Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 58

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 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

→

Archive 65

Is ListOwn a reliable source for the birth info of entertainers? Nightscream (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

• I can't imagine it being accepted. They are a classified ad site. That is their function. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

What about this site for Alexandra Daddario's birth info? It looks like a fan site, but I wanted to be sure. Nightscream (talk) 01:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Again, I don't think you'll find many people that would consider that a RS. If it were the movie studios site, yes. But that is a fan site. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Try this link: [1]. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 08:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

There has been a dispute on

) 21:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

See if you can find more sources to either support or deny the challenged source you have. Try and discuss the issue on the talk page of the article to get a consensus. Removal of information is not

talk

) 23:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of old maps of the area on the web, maybe you can find one that settles the question. Zero^talk 00:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

This would seem to be a question of policy rather than consensus; I wouldn't want people in a consensus discussion to decide based on their persona feelings about the assertion. As for maps, I don't see how this would help. I actually have a number of old maps of the area, but none are going to indicate if a building on a given block was a factory. I've sent emails to the writer of the article and to the building itself to ask them. Hopefully that will do it. Nightscream (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Newspapers are often wrong, including The New York Times. However, we consider newspapers such as The New York Times to be reliable sources, and go by what they say, absent any other reliable sources stating something different. And an editor's personal knowledge carries little weight in such a discussion, and there's no need to e-mail the articles' author etc. Feel free to use the article to support the claim that the building is a former embroidery factory. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:36, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I have found another New York Times article which describes construction of the building as beginning in 2007. There are also numerous less reliable sources (such as ads for apartments in the building) describing it as new, and nothing else describing it as a former embroidery factory. I think it's fair to conclude that the originally-cited NYT article was in error. See Talk:Union_City,_New_Jersey. Barnabypage (talk) 14:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It may have been in error. It may have meant that the building was constructed where an embroidery factory once stood. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

That's quite plausible, I think. Barnabypage (talk) 12:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking along the same lines. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 08:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I've come across an article about a character from a book (made into movies and plays). The article has zero references (other than a really low quality YouTube video which I've deleted). The entire article (

) 22:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The standards for sourcing should be the same as for other articles. I found RS for the character using

User:Nicolas1981/Wikipedia Reference Search, a custom search that omits most non RS. Jezhotwells (talk

) 22:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Works of fiction, including films, are fine primary sources for articles on fictional characters unless original opinions are introduced. (Plays are usually published in print, too, although the texts can be difficult to get hold of.) I agree it's a long article on a minor character, but remember what we're discussing on this page is the reliability of sources - not notability. My personal opinion would be that the article is harmless at worst, useful to some fans at best, but could do with a bit of copy-editing. Barnabypage (talk) 01:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I value your opinion; thank you. Rklawton (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

{{resolved}} Can I use the website of Anti-Defamation League (www.adl.org) as a reliable source for the claims made in Current Communist antisemitism? I have attributed the claims to ADL, i.e. "according to the Anti-Defamation League ..." --Defender of torch (talk) 13:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Websites of known organizations can certainly be used as cites for official positions and opinions of the organizations. Collect (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. --Defender of torch (talk) 13:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

This is beyond the scope of this particular noticeboard but you probably also want to cite a third-party reliable source which mentions the ADL's view on this particular topic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The ADL is an expert source on antisemitism; there is no need for additional third-party sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I wish you were around when I tried to make the same argument! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The ADL is a controversial source on antisemitism, especially in all matters involving Israel. It is clearly notable enough to cite, but nearly always that "according to the Anti-Defamation League ..." qualification is required. But you don't need to cite their opinion via a third party, you can cite them directly. Zero^talk 12:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The ADL is an expert source on antisemitism, and has been one for almost a hundred years, and the specific ADL material in the article had nothing to do with what you are talking about. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I have a question about a source of some information on a article about a school. The question revolves around a claim of a case of arson at the school (for the record I am not connected to the school in any way).

Some Background :

The article as I cam across it refereed to a "arson" in 1979 without any ref - there were (and are) photos showing a fire so I first taged then after 2 weeks changed to to fire. An editor Toddy1 came up with two refs 25th Anniversary of Bedford School’s Great Fire, March 2004 and An interview with Mr Simms, who celebrated 50 years with Bedford School this week, November 2009. one which says fire and one that says arson and reverted the article back to arson.

I reverted the article back to fire with this edit stating that : as the refs provided are

and one says "fire" and the one that says "arson" does not elaborate on the reason for claiming it was arson

Now an ip editor

post to user page) as the passage of time makes this a secondary source.

So to my question :

1. Is anything a organisation says about it's self ever not

WP:PRIMARY

 ? does the passage of time change it?

2. Is the school website a

WP:RS

about the fire and calling it arson ? Codf1977 (talk) 13:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

My quick reaction would be to say that the school Website is a RS in saying that there was a fire, but not in terming it arson - distinguishing arson from an accidental fire is not part of the usual expertise of schoolteachers! However, Google throws up lots of other sources for it being arson so I'm sure you can find something better. For example try this one from the local authority, which references a fire service document. Barnabypage (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Think that is the best one - shame it looks like a visit to the record office is needed to find out what is in the clipping and what paper it came from. I do think on balance it was probably arson - will keep looking though for a

WP:RS untill then will keep it at just fire Codf1977 (talk

) 14:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You deleted arson, demanding a source. I found a source. But you still edit war over it. I do not see how you can stretch the definition of primary source to cover the source.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• The website of the school is a primary source. There's no "stretching" of the definition needed. If that isn't obvious to you, try reading
  WP:PRIMARY and see if that clears it up for you. Niteshift36 (talk
  ) 20:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved. [2] is a reliable source for the statement that it was Arson. Hipocrite (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

[3] reliable. Hipocrite (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree the National Archives are reliable - however it only says "man guilty of setting fire to Bedford School" - it does not say arson. Codf1977 (talk) 07:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you aware of what Arson is? Hipocrite (talk) 11:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes intentionally and maliciously setting fire to structures - I don't have any knowledge of this case - but it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the crown was unable to prove arson and the person was convicted of a lesser charge. As I have said before I think it probably was arson - but probably does not hack it when it comes to an encyclopaedia. The only thing we know for sure is there was a fire and someone was convicted in relation to that fire, we do not know what he was convicted of. Codf1977 (talk) 12:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

We know for sure. There is no doubt in any reasonable person's mind that it is arson. Hipocrite (talk) 16:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Moot point (see below) but I am at a loss to see how you can be sure with the sources provided. Codf1977 (talk) 17:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you are being unreasonable.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

Nutshell: Article in question:

The reference "Lisa Jackson Schebetta, a Ph.D. candidate in Theatre History, Theory and Criticism at the University of Washington,[24] concluded that the goal of the program is always a product, a dog that behaves according to its owners' desires, however illogical.[25] The dog is filmed performing his problem behavior, a male human voice-over describes the situation briefly, the owners share their exasperation with the film crew, and Millan arrives. He meets the people and shares with them his basic philosophies: ― a dog needs exercise, discipline and love, in that order, and the human has to be the Pack Leader. These mantras are the answer to every dog's problem, regardless of where the dog has come from or his or her current state of agitation. Although there are alternative theories about dog behavior and training, any discussion of these is omitted. Millan then meets the dog, the dog submits to him, and the owners celebrate, often voicing their amazement in referring to the miracle they have witnessed. The formula —problem dog meets Millan, dog submits, and owners are overjoyed — does not waver. Although the footage is clearly edited to construct the predictable story, each episode presents itself as natural and spontaneous.[25]"

The article [Mythologies and Commodifications of Dominion in The Dog Whisperer with Cesar Millan] The journal [Journal for Critical Animal Studies] The author [Lisa Jackson-Schebetta]

This was deleted as not meeting wikipedia's definition of a 'reliable source' and its re-instating is being contested. Marj (talk) 02:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

As the editor who deleted the section, I made this note in the Edit Summary: "deleted Jackson info: she's a Ph.D. candidate in Theatre History, Theory and Criticism at the University of Washington." The Criticism section of the Dog Whisperer article is full of really good, expert testimony. In our discussion, Marj said she wanted the section to be as scientific as possible. The source of the publication is in question, as is the validity of sourcing criticism of a dog trainer/rehabilition professional... by a theater history student. Which seems... decidedly tenuous. 842U (talk) 02:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It was User:842U's suggestion to raise the issue here, so not sure what the objection is now. All of the "really good, expert testimony" was added by me. This page is about a television program. It is not about Cesar Millan, he has a separate page. Jackson Schebatta is qualified to analyse a television program. She is not a 'student' she is a PhD candidate - but more to the point is that her article was reviewed and assessed before publication. Marj (talk) 03:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

This seems deliberately argumentative, rather than an attempt to resolve the reliability of the source. Where's the blame?? Marj (talk) 03:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it is relevant that the article is linked to in PDF format, anyone who wishes to can vet the information for themselves by reading the whole paper. Marj (talk) 05:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The article by Jackson-Schebatta does not appear to be a reliable source for this topic. The author is not qualified as an animal behavior expert, and the journal that published the article seems to be an activist publication that is not peer-reviewed. There is no editorial board, but they do list an "editorial team" that includes no experts in animal behavior or directly related fields. [4]--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The topic is a television program. The page is not on animal behaviour. If the page were about Buffy the Vampire Slayer would the writer need to be an expert on vampires, or on television? Marj (talk) 07:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It absolutely wouldn't hurt though would it. And more importantly, Wikipedia NPOV and COI guidelines would preclude having an animal-liberation-affiliated editor altering an article on a dog show to suggest the show... commodifies domination of dogs. 842U (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The quote is on the program format. Her opinions on animal behaviour, if she has any, are not referenced. Marj (talk) 07:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Why do you (Jack-A-Roe) say that the journal is not peer reviewed? Quote "Upon acceptance for review, the editors will send manuscripts, under a double-peer reviewed process, to no less than two, and generally three reviewers. Reviewers provide their recommendations to the editor, who makes the final decision to accept the manuscript." Marj (talk) 07:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Dog Whisperer also references the Huffington Post, USA Today, and the Hollywood Gossip website - and these are accepted as 'reliable sources'. Marj (talk) 07:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

re: Huffington/Hollywood: there would be a different standard for a source reporting a discreet piece of information, e.g., that The Dog Whisperer won a People's Choice Award, and source reporting professional criticism of an entire television show (about dog behavior) — especially when the source does not confine themselves to their area of expertise. In other words, Jackson-Schebatta makes broad criticisms relating not to the show, but to dog behavior. 842U (talk) 16:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see that info about peer-review on that website - would you provide the link for the page where that is listed? Regarding the newspapers used as sources in the article, those are separate questions - they may be reliable or not depending on how they are used. If there is a concern about that, they should be checked. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 09:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The advice to contributors is usually the best place to find a journal's policy on reviewing. [Submissions] Marj (talk) 08:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV. 842U (talk

) 16:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Awards and criticism are biased. Surely you are not suggesting they can be otherwise User:842U? Marj (talk) 08:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems appropriate to use as a criticism in the article, as long as you specify the source ("... journal of animal liberation group ..." or something like that). The fact that a show about animals is criticized by animal rights activists is important, and ICAS and/or CALA seem like a notable animal rights journal and organization respectively from what you've written here and our article. It is an edited journal, which says nothing about neutral, all that means is that it's not just one person ranting, the article is approved by some kind of organization. We can't expect criticism to come from NPOV sources, criticism is inherently POV. However, I think it's getting a bit of undue weight in the article as is; the section on Jackson-Schebatta's criticism is just another criticism, and shouldn't get a separate section. I also think the fact that she's a theatre student isn't important; the fact that her criticism was published in an animal rights magazine seems the important part to me. I'd put it into the criticism section, and shorten it by a third. --GRuban (talk) 23:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reasoned opinion. User842U combined two separate references to this article into one section and gave it the heading. It was just another criticism when I added it. Marj (talk) 08:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

There may be a use in the article for that source, but it must not have undue weight, and must be presented with attribution to the activist bias of the source. I would add though that for a TV show that is as widely viewed as this one, it seems better sources can be found than an article by a grad student in an obscure agenda-based publication. If that source is used, it should be limited to one sentence, not a full paragraph. It's just someone's opinion, and that person is not an expert on the topic. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Jack-A-Roe that is useful - I think I have now done this. Though there are academic listings of Journal authority and this particular one is not obscure, and no more agenda-based than any publication (you don't start a journal unless you think there is a gap that needs coverage) and the whole point of a refereed journal is that the published article is NOT one person's opinion, but reflects a consensus of a review panel and editorial team. Why I think this paper is important is that it makes the point that this is a television program, filmed and edited to appear natural, but very much a constructed narrative with the necessary happy ending. While there is much authoritative research on dog training methods that critique the methods used by Millan, this is the only peer-reviewed research on the Dog Whisperer television program - which is the subject of this page. Marj (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

However I am tired of 842U's dirty tricks - like removing comments that they have made from discussion forums to change the character of the discussion and remove incriminating statements. Their history shows that they were indefinately blocked from Wikipedia and later given a second chance, and as recently as last month were in conflict with another editor for deleting sections of the Smile Train page "without discussion or consensus" Check my history. Since I began serious editing last December all I have done is raise two pages to Good Article standard. This time the bad guys win. This is my last edit. Marj (talk) 06:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia editor who has repeatedly used the neutral voice of the encyclopedia to quote a legal opinion about the powers of the Palestinian Authority from this website.[5] The site contains very outdated information. For example it says that Yasser Arafat (now deceased) is still the head of the Palestinian Authority. The Internet Archive indicates that the page was last updated in June of 2007 [6]

It appears to be a self-published website that is the work of a single editor/creator, Esam Shashaa. Other than the text of a 1988 PLO declaration, none of the material contains inline citations, footnotes, or evidence that it is based upon other published sources. There does not appear to be any editorial oversight, and Mr. Shashaa is not a generally recognized expert on political science, history, or international law.

He says that he has a degree in "Business Administration and Accounts" and "I thank you for taking the time to browse my site and find out more about the History of Palestine, as well as the site's author and creator."[7]

harlan (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• This does not appear to be a reliable source. If you have evidence of an editor inserting links to it, who has a provable connection to the site, please note it at
  WP:ANI as link spamming. Guy (Help!
  ) 23:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't suspect that this is a case of link spamming, just the selection of an outdated and unreliable source as the basis for a number of reverts. I pointed out that this online source is a self-published work of its editor/creator, Esam Shashaa, because

WP:IRS says these types of sources are largely not acceptable. harlan (talk

) 00:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Random web pages are not reliable sources unless some case for reliability can be made. This one seems to have no information to enable such a case, so it should be treated as not reliable. Zero^talk 10:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Announcing an RfC at Talk:Ghost#RfC:_Context_of_NSF_statement_about_belief_in_ghosts. The questions being discussed are:

1. Whether the National Science Foundation is a reliable source for stating that "belief in ghosts and spirits" are "pseudoscientific beliefs".

2. Whether their expressions can be considered to represent the current scientific consensus (in the USA) on that subject.

See you there! --

) 17:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• The question: Is the 1979 fire at the Bedford school appropriatly described as arson.
• The arson sources:
  • http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/a2a/records.aspx?cat=004-fs&cid=2-5-24#2-5-24 - "Report of trial of man guilty of setting fire to Bedford School [see FS D/PC 23]*."
  • http://www.bedfordschool.org.uk/default.asp?page=1098&news=254 "The result of an arson attack..."
• The not-arson sources:
  • http://www.bedfordschool.org.uk/default.asp?news=1172 "The great hall caught fire" does not use the word arson.

Please review the sources, or find more. Thank you. Hipocrite (talk) 17:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The National Archives entry is presumably prepared by a professional archivist and can be trusted to reflect accurately the contents of the report. Likewise the essay on the Bedfordshire County Council site which refers back to the same primary Fire Service source but again uses the word "arson" in commentary (i.e. it is another professional observation that the primary source, thus far inaccessible to us, describes arson).

I think these would trump the school's own Website if there was disagreement among them (historical myths do grow up in institutions, after all...) but in any case I don't really see that such a disagreement exists. One of the school pages says "arson", the other says "caught fire", which I suppose is a superset of "arson" anyway; it certainly doesn't preclude the possibility.

The only doubt I would have is whether the specific word "arson" is necessarily accurate. There is a precise definition (see [[8]]) and without the trial record we don't know if the man was actually found guilty of arson or of some other offence which involved setting fire to the structure.

So it seems to me that the easiest route forward is to use a construction such as The Great Hall was destroyed in 1979 after a man set fire to it. Barnabypage (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I have found a article called "The problems that can follow commercial fires at schools" 10 August 1989 from the "Post Magazine", an weekly insurance industry magazine. It talks about the fire and the capture of the arsonist. It says "In March 1979 a fire destroyed the main building of Bedford School. This building had existed for over 87 years and its destruction was regarded as entirely accidental until the chance overhearing of a conversation in a local public house led to the arrest (and later conviction) of the thief/arsonist who, incidentally, had started at least 10 other fires in the Bedford area." If you send me an email I can forward the article to people so you can verify it and use it as a ref..--Slp1 (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. It's a well-regarded magazine, too, so definitely a reliable source. Barnabypage (talk) 18:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing it up - no need for a copy - just revert to a version with arson in and ref the publication Codf1977 (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

And p 89 of this book, "Blaze: the forensics of fire" published by St. Martin's Press, in 2000 and viewable on Amazon,[9] also states it was arson. "Arson is also connected with other crimes as an attempt to destroy evidence or disguise a murder as an accident. In 1979 Bedford School was badly damaged by fire when burglars set light to the late Victorian Great Hall in an attempt to cover their tracks." BTW, though we've found other more independent sources, I think the school's history as published on their website is a perfectly acceptable and reliable source for describing their own history, per

WP:SELFPUB, and thus for describing this as arson. --Slp1 (talk

) 18:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that the school website can just be assumed to be a reliable source for describing their own history Codf1977 (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree... calling it arson is well established by multiple reliable sources. Blueboar (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

This group does not appear notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article, yet is is linked in something perhaps close to 700 articles [10] Is that an issue? MM207.69.139.150 (talk) 03:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see it as a problem. It appears that Nash Information Services is best known for publishing The Numbers (website), which has had an article of its own at various times in the past, although it has been deleted each time. Still, I don't think there is any rule that being non-notable makes a source unreliable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

How are we to gage the reliability of a source if there are no third parties that talk about the source? MM207.69.139.150 (talk) 04:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, Bruce Nash, the editor of The Numbers, is sometimes quoted as a source in articles about the movie business that are printed in reliable sources, such as the San Francisco Chronicle, The Times, Esquire, and the Sydney Morning Herald. There may not be enough information in these articles to write a full article about his website, but apparently these reliable sources believe that Nash knows what he is talking about with regard to box office issues. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe this is the proper forum for this discussion. the community has already discussed and decided upon this exact topic twice on the Articles for deletion page which discussed the information you are bringing up here.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

sorry about that, I misread this entire discussion. Since I am now officially the Jerk on this thread I will keep my opinions to myself and just let you know to disregard what I wrote.Coffeepusher (talk) 01:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It this a reliable source for IT articles? As far as I can tell it's a blog hosting service with some

06:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I would say no as there is no way to really check on most blogs if a person is who they say they are. At least with self-published authors you have a clear reference and if they are favorably cited in enough

WP:RS material you can build a case for them being considered experts in a topic but that is hard enough.--BruceGrubb (talk

) 14:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It's simple. HH.ru have personal and themed blogs. Created article belongs to personal blog. After it get some karma points(summ of all plus and minus votes), author can move article to themed blog(such as i_am_clever or kohanaphp). It means what article is reliable. Also, for old articles, you can see a summ of all votes. In [[12]] - +24, which means what it is undoubtedly reliable. My personal meaning: 5<x<15 - normal article, 16<x<30 - reliable article, 31<x<50 - very very good aticle, 51<x - awesome article. 80.70.236.61 (talk)

I think you may be confusing "reliability" with "popularity". It seems the voting system you describe is for determining the latter, not the former. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems the reliability criterion are not correct for open source software, If you were IT-specialist you understand that in opensource world notability equals popularity in blogs, forums, howtos and distros, see discussion about Dwm. Are you programmer? If no, it is quite sad that incompetent people judge opensourse enthusiast and, e.g., scienologists, in the same manner. Why there is no special rules for FOSS, based on the same idea that Wikipedia based on? And I see that you do not understand it. Do you prefer read commerce articles in magazines feeding from Microsoft? What else do you need to understand notability=popularity? Did you follow presented link? Habrahabr and linux.org are the great tool to measure popularity=notability of FOSS project. I would like to know what are the possible way to write special notability criterion for FOSS, cause now it is not right at all, and the last deletion "discussions" shows it. Mclaudt (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Notability does not equate to popularity, because we define notability a certain way for our uses. So only if the blog is by " a well-known authority that has published in that field elsewhere" should it be used. Calling people incompetent (especially when they are simply telling you what oure guidelines are) is a personal attack, please don't do it again.

talk

) 06:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

In this working paper and later a book (The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy), Walt and Mearsheimer are critical of what they see as the extension of the "Israel lobby" dominating public discourse. In regards to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy they claim "Although WINEP plays down its links to Israel and claims that it provides a 'balanced and realistic' perspective on Middle East issues, this is not the case... Its board of advisers...includes no one who might be thought of as favoring the perspective of any country or group in the 'Near East.' Many of its personnel are genuine scholars or experienced former officials, but they are hardly neutral observers on most Middle East issues and there is little diversity of views within WINEP’s ranks."

I believe that the authors' critical opinion can be cited as just that--and for a long time this has been in the criticism section of the WINEP article. In searching around other articles that cite it it is always cited as the authors' viewpoints (Max Boot, Saban Center) and placed in the criticism or dispute section. An editor now seems to believe it is okay to include the authors' viewpoint as a part of the article's neutral text, even though the article has a criticism section. --Shamir1 (talk) 06:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Walt and Mearsheimer's report should only be cited for Walt and Mearsheimer's opinion; it's a notable minority view, but definitely not reliable for neutral factual sourcing due to the controversies over its accuracy. THF (talk) 06:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's what I suspected. --Shamir1 (talk) 06:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the book is currently being cited in the body of the article as Walt & Mearsheimer's opinion, just as THF suggests. The full excerpt from the current article is:

However, John Mearsheimer, a University of Chicago political science professor, and Stephen Walt, academic dean at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, describe it as "part of the core" of the Israel lobby in the United States. Discussing the group in their book, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, Mearsheimer and Walt write: "Although WINEP plays down its links to Israel and claims that it provides a 'balanced and realistic' perspective on Middle East issues, this is not the case. In fact, WINEP is funded and run by individuals who are deeply committed to advancing Israel’s agenda... Many of its personnel are genuine scholars or experienced former officials, but they are hardly neutral observers on most Middle East issues and there is little diversity of views within WINEP’s ranks."

It is in no way being described as a neutral fact - only their opinion.← George ^talk 06:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The text as quoted by George looks to me like a perfectly ordinary report of an opinion. If it is an accurate and balanced account of that opinion, I don't see the problem. Zero^talk 12:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Would Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross be considered reliable Sources? http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/matierandross/index Both are columnists for the San Francisco Chronicle, which in and of itself is certainly a reliable mainstream American newspaper. Both are certainly subject to editorial review by the editors at the San Francisco Chronicle. This being the case, can we disregard them as "gossip bloggers" and treat them as unreliable sources, or since they are subject to editorial review and published by a mainstream newspaper, would they be reliable sources? Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Would anything change regarding their reliability if the entire editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle published an opinion piece verifying the original story a couple of days later? Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Meets RS. Whether it's the best source for a particular article is up for discussion. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

They would generally be considered to be reliable. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

NB that this relates to the outing of Vaughn Walker. For what it's worth, the discussion in the legal web of the story has not been "Is it true?" but "Given that it's true, what are the implications?" I know other reporters who were aware of the issue and decided not to run the story. THF (talk) 13:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Another Russian IT site invoked in AfDs (e.g.

06:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• From my point of view linux.org.ru is russian variant of slashdot. So we should treat its reliability on the same basis as we do with slashdot. 77.35.27.153 (talk) 15:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
• This site is the best way to measure notability of some opensource software. It unofficially represents Linux community in Russia, and despite its content is user-generated, it can be used to estimate notability of software. The problem of inconsistency application of WP:N for Free and OpenSource Software is one of the most important in Wikipedia. Please read Notability of free open source software. There is a strange tendency of deleting FOSS articles from Wikipedia, despite it is based on the same ideas that FOSS does. So in the trend of rethinking notability criterion for FOSS and improving it by some special guidelines, this site is great measure tool, dealing with popularity(=notability for FOSS). Links here: [13], [14]. Mclaudt (talk) 13:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Before we begin, yes I know it is a self-published website, and that nothing on the website itself establishes notability. Cameron Bevers, the writer, is a regional planner for the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario. However, he is certainly considered an expert on the topic, as the city of Toronto archives uses this website as the source for its description of the Highway 401 archive category. I can't link directly to the archives but if someone wants to see it before commenting.

I'm fairly certain I could find a recent newspaper article from a major newspaper that discusses him as well if the archives is not enough. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide examples of other sources using this website as a source? Where does the city of Toronto archives use this, for example? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

On the online toronto archives, many pictures have been digitized. Amongst these are pictures along the highway, and construction pics. When you go into a picture, they are organized by categories, such as "Highway 401" or "Road construction". When you click the 401 category, it brings up a synopsis of the history available from thekingshighway.ca (I'd provide a link to this, but it expires quickly. If you want a screenshot or step by step directions to get to it, I can do that).

He is also practically the subject of a Toronto Star article on cottage country highway traffic,[15] (The article essentially "stars" him) as well as a brief mention in an article in the

Hamilton Spectator.[16] - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢

05:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Where are the online Toronto archives? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll give you step-by-step instructions to get to the description of Highway 401:

First, go to this page, and click on "Search the Archives' Database". This will open up a new window. In this new window, search for Highway 401. The first result should be "File 1 - Oblique aerial photograph showing Labatt's Brewery at Highway 401 and Islington Ave. - October 19, 1970". Click on it, and it opens in the right frame. Click on Subseries 5; Etobicoke Clerk's Dept. aerial photographs, and another new window will open. In this window, you should see Highway 401. Click it, and a new window will open with the description from Cameron Bevers website. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Does the City of Toronto website use Bevers' site for other material? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Not that I can find, unfortunately, but they don't have a Highway 404 or Highway 400 (the other two highways within Toronto) category as they do a Highway 401. Just the one instance that I can find, as well as those two newspaper articles. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

What do you want to use the website as a source for? --

Insider201283 (talk

) 02:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Mostly as a secondary source to back up primary statistics (items which can be verified by going to the subject yourself and measuring, for example, or items which are verifiable through Google satellite/street maps), and to fill in the occasional missing piece of history. I just don't want to be hassled when one of my 45 references is to a self-published source at

WP:FAC... Though it would be nice to use it as a source in general for histories and routing, as the Ontario Ministry of Transportation kind of gave away its archives to its employees 10 years ago, and keeps sparse current records. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢

18:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The mentions in a couple of newspapers aren't a strong indication of reliability, and the single use on a specific municipal website isn't strong either. I wish I could say it was reliable, but so far it's pretty weak. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget though that that municipal reference is from the 4th largest city in North America, through which the highway that his website is used as a reference for travels. I believe it qualifies as an established professional (both articles mention him being a highway historian) who is covered in third party publications. There certainly isn't anything out there that hampers the reliability of the site. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that a city that large would have many websites, though, maintained by many different individuals, departments, etc. This isn't a ringing endorsement by "the 4th largest city in North America", this is a single use on a specific website. And regarding the newspaper articles, one is from a relatively small newspaper that briefly mentions him, while the other is from a short article in an admittedly high circulation newspaper. I think that if you tried to create an article on Cameron Bevers it would quickly be deleted by AfD. I wish it were otherwise, as he seems to have an interesting website that he obviously does his best to maintain accurately, but he's still effectively a

WP:SPS, and there's no real indication he's an "expert" in the Wikipedia sense (an academic who has published on the subject in various reliable sources). Jayjg ^(talk)

16:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I think being a planner for the province where the highway is, is enough expertise for basic facts. This isn't an academic topic, and we shouldn't shoot ourselves in the foot with academic standards. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You can think whatever you like, but the source fails

WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk)

00:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

A government highway planner writing about a highway certainly meets SPS. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

A "a regional planner for the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario" does not qualify as "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." And, no, being cited once on a municipal website does not count as "being published". Jayjg ^(talk) 01:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, yea... Thats what this board is for, sources that don't meet the generalized criteria of

03:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The

List of newspapers in the United States by circulation - just behind the The Providence Journal, and just ahead of The Toledo Blade. Being cited once on one of a number of municipal website does not qualify as "being published", and being a regional planner for the Ministry of Transportation does not qualify one as "an established expert". Being a medical doctor does not make someone an "established expert" on, for example, various diseases, drugs, etc. Working in a government transportation office doesn't make someone an expert on the history of highways. Jayjg ^(talk)

01:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg, are you suggesting that a doctor, who is trusted to make life and death decisions every day, cannot be cited on the subject of medicine, while a grad student who happened to publish in a couple of academic journals could? Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The Hamilton Spectator is published by the same media company as the Toronto Star, and both say he is a highway historian. Also, to compare to America with Canada doesn't make sense, as America has 10 times the population of Canada. Likewise comparing medicine, which is a rigorous and strict science with above average sourcing requirements, to history, which is the opposite. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree the Hamilton Spectator is undoubtedly a reliable source, but its article doesn't identify Bevers himself as an expert - and as his own Website acknowledges he only graduated in a field of transportation studies last year. Having said that, to echo Squidfryerchef, if the facts are basic and non-contentious, he'll probably do. Where he wouldn't suffice as a RS is, for example, in providing interpretation of the history of highway development in Ontario. Barnabypage (talk) 16:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable as a secondary source summarizing the history when I use reliable primary sources to cover all the detailed facts that someone would actually challenge? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the ideal way for you to proceed would be to - by all means - use Bevers as a basis for research, but then find more authoritative sources for each assertion. If they are useful points and not controversial, but you can't find a source, it does (IMHO) no harm to put them in the article with a "citation needed" tag - another editor may come along who does have access to/knowledge of a good source. Barnabypage (talk) 12:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The bottom line is this; he is a

WP:SPS, specifically that he is "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." The wording is explicit for a reason. Jayjg ^(talk)

04:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

We really have to get on that WP:SPS section and add something that professional as well as academic qualifications can qualify someone to be cited on their area of expertise. But in this particular case, there are elements of a primary source here as well. The author's job is to plan highways in the same jurisdiction where the road being cited is. It's his job to know the facts about that road. It's a little like saying that in an article about a skyscraper, we can't cite the architect who designed it because he didn't publish in any academic journals about skyscrapers, he only built one. His web page being linked to by other government agencies may only weakly count towards being "published", but it does make the web site take on the color of a semi-official source, as well as authenticating who is behind the web site. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

If you want to cite that, when first attributing something to the author, you can work in one of the pages that say who he is. i.e. "Mr So-and-So, a regional planner for XYZ( cite Toronto Star, Hamilton Spectator, City of Toronto) says LMN(cite selfpub)" Or, if these are only inline cites for facts and figures, you can work those pages who confirm who he is into the first footnote. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

John Birch Society

Are the following reliable sources for the statement in the John Birch Society (JBS) article that it "has been described as far right":

Danielson, Chris (Feb 2009). ""Lily White and Hard Right": The Mississippi Republican Party and Black Voting, 1965-1980". The Journal of Southern History (Athens) 75 (1): 83.[17]

Lee, Martha F (Fall 2005). "NESTA WEBSTER: The Voice of Conspiracy". Journal of Women's History (Baltimore) 17 (3): 81.[18]

My objections to these sources are that 1) they are being used as primary sources for the conclusion that the JBS has been described as far right and 2) the articles are not about the JBS or the far right and therefore not relevant to the topic. It is not as if there is a lack of relevant sources for this article.

The Four Deuces (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This is being discussed at great length in talk:John Birch Society. The Four Deuces omitted the third source being used:

• Oshinsky, David (January 27, 2008). "In the Heart of the Heart of Conspiracy". New York Times Book Review: p. 23.

And those are just three of 44 sources that call the group "far right". See ]]. We're already bending considerably by not simply saying that the JBS is far right and by simply saying that it has been described that way instead.   Will Beback  talk  23:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that an editor is using a laundry list of adjectives for the JBS, each of which is "sourced" but which concatenated would be the equivalent of having a sentence "Hitler is claimed to have been 'insane,' a 'nut case' an 'extremist', a 'killer'" and so on ... Once you establish that critics frequently call it "far right" that is sufficient. Adding more stuff does not improve the article, and actually harms any image of articles as being written for reference. The tendency for citation overkill (Ossa on Pelion) is quite regrettable indeed. Collect (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

With 44 sources perhaps we should alter the article. With that much unanimity between sources from all over the political spectrum we can flatly declare the JBS to be "far right" rather than just saying it's described that way.   Will Beback  talk  23:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Let us leave all that discussion to the talk page and let other editors reply to the question posted. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Given the preponderance of reliable sources describing the John Birch Society as "far right", there is no issue with Wikipedia describing it that way too. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue goes beyond one adjectival phrase - the issue is one of a laundry list of such phrases in the article, concatenated in a single sentence. Collect (talk) 11:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

That's not really a reliable sources issue. Do you have any comments about the sources, either the two listed here or the 44 listed on the talk page?   Will Beback  talk  11:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a strong potential for cherry-picking here. There's tens of thousands of writings about the JBS out there, and whether a few op-ed pieces use a certain label doesn't mean a whole lot. Far-right isn't the most accurate label we could use; some authors use the term "hard right" to avoid lumping political groups that might be slightly to the right of Reagan with radical groups. Other adjectives that come to mind would be "anticommunist" or "ultraconservative".

The part of the article in question is basically an attempt to put the criticism section in the lead paragraph. For the lead paragraph, we should be using only the most general and top tier of sources, such as a book about conservative politics in the US that comes from an academic press. I could also go for tertiary sources such as dictionaries or political science textbooks.

Some of the other adjectives used in that part of the lead are distortions, such as "radical right" and "extremist". This group certainly doesn't advocate radical change or political extremism, and the sources are cherry-picked from old newspaper articles that don't discuss the JBS in depth. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a potential for cherry-picking, but that hasn't been demonstrated. The newspaper sources are mostly quite recent and include very few op-ed pieces. Most are straight reporting. Also included are articles from scholarly journals, regarded as among the best sources for topics like this. I don't see a signifcant diffrence between "far right" and "ultraconservative", but both terms have been used commonly for th JBS and both are included in the article. If someone has a good source for the difference between them we could include that. OTOH, if there are sources saying they are the same thing then we can probably drop the less -used term. But basically, if we have over three dozen reliable sources saying "X is Y" then our article should probably say "X is Y", unless there are equally good sources that dispute it. Otherwise we're replacing the mainstream views of reliable sources with our own judgements, which we all know is a form of orignal research.   Will Beback  talk  23:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This conversation is getting off topic and fails to discuss whether the two sources, which are from articles in academic journals, are reliable sources for the an article about the John Birch Society (JBS). They are in fact the only academic sources presented that describe the JBS as far right. My objection is that the articles are not about the JBS or the far right and the JBS is not described as far right in academic articles about the JBS or about the far right. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

My problem is more with characterizations like "radical right" or "extremist" being in the lead, when there's nothing radical about the JBS and there's nothing extremist about being opposed to communism. "Far right" isn't terrible, but it shouldn't be the leading adjective. You can find plenty of other sources that use terms like "anticommunist", which is pretty much the whole raison d'etre of the organization. The problem with "far right" is that to some people it includes extreme groups who use violence, and some authors use the term "hard right" to distinguish from the "extreme right". While nobody doubts that the sources cited meet the minimum standards for RS, we should have a higher standard for the lead. If 10,000 articles were written about JBS over the years, and if only 30 use a certain adjective, that's not too compelling. We have to abide by

WP:NPOV and not put the criticism section in the lead. Squidfryerchef (talk

) 15:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

TV schedule

Hi,

I need input on whatever the TV schedules posted in this forum thread can be counted as Reliable to assert the X series broadcast on Y network/TV channel. Note that this thread is hosted in the official TV network forum and there is to my knowledge no other place to find broadcast information in the whole official website.

