Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 59

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.

There are an enormous number of citations to spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk (

Generally unreliable, I'd say, because there's no evidence of systematic fact-checking, although it does carry some well written and accessible history articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I used this site a few times and found it very helpful, as it usually provides good bibliography and interesting quotes, frequently from academic publications. Here is a publication about this site. It is fine to provide links to this site, simply because they are helpful for the reader. These are good links rather than "links to avoid". As about the sourcing, one should usually look at the original sources quoted in Spartacus and make references to them. This is great educational resource, something like MicrobeWiki, but only on History. It is very useful, and it can be used even as a source per se, with attribution to John Simkin, a teacher and author of several history books. No reason to remove any links to Spartacus, at least in the cases I am familiar with.Biophys (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there a consensus on acceptance or denial of biographies authored by, shall we say, professional biographers like

What do you want to use the books for? Is there any reason to think they are unreliable as to dates and places and other hard facts? As for analysis and interpretation, if there is material available from more distinguished scholars, the editors here might decide to give those more weight when appropriate, but I don't see any reason in the abstract to preclude the use of books like these. --Arxiloxos (talk) 08:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

They are consistently unreliable on minor hard facts. They would write something like "Terminal illness struck our subject November 4", omitting the fact that, according to physician's records published back in the 19th century and never contested since, the onset of the disease occurred October 27; November 4 was just the first of incapacitating bouts. This omission or error is unimportant for the subject's bio but it is hardly acceptable for an article on the circumstances of the subject's death.

NVO (talk

) 11:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem you are dealing with is that our citing the physician's records to correct the error of the professional biographer would constitute Original research by our standards. Yes, the physicians records do indicate that the biographer is not giving complete info... and if some other biography gives dates that are in line with what those records say, they can be used behind the scenes to help us determine which of the two biographies is more reliable... but if no reliable source has noted what the physician said, then neither should we. Blueboar (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not a matter of a particular factoid, it was a general question. Biographies in this context are quarternary information compiled by writers, not historians, and I see absolutely no reason why they should be preferred over the whole body of secondary and tertiary works. The secondary (original academic research) and tertiary (academic compilations) sources don't note the fact. They just use it. They note and discuss contentious issues, unreliable narrators, gaps and omissions in their sources etc., but in this particular context the physician's memoirs are corroborated by independent accounts. No one wastes their time noting the obvious. So for the last 160 years there was no need to discuss or note anything... unless of course Randy comes a different opinion...

NVO (talk

) 20:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

OK... I see what you are saying. I don't think we can call these pop-bios unreliable... but we do encourage our editors to use the most reliable sources possible, and they certainly would not qualify as that. So...they can be used, but where respected historians disagree with the pop-biographers we should clearly favor the historians (as being more reliable... especially for the details).

The second question is whether these pop-biographers more reliable than a primary source such as the doctor's records. That is a much thornier issue. Primary sources can be reliable. And sometimes they can even be the most reliable source for some bit of information. However, they must be used with extreme care not to misuse them in ways that constitute a

WP:NOR violation. Essentially, even if we are sure that the source is reliable, we still can not use it to introduce something that has never been published before. Wikipedia reports on what other sources say... it should never be the first place of publication for any information. This means that, if all the historians have ignored some aspect of the subject's life, so should we. Blueboar (talk

) 04:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this webpage reliable for the material it asserts about Nick Carpenter? Nightscream (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• The only things it asserts about him are that he used to date Marisa Tomei and now dates Bridget Marquardt. The latter can easily be sourced to more reliable sources, and the former can also be sourced to more reliable sources albeit possibly in pay-per-view newspaper sites. I can't say that Lalate.com has impressive copy editing, because this item says "And three “girlfriends” of Hefner star in E!’s “Girls Next Store”." They meant The Girls Next Door. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

There is some edit-warring in the Ecco Pro article, where there are two sources which both are, IMHO, iffy. The main question is, are the references to compusol.com that are now in Ecco Pro reliable sources, or should we use the forum links that have been used elsewhere (yes, it would be better to find other, independent, sources ..). Note, both the forum and Compusol have the software for download, but if I understand correctly, it is claimed that the Compusol version is not legal and not free, while the forum version is the official version which is for free. Thoughts? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

To be clear:

• version with Compusol references
• version with forums, tech groups, etc. references
• diff between above two versions, showing what I removed, and replaced

I guess fresh eyes on the article would be nice, my involvement (which is not existent) is claimed. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Is the website www.quotabletuckermax.com a reliable source? It is being used three times in the article and once on the talk page. Seth Kellerman (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

the quotes come directly from tucker's site, but it's still a questionable source, with questionable editorial oversight, and should be treated as an unreliable source in most cases. it is acceptable for some things, however. for example, http://www.quotabletuckermax.com/images/license.jpg is an acceptable primary source for tucker's age, since that is an archived/saved picture from tucker's message board. other uses of the site should be used with caution Theserialcomma (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Despite having informed him of general Wikipedia policy regarding the use of op-eds as reliable sources, Mbz1 insists on using several opinion pieces to support debatable claims about the life and opinions of RFK, rather than merely using the op-eds as reliable sources on the opinions of the author of the op-ed, which is how op-eds are generally treated. He is also using a pro-Israel advocacy group, the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.

• [3] - An editorial from a blog called "Jerusalem World News". According to the website, this is a "free online publication", i.e. a blog. The author of the piece in question, "Mike Evans" does not seem notable or credentialed in any way.

• [4] - This is aljazeera.info, not aljazeera.com. I don't even know what this website is, really, but it does not seem credible.

• [5] - an op-ed by Lenny Ben-David. Lenny Ben-David does not appear to have any expert credentials on the history of Robert F Kennedy. Therefore this editorial should only be used as a source for the opinions of L B-D, not facts about RFK's life.

• [6] - an opinion piece by one Marty Latz who is described as "a Valley attorney and negotiation consultant". Definitely not expert on RFK or an appropriate source.

• [7] - another piece by non-expert Lenny Ben-David this time published by pro-Israel advocacy group
  talk
  ) 07:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• Factsontheground "forgot" to mention that the most important part of the article Robert Kennedy's reports are fully supported by

• by "Robert Kennedy and His Times" by Arthur Meier Schlesinger

• As well as by by Why Robert Kennedy was killed: the story of two victims By Godfrey H. Jansen

• As well as The Kennedys: Dynasty and Disaster By John H. Davis page 650

• As well as Support any friend: Kennedy's Middle East and the making of the U.S.-Israel Alliance By Warren Bass pages 50 (the last paragraph) and 51.

• The aljazeera.info reprinted the article by Michael R. Fischbach is a history professor at Randolph- Macon College in Ashland, Va. His book "Records of Dispossession: Palestinian Refugee Property and the Arab-Israeli Conflict" will be published in October by Columbia University Press and the Institute for Palestine Studies. The article was published in Daily Star and in LA times--Mbz1 (talk) 15:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

JOGG seems to be a zine for genealogy hobbyists, albeit with upmarket "academic" aspirations. As has been pointed out (JOGG was mentioned once before on this board, but not discussed), JOGG is an outlet for non-geneticists, and even non-scientists, to publish research that may not be acceptable to established scientific journals. (quote: "The main emphasis of this journal will be to present a forum for articles that may not be appropriate for other established genetics journals since they may be based on datasets in which a statistically random sample cannot be guaranteed (i.e. surname studies).") Further, only one person in their entire staff (Editor, Associate Editors and Editorial Board) has credentials in genetics. So, even though there is a "peer-review" system, JOGG is clearly a journal for hobbyists.

The quesion therefore is to what extent, and for what kind of material, could JOGG be considered a reliable source in subjects pertaining to genetics? What is acceptable to cite, or to quote, or to incorporate?

In particular, is the content of a research paper -- a primary source -- suitable for inclusion in a WP article when it is clearly original, i.e. not treated in any of the usual reliable academic sources, such as articles in high-impact journals by established experts? This goes beyond cases of

It is in no way a reliable source. The current editor is "a student at the Syracuse University College of Law where he is studying intellectual property law", with no background in genetics. The past editor was "a retired physicist" with the F.D.A.

The editorial board consists of

• "a retired engineering manager who earned his MBA in mid-career",
• "an attorney in private practice specializing in family law",
• "a Professor of Chemistry at the University of Illinois"
• a "Coordinator of Reference Services at the University of Houston M.D. Anderson Library" with a degree in law, and
• and someone who "received her undergraduate degree in biology in 1964 and her M.D. from Stanford University in 1970".

The associate editors are

• an economist with the World Health Organization with "a Ph.D and M.A. in economics from Clark University, MA, and a License-Doctorandus degree in economics from the Catholic University in Leuven (KUL, Belgium)."
• an "Associate Professor of Mathematics and Computer Science at Memorial University of Newfoundland", and
• a retired "research geneticist", the only person with a genetics education or profession.

It is a hobby journal, for non-geneticists who like to play geneticist on the internet. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

So, citing (an article in) JOGG cannot save material from being

proper attribution are not being met. That's basically what I wanted to confirm. Thanks. rudra (talk

) 17:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I depends on the JOGG article. Some are really quite poor, while a few have been noted by geneticists. In all likelihood the current complaint somehow involves the recent pair of articles by Klyosov, which though of some value are overreaching and unreliable. It's fine to cite most JOGG articles for their samples and basic results, and ignore their conclusions. We do the same thing with many properly 'academic' conclusions/speculations in multi-authored peer-reviewed studies. Professional geneticists themselves tend to make uninformed conclusions on language spread, archaeological cultures, and peoples.

talk

) 19:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

That's right, and people put those uninformed conclusions in our articles and then argue that the journal article is a reliable source - which is true only to the extent the author is working within their area of expertise. I was waiting for someone to say that it depends on the article, that's what I've been told when I asked.

talk

)

Just to make sure it is not ignored, I have asked Doug below for examples of the JOGG being involved in such cases.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It isn't just bad, it's worse. They do it for the attention (and possibly for the funding that attention might garner). This is an open secret. The effects have been singularly disastrous for the noxious mess posing as research on what R-M17 might have to do with Indo-European languages and/or "peoples". It has seriously compromised the integrity of academic research in India (where the barely concealed agenda now of all ostensible "research" is actually the seriously political business of "proving" that all Indians have been in India since time out of mind.) In fact, this entire "deep ancestry" field is a crock, a cottage industry founded on and sustained by geneticists pronouncing on subjects outside their competence (linguistics, archaeology, anthropology, sociology, ancient history, whatever.) None of this has been critiqued, because no secondary, evaluative literature exists. It's all primary source, and it's all blather. All the more reason to apply

WP policies strictly and disallow marginal sources. rudra (talk

) 20:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

JOGG really can't be cited for anything, not even "their samples and basic results". I suppose, if pushed, one could treat articles on it as

self-published sources; that is to say, if a real geneticist published an article there, one could treat it as if he or she had published it on his or her blog. Jayjg ^(talk)

01:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

In a scientific context, a reliable source would have to show its contributors are established experts in that area, with appropriate academic publications and credentials, and/or citations by other scientific publications. They could also be journalists reviewing published scientific work. But in general, a source which consists of amateurs could not be used to present scientific information. Crum375 (talk) 02:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

While you may personally trust JOGG, that doesn't make it qualify in any way as a reliable source. That's not "extreme", it's just the way the

WP:V policy works. Jayjg ^(talk)

03:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the

WP:REDFLAG. rudra (talk

) 04:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not say I trust 'it', just not Oxford at the moment. Of course what you say about policy is right but you also need to need to have read an article or two from the journal to make sure 'they' are actually contradicting whatever it happens to be. I'm not getting that sense regularly. In fact many of the articles they publish are in unexplored areas, and can derive from the results of legitimate haplogroup projects under FTDNA and other companies, of which the authors are sometimes the managers and leaders. This is why we can generally trust their results but are safest ignoring any speculative conclusions, which again can be found anywhere.

talk

) 04:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

No, actually, you don't need to read any articles on the site, in order to ensure they are "contradicting" something. It is a hobby website produced by non-geneticists. Therefore we cannot "generally trust their results" regarding genetics; not their samples, results, conclusions, or anything else found on their website.

WP:RS are very clear about this. Jayjg (talk)

22:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The reason you do in fact need to look at and understand the specifics of cases like this is contained in your use of the words "non geneticists" and "genetics" as if these are clearly defined as the subject here. They aren't. The subject was nominally whether JOGG could be used in some specific passage rudra deleted. Are all aspects of all Wikipedia articles citing JOGG "genetics" and are the JOGG citations being made about "genetics", and is "genetics" a clearly defined term with a clearly defined way of saying who is an expert? As Rudra knows, most of the controversial aspects of the Wikipedia articles involved are controversial because they involve multi-disciplinary overlap with geneticists and other published folk making comments about linguistics, archaeology and yes, even genealogy. No one is claiming to be arguing for breaking Wikipedia policy. The details of the case ARE important.

WP:RS states that "Proper sourcing always depends on context". Saying you can not use a source with a reputation for accuracy and an editorial process for anything at all seems to have no basis in any Wikipedia policy?--Andrew Lancaster (talk

) 09:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that JOGG should be considered for wikipedia purposes a self-published source. It is not a journal of geneticists, and is essentially a hobbyist's rag, no matter how well-meaning. MarmadukePercy (talk) 06:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm still not sure why I've gotten into this discussion, and am defending what I more often criticize. I've cited a JOGG article only once in Wikipedia and was wishing at the time that I had a better source. See

talk

) 06:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

This motion is based on a mixture of misunderstanding and very deliberate ill will by rudra, apparently with some support from other people interested in India-related articles. It is not justified. The JOGG is not an academic journal and does not claim to be, but academic journals are not the only type of reliable source. Marmaduke Percy is wrong to say that it is self-published. There is a board and an editorial process. If you look through the Wikipedia rules on these things, that is what is important. Is it respected? Yes. The JOGG has been referred to in more traditional academic journals, and the authors in JOGG correspond with and meet the academics and are respected by them. The role of non-academics in the field of understanding haplogroups is acknowledged in print by the academics, and indeed there is no way of denying that the "hobbyists" are leading the way in many aspects of the work being done. Population genetics as discussed in JOGG requires a few things: data, and understanding of statistics and certain other mathematical concepts. Some of the authors in JOGG such as Nordtvedt and Klyosov have superior mathematical skills than those normally found amongst geneticists. I note that none of the people in this discussion are generally people involved in working on articles in this field. The motion was moved by the latest of a myriad of Balkans versus India nationalist edit warriors with an axe to grind on

(Apropos "See this": the thread is now archived

here. Full text search for "genealogist" recommended.) rudra (talk

) 02:31, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, it's a hobby website, written by non-experts in the field, whose "main emphasis... will be to present a forum for articles that may not be appropriate for other established genetics journals". A website on astrophysics could also have a very rigorous editorial process, but if those reviewing the submissions happened to be chiropractors and accountants, then it would also not qualify as a reliable source. What you describe as "the lack of any academic secondary literature" on the topics in question is what Wikipedia would view as a

fringe. Jayjg ^(talk)

20:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Jayg, with all due respect, you are answering based on theory, not knowledge of the journal or the field nor the editing disputes which are behind this proposal. Even normal newspapers can be cited in some scientific articles, for certain types of information and they often are. For this reason alone, making broad theoretical generalizations is useless. And of course this is exactly why people post their complaints about sources here sometimes BEFORE trying to discuss it on article talkpages - they hope to create enough confusion to make it look like there is an official command to favor their edits. But the normal approach is to first try to work with fellow editors to resolve concerns. Rudra should do that instead of wikilawyering.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster is correct that some of us participating in this discussion don't contribute to literature in the field. He is also correct, in my judgment, that some of the edit warring has descended into personal attacks, to which I have objected on the appropriate talk pages. But just because some editors don't contribute to journals in the field doesn't preclude us from taking part in this conversation. I have no credentials as a geneticist, but I do have some idea of assessing reliable sources. In the case of Klyosov, for instance, some of the more pseudo-nationalist claims in his work bother me. As do some of the same sorts of biases in other work that appears in JOGG. I am sure that there are good reasons both for and against considering JOGG a reliable source, and I am glad that the discussion has been opened here. And once again, I would ask editors to refrain from making personal attacks on other editors, which are unhelpful in trying to reach a concensus. MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Which "personal attacks on other editors" are you referring to? Also, consensus has already been reached on this source. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I meant reaching a consensus in the various genetics-related pieces, not this discussion. As far as personal attacks, I was referring to some of the edit warring in the

R1a1 piece. MarmadukePercy (talk

) 22:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Umm. Wouldn't the fact that nearly everything Rudra has written on any talk page about this subject is obsessively written about me personally, including insinuations that the JOGG is written by people who are part of a plot or out to make money, not raise any warning signals about this being a slightly suspect proposal? I'd say if people write like that they should be ignored unless they make their insinuated accusations very clear. As far as I can see this whole proposal is only part of an attempt to do a character assassination based on the incredibly stupid argument that someone who does genealogy has no credibility. Rudra knows everything he knows about R1a due to Wikipedia, and what he has learnt very recently due to his interest in Indian related matters.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

(Clarification: This is the third time I'm linking to something that explains what for the second time I'm calling an "open secret". Up-thread here, the context was DinDraithou's remark that "Professional geneticists themselves tend to make uninformed conclusions on language spread, archaeological cultures, and peoples." on which I commented that "It isn't just bad, it's worse. They do it for the attention (and possibly for the funding that attention might garner)." The link, which explains this, is to a post on the IER mailing list. Another link would be to this search in that list, which finds more posts on that theme - viz. some geneticists are playing very fast and loose with ideas and issues of which they may know little beyond the sound-bite value.) rudra (talk) 04:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

What is the relevance of these internet discussions to this discussion about JOGG please? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

(Some amount of topic drift and tangential commentary is normal in threaded discussion. It only gets out of hand when lazy readers fail to heed context or to follow any links provided, and instead launch immediately into dramatic escalation with words like "insinuate" and nasty accusations in bold, and demand explanations. But, let no one answer, lest relevance be the next complaint!) rudra (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

So you posted something other than insinuations and vague accusations? Anyway, as they dominate the whole discussion they already are relevant, because you made it so from your opening lines about people who desire to be "upmarket" and academics. Or is that something relevant to Wikipedia policies? It seems to me that you choose the words of opening lines in a formal complaint with care. And if you continually repeat and even defend this style as your main "argument" then saying it is an accidental aside seems very unconvincing?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

JOGG is only the tip of an iceberg. There is a serious degree of

While I happen to agree with you about JOGG, I disagree with you about editor Andrew Lancaster. He is a hardworking wikipedia editor, and I believe his edits are made in good faith. Both he and you are, in my opinion, doing your best to make the R1a article an exemplary piece. Ben Bradlee of The Washington Post used to routinely send out two reporters to cover a story – in the belief that two competitors would come up with a better article. That's how I view the two of you. If you could stop the personal attacks and work with each other, you'd go far to making this a better piece. You may disagree on sourcing. That can be worked out. But you're both smart and making valuable contributions. I hope you can see that at some point. MarmadukePercy (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you have it wrong. I'm a generalist, I have no specific abiding interest in haplogroups, and it isn't a specific concern of mine that the R1a article in particular become exemplary. I simply ran across some problems and tried to fix them. (Anyone who thinks I'm actually a troll can undo this diff and revert to the status quo ante, though merging this diff in the process would be a courtesy.) The problem in "working out" things, like sourcing, with Andrew Lancaster is that the choices necessarily are either to accept the deeply irrational or to escalate. What could be rationally worked out with someone who insists that 21-2/3 West Bengal Brahmins testing positive for R1a1a is a "formatting error" that needs to be treated with a "neutral point of view"? What could be rationally worked out with someone who insists that a journal with an impact factor ranked 74th out of 138 in its field is "major"?

