Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 55

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 50

←

Archive 53

→

European Center for Law and Justice (ECLJ)

Is there anything that precludes citing ECLJ as a source (of course properly attributed)? Specifically, to use this analyses in the

Goldstone report (press release here)? --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk

) 13:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Reliable if specifically attributed to the ECLJ. The ECLJ is an offshoot of the ACLJ (American Center for Law and Justice), which is a conservative civil rights organization. Its criticism of the Goldstone report is certainly worthy of inclusion. Ngchen (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

of course properly attributed. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 19:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The Dartmouth

Is The Dartmouth considered to be a reliable source for a BLP issue?

It's a college newspaper (Dartmouth College's official student newspaper), but it's 211 years old (the oldest student newspaper in the United States) and has interviewed substantial figures such as Barack Obama and Joe Biden; it's not tabloid-ish or exploitative.

The article I wish to use as a reference is this news article from 2008, discussing a speech given at the college by Deroy Murdock, a conservative columnist and fellow with the Hoover Institution. The article notes that Murdock is gay, a fact which had been in his Wikipedia bio (unsourced) but was removed, citing BLP concerns. While it shouldn't be a particularly controversial point (several of Murdock's columns are available at Independent Gay Forum, which explicitly identifies its contributors as gay or lesbian), Murdock doesn't discuss his personal life all that much, and finding a reliable citation without wandering into the realm of synthesis proved to be difficult.

There have been quite a few discussions about the reliability of student newspapers on this noticeboard, and there has never been a definitive statement one way or the other on the topic. Due to the sensitive nature of the material I intend to use the article to source, I'd like to see if there is a consensus that The Dartmouth is a reliable source on this issue. Horologium (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If his sexual orientation is so hard to verify that you need to refer to a (respectable) student newspaper interview, and to the fact that he has columns on a gay-oriented forum, then it looks to me as if his sexual orientation is not that important (for his article, his public figure: of course it is important in his private life): including this hard-to-verify but probably correct fact in his biography seems to be giving undue weight and invading his privacy, and should be left out of the article.

Fram (talk

) 14:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This seems fine, and as you note it is uncontroversial. If he's writing articles in the Independent Gay Forum then he's obviously not in the closet. No definitive statement on college papers, but I'd say student newspapers are generally citeable. II | (t - c) 00:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- I disagree. I would avoid citing a living person's sexual orientation to a college student newspaper, because such newspapers are subject not only to all the sources of error that a professional newspaper would have, plus others as well (such as being written and edited by amateur journalists). If the subject is "out" as being gay, then there ought to be better sources to verify that than a student newspaper. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the student newspaper is clearly RS, and the existence of his other columns shows that is hardly an extraordinary claim. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want to rely on the fact that his articles are posted at Independent Gay Forum, that's one thing, but I don't think any student newspaper is "clearly" a reliable source for a contentious claim in a biography of a living person. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't want to rely on that; it borders on synthesis, since it requires multiple jumps to make the connection. It is certainly reasonable to make the conclusion, but due to the interaction between

WP:SYN, an explicit connection is required, rather than an inference. It's not a tremendously important facet of his work, but since he does not support expansion of anti-discrimination laws to include LGBT employees, it is somewhat notable. (That is also not noted in his bio, but the same article from The Dartmouth discusses it as well. If we include his sexual orientation, we can include his views on anti-discrimination and LGBT issues.) Horologium (talk)

15:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Islamic Q&A website

I ran across an artile using the site Islam Q&A [1] as a source. According to the site, "Responses are composed by Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid, a known Islamic lecturer and author. Questions about any topic are welcome, such as theology, worship, human and business relations, or social and personal issues.All questions and answers on this site have been prepared, approved, revised, edited, amended or annotated by Shaykh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid, the supervisor of this site." While the sheikh may (or may not) be all he claims, I'm not comfortable with the reliability of the site. Much of the site is devoted to issuing new fatwas. Would someone else mind taking a look at this site and seeing what kind of impression they get? Niteshift36 (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The site is definitely a pro-Islamic advocacy site as can be seen from this. --Defender of torch (talk) 02:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Definately not NPOV. I just don't know enough about Islam to know if the guy is much of an authority. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No indication that the source is notable or reliable. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Being a pro-Islamic advocacy site and not NPOV aren't relevant. Jayjg's criteria are the ones that count. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

And that's why I followed up with my comment wondering about his expertise.Niteshift36 (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

There may be a case for having more specific guidance about sources around Islam. It very much depends what flavour of Islam that one is discussing and what the source is talking about. There are many interpretations of Fiqh, and they can depend on the training of the Imam.

ALR (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

That's where I start having the problem. Does the site appear to be run by an "expert" who can be considered reliable. Or is this the opinion of a cleric who is really not any more of an expert than any other cleric? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Define expert, there are many Imams who can recite the Q'uran and Hadith by rote who would be considered expert by some traditions in Islam. They will tend to give a formulaic answer to a question. There are others who will a more nuanced and sophisticated response who would not be considered acceptable by those traditions. On the other hand the former wouldn't even be consulted. Normally reliability is in the eye of the beholder, more so when it comes to Islamic jurisprudence.

ALR (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

That's why I'm here. Personally, I look at this and see a Q&A site run by a guy who claims to be renowned, but I can't prove that. I tend to be skeptical of it. Trying to find out if I'm alone in that. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally I'd avoid anything about straightforward Sunni/ Shia that's not out of Cairo or Qom. Sufi teachers are a lot more difficult, but the reputable ones can demonstrate a lineage.

ALR (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, the issue here is reliability and notability. I see no indication of either. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I would say that notability is not relevant here, it doesn't really matter how notable or otherwise the individual might be he's only reliable when talking about the interpretations of Islam from his own tradition, not Islam in general. Which is why I floated the idea of some specific guidance around Islam above.

ALR (talk) 09:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, notability is quite relevant here. If he's neither a notable expert in his own right, nor published in a reliable source, then he cannot be used. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what wasn't clear about my point above. The reason I don't see notability as all that important is that the ability of any Imam to speak about Islamic jurisprudence in general is predicated on his training. So if an Imam trained in the Deobundi madrassa tradition can only reliably speak about that. Only once you've clarified that does notability come into play.

ALR (talk) 09:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

JURIST

Is there anything that precludes citing

Goldstone report? --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk

) 07:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Using JURIST for a news source and using its op-ed pages are two different things. Op-ed columns are generally to be avoided wherever they occur. In the reactions section of the article under legal commentators, it might be cited for someone's expressed opinion as a

primary source if no secondary source is available, and if the person whose opinion is being cited is either notable or is considered an expert in the field. Such opinions should not just be cited because they exist, there must be a substantial reason for citing an opinion. See, in general, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Statements_of_opinion. --Bejnar (talk

) 09:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Bejnar, let's consider concrete example. The two behind this op-ed are "Laurie R. Blank is the Acting Director of Emory Law's International Humanitarian Law Clinic. Gregory S. Gordon is an assistant professor at the University of North Dakota School of Law and Director of the UND Center for Human Rights and Genocide Studies". Seems like they are competent enough to produce valuable opinion for the legal commentators section of the Goldstone report, are they not? --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 11:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me that JURIST is basically an academic journal, so it they published the "op-ed" piece, then the opinion is weighty enough to consider as an RS in Wikipedia. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

JURIST is not an academic journal, it is a newsletter produced by students under faculty supervision. It is considered reliable for its factual reporting. Some people think that being a law professor in and of its self provides adequate basis for expertise. This is not so. Also being an administrator does not make one an expert, one has to look at what the individuals have published, and how it has been received in the field. --Bejnar (talk) 05:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

no problem, but you still didn't answer my question. The two behind this specific op-ed are "Laurie R. Blank is the Acting Director of Emory Law's International Humanitarian Law Clinic. Gregory S. Gordon is an assistant professor at the University of North Dakota School of Law and Director of the UND Center for Human Rights and Genocide Studies". Seems like they are competent enough to produce valuable opinion for the legal commentators section of the Goldstone report, are they not? --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 15:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

See our own article about JURIST; its reputation seems pretty clear. Also scroll up and see the similar debate over the Gonzaga Journal of International Law. They said "pretty much all law journals are student-edited". Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

How can Quackwatch be considered a "reliable source"?

Yes, there are medical organizations that say it's a great site (most of which are companies/organizations that rely on drugs or drug sales), but the only thing that Quackwatch does is bash alternative medicines. It has no positive information about alternative medicines and is completely biased against them. I'm thoroughly confused as to how this can possibly be considered a reliable and unbiased source whereas almost every other biased website that I've seen cited here has been shot down as "not RS". Can anyone explain this to me? Burleigh2 (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

See Quackwatch and the numerous refs cited there. LeadSongDog come howl 22:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I see all the citations as I mentioned in my original question and that's already been covered. Most of those may be praising certain aspects of the website (eg. uncovering fraudulent companies), but the site in general bashes virtually all alternative medicines regardless of effectiveness, verifiability, or usage of the various categories. I have read articles on their site before that were practically ranting about certain supplements that they claimed didn't work and were ripping off people who used them, but they didn't mention a thing about the dozens (or in some cases, hundreds) of studies that have been done and published by various organizations (many of which have been published in PubMed, the Lancet, JAMA, and other reputable organizations). That spells the very definition of "biased" to me... am I missing something? Burleigh2 (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, can you give a concrete example with Lancet/JAMA disagreeing with QW? 0¹⁸ (talk) 04:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a subscription to either of those so I can't read the full articles, but I have come across some citations over the past few years that were pointed out as conflicting with QW in the articles that were written by Barrett... that was one of the first times I started looking at what QW was writing. I unfortunately didn't keep those citations or I would list them. Burleigh2 (talk) 18:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that is a pretty serious accusation to make without any evidence. I am sure I can get access to both, so if you have examples, I can look through them. Until you do find an example, you might want to attenuate your rhetoric. 0¹⁸ (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The evidence is right on their respective websites. I'm sorry I don't have instant recall to all the articles and research I've ever read, but I can look through some sources that I have seen some examples of in recently and see what I can find. It's been rather busy at work so it may be a while, but anyone in a solid position in an alternative medicine field (eg. supplements, chiropractic, Naturopath, etc) would be able to verify from their experience and research about QW's bias against their professions in general. I work in the supplement field and some of the articles he's written made me laugh because of how overly biased he was with twisting the facts to the way he wanted them.Burleigh2 (talk) 22:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to do this now or on any timeline. What I am saying is this: before you next make time to attack them, please first make time to put together a cogent argument with some references. 0¹⁸ (talk) 05:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Quackwatch. However, in principle, the fact that a site dedicates itself to finding medical quacks and fraud does not automatically make it unreliable, just as an attorney general who dedicates himself to finding criminals and does not bother to praise good people is not automatically unreliable. The real question is whether or not Quackwatch does a good job of identifying quacks and frauds or not. --Jc3s5h (talk) 22:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

True, it does some good things like exposing frauds, but then it also bashes all the rest including some of the most well respected doctors not only in their field, but even in their local areas in some cases. Burleigh2 (talk) 22:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we try to be fairly careful and circumspect about Quackwatch as a source, but consensus has repeatedly held that it is acceptable under certain circumstances. Is there a specific usage that concerns you? MastCell ^Talk 23:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I pointed the editor to this noticeboard on their talk page after undoing their edit on Alternative medicine. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Virtually every source has some kind of bias. If we insisted that reliable sources have no bias, we'd have no sources left. What we require instead is that sources be

unless they represent a tiny minority. Crum375 (talk

) 23:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That's true that every source will have some sort of bias... even saying the sky is blue would be biased based on the time of day. The reason I even ask this is that Quackwatch is very overly biased against any alternative options. After too many searches to want to count, the only "alternatives" I have seen in a remotely positive light are multivitamins and I think only prenatal ones were shown exclusively in a positive light (while some of the articles said multivitamins in general were useless). I would hardly call such an overly-biased website "reliable", even if they do some good work to expose frauds, which is what most of the lauding of the site comes from... does that really mean everything on there is reliable? Burleigh2 (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

All good points. NPOV requires we cover all significant sides of an issue using reliable sources, and reliable sources will usually be biased from some particular POV. That doesn't exclude them from eligibility as sources.

This issue has been discussed to death in many venues here at Wikipedia. The conclusion is that the use of Quackwatch be judged on a case by case basis, just like every other reliable source we use. There is no RS that's allowable in every situation, so context is important. It would be rather odd to allow positive sources in an article on alternative medicine and exclude the largest, best known and most highly recommended (and hated!) database on the internet for skeptical information on the subject. That would violate NPOV. Nearly any article without negative or controversial content likely violates NPOV. Lack of such content is a

red flag

for possible policy violations.

Here are a couple places to read up on the subject:

Usage of Quackwatch as RS in medical quackery

Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal

As to the reasons why QW criticizes alternative medicine, they just happen to be right. They don't work, otherwise they'd be called "medicine". Read this section carefully, especially the part about where the NCCAM hasn't found evidence for efficacy after ten years of large studies:

Relation to evidence-based medicine

Happy reading, and Happy New Year! --

talk

) 02:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with most of this. I totally agree that Quackwatch should be judged on a case by case basis. After all, if there was a great humanitarian that robbed a bank just once, would he get off because of all the other good stuff he did or would he be tried based on that robbery? I think the point of being judged on a case by case basis should be mentioned on the RS entry for it, but I'm not sure if that is implied for all RSs or not. There have been a number of articles I've seen on Quackwatch that were bashing certain treatments, saying they shouldn't be used and/or didn't work, but they are some commonly recommended treatments by more Naturopathic doctors because they work... just one example of why not all of it would be a RS. Burleigh2 (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Use on a case by case basis applies to all RS, not especially to QW. As to your mention of certain unnamed treatments that you believe NDs recommend because they "work", well, if they really work, then they're EBM and Quackwatch and Barrett wouldn't be criticizing them. Note two points: (1) Not everything that is recommended by an ND is quackery. They actually do some good things. (2) Being recommended by an ND is a red flag, since they also recommend many things that are unproven or even disproven. Some of their most used methods are horrendously pseudoscientific, such as homeopathy. Whatever the case, your objections on this basis really have nothing to do with the use of QW as a RS, but only are a difference of opinion as to whether QW is wrong and NDs are right. The mainstream EBM position, IOW the evidence, sides with QW, which again shows that QW is a notable source that backs up whatever is current mainstream science and opinion. If the evidence changes, so does QW, and that's the way it should be. Barrett and the other authors who write there are educated in thinking using the scientific method, and they judge things through that prism, which is a good thing. --

talk

) 03:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That's what I figured (and was hoping), but I've come across a few instances within Wiki where the argument was made that QW as a RS for statements that could be seen as completely unnecessary for the context. One example is in Alternative Medicine where the statement is listed "Many CAM methods are criticized by the activist non-profit organization Quackwatch" (and cited the general website, not an article on it)... in other articles, that could be seen as spam/advertising for that website, but when I removed it saying it wasn't appropriate, another editor put it back saying Quackwatch was RS so it belonged (which was the main reason I asked the question here).

Obviously, that example could be argued on both sides of keeping/removing it depending on your bias, but listing the website in general and no specific article is definitely not RS material from what has been said thus far (case-by-case basis and all). It's the potential edit-wars like this that bring to mind the old quote "can't we all just get along?"... but if it was removed again, I'm sure the same member would undo the removal without something more than "that's the intent" stated. Is there somewhere that says RS is on a case-by-case basis that I can point to for inappropriate citations like this? Burleigh2 (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

As is mentioned in the links provided by BullRangifer, Quackwatch is supposed to be evaluated on a case by case basis. The problem is that the majority of articles are written by Barrett, and they are not peer reviewed. So, it should not have the same weight as an article published in a peer reviewed journal. stmrlbs|talk 09:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Many of the articles written by Barrett himself are opinion articles based on his opinion, but a number of them are exposing frauds which some feel gives more weight to his opinion about everything else. Regardless of how good my mechanic might be with my car, I wouldn't ask him what medical treatment I should take just because he's so good with my car. Burleigh2 (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Barrett's opinions are notable opinions from that POV and are used as opinions, not scientific facts. Some articles are much more scientific in their nature and can be used to source facts. Others are commentaries on various issues related to consumer protection and fighting health fraud. Most use extensive sourcing and sometimes we choose to use those sources, rather than the article itself. All its articles and documents are different in their nature and should be used in the appropriate situations. No rule at Wikipedia would consider the use of a source to be reliable in every situation. No one has ever argued that QW is somehow immaculate or unlike other reliable sources we use. It's just the most notable website of its type, the largest database of skeptical sources related to its subject matter, and thus not to be excluded as an often usable source. Just use common sense. --

talk

) 03:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course. That should go without saying to anyone who understands our sourcing policies, as you should by now. When dealing with the nitty gritty details of scientific facts, the

WP:MEDRS

guidelines take priority. They prefer scientific research, so Quackwatch isn't normally used for such details (except for the scientific articles it hosts), although it always agrees with them. Since it usually agrees, it thus demonstrates that it truly is "reliable" in the traditional sense of the word. So, per MEDRS, we still prefer scientific studies for such details, while QW is usually used for other aspects of the subjects.

As far as it not being "peer-reviewed", that's a red herring. Websites aren't expected to be peer-reviewed, and QW never pretends to be a scientific journal, so that argument doesn't have a leg to stand on. Only one website is peer-reviewed, and that happens to be a medical journal that is only published on-line. We still allow the use of myriad websites as RS for information, even though they aren't peer-reviewed. It all depends on which details are being tied to which sources. Just connect the dots properly.

While numerous articles are primarily written by Barrett, he does have a very large group of experts who aide him and review as necessary the articles. While this isn't exactly the same as the peer-review process used for journals, it's still far better than for most websites. Vetting, fact checking and review by multiple experts is a good thing. Many articles are also written by other authors. There are definitely articles at QW that wouldn't be suitable as sources here. That's why the use of QW is already done on a case by case basis. Just use our normal sourcing rules and common sense. --

talk

) 09:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Very true... but unfortunately, not many people in the world understand the sourcing policies here. Yes, those who edit a lot here would likely understand and know most/all of them, but the common man typically doesn't. I also note in the "Usage of Quackwatch as RS in medical quackery" part that was referred to above, it points out that Quackwatch has been sourced in reliable 3rd party publications... but does that automatically mean that everything he posts on his site is reliable? I mean, by that standard, you could use a magazine or newspaper source and make a quote from the opinion section as being reliable because the paper/magazine is so well respected... that's basically what people are citing because Quackwatch is listed as RS (not necessarily just on Wiki, but on other sites as well). Am I the only one that sees that as more than disturbing? Burleigh2 (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

[Moved to correct section] The principle on which organizations such as Quackwatch operate is the Scientific Method, and all of its umbrella principles (

Argument by Authority

.

As for unbiased, Wikipedia's policies on

Reliable Sources do not, and cannot, gauge such a thing, because all sources, even reliable ones, from the New York Times to the Village Voice to FOX News, have biases. Reliability is predicated on criteria such as whether the organization in question has proper editorial controls for its content, whether its staff has the pertinent expertise, etc. Complete lack of bias cannot be a criterion, because no source exists (nor any writer working for one) that lacks some type of bias. Nightscream (talk

) 04:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

An excellent summary of the situtation. Thanks. --

talk

) 14:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it is not. It is a generalisation arrived at without consideration of the arguments on this page or the article about Quackwatch or Quackwatch itself. To assert that Quackwatch is an organisation operationally adhering to the scientific method and all of it's umbrella principles is not only unfounded but demonstrably wrong. The discussion in this section already shows that Quackwatch is to be evaluated on a case by case basis, and shows the reasons why. Attempts to elevate Quackwatch to the standard of a scientific institution adhering to all the principles of the scientific method are unfounded and a clear attempt to imbalance the situation by introducing the "Argument of Authority" the author wishes not to see in Wikipedia. Weakopedia (talk) 15:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Weakopedia here. QuackWatch is basically the blog of Stephen Barrett, and it is wild to suggest the the blog adheres to the scientific method. It has already been determined that QuackWatch should be used on a case by case basis, and should usually be balanced with an opposite viewpoint. DigitalC (talk) 16:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with these two as well. Is there an option of listing a caveat on the Quackwatch listing on the RS page that it should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, not as gospel truth? Or is that implied on everything on the RS page (so others take it as gospel truth if they don't know about that implication)? Burleigh2 (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The default implication in the RS policy is that all sources be judged on a case by case basis. QW is no exception, nor under any special scrutiny. Most sources are written from some POV or other and we just have to use common sense. --

talk

) 03:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you're picking and choosing to find something you can object to, rather than noticing I repeatedly state things we both believe. Note that it was myself who clearly stated that it should be (1) used on a case by case basis, and (2) that scientific research is preferred to Quackwatch when dealing with the nitty gritty details of scientific and medical facts. Other editors agreed. That's in agreement with the MEDRS guideline. Do you disagree with that? I don't think we really disagree on that. --

talk

) 06:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I have indeed considered the arguments on this page, and you have not provided any evidence or line of reasoning that I have not. The original comments that I was specifically responding to were the notions that it "bashes" alternative medicine, has a "bias" against it, and that it does this even despite the advocacy of some of these ideas by "well-respected doctors", and my response was sound: Pointing out that alternative and complementary medicine is without empirical validity is a fact, and is not a "bias", nor "bashing", and the degree to which a doctor advocating an idea is respected is not the basis upon which ideas in science are properly vetted. If you can invalidate this, then do so.

Burleigh mentioned studies published in Lancet, but he never provided any examples, nor did he mention whether these studies survived Peer Review or have achieved wide acceptance in the scientific community. (Remember that the vaccine-autism hysteria, for example, began with a 1998 study by Andrew Wakefield published in Lancet that was later found to be bogus.) And again, if these studies have been validated by Peer Review and widely accepted, then they're no longer complementary or alternative medicine. They just medicine. Complementary and alternative are essentially just euphemisms for "non-scientific" or "ineffective to any degree greater than placebo." Have any of the ideas criticized by Quackwatch been so accepted? If so, where are the examples? If Quackwatch's adherence to the Scientific Method is "demonstrably wrong", where's the demonstration? The determination that it should be used on a case-by-case basis? I assume that's not the demonstration you're referring to, since that's a Wikipedia editorial decision, and in no way makes a statement about whether Quackwatch understands and accepts the SM. I haven't considered the arguments here? How so? Which ones? And how do you know this? Nightscream (talk) 08:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If you'd like an example, the link for one has already been given. One of the last times this was brought up (at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_32#Usage_of_Quackwatch_as_RS_in_medical_quackery ) that cited http://www.villagevoice.com/1999-06-22/news/doctor-who/ "Barrett depends heavily on negative research and case studies in which alternative therapies do not work, but he says that most case studies that show positive results of alternative therapies are unreliable. Former adviser to the National Institutes of Health's Office of Alternative Medicine Peter Barry Chowka states that: He seems to be putting down trying to be objective... Quackwatch.com is consistently provocative and entertaining and occasionally informative... But I personally think he's running against the tide of history. But that's his problem, not ours. In a critical website review of Quackwatch, Joel M. Kauffman evaluated eight Quackwatch articles and concluded that the articles were "contaminated with incomplete data, obsolete data, technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo..." and "...it is very probable that many of the 2,300,000 visitors to the website have been misled by the trappings of scientific objectivity. -- Levine2112" Burleigh2 (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Brangifer has stated a workable compromise that is in line with the consensus reached in previous discussions. If someone wants to suggest a different general guideline for the use of Quackwatch, then do, but otherwise we need to move on to improving the various articles. Following a question on

WP:NPOVN I had a look at the Quackery article. It has multiple problems quite independent of any perceived bias. So there is work to be done and people need to be able to work together. Itsmejudith (talk

) 15:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The link you mention, Burleigh, shows the vast majority of editors agreeing that it is reliable, and should be vetted on a case-by-case basis, which I agree with. As for Peter Chowka, the fact that he is an advisor to an "Office of Alternative Medicine" makes it clear he too, may not understand the scientific skepticism with which scientific ideas are properly distinguished from non-scientific ones. It seems odd to argue that Barrett has a "bias", but that someone who works in capacity promoting A&CM does not. I would find a scientifically-informed "critical website review" that reported on numerous errors fundamental to Quackwatch's abilities to be more reliable, but you did not link to that one, interestingly enough. I agree that unless such information can be provided, each bit of material from Quackwatch should be examined on a case-by-case basis, and that we should move on. Nightscream (talk) 08:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I never said that the link wasn't biased, I said it points out how overly biased Barrett is. I also said it was just one example (of many I've read over the years). The fact that you are ignoring the article based on the man's title would be exactly the same as me ignoring all of Quackwatch (or at least any article that Barrett writes) because he's a psychologist and knows nothing about drugs or supplements... most of your statement is completely biased to ignore any facts or information presented to you, which does seem quite similar to Barrett's position. I have seen numerous reports about Quackwatch that it conveniently ignored studies that showed the effectiveness of a supplement/herb and only uses those that show it in a negative light. I have seen some of the studies first-hand that have reported certain supplements/herbs in a negative light and many of them were flawed (whether funded by a drug company or whether it was testing something completely different; I can give more information on that via E-mail as this would take too much space on an already crowded page), but those seem to be the only ones that Barrett uses to push his ideals against natural options and "alternative medicines". Oh, and please don't twist my words for your own purposes... that does seem to be one of the main attacks of the skeptics and it really doesn't show you in a positive light.Burleigh2 (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Burleigh, you can exclude a source by showing its publisher has a poor track record for fact checking and accuracy, and for that you'd have to provide reliable mainstream sources which have so concluded. Unless you can do that, your own personal knowledge and personal opinions of a source are not relevant for WP. Crum375 (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That's completely understandable, but there are two different sides to this... there's Quackwatch's valid and helpful information that points out fraudulent companies and false items (which is what's being praised on all those sites), but then there's Dr. Barrett's personal articles that are entirely his opinion and bias and many have nothing to do with what the rest of the research did. If Dictionary.com had an opinion section, would the opinions posted all be automatically reliable?

