable secondary sources have to exist. Surname project websites are self-published original research." [71].
• If I look at other remarks I see that it always got stuck with such sudden and inconsistent hardening of positions like this, and dropping the subject. For example probably most often this was by implying that the information being sourced (links between DNA test and pedigree) deserves special care because controversial [72],[73], [74], [75], [76]. On each occasion I asked for explanation about what was controversial and received replies that went back to saying I was trying to break Wikipedia policies and did not understand etc etc.
• Concerning what is being sourced, a link between a DNA test result and a pedigree, I think I am right in saying that both Dahliarose and Alun claim that it is the pedigree claims (not the DNA testing claims mentioned by Slrubenstein on the E1b1b talk page) which are both controversial and not notable, leading to the special treatment. In other words, that the opinions as the surname projects are not even in a category where we can cite them as opinions of those surname projects, notable. Dahliarose has addressed this to some extent:
• We could agree that "Surname projects are not in themselves notable. They become notable if third parties take notice of them and quote from their research."[77].
• However, when we come to the question of where to draw that line there is again a hardening of position which I find extreme:
• "If the Clan Donald research is indeed notable, then it will eventually be published in reliable sources. In any case Wikipedia is not concerned with detailed genealogies, apart from those for a few notable families."11:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
• "It makes no difference whether or not the person or organisation is notable or not."[78] (This is clearly opposed to
  WP:NOTE
  .)
• "You seemed to be suggesting that notable people had some sort of inherent right to have their work quoted even if it hadn't been published." [79]
• "It's probably even more important if someone is making a claim about someone notable, especially a living person."[80] (Yes, we are talking about dead famous people.)
• "If they are mentioned in newspapers or other sources then we can quote from those sources." [81] (In other words, being mentioned in the press only makes you notable for exactly what is mentioned in the press, which is totally opposed to the meaning and spirit of the notability policies in Wikipedia.)
• "If someone is notable enough for a Wikipedia article then their basic BMD dates will be published in numerous other secondary sources. You shouldn't in any case be citing individual SMGF pedigrees. SMGF is a research organisation."[82]
• "regardless of their status, their work still has to be subjected to the same procedures which are followed by the scientific community"[83]. (Yes, this is about how to source a link between the pedigrees and DNA kits.)

Another stream of discussion where Dahliarose's position keeps hardening in a way which seems circular which I could cite here would be the number of occasions where it appeared to be implied that Wikipedia policy demands that only secondary sources can ever be used, and that surname projects are obviously primary sources. (Contrast with the claim that they are conducting scientific research without peer review.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Slr, Dahliarose, Andrew, Peregrine and Itsmejudith, I draw your attention to my observations regarding the problems with Andrews use of information. Here I lay out why I think the sources are not reliable. I also comment about other concerns I have with the use that these sources have been put to, but that's an independent question. I hope this clarifies things. Cheers. Alun (talk) 12:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Alun, on your Sandbox which you refer to you are still at least in some cases choosing to mix old and new diffs to show problems in the sourcing. For example you claim that the Harvey Project link is dead. It was not when that link was still the one in the article. The link which was recently deleted was updated, and still works.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

All these links have been used in the article, no? The link was dead when I tried to see what was behind it. It's impossible to determine the reliability of a source when the link to said source doesn't work. If there is a new link that does work, then that's great, I can update my sandbox. Alun (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

More importantly I believe this whole discussion is basically impossible doomed from the start in that this is both a discussion about some deleted footnotes, which were always admitted to raise some concerns specific to those particular cases from the

Wikiproject pages when it was proposed to move discussion here. If this was about E1b1b, then it never needed to go further. I never reverted your changes to that article. I always said I just wanted to make the case and then let it go. But from what has happened since I fear that a blanket ban on some good sources for some occasions may result if it is found, for example, that one of these footnotes contained synthesis. Such problems are supposedly not what you came here to discuss. Your intentions are clearly more complex than your opening statement made clear, as I mentioned in my first response. You are using some deleted footnotes as a lead to launch a much broader initiative. I have already mentioned above how the discussion so far has shown constant signs of changing (hardening) demands. That is my concern.--Andrew Lancaster (talk