WP:NORN board (as the R1a article isn't the only case), or maybe I should be letting this all go and leaving the Andrew Lancasters alone to play in their sandlots of choice. I don't know. rudra (talk

) 05:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Uncovered? Again this obsessive need to talk in terms of plots and me personally! I am kind of flattered. Look, you have come to this whole subject from debates to do with Indian nationalism and frankly it is tainting your judgment. Your aggression is uncalled for and your efforts to avoid things that might impact Indian related discussions are twisting the R1a article so that no longer reflects what people who know this field would consider balanced. The problem of relying on primary sources in this field is just reality and something you have read me pointing out over and over as part of the problem which we Wikipedians should be working on constructively together. Your new insinuation that it is impossible to talk to me is not borne out by any facts. You entered the R1a talk page with personal attacks and personal attacks only, after clearly having spent some time researching me personally in order to do this. Only on Dbachmann's talkpage (an admin you respect) have you bothered to give meaningful discussion. I challenge Rudra to try

WP:AGF discussion with fellow editors and consensus seeking and see if it works. Quite honestly, I would welcome it, and my discussions with good faith editors tend to be fast. I have long ago proposed removing the exact figures from Sharma but you never replied in good faith. I have also not intervened yet in your editing, in order to give you a chance to make your proposals in terms of real edits. (They are better than I expected, but I do evnetually to propose some changes.) Concerning the R1a data article you admitted to Dbachmann that removing all Sharma reference raises fine points of Wikipedia policy. BTW, thank you for calling yourself a generalist. How about calling me one too and quitting with the "just a genealogist" smokescreen?--Andrew Lancaster (talk

) 08:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

(Implosions are painful to watch.) rudra (talk) 04:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

As Andrew says, any consensus reached here can and will be ignored by editors familiar with the material. I plan to. And I have respect for everyone here, but I think this discussion will prove of no consequence. Clearly it is not supposed to be about JOGG, which has not been the source of the problems. I do not think it is a proper soft target as it is better defended than may appear at first glance.

'Better defended,' in what sense? MarmadukePercy (talk) 06:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

DinDraithou, ignoring the consensus here is

disruptive, with all that implies. Jayjg ^(talk)

04:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I invite people participating in this discussion to try a Google "Scholar" search for better known JOGG articles. I just tried an obvious example using keywords "Athey", "Haplogroup", "prediction". To see the JOGG itself discussed in an academic peer reviewed article, indeed a rare case of a secondary style article, see King; Jobling (August 2009), "What's in a name? Y chromosomes, surnames and the genetic genealogy revolution", Trends in Genetics, 25 (8): 351–360,

One last point in order not to allow the screwy context of this whole discussion to create infinite misunderstandings: I personally use JOGG as a reference very sparingly, when I know that avoiding it would mean making Wikipedia very out-of-date or very imbalanced compared to what is understood by people who know the field as a whole (which does include JOGG, and authors like Anatole Klyosov, whose letter regarding a paper by a group of well known academics was published and replied to in a major journal). I believe other responsible editors in this area do the same and we all see as a something to do carefully. Rudra has a right to question the "fine points" of such judgements, but such discussions should be on article talkpages. The current proposal is an attempt to avoid normal consensus building discussions, nothing more.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

(The correct form of the suggested search in Google Scholar is not this. It is this, or perhaps this. Also of interest may be this and this.) rudra (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

(JOGG is mentioned twice in the King-Jobling article, both times on p.8. First, in the text:

Genetic genealogy enthusiasts often display an impressive level of knowledge about aspects of molecular evolution, population genetics and statistics; some of this is evinced in the quarterly online Journal of Genetic Genealogy (www.jogg.info). Although it lacks the standard scientific peer-review system of traditional journals, it is nonetheless attracting academic geneticists among its authors and is an interesting model for public involvement in scientific publication. Other resources for genetic genealogy are listed in Box 3. Thanks to the advances in DNA technology and the power of the internet, genetics is now joining astronomy as a science in which amateurs can make useful discoveries."

and then in Box 3:

The Journal of Genetic Genealogy (www.jogg.info; also see main text) publishes articles on individual surname studies, new methods of analysis, insights into mutation rates, geographic patterns in genetic data and information that helps to characterize haplogroups.

Box 3 also has this:

Wikipedia’s pages on Y haplogroups (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Y-chromosome_DNA_haplogroups) provide up-to-date information on specific Y lineages [...]

which may explain a "need" for an

agenda.) rudra (talk

) 05:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Rudra, is there meant to be an accusation amongst the cherry-picking in that last bit? Why do your postings always seem to be filled vague unclear accusations? Be brave. Make your accusations clear and loud please. State your claim, make your case or else do not make irrelevant side remarks. When asking

User:Dbachmann to block me for disagreeing with you for example, you boldly pointed out that I have a genealogy webpage as the main part of your case. What other great arguments have you got? The facts of the matter are obviously that JOGG (and ISOGG also) has a reputation for fact checking, an editorial review process, and is widely cited in the academic peer-reviewed press on a number of subjects. The term "hobbyist" is being used in an undefined way for rhetorical effect in this discussion, as if it has a clearly defined Wikipedia policy implication, which it does not.--Andrew Lancaster (talk

) 07:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

So we have academics citing JOGG articles often, calling the work "hobbyists" do well-informed and useful, referring to them making discoveries which they keep track of and cite, using their "hobbyist" databases and citing them, citing their society website (www.isogg.org) as their best reference point for SNP phylogeny... We also see that the JOGG is respected for fact checking and has an editorial process. Aren't these the kinds of things Wikipedia policy asks us to check for? All boxes are ticked and simply ignoring such Wikipedia relevant facts and being sucked in by policy-irrelevant, vague insinuations such as "genealogy hobbyists, albeit with upmarket "academic" aspirations" (opening line of this whole proposal) would make a mockery of this board.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Something I forgot to mention. Currently nearly all academic articles and also most Wikipedians including Rudra use the ISOGG website as their references for up to date Y haplogroup phylogenies. ISOGG is the International Society for Genetic Genealogy - "hobbyists" in the mainstream again.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the extreme abstract generalizing tendency in the new sub-section below, I see another point which might need covering. All RS discussions on this board should consider not only whether a source is reliable in a simple sense, but what in particular it is reliable or unreliable for. Nearly any source can be reliable for something. All too often people post here ignoring this. There are several problems in this case:-

1. Rudra recently spent a lot of time cutting out material he did not like from

2. Rudra seemed to state his case in a correct way in the sense of specifically asking what the JOGG might be good for or not good for, not just asking for blanket dismissal. However, with respect to this his description of what he thinks the JOGG might not be good for citing (something which the deleted material apparently did contain) is extremely vague.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

So much for consensus

To demonstrate that the regular editors of the haplogroup articles mean what they say - that consensus on this board regarding JOGG counts for squat: an edit reintroducing deleted material based on not one but two JOGG articles (Klyosov has already been mentioned; Gwozdz is a retired professor of engineering.) rudra (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This board is where decisions are made regarding which sources are reliable, and involved editors cannot ignore the consensus here. If disruptive behavior continues, the next step is to take the offending parties to AN/I. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Any admin here who ignores Andrew's last few posts in this discussion and decides to harass him or me or any other editors for citing a JOGG paper appropriately will find himself or herself in trouble. But before that, a problem is that you're the only one really saying there is a consensus here, Jayjg, and you're only one admin. There may be others who agree with you but you hardly have a consensus. Just posting yourself again and again does not produce one.

talk

) 05:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

In trouble? How do you plan to carry out this threat? Polices such as this cannot be overruled by a consensus on a talk page, that should be obvious.

talk

) 06:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

What policy? Did you read what Andrew found and posted? We won but you missed it.

Is a response to a threat a threat? Jayjg has gone power tripping because Andrew and I don't recognize his 'consensus', which he has clearly has some pride in. If he tries to follow through he'll end up looking small, and if he continues without background, worse than small: aberrant and bad for WP. You don't just get to beat up specialist contributors.

talk

) 07:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Background? The only background he needs is an understanding of our policies and guidelines. No matter how expert someone is, that doesn't make them an authority as to what meets with our policies and guidelines. I'm not sure what you mean by beating up specialist contributors but specialists have no particularly privileges and get blocked and banned when necessary. And saying that a paper or a journal is not a reliable source is clearly not harassment. I'm not speaking as an Admin here, by the way, just as an experienced editor (well, I guess being an Admin has given me experience also).

talk

) 09:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be loosing sight of the basics of this case.

• There was and is no consensus in this discussion. In other words this whole new track of discussion, taking us away from the real subject, is based on something which does not exist.
• The title of this sub-section implies that my new insertion of JOGG sourced material is simply a revert. It is not. I think this counts for something unless JOGG is simply being called unreliable for all possible sourcing? (But then again, as discussed above, there has been no serious attempt here to argue in detail what the JOGG can and can't be reliable for, presumably in the hope that this discussion can be cited as a kind of blanket ban.)
• Quoting policies and guidelines is easy. Applying them is more complicated. When people deny that an obviously complex case is complex this should be a warning signal.
• Consensus is not Rudra's priority and his posting here is cynically hypocritical! Note his behavior on
  WP:BRD
  . This selective puritanism is a recurring theme in his wikilawyering. Why does there need to be a special section heading to discuss it? Looks like a deliberate diversion to me.
• In response to Doug's comment that this discussion can not be accused of being related to harassment, wikilawyering can be part of a bigger pattern of edits and talk pages postings which could qualify as tendentious editing. You'd need to look at the background in order to judge it. You can't pass judgment by looking at one fact in isolation in something like that.
• Because Rudra called this discussion without warning other involved editors and posted deliberately misleading explanations, anyone citing its conclusions in the future will not convince anyone. That's the reality of how Wikipedia works, not a threat. There'd need to be a better discussion.
• Most importantly, as Din points out some pretty strong arguments have been posted (just above where a new section was started, I wonder why?) and not replied to. All boxes are ticked (all concerns posted at first are answered) given the postings I made once I had time.

At the very least the case remains open. I tend to agree with Din though that the case is looking closed. In any case I would strongly suggest that discussion, if it is to be meaningful, should continue in the main section above and should not ignore the points made.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you've widened my comments beyond what I was talking about. The Haplogroup articles are a mess though and it is hard to wade through that mess. A big part of the mess is the use of sources.

talk

) 11:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Doug, JOGG is however not the problem, and R1a is not the best example of what you are referring to (any more). Many haplogroup articles cite discussion forums and personal webpages. If we clean that up, then your impression might be different. What's the biggest thing stopping us? The biggest thing stopping us is that for every article which is brought up to a less bad level, there are dozens of these types of single issue attacks which soak up enormous time and energy, for very little gain. Picking on the JOGG is misplaced. Discussions about JOGG sourcing should be about due weighting for specific areas, and not about trying to get it on some black list. Din's reaction might have been harsh but like me he is reading this discussion as an attempt to "win" a little battle by effectively black listing a source which is being used sparingly and reasonably in most real cases - and discussion should be about real cases and specifics in my opinion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

No, Andrew, it's not enough for you and DinDraithou to agree to get a consensus. Your problem is that nobody (or hardly anybody) else is areeing with you. Hans Adler 11:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hans, I agree. I did not declare a consensus. I said there is none.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Hans and Doug do either of you have any clear case where JOGG is to blame for the quality of any haplogroup (or similar) article being poor? What I can say with a high level of confidence is that Rudra himself knows that the need to use primary sources of ANY kind is the more general problem in many scientific areas. JOGG is just one example of many sources in this field, and it is not especially filled with primary research, so it is actually helpful in many cases. The only concrete example which Rudra has argued against in any detail, as part of the same session of activity he is having on

Whether or not JOGG is a reliable source depends on what point / wording you are trying to use it to support. It is not a black and white issue. If its conclusions are contradicted by more reliable sources than of course the more reliable sources are preferred.

talk · contribs · email

) 19:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Please review the discussion in the main section. A JOGG article prima facie is not

WP:RS contradicts it. Is that what you really meant to say? rudra (talk

) 20:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

It is certainly not a self published source. That is nonsense, and seems to indicate that you've read nothing posted in reply to you above. Is this your new accusation now? Originally the argument was apparently that the editorial board were not specialized in the right academic field for something. Having an editorial board kind of doesn't fit with being self-published does it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The

WP:SPS "exception". rudra (talk

) 21:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

No exception is required. JOGG meets the requirements of a reliable source. It has a "reputation for checking the facts" and it has "editorial oversight". In the above main body of this discussion I have given citation from outside JOGG which mention JOGG to this effect.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe this is correctly put, and pretty much describes the position being argued against by Rudra.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's be clear here; all the editors who are uninvolved in this dispute, namely

Jayjg, no one is arguing the case for "ignoring policy". The application of policy is a subject of disagreement here. I also did not start a sub-section for diversionary discussion about other editors, and indeed this is a bad thing. But I responded to those diversionary accusations in this sub-section created by rudra. I am moreover concerned that he is presenting incorrect information and people are not checking it at all, and I think I may mention such concerns because they are relevant? Anyway: In the main section above I have laid out answers to all concerns and no one has commented or responded. If these explanations are simply ignored then how seriously can this discussion be taken? I also think it is relevant to point out that

User:Jmh649 which was more in agreement with my position. My summary then, would be that there is no clear consensus and not even any real clear discussion. The discussion has been made deliberately confused and rushed in order to try to use this board as a kind of rubber stamp for edits rudra wants. Very few of the people here are really neutral, and those who are really must read beyond the inflammatory opening assault of rudra, who is making false claims pure and simple. Here is the background to Rudra opening a case here. As far as I can see, Rudra is basically a troll in this matter, and ignorant of the material and individuals he is making false accusations about.--Andrew Lancaster (talk

) 07:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster, your remarks were mostly about other editors. Please re-factor them, removing all references to other editors, and try again. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg, this SUB-thread is based on accusations by editors about editors, starting with its title, and I was responding to postings by others. I think that was justified given that the accusations obviously ARE having a major impact on how this whole case is being read, and indeed form the main body of the case against this source. Anyway the MAIN thread is above (or I have proposed a cleaner start below if anyone wants to respond there) and contains answers to concerns raised which can be discussed further if there are still doubts. Surely this thread does not need to be doubled and tripled by re-posting the same material over and over. In summary though, the JOGG has a reputation for accuracy and fact checking, and is widely cited as a reliable source within expert literature relevant to the citations under discussion - including peer-reviewed academic literature. Above I had shown this some time ago, with a google scholar search and a reference from a review article. These two things seemed enough to get more realistic discussion, but none has been forthcoming so far, and above I am waiting to answer any questions. Secondly I have stated that the JOGG is not being used to trump superior sources or make controversial citations, and I have asked for discussion about any examples if this is a concern. Again, I wait for any replies on that. Please do browse through the discussions above.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

BTW I see that above you asked Marmaduke Percy why he felt it necessary to refer to personal attacks in this discussion. You should read the talk page reference I have just given, which MP knows to be the background to this whole discussion. It is pure troll, and troll has a clear Wikipedia meaning. I checked before using the term.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Andrew, your remarks were again mostly about other editors. Please re-factor them, removing all references to other editors, and try again. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

In terms of Wikipedia policy please?

There is a lot of confusion here because from the opening shots emotive words and cynical insinuations were being made, without any relevant reference to Wikipedia policy. (On the article talk page, Rudra himself has used only indecent personal attack to make it absolutely clear that his basic guiding policy concerning these genetics articles he hates is his personal common sense and screw everyone else. I would presume the people here who think they agree with him are not condoning that.) I believe it is actually not really clear what Rudra's argument is in terms of Wikipedia policies, and whether anyone who thinks they agree with him really does. So:-

Are we therefore agreed that the following are the basic policies relevant here are as follows?

• Does the source have a reputation for accuracy amongst experts in fields where it is being used as a source?
• Does the source have some sort of editorial fact-checking process in contrast to being self-published?
• Is the source being given undue weight in order to make claims in conflict with the highest regarded and most mainstream views in the areas involved?

Comments please on whether these are the relevant policies and what the answers to the three questions are. I say yes-yes-no. Strangely no one amongst those claiming to have considered the case and agreed with Rudra has addressed any of these three questions (neither, of course, has Rudra) which are based simply on Wikipedia policies. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Please review

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Jayjg ^(talk)

00:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone here is reminding me of

talk

) 02:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Arguing until interlocutors give up appears to be a familiar technique. rudra (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Is the subject me?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

(Quoth a sage,

"If the shoe fits...") rudra (talk

) 02:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, obviously you were talking about me, but is this the right forum for talking about me? Should I respond to all your "asides"? I was told not to. But you keep posting this stuff, and indeed it is hard to see anything other than asides. I think it is important to see the context of the deletions you came here to try to get justified were recognized by people editing the article to be connected to a personal animus you have somehow developed about me without ever having tried to work with me or communicated with me at any length as far as I know.[9] Why am I being asked to pretend this is about Wikipedia policy while you show no shame at all in making it clear that for you it is not?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg, if you are saying that the discussion is waiting for me to reply to points, then with all due respect I think there is a misunderstanding. The very first discussion started before I knew about it and rushed ahead based entirely on the basis of the claims being made by one Wikipedian, which I have argued to be problematic; BUT since I found the time to post a reasonably detailed response to what I think are all relevant concerns, there has been virtually no further discussion about the subject (the source, the policies). Please see the first section above. As far as I can tell right now, nobody except the original creator of this thread has even read my more substantial replies due to the opening of an off-topic sub-section (by the same person) right underneath those key postings soon after they were made. I remain open to discussion if my initial postings have in any way failed to cover all points relevant to the subject. But I can not mind read. Can I ask you to please read what I posted above in the first section and let me know what you think? If you want me to report a nicer formatted version (rather than the several sequential postings I made above), for example, I can do it if that is what you really want.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Re-factoring of responses to initial posting

1. The terms of the initial "question". Actually the "question" was posted in a way which defined conclusions already in its terms. But these premises (which, as he explained to DinDraithou, were accepted by Jayjg without further checking of any examples) were quite questionable, and this needs to be discussed if this message board is to fulfill its function properly. There should be two things considered in any RS discussion: the nature of the source, and what it is being cited for. Reference will be made in a few places to a useful journal article:-

• King; Jobling (August 2009), "What's in a name? Y chromosomes, surnames and the genetic genealogy revolution", Trends in Genetics, 25 (8): 351–360,
  doi:10.1016/j.tig.2009.06.003. Also here
  .

• The accusation that the authors and editors of the journal aspire to be something other than what they are is not justified by anything cited and appears to be personal speculation by a Wikipedian.
• The accusation that the JOGG is a way to get published in a field where an author is not qualified also appears to be personal speculation by a Wikipedian. In order to make this accusation a passage was cited which simply stated that the JOGG aims to fill a gap not currently being filled, quite a normal aim for any journal. Any fair reading of the facts shows that the JOGG aims to have its own specializations and strengths.
• The knock-on implication that the authors are not knowledgeable or recognized in the subjects they write about, or more importantly for which they are being cited on Wikipedia, is also apparently personal speculation by a Wikipedian. Here is the google search I suggested for showing a JOGG article being widely cited, and not only by fellow JOGG authors: [10].
• (Note the central importance of the term "hobbyist" in all discussion here so far. The term is part of the first sentence and is then repeated by Jayjg as apparently the key part of his understanding of what is supposed to be relevant to the discussion (i.e. hobbyists contrasted to geneticists). The term is correct only if it means "not a tenured academic in genetics". But the key point for Wikipedia is concerning whether a person is verifiably a respected and knowledgeable source, and Jayjg clearly seems to think based on the wording of the opening that this is how the word can be understood in this case. It is unfortunate that this term is being used in such a central way instead of clear ones.)
• The journal's obvious association is with genetic genealogy and genetic genealogy really is distinct from genealogy. Nevertheless the word genealogy and genealogist have been used and dwelt upon as if it were an argument in itself in both this forum and in other places on Wikipedia, by the proposing party. In reality, one person can be expert in both, or only one of the two, and they can also be expert in other fields. Indeed, of course genealogists are rarely only genealogists. This raises a few issues for the claim being made:-

• In the peer-reviewed journal I brought into discussion, two top population geneticists note that the JOGG is "attracting academic geneticists among its authors".
• The second question is whether being an expert "genetic genealogist" is not on its own something that can potentially make one cite-able for. This has not even been considered, and I have struggled to try to get it considered, simply because of the way the question was framed here in the first place by wrongly stating that this is all about people deliberately finding a way to get published outside an area they know about. It isn't.
• That genetic genealogy is cite-able within population genetics is clear not only in the cases cited above, but also in the use of the ISOGG website as the standard citation for SNP phylogeny updates. (In fact, SNP phylogeny discoveries are now mainly coming from genetic genealogy, and being passed to population genetics, not the other way around. I know of no official source keeping score but I think my judgment is not particularly controversial and I mention as something that might be of interest. This balance has swung this way only within the last year or so.)