Yeah, it's really hard to separate them since they are on the same website and his name is on both of them, but that's what is so difficult about saying the site is completely RS. After going through this, I know it should be on a case-by-case basis and I totally agree that is the best compromise... but not everyone on Wiki (and most people who don't edit here) have no idea that it should only be used on a case-by-case basis and that not all of them are appropriately RS. I can't recall if I mentioned it yet in this, but in the

Alternative Medicine article, Quackwatch is mentioned saying "Many CAM methods are criticized by the activist non-profit organization Quackwatch" and then gives a citation to their general website... in any other article/example, that would likely be seen as spam for the website (since it doesn't cite any specific article), but when I deleted it and said the citation had nothing to do with that statement, my edit was undone because "QuackWatch is a RS". If I went to the GOP (Republican party) article and referred to Fox News or another RS that is very Democratic and said this site disagreed with many Republican ideals, it would be removed within minutes as spam or defamation... how is this any different based on what we've already covered and agreed on?Burleigh2 (talk

) 21:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Note that the old discussion had RS saying that QuackWatch was a reliable website: JAMA, Lancet and NEJM. And if you are going to use a review from the Village Voice, then you shouldn't forget using also the review from the Time magazine, which is very favorable. And also all the other stuff that I bothered to compile in the compressed text here. Otherwise you are picking only the negative reviews while leaving out the positive ones.

I also agree with Brangifer's compromise. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, this was only one example that was listed on the last time this was brought up... there are many more examples I've come across that point out how biased against alternative medicines he is regardless of the available research he seems to ignore. This is not just my opinion, but has been verified in many places that I've read over the years. If you'd like a few more examples, a quick search on Yahoo brings up 163,000 hits for "Quackwatch biased" (most of which are not praising Quackwatch, but pointing out their bias and "attack articles" for lack of a better term).Burleigh2 (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

"The fact that you are ignoring the article based on the man's title..." I am not ignoring the article based on the Peter Chowka's title. I responded to your presentation of it (kinda hard to do if I'm "ignoring" it) by pointing out that the person who criticized Quackwatch promotes a/c medicine himself, thus illustrating that he, like any other promoter of it, does not follow scientific skepticism. This has nothing to do with "ignoring" or his "title". It is a response based on the same criteria I've maintained in this discussion: Proper adherence to scientific skepticism, the same criteria that properly informs all scientific knowledge, and critical examination of it.

If you had instead presented, as an example of criticism of Quackwatch, a person (

Skeptics Society, American Medical Association

) that found "incomplete data, obsolete data, [or] technical errors" in Quackwatch's work, as you alleged, that would've been different. But aside from merely cutting and pasting material from an old version of Wikipedia's Quackwatch article (or a site mirroring it) about Joel M. Kaufman, you did not do this. I tried looking through the Skeptic's Dictionary, randi.org and Google to see if Kaufman is regarded as an adherent of proper scientific methodologies, but could not find anything at a glance to this point. Kaufman, it should be pointed out, is a critic of mainstream medicine, and a promoter of low-carb diets, which doesn't say much about him regarding this point.

"would be exactly the same as me ignoring all of Quackwatch (or at least any article that Barrett writes) because he's a psychologist and knows nothing about drugs or supplements..." Wrong. As aforementioned, my response to your mentioning Chowka was based on whether he promotes ideas that are considered pseudoscience, which is a valid scientific criterion. By contrast, ignoring Barrett because he's a psychologist and not a nutritionist is an

logical fallacy

. Not the same thing.
"most of your statement is completely biased to ignore any facts or information presented to you" I have responded to each line of reasoning and evidence that you have presented, and have done so directly, in order to explain why they do not support the conclusion that you believe they do, which flies in the face of this assertion. But if I'm wrong, please name one of these facts or bits of information presented to me, and please explain, by pointing to my replies to them, how I "ignored" them. If you'd like, I'll provide an example of how you have done precisely this:
I pointed out, at least twice, that there is no form of alternative or complementary medicine that has been scientifically shown to work any better than a placebo, that such medicines that are found to work thus are no longer called "alternative" or "complementary", but simply "medicine", and that this is why skeptic organizations like Quackwatch conclude thus. As far as I can remember from reading this entire thread, you did not respond to this point. If this "herbal supplement" you mention has passed the Peer Review Process, clinical trials, etc., then how is it "alternative" or "complementary"? (If you did and I missed it, I apologize; can you please point it out to me?) If I'm right, then isn't this an example of you ignoring information presented to you?
"I have seen numerous reports about Quackwatch that it conveniently ignored studies that showed the effectiveness of a supplement/herb and only uses those that show it in a negative light." Yet you have consistently refused to link to any of them, making it impossible to discern whether any of these studies are scientifically reliable, or just criticizing Quackwatch because they themselves promote a/c medicine. If you did, and it showed this, then I'd be in greater agreement with you. But feel free to link to one that's been peer reviewed, and prove me wrong.
"If you'd like a few more examples, a quick search on Yahoo brings up 163,000 hits for "Quackwatch biased" (most of which are not praising Quackwatch, but pointing out their bias and "attack articles" for lack of a better term)." Which is a poor method to verify that Quackwatch is biased, since Google hits can be generated by those promoting the exact same pseudoscience that we're talking about. This is like pointing to a survey showing that half of Americans reject evolution or accept creationism in order to argue that evolution is scientifically questionable, or that creationism is scientifically valid. I'm sorry, but anyone arguing that Google hits indicate anything other than the popularity of an idea (as opposed to its being "verified" scientifically) obviously does not understand the proper standards by which scientific knowledge is properly examined. Nightscream (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding sooner, it's been a busy week. I was saying that you were ignoring what he was saying and writing off because of his title... more appropriately because of his position and his views. You contradict yourself when you say you aren't rejecting it on that basis because you say he "does not follow scientific skepticism" as a blind statement based on his title/position/whatever you'd like to call it. You're dismissing every point he's making in the article regardless of how you want to say you're not. There are a number of MD doctors including some at highly reputable hospitals (John Hopkins and Mayo included) that use and recommend alternative medicines (not all, but a good number) because of their proven effectiveness... dismissing someone's statements because they use or recommend alternative medicine is just being biased and stereotyping. I'm also not talking about ALL of Quackwatch's information... I'm referring to the articles that are written by Barrett that are only of his opinion and not on any factual or cited basis. Again, you are twisting my words and choosing to use only the words you want... how are your arguments any more valid than mine or anyone else's if you contort the truth or what you perceive into what you want to perceive? That's just as bad if not worse than ignoring facts no matter how you want to read that. Burleigh2 (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There is science and pseudoscience, the medicine and complementary medicine distinction is a false dichotomy. All treatments need the same degree of evidence. Physicians will use what makes sense and has been shown to work. Quackwatch exposes treatments that have a poor reference base. Often ones that are so poorly researched that nothing exists in the peer reviewed press. The evidence needs to show something works before claims of effectiveness can be made.

If quackwatch was to say no evidence exists for some treatment and you came up with a review of 10 RCTs published in the Lancet that showed effectiveness we would go with the review. However if nothing exists and quackwatch says so. And no one can show otherwise. Quackwatch is a good enough reference.
talk · contribs · email
) 18:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

"You contradict yourself when you say you aren't rejecting it on that basis because you say he "does not follow scientific skepticism" as a blind statement based on his title/position/whatever you'd like to call it." No. Based on the fact that he promotes an idea that is pseudoscientific. Arguing that alternative or complementary medicine is not pseudoscience because some guy running an office promoting it says so is specious reasoning, and saying so if perfectly valid.
"There are a number of MD doctors including some at highly reputable hospitals (John Hopkins and Mayo included) that use and recommend alternative medicines (not all, but a good number) because of their proven effectiveness..." One more time: The empirical validity of an idea is not based reputation or authority. That's religion, not science. The empirical validity of an idea is based on whether it has survived the scrutiny of the Scientific Method. The fact that you continue to repeat this fallacy over and over---without responding to my repeated refutation of it---proves that you know I'm right, and are simply not able to admit it. In science, there are no sacred cows, no popes, no saints, no dogmas. Only evidence and repeat testing. None of these therapies have not exhibited proven effectiveness under these criteria, and the "folk wisdom" that you're insisting on is not a sufficient substitute. Saying "this doctor or this reputable hospital says it's been shown to work" is anecdotal, and anecdotes are not scientific, because they're too subjective, and impossible to measure objectively. If I'm wrong, then why not respond to this point by pointing out how?
"dismissing someone's statements because they use or recommend alternative medicine is just being biased and stereotyping." If they're talking about basketball or their favorite movie, then yeah, it is. But if they're promoting new medicines that do not follow the Scientific Method, are not submitted to Peer Review, are not testable, are not falsifiable, and/or have been shown in clinical trials with proper controls, such as randomization, double-blind procedures, etc to have nonexistent effects, then no, it's not. It's an adherence to the only methodology by which empirical knowledge can properly be examined. Is a planetary scientist "biased" for rejecting the views of a Flat Earth Theorist? A chemist for rejecting someone promoting alchemy? An astronomer for rejecting astrology? Is a virologist "biased" for concluding the ideas of AIDS denialists are wrong, and saying that they are not afforded more weight because a noted doctor promotes them? Is a historian prejudiced for rejecting Holocaust Denial, or conspiracies relating to the JFK assassination and the supposed moon landing hoax? The answer is no. These ideas are rejected because the proper methodologies by which the facts of the universe we live in can be discovered, tested, confirmed and revised show that they all lack merit, and includes alternative and complimentary medicine. That's not a "bias", unless you change the definition of the word "bias". Bias is when you form an opinion on irrelevant internal criteria instead of relevant external criteria. My statements clearly conform to the latter, not the former, and are therefore statements of fact. Not bias. If you really think that recognizing a proper standard for determining matters of fact, or pointing out when some people do not, constitutes a "bias", then you need to reexamine your dictionary.
You seem to think you can slide out of this problem by reframing or rewording my statements, which shows either your cognitive dissonance, or your deliberate dishonesty. I did not "dimiss his ideas because he uses alt medicine." I pointed out that if Quackwatch writes about how some ideas are non-scientific or pseudoscientific, and you want to refute his work, then you have to do so scientifically, using the scientific literature, and not by merely by pointing to someone who advises an office whose existence is predicated on promoting the very branch of non-scientific knowledge that was criticized in the first place. That is not a "bias", it's simply a question of having a proper standard for reliability. A peer review journal criticizing Quackwatch is reliable. Rebuttals by those who favor the ideas Quackwatch exmaines are not, any more than a judge in a criminal trial declaring a witness to be unreliable is "biased". Nightscream (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, you really like to argue and twist words, don't you? This is tough enough to argue on this page because there's more than one topic that fights like this would be better suited to E-mail, but I'm not sure I'd want to spend the time arguing with you if you're going to keep twisting words (reminds me of a few bullies I've come across, but that's another story). I've already said my piece in regards to your first paragraph and you've already said your piece on it... we're never going to agree no matter how much either of us refutes the other and I think we both know that.

With your second paragraph, I could say the same thing about Barrett in his articles he writes without citation or reference... that's all based on his opinion and to follow it because of his opinion could be classified as religion. There have been double-blind studies done on various vitamins, herbs, supplements, etc, but the hard part is that supplement companies don't have the money to afford to pay for such expensive tests and to be able to reap all the benefits of it since any other company could sell the same product and cite the results. Also, some of them have been done by pharmaceutical companies and some were investigating other purposes (that gives misleading results that some glean from them) so there is a lot of conflicting information. For example, one study I read about Vitamin E was testing the results on terminal patients so the media showed the outcome was that Vitamin E could increase mortality (since some terminal patients died during the study... go figure). What it comes down to on that is the FDA requires documented proof of the claims that supplement companies make (or the companies risk having the product removed or the company shut down). Supplements and herbs are still considered CAM, but the FDA can verify that they are tested and verify the claims that they are listed for. I've seen some of the studies and I've discussed this fact with our compliance officers... it's verifiable and proven, but it's still CAM; that doesn't make it pseudoscience or unreliable, nor based on anyone's opinion. Burleigh2 (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I realize this may seem like beating a dead horse, but outright lies should never go unchallenged. You are absolutely wrong that the supplement ocmpanies are required to prove efficacy and safety by the FDA. I am assuming you have been swindled by the quacks rather than being dishonest yourself, but the whole point of the US dietary supplement legislation in the early 1990s was to protect supplement sellers from having to meet the FDA requirements of safety and efficacy testing imposed on pharmaceuticals. All you have to do to see that this is true to is to review the websites of the quacks: we are in the renaissance of the 19th century patent medicine industry. They can suggest immune benefits, heart attack protection, diabetes reversal, and even cancer cures with their advertising as long as they do not actually print words like "this cures cancer"-- and you must have noticed that not even pharmaceutical companies make claims like that. The supplement companies are big corporations selling pills made in factories for people afraid of diseases or needing a cure; but as long as they call it a "supplement" they need not submit to the FDA any evidence of either safety or efficacy. The supplement industry is a many billion dollar industry that makes pills in factories that people buy to treat or avert diseases and hides behind the lies of being "natural" (the only consistent meaning of which is "can be sold without a prescription") and "we can't afford to pay for efficacy and safety studies". No intelligent person should have anything but contempt and derision for those claims. Educate yourself, Burleigh. alteripse (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I have not distorted a single one of your words, as I've quoted them exactly, and responded to them directly. By contrast, referring to a proper scientific standard by which empirical knowledge is properly examined, and pointing out when this standard is not upheld, as a "bias", is indeed a distortion.
As for organizations that can't afford proper scientific testing, well, that may be the case, but it doesn't change the need for it, nor does it mean that whatever lesser standard they're employing is just as reliable. The FDA is a government regulatory agency. It may rely on proper studies, but its stamp of approval, in and of itself, is not a substitute for one. But in any event, if the efficacy of a given medicine or substance has passed peer review, then it's no longer CAM, and the studies that have led to such a judgment should be publicly available. If you can name one of these vitamins or herbs whose efficacy has been shown in a published peer review study, and show that Quackwatch dismissed it without addressing said study, then please present it. Nightscream (talk) 02:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Quackwatch is a lot like the early versions of many wikipedia articles: written by people who knew a lot more than most about the topic, not always completely polished or balanced, and mostly lacking scholarly documentation. Pretty damning, huh? Except that most of the wikipedia science and medicine articles have been fairly useful and pretty accurate right from the beginning. Inaccurate info gets challenged and corrected pretty quickly here, and perhaps eventually all will be cited. Since Barrett has no end of howling critics, the absence of any list of substantial errors anywhere is pretty strong evidence that his articles are pretty accurate. Even the crankish pretensions of much-touted Joel Kauffman are feeble if you read them: he leads off with an obviously false claim about his "methodology" in the first page, and gets no more honest thereafter. The amount of outrage expended on Barrett's acceptance of the cholesterol-atherosclerosis link gives you an idea of how "unbiased" Kauffman is and how hard it was for him to find any really crucial errors. There isn't much to add to this lengthy argument until Burleigh actually provides us with reliable sources to back up his claim. Which he wont't because there aren't. alteripse (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

YouTube video on
9/11 Truth movement

An editor has used a YouTube video in the article
9/11 Truth movement. Is this a reliable, secondary, and independent source?  Cs32en
11:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Depends what point it is being used to support.
talk · contribs · email
) 12:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It is being used to introduce Noam Chomsky's viewpoint on the
blog here, and it's not clear whether that blog can be considered independent. It's certainly not a reliable source. No indication of any secondary source referring to Chomsky's comments has been given.  Cs32en
12:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I would say you would need something more reliable to comment on a figure as prominent as Chomsky. But can you provide that exact quote it is used to support? Youtube is like Wikipedia. It is based on user added content. It is not peer reviewed. I am behind a firewall and cannot view the video.
talk · contribs · email
) 12:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The editor has added the following paragraph to the article, based on the YouTube video.  Cs32en 12:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky "the academy’s loudest and most consistent critic of U.S. policies at home and abroad"^[1] stated, regarding US government involvement in the 9/11 attacks, "the evidence that has been produced is essentially worthless" and while the American government stood to benefit from the incident, "every authoritarian system in the world gained from September 11th." He argues that the enormous risk of an information leak, "it is a very porous system and secrets are very hard to keep", and consequences of exposure for the Republican party would have made such a conspiracy foolish to attempt. He dismisses observations cited by conspiracy proponents saying, "if you look at the evidence, anybody who knows anything about the sciences would instantly discount that evidence," arguing that even when a scientific experiment is carried out repeatedly in a controlled environment, phenomena and coincidences remain that are unexplained.^[2]

^ "Prospect/FP Top 100 Public Intellectuals Results". Slate Group, a division of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC. October 2005. Retrieved 19 January 2010.

^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwZ-vIaW6Bc

The quote sounds correct / true but it would be nice to have a better source. The quote is here in Salon [2]
talk · contribs · email
) 12:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It's an opinion column, but it would be a secondary source that references what Chomsky said. Thank you for finding the text!  Cs32en 13:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't view YouTube at work. The question is 1) where is the video from and 2) is it clear that the uploader had permission to upload it (ie. they are the copyright holder)? Because we don't link to copyvios. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Copyright is a red herring in that we can use a source even if it is a copyvio (just then not link to it). However, it seems clear that youtube videos of questionable provenance are not reliable sources. If this were from a channel of a known news organization or something like that it might be different. But as it stands this isn't reliable. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
As Joshua says, youtube videos are not reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Um, that was my point entirely. If, say, this were a link to an interview of Person X on CBS, we'd only link to the YouTube if it was uploaded by CBS. If it was uploaded by Joe6PackLOL, we wouldn't link it, but could cite the original airing on CBS. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
You probably shouldn't cite it even then, if you've only seen it on Youtube. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

What, specifically, is the "Resolved" decision? On what finding of fact is the "Resolved" based? E.g. the video in question appears on Youtube in violation of the rights of the copyright holds, Chomsky is not a reliable source, etc.
Please forgive my pedantry on this topic but when the dust clears I am going to write up some proposed clarifications to YOUTUBE#Linking_to_user-submitted_video_sites, so I would like to understand this decision clearly. Note that the video in question is cited to verify the statements attributed to Chomsky in the article. Deicas (talk) 20:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The resolved was that we found an alternated source from Salon and that as youtube videos are self published they are rarely if ever appropriate sources. We discuss self published sources here. Youtube would be an example.
talk · contribs · email
) 03:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

What has me confused here is that the video in question shows Chomsky, making the statements, that are attributed to him, in the Wikipedia article. In this instance, the video is no more and no less reliable than Chomsky himself. Contrast that to an identical video with some person off the street, e.g. me, making the same statements. In that case the video and the content therein would not be a reliable source on the topic because I am not a reliable source on the topic. Am I making sense? Deicas (talk) 05:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
You assert that the video shows Chomsky. There is no
original research on your part. Now if there were a relliable source that cited this particular Youtube clip in more than a paasing reference then that might help assert the reliability of the source. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources again. Jezhotwells (talk
) 08:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
If any good secondary source, or Chomsky's own website cites or links to the video then the video would be authenticated. If so, Chomsky's own views are probably notable enough to include in the article. But please check and see if there's a transcript or a position paper; rich media such as video shouldn't be our first choice for a reference link. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly right, Jezhotwells. It's best to stick to reliable secondary sources in any event, even if some sort of authentication could be provided that the video was what it was purported to be. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

"The uploader of the video apparently runs a blog here..." Aside from the aforementioned point about blogs not being reliable (unless it belongs to someone noteworthy in a relevant field), it should be pointed out that one blog entry in that blog about the Science Channel refusing to dumb down science any further, reports that bit straight, without mentioning that the story it links to as its source is a piece in The Onion, a satirical fake news publication. Nightscream (talk) 08:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Opinion/Editorial; Washington Times

Is it acceptable to reflect an editorial that indicates the opinion of The Washington Times? What I have in mind is this editorial for the Lloyd R. Woodson article. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Editorials are simply the opinion of the author, not necessarily those of the publication. Unless the editorial specifically says it is the opinion of the publication, treat it as just the author's personal opinion. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Understood. That editorial says "By THE WASHINGTON TIMES". Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous editorials in a newspaper are actually the opinion of the publication itself/editorial board. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Food and Chemical Toxicology

What do you think about the reliability of "Food and Chemical Toxicology"? The journal describes itself as "The Journal's editorial policy reflects the need for high-quality science in support of health and safety decisions. FCT is willing to consider papers of a more regulatory nature,". Read: Lobby.
I can't find which association publishes but (the main editor, Joseph F. Borzelleca, is the president of a company "Toxicology & Pharmacology, Inc"[3] also/formely known as "ToxPro", whose email was "[email protected]" and used to provide consultancy to the Tobacco Industry, like in this email to Philip Morris. And others: [4]--Nutriveg (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea about the reliability of this journal, but I find your argument to be mostly guilt-by-association. The list of editors seems to be widespread academics and medical school professors. Are they of questionable reliability? Also, it might be a good idea to determine whether the journal is peer-reviewed or not. I notice that you have already removed all references to this journal before anyone has even responded to your concerns. Wouldn't it be best to wait, rather than immediately removing them all? Deli nk (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't see what you're talking about, if the editor in chief used to help the publishing of articles favorable to Tobbaco companies, and that same company is still providing services. How can say that Journal review process is reliable?

The editor in chief is the one which ultimately decides which reviews, and consequently which articles, are pertinent (to publication).