) 15:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Again I don't understand what you mean by a "blanket ban". An unreliable source is an unreliablke source, and that's the end of it. You have above claimed that you believe some fo the sources I am sceptical about are reliable. Fair enough, I encourage the use of reliable sources. This page is to determine exactly which sources are reliable, right? So let's have that discussion. So far you have failed to explain which sources you do consider reliable and exactly why you consider them reliable. I've asked you twice before to say which sources you think should be reliable. Each time you dodge the question and make either claims about "blanket bans", something no one has mentioned except you, or you try to impugn Dahliaroses and my motives with snyde comments such as above "Your intentions are clearly more complex than your opening statement". Why do you feel the need to comment on my motives? My motives are clear, to remove unreliable informnation from Wikipedia. Alun (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that I my explanations have missed much by now? I am not posting to this board in order to defend a few deleted footnotes on the E1b1b article, and either are you. On this noticeboard the discussion should have been about one general subject, and not about footnote formatting, deleted footnotes which might have had synthesis, etc.: is a recognized surname project a reliable source for naming the correspondences between test results and pedigrees? My answer is yes, not only because I think so, because that is how they are recognized in the field. It is not up to us to dismiss the outside world! These are the recnogized reliable experts in this particular non-controversial, notable job. There might be cases where they are better or worse, wrong or right, but that is not our job to discuss here.

But here is what Dahliarose has written today on this subject for example, in contrast to what you write on this occasion: "I have not stated that surname projects are unreliable. It is not up to Wikipedia editors to make such judgements. That's why we rely on secondary sources so such arguments are not necessary."[84]

I can see two ways to interpret this: either the surname projects are acceptable, because outside of Wikipedia the relevant people think they check their facts and are reliable enough at what they do, which would make sense, or alternatively, what it seems Dahliarose might mean, is that she is again doing a hardening of this cyclical argument, and now asserting that it would not matter if Surname Projects were reliable and considered reliable, because Wikipedia can only use secondary sources, which is of course nonsense as we all know. Of course we've been through this before, and I know it will be claimed this was not the intention but what else can the above mean? This hardening, or assuming she'll say I am "twisting" the meaning, implied hardening of demands, is becoming very hard to distinguish from

Wikilawyering given that Dahliarose has specifically now disconnected from reliability as a priority, meaning that there is an attempt being made that a "technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines" (concerning the preferability of secondary policies in most contexts) should "override the principles they express" (clearly "reliability").--Andrew Lancaster (talk

) 16:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Andrew, Could you please refrain from quoting back all my comments out of context and twisting my meaning. Could you also refrain from making personal attacks. One of the core policies is Wikipedia:No original research. As I have already stated, my view is that surname projects are undertaking original research. Pedigrees need to be checked, DNA results are put into matching groups, and the results are then analysed. This is not a simple process. The act of linking together pedigrees and DNA results to infer the haplotype of a famous person is a complex process. There is also the question as to whether or not sufficient samples have been taken to prove a specific point. How can this process be anything other than original research? No one is criticising surname projects for the work they do. There are however now literally thousands of DNA surname projects. There are in excess of 5000 surname projects at Family Tree DNA. There are many more at http://dna.ancestry.com. There also others at http://www.dnaheritage.com. We should not be discussing the merits or otherwise of all these surname projects on a case by case basis, which seems to be what you are suggesting. Some DNA project results are of course available on public websites, though the ancestry results can only be accessed via an Ancestry account, and the DNA heritage pages are very sparse. The web pages are compiled either by the project manager or by a team of people from the project who all have a particular interest in the surname. These are therefore self-published results. They are only checked by people within the surname project, and not by an impartial third party. Wikipedia polices have already devised a way of sorting out the wheat from the chaff. The simple test is whether or not these surname projects have been referenced in third-party publications or if results have been published in peer-reviewed journals. In other words it is not up to the Wikipedia editor to decide which projects are notable and reliable based on their own perceptions of what the outside world thinks. It is a decision made by a third party. It makes no difference whether the project admin is Andrew Lancaster, Spencer Wells or Brian Sykes. I have never stated that reliability is the priority. The priority is publication in third-party publications. Dahliarose (talk) 01:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely Dahliarose. Andrew has a frustrating habit of ducking the point. I'm still waiting for him to explain which sources he thinks are reliable. He already has concieded that these sources are not reliable, but that he considered only some reliable. I'm trying to get him to state which sources he is talking about when he says that only some are reliable. This is the fourth time I've asked him, but he keeps dodging the question. Andrew's big problem is staying on topic, when he doesn't want to answer a question, he ignores it, and changes the subject, both of us have been subject to accusations that haven't been substantiated. We've both been accused of