Thanks --KrebMarkt 08:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Bulletin/Message boards are not reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I wanted a refined assessment not a mantra recitation. Cordially. --KrebMarkt 17:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you prove who posted the schedule? Is it by a spokesperson of the station? It's very strange that a TV network's website wouldn't contain a printed schedule. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, taken at face value, the posting appears to be from the Executive Producer and Production Assistant. If true, this would qualify as

WP:SPS, correct? As for it being strange, if this is a Japanese program broadcasting in a Spanish-language nation, this might be the only source in English (of course, that's pure speculation on my part.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 19:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm in conflict with editors from Philippine wanting adamantly to add broadcast information. Because i'm clearly not neutral, i was dropping here the less crappy reference i was provided for evaluation. You can read the Ip tantrum here.

My personal opinion on this one: It cannot constitute a RS because it's most likely TV schedules posted by a benevolent user with the tacit approval of the TV Network forum moderators. The information is certainly trustworthy and accurate but a step short to our standard for a Reliable Source. Checking this "Production Assistant" forum post history reveals a behavior closer to an user with privileged information access rather than a real TV network staff member.

Now if someone more neutral than me can give another opinion based on arguments that would be better than what i say versus what they say in such dispute. Thanks --KrebMarkt 19:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's a refined assessment:

WP:SPS. Jayjg ^(talk)

20:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

KrebMarkt seats on the dusty roadside and laughs out of bitterness until its hurts. Thanks nevertheless. --KrebMarkt 07:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It would help if you linked to the specific article where this is an issue. A lot depends on context. Blueboar (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

See Aria (manga) just the infobox information on network broadcast. Thanks you much for you time. --KrebMarkt 20:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

If the user isn't a spokesperson of the TV station or equivalent, then the forum posts wouldn't meet the formal sourcing requirements. Now, I understand that people are watching this on TV and nobody doubts the truth of what's being sourced. If the regular editors of the page can agree to

WP:IAR on the source that's one option. Another would be to see if there aren't any newspaper TV schedules which can be cited instead. Squidfryerchef (talk

) 15:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Peer reviewed secondary 2008 and 2009 sources for cold fusion

Are the sources here:

1. Biberian, J.-P.; Armamet, N. (2008) "An update on condensed matter nuclear science (cold fusion)" Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie. Volume: 33, Issue: 1-2, Pages: 45-51.

2. Sheldon, E. (2008) "An overview of almost 20 years' research on cold fusion. A review of 'The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction: A Comprehensive Compilation of Evidence and Explanations about Cold Fusion.'" Contemporary Physics. Volume: 49, Issue: 5, Pages: 375-378.

and here: (includes discussion of peer review from book's forward)

3. Marwan, Jan and Krivit, Steven B., eds., Low energy nuclear reactions sourcebook (American Chemical Society/Oxford University Press, 2008;

ISBN 978-0-8412-6966-8

)

and here: (includes discussion of peer review)

4. Krivit, S.B, “Cold Fusion: History,” Encyclopedia of Electrochemical Power Sources, Vol 2, Juergen Garche, Chris Dyer, Patrick Moseley, Zempachi Ogumi, David Rand and Bruno Scrosati, eds, Amsterdam: Elsevier; Nov. 2009. p. 271–276,

ISBN 9780444520937

5. Krivit, S.B, “Cold Fusion - Precursor to Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions,” Encyclopedia of Electrochemical Power Sources, Vol 2, Juergen Garche, Chris Dyer, Patrick Moseley, Zempachi Ogumi, David Rand and Bruno Scrosati, eds, Amsterdam: Elsevier; Nov. 2009. p. 255–270,

ISBN 9780444520937

all reliable, peer reviewed,

WP:SECONDARY sources for improving the cold fusion article? If not, which are and which are not reliable, and why? 99.191.75.124 (talk

) 17:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC) Banned user Nrcprm2026 is not permitted to contribute. Hipocrite (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Except for the first one (with which I am unfamiliar), in general these publications and publishers are considered reliable. So obviously something else is going on here. Is it the way that they are being used that is being challenged rather than their base reliability? Did you include Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_35 as part of the discussion, so that interested editors could obtain copies? Since, except for the first one, these are not (currently) readily available to most of us, exact evaluation is not possible without asking the author for copies. Elsevier has been known to publish volumes of less than reliable conference proceedings for monetary gain. --Bejnar (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Contributing reporters authors or not

For the New York Times article Paterson Weighs Race as Top Aide Quits in Protest, it states at the top "By DANNY HAKIM and JEREMY W. PETERS", but it also states at the bottom "David Kocieniewski, William K. Rashbaum and Karen Zraick contributed reporting from New York.".

Should David Kocieniewski, William K. Rashbaum and Karen Zraick be considered authors as well?Smallman12q (talk) 02:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• If you are referring to how the article's citation should appear, I would say no. It is not unusual for major newspaper stories to incorporate reporting from other reporters in addition to the main writers of the article. Presumably the New York Times has some kind of system to determine which of the reporters gets their byline at the top of the article and which ones get relegated to the "contributed reporting" line at the end. I don't believe the addition of the "contributed reporting" people is needed for bibliographic/citation purposes. On the other hand, if there is a specific issue with regard to the reliability of the "contributing reporters", since this is the Reliable Sources Noticeboard -- example: if Jayson Blair were one of the contributing reporters -- then that should be taken into account and such an article should be avoided for use as a source. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

That's more of a MOS question than a RS question, but my inclination is no: no reason our footnoting needs to be more complete than the Chicago Manual of Style. THF (talk) 05:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Well I'm writing a bot to help fix up the citations, so would it be better if contributing reporters were included...or would that go against the MOS.Smallman12q (talk) 12:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No, there isn't any need to include them. Please leave them out. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

thedailybeast.com

I know that, as far as reliability goes, we no longer simply say "No blogs"... recognizing that there is a huge difference between joe blow's personal blog and a professional (or even semi-professional) news blog... and that we essentially judge reliability based on whether the blog has a reputation for good journalism. With that in mind, I just need to know... what is the reputation of thedailybeast.com? Thanks Blueboar (talk) 03:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, our article about it, The Daily Beast, says it's run by some fairly respected people, formerly of the New Yorker and Wall Street Journal, and contributed to by Tony Blair and Condoleeza Rice. The Guardian says: [19] "It is positioned somewhere in the middle of the Drudge Report and the HuffingtonPost, both in terms of content and political placement." That seems to be a reasonable guideline. If you look at our discussions about the HuffingtonPost, such as Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_16#Huffington_Post; Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_51#Media_Matters_for_America.2C_Huffington_Post.2C_and_NewsHounds; Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_17#Is_the_Huffington_Post_a_reliable_source.3F, there has been a bit on each side, but consensus seems to be that, we should separate out the editorials and opinion columns from the reporting pieces, and don't use for highly controversial information about living people without other backup. Though I would imagine that depends on the specific author. What is the specific piece of information needed to be cited to The Daily Beast? --GRuban (talk) 04:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It's non-controversial... used in the article on survivalist James Wesley Rawles to support the statement that he sometimes publishes as "James Wesley, Rawles" (with the comma) ... (here is the diff.) Personally, I don't think that is something that really needs a citation (you can verify it by looking at the front cover of one of his books)... but since another editor questioned it, I thought I would ask here. Blueboar (talk) 05:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to refine the question, I am asking how to apply the heightened scrutiny obligation that exists under

WP:BLP, which says "Be very firm about the use of high quality references." Asking, where is the line between "very firm" and "high quality" drawn between ordinary articles and BLP articles? SaltyBoatr (talk

) 05:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, a comma. I think that interview with the author himself easily qualifies. As for the "line between very firm and high quality" I can only refer you to

WP:BLP is that we don't want to carelessly harm our subjects. We need to focus on that, not the fine points of how we phrase our rules. This interview makes it pretty clear Rawles (Wesley, Rawles) has no fear of his comma, and even a certain pride, so, the, comma, is, in. --GRuban (talk

) 14:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Got it, I think. What you are saying is that editors can extend judgment as to both the quality of the source and the degree of contention of what is being said. And, less contention requires less quality. I think I am misunderstood by you here, because in this case on the talk page at that aritlce I wasn't asking for the removal of the "comma" statement, but rather asking if anyone knew of a higher quality source to improve the references. And, you realize the perhaps unintentional consequence of this policy is that for BLP articles favorable statements have a lower standard of sourcing than non-favorable statements. I had misunderstood that we were to strive for a general higher quality of sourcing for all statements in BLP articles. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the Beast is certainly not a "blog", as it has editors and so forth. While it wouldn't be my first choice for a biography, something as minor as a comma, and coming from an interview, is hardly controversial. And as the "about the author" page for the book on Amazon uses the comma too, it seems to be correct information. If we really want to, we could do an additional primary-source cite to the Amazon review, and then cite Beast as a secondary source that discusses his preference for the comma. But I think Beast is fine the way it's being used currently. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not a blog. Dlabtot (talk) 17:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

filmreference.com

Despite the fact that we've discussed this site on these pages multiple times as being non-reliable, there are well over 1,000 articles using it as a source. On top of that, someone at

Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Resources

keeps adding it back as a valid source. The info on that page says sites cannot be added to that page without a discussion on the talk page concluding them to be reliable, yet when it is removed it keeps getting putting back without any discussion.

I am putting this back here for another discussion, one which I hope will sort this out once and for all. If it's not reliable as we have been saying all along it needs to be enforced, perhaps with either the spam filter or some other method to get rid of it for good. DreamGuy (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that no topic will ever be sorted out once and for all. Dlabtot (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

mako.org.au

Is the website mako.org.au ever a reliable source? It is a kind of public list of convicted (or not) criminals (" 98+% of offenders listed in the MAKO/Files Online and MAKO/Files Online- (WTC) have been convicted by a court of law."), without any kind of official backing, reputation for fact-checking, ... As this is used for extremely sensitive information (identifying paedophiles, murderers, ...), I don't believe that this source is good enough. It is currently used on 36 pages.[20] Any ideas? —Preceding

Fram (talk • contribs

) 12:04, 22 January 2010

A couple of entries I looked at appeared to be reprints of reliable news sources, but the rest does not seem suitable for biographies. Kevin (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Youtube links used as reference

The subject of the appropriateness of using youtube videos comes up often, however there seems to be no bright line as to whether they shold be used or not. In the case of Patrick Wolff three youtube links depicting a chess match have been repeatedly (three times) added to the article despite the request to discuss why they are necessary and if they meet the narrow instances where youtube links can or should be used as a reliable source. Is this a case where the links should be used? Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 14:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought they are really not to be inserted as inline links, personally I remove them on sight. If the only support there is for a comment is a video link that anyone can upload, perhaps the comment is not worth inserting. If it is from the subjects official site or a closely related issue then I sometimes move them to the external link section.

Off2riorob (talk

) 14:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Wait, Off2riorob, of course they can be reliable sources. There are official YouTube channels for some major news networks, and their items are reliable sources. Then there are some cases where an original movie can be an appropriate source, but indeed, the rest should go at first sight.

Ponyo, you might want to be a bit more specific. Are these video's reliably showing what is asserted, or not? I see there is a 'first' reference there, could the other three be supporting the first one? (I must say, it seems excessive, 4 references .. and if it is just showing the match, then one might want to check if the video is not in violation of copyright before considering if we should be here). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

<edit conflict>The videos are not linked to an official youtube news channel and have no known copyright status. The reference for the chess game results was added by an uninvolved editor after I removed the youtube links. The youtube links were subsequesntly added back in to the article. As there is an alternative source for the info, and the copyright status for the videos is unknown, I see no reason why they should be included - especially if the editor repeatedly inserting the links will not discuss it on the article talk page. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 15:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

In this specific case, however, the video of the chess mach was not posted to an official media channel. It is annonomously posted to the public channels by someone posting as "duckgeezer". We have no way to know if the video has been edited or manipulated, and so can not rely on it. We also need to consider

WP:COPYRIGHT... in the case of an official media channel, the poster owns the copyright to the video, and so can legally release it on YouTube... that is not always the case on the public channels. To use "duckgeezer"'s video, we would need to establish that he holds the copyright to this video. If he does not, then he violates the law by posting it to YouTube, and we violate the law by linking to it. Blueboar (talk

) 15:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

First, we need to establish if the video is even relevant to the article. What are the videos supposed to be showing that adds to the article? Second, we have to establish that the uploader is the copyright holder, because we don't link to

copyright violations. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite

15:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree but relevancy is not really the issue here as in this case the referenced material was totally relevant. In the case of copyright holder this reference did a major fail and cannot be a allowed. At least when I provided a youtube link in the

WP:IAR? correctly was in a gray area).--BruceGrubb (talk

) 13:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• Virtually every YouTube link I have seen has fallen into one of three categories: a copyright violation; linkspam; original research - this case met the third criterion. "X was covered by Y, ref YouTube of X playign Y" is original research. If it's not covered in reliable independent secondary sources then it's not worth including, end of. No further policy is required specifically for YouTube, though it would make everybody's life a great deal easier if it were blacklisted and links allowed only via the whitelist. Guy (Help!) 17:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• • Here are several youtube links that would NOT have any of issues you raise: CBS News, FOX News, ABC News, and The White House. These are all reliable sources so you can NOT blacklist Youtube entirely and there are are other organizations that use Youtube (the James Randi Educational Foundation) that would qualify for other articles. If used carefully I don't see any real reason to try and blacklist Youtube.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

College newspapers

What are peoples thoughts on the reliability of The Daily Collegian and Collegiate Times, used in

Michael Peter Woroniecki. I haven't read every article yet, but I'm thinking that they are possibly acceptable for reporting events that occurred on campus, but not external events. I'm trying to clean up a major NPOV issue, and this guidance would be useful before I start. Kevin (talk

) 23:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

College newspapers do have editorial oversight, though the amount and quality of such oversight will vary wildly depending on the paper. I'd say they're fine for non-controversial claims. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much what I thought. I don't think there is a single non-controversial aspect to Woroniecki, so I'm going to have to find better ones. Kevin (talk) 10:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The "oversight" is generally limited, especially for articles which have notorious "facts" in them - the editors are generally more anxious for a "good read" than for absolute objectivity. Caveat lector. Collect (talk) 12:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Can consensus reached here be ignored by experts in a subject

There is a discussion above --

talk

) 09:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I've read the discussion above. It sounds like a terminal case of

WP:AN seems in order. 85.204.164.26 (talk

) 13:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Doug, you should know that consensus here is not something that can be enforced. This is not an arbitration pannel. Yes, you are likely to get well informed opinions on how the RS guideline and other polices should be interpreted and applied to a partiular source in a particular article, but that is it. This notice board does not "Trump" anything. What "trumps" local consenus is the guideline itself. Blueboar (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

One would hope that all editors take what is said here into consideration. Of course with strongly held beliefs regarding a single issue often a

talk · contribs · email

) 19:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll need to reword the question. If there is a clear consensus here, yet on the talk page of an article the editors there decide to ignore it, surely the next thing to do (in a hypothetical case, not the one above) is indeed to go elsewhere, possibly ANI? I know this is not an arbitration panel, but ArbCom doesn't normally deal with issues like this. How often are RfCs used to enforce policy/guidelines as opposed to simple content issues? If discussions here can simply be ignored we're just talking to ourselves.

talk

) 20:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Doug, I realize that this is probably just a theoretical discussion but I do think it reflects upon the real case at hand, or may be seen to (as shown by the IP reaction above!). The quote you cite by Din is being taken out of context. There was in fact no real consensus.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I've never said there was. I don't see one either. I'm interested here in the hypothetical, because it's a problem that exists elsewhere.

talk

) 22:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This RfC [21] did manage to settle a many year dispute and avoided going to ARB. I will say that simple issues can hopefully be dealt with here but that for more intractable cases we are just talking to ourselves and going through the motions, proving that all measures have been attempted, before parties move to ANI / RFC / ARB.

talk · contribs · email

) 22:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

When editors ignore a clear consensus at RS/N, the next step is typically AN/I. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I would think that what happens more typically in cases like the one under discussion is that because the discussion itself has been so ill-informed, deliberately confused by an interested party, filled with personal attacks, vague accusations and emotive language; and consensus was so "called" quickly in an artificial way, that if anyone ever tried to use the ruling in the dozens of involved articles, there is the option of simply having a better discussion. The above case is part of one long personal attack in sheep's clothing. On his talk page

R1a are pure trolling and personal attack.--Andrew Lancaster (talk

) 08:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Your post is one long personal attack having nothing whatsoever to do with the assessments made here. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I realize that this is a theoretical discussion, but nonetheless, it is expressly linked to an example case involving me, and specifically it is citing an incident out of context. Not only do I feel it is important to avoid misunderstandings, sorry, but also I tend to think that in order to discuss theoretical cases it is interesting to consider why real life cases might not be what they look like. On the other hand, going through a case history which can be cross checked is not personal attack. For what personal attack means see [[22]]. Here is a textbook example of personal attack according to the definition.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopædia Britannica

Is it a reliable source? Because there is a "suggest edit" button. Is it like wikipedia that anyone can edit the articles? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's a reliable source. The "suggested edit" button is a response to Wikipedia, so that the public can identify errors or propose improvements, but the expert editors decide whether or not to include them, and determine the actual wording of any changes. Paul B (talk) 11:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's a reliable source, per Paul Barlow. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Uncertain -- the online version editors do look at proposed revisions and make changes, but it is a "tertiary source" under WP counting, hence a secondary source is substantially preferred. I porposed a wording change in an article which they adopted, and another Wiki editor wrote a long missive implying I had a nefarious aim. They reverted, lest they be caught up in a controversy over nothing. The print version is a tad less of a problem, but still tertiary. Collect (talk) 12:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The online version has the same editorial oversight as the offline. User-generated content cannot be added directly to articles. And tertiary sources, particularly as respected as Britannica, are considered fairly reliable sources, particularly when the articles have named authors. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Associated Press, reliable?

• Specifically, [23]

This source is being used to support the following half-sentence in the article Gary Lavergne: "which according to a 2007 Associated Press article is "considered the definitive account of the massacre.""

The article has been under discussion at

reliable source

does not invalidate it as a reliable source to begin with, but beyond that there's no definitive proof it is an error. Within a minute or two of searching, I found support for the "floor 28" it asserts in the following sources:

"It was from the observation deck, 28 stories up, that UT student Charles Whitman opened fire Aug. 1, 1966"[24]

"Twenty-eight floors below, Dickerson and Walden saw the bodies and heard the shots."[25]

"From the observation deck on the 28th floor of the University of Texas Tower, Charles J. Whitman turned the campus into a blood-stained" Newsweek, Volume 68, Issues 1-13 p. 113

He has altered the article Charles Whitman, which also included the 28 floors figure, now to read 29, with support from an archived student newspaper article. He suggests that the Associated Press piece should be eliminated from the Gary Lavergne article as unreliable, indicating that these other three sources are unreliable as well.

Feedback would be welcome on whether or not this source is reliable to substantiate that statement: "which according to a 2007 Associated Press article is "considered the definitive account of the massacre."" I'm not particularly inclined to sweat the details at Charles Whitman myself, as I am only involved in attempting to make sure that the BLP on Gary Lavergne is fairly represented. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

AP is a reliable source and the sentence proposed would certainly be appropriately cited and attributed with it. That the article may contain an error does not invalidate it as a source. As far as determining which floor should be given, the best and most reliable sources with the highest degree of scholarship and oversight should be used (books from mainstream publishing houses, scholarly journals, other well-regarded mainstream publications etc). A student newspaper may be considered a reliable source but not if it is contradicted by multiple other, higher quality sources. --Slp1 (talk) 19:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. Even though I don't consider this one fact necessary for this to be a reliable source, I've done a bit more poking since posting this, and there do seem to be substantial sources suggesting 28th floor is correct: in addition to the above, there's this 1966 source which says, "Then he struggled up three flights of stairs, jerking the dolly after him, to what is regarded as the 28th floor, about 280 feet above ground." Here's a 1970 source that also considers it the 28th floor. Indeed, there seem to be quite a few...certainly more news sources than those news sources archived which regard it as the 29th. I imagine I should note this at Charles Whitman, anyway. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is the source Moonridden girl refers to [[26]], it was taken from the University of Texas' historical website. As to the AP source, there is no name associated with it, and other AP writers may not agree with the phantom writer of the article. The AP source also doesn't mention where the opinion comes from, so it is not verifiable as to the source of the quote. The other articles are not in question as to the use of this singular source, though, they are in error as well. Five wrong errors do not add up to one fact. Victor9876 (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Did you by any chance scroll to the bottom of that source? It is "Daily Texan. September 22, 1965. Article by: Unknown." It's the student newspaper, and it also has no name associated with it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a very minor error--a fiddling detail that can easily be resolved by, for instance, a FOIA request for related police documents. but it exposes an underlying solecism that is quite common on Wikipedia: the notion that there exist intrinsically reliable sources whose authority overrides all conflicting reports by virtue of their status. To clarify, I'm not suggesting that it's sensible to challenge an AP report with an article from an opinion blog, a student newspaper, or whatever. I suppose the distillation is that we shouldn't reify fiddling detail in our articles. The number of the floor is not ascertainable from reliable sources with any degree of certainty, and it's of no relevance, so omit the detail

Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 19:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but the issue in question is whether that fiddling detail is important enough (and wrong enough) to invalidate sources that go with the more frequently reported number of 28. The number of floors isn't actually mentioned in the article of concern to me, Gary Lavergne. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Tasty Monster, that will hopefully be the resolve. To Moonridden girl, YES, I did notice that, but it is archived by the University, not the AP, and 1965 sourcing was different to today's standards. If your argument is that it should not be sourced, then neither should the AP article which does not source the opinion. Victor9876 (talk) 19:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Not my argument at all; simply pointing out that if anonymity concerns you, you may not wish to use that source. Feel free to remove the number of floors from

WP:BLPN. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

20:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is supported by you (who brought the issue to light) and one other party who only weighed in on your reversion, nothing has followed since the debate began. Victor9876 (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you haven't yet read the latest note at

WP:BLPN. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

20:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Thank you for bringing that to my attention, I just read it. It was a criticism of another admins interpretation of my remarks and your use of the rules. Nothing pertaining to this discussion that I could garner. I do believe we'll see her here in a thread or two. Victor9876 (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Question! Can an administrator "tweak" the rules on Wikipedia? Thanks in advance. Victor9876 (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, with great difficulty. But that applies to all of us, not just administrators. The rules are set by the community: propose a change, get enough people to agree to it, or at least not object strongly, and it becomes a rule. It's pretty hard, of course, since the existing rules have a lot of people supporting them, that probably won't agree to radical changes, but possible. What specific rule tweak are you looking for? --GRuban (talk) 12:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks GRuban for your response. I'm not sure which rule Moonriddengirl is referring to here [[27]], but she specifically refers to herself as having "tweaked" policy, and it is not clear as to which one. I only bring this to light as she has brought this forum and another one at [[28]] against me, throwing every rule at me while accusing me of deliberately trying to disparage the author. Every attempt to clarify my position was met by rule after rule, and then through her own admission in the cited thread on her userpage, "tweaks" a rule. I'm not accusing her of flagrantly violating a rule, as she has me, it just seems like a double standard, please advise me if I am wrong. I want to avoid future exchanges that escalated there, and anyones input on whether or not this is a legitimate complaint would help. If I had responded to her at any time that I had "tweaked" the rules, I'm sure I would be answering a higher level of admonition, or been blocked. Thanks again! Victor9876 (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Since you've requested "anyones input", I'll assume that you won't castigate me for answering this time. Policies on Wikipedia are shaped by the community except to the extent that they are mandated by the Foundation. You are as welcome as any member of the community to contribute to shaping those rules. Please see

WP:V), as a check of their histories will show. I am not in the edit history of either within the last 1,000 edits, except in reverting vandalism once to each. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

15:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Aha. There, she seems to be referring to the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Change_to_G12:_accepted_license. There she tried to clarify a speedy deletion criterion that allowed speedy deletion of content without a free license, so it allowed speedy deletion of content without a free licence we liked. It looks like she failed [29], since her change isn't in there now; but discussion is still going on. As I wrote, it isn't easy. Anyway, I don't recommend fighting your issues out with her by throwing accusations at her, that's not likely to get her to agree to what you want. I recommend talking it through, figuring out what exactly she's objecting to, and seeing if you can modify to closer to what she wants. I suspect she will be willing to help if you let her. I haven't had much interaction with Moonriddengirl, but earlier on this page[30] she seems to be a rational sort of person that can be reasoned with. That sort of reasonableness is almost required of admins, actually. It looks like your argument with Moonriddengirl is about more than just this one source. Is there a single definitive place where this issue can be discussed? --GRuban (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both for your cordial replies. I would have thought the authors article talkpage would have been the proper venue, since the issue was originally raised there, and the current state of discussions were generated from an exchange with another admin, Stifle, who reported he was having issues and would not intervene anymore there or several other areas. Then he brought the BLP issue to the discussion forum where Moonriddengirl took over. The end result is - we are here and the other forum. I don't wish to be pedantic, but there comes a time when information doesn't add up - or have heuretic value, as does Lavergne's conclusions from his Op-Ed, in light of the medical evidence. It is the 1 + 1 = 3 rule, it doesn't add up to the facts. That being said, there are no secondary nor tertiary references on the web that refute his claims. Therefore, one has to follow ones instinctual nature, or knowledge of the facts to try and expose errors that are detrimental to the facts, and hopefully add to the credibility of WP articles. That was my intentions, sans the attempt to disparage anyone. The only sources that dispute Lavergne's claims, are the medical issues and the Connally Report. However, the only way to show his errors are by deduction, which leads to NOR, which does not allow a dispute that 1 + 1 = 2; not 3. I'm not sure if this policy is good for WP, or the community, if one can point out the blatant errors, from an authors own words and webpage. Just my thoughts. Victor9876 (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

A change of that magnitude (since

WP:NOR policy change proposal has settled. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

16:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me confirm - Victor, your idea is to write that in an editorial, Lavergne wrote a hypothetical statement about how Whitman would have been treated by a court, which was wrong? Is that the idea? If so, let me step outside the "Original Research" questions, and ask: is it really that important? People are wrong all the time, and even historians are people; in the case of a hypothetical statement, does it really matter? Honestly, I'm sure most historians we write articles about have made some errors. (Here's one that was pointed out to me in an article I was writing.) We should only write about the important errors. The way we decide which errors are important are that others have made a big deal about them (for example of a historian who made some notable errors:

Michael A. Bellesiles). But if no one else has written about the error in Lavergne's editorial, I don't think it's worth writing about in our article. --GRuban (talk

) 18:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is the entire article [[31]]. The entire article is a defense of others, for example, Rosa Eberly an associated professor at the University of Texas who disagreed with Lavergne's conclusion in his book, especially the "evil" conclusion he comes to. Ms. Eberly soon left the University of Texas and went to Penn State. I understand your remarks about all of us making mistakes, however, correct me if I'm wrong, your example is based on a writers error over a work of fiction in history, where Charles Whitman committed an act in history. In the article, Lavergne goes on to attack others, who do not agree with his conclusions, as well as the DSM-IV and how it is used. He even attacks a Dr. who suggested the Amygdala (our fright - flight defense mechanism), may have had a role. Lavergne dismisses the stress Whitman was under, the amphetamine abuse of Whitman, and most importantly, the Glioblastoma tumor Whitman had. All of the above, plus other issues Whitman was under, can cause psychosis in themselves. The combination of the ailments and social and personal issues, does not correlate to "evil", and that misleading term has no place in an academic book, to be the cause of anything with modern knowlege of how those forces, can affect an individual or even individuals in some cases. It is a MEME of the 17th and 18th centuries, that began to be dispelled in the 19th century through todays sciences. As to the prognosis of the tumor alone, Whitman would have been dead within a year, if McCoy hadn't killed him on the tower. That effectively dismisses all of Lavergnes hypotheticals that could or would have happened, if he had been captured rather than killed. Hope this helps. Victor9876 (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

ADDENDUM - GRuban, didn't notice the link to Bellesiles, a most interesting read. Thanks! I see the difference now as opposed to my writings of the criticism of Lavergne's Op-Ed and book. I will try and find support, the only thing I have found is a criticism where one of Whitman's friends had a different point of view than Lavergne, and Lavergne had interviewed him. Meanwhile, I will take a break and concentrate on more positive issues, like "Drunks who drown while bobbing for apples on Halloween"! lol! Thanks again! 01:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Victor9876 (talk) 01:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Underminingdemocracy.org a reliable source or not?

There is a dispute on the

Propaganda in the People's Republic of China page about whether "Kurlantzick, Joshua (2009). "China: Resilient, Sophisticated Authoritarianism". Freedom House. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)" is a reliable source on the Chinese Communist Party's propaganda work. PCPP (talk · contribs) argues that it is not, since "a) is not a suitable academic source as most of its material relies on original research b) is from an organization funded by the US government, and the countries reported happened to be political opponents of the US". I disagree. This is a question about the reliability of the source, not about whether the source has been used in a fully appropriate manner in the article. Please share your considered opinions. --Asdfg12345

00:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and it would be relevant to note who these people are. Here's Kurlantzick's profile; and Perry Link. --Asdfg12345 00:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Reliable. a) is perfectly fine; our sources had better do original research, it's only Wikipedia editors who are not allowed to. b) could be an issue, so noting that the source was funded by the US govt would probably be appropriate, though I doubt the second part of that objection. The article says COUNTRY REPORTS: CHINA IRAN PAKISTAN RUSSIA VENEZUELA - it's highly debatable whether Pakistan is a political opponent of the US, it's a very important backer of the Afghan war; and if the source was merely a critic of everyone the US didn't like, surely Cuba and North Korea would be more prominent than China and Russia.) --GRuban (talk) 14:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

WebCiting old BBC News articles

BBC has announced that several sections of its old websites would be axed and its old content pruned, owing to a funding shakeup to BBC Online. I'm concerned that this is likely to include old versions of BBC News articles dating back to 1999, which an awful lot of articles heavily depend upon for reliable sourcing (some of them the only source, in fact). I think we should start converting them into

Mailer Diablo

13:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

"The Big Apple" as a reliable source

This website is an etymological blog on the origin of popular phrases. The editor, and major contributor Barry Popik is "a contributor-consultant to the Oxford English Dictionary, Dictionary of American Regional English, Historical Dictionary of American Slang, and the Yale Dictionary of Quotations."

His About page is here and the article in question is here.

Would the material sourced by Popik be considered a reliable source? - Stillwaterising (talk) 13:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source to support the claims of expertise? I'm not saying that if one exists the blog is acceptable, but clearly without a RS to verify it can't really progress further.99.141.252.167 (talk) 14:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

And what are you wanting to use it as a source for? His own about page says "He is recognized as an expert on the origins of the terms Big Apple, Windy City, hot dog, and many other food terms" which is pretty limiting! --

Insider201283 (talk

) 14:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

That hardly sums up the scope of his work. Apparently there's a W article, so I wikified his name. I also found a source that backs up his bio at the American Dialect Society. - Stillwaterising (talk) 14:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the author is a RS, is there anything that would argue against RS of the blog for narrow use in "culture" articles?99.141.252.167 (talk) 14:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's an news article from

WP:SPS his blog may be considered acceptable if authored by an "stablished expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." - Stillwaterising (talk

) 14:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, depends on what you want use it as a source for - "culture" articles is way too broad. Do you have a specific article and claim it's wanting to be used for? --

Insider201283 (talk

) 14:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

ETA: He has published works in etymology, so from that aspect he appears to be a recognized expert in etymology. --

Insider201283 (talk

) 14:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The purpose is to determine the origins of the capitalist creed as used in

etymological issues in general should also be determined. - Stillwaterising (talk

) 15:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

That claim already appears to have an RS source, which would seem to make the discussion moot. does Popik's view differ? --

Insider201283 (talk

) 15:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes he finds a source that predates the current one by 60 years, however his post is a list of primary source without secondary commentary. He could update it later with analysis though. - Stillwaterising (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Assyrian International News Agency

This is being used as a source in a

WP:BLP. Tiamut^talk

20:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Original. See previous discussions on FrontPageMag ( here, here, here, here) nableezy - 20:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Nableezy. I'm going to delete the link to that article. The claim is made in the book

Muslim Mafia (book) anyway, also co-authored by Paul Sperry. I guess it can be cited to that. A related question: Is that book an RS for a BLP on a Muslim-American? Tiamut^talk

21:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

That book is published by WND Books, not exactly a reputable publisher that should be used in a BLP. nableezy - 22:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Is the International Amateur Radio Union a reliable source for information about member societies?

The International Amateur Radio Union is an international society of long existence, with member societies which must be recognized national organizations, and they only recognize one organization per nation. Member societies typically existed prior to membership in the IARU, and some member societies have existed for more than eighty years. The member societies are legally independent. The IARU is managed by the American Radio Relay League, probably because the ARRL is the largest member society.

Some years ago, a decision at AfD resulted in the creation of stubs for member societies of the IARU, based solely on such membership (which demonstrates that a particular society is national in scope), and listing by the IARU, with pointers to the member society, as well as reference in publications of the IARU, is arguably an "independent reliable source" (the IARU being legally and in fact independent from the member society, except arguably the ARRL).

Two factors, national scope and independent source for verification may create sufficient notability for a stub, that is already the guideline at

WP:CLUB

, and stubs appear to me to be the best solution for organization of information about the member societies in this case (there are other alternatives, of course, including lists in the article on the international organization, but that was not consensus, and the large bulk of member societies have stubs). However, a process of AfDing these stubs has begun, on the basis of lack of notability. The lack of notability claim hinges on a position that the IARU description of the members is not a "independent source."

It appears that !voting in the AfDs generally favors keeping the articles, but the very same arguments are repeated over and over and over. It would be better to have some global clarification, so that editors don't waste time pursuing alternatives with a pile of individual decisions that go one way or the other depending on who notices the AfD.

National scope is considered an important factor in the notability of nonprofit organizations, see

WP:CLUB

, and recognition by a notable international organization would seem to meet the minimal additional requirement for a stub: independent notice.

Hence the question (and a similar question could be asked about national member societies in any international and legally independent organization):

Is the IARU an "independent source" for the purposes of determining notability of national member societies? There is no controversy over the use of information from the IARU in articles, other than this. Some member societies have sufficient "outside" mention that has been found to qualify them for individual articles on that basis, but there is a problem that such notice in publications outside the field of amateur radio, which can be expected to exist somewhere for all these member societies, is typically in local languages, would mostly be very old, and is difficult to find, particularly under the gun of an AfD. (For example, the Hong Kong Amateur Radio Transmitting Society is about eighty years old.) If the combination of national scope and the minimum notability represented by IARU recognition and listing is adequate for a stub with fully verifiable and trustworthy information, there would be no need to defend each and every member society based on claims on individual non-notability, reducing unproductive disruption at AfD. The decision whether or not to collect information in the article on the international society or to use stubs would then properly be made by editors at the international society article, the article on the umbrella organization.

This does not apply to simple "members" or especially "chapters" of international organizations. It only applies to member societies which are national in scope; these national members are legally independent and they are not established by the international society; rather, they apply for membership after they have been established. Recognition, I suggest, is "notice." And this only applies, as well, to notable international organizations, fully qualified on the basis of independent sources for their own articles.

There exist stubs on individual amateur radio clubs that would not be protected from AfD by this clearer understanding, such as clubs affiliated with the national member societies. These clubs are not national in scope, generally. --

talk

) 18:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Disclosure: I proposed a change to

talk

) 18:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

• I would say that the IARU is a reliable source for the fact that its member organizations exist and are members of the IARU. However, I don't think it can be used to establish that those member organizations are notable under
  WP:ORG, which states: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." I would not consider IARU to be sufficiently "independent" of its 162 member organizations as to give it the authority to determine that its members are all notable. I would also disagree in part with the comment above that states: "Some member societies have sufficient "outside" mention that has been found to qualify them for individual articles on that basis, but there is a problem that such notice in publications outside the field of amateur radio, which can be expected to exist somewhere for all these member societies, is typically in local languages, would mostly be very old, and is difficult to find, particularly under the gun of an AfD. (For example, the Hong Kong Amateur Radio Transmitting Society is about eighty years old.)" I would allow discussion of the member societies published in magazines devoted to amateur radio to be used as sources to establish notability for the society, as long as the magazine was not itself published by the particular society or by the IARU. Also, there is no reason to think that such coverage (regardless of what kind of publication it was in) would be very old. After all, if the HKARTS is about 80 years old, that means that such coverage could have taken place any time between the 1930s and the present day. --Metropolitan90 (talk)
  18:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. From what I've seen, whenever the IARU recognizes a society, which is by vote of existing members of the society, in which the applying society is, of course, not represented, it is an independent recognition, independently published. Currently, it seems, these decisions are covered, at least, in

ARRL, not the IARU

. HARTS has almost certainly been covered, as an example, in other independent sources, over the eighty years, but, contrary to what's been asserted in these AfDs, it is far from easy to find those. Someone local could do it, though, someone with access to local archives and libraries. While there is some benefit to the articles from the threat of deletion, most of those who would have access to resources don't even see the AfD; I've now spent some hours on research and have found only a little on-line, and I'll say that, as well, I've never been much motivated to improve articles under AfD, too many times I've succeeded, found sources, and then the AfD closed as Delete anyway, my time was wasted. What's my one !vote? Basically, the combination of national scope and IARU recognition practically guarantees that some other sources exist. That recognition is about as close to "inherent notability" as I can imagine. I can't fathom a local or national newspaper that would not report it, if they became aware of it.

