Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 70

This doesn't sound like a reliable source issue, it sounds like a fundamental conflict about loads of things at once. Not sure how to handle that best. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

A lot of it sounds like primary sources, which are only allowed for straightforward statements about themselves. So a photo of a coat of arms merely shows it "exists", not that it is authorized officially as anyone's coat of arms. &c Peter jackson (talk) 11:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If you do a search on "house of names" and 'scam' you'll see a lot of criticisms. Commercial sites like House of Names and Celticstudio.com should not be used as sources. I'm busy this morning but will look at this article again later. Findagraves is dubious also.

talk

) 07:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed the image sourced from House of Names, explaining why in an edit summary and the talk page. Wyvern simply restored it with no comment, no edit summary.

talk

) 20:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Now he's switched the badge's source to: The Clan Akins: A History of the Clan Akins published by the Clan Akins Society, 1996. Try Googling that, it doesn't even exist outside this article. Every single road leads to Steven L. Akins of Jasper, Alabama [7]. Guess where Wyvren's IP address (97.82.45.48) locates to [8]. That's why part of this is a "reliable sources" issue.

Wyvren doesn't discuss the sweeping changes he makes, he doesn't specifically respond to any comments on sources. He cherry-picks the sources I've been able to double-check, for example removing the Scottish derivation from "Atty", "Arthur". Luckily, O'Laughlin's book is viewable on GoogleBooks: page 3 shows the surname "Aitken" and lists variants "Ekin, Aikens, Aikins, Aicken, Aitken" stating "Families of the name are found in Co. Antrim in the 19th century. Most of the name found in Ireland are of Scottish and English descent, originating in many cases from the English name of Aitken". On page 135 it shows the surname O'Hagan-O'hAodhagain, and lists variants "Hegan, Aiken, O'Hagain, O'Hagane, Fagane", thats it no more about "Aiken". Wyrven's summary of all this is merely to state "In Ireland the surname and its variations are found primarily in Northern Ireland, where it likely arrived during the Plantation of Ulster in the 17th century. However some Irish Aikens claim that their surname is an Anglicisation of the Irish Gaelic surname O'hAodhagain". How many times do I have to show on the talkpage that he 'misquotes' the few sources I can double-check?

The coat of arms illustration relies on a source that apparently shows a particular engraved tombstone in an American cemetery. However the tombstone's engraving does not show what colour the arms are, and it isn't even clear what the heraldic elements are! One photo (dubious since it is uploaded by Akins) shows pheasant-type birds with long necks and tails; no motto is visible [9]. Wyvren refuses to say what the source even says about the tombstone, or how the source describes it! Presumably the source might show how the engraving is notable, and would comment on what sort of authority the engravers had (one stone has the

supporters which are quite special in Britain). But we are left in the dark; and we are left with Steven L. Akins' made up coat of arms and crest badge. The article's heraldry is just another example how he skews sources, they aren't supported.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk

) 04:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Can't recall if this has been asked but are DVD (or even video, whatever those are) covers RS for what the film is about?Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's reliable as a

WP:FILMPLOT#Plot applies.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 15:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Often not, particularly with low-budget/cheapo reissue DVDs, martial arts films in particular. --Michig (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I would say it is reliable. It may not necessarily be right though. I would use cautiously, especially in the cases Michig cites.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think this is where we need more detail. Which film is it? What does the DVD cover say? What content do you want to support using this source? Which article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

At best it's unlikely to be useful, since it won't tell you anything that cannot be found in secondary sources, and you can't do any analysis based on it. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thge LAst Battle (Luc Besson) and it says its a p;opst apoclayptic film (which is what I intend to use it as a source for). Its a quick and nasty source for now, whilst I look for sources for otehr mediSlatersteven (talk) 12:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC).

Slatersteven: How about this source?[10] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thats fine, but this is also a more general question as the list of such films is wholey unsoucrced.Slatersteven (talk) 12:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, for plot summaries, you can cite the film itself. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

But that is interperative. That is to say one person may see a film and think its apocalyptic and another person may see it and disagree (this is what has raised this question, but not about this film). Its what film sto include here List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction.Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems over on 2009 Richmond High School gang rape we've got a bit of a debate going about mentioning race in an article about a rape. The reference being used is a piece from the LA Times: Sandy Banks, "Finding a deeper lesson in high school gang rape", November 07, 2009. There are two questions:

• Is the column by Sandy Banks sufficiently reliable to be used as a source for the race of the victim and her attackers?
• Given the context of the discussion in the column, is it reasonable to use it to justify including race in the article?

I'm not sure that both are really questions for here, although I believe one is. The discussion is pretty much going in circles now, so any input, in any direction, would be welcome. - Bilby (talk) 16:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments by involved editors

For greater clarity: The story ("Richmond Gang Rape Raises Race Issue"[11]) referenced below by

Are there any other sources to corroborate the races of the victim and her attackers? BTW, the author doesn't really say the racial background of the attackers. Instead, it says "her attackers were described to me by students..." That's a distinction that should not get lost in the article (assuming it should be in the article). Also, for the benefit of those reading this, the author's bio is available here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say no, it would be

WP:UNDUE. Even when I search specifically for it, the sources generally don't mention it. [12] - Peregrine Fisher (talk

) 17:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding

WP:WEIGHT, race isn't even mentioned until the very end of that source, yet somehow is featured prominently in our article. In the lede, no less. Of course, in order to judge weight, we need to look at all the sources. A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 18:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Opinion columns in mainstream newspapers are reliable sources for the author's opinion, and should be used with attribution. But they are not generally considered reliable for facts, certainly not in a case where the alleged facts are presented as anonymously sourced hearsay. Dlabtot (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• We can find a better source for this statement than an opinion column where the author has to explicitly rely on hearsay from underage sources. Here, San Francisco Chronicle. "P- is the only black suspect named in the case. S- is white, and the other suspects are Latino." --GRuban (talk) 17:16, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I was about to suggest that one. :) It doesn't mention the race of the victim, though. - Bilby (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• I would avoid it. If race was not made an issue, there is no particular reason to mention it here.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The reporter seems to have interviewed witnesses to the rape, as well as having expressed an opinion. So it is typical newspaper reporting of the testimony of witnesses to the event, not hearsay. She says, "In the Richmond gang rape case, I was surprised that so many readers made race the subtext. And they took me to task for not mentioning the race of the victim or her attackers." So there must be an original report by the reporter who wrote the opinion piece which does not mention race. So she, and others made an editorial decision that race was irrelevant, which we can, or not, take as a guide. If there is a fact to be reported it is that many people assume the attack had significant racial elements instead of it being the multicultural event that it was. So, good source, but perhaps not relevant information. Fred Talk 18:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Reliable sources don't make race was an issue in this case. And in fact the opinion column source was written in part to explain why this reporter concerned didn't think it was a useful factor to talk about when reporting on the attack. Ergo, we shouldn't doing what amounts to
  synthesis by mentioning something that most reliable sources, one explicitly, have determined to be irrelevant. This is most particularly true in the Lead. --Slp1 (talk
  ) 00:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The reliable sources say the race of the victim (LA Times) and the attackers (LA Times and SF Chron). The source also says that numerous people have written in about the racial dimension. Still not enough? See "Richmond Gang Rape Raises Race Issue"[13] which came right to the top when I googled. Seems like that's an open-and-shut case: race IS an issue in the case and a simple mention of it is not

The opinion column is definitely out for statements of fact like this. It's fine for sourcing the reporter's opinion (in this case, her opinion that she was justified in not making race an issue in the actual news article). Also out, obviously, is a Wikipedia editor's personal opinion that it's "hard to imagine" race wasn't an issue. Of course there may be some other sources that do discuss/mention/make a big deal about race; how to deal with that is an editorial decision that should be made at the article at hand. It looks like the discussion is progressing.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, no one said put my opinion in the article. But, my opinion on what is relevant is totally appropriate. Given my proximity to the community it is actually *more* than appropriate. You won't find another editor closer to the subject matter. And indeed, hard not to see the racial dimension...out of all those hundreds of people at the dance, the one Caucasian female was gang-raped.

Now, There are three reliable sources, one titled "Richmond Gang Rape Raises Race Issue", that we have. I'm guessing there are many more. Sure, one is an opinion column in a top-level reliable source. That doesn't make it unreliable, as per

WP:RS

. So, I hope that shuts the "reliable sources" question.

As to the question of "Undue" weight; a simple mention is not undue weight, especially given the obvious concerns of multitudes who wrote to the journalist at the LA Times.

What's more of a problem here is that if this is removed, its a clear-cut violation of

WP:CENSOR

. This is well-cited material. It is ugly and sad. But wikipedia doesn't censor facts that are ugly and sad. Covering it up does no one any good -- and is against wikipedia's policies. The girl's family may not have realized the racial environment at RHS, and the danger to her, precisely because of censorship like this.

Finally, a parallel. The Duke Lacrosse Rape Case article is an entire article about a rape that didn't happen. The names of the people that didn't do the crime are right there for everyone to see. The race of the non-victim and non-attackers are all stated, in the lead:

"In March 2006 Crystal Gail Mangum, a black student at North Carolina Central University who worked as a stripper, dancer and escort, falsely accused three white Duke University students, members of the Duke Blue Devils men's lacrosse team, of raping her at a party held at the house of two team's captains" Richmondian (talk) 02:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the RS Noticeboard, where we talk about the reliability of sources in context. Your off-topic, tendentious, disruptive and argumentative comment completely ignores the issue of the reliability of sourcing - in this case as well as the Duke lacrosse case. I respectfully ask that you refrain from posting further comments in the same vein. Dlabtot (talk) 03:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Did you miss this?

There are three reliable sources, one titled "Richmond Gang Rape Raises Race Issue", that we have. I'm guessing there are many more. Sure, one is an opinion column in a top-level reliable source. That doesn't make it unreliable, as per

WP:RS. So, I hope that shuts the "reliable sources" question.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Richmondian (talk • contribs

) 2010-07-16 04:24:37

Yes, you are right there are three sources likely reliable for one thing or another. But not for everything. Multiple independent editors here, and on the talkpage of the article have concluded that they do not justify the edit you wish to make. Your post, with its claims of censorship,

advocacy of a pet point of view. This board is not the place for that post, and the encyclopedia is not the place for making points not made by reliable sources. Thank you. Slp1 (talk

) 13:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

But, the sources DO make the exact claim: the girl was white, the attacking group was multiracial. Its pretty clear to me this board has taken on a political slant when info from the LA Times, which no one has claimed is inaccurate, is considered "unreliable". Richmondian (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

One source does make the observation, in the context of saying the information is unimportant and irrelevant. It is a clear example of a

misuse of a source. And no, it is not a political bias to say that an opinion column, even one from a well-known newspaper is not a suitable source for information about a living person, most especially when the column makes the opposite point ("I don't believe that [race] explains the attack") from the one you want it to ("race IS an issue"- above) --Slp1 (talk

) 21:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

If a reliable secondary source, and this includes staff editorials, discussed or debated race as an issue, then it is appropriate to mention race in the article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I know that on Wiki we should also use other sources also from another point of view BUT this is in that case ridiculous. Just read this part of an article.