personal attacks that are unsubstantiated. I've asked Andrew several times to explicitly state which sources he thinks are reliable, and why, but he ignores this request. Andrew has fallen back on ignoring the substantive points and attackinh yourself and myself. This is extremely frustrating, it amounts to a one way discussion, with you and I asking relevant questions, and Andrew doing his best to dissimilate. Alun (talk

) 02:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Alun, I think you have stated the case very well. There is one additional point to consider which is that all these Y-search entries, SMGF pedigrees, surname project websites, etc, were used by Andrew as external links within the body of the famous people section. When this was removed the external links were used in the footnotes. This is in contravention of Wikipedia:External links, which clearly states "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article." The use of external links would of course not be necessary if a single reliable source existed which proved any of these claims. Dahliarose (talk) 13:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Dahliarose, if the problem was with the format of the links, this could have been fixed without deleting the whole section, which is the present situation as a result of the case you and Alun have pursued here. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we can always sort out problems with formatting, though Dahliarose is right that we shouldn't use links within the body of the text. I don't see that as a major issue, just a formatting issue. Alun (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Alun, Dahliarose, and Andrew Lancaster. Above I commented that this discussion had descended into a morass of circular counter-arguments and that you need to let others comment. Since that time a good deal more comment has been added - by the three of you. Only four lines by one other user. This has to stop. You three are abusing this page. This page is meant to solicit the views of outside parties. Instead, you are using it simply to continue conflicts among yourselves that belong on article pages or your own user pages. Here you should summarize the question as concisely as possible, and allow others to comment. If you feel that what you have already written is insufficient to lay out the issue at question, well, that only means you were unready to bring it to this page and this post is premature. Otherwise, all you have done is to hijack this page to air your on views. That is not what this page is for. If you wish to continue arguing with one another, please do so on your respective user pages. Leave this space for other editors to comment on this conflict, and wait patiently until you discover either that (1) no one gives a damn, probably because your petty bickering demands more attention from any outside party than well-intentioned editors owe any query on this page or (2) enough other editors have wieghed in constructively to give guidance at the relevant articles.

There is nothing more for the three of you to say here. If you continue to abuse this page just to continue an argument tht does not belong here, I will put a cap on the discussion. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

As a completely uninvolved editor, and without having been asked to review this topic by any party, I took some time to look through the page history and examine some of the proposed sources. It appears to me that original research has been done, based upon primary sources, including some self-published sources. Absent a well-defined fact-checking process, websites often meet the definition of self-publication. This seems to be the case with the DNA genealogy websites given (far) above by Alun. In my opinion, these are not reliable sources for a Wikipedia article.

To place into this or any other article the names of famous persons presumed to have or have had a certain haplotype, a better source than a personal DNA website should be provided, such as an independently published peer-reviewed piece or an article in a reliable journalistic source. Drawing conclusions by using multiple primary/self-published sources, as has been done in the past in this article, is

synthesis and should be avoided; when it happens, it's appropriate to remove it. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk

) 20:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I am reading the above as a comment only upon the removed material in the E1b1b article? To explain...