The issue here is whether or not the IARU is a reliable source for information about its members. On the fact of membership, I'd claim, it is thoroughly and completely reliable. It is relatively reliable in about everything else. I thank Metropolitan90 for the opinion about "publications devoted to amateur radio," because, with time, this will resolve the issue, especially through

talk

) 20:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• No, and I also don't think that
  WP:ORG -- just not, unfortunately, with sources that can be quickly found with your favorite web search engine. WhatamIdoing (talk
  ) 23:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment with agreement. Thanks, WhatamIdoing. Agreement first. Yes, other comment here will be extremely valuable. Please comment. My view is that, if there isn't a clear consensus here or at
  talk
  ) 02:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment with partial agreement. These societies are almost certainly notable based on unarguably independent reliable source, that is due to the nature of recognition of a single national society by a highly notable international body that you can't just join by sending in your dues. The problem is finding the sources, and since it is so highly likely that sources exist, and since all that is being suggested is a consideration that international recognition, combined with national scope, establishes sufficient notability to allow a stub, and since this does not open the door to content any wider than is already open, it would seem, at worst, harmless. There has been no claim that the IARU can't be cited for information about its members. There has, in fact, been no claim that official web sites of member societies cannot be cited. Obviously, the latter cannot be used to establish notability, it is only the former that is in question. --
  talk
  ) 02:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment with disagreement. Apple has nothing to do with this. The guideline under discussion refers to "noncommercial organizations." The IFRCRCS, however, is relevant. When that international organization recognizes a member, it is, at that point, independent, both organizations exist separately, and have separate control of their own activities. But the general case is a red herring here (though not at
  talk
  ) 02:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• It depends what you mean by reliable source. It is reliable for facts about the organisations, but it lacks independence and is usually not a secondary source so there is no way that being recognised by this organisation would confer any kind of notability on a member society. The general notability guideline applies: the individual society articles would require multiple non-trivial independent (secondary) sources, of which this would not be one. Most of them will have been, I'm sure. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

"Reliable source" here means "usable for information for an article." However, there is also a notability issue, which ordinarily is considered to require an independent reliable secondary sources. However, there is a purpose to this requirement, it does not exist as a policy; rather, the policy is

talk

) 19:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:CLUB

plainly says "Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards". I don't know how to make it plainer, but the word "both" here means merely meeting the first criteria, which is about the national scope of the organization, is not sufficient: the org must also meet the second criteria, which demands the production of what it describes as "third-party, independent, reliable sources."

WP:CLUB makes no claim that national organizations are "usually" notable; it claims that national organization for which third-party, independent, reliable sources can be produced are usually notable.

I am sorry that there's a mess with IARU, and I am pleased and relieved that most of the AfDs have closed as keep or no consensus, but I am very frustrated with your ongoing efforts to redefine the guideline and, now even the very notion of independence, to suit this one situation. Re-writing guidelines to gain ascendancy in a specific dispute is not usually helpful to the encyclopedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

And I'm sorry that you think that "gaining ascendency in a specific dispute" is what I'm doing. I care far more about avoiding disruption than winning some point. Merging those separate articles back to the main article is an acceptable solution, and I made that plain. But what's even more important is making some kind of coherent decision so that editors know what to expect. What we have is a guideline that, interpreted as What claims is necessary, will continue to result in AfDs that do nothing but create more disruption, occasionally delete an article that may come back at DRV, and generally confuse the issue. It should not be necessary to revisit the same basic issue in a hundred AfDs. But there is a view of guidelines above that must be confronted. Guidelines are not prescriptive, they are supposed to be descriptive. An editor, following a guideline properly, should be reasonably confident that the community will sustain the editor's action. The existing guideline, interpreted as above, leads to a conclusion about notability that clearly varies from that of the community! There is, rather obvious, a defacto guideline that is more or less what I proposed at

WP:CLUB, and that treats IARU recognition of a national organization, as adequate source for the second half of what What quotes above. It's really a small shift, very small. If the proposed guideline (which is not rewriting, per se, it is adding some specification, is accepted, it will avoid useless AfDs and it will avoid editors having to defend on the same basis over and over. There is still one open AfD, and I've been waiting to see what the conclusion is, without attempting to attract more attention. But it's already clear what the existing practice is. And it's not at all as described by What. Guidelines should be written to reflect existing practice, and that trumps all the theoretical considerations that inclusionists or deletionists might bring. As to "independence," there is no doubt in my mind that the IARU, when it admits a new national member to represent the nation before international bodies, and to represent the IARU to the local government, makes this decision independently, in the ordinary sense. It seems that the concept What is holding is about something else, some fuzzier idea of dependence. Like, maybe, they are all radio amateurs, so they might be friendly to each other or something. But that would apply as well to the editors of QST

, which we would consider reliable source, and there isn't any doubt about that which I've seen expressed. I'm arguing substance, and the counterarguments seem to be rule-based.

I should also note that while I did edit the guideline, so did What, without consensus. I reverted What's change because it had been made without first seeking consensus, and he was then citing his own writing as evidence that editors commenting at AfD were not following the guideline! Then I accepted part of it. And I made my own suggested change, then self-reverted precisely because consensus on it had not been found. This was

talk

) 16:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Abd, nobody here has supported your notion of "independence", and a claim (which you have not made) that IARU is a "third-party" source would be laughable. When "the party of the first part" recognizes "the party of the second part", neither the first nor the second party can be a third-party source -- which is also a required characteristic.

I, and many other editors, believe that such sources do exist; it's just that IARU isn't one of them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Opinion piece on www.opposingviews.com by the Illinois Family Institute

Would an opinion piece by the Illinois Family Institute on the www.opposingviews.com website be a reliable source on the Southern Poverty Law Center? On that website the IFI describes itself as follows:

The Illinois Family Institute (IFI) is an independent 501c(3) non-profit organization dedicated to upholding and re-affirming marriage, family, life and liberty in Illinois. For the past fifteen years, the IFI has worked to advance public policy initiatives consistent with Judeo-Christian teachings and traditions, educating citizens so that they can better influence their local communities and the state.

IFI works within the state of Illinois to promote and defend Biblical truths to foster an environment where families can thrive and reach their full God-given potential to serve and glorify Him--making the most of the opportunities afforded to each of us by His gift of life and liberty.

--Jayjg ^(talk) 23:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course an opinion piece isn't a reliable source for a fact about anyone but the author, but I suspect you know that. What's the actual information the source is being cited for? Their reaction to the SPLC calling them a hate group? --GRuban (talk) 01:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It's being cited in the SPLC article as a response to being labeled a hate group. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to say not appropriate. It's a tough call, because surely the group should be able to defend itself against such a claim, but this article is about the SPLC, not about them, and I don't think the group is a reliable source about the SPLC. By the way, Opposing Views doesn't seem to be an edited site, articles there are essentially self published. The IFI articles can be found on their own site, [33] and [34]. Isn't there a more generally accepted reliable source that lists groups that object to being or having been on the SPLC hate group list? --GRuban (talk) 13:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it's possible, but the SPLC identifies hate groups, and they're rarely reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Questionable source on "

Pornography by region

"

The source used for porn being banned in Ukraine is

far right website), but is it reliable to use in Wikipedia? I don't think so.--Base and Spoiled Female (talk

) 17:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It's obviously a source with an agenda but that doesn't rule it out automatically for all assertions - what statement is it being used to support, exactly? I had a quick look at

Pornography by region and couldn't see it. Barnabypage (talk

) 17:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It's there. Are you blind?--Base and Spoiled Female (talk

) 18:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not, I misread your original posting as saying the source related to a Romanian porn ban, so I was looking at the wrong bit of the page.

Well...I think Romanian National Vanguard is obviously a source that is going to be questioned at best, so your easiest route is to find another source that is reliable. Googling for Ukraine pornography ban brings up stories from the Huffington Post and the Daily Mirror in the UK (both reliable sources) as well as a couple from The Register (I don't know offhand if its reliability has ever been discussed). There are probably others if you dig deeper too. Barnabypage (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Romanian National Vanguard is an extremist site that would not be considered reliable. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes but it is reliable in this case as it is right. See [35] as mentioned. So change the ref and problem solved.

talk · contribs · email

) 06:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Being right doesn't qualify it as a reliable source in the Wikipedia sense, unfortunately. Barnabypage (talk) 09:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Barnabypage is correct. Being correct in one instance does not make a source reliable. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Am I the only one who first read this as "Pornography by religion"? Hans Adler 07:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

My eyes played the same trick on me. Dlabtot (talk) 05:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Screenshot of Itunes top single sales on facebook

Please see the following link, http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=3996218&id=7470710094. This photo is being used as a source to show that the latest release by the artist BT, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BT_%28musician%29, debuted on two digital charts in the #1 sales slot. Since this is linked on the artists facebook page, is this considered a self published source? I would also question how verifiable this is as I can't find where amazon or itunes list historical data for singles sales. I know the information to be true, but an image can be easily manipulated. This article as a whole is poorly sourced, with many links dead, or citation given to articles that do not say what other editors have put into the article. There is a lot of opinion and some summarizing is bordering on OW. There have been contention about my recent changes, by anonymous/new users, to tone down some of the weasel/peacock statements, and to improve the sourcing of opinion data in the article. For this reason I'm trying to get a better consensus on my edits before I make them. Thanks. Fctchkr (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me a good larf! The site is a disgrace at the moment. I have tagged some obvious issues and left notes on the talk page. And the answer to your intial question is thatit is not an RS, it may be a SPS. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your updates and feedback. As you can see I've been trying to tone down the over the top language as well as remove/fix any bad links. The worst part is that this article was in much better shape a few months ago. A lot of the "marketing-esque" language was recently added when the artists newest album was released. I'm trying to branch out and do more work on wikipedia than just that one article so as to not to be a SPA, so I may leave a lot of the updates to someone else to correct. Fctchkr (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It's an extremely unreliable source. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Per

WP:RS—Iknow23 (talk

) 03:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Should you delete any article which does not have reliable sources?

I wrote an article on a little known Scottish band called Iron horse. [36] To my surprise, the article is marked with Notability.

I read about the Notability guidelines and I am puzzled. I don't have anytihng to do with the Iron Horse Group. I just love their music. It may be that the music lovers highly appreciate this band. But there is no way to tell. They are next to unknown over the Internet. The band retired in 2001.

What can I do to meet the Notability requirements in this case? Can you really decide that the article is not worth being there based on the lack of sources? What if the quality of their art justifies the article by itself? Or who can be the judge of that

thanks Alfred

Yup. Without

anything people do. Notability guidelines were established to avoid every garage band, game made up at school one day, and self-published novel doesn't have an article on Wikipedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite

15:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Who can Judge? ... not you or me (or any other editor on wikipedia)... this is why we require reference reliable secondary sources. They are the only reliable judge.

What can you do to meet the Notablility requirements? Find reliable secondary sources that mention the band. Blueboar (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's one. "Living Tradition CD review of The Iron Horse - Five Hands High", Alex Monaghan, Living Tradition magazine, issue 7. I'm not a music expert, but Living Tradition claims to be "a full colour, bi-monthly Folk & Traditional music magazine that has been in publication for over 15 years" which would tend to meet our standards. You want a few more like this. --GRuban (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

As side note just to spare you any other issues make sure the article is in the main area of expertise (in this case music) as article outside that area may not quality even though it is publisher itself is reliable. Also note that journal articles on one main topic may have related sub topics that it talks about to prove its main topic point and these can have issues.

I would also like to add that the notability requirement is being misused by some editors in reference to articles in otherwise

WP:RS publications ie the dreaded 'other articles don't mention this article so even though it is in a reliable publication (or even a peer reviewed journal) it is not notable' sillyness. I would like see a formal change to stop that nonsense.--BruceGrubb (talk

) 14:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I have enough info to try to make the article better. But I do need to mention one think, which is not "yes, but..." thing. I appreciate the answers you've given me. I only want to point out that in the case of a band like Iron Horse, it is not the numbers of articles about the band that makes the band notable. It is the intrinsic value of their art, their music is what makes Iron Horse a notable band in the history of music. So, if you agree with that, I would like to argue that an article on Wikipedia about a notable band, is meets automatically the notability criteria. Question remaining, how do you know the band is notable? That was the direction of my original question. I would like to have your opinion on that too but in the meantim I will go back to the article and try to improve on it. Thanks

The way we decide the encyclopedic "value" of a subject (the dividing line, whether the subject should have an article devoted to it) is described in

others have decided so, and we go with that decision. Otherwise we would have arguments over "the intrinsic value of their art" between someone who likes Celtic music, and others who think media containing it should carry a warning label. --GRuban (talk

) 18:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Alfred, you might like to read

WP:MUSIC, which lists the usual rules of thumb for bands. One of the reasons that we avoid personal or subjective aesthetic beliefs is that people might disagree. We never want to have an article whose content can't be verified objectively, because that can lead to conflicting claims ("I hated their music, so I'm going to write a bunch of insults" vs "I loved their music, so I'm going to write a bunch of compliments"). WhatamIdoing (talk

) 18:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Is James Miller reliable on Michel Foucault?

Hello. There is a dispute about whether the writer James Miller is a reliable source to comment on Michel Foucault. Please see the dispute here. Specifically, the dispute is partly over whether Miller is a reliable source on Foucault's philosophy with regard to sado-masochism. Here are some quotes directly from his book:

• Miller, James. "The passion of Michel Foucault," Harvard University Press, 2000: "The philosopher himself, the artist went on, "had given interviews on sado-masochism," he appeared in public wearing his leather clothes, he made no secret of his inclinations--he lived, in his own fashion, as freely and defiantly as Diogenes had in ancient Athens." [paragraph break] "All of which, as we have seen, is true."

pp. 379-378: "By now, I took it for granted that Foucault's pre-occupation with sado-masochism was an important key for unlocking some of the most challenging but commonly neglected aspects of his work. I also assumed--correctly, as it turned out--that Americans were far more likely than the French to talk freely about this aspect of Foucault's life."

p. 378 [referring to a discussion with Foucault's longtime partner, Daniel Defert]: We talked for nearly three hours. My line of questionining seemed to strike some nerve. It was, I suppose, clear that I had immersed myself in Foucault's texts. It was clear as well that I had done my homework about Foucault's experiences in America's gay community. Defert of course knew about these experiences; and he clearly agreed that these experiences were important, indeed crucial, for a proper understanding of Foucault's work, and particularly his last books."

James Miller is an Associate Professor of Political Science and Director of Liberal Studies at the New School for Social Research, and his text was published by Harvard University Press. If there is more information that I would need to provide, please advise. The reason I have queried here is to get an outside opinion. Thank you.--TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 13:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The big problem with the Miller text is that many Foucaultian scholars agree that he intentionally misreads or distorts Foucaults works in order to provide foundation for his thesis (that Foucaults ventures into deviant sexual behavior provided the groundwork for his political and scholarly endeavors). this is the same claim that TheSoundAndTheFury is attempting to place in the article. The Cambridge Companion provides a good review of why Miller should not be trusted stating among other things that "miller overemphasizes it to the point of distortion," (you can read the rest of it at my link). this view is supported by Carrette who frequently opposes Millers read on Foucault and claims that Miller "misread" Foucault to get his claims. Page 16 and 24 are particularly interesting. There are other places, but this summery provides the reason the community at the Foucault page are resistant to inserting Millers claims that Foucault's personal experience is directly tied to his work and should be elaberated upon in what we feel is inappropriate.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It qualifies as RS under the rules. That it received negative reviews because other scholars do not share Miller's take on the relation of his SM interests and his radical politics is neither here nor there. I can't se anything controversial about Miller's position (I don't know the book), though my instincts, reading these short snippets, tell me I wouldn't personally like his book. You get the same stuff in earlier mainstream French books, i.e. Didier Eribon's 'Michel Foucault,' Flammarion Paris 1991 p.337 ('La pratique du SM est la création du plaisir') and the exactions of historical forms of social power on pleasure (though 'les événements affectent des concepts et non pas des hommes' ) is an important qualifier in Foucault that could be used against Miller's reading) were central to his work. Suffice to put 'according to J Miller', and it is acceptable. Mind you, there is so much superb work by ranking scholars on Foucault that one should access those, except if they generally fail to explore the SM connection in reasonable detail. Nishidani (talk) 16:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion is to be inclusive. Why not include the views which argue that S/M and these other sexual practices were important for Foucault and his work, and the sources which seek to criticise those views. The reader will at least be presented with that. If this was not notable, it would not have attracted the attention. In particular, I have not heard a response to how it is actually Foucault's partner, Defert, who gave much substance to the claim that S/M etc. were important, "even essential" to understanding Foucault's later books. Those were not the words of Miller. Other sources provided on the talk page give credence to the view that this is an important aspect of Foucault's life and work. As you very rightly point out, there are also other points of view. I do not understand why this dispute cannot be included in the article, rather than brushed aside. For now, I suppose the question is: does a source become unreliable because it has been criticised? --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, by the way. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If anyone editing speaks enough French for it, Didier Eribon's biography of Foucault is a good source in general and does cover this aspect of the life and work. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC) Doh, just seen Nishidani already said so! Itsmejudith (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

We crossposted. Precisely, Judith. Nishidani (talk) 16:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

the biggest problem is a

WP:RS if the Foucault community believe that it is "scandalous" which one author warns the reader to check Miller's quotations because of the multiple examples of "textual abuses" p. 172. That and the book was started based on the now completely disproved rumor that when Foucault "realized he was dying of AIDS, 'had gone to gay bathouses in America, and deliberately tried to infect other people with the disease'" Miller wrote the book "to see if anything in Foucault's major works could be connected with the morbid story he had heard" (same citation as above p. 178). The above citations go beyond criticism, and enter into the realm of attacking the credibility of Millers work, and those attacks are coming from authors who are considered experts in Foucault's life and works.Coffeepusher (talk

) 17:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Googling the secondary literature, his thesis is described as one that aroused vigorous inframural debate and rebuttal, which means that, while it qualifies as RS in every sense, it is a minority view within academia. I checked out what distinguished scholars like David Halperin and Alistair MacIntyre had to say: they're trustworthy on things like getting an intellectual tradition and translations of key texts right, etc., and they are harsh on Miller, for misreading the Bataille-Klossowski-Nietzsche nexus. So this means he is RS but, as you say,

WP:UNDUEWEIGHT comes into play. Miller's views can be briefly cited, strictly for the theory of the SM-theory connection, but little else, as far as my superficial examination of the record allows me to understand. Wikipedia is full of RS (the I/P area) that are wholly unreliable on many specific issues, yet must be cited, because those are the rules. And, finally, most scholars, Halperin aside, who criticize Miller, probably don't know what it's like to be in certain Frisco bath-houses. I don't either, but welcome, against my native grain, anyone who raises the issue: the contrast between those austere deccades in the dusty stacks of Parisian historical libraries, and few wild and intensive years in the fleshpots of San Francisco is too strong not to make the curious bystander wonder about certain connections. Nishidani (talk

) 18:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani provides some interesting insights. I will sum up my understanding of the actionable conclusion of all this: Miller's notes on Foucault's sado-masochism may be mentioned but not in depth, and the fact that Foucault had a professional and personal interest in sado-masochism is not beyond the pale for inclusion. I will edit the article with this in mind, introducing some of what was previously deleted. The editors on that page can refactor and rephrase as appropriate. If, in the end, Miller is not a reliable source on Foucault except for specific issues, then should he be removed from other parts of the article? His text is referred to several times. Another issue is that if the criticism of Miller is not directed at his remarks about Foucault's experiences "in the fleshpots of San Francisco," is it directly relevant for Miller's remarks on that, or can we presume that the criticism extends to Miller's depiction of these aspects of our subject? I also don't know how much thought has been given to the idea of simply noting where scholars disagree on these matters of research and interpretation. When we are able to narrate a dispute, we give the reader something more valuable than keeping all that information out. (IMO) --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is the edit for anyone interested. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed it per

WP:UNDUE. We can have a footnote indicating there is some controversy surrounding Miller's salacious biography, but the Foucault bio page is not the place to detail the various claims made in that biography. Perhaps on Miller's page it is useful information but not here, where its only purpose seems to be prurient. csloat (talk

) 08:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Csloat, a number of editors above have considered that the inclusion has some merit, and that Miller scrapes through as a reliable source. I do not understand the resistance. Particularly, the version proposed by Coffeepusher spent most of the text criticising Miller. It's quite unclear how this violates the due weight clause. Would the editors who previously commented on this please consider advising on whether csloat's behaviour here is productive? This information, as has been shown, has been mentioned by many

reliable sources. Total exclusion seems unwarranted; but I would like to hear the opinions of others. I will leave a note on their talk pages to highlight the fact that the disagreement is still ongoing. My version, Coffeepusher's version, clsoat's deletion --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk

) 15:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

don'tr understand the deletion by csloat. SM as I showed citing Didier's bio, was something that fascinated Foucault, and Miller, who, on reading more extensively, does not seem anything like the best RS for anything regarding the intellectual geneaology of Foucault's thought, certainly examines this indubitable aspect of Foucault's life more than the other biographers I am familiar with. Therefore he certainly can be cited, if sparely, on Foucault and sadomasochism, if only because his book is frequently cited in the more orthodox, 'anal' (i.e. conceptually restrictive) accounts of the thinker.Nishidani (talk) 15:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems odd to me to say that his experience in the American gay scene influenced his philosophy. It could only have affected his thought in his later years. Histoire de la folie was published in 1961. Eribon is a much better source since he continually and very clearly relates the life to the oeuvre. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, yes, that is what Miller notes through Foucault's longtime partner: it was an influence in his later years. I am unable to verify your statements re Eribon because I never learnt French. Yet it's still unclear why Miller is such a problem--why not just note the criticism, as Coffeepusher did? --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

As Judith says, it didn't influence his philosophy, which was fully formed by the late 60s. Even the later trilogy Histoire de la sexualité comes from courses he gave around 68 at the Collège de France. The problem with Eribon is that, on this, as far as my underlined copy tells me, rather too brief. Not that it interests one that much. I just think it is not prurience, but fidelity to the record, to note that one book deals substantially with this issue.Nishidani (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

While I agree (obviously with my posts above) that Miller is a sensationalized reading of Foucault, his arguments have found their way into the scholarship. His book is cited 477 times, and I have personally had to address this criticism of Foucault IRL (and even was taught the life/scholarship connection at one time before I did more research). This was why I redid the edit the way I did, offering 2 sentences for an explanation of the study (yes, it was a biographical study), and one heavily cited sentence which summarized the criticism, which I believe accurately portrayed the argument, gave it the due weight it deserved, and gave the readers all the resources to judge for themselvesCoffeepusher (talk) 17:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I think people are making good arguments for the inclusion of a sentence or two mentioning the Miller book (and the fact that it is roundly dismissed by actual scholars), but I don't see an argument for dwelling on one of the (many) scandalous and unsubstantiated claims that Miller makes throughout the book. It's pretty clearly an undue weight issue as I see it. I also don't disagree that some discussion of Foucault's sexuality might be shown to be relevant, especially if it is sourced to Eribon or another actual scholar. But taking Miller's pseudo-journalistic account, elevating it to the level of a "study" (as if it were a peer-reviewed research analysis rather than a compilation of gossip), and then pulling out one of his more sensational claims and devoting a large paragraph to that claim (more space than we're devoting to The Birth of the Clinic!) is definitely undue weight. In Miller's book alone there are multiple such ridiculous claims that have led to Miller being criticized -- such as the claim that Foucault was a murderer, and the claim that his entire philosophy changed as a result of a single dose of LSD. These claims tell us a lot more about Miller than Foucault, which is why they may be mentioned in a Miller article but not in the Foucault article. csloat (talk) 20:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I am much persuaded by Coffeepusher's edit suggestions, for what that's worth.Nishidani (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you discuss why? I feel I've offered a compromise that addresses Coffeepusher's concerns while maintaining appropriate weight for this material. Also, can we take this discussion to the article talk page, since this isn't actually a "reliable sources" noticeboard issue. Thanks, csloat (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The issue is that this is not just something cited in Miller. I have cited a number of sources which show how S/M was part, and perhaps an important part, of Foucault's latter life—at least while he was in the U.S. That's broadly what the

reliable sources I pasted onto the discussion page over there said. Since three editors have now expressed that this is legitimate material to add to the article, I am going to restore it again. Csloat, I brought the issue here because you said Miller was not reliable. We have found that he is reliable, with qualification. Yet the addition is still being resisted, and the reasons remain unclear. The information is obviously pertinent. As I say, I will restore it, and we may find a different avenue of dispute resolution if it is removed again (against what I might boldly venture appears to be a kind of "consensus"). --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk

) 14:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I have never said the issue boiled down to reliability of the source. Certainly I pointed out that the claims made in Miller's gossippy "biography" have been roundly rejected by every actual Foucault scholar who has looked at it, but the point is not that the book violates WP:RS but rather that the elevation of this bizarre, fringe viewpoint to the status of encyclopedic truth violates

WP:UNDUE. Let us be very clear on this: you wish to add more information about this single (and obviously chronologically impossible) claim from this biography to the article than we have on some of Foucault's most famous works (e.g. Birth of the Clinic). This is an open and shut case of undue weight. I've responded to you on the article talk page so we should probably keep the discussion there rather than here. Your claim that "the information is obviously pertinent" is circular; the only reason I can see for its alleged pertinence is a single-minded homophobic obsession with the "scandal" of walking into a leather bar. Please don't use Wikipedia as a platform for such things. csloat (talk

) 20:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Pseudonymous sources

Is there any past dicussion at RSN dealing with pseudonymous authors who publish under regimes where the judiciary is not independent and political persecution is common? [37]

A question has come up about the use of this source:

Clark, AC (2009). The Revolutionary Has No Clothes: Hugo Chavez's Bolivarian Farce. Encounter Books. p. 91.

to cite this text at X-Ray of a Lie (not a BLP):

Wolfgang Schalk and Thalman Urguelles, Venezuelan TV producers and engineers, were commissioned to "produce a response to the propaganda piece by Bartley and O'Briain", according to AC Clark in The Revolutionary Has No Clothes: Hugo Chavez's Bolivarian Farce, who says the film accurately uncovers the "mendacity and tendentiousness of The Revolution Will Not Be Televised".

According to User:Rd232:

"A C Clark" is a pseudonym [38] chosen by a Venezuelan who is clearly a member of the opposition (the book title already suggests a polemic). This pseudonymous opinion is not, I think, a

due weight

? Rd232 talk 08:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Does the allegation that the author is "clearly a member of the opposition" have any bearing on reliability? Generally, how do we deal with pseudonymous authorship under repressive regimes, and specifically, is this source reliable for this text in a film article?

Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk)

I think whether a published writer uses a real name or a pseudonym shouldn't necessarily make a difference.

The Phantom Gourmet#The critic is a well respected reliable reviewer of Boston area restaurants, despite being anonymous, and Boston restaurants are hardly a repressive regime. (With the possible exception of this one pizza place ... I was sick for a week ...) Has AC Clark published anything else? If not, then treat him as an author writing his first published book. Undue weight means if you have your choice of more respected reviewers of the film, you should use them in preference, but given the short length of our article it doesn't look like you do. It's still a published book from a serious, if minor, publisher, so should be usable. --GRuban (talk

) 17:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I was asked for an opinion. I think the question is whether the source is used by responsible publications elsewhere and held in libraries -- from WorldCat, it's in 76 US libraries so it might be ok; basically I agree with G Ruban's evaluation, except that i put less weight on the possible repeated use of a pseudonym. DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

So, it's reliable for this text in this article, but we wouldn't use such a source in cases where higher-quality sources are available? And pseudonymity is less of an issue than other indicators of how responsible the source is? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is the right assessment here. :) Cirt (talk) 17:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

One point that weighs on my mind is that because of the pseudonym we cannot create a bio article allowing the reader to judge for themselves the significance of this person's opinion (or editors to judge

due weight). The text the source supports is primarily opinion, not fact, and the factual element is the fairly trivial one surely sourceable elsewhere that X-Ray was commissioned as a response to Revolution. Rd232 ^talk

17:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It should not be entirely irrelevant either that the source is being used to support claims of mendaciousness and "propaganda" about

living persons. Rd232 ^talk

17:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

In the case of

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (documentary), 1) we have multiple other sources also calling the film "biased" and "propaganda" (all film reviews are essentially "opinion"); and 2) I don't think that labeling a film defames the film's makers or producers. Also, we can identify the author as pseudonymous, according to his own words, in text. SandyGeorgia (Talk

) 18:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Disagree that having a pseudonym is the main factor behind us not having an article on him; the issue is that if he's an author of a single book without a truly impressive reception, he likely doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability. But we can have articles about notable people whose name we do not know: Category:Anonymous artists is full of them. --GRuban (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

When the author doesn't meet notability, then, is there any need to highlight that he is pseudonymous in the article text? Or to add that information to the footnoted citation? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't hurt. It is a data point to evaluate the author on, and as Rd232 says, we don't have many. --GRuban (talk) 20:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Books are not considered reliable sources because of the reputation of the author, but rather because of the reputation of the publisher. Dlabtot (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • That's simply not true. Both are factors - at least, in the typical case of the author's identity being known. (In this case, Encounter Books isn't exactly Oxford University Press.) Rd232 ^talk 20:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

    What part of our reliable source guideline supports your assertion? tia Dlabtot (talk) 21:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

    "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." - this is specific to SPS (policy is just practice written down, imperfectly), but the point that the author's identity matters is there. Rd232 ^talk 22:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

As you point out, that is the self-published sources policy, I know it well. It is irrelevant to the question I posed to you. In fact, it reinforces the point that it is the reputation of the publisher that matters.Dlabtot (talk) 05:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Again, although this is off-topic for this query, agree with Rd232; see this Dispatch, which included a link to this example for establishing the reliability of an SPS. If the author is reliable, publisher doesn't matter (but again, that has nothing to do with this query). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

    • I agree with Rd232 on that; using this book to source text about a film is one thing, but using it for other purposes (where we have better sources) is another. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

On Wikipedia a verifiable and reliable source is generally a source whose publisher is accepted as reliable and verifiable. If the author's name is known and happens to be an expert in the field of interest with a good reputation, that can add to the reliability of the source. But articles by reliable sources are often anonymous (and sometimes pseudonymous) and are still acceptable. Our focus for reliability is on the publisher's reputation for accuracy and editorial vetting mechanisms, and those are the same regardless of whether the author's name is disclosed. Also, the "author" of an anonymous/pseudonymous article can be more than one person, but again, it's the publisher which counts for verifiability and reliability. Crum375 (talk) 12:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Um, the actual rule is at

WP:SOURCES, and it says "The word "source", as used in Wikipedia, has three meanings: the piece of work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times). All three can affect reliability." In the case of a pseudonymous or anonymous 'creator of the work', the reliability of the publisher may be sufficient to overcome our inability to credit the author with his due... or it may not. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 17:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless the author's credentials are truly irrelevant (perhaps someone writing as a "man on the street", or maybe the author of a literary work), I would definitely identify the source as being from a pseudonymous author. IMO this is particularly necessary if the author claims to be an expert of any kind, because the reader needs to know that the supposed expert may be misrepresenting his/her credentials ("I'm a 'doctor'... well, my PhD is in English literature, but let me tell you how to prevent AIDS") and certainly isn't willing to put his/her professional reputation on the line.

In general, I would not accept self-published/unedited/indiscriminate publications from pseudonymous or anonymous sources. Otherwise acceptable publishers do sometimes suspend their usual editorial process and publish, e.g., all political letters to the editor received during the week before an election. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

In general, I would not accept self-published/unedited/indiscriminate publications from pseudonymous or anonymous sources. In general? How about 'never?', which is what our policies already explicitly and unambiguously say. Dlabtot (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd probably be willing to cite the occasional self-published pseudonymous publication under the right circumstances. It might seem a bit silly to ban all citations to the

Federalist Papers, say. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 00:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Scienceblogs.com/Deltoid AKA timlambert.org is not a Reliable Source

This is related to the attempt[39] noted above[40] to de-list The Times of London as a reliable source. This blog[41]has been referenced to establish the Times as a Wikipedia "un-reliable source".

1. Verifiability[42] First, we must note[43] that it is a self-published internet blog with no editorial oversight.
2. Competence[44]The purported author claims to be a generic non-specific "computer scientist" who specifically notes that he does not write about his area of self-claimed expertise.
3. Neutrality[45] The author further states that his blog's purpose is "explaining what is wrong and why it is wrong" about articles "with political implications such as global warming, ..." His actions are partisan, and designed to be so. Related:[46]
4. Reliability[47] The blog is the notable focus of an academic paper which uses the blog as an example of poor scholarship at Wikipedia.[48]. The paper is referenced here[49] and is cited by at least one Advanced Placement AP teacher[50] who links to the paper by stating, "One of the (many) reasons why I do not accept Wikipedia as a reference in any circumstance, and why you should not trust it for anything more than the most casual, entertainment-level browsing:" (note:The blogs previous name cited in the paper[51] is timlambert.org, which is still an active redirect to the same sections at "scienceblog".)

In short, and for a number of reasons considered in their totality, the opinion blog noted here is not a Reliable Source suitable for use at Wikipedia.99.141.252.167 (talk) 17:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

As regards, reliability, the "academic papers" being cited here are just unpublished web posts themselves, defending John Lott which pretty much says it all as regards actual reliability. And, responding to a point below, Lambert is in fact a co-author on the article you mention (I should know). I'm going to revert all the deletions so we can address them one by one.JQ (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Hold up on that john, I see you reverted one of the removals already citeing it is a bot?, do bots now post here as well lol. I am looking through the list and from what i see these are not only not rs the yare not really needed

talk

) 21:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Has anyone claimed it's a reliable source in WP terms for use in articles? It raises pointers to significant issues with the coverage of science by certain journalists, whose articles are clearly questionable. Something for more detailed examination, but not a rs in itself. . . dave souza, talk 18:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

After it was presented as evidence to usurp the Times I noticed it has been used as a RS, and is currently a supporting ref used in other articles.99.141.252.167 (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Which articles?

talk

) 20:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/ is not
  WP:RS, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/ is. Obviously and incontrovertibly. Dlabtot (talk
  ) 20:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted these[52][53][54][55][56][57] but this one[58] is locked. Interestingly all but one had supplemental refs so with the exception of that article[59], no actual article content was effected.99.141.252.167 (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I took it out, it was hidden in a valid ref to the telegraph

talk

) 20:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

In a related note, the blog author, Tim Lambert has also been mis-attributed as the co-author of this article[60] (his name does not appear in the article byline which clearly attributes the text to Quiggin) and then liberally added to a slew of articles. Attribution has been corrected in these[61][62][63][64]. And another "Deltoid" showed up here[65]. No article text (except the removal of the name) was changed, nor refs removed when I corrected the attribution.99.141.252.167 (talk) 21:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Quiggan plainly disagrees with you (above). Why not ask him for clarification, rather than ignore him? Guettarda (talk) 22:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

"Quiggan" should correct the attribution in the published source.