1b. What is being cited, what may be cited, what may not. While the initial posting used specific words to describe the suspected aspirations of JOGG contributors and editors, it was not so clear about what was being cited in Wikipedia from the JOGG, and this is essential to any meaningful discussion. While stating that he had not checked any examples, Jayjg however clearly understands that what is being cited from JOGG is "genetics" and he refers to the unreliability of the "samples" and "results" he presumes are being cited in Wikipedia.

• The subjects where JOGG is being cited in Wikipedia are normally described as "population genetics" and "genetic genealogy".
• Both these quite new fields obviously feed from genetics as a source technology, but neither are simply "genetics". We are not talking about lab testing, interpretation of lab results, interpretation of mutations themselves, etc.
• A specific characteristic of both these fields is how multi-disciplinary they are.
• Major population genetics articles for example have always had a strong tradition of included non-geneticists amongst their most important authors, and of being published in books and journals which are not about genetics.
• The JOGG is not being used to cite anything concerning "genetics" as such, but rather in the multi-disciplinary and specific genetic genealogy areas where it is strongest.
• The basic know-how needed in both fields is quite generalist (the ability to draw upon linguistics, archeology, medieval records etc) with the most technical aspect clearly being an understanding of the statistical analysis of dynamic systems, which is precisely what many of the JOGG editors and contributors have. This explains why physicists, chemists and engineers are making such an impact.
• The quality of some academic peer-reviewed population genetics articles have often rightfully been criticized on Wikipedia and in other forums, a problem coming from this need for multi-disciplinary thinking. But surprisingly perhaps, the JOGG is actually not the source of much controversy when it comes to controversial claims.

2. Excessive discussion of other subjects. Examination will show that a large part of the discussion both leading up to this proposal, and once it was made, are not about the JOGG at all, but about population genetics articles, which the proposing party has strong feelings about. In response to having this pointed out the proposing party has claimed that "Some amount of topic drift and tangential commentary is normal in threaded discussion". One hopes that it is recognized as tangential, because it dominates all discussion.

3. The Wikipedia policies on reliable sourcing are clear. They ask us to check whether a source has an reputation for being knowledgeable, for fact checking, and some sort of editorial process that goes beyond self-publication. All these conditions are met, and although I have asked for any questions on this there seems to be no disagreement about that.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You've made some good points, Andrew. I suppose here is where I draw the line (and I'm no geneticist). If, for instance, a contributor to JOGG were writing about a particular family, for instance, and the reference supported an assertion in a piece about the family of President John Adams, for instance (just a made-up example), then I would be inclined to say that a journal of genetic genealogy study of the Adams family Y-Dna markers would be relevant and appropriate. In such an instance, the JOGG cite would be a crossover of genealogy and genetics. On the other hand, given what I've seen of some JOGG entries relating to the field of genetics as a whole, I think the quality of the work ranges from very good to dismal. I've been troubled by some of the more pseudo-nationalistic assumptions in some of the pieces. So I do agree with you that in certain instances, like, for instance, the Adams family case I raised, JOGG might be an appropriate resource. But for the general genetics field, I have been less than impressed by the consistency of the journal's entries. Just my two cents, but thanks for your thoughtful post. MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the positive, directly verifiable evidence provided:

• On the King-Jobling article, Trends in Genetics 25(8), 351-360

• Claim (here): "The article specifically states that the JOGG and genetic hobbyists are now cite-able amongst academics and are knowledgeable and respected."

• The article does not specifically state cite-ability. It acknowledges that amateurs can be knowledgeable and contribute discoveries (the "astronomy model"). (The full text is available in a quote-box up-thread.)
• User:Abecedare had already anticipated this: "The only scenario in which I can imagine citing JOGG articles is if other reliable have cited them positively; in such a case the JOGG paper can be cited simply for convenience of the reader, in addition to the reliable source."
• Wikipedia cannot be the one to identify the knowledgeable amateurs, and there is no implication, let alone guarantee, that amateurs publishing in JOGG are ipso facto knowledgeable. (Besides, it is not Wikipedia's brief to identify the amateurs' discoveries either. They could just as easily be
  WP:REDFLAG
  items. This again raises the wider issue of the proper treatment of primary sources.)
• Note also that King-Jobling discount JOGG's peer-review system ("lacks the standard scientific peer-review system of traditional journals"). This is not favorable to a reputation for fact checking.
• The "
  WP:SPS
  exception" has also been already noted: that articles in JOGG by established academics in their own field may be acceptable as reliable, but do not thereby make JOGG a reliable source.

• Claim (here): the article is by "two top population geneticists".

• Two? Professor Mark Jobling is well known. Dr Turi King is a Research Associate. (U of Leicester, Dept of Genetics, Faculty listing). Was the
  puffery
  necessary? (Or was it a demonstration of familiarity with the field?)

• Comment: The article has good things to say about JOGG, but one swallow does not a summer make.

• On searching Google Scholar with the terms "Athey", "prediction" and "haplogroup".

• Claim (here): "an obvious example" of "better known JOGG articles".
• Claim (here): this is the search to perform for "a JOGG article being widely cited, and not only by fellow JOGG authors".

• The search specification in the link provided is incorrect. It fails to account for Google's relevance ranking algorithms in the presentation of results ("one page of hits does not a conclusion make") and, quite fundamentally, for false positives, stemming from the fact that the default combination of multiple search terms is a logical OR, not a logical AND.
• The correct search is this. And, for the sake of argument, this might actually be more favorable.
• Among the hits for Athey's predictor is this peer-reviewed article. IOW, caveat emptor.

• Comment. How does JOGG itself fare on Google scholar?

• This and this give some indication. Note that quite a few "Cited by" links lead to effective self-citations.

• Summary. The positive evidentiary claims are overblown. JOGG is not unknown, is clearly well-meaning and serious about being academic (or professional) in approach, but falls short of the requirements of
  WP:RS. rudra (talk
  ) 06:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It is hard to find anything relevant to Wikipedia policy above, and so I will not lengthen the discussion by going through all the evidence being offered which effectively comes down to the term "overblown" which is itself a relative word. The basic claim that JOGG is cited by experts, respected, has a reputation for accuracy, fact checking and editorial oversight, are not being addressed and appear to be accepted "with reservations". In summary the reservations made in reply to my re-factored posting are now the same as made by me, DinDraithou, Dougweller, and Doc James, that whether use of the JOGG is within Wikipedia RS policy depends on the context of what it is being used for etc etc. In other words such discussion should be handled as content discussion on article talk pages, (and as I mentioned, JOGG is not being used in any particularly controversial on Wikipedia, certainly Rudra's original claim made no special claim about particular examples). No blanket ban appears to be appropriate or is anyone claiming otherwise? I note that User:Rudra's larger concerns (which fill his posts about this concern) concern all speculation in the whole academic field of population genetics and he is increasingly needing to rely upon claiming "redflag" special cases where "common sense" about the truth trumps normal policy when it tells him that a well-referenced claim is exceptional (as he refers to it on other talk pages "RS bullshit"), and needs to be given special treatment. How justified is it to treat a whole field as made up of special cases?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Mere words. No claim has been substantiated satisfactorily. rudra (talk) 07:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I humbly disagree. Your own "mere words" which I read, come down to saying my remarks were in your opinion correct but somehow over blown. I find your points vague, tendentious, wrong, in various ways, but I also do no think this is the venue for arguing about irrelevant fine points of personal opinion, such as just how well known Turi King is and just how many academic articles have cited JOGG. The exact answers are not the point. What you have NOT denied is that JOGG is cited by experts, has a reputation for accuracy and fact checking, and an editorial process widely understood to be neutral. Given that you have not denied that, what is there to discuss on this forum here? The criteria for being RS were what again? I think JOGG can be used in certain contexts. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Please review

WP:SPS in a Wikipedia article. Since the "relevant field" in this case is genetics, that would generally rule out any "student studying intellectual property law", "retired engineering manager", "retired physicist", "attorney in private practice specializing in family law", "Professor of Chemistry", "Coordinator of Reference Services", "M.D.", "economist", or "Associate Professor of Mathematics and Computer Science", which comprise essentially all of JOGG's "editorial board". Category:Genetics journals currently lists 37 genetics journals. For the most part the seem to publish real geneticists, and are edited/reviewed by real geneticists. Please feel free to use those that qualify liberally in the relevant articles. Jayjg ^(talk)

23:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

We all agree to follow Wikipedia guidelines, and that JOGG should not be used for extraordinary claims outside its acknowledged area of accuracy etc. In terms of defining where that border will lie in specific cases, this discussion has clearly failed to get started. Jayjg you clearly have not read a single thing I wrote, and all you've wanted to do is declare the discussion simple and closed without discussion, right from the very first emotive proposal about hobbyists aspiring to be academics was filed. Even a newspaper article can be used to reference the existence of certain discussions in science, depending on the context, and indeed many top peer-reviewed authors in academic journals in this field are not qualified geneticists, so the simple solution you are suggesting that sources for anything to do with a scientific field must be authored by someone with particular university qualifications is "way out there" and very far from anything to do with RS policy. Frankly, if I may observe the reality here, this discussion board should not really be used as a place for admins to come for unquestioning moral support, or even just to let off steam, after they start emotion driven edit wars about content in areas they are not familiar with. If it were allowed to become that then it would cease to function within the community. See

WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY.--Andrew Lancaster (talk

) 09:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW Jayjg you apparently have not fully understood or read the complaints of the person you want to support, the same as you have not read the replies. Rudra has never claimed that the JOGG is being used to cite red flag or fringe style information. I am thinking you are in way too much of a hurry in your approach to this discussion and really I question the point of bothering posting if you do not have the time. When two experienced editors who obviously know the policies come to this board I do not see the point of giving rushed answers using vague lists of links to commonly cited WP policies, and then telling people the case is closed?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Andrew, your behaviour w.r.t. sourcing has previously raised some red flags for me, but I could not make up my mind and simply assumed good faith and adequate competence since I had no incentive to check the details of your highly technical articles. Then DinDraithou came along and raised lots of red flags when he argued very forcefully for treating Stephen Oppenheimer as fringe based on unpublished research. And here he defends JOGG as a reliable source, although not as forcefully. Can you see how the situation is not looking good at all? How plausible is it that there is a scientific field in which all the real researchers, those with results that can be taken seriously, publish not at all or only in JOGG, while the ignoramuses publish widely discussed books and journal articles and get positions at Oxford and elsewhere? Can you see how this looks as if you and DinDraithou aren't completely neutral? One of the most important abilities of a researcher is judging which sources are reliable, which are useless, and which are useful speculations. History of science is full of examples of what happens if a large number of researchers don't have this ability and run off in one direction based only on a vision and speculations. It appears to me that you and DinDraithou may be part of a community that may have precisely this problem. Hans Adler 09:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I have discussed JOGG with both you and Doug before a few times in what I thought was a constructive way. And yes I think all these occasions involved DinDraithou. But please be careful about mixing subjects. You mention "red flags" in the normal sense of anything which raises a concern, in this case concerning debates DinDraithou was in, but of course Jayjg is referring to a specific policy page on Wikipedia concerning sourcing for extraordinary claims. There is no discussion here about such things as far as I can see? Anyway, you ask me whether I understand that this history looks bad, so here is an attempt at a good faith answer to what seems to me to be a slightly odd question:-

• Because DinDraithou thinks a source can be used, is this a case against that source? Obviously not, and if people try to use such arguments what can I say or do about it? However you now introduced this idea, and this was not an argument? Should it be?
• I certainly do not recall you ever saying you were worried about my sourcing, or you and I debating anything from different sides. I can't even recall you saying anything negative about my editing or sourcing. I do recall you being positive.
• In the cases I remember I believe I am being fair in saying I was asked for my opinion in articles I was not involved in at the time, and that I was able to help find alternative sourcing and/or wording, for which I was thanked? What did I miss? Are there really open concerns?

The only disagreement between us perhaps was that you have a very particular concern about Steven Oppenheimer, where I agreed basically with DinDraithou. But:

• Oppenheimer does NOT fit the description Jayjg is implying in this discussion here. He is not a qualified geneticist or primary researcher in that field. If anything he is a great example of what is wrong with Jayjg oversimplification about "genetics", because Oppenheimer is surely citable in genetics.
• Frankly, a big part of your argument with DinDraithou was about showing respect for Oppenheimer, given his high position in Oxford, or at least that is how I read it.
• I recall you making an appreciative posting about information I posted which explained in a more acceptable way to you why his out-dated books certainly do NOT represent the mainstream in this field.
• Saying that Wikipedia articles should not be based on Oppenheimer's books is not a "redflag" extraordinary claim, and such an opinion can can be sourced in many ways, which is part of what I did. Again, the biggest problem in the discussion which concerned you was that Oppenheimer's old books are just completely out of date.

Apart from concerning Oppenheimer, who you thought it was controversial NOT to use more, in no case I can recall was JOGG being used as a source for any even debateably extraordinary claims concerning "genetics" as I think the term is being used above. Please review you thoughts about the previous concerns you say you've had, because as mentioned above, if you or Doug have concrete and relevant examples, I would be interested to discuss these with either of you on any forum.

A final point. One of the central sentences in your remark above is as follows "How plausible is it that there is a scientific field in which all the real researchers, those with results that can be taken seriously, publish not at all or only in JOGG, while the ignoramuses publish widely discussed books and journal articles and get positions at Oxford and elsewhere?" I have no idea how to relate this sentence to anything in this discussion. Nobody is saying Oppenheimer can not be cited with due weight considering it is out of date, and this thread should not be about Oppenheimer. Nobody is saying that JOGG should be used for citing anything unusual to do with the technical side of genetics, and it isn't being used that way. I have to repeat my concern that this whole discussion started with a first sentence that had a big soft core of innuendo, and all discussion has been distorted by this. PLEASE read my re-factored summary above.

Here is something more concrete. DinDraithou has said he tries to avoid sourcing from JOGG, and that he does not really like it. What I think you might be missing is that the main area he sees it as citeable is about genetic applications to Irish genealogy, which I would say is more "genetic genealogy" than population genetics. Makes me wonder. When geneticists write about Irish dynasties and surnames (which they do) I wonder if Jayjg and Rudra would say that they are writing about "genetics". If I want to know about Irish dynasties I will not be looking around for a doctor of tropical medicine.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a big misunderstanding about what is being proposed by me, and I think others, who disagree with Rudra. Here it is: JOGG is not a questionable source such that it should incur a blanket ban in anything at all which touches upon genetics. It meets the basic requirements of an RS, and therefore when and how it should be used is a content question to be looked at in the context of concrete examples, as per Wikipedia policy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It has been contended, in bold for emphasis, that "Rudra has never claimed that the JOGG is being used to cite red flag or fringe style information." This is both true and misleading.

WP:FRINGE need to be raised in order to disqualify the reliability of a source, is absurd. rudra (talk

)

Jayjg is correct in thinking redflag and fringe is relevant in this discussion. If JOGG is not being used for redflag or fringe citations this is important information because that is the main concern that you created amongst others. Everyone in this discussion have written (as they should) as if the JOGG might be an RS for some types of citation, but they have been led to believe by you that JOGG is being used as a source for "genetics" (e.g. "results" and "samples") as if it were simply a genetics journal, and that this is what I and others have argued for. They think this is what your question is about. The fact is that you have continually been misleading and vague about the context of your posting and what you really disagreed about in the examples you came here with. As demonstrated above, JOGG is a source with some level of reputation for fact checking and accuracy, and even newspapers can be used to report about science, so a simple blanket ban is out of the question as far as Wikipedia policies are concerned. The JOGG simply does not come under the definition of a questionable source, even if it is not the best of sources for many things. But it is an RS to some extent, like you effectively admitted in your above reply to my re-factored response, and so it can be cited "to some extent". The question is or should be about the extent and the particular uses it might be proposed for. The fact that is not being used for anything controversial is very relevant I think. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Mantra-like repetition of a personal opinion will not make it true. To repeat, once again. JOGG does not meet the requirements of RS, as it falls short of the professional and/or academic standards of a RS. It has not been demonstrated that JOGG has a reputation for fact-checking or accuracy: citing the King-Jobling article to this end is some combination of comprehension failure and wishful thinking. For one thing, K-J explicitly discounted JOGG's peer-review system: this was hardly an endorsement of JOGG's procedures for fact-checking and accuracy. And what K-J wrote, in a nutshell, was that the field (note: the field, and not JOGG) has knowledgeable amateurs (who may contribute discoveries), and that such amateurs along with academic geneticists may be found publishing in outlets like JOGG. To sum up, yet again: JOGG is merely an outlet for what at best will be

Sorry but you are making things up. King and Jobling did not "explicitly discount" JOGG's editorial process, which by the way works like a peer review system. They simply distinguished it from an academic peer review process. No one is arguing that JOGG is an academic journal. But Wikipedia, while it respects the academic peer review system, does not demand it.

(And indeed in the adjunct debates you are having about India related genetics, you also want peer reviewed "bullshit" not mentioned in Wikipedia, on "common sense" i.e.

WP:TRUTH based arguments. So your concern is certainly not peer review as such. Your real concern in this campaign is that your "common sense" tells you that genetics articles are trying to keep too much up-to-date for Wikipedia.[11]

)

What King and Jobling explicitly did was say that it was a journal with a reputation for fact checking and having an editorial fact checking process. You made your case above ("The article has good things to say about JOGG, but one swallow does not a summer make.") Also, your concession that an amateur, or "hobbyist" as per your opening, CAN be knowledgeable is essentially removing your one and only "argument" from the beginning, which was using the word "hobbyist" as the reason for not accepting JOGG ever as an RS.

No one is arguing for extensive use of JOGG to make critical technical points in genetics related articles. That straw man is confusing all discussion. It is being used sparingly to add a bit of perspective here and there. Oh, and it concerned Hans that it was cited on talk pages in argument about a well known author, but other sources could also be cited in that case.

If it is your proposal that the JOGG is a reliable source for nothing at all, and can be a reason on its own for deleting materials (which is what you did in the edits you then announced to the board for justification here) then this is a big call and has not been justified. You have not even begun to make any case about this which is relevant to anything in Wikipedia policy, and people responding to you positively are doing so on the basis that they do not realize this is the extreme argument you are trying to get justified here. Speculating about people wanting to be "up market academics" and similar hot air does not cut it as an explanation about Wikipedia policy application.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Making things up? Here we go again :-( For quick reference, the text from King-Jobling, one more time (and full text search for "fact" and "cite" may, just may, help):

Genetic genealogy enthusiasts often display an impressive level of knowledge about aspects of molecular evolution, population genetics and statistics; some of this is evinced in the quarterly online Journal of Genetic Genealogy (www.jogg.info). Although it lacks the standard scientific peer-review system of traditional journals, it is nonetheless attracting academic geneticists among its authors and is an interesting model for public involvement in scientific publication. Other resources for genetic genealogy are listed in Box 3. Thanks to the advances in DNA technology and the power of the internet, genetics is now joining astronomy as a science in which amateurs can make useful discoveries.

• Here we see the claim: "What King and Jobling explicitly did was say that it was a journal with a reputation for fact checking and having an editorial fact checking process." Explicitly?
• Here we see the claim: "The article specifically states that the JOGG and genetic hobbyists are now cite-able amongst academics and are knowledgeable and respected." Specifically?