About a 500 strong Mujahideen unit is fighting in different front lines and Mujahideen reinforcements are on their way to the battle zone.

Report further added, that about 38 American invaders so far have been killed or wounded, with some of enemy tanks have been destroyed, while five Mujahideen embraced martyrdom ::with another four wounded. It is to be mentioned that NATO and US have never confirm Taliban's summary of casualties of the occupation soldiers. The occupation command keeps their ::count of casualties which are several times lower than the numbers reported by the Taliban.

http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2010/06/28/12257.shtml

I am for banning this source forever. It's not another point of view it's a Terrorist site without any connection to the reality. Bullshit - Islamic propaganda.

No, it's not a reliable source, per this previous discussion. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer!

Is there a possibility to ban this source ?

There is an interesting point here. Kavkazcenter is not just one random individual with a website but clearly has a close relationship with jihadist groups, and at least where the Caucasus is concerned (which is the context in which I've come across it), it has been the main outlet for the views of the Chechen guerrillas. As such, it's been widely cited by the media and published authors. If we are to quote it, it would have to be used very carefully in articles, not using it for statements of fact but attributing its claims - for instance, "The pro-Taliban website Kavkazcenter claimed that ..." -- ChrisO (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Why would Wikipedia care what "the pro-Taliban website Kavkazcenter claimed"? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't shoot the messenger, but one way to deal with rampant systemic bias on English Wikipedia is "don't overlook the official news outlets of a country. Certainly they will be more one sided than wikipedians may like, but they may provide a different way of thinking about an article. They may also be useful as a primary source of information about why the government of that particular country has its opinion on a subject and why it acts the way it does." - Quote per Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. But of course like ChrisO said, proceed with caution. Jim101 (talk) 02:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This isn't the Countering Systemic Bias Noticebard, it's the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. We're here to assess whether sources are reliable, no more, and advice from Wikiprojects has no weight compared to policy. And when did Kavkazcenter become "the official news outlets of a country" anyway? That advice is directed at sources like the Xinhua News Agency. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the topic of whether "Wikipedia care what the pro-Taliban website says" does not belong on Reliable Sources Noticeboard either, it belongs to the FRINGE notice board and the

WP:FRINGE) as a primary source. If not, then it does not belong on Wikipedia in anyway. Jim101 (talk

) 05:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Kavkaz Center is apparently a pro-Chechen news website. Despite all the purple prose above, an interesting question has been brought up. We don't overlook the official news outlets of a country, but how does this apply to stateless nations? But a more important question to ask, how notable is their opinion on events outside the Caucasus? But anyway, it looks like the article being discussed is Battle for Height 776, about a battle in Chechnya. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Please review the meaning of purple prose. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I added a paragraph to the Starcraft II page at the end of the Development section. I put in three sources and I'm wondering if they're reliable, and if so how to make them no longer identified as unreliable.

The first link was to http://www.gamespot.com/news/6269369.html?tag=latestheadlines%3Btitle%3B2 from the GameSpot website which reports on video game news and reviews games. It is a widely recognize source and is well known in the industry which should count for its credibility.

Second comes http://www.kotaku.com.au/2010/02/report-the-ten-most-expensive-video-game-budgets-apparently-are/ which is probably the most unreliable source I used, as it is clearly showing its list directly from another website, meaning if any link should be used perhaps it would be their reference. However, the information that is shown is correct.

Lastly there is the http://uk.videogames.games.yahoo.com/blog/article/8081/ link from Yahoo!'s UK site, which seems pretty reliable to me. Your responses in this matter are appreciated. woolysockofdoom (talk) 22:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

synthesis of information from reliable source to make a new claim

. Quote:

• In mid July 2010, The Wall Street Journal reported that Activision Blizzard had already spent over $100 million developing the Starcraft II Trilogy, which does not include advertising and marketing.[1] This ties Starcraft II with Grand Theft Auto IV, which also had a development cost of $100 million, as the video games with the most expensive development.[2][3]

None of the above three sources explicitly stated that "Starcraft II ties with Grand Theft Auto IV in game budgets", thus this paragraph is in violation of

WP:OR. I hope this answers your question. Jim101 (talk

) 22:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course, in reality the two budgets would not be equal, since one might have cost, hypothetically speaking, $100.3 million, while another cost $100.4 million. Despite this, I would like to say that I find it odd that with two reliable sources stating that two budgets cost $100 million, I am not allowed to draw a comparison between the two. woolysockofdoom (talk) 00:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, mentioning GTA IV in a Starcraft II article without a source that explicitly link the two game together is also a

undue weight policy. The logic is this, if GTA IV vs. Starcraft II comparison really need to be mentioned on Wikipedia, then a reliable source should be comparing them already. Otherwise, the comparison is just some editor's opinion. Jim101 (talk

) 00:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly. To be synthesis, it has to present some fact or opinion which isn't present in the cited sources. This would really be a

WP:RELEVANCE issue where it may be a fact that simply isn't relevant to the article. Squidfryerchef (talk

) 01:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

So, if I found an article that mentioned how Starcraft II is now one of the most expensive games in history to be developed, could I cite it and state something to that effect, and thing bring in this source listing the previous or other most expensive games to make? woolysockofdoom (talk) 01:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It's still kind of borderline. This is the kind of information that could get stale very quickly. What happens when GTA V comes out? We should probably just list the development costs of this particular game and be done with it. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The Avatar page mentions it becoming the highest-grossing film of all time, and references Titanic which previously held that record. I see little difference in the apparent relevance and up to date changes that would take place between gross revenue and budget. woolysockofdoom (talk) 01:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

That is because RS citation such as 166 explicitly compared Avatar with Titanic's box office earnings. Jim101 (talk) 01:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Jim101 is correct here; mentioning Grand Theft Auto IV in this article is

WP:NOR, unless reliable secondary sources explicitly make the comparison. Even then, the sources would be restricted to those actually making the comparison. Jayjg ^(talk)

03:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This is an alert. This book plagiarizes extensively from Wikipedia articles while claiming to be the product of thorough research. Compare, for example, our article on Lake Manasarovar to that book's description: [14] It is currently used as a reference in six articles. I'm going to remove it from all of those.[15] In a recent case, a Wikipedia editor thought that users here had plagiarized from it but an investigation of the editing dates showed it was the opposite. There is also at least one other book in the series, Faith & philosophy of Sikhism, which is probably suspicious as well.   Will Beback  talk  10:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

PS: I just checked another book in the series, by a different "author", and found more blatant plagiarism. Be on the look out for these titles:

• Faith & philosophy of Buddhism
• Faith & philosophy of Christianity
• Faith & philosophy of Hinduism
• Faith & philosophy of Islam
• Faith & philosophy of Jainism
• Faith & philosophy of Sikhism
• Faith & philosophy of Zoroastrianism

I guess it's the publisher's business model to assemble books from Wikipedia content.   Will Beback  talk  10:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Side issue: are they violating the licence? Peter jackson (talk) 10:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently. None of the books mention "Wikipedia" or "GFDL".   Will Beback  talk  11:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm still researching it, but another book by the same publisher, Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh 2006, may also include plagiarized material. For example, the 2006 version of Puthandu here has several identical sentences to their article,[16] Even stronger evidence: The 2005 version of Pawapuri is identical to their entry.[17] I'm growing suspicious of all of their recent books. Unfortunately, they appear to be cited frequently on Wikipedia.[18] That encyclopedia alone is cited about 40 times.   Will Beback  talk  11:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see this came up last year too. Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics/Archive 42#Problem with ISHA books as references and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 37#ISHA books and other circular references   Will Beback  talk  11:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Complicating factor. Copying from WP doesn't necessarily make a source unreliable. It may have adequate editorial controls to determine which bits of WP are right. E.g., I understand Veropedia consists entirely of WP articles certified by experts in their respective fields, so might well count as RS. Peter jackson (talk) 13:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources that copy WP may not be discussed in

WP:V#Wikipedia and sources that mirror or use it). We may not use them. Period. It does not matter how many certified experts have vouched for them. We do not allow circular references. We need to review each and every citation to books by this publisher, and where they copy WP, we should immediately remove the reference. If the plagiarism continues, we may have justification for banning books by the publisher all together. Blueboar (talk

) 13:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Peter that some parts of the books may be fine, but how much time and energy would it take to figure out the sources used for each cited page, etc? It's a lot a of work. If the authors had only stole a paragraph or even one or two articles, then perhaps that could be worked around. But with these books the copying is so widespread that the only practical solution is to remove them as citations entirely. We still don't know how many other Gyan Publishing House books have the same problem.   Will Beback  talk  22:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Not on the point, but as a side-question: Can you call copying from Wikipedia as "plagiarism"? Isnt Wikipedia supposed to be "free". Or is it that Wikipedia should be acknowledged when copying. I don't know actually. I always thought one can blatantly copy from WP. Arjun^codename024 16:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know much about the license that Wikipedia uses for its content, but I think in any case, if you use material from Wikipedia it's expected that it'll be properly attributed. I think the rules for usage also change somewhat when you're using material from Wikipedia to make money for yourself. — e. ripley\^talk 20:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to transcribe the text, but the preface of the Hinduism book goes on about how carefully researched it is and how the many references prove the authenticity of the scholarship. The author "doth protest too much".   Will Beback  talk  21:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Another response to the side-question - copy and paste from one WP article to another without attribution is actually copyvio, see

talk

) 13:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Quite true, though perhaps the least of the violations. I'm guilty of it myself.   Will Beback  talk  12:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's another one: "Psychotherapy in a Traditional Society" 2008Portions of the text on page 203 and related pages was lifted word-for-word from an earlier version of the Wikipedia TM article. The author does credit Wikipedia in in-line notes, though it does not place direct quotes in quotation marks. Regardless, it is mirrored or circular.

Thanks for finding that. Fortunately, it looks like it isn't being used as a reference for WP articles.   Will Beback  talk  22:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, the licence requires any republisher of WP material

1. to acknowledge authorship (usually done by referring back to WP, but actually naming the authors would satisfy the licensing conditions)
2. to inform readers that the material is so licensed & that they are therefore free to copy the material from the book subject to the same conditions

It seems unlikely these people have complied with the conditions, which is why I asked about this earlier. Of course enforcing copyright in India is hard.

BB, are you really saying that if "Academic and peer-reviewed publications" say WP has got something right, they suddenly become unreliable sources? That seems to me a rather bizarre policy. But then WP seems full of those. Peter jackson (talk) 10:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there someone who follows up on license violations? If no one here knows I'll check elsewhere. This appears to be a significant set of violations.

I'm not sure how the question of "Academic and peer-reviewed publications" comes in here. Most parts of Wikipedia are quite accurate, however they aren't reliably accurate. What is correct today may become incorrect tomorrow (and corrected again quickly, we hope). Many good scholarly works cite Wikipedia, and when we use those as sources we can avoid the footnoted references that'd be circular. But when authors hide the fact that they're stealing material from Wikipedia it becomes tremendously more difficult to determine WP from non-WP content, and the only practical solution may be the wholesale removal of all citations.