WP:OR argues strongly against individual editors contradicting published sources. I believe there are also rules restricting ones ability to add references to ones own research to Wiki articles. 99.141.252.167 (talk

) 22:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

And now these[66][67][68][69][70], these were inserted as "timlambert.org". 99.141.252.167 (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Lambert is an academic scientist, who writes about science. And although he blogs outside of specific his area of academic interest, he is part of an invitation-only blog network selected by the editors of Seed Magazine. He's not some random blogger. Guettarda (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that 99.141.252.167 has removed a number of refs to Deltoid. I think that is an inappropriate thing to do while the discussion here is ongoing and hasn't reached consensus.Sjö (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Not really, regardless of what Guettarda says above a blog is not

talk

) 22:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It's appropriate to remove the refs from BLPs. Elsewhere it's a judgement call. Better refs are better, of course, but you do have an academic writing in an invitation-only network. Certainly no worse than journalist-bloggers. Guettarda (talk) 22:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

They added nothing. Of the nearly twenty that I deleted or corrected I believe only two had any text changed, on one I simply added a cite tag[71] in place of a removed ref. Nothing reliable, verifiable, or even notable about the blog. The entries look more like self-aggrandizement than useful additions.99.141.252.167 (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Um. yeah...you could say that about any source - remove it, replace it with a {{

cn}} tag and...that means it adds nothing? Er, no. Guettarda (talk

) 22:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I said it about one. More than a dozen had multiple refs already there. The blogger is a non-notable partisan whose stated mission is to support his political goals by "righting wrongs". It's not even close to suitable.99.141.252.167 (talk) 22:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Deltoid is frequently cited as a top 10 Science Blog. Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy is another. [72] Wikispan (talk) 22:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Note the text in your link, which is not to the top 10: "We’d like you to help us us to compile the definitive list, the Top 100 Science Blogs. Send the name and url of your favourites to [email protected], with “Best blogs” in the subject line." It also clearly states: "Stimulating musings on the environment and the social implications of science, though Lambert’s background is actually in computing." "Stimulated musings" does not support inclusion as a reliable source. I'll also note the rich irony of using the Times to support the reliability of a blog which was introduced to impeach the reliability of ... the Times. _ 99.141.252.167 (talk) 22:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The text reproduced above (RICHARDDAWKINS.NET) refers to a forthcoming reader submitted list. Deltoid was so-named by The Times. The fact both Richard Dawkins and Tim Lambert criticised its sister paper, The Sunday Times, is a tad ironic but beside the point. [73] Wikispan (talk) 22:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins is a mis-attribution. His site merely links to the list of 30, not 10, fan favs - the actual list was compiled by 'the Eureka staff'. Dawkins is not among them. Note also that this blog is also on your list[74] of purported Richard Dawkins endorsed reliable source science blogs. Is it too to now become a

WP:RS? No, it shouldn't - nor should the site with the lego guitars. 99.141.252.167 (talk

) 00:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No, they are not 'fan fav[ourites]'. Please acknowledge your error. I am quite aware that Richard Dawkins' website is not among them, hence the word 'reproduced' in my reply. Wikispan (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

My sentence was crystal clear, this is the part of the sentence you removed, "- the actual list was compiled by 'the Eureka staff'. Dawkins is not among them." No error exists. I would however like to see if you also support as a Richard Dawkins endorsed reliable source this site[[75]] from your list. If not, then I think your argument has run its course.99.141.252.167 (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Here's another one[76] from your list of Richard Dawkins endorsed science blogs - and bonus, it's also hosted by the same scienceblogs.com that hosts Deltoid. Is it a reliable Source because it's from Scienceblogs or because both the Times and Dawkins "endorse" it?99.141.252.167 (talk) 01:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

(As an interesting aside I was curious how so many superfluous refs found their way in and I noticed a high correlation between the editor who introduced a number of these Lambert[77] refs and the public attacks Lambert apparently engaged in with another blogger named Watts. 212 mentions of Watts on his blog[78] with many occurring around June and July of 2009 - as were these edits here[79] for which the Ed. was twice warned on his talk page[80]. Note also this pointed peacocking within his first month here.[81] Curious correlation.)99.141.252.167 (talk) 02:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't help but be bemused that 99.141.252.167 thinks that a phrase "Watts per square meter" is a reference to Anthony Watts. In any event all my Wikipedia edits have been made under my own name. --TimLambert (talk) 13:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Of the 225 Watts mentions, only eleven[82] are as you state. And although you frequently refer to Anthony Watts by his last name only, we are still left with 97[83] of the 225[84] references undeniably to "Anthony Watts". That's about 10 mentions to 1 without sifting out the additional last name only attacks, nothing to be "bemused" about.99.141.252.167 (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I see JQ has been reverting the removals of this blog as a source, John please note

talk

) 10:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

What, are we really discussing whether a blog can be used as evidence in whether The Times is reliable or not? Of course The Times is reliable. The article in question is also reliable and relevant and extremely unlikely to be incorrect in any of its details, most of which are already in the public domain. It's also, in my opinion, mischievous spin, but that's by-the-by. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Cleaned up and redid the changes discussed here and related to Reliable Source, Original Research and BLP.99.144.192.23 (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Technical Note: My ip address has changed from 99.141.252.167[85]. My edit comments from the changes are identical, no confusion is expected, I doubt many will even notice the change after 99.... 99.144.192.23 (talk) 18:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Why not just create an account?

talk

) 18:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No interesting reasons at all, but I'll respond on your talk page.99.144.192.23 (talk) 18:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP#Self-published doesn't apply because a blog on ScienceBlogs is not self-published. If one particular blog is not RS, every single ScienceBlogs reference becomes suspect. All changes must be reverted until the status of ScienceBlogs as a whole is assessed. Xanthoxyl ^<

00:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

A brief previous discussion [86] concluded that ScienceBlogs writers are acceptable with attribution. Xanthoxyl ^< 00:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

NO, not at all, no such 'conclusion' was reached, and such a blatant mischaracterization of the discussion is troubling, even though

I must assume it was simply an error. Dlabtot (talk

) 23:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Well let's take PZ Myers' Pharyngula blog. Is it a reliable source on biology, particularly developmental biology? Of course it is. But Tim Lambert writing on Deltoid about a subject far from his own speciality is a different matter. To say that all Scienceblogs articles are suspect is simply correct.

As I've said before, the fundamental error is when we ask "Is publication/person/publisher X a reliable source?" The answer is that any given source (for all three meanings of "source") may be reliable on some subjects and not reliable on others. --TS 00:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

@Xanthoxy, from that link you posted i see no agreement that it can be used as a

wp:rs

?

No, my mistake, sorry. Xanthoxyl ^< 01:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Venezuelanalysis Reboot

The issue of the reliability of the website Venezuelanalysis, which has long passed

Venezuelanalysis.com

. It is argued that Venezuelanalysis is widely considered reliable, and that it "offers useful detail and analysis on pivotal issues that is unavailable from other media sources," and as such is a necessary complement to other media sources. Any present overuse of VA should be fixed by adding more sources, not removing VA sources.

• Widely referred to in Google Books (200+ hits) [87] and Google Scholar (300+ hits) [88]
• Specific academic views: Analyzing Venezuelan media, Darrell Moen calls it "A major source of non-corporate controlled information regarding the process of social transformation that is occurring in Venezuela ... 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."
  New Political Science, Walt Vanderbush calls it "a valuable resource for Venezuelan news and analysis."^[3]
• Endorsed by 4 academics on Venezuelanalysis' "donate" page: [89]. Links to their homepages: Anderson, Grandin, Hellinger. (Ellner's page I can't find; Venezuelan university websites are generally not great.) Ellner and Hellinger are Venezuela specialists (political science); Grandin and Anderson have broader Latin America interests. A book Hellinger and Ellner co-edited (Venezuelan Politics in the Chávez Era: Class, Polarization and Conflict, 2003) was described by Foreign Affairs as "An extremely valuable and balanced overview of Venezuela".[90].
• Ellner's endorsement ("In short, Venezuelanalysis offers useful detail and analysis on pivotal issues that is unavailable from other media sources."[91]) is particularly significant, being a (if not the) leading English-language academic on Venezuelan left politics. Ellner's 1988 book was described by Foreign Affairs as "A well-researched analysis of Venezuela's small but innovative third party..."[92]. In the foreword to that book,
  Christian Science Monitor asking Ellner for his opinion on events of the day. He is described in neutral terms such as "a political analyst at Venezuela's Oriente University"[95] Even Fox News described him neutrally as "a political science professor at Venezuela's University of the East."[96]
• Used by
  UNHCR Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, eg here
  .
• Lonely Planet: Venezuela deems it "the best English language news site" to "keep track of the country's political and economic affairs."

In the face of this evidence that Venezuelanalysis is widely considered a reliable source, some Wikipedia editors wish to substitute their personal opinion that it is unreliable, because links they allege between the website (the alleged links are weak and the sourcing generally unreliable) and the Venezuelan government allegedly render it unreliable. They also argue that in their opinion the website editors' political views, which differ dramatically from their own, render it unreliable. In addition they argue that those wishing to use VA as a source must prove the site's 8 editors have "journalistic credentials" (whatever that means). (It was generally ignored that I had noted - to suggest that "journalistic credentials" are not everything - that Venezuelan media, formerly one of the most respected presses in Latin America, had after the election of

)

In discussing this issue in the RSN thread above, the editors opposing use of VA have introduced irrelevant sources; complained about Wikipedia's Venezuela articles not matching their POV; and made many accusations of bad faith. Since the old thread remains open for any more accusations of bad faith that may be required, as well as any more detours into complaints not relevant to the issue, hopefully this thread can focus on resolving the question: can VA be considered a reliable source? Rd232 ^talk 14:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for the additional data. I stick with what I said earlier: the site easily meets the minimum threshold of RS, it had best be used for attributed opinion, and where it is used for contentious facts, these facts should also be attributed. (That last point, of course, also applies to other sources.) --JN466 21:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• I will also stick with what I said earlier. Venezuelanalysis meets the minimum threshold of RS, but it is a highly partisan source and opinion site. Since pro-Chavez opinion is a significant viewpoint in Venezuelan politics, we should include the pro-Chavez opinion with attribution. This source must attributed if used, and should not be used for contentious information in BLPs. --Defender of torch (talk) 13:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Some of the content on there is opinion. Those we need to attribute to Venezuelanalysis in the text of the article, if we use them. For statements of fact however, it is totally reliable, and nobody has provided any evidence to the contrary (although plenty of evidence has been shown that it is considered reliable by numerous mainstream sources). The New York Times publishes opinions as well, but we don't call it an "opinion paper". Double standard. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. I dislike things that begin to seem like

WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT issues after a while. It's a reliable source, my comments from the last thread on this (a week ago) have not changed. I have better things to do than debate this ad-nauseum. Simonm223 (talk

) 15:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This looks like "ask the other parent" to an issue that was already well debated; I suggest that anyone weighing in here not take Rd232's summary at face value, rather re-read the entire previous thread. Venezuelanalysis is funded by Chavez, media in Venezuela is state-controlled, the writers for Venezuelanalysis are highly partisan and affiliated with the Chavez regime, have no journalist credentials, and VenAnalysis is largely cited by the extreme radical left. It has been used on Wiki to source an egregious BLP violation, and its reporting is rarely comprehensive or neutral; the people responsible for it are funded by Chavez and associated with him. VA has a very limited place on Wiki, if any, and people willing to use it as a source often do so to the exclusion of more reliable sources. It rarely covers info that is not available in non-biased mainstream reliable sources, and because it is affiliated with Chavez, should never be used to the exclusion of more reliable sources. I also notice Rd232's several distortions and one-sided presentation of the issues in his new thread here, and am concerned about his tendentious editing in Chavez/Venezuela articles. He states that media owners spearheaded opposition to Chavez, but fails to mention the serious press freedom issues in Venezuela and that the media is state-controlled, by Chavez, and you can be jailed or shut down if you criticize Chavez; if Wiki allows VenAnalysis a larger role here as a source, we become one more arm of Chavez's very successful

) 16:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sandy, I understand your concern. But at this point, we are helpless because we are yet to find reliable sources which document the Chavista connection of this site, even though we know the persons associated with this site are lackeys of Chavez. This is why I said this site should be used with attribution as an opinion site, and should not be used for sensitive information in BLPs. I agree the article

Venezuelanalysis.com is horribly biased and will try to add some information to make it NPOV. --Defender of torch (talk

) 16:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Chavista connection? I guess only sources that are "anti-Chavista" would be reliable right? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

This is yet another example of Sandy attempting to derail or shut down dispute resolution (she virtually accuses me of forum shopping on the same forum). She repeats the unsourced and/or irrelevant claims made ad nauseam in the TL:DR thread, which had driven away external input and made an actual resolution of the issue this dispute resolution board is actually for impossible. This summary of the issue is an opportunity to actually settle the question asked. Rd232 ^talk 17:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Also it appears that the above comment, insofar as it has any actual relevance to the question, boils down to the argument that Wikipedia should counter the alleged press freedom issues in Venezuela by excluding a source widely considered reliable - as some sort of political counter-balance. This has the merit at least of being the closest Sandy has come to expressing her motivation on this issue. Rd232 ^talk 17:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed -- there has been no rational reason given for not including it, other than that it is "partisan". All publications are partisan, and of course, that's not really the issue. The editors who keep bringing this up are merely trying to allow partisans that support their POV and remove those that don't.Venezuelanalysis is factually accurate and is considered reliable as a source by numerous mainstream sources (see above). There is really no argument given for it's not being reliable other than that it is "Chavista". 01:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I have seen no evidence that Venezuelanalysis has a reputation of poor fact checking so it can be used to source uncontroversial facts; uncontroversial understood as not being in conflict with the facts reported by other reliable sources, any conflict with WP editors' opinions is irrelevant. JRSP (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That's because nobody has provided any, because there isn't any. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I have edited the article

venezuelanalysis.com to make it clear that the site is left wing and pro-Chavez. However I am not sure if my edit will stay. --Defender of torch (talk

) 16:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Good for you. Thanks for inserting your POV into the article. The encyclopedia is much better for it now. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like its reliable and biased. Use attribution, and don't use it for super controversial stuff related to Chavez. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. We need to put enough restrictions on the use of this partisan website, with ties to Chavez, to stop Rd232 from writing entire articles sourced to it to the exclusion of mainstream non-partisan sources, and it should never be used in BLPs or to source contentious claims. It should only be used to support non-contentious information that is not available in other sources (and that means, rarely, since most of anything they report on is available in other sources or highly contentious and dubious). Rd232's editing in Venezuela articles has evidenced extreme tendentiousness, and he has written entire articles sourced largely to VenAnalysis, excluding mainstream sources and a preponderance of reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I was asked to comment here. [100] I don't think venezuelanalysis.com can be regarded as a reliable source within the sourcing policy,
  WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper). So each article on the website that's being proposed as a source will have to be examined individually to decide whether the author has previously been published in that field by an independent publication. Then that article could be used with a link to the site as a source. But I would caution against using self-published material for anything contentious, and it can never be used as a source of information about a living person, per V and BLP. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs}
  19:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

In view of the range of sources noted at the top of this thread citing it or endorsing it, I do not think it should be considered "self-published"; and I would say that the fact that other sources rely on it matters more than a debatable interpretation of "self-published". It has editorial oversight at least insofar as the 8 individuals listed here [102] are just some of its many contributors. Rd232 ^talk 19:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You've added "widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." from policy, in support of it being a "questionable source". Citing policy is not enough, it needs to be shown that it applies. The fact that it is relied upon by others (as noted at the top of the thread) suggests that it is not "widely acknowledged as extremist"; and claims that any other part of the policy applies need to be evidenced. Rd232 ^talk 19:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter who relies on it, Rd. What matters is our sourcing policy. The eight people who have may editorial responsibility are unpaid individuals working from home. They're not providing professional editorial and legal oversight, or any kind of fact-checking process. They make this almost a point of pride: we are not professionals, we are just volunteers working from home. Are any of them known experts, do you know? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 19:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Wilpert is a professor of political science. It is endorsed by Steve Ellner, whose credentials are noted above, as well as VA being widely cited in academic sources. And what matters is not just the nature of sourcing policy, but arguments on how it applies here. Rd232 ^talk 19:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

All of the people are experts, and it has been subject to fact-checking by editors, like most newspapers. The fact checking is good enough that all of the organizations, professionals/experts, etc listed above and below feel that it is reliable enough to be used as a source. Please provide a single piece of evidence showing that their fact-checking process is not adequate. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

If Gregory Wilpert has previously been published in this field by an independent publication, then self-published articles by him on this website would be allowable within reason, but not for use about living persons. It doesn't matter who endorsed it or who else cites it. We care only about our policies. The point of the sourcing policy is this: if push comes to shove, and we publish some terrible, false and libellous thing, and a court comes to us and says, "Wikipedia, show us your due diligence. Why did you publish this dreadful lie?", we have to be able to point to The New York Times or to Cambridge University Press or to Routledge. We don't want to be pointing to a website that's suddenly disappeared, published from home by eight volunteers, now untraceable. That's not due diligence. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 19:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Wot? Legal liability has nothing to do with this (only comes into play for failure to remove specific information). And given the falsehoods published by the NYT (as acknowledged by themselves), as well as by Venezuelan media which despite the Columbia Journalism Review information we're still happy to use, the value of "editorial oversight" and "journalistic credentials" is a lot less than it appears (as evidenced by the external citation of VA). Rd232 ^talk 19:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

"a website that's suddenly disappeared" applies to a vast proportion of WP sources, actually or potentially. It's mitigated by archive.org and use of WebCite. Rd232 ^talk 19:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Legal liability is only part of the story. I am talking about due diligence—morally, legally, intellectually, editorially. And when I talked about the website disappearing, I didn't mean where we couldn't find the article. I meant in a "ships that pass in the night" sense, not a source that has a history, a reputation, that we could rely upon. The bottom line is that you're trying to reinvent the wheel to some extent, because the policy is pretty clear about sources like this. I'm sorry. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 20:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Rd232 will also find that if he begins to use more enduring, high-quality reliable sources, he won't have to keep chunking up citation templates with that obnoxious WebCite info, or resorting to archive.org. We don't have to archive The New York Times (Disembrangler=Rd232); I tend to use high-quality enduring sources rather than websites operated out of people's homes that will disappear in a few years, under regime change. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

"We don't have to archive NYT" - I told you in relation to the linked edit that NYT unlimited free access is disappearing in a year, as a result of which some efforts are underway to WebCite key uses of NYT. Do you have a problem with this? And by the by, talking about citation templates as something I "chunk up" suggests you're really not paying attention to my edits: I hate citation templates with a fiery passion and avoid them wherever possible. Rd232 ^talk 02:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

On-line links are not required for a printed source like The New York Times. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• I have been asked to comment about this. You got to love the moral ambiguity and circularity of argumentation of Rd232. Venezuelanalysis is reliable, among other things, because HRW mentioned it in a report the very spinmeister of the site, a.k.a. Gregory Wilpert, protested for allegedly not having followed academic standards. But Rd232, as far as it remains known, lacking any credentials on Venezuelan studies or indeed international law, called the report he now uses as proof as "biased and manipulative". Worth of note also, the fact that said HRW report also quoted me, to which Wilpert et al reacted by saying, without providing a shred of academic evidence, that I was a mentally unstable opposition blogger. My exchange with Chomsky demonstratetd that none of them had any evidence to support such spurious arguments. Rd232 calls tenuous the Gaceta Oficial de Venezuela, for those ignorant on the topic the official gazette where all legislation, appointments, etc, need be published BEFORE reaching legal and official status. This debate is a joke. Rd232, his alter ego and JRSP, have a notorious track record of utterly biased and tendentious editing in pages relates to Chavez and Venezuela. They give far too much weight to the radical left, to obscure academics that lack peer reviewed publications related to Venezuela, while ignoring reputed left sources, such as NYT, BBC, etc., or indeed, HRW, when these report on the horrendous crisis Venezuela is undergoing. I declare myself out of this, there is no good faith here. Venezuela/Chavez related entries are nothing but a crude exercise in propaganda, and I will go as far as stating my belief that there is a connection between the editors in question and chavista propaganda efforts. Otherwise, how else can their attitude be explained?--Alekboyd (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

So, all editors who don't put out anti-Chavez propaganda are "chavista propagandists"? Kind of like how any source that isn't wholly critical of Chavez is a "partisan, left-wing opinion site"? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• • • Also, obviously and unsurprisingly misleading. For example the criticism of HRW's report involved 118 academics. And I did not specifically call the Gaceta tenuous, I called the whole argument which relies on Gaceta as source for part of it tenuous. And if Alek thinks it is not significant that HRW cited VenezuelanRd232 ^talk 20:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
      • I did actually say in the opening post of this thread that "the old thread remains open for any more accusations of bad faith that may be required". Obviously, anyone who disagrees with you must be a paid propagandist! Only possible explanation! For the record, I joined WP in October 2004, becoming an admin in October 2005. I made a few edits to
        Hugo Chavez (the centre of the Venezuela disputes, so I've checked the history for that article) for the first time in summer 2005; 3 in 2006 (including a vandalism rollback), zero in 2007 and 2008 (OK, I was mostly absent from mid-2006 to early 2009 - but it's a hell of a way to collect a paycheck, doncha think??). In any case, as Soxred's tool and some careful thumbing through my history shows (especially pre-2009, when I seemed to get a lot more involved with Venezuela), Venezuela is just one of many topics I've edited, and only a relatively small proportion of my edits (especially on the edit side rather than the talking - reams of talking here). Rd232 ^talk
        20:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• It's a deep plot :) But the circular reasoning employed by Rd232 is utterly astounding, but not apparent to other editors who might not be as familiar with Venezuela and its issues with lack of press freedom and control of the judiciary. He's virtually begging us to let him use VenAnalysis (why the urgency, I wonder?), while decrying other mainstream reliable sources as "corporate" or "US" or "UK" biased, and making claims about the Venezuelan press-- which has been severely muzzled by Chavez. From what I've seen of his editing-- creating quite a few POV articles-- Rd232 seems to think VA is the only reliable source on Venezuela. Considering its connections to Chavez, that is very interesting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 7 Februay 2010 (UTC)

• One last comment: It is not true that UNHCR has used Venezuelanalysis as a source in multiple ocassions, as RD232 misleading and deceitfully argues. Rather it has posted reports from the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, which has cited Venezuelanalysis in some of its writings. This is a quintessential example of the quality of editing, objectivity and fact checking that Rd232 brings to Wikipedia. In said report the
  WP:RS standards? I think not. Same goes for Rd232 statement about Ellner being the leading English-language leftist academic of Venezuela, because some obscure and totally unrelated to Venezuela academic had said so once.--Alekboyd (talk
  ) 20:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• , My bad. It so much weakens the case for it as a source that the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, "Canada's largest independent administrative tribunal",[103] used it as a source. As for your comments about Ellner - you clearly read my post enough to dismiss Michael Conniff's view of him, so why do you ignore 150+ cites in Google News, many from sources like NYT quoting him? Rd232 ^talk 20:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
• Cheap shot to mention the VIO citation when it is relied on purely for the number of people elected in the 2008 elections. Even you can't find something objectionable about that. Rd232 ^talk 21:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• 99.9999% of the comments on this topic here have absolutely no relationship the question of whether this source meets our reliable source guideline. Please stop cluttering up this page with this off-topic ideological dispute. Dlabtot (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • This is exactly why I started a new section (and complained at ANI when the same thing happened as before). Rd232 ^talk 21:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Um, but that didn't prevent you from starting this very thread with your ideological distortion, did it ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Case in point. Don't address the content issue with relevant sources or arguments, just attack other contributors with vague accusations. It's a surefire way to make sure nobody else will want to comment on the content issue. Rd232 ^talk 02:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Yes, other than personal attacks and rheotoric, I haven't seen any evidence that it's not a reliable site. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Where is the quid pro quo here? If we agree that a Chavez-biased source can be used, why can't the Washington Post or NY Times, normally recognized as left-wing biased publications, be used? Only because they publish what is accurate about Venezuela?

BTW,

WP:AGF also says, "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence." We have seen a lot of "contrary evidence IMO." Student7 (talk

) 01:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Where does the claim come from that these sources cannot be used? The issue is treating these (indeed, any) sources as Gospel. Different sources should be used - the issue here is the attempt to suppress VA - the repeated and unfounded claims that criticisms of other sources imply a blanket unwillingness to ever use them are ludicrous. Rd232 ^talk 02:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Post/NYT "normally recognized as left-wing biased publications"? Even by US standards, that just isn't true. Of course rightwingers would, and do claim this (and they point mostly to op-eds, which is irrelevant - it's the news reporting that's the issue). Rd232 ^talk 02:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin's analysis is correct, and I appreciate her more thorough review. The website is essentially a

23:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree with SlimVirgin's analysis. I see little basis for classifying it as a questionable source. The website could be considered a

WT:V.John Z (talk

) 08:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Which parts of

WP:RS are you using to make that assessment? Jayjg ^(talk)

01:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree it is

WP:SPS – although a number of the people involved are previously published experts, and they are exercising informal editorial control over contributions from others. --JN466

22:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Replying to Jayjg:

WP:SPS. This usage by other sources section was written precisely to cover the situation of often self-published sources widely quoted, cited, reviewed or used by clearly reliable sources, but which may be difficult to analyze in other ways. It was (re)inserted in the guideline after the case of boxofficeindia.com at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_13#Boxofficeindia.com which was such a source on the Indian film industry. Since then, other such websites have had a clear consensus on their reliability here based (mainly) on such evidence, most frequently in the case of military history sites often run by amateurs - if such sites are so good that dozens of academic or reputably published books cite them, it can be arbitrary and artificial for Wikipedia to exclude them.John Z (talk

) 06:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem with

WP:V (a policy), specifically for the purpose of allowing them to use non-reliable sources. And because it is watched less closely, these changes often stick for a while. That's why the RS guideline has a bold statement in the first paragraph: In the event of a contradiction between this page and the policy, the policy takes priority, and this page should be updated to reflect it. Jayjg ^(talk)

16:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Right, and all of the facts in Venezuelanalysis seem to be verifiable and accurate to me, so what's the problem? It seems to meet the criteria in both

WP:RS-- Jrtayloriv (talk

) 01:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Reboot the reboot: Exhibit I

Exhibit I, since people have been asking for examples, which I just happened across while looking into the curiously orphaned article,

) 03:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I went and checked the original article and copied two paragraphs not moved when Corruption in Venezuela was spun off. One mentions corruption in a general context of crime; the other based solely on ...er... Venezuelanalysis.[104] Well anyway there it is. I can still userfy if you want to check anything else. And do you not agree that it's more useful to the reader to have the content in Corruption in Venezuela than hidden away in a subsection of Criticism of Hugo Chavez? Rd232 ^talk 15:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

How typical of Sandy to insinuate instead of clearly stating the supposed problem. The only substantive difference I can see between the current version and the old version, in terms of the paragraph where Venezuelanalysis is used as a source is that Sandy has added "He is in prison, for an investigation ordered by Chavez, awaiting trial" sourced to a newspaper source which [105] relies heavily on opposition journalist Roberto Giusti's opinion (find-in-page here about his take on journalistic ethics). Despite that, the source doesn't obviously support the specific claim that "Chavez ordered the investigation", which is ironic in view of Sandy's crusade to strengthen policy requirements to provide foreign language quotes in articles to back up their use. Elsewhere Sandy for some reason is deleting content sourced to Venezuelanalysis with nothing more than a claim of "bias"[106]. Rd232 ^talk 08:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

There are two camps in Venezuela. Similar to what we see in the States. As Wikipedia is more liberal it is not surprising that it has a liberal bent as apposed to a conservative one. I think Venezuela analysis is a sufficiently reliable source to use of Wikipedia. The fact that it is released under a creative commons license is a plus. If there are other sources that disagree add them to provide balance. On Wikipedia we are not attempting to match this paper but create something better. Hopefully no page will be based on a single source / single opinion.

talk · contribs · email

) 10:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

There are two, and more, camps everywhere. At stake in this discussion, is not whether to turn Wikipedia into National Review Online, but rather to stop using a source that beyond reference by some radicals, has been given far too much weight by Rd232, his alter ego Disembrangler and JRSP over the years. Take for instance the entry Human Rights Venezuela, and how the opinion of Gregory Wilpert, editor in chief of Venezuelanalysis, sociologist, married to Hugo Chavez's Consul in NY, funded by Venezuelan taxpayer money, is provided as balance to a 230 page odd report produced by one of the world's most respected, and liberal BTW, human rights NGOs: Human Rights Watch. Now to some around here that seems perfectly kosher, to those of us who know who Wilpert is, it is crystal clear that his opinion, as much as he's entitled to publish it in his propaganda rag, carries no weight whatsoever in the debate about whether or not human rights are systematically violated in Venezuela. Wilpert has no credentials to participate in such debate, and has been described by HRW, rightly so, as "unhelpful critics who opt instead to disseminate baseless allegations" link. The Inter American Court of Human Rights has ruled against the Chavez regime in a number of occasions, Amnesty International keeps warning the regime about the dangers of disrespecting supra constitutional and inalienable rights, yet Wikipedia visitors of the entry are meant to take the opinion of an utterly discredited propagandist on an equal footing as that of HRW. So I'll go with SlimVirgin, Jayjg, SandyGeorgia, Defender of Torch, Student7 opinions and stress that Venezuelanalysis should only be used for stuff that can't be found anywhere else, and has to be properly identified as a propaganda rag of Hugo Chavez's ever growing media empire.--Alekboyd (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Just so one does not get to carried away one can say the exact same thing about

talk · contribs · email

) 07:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Comparing a military putschist cum president of a nation to a businessman, however much hated, does your position no good whatsoever. This debate is not about whether Murdoch has a bigger media empire, but about using as trustworthy a source riddled with conflicts of interest, and with far too many connections to a military regime.--Alekboyd (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Stepping over the red herring of Murdoch, I'd have to say I agree with Alekboyd. VA is a reliable, but biased, source. It can be used as a source for simple questions of positive fact if no other source is available, but should be avoided entirely if other sources (such as HRW) address a question. It is also not reliable for negative facts (did not, never, etc.) Note that even in cases where laying out a he-said-she-said debate is appropriate, the pro-Chavez position should be sourced to something more official. Homunq (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, for statements of fact there is absolutely no problem with using it. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Use as required reading in university courses

I've noticed that the site is included in required reading lists and bibliographies for courses at a number of universities. The following list (by no means exhaustive) provides some examples:

• Harvard University: Required reading.
• University of California, Santa Barbara. Listed in course bibliography. Quote: "http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/. This website is dedicated to critical news coverage and analyses of events in Venezuela and in particular regarding the Bolivarian revolution."
• University of Pittsburgh: Reading list (twice)
• University of Colorado, Boulder: Reading list
• De Paul University: Reading list
• Cornell University: Reading list
• Evergreen State College: listed 18 times in course reading list

I would think that tends to affirm RS status. At any rate, it clearly has some considerable academic standing. --JN466 22:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It depends what we want to use it for. Are we agreed that it's a self-published source? If yes, it can't be used as a source about living people. As for using it elsewhere, the dichotomy is this: if we want to use it to support material that's published somewhere else too, why not use that other source? But if we use it for something that doesn't appear elsewhere, then we have to ask ourselves why that website is the sole source. So either way, I can't think of a situation where I'd feel happy using it, unless the issue was so uncontentious that it barely needed a source at all. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 10:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I am doubtful. Your argument could be made to exclude any source: "If it's only in this book, then why should we use it?" If it is a book that is widely cited by scholars (as venezuelanalysis is), and it has enough standing to be used as a means of instruction in universities, then excluding it from Wikipedia seems to me to result in a different standard for inclusion than the one the most reputable actors in the real world are applying. Cf.

Wikipedia:Rs#Usage_by_other_sources. --JN466

11:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

My argument is indeed often used to exclude self-published sources. If something appears only in an SPS, and it's a contentious point, what does that tell us? We have no way of knowing how to proceed. Do you agree that it's an SPS, or are you also challenging that? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 12:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Just as a general point, there is no way that the use of something as required reading automatically makes it a reliable source. For instance, there are courses on cult archaeology that have some dreadful stuff as required reading -- there must be lots of courses in other fields that ask students to read what we would call unreliable sources to demonstrate the way such sources mislead/misrepresent etc.

talk

) 12:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

As a general point, you are of course quite right. You can find university courses asking students to read all kinds of unreliable sources for illustrative purposes. But I looked at the course outlines in that light. I've read the papers included in the Harvard reading list; their messages broadly match each other (and the official analysis of the referendum by the Carter Center). So it's not like one paper is set off against the other. In the Evergreen State College case, a full third of the entire reading list is articles on venezuelanalysis.com. The University of California course outline simply includes the site in its supplemental bibliography; no qualifier. --JN466 13:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Per

WP:SPS

we accept even self-published sources as reliable sources if they are routinely cited for fact by reliable sources, or if they are published by previously published experts. Both of these apply here.

Jay, sorry to interrupt your post, but the first part of your sentence is a misreading of both those sections. Bear in mind too that V is the policy, so even if RS did say that about self-published sources, it should be removed, but it doesn't. We accept self-published sources if they are acknowledged experts on the topic of the article, who have been previously published in that field by independent reliable sources. None of that applies to the people who run that website, as I recall. And we never accept them, expert or not, as sources about living people. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 14:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

As for whether the site is a SPS in the first place, I was swayed earlier by your argument about it being SPS. Looking into it more closely, I confess I now tend to lean the other way. It is clearly not a private website or blog. The site itself says "Venezuelanalysis.com is a project of Venezuela Analysis, Inc., which is registered as a non-profit organization in New York State and of the Fundación para la Justicia Económica Global, which is a foundation that is registered in Caracas, Venezuela." It is the joint website of these research foundations, and employs an editorial team of internationally published scholars. That, combined with its scholarly reception, makes me think it's okay. --JN466 14:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

When I last looked at it, it said it was run by a group of people from their homes. They were named, and they weren't scholars that I recall. And it has no employees. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 14:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The editorial team work for these foundations. I'll research all the editors and put up what I find here.