I'm being
you mind about them.--Nutriveg (talk
) 16:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
All I am saying is that if the editor has a connection to tobacco companies, it's a huge stretch to say that anything ever published in a journal he edits (even research unconnected to tobacco) is automatically unreliable. Also, are you certain that he has always been the editor of this journal? What if the papers you are removing references to were published under a different editor? I just think it's prudent to have something more concrete than your suspicion before unilaterally deleting a whole bunch of referenced content. Deli nk (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
More sources

There's no half-reputable Journal, it's for sale or not. Find a better source and move along. Thank you.--Nutriveg (talk) 16:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
You've made no substantive argument whatsoever that the journal is for sale. Why do you want me to move on? You brought up this topic here, so you should at least allow for a response. Or was your mind made up before you came here? Deli nk (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I provided enough references. But if you want more, what about it being published (same ISSN) by BIBRA International (formerly British Industrial Biological Research Association), a consulting company that says to be "one of the most experienced and successful hazard and risk assessment organisations in Europe, and the most effective one-stop shop in the field of desk-based toxicology in the world today. We believe, unequivocally, that we should be your partner of choice in addressing all your requirements in the field of chemical risk and hazard assessment"--Nutriveg (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. That starts to look like useful information to help assess the neutrality of the journal. If Food and Chemical Toxicology is in fact published by a consulting company that is in the business of advising companies on regulatory hurdles, I think there would be a conflict of interest. I'm not sure that rules out use of the journal in terms of
WP:RS, though. (I often use consumer advocacy websites as references, for example, and they clearly have a bias). Deli nk (talk
) 18:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"
The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself, the creator of the work and the publisher of the work. All three can affect reliability." Publisher is not reliable, so the source isn't.--Nutriveg (talk
) 18:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
As a layman, there is no medical wisdom I can contribute here. I reverted Nutriveg's deletion from Migraine due to its lack of a good explanation, we often see such edits by those with an axe to grind, and perhaps I misread it. Looking at the state of the discussion here, it seems premature to be chopping references to that source from the whole of Wikipedia. What happened to consensus? --CliffC (talk) 18:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
"
WP:BURDEN so one better hold the reasoning to keep the information before restoring instead of just assuming bad faith.--Nutriveg (talk
) 19:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The journal is listed by PubMed, which is one indication of reliability. See Food and Chemical Toxicology. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
But a very weak one. "Medical Hypotheses", "Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology", "21st century science & technology" and other questionable sources are likewise indexed by pubmed. I think that's just a matter of how old they are.--Nutriveg (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I see Nutriveg's concern. The fact that it is published by a consulting firm [5] rather than a third party organization would limits it use. One should usually be able to find a better source for medical articles. And if not the above fact should be made clear.
talk · contribs · email
) 20:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This journal is also abstracted by
Chemical Abstracts, which is relatively selective. Paging through the table of contents of a couple of issues, I see mostly publications from academic labs. While I certainly wouldn't rule out that the editors may accept papers that have pro-business bias where other journals may not, it seems most of the papers don't fall into that category. Most are very academic in nature and uncontroversial. I don't see any reason that all the papers published in this journal should immediately be considered unreliable. That response seems rash to me. Removing content solely because it is referenced to articles in this journal, is in my opinion detrimental to the encyclopedia. By all means, use this journal carefully (and replace references where better ones are available), but please don't delete encyclopedic content just because it is backed up by scientific articles from this journal. -- Ed (Edgar181
) 20:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflit)I can't just trust an editor (Borzelleca) with such curriculum neither such "publisher" (advertiser) company.--Nutriveg (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Reliable source? Don't be silly: it's indexed in PubMed, published by the largest scientific publisher (Elsevier), and has an impact factor of 2.321. This is obviously a well-respected scientific journal. This does not mean that every article in it should be taken as gospel, but any scientific journal (even Nature and Science) publishes something erroneous from time to time, that's inherent in the scientific process. --Crusio (talk) 20:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It is also included in JCR , with a Impact Factor of 2.3. , 16th out of 107 in the field of Food Science and Technology, and 35th of 75 in the category of Toxicology. . Looking at the details, the highest citations to it from outside journals is by articles in the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, from the American Chemical Society, probably the highest quality journal in the subject. It is additionally indexed in Agricola, Biosis, Chemical Abstracts, CAB Abstracts, Excerpta Medica. Scopus, and about 25 specialized service in food and agriculture--essentially every possible indexing service in the subject. ., It is carried by Gale, Ebsco, and Wilson, the three major journal aggregators. and It is in 329 WorldCat libraries. By all the usual criteria, it counts as any other peer-reviewed journal. The problem is that it is or was published on behalf of the British Industrial Biological Research Association, essentially an industrial consulting firm. Elsevier and other commercial publisher publish about 1/3 of their journals for a particular organization, and the organization has a considerable share in the editorial policy, and appoints the editors, though their contracts with the organizations vary. I am not certain whether the relationship continues to exist. 7 of the editors are from the academic world -- 4 are consultants -- none are employed by industry. I;ve looked at some sample articles, that are eminently mainstream and respectable. I think it would show prejudice to reject an article published there on the basis of its industry associations. I would not even say replace articles in it by better references, i would say supplement by additional references. DGG ( talk ) 20:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Crusio: and what do you say about the editor's (previous) behavior and how the publishing company advertises itself. I don't believe how naive that sounds.--Nutriveg (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
DGG's analysis convinces me, if other academic publishing services accpt this as a RS then, as ever, we on Wikipedia follow rather than lead. I'll revert the removal of this from the Antioxidant article. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

DDG, your arguments are just shallow numbers and the Journal is old to have big ones. Not directly working for the industry, or, also having an academic position, means nothing. Borzelleca had an academic position and a "consulting" company at the same time which links with Tobacco companies were only revealed by leaked documents, even so most of those documents purposefully avoid details (by being very short) and Borzelleca last name was rarely mentioned. I believe that Elsevier relationship has changed, "Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology" is also Elsevier published and problematic.--Nutriveg (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
It looks to me that everybody in this discussion except you are basing their arguments on the assessments of independent academic organisations. All you seem to be bringing to this discussion are unsupported personal criticisms of one of the members of a large editorial board. Unless you can provide some other reliable source commenting specifically on the reliability of this journal, I'll consider this discussion closed. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This journal is quite clearly a reliable source, and I support Tim Vickers's decision to close. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ditto.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

TimVickers, I don't see how you represent everybody and why you didn't took those comments into account:

Deli nk: "If Food and Chemical Toxicology is in fact published by a consulting company that is in the business of advising companies on regulatory hurdles, I think there would be a conflict of interest."

Doc James: "The fact that it is published by a consulting firm [84] rather than a third party organization would limits it use"

Edgar181: "By all means, use this journal carefully (and replace references where better ones are available)"

Specially I don't see what's the hush for you to try to close this discussion 20 minutes after my last comment giving no time for its evaluation, specially by those others to who they were addressed.

About your last commentary I would paraphrase:

It looks to me that you and others are ignoring all the other facts brought to this discussion

The reliability of a source depends on the reliability of the publisher. This one is published by by BIBRA International (formerly British Industrial Biological Research Association), a company, whose role was already described by its own website.

I'm not talking about a member "of a large editorial board", I'm talking about the head editor. My personal criticism about him is very well based in tobacco companies documents, in sources like this, and many other documents available in that archive. Explain how you classify them as "unsupported".

But in no way I'm his sole critic, a scientific article about the influence of tobacco companies in scientific research criticized his role as the editor of this same journal (Food and Chemical Toxicology).--Nutriveg (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I did not intend my statement above to be an endorsement of Nutriveg's removal of all uses of this journal as a reference. Deli nk (talk) 12:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

With respect to
talk · contribs · email
) 00:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Additionally I cite this other scientific article(free version), that extensively criticizes Borzelleca and the Journal.--Nutriveg (talk) 00:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You claim that this journal is unreliable based on this scientific article the only time it mentions this journal is when it says - the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, which has published studies by a number of tobacco company scientists. Hardly devastating criticism. The other aticle hosted at truthinlabeling.org has the author complaining at length about the journal being slow to publish one of her letters, but making no criticism of the quality of the science published in the journal. This really isn't a very convincing case you're making here. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This all looks like one editor on a campaign of deletionism based on a personal distrust of an entire journal, rather than based on the views from other reliable sources in each instance for each author writing for the journal. If there's a real controversy over this entire journal and every author in it, then that controversy can be dealt with in the article for that journal or each author, but since there is obvious disagreement with this editor's single-handed campaign, I suggest following the BRD cycle and reverting all instances that might appear to be ill-conceived. Basically reboot all their edits as we would a vandal. That will force Nutriveg to provide RS that prove the source to be unreliable in each instance for each author quoted. I suspect that will result in a massive display of OR, SYNTH, and more bad manners from Nutriveg, all leading to a quick block for disruption and non-consensus based editing. I suggest numerous admins and editors follow Nutriveg's editing closely. This is basically a form of ownership regarding how to deal with a source.

Removing properly referenced content, especially from so many diverse articles, amounts to vandalism. Whether Nutriveg is right or wrong, their methodology stinks, including the dismissive and uncivil tone used above. I too am very suspicious of the tobacco industry and hate their methods, but we base our editing in each instance on reflecting the real world's view on a subject, using V & RS, not our personal POV against one source. We judge how we use a citation on a case by case basis, not by the journal it's published in, unless we have compelling grounds to place that journal on our blacklist. Only after a thoroughly discussed and consensus-based policy decision has been reached regarding how to deal with this journal, it shouldn't be deleted using guilt by association. This is a case of a one-man-conspiracy-theory gone haywire like a bull attacking anything that looks red (according to myth). --
talk
) 04:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

According to BRD, Nutriveg was BOLD, numerous other editors have Reverted every single edit, so now the ball is back in Nutriveg's court to Discuss the matter on each talk page. If any signs of ownership, stonewalling, or incivility are exhibited, please report back to this thread. The case is basically closed for now, but it can be reopened if necessary. --
talk
) 05:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It's so nice from you to assume bad faith that way and how you motivate discussion: " Basically reboot all their edits as we would a vandal. That will force Nutriveg to provide RS that prove the source to be unreliable in each instance for each author quoted. I suspect that will result in a massive display of OR, SYNTH, and more bad manners from Nutriveg, all leading to a quick block for disruption and non-consensus based editing."

All that proved wrong, since by the time you were writing that "Keepcalmandcarryon" long reverted all those edits, no matter the context and "Tim Vickers" reverted others, I didn't revert any but instead discussed the main issue here. So try to focus on the that instead of instigating others to act in assumption of bad faith.

Tim Vickers, that article "free version" is stored in "truthinlabeling.org". It was actually published in Account Res. I just provided that link for easy access, but I won't continue this discussion since there's such little care about continuing to cite those kind of consulting company published Journals, whose the main editor for the last 12 years, is a sold scientist [6][7][8].

"What sort of collaboration do you expect from a publisher? Do you think it would be easier to publish it as a supplement in a good journal? (...) Then you can establish the need for a less toxic cigarette.(...) I will help you in any way I can."--Nutriveg (talk) 12:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
As far as I understand, a "sold scientist" is someone who gets paid to willfully make scientifically false statements. The "evidence" that you present are a few letters between scientists discussing the best ways to publish their scientific data and opinions, and two contacts in which somebody agrees to consult for Philip Morris. The contracts are completely legitimate. The consultant will provide scientific expertise for payment. At no point is he asked to misrepresent scientific data or to lie. Calling somebody a "sold scientist" on the basis of such "evidence" constitutes libel. You should remove this BLP attack immediately. --Crusio (talk) 15:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

We should be using review of the literature per
talk · contribs · email
) 14:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the point that seems to have been lost in this one-man campaign against the entire output of an peer-reviewed journal is that sources must be appropriate for the statement they support. I wouldn't cite a primary source from this journal to make any statement about the heath risks of tobacco (we don't have to as we have reams of secondary sources in Science and Nature for these points). However, a research article in FCT is a perfectly acceptable source for an uncontentious statement such as this. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree completely Tim.
talk · contribs · email
) 16:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Talking specifically about this case, I'm not that sure.--Nutriveg (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Your point being? If industry-sponsored research would be prohibited from being published in scientific journals or even being used, we would not even have aspirin. Is there anything untoward about that article, apart from the apparent fact that
you don't like it? --Crusio (talk
) 18:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

So we have one source saying that MSM shows no toxicity and a press release saying that it is great that it shows no toxicity. This is even more strikingly powerful evidence for the irredeemably evil nature of this journal than the earlier study you cited that noted it had published studies by a number of tobacco company scientists. However, I'm a bit puzzled that, since from this data MSM is obviously as toxic as ricin, why are people using it in clinical trials? (eg
PMID 18417375) Tim Vickers (talk
) 18:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

My point is that we have a source saying that an industry sponsored study was the first finally accepted for publication in a peer review journal and that is the only (primary) source in the Wikipedia article supporting its safety (NOEL). Great the rats didn't die but got an osteoarthritis ~~medication~~ supplement into their brain.

I won't insist on removal of that Wikipedia text, but I'm expressing that I'm not so confident in the quality.--Nutriveg (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Using a youtube video

Hello I want to use a youtube video as a source. I know they are not primary sources though. I was going to do a {{
Cite video}}... Here is a Youtube Video, It contains a interview with Jane Hall about her fictional character. It has casting Info a I want to use for information on her fictional character's page. The video contains all the info I need, it's there... but we can't use youtube as a source can we. So how do I go about it. Say for instance, if any of us watched a re-broadcast or a archive of this episode of Rove, the info is still there. So I'm trying to cite a TV show but I want it to lead back to this piece of media. How do I site the Rove interview then seeings as it is not the primary source. Is it ok? If not how do i cite from the archived episode of this chat show.Raintheone (talk
) 19:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You need to discover the original source, where the youtube video was taken of, and cite it. You may use the youtube video in the url parameter, but you need to fill others fields about the original source.--Nutriveg (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Do you mean the origin of when the video was uploaded, by whom and so on? ... or Rove's original air date on the Ten network, who their production company are and so on? .. ?Raintheone (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The "ten network" one, but you don't need to fill all that data, just the ones that distinctively identify the video.--Nutriveg (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Source I used on Apache Ain't Shit

I used a website set up by Jared Taylor to illustrate that the track "Kill D'White People" is hate speech against whites. Whilst the source may or may not constitute a reliable source, I hope there's no one here who does not consider a black rapper saying "kill the white people" to be a form of hate speech.--HulolsIam (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

In principle, I think you'd be better off using a neutral source, than one racist bad-mouthing another. Crum375 (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Unless an RS calls it that we cannot, no matter what our views may be.Slatersteven (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, absent a RS, hate speech is in the eye of the beholder. I am white and I am not offended by such rantings.--Jarhed (talk) 07:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You cannot say, in a Wikipedia article. that statement X by person Y is hate speech. You can possibly say that, in the opinion of person Z (which may be a persuasive authority, such as a high court judge), X was hate speech.
If your sole source is Jared Taylor, then you obviously don't have a reliable source on the subject. Seek a reliable source. --TS 23:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Balkan Wars

There is a dispute in Balkan Wars over the use of this [9] source. This is the Carnegie Report of 1914 on the Second Balkan War between Greece and Bulgaria. The source is from 1914, so it is primary, and it is written by a certain Pavel Miliukov, a Russian. At the time, Russia was pursuing an pan-slavist policy and Bulgaria was a Russian client. Consequently, Miliukov is as pro-Bulgarian as they come, and the source is far from neutral. A casual look at the source itself reveals that is very biased, saying nonsensical things like The main fact on which we must insist is that the Greek army inaugurated the second war by the deliberate burning of a Bulgarian town. (p. 99, paragraph 2). Nothing could be further from the truth. Even Bulgarian authors concede that the Second Balkan War was started by a Bulgaria that was dissatisfied with its gains in the First Balkan War. The consensus on this is universal, and this reveals the extremely biased nature of the source. The Carnegie Report has been panned in the literature:

Frank Maloy Anderson, Amos Shartle Hershey, National Board for Historical Service -Handbook for the diplomatic history of Europe, Asia, and Africa, 1870-1914‎ -"pro-Bulgarian bias" p 428

Kemal H. Karpat -Ottoman population, 1830-1914: demographic and social characteristics‎ - "Some pro- Bulgarian sources (such as Carnegie Endowment)" p. 50

Giannēs Koliopoulos, John S. Koliopoulos -Plundered loyalties: Axis occupation and civil strife in Greek West: "the fanatically pro-Bulgarian part of the report" - p. 12

Alice Garnett -Jugoslavia: History, peoples, and administration‎ - "a full account written from a pro-Bulgarian standpoint" p. 140.

The key role P. Miliukov played in that report was revealed by Prof. of university of Sofia Ivan Ilchev in his study "Karnegievata Anketa na Balkanite prez 1913" in Makedonija: Istorija i polititseska sadba (1912-1941), Sofia 1998, vol. 2, pp. 241-256.

I also note that the source is posted on an ultra-nationalist Bulgarian website, which should set further alarm bells ringing.
talk
) 18:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The Carnegie report was compiled by the American Carnegie foundation and included representatives from the major European countries and the US. Pavel Miliukov was just one member and User Athenean has not presented any evidence that he wrote that particular chapter.

Russia's position at the time is hardly relevant, but it must be noted that during this period Russia generally supported Serbia over Bulgaria and had recently had a falling out with the Bulgarian government, so the statement "Russian client state" is inaccurate.

Primary sources prohibits their usage for interpretations and they're not used in the article in this way - they are simply used for a citation of a fact. That the chapter was biased is Athenean's personal opinion. When one considers the anti-Bulgarian propaganda produced by Greece (before the war) such a conclusion doesn't seem so absurd.

Athenean falsely asserts that the Carnegie commission is universally considered biased. For example, in the recent work "The Balkan Wars, 1912-1913: prelude to the First World War" which is used extensively as a source for this article, the report is referred as :"Probably the most objective assessment of the question of atrocities in the

Balkan Wars is found in the Carnegie Report." [10]. Even in one of the sources which according to Athenean prove the bias of the report, actually states: ""Their work was accurately and carefully done, although the pro-Bulgarian bias of one member, M.Miliukov probably affected the report to some extent", which is very far from the condemnation Athenean seems to portray. About his other sources, Kemal Karpat and Giannēs Koliopoulos, being Turkish and Greek respectively are quite likely to be biased against the report which reported about war crimes committed by their nations' armies (are we going to have Bulgarian sources proving the neutrality of the report?).

The citation by Garnett doesn't even refer to Carnegie: [11]! I actually placed a note on the talk page of
Balkan wars about this, so I don't know why it's reproduced here. I couldn't find the final source (by Ilchev) so I was unable to ascertain its authenticity though it's notable that it was posted by the same user (Factuarius
) who also falsely cited Garnett's book and has been blocked for edit warring on this subject.

Kroraina.com can hardly be regarded as a Bulgarian ultra-nationalist site - it's mostly a collection of materials on Bulgarian history. Also, this is irrelevant as the site is only used for the deposition of the report- it's not as if they made it themselves.

As this source is probably the most extensive and neutral source available on the subject and is only used for direct citation, I do not see why it shouldn't be used. Kostja (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's dispense with the wikilawyering and nitpicking. The tone and content of the entire chapter is extremely biased and partisan. It is immediately apparent to anyone reading it. A source that claims Greece started the Second Balkan War so as to cleanse the Bulgarians of Kilkis is not even worth server space it takes up.
talk
) 00:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
That source doesn't say anything like that. That Greece planned the war in advance and was just waiting for a pretext is obvious and well known. You don't start such a propaganda campaign if you're planning for peace. And no Athenean, you're not the source to decide what is obvious. Kostja (talk) 08:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Is there any modern source(say post 1970) written in English(since this is English wikipedia) that supports the Carnegie Report of 1914? --Kansas Bear (talk) 08:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, there is. As I've mentioned above, it's called ""Probably the most objective assessment of the question of atrocities in the

Balkan Wars is found in the Carnegie Report." in the 2002 "The Balkan Wars, 1912-1913: prelude to the First World War" by Richard Hall, who is used as the main sources on this article: [12], page 138. The report is also mentioned as an "important historical document" in "Ethnic cleansing in the Balkans: nationalism and the destruction of tradition", 2002: [13]. It's also used a source in "Jews, Turks, Ottomans: a shared history, fifteenth through the twentieth century": [14] and "The Balkan wars: myth, reality, and the eternal conflict", 2001: [15]. According to another recent book: "An ounce of prevention: Macedonia and the UN experience in preventive diplomacy", the Carnegie report "gives an account of the developments and resolution of the two regional conflicts of 1912-1913": [16].

Wikipedia:PSTS#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources. --Bejnar (talk
) 10:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I note that the appendices to the Carnegie report do contain primary documents, letters, etc. --Bejnar (talk) 10:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
The difference between primary and secondary source often blurs a bit with time. A "modern" secondary source would be strongly preferred to one from 1914. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I've shown that this source is used by many modern works regarded as secondary sources. Kostja (talk) 10:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It is the consensus among historians (including serious Bulgarian scholars) that the Second Balkan War was started by a Bulgaria that was dissatisfied with its gains in the First Balkan War. No serious historian of today contradicts this. A source that claims that Greece started the war goes against all consensus and simply cannot be taken seriously. That is precisely the problem with primary sources such as this: They are too close to the events to be able to reflect the consensus among historians.
talk
) 22:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
The report doesn't actually say that - the statement is about Greece's war aims. Kostja (talk) 09:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Kostja, assuming those secondary sources that quote the Carnegie report are reliable, please cite them instead. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The secondary sources that quote the Carnegie report don't refer to exactly the passage that is needed for the article. Kostja (talk) 09:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The passage in question is not "needed" for the article. If you can't cite a secondary source on it, then it shouldn't be there in the first place.
talk
) 09:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I understand why you would think that a destruction of a Bulgarian city by the Greek army was not needed. Unfortunately for you, Wukipedia has to observe NPOV. Kostja (talk) 09:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
That's not NPOV. That's exactly the mentality of a POV-pusher: "The destruction of one of their cities by us is mentioned, so we have to mention the destruction of one of our cities by them". That's tit-for-tat nationalism, not NPOV. The destruction of Serres is mentioned because there are reliable secondary sources to back it up. You were told to find a secondary source for Kilkis. You didn't. Out it goes.
talk
) 18:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
A primary source can be used for a direct citation, which is the case here. Kostja (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems there isn't a consensus on the issue, so my question is: Can the Carnegie report be used for the purposes permitted by
WP:Primary as is the case here when it's regarded as a reliable sources by various secondary sources? Of course a secondary source would be preferable but when the particular passage needed can't be found in a secondary source perhaps a primary source could be permitted. Kostja (talk
) 20:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
No, it shouldn't be used. The secondary sources provide context for the report, and indicate which parts of the report are notable or otherwise meaningful. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Kostja is now insisting on using a source from 1905, and a source (Hugh Poulton, "Who are the Macedonians") that doesn't even mention Kilkis [17]. This is getting ridiculous.
talk
) 07:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
The 1905 source is there for completely different reasons and Athenean is false about "Who are the Macedonians": [18]. Kostja (talk) 08:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what the 1905 source is used for, it still is a primary source, and cannot be used for the very same reasons that the previous primary source.
talk
) 08:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
See the guidelines for primary sources: [19]. As far I can see the decision about the Carnegie report doesn't prohibit the usage of any primary sources in the article.Kostja (talk) 08:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
According to what I can see in the link by Kostja, primary sources might be used. The article for the Balkan wars is not based on primary sources so leaving one citation is not a problem.

The problem is, it seems, that certain Greek users want to deny any Greek atrocities to the Bulgarian population but to mention Bulgarians atrocities. It is not fair to mention the destruction of Serres and just omit the destruction of Kilkis because Athenean doesn't like it. Honestly speaking, even Athenean cannot deny that the destruction of Kilkis is a fact (I suppose), it happened; so I insist to be mentioned with a primary source since that is not against the rules. --Gligan (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Actually the specific source creates a new parallel history of the second Balkan War, a clear a pov concert. Such kind of primaries (or semi-primaries) should be treated with heavy precaution. Since not a single secondary rs confirms the specific events, like the so-called Greek responsibility for the outbreak of the war, I don' t see a reason take it into account.Alexikoua (talk) 21:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Even if that is so, it does not mean that everything there is nonsense and untrue. The destruction of Kukush is a fact that I suppose no one denies. Honestly speaking, to me it does not need a citation but if you insist to have one, what is the problem of using that source? We do not deal about who is responsible for the war but only about that particular event. --Gligan (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Please avoid primary sources, and please avoid very old sources, particularly for any contentious claims. Try to use reliable secondary sources written within, say, the past 40 years. What historians and other sources believed to be historically true 100 years ago may be very different from the historical consensus today. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

DVD: "Treasure Within the Mountains (The Mountain Parkway)"

On
talk
) 22:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

They produced it ,but the idea for it came form the Northern Webster Co Improvement Council Inc. They can give you the inFo you need about the DVD.Gauley production is a subsidiary of Gauley Trading Post which is based in Webster Springs. The dvd in question was released in 2005 --Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, for verification purposes, it isn't listed in WorldCat, so finding a library that has a copy will be difficult. It is not listed in the catalog of the WV Library Commission/Archives & History Library, the Wheeling Public Library (Ohio County Public Library), nor the Louis Bennett Public Library (Lewis County). The Webster-Addison Public Library does not have an online public access catalog, so I could not check there. --Bejnar (talk) 10:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
That beasue it was never released globaly. It was only relased in West Virginia. For the information you seek contact the Northern Webster Co improvement Council Inc.User:Bmpowell should have the contact information.--Todd Schoolcraft (talk) 17:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
In addition to the West Virginia libraries checked by
talk
) 04:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I note that SchoolcraftT has been indefinitely blocked for, among other reasons, copyright violation.
talk
) 08:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Guido Fawkes

Is this Guido Fawkes blog post a wikipedia reliable citation for this comment? In December 2009, the political blogger Guido Fawkes claimed that Griffiths still has a so called super-injunction preventing full press coverage of the matter in the United Kingdom... Also is Guido a WP:RS for anything?
Off2riorob (talk
) 08:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a primary source for that statement; however, if the intent is to talk about the injunction rather than Guido's opinion, then it is not a reliable source. Normally one wouldn't assert an opinion of someone unless they were notable or an expert in the field. --Bejnar (talk) 09:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Also and about the same situation..
Its related to this story , this is a News of the world exclusive so this is the only source, is it ok to use comments from this article?
Off2riorob (talk
) 09:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
These are the comments....In March 2009, The News of the World revealed Griffiths had sexual relations in the House of Commons with a female companion who was not his wife in November 2008. At least 27 pornographic images were taken on the House of Commons estate, and 44 images were taken at a second location on the same night.When initially asked, Griffiths denied the affair and claimed the evidence had been fabricated and applied to the courts to issue a gagging order censoring the affair. When the courts lifted the gagging order, Griffiths confessed to the matter and issued an apology.