The problem with this same publisher came up last year, and either wasn't fixed or all of these citations are new. Unfortunately, there's no "blacklist" of sources. We have no effective way of alerting editors besides having them search talk page or noticeboard archives. Someone suggested having a list of circular references, and I think it makes sense. Obviously, the publisher isn't going to recall these books to correct them and so the problem is going to remain forever.

I'm going to delete the citations to Encyclopaedia of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, and I'll leave a note on the talk page of each one explaining the reason. I'll also rename this thread so it's easier to spot.   Will Beback  talk  10:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted all of the cites to the Encyclopaedia that I could find, about 50. I also noticed that this same book was discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive200#Wikipedia-based encyclopedia that doesn't acknowledge any source.   Will Beback  talk 

See this edit [19] and the discussion in the edit summaries preceding it as well as on the talk page. I dont read Lithuanian. There are claims the the papers published by GRRCL are peer reviewed. Per the AFD of CRRCL, no actual third parties have been shown to have cited CRRCL's work or even written about them. Active Banana (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

They claim they are "peer reviewed" - if you mean independently reviewed by that, and the work is all anti-Soviet and nationalistic in tone. Not neutral, so not relable Nefesf9 (talk) 00:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? There is 107 citations for "Genocidas ir rezistencija" on Google books. Here is an English-language book review in Lituanus. Renata (talk) 01:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I checked dozens of those so called sources - and you know what - most of them that I saw were other GRRCL works citing each other, not independent third parties. So the claim of 107 citations is a bit overblown. Active Banana (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the author of the article is not prevented from citing it in other articles. It doesn't mean that we can ridicule them as "so called sources". And there are still enough independent citations (for example, [20]). --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

My "so called sources" was directed at the person who claimed that simply because googlebooks resulted in 107 hits guaranteed the status of reliability- without checking to see what the ghits actually were. My sampling of the first several dozen resulted in only 1 of the hits being something something from a third party that could potentially be argued created the impression that GRRCL has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. The others were circular references with GRRCL publications citing other GRRCL publications. Active Banana (talk) 00:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You know, it could still be interpreted as trying to insult other editors... I assume you didn't mean it that way, but still, it would be better for you to be a little more careful. If I understand you correctly, "I'm afraid that speaking about number of citations without qualification might be somewhat misleading, as it looks like many of them are works of GRRCL citing other works of this same center..." would have expressed the same idea in a more civil way. Wouldn't you agree? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Biased sources does not mean that they are unreliable. Most sources is biased to some extent, so trying to draw a line would be problematic. And even if we draw such a line it would conflict with WP:NPOV.

Taemyr (talk

) 06:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not think the objection to this source stands up to scrutiny. Just because something published in Lithuania is nationalistic (i.e. pro-Lithuanian) and anti-Soviet is not a valid objection to it as a source. Imagine if we said that books/websites published in the USA about World War II could not be allowed if they were anti-Japanese? Or what about books/websites published in France that were pro-French and anti-Nazi? There is no difference.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually the "nationalist" here would be the subject of the article (nationalism and communism are not mutually exclusive) rather than necessarily the source that cites him as "collaborator".

talk

) 19:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

To fix ideas, are you talking about the article saying he was a collaborator, or just saying these people claim he was? Peter jackson (talk) 10:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

If it is OK for Wikipedia to talk about people collaborating with the Germans when their contries were occupied by the Germans, it must also be OK to talk about people collaborating with the Soviet Union when the Soviet Union occupied their country. Let us not forget that the USSR was Germany's ally until 22 June 1941.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Godwin's Law. I think the question of collaboration of residents of Baltic states with the Soviet Union is a controversial enough matter that we should expect inline attribution.--Wehwalt (talk

) 21:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. I will go with that. Active Banana (talk) 16:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt: There's nothing controversial here. One side has won and declared all the people associated with the losing side "collaborators". Once it was "admission into the Union", now it's "Soviet occupation". Simply branding a person "collaborator" merely means that he was part of the Soviet system. The late Algirdas Brazauskas may be controversial but not Gedvilas. East of Borschov 06:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you be a little more specific: why do you think such question is controversial? (And on a less serious note - Godwin's Law might have been invoked from the beginning, for the center in question does research on both Soviet and Nazi occupations). --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Is Kuri-ousity RS? About page with staff listing

Lead editor (Lissa Pattillo) is reviewer for Anime News Network example

Shannon Fay has written for Animefringe and MangaLife - both RS by Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Online reliable sources#General

Website has been cited by Anime News Network: 1, 2-end of page, 3

I can't tell whether the reviewers are paid or not. 211.30.103.37 (talk) 03:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC) as Extremepro (talk · contribs)

I wanted to add a sentence to the History section of the article on the SPLC. The sentence I wanted to include is: The SPLC maintains a blog entitled Hatewatch: Keeping an eye on the radical right. The reasons for inclusion being (1) the blog is notable work by the subject (2) the fact that the blog is directed towards a particular political orientation is notable (3) the blog/newsletter used to be called Klanwatch. The source for the title is the blog for the Southern Law Poverty Center http://www.splcenter.org/blog/ (archived copy here [21]). The discussion has been that media sources refer to the blog simply as Hatewatch and that the blog is not a reliable source for the subtitle see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Southern_Poverty_Law_Center#Include_mention_of_Hatewatch_blog.. Mrdthree (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Is the SPLC blog http://www.splcenter.org/blog/ (archived copy here [22]) a reliable source for making the statement: "The SPLC maintains a blog entitled Hatewatch: Keeping an eye on the radical right." ? Mrdthree (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

No, because according to the source you posted, that isn't the title, the title is 'Hatewatch'. It says quite clearly and explicitly: "Hatewatch is written by the staff of the Intelligence Report..." Dlabtot (talk) 00:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Please stop forum shopping. Verbal chat 17:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Its dispute resolution. You are saying the blog is not a reliable source for the statement but I disagree with your assessment. There is little ground to discuss after that, so I am seeking another opinion as is the purpose of the RS board. Mrdthree (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't discern any

WP:RS question. Dlabtot (talk

) 17:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the second appeal to this board on the SPLC article and there is a third one made to the Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. On the OR referral he has already stated here [23] that he intends to make yet another referral to this RS Noticeboard. There are no shortage of editors contributing to the SPLC discussion -- all issues can be resolved there. The last two referrals were made less than 24 hours after he initiated the proposal at the SPLC discussion page.

In this case, he misrepresents the issue which is basically one of content. The article already has this sentence, In 1981 the Center began its "Klanwatch" (now "Hatewatch") project to monitor and track the activities of the KKK, which has been expanded to include seven other types of hate organizations." The term "Hatewatch" , rather than Mrdthree's preferred longer name, is the one used overwhelmingly by reliable sources. The issue is primarily one of (1) interpretation (what is the official name of the blog --it is not clear from the single source that is subject to this referral) and (2) weight (does one source outweigh the vast majority). Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Tom, Verbal and I are really the only ones discussing these issues. I would like another opinion. Mrdthree (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is about 48 hours old and your proposal for a vote, which led to this referral, is less than 24 ours old. Actually three other editors have contributed significantly to the section (one of them has even started a new section to propose an alternative) and two others have weighed in to basically say, based on several other POV driven discussions you have started, that there is little point in continuin to respond to you. There is plenty of interest at the SPLC board -- you just need to slow down and take one thing at a time. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Can I summarize your position as being that the blog is not a reliable source for the proposed statement? Mrdthree (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I added a statement to cla rify.Mrdthree (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

As the link dose not work no.Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It was down for maintenance or something. You can access an archived copy here http://web.archive.org/web/20080822104330/http://www.splcenter.org/blog/ Mrdthree (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Again I would point out that as the link is dead you cannot use it to say they maintain a blog called Hatewatch. You might be able to say they used to maintain one, but until they are up and running again that is (at best) all you can say. Especially as this archived page appears to be two years old, hardly up to date. I would say that yes its RS for its title. .Slatersteven (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Its back up.Mrdthree (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not really a

1. to avoid
   WP:NOR
   , as you can't insert claims based on your interpretation of primary sources (the website), and,
2. to avoid
   WP:UNDUE
   , and to ensure the material is actually notable.

--Jayjg ^(talk) 01:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Please clarify on how its POV or OR. Do you think that I am pushing a point of view by mentioning the text on the blog, or do you think I am doing original research by claiming its a subtitle? Would it be POV/OR to say that it hosts a blog called Hatewatch (formerly Klanwatch) whose motto (headline/subtitle/subheading) is 'Keeping an eye on the radical right' ? Mrdthree (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

A large part of the SPLC article is sourced to the SPLC website. Does this mean that the article is built on unreliable sources? Mrdthree (talk) 17:08, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

As for relevance, no where in the history of the article is it mentioned that Hatewatch is a blog. It mentions that Hatewatch grew from Klanwatch but it does not mention that Hatewatch is currently a blog hosted by SPLC whose motto/headline/subtitle is "Keeping an eye on the radical right". The motto is important because the mission of Hatewatch is much broader than was the mission of Klanwatch. Hence additional information, provided by the subject is illuminating. Mrdthree (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If you produce claims based on your analysis of the website's contents, then it's

WP:UNDUE weight. The way to avoid all this is to find reliable sources discussing the blog, and cite what they say, not your own analysis of the website's contents. Jayjg ^(talk)

01:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Im not looking to make an analysis of the website. I am trying to state what is published on teh blog by the subject. I want it to speak for itself. I am open to any fair statement that offers such a description. However what appears to be disputed is which description should be given for the text "Keeping an eye on the radical right" is it a subtitle/subheader or headline? Or do you feel that is something that cannot be resolved without introducing POV? Mrdthree (talk) 03:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Please find reliable, secondary sources that discuss the blog. That solves all the issues, and will no doubt put an end to any edit disputes you are having. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Your position is unclear to me. You claim it is not a reliable source issue. But then you claim I need a secondary source to discuss the content of a webpage. Wikipedia's rule is that primary sources are reliable sources for descriptive statements. To say the SLPC maintains a blog called Hatewatch whose subheading is "Keeping an Eye on the Radical Right" is a purely descriptive statement that can be supported by a primary source. Identify an interpretive element and you have a case. Is it your position that a primary source is not a reliable source for descriptive statements? Or just not for ones that generate controversy?Mrdthree (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No, the source doesn't say what you claim. It says the title is 'Hatewatch'. Your repeated assertion that it is sub-titled "Keeping an Eye on the Radical Right" is not supported by the source. Dlabtot (talk) 17:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Mrdthree is seeking to use the blog itself as a RS for the title/text that the blog itself calls itself. The blog is a reliable source for what the blog says about itself. Mrdthree is correct. The amount of effort going into thwarting Mrdthree's efforts to contribute in compliance with Wiki policy is truly outstanding. So are complaints about any procedural means Mrdthree is using to seek assistance. Arguments against Mrdthree's simple efforts must be pretty weak if complaints about procedure deformities are used as a means to belittle Mrdthree's contributions. Where's the

It simply doesn't say what he claims it does. Dlabtot (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Use reliable secondary sources that discuss the blog, per the above comments. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm confused. Doesn't he want to put in the article the text on the blog that the blog uses to describe itself? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 22:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

That all depends on whether the material satisfies the requirements of

WP:V. Finding reliable secondary sources solves that problem. Jayjg ^(talk)

03:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This is veering into

WP:LAME but I suppose it is debatable if the "Keeping an Eye on The Radical Right" is really part of the name or is a slogan not meant to be taken as part of the name. It seems far more likely to be cited or discussed as "Hatewatch". For another opinion, this article in the Rocky Mountain News quotes it as according to HateWatch, a non-profit that bills itself as the organization "Keeping an Eye on the Radical Right."[24] Squidfryerchef (talk

) 01:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I think thats as clear as it gets. The plain english of the SPLC blog speaks for itself: the mission of Hatewatch is 'Keeping an eye on the radical right' and the cited article buttresses this understanding of the mission statement. Criticizing the blog for publishing content that strays from its mission statement is OR. Using general statements about the SPLC to infer the mission of the Hatewatch blog is synthetic. The plain language of the blog and a second source to confirm its meaning should be sufficient to confirm the mission statement of Hatewatch is 'Keeping an Eye on the Radical right'. Mrdthree (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Does this edit improve the article in question?