• Gregory Wilpert is "a former US Fulbright scholar in Venezuela, and is currently [2002] doing independent research on the sociology of development". Books by Gregory Wilpert, google scholar. As "Greg Wilpert: [108], [109], [110].
• Eva Golinger is a widely published Venezuelan-American writer and attorney and the author of several books on Chavez: google news, google scholar, google books, books by her. --JN466 14:50, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• According to this book which he co-wrote, Michael Fox is not a scholar, but "a journalist, a reporter, and a documentary filmmaker based in South America." Here it says he is a "former staff-writer for Venezuelanalysis.com". --JN466 15:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• Federico Fuentes is described as an "author, journalist and political activist". The article also says he "is actively involved in the Australia-Venezuela Solidarity Network, of which he was a national co-convenor (2008-9), and has organized several solidarity delegations to Venezuela. He is also a member of the Socialist Alliance (Australia)." Elsewhere it is said he is "a frequent writer for the Australian socialist newspaper, Green Left Weekly, and maintains the blog Bolivia Rising". Google News: [111], Google Scholar: [112] --JN466 16:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• Jan Kühn appears to be a German student of history and sociology, studying in Berlin and Caracas, as well as working as a translator and in "independent media". Not anyone with any academic track record. --JN466 15:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• Same for Tamara Pearson: "Tamara Pearson is an Australian activist and writer as well as a member of the Australian-Venezuela Solidarity Network. She currently lives in Venezuela." --JN466 15:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• No evidence that James Suggett is significantly published outside VA.com: [113]. --JN466 15:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
• Kiraz Janicke is described as "a member of the
  Green Left Weekly Caracas bureau", "a Resistance member who has been based in Venezuela for the last 12 months", "a participant in the first Australia-Venezuela Solidarity Brigade" etc. --JN466
  15:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

So the editorial team looks like 2 or 3 people with a notable track record (albeit decidedly left-leaning/alternative, judging by their publishers), and some minor players. Golinger's two main books are held by 419 and 221 libraries respectively; which is sort of respectable, but there are definitely more widely held bios on Chavez. --JN466 15:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• After all that research, you did not find that Eva Golinger just got $3.2 million from the Chavez regime to carry on with her propaganda activities in Correo del Orinoco? Neither did you find out that Gregory Wilpert is married to Chavez's Consul in NY? The foundation Wilpert registered in NY, using his home address, is just a silly attempt to make the site look more reputable. Listen folks, the issue of Venezuelanalysis.com is not about them being liberal or leaning to the left. Rather it is a semi-official propaganda rag, funded by the Venezuelan State, whose main voices are deeply involved with the Chavez regime, professionally, and personally. So stop this BS about Harvard reading list and start looking at thing from a more objective point of view, for none of the people that contribute to the site is an authoritative source on anything other than chavista propaganda.--Alekboyd (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Even just looking at the Harvard page I get the impression that the site is being presented not as a reliable source from which students are expected to derive facts, but as one of a number of competing analyses that students are going to be comparing. Also, note that the very next reading on the list is a Wikipedia article. Clearly, being on a course syllabus like this does not imply that a source is reliable in the Wikipedia sense. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Addressed above. Note that the paper's conclusions about the 2004 referendum match those of the Carter Center and the US government. --JN466 14:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why this one website has been getting so much attention. Can someone point to an example of an edit that relies on it that couldn't otherwise be made? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs}

It's been getting so much attention because it is apparently broadly pro-Chavez. The people on it are seen by conservative commentators as propagandists for Chavez. There have been several attempts here on WP to link people on the site to the Venezuelan state-funded

discoverthenetworks.org. I am concerned about throwing out sources that have scholarly credibility because the authors may have socialist or liberal leanings. --JN466

14:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you there, but it's not clear there are scholars involved. The volunteers who run the site are Federico Fuentes, Michael Fox, Eva Golinger, Kiraz Janicke, Jan Kühn, Tamara Pearson, James Suggett, Gregory Wilpert. [114] Are any of them academics? And can you give an example of the kind of edits it has been used to support? SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 14:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I've posted what details I found on the editorial team above. Of course the site hosts articles by other writers as well. In the Evergreen State College course, which makes most use of the site (and describes it as "Good writing about contemporary Venezuelan developments, links to other good sources. Extensive archive. Co-founded by Greg Wilpert."), about half the articles are by members of the editorial team, and the other half by outside authors. The one that they include at Harvard is co-authored by Mark Weisbrot, who is a notable economist and columnist for The Guardian. I'll have a look how and where the site has been used. --JN466 16:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking over the list, it doesn't appear that they are generally what Wikipedia would consider to be experts in the subject; that is, they're lawyers, activists, filmmakers, etc. A university may have many reasons why it would want its students to read the views of these people, but university courses aren't encyclopedia articles, nor do their curricula have our sourcing requirements. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Having researched the team's credentials, I was less impressed than I thought I was going to be. ;) The site is currently cited on 200+ WP pages: [115]. About 115 of those are articles in mainspace. --JN466 16:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Having gone through this exercise, I can't fault SlimVirgin's analysis above, posted at 19:11, 7 February 2010. In particular, it seems more than likely from the affiliations of the people involved that the site does have a promotional agenda. That does not mean everything on it is bad or invalid; as SlimVirgin said earlier, we should look at the credentials of each individual author whose writings are hosted there, and base our decision on that. Thanks for your input. --JN466 17:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I would say that self-published articles by the two published authors, Wilpert and Golinger, can be used, though according to V and BLP, they can't be used as sources on living people, and that includes Chavez, even though he's one of the issues it seems they specialize in. But for general political issues in that country, articles with their byline on that website could be used as sources. Fox, I'm not so sure of—his contributions to that book probably don't amount to an acknowledged expertise. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 17:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. :) Where their guest authors are reputable, like Weisbrot etc., those articles could be used as well. And Wilpert and Golinger have written books on Chavez; these would obviously fine to use (in moderation, given that they are somewhat left of mainstream) if someone wanted to use them as sources on him. --JN466 20:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Having expended more than enough energy on this issue, I'm staying out of it. However I will correct the error introduced above by relying on the Harvard reading list: the source given for the Mark Weisbrot contribution is "Black swans..." [116], which is a straight re-publication of the CEPR paper here: [117]. Weisbrot hasn't written for VA, as far as I know; but seemingly is quite liberal in allowing republication by anyone that wants. Rd232 ^talk 22:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Was busy and did not see this continued discussion. I disagree very strongly with some statements above on the principles of reliability, something much more important than their particular application here.

WP:RSN

.

Of course we must define reliability here, as best we can. But we should try to keep our definition of "reliable source" as close as possible to the ordinary meaning in the relevant intellectual community. I wrote the "usage by other sources" section in

WP:SPS

was perceived.

As I said, the impetus behind this section in

WP:SPS "could be stretched in this case to include being used as a source for other publications, because the material isn't contentious."[118]John Z (talk

) 23:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed -- SPS's can be considered reliable when they are written by experts and widely considered reliable by experts and mainstream sources. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source? In my eyes of-course not if you look at the header of this website you will see some of the most cruel terrorist of the world who committed a lot of terroristic acts around the world. http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/ But a lot of wikipedia articles rely on this source.
A short quote of an article:
"At least 3 US invaders were killed and another 3 injured during gun battles in which the enemy coalition forces were forced to retreat, said the report, adding a bomb tore apart a US invaders tank while trying to flee from the certain areas, killing the US invaders who were on board."
And Headlines such: "Clarification of the invaders propaganda in Afghanistan" http://www.kavkaz.org.uk/eng/content/2010/01/31/11329.shtml

well, from an Afghani POV, the US forces are "invaders"... and to the Taliban they are definitely the "enemy". Just as a US source might call the taliban the "enemy". The question is... rhetoric asside, does the source have a reputation for accuracy on the underlying facts? If not, then it should probably be limited to statements as to what the Taliban POV is. Blueboar (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

We have a page about this site,

WP:RS in this regard. During wars, they also reported losses on the Chechen side, and such reports can be regarded as official reports of losses by the Chechen side (which does not mean that their numbers are the "truth", just as numbers by any other combatants). However, any claims by the Kavkaz Center about their "sworn enemies" like Russians are hardy reliable and should be used with care.Biophys (talk

) 20:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Apart from Islamist press releases and as a gauge of ISlamist thinking, no YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 05:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

There's no indication of significant editorial oversight or a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Regarding the content, here's a story I picked off their front page just now:

I think that pretty much sums it up. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

But the people have indeed been killed, and it does not matter if one calls them "puppets", "munafiqs" or how.Biophys (talk) 04:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Well and an other article of this page

Sure ... --Saiga 14:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a quote from a different website quoted by Kavkaz Center. The site isn't used on wikipedia for links on Afghanistan anyway so that's not very relevant. It's used to post statements from rebels in the northern caucasus with which it has direct contact.

talk

) 17:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Kavkazcenter is a mouthpiece for extremists in the North Caucasus. As far as facts and figures go, there is no editorial oversight or fact checking whatsoever, and for good reason since their intention is not to report an accurate and unbiased depiction of events, but to promote a cause. LokiiT (talk) 02:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

They certainly have an editorial oversight, but it matters who was the editor. The site was popular and much better in 1999-2002, but it is in the state of decline right now. To summarize, this is site of Chechen rebels, and it can be used as RS only about Chechen rebels.Biophys (talk) 04:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• More important, if BBC uses this site as source [119], why we can not? Biophys (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Because it has no reputation for editorial oversight or fact checking. The BBC's policies for inclusion are not Wikipedia's. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

But anything reprinted by the BBC is good per our rules: [120]. Right? I am asking because many other mainstream media also make a reference to Kavkaz Center. Biophys (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to be personal. But you Biophys provide a lot of terroristic and extremism thinking in your wikipedia contributes. --Saiga 00:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No, not "anything reprinted by the BBC is good per our rules", which say nothing of the kind. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I only mean that BBC can be quoted with appropriate attribution. Same about 686 books that quote Kavkaz Center (see link by Greyfox below). Many of these books qualify as "academic sources". Seriously, I do not think that our WP:RS rules should be more strict than rules used in academic publications. If they quote KavkazCenter (on the North Caucasus topics and with appropriate attribution), we can do the same.Biophys (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Kavkazcenter has been posted more often on WP:RS (and always survived) by people who are bitter about conflict. The site is indeed an extremis propaganda website, but always had ties with caucasian forces during both chechen wars. It has released images, videos, interviews, attacks, burials and also figures of casualties on both sides. Of course their numbers should be taken with a grain of salt, but they aren't less accurate than casualty figures reported by the russian press (often known for being propaganda figures as well). Kavkazcenter has been quoted by thousands of news tabloids [121] many times over, including the major ones. The same goes for books [122]. As long as their statements are attributed as something like "according to the radical kavkazcenter website" it's fine to use it on subjects related to the conflict in the northern caucasus (not afghanistan or iraq). Just as news tabloids as well as wikipedia articles also quote statements by Taliban leaders or even Al-Qaeda leaders as well as statements by pkk leaders or other rebel formations. I also think that anyone who accuses someone of spreading "terrorist propaganda" or calling anyone a "terrorist lover" (such as here [123]) should be blocked or warned for personal attacks because those accusations are highly provocative and polarizing.

) 15:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

) 23:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC) ETA: I found the article in question listed here on the website. It's a "position paper" and listed with other opinion-type pieces. As noted, it's not listed in the "journal" articles section [126] --) 23:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

contrary to what Insider201283 thinks a badly designed web site does not translate into unscholarly. The actual Journal of the American Board of Sport Psychology site clearly states: "The Journal of the American Board of Sport Psychology is a peer reviewed journal devoted to disseminating scientific and popular research-based articles in an efficient and timely manner. The Journal also publishes technical reports, editorials, opinions, special features, and letters to the editors, as well as classified and other advertising. Peer-reviewed articles are posted in PDF format, requiring that you have ADOBE Reader. If not you can download it for free at www.adobe.com."

Worse for Insider201283 a link to the American Board of Sport Psych. is provided by Adams State College http://www.adams.edu/academics/sportpsych/ who has the following accreditations: North Central Association of Colleges and Schools (NCA-HLC) Accreditation, Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education (CCNE); Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP); and National Association of Schools of Music (NASM), Commission on Accreditation.

Carlstedt PhD, Roland A. (Editor) (2009) Handbook of Integrative Clinical Psychology, Psychiatry, and Behavioral Medicine: Perspectives, Practices, and Research Springer Publishing Company ("Springer Publishing Company is extremely proud of our history -- publishing academic and professional works for more than 50 years.") on page 3 clearly states that Carlstedt has published articles in The Journal of the American Board of Sport Psychology and Biofeedback, Cortex, Brain and Cognition.

So an accredited college recommends it and a publisher who had been publishing academic and professional works for more than 50 years uses it as why an author of its Handbook of Integrative Clinical Psychology, Psychiatry, and Behavioral Medicine: Perspectives, Practices, and Research is trustworthy. Oh just in case Insider201283 regales us with some other nonsense Springer Publishing Company also puts out A Guide to the Standard EMDR Protocols for Clinicians, Supervisors, and Consultants, Chemistry and Physics for Nurse Anesthesia: A Student Centered Approach, Handbook of Forensic Neuropsychology, Second Edition, and EMDR and the Art of Psychotherapy With Children: Treatment Manual and Text just to mention a few.

Talk about major egg on the face. Sheesh Insider201283 do you even know how to do actual research before posting this nonsense?!?--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

egg on the face indeed ... your own quote above says "The Journal also publishes technical reports, editorials, opinions, special features, and letters to the editors,.... Peer-reviewed articles are posted in PDF format". All other matters of reliability aside, what format is the Sandbek article in Bruce? --

Insider201283 (talk

) 00:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, it is in word but thes Journal also states--

RATINGS:

(*) for the researcher and practitioner (more technical/scientific)PEER-REVIEWED

(**) for coaches and athletes (research-based but less technical/more applied)

(***) research based popular article (written with the lay person in mind)

It is clear that not all PEER-REVIEWED papers were in PDF format as the

American Psychological Association Divisions 47 and 6 (Behavioral Neuroscience) 2004 Convention Symposium: Integrative Sport Psychology (*,**) Presented Papers section only one of the six papers is in the PDF format. All the rest are in powerpoint format even though the one star (*) denotes all as "for the researcher and practitioner (more technical/scientific)PEER-REVIEWED" and then you have three star (***) articles in PDF format even though the ratings only expressly states that one star articles are PEER-REVIEWED. I am inclined to trust the star ratings rather than the format especially as PEER-REVIEWED is in all caps and bolded.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, I note again, even if one accepted it was a prestigious well known peer-reviewed journal, and clearly relevant to MLM (neither of which are true) the article in question is not even listed on the journal page. The front page of the site says "Journal of the American Board of Sport Psychology Inaugural Issue now Available", and following that link gives a page that does NOT include the Sandbek article [127]. The Sandbek article is instead listed at the bottom of the home page under "articles". Having an asterisk beside an article saying "peer-reviewed" on a clearly amateur website does not make something a reliable source. --

Insider201283 (talk

) 02:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Not listed on the journal page?!? Are you blind?!? "BE SURE TO SCROLL DOWN TO SEE ALL CONTENT" The entire page is the journal!

You have 'Sport Psychology in the News' followed by a book review followed by "ARTICLES ETC. (see Library below for Download)" and the very first thing you hit is

POSITION PAPER #1 on BRAIN TYPING

1. [*, **] Pseudoscience of Brain Typing by Terry Sandbek, Ph.D.HIGHLY RECOMMENDED article on Critical Thinking in Sport Psychology

IT IS THE VERY FIRST ARTICLE YOU COME TO!!! It is ranked as PEER REVIEWED in bold caps due to the one star (*) and then it is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED also in bold caps in the text right next to it. How on earth do you miss that?!?

In the download section that says "SPORT PSYCHOLOGY ARTICLES" Sandbek article is the last one on page one (assuming 10 pages).--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

• Can you be specific as to what statements the paper in question needs to support? Different statements get held to different standards, there isn't such a thing as an expert on every subject (well, possibly Da Vinci or Asimov; but they're dead). Having a Journal and a PhD is nice in general, but what does sports medicine have to do with Multi-level marketing? --GRuban (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The claim made in the WP article, based on Sandbek, is Another charge is "By its very nature, MLM is completely devoid of any scientific foundations."--

Insider201283 (talk

) 00:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Straight from the paper: "In the following article our author Dr. Terry Sandbek addresses Brain Typing and pseudoscience in Sport Psychology." The just of the article regarding MLM begins in the section "Brain Typing as a Product" subsection "Multilevel Marketing (MLM)" which has this lead in right before it: "None of them have any direct link to applied science or scientific research. Multilevel Marketing and Positive Thinking, his two previous ventures, have no connection to findings within the scientific community."

Sandbek then sites one MLM critical website after the other for about two pages. Not only are Taylor, FitzPatrick, and Vanduff here but so are Lanford and Barrett. Sandbek then goes into "Pop Psychology of Positive Thinking" which tangentally touches on the methods MLMs use. Then you hit "The pseudoscientist uses testimonials as evidence." and the whole pseudoscience dynamic which is not just part of Brain typing but also Multilevel Marketing and Positive Thinking.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Yup, he cites multiple non-RS websites as his sources. You're not helping your case Bruce. Let's just wait for some more 3rd party opinions hey? --

Insider201283 (talk

) 02:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Insider201283 claimed this before but the fact is one of these sources are referenced in a Juta Academic publication and Taylor is referenced four times in Cruz's peer reviewed 2008 "A System Dynamics Model for Studying the Structure of Network Marketing Organizations". In short Sandbek is not a one trick pony and there are other reliable sources that use these people or their sites as references.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

This RS/N request is with regard Sandbek as an RS. If you want to query others, post them for discussion. --

Insider201283 (talk

) 14:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Insider, but it was YOU who brought up the "non-RS websites" claim and so made it relevant the issue of Sandbek being an RS. The main page is referenced by an accredited college on their web page and is used a expertise qualifier on another book published by Springer Publishing Company.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, this page is to get others opinions on the source in question, not for back and forth bickering. Let's wait for more 3rd party opinions. --

Insider201283 (talk

) 14:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Aha. Now it makes sense. From reading the paper, Sandbek is criticizing one specific person, Jon Niednagel, who is apparently is trying to do something called Brain Typing which has something to do with Sport Psychology (hence the sports medicine connection). As one of his criticisms, Sandbek mentions that Niednagel was involved with MLM. The sentence in context is:

Such is the case with Brain Typing. Mr. Niednagel is quick to claim a scientific basis for his product but is unable to offer any solid evidence that it is based on any scientific principles. This is not surprising when we look at the types of businesses that he has promoted in the last few decades. None of them have any direct link to applied science or scientific research. Multilevel Marketing and Positive Thinking, his two previous ventures, have no connection to findings within the scientific community.

The article, including the quoted sentence, is primarily a criticism of Niednagel specifically, not of MLM in general, and I suspect Sandbek would reject any claims of being an expert on MLM in general. Not appropriate for the MLM article. If we have an article on Brain Typing or Niednagel, it would be a good source there, but MLM is much bigger than Niednagel.

That said, however, surely there is no lack of better sources to criticise MLM. Consumer advocates, attorneys general, economists, all those would be much better critics than sports medicine experts. --GRuban (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

While the article is mainly critical of Niednagel the section of the article in question is critical of MLMs in general. In fact the lead in right before the relevant section expressly states "None of them have any direct link to applied science or scientific research. Multilevel Marketing and Positive Thinking, his two previous ventures, have no connection to findings within the scientific community." then we have some two page worth of material on MLMs in general finishing up with the conclusion "By its very nature, MLM is completely devoid of any scientific foundations." (the quoted piece). This section is focused on how reliable the MLM model itself is. This along with the rest of the paper when through the peer review process and it if wasn't usable it would have never been allowed.

This is akin to saying because Higgs, Philip (2007) Rethinking Our World Juta Academic ("Juta is respected as South Africa's pre-eminent academic and law publisher") is mainly on philosophy that all its comments about MLMs are useless. MLMs have been called cults as far back as 1985 (related in a Western Journal of Communication 2003 article and so itself based on RS) and cults are something that is in the realm of both philosophy and psychology and Sandbek is an expert in psychology.

As for better sources that are critical of MLMs Insider201283 has tried to keep those out too. He claimed Cruz (2008) was not peer reviewed even though I had clearly stated it was (and later proving it was). He said an article by no less than The Times was not a reliable source (see the end of Talk:Multi-level_marketing/Archive_2#Multitude_of_self-published_source for that insanity). He tried to imply a Religion Dispatches piece date February 11, 2009 some how predated an ISP article dated Jan 28, 2009 to keep it out. The claim of ""basic mathematics shows" is code for "I'm talking about pyramid schemes, not MLM"" regarding the "The False Lure of Multi-Level Marketing" By David John Marotta Aug 3, 2009 article which appeared in various papers including the Central New York Business Journal is typical of the nonsense we have seen on the talk page.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Amazingly, on this very page Bruce is telling another editor that an author should be an expert in the main area of the article. With regards other sources, there are actually very few quality sources "critical" of MLM, it's the internet gossip columnists that primarily drive that aspect of the conversation. Actual business experts understand the difference between MLMs and Pyramids and don't accuse MLMs of having the failings of pyramids. That's *why* Wikipedia requires quality sources - so that myths based on poor knowledge or understanding are not spread. I will challenge poor sources no matter what their POV, and as already noted I've also challenged the use of some pro-MLM sources that do not pass muster as RS/V. There *are* plenty of RS sources available, there's no reason not to stick to them.--

Insider201283 (talk

) 14:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Bruce, I don't buy it. Note the word "his" in your quote there. Note the article title: "Brain Typing: The Pseudoscience of Cold Reading". Note the Editor's Note at the top of the article, "In the following article our author Dr. Terry Sandbek addresses Brain Typing and pseudoscience in Sport Psychology." All of those point to the author not focusing on MLM in general, but this one practitioner of it, merely tarring that practitioner by association with MLM. Sandbek has lots of other references there as to why MLM is bad, so you can try and use those directly, but they're not Sandbek. Sandbek himself has one sentence in there of his own that could, out of context, be read as critical of MLM in general without mentioning his real target, but that's not the point of the piece, so shouldn't be used for a fairly strong attack on MLM in general. --GRuban (talk) 15:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Use Talyor, Fiztpatric, and Vandruff directly? But Insider201283 is fighting those references too! He is even fighting references that appear in Wiley and Sage with "stating something is "a legal pyramid scheme" is a clear oxymoron and clear evidence the author is NOT a reliable source on the topic." garbage. He defends Wiley with Rubino but when anti-MLM stuff by Carroll (2003) and Coenen (2009) in the exact same publication appear we get this "clear evidence the author is NOT a reliable source on the topic" garbage.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Gruban - Taylor, FitzPatrick, and Vandruff are self-published websites by people with no RS published work in the area, they have all been previously rejected on RS/N. Bruce has however managed to get around this limitation by finding a peer-reviewed paper that mentions their opinions briefly in an intro and then simply quoting the paper. I personally think that's against the spirit of RS, but so far he has consensus support.--

Insider201283 (talk

) 14:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

(remove indent)Gruban - Insider201283 is again engaging in a half truth. user:Arthur Rubin on the talk page and User:TheEditor22 on the RS/NS felt that Taylor, FitzPatrick, and Vandruff could be used as they were cited so many times in peer reviewed papers (including one that Insider201283 claimed was and was called on the carpet for that responded with "For someone to cite it, based only on a webpage, and have that accepted in peer review? A tragic example of poor standards.") as well as in reliable publishers such as Juta Academic not to mention the McGeorge Law Review which using Taylor as a reference stated "Day after day, however, many Americans and others around the world4 fall prey to a similar type of deception—supposed “business opportunities” in which 99.9 percent of investors lose money." User:Jakew left the RS/NS discussion just a little after User:TheEditor22 came on and you note on his User_talk:TheEditor22 who had been temporarily banned for using sock puppetry and other things to keep a reliable source by Fox News that Insider kept arguing for the removal of in the ACN Inc. article. Based on the last poster in that it was two against one that they were RS.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, I provided a link to the discussion on RS/N where I posted fitzpatrick and taylor's websites. I can find no other discussions about pyramidschemealert.org[128] nor mlm-thetruth.com[129]. The only place I can find Vandruff references is your comments here [130]. If you have other RS/N discussion, please post a link to it. I'd note, again, that TheEditor22 was banned from WP for, if I recall correctly, a single purpose disruptive account, threats, and sockpuppetry (not to mention identity fraud) so I wound't exactly hang my coat on his opinion. The fact remins they are all self-published websites by non-experts on the topic of the article. --

Insider201283 (talk

) 13:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see there's a can of worms there. I didn't look at those references specifically, hence my word "try". This question is about whether an article by a sport psychologist in a sport psychology magazine focusing on criticizing a specific project by a specific person who happened to have participated in MLM in his past is a reliable source for a very strong criticism of all MLM, and my answer to that is "no". --GRuban (talk) 14:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

But Sandbek's foundation of argument against Niednagel is based on the premise that the two things (Multilevel Marketing and Positive Thinking) Niednagel has been involved with have no direct link to applied science or scientific research. If those premises don't work then his conclusion also doesn't work--so he argument agains MLMs has to work for his argument against Niednagel to work.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

if the quotation is as reported, then it's useless. It's not part of the scholarship in the article, but just a passing comment. DGG ( talk ) 22:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually the quotation is the conclusion of about two full pages of analysis so some degree of scholarship was involved.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Is the Oxfordian journal Brief Chronicles considered to be a reliable source for the Wikipedia

.

Reading the “about” page, it is apparent that the journal was planned and carefully constructed to give the impression of a scholarly, peer-reviewed journal. However, the publication is controlled by general editor Dr. Roger Stritmatter, an Oxfordian whose commitment to spreading the gospel is well known to Wikipedia Shakespeare editors, and the 12-member board includes at least 10 identified Oxfordians, such as Dr. Michael Delahoyde of Washington State University and Dr. Richard Waugaman of the Georgetown University of Medicine and Washington Psychoanalytic Institute. While the accomplishments of these people should not be disparaged, they believe in a fringe theory (which is not all that unusual among certain percentage of academics) and participate on the board of a publication devoted to promoting a theory well outside the accepted scholarly consensus.

In its inaugural number, Brief Chronicles published 10 articles, ostensibly chosen by a double-blind peer review. Coincidentally, three of the 10 were authored by members of the editorial board. They included such articles as “The Psychology of the Authorship Question,” which according to the abstract, “Employs a historical/psychoanalytical model to understand why so many academicians are resistant to rationale [sic] discourse on the authorship question”; “Francis Meres and the Earl of Oxford”, which supposedly “Analyzes the numerical structure of Francis Meres' 1598 Palladis Tamia to show that Meres not only knew that Oxford and Shakespeare were one and the same, but that he constructed his publication to carefully alert the reader to this fact” (and incidentally marks the Oxfordian descent into cryptic number puzzles that formerly were the sole province of Baconism); and “Edward de Vere's Hand in Titus Andronicus”.

I believe that

) 03:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

As I see from their editorial board [[131]] Brief Chronicles is obviously a peer reviewed journal with high standards. The editor in chief is Gary Goldstein, former editor and publisher of The Elizabethan Review, a semi-annual peer reviewed journal published from 1993 to 1999 on the English Renaissance. The rest of the editorial team has similar credentials. If that were not enough, the journal will be indexed by the Modern Language Association International Bibliography and the World Shakespeare Bibliography. Definitely RS. Smatprt (talk) 04:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The Elizabethan Review was no more

WP:RS than this publication. Its board was made up of much the same type of partisans as the one under discussion here. I don't understand why Oxfordians believe that any publication in a true peer-reviewed journal at any time confers the magic wand of credibility to all subsequent activities, but it appears they do. Tom Reedy (talk

) 15:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Smatprt that Brief Chronicles is a peer reviewed journal with high standards. The editorial board is made up entirely of people with credible academic credentials. Both the editor in chief and executive editor have impressive track records. Those bringing this challenge ignore the fact that the journal will be indexed by the Modern Language Association International Bibliography and the World Shakespeare Bibliography. The journal clearly meets RS requirements. Schoenbaum (talk) 06:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, Schoenbaum, you seem to be a new

WP:SPA

with few edits, all but one to the talk page of the authorship article.

Smatprt will recall a related discussion here [132] from last year.

talk

) 10:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I do remember that discussion. At the time, this board looked at the credentials of the editorial team, asking relevant questions about their expertise. I would hope that a similar exercise is involved here.Smatprt (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Both Smatprt and Schoenbaum are SPA editors whose sole activity on Wikipedia is to promote Oxfordianism. They are not in any way independent commentators. I am not independent either, since I am an active contributor to the page with a bias against Oxfordianism. However I consider that to be no different from my "bias" against fringe theories in general, as this "bias" is the bias of Wikipedia itself. It seems clear to me that this is a journal dedicated to a fringe theory set up and staffed by proponents of a fringe theory. It is no different from Creationist journals that can boast PhDs on their boards. The important thing is that this journal does not accept articles purely on the basis of their academic worth, to be reviewed by those scholars who are best qualified to assess them, irrespective of whether or not they agree with the article's ideological position. Paul B (talk) 10:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I would ask that Paul (and others) actually look at my editing history. I am hardly a SPA editor, having made over 6000 edits to close to 100 articles, ranging from Shakespeare to West Side Story. I would ask Paul to rescind his statement.Smatprt (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I would agree. Look at his editing history. The last time he edited an article not obviously related to Shakespeare authorship was on the 7th feb, when he added this to Historical revisionism. Paul B (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't look like a mainstream academic journal since it doesn't have a publisher like Sage, Taylor & Francis, Oxford etc. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The page is deeply troubled, and probably cannot be edited to wikipedian standards, because there is an editorial block by a group which is actively promoting by its edits the fringe theory. Most of the text is sourced to articles and books that, in academic terms, are not RS, but are RS for the fringe theories, being examples of them. Attempts to introduce proper RS on crucial questions in the lead leads to endless blather. There are 57 candidates for an alternative Shakespeare, each with a coterie of passionate fans, but here the de Vere school, and Diana Price are showcased, in a way that smacks of promotion.

The

WP:SPA

editors who have entered the fray don't appear to show any interest in the wider work on wikipedia. On an article dealing with borderline, fringe ideas, one needs several experienced hands who have a thorough understanding of the rules to prevent gaming. This won't occur.

WP:PARITY

, as Tom notes, affirms that 'fringe journals exist, some of which claim peer review. Only a very few of these actually have any meaningful peer review outside of promoters of the fringe theories, and should generally be considered unreliable.' That reallyshould clinch it. The operation looks fraudulent.

The article is ranked of high importance. Why a fringe theory with 'virtually no' academic support should merit a 'high importance' tag is unclear.

In lieu of concrete measures, the best solution would be to leave it to the SPA block, but impose of them a requirement that their present hyperactivism be focused to bringing the page up to GA level review within a month or two, and then get experienced GA reviewers who know both wikipedia policies and the Elizabethan period, or Shakespeare, to examine the quality of their work. As it is, this looks like a page that will have a huge volume of talk page edits and chats reflecting stalemate between proponents of mainstream scholarship and representatives of the fringe theory, with no significant measures of improvement towards the minimal requirements stipulated by the policies adumbrated in

WP:FRINGE etc.Nishidani (talk

) 11:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, I am hardly an SPA editor. The rest of this post is troublesome as well. Accusations such as "fraudulent" really have no place here. Nishidani also knows full well that the article has been going through a major clean-up, line-by-line in some cases, which he is a participating in, though he has spent much time arguing endlessly with his own team over using "a" instead of "the". I also question why he would attack such researchers such as Diana Price when his own team-member, Tom Reedy, was the editor who suggested using Ms. Price's work in the article.(Ms. Price, by the way, is not an Oxfordian, but is anti-Stratfordian). All this is, of course, off topic. Can we get back to looking at the qualifications of the editorial board and such requirements as the double-blind review process which the journal employs?.

Is there any editor of this journal who is not an Oxfordian or, *gasp*, a Stratfordian? Inquiring minds want to know.

talk

) 12:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

If there's anything Oxfordians hate more than a Stratfordian, it's a Baconian. You might find tentative tolerance of Derbyites. Paul B (talk) 13:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The only "hate" involved, as evidenced on the talk page, is that exhibited by Stratfordians. Mainstream stratfordians, such as Alan Nelson, even appear at various authorship conferences where they are welcomed openly. Smatprt (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

All but two of the 12 members are open, admitted Oxfordians. Explicit information about the authorship sympathies of the other two, Carole Chaski and Donald Otrowski, is harder to come by, but Chaski has worked with Stritmatter on another project concerning Herman Melville, and Otrowski appears in an anti-Stratfordian documentary that I have not seen and his Harvard English class has been cited by some as the beginning of their interest in Oxfordism. I'm sure Dr. Stritmatter, who is a very active editor on the page in question, could enlighten us. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

"Chaski has worked with Stritmatter on another project concerning Herman Melville". Isn't this simply guilt by association?Smatprt (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a suggestion: you might want to limit comments by involved editors to one or two at the most. If you don't, a look at his editing and discussion history shows that Smatprt will deluge the discussion with irrelevant and tendentious posts that will effectively obfuscate any honest discussion or consensus on the issue by uninvolved editors. Tom Reedy (talk) 13:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Tom - you've already posted, what, six or seven edits? This is my second edit, caused mostly by the false accusations being made about my being an SPA (way off base) and other off-topic comments made by your team.Smatprt (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to answer this from a different point of view; I'm going to agree with both sides. :-). Side "A", above, seems to be saying that the journal, publishers and review board, is full of people from one side of a fourfive-way argument, so it's biased. Side "B" seems to be saying that the journal is full of people with Doctorates from respected schools, so it's reliable. I'm going to say you're all right. A source can be both reliable and biased. The article Shakespeare authorship question is specifically about the controversy, so it is a perfectly appropriate place where a journal published and reviewed by highly titled Oxfordians should be cited to explain Oxfordian views; it seems a perfectly reliable source for that branch of scholarship. That said, these views should be appropriately tagged with the caveat that these are the views of Oxfordians, not of all or most Shakespearian scholars in general, since Stratfordians, Baconians, Lettucians and Tomatovians may well differ. --GRuban (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

So IOW, the journals

WP:PARITY use as examples, The Creation Science Quarterly, Homeopathy, Journal of Frontier Science, can all be used as reliable sources for the Wikipedia articles on creation science, homeopathy, and flying saucers because they have Phds supporting them? Is that what you're saying? Because that sure sounds like what you're saying. Tom Reedy (talk

) 18:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as long as the statements therein are not presented as facts, but as the views of the people making the statements as reasonable representatives of the side in question. You will notice that that is exactly what is done in the specific articles you bring up:

• Creation Science#Notes
  includes The Vanishing Case for Evolution, Henry M. Morris, Institute for Creation Research; Howe, G. F.; Froede, C. R. .J.r. (1999). "The Haymond Formation Boulder Beds, Marathon Basin, West Texas: Theories On Origins And Catastrophism". Creation Research Society Quarterly Journal 36 (1).; Froede, Carl R. Jr (1995). "Stone Mountain Georgia: A Creation Geologist's Perspective". Creation Research Society Quarterly 31 (4).; Howe, George F.; Froede, Carl R. Jr (1999). "The Haymond Formation Boulder Beds, Marathon Basin, West Texas: Theories On Origins And Catastrophism". Creation Research Society Quarterly 36 (1).; Phillip Johnson. "The Wedge", Touchstone: A Journal of Mere Christianity. July/August 1999.; the Evolution Debate Can Be Won. Phillip Johnson. Truths that Transform; Get Answers: Created Kinds (Baraminology), Answers in Genesis; and so forth.
• PMID 15955254
  ; King S, "Miasms in homeopathy", Classical homeopathy; and so forth.

I'll stop there before checking the article on flying saucers, but I'll be shocked if it doesn't have any references from people who claim to have been abducted by aliens; it would be a fairly useless article without them, no? No offense, but the same applies here. It wouldn't be a very useful article about Shakespeare authorship question if it couldn't cite the reasoning of the questioners. --GRuban (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Umm, the question was whether it was a reliable source, not whether it is a source that can be used per

WP:FRINGE. Paul B (talk

) 11:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

And the answer was, yes, it is a reliable source to explain Oxfordian views, which is the point in question. There is no such thing as "a reliable source" without context. This entire noticeboard all about whether a source can be used to back a specific point in a specific article. Surely you would not expect to take the most definitive "yes" answer about the journal here, and use it as justification to use the journal as a reference for an article on nuclear physics, or Indonesian politics, or global warming? ---GRuban (talk) 18:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. There is no such thing as "a reliable source to explain Oxfordian views". That's not what "reliable source" means. Why don’t you read what it says at the top of the page? "Editors can post questions here about whether given sources are reliable". That is the sole purpose of this board, and that was the question that was asked by Tom at the top of this section. Your remark about nuclear physics is both ridiculous and utterly irrelevant. Even the most reliable source on any topic is not reliable for a wholly different one. That's blindingly obvious. We are talking about what's reliable for Shakespeare studies. You don't seem to understand the concept of "reliable source". The fact that an unreliable source can be used in some articles is quite different from saying that it's a reliable source for that or any other article. There are different rules concerning the use of unreliable and reliable sources within articles. Paul B (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, if you've read this board for any length of time, you would have noticed that the question "is this source reliable" is met with: in what context? for what statement? to cite what? Reliability is not absolute, but depends on context. (That's from

WP:RS, by the way.) If the context is "Shakespeare studies" in general, then I can buy the argument that the journal shouldn't be treated as the mainstream view. However, it seems the article in question is specifically about (5 ... if I have the number right now ...) different points of view in Shakespeare studies, which are, by definition, outside the mainstream. Am I wrong? --GRuban (talk

) 22:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you are wrong to say that it is a "reliable source" for the Authorship article. To make an extreme analogy, that would be like saying that Mein Kampf is a reliable source for the Adolf Hitler article. Mein Kampf an be quoted and footnoted to explain Hitler's opinions, but it is not a reliable source which can be used for, say, factual statements. It can be used in certain conditions, but only reliable sources on Hitler can be used in others. I think that's the crucial point here - reliability determines how certain sources can be used. Paul B (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, rather than argue in the abstract, let's see what the specific statements it is being used to back are. --GRuban (talk) 23:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable and I am confidant (and would work to insure) that any edits would be appropriately tagged.Smatprt (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the kind of response that makes an Oxfordian's heart sing. It's based on the assumption that there is serious scholarly debate, of which this journal is one POV (out of "four" apparently. Where does that number come from?). That is to treat a fringe view as if it were mainstream. If there were genuine academic debate Oxfordians (and presumably proponents of the other "three" positions) would be able to get their theories published within mainstream academic journals. That's what happens when there is a real academic debate between different points of view. It's like saying that there are several views about the origin of the grand Canyon: it was created by Divine Wrath in the Great Flood, by Alien mining engineers, or by erosion, so it's a "three way argument". But the first two theories are not published in independent RS journals. Also, though many of these editors have PhDs, they are not generally for Shakespeare scholarship, or even English literature in several cases. Paul B (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

If a litmus test to decide whether a subject is "genuine" is the ability for researchers to "get their theories published within mainstream academic journals", then that threshold has been met. Not only have "The Review of English Studies"[[133]] and "Critical Survey" [[134]] both published articles by anti-Stratfordians, but the Shakespeare authorship studies is now being taught at at least one noted university [[135]]. Paul knows all this, so I wonder why he would post such erroneous information. Smatprt (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

out of "four" apparently. Where does that number come from? Top of your article, the one in question. "Supporters of any one of the four main theories are commonly called Oxfordians, Baconians, Marlovians or Derbyites respectively." Of course, my uncle Al claims to have written Hamlet after he's had a few pints, but as I keep telling him we can't find enough reliable sources to back him. --GRuban (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Well that would be five then, including the mainstream view. As for Smatprt's claim that the threshold has been met, your evidence is very weak. Two articles in journals which are not even devoted to Shakespeare or the English Renaissance is negligable. In any case, the first article is not about Oxfordianism. It's about a source for The Tempest. As for the "authorship issue" being taught, that is in the context of debate about the history and interpretation of Shakespeare. Creationmism is also "taught" in universities in that kind of context. As a matter of fact I used to teach the authorship issue myself when I ran a course called "Envisaging Shakespeare" some years ago. Paul B (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

So true. Corrected to five. --GRuban (talk) 18:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Please check your facts. The last time I checked "English Studies" includes Shakespeare! And... "Critical Survey addresses central issues of critical practice and literary theory in a language that is clear, concise, and accessible, with a primary focus on Renaissance and Modern writing and culture. The journal combines criticism with reviews and poetry, providing an essential resource for everyone involved in the field of literary studies. "…an essential journal for anyone interested in the critical debates of our time. Always up to the minute, yet free from jargon, it is also a great place for students to get a sense of what is going on in the subject." —Jonathan Bate, University of Liverpool" Smatprt (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You merely confirm exactly what I said. Neither periodical specialises in Shakespeare or the English Renaissance and the publications (at least the first one) are not even about the "authorship controversy". Paul B (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Paul, but you are just splitting hairs. "The Review of English Studies" and "Critical Survey" not to mention "Notes and Queries" and several others I havn't even mentioned are all peer reviewed academic journals with articles that are applicable to the subject at hand. Heck, "Critical Survey" even has Stanley Wells and Jonathan Bate on its editorial team.Smatprt (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

They may be "applicable", but that's not the issue. They are not about it. There are not articles in mainstream journals engaging in debate about whether Shakespeare or Oxford wrote Hamlet (or any other canonical play). The central point is that this is not a subject of mainstream debate about which there are a range of views. Isolated articles related to the topic are not evidence of mainstream debate about it.