Don't forget there's another path to inclusion as an RS; if reliable sources discuss the Guido Fawkes blog's role in handling a story, then the Fawkes opinions would be notable as an actor in the story, and the blog an RS for its own views. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Third-party blogs cannot be cited in
WP:BLP articles, and particularly not for contentious information such as this. Any material regarding the blog must be taken from reliable secondary sources, not the blog itself. Jayjg ^(talk)
04:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Third-party SPS, even recognized experts, can't be quoted for information about BLPs. But a third-party blog may be citable for information about an action of the British courts, which is not exactly the same thing as information about a person. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
No, of course it's not citable "for information about an action of the British courts", since this one has obvious BLP implications. It's a blog, and these are BLP claims. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'll give you that. The Fawkes piece uses the word "apparently" in regard to this, and it's difficult to tell whether they are using understatement or whether they were guessing as to whether such an order had been issued. On the other hand, and this is an academic question at this point, if the Fawkes blog had been served with such an order, would the blog no longer be a third party? Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Arabic Wikipedia

Hello,
Since Osm agha's deleting content that he doesn't like, i suggest an admin check those sources, present in this article, to this date, to assess their validity, in order to protect the page in the future. [[21]] Now, sources include a lot of respected Arab newspaper, additionally to the Netherlands radio. Thank you.

I think the problem there is that most Wikipedia users can't read arabic and personally I think that if the same source can be found in English translation (for the English Wikipedia) then it could be used, but i'll wait for some admin's suggestions. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

For clarification, policy makes clear that non English sources are acceptable if English language ones are not available. Deleting them solely because they aren't in English is therefore wrong. However if there is doubt over the source reliability or questions over whether it really says what it's claim it does then it may be acceptable to remove it until these issues are clarified, probably with the aide of people who can read the language. Now on the this discussion, I don't see much wrong doing by Osm agha in this specific case. Most of those are either sourced to the Arabic Wikipedia themselves, i.e.
WP:OR or to Google knols i.e. clearly not WP:reliable sources. Only one looks like it could be a reliable source. Nil Einne (talk
) 00:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Osm agha made a mistake by citing vandalism as the reason for the revert. However, النول edit is biased. "The Arabic Wikipedia is considered by many Arab journalists as the worst of all of the Wikipedias", that is an absurd claim. Those journalists did not check the wikipedias in all languages because they cannot read it. Sole Soul (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

How do you know they can't read other languages? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Because I can read minds. Sole Soul (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Sole, i just reported what was said in the Arabic news (it's the Worst). I had once, an israeli article written in English, lost it, but fine, i'm satisfied with the discussion here, hope Osm agha, won't change it! --النول (talk) 11:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
After I read the source you've cited, it is clear that you had misrepresented what it says. The translation is roughly:

"The conclusion of the participants in the Wikimania 2008 in Alexandria is that the Arabic Wikipedia is the weakest of all Wikipedias. This conclusion is not surprising, after years of its establishment the number of articles does not exceed 65000 articles, which is low compared to the English language version (2.5 million), Or Polish (560 million), and even Esperanto"

Apart from the obvious mistake about the number of Polish articles, the context of comparison is clearly among major languages, because the reason cited is the number of articles and we have a lot of languages with less articles. Second, it says weakest, not worst. Third, the opinions is that of the participants of WM 2008 not journalists. Sole Soul (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
So, this is a dispute over the translation then, not over the reliability of the source. Done. Take it to
WP:OR in these situations, so take care with the translation. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite
16:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
This is a waste of time. The mistranslation by User:النول was made in purpose not by mistake. He was banned before in both arabic and english wikipedias (not this account). Since that time, he was trying to misrepresent the facts about Arabic wikipedia. This seems very childish but unfortunately it's the truth. I won't have any discussions with this user anymore because I have already done this before and it was a waste of time. To find out more about this issueو you can review the edits of his previous sock puppets (Retrospectiva 3, Riyadi.asmawi, Stayfi.Co2, Stayfi) and Talk:Arabic Wikipedia/Archive --Osm agha (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Are the following websites reliable sources?

1, 2. Especially in the context of infrastructure-related articles. Please clarify. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 14:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Both are tough ones. What do you propose to use them for? Hipocrite (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

An anon added both as sources on Delhi Metro. There are alternative sources (newspaper reports), but I want to know whether these are unreliable before I replace them. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Both Websites seem to be owned by legitimate B2B publishers - see http://www.nridigital.com/about.html and http://www.projectsmonitor.com/AboutUs.aspx. So I would say yes, they are fine, unless there's a specific reason to distrust them. Barnabypage (talk) 16:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, they may be okay sources for completely non-contentious information, but be aware that such "industry news" websites are typically an outlet for press-releases and hype (www.projectsmonitor.com is even run by a advertising and public relation outfit), so use common sense and a liberal dosing of salt, and look out for self-serving claims. If reports in mainstream newspapers are available, use them instead. Abecedare (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No sources for Sectarianism

The sectarianism page claims that

Sectarianism is
bigotry, discrimination or hatred arising from attaching importance to perceived differences between subdivisions within a group, such as between different denominations of a religion or the factions of a political movement
.

There are absolutely no sources for this claim, and none of the dictionaries that I checked agreed with that definition. After mentioning this on the talk page and stating my intention to move the page to a more appropriate article name, and waiting nearly four months (!) without anyone objecting, I did so. Then Dr.enh, who apparently has developed a vendetta against me, reverted my edits without any reason. He also forged a comment by me at the bottom of the page. Then Nate showed up and threatened me with a block if I continued with my editing, citing absolutely no wikipedia policy. Seems to me that unilaterally telling other people what edits they are and are not allowed to make is a clear violation of wikipedia policy. When I rejected Nate's right to tell me what to do, Jauerback showed up, accused me of vandalism, and then blocked me for a week. This is completely unacceptable. Jauerback's accusation of vandalism is completely without foundation, and a blatant violation of civility.Heqwm2 (talk) 06:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Heqwm2 was blocked for
WP:VANDAL. For that, I apologize, but not for the block itself. Jauerback^dude?/_dude.
12:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I presented a reason for my edits on the talk page, invited others to refute my position, and no one did so. How is that edit warring? I find your claim that I "have a track record for edit warring" to be inaccurate, but I do not think that this is the proper forum for discussing that. And, as I said, the proposition that I was engaging in edit warring was not advanced as a justification for me ceasing my editing of the article. Nate simply showed up and demanded that I not edit. As for the substance of the issue, why are admins using their power to keep an unsourced article?Heqwm2 (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I left a response on your talk page. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 22:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised that Heqwm didn't leave me notice on my talk page on this issue at all. I was going through random articles, came upon this one which I expected to be long, and found it neutered down to a dictionary definition. I restored the previous version, warned Heqwm about page blanking and he took offense to that. Never did I say that he couldn't contribute, just that he had to work with the usual channels of consensus and that a slash and burn of content was not the appropriate manner to address to his concerns. However he then deleted my response, blanked the content again well past 3RR, and went off on another editor for the simple crime in his eyes of threading his talk replies as 'forging'. After another blanking I asked for action on AIV, and he was given a week-long block based on his actions. There was no ill will at all, just enforcing policy. Thank you.
chatter
) 06:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Is "The US Report" a reliable source?

Could you please tell me if "The US Report" is a reliable source. http://www.theusreport.com/about-the-us-report/
I believe it is a blog according to the Editor's description. Is this correct? kgrr ^talk 20:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps not quite a full-fledged blog since it filters contributions and pays its writers, but the disclaimer that "all opinions expressed are those of the authors" means that it shouldn't be treated as a reliable source, in my opinion. Looie496 (talk) 00:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The fact that it disavows responsibility for the contents of the articles it publishes is a bad sign... Jayjg ^(talk) 01:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no. It really depends on the reputation of the authors. If they're writing as experts in their fields, what they write might be considered a RS of their opinion, which in some cases is good enough. Use common sense and play it on a case by case basis. That doesn't automatically mean all their content is usable. --
talk
) 05:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
In other words, treat it the same as any other
WP:SPS. Jayjg ^(talk)
03:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This pretty much makes it
WP:SPS. Of course the same case could be made for any op-ed, in any publication.... unless that publication had independently established reliability.... like all of the sources from which we consider op-eds reliable "for the opinion of the author". Dlabtot (talk
) 06:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. --
talk
) 07:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Cornish language

The reference used on Cornish language for the number of speakers in the infobox is hopeless. It doesn't say "the number of Cornish speakers is xxx" or even "a survey showed the number of Cornish to be about xxx". What it says is that it is a survey of what people thought the number of Cornish speakers were, at some unspecified time in the past - the most recent date noted is 1999. They even provide a 'health warning' for their results "It should be very strongly cautioned that in terms of reliability these results are merely the aggregation of personal opinions and impressions. They cannot be taken as representative statistics of the present day language situation." i.e. don't use these figures. A separate reference isn't definitive, but at least it is explicit. It says (in the final paragraph) "A survey in 2008 found 2,000 people were fluent in Cornish, compared to just 300 in 2000". Please advise. Daicaregos (talk) 10:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

A better source would obviously be preferable, but using it labeled explicitly as an estimate in the infobox is the next best option if a better ref can't be found. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Which ref do you mean? Is it the first reference (with the health warning not to use the figures), or the second reference (that refers to 'A survey ...') that is the better one to use? Should they both be considered reliable, is one of them reliable, or are neither reliable? Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 20:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Use the more recent one, from 2008, which is also referenced by the BBC link. This article link comments on the reliability of these surveys and this book also discusses this point. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Will do. Thanks for that. The extra refs should help expand the article too. Appreciate your help. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Somali Clans

Jidwaq is a one of the sub-clans of the Darod. Jidwaq is transalted meaning "The Road of Waq (meaning God)." Image File history File links This is a lossless scalable vector image. ... Image File history File links Question_book-3. ... The Darod (Somali language: Darood, or Daarood) is a Somali clan. ...

The Jidwaq primarily inhabit Jijiga, which is the capital city of the Somali Region of Ethiopia. It is the second largest sub-clan of the Absame clan, which consists of Ogaden, Jidwaq, Bal'ad and Weyteen clans. Jijiga is a city in eastern Ethiopia, located approximately 80 km east of Harar and 60 km west of the border with Somaliland. ... Map of Ethiopia highlighting the Somali region. ... This article is about the geographical area. ...

Jidwaq is the eldest of the four brothers:Ogaden, Jidwaq, Bal'ad, and Weyteen clans. The Absame clan is a sub-clan of Kablalah which is then under the clan Darod. The Darod (Somali language: Darood, or Daarood) is a Somali clan. ...

The Jidwaq sub-clan can be divided further into the following three sub-clans:
Yabare Abaskul Bartire Abaskul is the largest sub-clan of the Jidwaq. Abaskul consists of those subclans: Isse, Reer Farah, Reer Geedi, Reer Guled, Reer Hildiid, Reer Ibrahim, Hassan Osman, Reer Aw-warfaa, Reer Aw-nur and Reer Looge. The cities and towns Abaskul clans reside in are Jijiga, Qabribayah, Gilo, Guyow, Araarso, Istabta, Dhurwale and Dhagahle. The abaskuul clan is the most famous clan in the Zone 5, and had its goals of independence in Ethiopia.

The Yabare sub-clan is translated meaning "Warriors." The Yabare are well-known for their support of Imam Ahmad ibn Ibrihim al-Ghazi (known as Ahmad Gran, the Left-Handed, to the Ethiopians) conquered the region of Adal Sultanate and launched a holy war against Christian Ethiopia under the leadership of Lebna Dengel.The Yabare consists of the following five sub-clans: Reer Said, Reer Yusuf,Reer Habarliyo, Reer Hodan Barre, and Reer Biyo.Furthermore Yabares call Jijiga and Harureys home. Ahmed Gurey statue in Mogadishu. ... Adal was a sixteenth century province-cum-sultanate located in East Africa north of Ethiopia, in modern Eritrea and Djibouti. ... Dawit II or David II, better known by his throne name Lebna Dengel (1501 - September 2, 1540) was negus (1508 - 1540) of Ethiopia, and a member of the Solomonid dynasty. ... Jijiga is a city in eastern Ethiopia, located approximately 80 km east of Harar and 60 km west of the border with Somaliland. ...

The Bartire sub-clan consits of those subclans: Reer Ali, Reer Guuled, Reer Samatar Dayl, Lagmadoobe, Timo Case, Tuuro Case, Habar Yaasuf, Habar Sacad and Ableele. Jigjiga and Xaadaw are two urban areas of the region that Bartires call home. Jijiga (Somali: ) is a city in eastern Ethiopia and the capital of the Somali Region (or kilil) of that country. ...
I am having with how to exactly use this wikipedia thing. I am giving up on it; can someone help me here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shukriyakub (talk • contribs) 02:49, February 4, 2010

Hi Shukriyakub, welcome to Wikipedia. First, try to sign your posts with four tildes, like this: ~~~~. That will turn into your user name and the date, which makes things easier to understand. Second, could you be a bit more clear about your question? I've looked at your recent contribution history, and it looks like you're having a problem with
User:Cambridge Bay Weather and User:Gyrofrog, is that the issue? If so, you will notice that in his edit comment, Gyrofrog directed you to a discussion on Category_talk:Somali_clans - did you read that? --GRuban (talk
) 13:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Are Amicus Briefs Reliable Sources?

Are amicus briefs from relevant experts reliable sources? Phoenix of9 03:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Amicus briefs are designed to advance a particular POV. They exist solely to advance a particular position before a Court of law. Instead of relying upon Amicus briefs, one should link directly to the sources contained within the briefs. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 03:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Amicus briefs are reliable only in terms of stating what party X believes about a question of law. Stuff that is on point is reliable in terms of what party X believes. Beyond that, then no. Ngchen (talk) 03:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

For example, are amicus briefs from
LGBT parenting? Phoenix of9
03:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I think they would be fine in suggesting what the APA believes about a position. However, research within the brief should be linked directly. It is important to remember that an Amicus brief exists only to assert a particular POV. That's why they are created and filed. They are inherently biased towards a certain position. It is best to extract the scientific research directly. Science > advocacy. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 04:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Amici curiae briefs are perfectly acceptable as Wikipedia references as long as they are created by highly reliable sources such as "the nation’s and state’s leading associations of mental health professionals and behavioral scientists presenting the brief to provide the Court with a comprehensive and balanced review of the scientific and professional literature". http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf#page=23 "Out of the 45 amicus briefs in the case, the only brief cited and quoted in support of the decision was the one APA co-filed." http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/marriage.aspx Encyclopedia and Wikipedia have to be based on the facts provided by the most reliable sources available, not to be based on the limited knowledge or unfounded beliefs of its editors only because they want so. And the Wikipedia policies and recommendations are pretty clear here:
tertiary sources." You should be already familiar with those. Obviously, promoting primary sources where available secondary and terciary sources should and can be used is violating with Wikipedia policies and recommendations. --Destinero (talk
) 01:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The American Psychological Association is the association of psychologists in the USA, therefore an official statement by the APA is a reliable source for facts about psychology. It should be regarded as a secondary source, whereas the individual scientific papers are more likely to fall into the category of primary sources. The only caveat that applies is that there may be more than one view among psychologists, in which case all major viewpoints should be mentioned. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

An Amicus Brief is not an official statement. It's prepared by an attorney to assert a particular viewpoint before the court. This is part of the problem with Amici. Technically, it is an attorney who prepares the brief, not the organization itself. The brief in question here was authored in part by Natalie F.P. Gilfoyle, COUNSEL (an attorney) for the APA. It is not an official statement of the APA apart from what the organization wants to emphasize before a particular court. Hence, Amici are inherently POV, they are designed to emphasize a particular POV for a court. They are not reliable for factual assertions and in no case, should a majority of the factual assertions in an article be derived from two or three Amici. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I would entirely disagree with Ghostmonkey57's characterization. An amicus brief states the position of the party, not of the attorney. Yes, a brief is POV, but that hardly makes them non-RS: it's a RS for the POV of the organization that presents the brief. That said, there would seem to be OR problems with quote-mining amicus briefs, unless one is relying on secondary sources that have noted the statements in the brief -- such as a court opinion or a newspaper article about the brief. THF (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we agree more than we disagree. I have said that I don't think there is anything wrong with including Amici as a RS as to what a particular party believes about a point of law. However, there is a serious problem with relying on Amici as a source for factual assertions, as Amici are inherently POV. Amici are not official statements in the same vein that a policy statement is. Instead they are the position of a party before a particular court. They are attempting to establish a particular POV for the Court. They are prepared by an attorney on behalf of a party. Thus, to rely on them for factual assertions is clearly problematic. No one is suggesting that they not be included, but only that they not be used for factual assertions when we should be using reliable secondary sources that summarize the positions. The one article in particular that is causing many problems includes numerous verbatim quotes from the Amici (few of which are set off on quotes) and makes the Amici seem as if they are authoritative statements of scientific facts. We should be relying on either peer reviewed studies, or news sources from mainstream organizations instead. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 23:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
The amici curiae brief IS authoritative statements of scientific facts, http://www.apa.org/about/division/officers/handbook/amicus.aspx "Amici, the nation’s and state’s leading associations of mental health professionals and behavioral scientists present this brief to provide the Court with a comprehensive and balanced review of the scientific and professional literature pertinent to the issues before the Court. In preparing this brief, amici have been guided solely by criteria relating to the scientific rigor and reliability of studies and literature, not by whether a given study supports or undermines a particular conclusion. The brief was prepared primarily by the American Psychological Association. The views expressed herein, however, are shared by all amici." http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf --Destinero (talk) 21:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
You simply cannot say things like leading (oldest, largest and most reputable) associations in the field are not reliable or competent to present facts to the Supreme Court of California. This is serious matter and you are unable to prove that presented facts are nonsense or POV. There is no such a thing like view in the science. This is not a way how science works. Science works because of scientific method and leading experts in the field. You cannot discredite it just because you dont base your opinions on the science or facts. Like it or not, the amici curiae brief here is highly reliable source, perhaps the best on the world. --Destinero (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You can keep insisting that this is the case, but that does not make it so. Amicus Briefs serve a specific purpose. They are designed to present what one organization or a group of organizations wants to emphasize before a Court. Amicus Briefs will not include any information that the organization does not want to emphasize, unless there is an attempt to distinguish or paint that negative information in the best possible light. Suggesting that an Amicus brief is "perhaps the best on the world" is at best, facetious. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

"In striking down California’s ban on same-sex marriage, the state’s Supreme Court cited the amicus curiae brief APA jointly filed with the California Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the National Association of Social Workers and its California chapter. The court held that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violates the state constitution. Out of the 45 amicus briefs in the case, the only brief cited and quoted in support of the decision was the one APA co-filed." http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/marriage.aspx This clearly illustrates how much credibility the amici curiae brief has. --Destinero (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Again, the point of the brief was to advocate before the Court. The fact that one Court accepted that information does not make it authoritative or relevant. Numerous other Courts have rejected very similar briefs from the APA. If whether or not a court accepts a piece of advocacy is the Standard, then we must take into account that the Supreme Court of New York, Washington, and Maryland rejected such contentions. Are you willing to do this? Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The answer is "no'. First of all, an amicus brief is a piece of advocacy. It states a position of a person, not a party, in a case. Second, it is unpublished. Being available online in an e-docket is no different from being in a dusty court clerk's file drawer other than that it can be more conveniently accessed. It is a primary source. It fails as a reliable source on a number of levels.
Fladrif (talk
) 01:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
"It states a position of a person, not a party, in a case. Second, it is unpublished." Then how you are able to explain this? "The brief was prepared primarily by the American Psychological Association. The views expressed herein, however, are shared by all amici." http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/ra-ma.aspx That's clearly all parties position published in open manner! --Destinero (talk) 08:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Amici curiae are not parties in a case. It doesn't matter if the brief was jointly filed by a number of amici curiae. I was using the word "person" in the sense of a legal person. But, to the point: it does not matter who filed the brief. It is not a reliable source. First, it is unpublished. Would you argue that an unpublished letter could be used as a source on Wikipedia? It is a primary source. Primary sources can only be used in very limited circumstances, and only for describing what the author says about itself, and not for what it says about anyone or anything else. Third, it would appear that what you want to use this for is as support for positions on scientific and medical research.
Fladrif (talk
) 15:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Amicus briefs are published all the time, and are, in any event, part of the public record in United States jurisdictions. Every amicus brief I've ever participated in, as an author or as a party, has been published. Your argument appears to be based on a false premise. THF (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
A brief is no more "published" than is a letter that you send with multiple cc's. That may constitute "publication" in a very narrow and technical legal sense (eg in a libel suit) but it is not publication within the normal everyday use of that term. If regarded as "published" it is entirely self-published, and still cannot used in the way being advocated here
Fladrif (talk
) 19:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Have to concur on this as well. Rather than depending on the brief itself, go to the source that the opinion that the brief is intending to support uses. If the brief has no such source, the court will likely ignore it, and so should Wikipedia. Rapier1 (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Do errors in a source hurt its reliability

If a source has full of errors, does it become unreliable?
Barack Obama is a high profile article so, as Jimbo Wales says, We Must Get It Right.
In the infobox, edit warriors are listing his religion as "Christianity" and using an unreliable source. They reject reliable sources that are more precise and back up that he religion is "Non-denominational Christian". Actually, I prefer Non-denominational Protestant but the religion is not the question for this board.
The question is if the Miller Center is a reliable source. http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/obama
Pro (for reliability)

has a grandiose name.

Con (against reliability)

is just a summary

gives no references itself so it's like a Wikipedia without references - not good enough

there are more recent references

has errors - lists Obama's occupation as community organizer and public official. It omits that he's a lawyer. It omits that he's an author and constitutional law scholar (which would create an uproar if that reference were used to take out those two occupations from the Wikipedia infobox)

Note: This question is not about how to edit the Obama article but is a question about the quality of this error prone reference.
JB50000 (talk) 05:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Obviously it is a reliable source, any perceived errors of omission notwithstanding. The manner in which it is cited is a different question, not within the scope of this noticeboard but more appropriate for an article talk page. Dlabtot (talk) 05:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm ignoring the Obama thing, as instructed. Errors can hurt a source. But they don't hurt it much. Reliable is reliable. Where errors can be a problem, is if lots of other reliable sources report on the unreliability of a source. Then there's a problem. If it's wiki editors saying, "this source is unreliable because this, this, and this examples are wrong", then that doesn't effect it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The Miller Center does not just have a "grandiose name"; it is associated with a major university (the University of Virginia). Being associated with a respected academic institution does tend to support the reliability of a source. Furthermore, the "errors" cited above merely reflect the fact that not all of the information about Obama appears on the first page of the center's coverage of him. This page from the same site mentions that Obama wrote the book Dreams from My Father and that he "accepted positions as an attorney with the civil rights law firm of Miner, Barnhill and Galland and as a lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School". There may be better references one can find (it's not as though there is a shortage of biographical information about Barack Obama) but that doesn't mean this source is unreliable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Many sources contain errors. They are still reliable, though we try not to reproduce the errors. We rely on the good sense of editors to keep out the errors as best we can.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Realistically, all sources of any substance contain errors. The best sources are those with mechanisms in place to prevent errors from making it to publication, but also with a proactive approach to correcting errors identified after publication. MastCell ^Talk 16:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the other responses here and would ask you to remember that it is only an infobox. It should just be a guide and a summary to what is in the article. The description "Christian" for Obama may be sufficient in the infobox, given that the article will go into detail about his faith and how it has been discussed in the media. There are thousands of sources to support "Christian" and you don't really need one at all in the infobox. Would "Protestant Christian" be a sensible compromise? Again, it can be supported from a great number of sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Reliability of Virgin Media

I am trying to determine if the subject source is reliable for citations about criminal charges against celebrities: http://www.virginmedia.com. Specifically, I am trying to get the criminal charge in the following article properly sourced: Stedman Pearson. I couldn't find a previous discussion on this source in the archive.
The source appears to be primarily a broadband company and does news as a sideline. There is some questionable material such as the following (from the Virgin Media article), but I don't know how significant it is for RS purposes: http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1000000189,40004190,00.htm
The Stedman article came up on the BLP noticeboard Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Stedman_Pearson. Considering the salaciousness of the charge, I am trying to get the entry as compliant to WP policies as possible.Jarhed (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK, Virgin Media does not do any journalism of their own: they simply republish news stories from elsewhere, so there is no way of knowing whether they do the fact-checking and so on expected of a reliable source.