So the question is actually whether the Media Matters for America is a reliable source in this case. It's a column by a partisan organization. I don't know much about MMfA, but I'd be wary about using that as a source in this case. Especially the first citation, which claims Chicago Tribune said something. Well, can't you use Chicago Tribune as a source there? --OpenFuture (talk) 06:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's better to just cite the source being quoted. My question is basically whether we're better off with the fact tag and no source than with the MM source. It seems like this edit makes the article worse, whereas replacing the MM source with the Tribune or with something else would likely make the article better. Croctotheface (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is a BLP. The material is not directly relevant to the person (heck, there are asides about others who are also living persons which are contentious, and for which MMFA is not a reliable source under the new standards). All of which should be excised, and not just questioned. Contentious claims require especial care in all BLPs. Collect (talk) 11:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the Media Matters post titled 'AP falsely claimed Obama has "delivered no policy speeches" on campaign trail' you will note that AP did no such thing. There was one article by Nedra Pickler which took that point of view. I subscribe to Media Matters and find it generally accurate, but this post is a good example of the point of view being expressed which, while not unfounded, creates a false impression. Associated Press is a cooperative, actually much like Wikipedia in that there are many reporters and many viewpoints being expressed and little if any central editorial control. Essentially Media Matters for America is an operation with a strong point of view, and inherently unreliable with respect to the conclusions it draws. I think it can be used to locate the articles and positions it talks about, but as it is a media monitoring operation, the media that it monitors will usually be the better source. Fred Talk 17:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Since the fourth sentence of the article, by-lined "by Nedra Pickler The Associated Press", is "He's delivered no policy speeches and provided few details about how he would lead the country.", it's odd that you would assert that the the article does not claim that Obama has "delivered no policy speeches". In other news, black is white, up is down, and freedom is slavery. Dlabtot (talk) 20:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I can look at the article and draw original conclusions with respect to the character of Nedra Pickler. Where is the reliable source that draws those conclusions? Media Matter, as much as I agree with their point of view, is not it. They have a strong obvious bias. Fred Talk 21:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The alleged bias of sources is not a factor when determining if they are RS. I recommend you look at some of the archived discussions of Media Matters. Dlabtot (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Obviously reliable source, particularly in this case. In other news, it's worrying that people are continuing to use BLP to wikilawyer that legitimate criticisms of public figures be removed, as Collect did here. II | (t - c) 22:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Obviously not reliable source, particularly in this case: "He has said that '[t]he CO2 scare is a red herring'" was sourced to MMfA on astronaut Harrison Schmitt's page. Bad. That should be sourced to the media outlet on which that statement appeared. There is absolutely no reason to cite to MMfA for that. Is MMfA a RS on an astronaut? We need MMfA to prove an astronaut said something? And when you go to the non-RS MMfA source to confirm what he said, you get to see all the MMfA spin that goes with it about how looney the guy supposedly is, in MMfA's opinion. That is not a reliable source. I admit MMfA is reliable for things about itself or incidents in which it has been directly involved, and I also admit its content can be useful for identifying actual reliable sources, particularly in cases where it provides links to such sources. But MMfA itself a RS? No way. Its web posts often do not even name the names of the authors writing the posts. How reliable can a source be if the source is not even revealed? Does the New York Times publish most things anonymously or with only the author's initials? Of course not. The NYT is a RS. MMfA is not a RS. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

In this instance, even directly quoting the Chicago Trib is

WP:SYN. You would need a reliable third party that directly addresses Pickler 's claim. Active Banana (talk

) 23:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Good point. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

And Media Matter "About us" page : dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. clearly indicates that they have a POV that they are advocating - and should not be used as a

WP:RS. Active Banana (talk

) 23:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Everyone has a POV. The point is that we have a neutral POV, not no POV - that means we add both perspectives. MMfA is generally very good at citing its statements. It does good analysis - certainly much better than many of the conservative newspapers that it often effectively rebuts. If we didn't allow MMfA to be used, these conservative newspapers - just because they're printed - would be in many cases unchecked, allowing only one POV. II | (t - c) 00:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to make a joke. How can we trust what you just said since you are "ImperfectlyInformed" whereas I'm "LegitimateAndEvenCompelling" and what I say is legit.  ;) Okay, I feel better. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Just curious ImperfectlyInformed. Do you regard the similar but opposing organization Media Research Center as a reliable source? Drrll (talk) 00:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Basically, yes. That advocacy organizations have points of view does not affect their reliability. If it turns out that MRC (or whatever other organization) issues reports that are untrue, that would affect their reliability. As others have pointed out, if opinion -> unreliable, then we'd have literally no sources left to cite. Everyone has a point of view. Croctotheface (talk) 01:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It is just bizarre to me that editors repeat the same rejected arguments ad nauseum, and virtually verbatim, as if they are adding something new to the discussion. We do consider advocacy groups to be reliable sources that can be used with attribution. We have never and will never disallow the use of a source because it has a point of view. Dlabtot (talk) 21:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Several sources are being put forward to support casualty numbers for various WWII Eastern front battles.

http://oko-planet.su/history/historydiscussions/37833-diplomatiya-antigitlerovskoj-koalicii-cel-odna.html

http://9may.ru/04.02.1943/inform/m3913

http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/rotmistrov2/04.html

http://bdsa.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2119&Itemid=29

http://www.soldat.ru/doc/vgk/1.html (Primary source?)

http://www.tankobzor.org/glava7part2.html

http://wwii-soldat.narod.ru/OPER/ARTICLES/021-kursk.htm

http://9may.ru/19.02.1944/inform/m4596

http://militarymaps.narod.ru/oper_1944.html#5

http://9may.ru/15.04.1945/inform/m4233

http://militarymaps.narod.ru/oper_1945.html#14

http://9may.ru/30.11.1944/inform/m2804

http://militarymaps.narod.ru/oper_1944.html#49

http://www.novoemnenie.ru/rassl/14p.html

http://goga-hidoyatov.narod.ru/soderj.html

http://www.biograph-soldat.ru/OPER/ARTICLES/021-kursk.htm

http://kursk-battle.narod.ru/

http://otvoyna.ru/kursk.htm

http://www.calend.ru/holidays/0/0/530/

http://hsozkult.geschichte.hu-berlin.de/rezensionen/2010-1-132

http://militera.lib.ru/research/sokolov1/03.html

http://militarymaps.narod.ru/oper_1943.html#14

http://funnytogo.com/stories/Battle-of-Kursk1943.htm

http://www.soviethistory.org/index.php?page=subject&SubjectID=1943kursk&Year=1943

http://die-cast-army.over-blog.com/article-3459995.html

http://www.answers.com/topic/battle-of-kursk

http://militera.lib.ru/h/koltunov_solovyev/07.html

http://militera.lib.ru/h/samsonov2/

http://duel.ru/200829/?29_6_1

http://war1960.narod.ru/sww/toropez.html

I apologise for the number, but they have all been insisted as reliable by an editor, who won't accept that the burden is on him to show their reliability. Krivosheev, Glantz, Frieser, Zetterling et. al. are already in use mainly on the larger articles involved, and have been accepted by consensus.

The articles in question are

For space reasons, I am not adding all of the exact quotes to be supported, but they are all casualty figures, many of them Soviet estimates of German casualties, usually a single sentence in the main body or infobox.

Main discussion: Talk:Battle of Kursk#Casualty figure sources. A diff would be over 100KB.

(Hohum ^@) 23:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, since most of us don't know Russian, and there's so many of them, they will have to be able to explain why those sources are reliable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

In addition: many of them are wartime figures. Blablaaa (talk) 01:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Example Battle of Kursk: Frieser Glantz Zetterling all agree on ~50000 german casualties including ~10000 dead for Zitadelle. The other sources claim 70.000 german dead thus they are 7!!! times higher than the established figures by most recent historians. This example fits for nearly every battle and all this webpages.Blablaaa (talk) 01:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

General Comment: in light of the fact that those articles/topics are examined in detail by large number of scholars with numerous published studies, why do we have to chose these above sources? Using websites instead of books on important historical events is a huge recentism bias. Even if the casualty figure are very new and didn't have the time to make it into a history book, I would at least expect a published paper from a peered reviewed journal. Jim101 (talk) 01:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

one editor wants to include them because we "cant trust german/western sources". The articles already have the best avaiable books. Blablaaa (talk) 01:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Although "we cant trust German/western sources" is a valid systematic bias concern, that does not mean we have lower the source standards. Surely there are Russian books published by Russian professors that contain the same content from those above websites. Jim101 (talk) 01:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Unlikly. If you write a book and claim 500000 german casualties at Kursk then your career as historian is over and your books move to the fantasy section in the stores.Blablaaa (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the possible systematic bias. Actually Glantz is a pro soviet historian, if you watch the article you will see that Glantz is already the russian "voice". Nevertheless he supports the same numbers. You also should note that the pages are used for citing numbers. If we watch all articles we see the simple and good rule, archives of party X for casualties of X . The sites do the opposite "estimations" of party Y for casualties of X. Blablaaa (talk) 01:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Anyway, even if an editor want to include a certain number, they still need to cite a (good) history book. And only after that can we even begin to discuss the matter of bias. Jim101 (talk) 01:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Jim101: Bingo. No one has to use sources from free-hosting services - unless it's to prove a point. The problem is, the point is sometimes (although rarely) valid. We won't know the whole truth, ever. It just doesn't exist. East of Borschov 17:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, if the point those "sources from free-hosting services" were trying to make is the "untrustworthiness" of German/Western sources, isn't the

WP:REDFLAG clause in effect here? And if those sources are just trying to outline the history from the Soviet (or other) point of view, what are the chances that higher quality/more formal Russian materials does not exist to replace it? Jim101 (talk

) 02:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

See this edit [25] and the discussion in the edit summaries preceding it as well as on the talk page. I dont read Lithuanian. There are claims the the papers published by GRRCL are peer reviewed. Per the AFD of CRRCL, no actual third parties have been shown to have cited CRRCL's work or even written about them. Active Banana (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

They claim they are "peer reviewed" - if you mean independently reviewed by that, and the work is all anti-Soviet and nationalistic in tone. Not neutral, so not relable Nefesf9 (talk) 00:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? There is 107 citations for "Genocidas ir rezistencija" on Google books. Here is an English-language book review in Lituanus. Renata (talk) 01:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I checked dozens of those so called sources - and you know what - most of them that I saw were other GRRCL works citing each other, not independent third parties. So the claim of 107 citations is a bit overblown. Active Banana (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the author of the article is not prevented from citing it in other articles. It doesn't mean that we can ridicule them as "so called sources". And there are still enough independent citations (for example, [26]). --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

My "so called sources" was directed at the person who claimed that simply because googlebooks resulted in 107 hits guaranteed the status of reliability- without checking to see what the ghits actually were. My sampling of the first several dozen resulted in only 1 of the hits being something something from a third party that could potentially be argued created the impression that GRRCL has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. The others were circular references with GRRCL publications citing other GRRCL publications. Active Banana (talk) 00:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You know, it could still be interpreted as trying to insult other editors... I assume you didn't mean it that way, but still, it would be better for you to be a little more careful. If I understand you correctly, "I'm afraid that speaking about number of citations without qualification might be somewhat misleading, as it looks like many of them are works of GRRCL citing other works of this same center..." would have expressed the same idea in a more civil way. Wouldn't you agree? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Biased sources does not mean that they are unreliable. Most sources is biased to some extent, so trying to draw a line would be problematic. And even if we draw such a line it would conflict with WP:NPOV.