Is there any reason why this debate can't stop while uninvolved editors look at the evidence and make a decision? If they need any further information they'll ask for it. Lobbying in the hope of affecting the outcome is not an honest use of the noticeboard. So please just STFU. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Tom, using internet slang for vulgar language really isn't helpful. Of course, if you meant "Southern Tenant Farmers Union", then please disregard! In any case, when two of your team make dishonest statements about by editing history in an attempt to sway uninvolved editors, it needs to be answered - especially when they refuse to retract them. Or when Paul makes a blanket (and incorrect) statement that authorship researchers can't get published in mainstream journals, and I can show otherwise, then it is incumbent upon me to do so.Smatprt (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I knew you couldn't do it. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You misrepresent what I said. I didn't say "authorship researchers" could not publish in mainstream journals. any individual can publish if what they write is relevant and legitimate. I said that authorship debate is not part of normal academic discussion in mainstream journals. For comparison, there are articles in mainstream journals discussing whether or not Leonardo da Vinci painted the second version of the Virgin of the Rocks. There are not articles discussing whether or not it expresses secret anti-Catholic symbolism, as claimed by Dan Brown. Paul B (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Dougweller wrote above: "With all due respect, Schoenbaum, you seem to be a new WP:SPA with few edits, all but one to the talk page of the authorship article. I will recall a related discussion here [186] from last year." [Dougweller (talk) 10:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)] Smatprt replied: "I do remember that discussion. At the time, this board looked at the credentials of the editorial team, asking relevant questions about their expertise. I would hope that a similar exercise is involved here." [Smatprt (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)] Paul B. responded: "Both Smatprt and Schoenbaum are SPA editors whose sole activity on Wikipedia is to promote Oxfordianism."

It's true that I'm new to Wikipedia. Everyone starts somewhere. I make no apology for it, and am willing to respond to questions from the board about my qualifications. Paul B's claim is false, not only as it relates to Smatprt, but also as it relates to me. None of my comments on the talk pages promotes the candidacy of the Earl of Oxford, and none will. That is not my purpose, and he has no basis for saying otherwise. He admitted above that he is biased against Oxfordians. The fact that I've had disagreements with him on the talk pages doesn't make me one. He's just stereotyping me. My comments have been anti-Stratfordian, not Oxfordian. 96.251.82.13 (talk) 00:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You are being transparently disingenuous. Only Oxfordians argue for evidence that "Shakespeare" was dead before 1604, as you have done. Paul B (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm previously uninvolved in this topic, and this thread is not making me eager to get involved.

Brief Chronicles does a pretty good job of looking like an academic journal, but it's clearly a publication founded to advance a specific agenda: giving a veneer of scholarly legitimacy to unorthdox views of Shakespearian authorship. I found this sentence from the editors' introduction to the first issue telling: "Four contributors to our first issue hold PhDs in literary studies; two are MDs with records of publication on literary and historical topics, and six are independent scholars." This is a red flag that the journal advances fringy claims. Certainly independent scholars make valuable contributions to many academic fields, but they also contribute loads of nonsense to poorly refereed venues. Also, the phrasing of the sentence suggests that some of the contributors who hold PhDs or MDs do not currently hold scholarly positions. So a substantial portion of the contributors in the very first issue do not currently hold teaching or research positions. Frankly, this looks like a fanzine dressed up as an academic journal. Still, it may be that this periodical can be cited in Wikipedia articles, but it should not be used to suggest that Oxfordianism or any other non-standard theory of Shakespearian authorship has academic legitimacy. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The editor who inserts most of the material referenced by it happens also to be the editor of the journal, and such use smacks of

WP:COI to me. There also was a reference to the journal's establishment in the main text, as if it were some actual historical event that related to the topic, which I have deleted as unnecessary newsletter detail. Tom Reedy (talk

) 16:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Another off-point accusation? And wasn't it you, Tom, that argued for the inclusion of the Kathman website of which YOU are a contributor? In spite of the apparent hypocrisy, this seems to be an attempt to sway uninvolved editors. Shame on you.Smatprt (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You know how dishonest we Stratfordians are, Smatprt. We just can't help it, since we've been doing it for four centuries to protect our cushy academic jobs.

The truth is I just now thought of that objection, and I think it's valid. There's nothing off-point about it, just as there's nothing off-topic about bringing up that you promote Oxfordism at the expense of Wikipedia's reputation at every opportunity, as anyone who bothers to check your posting and block history knows. And I've never referenced the one article on Dave's website that I wrote, in contrast to Stritmatter, who never loses an opportunity to insert a reference into any article that mentions Shakespeare. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Akhilleus, and for stepping into this ugly fray. In response to your final sentence "Still, it may be that this periodical can be cited in Wikipedia articles, but it should not be used to suggest that Oxfordianism or any other non-standard theory of Shakespearian authorship has academic legitimacy", I think it should be noted that the issue here is whether the journal can be cited to explain Oxfordian views, which as Gruban noted above, should be allowed. As was noted "A source can be both reliable and biased. The article Shakespeare authorship question is specifically about the controversy, so it is a perfectly appropriate place where a journal published and reviewed by highly titled Oxfordians should be cited to explain Oxfordian views; it seems a perfectly reliable source for that branch of scholarship." Smatprt (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue here was

WP:PARITY and both your and Schoenbaum's zany idea that Brief Chronciles fell under 'peer reviewed journals with high standards'. It is nothing of the sort. It is as if Butlerites or Robert Graves fans produced a fanzine-journal to push the view that a woman, or Homer's daughter 'wrote' the Odyssey, and, holding the Martin Wests, Geoffrey Kirks and Erbses' of this world in contempt, reviewed each others contributions and made out this was a 'peer review' as that word is understood in serious scholarship. Such stuff could be harvested to document their dotty views, certainly, but not as the results of 'peer-reviewed' quality scholarship. Oxfordian stuff has nothing to do with scholarship, since it's fundamental premise, that the biographical fallacy is itself a fallacy (sheer blithering madness of method, in short), makes it wholly subjective and beyond the care and keep of anything by a subjective hermeneutics of suspicion that will always trump the known documentary record, and what can reasonable be inferred from it. Nishidani (talk

) 12:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

No, the issue is quite simple. As stated at the top of this section "Is the Oxfordian journal Brief Chronicles considered to be a reliable source for the WikipediaShakespeare authorship question article?" That's the only question. "Academic Journal" or not, is actually off point due to the fact that, as Gruban notes above "A source can be both reliable and biased. The article Shakespeare authorship question is specifically about the controversy, so it is a perfectly appropriate place where a journal published and reviewed by highly titled Oxfordians should be cited to explain Oxfordian views; it seems a perfectly reliable source for that branch of scholarship." This, of course, is merely a paraphrase of the policy on Fringe articles where it notes that the theory itself can best be described by theory proponents and, the section on Parity that states: "Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia. For example, the lack of peer-reviewed criticism of creation science should not be used as a justification for marginalizing or removing scientific criticism of creation science, since creation science itself is almost never published in peer-reviewed journals. Likewise, the views of adherents should not be excluded from an article on creation science because their works lack peer review." Smatprt (talk) 19:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at the journal. It is not a high quality scholarly journal, and it seems to be edited from a considerable degree of bias. But it does not seem altogether worthless either, it's somewhat more than a blog. The material is reviewed, and nothing in there seems to be the sort of total uncritical garbage that blogs on the subject are likely to contain. It can be used with caution. In fact, using anything requires caution. The world is not divided into RS and nonRS, and the Wikipedia practice of saying that it is has a considerable lack of reality. Basically, the nature of scholarship, especially in the humanities, is no trust nobody else's interpretation. I've seen peer-reviewed journals, that meet the technical definition of such, much worse than this. there is no bright line, so I cannot say of which side this one falls. It certainly can not be used to say that the Oxfordian hypothesis has academic respectability;but then, no indirect evidence would show it: the facts that the journal exists, that PMLA does list it, and that very few academic libraries list it in their catalog must be interpreted by the readers. What it is a RS for, like everything, is for the opinion of its authors. That its editors or authors are the most respectable people who believe in the hypothesis remains to be proven, and would need proving from their individual writing, not from being editors or published in the journal. If RSs are ranked from 5% to 95% reliable (I deny the possibility of 0% or 100%), and if the journals in PMLA fall in the scale between 70% and 95%, I'd guess that this is 70%. My personal opinion for why PMLA includes it is that scholars want the information on their opponents so they can refute them. DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

An editor is using the book False Profits as a source for several claims in the article on

) 11:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you outline what is being asserted using this book as a source? Skeptics dictionary did a review BTW [139]

talk · contribs · email

) 20:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, Skeptic's Dictionary on this topic is another issue altogether. Carroll's articles on MLM and MLM companies like Amway are full of quite juvenile errors and misunderstandings of the industry (like claiming that generating wholesale sales through recruiting other distributors is dumb because it's "recruiting competitors" - yeah, so Coke should get rid of all those wholesale distribution channels and deal only with consumers!). Carroll refuses to even accept emails on the topics. Anyway, the claims the "False Profits" reference is to support (amongst other poorly supported POV claims, but one at a time) are that "Another criticism of MLMs are that MLMs ... are pyramid schemes ... and use..." the exploitation of personal relationships for financial gain". These are clearly controversial POV opinions and from an otherwise unnotable and non RS source have no place in wikipedia. --

Insider201283 (talk

) 20:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

One could change this too "Carroll criticizes MLMs for being pyramid schemes that exploitation personal relationships for financial gain" Lots of people criticize MLMs and these criticisms are notable.

talk · contribs · email

) 20:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

My apologies I was a little unclear in my response. The claims were from the False Profit book, not Carroll. I've not looked into the use of Carroll as a source for the article yet (it's there) but I'm not sure if it's notable in this area, given it's clearly an opinion piece and to the best of my knowledge he has no expertise in the area of business. In any case, for now I'm just concerned with the False Profit's book. Carroll's book has at least been published by a reputable publishing company, though I'm not sure if the Amway/MLM articles are in the published version. --

Insider201283 (talk

) 20:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree that the source is poor. However we have better sources that also say that MLM is a pyramid scheme and that it exploits relationships for financial gain such as [140]. Thus we have an easy solution. Replace this poor reference with a good reference. I have the complete copy to this article if needed.

talk · contribs · email

) 21:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Doc James, governments around the world all state that "pyramid schemes are illegal", yet they also state that multilevel marketing is legal. Any source that says MLMs are pyramid schemes are either (a) saying they are illegal, which is not true, or (b) saying pyramid schemes can be legal, which is also not true. Clearly any such source is, virtually by definition, not reliable. With regards the metapress.com link, it unfortunately doesn't work without the login. Which article are you referring to? There's two I found through a search for "multilevel marketing", one on "internal consumption" [141] and one on "socialization" [142]. I have both papers and neither of them support the claims, indeed both explicitly note that MLMs are NOT pyramid schemes. --

Insider201283 (talk

) 23:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, I see now you mean the "internal consumption" paper as a source for the fact that some critics of MLM believe them to be pyramid schemes? It's certainly usable for that. --

Insider201283 (talk

) 23:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

CRITICISMS OF MULTILEVEL MARKETING MLM is without question controversial. Millions of people are positively disposed toward MLM as judged by the number of MLM distributors and MLM sales. Simultaneously, count- less individuals, through publications, blogs, and Web sites, vehemently criticize MLM. MLM practitioners in particular have been criticized for alleged unethical behavior that includes misrepresenting earning potentials, pressuring friendsand relatives to become distributors or purchase unneeded or unwanted products and services, and using deceptive recruit-ing tactics (e.g., Bloch 1996; Koehn 2001).

As will be discussed, the existence of internal consumption in the context of MLM is viewed by critics of MLM as primafacie evidence of an unethical and perhaps illegal pyramid scheme.

Title:On the Ethicality of Internal Consumption in Multilevel Marketing Source:The Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management [0885-3134] Peterson yr:2007 vol:27 iss:4 pg:317

) 00:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

<-That's a pretty decent summary of the issues, shame we can't just cut and paste it :) It obviously needs rewording and additional sources. I think I have the two sources he cites, as well as many other academic articles, however I haven't read them all yet. At present I'm just trying to clear out the POV and poor sources currently being pushed. --

Insider201283 (talk

) 00:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

As long as we provide a reference and it seem to be a reasonable size quote way can't we directly quote it? I use Carl (2004)'s direct quote from the Western Journal of Communication complete with inline citation after all. Or is it because you have issues with Carter 1999 being part of the direct quote?--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

01:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

(remove indent) Something similar to this was this was kicked around in Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_1#When_does_an_person_become_enough_of_an_expert_that_we_can_used_his_self-published_material.3F. The list provided in that thread regarding Taylor and Fitzpatrick was as follows:

Carl, Walter J. (2002) "Organizational Legitimacy As Discursive Accomplishment in Multilevel Marketing Discourse" Organizational Communication Division of the National Communications Association conference Nov 21-24, 2002. (uses FitzPatrick's book False Profits as a reference)

Carl, Walter J. (2004) "The Interactional Business of Doing Business: Managing Legitimacy and Co-constructing Entrepreneurial Identities in E-Commerce Multilevel Marketing Discourse" Western Journal of Communication, Vol. 68.

Cruz, Joan Paola; Camilo Olaya (2008) "A System Dynamics Model for Studying the Structure of Network Marketing Organizations" Requirements of System Dynamics conference papers for the 2007 conference papers were as follows: "Papers may be submitted from January 2, 2007 to March 26, 2007 and must be in sufficient detail for the referees to judge their meaning and value. Submissions must be in English and should be 5 - 30 pages in length (there is also a maximum 2 MB electronic file size). Abstracts will not be accepted. Submission of models and other supporting materials to enable replication and aid the review process is encouraged in all cases (maximum file size 2 MB in addition to the paper). [...] All works submitted will be assigned for double blind peer review. The results, with the oversight of the program chairs, will determine whether a work will be accepted, and the presentation format for the work."

Higgs, Philip and Jane Smith (2007) Rethinking Our World Juta Academic uses MLM Watch website as well as Fitzpatrick as references. "Juta is respected as South Africa's pre-eminent academic and law publisher".

Koehn, Daryl (2001) "Ethical Issues Connected with Multi-Level Marketing Schemes" Journal of Business Ethics 29:153-160.

Pareja, Sergio, (2008) "Sales Gone Wild: Will the FTC's Business Opportunity Rule Put an End to Pyramid Marketing Schemes?" McGeorge Law Review, Vol. 39, No. 83. ("student-run, scholarly journal published on a quarterly basis" by University of the Pacific)

Terry Sandbek, Ph.D. Brain Typing: The Pseudoscience of Cold Reading Journal of the American Board of Sport Psychology uses both Taylor and FitzPatrick

Woker, TA (2003) "If It Sounds Too Good to Be True It Probably Is: Pyramid Schemes and Other Related Frauds" South African Mercantile Law Journal 15: 237

Wong, Michelle. A. (2002) "China's Direct Marketing Ban: A Case Study of China's Response to Capital-Based Social Networks" Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal

The issue of how much and often someone has to be sited in reliable sources to be considered an expert was never really addressed.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I should mention that the "MLM organizations have been described by some as cults (Butterfield, 1985), pyramid schemes (Fitzpatrick & Reynolds, 1997), or organizations rife with misleading, deceptive, and unethical behavior (Carter, 1999), such as the questionable use of evangelical discourse to promote the business (Hopfl & Maddrell, 1996), and the exploitation of personal relationships for financial gain (Fitzpatrick & Reynolds, 1997)." part is an exact quote of Carl's Western Journal of Communication article and is repeated verbatim (without the inline references) in Phillip G. Clampitt's Communicating for managerial effectiveness 3rd edition (2004) Sage Publications on pg 667. I used the Carl reference as it is clearly more informative--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC).

As an aside - pretty much all distribution is "multi-level" - the point at which "pyramid" becomes inportant is where a significant part of the total revenue is derived from recruiting more marketers. As long as the main interest is in selling a product, it is not a "pyramid scheme." In many fields, by the way, where there are several ;ocal competitors in an industry, one will buy the wholesale amounts to reach price break points, and re-wholesales lesser amounts to his own competitors. The result is that he makes a small profit on each resale (and saves on his own wholesale costs) while the others have a convenient local jobber who is as cheap or cheaper than if they made individual purchases. Collect (talk) 12:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem with this line of reasoning is it is like the one MLM pyramid schemes use ie we're not a pyramid because a corporation is a "pyramid". I would like to point out your counterargument has two major flaws-- 1) in standard businesses all the "local competitors in an industry" usually buy their goods from their own wholesalers and in some cases have an option to return any unsold goods (though in a limited time) and 2) there may be limits on reselling things ie you can't sale your left over Saturns to the competing non-GM dealerships.

Also if you really look, the very concept of MLM encourages you (if you actually want to make money) to recruit downline no matter where in the structure you are. But the longer the downline the more people between the wholesaler and the ultimate customer there are; so how does each and every person in that chain make a profit? Simple basic Business 101 logic would suggest that given the same level of profit the good would become more expensive the more levels it went through ie if you have Wholesaler to A to B to C to D to E to ultimate consumer then the good would be far more expensive for E than for A. Financial & Tax Fraud Associates in its Multi-Level Marketing (MLM) article points out that with the rise of the internet you have the ability to access to wholesalers directly so why would any one really want to mass with a downline?--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, it frankly astounds me that, given the apparent passion you have for editing articles related to this topic, that you apparently haven't bothered to do even a modicum of research into how MLM works. You give 2 points with regards "standard business" and both of those points apply to MLM as well. You purchase products from a wholesaler and have the option to return unsold goods. Indeed, the latter isn't "in some cases", it's virtually a golden rule of MLM! Secondly you have the shockingly misguided belief it's some kind of "endless chain". More than 30 years ago the FTC investigated that aspect and discovered (surprise, surprise) that's not how the business works at all. The number of "links" profiting in MLM is very similar, or less, to in traditional distribution. In traditional compensation plans like Amway, it's limited by volume, the same way it is in traditional distribution. In other MLM setups the maximum number of levels is explicitly limited. In either case "where you are in the structure" is not really a valid question as in a growing organisation that's in a constant state of flux. Read FTC vs Amway for more details. ::Now, you also point out that "with the rise of the internet you have the ability to access to wholesalers directly" and that is indeed a reality for all retailers, not just those using MLM. Yet you're ignoring the dual roles of MLM reps. Indeed, perhaps not even a dual role - you're missing the role entirely. In the past they were a combination of distributor and marketer. Today, with the internet and direct fulfillment, they rarely play the role of distributor - they pay the role of marketing. Even websites need a way to drive traffic to them. The idea "if you build it they will come" was dismissed pretty quickly in the dot com crash. These days MLMers are paid primarily for the role in marketing, not distribution. --

Insider201283 (talk

) 12:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

FTC vs Amway was decades ago and only delt with one company. Also I am pointing out basic Business 101 logic that anyone with good old fashion common sense should be able to see. The door to door salesman is a rare thing these days for a reason--brick and mortar business with mail order catalogs, later malls, and then superstores were more efficient in delivering goods to people. Another part of basic Business 101 is that any business that has a high turn over rate has a serious problem and MLM has one of the highest turn over rates known.

The FTC's plan to require MLMs to abide by the Franchise and Business Opportunities Rule was a good one and yet the DSA fought the idea with a near Viking like fierceness. But why shouldn't people know what their odds of actually making it are?

"Many pyramid schemes will claim that their product is selling like hot cakes. However, on closer examination, the sales occur only between people inside the pyramid structure or to new recruits joining the structure, not to consumers out in the general public." -- Debra A. Valentine, General Counsel for the U.S. Federal Trade Commission regarding pyramid schemes at the International Monetary Fund’s Seminar on Current Legal Issues Affecting Central Banks. And yet despite this the FTC still counts distributors as consumers. Does the left hand know what the right is even doing over at the FTC?!?--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Also you say that MLM's limit the number of levels but how do they do that when in the other breath they talk about recruiting a downline making you more money? The basic logic presented doesn't wash and neither does the cop out that boils down to 'herding cats'. When the system itself encourages such behavior than the system itself is to blame.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

An editor (User:BruceGrubb) on the multi-level marketing article is trying something that to me seems a clear attempt at getting around the spirit of WP policy. A number of the sources he is wishing to use have been rejected as not RS, so he is quoting whole a sentence from an otherwise RS source in order to include criticism from the clearly non-RS sources. The paragraph in question is -

Another criticism of MLMs is that "MLM organizations have been described by some as cults (Butterfield, 1985), pyramid schemes (Fitzpatrick & Reynolds, 1997), or organizations rife with misleading, deceptive, and unethical behavior (Carter, 1999), such as the questionable use of evangelical discourse to promote the business (Hopfl & Maddrell, 1996), and the exploitation of personal relationships for financial gain (Fitzpatrick & Reynolds, 1997)."

Now note that the citations given are not actually listed as citations in the WP article, it's merely a whole quote from (Carl, Walter J. (2004) "The Interactional Business of Doing Business: Managing Legitimacy and Co-constructing Entrepreneurial Identities in E-Commerce Multilevel Marketing Discourse" Western Journal of Communication, Vol. 68 a minor but otherwise acceptable journal.[143] Fitzpatrick & Reynolds, 1997 is clearly referring to the book False Profits, a vanity press book which I listed on RS/N and was rejected as a reliable source[144]. I asked Bruce if the Carter reference was another vanity press book "Behind the Smoke & Mirrors" and his reply was that it didn't matter what the reference was because the quote was from a peer-reviewed journal.[145] He did not reply when I asked what the Hopfl & Maddrell reference was, and the Butterfield reference almost certainly references a 25yr old book about Amway [146] from a collective, non-profit press that actively admits to being committed to "the politics of radical social change" [147] - not exactly NPOV when discussing a multinational business! So, the quote cites 4 sources, two of which are clearly non-RS, one of which is dubious but perhaps allowable, and one of which is of unknown origin. Is this acceptable editing practice?--

) 13:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I'm inclined to say yes. If it is peer reviewed, then the sourcing was acceptable to the peer reviewers for that journal. They could have objected. They are in a much better position than us to evaluate the reliability of those sources. Keep in mind that authors of RS may use many sources we would not find acceptable for WP articles. However, their going through the processes of fact check and peer review clears them of any taint.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

However, a quote needs to say where the quote originated. It can certainly mention the RS, but then say something like "quoting such and such a source".--Wehwalt (talk) 13:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

On what basis do you say that journal editors or reviewers are better placed to evaluate reliability of a source? Editors do NOT check every source an author uses, particularly if they're used for a minor point unrelated to the main thrust of the article or the expertise of the journal (in this case it's a discourse analysis). The logical conclusion of this train of thought is that the opinions (or lack of) of any journal editor or reviewer anywhere trumps Wikipedia policy. That opens a whole new can of worms. --

Insider201283 (talk

) 13:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to add, what you're saying is that if a source, any source, is cited in a peer-reviewed article, then that automatically makes the source RS, which means it should be usable directly. I think that line of thought has been rejected here many times. --

Insider201283 (talk

) 13:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not say that. You can use the RS. We would disqualify RS because they use sources we would not find acceptable for a Wikipedia article? Now that would be a Procrustean bed for scholarship!--Wehwalt (talk) 13:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If you could follow the chain of sources long enough, almost every information would become non-reliable. After all, we clearly can't cite "I spoke to these otherwise non-notable people who claim they were watching it happen, and he said..."; but a New York Times article based on reports of eyewitnesses is often fine, and a peer reviewed scholarly paper collating and analyzing multiple eyewitness reports is the best we could hope for, though in the end, they would be just the same non-notable people who claim to have been watching something happen. The difference is that each step is a filter which, hopefully, would filter out the less reliable information. (Doesn't always work, of course, but it's the best we can do.) --GRuban (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure I agree there. In one case while researching Omega-3 I came across a claim in a newspaper that seemed odd to me. They quoted a journal article, so I got a hold of the article. The journal article did in fact say what the newspaper said, but they were merely citing another article - it wasn't part of their actual study, just part of the introductory discussion. I then sourced the original article and found it didn't make this claim at all - in fact it said the complete opposite. What the newspaper said, and the journal it cited said, was outright false. Should that be ignored when deciding what to put in to Wikipedia? Remember the core criteria is

Insider201283 (talk

) 22:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

First sentence of

Piltdown man, Gleiwitz incident ... --GRuban (talk

) 23:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh I understand that, but that's also an issue of

Insider201283 (talk

) 00:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of your feelings on this matter in this case you have clearly lost the argument as

WP:UNDUE if you look at the majority of what is out there that is not trying to sale the whole MLM idea is already negative. Look at What to sell on eBay and where to get it from 2006 by Chris Malta, Lisa Suttora through McGraw-Hill pg 194-197 for an example; hardly a positive view of MLMs in general. Heck, Tina Grant back in a 1997 book called International directory of company histories, Volume 41‎ by St. James Press said "Nevertheless, Herbalife's distribution network closely resembles the typical multi-level marketing approach — sometimes referred to as a pyramid scheme..." on page 203.--BruceGrubb (talk

) 09:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, the vast majority of info does NOT refer to MLM as "already negative". You cherry pick your sources to make this claim, or take a source like the Walter one here, which is not negative about MLM, but merely refers to the fact some people (citing non-RS sources) make this claim, and then claim it supports you! It's like taking a geology book that says "some people believe the world is flat" and claiming the book supports your idea the world is flat! You're other technique, alas an all too common one in this field, is to immediately dismiss any pro-MLM books or articles based on the fact that they are, well, pro-MLM - so therefore they can't be trusted! Books not about ebay, but about MLM by recognized publishers by professors of marketing at top universities? Unacceptable - the publisher publishes stuff on homeopath too. Though of course, a book on another topic altogether, from the same publisher, that mentions, briefly, something negative about MLM, well that's acceptable! Books by well known recognized professional journalists - actually on MLM not something barely related - nope, not acceptable! He's just trying to sell a book! (well duh!). I could go on and on, but the situation is clear. A sentence or paragraph mention in an otherwise unrelated article does not have as much weight as a whole book or article focused on the topic. A self-published book published by a non-expert does not have as much weight as a third party published book on the topic by an academic. You took unreliable and minor sources, by people with entirely unrelated expertise, and used it to create a whole section on "criticism" that made up something like half the article. And you put it at the top of the article before even describing what MLM (the topic of the article) is! That is not WP:BALANCE nor WP:NPOV. The article needs a section on controversy of this topic. And yes, the confusion in terminology needs mentioning, but your obsession with getting the clearly incorrect (as evidenced by multiple unimpeachable sources on the topic) claim that MLM=pyramid scheme into every article you can is more than tiresome.--

Insider201283 (talk

) 12:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

(remove indent)Come on Insider201283, even a good hunk of the supposedly neutral and pro-MLM stuff call its a "scheme" rather than a "method", "methodology", or even "system" and as I pointed out in the article's talk page "scheme" carries with it some very negative baggage (such as "dodge: a statement that evades the question by cleverness or trickery" or "form intrigues (for) in an underhand manner"). As for multiple unimpeachable sources in the article's talk page you have claimed self-published works weren't (The Business School for People Who Like Helping People by Robert Kiyosaki through Cashflow Technologies which he owns and is president of) and claimed peer-reviewed papers weren't (Cruz) and have been called on the carpet several time for overly pro-MLM editing and even admitting "I have no problems being accused of violating WP:COI - I am." with regards to Alticor/Amway/Quixtar editing on your own talk page and this nonsense seems to be just a continuation of that. You have even challenged The Times by claiming the totally insane statement ""court testimony" is not only a primary source, it's inherently unreliable and extremely POV." despite this was presented by The Times. You are even challenging a direct quote from a peer reviewed paper because you don't like one of the reference they used.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, (1) no it doesn't. You clearly haven't read much of the literature (2) I've said MANY times I don't think the Kiyosaki book is a particularly good source, so why your obsessing about it I don't know. You are also WRONG about it, as you well know, since it's been (a) republished by another company and (b) Cashflow Tech is not considered SPS. (3) Your further obsession with unfounded attacks on me, based on out of context info is quite bizarre. The problem with the Times article was it cited a court case, but the court documents themselves, publicly available, said something different! Are you *really* admitting you want something put in an article that is verifiably wrong? Is that your general approach to editing WP?--

Insider201283 (talk

) 14:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Insider201283, but you clearly stated "The books I've listed are only from recognized publishing companies and not self-published. As such they are considered good sources under Wikipedia guidelines WP:RS and WP:V." in the Talk:Multi-level_marketing/Archive_2#Sources_for_the_article and followed that up with a list of books by such people as Mark Yarnell (who is now selling IE crystals which Dave Touretzky showed have some serious scientific issues) and Kiyosaki (who admits to claiming that his cat is his business partner to get out of contracts). As the old adage goes with friends like those you don't need any enemies.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

discussion is taking place over at the CRU hacking incident article. The editors are quibbling over the reliability of the Times of London. As usual, an uninvolved administrator would go a long way towards toning down the rhetoric.

Just read this discussion and the one below and it was interesting as I just recently had another editor lambast me for rejecting a particular Times article as a source. The reason for my rejection of it was that it was reporting on a court case, and the actual public court documents showed the Times article to be inaccurate. A generally reliable source was clearly not reliable. In another case an editor wanted to use a peer-reviewed article as a source for information outside of the expertise of the author (and the main topic of the article). The article had a number of clear errors that one might expect peer-review to pick up on, but since they were a minor part of the introductory section and outside the area of expertise of the journal it's not surprising they weren't. I come across this type of thing again and again, where ostensibly reliable sources can, using (more) reliable and verifiable sources, be shown to be unreliable on certain facts. I suspect it's ridiculously common with news media these days. While mechanisms are in place to deal with this kind of situation (primarily consensus) it's a cumbersome process and I feel it would be beneficial if wikipedia policies and guidelines more explicitly dealt with this kind of situation - even if just to give guidelines on how to deal with it. --

Insider201283 (talk

) 21:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Please note that Insider201283 is also challenging a direct quote out of the Western Journal of Communication because it cites a paper he doesn't like and saying anti-MLM comments out of Wiley books are not reliable while pro-ones are. He also tried to claim the paper in question was not scholarly and then tried to back track and then tried to again claim it was not scholarly.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, your constant inappropriate and usually misleading

Insider201283 (talk

) 08:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Insider201283, it is not harassment to point out based on your own talk page this seems to be latest in a long history of COI issues regarding either specific MLMs or MLMs in general.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

By "American standards, all British newspapers are tabloids because they don’t distinguish between what is true and what they make up."[148][149] These sources meet

10:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

When the now Conservative party education spokesman, Michael Gove, was asked to defend a complete hatchet job he wrote about a prominent Conservative figure in 2000, he said, "I wrote those words when I was a columnist for the Times and I was paid to entertain… I was paid to entertain and the column was designed to amuse and to provoke."[150] (I heard the interview on the BBC myself, that blog is just the first transcript I found) --Nigelj (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

And your point about an editorial columnist being what? This was not from the "news": “Move over Jim Davidson, there’s an even more high-profile comedian backing the Tories. Let’s give a big welcome to the king of the one-liners, self-made millionaire, self-style [inaudible] Lord, I was just taking the Michael Ashcroft”. This is no more relevant than would be removing a RS based on the the content of it's funny pages or classified ads.99.144.192.23 (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

"The British Newspapers Make Things Up" quote is from a the 'blog' section of psychology today so that makes it a little on the iffy side and letter the Center for Evolutionary Psychology via University of California Santa Barbara printed is aimed just at the Sunday Times of London article not at British news papers in general. I should mention key point missed here is the Times and Sunday Times are two different papers beginning life as The Daily Universal Register (1785) and The New Observer (1821) respectively. Other then now having similar names and being owned by the same company there is nothing that connects the two. Using the Sunday Times to challenge the quality of the Times is on par with saying because Wiley puts out a Living Division (Betty Crocker, Pillsbury, among others) we can't take the InterScience, Plus, Blackwell and Higher Education divisions seriously. They are both non sequiturs.