When the issue at stake is as serious as a criminal charge, I would want the source to be from a reputable news-gathering outlet, not a news re-publisher who could have sourced the material from anywhere. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I'd be very surprised if Virgin Media were publishing news that was not from the wires (AP, Reuters) or already publishing elsewhere. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
The Press Association Ltd. did in fact issue a release about Stedman's arrest on 8 October 1990 entitled "Pop Star's Indecency Shame". It appeared in a number of papers. The original may be accessed via LexisNexis. --Bejnar (talk) 11:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Virgin Media are part of the Virgin Enterprises Group, who are one of the leading media corporations in the world. The group have held record companies, publishing houses, radio stations, shops, telecommunications, airlines, trains, and even television channels. Virgin Media's website is not just a broadband provider, it is a multimedia site with news, features, entertainment, TV listings - much like an online magazine or newspaper. With regards to their publishing house, Virgin have published a vast array of books including The Virgin Encyclopedia of Popular Music and its various forms and editions (Virgin Encyclopedia of Rock Music, 60's Music, 80's Music, Country Music, etc). Since the information you are referring to isn't exactly "news" (because it's 20 years old), it is likely Virgin have sourced the material from their own published archives. Fortunately, I have access to a few of these books and I have found the very detail you are referring to in the Virgin Encyclopedia of R&B and Soul, written by
WP:RS. Furthermore, there are two other sources in the article in question (The Guardian, a highly respected UK broadsheet newspaper, and another published book about pop music history) that corroborate the material you are talking about - so the Virgin Media source is obviously reliable. Lastly, the link from zdnet.co.uk you have included in your posting above about Virgin's broadband service is absolutely nothing to do with the subject or article you are enquiring here about, so I am curious as to why you included it. MassassiUK
12:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The issue under discussion is the use of Virgin Media as a reliable source for for citations about criminal charges against celebrities, nothing else. The link I included is to a news article about the source in question. I don't think the volume of publication is the issue here, it is the reliability of such. Nor is the "expertise" of the source an issue if the source is a celebrity scandal sheet.Jarhed (talk) 10:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The link you included is an article about Virgin Media's broadband service and their technical attempts to prevent illegal file sharing on their broadband network. It has absolutely nothing to do with entertainment news and features that Virgin may feature on one of their websites. You may as well have linked to an article about the quality of food on Virgin Airlines or the performance of the Virgin train service. I can only assume you were attempting some kind of smear campaign on the Virgin brand name, perhaps to obtain a desired outcome to this thread. And I see no evidence of "celebrity scandal sheets" connected to the topic in question either. Facts are simply facts. Perhaps, like your friend on the article itself, you need to let this one go now. MassassiUK 13:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I find your assumption of bad faith insulting. In my original post, I said that I don't know the relevance of that particular ref. If I knew about Virgin Media, I would be not asking here. As for my "friend", what are you talking about?--Jarhed (talk) 10:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure you posted in good faith, Jarhed. I think the verdict is that Virgin Media's news service is a mainstream news outlet, though perhaps not quite at "the quality end of the market", and reliable for this purpose. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I must be misunderstanding. I'm not sure what you mean by "verdict", and I don't see where you came up with "mainstream news outlet" whatever that means. Once again, the question is: is the use of Virgin Media as a reliable source for for citations about criminal charges against celebrities. So far, the discussion has leaned toward the fact that Virgin Media is not a news source at all.Jarhed (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Jarhed, your involvement in this particular article is documented both on the article itself and especially on the BLP noticeboard discussion about it (both of which have now been resolved). However, your postings there and here clearly suggest that you are trying to gain a certain outcome on this noticeboard, so please don't attempt to cry "good faith" when you obviously have an agenda. You and a friend of yours were in favour of removing the details about Stedman Pearson's arrest from his article page, and not because it was poorly sourced. When you failed to do so, you then tried to pick apart one of the sources by starting this thread. The specific article on Virgin's website you are referring to is not "news", it is an entertainment article about pop stars from bygone days. The information contained in it about Stedman Pearson was only "news" 20 years ago, and would now be considered entertainment history rather than news. So the question of Virgin being a news source isn't really relevant. What is relevant is whether Virgin are a reliable source for this piece of historical information about the musician Stedman Pearson? Since Virgin have published a variety of music encyclopedias written by respected music journalists, one of which includes the details in question, I think you have your answer. Of course, if you want to keep posting here in an attempt to get a different outcome then you're welcome to do so, but even you must realise that you're wasting your time. MassassiUK 12:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Once again, I find your accusations of bad faith insulting. I had never heard of this person or group until I read this article, and my only interest in this is getting this salacious legal allegation properly sourced. So far as I am aware, there is no "outcome" other than in your own mind. Generally speaking, disputes of this nature are resolved through discussion at first. There has been no such from you. You have done to address my BLP concerns, and have done nothing but throw accusations of bad faith on every edit. Who is this "friend" you keep talking about, because I am at a loss.--Jarhed (talk) 09:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's stop beating around the bush on this issue. The Virgin Media source in question is clearly a tertiary source, and so are the encyclopedias. There is no question about the fact that none of them are valid for a citation of this type. None of them provide a date or location of the offense, which would be the basics of any report contained in a reliable source. I am not sure why any of the interested editors on this article are even bothering to argue otherwise.--Jarhed (talk) 10:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Is amici curiae brief of reputable major medical and scientific bodies presenting comprehensive and balanced review of scientific and professional literature valuable encyclopedic source?

National Academy of Sciences), the British National Health Service, the U.S. National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the World Health Organization
. The reliability of these sources range from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, through public guides and service announcements, which have the advantage of being freely readable but are generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature.
"Amici, the nation’s and state’s leading associations of mental health professionals and behavioral scientists present this brief to provide the Court with a comprehensive and balanced review of the scientific and professional literature pertinent to the issues before the Court. In preparing this brief, amici have been guided solely by criteria relating to the scientific rigor and reliability of studies and literature, not by whether a given study supports or undermines a particular conclusion. The brief was prepared primarily by the American Psychological Association. The views expressed herein, however, are shared by all amici. This brief has been prepared and reviewed by expert members of the amici – the nation’s and state’s leading associations of mental health professionals and behavioral scientists – who are thoroughly familiar with current scientific theory, research methods, empirical findings, and clinical techniques concerning sexual orientation, marriage and non-marital relationships, parenting, and stigma and prejudice. Counsel have assisted the psychologist amici in identifying issues potentially relevant to this case, presenting scientific information herein in a manner that will assist the Court, and preparing the brief for filing with the Court in compliance with applicable rules. In preparing this brief, however, the psychologist amici and their expert members have taken responsibility for reviewing the scientific literature and summarizing the conclusions to be drawn therefrom. In the informed judgment of amici, this brief presents an accurate and balanced summary of the current state of scientific and professional knowledge about these issues. To further assist the Court, we briefly explain the professional standards we have followed for selecting individual studies and literature reviews for citation and for drawing conclusions from research data and theory.

(1) We are ethically bound to be accurate and truthful in describing research findings and in characterizing the current state of scientific knowledge.

(2) We rely on the best empirical research available, focusing on general patterns rather than any single study. Whenever possible, we cite original empirical studies and literature reviews that have been peer-reviewed and published in reputable academic journals. Recognizing that academic journals differ widely in their publication criteria and the rigor of their peer review, we give the greatest credence to papers published in the most authoritative journals, and we critically evaluate the findings reported in all of the papers we cite. We cite chapters, academic books, and technical reports -- which typically are not subject to the same peer-review standards as journal articles -- when they report research employing rigorous methods, are authored by well-established researchers, and accurately reflect professional consensus about the current state of knowledge. In assessing the scientific literature, we have been guided solely by criteria of scientific validity, and have neither included studies merely because they support, nor excluded credible studies merely because they contradict, particular conclusions.

(3) Before citing any study, we critically evaluate its methodology, including the reliability and validity of the measures and tests it employed, and the quality of its data-collection procedures and statistical analyses. We also evaluate the adequacy of the study’s sample, which must always be considered in terms of the specific research question posed by the study. To confidently describe the prevalence or frequency with which a phenomenon occurs in the population at large, for example, it is necessary to collect data from a probability sample (often referred to in common parlance as a “representative sample”). By contrast, simply to document that a phenomenon occurs, case studies and nonprobability samples are often adequate. For comparisons of different populations, probability samples drawn from each group are desirable but not necessary and are often not feasible. Hence, researchers often rely on nonprobability samples that have been matched on relevant characteristics (e.g., educational level, age, income). Some groups are sufficiently few in number — relative to the entire population — that locating them with probability sampling methods is extremely expensive or practically impossible. In the latter cases, the use of nonprobability samples is often appropriate. When numerous studies with different samples reach similar conclusions, we place greater confidence in those conclusions than when they are derived from a single study. We therefore rely as much as possible on empirical findings that have been replicated in multiple studies by different researchers. In this brief, we note when a study’s findings should be regarded as tentative because of methodological limitations.

(4) No empirical study is perfect in its design and execution. All scientific studies can be constructively criticized, and scientists continually try to identify ways to improve and refine their own work and that of their colleagues. Critiques are part of the process by which science is advanced. Thus, when a scientist identifies limitations or qualifications to a study’s findings (whether the scientist’s own research or that of a colleague), or when she or he notes areas in which additional research is needed, this should not necessarily be interpreted as a dismissal or discounting of the research.

(5) Scientific research cannot prove that a particular phenomenon does not exist or never occurs, or that two variables are never related to each other. However, when repeated studies with different samples consistently fail to establish the existence of a phenomenon or a relationship between two variables, researchers become increasingly convinced that, in fact, the phenomenon does not exist or the variables are unrelated. In that situation, if a researcher attempts to argue that two phenomena are correlated in the absence of supporting data from prior studies, the burden of proof is on that researcher to demonstrate empirically that the alleged relationship exists." http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/highprofile/documents/Amer_Psychological_Assn_Amicus_Curiae_Brief.pdf http://www.apa.org/about/offices/ogc/amicus/marriage.aspx

This document is perfectly acceptable as comprehensive and balanced review of the scientific and professional literature by leading associations of mental health professionals and behavioral scientists (American Psychological Association, California Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, National Association of Social Workers, and National Association of Social Workers, Californie Chapter); as a source for medicine-related articles. There is no evidence why this review of the scientific and professional literature should not be considered as reliable source like http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/Submission%20to%20the%20Church%20of%20England.pdf and http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles/Documents/advocacy/brief.pdf http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles/Documents/Marriage%20of%20Same-Sex%20Couples%20Position%20Statement%20-%20October%202006%20%281%29.pdf All main reliable bodies (oldest and largest professional associations of experts) in the field present the same facts and consistent conclusions. There is no reason why facts presented by all these bodies should be regarded as suspicious or incopetent. --Destinero (talk) 17:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not. Unpublished or unreviewed self-published documents, including in particular those presented at arguments (which is precisely what a brief is) are not reliable sources under
Fladrif (talk
) 20:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. There was no reason to start this new section. The discussion further up the board was moving along and consensus was forming. Everyone seems to agree that Amici are reliable sources as to what a particular party believes, but not reliable sources as to facts. Amici are not peer reviewed. They are inherently POV. They exist to push a specific agenda or position before a Court. Their entire purpose is to PERSUADE. That's why parties bother to file them in the first place. They want to PERSUADE a court to adopt a particular position. That is not the kind of source that should be used for scientific facts. One needs to link to either peer reviewed studies, mainstream news organizations, or reliable mainstream secondary sources. Further, the Amici in question that are the source of the controversy here, have been used to push a particular POV in an article. I noted several quotes were ripped verbatim out of the Amici (without marking this material off in quotation marks) and are the sole basis for many of the allegedly factual positions in the article. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 20:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I like hear from you that you agree we will use the most prestigeous peer-reviewed academic journal in the field - Pediatrics - as a source for scientific facts: "There is ample evidence to show that children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents. More than 25 years of research have documented that there is no relationship between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment. These data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents. Conscientious and nurturing adults, whether they are men or women, heterosexual or homosexual, can be excellent parents. The rights, benefits, and protections of civil marriage can further strengthen these families.". And I now agree we can use the amici curiae brief as a good source to quote what is opinion of three leading associations. Thus, resolved. --Destinero (talk) 07:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no intention of injecting myself into whatever the substance of the dispute behind this question may be, but I looked at the Amicus Curiae brief in question. It is full of citations to studies in scholarly publications. Now, I'm not going to get into looking at which of these are primary sources, and which are cases studies, and which are reviews, etc... Some of those may qualify as reliable souces under
Fladrif (talk
) 20:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
That has been my exact point from the get-go. We should go into the brief and cite directly to the scholarly sources rather than cite from a piece of advocacy that construes the sources in a way designed to persuade. There is no question that the sources themselves would be reliable. It's the direct quoting from a POV advocacy brief that's the problem. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 01:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ghostmonkey57. The amicus brief may be a gold mine of reliable sources, since if it is to have any influence on the Court, it had better be extensively cited. But the amicus brief itself is not a reliable source except to state the position of the amicus on the lawsuit.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Gurdjieff Journal

As seen here: [[24]] Founded and edited by this guy William Patrick Patterson, If you go here: [25] , you can see that he says he is the founder and editor. Articles from this journal written by this man are being used to bring in contentious claims about another controversial guru Adi Da. Relevant talk page discussions here: [[26]] and here:[[27]] He himself claims to be a guru or spiritual teacher also, the fear is that without editorial oversight he may have motives to disparage the subject, may not be simply a neutral party reporting the facts. David Starr 1 (talk) 03:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Self-published, fringe source. There are enough scholarly and media sources about Adi Da. --JN 466 21:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Venezuelanalysis

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The issue has come up whether the website Venezuelanalysis can be used as a source. I'm not sure exactly how to proceed with a discussion on this, but it needs settling.
Some background on Venezuelan media (I can email on request: Dinges, John. Columbia Journalism Review (July 2005). "Soul Search", Vol. 44 Issue 2, July-August 2005, pp52-8); or this source is online and gives background too. From Dingles (2005): "media owners and their editor used the news - print and broadcast - to spearhead an opposition movement against Chavez... Editors [...] began routinely winking at copy containing unfounded speculation, rumor, and unchecked facts."
Media representation of Hugo Chávez
also has some details on national and international media in relation to Venezuela reporting.
Notable too (I can find sources for this if needed) is that international media sources rely heavily on reporters who work with (and live in the same areas as) the largely oppositionalist Venezuelan private media. The reason I mention this is to illustrate that this source is not easily replaceable with international media sources, which most obviously manifest their bias in an extreme selectivity. So many details are sourceable only to Venezuelanalysis, occasional Spanish-language sources, or sometimes academic papers and books (which are obviously less accessible and searchable). Rd232 ^talk 12:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem across Chavez/Venezuela articles on Wiki is pervasive and is larger than the use of one pro-government website (venanalysis), and extends to aporrea.org, Venezuelan-government-controlled sources, rethinkvenezuela.com,
WP:BLPN#Thor Halversson Mendoza. The problem of biased sourcing across Wikipedia extends beyond the Chavez/Venezuela articles, and includes many BLPs. SandyGeorgia (Talk
) 12:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"Widely covered" - yes, in a generally very shallow way, hence the difficulty in replacing this source with others. This is not a question of bias (well it is that too) so much as of information. You've not addressed my argument about selectivity, and what those links are supposed to prove is anyone's guess. Rd232 ^talk 12:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, the language point you allude to is another reason to use Venezuelanalysis: other sources providing equivalent levels of detail, where available at all, will often be in Spanish. Rd232 ^talk 12:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for expanding my response while we edit conflicted twice. Again, I speak Spanish, and refute your allegations about reliable sources with respect to
WP:V, a pillar of Wiki, and the problem you allege with Spanish-language sources, which I can and do read. The bias on Wiki is best understood in the context of the articles about the Venezuela Information Office. Venanalysis is clearly biased, and works closely with the Chavez administration and typically reports their version of events. Further, most of the editors who use these sources rarely balance them with mainstream reliable sources (see Talk:RCTV#Pro-Venezuelan government POV as today's example, students were killed in Venezuela yesterday in protests over RCTV), instead sourcing articles almost exclusively to these biased sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk
) 13:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
There's no evidence for your claims. For instance, VA reports the protests yesterday. Any tendency of editors to over-rely on one source or set of sources is (a) common, and quite human (b) fixable by adding sources, not taking them away by declaring some "unreliable". Rd232 ^talk 13:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Possible, but not feasible with so many editors spreading only these sources across so many articles (Venezuela Information Office?), and only one or two editors on Wiki who speak Spanish and can do the necessary work. Wiki needs to globally address this very pervasive problem. Iffy sources are being used to the exclusion of reliable sources, and virtually every Chavez/Venezuela article on Wiki is POV as a result. And I linked two articles which evidence my "claims"; more can be found by anyone who has the time to do offline research. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
For clarification: since the article Venezuela Information Office does not have any sources from Venezuelanalysis, you are in fact claiming that editors connected with VIO are editing on their behalf? Rd232 ^talk 13:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Please don't read words I didn't type (and do stay on topic here :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
?? Please clarify what you meant then. Rd232 ^talk 13:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
That possibly, according to the two articles I cited, the VIO has been very effective in putting its message out to the media. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Since you won't clarify exactly what your two sources are supposed to prove (the National Review article doesn't even mention VA), I'll quote from the Public Integrity source, which has VIO saying "We encourage people to go their site because it is the most in-depth, comprehensive coverage of Venezuela in English... but we certainly do not have a structural relationship with them." Rd232 ^talk 13:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Golinger writes for Venanalysis, and you're quoting James, not Public Integrity, which proves the point. Whether or not they have a "structural relationship" doesn't make them any more reliable, less biased, or negate the effectiveness of VIO in putting out a biased message to the media. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
And the relevance of VIO to this is what? We're talking about Venezuelanalysis. Also the point I made above has been completely ignored: the reason VIO was set up in the first place was to counter the evident and documented bias in international (especially US) media. Rd232 ^talk 14:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Venezuelanalysis is a hardline pro-Chavista site which recives fund from the Chavez government [28]. Using it in politics related articles is like using Korean Central News Agency in North Korean politics related articles. --Defender of torch (talk) 13:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I thought this was the Reliable Sources noticeboard - so why are you citing a random blog? And of course your ludicrously hyperbolic statement is wrong. VA just scraped its $10k fundraising goal from public donations. [29] Rd232 ^talk 13:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure where the hyperbole is; Venanalysis is certainly "a hardline pro-Chavista site", and if it's true that they no longer receive funding, that fact doesn't change. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
"a hardline pro-Chavista site" - source for that? Even some examples from the site would do. Rd232 ^talk 14:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Though the site is a random blog, the author is not any random guy. Aleksander Boyd is a notable Venezuelan political analyst based in London who wrote for highly respectable publications like this. BTW the random blog is mentioned by publications like ResourceInvestor.com [30] Anyway, venezuelananlysis is very obviously a pro-Chavez source and should be used with extreme caution (for example with proper attribution) if ever used. However the best option is to avoid it on politics related articles. --Defender of torch (talk) 13:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Correct (and the fact that he also writes a blog doesn't negate the validity of the info in the blog. It may not be a reliable source for articles, but the info in it is relevant to whether Venanalysis is biased). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
That's not info, it's an unsupported claim, in a random blog, by someone who either is part of or identifies with the Venezuelan opposition. None of this is anything but smoke and mirrors: no reliable source has said they're unreliable, and there's no evidence that information from them is not generally correct. Rd232 ^talk 14:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
They're unreliable because of their close association with the Chavez administration; they don't report all sides of an issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Both points are unproven, and I think untrue. Have you actually read any of their stuff, and compared it to other sources? If anyone's not reporting stuff, it's the news agencies. Rd232 ^talk 15:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Arguing that Venezuelanalysis has a close association with Chávez just because some blog says so is a very feeble argument. With the same reasoning you could argue that a lot Venezuelan media is opposition-aligned and therefore unreliable. In fact, you could prove that all sources in the world are unreliable. JRSP (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a reliable source (Center for Public Integrity) which says that Venezuelanalysis is a pro-Chavez site [31]. --Defender of torch (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
That piece is not exactly Exhibit A for that Center being a reliable source. See the response. Probably the most notable part of the response would be "It is also worth noting that Miriam Kornblith, who is identified as the "Lead Social Scientist" responsible for your "Global Integrity" report on Venezuela is part of the Venezuelan opposition. Miriam Kornblith currently represents the opposition on the National Electoral Council (CNE). She is also listed (see NED Grant No. 2003-548.0, page 5) as an advisor to Súmate, a group that led the signature drive to recall Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez." Rd232 ^talk 16:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
An article published by a reputed organization is reliable, not some random grievance letter to the editor ~~by some angry socialists~~. A major signatory in this letter expressing personal grudge is Mark Weisbrot who is an adviser to El Presidente. --Defender of torch (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
There is no reliable source saying he was ever an adviser. I note you don't seek to minimise the importance of the information provided in the letter, which was of course taken seriously enough to be published by the organisation being criticised (to their credit). We may assume that they would have corrected any egregious errors of fact in their publication of the letter. (Though Kornblith's CNE membership and contribution to the 2004 Global Integrity report are anyway not hard to verify from other sources.) Rd232 ^talk 17:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
There is, example here. It is difficult to understand why is it that Chavez apologists have such a difficult time admitting their connections to their paymaster.--Alekboyd (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
That source does not mention Venezuelanalysis. Rd232 ^talk 21:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Lets have a critical look at the website Venezuelanalysis. According to this, the site is written by Federico Fuentes, Michael Fox, Eva Golinger, Kiraz Janicke, Jan Kühn, Tamara Pearson, James Suggett and Gregory Wilpert.

Federico Fuentes is a socialist, a frequent writer for the Australian socialist newspaper Green Left Weekly and member of the Democratic Socialist Perspective [32]

Eva Golinger is the writer of a pro-Chavez book The Chavez Code: Cracking US Intervention in Venezuela.

Kiraz Janicke is a journalist for the socialist Green Left Weekly and member of the socialist youth organization Resistance [33]

Tamara Pearson stood as a candidate for the Socialist Alliance Party [34]

It is obvious a site written and controlled by an all socialist team will be highly partisan. --Defender of torch (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Site looks more reliable than some of the other websites opponents of this site have put forward in this thread. Simonm223 (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
It is a fact that Venezuelanalysis is run by chavistas: it was registered by Martin Sanchez, Chavez's Consul in SF (formerly in Chicago) who admitted having received funding from the Chavez government; it is run by Gregory Wilpert (husband of Chavez's Consul in NY); it counts among its staff with Eva Golinger, who is also a paid apologist of Chavez; all this information is verifiable. I understand that my site should not be used as a source, however all the information I have published over the years with regards to the people associated with Venezuelanalysis, can be corroborated simply by following the links to reliable sources, such as Center for Public Integrity, Venezuela's Gaceta Oficial, US DoJ, etc. The fact the is, Rd232 and JRSP run Venezuela/Chavez related pages, as if it were their own blog. They have no qualms in deleting perfectly sourced information, just like that. This is a case that should be brought to higher authorities within Wikipedia community, and those editors should be requested to either uphold Wiki policy or refrain from editing these pages.--Alekboyd (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The POV in all Venezuela/Chavez articles is a huge and pervasive problem on Wiki across hundreds of articles; this does need to be dealt with at higher levels of dispute resolution, but first dealing with the sourcing issues is a good first step. It is simply not possible for one or two Spanish-speaking editors, knowledgeable of Venezuela, to clean up this pervasive and embarassing and systemic mess that has been allowed to grow for years; global help is required. When I came to Wiki in 2006, I engaged the Venezuela articles, along with dozens of others; they have all since given up and left, in the face of serious pro-Chavez
tendentious editing. I also stopped following Venezuela articles, because one person can't keep up with all of it. SandyGeorgia (Talk
) 20:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

All sources are biased, so it is irrelevant to attempt to exclude a source because you don't like their bias. That's why we have a
WP:NPOV policy. Dlabtot (talk
) 20:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The entire line of reasoning (above) by JRSP and Rd232 about bias in US sources is absurd, wrong, and goes against the very core of the Wiki pillar,
WP:V. I have never seen neutral reporting from Venezuelanalysis.com, while sources like The New York Times, the LA Times, the BBC and CNN go to (irritating) pains to put forward the pro-Chavez point of view along with the anti-Chavez point of view. Neutral, balanced, unbiased sources are available, but we have a couple of editors filling articles with other sources, overlooking mainstream sources, deleting text they disagree with, adding text to marginal sources, etc ... textbook tendentious editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk
) 20:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well we agree that there is a systematic problem here, but then any attempts at providing balance, are immediately quashed by these two. For newcomers it is incredibly frustrating having to explain to senior editors the very rules that supposedly govern this encyclopaedia. And since no one in the wider Wikipedia community really cares about Venezuela, then these guys continue running the show. If you think in English is bad, I invite you to visit, for instance, Eva Golinger's entry in Spanish. There it's even worse, crude propaganda and self promotion, any attempts at balance, you get, as I did, a block for life. These pages are a joke, and although I agree with what you've said about clearing up sourcing, a good way to start would be to eliminate all links to Venezuelanalysis. If it is to be used, it should be clearly stated that it is a semi-official chavista site, run and funded by chavistas with very close connections to the Chavez regime. I agree that all sources are biased, hence the need for balance and weight, which at the moment is simply non existent.--Alekboyd (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

{ec}I'm sorry but based on what I've seen this is not what is happening. I understand you may disagree over content but the site in question seems relatively reliable and US news sources are generally exceptionally conservative in bias. Simonm223 (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Simonm223, let be say very clearly that Venezuelanalisys is reliable as far as the Venezuelan government official line is at a given time: in that is very reliable. The problem is, in my opinion, to pretend that it is an independent source of information, totally disconnected to the official line, when in fact, is anything but.--Alekboyd (talk) 20:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope this outpouring of prejudice and accusations of bad faith is cathartic, because it's got bugger all to do with Venezuelanalysis as a source. Unsourced opinion is worth... nothing. Nobody's saying Venezuelanalysis is Fox News; clearly it has a left perspective. In any given conflict between it and other sources, the weight to be given to the respective sources can be debated. So far nobody's even given a single example of a conflict. Rd232 ^talk 21:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The website is reliable enough to be cited, surely.
WP:RS. So, the website should certainly not be excluded, but it should be balanced by other views from the anti-Chavez group. II | (t - c
) 00:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Break

It's unclear to me on what grounds this website could qualify as a
WP:RS. Can someone briefly explain why they think it qualifies? Jayjg ^(talk)
03:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a well-known, fairly longstanding Venezeula news organization. Whether it is printed or not is irrelevant to reliability considerations. It certainly represents a significant POV in the Venezuela news spectrum. As the Venezuela Analysis website itself reports, now that Venezuela has recently launched an English language newspaper, it might be less necessary to use it (although the trend, as shown by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, is for news to drop print). II | (t - c) 05:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for providing a brilliant example of the Venanalysis misleading reporting and the ignorance about Venezuela from many people weighing in here and their willingness to believe that VA (not to mention VA's faulty fact-checking and strong association with Chavez regime, which has everything to do with it as an RS, and the people citing VA almost *never* balance their viewpoints because VA is an extremist site that attracts extremist viewpoints). Does no one question why there seems to be so far not a single edit on Wiki about the students who died day before yesterday during protests about freedom of the press in Venezuela and no reliable reporting anywhere on Wiki about the level of state-controlled media in Venezuela, while Rd232 and others go on about "bias" in mainstream sources? Does anyone notice that the success of the
WP:V
, and the level of state-controlled media that exists in Venezuela?