There's a word for this phenomenon. It's what makes a "top geneticist" out of a Research Associate. It's what makes a "major journal" out of an impact factor ranking of 74th in 138. It's what makes JOGG a RS out of thin air. The characteristic feature is the casual yet total disregard of facts. It's a bit more than just

This and more context from the article is already quoted already above and can be read there. But you are confusing the issue, responding to a straw man. No one is claiming that JOGG is a "top" "genetics" journal, nor that it should trump any.

Just to remind you what you were making up, you were claiming that King and Jobling "discount" JOGG's "reputation for fact-checking or accuracy"? And yet previously you said "The article has good things to say about JOGG, but one swallow does not a summer make."

By the way, I kindly ask you to cease your constant "asides" which give wrong impressions about what you are responding to and what is being discussed - for example I mean "here we go again"; your various troll style edit summaries[12]; your knowing sounding "asides" about other articles[13] and my editing history[14], and the constant use of

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT instead of answers to substantive and unanswered points (implying that the point has been responded to already). Please note that I have been asked not to respond to issues relating to particular articles or editing disagreements even though they form the core of what your write. This is having a pretty big impact on the usefulness of this discussion to say the very least.--Andrew Lancaster (talk

) 09:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

After I specifically requested you to stop linking to discussions about other edit disagreements, because I have been asked not to keep pointing to the links you keep mentioning in misleading "asides" between this case and others, you edited the post I had replied to already, to ADD a link to a discussion about another source. Are you trying to imply to others not reading carefully that the other discussion was about a JOGG article? Or are you tacitly agreeing with me that your whole discussion here is not just about JOGG for you? Or are you just not sure what your point is?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

As I've written before, had this been Usenet, I would have plonked you long ago. The limitations of the medium here prevent my arranging to make what you write disappear from my view, so occasions will arise where I'm more or less obliged to address you directly. This is one of those, hopefully rare, occurrences. It has become necessary to point something out.

You seem quite unaware that apparently persuasive phrasing on the order of "formatting error", "major journal", "two top geneticists", "specifically", "explicitly", etc. -- are all instances of

WP:AGF. People are not fools or naifs to believe what you write simply because you wrote it; nor are they imbeciles incapable of reading and comprehending evidence for themselves, who need others to exercise judgment for them. Yet these are the expectations of others that you convey by your bullshit. Please examine your behavior and try to free yourself of what seems to be an unconscious habit. Thank you. rudra (talk

) 13:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why you felt the need to broaden and intensify your personal attacks and go even further off-topic, but I do feel I must respond to these comments.

Concerning this topic here, I defer to my re-factored explanations as the clearest statement I made so far, even if imperfect. Your fuzzy complaints about particular words like what University position a "top geneticist" should hold (I'd say you should look at publications, there are not many teams in this field; Leicester is one of the top ones anywhere) and how to use google scholar, are just very watery and vague, and that is obvious. In effect, whatever criticisms you might be able to come up with (I am not perfect, sure) the re-factored posting has changed the nature of discussion so that only you are left holding an extreme position.

The practical role of this message board is being walked over by your arrogant insistence of treating a discussion about fine points of Wikipedia policy as if you are dealing with a black and white case, and the only problem is idiots who know nothing. Everyone agrees including you that JOGG can potentially be used in some cases. The problem is only coming from you specifically wanting to extend the need for caution in a case like JOGG, to a sort of blanket right for being able to delete any passage at all without discussion. This is apparently, why it is so important to you and I (who know the edits involved), but no one else, whether it is called an RS in no way at all, with possible exemptions sometimes, or a poor RS, requiring caution but useable sometimes. You would think there is no practical difference, but your edits (the ones you came here wanting to justify) show what you wanted to try to use this board to rubber stamp.

But your comment above reflects very clearly the underlying problem which is that you do not really WANT to reply to me ever, and when you do, it is because you feel forced to (thank goodness) by Wikipedia rules. This animus is apparently based on some sort of insights you had about me before ever having tried to make constructive contact with me, while you were busy flaming another editor, concerning an R1a related topic, on an India related article ([15], [16], [17]) which I was hardly aware of at the time.

Here is how you entered conversation with me: [18]. It was described by Marmaduke Percy, who posted a complaint there, as amounting to "personal insults at editor Lancaster" that "does nothing to further the aims of an encyclopedia". It contains such greatest hits as:

• "The notion that WP is obligated to faithfully reproduce howlers simply because they happen to appear in <reverential_hush>reliable sources</reverential_hush> does not strike me as a sound basis for policy."
• "So far, all you've managed is the POV-pusher's standard bleat "but but but it passed peer review!""
• "And now you dare to question me?? Where the f*ck do you get off, Andrew Lancaster?"

Your subsequent personal attack speeches about me to

User:Dbachmann ([20]), which are the lead up to your postings here and your broadening of now increasingly vague complaints that all genetics related articles are somehow OR?? (I have asked you to explain)[21]

, are just pure poison, way out of line with regards to any number of Wikipedia policies, and frankly obsessive. You seem to be trying to blame me personally for anything that annoys you in the world. They show that you are someone who can not be treated seriously. In such conditions, difficult communication is just what you would expect I think?

You want me to think about this more? I think I should think about it less, and I think you should also. I feel confident that most people would agree with me.

You clearly do not like the

WP:NEUTRAL

, at least when they apply to your edits. You want Wikipedia to have bosses, and you want to be one of them. The examples of flame wars discussed above, which you seem to be regularly involved in, show that you feel outrage at people questioning you.

You mentioned now several times what you would like to do to me if we were on USENET. We are not on USENET.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Everything has been answered above. I expect any further attempt to explain anything will meet with more claims that I am the one talking in circles. That's a set piece game plan that is obvious now. Citing

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT as a cover for not having an argument yourself (or not one you want to go through) appears to be the new cheap trick for wikilawyers on Wikipedia. I only ask that people read my postings in order to read what I wrote, and not Rudra's re-readings of them, which are confusing the issue over and over.--Andrew Lancaster (talk

) 10:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I was asked for an opinion & at this point i haven't the least idea of what position anyone has been taking, & I'm not going to look immediately. Rather, I'm looking first at the publication itself, not the debate above. It's not an academic peer-review journal. It seems to be, however, an extremely good hobbyist magazine. Wikipedia RSs are not limited to academic peer reviewed publications. I can think of many fields in which the hobbyists have done very good work long before the professional academics get involved, & remain doing good work supplementary to them: computer history, asteroids, field botany, and so on in the sciences, and quite a lot in the humanities. In a era of "big science" and the great growth of the academic establishment, we tend to forget this. It is somewhat surprising to me that this has turned out to be the case in molecular genetics (since I was trained in an earlier period of molecular biology reliant on rare and expensive , often unique, instrumentation) ), but the development of commercially available dna mapping services has made it possible. I examined a number of the articles; none seem absolutely stupid.

I need to remind people that there is a wide divergence in quality in articles published in peer-reviewed journals--even between articles published in good peer-reviewed journals. there is no source that is absolutely reliable or absolutely unreliable--the way Wikipedia guidelines characterize them is, in my opinion, a little unrealistic. The material from this journal can be used, but used carefully. Looking now at the comments above, I think DinDraithou said this back at the beginning of the argument.

I see that the conflicts are primarily about the R1a haplotype, This is an interesting situation, where the state of the fundamental knowledge can best be described as unclear, and various people at Wikipedia are making strong assertions about it, and attempting to evaluate the intrinsic quality about public work, a task best left to experts writing in peer-reviewed sources, not in Wikipedia. Rather, they need to recognize the existing state of uncertainty, and do what scientists actually do, which is wait until further work is done before drawing conclusions. (personally, the part I find most interesting is the possible conflict between it and mitochondrial dna data, which, if true, has fascinating sociological implications.) DGG ( talk ) 01:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

DGG, you are right that this discussion stems from discussion involving R1a, but the removal of JOGG material has not been connected to any disputes about what the current mainstream positions are. The R1a article as re-structured by me a few months back is dominated by one very recent peer reviewed source (Underhill et al 2009) and despite all the debates about other things, I believe I am right in saying that every editor who has looked at the article has accepted this, or even explicitly said that this is the way it should be. The only content dispute which involved a clearly defined claim that the R1a article was trying to keep too much up to date was concerning Sharma et al (2009), which was published in a peer reviewed journal. Rudra has compromised on that by allowing it to stay in the bibliography though I think I am correct in saying that there is no other editor of the article who agrees with this, and does not feel his position to be making the article deliberately not reflect mainstream understandings. (This is not to say that other editors simply ignore or can not understand his quite specific concerns with that particular source.) In any case, although Rudra himself keeps referring to that case here in this forum, it has nothing to do with the JOGG question. The 2 JOGG references in the article were deleted by Rudra with an edit summary which simply said the JOGG was not a reliable source, and then this discussion started and Rudra also posted a new thread on the article talkpage which made it clear that he linked the two cases as linked[22] making comments implying that he thinks the real problem is "original research" and saying he might start an NOR case. Concerning the JOGG, which is what this discussion is supposed to be about, please note that Rudra claims (above) that he does not even need to talk about whether they were being used to say anything controversial or outside the JOGG's competence, because his apparent understanding of RS rules is that the JOGG MAY NOT be used for ANYTHING? That's the only way I can read what he is saying. Does this make sense?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Other than (a) endorsing JOGG on the basis of

WP:ILIKEIT; and (b) leaving the apparently portentous phrase "used carefully" conveniently (and carefully) undefined, I see nothing new here. rudra (talk

) 20:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

• Claim. The article does not "article does not specifically state cite-ability" as I had read it to. My claim to this effect has been flamed extensively.

Response. I can accept that the word "cite-ability" is not used, and so with a lot of imagination, there might be argument about this. However:-

• It is actually not critical to Wikipedia rules. It is just lucky that there is an academic review to help this discussion, and Wikipedia would not be able to function if it needed a peer reviewed journal to explicitly call a source "citeable" for us. Wikipedia rules actually ask us to check the reputation for knowledge, and whether there is a fact checking process. If these rules are met then the rest is up to content discussion amongst editors in order to get due weighting.
• The same Wikipedian questioning how clearly the article says that the JOGG is cite-able does accept that the article is positive about the JOGG, and that it refers to the JOGG as a source showing knowledge, being read by academic authors, and contributed to by academic authors. This at least strongly implies cite-ability, if not conclusively, or else what makes something cite-able?
• If we must use exact words, then the article does explicitly call the JOGG a source for "articles on individual surname studies, new methods of analysis, insights into mutation rates, geographic patterns in genetic data and information that helps to characterize haplogroups". It names these types of articles as examples of subjects the JOGG is handling well, it seems to me.
• The article does explicitly call JOGG a "model for public involvement in scientific publication". It is hard to imagine that you can call a journal a model for any type of scientific publication and not be thinking it can be cite-able.
• The article does explicitly point out that it is not only the academics publishing in JOGG but also that the JOGG is showing that "amateurs can make useful discoveries".

• Claim. There is a secondary claim that concedes that the evidence presented would justify citing JOGG, but only in specific cases where the JOGG articles being cited have also been cited by peer reviewed journals.

• Response. This argument is illogical. It is being claimed by the same Wikipedian that it is "bullshit" to say that academics think the JOGG is cite-able, and at the same time it is being conceded that in reality it is actually already being cited. It can not be both.
• In another way the claim has a reasonable core in it. Pretty much everyone agrees I think that the JOGG should be used as a lesser journal in strictly genetics areas, i.e. with caution, in anything which is core technical "genetics". If that is however the main argument, then the case should be considered closed. No one ever argued otherwise. If we understand however that the proposal being made is that the JOGG is a "questionable source" with no reputation for fact checking etc then no evidence has been presented anywhere for such a case, and indeed the opposite has been conceded?

• Claim. Quote: "Wikipedia cannot be the one to identify the knowledgeable amateurs, and there is no implication, let alone guarantee, that amateurs publishing in JOGG are ipso facto knowledgeable."

• Response. It is absolutely correct that "Wikipedia cannot be the one to identify the knowledgeable amateurs". That is why Wikipedia policy tells us not to try to decide this for ourselves, but rather just to work out whether a source has a good reputation and fact checking process. It is also absolutely correct that this policy gives no guarantees that authors are ever
  right
  . This is indeed one of the most difficult things for many people to accept about Wikipedia. What Wikipedia policy tells us to do is to take every significant source with a reputation for facts and fact checking, and from there it is up to editors to discuss due weight and find a consensus. (And if there are other concerns behind this, for example that there are some genetics articles using too much primary material and trying to keep too up-to-date that is for another forum and can not be handled in this discussion.)

• Claim. It was claimed that the words (of King and Jobling "lacks the standard scientific peer-review system of traditional journals" are an "explicit" "discounting" of the JOGG's editorial checking process.

• Response. This is discussed above at length. There simply is no such "explicit" comment, and the context obviously makes the opposite clear, stating that the JOGG is a "model" for non traditional "scientific" publication. There is only a contrast being made to make it clear that JOGG is not a "traditional" academic journal. (The same Wikipedian who made this claim went on to flame me about the use of the word "explicit" in an over-blown manner not realizing where the word had come into the conversation. I mention this only to avoid further misunderstanding continuing to grow.)

• Claim. A large amount of comment has been given to the claim that my re-factored response was "over blown" "bullshit" and "puffery" for the specific reason that I said that both Mark Jobling AND Turi King are "top" geneticists. Specifically it was argued that Turi King can not be referred to as "top" because being "Research Assistant" is not good enough.

• Response. I think these replies are wrong and also tendentious.
• First, frankly, who cares if there are one or two "top" geneticists? This has no bearing at all on Wikipedia policy. Turi King is a reliable source, notable, significant, etc. The article being discussed is certainly one of the most significant review articles in recent times in the whole field and Turi King is first named author of it. How long is a piece of string?
• Second, you can not judge such things by University position. In this relatively small field of human population genetics the Leicester team are maybe the second most respected in the world, and Turi King has been first author on a number of very well known articles already[23], and yes, my knowledge of the field does help me understand this.

2. Google Scholar.

• Claim. It was claimed that google scholar needs to be understood correctly in order to give the right understanding.

• Response. The important thing is whether JOGG articles are ever cited by peer reviewed journals. That was the claim supposedly being addressed. The quick answer is that yes, it is sometimes cited.

Extra Comment. As mentioned above, the response to my "re-formatted response" only covered a few side issues, and this should not be forgotten. Most of my re-formatted response attempted to address the original wording of the proposal as it was made here, which does seem important if this discussion is to have any meaning:

• A major part of the original proposal was that JOGG appeared to be a journal written by hobbyists pretending to be something that they are not. As evidence for this, snippets about the qualifications and careers of the editorial board were mentioned. Nearly all initial discussion in favor of the proposal took this remarkable presentation at face value. The relevance of such a way of proposing a case has been questioned in my re-formatted response in more detail, but another way of looking at this can be drawn from an example later made by the same proposing party in his discussion of the King-Jobling article and Google Scholar...
• Observation 1. The same person, Whit Athey although he is not named, is described by the proposing Wikipedian as both an example of why the JOGG should be treated as a questionable source run by hobbyists pretending they are something they are not, and then later, as a "special exemption" who is a cite-able source that has published in JOGG. This is a good way to see the problem with dividing the world into "hobbyists" and "real geneticists". Which one is Whit Athey? According to the original proposer, he is both. We could extend the twisted logic to say that actually, the editorial board contains "real geneticists" meaning that at least in the way the case was originally posed, it was simply wrong, and known to be wrong? But I do not suggest using this style of logic.
• Observation 2. This proposal was opened in conjunction with a deletion which was made from the
  R1a
  article of reference to two sources. One of those sources, Gwozdz, was a basic extension of an observation that had been previously been cited in a peer reviewed journal, and reference to this was ALSO deleted. The other was by Klyosov, who is a person whose articles and correspondence have appeared in other journals. Both references seem to be in the categories conceded to be acceptable by the proposed of this original case. I think it is always very illuminating to look at the real examples when discussion gets bogged down!
• Summary. The JOGG is cited by peer reviewed experts, and respected for containing correct information including useful discoveries. It also has an editorial process for fact checking and does not meet the requirements of a self published source or any other type of questionable source. The concessions made to these points now effectively concede everything which is relevant to Wikipedia policy concerning questionable v. reliable, and leave the problems in the court of finding due weights in specific cases.
• Practical. The JOGG contains a wide range of article types. I would like to ask others if they there is really any practical disagreement with the following practical proposals, so we can close this case...

• Some might be considered primary material, and as the JOGG is not perhaps recognized as a top journal for all types of primary genetics research this needs to be handled carefully. No one claims otherwise.
• Particular areas of primary discussion where it might occasionally claim some specialization would of course be in areas like surname studies, and other basic summaries of volunteer project (where meeting any notability or significance requirements of course). Perhaps these are arguably "genetic genealogy" anyway.
• It also contains secondary material: review articles and articles which give multi-disciplinary perspectives. These are helpful in a small number of cases around Wikipedia.
• It also contains some of the best articles anywhere about
  User:DinDraithou who has an interest in Irish dynasties and history, which is a field currently very much affected by genetic genealogy. That R1a is a topic involving genetic genealogy is I think already conceded by everyone.--Andrew Lancaster (talk
  ) 10:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I would modify the above to " the JOGG is not recognized as a leading academic journal in human population genetics. Despite that, some areas of discussion where its research articles might be considered reasonable sources are... " (and then continue as written) DGG ( talk ) 08:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe this is a fair characterization and a good suggestion. MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

(Sigh. Yet another

The critical issue here, IMHO, is not the articles but WP editors and in particular one editor, Andrew Lancaster. When an editor references a particular paper (In the case of Klyosov 2 back to back papers) even with the backdrop that the author of the article -- previously slammed in a mainstream field specific journal for publishing in obscure journals (non-English) and amateur journals and using not-previously defined technique -- creates 7+ paragraphs in an article based on that one authors paper, one exceeds a reasonable use of the amatuer literature. I am fine with Klyosovs critique of with regard to the Zhirotofsky method, and as a matter fact the premise they based their technique on, that all Y lines fuse about 60 ka, based on most recent publications, appears to be in error. HOwever, Andrew took this beyond critique to promoting Klyosovs results, and blocking my efforts to reduce Klyosov's 'personal research'. This included passages in the article that were obviously in error because klyosov promoted a point of view by cherry picking sample populations. There are many aspects of Klyosov's paper that Andrew presented that fall into the category of unreliable resources. Many have now been removed all but a reference, but there is an implication that Klyosov and Underhill agree. This is not actually true, Underhill and Sharma detected far more diversity with their much large sample in SOuth Asia that Klyosov credits, and for the diversity Klyosov does observe he sources this as admiture from 2 difference sources. The Amateur nature of JOGG is but one factor, other factors should include the controvertible nature of the authors methods or beliefs, it should include a fair balance relative of other articles based on their thoroughness. This is not to the point of excluding Klyosov's belief, however back in Janauary is was very clear Klyosov was overrepresented, to an extreme.PB666 ^yap 09:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

How perfect does science need to be?

Rudra, and the issue of Sharma et al. I have gone over his table. Having reconstituted data from similar tables for HLA studies I know exactly were he is coming from. The problem is how nitpicky does one want to get. 3.13 (2/64) versus 3.33. Yes this is an error, there are in fact many errors in Sharma et al. 2009, I pointed out these problems, probably first, back in December 2009. As discussed previously the editor of the journal did a poor job on verifying the readability of the article. Beyond the drawbacks of this are there any merits, particularly as a source of critique.

1. First they did detect R1a (2009-R1a1) in 2 groups in India which Underhill did not detect.

2. They did detect R1* and R* (xR2) and in some case R1* (xR1b) indicating at least the potential that there are M420, and other xR1a1 R1 and R1a markers in India.

I can give a comparable example of a paper with similar flaws that for better or worse is widely used. The paper is Klitz et al. 2003, a typing of 1899 Caucasian Americans for HLA Class II. In my work I heavily rely on this paper and it is probably on the best, the reason is sample size

a. The absolute frequencies are not _always_ whole numbers. Haplotype resolution appears to have faulted in a few instances.

b. The Allelegroup DQA1*03 is not resolved. DQA1*0303 is listed under DQA1*0302, DQA1*0501 is listed under DQA1*0505.