Also Kanazawa in "The British Newspapers Make Things Up" article states "Most British people consider the Times of London to be the most respectable “broadsheet” newspaper (as opposed to “tabloid” newspapers) in the UK, despite the fact that the Times, along with most British “broadsheet” newspapers, is now published in the tabloid size to make it easier for people to read it in crowded London subways." The problem is Wall Street Journal had plans to go tabloid size overseas in 2005 and this was reported by no less than the New York Times in an article ironically titled "Abroad, The Wall Street Journal Will Be a Tabloid". By this loopy logic we can't trust the oversees version of the Wall Street Journal because it is in the tabloid format. Again this is non sequitur.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The fact remains, as in the opening of this thread, that any source, The Times included, may be shown to be wrong or unreliable on some point at any time, using more specialist sources, or those closer to the original events or facts. If what is found in The Times can be shown to be incorrect or incomplete by other means, then it is not

WP:WEIGHT in the context of the rest of the article. The problem is people cherry-picking such a choice quote and insisting it is given heavy prominence, regardless of the fact that it is easily shown to be wrong or irrelevant in a wider context. --Nigelj (talk

) 14:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. The same kind of stupid blunder that Kanazawa did here which caused him to claim the Times wrote about an interview with him that never happened, when it was actually the Sunday Times that wrote about an interview that never happened, the same blunder can happen in a reliable source. And when we find out about this, or have good reason to suspect it because nobody else reported about the little green men who were seen killing Jacques Chirac on Tienanmen Square, then we simply discard the information. Reliability is not really a property of a newspaper or book or other source. It depends on the actual claim that is being made and on several other, external factors that can usually but not always be ignored. Hans Adler 14:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Any claim that can be found in a reliable publication is verifiable, even if it can be shown to be wrong. Reliability is a property of certain books, newspapers, etc. It means they are usually right, and have a process to control the content of the publication and minimize errors. "Verifiable" does not mean true or correct. "Reliable" does not mean infallible. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

But that means that if a diligent editor were to cast their nets far and wide enough, and pick only the errors from a dozen otherwise-reliable news sources, they could construct whole WP articles that are total tosh, but which have to stand as written because the sources are 'reliable' and all we want here is (simplistic) verifiability not truth? This is not as far-fetched as it sounds as, in the field of climate change, many scientifically-challenged journalists and sub-eds have rushed some absolute howlers into newsprint in recent years, and we have an active crop of anti-science denialists who are desperate to cloud the actual scientific facts in the articles here. --Nigelj (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, although this particular

Sunday Times article seems to be accurate, I have to side with Nigelj on the general issue. We must make decisions on whether a particular reference to a generally-reliable source can be used, based on how they agree with other sources, reliable or not. We cannot reject a source if we know from personal experience that it is inaccurate (much as I'd like to edit my own Wikipedia article), but only if other sources disagree. And we are allowed to use unreliable sources to determine the weight of that disagreement. — Arthur Rubin (talk)

16:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)There is no requirement that material appearing in a reliable source must be included in an article, only that it is not eligible for inclusion unless it appears in a reliable source. Sort of like a job application; a teacher applying for a job must have a teaching license, but that does not mean the school board has to hire every applicant who has a license. Likewise, we can exclude material that appears in a reliable source if many other sources of equal quality, or one other source of clearly better quality, shows the source in question is wrong. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Nicely put. Thanks. So, where in the policy docs does it actually say that? Where can we point people who revert the tosh back in, saying "Undo deletion of reliably-sourced statement"? Clearly we need a well-sourced Talk page discussion that points out the error and the sources used to determine the error first, but we still get, "You can't tell me that my quote from The Times (or X or Y) isn't good enough, they're a reliable source." Where's the pithy policy point? --Nigelj (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The relevant quote is in the upper left corner of every page: "Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia". Encyclopedias summarize the best material from other sources. Even though Wikipedia isn't a paper encyclopedia, and does not need to limit the amount of material for reasons of mass and printing costs, it does need to limit the amount of material in order to serve the purpose of an encyclopedia, that is, to provide readers with a summary that is manageable in size and complexity. That means that the vast majority of material must be omitted. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't really know where so many editors got the idea that newspapers are intrinsically reliable. No matter what the nationality of the publisher, they often disagree with one another on matters of detail. In particular, newspaper reporting of science and medicine is a complete disaster area. --TS 17:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I came across some erroneous information that was reported by a reliable source and came up against strong objections when I suggested it should be removed because it was clearly wrong. I was informed that "correctness" was not an issue, the only concern was verifiability. This is clearly a misinterpretation of the guidelines because surely Wikipedia policy doesn't oblige us to include incorrect information just because it's verifiable through a reliable source. Obviously consensus can easily take care of incorrect information reported by reliable sources: if people don't agree that something should go in, then it doesn't go in; if something is in and is referenced through a reliable source then it doesn't come out unless people agree it should come out. I got around the problem by contacting the authors and pointing out their mistake and it was corrected. But the verifiability section I think should be more explicit in making it clear that verifiabiliy isn't a bullet-proof sole condition for including material, and that it can still be challenged if it can be shown to be inaccurate. It should be made clear that consensus can overrule verifiability. Betty Logan (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Betty, I understand and agree with the point you are making... but not your choice of words. I think it would be more accurate to say that "consensus can, in certain very limited circumstances, over ride verifiability". Blueboar (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar, I think your point is absurd. It is both impossible and undesirable to include all material that meets our verifiability criteria. Omitting sources is the rule, not the exception. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

When you have two or three highly motivated conspiracy theorists, who have just found the 'one true quote' that they think proves their fringe beliefs, it is very hard to establish that what they have there is an editorial oversight, an error, and it must be omitted or we'll skew the whole lede section, for example. --Nigelj (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

A statement in a "reliable source" that is obviously incorrect (because it contradicts more reliable sources) is not verifiable. If The Times reports that overconsumption of jelly babies causes AIDS, we don't consider it to be verifiable just because The Times said it. --TS 20:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Tony is wrong. The policy is that statements that can be found in a reliable source can be considered for inclusion in Wikipedia articles. Verifiable means the statement is actually contained in a reliable source. To say that statements become unverifiable when better sources are found is essentially the same thing as equating verifiability to truth, and only allowing true statements to be in Wikipedia articles. Such reasoning totally rips apart the

WP:V policy. Jc3s5h (talk

) 20:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Concur. Editor's opinions about what is 'correct' or 'incorrect' are completely irrelevent to the questions of verifiability and reliability. Dlabtot (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not wrong. We don't, whatever The Times may say, say that the moon is made of green cheese. Why not? Because more reliable sources say that it is not. If you somehow think that we do decide that something is verifiable just because it's in The Times, you're wrong. --TS 21:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Editorial judgment as to whether particular citations should appear in a given article should indeed be informed as to whether it is contradicted by a preponderance of other reliable sources. But because an item in a source is 'wrong' doesn't mean it isn't verifiable or that the source should be considered unreliable. All sources can be presumed to contain errors. Of course if the errors start adding up, the source develops a reputation for unreliability and would no longer be considered RS. Really we are just arguing semantics here. No one (afaik) is proposing that we should include errors in an article because they can be verified and cited to a reliable source. Dlabtot (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have confused

WP:DUE. Statements must comply with all the content policies, not just one. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 21:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Dlabtot (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, so it might make it into the article on the Times, that they once reported that the moon is made of green cheese, but it almost certainly wouldn't get into the article on the moon, or the one on green cheese. And the judgement is on the basis of

WP:RS are satisfied in all three cases. I just want to get this very clear, as it's not so clear in practice sometimes, especially with inexperienced SPA editors and noisome socks shouting in your ears. --Nigelj (talk

) 21:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's about due weight at all, but how we report it. Of course a newspaper saying something stupidly wrong may pass all due weight arguments, but as noted that doesn't mean we report that the moon is made of green cheese, nor does it mean that the newspaper is a reliable source on the ingredients of natural satellites. To take an apt example, The Times' sister paper the Sunday Times once ran what it claimed, on no less an authority than World War II historian Hugh Trevor-Roper, were extracts from the previously lost diary of Adolf Hitler. Trevor-Roper was wrong, and we certainly wouldn't say now that, just because there are issues of the Sunday Times filled with manifest falsehoods about the supposed Hitler Diaries, the documents were authentic. As soon as the hoax was exposed, that was no longer an option. But note that we mention the hoax, and the newspaper's involvement in it, in the appropriate articles, with due weight. Likewise, if The Times or any other newspaper should come out with some nonsense that contradicts more reliable sources, we would not report it as fact just because it was in The Times. --TS 00:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

"Of course a newspaper saying something stupidly wrong may pass all due weight arguments" you seem to have misunderstood the discussion. That is 180 degrees opposite of the point that was made. Dlabtot (talk) 00:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No, I think Tony's right, it may pass all due weight arguments, as may for example the Hitler Diaries. If the fact of the erroneous reporting itself becomes a notable issue, then it may get a passing mention in all kinds of articles. But in each case it will be described as an error that was made. The problem comes when people want such an error reported as fact, for example because they don't believe in the notability of a small number of rebuttals (even if they actually are of very high quality). --Nigelj (talk) 12:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I hope (almost?) everybody in this discussion agrees that the only thing we fundamentally disagree about is how to use certain words that describe our normal and necessary practice of excluding information which according to common sense shouldn't be included. When we are in an argument, we all have a natural tendency to argue in terms of the policies and guidelines that we have in our minds from previous discussions. Therefore our rules have the tendency to get more and more blurry. E.g. AFAICT it's a standard argument at

21:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Further down the line, it might be easier to quote a string of other RSs that agree that X was wrong about something, but when X first publish it, all that domain experts who 'just know' it's wrong can say is, "Let's wait, WP is

WP:NOTNEWS". Later you may get just one source that contradicts the first (we had one recently with an Oxford don in The Guardian pulling the rug from under a point made on 'Newsnight' from the BBC). Those are cases where it's harder to win the case for what you can see as an grown-up, but can't prove beyond doubt to all Talk-page contributors. --Nigelj (talk

) 21:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

In the instance you cite, we looked at NewsNight and it was obviously a very poor piece. The thought that NewsNight, or their "expert", might be considered to be reliable sources on the matter was never a consideration. The man admitted he'd no idea what the code was for, or its provenance, and those who interviewed him obviously weren't in a position to judge his expertise. The lesson is that news magazines and newspapers aren't good at this kind of thing. They get it wrong far too often to be taken seriously. --TS 00:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think what we're getting close to here is a point that I know usually goes down very badly in WP policy discussions: It is the importance of having knowledgeable people and domain experts involved in constructing and maintaining articles. The argument is often put that everybody should be able to have equal input into any article, that it takes no particular knowledge of the subject matter to gather together a few dozen references from the relevant media and assemble any well-cited WP article. I maintain that this can go wrong as that approach will give little due weight to clarity over confusion, incisiveness over burbling or to fact over isolated or subtle errors in coverage. An experienced domain practitioner will have built-in radar that alerts them to nonsense, bull**** and irrelevancies. Thus they will know when it is time to look further for corroboration or disproof in a way that a 'generalist' editor (let alone a POV warrior) will not. --Nigelj (talk) 12:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hans, your summary sounds right to me. I think that problems sometimes come from cases where a source normally considered RS is seen by Wikipedians as having something wrong, but we have no alternative source to confirm exactly what the facts are. If an RS can be cross checked with a better RS, this makes policy relatively clear. Of course in cases where the information is insignificant, there is an obvious solution of just leaving something out, but where the information is thought to be significant, and there is nothing disagreeing with it in any other RS, my reading of Wikipedia neutrality policy is that it pushes us to include the material, perhaps giving it a low weight etc.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Is a VH1 picture of someone labeled "Sexy Scientologists" a reliable enough source to describe someone as a Scientologist in the Wikipedia article on them?[151] Jayjg ^(talk) 03:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently this is regarding recent edits at Laura Prepon. No, it is totally unacceptable to label a person based on the link you gave. I have no idea how that information was added to the site, but even if it were a reliable source, it is not acceptable to say "X is a Y" based on the joke-like assemblage of photos on some gossip site. If X really is a Y, there will be a better source; if there is no such source, do not make the claim in the article. Johnuniq (talk) 07:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Women's Health Magazine, however, is a fine source. --GRuban (talk) 13:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• No, it's not a RS. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I have run across several articles like these examples that cite the results of a

search to support a claim about the author's work. This seems like original research to me.

• Jakub Chlebowski: "Author of dozens of scientific and research papers in French, German and Polish, and three ground-breaking medical textbooks.<ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Chlebowski%20J%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus</ref>"
• Fereydoun Davatchi: "is the author of more than 100 research articles in international journals and several books in English and Persian.[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_AbstractPlus&term=%22Davatchi%20F%22%5BAuthor%5D]"
• Leonard Horowitz: "Beginning in the early 1990s, AIDS hygiene in dentistry and addressing patient fears about AIDS risks in the dental office became dominant themes in Horowitz's self-published titles and in his peer-reviewed work.<ref>[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Horowitz%20LG%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus "Horowitz LG" (Author) - PubMed Results].</ref>"
• Michael Merzenich: "Dr. Merzenich has contributed to over 232 publications.<ref name="PubMedResults">{{cite web | title = merzenich - PubMed Results | work = PubMed A service of the U.S. National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health | publisher =Department of Health & Human Services: U.S. National Library of Medicine | date = 2003 | url = http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Search&db=pubmed&term=merzenich | doi = | accessdate = 2009-01-02}} </ref>"

Thanks for your input.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 15:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

well, a pub count shouldn't be controversial new thesis or idea so I wouldn't think that is worse than going to census or CIA for a number like population count. The puffery adjectives of course would need to be sourced if encylopedic at all. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

A publication count is suitable material for an article. It does not however prove notability. The evidence that helps much more is seeing if the work is extensively cited by others, which requires a search in Web of Science or Scopus, or at least the sort of approximate search possible in Google Scholar. The way I usually present the evidence is listing the most cited 5 titles--it is also now usual to obtain the h-index, a value of 20 meaning there are 20 articles with 20 or more citations to them. Instead of or in addition to a search for a count in PubMed or the like, the subject's official CV is also an acceptable source. Note that conventionally in most subjects only articles in peer-reviewed journals really counts, not book chapters or conference papers--a count given in an article needs to be actually checked for this. And watch out for terms like several or many or a number of , unsupported by actual numbers or lists. DGG ( talk ) 02:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Pubmed is a reliable source for publication details; but realize it is usually incomplete. Same for similar abstracting services. What you can't use it for is analysis, like "Most experts on subject X believe Y." That would be OR. Zero^talk 09:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

And as in the case of Cheblowski, Pubmed searches are also insufficient for sourcing qualitative claims (i.e. "groundbreaking"). But really, that tid bit is the same for any source, as in "don't say something the source doesn't". Someguy1221 (talk) 10:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

So a better statement would be something like, "As of {some date}, Pubmed indexed {some number} articles by {some author}.<ref>{some pubmed search}</ref>" ?  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 08:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The following scientific article follows all Wikipedia standards related to "reliable sources" but was systematically rejected in the pedophilia article by user User:Jack-A-Roe. It's clear to me that this rejection is because such user do not agree with the content of the article.

Article: "On the Iatrogenic Nature of the Child Sexual Abuse Discourse"

Main link: http://www.unizar.es/riesgo/archivos/1242046186Iatrogenic.pdf

Abstract and info on publication: http://www.springerlink.com/content/k4q25t0332x43865/

The reason given for removing the link does not say the truth and is in fact very weak : "removing non-reliable source; it's not a study, it's an opinion piece expressing a far-fringe view by an author with an agenda, and who is not cited by any researchers".

This can be viewed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pedophilia&diff=next&oldid=347367287

In December 2009, this same reliable source was removed and the issue was debated in the "pedophilia" Talk Page. See "Archive 13", Section 4.2.1 ("Legal issues about the use of the term", "new text", "splitting the text", part 1). Detailed arguments for keeping the source were then presented by user User :Giancarlo32 which were not refuted since then.

Link of the Archive 13 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pedophilia/Archive_13

Transcription of arguments not refuted (section 4.2 .1) posted by (User Giancarlo32) –

« This sounds ridiculous and

to me, but just for the sake of argumentation, I took the time to split the text in four parts: (1) While recognizing the term “pedophile” as pejorative, vague and hackneyed, researchers suggest its replacement with less value-laden and pejorative terms. [152] (see page 11, 2) [153]

(…) This is the Wikipedia policy about reliable sources (see

) : "The most reliable sources are usually peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine, and science."

The article written by Agustin Malón [154]

is a reliable source – because the article is a university-level textbook and is available in the website of a university in Spain (University of Zaragoza, [155]; and because the article was published by a peer-reviewed journal, “Sexuality and Culture” [156]. This is very explicit in the section “Description” of the journal's website, which reads: “This interdisciplinary journal publishes peer-reviewed theoretical articles based on logical argumentation and literature review and empirical articles describing the results of experiments and surveys on the ethical, cultural, psychological, social, or political implications of sexual behavior” (source here - [157].

The journal has an Editorial Board whose members are identified here – [158]. They come from all over the world, including many researchers from USA and others from Germany, Sweden, New Zealand, Canada, Brazil, Hong Kong, Mexico, Austria, France, Australia and Croatia. Therefore this article follows the guidelines of Wikipedia about reliable sources. Giancarlo32 (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the explanation above is enough for me. This article (Malón) is well-referenced according to Wikipedia's rules and policies about "reliable sources" (

WP:SOURCES). AleBZ (talk

) 17:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC) "

(end of transcription; Talk Page - Archive 13)

Please examine the reliability of this source with impartiality, and if you agree with me, explain to User « Jack-A-Roe » that this source is reliable according to Wikipedia’s criteria. If this scientific article is NOT reliable, then NO ONE would be, according to Wikipedia’s criteria on reliable sources. He/She cannot distort the rules or forget them whenever they are more convenient to support his/her point-of-view. If this is not resolved here, I will call for formal mediation. Thank you. AleBZ (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

AleBZ, can you tell us what you want to do with this source? The diff above merely shows it being listed as a second ref for an already adequately supported statement.

Sure: it's a reliable source -- for some things, like "What is the title of this source?" or "What did the author say in the fifth paragraph of this publication?" Just about any source is reliable for some trivial question like that.

Is this a reliable source for "What do experts generally believe and recommend?" Maybe not -- especially if nobody has favorably cited this publication. Is it a reliable source for "What does this single author say?" Maybe so -- but while reliable for the author's opinion, it might not be

WP:DUE. WhatamIdoing (talk

) 18:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The journal is an important reputable scientific journal, and articles in it are usable sources . However, what has been lost sight of is that this article is not a scientific article, at least not in the way English uses "scientific" (some other languages use it as the equivalent of "academic"). It is an academic opinion piece, one that ought o be seriously considered, but it is not actual evidence, except that it is evidence that the view taken in the article is considered within the bounds of academic respectability. DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That's right, the source is an opinion piece, not a study - and it has not been cited by any significant sources. There's a simple reason for the lack of citations: author's opinion is a fringe view that has no scholarly support. As such, it has no due weight for the topic. Also, as noted above, there is already another source supporting the same statement, so there is no need to make a stretch and add a fringe opinion-piece as an extra footnote. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 09:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The article is a scientific paper. It expresses the opinion of the author, but that is true of a great many scientific papers including a large fraction of all papers in the psychological sciences. So there is nothing about the source itself to exclude it from use in Wikipedia. If the opinion in the paper is disputed by other scientific papers, it would be reasonable to qualify it with "According to Agustín Malón, ...". Whether it is appropriate for a particular article is a different question that I have no opinion about, but it absolutely is a Reliable Source. Zero^talk 09:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not been disputed, because it's completely obscure. According to Google Scholar, the article not been cited anywhere. As far as attribution to Malon, his work is also compeltely obscure. He's published three papers in Spanish and none of them have been significantly cited by anyone. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It is a journal article, but it is an opinion piece. Now opinion pieces are not inherently Non-RS, but this one in particular contains several assertions that are so

WP:fringe and poorly-supported I am shocked and saddened as an academic that such a thing ever passed peer-review. This is a relatively new paper and has not been cited anywhere in academia yet as far as I can tell, and it is my prediction that there will either be a tremendous academic backlash with many responses published by other authors, or that it will fade into obscurity with not a single subsequent paper citing it in any meaningful way save the author himself. That's all I have to add about it that has not already been mentioned.Legitimus (talk

) 17:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but where does it say that it's an opinion piece? As far as I can see, its an academic analysis based on previously published works. The journal publishes 3 types of articles: Theoretical, empirical, and book reviews. This looks like a theoretical article, "based on logical argumentation and literature review"[159].The fact that it has not been cited (so far) is not really surprising - it was only formally published last June. None of the 2009-published articles from Sexuality&Culture shows any citations [160]. However, even 2008 and 2007 papers are cited at most 4 times, so this journal seems to have rather low impact. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

As a regular contributor to

talk contribs

18:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

What I mean is that there is no indication that this is an opinion piece (at least I did not find one) and that the journal does not, according to its web page, publish opinion pieces. As far as I can tell this has been accepted and published by a bona-fide academic journal (published by Springer, one of the premier scientific publishers) as a normal peer-reviewed article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

But the opinions expressed in the article are clearly associated with a particular fringe views on the subject, which we know exists, and which people have been trying to push into the wikipedia articles as more important than it really is on pedophilia articles pretty much as long as wikipedia has existed. Thanks,

talk contribs

21:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That neither has bearing on the status of the article as a reliable source nor is it a reason to miss-characterize it as an opinion piece. If you cannot agree on using or not using it on the article talk page,

WP:FT/N can possibly help out. --Stephan Schulz (talk

) 21:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually making sure fringe views are not given undue weight does affect whether we use the article as a reliable source in pedophile articles. Certainly you are right that this should be discussed on the pedophilia talk page with those editors with special interest in and knowledge about the subject rather than here, this whole thread seems inappropriate here to me. Thanks,

talk contribs

21:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Film reference

Is this site reliable for sourcing BLP's? I can't find any information about where their info comes from or who actually writes the articles. Their whois info also lists a Yahoo e-mail address which does not exactly scream "organization known for fact checking". Copana2002 (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not reliable for anything on Wikipedia. Every discussion of it both here and elsewhere on Wikipedia that I know have has always come to that same conclusion. On top of that, it appears to be a site that has been linkfarmed on Wikipedia for free advertising. All such attempts to use it as a reliable source should be removed. DreamGuy (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. That's what I thought from comparing with

WP:RS. Copana2002 (talk

) 21:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Is a media studies book a reliable source for the contents of a news broadcast?

At

. It is a book by Eoin Devereux, entitled Media studies: key issues and debates. In a chapter authored by Greg Philo, on page 126, it states:
The circumstances of this killing were highly contested and became the focus of an extensive propaganda struggle [...] the Israelis issued a statement saying that the boy's death was unintentional. This was reported on TV news as follows:
Israel says the boy was caught unintentionally in crossfire. (ITV, lunch-time news, italics added, 2 October 2000)
The Palestinians rejected his account and stated that the targeting was deliberate. This view appears on the news in an interview from hospital with the boy's father, who is reported as follows:
Miraculously his father survived but his body is punctured with eight bullet holes. 'They shot at us until they hit us', he told me, and 'I saw the man who did it - the Israeli soldier.' (BBC1, main news, 1 October 2000)
The two accounts of the events are therefore opposed, but it is the Israeli view that became dominant on the news. Most significantly, it is endorsed by journalists as the 'normal' account of events. It is referenced not simply as a viewpoint [...] but rather as a direct statement, as in 'the boy was caught in the crossfire'.

I would like to use this source to support the statement: "On October 1, an interview with Jamal al-Durrah aired on BBC1 news. It was reported that Jamal al-Durrah had 8 bullet holes in his body, and that he said, "They shot at us until they hit us [...] I saw the man who did it - the Israeli soldier."

Is this acceptable? Or do I have to track down the original BBC1 broadcast, as SlimVirgin suggests here? Tiamut^talk 23:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Tiamut is trying to insert an unclear source into a featured article,

Muhammad al-Durrah incident, in order to push a POV. It is sourced to a media professor, who is citing the BBC, who according to the media professor cited the father of Muhammad al-Durrah, during an interview on Oct 1, 2000. In other words, the sourcing is very indirect. I've asked Tiamut to cite the original BBC report—they keep their key material online so that shouldn't be difficult. The reason I'm requesting this is that there was one controversial interview conducted with the father on Oct 1 by the Palestinian cameraman working for France 2 who shot the original contested footage of the incident. If this is the interview the media professor is citing—and I believe it was the only interview conducted with the father that day—we need to say that's what it was, because that interview is part of the story. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs}

00:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me Slim, I asked a simple question, and I'd appreciate a simple answer: Is a media studies book a reliable source for the contents of a news broadcast?

I don't agree with your assertion that the Talal Abu Rahma interview, is "part of the story". Its only conspiracy theorists who doubt Abu Rahma's integrity who would cast doubt on Jamal's statement simply because he conducted it. As usual, you've given their views undue weight, both in the article and here at RSN. While you accuse me of pushing a POV, its quite clear where your sympathies lie. Tiamut^talk 10:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Talal Abu Rahma was deemed by the court in France to have credibility issues. He was the person who shot the footage, he was the person who said the IDF had fired the shots, he was the person who said the IDF had targeted the boy, and he was the person who interviewed Jamal the next day. That has been the problem throughout. Such a major news story rarely rests on one person's shoulders no matter how trustworthy they are. Therefore we need to see the BBC report. But we would need to see it anyway. We should never say "X says the Times said," when we can go straight to the Times itself. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 18:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I find this use of sourcing dubious. On the other hand the source provided could, and perhaps should, be used to source a statement along the lines of "The insidence lead to a propaganda struggle in which the israeli viewpoint eventually won out."

Taemyr (talk

) 11:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I checked and the book is published by Sage Publications who according to their web page is the "leading international publisher of journals, books, and electronic media for academic, educational, and professional markets." That combined with the fact the book is a textbook means the book itself certainly seems to fulfill the "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine, and science." requirement of Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources. If a book "Written for undergraduate courses in media and communications and cultural studies; vocationally specific courses such as journalism and PR, as well as for students taking media as part of a wider social science or arts program." by Sage Publications does not quality as reliable source I don't know what does.

I should mention this is why it is so important to tell us who the publisher is as that can help determine reliability.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say an academic textbook is a reliable source. In this context it uses second-hand sourcing which is discouraged in academic circles but still permissable where the original source is not available or difficult to track down, so I don't see why it shouldn't be acceptable on Wikipedia. It's important to make it clear it's a second-hand source though so the citation would look something like this: (BBC1, main news, 1 October 2000 cited in Devereux, year of publication, page number). The Reference section would give the full the reference details of the Devereux book since that's the referenced work. Betty Logan (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Tiamut says that the original source is BBC News, which is easy to track down. We should never say "Someone said the BBC said" when we can easily go to the BBC itself, especially not in featured articles, which are meant to follow best practice. The policy (WP:V) is quite clear on this. When someone challenges a source, as I have done, the burden of evidence lies with the person who wants to add the material. I am challenging the source because I can't find that BBC interview, and I suspect it was not a BBC interview, but one by the France 2 cameraman that the BBC may have (stress: may have) broadcast. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 20:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Slim is raising a very valid point, and I think she makes a legitimate challenge. In order to know if the textbook is reliable (in this specific context), we need to know who conducted the underlying interview. Blueboar (talk) 20:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the passage again I noticed there seem to be two issues here--using a source and interpretation of a source. The passage presented uses two sources (ITV and BBC) and interpenetrates them as follows: "The two accounts of the events are therefore opposed, but it is the Israeli view that became dominant on the news. Most significantly, it is endorsed by journalists as the 'normal' account of events. It is referenced not simply as a viewpoint [...] but rather as a direct statement, as in 'the boy was caught in the crossfire'" The interpretation is nowhere in either the BBC or IVA broadcasts so I don't understand why everyone is saying that going back to either of those broadcasts will help. This would seem to fall under Wikipedia:No_original_research and guidelines for secondary sources is quite clear there.

I should add the idea that "we need to know who conducted the underlying interview" in a Media textbook published by Sage publication is totally insanity and would open the flood gates to every reliable source being subject to this type of challenge. Secondary sources at Wikipedia:No_original_research is quite clear on this: "Articles may include analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source." It not like Tiamat is saying a ...For Dummies book is possible reliable simply because it came out of Wiley but rather that a Sage Publications publication that is a textbook in Media Studies is a reliable source regarding the handing of a media event. I have to ask WHY IN THE NAME OF SANITY ARE WE EVEN DEBATING THAT?!?--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The statement you refer to is what the book says, so NOR does not apply. However the source is not beeing used to claim that there was some controversy in reporting. In the article it is beeing used to give the impression that the shooting was intentional.

Taemyr (talk

) 02:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above. If the passage was to say that, there is a dispute over this incident and that the boys father claims to have been shot X times, then it would be RS. It is not it is being used as a source for one side of the debate, cherry picking.Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but its a fact that it is the fther's view tht he was shot by an Israeli soldier. And its the view of Palestinians that they were shot by Israeli fire. That's a significant POV that should be represented in the article. Other people's opinions as to who shot them are mentioned. I see no reason why theirs should not be. That's not cherry-picking, that's providing balance per NPOV.

I do intend to use the source to propose that the narrative and counter-narrative issue also be represented. One thing at a time though, since that page is subject to editing restrictions. Every edit that is to be made must be proposed on talk first and gain consensus. So what I'm trying to establish here, before going any further is: Is this a reliable source for the information it presents? Which parts should be used and which should not be is a discussion for the talk page. Tiamut^talk 21:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't use a media professor's statement to source the fact that the father felt he was under fire, he is not a reliable source for that. However there is no need for indirect sourcing here. The interview with the father is a primary source, but it can be used to source a statement like "the father felt the fire was deliberate".

Taemyr (talk

) 05:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Obviously, the BBC, ITV, and "Media studies: key issues and debates" are all reliable sources. Dlabtot (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but they are reliable sources for different things.

Taemyr (talk

) 05:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#RfC:_Using_the_National_Science_Foundation_as_a_reference

Please weigh in THERE on whether a statement by the National Science Foundation is a reliable source to use as an illustration for a portion of an ArbCom statement used in the NPOV policy. This is especially important for members of the Arbitration Committee, since it relates to an ArbCom ruling. Please do not discuss this here.

Before proceeding, please read the short RfC which preceeded this one and layed the groundwork for it. (I wouldn't start an RfC if I didn't feel there was some chance of succeeding ;-) --

) 08:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

BullRangifer in perfect Berlusconian manner is trying to introduce innocently-sounding

legislation

designed to give him leverage in his own petty disputes.

The NFS is a US government agency. Sure, it can be referenced for whatever it is worth. There is no need to introduce specific instruction certifying that the NFS may be used. Where is this going to lead? An exhaustive list of certified

WP:RS

?

No, this does not "relate to an ArbCom ruling", BullRangifer is just trying to inflate the importance of his campaign at

dab (𒁳)

16:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You obviously haven't done your homework. If you'll look at the discussion at NPOV, you'll see that this quote is exactly the type of thing that grouping number two describes, so it's the perfect ref for that grouping. That wording happens to be from the Psi ArbCom.

Dbachmann, I'm rather surprised that an admin would comment here after reading the clear instructions above: Please do not discuss this here.This is an announcement, not a place to discuss this matter. The RfC is not being held here. Your adminship is already hanging on a thread at the moment as all your actions of late are being collected as evidence of repetitive disruption. I suggest you follow the instructions and keep your comments for the RfC. END OF DISCUSSION. --

talk

) 00:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Open Carry in context outside the United States

I am not sure this is the right place to ask this question, if not please point me to the correct place. I was just looking at the sourcing of this section in the Open Carry article:

) 16:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It could perhaps have gone to the NPOV noticeboard, but you will also get comments here. I agree with what you say about sourcing and synthesis. I'm wondering whether the easiest solution is to merge the article with

Gun law, with some detail perhaps going into the relevant articles on gun legislation in the USA. Itsmejudith (talk

) 17:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, "open carry" is a US term, but the concept of carrying a firearm ( especially a pistol ) that isn't concealed certainly exists around the world. Is it really a problem if some of the sources use a different wording? Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello everybody, we have a problem in Cham Albanians page. There is a source put in the page, by some contributors, which lacks references and bibliography, i.e. it is completely just a work by the author but with no references in it. The direct question is as follows: Can a source that has no references and no bibliography in it, be a secondary reliable source?Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The above mentioned source provides lots of references. For example on page 40, 41, 42, 58, 62 actually there are refs almost in every page.Alexikoua (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sources don't need to provide their own sources. It certainly helps, but it isn't required. For example, most newspapers are considered reliable secondary sources, but most do not cite their information. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

There are at least 200 articles linking to musicianguide.com, which has been deemed unreliable through past discussions such as this. Start removing now. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Banning a website from Wikipedia needs more discussion than that. Start an RfC, or point me to an archived one. Binksternet (talk) 04:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine. If everyone's gonna complain about it... Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I posted the following on user Jayron32 talk page, I should have come here instead. I am editing the list of documentary films, which includes such infomation as year; director; producer, I have been using IMDB as a source for that information, before I continue I really need something in writing stating IMDB is O.K. for such information (basically needing the nod a approval) for this list.--intraining ^{Jack In} 10:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Please ignore the above, I have read various discussions regarding IMDB. While I would side to IMDB be fine for year;director;producer. I also think that offical websites or realiable sources would be much better. I have already started replacing IMDB references.--intraining ^{Jack In} 12:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

IMDB has been discussed before, here for example. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It is reliable for information about a film; it is not reliable for establishing a film's notability (since they attempt to list every film). Dlabtot (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like some clarification on this one - clearly, I know where I stand, but out of respect to the other editor I thought some other opinions may assist. As a quick bit of background:

.

The dispute concerns whether or not the rescued koala was the same koala as the one given water, and whether or not the original photo was a set up. There has, as far as I can tell, been no media coverage discussing these claims (based on a search of NewsBank and Google News). However, after a trademark dispute, the individual defended the trademark raised them, and this led to an article in the Australasian Journal of Herpetology (AJH) which claimed that the whole thing was a conspiracy, with a deliberate set up using a tame koala in the photo, and a different koala being rescued later. It makes further claims, but these are not currently being added to the wikipedia article. It is this article and journal that is in dispute, and this appears to be the only source offered (other than a press release and a YouTube video by the author) making these claims.

The journal is not an academic work, and it is owned, published, edited and entirely written by the same person, Raymond Hoser, a professional snakecatcher and amateur herpetologist, who nevertheless has some significant published works outside of the AJH. The journal does claim to be peer reviewed, though. I have a number of concerns covered in the article's discussion:

• The journal is self published.
• Although the journal claims to be peer reviewed there are no details on who conducts the peer review, only that it is restricted to "factual correctness and quality control".
• As the article in question is written by the editor, owner and publisher, I'm not sure if the peer review standards could apply.
• The journal and author do not appear to have any academic credentials, although how much this matters may be debatable.
• The author appears to be an expert in herpetology, and the journal is supposedly focused on such, but the article is about koalas.

The editor, on the other hand, argues that:

• The journal is peer reviewed.
• The evidence in the article is very strong (indeed, the editor argues that the claim that there are two different koalas should be obvious to anyone inspecting the photos provided in the work).

I guess my major concern is that the idea that the claims that the editor wishes to add are extremely strong, as they speak to deliberate misconduct and fraud by those involved. And thus my assumption is that the sources need to be equal to that. I have requested other sources to support these claims, but so far none have been offered, so the question comes down to the reliability of the journal. Obviously, I don't think it is reliable, but I'd like to be fair and bring it here. - Bilby (talk) 13:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

No references to the Australasian Journal of Herpetology are found in Google Scholar. A turn-around time of 4 days (received 8 Feb, published 12 Feb), and acceptance of 2 days (Accepted 10 Feb) has the appearance of critical peer review against it. Writer, editor and publisher being the same person does not make this journal a reliable source. Wikipedia policy (

WP:RS

) states: "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications." and "self-published media [...] are largely not acceptable".

Although the evidence provided in the article may be "very strong" according to the author (second argument), the fact that it has not been written about in other sources indicates that the fact itself is not enough to be included in the encyclopedia.--Rwos (talk) 10:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Not an academic journal, and one person seems to be author of all the articles (true?). Therefore: self-published source. Author and editor has a history of making accusations of official corruption and getting into trouble over it, see his page. Dubious source. Zero^talk 11:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The journal seems to exist to primarily (solely?) promote the views of the editor, that a respectable herpetology journal should publish conspiracy theories about koalas sounds bizarre. Agree with all above points, not reliable source. Glumboot (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that - it helps a lot. Especially the turnaround, which I failed to notice. Hopefully it won't come up again, although I suspect it will, but it it is good to see that I wasn't badly out in my assessment. - Bilby (talk) 04:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

There are 300+ links to Musician Guide on Wikipedia. I truly believe that this is not a reputable source: there is no editorial policy; we don't know the writers' credentials, if any; and Domain Tools shows that it's apparently hosted out of someone's house by someone with a Gmail address. A few times, I have found information in Musician Guide that I have not been able to back up anywhere else (for instance, that James Bonamy's first single was withdrawn because the label thought there were "too many dog songs").

There was also a previous RSN discussion, one GA discussion and two FA discussions:this one (the grey "issues resolved" tab) and this one wherein the reviewers decided that Musician Guide is not reliable, so I took that as a weak precedent, but a precedent just the same. I boldly started removing the links, but had no fewer than three editors to complain to me about removal. So that's why I'm asking now: Is this a reputable source or not? (Post script: Yes, the site does show its sources, but wouldn't it be better just to use those sources instead of all the info that Musician Guide regurgitates questionably from the same?) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

According to whois, it is hosted by amazon.com, and it seems to be pointing visitors to Amazon. So it appears to be a marketing ploy by Amazon to drum up business. Its reliability is unclear, though one would suppose that Amazon would be worried about lawsuits for defamatory information emanating from its site. Crum375 (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide an occurance of this site being in factual error, of being promotional in nature or extreme in it's view? Is so please provide a link of what fits the criteria.

SunCreator

15:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Promotional? Check the listing for Bill Gaither. All the links for albums point to Amazon. Also, the lead of each article provides a large amount of contact info (label's website & address, fan club, etc.). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Those Amazon.com links are not what Wikipedians are using for their references—they are not part of what makes the page reliable or not. I have two problems with musicianguide.com and they are:

• No inline cites. All the references are listed at the bottom, and facts in the article are not traced directly to their origin. The references are largely solid ones, very reliable, and various musicianguide.com authors write from them in various ways, yielding a continuum of straight across reportage to fanciful creative writing. Some articles are reliable, some are not.
• Opinions given by article authors may be their own original research, offered by non-notable writers.