Taemyr (talk

) 06:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not think the objection to this source stands up to scrutiny. Just because something published in Lithuania is nationalistic (i.e. pro-Lithuanian) and anti-Soviet is not a valid objection to it as a source. Imagine if we said that books/websites published in the USA about World War II could not be allowed if they were anti-Japanese? Or what about books/websites published in France that were pro-French and anti-Nazi? There is no difference.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually the "nationalist" here would be the subject of the article (nationalism and communism are not mutually exclusive) rather than necessarily the source that cites him as "collaborator".

talk

) 19:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

To fix ideas, are you talking about the article saying he was a collaborator, or just saying these people claim he was? Peter jackson (talk) 10:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

If it is OK for Wikipedia to talk about people collaborating with the Germans when their contries were occupied by the Germans, it must also be OK to talk about people collaborating with the Soviet Union when the Soviet Union occupied their country. Let us not forget that the USSR was Germany's ally until 22 June 1941.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Godwin's Law. I think the question of collaboration of residents of Baltic states with the Soviet Union is a controversial enough matter that we should expect inline attribution.--Wehwalt (talk

) 21:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. I will go with that. Active Banana (talk) 16:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt: There's nothing controversial here. One side has won and declared all the people associated with the losing side "collaborators". Once it was "admission into the Union", now it's "Soviet occupation". Simply branding a person "collaborator" merely means that he was part of the Soviet system. The late Algirdas Brazauskas may be controversial but not Gedvilas. East of Borschov 06:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you be a little more specific: why do you think such question is controversial? (And on a less serious note - Godwin's Law might have been invoked from the beginning, for the center in question does research on both Soviet and Nazi occupations). --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

As noted above, in the www.buddhistchannel.tv section, there is currently a flurry of interest in allegations of sexual abuse made against Eido Tai Shimano, a living person. There are several highly reliable sources for accusations of misconduct up until 1982, most of which I found and added to the article myself. Other editors have sought to include negative material sourced to more marginal sources, such www.buddhistchannel.tv above, and these have been rejected as sources. The latest source proposed is this blog posting by the web editor of Tricycle: The Buddhist Review. It is used as a source for this edit. The significant BLP issue here is that while we have good sources for accusations of sexual misconduct up until 1982, this is the only source for the idea that these have been "many reports of ..abuse... over 40 years". Is this a sufficiently reliable source for this? I'll note that even the blog notes that it is waiting to get information from the other side of the dispute. --Slp1 (talk) 17:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the more I think about it, the more that I think this is a case of

fact laundering: a potentially reliable source (the editor's blog) is being used "as cover for a dubious source" (the self-published Aitken blog). Thoughts?--Slp1 (talk

) 18:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It's nonsense and I removed it. Please raise the issue at

WP:BLPN (not here) if it is restored. If someone wrote a blog saying that Joseph Stalin sexually abused women, we would not add that to the article (not a reliable source). People can't wriggle around that by quoting a blog which says that it has been widely reported that Stalin sexually abused women. Johnuniq (talk

) 01:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Blog postings rarely acceptable, per

WP:BLP implications. Jayjg ^(talk)

03:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Aitken is not making wild allegations on a personal blog that I am trying to get included. he wrote a letter to Shimano, made public and reported on. What I want to see reflected is that there is an ongoing, visible, and newsworthy 40-years long (intermittent) dispute going on between two of the most significant figures in modern American Zen. To not have this info in an entry on Shimano is a gross oversight.Tao2911 (talk) 13:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

as evidence of other significant news content from the Tricycle editor's "blog": "India denies Karmapa visit to US", "Buddhist Monks sheltered persecuted Christians", "Soka Gakkai International returns Ponzi scheme donations" etc. This is all in the last four days.Tao2911 (talk) 14:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to right the wrongs of the world, or to hold people accountable. Particularly for a negative BLP issue, we require a very reliable source that doesn't gossip (an open letter starting "There are many reports of your abuse..." is 100% advocacy and gossip). Some

WP:NPOV language regarding facts could be added to an article (who did what, when; not who made an unsupported claim). Johnuniq (talk

) 00:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry J, but you seem to be unable to read. I am not writing any wrongs, except a glaring inadequacy in the profile of Shimano. If the talk threads on various websites are any indication, including on Tricycle, then there should be more sources reporting soon on Shimano's impending complete resignation from ZSS, caused in part by Aitken's letter (in question here) and the firestorm it has created. Hence, again, the wish is to include a news report acknowledging said letter and said controversy.Tao2911 (talk) 15:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to take this from a different point of view. Tricycle is a reliable source. However, in this case, Tricycle is merely quoting Aitken; they're going to great lengths not to confirm or deny anything, merely to "keep their readers informed". And even Aitken isn't saying anything, he's merely asking for comment about "reports published on the web" without endorsing them. So essentially it's a request for comment about hearsay. We shouldn't cite any of that until it turns into something more real than A says that B says that C says that. If he resigned, we can cite that he resigned, that is something real. --GRuban (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

How about this for concrete action: statement to Tricycle Magazine from Zen Studies Society: "On July 4, 2010, Eido Shimano Roshi stepped down from the board of directors of the Zen Studies Society (ZSS). This was prompted by allegations of clergy misconduct. The ZSS is committed to fully investigating, clarifying and bringing resolution to this matter. Eido Roshi’s wife, Aiho-san Shimano, also stepped down from the Board at that time."Tao2911 (talk) 16:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

This is my proposed inclusion at the Eido Tai Shimano talk page: "In May, 2010, Robert Aitken wrote an open letter to Shimano requesting he comment on allegations of sexual misconduct that span "over 40 years." Tricycle Magazine reported on the letter, and asked Zen Studies Society for a response.[cit.] The Society issued a statement that due to "allegations of clergy misconduct", on July 4, 2010, both Eido Shimano and his wife had resigned from the Board of Directors after 42 years.[cit.]"Tao2911 (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That looks appropriate to me. --GRuban (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll just remind everyone that section in question is called "allegations of misconduct." There are other sources and incidents there. I added this inclusion. Please review it in context, and check the sources.Tao2911 (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The current wording in the article is probably adequate, although frankly the sources are dubious because they avoid any confrontational language (I couldn't find anything which says "X was found to have sexually abused women", or even "Y claimed X has sexually abused women" – it's all expressed with delicacy). However, for the record I am going to explain why Tao2911's last comment totally misunderstands Wikipedia. Suppose I go to an article for Joe Politician and I add a section called "Allegations of misconduct" saying "Joe Politician has been accused of sexually abusing women" with reference to a blog or a single magazine. The heading "Allegations" is totally irrelevant. In some legal court somewhere, you might be able to claim that "it was just an allegation", but we are smarter and more ethical than that. The

WP:5P and write neutral text that is properly sourced. Big claims, particularly allegations in a BLP, need multiple good sources (and one obscure magazine is not a sufficiently good source). Johnuniq (talk

) 00:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This is pretty straightforward; these are (still) serious allegations with

WP:BLP implications, and they're being sourced to a blog. If you continue inserting the material, based on this source, you stand a very real risk of being blocked. Jayjg ^(talk)

01:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, these are very serious allegations. After 1982 there are no serious reliable sources to prove this. This morning I looked at the blog where Aitken letter was posted by him. This is his own blog. Please take a look: http://robertaitken.blogspot.com/2010/05/eido-tai-shimano-roshi.html#comments What is posted here is gross and fishy to me! Do we need such source in Wiki? I wonder why Tricycle would even post this letter?

You would sound like a much more reasonable editor and less rigidly, dogmatically reactionary if for once you could acknowledge my numerous explanations that 90 y.o. Aitken is arguably the single most reputable and respected teacher in American Buddhism - THAT is the VERY REASON why Tricycle reported in his letter, reprinting it in full. And why the internet is lit up with discussions about it. I agree - of course those discussions are not WP material. However, they provide some indication of the man's stature and visibility. But clearly as you've over and over shown, you are entrenched, with no desire to understand anyone else's position.Tao2911 (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you really think that Tricyle blog is reliable source for the Statement of Shimano's resignation? Maybe this statement will be published in printed form in near future so we can exclude the blog source completely. Spt51 (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

There has been a recent change in the article "Sean Hannity", with the groups

In addition to the Hannity article, this is now taking place at the

talk

) 11:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The recent change has been you removing "liberal" from both of these articles--"liberal" has been there for several months, along with sources. The VoteVets.org source you describe simply as a blog is a blog run by NBC News, written by an NBC News reporter (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2007/10/02/4423915-liberal-group-takes-on-rush) --clearly this is allowed under

WP:RS. Another source for this is the Washington Post news story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/25/AR2008022502483.html . As far as CREW goes, there are news story sources for this in the Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and Roll Call. I have pointed out these CREW sources in Sean Hannity and CREW Talk sections, but Mk5384 has ignored this. Drrll (talk

) 12:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• What Mk5384 dismisses as being just a blog is the blog from MSNBC. Entries are by MSNBC reporters, hosted on the MSNBC site and subject to editorial overview by MSNBC. It meets the RS criteria and blogs with criteria like this are used as reliable sources on a regular basis. The WaPo piece is a regular columnist, not a guest OpEd piece. Again, a reporter, employed by the paper and subject to the normal editorial oversight of everyone else writing for that paper. While Mk5384 may not like what is being said, arguing that it doesn't meet RS is ridiculous and empty. Further, the use of them to make that characterization (which I initially opposed myself) was the result of a long discussion and the resulting consensus. Mk5384 has done nothing with that article, his sole participation has been to quite incorrectly claim that these sources aren't RS's, then breeze in and keep removing them, despite being reverted by more than one editor. He's ignoring consensus, not engaging in meaningful discussion and the only reason he is here is because I challenged him to bring his "they aren't RS's argument to the RSN so he could find out they are RS's in the first place. His "other crap" argument about Bush, Obama etc means nothing here and yes, I did revert him in the CREW article when he removed the exact same info. I'm unimpressed that CREW et al call themselves "nonpartisan". The Klan calls themselves a civil rights organization for white people too.Niteshift36 (talk) 13:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, both the Washington Post and First Read are RS for these characterizations, obviously. Dlabtot (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't "dismiss" anything, nor did I say "I don't like" anything.