Here is the problem, in 2007 Klitz, with Meiars typed 13,000 with this new database of DRB1-DQB1 haplotypes it was possible to rule out certain haplotypes that were _fractional_ numbers.

The basic problem with Rudra is that he wants the science to be perfect, he expects near-perfect papers. Read Nature 463, 536-539 (28 January 2010) | doi:10.1038/nature08700. You are not going to see a perfect or near-perfect Y-DNA paper, at least not for some time, until the major players in the field fess up to deficiencies in the style of research they are doing. While we scientist can correct results from old papers, we cannot correct old data in wikipedia even if the authors followup papers allow (but do not provide) the correction because of WP:SYNTH rules. In fact I was criticized for conditioning an authors results when he stated he subjective chose a reference date in a range, both the branch points, the reference date and reference date range were in the same paper. That is simply because some editors . . . . .

If future publications of Sharma can correct 'obsolescent weaknesses' and major oversights then I think it is worthy to be included now, however, one has to be very judicious about what one does include. As pointed out some of the tables have confusing legends that may result in a bad edit. Other parts as pointed above have errors.PB666 ^yap 09:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The attitude war that never ends

Lets take the constant reference to Crap, Bullshit (Pages) and other off-color remarks. Andrew should refrain from making condescending remarks and constantly telling people to Stop! and raising these character assassination issues, as pointed out. Andrew is very frustrating and stubborn, lets leave it at that. We would go a long way here if we could end the WP:IDIDNTHERE issues that plagues many editors on these pages. This is not only directed at Andrew. Rudra, WP has guidelines, there are articles presented in Nature, Science and PNAS that are worse than the articles mentioned in the section. Sometimes articles in these journals are not properly referred. The fact that JOGG at least solicits some referees means that some of their papers may have value. By some standards JOGG is suitable at a level that is a standardize point of reference (like a newspaper article on science or Sykes '7 daughters of Eve'). I should make a point about the USENET, I was a member of several groups, starting back in 1989 and up until 2006. The USENET has essentially died (for science group, most of the serious folks left with the growth of Yahoo (moderated) groups. The reason the USENET science groups have essentially died except as loon colonies is quite simple, the use of trickery, dupery, non-compromising attitudes and a overwhelming desire of people to win flame wars over providing content and run open-ended vendetta's. In one group I was in, sci.archaeology adding actual content was treated as a distraction over fighting viking ghosts. The point about the USENET is this, when people are free to do as they see fit, the worst possible outcome can be expected. If you want WP to die, treat it like the USENET. If you like WP, then self-moderate.

I should point out that since I was dragged into the Y-wars last summer it has been a constant battle and POV problems, trying to bring R1a (one of many pages) to a WP:MOS standards makes tooth extraction seem fun. The grand hesitancy in several individuals to make articles simply encyclopedic (as evidenced by just about all the Y-DNA pages) is a good indication of a pervasive attitude that is in conflict of interest with the goals of the encyclopedia.

In response to one critique, I put in a great effort to get outside review of the R1a page, we need it because similar issues exist for many Y-DNA pages. Andrew did everything he possibly could do to obstruct the process and by recommendation here I placed this up for review within the Cell Biology project. DGG, Dab, all.... Alot of this war was blamed on me, but I have not been editing for 2 months, these players who keep your noticeboards lit up are the ones you should be scrutinizing. R1a is a turf war, and the principle WP:OWN issues revolve around a single individual. Like Dab I do sympathize with Rudra on the overuse of marginal sources, but if one editor goes about reverting your every edit what can one do. Fortunately for me Norton Ghost took my hard-drive on a trip to never-never land, but alas all good things must come to an end. I'm back.

IOW folks, y'all need to use some editorial judgment.PB666 ^yap 09:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

In the case of a biography of a living person, are on-Wiki representations by an editor claiming to be the subject of the article considered to be reliable sources? Irvine22 (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I say yes. It's all quite relative, anyway. Albert Einstein (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm a very controversial figure, so I should be able to just come on Wikipedia and correct any mistakes in my article. Barack Obama (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course! You have every reason to trust that someone is who they say they are on the internet.

......MutantPlatypus (talk) 18:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL... to address the question seriously, it would be better to have some evidence that the editor actually is the person they claim to be. The Wikimedia Foundation has ways that they can verify such claims. Try contacting them. Blueboar (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a much better answer than mine. Even better than Einstein and Obama. I didn't know Wikimedia had a way to verify these things. But even so, I've never seen an account labeled as the "official" one for any entity. Then again, I'm also a bit of a n00b. MutantPlatypus (talk) 05:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

{{

Notable Wikipedian}} is sometimes used for that purpose (usually on the talk page of the relevant article, not a user page). WhatamIdoing (talk

) 06:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

General question. If an otherwise RS publishes a humor or a satire article, what kind of statements is it reliable for? There's this article specifically, but I'd like to hear people's thoughts in general as well. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I know nothing of Pokemon, so will judge this as if its about something else. How can we know that the statement is not an exageration for the purposes of humour? If there is a fact in this article that is true will it not be mentioned in other RS? If its not mentioned elsewhere then what evidacne is there that its all not just joke?Slatersteven (talk) 14:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd say satire is a RS for nothing except its own existence. The trouble is we can't know where the truth stops and the satire starts. Barnabypage (talk) 15:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, a humor article wouldn't be good for hard facts. It would be hard to tell if they were true or not. But, it seems to me that you could describe what the article is about. Using this Dave Barry article, couldn't we say something like 'Humorist Dave Barry wrote an article about the cow methane production. He said "So there is a certain risk involved in the Australian research. But however it works out, I think we can all agree on one thing: ``The Moos of Derision would be a good name for a rock band."' - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

In what context would we use this humour as an example of the humour? For example why do we need to know that Mr Barry wrote this article, is it any more note worthy then any of his other saterical material? Moeover where are sugesting this goes, into the article about Mr Barry, or cow methan production? Is his view on this matter notable?Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to use it as an example of humor, that would probably run into

WP:NPOV to include it, maybe not, but that would be a subject by subject determination which is for a later discussion and different noticeboard. - Peregrine Fisher (talk

) 01:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you could use a humor or satire article for much. Certainly it could not as a reliable source for information on the topic of the humor or satire. As a citation, a humor peice might be used for a statement as to the fact that the author made fun of the topic (I could see mentioning this to establishing that a topic has gained suficient notability for us to have an article on it ... if note worthy humorists are making fun of a Fringe theory, it establishes that the theory is notable enough for us to have an article about it). That's about it I think. Blueboar (talk) 01:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I was having trouble explaining my question, but you got it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Even if we went that far (for the record, I don't), that would leave the issue of whether the OSU Sentinel constituted a "noteworthy humorist". There's a big difference between being the running topic of Leno and Letterman for a week and showing up in a college newspaper.—Kww(talk) 14:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

True. But we have the same issue with any type of source. There is a big distinction between a journal article by noted historian and a student's undergraduate thesis... between a report in a major big city newspaper and one in an obscure local small town newspaper. Blueboar (talk) 15:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted the distinction recorded in the discussion.—Kww(talk) 15:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

A couple points jump out at me. If a secondary RS publishes a humor piece on, say, a Pokemon character, that would count toward notability. Depending on how a satire is written it could be cited in the "Criticism" section of a pop-culture article. Finally it may be appropriate as an external link, if it satirizes the entire scope of the article and is one of only a few websites that do so, for example, it might be appropriate to EL the International Center for Bathroom Etiquette from urinal. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Should indictments such as this one [24][25] or "sealed complaints" such as this one [26] be used to source facts in BLP articles, such as this one Sami Al-Arian and this Aafia Siddiqui? Two questions.

1. I don't really doubt that the documents are legitimate, but I have my doubts that the NEFA foundation, whose "mission is to expose the organizations and individuals who plan, fund, and commit acts of terrorism" would be considered a reliable source per our guidelines for hosting such documents. What do people think?

2. Are such legal indictments and complaints (which to my understanding contain unproven allegations/claims) suitable for citing unattributed "facts" about living people? These sources are used extensively in the articles concerned for just this purpose. --Slp1 (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

No. They are documents of accusation. You can inline cite to it. "According to the indictment against her, so and so was born on such and such a date."--Wehwalt (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

1) NEFA Foundation is, of course, a source relied upon heavily by all major U.S. RSs for documents and translations in this area (perhaps the most heavily relied upon source), so I also don't have any questions as to whether the documents are legitimate. 2) Indictments, without more, are accusations, as Wehwalt says, and as Wehwalt quite accurately says can properly be cited as such. 3) Information in indictments that is admitted by the subject of the indictment, however, is more than an allegation. 4) The same goes for charges on which the subject is convicted. 5) The same goes for statements in plea bargain agreements. 6) The same goes for statements by the subject at sentencing hearings. 7) It's unclear as to whether you are making a distinction between indictments and sealed complaints above, but if you intend to I'm not sure why -- for our purposes, they would be treated in the same manner.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The major problem is that even "if" (and it's a big if) the Nefa Foundation is considered a reliable source for such primary sources, then these sources are still being used in a most problematic fashion. For example, a great chunk of the third paragraph of the lead of Aafia Siddiqui is sourced to these "accusations" without an attribution or an "alleged" or an admission or sentencing hearing or plea bargain to be seen. As are other sections of the articles. And yes, to clarify, I'm not trying to separate the complaints and indictments. They should be treated in the same way, as allegations, not facts. --Slp1 (talk) 01:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

This board if for RS questions. Are there any open ones? If there is an "alleged" missing, sofixit -- the same way you would in reflecting "reported" where the information might be controversial. That has nothing to do with this board, however.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the question is still open whether the NEFA foundation is considered a reliable source at all in this case. --Slp1 (talk) 13:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

NEFA appears to be a reliable source, as a quick search on Google News Archive shows it being cited for facts by reputable sources. Even if they have a political point of view, they should be reliable enough to host primary-source documents.

That said, there are some caveats in

WP:BLP

about using court documents in biographies. They don't want us digging up criminal records and then writing on WP "this guy was guilty" or "this guy was framed"; there is too much risk of it being the wrong person, or the decision being overturned, and so forth.

Whether you can cite the court filings with attribution is a maybe. You can ask on

WP:BLPN but be warned many of the regulars tend toward an exclusionist stance, especially on articles about crime. Many come from Commonwealth countries where that sort of thing isn't printed in the newspapers. You're dealing with primary sources, so you want to see that a secondary source has weighed in on the issue before citing the primary source. You might use the primary source as a "bonus" link in a footnote. It's also possible to keep repositories of documents in the "External Links" section. Squidfryerchef (talk

) 17:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

JewishVirtualLibrary.org be pro-israel & pro-jewish advocate organization but fail WP:RS in my and many other opinion. It state it purpose be:

To provide a vehicle for the research, study, discussion and exchange of views concerning nonmilitary cooperation (Shared Value Initiatives) between the peoples and governments of the United States and Israel. To facilitate the formation of partnerships between Israelis and Americans. To publicize joint activities, and the benefits accruing to America and Israel from them. To explore issues of common historical interest to the peoples and governments of the United States and Israel. To sponsor research, conferences and documentaries. To serve as a clearinghouse on joint U.S.-Israeli activities. To provide educational materials on Jewish history and culture. To promote scholarship in the field of Israel studies.

It not neutral 3 party source like American Research University or media New York Time, there fore it fail WP:RS. It have no editorial over site, information it present be specific for promotion of Israel and Jews and Israel-USA relationship. WP:RS State: Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Since no over site provide, much of material be slant toward Pro Israel and Jewish POV, and not neutral source for encyclopedia article. WP:RS say that reliable source must be unbias and cover to all perspective, but JewishVirtualLibrary not do that, according to it mission above, it purpose be to "publicize joint activities and the benefits" of Israel.

It also not main stream publication. WP:RS state: Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications.

Thank you. Ani medjool (talk) 00:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, see [27], and the consensus seems to be that it is reliable. You are confusing potential bias with unreliability. WP:RS does not say that reliable sources need to be unbiased - in fact, you'd be hard pressed to show any source that lacks some bias. I'd also point out that as someone who thinks that Jewish sources can't, by definition, be considered unbiased, your opinion on what constitutes bias should not be given too much weight. Momma's Little Helper (talk) 02:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, the JVL is very one-sided on controversial issues (as one might expect), but much (perhaps most) of its content is non-controversial. When it comes to controversial issues, we should be using better-quality sources than partisan websites, so I think the issue of JVL's bias is, or ought to be, moot.

One pitfall is that some of its articles use Wikipedia as a source, and those articles shouldn't be used at all (since the JVL articles just list sources at the bottom of the page, and don't attribute specific facts to their sources). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

jewishvirtuallibrary is an unreliable webiste for several reasons, its a clear advocacy site, pro-israeli, jewish-centric and Israel-centric, If you take a look at this you can see that its a website that lies and a website that copy's stuff from Wikipedia:[28] and also the discussion her also shows its unreliable:[29] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, it is an excellent and generally reliable source for biographies. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

JVL is a real mixed bag of material. It includes some excellent articles from respected experts alongside some appalling propagandistic junk. In my view, we can use articles on JVL if they have an author clearly identified and that author is an acknowledged authority on the subject of the article. Otherwise we should look for other sources. Zero^talk 11:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Seconded as a good summary. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Please note that not all articles are written by Bard: Kovno. Chesdovi (talk) 13:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

So the answer seems to be that no blanket decision should be made one way or the other. The reliability of the material should be gauged by considering the merits of the individual authors as recognised experts in themselves and any citations should be careful to record the authors.--

talk

) 14:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That does not change the fact that although the material may be written by others it is published and compiled by Bard, who is the final word on the content of the website. Can we trust him to present sources fairly given his obvious biases?

And if there is material from real experts posted on JVL surely it would also appear elsewhere, such as in academic journals, books or magazines. I can't imagine a real expert would write exclusively for JVL. So why is it even necessary for the good stuff, when we can just cite it from a proper source?

talk

) 01:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Realy don't know where all the complains come from. Sure, it's a Jewish site and it make nothing to hide it, but in my experience it's unbiased. The articles are detailed, not trying to embellish what may seem as embarrassing and so forth. It's not less reliable than the BBC or the Guardian or Al Jazeera, even all of these are news sources it may well help to illustrate the point. It's not less reliable than any other encyclopedia and many times it include rare original and sourced information.--Gilisa (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

As with many publications, JVL has strong merits as well as shortcomings. Establishment of reliability of material should take into account the context in which it is presented as well as the qualifications of individual authors. When editing any controversial article, regardless of the source used (be it JVL or New York Times) extra care should be taken in interpreting sources presented, however one must also be careful not to dismiss a source simply because of the nationality/religion of the author or place of origin of the publication. If an editor objects to the use of JVL (or any other controversial source) in a particular article, a clear consensus among editors should be reached; arbitrary or unilateral decisions made by individual editors contribute to article instability and should be avoided. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 15:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The Mordechai Kaplan page has a single source, which is simply another web page. The author then adds a paragraph abouut his supposed founding of Young Israel that is not in the source, is false (I DO have a source), hysterical, and alleges a cover-up. The result appears in the lead of the Kaplan article AND the Young Israel article in wikipedia, the latter including his bioography as a (general, I suppose) reference for Yound Israel (!). See the comment at the bottom of the Young Israel talk page for more info. If this is typical of the library it is not a source at all.Mzk1 (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for point out information. It example of more lie from this "source" that should no be consider "reliable". Ani medjool (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

To my comment above, I'll add: the pages of JVL that come from the publication "Myths & Facts" should never be used. M&F is a publication written purely for propagandistic purposes several decades ago and never had any intention of giving the correct impression on any topic. Any expert can open a random page and see errors of fact or rhetorical tricks intended to mislead the innocent. The inclusion of M&F in JVL is one of the most negative things one can note about JVL. Zero^talk 00:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it become more and more clear that JVL be full of lie that pollute article with false information. It important to have true real source that do not mis lead reader. Can any user say why JVL should be use in article, with so many lie and falseness present in it and it anti-arab/anti-muslim nature? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ani medjool (talk • contribs)

I don't see how that's become "more and more clear" from the discussion above. That was your view coming into this discussion, and it's still your view. Most rational people above seem to agree that some of its content is reliable and some of it isn't. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Wendy Doniger translated the Rig Veda, The Laws of Manu, and Hindu Myths: a Sourcebook Translated From the Sanskrit for Penguin Classics,[30] and co-translated Kamasutra for Oxford Classics.[31] She has also been successfully demonized among conservative Hindus by entrepreneur Rajiv Malhotra, who sports a Master's degree in computer science. Doniger has a PhD in Sanskrit from Harvard University.

I have added to Wendy Doniger several citations to books published by university presses which call Doniger a Sanskritist. My addition has been removed four times now, each time being replaced with the text that Doniger "describes herself a Sanskritist" (text which I had added earlier).[32][33][34] I also have a citation to an academic journal which I have not yet tried adding to the article, but which would be rejected by the policy creatively constructed by the folks on the talk page.

Huston Smith, "Wasson's 'Soma:' A Review Article" Reviewed work(s): SOMA, Divine Mushroom of Immortality by R. Gordon Wasson; W. D. O'Flaherty Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 40, No. 4 (Dec., 1972), pp. 480-499[35]

Also, when it became apparent that the Vedic references would be crucial, he could employ a talented Sanskritist, Wendy Doniger O'Flaherty of the School of Oriental and African Studies of the University of London, to trans- late the relevant passages.

And there are plenty more citations available.

• 52 Google books hits for sanskritist wendy doniger OR flaherty -inauthor:"Wendy Doniger"
• 7 Google news
• Google scholar hits are all false positives

I engaged the editor on the talk page. He claims that none of the sources are relevant to the question of whether Doniger is a Sanskritist, because the books were not written by Sanskritists. It seems that, according to User:Rudrasharman, in order for the article to describe Doniger as a Sanskritist, I must quote a Sanskritist saying "Wendy Doniger is a Sanskritist", which seems like something that is too obvious to spend time writing.

Here, User:Buddhipriya removed the 6 citations which source the claim that doniger is a Sanskritist, as well as large amount of other content sourced to the relevant academic journals. At the same time, he also adds negative content sourced to an opinion-editorial piece with the edit summary "(please obtain consensus on the talk page)". Unfortunately, the talk page is dominated by people who are committed to changing the current section on the reception of her career to a character-assassinating criticism section, filled with every negative thing that anyone has ever said about her 40-year career, and with all of the positive material removed.

My guess is that what is going on with the Sanskritist thing is that they are deliberately wasting my time and energy so that I will not be able to edit the article. — goethean ॐ 19:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

My edit was actually just a revert of a long series of contested edits that Goethean made despite active discussion about the issue on the talk page. My revert simply fell back to the version on the article as it had been left by Rudra prior to the insertion of contested material by Goethean. I have consistently called for discussion on the talk page. Several editors are in disagreement with Goethean on this point but he continues to insert his edits without consensus. Buddhipriya (talk) 02:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who challenges you repeatedly on Doniger's credentials should be reported, not argued with. She has exceptional qualifications and is an extraordinary productive scholar of Sanskrit and Indian culture whose academic brilliance is widely esteemed by her peers. Such challenges to the obvious have no place in serious editing and constitute abuses

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, stalling, removalk of RS, refusing to acknowledge RS, etc.Nishidani (talk

) 19:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

If you need any material from her essay 'The Post-Vedic History of the Soma Plant' in Wasson's book (pp.95ff.), and cannot access it, I can help there, as I have a copy of it.Nishidani (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The essay is useful only for the survey of the previous literature. The rest as well as Wasson's theories have long since been superseded by newer major studies (e.g. by Falk and by Oberlies). Also see this and the other articles in that issue of EJVS. rudra (talk) 11:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow! Do we have to write 'have long been superceded by newer major studies' of every work that breaks new ground and, with the passage of a generation or two, has now been built up, revised, challenged? Who said it was at the cutting-edge? No one. Who cited it for its translations from Sanskrit by Doniger at the outset of her career. I did. That was the point, not whether it was superceded. Everything is 'superceded' in time, as this edit presently will be, and to come back with the cliché says nothing, except betray the tick of a kind of younger mentality keen to bite his teachers, and make his mark. Such are however, in time, superceded by their youngers, in the perennial oedipal oneupmanship of time's drift in the world of art and scholarship.Nishidani (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

My comment was on your offer, "if you need any material from her essay..." But, at any rate, the breaking of new ground was Wasson's theories, not Doniger's translations (which, as a matter of fact, were seen as eclectic -- see the Houben article linked.) rudra (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

How about "Wendy Doniger is a controversial sanskritist"? The reliable sources say she is a sanskritist. Other (seemingly) reliable sources say she's controversial, so the controversy deserves mention. This may be more of a

weight issue. MutantPlatypus (talk

) 20:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that reliable sources call her controversial. Which source are you referring to? — goethean ॐ 20:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Doniger's credentials are mostly puffery. Her work, as a "Sanskritist", has been quite pedestrian, all the ballyhooing by non-Sanskritists (who however do know the value of publicity) notwithstanding. The issue here is actually one of POV-pushing, or perhaps more accurately, POV-counterpushing.