This Rfc refers to several types of source, not one. I do not think any of them can be uncontroversially called "personal" and I think it is indisputable that they are not one type of source. That needed addressing. What are the arguments for treating them as one type of source, and what is the argument for treating them as personal webpages? Also this RFC mixed a lot of specific concerns (not all concerning sourcing) about a very specific (deleted) case where message boards were used, in the E1b1b article, with an apparent call for a very broad judgment about all these types of sources. Indeed the RFC is very broad in treating these types of sources as bad for all purposes. (Although both the people arguing this accept the use of www.isogg.org as a source in practice, and this is certainly a similar type of webpage to some of the ones included in this RFC). Another key point which is avoided is by making (as others have) the comment that peer reviewed articles are to be preferred, and implying that anything not peer reviewed should be deleted. That would obviously be pretty questionable, and if that is the argument it needs a strong explanation.

I have never addressed the specific arguments about the deleted material on the E1b1b article on this RFC page to any great extent, but as the person who inserted the famous people section, I always suggested (before anyone else) that it was a bit weakly sourced. However I would point out that what looks like synthesis (except in the Calhoun case) was only intended to show that the assertions of other sources could be cross checked and verified. The synthesis was not meant to be the source as such.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Many ethnic group pages such as the Ossetians page have used Joshua Project to cite their population count in various countries. This site measseures the amount of Christian evangelism that is present among people groups around the world, at the same time they give the population count of the people groups in each country. Is this source reliable enough to back up these population counts? -- Ukabia (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• No, I would say that site has advocacy as its fundamental purpose so fails any reasonable test of impartiality. If they cite their sources in turn, then those may be more reliable. Either way the group cannot really be seen as a reliable source for information which is inherently contentious to a degree. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Alright then, thank you for your response. Ukabia (talk) 13:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
    • While the site certainly has advocacy as its fundamental purpose, I do not see how that advocacy would cause them to list inaccurate population figures. Edward321 (talk) 18:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Jayen466 13:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The Scientology article has a prominent display box linking to a Wikinews article entitled "Church of Scientology falsely accuses internet group 'Anonymous' of 2007 school shooting" here. The Wikinews article in question is original research and appears to be slanted.

As far as I can tell, reports linking the 4chan community and

. The Wikinews article however states that –

The accusations appear to be part of a Scientology tactic developed by the organization's founder, L. Ron Hubbard called "fair-game". The Church uses this tactic to harass people, often fabricating lies and defamation against those who protest or criticize their beliefs.

This appears untenable, given that the allegations appeared in the mainstream press.

We have sisterlinks to Wikinews and other projects at the bottom of the Scientology article, which is standard. I feel that should suffice, and that Wikinews articles, and this one in particular, are not sufficiently reliable sources to be prominently displayed in the main body of an article. Views? Jayen466 16:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Get rid of it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the appropriate noticeboard for this discussion. Interwiki links such as that one aren't used as sources for anything in the article. And in any event, wikinews links are typically associated with sections of an article related to the wikinews story in question, such as in this slightly high profile article: Barack Obama#2008 Presidential campaign. If you don't like the wikinews article, or would prefer it moved out of the section it is related to, that is a reasonable content discussion for the talk page, but it really doesn't belong here. --GoodDamon 17:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't entirely agree with you. The article is the source of the words "Church of Scientology falsely accuses internet group 'Anonymous' of 2007 school shooting". These words are displayed very prominently in the main part of the article. They are much more prominent than any normal sentence, which we would require to be based on a reliable source. Do you see what I mean? Jayen466 17:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) That would be because that is the title of the news story. Again, standard. This is starting to look like

WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There's no policy or guideline reason to move or remove it. There may be perfectly valid arguments against having it in the article, but it is not in a citation, it is not being used as a reference, and is not by any stretch of the imagination being used as a reliable source for anything other than its own existence, which is equally applicable to any wikinews link used in any article. So this isn't the appropriate place to hash out whether it should be there or not. --GoodDamon

17:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that all of those "in text" interwikis should be nuked. We aren't here to provide advertising for wikinews. that said, this isn't the place for that discussion. Please get consensus on the article talk page to remove the material. Protonk (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest either a) changing the caption to the Wikinews Link to something far more neutral (something like: "Wikinews has an article on this issue") or b) moving the Wikinews link to the External Links section. Blueboar (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The article title already appears in full in the existing Wikinews box in the article's external links section. In other words, at present, it is visible twice in the article: once in the Internet section, and once in External links. I have not proposed deleting the box in the External links section. Jayen466 17:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I would suggest removing it from External links, as wikinews links are temporary in nature. Having it in EL is putting undue emphasis on it, and is recentism. I'll go ahead and yank it from there, and give it one of the standard neutral titles seen in some other wikinews links, per Blueboar's suggestion. Then, I strongly suggest we stop cluttering up this noticeboard. --GoodDamon 17:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC) Actually, it appears that having a summary of wikinews articles used in the body of the article at the bottom is also standard, so I'm striking that. But I still strongly suggest we stop cluttering this board. --GoodDamon 17:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• It should be noted that this matter is also being listed by Jayen in evidence for a current arbitration case. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Evidence#Inappropriate use of Wikinews.[85] Not that there's a problem with that, I just thought it should be mentioned that there are other aspects to this inquiry.   Will Beback  talk  17:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

is the deactivated gun collector's association website, located at http://www.cybershooters.org/dgca/prod01.htm, to be considered a reliable source to state on

, "Most of the other characteristics are similar to the Glock 17, although the slide, frame, and certain fire-control parts of the Glock 18 are not interchangeable with other Glock models." There was an edit war over whether the cybershooters.org(The Deactivated Gun Collector's Association) source is reliable. the cybershooters source is not being used currently in the article, so the current version of the article does not have a source to accurately reflect the detail of the interchangeability claim, but an editor has proposed adding that source. the current source being used http://www.janes.com/extracts/extract/jiw/jiw_0006.html is probably more reliable than cybershooters.org, but it lacks detail about the interchangeability, as the source only states "For security reasons, the main components of the Glock 18 are not interchangeable with those of the Glock 17." so the cybershooters.org source does provide more detailed info, but its reliability is unknown. could be it used to source the current detail? or should the janes source be used with wording restricted to what janes actually says Theserialcomma (talk) 21:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you seriously disputing the content? Both sources agree. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 22:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

you should know i'm questioning the cybershooters.org(The Deactivated Gun Collector's Association) source, as you're the one who edit warred over including it. the current source is jane's, which is more of a reliable source, but it's vague in technical details. the article currently uses only jane's as a source, but the info attributed to jane's is actually more technical than the source provides, so the article's content does not currently reflect the citation. the other source (The Deactivated Gun Collector's Association), which you proposed, is more technical, but is a questionable source in comparison to jane's, and is currently not even included as a source in the article. that is why i'm here. i think cybershooters is probably reliable enough, but i have no idea what their editorial oversight and control could be. it seems ok, but jane's seems much better. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I have looked over both sites and the cybershooters site seems to be filled with conjecture. Probably good conjecture, but just the same. Jane's is an infinitely more reputable source and should override the other. This shouldn't even be a question, Jane's is practically biblical when it comes to firearms and military hardware. Trusilver 01:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