Now as to the completely false VA report and headline provided by II, (who is clearly uninformed about Venezuela), "Announcing Venezuela’s First and Only English Language Newspaper, Correo del Orinoco International", this provides a perfect example of how misleading they are, as well as an example of how far the level of state control of the media has gone in Venezuela. The Daily Journal existed for eons in Venezuela, and I read it during the ten years I lived there. Does anyone wonder, in an environment where journalists can be prosecuted and media outlets closed when they report anything the Chavez regime doesn't agree with, why the level of state control of media has grown? This is not the "*First* English Language Newspaper" in Venezuela (and I should also mention that one of the leading newspapers, El Universal (Caracas), also publishes an online version in English, but their reporting is very brief, otherwise Chavez could shut them down). The Daily Journal is gone, state-controlled media has taken over in Venezuela, read up on freedom of the press in Venezuela. Point made, thank you. Let's not have Wikipedia become another arm of the state-controlled media in Venezuela. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Well if you read beyond the headline into the first paragraph, you'd find "While in the past other English-language publications have existed, none remain in circulation today..."[35] I take that as a reference to the
Venezuela Daily Journal (funny, the article there notes censorship in 1988... guess that was Chavez too), whilst the English language edition of El Universal is excluded because it's online only. (I think - never seen it in print anyway.) In sum, try reading the source you're so keen to damn. Rd232 ^talk
14:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
No, I think the point is clear; even when reading the article, one finds absolutely no neutral or comprehensive or unbiased reporting of The Daily Journal or mention of El Universal's online English version, and II clearly fell for it. This is typical of Golinger, Venanalysis, and all the non-reliable sources; their reporting is one-sided and biased. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I really didn't want to get into a drawn-out discussion, but I should clarify - I thought the headline was odd - I doubted that Venezuela had no English newspapers - and did a little research before posting. Since I couldn't find any English-language newspapers for Venezuela (and had noted the clarification in the first paragraph), I figured the slightly misleading headline was not a big deal. Since you've mentioned El Universal, I agree with you more. However, I hardly see how Venezeula Analysis is worse than the "Anarchist News" article you recently added to Mark Weisbrot's article. I don't support blanket exclusions of news organizations without very good reasons, and this article certainly isn't enough. II | (t - c) 20:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

So? It's a piece on the launch of a new newspaper, not an analysis of English language sources in Venezuela. This sort of criticism could be levelled at absolutely any news piece from any organisation: details are left out - ones not known about or felt not to be so important. Far more important details are routinely omitted from international media sources; which is exactly why different sources should be combined - and one of them should be Venezuelanalysis. Rd232 ^talk 18:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

That's right, Eva Golinger, that beacon of objectivity and independence, will be the Editor in Chief of the 'First English Language Newspaper of Venezuela'. The Daily Journal never was, neither the English version of El Universal. Collect said it best "When a source is that disingenuous, it is clearly not reliable". --Alekboyd (talk) 13:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Alek, the level of comprehension and digestion of relevant info isn't running high on this page; best take care with the sarcasm, as some may not get it :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks -- that PR shows precisely why it is not RS. Saying that no English language newspapers are now in Venezuela seems to elide the reason why there are none <g>. Nor would I regard the new "Bolivarian Revolution" newspaper as being RS. When a source is that disingenuous, it is clearly not reliable. Collect (talk) 11:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
See above - the existence of prior English language papers is mentioned in the article. And any unsourced speculation about why
Venezuela Daily Journal closed is worth... nothing. (If you have sources, please add them to that article.) Rd232 ^talk
14:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The extent to which Venezuelanalysis is run by the goverment is irrelevant, and hence much of the above discussion seems irrelevant to me. We do not require that our sources be unbiased. The importance is "a reputation for fact-checking". I have no idea if this holds for Venezuelanalysis or not, but that is what the discussion should focus on. Most newspapers have a political bias, and for that matter we use CIA as a reliable source.
Taemyr (talk
) 12:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Can you please explain how the extent to which they are run by the government, in a country where media is state-controlled, is irrelevant to Wiki's core policies of
WP:V? SandyGeorgia (Talk
) 13:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

To sum up your argument seems to be it's leftist and treats Chavez favourably therefore it's not reliable. Is that about it? Because that's all I've seen. So I'd have to say source is reliable.' Simonm223 (talk) 13:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest some of the uninformed people weighing in here might want to google "Venezuela press freedom" and peruse some of the 625,000 hits. And if you're weighing in here, please try to be informed about the laws that the Chavez regime enacted to control the media. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Uninformed people would also benefit from looking up the
role of the Venezuelan private media in the 2002 coup attempt. But really, what does that have to do with Venezuelanalysis? Rd232 ^talk
13:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, they should look at your use of one-sided sources there, and the failure of that article to reflect in any way mainstream, reliably-sourced viewpoints. Particularly since you just added a lot of radical sources there, and completely failed to balance them with neutral mainstream sources ... you're fond of saying "
WP:UNDUE much"? :) PS, Wiki is not a reliable source (and that article is Example Number One of why); sending readers here to a biased, unbalanced, POV article isn't very helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk
) 13:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, Columbia Journalism Review is a hotbed of radicalism. Rd232 ^talk 13:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Using an undue source like Venezuelanalysis may establish the POV of pro-Chavez editors, but it will ultimately harm the project, will further decrease the reliability of the project which wikipedia is already loosing [36]. --Defender of torch (talk) 14:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
More unsupported assertion. Rd232 ^talk 14:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Based on the foregoing, I think it's clear that Venezuelanalysis isn't the high-end journalism that forms the best sources, as per the background of the persons responsible for it and also the general low level of name-recognition of the site. --Dailycare (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Venezuela attracts a lot of strong feelings. ~~I seem to have mised example of misleading reporting~~ OK, I see it now. See comment below. I'm personally no fan of Chavez, but the Chavez view cannot be excluded in articles relating to Venezuela, and as a news organization Venezeuala Analaysis is average. If we excluded every source which was "disingenuous" according to some editor, we'd exclude everything: NYT is socialist, WSJ is a right-wing business rag, medical journals are heavily sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, ect. It seems to me that SandyGeorgia is too close to this to be neutral. I'd agree that other sources should be looked at first, but name recognition is not really a way I like to see sources evaluated, particularly when we're talking about foreign reporting. II | (t - c) 17:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You do seem to have missed my clarification of how the example given was not misleading reporting. It was a misleading headline, yes (shock - whoever heard of a news organisation doing that... quick let's disqualify anyone as a reliable source who's ever done it!) Rd232 ^talk 18:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Mainstream reliable sources like the NYT, CNN and BBC do not exclude the Chavez POV by any means (they go to lengths to include it); honestly some of the arguments made here really worry me about the future of Wiki and it's core pillar of
WP:V, and I'm equally worried about the number of editors weighing in here who don't seem to have done the minimum amount of research and homework on state control of the media in Venezuela, and why we don't want to accept another radical source closely associated with the regime there. SandyGeorgia (Talk
) 18:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Your increasing hysteria ("wiki in peril"? really?) seems to stem from the fact that you don't have any actual arguments. You just don't like the source - that's your right. If you want to show in any given instance that it's wrong or biased, and balance it with other sources - fine. If you accumulate lots of examples of it being wrong, come back to RSN. But declaring it blanket unreliable on the basis of nothing more than your vociferous opinion is simply an attempt to blanket-ban a source which is an important part of the information spectrum for Venezuela. Rd232 ^talk 18:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

In fact, the "Correo del Orinoco" story neatly illustrates exactly the information gap Venezuelanalysis fills, certainly in English. At least, English language sources on its launch seem pretty sparse, and I can't find any CNN or BBC coverage. [37] Rd232 ^talk 19:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Look, we all agree that all sources are biased. We all agree that Chavez POV should not be excluded. It is a verifiable fact, that Venezuelanalysis is nothing more than just another propaganda outlet of Chavez vast media empire. So, in light of this information, how come we can not agree that use of Venezuelanalysis needs to be balanced by other sources? Rd232 and JRSP will believe everything chavista outlets print, but there are others who will take everything printed there with a rock of salt. Wikipedia is not RD232 and JRSP personal domain, ni mucho menos. Mind you even Jimbo Wales is aware of this. So then again, how come can we not settle this futile conversation by agreeing that for every time chavista apologists are cited, an opposition voice and an independent one must also be used? Gap of information... in Wikipedia, for sure.--Alekboyd (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
In general, where there are different opinions, those should be balanced from different perspectives. For the n-th time though: this is about information not easily available elsewhere (at least in English). If the information is generally accurate (and nobody has made any serious attempt to show otherwise), it can be used a reliable source for points of fact. Where there is a dispute about the facts based on different sources conflicting, the matter will be settled by discussion on a case by case basis in the usual way. PS Naturally I disagree with your description of VA, which is completely ludicrous. Rd232 ^talk 00:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Rd232, I think it is evident that I couldn't care less whether you, or chavistas in general, agree with me. For me your opinion has no value whatsoever, and this is compounded by a rather simple reason: anyone who refuses to deal with demonstrable facts deserves no consideration. I have demonstrated, with evidence and official documents, that Wilpert, Golinger, and Sanchez are up to their necks with the Chavez regime. You may disagree all you like, the facts remain though. Learn to deal with them, only then you can expect others to give consideration to your biased understanding of what goes in a country totally alien to yours.--Alekboyd (talk) 11:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

As per Golinger's 'Correo del Orinoco' and her 'artillery of ~~ideas~~ propaganda', beyond information related to how much it costs (zero as in free), everything else in there can be ripped apart by anyone whose knowledge and sources of information go beyond Chavez gospel. Here is an example, from the lede of the main article: "The polarization that has characterized Venezuela over the past 50 years..." So according to Golinger's wisdom, polarization started in 1959, that is, the year after the second to last dictator was ousted by popular uprising, in which everyone and its sister participated. Surely a fountain of objectivity, no? The launch of a such a rag, by Venezuela's girlfriend nonetheless, will get much attention by serious news organizations.--Alekboyd (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't know where the hell you got that quote from, but adding a ludicrous interpretation like that discredits you, not her. I don't know the context of the quote, but from the fragment I would interpret it as referring to polarisation of freely expressed political views within a democratic context; it doesn't make sense to talk about that kind of polarisation in a non-democratic one. I could say more by looking at the context but your quote doesn't seem to be from the article under discussion and doesn't show up in Google. Rd232 ^talk 00:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
The quote comes from the front page, but it won't be me the one who places here link to such rag.--Alekboyd (talk) 11:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
It's laughably ironic that in a debate about reliable sourcing, you decline to provide a source at all. Presumably because it would show just how wrong you were? Rd232 ^talk 14:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Break 2

Reams of hot air between the most interested parties aside (rather obscuring other input), none of this is really getting any closer to a conclusion. Instead of more of the same I suggest doing something rather different instead:

close this discussion, for now.

editors wishing to show VA is too unreliable to be used go away and accumulate evidence for that on a shared userspace page. This combines naturally with their concern of fixing the alleged problem: just search for use of VA and check each instance that seems plausibly problematic. Check these, fix any problems, and list the problem on the userspace page. (For fairness, cases that check out as OK should also be listed there, but that may be asking too much.)

moratorium on inline tagging VA as "unreliable" etc. This is to be shown, and tagging like this is a poor substitute for checking out the alleged problem and fixing if necessary.

in a month or so (maybe less if the editors don't need that long), come back here for a discussion of the findings.

This sort of systematic, evidence-based approach might actually settle the issue, whilst also fixing what some people see as a desperate problem, instead of talking endlessly and unproductively about it. How about it? Rd232 ^talk 01:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, we need to re-ask the question. The last time I asked the question, the initial responses were that it was "well-known, fairly longstanding" and "represents a significant POV". All of these are interesting, but are true of both reliable and non-reliable sources, and have no particular bearing on reliability. Again, I asked for evidence that this was a
reliable source. That would require those using it to provide such evidence. Can that be provided succinctly? In particular, we'd need to see evidence of strong editorial oversight, or some other similar indication that this is a reliable news source. Jayjg ^(talk)
02:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
But there may well be editorial oversight, by a man who is married to Chavez Consul in NY, and has received funding from the Chavez regime. Reliable? It is, without a doubt, as far as Chavez gospel goes. See, the point is not whether what Venezuelanalysis publishes is reliable, but rather that they can not claim to be an independent source. I would describe it as a collective blog, of people closely associated and funded by the Chavez regime. I maintain that it can be used, so long as it is properly identified as a propaganda mouth of the Chavez regime. If people have a problem with that, RNV or other such sources -that publish exactly the same info- can be used to reflect Chavez's POV. --Alekboyd (talk) 11:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Eh. Why don't you take a stab at showing "evidence of strong editorial oversight" for the NYT and the WSJ? Hint: it's not easy to do, and in fact I'd say it's impossible, but nevertheless I strongly request it. And don't cite Pulitzer prizes, since a test like that can't be generalized to small papers. Any paper can say it has "editorial standards", and even put up a few names. We could try secondary sources, although
criticizing the US media's coverage of Venezuela as right-wing. See The Repeatedly Re-Elected Autocrat, Venezuela, in stark contrast to Sandy's assertion that the US media go out of their way to show the Chavez perspective. The authors of the site have already been shown to be notable journalists and analysts on the country, with one of them serving as editor-in-chief for the new English paper. II | (t - c
) 07:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Excellent points. I'll add some things that can be said about the mainstream Venezuelan media - all from an article in the Media of Venezuela: editors "began routinely winking at copy containing unfounded speculation, rumor, and unchecked facts."; according to a political reporter for El Nacional speaking in 2005, "the common attitude has been that we can leave aside ethics and the rules of journalism"; prominent journalist Alonso Moleiro said that "Reporters bought the argument that you have to put journalistic standards aside, that if we don't get rid of Chavez, we will have communism and Fidelismo."; The head of the Institute for Press and Society in Venezuela said that "here you had the convergence in the media of two things: grave journalistic errors - to the extreme of silencing information on the most important news events - and taking political positions to the extreme of advocating a nondemocratic, insurrectional path." Rd232 ^talk
21:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The authors of the site have already been shown to be notable journalists... Please place here evidence of Wilpert, or Golinger, journalist credentials. Thanks.--Alekboyd (talk) 11:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Alek Boyd was until at least 2008 employed by the
Thor Halvorssen Mendoza, a Venezuelan described by the New York Times as "a scion of wealth and privilege".[38]. HRF campaigns on behalf of RCTV, which actively participated in the 2002 coup. Before founding HRF, Halvorssen supported the 2002/3 "general" strike/lockout in no uncertain terms.[39]) Rd232 ^talk
13:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Your point being? If it is to somewhat advance the notion of guilty by association, as you have been trying to do with Thor, two things: 1) my exposing of Chavez apologists predates any association with the Human Rights Foundation, as my writings, which have been reprinted in other sources, show; 2) how's Wilpert, Golinger and your unquestionable belief in all things Chavez leave you lot, were I to apply to you "It's worth noting that x, y, and z have professional, financial, and marital relations with a man caught red handed leading a coup d'etat against a democratically elected president? A militaristic putschist which has demonstrable relationship with narco-terrorists, islamo-fundamentalists, rogues and dictators the world over? Deal with that comrade. Tas ponchao! --Alekboyd (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Well I found it worth mentioning because you seem to think an association by marriage is damning... As for your allusion to Chavez' 1992 coup, it's worth noting that he won the first post-coup presidential election he was able to participate in. Also that partyarchy is not the same as democracy. Rd232 ^talk 00:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Stop with the ad hominem attacks, Rd232; they derail the purpose of this board, and have nothing to do with reliability. And at least we know who Alekboyd works for; he's not hiding it, is he? We're here to look at the sources, not attack the messengers, and the sourcing problems are just one small part of the massive POV and tendentious editing occurring on Venezuela-Chavez articles. The issues will be addressed, sooner or later, so stay on topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Well of course you would define my noting Alek's links (possible
WP:COI) as an "ad hominem attack". And you know all about derailing dispute resolution. PS I note yet another insinuation slipped in there that the only possible reason someone might edit Wikipedia's Venezuela articles with anything less than the intention of showing that Venezuela is just North Korea with oil must be a paid agent of the Venezuelan government, presumably via the Venezuela Information Office you're so keen to mention. (Seems to have escaped you that VIO is US-based and I'm clearly UK-based.) Rd232 ^talk
16:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether this has come out in the discussion or not. Apparently, after perusing some of the above. Nothing is allowed in the Venezuelan articles that is not complimentary to Chavez. For example, his recent compliments of Idi Amin, and Carlos the Jackal are considered "too unimportant" to mention anyplace, althought well documented and caused the French to call the Venezuelan Ambassador on the carpet. All dutifully censored from any article no matter how objectively worded. No matter how
WP:RELY
the source.

Pretty much the mantra: 1) It never happened. 2) It did happen but nobody cares. 3) It did happen and people cared but it's over now. Actually a microcosm of what goes on in the country, now that I think of it! Student7 (talk) 03:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
That has nothing to do with Venezuelanalysis as a source. Use
dispute resolution if necessary. Rd232 ^talk
07:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It's worth noting, in the face of the constant stream of "pro-Chavez" editing accusations, that these come from editors who have shown little or no interest in neutrality; their views of what constitutes neutrality are not objective, and having to constantly deal with their stream of selectivity and bias would make even the most neutral editor look "pro-Chavez" because of being pushed into discussing issues chosen by them and framed by them, and presenting facts, context, and arguments ignored by them. These editors demonstrate their own bias by showing no interest in (or knowledge of) Venezuela pre-1998, and the continuities and discontinuities which matter so much for understanding the present. They show no interest in expanding neutral content which presents facts that are not directly relevant to the political battles of the present. They show an obssession with Chavez personally, and whatever silly rhetoric he came out with this morning. They present (and presumably see) the country as not 27m people but as one man (plus a mob of supporters whose only function is mindless voting and violence) and an "opposition" of "the people" and "civil society" which represents all that is good and true. (Social movements of the poor that brought Chavez to power? Flaws in the previous system? Debates within the Chavista movement? What?) Sensible discussion of any given Venezuela topic is hard to impossible, because they rely on Venezuelan and US mainstream media (plus whatever Venezuelan opposition they're exposed to personally) and have no interest in a dispassionate analysis; they seek rather to prosecute Chavez (particularly to show that he's an unhinged dictator), and generally (intentionally or because of the sources relied on) pursue Venezuelan political battles via Wikipedia. Again, for emphasis: balancing that will make the most neutral editor look "pro-Chavez", most certainly to these editors, but perhaps also to neutral observers, because of their agenda-setting and the information and arguments they leave out, such that neutral editors need to advance them. Rd232 ^talk 08:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Rd232, for such a candid description of self, and those of your ilk. And since you think you are so knowledgeable about Venezuela, both pre and post 1998, could you please share with us your credentials? To show good faith, I'll share mine: Venezuelan, born, raised and educated to high school level, writing about the country, pretty much without interruptions since October 2002, Geology undergrad studies, and Spanish American Studies postgrad, both from the University of London, shadowed, as a blogger and perhaps for the first time ever anywhere, a presidential candidate in the race of 2006, founder and editor of website of news about Venezuela in English which for years was the most visited (by far), written and published Venezuela-related opeds in major international papers, asked for comment about Venezuela in major international news outlets (such as the Beeb's World Service, met with representatives of governments, NGO and multi-laterals in Europe and Americas, briefed high officials of various countries about Venezuela, lectured about Venezuela in various countries, I reckon that'll do for the time being. Are you Venezuelan? Are you a historian or an academic of any sort? Are you an activist? Has your knowledge about the country ever produce requests for comments from independent media? What makes you, and not me, for instance, more knowledgeable, or more trustworthy, or more objective, or more neutral? Whoever said to you that you were objective, knowledgeable, trustworthy, or neutral? Mind you, how can you support, beyond pretending that we take your words at face value (which for some isn't an option), your arguments? Who told you that you, and JRSP, are to run the show in Chavez-related Wikipedia entries? In my dealings with you lot in Wikipedia, I reckon you upheld perfectly just one of Wikipedia editing policies: that of being bold.--Alekboyd (talk) 12:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, while accepting the worldwide opinion of Chavez, I do not like to see bias in articles. Either way. But there is no point in attempting to moderate the bias in Venezuelan articles since nothing can get in them that is the truth anyway. Why bother? The immoderates have full sway. Why bother with "reliable sources" when nothing is allowed as reliable if it is not favorable to Chavez? A casual reader is left with the picture of "Fearless Leader"! How encyclopedic is that?Student7 (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

What are the editorial policies of the website, and what editorial oversight does it have? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/about JRSP (talk) 03:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
So, there's the answer to Jayjg: "Eva Golinger", "Gregory Wilpert", end of story. The editorial "oversight" is one-sided bias, one only has to look at their reporters. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, I know nothing about these people, either positive or negative. Why would we consider them to be able to provide reliable editorial oversight for this website? I'm looking for something to support a claim that the site has reliable editorial oversight. Given that anyone can create a website, and that, unlike various print newspapers (e.g. The New York Times, Washington Post, etc.) this website is not a news source with a well-known and longstanding reputation, we'd need some other way of supporting a claim of reliable editorial oversight. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Um, Eva Golinger et al were lost way at the beginning of the thread :) Center for Public Integrity and National Review. We could probably google any of those folks in the "about" page and come up with more info, but as far as I know, there is nothing to establish any info about VenAnalysis having reliable editorial oversight; we know they hire people who are aligned with Chavez, and were at one point funded by him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
"reliable editorial oversight"? Well Golinger is now editor-in-chief of a Venezuelan newspaper, as mentioned previously. Also mentioned previously was a number of quotes from the Columbia Journalism Review about editorial oversight by mainstream Venezuelan media - which some people are so keen to rely on: the press spearheaded an opposition movement to Chavez, and editors "began routinely winking at copy containing unfounded speculation, rumor, and unchecked facts." More quotes about that above. Rd232 ^talk 10:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hm, Defender of the torch elsewhere declares the
reliable source." What exactly makes NR a reliable source but VA not? Rd232 ^talk
16:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
~~:It is because~~
~~pornophobic~~ magazine as a reliable source because it is not promoting any fringe economic theory as VA does. Center for Economic and Policy Research is to economics what Discovery Institute is to science, IMHO. Tell me why NA is unreliable on economic issue? --Defender of torch (talk
~~) 17:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)~~

I have replied in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. --Defender of torch (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