The Wendy Doniger article has seen periodic assaults by editors trying to introduce material from a controversy with which she is onlyindirectly associated. The material is clearly derogatory, and impugns, inter alia, her credentials as a Sanskit scholar. The POV-counterpushing, thus, is the hagiographic insistence on "proving" that she is a Sanskritist, in effect giving her the recognition she has not had from the peers in that field. (See this thread on the Talk page for some examples of known Sanskritists commenting on her work in Sanskrit.) The hagiographic intent is revealed all the more clearly by the refusal to accept a self-description by Doniger herself, simply because it puts that precious word "Sanskritist" inside quotes, substituting for it instead random offhand complimentary quotage from a whole bunch of people who are not reliable sources for competence in Sanskrit (and had no intentions of being such, either, as they were focused on matters other than precise description or evaluation of Doniger.)

This whole "case" is a joke. rudra (talk) 20:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

As usual, User:Rudrasharman cites no sources in his confident assurances that Doniger is a fraud, only his own "expert" opinion. This is not how Wikipedia works. — goethean ॐ 21:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You hurt your own case by such misrepresentations. Produce a diff where I have said that Doniger is a fraud. It's PPOSTFU time, Goethean. I call bullshit on you. rudra (talk) 05:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile, what I have said (or implied) is that Doniger's reputation is overblown. She has excellent PR, but this is normal for academics who write for the general public, and take the trouble to have a public face. That pays rich dividends. And it certainly offers compensations for the lack of a reputation in the field, which happens to be the case: scholars do not take her translations seriously (here is an elementary example of why.) The fact of the matter is that, as far as Sanskrit scholarship is concerned, Doniger is not a big deal (her status in religious studies is a different matter, though). Puffery in the BLP, in the form of praises and encomiums from non-experts, won't change that. Instead of some random collection of cherry-picked sound-bites, my preference was to use a self-quote, where Doniger describes herself as "a Sanskritist, indeed a recovering Orientalist" (N.B.: she does not mean that in the Saidian sense). I think that's plenty. rudra (talk) 05:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Parenthetical note. No one is denying that Doniger knows Sanskrit, but her Harvard Ph.D. was not in Sanskrit. The department at Harvard was (and still is) that of "Sanskrit and Indian Studies", and so, yes, her Ph.D. was technically in "Sanskrit and Indian Studies". But that doesn't make it a Ph.D. in Sanskrit. Going by subject matter, it was clearly a Ph.D. in religious studies. Her dissertation is now available as the book Siva, the Erotic Ascetic. It was not a work of translation (and, in fact, she specifically denies this - see p.3, "I have summarized rather than translated"). rudra (talk) 11:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

And that is precisely why I favored the self-quote to introduce the word "Sanskritist". rudra (talk) 12:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It isn't necessary to tag seven footnotes to the term. Sheesh.

The seven footnotes were put there in order to discourage cynical, time-wasting,

filibustering debates. Due in part to your own cowardly decision not to involve yourself in the defense of a scholar against a group of bullying thugs, such debates were not avoided. — goethean ॐ

16:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You are still on call for your bullshit. Either retract the statement ("... his confident assurances that Doniger is a fraud ...") or provide substantiation in the form of a diff. Thank you. rudra (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Those seven references were "put there in order to discourage cynical, time-wasting,

• Not a single one of the references is properly formatted. They are all links, to the results of a pot-lucking expedition in Google books.
• In fact, a number of them are incorrectly attributed in whatever accompanying text Goethean deigned to provide. It is clear that Goethean has not read these references, much less understood their contents. He has merely dumped the results of a Google search. This is not good-faith editing.
• One link, No. 5, is completely inscrutable. How is this a reference at all?
• Not a single one of the references is about Doniger. She is merely mentioned in passing. In 3 of them, No.3, No.6 and No.7 the mention is in a footnote. In another, No.4 it is in a "Further Reading" addendum. In yet another, No. 2, it is in a comment in parentheses. Only in one reference, No.1 is Doniger mentioned in the main text, but again, only in passing. The text about Gordon Wasson and his book (to which Doniger contributed.)
• Not one of the authors has any competence in Sanskrit, or even has cause to be so. That is, they were not in a position to judge whether Doniger was a Sanskritist. They were all at best passing on hearsay, without even sourcing the information themselves.

1. No. 1 is by Huston Smith, a professor of religion and philosophy.
2. No. 2 is by N.J. Girardot, a professor of the history of religion, an alumnus of the university of Chicago and a fellow student of Mircea Eliade with Doniger, i.e. not an independent source.
3. No. 3 is a work on the "Oral History of the ibandla lamaNazaretha, the Nazareth Baptist Church of South Africa". Please note: this, Goethean would have us believe, is a "reliable source" for Doniger being a Sanskritist.
4. No. 4 is by Marcia Warner, a historian.
5. No. 5, as already pointed out, is a reference only in Goethean's imagination.
6. No. 6 is by Ann Grodzins Gold, an anthropologist, who explicitly acknowledges the help of Doniger in the notes, and thus in any case cannot be considered independent.
7. No. 7 is by Jackie Assayag and Veronique Benei, also anthropologists

• If this barrel-bottom scraping of offhand sound-bites from manifest non-experts is the best Goethean can manage, clearly he does not have much of a case. But, beyond that, actually proposing things like an oral history from South Africa as a "reliable source" in this context, shows that he holds WP policies in utter contempt.
  

Why are we supposed to put up with bullshit like this? rudra (talk) 04:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that most editors will realize that I am attempting to improve the article by having it accurately describe Doniger's occupation, whereas you are using the Wikipedia project to give credence to your own extreme minority point of view. The above contains some good points, and when the article is unprotected, the citations should be amended to include Huston Smith's article in the Journal of the American Academy of Religion.

Your ideas that only a Sanskritist can identify another Sanskritist have no merit whatsoever, of course. This has been pointed out to you by multiple editors and admins. — goethean ॐ 15:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Please explain how citing a work on the "Oral History of the ibandla lamaNazaretha, the Nazareth Baptist Church of South Africa" was an "attempt to improve the article". Please explain how linking to an inscrutable snippet view in Google books was an ""attempt to improve the article". As has been

WP:RS is not a blank check. Reliable sourcing is always with reference to context. rudra (talk

) 21:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

"...only a Sanskritist can identify another Sanskritist..." is just more bullshit from you. The issue is diligence. Sound-bites from non-experts are hearsay, typically. Not good enough. You do not have to be a Sanskritist, but you do have to have some familiarity with Sanskrit, or a track record in the general area at issue, i.e. enough to be offering a judgment. (Somewhat different rules apply to journalistic articles, but that is out of scope here.) Only Huston Smith might (barely) qualify, but the problem with his citation is the same as with the others: it is an off-hand remark. Please produce a credible argument that any of these random sound-bites is better than Doniger's self-description. rudra (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

And you are still on call for your bullshit. Either retract the statement ("... his confident assurances that Doniger is a fraud ...") or provide substantiation in the form of a diff. Thank you. rudra (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

This is absurd. When we speak of a Latinist, or Greek scholar, or classicist, we mean nothing more than that the person so called qualified in Latin or Greek or both teaches, works in, or specializes in those languages, their cultures and literature. We all know from experience that there are good teachers, good scholars, notable scholars, outstanding scholars in Latin, Greek or classical studies, departments are full of mixed bunches of peoiple all having the same professional qualifications but with great variations in their distinctions or lack of them. Some first rate teachers never publish. The existence of Martin Litchfield West or Walter Burkert does not mean that a David Armstrong (University of Texas) or a Seth Schein (Uni of Cal.Santa Cruz), both scholars and teachers with no publishing record like the former, are to be deprecated by contrast, or dismissed as Rudra does Doniger. The assumption is wild, irrational, presumptious, adventitious and perhaps inflamed by personal grudges.Nishidani (talk) 15:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

This is indeed absurd. Proficiency in Sanskrit does not make one a Sanskritist, nor is Doniger's proficiency in Sanskrit at issue. She is a professor of religion, and most of her work has been on mythology and related fields. Please review Dab's comments upthread, he has it exactly right: Doniger is not notable as a Sanskritist (i.e. in the field). Goethean's entire brief is a hagiographic counter-factual assertion to the contrary, which is what prompted him to scrape up "references" such as a work on the ""Oral History of the ibandla lamaNazaretha, the Nazareth Baptist Church of South Africa". (Indeed, how was that for absurdity?)

Doniger's self-description, "Sanskritist, indeed a recovering Orientalist", is eminently usable as a sound-bite in the lede. It is informative without being judgmental, and does not rely on obscure sources. (Actually, it means that she is claiming to be a philologist -- an exact claim that she has made elsewhere but which I can't place offhand -- but that's a nicety that need not be discussed at the moment.) Goethean

simply doesn't like the word "Sanskritist" appearing in quotes -- but it isn't any old quotage, it's Doniger on herself -- hence the ridiculous saga on this board. rudra (talk

) 22:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Blogs are generally frowned upon - but what about [36] - an "official" blog, owned and hosted by Lucasfilms? Can it be used as a reliable source for material about Star Wars-related, fan-generated content, as is done in Ryan vs. Dorkman? Momma's Little Helper (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Seems like an ideal source to me. The blog language in policy isn't meant to eliminate or discourage the use of official sources like Lucasfilms, whatever format the material takes. What better source about Star Wars could one find? Gamaliel (talk) 00:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

In general, it's an acceptable source per

WP:SPS. A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 00:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Would this book Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America, published by WND be considered a reliable source for information about the founding Muslim Students Association? I note previous discussions here [37][38] have tended to be negative towards the book and the publisher as a reliable source for facts. But nevertheless another editor involved has declared it a "fine RS" [39]. I would be interested in the opinion of others. (Note that the WSJ source s/he added in the edit [40] only include parts of the information about the founding of the MSA, and in any case attributes it to "critics".)--Slp1 (talk) 13:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The question is too broad... the answer depends on exactly what is being claimed, in what article, and in what context. I would say that the book is certainly reliable for a statement as to the opinion of the book's author (P. David Gaubatz) ... but that raises the question of whether that author's opinion is worth noting (per WP:UNDUE). Blueboar (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

(e) Here's the text in question "The MSA National was formed in 1963 at the campus of

Sunni radical movement."[41] The first part of the sentence is easily sourceable to much better sources; the second part is obviously rather controversial, and not attributed as opinion. --Slp1 (talk

) 17:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks like for some of this information, the WSJ article provides more background, so it would supercede WND as a source. WND is sometimes useful as a source, but this is an exceptional claim and requires exceptional sourcing. Just use the WSJ article and facts that are backed up by the WSJ article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Just so I understand... is the issue whether or not Gaubatz is reliable for describing the

Sunni radical movement."? (note... if you don't want to use Gaubatz, you might want to check what is cited at the Muslim Brotherhood article.) Blueboar (talk

) 18:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks but no, the issue is whether this book is a reliable source for the fairly strong claim that the association was formed "by members of the Muslim Brotherhood". The WSJ attributes it thus "Critics have challenged the MSA founders' associations with the Muslim Brotherhood". But in our article it is sourced as a fact, referenced to the book in question. Other (academic) sources include this Oxford UP [42], this University of Cal press [43] and this one [44] paint a rather different picture of the founding members and certainly don't mention the Muslim Brotherhood at all. --Slp1 (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• So why not put it that way? "Critics say X, while other sources dispute the claim" and source both sides. There is no dispute that some have made this claim and by showing both sides, it's neutral and not stating that either side is correct.Niteshift36 (talk) 19:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

From

WP:NPOV: Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views, and the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. (Emphasis mine) Xenophrenic (talk

) 21:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• A key part you didn't bother to underline: "In general...". The object here is trying to get people to say their books can never be reliable sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean when you say "In general..." is a key part. Tiny minority views, especially critic opinions, shouldn't be wedged into Wikipedia articles under the pretext of "being neutral by showing both sides". There was no mention above about any books never being a reliable source. Is that another tangent? If someone writes a book wherein the author alleges a particular politician secretly mates with farm animals, we do not insert that content in an article (even if attributed as an opinion of just that author, and not stating it is correct) under the guise of being neutral. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• The book should be treated like any other book. If something is disputed in it, then either other sources need to be found to support it or it should be removed. This knee-jerk reaction to anything associated with WND is getting old. Major publishers still print crap that turns out to be wrong. The notion that one publisher is automatically right and another is automatically wrong is ridiculous. Some books WND publishes are more reliable than others. It's a question of individual books, not the publisher as a whole. (And yes, I understand we've now moved to a specific book, I'm commenting on the question as posted)Niteshift36 (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's not true that some publishers are always right and some publishers are always wrong. But this is a straw man. There are reputable publishers, which sometimes make errors but are on the whole reliable, and there are disreputable publishers who are generally unreliable. WND on the whole is not considered a reputable publisher and it would be make a travesty of the RS policy to allow it to be used. Surely some other, more reliable source can be found if editors are willing to do the legwork. Gamaliel (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• The travesty would be to reject anything they print out of hand. Each book needs to be looked at on it's own basis. If WND published a book by Sanford Levinson tomorrow, would you say it is "unreliable" soley because they offered him the best publishing deal? Of course not. Levinson is a reputable academic with a good reputation. If he chooses WND over Random House, that doesn't change his research. Yet that is exactly what you are suggesting should happen when you say anything from them should be rejected as unreliable. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

So you are saying that if a known authority who would be considered a reliable source used WND to publish, we could use the book. Actually I'm not sure about that even, as it might be the case that no one else would touch it because it was so different from anything else he'd written, dubious, etc. I'd say that WND books should only be used in exceptional circumstances and this is not one of them.

talk

) 19:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• You say that nobody else would touch it. That is your assumption and nothing more. It doesn't even occur to you that a publisher may have made the author a better deal. Now if Levinson wrote a book on faking the moon landing, that would sound questionable. But if he were writing a book on say constitutional law, I would submit that it really doesn't matter who published it. The man is a recognized authority on the topic of constitutional law. His expertise is established. Trying to twist around who published it and decide that "nobody would touch it" just to exclude a certain publisher no matter what the circumstances are, is nothing more than
  WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Niteshift36 (talk
  ) 22:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

A few thoughts. 1) It's not evident to me from the above discussion that WND would not properly be considered an RS. 2) One of the authors of the book in question is Paul Sperry, a N journalist, which I believe reflects on reliability here. 3) At least part of the purpose for which the ref is used is matched by another RS, the WSJ. Wikipedia is replete with sentences that are ref'd to more than one source. 4) With all deference to Squid, whose opinion I respect greatly, even if the WSJ is a better known RS, that doesn't mean one can't have two refs for the same statement, both the WSJ article and this book. 5) I think that Niteshift puts it correctly; if there are different views, sofixit and reflect the competing views as competing views. There's no reason for wikidrama on this page -- simply reflect both views (I'm puzzled as to why the other views haven't been included in the article by the editor raising them). 6) I also agree that the reliability of the author can raise the reliability of the piece. -- --Epeefleche (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, my take on this discussion is that there is no consensus for a book published by WND to be used as the source of fact that is (a) controversial and (b) unsupported by any other source. There's the question of RS, of course, but also

WP:NPOV as both Blueboar and Xenophrenic point out. And there's also a reason that we can't say "x says this and y says that" in this case because there is no y in this case. Negatives are hard to prove. WND says that the founders were in the Muslim Brotherhood, but nobody else mentions it at all. Except the WSJ, (which it turns out is an opinion column, unfortunately) which puts the claim much more mildly and attributes it to critics. Anyway, based on the opinions here, I have done an extensive rewrite and expansion using the scholarly sources I found above, removed the WND source, and modified and attributed the claim to reflect the WSJ article. I hope that suits.--Slp1 (talk

) 22:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I find it somewhat aggressive that, while Slp1 and I were discussing this very issue, she/he opened this without telling me. And find her/his interpretation, and deletion of the reference at the article just now, even more aggressive. I see no consensus for its deletion there. I may be somewhat sensitive, as Slp1 has taken similar questionable steps in a flurry of actions in articles I am editing just now, so I would appreciate other editors' views.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that piqued my curiosity, and I did find a few other sources. There was a brief mention in a Chicago Tribune article from 2004,[45], as well as a couple of articles that Farah ( founder of WND ) wrote in the Washington Post in 2004[46] and 2002,[47] plus there's some articles on FrontPageMagazine.com. The 2004 WaPo article expands on the issue the most. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

That's great. Thank you. The Chicago Tribune article is excellent, and the Washington Posts ones are fine too. I don't think FrontPageMagazine is the best sort of source from what I can see. I'll go and add something appropriate to the article using the best sources. --Slp1 (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, now we'll have to call the Chicago Trib and the WaPo "right wing extremists rags" and disallow them because we can't possibly make it look like anything written in the WND universe is something the mainstream media may have said.Niteshift36 (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

In the case of a biography article on a living person, is a commercial website of the subject's, which exists primarily to sell services, a reliable source for biographical information about the subject? Irvine22 (talk) 17:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Links please? Mo ainm~Talk 19:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

This is the discussion that gave rise to the query:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dave_Snowden#English_person_of_Welsh_descent.3F ::Irvine22 (talk) 21:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

And this is the subject's commercial website, from which much of the biographical information in the article seems to be drawn:

http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/dave/2009/01/hiraeth.php Irvine22 (talk) 21:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

For a claim that Mr. Snowden considers himself Welsh, I think his blog is a perfectly acceptable SPS. It would also be enough to place him in the category. Blueboar (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be appropriate to put him in both categories? (I'm going to admit, I only read down till the first outdent). MutantPlatypus (talk) 05:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think both is the way to go with this. Thanks! Irvine22 (talk) 06:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar is correct, this is a reasonable use of a

self-published source. Jayjg ^(talk)

20:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts? Reubot (talk) 07:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

About what? Blueboar (talk) 16:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Do people think it's a reliable source? There are about 30 pages (mainly to do with reality tv) using the site as sources. Reubot (talk) 11:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Who publishes it? The website does not make that clear. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

See also discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#John_Gibson_.28political_commentator.29. THF (talk) 00:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

RFC on Media watchdog groups

I believe there needs to be a consistent Wikipedia decision on the

1. Should Wikipedia treat MRC/Newsbusters sourcing consistently with Media Matters for America sourcing?
2. Is it permissible to include links to partisan media watchdog groups in BLPs?

THF (talk) 03:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Consistency

RFC: Should Wikipedia treat MRC/Newsbusters sourcing consistently with Media Matters for America sourcing?