We're getting into a weird area here, where no source is almost preferred over a semi-reliable source, which is not cool. If this is for something non-contentious, and it looks like we're just adding some fine points to something that's already supported by Jane's, this sounds like an appropriate use of a self-published source. Looks like they have photos of this pistol and are simply pointing out the features ( where is the "conjecture" spoken of above? ). See if you can get, from a masthead page for the website, WHOIS information, or news articles about the site, information to fill out a proper citation, with author, publisher, city, etc. On the other hand, take one last look and see if you can't find a more widely published source for the technical info. This is a machine pistol, so it might not be in sporting magazines like Field and Stream, but something like SWAT may have reviewed it. Also see if Glock has a datasheet for this model. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I second Squidfryerchef's comments, and add that while Jane's is a great source, it can't be cited for what it does not actually say. Is there any reason that we can't use both of these sources for this information? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

for what it's worth, the "deactivated gun collector's association" source appears to be a review about a deactivated version of the gun. could that (reasonably) affect the reliability of the review? on the website, it says deactivating a gun "includes modifications to the barrel, bolt, cylinder, slide, firing pin and sometimes the receiver or frame of the firearm." it would seem to me that any modification to the particular gun the reviewer has might differ in some questionable way in comparison to a working one. the website doesn't exactly look like it was designed by professional gun reviewers, either. not to say that professional gun reviewers are HTML wizards, but it's a weak looking website with questionable oversight, no claimed authorship, and about broken guns. Theserialcomma (talk) 02:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a website about machine guns made inoperable for civilian collectors. This generally means removing and soldering / cementing over the firing mechanism. It looks like they're just commenting on externally visible features. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The current first sentence in the Cloud computing article attempts to provide a very brief definition of the article title. However the three references currently given for this definition comprise a website news article, a blog piece and a white paper. All are dated December 2008 or January 2009 and contain phrases that are suspiciously similar to ones that were already used in the same WP article around the same dates. It seems to me that these are almost certainly indirect self-references (i.e. the use of a source which has in turn used the same WP article as a source). However the editor who cited these refs doesn't seem to see a problem with this (a discussion can be found on the talk page under the "Intro" heading). A third opinion would be useful here. Thanks. Letdorf (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC).

The document "The First Attempts of Flight, Automatic Machines, Submarines and Rocket Technology in Turkish History" by Arslan Terzioglu (2007) is being used as a source in a number of articles including Artillery and the (currently afd) Timeline_of_modern_Muslim_scientists_and_engineers to support the claims that Muslims invented "the first" manned rocket, submarine, and torpedo, among other things. The document has been linked at [86] ; My initial impression is that non-neutral pro-Turkish bias pervades this paper, and wonder if it should be usable as a source.

Dialectric (talk) 17:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The paper only exists on the web and in a book published by Yeni Türkiye whoever they are. You can't buy the book - or rather the 6 volumes it seems, very easily. AbeBooks has it [87] from 2 sellers, the cheapest at just £900. No other references to the book on Google Books or Google Scholar, so I would say myself that it isn't looking good at all. I'd like to know if Hasan Celâl Güzel, the first listed author, is the politician or not. But in any case, I can't see a reason to call it a reliable source, and reliability isn't the default, so...

talk

) 17:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be a very fringey source. Yeni Türkiye means "New Turkey" - it seems to be an Ankara publishing house, but the only thing I can find credited to it is the book Doug has found. That seems very odd and indicative to me of some sort of single-issue or vanity press. Either way, it doesn't look like a satisfactory source. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is reliable. Also "muslimheritage" seems like me to be an advocacy website and not reliable at all. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

One of the refs I found has the author Arslan Terzioglu wikilinked to Tosun Terzioğlu. Not sure if that was correct or not? In any case, the author is still not a historian. Dialectric (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Just because they're POV doesn't necessarily make it unreliable. We're allowed POV in the wikipedia. NPOV is the presence of all notable POVs, not the absence of POV. Do we have any evidence of notability?- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The quality of the reference in question is of interest to me, as well; independent of my position, nothing of substance has been contributed here to establish the quality of the reference- one way or the other. Frankly, if you haven't appraised the work yourself and reviewed its references, you are in no position to assess its credibility. The context of the association with advocacy groups with strong agendas is noteworthy, but not conclusive- nor is the sign on the door of the author.Mavigogun (talk) 12:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)