BLP violation sourced to Venezuelanalysis

In digging in to the POV walled garden that is Wiki's Venezuela-Chavez articles, I'm finding POV articles and tendentious editing and serious issues everywhere I look.
2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt is too egregious for any one editor to attempt cleanup, and I just barely scratched the surface at cleaning up Raúl Baduel, a former top military supporter who was key in Chavez's coups, turned against Chavez, highlighted by human rights orgs as an example of political persecution, yet was strangely orphaned on Wiki. Now I've also found a serious BLP violation (see this version of Manuel Rosales). Rosales is a well respected and popular Venezuelan politician, ran against Chavez for President,[40] highlighted by human rights organizations as an example of political persecution in Venezuela, had to seek exile, [41] [42]
yet we find almost nothing about his political accomplishments in his article, so our readers have no idea who this man is, but they do see him as hiring an assassin.
This very serious BLP violation, sourced to Venanalysis, was added by Rd232:[43]

In September 2009,
Al Jazeera showed footage of a Colombian police interview with a paramilitary assassin, who claimed that in 1999 Rosales had offered him $25m to assassinate Chavez.[44] [45]

Great source, great journalism, typical Venezuelanalysis. Claims of this kind require the highest quality sources; this is a man who ran for President against Chavez, and was one of Venezuela's most popular governors. I can't find any reliably sourced mentions of this alleged assassination attempt; this is a BLP violation of the most serious kind, and typical of VenAnalysis.
I'm finding this sort of tendentious editing in every article I check, typically sourced to Venanalysis, usually added by Rd232. Rd232 put up a BLPN fuss (that was not supported by uninvolved reviewers) when text was added that
WP:BLPN
, and apparently now I've got to take Rosales there as well)? Wiki has a pervasive problem in all of its Venezuelan articles.
Getting Venanalysis under control is only one piece of the cleanup needed. See Center for Public Integrity and National Review for info about Venezuela Information Office and context. Most of the sources on Rosales will be Spanish, and the only editor on Wiki who is likely to clean up this Venezuelan POV and BLP mess is moi, and I don't have time to fight tenditious editing across hundreds of articles sourced to Venanalysis, so I don't think it will do any good to take Rosales to BLPN.
This Rosales example is the kind of non-biased information that II, JRSP and Rd232 think we must have to offset US media "bias" (aka US media professionalism)? And there's many more problems, VenAnalysis is the tail that's wagging the dog, but this one BLP example has gotten long enough. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this campaign of Sandy's is getting out of hand. She's repeatedly refused to explain what the hell is wrong with
Thor Halvorssen Mendoza, or to fix it. Another editor not part of this debate has edited it since. She brings it up here still refusing to explain the issue. As for the Rosales example: the information is presented neutrally and factually, and attributed explicitly: it is left to the reader to judge the significance of the claim, taking into account the clearly described sourcing. By contrast at Mark Weisbrot Sandy presents as fact that Weisbrot "supports Chavez policies", even though the only sources given present this economist as supporting Chavez economic policies, or as supporting Chavez policies in the context of discussing economic policy. Rd232 ^talk
10:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, despite Sandy's misleading subheader (now fixed), the VA article [46] merely reports the Al Jazeera video and adds some background info relating to the issue (but not to Rosales). So this entire section has no relevance as to the reliability of VA as a source. Rd232 ^talk 11:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

PS I note that Sandy took the opportunity to delete several VA articles used as sources on issues not relating to the assassination claim, replacing them with {{
fact}} tags. Rd232 ^talk
11:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Then I'm sure you also noted that I added
WP:BLPN after I took your changes there, and no one from BLPN seems to have any problem with Mark Weisbrot. Rosales is another story, for another day; every Ven article I find seems to need hours of work just to get it to start class. SandyGeorgia (Talk
) 11:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you're doing. You're going to pretend that I introduced or permitted a "smear" in Halvorssen, by declining to explain what it was or how it was subsequently removed. And you have no response to your removal of existing VA sources, when the question of its reliability is unresolved. Nor do you have any response to the fact that mainstream Venezuelan and US media have been shown to be biassed in favour of your POV - of course you're keen to use them and to censor anything else. Rd232 ^talk 11:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Take care there, Rd232; watch your AGF. Keeping up with the problematic Venezuela articles is a full-time job, and I have other duties on Wiki. VenAnalysis is not a reliable source, I left other sources on talk, and I'm sure you'll expand the article neutrally tomorrow so I won't have to clean up a third BLP in a week. Now we have three BLP noticeboard issues related to Rd232's editing:
Mark Weisbrot

Thor Halvorssen

Manuel Rosales

I don't need to respond to your allegations of US bias: you need to read and understand
WP:V, and answer Jayjg's question about how VA meets it. I've already given above an example of their journalistic standards (report on Aljazeera reporting on what a criminal says, when no other source seemed to pick up that story.) SandyGeorgia (Talk
) 11:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Rd232, you don't seem to have a good grip on neutrality. The text is sourced to Venanalysis and this is a discussion of Venanalysis; the heading is not non-neutral, yet you've altered my heading twice. At any rate, I'm not going to sweat it; you've already gotten the answer on BLPN and shock that you added such an egregious BLP violation to Wiki, at the same time you're claiming a non-existent BLP violation on Weisbrot, and failing to see the BLP issues on Halvorssen. We have every indication of POV, tendentious editing here, and VenAnalysis is your preferred source. Considering the egregious BLP vio at Rosales, I'm now worried about what else I'm going to find. It's going to take me a long time to check all the BLPs Rd232 has edited; can anyone help? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Fine, I give up. Your ability to
WP:GAME the system is clearly greater than mine for dealing with your misrepresentations and manipulations. I'd be happy to co-operate with you, talking about specific points on specific issues in relation to specific sources; you clearly have no interest in doing so; you pursue a confrontational and manipulative agenda with a never-ending stream of accusations of bad faith. I might have time to contribute something (a little) to Wikipedia articles in a collaborative way; and I have no doubt that if you were interested in collaborating, the result would be better than either of us doing it alone. But you clearly have no interest in that, and I have not the time or enthusiasm to respond to everything you and your chums are saying and doing. Clearly, the Venezuelan opposition and US rightwingers, using Venezuelan and US media, using Venezuelan and international media sources, are just the people to write Wikipedia's Venezuela articles!! Me, in the face of this tidal wave of gaming, bad faith and tendentiousness, I'm outta here. Rd232 ^talk
12:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Sandy of course knows what I mean, but in case anyone else cares, the most obvious gaming example is her attempt to make my moving a paragraph within
WP:GAMEing; and at this point in my life and wikilife, I'd rather (semi)retire than deal with it. Rd232 ^talk
16:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
The ones
WP:GAMEing the system are you, your alter ego, JRSP, and other chavista editors advancing the notion that Chavez is the reincarnation of Jesus. Your game is up chaps, the MSM has waken up to Venezuelan realities, and so, it would seem, it's happening in Wikipedia. Ever heard of the saying, "el sol no puede taparse con un dedo?" Start your blogs, it may help.--Alekboyd (talk
) 23:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with these issues, so it's hard to comment on most of it, but looking at just one of the claims, it's clear that better sources are needed. This edit of Rd232's says that, in September 2009, Al Jazeera showed footage of an interview with a Columbian contract killer, who claimed that Rosales had offered him money to assassinate Chavez. The edit is sourced to Al Jazeera [47], which in turn sources it only to a video of the contract killer. There is no confirmation that it's genuine or being taken seriously by police or other commentators; al-Jazeera say they don't know for sure where or when the interview was taped. The only follow-up story offered by Rd232 was on a website run by a few individuals from their homes, Venezuelanalysis. [48] The latter is not a reliable source, especially not for a BLP or for anything contentious, as it seems to be self-published by a group of friends. [49] For serious BLP allegations, we need multiple sources whose reliability is not in doubt. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 08:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"self-published by a group of friends"?? Please see these endorsements of the website, of which Steve Ellner's is the most notable. He is the leading English-language academic on Venezuelan left politics, having written on that subject and lived in and taught in Venezuela since 1977. PS see below for mainstream references to the assassination plot claim; I made the mistake of taking Sandy's word for it when she definitively claimed no-one else had reported it: a quick googling disproved it. Rd232 ^talk 11:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Break 3

Just noting for the record that, after his BLP vio was exposed on
talk · contribs). [50] As I have time <sigh>, I will review his admin actions as Rd232 to see if there was any improper use of tools on Venezuela/Chavez accounts, since the BLP vio was so egregious and surprising. The Disembrangler account has also edited numerous Venezuelan BLPs, and checking all of them is going to be more than one editor can handle. SandyGeorgia (Talk
) 18:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be better when this has calmed down to try to work with RD as he in good faith suggested, I have seen RD making some very good edits and I am certain there is no need to scour his contributions for infractions, and as these questions have now been resolved perhaps closing this thread as resolved.
Off2riorob (talk
) 19:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
(ecx3)Nothing's actually resolved: rightwing Americans and Venezuelan oppositionalists declare an international leftwing website an "unreliable source", on the basis of little more than prejudice. On the other hand, Venezuelan media and international media shown to be biased are declared some sort of gold standard. (I don't see anyone else other than myself adding academic sources to Venezuela articles...) Still, I cede the field to Sandy and her friends; I just want to be clear that nothing has been resolved - it is their unilateral declaration; their vocal opposition of course scares off anyone else participating, and no doubt she will now claim that the "official result" of this RSN thread was that VA was declared unreliable, when nothing of the sort has been established. It is censorship, plain and simple - as can be seen from Sandy's removal of VA references even while the thread is in progress, rather than adding sources for some sort of (in her view) balance. Rd232 ^talk 19:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Rd, have you semi-retired or not? Please stop jumping the line with your posts, and use chrono order. VA has long been considered non-reliable on Wiki; you began adding it in the two years that I wasn't editing Venezuelan articles. It's up to you to establish it's reliability, which so far, hasn't been done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see, so now your tack is that it's "long been considered non-reliable on Wiki" by unspecified persons based on unspecified evidence. Like jelly to a wall! I'm so glad I'm semi-retiring, which means what it says: "no longer very active". I chose that instead of "retired" for a reason BTW - precisely so people wouldn't complain if I made the occasional edit. Rd232 ^talk 22:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps Jayjg, a former arb, can address your query about how long it's been considered unreliable: I wouldn't want you to have to rely on only me :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Having found pretty serious problems on every article I've looked at, and noting a rather alarming amount of
WP:TEND, I'm concerned about the extent of the problem; I think we're going to need many eyes on cleanup of Venezuelan/Chavez articles, and proper use of VenAnalysis as a source. There are very few editors who speak Spanish and know Venezuelan sources and politics, I can't do this alone, and the tendentious editing has pervaded hundreds of Ven/Chavez articles. If it's also in BLPs, we've got an embarassing debacle that could call press attention. Manuel Rosales is a highly respected politician in Venezuela, and that our BLP of him was a smear for six months is quite alarming. I also think someone needs to find time to make sure Rd232 hasn't used admin tools improperly on Ven articles, and he needs to be asked not to use tools in this area; his POV seems to have affected his application and knowledge of policy. On the other hand, I'd feel much better about this if Rd232 would spend some time checking all of the BLPs he's edited himself, rather than railing at me; that's the kind of good faith editing I'd like to see. SandyGeorgia (Talk
) 20:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
The fact that no one else has has gone along with your complaints should've given you a clue. You complain about AGF to Rd232 above, but can't seem to write two lines without acusing him of something. Time to disengage and review your behaviour. 189.116.62.114 (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
And btw, the list of Rd232s admin actions that you're compiling here is a joke. I'm really looking forward to your explanation of how deleting an unused category is evidence of biased editing... 189.116.62.114 (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Please read :) Any more IPs wanna come out of the woodwork, while I deal with the cleanup alone? Meanwhile, if there is any other Wiki editor who speaks Spanish; knows Wiki policy, Venezuelan history and politics; knows where to find the Spanish-language sources; or is willing to do the work of checking for other BLP vios or POV articles, I'd love to have some help. We had a serious BLP smear on a well-respected man in Venezuela. I have other duties on Wiki, and would love to disengage. If such an editor exists today, I haven't "met" them, and the dozens of editors who used to contribute have all left (
WP:OWN). SandyGeorgia (Talk
) 21:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Drop the sarcasm, I did read and all I found was a smear campaign. I'm still waiting for your explanation of how a routine deletion of an unused category constitutes biased editing. 189.116.62.114 (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
For your edification, only admins can see deleted versions, and I've made no characterization of my list other than things that need to be checked. And we don't know if the cat was always empty, or if it was emptied or deleted, like Category:Political repression in Venezuela. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Really? I see a large tittle at the top that says "Venezuela BLP problem " and then a whole lot of stuff listed under it, including amazingly my IP number, care to explain that? I dont rember ever havin edited a venezuela article before, except perhaps their national soccer team. 189.116.62.114 (talk) 22:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I haven't had time yet to investigate, and admin help will be needed, but we do have:
11:15, January 27, 2010 (hist | diff) Venezuelan general strike of 2002-2003 ‎ (←Redirected page to Presidency of Hugo Chávez#Oil paro) (top) [rollback]

and all mention of
Media of Venezuela, also with sourcing and undue problems. It appears that the seriousness of the human rights and press freedom issues in Venezuela has been whitewashed on Wiki. I haven't yet checked diffs to see by whom; this will be a huge effort. Wanna help review diffs? SandyGeorgia (Talk
) 22:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
No I dont. I do wanna know what my IP number is doing on your list though. 189.116.62.114 (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess the price of disengagement is not being able to keep up with your manipulations and bad faith assumptions. It's left as an exercise for the reader to actually follow the diff relating to the 2002-3 general strike and laugh (or possibly cry). Rd232 ^talk 22:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

If, and this is a big if, Rd232 his alter egos and JRSP commit to observe and uphold Wikipedia policies and rules, I can lend a hand Sandy. Having said that, I am still waiting to learn about, for instance, Golinger and Wilpert journalism credentials, or indeed, those of the editors that maintain that chavista officials are to be taken as independent voices. For the umpteenth time, Venezuelanalysis is reliable, as far as chavista propaganda goes. But as Chavez media empire grows, I reckon other sources that also publish in English, as ABN, could be used instead see link.--Alekboyd (talk) 22:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually they have, but you didn't listen. Golinger is editor-in-chief of a new Venezuelan newspaper. Both her and Wilpert are established Venezuela analysts, writing books on the subject; Wilpert a US professor of political science. But of course the site is not run by them; it is an independent website run by 6 others with them.[51] Of course, it's pointless to reiterate the criticism levelled at Venezuelan media and international media noted several times in this thread, which severely calls into question the value of "journalistic credentials" on this topic; this will be ignored again by those seeking to censor Venezuelanalysis. Only leftwing sources need to prove "journalistic credentials"; mainstream media gets treated as gold standard regardless of reliably-sourced criticism (including notable self-criticism reliably sourced). Find-in-page "Columbia Journalism Review", or see
Media of Venezuela. Rd232 ^talk
23:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, they have not. I don't care what Golinger's latest gig with the regime is, she is not a journalist, but a lawyer. Wilpert is a sociologist, not a journalist. But of course the site is not run by them; it is an independent website... Right. Please place here evidence that the site is not run by them, and also that it is independent. While doing that, please explain the collusion between editor Wilpert, his wife Chavez's Consul in NY, and his former colleague and founder of Venezuelanalysis, Martin Sanchez, Chavez's current Consul in SF, and the funding they have received from the Chavez regime. And just to be clear on something, even outlets long considered to have liberal/leftist editorial lines, such as The Guardian, BBC, NYT, El Pais, Le MOnde, have abandoned the lenient light under which the putschist Chavez is reported. So don't muddle the issue with preposterous arguments such as "only leftwing sources..." for you guys refuse to accept the most reputable leftwing sources.--Alekboyd (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
El Pais, NYT, BBC, Le Monde, The Guardian are only "left" sources in some rightwing fantasy world (don't be fooled by the odd lefty(ish) op-ed - it's the news reporting we're talking about). The Guardian's Caracas correspondent lives in the same opposition media bubble as all the rest of the foreign correspondents; take the name and source off his reports and you couldn't distinguish it from the copy of the AP reporters sitting next to him. Rd232 ^talk 09:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't see the usefulness in continuing to refer readers here to
Media of Venezuela
, a biased article heavily edited by you, or one journal report (against the preponderance of other sources).
Let's get back to the facts at hand. VenAnalysis is, as far as I can tell, the only "news agency" that used an Aljazeera interview of an unidentified hitman to smear a highly respected Venezuelan politician, who just happens to have run against Chavez for President. How do you justify that, in terms of their bias and reliability? Can you please answer the questions at hand? If that is representative of what we can expect from them, and by extension that you will be adding to articles to the exclusion of mainstream reliable sources, why should we consider it to have any journalistic standards? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"one journal report (against the preponderance of other sources". It's funny how you make the repeated claim that X is "extraordinary" and "disproven by many other sources", yet you never seem to feel the need to back that up. Also, to repeat what the "one journal report" (Columbia Journalism Review) says: editors "began routinely winking at copy containing unfounded speculation, rumor, and unchecked facts."; according to a political reporter for El Nacional speaking in 2005, "the common attitude has been that we can leave aside ethics and the rules of journalism"; prominent journalist Alonso Moleiro said that "Reporters bought the argument that you have to put journalistic standards aside, that if we don't get rid of Chavez, we will have communism and Fidelismo."; The head of the Institute for Press and Society in Venezuela said that "here you had the convergence in the media of two things: grave journalistic errors - to the extreme of silencing information on the most important news events - and taking political positions to the extreme of advocating a nondemocratic, insurrectional path." Please work slightly harder to dismiss them as Chavista stoodges. I'm sure you can do it! (Or if it's too much effort, your other tactic of ignoring significant points will work too.) Rd232 ^talk 00:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I do back it up; please read. What other news agency used the Aljazeera smear? And on another issue, which I also backed up with a Lexis-Nexis search, what other reliable source says Chavez was "illegally detained"? It appears to me that you don't understand how
WP:UNDUE apply. You are writing entire articles on Wiki around *one* journal report and *one* pro-Chavez website, and this has introduced massive bias. Can you please answer the question asked several times now: how do you explain that VenAnalysis was apparently the only "news agency" to carry the Aljazeera smear against a widely respected and outspoken critic of Chavez? SandyGeorgia (Talk
) 00:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank god I'm semi-retired, or this continuing misrepresentation would get me worked up. I've shown how the "one journal report" cites 3 notable opinions: you continue the mantra of "one journal report" as if it was one journalist's opinion. And having originally deleted the "illegally detained" source I added which supported the claim, you ignored my clarification of it [52] and went off on a
WP:SYNTHy trawl through Lexis. As for VA reporting the Al Jazeera interview - so? It wasn't the only source that did so, and AFAIK it didn't report it when the hitman's claims were made public earlier in the year: at the time the claims were reported by the Miami Herald, [53] (El Mundo), and, er, that bastion of Chavismo, El Universal [54]. No doubt, since it's appeared in mainstream media, you'll be now insisting on adding it back?? Rd232 ^talk
09:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Rd232 has acknowledged that this was a mistake (at BLPN). I agree that including this allegation, made by a criminal, reported on Al-Jazeera and repeated by venezuelanalysis.com, should not have been included in an encyclopedic (vs. journalistic – we do tell our subjects that
they can expect us to write encyclopedic and not journalistic biographies) article. --JN 466
00:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I missed where he acknowledged the mistake; do you have a diff? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
[55], the lower half of the edit. --JN 466 08:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Break 4

Most of the site's 350-odd citations in google news come from the Australian
Green Left Weekly and similar radical sources. Democracy Now! has featured Wilpert in one of its broadcasts. There are occasional citations by mainstream sources as well: the San Francisco Chronicle quotes Wilpert's opinion, describing him as "director of a left-leaning news Web site, Venezuelanalysis.com". The Miami Herald describes it as a "pro-Chavez website". The Washington Post, in a World Opinion Roundup
, said, "The pro-Chavez media jumped on the story. Venezuelanalysis.com, a leftist Web site ..." The proportion of these mainstream citations is very small. The number of citations by non-English news sources (at least those available in google news) is modest too. My conclusion is

that the site easily meets the minimum threshold of RS,

that it should best be used for attributed opinion, and

that it would not be wise to use it as an unattributed source of fact where the facts are likely to be contentious. --JN 466 00:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

In google books, the site is cited by around 200 publications. [56]
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --JN 466 00:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Considering the success of the Venezuela Information Office, and the oil wealth available to fund their PR efforts, I don't think these measures are useful rubrics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Ooh, I forgot that tactic. As a last resort, blame the Venezuela Information Office. Funny, the oil wealth didn't seem to be enough for Venezuelanalysis - they recently had to scrape a mere $10k from public donations! I guess the VIO cheque's in the post... And of course, we will again ignore the way the Venezuelan opposition and their friends in the US media perverted those respective news sources. "Support for / participation in a coup against a democratic government? Pah! Show me evidence of bias." Rd232 ^talk 00:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Rd, surely you know that by ending their funding from Chavez, they can appear to be a "real" news source :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

All of the articles in any way associated with Venezuela appear affected - the rubrics are cubed (bad pun alert) and it is clear that someone ought to take matters in hand about the stuff masquerading as encyclopedic material now present. Collect (talk) 00:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

After reading through this lengthy discussion, the summary I would make is somewhat similar to Jayen466's. Venezuelanalysis.com is reliable enough to be cited for uncontentious information, but not for any contentious material, and certainly not for BLPs. If it is cited for opinion, then it must be explicitly attributed to the website. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. And we should attribute it as "according to the pro-Chavez website Veneulanalysis..." --Defender of torch (talk) 02:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think one would need to describe it as "pro-Chavez"; these kinds of one/two-word characterizations are, in general, unhelpful and unencyclopedic, and at worst are
Venezuelanalysis.com article would normally be enough; unfortunately, however, there doesn't seem to be a Wikipedia article on this website, which means it's difficult for the reader to get an understanding of the nature of the source being used. Jayjg ^(talk)
04:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Where we find a problem across all Venezuela articles is that they are being used to the exclusion of other sources, to cite info that is easily cited by mainstream sources, and only their POV is included. We have entire Venezuela articles written with leftist sources. An additional issue is that everything in Venezuela these days is contentious, and the editors using VA as a source don't seem to be aware of alternate press, sources, or thinking, and tend to take VA as gospel. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
It should go without saying that where more reliable sources are available, they should be used in preference to Venezuelanalysis.com. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure that Rd232 is comprehending the conclusions reached so far; where more reliable sources are available, they should be used in preference to VA. Instead, we have entire articles sourced to VA, when many other more reliable sources are available. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I love the way Sandy can misrepresent even as she provides a diff proving otherwise: what I said was "replace it where possible; dispute it where necessary; leave it where it's sourcing some uncontested information or providing a balancing opinion." The fact VA is currently used more widely than ideal because it provides details not otherwise easily available in English [57] (eg if more time effort went into sourcing than debates of this kind!!) in no way contradicts that. Rd232 ^talk 16:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Break 5

Funny, Jayg's position is exactly the one that I was arguing all along. If it wasn't clear enough, I blame the smear campaign evident in this thread.

Reliable enough to use for uncontentious material

For contentious material can in principle be cited explicitly, as opinion. Any particular instance of contentious material or opinion gets discussed in the usual way, and may not be necessarily included;
WP:UNDUE applies in the usual way. Whether something is contentious is to be agreed by consensus
, not by one side of the debate labelling anything that doesn't fit their prejudice "contentious". (Nor should predictable sophistry like "well I contend it's not true (without sources) so it's contentious" be permitted.)

Wherever the same info or opinion is available from sources that are agreed to be more reliable or more important, use those instead.

Describing it as "pro-Chavez" should be avoided. Apart from anything else, it accepts the Venezuelan opposition framing of the debate, and is not the way these independent, largely non-Venezuelans see themselves. It would also imply the need to describe almost every Venezuelan private media source as "anti-Chavez".