talk

) 15:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Um, yes, you have. First you misrepresented the blog by just saying "a blog". This isn't some guy with a Wordpress blog, poniticating from his kitchen. These are professional reporters, employed by a well known news agency, using a blog hosted on the agency site and subject to editorial oversight. That exceeds the requirements for RS. But you claimed it "does not meet RS". You're wrong, it does. Then you minimized the WaPo source as "an opinion piece from a Washington newspaper". Wrong again. Yes, it is the authors opinion, but it's not some guest op-ed piece. This is a regular columnist, employed by one of the largest papers in the country, writing in his regularly published column, which is subject to editorial oversight. If nobody bothered to look at the source and relied on your description, it sounds like a guest op-ed in some small weekly paper. Nor did I say that you said you didn't like it (let alone quote you), I said you MIGHT not like it....so if you're going to deny something, at least deny what is actually said, not a fabrication. Further, you have not engaged in any meaningful discussion, just reverts (and are flirting with the 3RR). Even here, your response was essentially "no I didn't". Face it, you made the statement that the MSNBC blog doesn't meet RS, but it does by every standard. I told you that and you came here, repeating the same nonsense. And we constantly use authors opinions in articles, that is the nature of using the sources. All sources don't seem to carry the same weight either. MSNBC is arguably a liberally biased network, yet they were comfortable calling them liberal, but they are a large, well-known, frequently cited news agency. (I feel dirty defending MSNBC). But you seem more intent on edit-warring and ignoring consensus than having any meaningful dialog. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Officially being listed as non-partisan really means nothing. The ACLU and Planned Parenthood are both 501(c)(3), but you don't find too many people who think of these as being "non-partisan" in the sense that they don't have a definite ideological base (they aren't necessarily aligned with a party, but they definitely tilt one way or the other).

Soxwon (talk

) 17:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

What people "think" of them is beside the point. [27]. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 03:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

These kinds of labels are generally used for

• That's really a separate issue. His initial complaint was that a RS complaint. I told him he was wrong and to feel free to come here to find out that they do in face pass RS from uninvolved parties. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Reliability is always in a context and relative; in any event, there's no indication that these sources are
  WP:NOR/N board. Jayjg ^(talk)
  04:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• The issue at hand is "are the sources reliable". He claims they aren't. Mk5384 hasn't engaged in any meaningful discussion regarding
  undue weight etc, which should happen on the talk page first, then one of the noticeboards, correct? Niteshift36 (talk
  ) 14:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Things aren't that simple. If the question is "are the sources reliable", the natural rejoinder is "depends what they're being used for". But it is true that the main issues here are
  WP:NPOV. Jayjg ^(talk)
  00:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone have any opinions on whether www.djbooth.net can be considered a reliable source for use in an article about an album or a song? One article it's currently being used in is LOL Smiley Face, and it's being used to support the style of the music, as well as the source of a review in the "critical reception" section. Acoording to their "about us" page, you can join their writing team just by being a "lover of music".--BelovedFreak 13:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You might also want to consult with those knowledgable in the field, such as User:Kww.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• It doesn't meet the RS criteria IMO. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see any signs of the site having a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. —Kww(talk) 19:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your comments.--BelovedFreak 21:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

No indication of significant editorial oversight, or reputation for fact-checking. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks like it has been a couple of years since Talking Points Memo was last brought up. I was wondering what the current thoughts were as to this website. Is it RS? [28] [29] --Duchamps_comb MFA 03:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It has a reputation as a media outlet, and its staff blogs are "published" in the RS sense. The user forums, of course, would not be. Squidfryerchef (talk) 11:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Note also that use of editorial opinion is a matter of some concern lest contentious material wend into a BLP or any article relating to a living person contrary to the new policies. Collect (talk) 11:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Is Eurasia Review a RS?

Eurasia Review article by John C.K. Daly: Furkan Dogan And The Gaza Flotilla

Concerns the

Here's the discussion on one of the articles.Talk:Gaza_flotilla_raid#Dogan.27s_citizenship

RomaC ^TALK 04:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess the question would be then, even if reliable, would

WP:UNDUE then support such a phrasing, in view of the many RS which call him a dual citizen, and quite the US Secretary of State and the Turkish Prime Minister to that effect ...--Wehwalt (talk

) 04:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, that isn't a question for this Noticeboard but potentially for the NPOV Noticeboard. Suggest we first establish whether the John CK Daly (UPI correspondent) article in Eurasia Review is a RS. It's been challenged, but I can't see why it isn't a RS, and it does help provide perspective. Respectfully, RomaC ^TALK 12:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

As I indicated when you brought it up on my talk, it is helpful to mention other difficulties rather than shopping this all over Wikipedia. One community, after all!--Wehwalt (talk) 12:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand, and as I said on your Talk I'm not looking for this to be the only/definitive source, only to allow it to be used along others to improve the article. Respectfully, RomaC ^TALK 10:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

{{uninvolved|RS/N|Yes, one community but there are 1,736 admins. Wehwalt is the same editor who challenged the Daly article as not being a RS, it was brought here for input from uninvolved admins, please?}}

I have been working on Why We Disagree About Climate Change [30] by

This has now been moved to mainspace

talk

) 19:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on the NPOV board:

[33]

[34] is being used as a source at

Self published books are never allowed per

talk

) 20:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:SPS pretty clearly defines the very narrow ways in which self-published-sources may be used. Jayjg ^(talk)

00:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Well SPS says that a published author is okay. Perhaps this can be solved by attribution? Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:SPS says an already published expert, self-publishing in his/her field of expertise, may be acceptable in some circumstances, but regardless must be used with caution, since "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." It also says they cannot be used under any circumstances for third-party sources about living persons. Attribution isn't really relevant to either of those. Jayjg ^(talk)

03:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

And it also says 'established expert'. He doesn't seem to have any academic affiliation, and I doubt that he has a PhD as it isn't mentioned anywhere. He's another one of many amateurs writing about the

talk

) 10:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

And now we have an editor citing the section headed "Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves"

talk

) 15:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes... the old "but I attributed the statement so the self-published source is reliable for that attributed statement" argument. The reply to that is, "Yes... BUT..."

Allow me to explain. Let's say we are editing the article on the moon, and someone adds the statement "The moon is made of green cheese <ref>Joe Blow's self-published source</ref>". Let us assume that Joe Blow is not an acknowledge expert writing in his field of study (as is apparently the case at the article in question). In this case, the source is not reliable for this statement, per WP:SPS.

Now, let us assume that someone changes the statement to read "According to Joe Blow, the moon is made of green cheese <ref> self-published source written by Joe Blow</ref>" ... the statement is no longer about the moon, but is about Joe Blow's opinion on the moon. I think that the source is reliable for Joe Blows opinion about the moon, again per WP:SPS.

BUT... reliability is not the only policy or guideline on Wikipedia. We also have comply with WP:UNDUE. At this point, the issue shifts from "is Joe Blow reliable" to "Is Joe Blow note worthy enough for us to mention his views in this article." Since Joe Blow is not an acknowledged expert on the moon, the answer to that question is "no". So the statement and the citation should be removed... not on WP:RS grounds, but on WP:UNDUE grounds. Blueboar (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Well stated Blueboar. The effort to avoid the

WP:Fringe. Cheers. Arnoutf (talk

) 16:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, WP:FRINGE is essentially a focused extension of WP:NOTE (for articles about fringe topics) and WP:UNDUE (for statement about fringe topics in other article). But yes, WP:FRINGE would definitely apply to my example. The point is... those of us who are very familiar with WP:RS often forget that reliability is only one of several thresholds that must be met. All of our policies and guidelines must be complied with at the same time, and they all interconnect. Blueboar (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The Arb Comm case on Race and intelligence includes this proposal:

"Articles in the topic area of Race and Intelligence, broadly construed, are put on source probation. All source used in all articles of the topic area must be independent, secondary sources that meets the guidelines of reliable sources. Disagreement about whether a source does or does not meet the guideline should be brought to the reliable sources noticeboard for evaluation by uninvolved editors."

Leaving aside the merits of this idea, I am confused about the distinction between primary and secondary sources when it comes to peer-reviewed articles in an academic journal. Are these generally primary or secondary sources?

Just to be clear, the quote that you provided doesn't mention anything about "peer-reviewed articles in an academic journals", just that they be reliable, secondary sources. OK, maybe you already knew that, but I wanted to be clear about that. So, to directly answer your question, peer-reviewed articles in an academic journals would be secondary sources AFAIK. If I'm wrong, please someone let me know. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Depends on what it's being used to back; "typical article" doesn't really mean anything. A

primary source is "very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved". In the discussion you link to, you give the example "According to a paper by Hala Elhoweris, Kagendo Mutua, Negmeldin Alsheikh and Pauline Holloway, teachers' referral decisions for students to participate in gifted and talented educational programs was influenced in part by the students’ ethnicity." Your link from there didn't work for me, so I can't see the paper itself, but if Elhoweris, Mutua, Alsheikh, and Holloway participated in the referral decisions (i.e., they were the teachers or students in question), or they were otherwise closely involved (they were the students' parents; they were the teachers' spokesmen, lawyers, or union officials), that's a primary source. If they're researchers who interviewed the people in question after the fact, that's secondary; not closely involved in the actual event. As a counterexample, if E,M,A, and H were to conduct a study of the kind psychology students like so much, where teachers get shown black or white students' faces and then get asked to write referrals for them, their account of that study would be primary, because they would be closely involved in the thing they're describing. That's also a pretty typical article type. --GRuban (talk

) 23:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

"African Americans typically have ancestors from both Africa and Europe, with, on average, 20% of their genome inherited from European ancestors.[1]"

The reference is to: Bryc, K.; Auton, A.; Nelson, M. R.; Oksenberg, J. R.; Hauser, S. L.; Williams, S.; Froment, A.; Bodo, J. -M. et al. (2009). "Genome-wide patterns of population structure and admixture in West Africans and African Americans". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107: 786.

Like almost all academic articles that are not review articles, these authors are describing their own research. Is this article a primary or secondary source?