Both of the above complaints are not true across the whole musicianguide website. I think each article must be evaluated on its own merits. Binksternet (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

After the discussion above about deltoid blog and how it had been used as a ref in multipile articles i noticed another blog desmogblog has also been used as a ref in multipile articles. The ones i have looked at so far are opinion pieces written by various authors, I have removed a few of these per

) 15:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• No. Clearly a POV pushing source. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, should i remove such ref`s from articles now? Or do we wait to see if others have an opinion on this?

talk

) 11:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I have been asked to expand on this. The ref is to a .pdf which is hosted on that blog, it is apparently for convenience. However as there is noway to verify if the transcript is as said (from a newsnight show) without getting into

talk

) 16:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not a neutral source, but I see nothing to indicate that is isn't a reliable source for the opinions of Jim Hoggan and its other contributors. Guettarda (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

And why is the views of a pr guy reliable? One with a POV to push? Why would you say hoggan is ok as a source but not. hmm lets say, Antony Watts? Would you accept him as a reliable source? The pov of a pr guy is not

talk

) 00:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That's another question altogether - one of notability, as in why should be care about Hoggan's opinion, or Grandia's opinion, or anyone else's. And the answer there lies with the fact that Hoggan is "Chair of the David Suzuki Foundation, an executive member of the Urban Development Institute and Future Generations and a Trustee of the Dalai Lama Centre for Peace and Education", Grandia is a columnist for HuffPo and a contributor the Guardian's Environment blog. DeSmogBlog has been cited by Revkin's on his NYTimes blog, by Monbiot on his blog at the Guardian, been cited at HuffPo, and attracted passing mention from the Knight Science Journalism tracker, which is the gold standard of science journalism. As for Watts - IMO, his blog is a reliable source for his opinion, as well. Obviously. Guettarda (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Quick search of LexisNexis shows reference to DeSmogBlog from the (print, not blog) versions of the NY Times (Business/Financial desk), the New Zealand Herald, the Toronto Star and the Guardian. Guettarda (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Watts has been mentioned in The FT fox news The Guardian The Telegraph So by your reasoning he is a reliable source right?

talk

) 00:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Mark, it appears to me that you're coming to this forum seeking blanket permission to remove any and all uses of certain websites (i.e., scienceblogs.com/deltoid, above; desmog blog, this thread; exxonsecrets, a few threads below.) That's not what this forum is for, and it's because it's almost never as simply as "source XYZ is always/never an acceptable source." I doubt really doubt you'll find consensus for such a broadly formulated "ruling". But if you bring some specific examples to this forum, then I bet there will probably be consensus as to whether it's an appropriate source in those specific cases. And maybe that consensus will be that desmog isn't a reliable source in those cases, but that won't mean it can never be used, and it certainly wouldn't give you license to go around blindly removing everything link to it. Yilloslime ^T_C 00:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You are mistaken, i did not bring deltoid to this board. And it can`t be a

talk

) 00:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was wrong about scienceblogs and have struck that from my comment above. But the rest of my comments still stands and is relevant. Yilloslime ^T_C 01:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• I agree that it is a POV-pushing (i.e. advocacy) source, but I think evidence has been presented that it may be used, with attribution, as a source of opinion. I would suggest that an article be started on it, using the sources Guettarda has mentioned, then whenever it is used in an article that it read something like, "According to Jim Hoggan in his
  DeSmogBlog..." Cla68 (talk
  ) 01:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. Cla68 (talk

) 06:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Salon.com

Hello. I have a question about whether Salon.com is reliable on the cultural and queer theorist Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick. An article is here:[162]. Note that I would have thought there would be no reason so suspect that this is not a reliable source, but I wish to confirm that. Thank you. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 02:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks reliable, but that article is mostly a review of her autobiographical book, so most of its contents should probably be cited to the book rather than the review. What's the fact that needs to be cited? --GRuban (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not the type of request that usually appears on this noticeboard, but the issues with the sourcing in a particular article, Pan-Arabism, are simply to numerous to list here. Each of the sources used in the article (as of a few days ago) are listed in the talk page, here. A large number of random websites and editorials are used to proclaim that pan-Arabism is Nazism, fascist, racist, and among the worst evils in the world. Attempts to discuss the sources have largely been ignored. Would anybody who watches this noticeboard take a look at the sources and help us determine what is and what is not acceptable. nableezy - 07:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a quick look, but you may need to post source by source. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Having had the quick look I agree that the sourcing is very poor in some places. For the historical bits it should be easy to find good scholarly accounts. Any sections on present-day ideology are going to be harder to write, because as I understand it, Pan-Arabism is a much less important current than it once was, and people/governments are suspected of it rather than openly adhering to it. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

And the history is out of chronological order. There is no clear exposition of what Pan-Arabism is. Doesn't it have different varieties? If so, they should be explained. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It does indeed, working on getting quality sources for that. But so much of the article right now is based on unreliable sources and any attempt to remedy that is quickly reverted. nableezy - 18:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This site appears to have been used as a ref in a fair few articles, however when i look at the webpages about us i see it was set up by three guys who as they say, Media Lens is a response based on our conviction that mainstream newspapers and broadcasters provide a profoundly distorted picture of our world. We are convinced that the increasingly centralised, corporate nature of the media means that it acts as a de facto propaganda system for corporate and other establishment interests. The costs incurred as a result of this propaganda, in terms of human suffering and environmental degradation, are incalculable This appears to me to be a selfpublished opinion site and does not seem to meet the criteria of

) 11:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The times calls it " a campaign group that undertakes press monitoring from an anti-war, anti-corporate perspective. Tackling left-liberal UK publications including The Independent and The Guardian, and public service news providers, it contends that the "best" British news providers are not to be trusted."[163] I'd say reliable only for the opinions of editors Edwards and Cromwell. --Glumboot (talk) 14:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Pilger is a better source for that, but I'm not sure Esler's eulogy or Pilger's criticism of it merit that much coverage--or any at all. My search didn't turn up the Esler article in the Daily Mail, but I did find a piece in the Scotsman by Esler (Feel-good president who made Americans smile again, June 7, 2004) which does confirm that Esler held Reagan in high regard. However it does not contain the words currently attributed to Esler. Those words appear to be attributed to a live commentary on Newsnight, and there may be no relevant transcript. As often happens here, I think the question is really one of due weight: while Esler's eulogy may merit coverage in itself, one has to ask does all this blog comment by Pilger, etc, amount to much? It sounds like somebody's spurious attempt to "balance" Esler's own commentary. --TS 14:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Tony, has your mobile posted in the wrong spot again? None of the people you mention above have anything to do with medialens?

talk

) 15:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I dismiss medialens as a usable source in the first sentence. The rest of my comment discusses the wider question of how we're to report Esler's comments, and to that end I supply a reliable source (an article by Esler published in The Scotsman which is possibly a reprint of the one in the Daily Mail) for Esler's comments and then mention that due weight is also a consideration here. Please don't try to be cute. --TS 15:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Tony, what are you on about? I ask if medialens can be considered a reliable source, you respond by posting a link to an article written about ronald reagan by gavin esler who has noting to do with medialens. How do you think i`m being cute?

talk

) 15:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Any chance of some more feedback on this? There is an editor who is insisting it may be used as a reliable source if it is attributed to medialens, even if there are blp violations on said website

talk

) 08:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is the specific context of the Medialens reference, it is in a section called "Other reactions", and it is specifically attributed as opinion:

In March 2007, media watchdog website

Medialens published a refutation of Durkin's film describing the work as "Pure Propaganda^[4]

While there may be weight issues surrounding this line, i would contend that it is neither an RS or BLP violation (as Mark states). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Using it in this form, directly attributed, does not pose a policy violation. Unomi (talk) 09:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

This site [164] appears just to be a newswire service for religious organisations , so I guess that it's reliability depends on each particular org? A specific release from the Coptic American Friendship Association [165]is being used in the Nag Hammadi massacre to support some strong statements - "government protection is almost non existent for the Copts and the law is usually not enforced on the Muslim perpetrators." and "eye-witnesses reported that the mob was chanting "Allah Akbar" and "No God except Allah" while destroying, looting and torching Coptic property in many recent attacks". These statements were originally being attributed direct to the newswire service ( not added by me!), I changed it to reflect the CAFA origin but now I'm thinking that this isn't a good enough source. ANy thoughts thanks --Glumboot (talk) 12:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Well for the no government protection tell him to use this one [166] It is

talk

) 13:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Another

talk

) 13:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Cheers - the sydney herald link looks to be an opinion piece, I'm not sure that would be good enough for statements of fact. I 'm now thinking that human rights NGOs are going to be best or reports in respected journals.--Glumboot (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

In

. I mean, sure, anyone can publish a blog, but not just anyone can post an article on psychologytoday.com. Now, I will concede that the fact that the article on psychologytoday.com cites wikiquotes is a problem. Does that mean that psychologytoday.com is not a reliable source, that just that particular article is not reliable (even though the rest of the website may very well be) or could the psychologytoday.com article be a reliable source regardless?

) 07:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Appears a clear form of circular sourcing. The blog bases its statement ("probably" to be attributed to Rita Mae Brown) on the note made in wikiquotes. The wikiquote only states that it is the first time that the statement appeared in print (unsourced statement), not that the statement can be attributed to Rita Mae Brown. Thus, the statement in the wikipedia article is based on an unsourced statement in wikiquotes (mis-interpreting the note on the wikiquotes page). In this context, the quoted source (Psychology Today) is not reliable. Rwos (talk) 08:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Video game website

as to whether the articles are reliable enough for character reception as all of them are in IGN's FAQ section, in which the majority of the content is user-submitted and may not have been editorially scrutinized, though the author's status as a member of IGN's staff has been acknowledged on the same account and the content was advertised at least twice during its run by notable staff members such as Craig Harris. In addition the articles are being used only for the author's own opinions, which is the backbone of a reception section's concept as a whole.

So where do they fall on the matter of reliability for reception?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

All I can tell you here is (1)

WP:RS sources as an expert.) Just my opinion.--Arxiloxos (talk

) 21:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikinews... is our consensus outdated?

Please opine at

) 22:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Student academic research paper

Is a student academic research paper, completed as part of the requirements for

? Of particular interest to me is the information on page 11,

Out of a total of 392 Palestinian villages and cities from which their inhabitants fled, only six were emptied because of orders from Arab leaders. 221 Palestinian villages were emptied as a direct result of Jewish military assaults; 51 more were expelled by Jewish forces (not through direct assaults, but by other means); 54 were drained because of the influence of a nearby Palestinian village’s fall; 43 others were cleared simply because of Palestinian fear; and 14 were evacuated as a result of a whispering campaign by the Jewish forces (Ibid, 2004, p.xvi).

This is a summary of the findings in Benny Morris's 2004 work on the Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem. There, Morris lists the causes for the emptying of each Palestinian village individually. What the author of this research paper has done is add up the totals for each type, providing (for the first time that I've seen), numerical totals for each type in summary.

What I would like to know is if this information can be introduced to our articles on this subject citing the academic research paper. If that is unacceptable because the source is not considered RS, is it permissible to use Morris' listing and tally up the total ourselves, citing his work directly. Or would that constitute

23:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Benny_Morris#Selected_book_summaries seems to give different numbers.

Student papers are generally not the best sources, especially for controversial information. Whether it's acceptable depends in part on how you present it. One idea that you might consider is a kind of 'double citation': you got the information from "Student, Sally 'My Thesis'" who relied on "Morris, Benny 'My Book'". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

In general, whether the paper was authored by a student or not is irrelevant. What matters is the venue in which the paper appeared. Wikiant (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You can add Morris's totals yourself. Simple arithmetic isn't OR. Try and find a wording that makes it clear that Morris didn't do the addition, e.g. "when added together, Morris's accounts come to...". Itsmejudith (talk) 10:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

We should not use student papers. Find it in a reliable source or don't use it. DreamGuy (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that the point to be made here is to not use the student paper as a source in itself. However, it is acceptable to follow up on the student paper’s sources and use some of those sources, and the information contained therein, once you have (i) verified the correctness of quotes contained in the student paper that you want to use by comparison to the sources themselves, and (ii) determined that the student’s source satisfies

WP:RS. — SpikeToronto

21:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: The paper in question was done while the author was a Visiting Defense Fellow at the

WP:RS. — SpikeToronto

22:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Ancestry.com

Ancestry.com [171]. Can it be a considered reliable source, and if so to what extent? Specifically, I'm interested in using some info from here [172]. I realize they're a private (for profit, I think) company, with some (weak) association with the Church of LDS but from what I know of them they do quite impressive genealogical research to the extent that sometimes even academic researchers rely on them. Thoughts?

) 02:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the question of who authored the bio you want to use is more important than the fact that it is hosted on ancestry.com. Do we know who the author is? Blueboar (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The article in question seems to come from the rootweb section of Ancestry, which is basically user-generated content, people researching their family history and so on. So it's unlikely to be a reliable source for our purposes. Other parts of of Ancestry host large amounts of primary material in licensing agreements with the the likes of

The National Archives. They are a reliable publisher of that sort of data, though of course as primary sources we must be cautious in using it. David Underdown (talk

) 16:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

David's take on this sounds right to me. Blueboar (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense to me too. Thanks.

talk

) 00:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed an editor who is removing references to an unreliable source wholesale. I personally think that this is damaging, because it will leave a whole lot of unsupported statements in the articles. I guess I'd like an opinion: is it better to remove an unreliable reference and leave the unreliable statements, or is it better to leave both, and remove both with more care at a later time? cojoco (talk) 04:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

As the editor in question, I'll describe what I did. I noticed that a website dismally failing

WP:RS was used in lots of articles (I think about 60-70 of them). (1) In the case where a statement had an additional citation as well as the unreliable citation, I just removed the unreliable citation. (2) In the case where a statement had only the unreliable citation, I replaced the unreliable citation by a "^{[citation needed]}" tag; except in a very few cases (I think only 2 cases) where the statement struck me as dubious or inflammatory, in which case I removed both the statement and the citation. Clearly this method is not perfect, with errors possible in both cases (1) and (2). However I think it is reasonable as a first step when a unreliable source is used in lots of places. Since I deleted article text only in the 2 extreme cases, the information necessary for completing the fixing of the articles is still visible. The next step, with the help of my fellow editors, is to find better citations and/or check that the remaining citations are reliable and support the text. In general I think we need to be careful to not impose too much on the time of editors who are trying to fix articles. For example, even though it would have been lovely to bring each of these cases to the relevant talk pages for discussion first, in practice it would have taken impossibly long and I would have done nothing at all. Zero^talk

07:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe that people fact-check references on WP very rarely, and even more rarely when a cited reference is not contentious. If a contentious reference is removed, then I reckon that the chances of anyone checking that section in the future will drop to approximately zero. I'm certainly not accusing you of bias, as I can't even decide myself whether this reduces the influence of an unreliable source, or increases the likelihood of incorrect statements from that source remaining on WP. However, because this kind of removal removes the link between a statement and its reference, I can see a lot of junk accumulating in these articles in the future. Sadly, I believe that reducing editing time sometimes comes at the expense of reducing editing quality. cojoco (talk) 10:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The process of removing unreliable references does smack of

talk

) 12:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I suspect you guys aren't familiar with the Israel-Palestine conflict related area of Wikipedia.

WP:NPOV. A source is not an RS by default and this source cannot be considered an RS by default. Have you even looked at it ? Pretty much everything is contested in this area and people are checking articles and sources frequently. There's POV pushing/advocacy, editors waging endless politically motivated battles and widespread use of unreliable sources like this for factual information. There has even been coordinated external campaign to influence the content of articles by CAMERA. Zero is addressing policy non-compliance. That is exactly what editors are expected to do and it's particularly important for articles covered by the sanctions. Sean.hoyland - talk

13:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Well I agree. If all this topic area is contentious then editing wants to be done with considerable caution. If there has been a reference in an article and it's now removed without seeming discussion on the talk page or edit summary this is a possible cause for conflict; hence my recommendation above to link from the edit summary to where consensus was reached on the source being unreliable. Regards,

talk

) 15:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

To SunCreator: With respect, I believe you are not stating policy correctly. At

forbidden. Finally, editors have to decide on the reliability of sources all the time and have the right to make good faith decisions without discussing them first. Discussion is only required if other editors seek to discuss it, like now. Zero^talk

13:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

My above post had the caveat 'if the material is not contentious/challenged'. A different set of material is found in the

talk

) 15:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hold on... if this is about CAMERA then you need to know that this source has been discussed multiple times on this notice board. Please look through the archives and read these discussions. My take... There is by no means a clear consensus as to CAMERA's reliability or its unreliability. It remains a hotly debated issue. As such, it is very inappropriate to make blanket removals of information citing it. Each individual citation needs to be examined and discussed, with close attention paid to the context of exactly how it is being used: what specific article it is being used in, and what exact statement it is being used to support. What consensus there is, seems to indicate that it is sometimes reliable, and sometimes unreliable... and determining which is which depends on context. Blueboar (talk) 15:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It isn't. It's about palestinefacts.org. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah... thank you for clearing that up. Yes, I would agree that Palestinefacts.org is not a reliable source. No indication that it is anything but a personal website. I would suggest, however, that a blanket removal is the wrong way to approach this. Better to address the situation one article at a time. Blueboar (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. If a source is not reliable, it's not reliable period, except as to whether it discusses itself. Removal of unreliable sources is a net plus for the encyclopedia. Woogee (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Bad sources are bad sources, and when they are removed with either another source left there or tagged as needing a source there is absolutely no downside at all to removing them. DreamGuy (talk) 21:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi I have a group of friends who run Claps and Boos, a Tamil/Indian Movies rating website, www.ClapsandBoos.com. Some of the folks who run this website are working as Journalists and some of them are involved in Movie making (Short Films, Documentaries), as a passion. This is a completely self funded venture and we do not publish fake news or fake reviews. We are similar to Rottentomatoes in that we collate user reviews and ratings and present an aggregated score/rating. We also have some technicians in the industry who give us interviews and some content like Pictures and Posters of movies. Senior editors in Wikipedia have been black marking this website classifying that as a fan site. They told me that only Admin users can determine the admissibility of the website. They have been accepting other websites which have been known to put up fake news, just for getting hits and they also have Pop-Ups and Malware being launched. http://clapsandboos.com/ http://clapsandboos.com/about Interview with a Tamil Movie director: http://clapsandboos.com/mindspeak/in-conversation-with-director-vishnuvardhan Interview with another director: http://clapsandboos.com/mindspeak/selvaraghavan-speaks-claps-amp-boos-special http://clapsandboos.com/mindspeak/gautam-menon-on-life-after-vinnai-thaandi-varuvaya-

I posted my question in the admin and was redirected here. Please let me know how we could work to become a reliable source?

Develop a reputation for fact-checking and reliability - something that can be demonstrated by citations to you in already established reliable sources. Dlabtot (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi D1abtot, When you say fact checking, we can only show the veracity of our news articles - and when you mean already established reliable sources - if you mean other review sites, then it is going to be difficult because they are our competitors. Which was why I have been trying to prove in Wikipedia articles as to how often our ratings have mirrored the existing reviews and collections for each movie. Karthik Sriram (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Also we were the first to post the poster for a Tamil movie called KO - None of the other websites have been able to get it. I feel I'm going around in circles!! Karthik Sriram (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, being a reliable source does generally mean getting a reputation. That means other reliable sources treating you like you are a reliable source. Yes, it is a Catch-22 of sorts. The good news is that if you keep doing what you say you are doing, getting interviews with directors, and various exclusives, presumably eventually newspapers and magazines will start citing your site. The bad news is that it's not a quick process, you can't jump-start it, you have to wait for them to take notice of you. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - if you don't immediately think of slow and stodgy when you think of the word encyclopedia, you should. :-) --GRuban (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

GRuban, Thanks for the response. Okay - so as long we update news items with news that we have that should be fine right? I agree that for reviews we have to build credibility and reputation. But for movies we get exclusive content and so would like to share them - especially since we are getting it from the industry sources? Would that be fine?

No, it won't work. Get credibility first then Wikipedia will start using you as a source. In the mean while I would suggest you grow your credibility Google news is one possibility to consider. Regards,

talk

) 22:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

.

I tried explaining on

talk

) 03:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

(This comment by

) 07:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC))

Regardless of whether Seth Frantzman was right or wrong, I'm not sure how an opinion column by "a PhD student in geography at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem [who] runs the Terra Incognita Journal blog" constitutes a reliable source for anything other than a statement of his opinion.

Worth noting that he appears to edit Wikipedia as

single purpose account). ← George ^talk

07:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Opinion piece or not, it has been published in the Jerusalem post, a high quality and high profile reliable source. The statement that is questioned is not an opinion, but a fact that is either unambigously (more or less) true or false. The question is whether we can trust the Jerusalem Post and whether the Jerusalem Post has a reputation for fact checking. That should clearly be the case, so I do not see a reason to dismiss this on the grounds that it is published in the editorial section of the Jerusalem Post. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 10:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

What leads you to conclude that it should clearly be the case that JPost fact check the opinion pieces they publish ? They publish opinion pieces by all sorts of people who make all sorts of claims ranging from people like Daniel Pipes to the head of Human Rights Watch. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it standard policy that opinion pieces can only be used as reliable sources on the opinions of the author, regardless of the reputation of the newspaper it appears in?

talk

) 10:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but as I explained the statement that is questioned here is not an opinion but the statement of a fact. What makes me believe that the Jerusalem Post fact checks their column is the reputation of the Jerusalem Post. Correct me if I am wrong, but this appears to be a regular column by someone, not just a guest column and is thus even more subject to the editorial oversight that can be expected from a nespaper of the stature of the Jerusalem post. Furthermore, judging from his Wikipedia article he seems to be an active academic researcher with publications in an area related to the statement at question. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 11:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, this is totally at odds with everything that I have read about sourcing on wikipedia. And what publications?

talk

) 13:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I do see the source as reliable and apparently there are no available reliable sources to contradict its assertions. However, it may be that searching for other reliable sources in support to this one will make a good solution. Preferably non Israeli ones, not because Israeli sources are unreliable, but because there are always users who are not willing to accept those.--Gilisa (talk) 12:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Gilisa, I'm certain you can find 20 good sources that contradict Frantzman's claim "the neighborhood was predominately Jewish until 1948" in 15 minutes searching. Everyone knows it was predominantly Arab then. Zero^talk 15:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, here is one source (in Hebrew, from a left wing newspaper) that may provide partial support [173], it's an Israeli for the very simple reason that this subject is in highlights in Israel -naturaly. The all subject is politicaly highly loaded, it seems like it would be a very hard task to source the article unbiasly.--Gilisa (talk) 12:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

That source does not support Frantzman's wild assertions, it refers to neighborhoods near Sheikh Jarrah. In fact the source Frantzman gives, the highly respected Israeli geographer Ruth Kark, doesn't support them either. You can see her book at google books (I have it in hard copy). You are quite right that Sheikh Jarrah is a hot potato in Israel at the moment, which is a very good reason to avoid polemic newspaper articles and blogs. There is ample serious academic work on it, such as Ruth Kark's papers and books, that we don't need the unreliable noise. Zero^talk 15:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be a situation where attribution is called for... as in: "According to Jerusalem Post collumnist Seth Frantzman, in the late 19th century, Sheikh Jarrah... ". Blueboar (talk) 14:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Zero, never heared on Ruth Kark. When it come to this issues academic stamper is not necessarily stamper for relability. In the academic field of Humanities, one sided scholars are not hard to find and the influence of their world-view on their academic work is well known. So, each source should be examined per case (including the JP).--Gilisa (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Gilisa: what's "stamper"?? I think you are saying that academics are not necessarily RS because they are influenced by a world view. Actually they are prima facie RS and the solution to one-sidedness is to make sure there is a fair balance of academic views. Re opinion piece in the JP, obviously news in the JP is RS, but this is not a news report. I think we have an ongoing problem with facts in opinion pieces. If the author of the opinion piece is an expert in their own right, then their opinion pieces could be treated as SPS, but perhaps they can sometimes be given more weight than that. I would think, for example, that Timothy Garton Ash's column in the Guardian would be RS for most things even if it is not in the news sections. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the partial reply Itsmejudith, but I didn't mean to say in any essense that academics in generall are unreliable because of their world view. It would be largely incorrect for most scientists in exact sciences and also for many scholars whose expertise is within the fields of Humanities. However, just as JP is reliable source for news mainly, when it comes to political issues academic studies which are not based on hard evidence should be handled carefully.--Gilisa (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to get into an abstract discussion when Blueboar has already suggested a compromise that might be acceptable, but just to note that we should not be judging whether an academic study is based on hard evidence or not. We would be in difficulties with our philosophy articles if we did that! Our criteria for academic work in the humanities and social sciences should be on the lines of how experienced the scholar is and the quality of the journal in which s/he is publishing. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that I'm a bit troubled by the assumptions of reliability for factual information in JPost opinion pieces that have been expressed here. Is there any evidence that JPost fact check their opinion columns and that they are subject to the kind of editorial oversight they implement for their reporting ? If not shouldn't we assume that the opinion columns aren't fact checked by JPost and don't go through the same editorial oversight process used for their reporting ? I haven't seen a statement on the JPost site that clarifies their position. I've always assumed (because I have no reason to believe otherwise) that JPost, like many other major RS, leave it to the opinion piece writer in which case the reliability of factual information is dependent on the reliability of the individual columnist with respect to the subject matter itself as Itsmejudith said i.e. the information in an opinion piece doesn't inherit the reliability of the RS in which it appears. This kind of factual information in an opinion piece related issue seems to comes up frequently for all sorts of RS. Attribution seems like an absolute minimum requirement in cases like this with finding better sources being the preferred option. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Itsmejudith, not exactly true-philosophy stand for itself, it's a pure theoretic field of research and can't be comparable with political science or even history. If Ruth Kark say A and Martin Van Crefeld (just for the sake of the argument) said B then we may well find ourself in problem when we used them in articles of political relevance. This is much less like this with other fields of research.--Gilisa (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Gilisa,

Hebrew University. Her PhD thesis was on The Development of the Cities Jerusalem and Jaffa from 1840 up to the First World War (A Study in Historical Geography). She is therefore a high quality RS, being an expert source on Jerusalem's geography and history, of which Sheikh Jarrah forms a part. Interestingly, she has co-authored works with Seth Frantzman. Those works, published by academic presses, would be RS. His opinion piece in the Jerusalem Post, is in my opinion, not. Tiamut^talk

17:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Tiamut, as I wrote in one of my posts here-I've no idea who she is. More than that, I didn't state an opinion regarding her works relability just note that publications with straight political assertion which are in controversy are not to be taken automatically and without further scrutinizing as RS. And in the other direction, how did you conclude that Frantzman's assertions aren't? after all, he's professional--Gilisa (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Gilisa. What I am trying to say is that its not just who authored the piece that is important. It is who published it, and in what context it was published. I would not support the use of an op-ed by either Frantzman or Kark for information of this nature. I would support citing such information to artciles they published in academic journals or in books published by academic presses. Capisce? Tiamut^talk 21:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Gilisa. You seem to be unaware of many Wikipedia policies regarding reliable sources particularly those concerning academics. As itsmejudith stated, "Our criteria for academic work in the humanities and social sciences should be on the lines of how experienced the scholar is and the quality of the journal in which s/he is publishing". It does not matter whether the work may be taken to be politically controversial by laymen or not, and that cannot be used as grounds to reject an academic as a reliable source. No offence intended, but perhaps you should revise your knowledge of Wikipedia policy before debating in

talk

) 03:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me re-iterate: Seth Frantzman is apparently a PhD student of geography. He is not a journalist. He writes a blog which is published by the Jerusalem Post. In fact he is a prolific blogger, continually pushing a strong point of view. The newspaper would undoubtedly check his copy for potentially libelous material, but blogs are opinion pieces, not factual reporting. He has no known expertise in the pre 1948 history of Palestine/Israel. His opinions are not reliable for any historical statements such as those used in the article. Definitely not a reliable source. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Frantzman's blog is not published by the Jerusalem Post, but he is an opinion columnist.[174] An opinion editorial is just that - opinion. Blueboar's suggestion above, attributing the opinion to the author, is

inline with Wikipedia policy. Stating his opinion as fact isn't, especially in this case, as what he wrote is likely to be challenged. ← George ^talk

02:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Editor,

) 05:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Since this is the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, and not Wikiquette Alerts, I'd suggest you edit the above down quite a bit. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Not entirely clear to me which sources we should discuss here, but admittely your post was a bit too long to read. In any case I agree that there seem to be some major problems with this article, and that a major cleanup seems necessary. Could you say which sources specifically are problematic in your opinion? Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 10:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If the issue is one of blogs as a reliable source, two things should be noted. First, the quote as it appears here[182] is unsourced, though it initially referenced a blog at the National Review Online.[183] Second, the full quote can be found at the Media Research Center, in a special report regarding the Huffington Post.[184] -FeralDruid (talk) 15:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Here MutantPlatypus has removed a reference from Skirda, Alexandre. Facing the Enemy: A History of Anarchist Organization from Proudhon to May 1968. AK Press 2002. p. 183. explaining "Removed unreliable sources. Books published by anarchist publishers and not cited by other literature are not reliable sources." He did the same thing with a Colin Ward book! While one can argue about some publishers and some authors and some books and some quotes, this looks like POV deletion of material that the author doesn't like. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that the book by Ward was published by the notorious anarchists at the Oxford University Press.

The idea that books by anarchists, or published by the anarchist press, cannot be considered reliable is rubbish. They are being cited as sources for the fact that the word "libertarian" was synonymous with "anarchist" for more than a century—and still is, in most parts of the world—until American free-market types took the name as their own. Surely anarchists are reliable sources for anarchist history at least! — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Remember who owns the keys to the Wikipedia server. If you think Prince Jimmy of Wales is going to allow a Randroid to be overruled on matters of Objectivist dogma, you're pissing in the wind. SmashTheState (talk) 10:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If that was true some private property grabbing collectivist religionists in the middle east wouldn't be so well organized and effective on wikipedia :-( But enough SOAPBOX. A good source is a good source, and an anonymous article on an activist, mostly self-published site, isn't - whether it's INFOSHOP or MISES/Blog entry by an intern. CarolMooreDC (talk) 10:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

First, I'd like to help explain the "named reference" (if that's what it's really called) feature of Cite.php. When one removes a references that says <ref>Colin Ward, Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction. ...</ref> and replaces it with one that says <ref name=AnarchismVSI/>, it generally means the editor gave the reference a name, and the full citation is somewhere else in the article. This is often done to place the reference in a more appropriate context, for example, moving a reference that appears in a "History" section and the lead section into the "History" section, because the lead section is supposed to be a summary, and the full text is a more appropriate place for the full citation. It could have, however, replaced the reference with a totally different one. This is cause for investigation.

In most browsers, the key combination ctrl+F will open a feature generally called "search" or "find". This feature is great for finding where, in an an article's source, a certain combination of letters appears. If one types in "AnarchismVSI", your browser will happily find, in a microsecond, everywhere in the text that "AnarchismVSI" occurs, and point them out. Doing this, one can search kilobytes of text and quickly find where "AnarchismVSI" occurs near a full citation. For instance, in the article in question, one would find the following reference:

<ref name=AnarchismVSI>Colin Ward, [http://books.google.com/books?id=kksrWshoIkYC ''Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction''], [[Oxford University Press]], 2004, p. 62. "For a century, anarchists have used the word 'libertarian' as a synonym for 'anarchist', both as a noun and an adjective. The celebrated anarchist journal Le Libertaire was founded in 1896. However, much more recently the word has been appropriated by various American free-market philosophers..."</ref>

Note how this ref tag is not immediately closed with a "/>". Also note that the reference is, in fact, the same reference that was alleged to have been removed. Now the reference occurs in only one place in the <references> section, instead of in several.

In conclusion, with your new knowledge of the search feature and some of the features of Cite.php, you can more easily understand the actions taken by other editors. Colin Ward was not removed as a reference, and the allegation that he was removed is either an honest mistake (most likely) or an accusation made in bad faith (something not usually assumed on Wikipedia). MutantPlatypus (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, this method should only be used for books where you aren't referencing several, separate pages. So if one reference is from page 3, and another from page 33, you shouldn't use this method. Right?

talk

) 15:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You can use the {{rp}} template to cite a page outside of the reference tag. To cite page 3 use <ref name=AnarchismVSI />{{rp|3}}, which renders as ^[5]: 3. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Colin Ward's book was referenced to the same page multiple times. I think there's a few others floating around in the article to different pages and different quotes, but I hadn't integrated those into a single citation. Also, someone before me had felt the need to include the quote, so I left it in. I assume it's because its relevance was challenged, so to prevent further challenges the text from the book was copied. The rp template doesn't handle multiple quotes from the same source, only multiple pages. The choice here is to still have duplicate entries in the reference list, differing only by their quote, or to use reference groups. Or it could be quoted directly in the text of the article, I suppose. MutantPlatypus (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I would consider

) 10:48, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The AK Press is not a fact-checking publisher. Anyone can pay to have a book published, and simply being published does not make one a reliable source. If the Press published a work of some known scholar, (such as Chomsky) then that source is acceptable based on that scholar's reputation, not the Press' reputation. (If you have trouble finding the policy page that says this, please leave a message on my talk page and I will gladly find it and give you a link.) Publications by the AK Press, thus, need further scrutiny. Alexandre Skirda only has 89 citations on Google Scholar (GS). Most the entries appear to be his, but some may be by other persons named "A Skirda". The first entry in GS is, in fact, the very same book that is under scrutiny. The book cited, "Facing the Enemy...", is cited by 7 other publications on GS. Now compare this to Colin Ward. His name seems to be more common, as several medical articles appear. If we remove "CR Ward" and "CW Ward", we are left with 465 entries. Over 5 times Skirda. One of his works is cited over 100 times, and his others between 10 and 30. The work in question, "Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction", is cited 17 times and published by Oxford University Press, a more reputable press. It's also published in 2004, two years after "Facing the Enemy". It's cited more in less time, so it's a much more reliable source. Citing Skirda alongside Ward gives Skirda undue weight, which is against Wikipedia policy. Hence, when faced with either Skirda or Ward, Ward is the better choice. In fact, Skirda may never be an appropriate source except as a primary source. MutantPlatypus (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"Anyone can pay to have a book published, and simply being published does not make one a reliable source" - but not anyone can have a book published by this publisher, whether they pay or not. Are you suggesting this is a vanity press? If so, then you're incorrect. I'm not sure what your comparison between Skirda and Ward is supposed to illustrate. Certainly Colin Ward is far better known than Skirda. But that doesn't make Skirda any less reliable. It's not like there's mutual excludability clause somewhere which says only one of these can be considered reliable at any one time.

I'm also not clear what you mean by saying that AK "is not a fact checking publisher". Is Oxford University Press? In what sense? I'm pretty sure they do the fact checking that they need to do, but it's not like they can travel back in time and interview Proudhon.

The point about Skirda being a "primary source" also doesn't seem to make sense. Is this work a reprint of an original document? It was published in 2002. How is it a primary source? Am I missing something?

talk

) 15:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

AK, together with

talk

) 16:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for ^[5]: 3, which renders as [4]:3 I've put it on my personal cheat sheet for future ref. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The context in which Skirda was used to establish that libertarian is synonymous with anarchist today, which Skirda does not even say. In fact, he sets out "modern terminology", and says he prefers to use "libertarian communist" over "anarchist communist" because the two words have acquired different meanings in "modern terminology". Skirda would seem to refute the assumption. Anyway, even if he did say that, I still don't think he's a reliable source. I compared him to Ward because we could easily agree that Ward is a reliable source, no matter his publisher. Skirda seems to have very few works and his works don't seem to be cited much (in the English Google scholar, I haven't checked French). If Skirda is within the lower bounds of what is a reliable source for claiming what the current state of affairs are concerning the use of anarchism/libertarianism throughout the world, then the lower bounds of what is reliable seems to be especially low. Even if you think he's reliable, citing him alongside Colin Ward would give the impression that's he's just as notable as Ward, which he clearly is not. MutantPlatypus (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

So I think we have general agreement that Anarchist Publishers are fine - unless they are proved to be vanity presses - and that each book or selection from a book published by them must be judged on its own merits? CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds about right to me. There are definitely anarchist publishers which I would NOT consider RS, and/or subject matter or certain factual info for which a particular @ publisher should probably not be used. But I don't think a source can be declared unreliable simply because it has some connection with @ism.

talk

) 17:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Okey dokey. I can see how it sounds like I rejected all Anarchist publications outright, but that's not what I meant. Since we are in agreement per CarolMooreDC's bolded post above, I'll go ahead and resolve-ify this. MutantPlatypus (talk) 00:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I am working on a project to complete the redlinked articles in the "Roster" section of

) 14:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems fine, serious historian of baseball. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)