As to the point about some Venezuela articles over-relying on it:
fact}} tags, or tagging every VA instance with "unreliable source?" is not a sensible way to proceed for anybody seeking balance. As to how imbalanced Venezuela articles are: well clearly views differ, but many Venezuela articles are poor or non-existent and have few editors interested in them - and it remains true that VA is the best English-language news source for Venezuela in terms of the amount of detailed information reported - so it pops up a fair bit because of that (a lot more than it would if there were many more editors involved, so that editors' efforts weren't spread so thin; this would permit more effort going into academic sourcing). Often active editors have a recentist
agenda driven by the biassed news reporting they're exposed to, so discussion is driven by that. I challenge editors who claim to seek neutrality to develop material on Venezuela topics which refers to Venezuela before 1998: it is precisely a historical context which is ignored, as if the 1998 electoral collapse of the two main parties (who'd dominated politics for 40 years) was because things were going so well for the country as a whole (as opposed to the state-linked elite). Try reading some history: Terry Karl, or Fernando Coronil, or Michael Coppedge would be a start. Then maybe you wouldn't be "pro-Chavez" (I'm not, I can sing against Chavez with the best of my oppositionist and Chavista friends, albeit quite different tunes), but you'd have some sense of the complexity of the situation, and why for a decade 60% of the population supported that project. By the by, it is interesting how Chavez and the opposition collude in the fiction that the revolution is Chavez (Chavez as messiah/Satan, to pick up Alekboyd's remark); there's a paper in that, if it hasn't been written yet. Rd232 ^talk 09:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Rd232, you're not Mr.Bright this morning, are you? Please place here evidence that I have said/written that Chavez is satan. The only one defending a putschist militaristic, utterly deranged, galloping megallomanic, who shouts to the world "I am the people" or "yo soy el pueblo, carajo!" link is you, and your alter ego, and JRSP, and Wilpert, Golinger, Weisbrot, and the rest of the PSFs that see the world through a good v evil glasses, where good is every action or word of Chavez, and everything else is inherently evil, conspiring to bring to an end Chavez 21st Century Socialism. The rest, that is people who know that life is a tad bit more complicated and that messiahs exist only within the intellectual confines of true believers, can see and realise that this image of the saviour does not hold water when compared with mountains of statistics and facts that prove otherwise. I won't even comment on your interpretation of the media I cited above, it speaks volumes about your warped understanding of Venezuela, so I suggest you abandon this subject for a while, your input can not be defined as objective. You talk back and forth, you have been gaming the system for ages (on this issue). There's absolutely nothing you can contribute to people knowledgeable about Venezuela, so pick another revolution upon which to thrust your disgust towards the right, capitalism, the USA, etc, etc...--Alekboyd (talk) 12:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the ambiguity: you accused me and JRSP of believing that "Chavez is the reincarnation of Jesus"[58] which just happened to coincide with a thought I had the other day on the role of religious symbolism in Venezuelan populism. Obviously the "/Satan" is the opposition's view of Chavez! (Not literally, but then you didn't mean your accusation literally either, did you?) As for the rest, you're putting words and beliefs in the mouths of others which they do not hold; which is generally considered rude. And it speaks volumes that you respond with such an unhinged diatribe when I try to talk about the bigger picture/historical context. The Venezuelan opposition rejects talk of either; only the present is flawed - they still mourn the 1998 fall from grace (they thought they could control Chavez... oops). I don't know who "PSFs" are by the way. PS as an over-generalisation, seeing the world through "good v evil" lenses is very much a rightwing habit of thought, whilst the left sees endless shades of grey. There is some interesting research on the links between such modes of thought and political allegiance, in people otherwise in the same socio-economic bracket. Rd232 ^talk 12:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Apology accepted. As per Venezuela pre 1998, and historical context, and my saying that you lot believe that Chavez can do no wrong, I shall refer to your many edits, and those of JRSP, in Wikipedia over the years. You have engaged in systematic deletion, or edition, of material that is perfectly sourced, perfectly valid, just because it shows the leader of the revolution in a negative light. Me? I have never had a problem admitting that Venezuela pre Chavez was not, by any stretch of the imagination, a perfect democracy. For I was born there, and grew up there, so there's no point in disingenuously arguing that it was paradise. I have no problem saying very loudly, and condemning with equal vehemence, the shenanigans that went on in the 40 years that preceded Chavez. As a matter of fact, I have no problem in going back, much further, and start right from times of Conquista. But since 1998, there are certain things that I, and many of my countrymen find particularly annoying and quite frankly intolerable, form an administration that calls itself democratic. So, please, spare me your 'lectures' about my country's history. As stated above, either show credentials that give your arguments weight, or devote yourself to another cause. As per right wing habits, you better browse a bit of Chavez's own gospel, but then again you're just rehashing tired arguments that have no basis in Venezuelan contemporary reality. No point in continuing with this discussion, whatever happened before Chavez has little to do with what Chavez is doing right now. Whatever accusation to previous administrations are devoid of meaning when considering that this pariah has been in power since 1998 and has very little to show for.--83.244.230.115 (talk) 13:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Reiterating Jayjg's comment, which Rd232 doesn't seem to have digested: " ... where more reliable sources are available, they should be used in preference to Venezuelanalysis.com." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Question: what does point 3 of my list under the "Break 5" heading say? Rd232 ^talk 16:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Break 6: on Correo del Orinoco

On the much discussed issue of independence of Venezuelanalysis staff, referring in this particular instance to Eva Golinger, here is evidence of the sort of independence these people have from the Venezuelan State:
Caracas, 3 Feb. ABN.- La Asamblea Nacional aprobó este miércoles un crédito adicional al Ministerio del Poder Popular para la Comunicación e Información por el orden de los 13,9 millones de bolívares, monto que será transferido a la Fundación Correo del Orinoco para incrementar el tiraje del diario y el alcance de su distribución. Parlamento aprobó crédito para aumentar tiraje del Correo del Orinoco
For the language impaired, it means that the Chavez regime, through Congress, has approved some $3.2 million, so that Golinger's propaganda rag can reach more people.--Alekboyd (talk) 10:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Golinger is just one of the people involved with Venezuelanalysis, and being associated with a state-funded media source is not damning per se. Your opinion that it's a "propaganda rag" is unsupported, and most of the Venezuelan media could be described in those terms by somebody or other. Rd232 ^talk 12:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

being associated with a state-funded media source is not damning per se.... I couldn't agree more with you there Rd232, what I can only hope you will understand during your 'semi retirement' and once and for all, is that under no stretch of the imagination can Golinger claim that she is an independent analyst, or indeed a trustworthy source, beyond unaltered propaganda. There are far too many conflict of interests there. Same applies to Wilpert, Martin Sanchez, VIO, and to every Chavez apologist who benefits from the Chavez regime. Interesting to note that we have gone from, no relation to Chavez to being associated with a state-funded media, which has been my argument all along. BTW, while I am not here to defend "most of the Venezuelan media", I am still waiting on her's, Wilpert's and other Venezuelanalysis.com staff journalism credentials and evidence of editorial independence. --Alekboyd (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I know I can't persuade you, but in case anyone else is listening... Alek is (besides dismissing Wilpert on the basis of a tenuous link and Golinger for recently joining a state-funded media source) ignoring the 6 others involved with VA (mostly left Western journalists),[59] besides contributions from numerous others, ignoring prominent endorsements including by academics (notably Steve Ellner) [60], unaware of or ignoring citation of VA by UNHCR and by various academic sources. Given that the Venezuelan media has been shown willing to deliberately lie (cf Columbia Journalism Review) whilst the US/international media distorts and omits, there is no basis for excluding VA as a source without showing some actual problems in practice qua source. Rd232 ^talk 16:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Right Rd232, dismissing Wilpert on the basis of that very tenuous link -called marriage- to a chavista official, who just happens to be Chavez's Consul in NY Gaceta Oficial. As per what you describe as "left Western journalists" please place here evidence of their journalistic credentials and track record of publication in reputable news sources. Academics you say? Again please place here evidence of peer reviewed publications related to Venezuela of those "academics", I'd suggest you use JSTOR. HRW defined some of them as "critics who opt instead to disseminate baseless allegations". Just to remind you, this is an encyclopaedia, not your blog, definitely not a place where people are expected to take the words of an editor, whose credentials no one knows, at face value. Since you believe Venezuelanalysis is the ultimate source, and you, and JRSP, are the only people using it, in clear contravention to
WP:RS the onus of demonstrating that it is, is on you. To reiterate once again, (your own words): Venezuelanalysis should only be used when there are no other sources available, and it should be sufficiently identified as a propaganda rag of the Chavez regime.--Alekboyd (talk
) 18:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This news is not at all surprising: to be expected. Now, back to the Wiki: every single Venezuelan article I have found time to look at is POV, over-relying on leftist and biased sources to the exclusion of mainstream reliable sources-- which are plentiful in every case-- and the cleanup is simply not something one or two editors who speak Spanish can undertake. Wiki has become part of a massive whitewash of the issues in Venezuela, including a rewrite of history to tell only one side of a complex story. Wiki has an embarassing debacle, furthered by over-reliance on Venezuelanalysis and other marginal sources,
WP:BITE. Addressing these hundreds of articles will take more than just lowering the use of Venezuelanalysis, and the "only English-language newspaper in Venezuela" (now state funded, another reflection of the abuse of press freedom and human rights in Venezuela) in these articles. Wiki articles look like an extension of the Venezuela Information Office, and accepting these sources for anything but the bare minimum will further that trend. A task force is needed to clean up these articles. Exhibit 1: Manuel Rosales as I found the article, with an egregious BLP violation sourced to Venezuelanalysis and after days of cleanup. Exhibit 2: Human rights in Venezuela, too much for any one editor to clean up. (I should note the irony in Chavez approving $3 million for this advancement of the Bolivarian revolution at a time when Venezuela is reeling under a poor economy and water and electricity shortages, [61] [62] former allies are asking him to resign-- again, [63] and students are marching weekly-- and being killed-- to protest the humans rights and press freedom issues in Venezuela.[64]) SandyGeorgia (Talk
) 18:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yet another Break

My own assessment is a little more positive than Jayjg or Jayen466's above, and similar to User:ImperfectlyInformed's "as a news organization Venezuela Analysis is average" based on (aside from my own biases): There are positive assessments out there like this Lonely Planet book fwiw, calling it the best English-language news site for current affairs. Of course this is not Columbia Journalism Review. Nor is it a rabid Chavista outlet. Glancing at the gbooks results, academic sources and even some sources with opposing POVs seem to find it acceptable for facts, which is the main thing we are concerned with here.
There are 300 or so independent gscholar results, showing reliance on it by a good number of academic sources. They include Public Access to Alternative/Critical Analysis: Community Media in Venezuela from the Hitotsubashi Journal of Social Studies calling it
"A major source of non-corporate controlled information regarding the process of social transformation that is occurring in Venezuela can be found on the website of Venezuela News, Views, and Analysis (http: //www.venezuelanalysis.com/). This website offers critical analyses by dissident scholars and grassroots-based accounts by social activists involved in the various social movements in Venezuela as well as links to a number of alternative media sites and access to documentary videos that depict recent events in Venezuela."
This from New Political Science calls it "a valuable resource for Venezuelan news and analysis." Again, academic and even some sources with opposing POVs seem to find it an acceptable source. Of course it has bias and has had problematic material, like every other major source. But we are looking for sufficiently reliable sources, not infallible ones.
As Jayjg suggests, it would be very helpful for people to collaborate on a neutral, informative article on it, so I'll start a stub.John Z (talk) 10:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - that's so much more constructive than most of what's been said here. I'll add that the site has been endorsed[65] by several academics (whose credentials can be easily googled); Ellner's in particular is significant as he is the leading English-language academic on Venezuelan left politics. (Also in terms of people citing it, it includes
UNHCR [66]). Rd232 ^talk
10:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The endorsement you refer to Rd232 contains 7 names, of which 4 are academics. Please place here evidence of peer reviewed publications related to Venezuela of those 4 academics, namely: Greg Grandin, Daniel Hellinger, Steve Ellner, and Tim Anderson. Also, please place here evidence of Steve Ellner being "the leading English-language academic on Venezuelan left politics". Who said that? Where? Following what criteria is Ellner to be described as such? To conclude, the fact that some academics think is a valuable source does not negate its relations with the Chavez regime, or the fact that it's staff have huge conflict of interests. Furthermore, there is a letter out there, signed by more than 100 academics, among which Noam Chomsky, protesting HRW's report on human rights abuses in Venezuela. Does that mean that there are no human rights violations in Venezuela? No, it means that, as in every case, there will always be fanatics siding with radical military putschist so long as they can advance their own agendas. But reality, facts, how do you deal with that?--Alekboyd (talk) 11:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
No I'm, not going to "put evidence here" - just look them up in Google / Google Scholar (I had drafted a reply giving direct links to their web pages, but my browser crashed again). Ellner was described as such in an academic paper, but unfortunately I don't have the reference to hand and can't easily find it. The fact that quite a number of academics (both endorsing and citing) - not to mention UNHCR - think VA valuable matters a lot more than your personal opinion of the significance of the tenuous links to the Venezuelan government. The relevance of the letter protesting against HRW's biased and manipulative report - which by the lead author's own admission was intended to discredit the Bolivarian model - is unclear (but then, opponents of accepting VA as a reliable source have a tendency to bring up irrelevant things, which is why John Z's intervention is such a welcome breath of fresh air). Basically, you wish to impose your opinion of VA's worth against those of academics and other sources seeing it as having value: this is not and should not be allowed. I reiterate that any attempt to seriously argue that VA is unreliable should start by showing contradictions between VA and other sources, such that there can be a discussion about concrete things, instead of abstract and unfounded opinions. As far as I can see the tenuous links you claim do no more than support the idea that VA exists to fill gaps left by other media sources - this does not make what it reports unreliable, it makes it particularly valuable, as recognised by various sources which identify exactly that gap-filling quality. Rd232 ^talk 13:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Rd232, you are the one stating that Venezuelanaysis is a reliable source. One of the arguments you have repeated is that x, y, and z have said so, endorsed it. etc. Upon demonstrating that y and z are not even academics, upon requesting you provide evidence from independent, peer reviewed sources, so that we can believe that what you are saying is supported, then your reply: "No I'm not going to put evidence here... look them up... my browser crashed... Ellner was described as such in an academic paper that I can't find..." In the words of Barrichello "a lot of bla, bla, bla" and not much substance. What credentials have you got, in international law or otherwise, to describe HRW report as "biased and manipulative"? I have provided links to back up my allegations, I'd suggest you did the same if you want readers of these pages to give consideration to your arguments. Furthermore I'd say your arguments are awfully similar to those of critics of HRW described, by a truly reputable and respected organization, as disseminators of "baseless allegations". Know this Rd232, your opinion means nothing. My opinion means nothing. Rather it is the opinion of third parties, with proper credentials, cited in reliable sources, what counts. Letters from obscure academics that have got nothing to do with Venezuela do not count. Papers that have not followed proper peer reviewed processes do not count. References in utterly discredited sources do not count, much less endorsements by people like John Pilger or the co-founder of Aporrea. Have at least the presence of mind to be able to come to the realisation that when you say, for instance, "Ellner is the leading English-language academic of Venezuelan left politics", without providing a shred of evidence, you are not doing your reputation and credibility in these pages a great service. As per particular examples of Venezuelanalysis unreliability, I think SandyGeorgia has called you on a few. --Alekboyd (talk) 14:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
1. All the people I said were academics are academics. It says right on the endorsement page who is who - I linked to that saying academics had endorsed, I did not say the link evidencing that included only academics, nor did I otherwise draw on those non-academic endorsements. 2. Look up the academics yourself. Step 1: type their names into Google and find their homepages. Step 2: look them up in Scopus or the like, or failing that, Google Scholar. This will take you many fewer seconds than complaining about my not copying things here. 3. My credentials are irrelevant, it is an opinion (like many, many opinions you've voiced) based on evidence which I won't go into since the issue is irrelevant here. 4. It's not the source I had, but Michael Conniff described Ellner as "a leading analyst of Venezuela's left politics" in the Foreword to Ellner's Venezuela's Movimiento al Socialismo (1988). You could also draw conclusions from how often Ellner is asked for his opinion in mainstream media [67] like NYT, and described neutrally as "a political analyst at Venezuela's Oriente University"[68] or similar. 5. "particular examples" of VA unreliability - there are none. Examples given so far have been rejected as only deemable unreliable in a highly partisan interpretation. Rd232 ^talk 15:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, so you've established that Ellner is radical left according to the radical left. At any rate, you've omitted or aren't aware of a very important factor in any writing coming out of Venezuela in the environment of political persecution of the Chavez regime. Anyone writing critically about Chavez is likely to end up in prison, charged with a crime they didn't commit, or in exile (
Henrique Capriles Radonski, and as I find time to get to their articles, dozens of others). Nothing being written in Venezuela can be considered a thorough and critical analysis, much less something written by the radical left, while the mainstream media suffers under press censorship. That's why we rely on neutral mainstream sources. One of us should find time to contrast a VA article to more neutral mainstream sources; I've been busy just trying to cleanup BLPS. SandyGeorgia (Talk
) 17:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
"you've established that Ellner is radical left according to the radical left." FAIL. No part of that statement is even slightly true. Have you no shame whatsoever? As for your claims of censorship: probably untrue, not obviously relevant, and certainly unsourced. Unlike the clear Columbia Journalism Review evidence of Venezuelan media's willingness to suspend journalistic standards (eg editors "began routinely winking at copy containing unfounded speculation, rumor, and unchecked facts.") Rd232 ^talk 18:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Press freedom issues in Venezuela are unsourced? Rd, you make me smile :) Have you no shame whatsoever? :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad you find your double standards so funny - my claims need to be sourced, yours don't. And yes, even those in the cheap seats noticed your shimmy from "mainstream media suffers under press censorship" (debatable, certainly unsourced) to "press freedom issues". Rd232 ^talk 19:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Apparently you don't consider "self-censorship so we won't all get thrown in jail or forced into exile or be shut down because of the press censorship laws" as "censorship". And I've provided more than ample sources in the relevant articles (as well as the issues in the state-controlled judiciary); you know where to find them as easily as I can.
Henrique Capriles Radonski, and dozens of others. Someone should write Patricia Poleo, but I understand that we might not want that case to come to light :) SandyGeorgia (Talk
) 20:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
The relevance of those links to press freedom is mostly slim to none. I would ask you to provide evidence of self-censorship, but it's not obviously relevant to the issue of Venezuelanalysis' reliability. Rd232 ^talk 23:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

John Z, you really want us to rely on a tour guide for info about VenezuelaAnalysis? I've noted you have a history on these articles and that your several year absence from Wiki [69] coincides with Rd232's, [70] and you've just created the unbalanced
Venezuelanalysis.com, although there is plenty on this page you could have used to balance it, and you added a tour guide as a source for media information. Are you neutral in this discussion? And don't you find the wording "non-corporate controlled" a bit misleading, considering their involvement with state control of the media in Venezuela? I'm becoming concerned that we have admins making BLP violations and creating unbalanced articles on Venezuela topics. Since you're apparently comfortable using a tour guide to cite information about the media, perhaps you can get your hands on VenAmCham's tour guide, and see what they have to say about Venezuealanalysis; of course, Rd232 might decrie that as a non-rs, claiming "bias" from businessmen at the same time he sees no bias in leftist sources. :) SandyGeorgia (Talk
) 20:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
The first desideratum when creating an article these days is to make notability clear and use enough good RS's to let it survive speedy deletion, so I used the ones I brought up and had at hand, including two from academic journals. Lonely Planet is the world's biggest travel guide company, controlled by BBC Worldwide. Their opinion was attributed in text, and seems sufficiently notable. So I don't think there is any serious question of reliability there. I was quite sure that the article would be balanced with other viewpoints soon, and hope you will help. My correct username was not used for wikichecker above. I have no connection to Rd232 and have had very little history with "these articles".John Z (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
My apologies for leaving the space out of your name: now corrected. I would like to help, but someone in Venezuela will have to get hold of VenAmChan's guide for balance (and lately, all of my Wiki time has been consumed in cleaning up Venezuelan BLPs, which are a priority). Of course, then Rd232 will decry VenAmCham as biased. The double standard emerging here is amusing: at the same time Rd232 doesn't want rightist National Review used in Mark Weisbrot, he does want radical leftist Venezuelanalysis used as his almost exclusive source in Venezuelan articles. Why is it that we exclude sources from the right as "biased" while we accept leftist sources with known connections to a regime that is well documented as abusing human rights and democratic practices, and whose editors have no journalistic credentials? Can someone please answer the relevant questions, instead of quoting tour guides? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Hmm, your first response to a constructive intervention is to look for bad faith... I'm shocked, shocked. Never heard of VenAmChan but if it's Venezuelan-owned than it's a priori a less neutral source than the non-Venezuelan Lonely Planet. As for the ludicrous statement "he does want radical leftist Venezuelanalysis used as his almost exclusive source in Venezuelan articles." I do not, and you have no evidence for such a ludicrous BAD FAITH claim. I have used many other sources; as I keep saying, VA sourcing should be just part of the mix, but it's the first thing I reach for because unlike other sources, it hasn't been shown to be biased by reputable sources. I'm perfectly happy to have many more sources brought into the mix; you on the other hand are intent on censoring any use of VA. "Editors have no journalistic credentials" is misleading; and of course in your summary you completely ignore the fact that reliable sources (better than your opinion, I think?) have seen fit to cite it and endorse it, including UNHCR besides quite a number of academics and academic sources. Rd232 ^talk 23:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
You've never heard of VenAmCham, but you're writing entire articles sourced almost exclusively to VenAnalysis? That could explain some of the bias in all of the Venezuela articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I've got it, it's the Venezuelan American Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Nothing further, y'honour. Rd232 ^talk 01:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Point made quite nicely :) You reject all (what you call) business, corporate, rightist, or mainstream reliable sources, while accepting tour guides, state-controlled, and radical left sources, even writing entire articles based only on them. Please don't forget to work in the European Parliament on Human rights in Venezuela once they meet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Impressively combining off-topicness, bad faith accusation and complete nonsense - well done! PS It speaks volumes that you consider VenAmCham a reliable source. Chambers of Commerce are by definition advocacy organisations. Rd232 ^talk 16:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe I've said I consider them a reliable source (although they certainly are more reliable for economic data than the doctored numbers coming out of the Chavez administration): I offered them as an example vis-a-vis using a tour guide to discuss the media in Venezuela. Please don't misrepresent :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
An entirely confusing example, then: a Western tour guide has a neutrality about Venezuelan media which a Venezuelan Chamber of Commerce doesn't. Rd232 ^talk 22:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You guys are a class act. Now you are creating an entry on Venezuelanalysis, based on information from Lonely Planet? I am afraid this place is beyond hope Sandy. Long live Wikipedia as a platform for chavista self promotion!!--Alekboyd (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Can we write an article on VenAmCham [71] and source it like that, and see how fast someone complains ? :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

This should not be so complicated

The site is clearly a useful source for Venezuela news. It's also probably true that it's slanted in favor of one POV (although that is sometimes the case for even clearly reliable sources, such as major newspapers in the developed countries). The simple solution is to use the site when it is useful to do so—when the material is uncontentious and especially when no other sources provide the information. Controversial claims shouldn't be cited to that site alone (although it could be used in conjunction with other sources), but the merit of the site as a resource should not be disregarded. Everyking (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

That is completely reasonable and I don't understand what the discussion is about. VA is clearly a Chavista site and information gathered from the site should be used in a context in which it benefits the article to get the pro-Chavez POV or in which the information gathered is not contentious. Furthermore to use VA exclusively on Venezuela-related articles would be to the detriment of these articles.--Jersey Devil (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Strange fork

For some reason, Rd232 found it necessary to fork this discussion to a new thread below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

As noted on Sandy's talk page 4 hours before this post [72], the reason was "to summarise and refocus". In addition, starting a new section rather than new subsection was an attempt to bring the discussion to wider attention for more input; posting the same summary/refocus this far up the page at the bottom of a massively
WP:TLDR section would be much less likely to attract new views on a matter decidedly not settled. This is not rocket science. Rd232 ^talk
19:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It is really shocking how all Venezuela articles are twisted in favor of the Chavez government. there is a sort of organization going on that is pushing everything into an extreme pro-Chavez POV. And this discussion about Venezuelanalysis is only one example of it among many. Voui (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_55&oldid=1142577861"

[1] "Prospect/FP Top 100 Public Intellectuals Results". Slate Group, a division of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC. October 2005. Retrieved 19 January 2010.

[2] ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwZ-vIaW6Bc

[1]

[2]

European Center for Law and Justice (ECLJ)

The Dartmouth

Islamic Q&A website

JURIST

How can Quackwatch be considered a "reliable source"?

YouTube video on 9/11 Truth movement

Opinion/Editorial; Washington Times

Food and Chemical Toxicology

Using a youtube video

Source I used on Apache Ain't Shit

Balkan Wars

DVD: "Treasure Within the Mountains (The Mountain Parkway)"

Guido Fawkes

Arabic Wikipedia

Are the following websites reliable sources?

No sources for Sectarianism

Is "The US Report" a reliable source?

Cornish language

Somali Clans

Are Amicus Briefs Reliable Sources?

Do errors in a source hurt its reliability

Reliability of Virgin Media

Is amici curiae brief of reputable major medical and scientific bodies presenting comprehensive and balanced review of scientific and professional literature valuable encyclopedic source?

Gurdjieff Journal

Venezuelanalysis

Break

Break 2

BLP violation sourced to Venezuelanalysis

Break 3

Break 4

Break 5

Break 6: on Correo del Orinoco

Yet another Break

This should not be so complicated

Strange fork

YouTube video on
9/11 Truth movement