• Support consistency. The
  WP:NPOV explicitly states that notable points of view should be included in articles. I'd like to get consensus on treating the two identically, or a sound reason why it continues to be acceptable to include criticism from the MMA blog in articles, but MRC/Bozell/Newsbusters criticism gets scrubbed as a violation of one policy or another. COI disclosure: I'm going to pitch friends at MRC an article about bias in Wikipedia, so I'd make more money if Wikipedia continues to have a double-standard. THF (talk
  ) 00:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support consistency. MMA and FAIR are routinely cited, often as providing criticism of conservatives. This is a problem, to me, when both identify themselves as "progressive" and MMA even goes so far as to claim that they "monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media" (by substituting their own. If you allow them, you have to allow Newsbusters. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. A classic example of false equivalence. Not all media criticism organizations are alike, just like all newspapers, journals, and books are all alike. Gamaliel (talk) 05:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• MMA doesn't even pretend to be impartial. That they term things that they disagree with as "misinformation", demonstrates their bias. At the same time, they'll ignore similar items if they are complimentary to liberals. They are no more neutral than Newsbusters. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying one is impartial and one isn't. Lots of sources are not impartial, lots of sources are biased. Not all non-impartial things are alike. Gamaliel (talk) 05:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Then on what basis should Newsbusters be rejected as a reliable source? Niteshift36 (talk) 05:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• For space considerations, I've answered your question at length in the section below. Gamaliel (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• I've responded to the answer. Nothing in Gamaliel's argument justifies treating MMFA better than MRC. They're both partisan watchdog organizations. THF (talk) 00:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• And the New York Times and the Springfield Shopper are both newspapers. Repeating an assertion of equivalence does not make your case. Gamaliel (talk) 02:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Note - Gamaliel has canvassed the RFC. I didn't think it was appropriate to notified those which are sympathetic to your cause. Arzel (talk) 03:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• An RFC is designed to elicit opinions. I asked for opinions from three users whose opinions I respect. They are free to agree or disagree. You are likewise welcome to ask from opinions of whomever you choose. Gamaliel (talk) 04:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Then you should read
  WP:CANVASS for future reference. Your scale was limited, your message was neutral, your approach was transparent. However, your audiance was partisan, and by definition is called votestacking. Arzel (talk
  ) 11:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• One person's respected opinions are another person's partisan ideological ammo. I asked for opinions from users I respected. I'm not much for networking, so if I knew more users, I would have contacted more. I'm sure were the situation reversed you would have asked the same usual suspects. We can argue about ill intent or you can AGF, your choice. Gamaliel (talk) 14:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support They are clearly ideological mirror images of each other. Arzel (talk) 05:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support Parallels are sufficiently evident than using only one would violate one of the basic principles of WP - that of being able to balance positions. Were we to abrogate that principle, we would disserve the project. Collect (talk) 12:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support per all the above, provided there's consensus that they are indeed the leading examples of their kind on either side of the debate, accurately reflecting the views of many. Barnabypage (talk) 13:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support consistency in application - else this boat will lean too far one way and lose credibility. I prefer it when everybody hates us. Rklawton (talk) 14:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I would prefer to see all three disallowed as sources, because they all cherry-pick and omit facts which are pertinent but do not support their narrative. And it is not a false equivalence (as asserted by Gamaliel) because there is no difference between MMFA's flacking for the Democrats and MRC's POV-pushing from the right. Horologium (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support although I agree with Horologium above that none are demonstrated to be relable sources. Auntie E. (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support, with due consideration to
  WP:NPOV MutantPlatypus (talk
  ) 18:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose since this needs to handled on a case-by-case basis. As Gamaliel notes, this is a false equivalence. This seems similar to saying that Fox News and CNN are the same when in fact Fox News is much more politically biased. I do think it is important to note both sides, but sometimes a side skews the facts too much for them to be used without introducing "original research" correcting the errors. For example, it is not appropriate to say that both the right-wing view that global warming is not happening should be given the same weight as the "left-wing" view that global warming is happening. Similar statements go for "intelligent design". These are obvious, but more subtle disregard of science are also present in debates on financial regulation and healthcare as well. II | (t - c) 23:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Or CNN is more biased. Certainly more Americans trust Fox News than CNN. Given that this New York Times story explains why CNN so frequently cites to MMFA, I fail to see why we should bootstrap a partisan's use of a partisan organization into a double-standard on Wikipedia. THF (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - this is clearly a
  battleground, and we should do everything we can to discourage the dogmatic impulses of some to falsely equivocate very distinct articles. //Blaxthos ( t / c
  ) 02:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose push-polls couched in the form of Requests For Comment. It's moot, anyway. The noticeboard doesn't make pronouncements, neither are the perceived consensus of particular RfCs useful as editing dictates. Questions of weight must be resolved on a case by case basis. Any of these organizations would in particular instances qualify as reliable sources and could be used with attribution. Dlabtot (talk) 02:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support consistency. We should support source consistently within reason. While a human interest or opinion piece should not have the same level of importance as a formal news piece unless it is clearly labeled as such we should not be able to exclude it. Conversely just because a reference come from a major publisher like Random House, Wiley or even the University of Chicago a source should not get a free ride. For example, The Gold Leaf Lady and Other Parapsychological Investigations may be by University of Chicago press but that alone should not make it reliable. Similarly Wiley has a Lifestyles division that includes ...For dummies, Betty Crocker, Weight Watchers, Howell Book House, and Pillsbury so saying that is up to the same standards as the more academic Wiley InterScience, Wiley Plus, Wiley-Blackwell, or Wiley higher education brands is total insanity.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support consistency. Both organizations are populated with ideological activists, regardless of their prior journalistic experience or degrees.--Drrll (talk) 07:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - I support the idea about consistency, but would prefer that no partisan(left or right) opinion/media watch groups or whatever the heck they are called are used as sources and definately not used in the external links section. Using them gives them our "endoresment" as it were. We could find 100's or links to use, how do we decide which ones go in? Anyways, --Tom (talk) 15:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I think the existing rules are sufficient to deal with various kind of sources, and in particular I don't feel it would be useful to create a new category of "leaning sources" which would be used to exclude sources. WP:RS says that questionable sources "expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature" are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties. Creating a "leaning sources" category could end up undermining Amnesty International in order to exclude CAMERA. --Dailycare (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support consistency. Looking at Media Matters' "About Us" page, I see that it says they are "dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. ... Media Matters for America put in place ... the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda .... Media Matters posts rapid-response items as well as longer research and analytic reports documenting conservative misinformation throughout the media." In other words, their purpose is focused only on noting what they describe as conservative misinformation. When they criticize mainstream media, they normally do so on the basis that the subject presented the conservative point of view too positively or the liberal point of view too negatively. This is just the opposite side of the coin from Media Research Center's goal of documenting "liberal bias in the media". Wikipedia needs to treat sources such as Media Matters and MRC consistently with each other. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support consistency. There are many sources on opposite sides of the left/right ideological divide such as these that, even if not point-for-point identical, are fairly equivalent. Wikipedia should treat them consistently. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support consistency. Both sources are equally biased in that they control the subjects they choose to cover. Sometimes an issue is only covered by one or the other. In cases where they both cover the same subject, the editors can duke it out as usual. --Jarhed (talk) 08:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. We should treat them consistently to the extent they behave the same as each other. We should simply accept a declaration that two sources are "just as bad" (or just as good) and declare that both are totally banned or totally acceptable. The supposed consistency approach can actually damage article content if one declares a solid source on one side of an ideological divide the equivalent of an unreliable source on the other side. It's like a basketball coach sending the last guy off the bench to commit dirty fouls on the best player of the other team. If both players get thrown out of the game on technical fouls, then the decision has strongly benefitted the team that only lost a benchwarmer. I have a big problem with a blanket declaration that Media Matters is unreliable. MMA's modus operandi is generally to mention a person's remarks along with a video clip (for TV programs) or audio clip (for radio programs) of the remarks along with a long section of transcript. And rather than taking remarks out of context, MMA places the pertinent remarks in a large amount of context. In fact, it oftens seems that MMA bends over backward to show the context of a remark. They often excerpt such a large portion of video and written transcript that it gets tedious. As far as I know, MMA hasn't been reliably shown (or even merely accused) of doctoring its video/audio clips or transcript excerpts, so it seems frequently to be a good source for the fact of what was said. In contrast, the second most recent article currently at Newsbusters (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/03/06/bill-oreilly-rips-tom-hanks-mocking-fox-news) ends with the Newsbusters writer declaring, "Yeah, Tom - don't be a pinhead!" I don't think we should make blanket declarations of equivalency. There should be a case by case assessments (unless a source has been shown to have a track record for factual inaccuracy). If a source provides a video or audio clip to verify a quote, they provide a sufficient portion of the text so that the remark isn't being taken out of context, and the source doesn't have a track record of fabricating clips, then I think it's permissible to cite to a group even though it has an ideological bent. On the other hand, we should be much less willing to use a synthesis or commentary from such sources. Those could be used to illustrate criticisms from a given political faction when clearly portrayed as such and to the extent consistent with policies on NPOV, undue weight, etc. For example, in this column (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-bozell/2010/03/06/bozell-column-year-anti-religious-bigotry), Bozell of Newsbusters attacks "Hollywood and New York" for "clearly anti-Islamic religious bigotry." Bozell's examples include an episode of 30 Rock in which Alec Baldwin's character feign's interest in a girlfriend's Islamic faith. Bozell alleges that the point of the episode is to ridicule Islam. I haven't seen the episode, but given what I've seen of 30 Rock, Bozell's accusation seems off-base. Baldwin's character is supposed to a selfish, arrogant buffoon. It seems much more likely that the episode was intended to satirize Baldwin's character. So we should judge on a case-by-case basis. If a source includes a clip and sufficient context, those would be factor's in favor of the reliability of quotes it presents. We should have greater skepticism towards including synthesis from such websites, except in the proper context as one POV. And request for comments should definitely not be couched in push-poll terms (i.e. it is "consistent" to view Media Matters and Newbusters as equal, which presumes a right answer). --JamesAM (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support...and it's high time this 800# gorilla in the middle of the Wikipedia room was quietly euthanized. Judging by the response thus far, perhaps there's some hope for this medium after all. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 06:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Rebuttal

This seemingly simple RFC isn’t so simple when you really look at what’s being asked here. We’re being asked to make a declaration that two items in a category are equivalent. Is there really any precedent here under WP practice for this sort of declaration? Do we usually do this? Should we declare Science and The Lancet equivalent in the journal category? Le Monde and the Washington Times? Fox and Al Jazeera? What is the point and usefulness of such a declaration? It should be incumbent upon those who support this atypical declaration to prove both how they are equivalent, beyond merely asserting it, and why there is any point to this. It has been asserted by many that these two organizations are equivalent, but these assertions are not backed up by facts and are based on assumptions. In reality MRC is more akin to FAIR, and this comparison was often made in the years before MMFA existed. MMFA slipped easily into a preexisting analogy, but the facts do not bear this comparison out. This is just a preliminary look, I’m going to post this now before my entire day gets consumed .

• Composition: MMFA staffers include a number of professional authors and journalists such as Eric Alterman, Eric Boehlert , and Will Bunch, all of whose professional work has no doubt been cited in many WP articles. Their numbers also include a PhD in economics and a doctorate in communications and numerous members with long years of political experience. MRC staffers seem to have little in the way of experience outside the realm of professional conservative activism. Tim Graham was White House Correspondent for a Christian publication for a year, but I could find no others with professional journalism experience. The bio of founder, Brent Bozell, indicates no professional journalism or academic background. He is a syndicated columnist, but I wouldn’t make too much of that, since the same syndicate brings you Al Capp.

• Media citations: A sample of the citations of both organizations by the media, taken from Lexis/Nexis searches for (“Media Matters for America”) and (“Media Research Center” OR “Newsbusters”)

MRC:

	 The Washington Times (169)
	 The New York Times (14)
	 The Washington Post (14)
	 St. Petersburg Times (13)
	 The Sydney Morning Herald (Australia) (13)
	 USA Today (11)  

	 Fox News Network (112)
	 CNN Transcripts (36)
	 Global Broadcast Database - English (Full Text) (30)
	 Federal News Service (16)
	 CNBC News (14)
	 National Public Radio (NPR) (10)
	 MSNBC (9)
	 CQ Congressional Testimony (4)  

MMFA:

	 The New York Times (27)
	 The Washington Times (27)
	 The Washington Post (24)
	 USA Today (11)
	 The Hollywood Reporter (8)
	 The Philadelphia Inquirer (7)
	 The Toronto Star (5) 

	 CNN Transcripts (33)
	 Global Broadcast Database - English (Full Text) (27)
	 MSNBC (20)
	 CNBC News (11)
	 Fox News Network (5)
	 National Public Radio (NPR) (3)
	 NBC News (3) 

When you look at these numbers, remember that MRC has been around 22 years while MMFA has been around for only five. That makes the disparity all the noticeable. MRC leads only in citations by ideological fellow travelers Fox News and Washington Times, and the numbers for the latter are skewed by the fact that the WT runs Bozell’s column, which ends with the words “L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center”.

• Reception and perception: Columbia Journalism Review, the most prominent and respected publication about the news media, has little respect for the MRC. A sample: CJR denounces them as “Propaganda Clothed as Critique”, while citing Media Matters as “a consistently useful resource”.

More to come, probably, but I think this more than makes my point. Gamaliel (talk) 23:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

That probably speaks more to the bias of CJR than anything. I am not sure how anyone can claim that either has a moral highground over the other. Arzel (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The moral highground isn't a policy matter, unfortunately. Gamaliel (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Then the view of CJR really adds nothing to the discussion. Arzel (talk) 23:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, it illustrates that the the most prominent and respected publication about the news media treats these organizations differently, so we should follow their lead as we follow the lead of secondary sources generally. Gamaliel (talk) 23:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Liberal leaning outlets quote liberal leaning sources more often. Who is surprised by that? Not me. 98.208.212.240 (talk) 02:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

An opinion piece by Brian Montori who praises NPR for being fair while noting that it's audience is almost exclusively liberal, rails on MRC for being funded by the right, and ignores that MMFA is funded by the left? Yeah, sounds like a pretty balanced piece ;) Arzel (talk) 02:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Anyone seriously doubt that The New York Times, The Washington Post, NBC News, and MSNBC are not "ideological fellow travelers" with MMfA?--Drrll (talk) 08:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much everyone. No observer of the media or media professional would take that notion seriously. Gamaliel (talk) 14:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Then I'd submit to you that you haven't looked at the issue enough. One very good example would be Bernard Goldberg. With 28 years as a CBS reporter and anchor, 38 years total in the media and numerous awards (at least 10 emmys), I'd say he qualifies as a "media professional". His book NYT best-seller Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News details (with names and incidents, not anonymous sources and vague references) the bias he saw exhibited at CBS. It's worth noting that Goldberg was a life-long liberal that had never voted for a Republican in his life. So you can't call him a partisan hack. We won't even go into his follow up book "Arrogance".Niteshift36 (talk) 16:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how this is on topic at all. The issue is whether or not MRC and MMFA are mirror opposites. MRC and Fox regularly give each other mutual tongue baths, while MMFA regularly criticisms the mainstream media as well as the conservative media. So I'm sure they'd agree with Goldberg about bias, but they would differ in their examples. That hardly makes them fellow travelers and is another example of many of why we shouldn't treat these apples and oranges the same. Gamaliel (talk) 16:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• I hope you didn't hurt yourself when you just ducked that point and did your bob and weave. Drrll asked if anyone doubted that some of these outlets were ideologic fellow travelers. You made the statement "No observer of the media or media professional would take that notion seriously." Then I showed you that statement is false by showing you an award winning career journalist from a major network that says there IS media bias. MM doesn't "regularly" criticize the MSM. The MSM parrots their left leaning POV's. So if my remark is "off-topic", it's no moreso than yours was. Glass house anyone? Niteshift36 (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• If Goldberg has demonstrated that MMFA and those news outlets Drrll specified are skipping merrily hand in hand when the former constantly criticizes the latter, then I'm sure you'll be ready to provide a page number from one of his books. Or perhaps instead you'll resort to sarcasm and incivility again. Gamaliel (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• So now a little humor about bobbing and weaving is incivility? You know you weren't referring solely to a partnership between the two and, if you actually were, you did a poor job of defining your incredibly narrow statement. I think it's more a case of you not planning to have someone so specifically demonstrate that true media professionals have identified and exposed bias in the media. But you can spin it however you want, just like MM does routinely. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'm glad you've treated us to some more of that humor of yours. Gamaliel (talk) 05:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Rebuttal to the Rebuttal

• First, your study is flawed. MMFA's citation count is artificially inflated because it was founded recently, and there was a rash of news stories about its creation by Soros, and then about its head, David Brock, who released a biography. That MMFA was in the news does not mean that its reporting, as opposed to its existence, has made news.

• Second, Columbia Journalism Review is happily and proudly biased left of center, going so far as to say that conservatives make bad journalists. It's hardly surprising that they like their ideologically sympathetic watchdog group and dislike the conservative media watchdog group that has criticized CJR for its bias.

• Third, you've cherry-picked quotes. The New York Times calls Media Matters for America "a highly partisan organization". That same story explains why they are cited so frequently on CNN: "James Carville, the Democratic strategist and CNN commentator, has read from its items on the air, not least, he says, because they just irritate the right to no end."

Your information provides no reason to treat MMFA differently than MRC. THF (talk) 00:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Lexis/Nexis came up with hits dating back to the years of MRC's founding as well. Should there not also be a rash of similar stores about MRC's founding? And whatever rash of stories there were, if MRC was truly viewed as important and significant, 22 years of reports and citations would far a one year statistical blip.

• Yes, I have, because I went to the top and picked the most significant source of media commentary. A case of
  WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't eliminate CJR's respect and prominence. You've just cherry picked yourself. I could cherry pick through years of the NYT or Washington Post or CNN or The Atlantic or whatever and find many more unflattering things to say about the MRC. Gamaliel (talk
  ) 02:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• There's plenty of reason here to dispute the false equivalence postulated here. It should be incumbent upon you to back up your assertion if you want it to become WP policy. Gamaliel (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• NOTE: the user Gamaliel is
  canvassing.[48][49][50] 172.129.113.34 (talk
  ) 07:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• That's already been discussed above. Need we bring up this in every section? Gamaliel (talk) 14:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• The consensus was clearly against your personal view Gamaliel, so you then informed three users that you know would take your side. That is trying to influence the outcome of the discussion. 199.8.158.103 (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• RFCs are open to everyone, just as editing on Wikipedia is open to everyone. Gamaliel (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Consistently include or consistently exclude?

RFC: Is it permissible to include links to partisan media watchdog groups in BLPs?

• Include.
  WP:BLP is meant to exclude the bogus "Hillary Clinton murdered Vince Foster" conspiracy theorists, and to ensure adherence to NPOV, not to whitewash articles of reputable mainstream partisan criticism. Perceived media bias is a real issue, and excluding the only sources that specialize in commenting upon it would give readers the false impression that media bias is not an issue. THF (talk
  ) 00:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Mixed include We have "conspiracy theorist" supporters in some articles (including BLP and BDPs) who say the allegation of a conspiracy or criminal act, no matter how far-fetched, must be presented at all times, even where the source is a clearly partisan source. I would therefore draw the line at such material implying a specific criminal act where no subsequent acts of any kind ensued and no prosecutions ensued of any kind. Collect (talk) 12:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Media bias real or perceived is certainly an issue which can't be ignored in BLPs. But if a partisan watchdog (anywhere on the political spectrum) is frequently putting forward fringe theories, doesn't that tend to imply that it is itself a fringe source, and not a good reflection of mainstream media criticism? Barnabypage (talk) 13:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Include - but limited to political views. It's useful to know how the left/right views a matter. However, I do not extend this "include" to fringe science theories or conspiracy theories. I have no use for wackos - except in articles about the wackos themselves. Rklawton (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Exclude It is easier to enforce a blanket policy of excluding opinion from media-watchdog sites than it is to deal with tendentious wiki-lawyers who will push the limits on what is and is not allowable criticism. If something is notable enough to garner mention in the article, it will be covered somewhere other than these sources, which exist solely to create spin for opposing ideologies. Horologium (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Include - but pay attention to the cautions and restrictions laid out at WP:NPOV (especially WP:UNDUE). Blueboar (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Exclude: These sources are involved in whatever controversy they are supporting or refuting, therefore they are WP:PRIMARY primary sources. They should only be included in content about the controversies, not content about the facts. MutantPlatypus (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• I don't understand the
  WP:PRIMARY argument. If Source X writes an analysis Y of Jane Doe, that's surely a secondary source, right? Yes, it should be phrased in the text as "Media Matters said Y about Jane Doe" rather than stated as a plain fact, since Media Matters is not neutral, but that doesn't transform it into a primary source. I don't think anyone is proposing to use these sources as neutral arbiters of the facts, merely as exemplars of notable points of view about particular subjects. THF (talk
  ) 19:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Exclude, or include with balance. I've seen articles where people try to insert faux "awards" that MM makes up to promote their own POV (like "misinformer of the year"). There really isn't much balance to that. It's a made up award that is the opinion of some writer. If it is a legitimate criticism on an issue, that is a different matter. But both sides spin things their way. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Neither. Issues should be decided on a case by case basis. Citations of fact? Probably not. Citations of opinion? Maybe, depending on if this opinion is an outlier or representative. Gamaliel (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

  Presentation of a POV in favor of one under some situation is a main reason this is being discussed. It is far better to have a policy that is clear rather than some arbitary measure which only results in edit wars. Arzel (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

  A broad policy is what would be arbitrary. We handle things like I described all the time, no reason it can't be done for these sources. Gamaliel (talk) 23:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Exclude. Let the tabloids deal with the mud. Arzel (talk) 23:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Include where appropriate. Lumping together all citations to Media Matters is as bad as insinuating that Media Matters and Newsbusters are identical. There are two major contexts in which quotations from such sources actually appear.