Ah, I see your problem now. Well,

WP:PSTS says "a scientific paper is a primary source about the experiments performed by the authors", and from the description of that paper, where they seem to have gathered and analyzed actual genetic samples, that seems to fit most definitions of an experiment. Pretty clearly primary. You may want to double check with Coren to see if he really wanted to say that scientific research papers, as opposed to reviews, should be excluded. Maybe he did, of course. --GRuban (talk

) 00:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The paper is a secondary source. The test results are the primary source. The authors here didn't do experiments, they did genetic analyses. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, then does the proposal make any sense? The article (virtually) never cited primary sources (if you mean the raw data). It just cites research articles, as in this example. Could Coren really have suggested a proposal that has no impact?

talk

) 02:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I completely disagree, Jayjg. I don't think that is a common understanding and I think it has some very troublesome implications that inappropriately render nearly every published document into a secondary or tertiary source. ElKevbo (talk) 03:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm with ElKevbo on this. They did the research themselves and drew conclusions based on their research, and the paper that came from that is a primary source. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. Analyzing the bulk of raw data (even if it pre-existed in form of medical files) creates a new primary work. Sweat of the brow transforms a pool of primary sources into a new primary source. East of Borschov 07:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

There's some interpretations of PSTS that a scientific paper can be both a primary and a secondary source. But I'd have to disagree with the "secondary sources only" proposal. It's good to require that a controversial topic be well-sourced. But it is not good to ban a class of sources that has always been usable on Wikipedia, especially as how our readers can use them for fact-checking. I could live with "primary sources only if they've been introduced by a reliable secondary source" though. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I come here, not so much for opinions on the proposal per se, but to see if uninvolved editors (like you all) can provide clear guidance about how one can determine whether a random academic article in the peer-reviewed literature is a primary or secondary source. Can you? And, if not --- if the sort of disagreement between GRuban and Jayjg is typical --- is this proposal workable?

talk

) 02:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Where a document was published does not determine if it's a primary or secondary source; it's all in how it's being used. In fact, I can easily imagine the same journal article being used as both a primary and a secondary source in the same Wikipedia article.

Acknowledging that context is everything, I opine that referencing original research in a journal article is probably using it as a primary source. Referencing other material in the same article, particularly from the literature review section, is probably using it as a secondary source. ElKevbo (talk) 03:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. If you are a scientist and you write a paper describing work that you and your colleagues have done, or were involved in, then that paper is primary, since it is close to the work being described. If you are describing the state of the art, reviewing and summarizing work done and published by others, then it's secondary. The critical point is distance: if you are close to the work being described, it's primary, while if you are more distant from it, it's secondary. "Closeness" could also mean that you have a close relationship with the group doing the work. Crum375 (talk) 03:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a good generalization but it's still a generalization. You can certainly use literature reviews, metastudies, and other similar documents as primary sources. In fact, one of my current projects does just that by analyzing how professionals in a particular field have viewed a particular subject so I'm treating virtually everything - including peer-reviewed journal articles - as primary sources since I'm using the articles as evidence of a particular viewpoint and understanding of the phenomenon of interest.

"Primary" and "secondary" are not properties of a document. They're descriptive of how the document is used in a specific situation. ElKevbo (talk) 03:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

No, your example relates to how a scientist would rate his sources, which is not the issue here. On Wikipedia, a source is considered primary if its author is close to the work being described, and secondary if the author is more distant from it. So if the author describes work published by other unrelated parties, it would be secondary, while describing his own work, or that of his co-workers or related parties, would be primary. Crum375 (talk) 03:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding but it's not worth spending time on because this subtlety applies exclusively to original research which we wouldn't allow here anyway. ElKevbo (talk) 03:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If we say that a genetic study is a primary source, and a newspaper article (say in the Detroit Free Press) reporting the results of that study is a secondary source, which is more reliable? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that question makes sense because I don't think we typically refer to sources as more or less reliable, just reliable or not reliable. In this situation, we would probably prefer editors use the secondary source because that involves less interpretation on the part of the Wikipedia editor. ElKevbo (talk) 03:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly the opposite; we refer all the time to sources as being more reliable or less reliable, particularly on this board, since there are rarely, if ever, sources that are absolutely reliable. And, since newspaper reporters are for the most part non-experts, who work under tight time constraints, versus scientists, who spend a great deal of time researching and are peer-reviewed, it's not really clear we prefer the newspaper to the study. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

We prefer the newspaper because once the question of reliability is answered we have to make judgments about weight and interpretation. Weight is easier to determine when there are secondary sources that explicitly establish weight. And interpreting primary sources can often fall into original research so it's discouraged. We don't prefer the newspaper article because we necessarily believe that it will be more accurate than the study but because it's appropriate for the author of the article to have made interpretations and decisions about weight. ElKevbo (talk) 04:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, "we" don't necessarily prefer the newspaper (though you personally may), and "judgments about weight" are

WP:NPOV issues, unrelated to whether or not the source is primary or secondary. Jayjg ^(talk)

15:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "If you are a scientist and you write a paper describing work that you and your colleagues have done, or were involved in, then that paper is primary, since it is close to the work being described." Incorrect. You should understand that division of the sources onto primary and secondary has been proposed to avoid original research. Original research is drawing conclusions based on raw data. What do "raw data" mean? In history, that means historical documents, archival data, memoirs, etc. A historian analyses these primary sources and writes his article, which is a secondary source.
By analogy, in physics, chemistry, biology primary sources are scientist's observations, graphs, tables etc. For instance, most contemporary scientific journals publish supplementary materials to each scientific papers, which contain information almost uncommented in the main article. These data are primary source. By contrast, a secondary source is the information that has been analysed by a scholar who provides his own interpretation of these data and draws some conclusions, theories and hypotheses based on that. As a rule, such information passes a peer-reviewing procedure, which means that it has been vetted by a scientific community.
In my opinion this whole discussion stemmed from the fact that many wikipedians do not understand that all scholarly articles are secondary sources. The problem is that, by contrast to art, history and similar disciplines, physical, chemical or biological primary sources are not available for general public: you simply will be unable to interpret crude X-ray diffraction data, a photo made by the Hubble telescope, neutron scattering data, electron micrograph, the results of BLAST alignment of some protein sequence against human genome database, or multidimentional NMR spectrum.
Again, all scientific articles which passed a peer-reviewing procedure are a secondary sources and, importantly, the best secondary sources for Wikipedia.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) No, that's incorrect. Both primary and secondary sources may be very reliable, or very unreliable. As far as original research in the Wikipedia sense, you must be extremely careful when using a primary source, since any interpretation or analysis, or even selective quoting from it, could constitute original research. This is why we prefer secondary sources, because they do the selection and analysis for us. But using a primary source alongside a secondary source which interprets it is fine. Crum375 (talk) 03:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, to clarify, scientific papers which passed peer review are typically not secondary, and are quite often primary, if they describe work performed by the authors. The criterion for primary vs. secondary is not how many expert peers reviewed the work, but whether the author is the one who performed it. And again, primary sources may be highly reliable, but that doesn't transform them into secondary sources. The primacy of a source is generally independent of its reliability. Crum375 (talk) 04:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Well then we're just going to have disagree because I think that you're completely wrong and apparently you think the same of my opinion. ElKevbo (talk) 03:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Well. Let me ask you the following. If the article of some historian form, e.g. NWY, published in American Historian Reviews, where he analysed some archival data on the Civil War and came to some conclusion is a secondary source (and it definitely is), then why another article written by his colleague from the Physical department, published in Physical Review Letters, where he ahalysed the neutron scattering data he obtained from some protein sample is considered a primary source? Let me summarise: the secondary sources is something produced by a scholar, whereas primary sources are some raw data which have not been analysed by a professional. Of course, the book or article written by some scholar about himself (e.g. Watsons' "The Double Helix") is a memoir, i.e. a primary source. However, his article in Nature about the DNA structure is a secondary source for sure.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

No, that's wrong. A primary source is one written by a group close to the work which was performed, while a secondary source is a review of one or more primary sources, which were previously published elsewhere. Primacy is not reliability, it is the distance of the author(s) from the work being described. Crum375 (talk) 04:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "The criterion for primary vs. secondary is not how many expert peers reviewed the work, but whether the author is the one who performed it." How can you explain the reason for such a delimitation? Which purpose does it serve? Again the primary reason for division on primary and secondary sources is to avoid original research by the Wikipedians. By contrast, original research made by professionals in the major source WP is based on. These original research are being published by scholars and are called "secondary sources".--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think your terminology is confused. What we mean by 'primary' and 'secondary' on WP is independent of reliability, or the number of expert peers reviewing the work. Primacy of sources is the distance between the author and the work being described. A secondary source is a review or analysis of another publication, and provides an independent perspective for it. Crum375 (talk) 04:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

No, the historical article you describe would be a primary source. Simply because one analyzes data - and primary sources themselves can be used as data, as in your example - doesn't make the data itself a primary source and the analysis a secondary source. Data are data, not a primary source. "Source," in this context, refers to the analysis and interpretation performed on the data. ElKevbo (talk) 04:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

A scientific study is a primary source when it is being analyzed by another source (e.g. a meta-study). On its own, however, it's a secondary source, as the primary sources are the raw data (test results etc.) that are being analyzed by that study. Jayjg ^(talk)

Correct. Otherwise most good WP articles like

WP:SYNTH

because they are based on scholars' own articles. That is ridiculous.

Re: "the historical article you describe would be a primary source." No the primary sources are the archival documents a historian works with.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It depends on the context and how and why the article was written. If it's merely a summary of the historical document then it's a secondary source. But if it involves significant interpretation and original research then the article is itself a new primary source that interprets another primary source. I'm sorry but there isn't a simple, predictable movement from primary -> secondary; it all depends on context. ElKevbo (talk) 16:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

By your definition pretty much every source except a book/article review is a "primary source". If a historian writes a book of history, that's a "primary source" because the historian wrote it, and therefore he's close to it. Every statement he makes, under your definition, suddenly becomes "primary", by dint of him being the author of it. This, of course, is nonsense. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Most academic publications are indeed primary sources for the data they describe. That's because primary sources are works of original research and that is what we're paid to do and what excites us. Creating secondary sources - lit reviews, book reviews, metastudies, etc. - isn't exciting for most of us because there is little original work to be done. (Additionally, creating secondary sources is not very valuable in terms of promotion and tenure for academics because it's not original research. That's a bit of a shame because there is immense value in periodically stepping back to synthesize and summarize the state of the field.) ElKevbo (talk) 04:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

No, actually, most books of history are secondary sources about the events they describe, which make use of primary sources (diaries, church records, hospital records, etc.) Book reviews etc. are secondary sources which use books as primary sources, and in that context only are they primary sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It depends on the book. If it's a summary of events then it probably is a secondary source. But if it's a reinterpretation of events and an act of historical revisionism then it's probably a primary source. ElKevbo (talk) 16:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

(EC)I was going to say that Paul Siebert was right. Similarly with what Jayjg just said. But, as I look at

It's what is being analyzed so it's data. ElKevbo (talk) 04:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe there is a problem with policy. I started a discussion on the talk page there, because a policy should definitely be modified, because it leads to a nonsense.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that a paper on an original study written by the researchers is a primary source. Papers reporting studies may contain reviews of other papers, and those portions would be secondary. One of the purposes of having a distinction between primary and secondary sources is that secondary sources act as filters to separate unimportant material from more significant material. Another comparison is to an autobiography. Using the same logic as some present here, the ticket stubs and tax returns would be primary sources and the memoir would be a secondary source.   Will Beback  talk  04:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "One of the purposes of having a distinction between primary and secondary sources is that secondary sources act as filters to separate unimportant material from more significant material." No. All articles which passed a peer-reviewing procedure have already passed this filter successfully.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I'm just now reading a detailed review of several hundred studies and it's amazing how many peer-reviewed papers have to be left out because they don't meet simple standards. Peer review isn't magic, and there are many problems with that process. Thousands of papers are published in peer-reviewed journals every year - I don't think anyone would argue that all of them contain significant findings.   Will Beback  talk  05:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to give a pointer to