• (1) Expression of notable opinions. Per
  National Review Online or The Wall Street Journal
  . You can say something like "Conservatives, however, criticized Obama's proposal, arguing that it would cost too much," and cite to NRO or whatever. Contrary to Arzel's view, this isn't "mud" -- a fair summary of the major differing opinions can help the reader understand a subject.
• (2) Statements of fact, especially about media. This aspect was discussed at length in several threads on
  this one
  . Media Matters had reviewed several dozen publicly available transcripts of a particular Fox News show and made a factual assertion about what was (and, more importantly, what was not) in the transcripts. It was open to anyone to oppose use of the Media Matters report by finding an error. No one did that, however (not surprising, because, as usual, Media Matters was completely accurate). Instead we had paragraph upon paragraph of attacks on Media Matters. In the case of a factual report of that sort, the source's ideology is less important (as opposed to, say, "According to this organization, an anonymous informant said that he saw the bio subject doing cocaine," which generally wouldn't be worth inclusion if the only source were an advocacy group).

Thus, our use of these groups should be, as Gamaliel said, a case-by-case decision. Consistency doesn't mean "always include" or "always prohibit". Instead, we should consistently exercise sound judgment. JamesMLane t c 08:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Exclude (sort of)- unless dam good reason to include :) Seriously, these "media watch dogs" are barley a step above blogs, imho, and I would treat them the same. I understand that if we exclude "partisan" material, we aren't left with much, but so be it. --Tom (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Usually exclude unless the organization has carried out proper investigative journalism and has a good reputation for accuracy in investigations. Or unless the commentator is a notable and serious one in their own right. It seems to me that these "watchdogs" usually pick up information published elsewhere and that we can find better sources. But we may need to discuss on a case-by-case basis. I do not think the "if we include liberal then we must include conservative" is consistent with policy. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Neither. Obviously no blanket policy is possible. Note that a watchdog website may be the only source of relevant audio and video material. Xanthoxyl ^< 23:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Strong exclude. The mission-driven agenda of these watchdog organizations sometimes means that they cover (or uncover) controversy where there was none previously. A perfect example is here: Gretchen Carlson. This is a Fox News anchor who is completely uncontroversial except for mentions of her by a watchdog site (and by Jon Stewart, another example of a mission-driven watchdog). Inclusion of this data in a BLP can be harmful for no good reason.--Jarhed (talk) 08:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
• False choice - Although one should cast a wary eye on material sourced to advocacy journalists, and question even whether they are suitable (as a weight, relevancy, and NPOV matter - note the point above regarding making controversy where none exists) as sources to justify stating what their own opinions are, blanket exclusionary rules are dangerous. Reliability of sourcing depends not only on the publication but the author, the subject matter, the statement in question, and what it is being used to verify in which Wikipedia article. Further, one does not generate NPOV or BLP compliance by balancing a source deemed liberal (by contemporary American political standards) against one deemed conservatives. They are not true opposites of each other, they are merely two political factions in opposition, and it is not Wikipedia's place to try to ensure an even fight between national political factions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemon (talk • contribs) 16:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Exclude - Either preclude extremist bias with a re-emphasis on existing Wikipedia criteria for admittance under BLP or surrender any pretense to composing an encyclopedic treatment. They are mutually exclusive. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 06:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

What about Fox News and MSNBC

Wouldn't this just lead to removals of extreme far right companies like Fox News as partisan advocacy? Jon Osterman (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The political tilt of a source is irrelevant -- left, right, 'far right', 'far left', 'extreme far right', 'extreme far left' -- none of that matters at all. What is relevant is whether the source has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Dlabtot (talk) 17:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

At the article

Vjosa is a common female

Valbona

are common first names in Albania.

If I can use this source, how could I better express the above info? Thank you for your attention and time.--sulmues (talk) 10:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not RS Sulmues, and not even needed as we have the name in the article even without it. There is not doubt expressed that the name exists. You attempted to edi-war it in (despite the talk page), in a pointless manner. But the name is in without aboutnames and we moved on.Megistias (talk) 12:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Aboutnames is made by an individual, a personally published website. That is why its not RS Sulmues. Of course the rest your cite from it on river names in general is just irrelevantMegistias (talk) 12:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Megistias here. Sulmues is repeatedly trying to insert stuff from aboutnames.com without any consensus on the talkpage. I also note that the stuff about the other river names is entirely irrelevant.

talk

) 16:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there an admin to say their opinion? I have already heard 10 times from Alexikoua-Megistias that it's a commercial website, while it's not. --sulmues (talk) 02:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not an admin but by my understanding of the rules involved there is nothing inherently wrong with citing a commercial publication, especially if what the publication is making its business on is providing information, like a newspaper. However it sounds like there is a dispute about the accuracy, and so maybe you guys need to consider the core wording of

WP:RS. Does this publication have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking? If editors working in the field can not agree on this then it might be best to spend energy on finding another source rather than debating the fine points of Wikipedia policy. Consensus is very important on Wikipedia, and often takes precedence when the fine points of policy are not giving a simple answer to a debate.--Andrew Lancaster (talk

) 11:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I already have several sources that say the same thing: [52], [53], and [54]. --sulmues (talk) 13:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

There has been some dispute as to whether Christopher Booker's book, The Real Global Warming Disaster can be considered a reliable source under Wikipedia's RS rules. Those who believe the book meets our RS guidelines point out that the book's publisher Continuum Pub Group appears to be reputable and Christopher Booker is a legitimate, recognized journalist with 10 other published books.

Those opposed claim that Booker is a polemic who uses poor research and the book contains so many errors and mistakes that it can't be relied on. The issue surfaced again in another article. As I have a copy of this book, but have yet to use it as a source myself, I would appreciate any independent opinions on using this book as a source. Cla68 (talk) 11:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a side-comment here: Cla's description is not entirely correct, and (imho) he has chosen the wrong board.... Most of the objections to the book is in regards to WEIGHT and whether its presentation is a minority/fringe viewpoint or should be considered a generally reliable source on the topic. Cla's view seems to be the last one, and he seems to consider that the book should be considered more (or as) weighty than for instance a National academy assessment report, and other expert assessments on the topic. Basically it boils down to focusing entirely on the first part of this sentence and ignoring the second part: All content in WP must be verifiable, but not all verifiable content must be in WP. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Kim, like me, is an involved editor in this dispute. I would really appreciate an opinion from someone experienced in the use of sources who hasn't commented on this source in the past. And, contrary to what Kim is saying, there are editors who claim that this book is not in any way a RS. Cla68 (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Cla, i usually only comment on these kinds of threads if i find the description of the dispute to be inaccurate or not to adhere to a neutral point of view, since i do agree, that what such boards are for, is to solicit uninvolved commentary. But i would again object to your comments. You are confusing reliable in general with reliable in context. Context is and will always be the major focus of reliability. And Booker in the context of science debates and on climate change in general is very much outside the mainstream, and his texts are written and intended as polemics. You can quote him for his opinion, within due weight - but not for factual information. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

We did this to death last month. Booker has repeatedly been found to be well out of his depth in matters of science. Moreover he is engaged in some kind of vendetta against mainstream science and he makes no bones about it. If reliable, he is thus only reliable for the opinion of a small faction including himself and a few others who oppose the scientific mainstream on ideological grounds. --TS 12:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Using Booker as a source on science is like using

Erich von Daniken as sources on history. It is a field in which he has no expertise and a very bad reputation for factual accuracy. -- ChrisO (talk

) 12:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

TS and ChrisO are also highly active in articles on the topic that Booker's book is about. Could involved editors please step aside for the moment and let some uninvolved editors who frequent this board comment? Cla68 (talk) 13:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It would be in your best interests to stop attacking other editors and censoring their opinions. Anyone can weigh in on any policy discussion these choose. Having an opinion on a particular topic does not disqualify one from being able to knowledgeably evaluate what is a reliable source and what is not. Tarc (talk) 13:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

We already know the opinions of involved editors on this topic because they have expressed their opinions on the article talk pages. If we wanted to argue over Booker's book amongst ourselves, we could do that on the article talk pages just as easily as is now happening in this forum. Again, an independent review is needed, which is what this forum is for. In fact, an edit war appears to be breaking out over this very same issue in a related article. Cla68 (talk) 13:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not involved in your edit war. But if editors are trying to use one anti-science fringe commentator to fluff another anti-science fringe commentator, I can see a definite POV problem there, let alone the RS issue. -- ChrisO (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

As the regulars of this board can see from ChrisO's comment, the dispute over this book is fairly intense. Please don't let that keep any of you from offering a comment or opinion. Cla68 (talk) 14:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment from involved editor Regardless of those who say booker is not reliable the
  talk
  ) 14:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Mark, there is no such thing as a completely reliable source. Reliability is always determined in context. And the really funny thing here is: The sentence that you want to quote Booker for:

describes one of WUWT's functions as "systematically checking the reliability of the 1,221 weather stations recording surface temperatures across the US".

Is demonstratively false. Booker has confused Watt's surfacestation.org site with whatsupwiththat.org. This i have trouble grasping as good editorial practice. Do editors really want to go down the path where we must include information because we can verify it, despite knowing that it is incorrect? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

not really kim, it started on WHUT and then surfacestations was set up when it got so popular.

talk

) 14:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment from involved editor #2. All we are doing here is reporting veriable facts that appeared in Booker's book. Booker is a veteran investigative journalist and an established published author who has made errors in the past in his science reporting (but who doesn't make mistakes?). Editors are now using these mistakes to justify censoring any involvement from Booker whatsoever -- even when he is reporting facts. There should be no dispute or controversy on this one. Jprw (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

describes one of WUWT's functions as "systematically checking the reliability of the 1,221 weather stations recording surface temperatures across the US". is my reference, which I need to tweak to make more accurate. Basically, in the book Booker is saying that this was an early aspect of WUWT which morphed into the surfacestation.org site. That's why it would be such a useful (and factual) ref for the WUWT article. Jprw (talk) 14:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is that it isn't factual. It is incorrect. WUWT's function has never been "systematically checking ...", anyone who actually read (and reads (or checks)) the blog will know that this is incorrect. The weatherstation flurry was a short period in the blogs history, while the surfacestation.org project was setup. Of course occationally Watt's posts something about weather-stations on WUWT - but it is neither systematic, nor is it an attempt to describe 1,221 weather-stations. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

This is of a piece with Booker's general lack of factual accuracy. He claims that asbestos is harmless, that second-hand smoke doesn't cause cancer, that global warming doesn't exist, that bovine spongiform encephalopathy doesn't cause Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease, that evolutionary science is based on blind faith rather than evidence, and so on. He is, quite simply, a crank; not someone that any reputable mainstream encyclopedia should be citing. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

You have summed up the problem nicely. You are only interested in zeroing in on Booker's alleged past errors, and using these to censor anything else he has to say (no matter how well researched or factual), and indulge in a bit of unseemly ad hominem while you're doing it. Jprw (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say that Booker is a reliable source for general criticism of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which is the topic of the article in question). At minimum he is a reliable source for a statement as to his own opinion concerning the IPCC. The next question we must ask is... Is Booker a reliable source for the exact statement he is being cited for? I do not know enough to say yea or nay.

The articles relating to Global Warming are a POV battleground. There is an unfortunate tendency in these articles for editors to cry "heresy" over any source that questions the mainstream view... leading to biased challenges of perfectly acceptable sources. On the other hand, occasionally these challenges have merit. Both sides in these debates need to adopt a more NPOV attitude. Blueboar (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

No. Booker gets basic facts on science wrong and has a very long track record of this. He is not a reliable source on the subject of science. If somebody is continually being corrected on matters of basic fact, it is obviously not acceptable to describe him as a reliable source on scientific subjects. His blatantly false statements on matters as diverse as asbestos, smoking, and climate change are a matter of public record.

On this work alone, Booker has been forced to retract a quote he attributed to John T. Houghton on page one of the work. He has admitted that he read some nonsense on the internet, checked his own copy of the work to which it was attributed, and disregarded the evidence of his own eyes and printed the nonsense from the internet. His explanation: "I...was misled by the internet." Those are not the words of a scholar. If a schoolchild made such a stupid error, we'd give him an F. --TS 15:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

TS that's too harsh. He had literally thousands of references to sort through for the book. And why not give him credit where credit is due for a) admitting that he had been wrong b) issuing a retraction and c) saying that the mistake would not appear in future editions of the book? Actually, these are qualities that would be normally associated with a reliable source. Jprw (talk) 16:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Cla68, Kim D. Petersen, ChrisO, mark nutley, TS, Jprw and myself are all involved editors (in one way or another). Can we get a few more uninvolved editors to weigh in here? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

This was done and dusted last month. If you want uninvolved opinions, call a content RFC. --TS 15:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Tony... you say "Booker gets basic facts on science wrong"... so don't use him for statements about science. That does not mean his is unreliable for other statements. The topic of the article in question is the IPCC, the institution and its reports... That topic is only partially related to science. The topic also relates to politics, economics, and a host of other things. Yes, there is overlap... which is why we need to look at the exact statement he is being cited for. But we can not issue a blanket statement that says he is unreliable for any statement, in any context, in every article that mentions Global Warming. Blueboar (talk) 16:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

While i too some extent agree with this. The trouble is that the usage on IPCC has been to assert something about science as if factual and accurate [context of hockey stick - where we have a multitude of secondary reliable academic references] - i find it quite allright to attribute opinion to Booker where it is in due weight. (ie. according to B in X, .....). And in the other situation on Whats up with that, Booker is not only being used as if a factual reference (ie. not opinion), but being cited for something which is demonstratively wrong (albeit only by doing footwork => original research) . (which i think is bad editorial practice - choosing WP:V over accuracy). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor it seems to me that this book is a

reliable source per WP's definition. However, as others have said, being a RS just means it can be considered, along with other sources, and weighted properly based on notability or the preponderance of its expressed views. The appropriate balancing is up to the editors of the article where the source is being used. Crum375 (talk

) 16:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

As a very (very, very :) ) uninvolved editor...I came across this and must say that Booker is very unreliable as far as I am concerned..and not because of this book, but his previous writings on Intelligent Design and "Darwinism", as he seems to like calling evolutionary theories..I'll never forget that he said that he said that ID was argued by scientists using scientific logic and that "Darwinists" were the ones who were guilty of a "leap of faith"...he seems to be a professional skeptic, see also "white asbestos" and second hand smoke. He seems very anti-science, at least in his writings...and it certainly isn't because he has a background in it..I quickly looked up his own wiki article (yes, I know, no a valid source :) ), and his career began, it seems, as a joke writer, not to put too fine a point on it. Surely there is a better source than he? Gingervlad (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment from involved editor As a published book, it is a reliable source for the content of that published source. Its author is an active propagandist in a political dispute, and has a history of promoting extreme fringe pseudoscientific views, hence Booker is only a reliable source for his own opinions to the extent that they are notable. He is not a historian, and has a bad reputation for fact checking and accuracy,[55] so is a
  WP:weight would apply to use of it to describe such views. . . dave souza, talk
  17:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment from involved ZP5: The source meet every conceivable definition of a reliable source. It's published by a professional author and an academic press. They have demonstrated consistent process to check and correct their facts. The claims made for this source as unreliable are simple a constructed distortion in a political issue. This source can be attributed for inclusion. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment by tangentially involved A Quest For Knowledge After looking at a couple reviews of the book[58][59] my analysis is this:

• For matters of science, it is mostly unreliable.
• For matters of politics, history, etc., it may be reliable. In-text attribution should be considered.
• For matters of his opinion, it's highly reliable. In-text attribution is required. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Interim summary- So far I'm seeing comments from three uninvolved editors, Blueboar, Crum375, and Gingervlad. Blueboar and Crum375 said that the book meets the definition of a RS but is subject to other policies such as UNDUE and might only should be used in an attributable manner to give Booker's opinion on something. Gingervlad felt that Booker is unreliable. Cla68 (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Blueboar, Crum375, and Gingervlad, do you agree that this is an accurate summary of your views?

talk

) 22:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I forgot to add at the beginning of my statement, "Please correct me if I'm wrong." Cla68 (talk) 22:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is more nuanced... I think generally the book is reliable for statements as to Booker's opinion (that is where UNDUE might come in). For unattributed statements of fact he is borderline... and you need to look at the specific statement to know which side of the line he falls on. Blueboar (talk) 23:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Follow up question. Booker goes into some detail on the history of the

Hockey stick controversy. If I remember right (I don't have the book in front of me at the moment), one of the sources he uses is an Australian science committee's investigation into the graph. If I can't find my own copy of this committee's report, is it ok to source the information to the committee's report but note that it is coming from Booker's book? Cla68 (talk

) 01:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of thing where Booker is not a

WP:RS either.JQ (talk

) 01:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably not ... but since the Australian science committee's investigation report itself is a better source (if not the best possible source) for discussing what is contained within the ASC report, the report itself should be used instead (we should always use the best possible source for any information). Blueboar (talk) 01:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

A quick Google suggests to me that the committee in question was not a scientific committee but a Senate Committee debating proposed government legislation in which conservative politicians and lobby groups attacked the hockey stick graph on the usual lines (see [60]). So, Booker is, as I've suggested a good source for conservative political opinions on the issue, but not at all reliable on science.JQ (talk) 01:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Tangentially involved JQ I'd add one element to the general consensus so far. Booker is a crank on a wide range of scientific issues, but he is representative of a substantial body of public and political opinion on many of these, including ID and global warming. SO

• For matters of science, entirely unreliable
• For matters of politics, a representative view of a body of opinion that can broadly be covered with an attribution such as "conservative writer, Christopher Booker says" (note, for example, that his books are distributed by the Conservative Book Club [61]
• For matters of his opinion, it's highly reliable. In-text attribution is required. JQ (talk) 01:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

(Preface: I'm "involved" here, so you may not want my opinion.) Since all this started I've had a chance to look into Booker. I would say that he is a reliable source for his own opinion but not a reliable source for factual information or the interpretation of factual information. If you want to represent the Australian committee's report accurately it would be necessary to find another source or to quote the report directly, even if it takes more digging.

talk

) 01:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No... the most reliable source for the Australian committee's report is the Australian committee's report itself. Blueboar (talk) 01:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the uninvolved editors who have taken the time to stick their heads into the AGW quagmire and give helpful opinions on Booker's book. Perhaps some others might still comment but for now I think the independent opinions offered on how Booker's book can be used are reasonable and make sense. Cla68 (talk) 01:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

And thanks to Cla68 for trying to make sensible headway on this. Jprw (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Broadly in agreement with the positions expressed by Blueboar and JQ. --JN466 17:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)