WP:MEDRS, the sourcing guidelines for medical articles, which explicitly state that articles whose authors are reporting their own research are to be considered primary sources. The guidelines are only intended to apply to medical articles (where that principle is essential to avoid massive inconsistency), but if I had my way they would apply to all scientific topics -- allowing room for exceptions in exceptional cases, though. Looie496 (talk

) 04:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"Primary source" on Wikipedia means something different than it means in academia. That's where a lot of this confusion is coming from. In general, if something's been peer-reviewed, or published by something with an editorial board, it's been through the "filter" and is a secondary source. A primary source is something like a press release, or government document, and so forth. If that other definition of "primary" is still floating around in some corners of WP, that's a pretty strong reason to not add new rules on primary sources. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you please provide evidence that Wikipedia has a unique definition of "primary" and "secondary" source? Our

policy regarding original research seems to agree with common usage of the terms. ElKevbo (talk

) 05:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Now that rings a bell. There's obviously going to be a lot discussion on this, but what Squidfrychef said is what is causing all this confusion. That's interesting about the medical articles being different. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• The controversy surrounding primary and secondary sources is not unique to Wikipedia, see a university library's discussion. Secondary sources are just one step removed from the original analysis. So a review article can be a primary source when it is presenting an original, novel conclusion (as narrative reviews often do) or when the review author is discussing their own research. A research article is a primary source for its original conclusions. Many research articles contain substantial amounts of secondary discussion of other research articles or even reviews. One of the major reasons that we prefer reviews (which are often conflated with secondary sources because they are often secondary) is that they cover a broad range of information, put information into context, and lay out generally-accepted facts. Many of these review articles actually aimed at bringing non-specialists or newcomers to the topic up to speed. Since reviews are less focused on presenting data and the analysis of that data, they are more approachable and understandable for non-scientists. The reason we prefer secondary sources is that authors are often not their own best critics. The drawback of secondary sources is that sometimes they don't have as deep of understanding of the topic as their author and can misinterpret what's going on. Secondary sources are not by definition more reliable than primary sources. If a secondary source says that a primary source A is incorrect, that does not mean the primary source is incorrect. It just means someone criticized the primary source. If a secondary source can point to other primary sources which contradict primary source A, then we can start to say that primary source A is incorrect. II | (t - c) 06:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

All of that sounds reasonable, however, that means that the WP policy towards primary sources should be reconsidered. There are two type primary sources: (i) historical documents, archival data, raw tables, figures, photographs, and (ii) scientific articles that analysed these data and draw conclusions based on that. By using first type primary sources a Wikipedian makes an original research, however, I doubt that by correctly transmitting the ideas presented in scientific articles one can make any original research. IMO, the discussion of PSTS is not important per se. What is more important, that it is necessary to define what OR consists in. For instance, I have no idea how the Phys Rev Lett article about quantun Hall effect can be used without violation of WP policy, because it is impossible to make "

descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge" based on such an article.--Paul Siebert (talk

) 06:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

In other words, if a Wikipedian does the researcher's job, he performs original research. However if he relies on the scholars' works and correctly transmits what they say, by no mean can it be an original research. --Paul Siebert (talk) 06:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:PSTS is somewhat out of alignment with common use of language, and with common sense. Indeed, in the normal case, a peer-reviewed published article is a secondary source. Measurements, images, data collections are primary sources. Unfortunately, the distinction is not that clear in all scientific disciplines. In computer science, source code is a primary source, as are design notes and profiles. But Fast Pattern Matching in Strings is a secondary source within computer science. Of course, for an historian of science, the very same paper is a primary source about Donald Knuth. In history, a diary is a primary source, as is a newspaper report about the Battle of Gettysburg or the Zimmermann Telegram. Of course, for close contemporaries, the same newspaper report would likely be a secondary source. --Stephan Schulz (talk

) 07:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I would add that position papers, perspectives, editorials and alike, although containing literature review sections, should be treated with care (probably even a primary source) as these articles aim to outline the idea of the author, but not provide strong evidence for these ideas.

Also note that the use of a paper determines whether it is primary or a secondary source. For example, a philosopher of science investigating the publication style in the late 20th century would treat (almost) all scientific papers as primary sources. Arnoutf (talk) 07:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with II, Stephan Schulz and Arnoutf. Paul Siebert you wrote "By using first type primary sources a Wikipedian makes an original research," Not if the primary sources have been published in a secondary source. If they have been published in a secondary source then they can be used as described the policy

talk

) 07:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect,

WP:PSTS is well aligned with common usage. In the normal sense a peer-reviewed article is not a secondary source at all because most peer-reviewed articles are acts of unique scholarship and interpretation. Data are not sources, at least not in the sense that we're using that word in this discussion (I think that is causing much of the confusion). And even in the instances where the data are unambiguously primary sources, if the article provides a unique interpretation and understanding of those sources then the article itself is (probably) a new primary source. ElKevbo (talk

) 16:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• Is this the best forum for discussing this? RSN is best suited for discussing the use of specific sources in specific articles. This discussion seems oriented at general policy/guideline interpretation, or even changes to the Verifiability policy. The talk pages of one of those might be a more appropriate place for some of this discussion.   Will Beback  talk  08:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Will Beback's point above. This discussion has grown beyond the scope of this noticeboard. I suggest that this be resumed at

WP:V and perhaps an RfC opened up as the result of this discussion may have far-reaching implications across Wikipedia. A Quest For Knowledge (talk

) 09:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Will Beback's comment of 04:53, 20 July 2010, as a good summary, and with the above point that this page is better suited to individual sources rather than setting new principles. Papers evaluating and summarising other published research are secondary, the original published research would be primary and can be used with care not to introduce any new evaluation, in my view. . . dave souza, talk 11:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly right. Crum375 (talk) 16:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes this discussion is far outside of the scope of this noticeboard. Dlabtot (talk) 16:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course one should only discuss specific sources for obvious reasons. Some secondary sources can be misleading, for example an article on a scientific subject written by a journalist. One the other hand, an original article by the best expert is frequently the best source. The division to primary and secondary sources can be helpful only as a rough guidance, rather than a strict policy enforced by Arbcom.Biophys (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

To answer the question posed in the header (admittedly without reading any of the comments that followed, so please forgive me if I repeat a point that has already been made)... Is a "typical" article published in a peer-reviewed academic journal a primary source or a secondary source? The "typical" article published in a peer-reviewed journal will contain both primary and secondary material. So the answer is... "It depends on the specifics." We certainly consider the "typical" journal article to be a reliable source (for both types of material). Blueboar (talk) 17:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to extend this, but I believe there is one important point missing from the above. The race and intelligence issue at ArbCom concerns explanations for the different IQ scores achieved by different "races": is it mainly genetic or what? One side say they are using secondary sources which review the current state of knowledge (sources which consider various studies, including responses to those studies). There is a claim that the other side highlights results from individual studies in order to provide an undue emphasis on the role of genetics. Thus one side uses "secondary" sources (reviews of multiple papers), while the other uses "primary" (including individual research papers). Johnuniq (talk) 23:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, in that case, summaries of studies should be given more weight than individual studies. Summaries should be used to decide the weight of the individual studies, even if WP's use of primary and secondary is funky. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this book a suitable source to verify the work done at Surfacestations.org? This is the intended use [35] This text us currently unsourced and the book talks in detail of the project

There is a reference directly in front of the removed reference. As this is a controversial article and a controversial source, can't we just avoid the drama and use the source already included? Over sourcing doesn't help. Have you tried to address this on the article talk page? Verbal chat 12:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should look instead of reverting, the ref currently there is not about surface stations it`s to the NOAA Handbook

talk

) 12:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I was assuming good faith of the reference. The entire unsupported text should be removed. The Hockey Stick Illusion is not a RS for a BLP. Verbal chat 12:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It`s not being used as a source for BLP information, it is being used as a source for the surface stations project.

talk

) 12:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I've just used Google/Amazon to search within the book, and regardless of the state of RS for the book, the text it is supposed to be a reference for, is not supported by text in the book. So No, it isn't a suitable reference for this. (more specifically there is no mention about whether they use the NOAA handbook or not) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

And again your wrong, it is being used as a source not for the NOAA stuff but about the poor quality of the station siting. as in grade them for their compliance with the standards published in the organization's Climate Reference Network Site Handbook. And it does cover that

talk

) 13:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

And that is not in the book either. The text doesn't mention anything about "grading"/"compliance" or anything like that.. in fact the name surfacestation(s) is not used in the book even once. Watts is mentioned.... once ... in passing. Its a passing mention that Watts had created a website (unnamed) to survey weatherstations. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Besides that the section in the Wikipedia article does not mention anything about bad sitings, only about a project to assess the quality of the siting. Arnoutf (talk) 13:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This is the entire text about Watts in the book: "Meanwhile, another close associate of the Climate Audit website, former TV weatherman Anthony Watts, began a volunteer effort to survey the hundreds of weather stations that were the basis of the land record for US temperatures. The poor quality of the siting and maintainance of the majority of the stations again raised questions over how reliable the instrumental record really was.". As you can see there is nothing in it about what methodology Watts was using, how he did it, or when the site started, or what the name of the site is. All in all - its not a reference for the text in question. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It`s being used to verify the surface stations project, jesus christ how hard is that to understand?

You gave a specific usage example in the intro text to this. And the book can't be used to verify the text that it was supposed to be a reference for. How hard can that be to understand? The book can't even be used to verify the existance of surfacestations.org - since it doesn't mention it at all. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Get some common sense, is there another project involving surface stations in the us watts is involved in?

talk

) 13:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That is your best guess, maybe there are. How do you know? And that is why the correct use of reliable sources is important. Arnoutf (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

PLease read Wikipedia:Truth and Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth to get an understaning why common sense is not a particularly good argument in discussions. Arnoutf (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I know because i looked on his website, that`s verified

talk

) 13:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Verified is something else than Verifiable. Verifiable means that every reader of Wikipedia can verify for him/herself based on the sources given in the article. Arnoutf (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

They can, surface stations is linked to in the main infobox

talk

) 14:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

IS this RS for information about its founder and trainer [[36]]? In a related note do these two sources establish this text "Foster established^[2] and headed schools in the USA which became part of the U.S. Chito-ryu Karate Federation.^[3] "[[37]][[38]](actuall text from source is "During this time Sensei Foster headed many karate schools which were part of the U. S. Chito-ryu Karate Federation. " but the page dose not want to be sourced, loom for history page) Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

To which Wikipedia article are you referring? Dlabtot (talk) 17:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This one Michael G. Foster. Ther are some very bad issues over sources contradicting each other as well.Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Is Emunah magazine (http://www.emunahmagazine.com/) a reliable source? The issue has come up in particular regarding this article, which appears to be an abridged an unacknowledged copy of this article in the Brooklyn Eagle. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

As a related question, is Matzav.com a reliable source? It has done the same thing, barely re-written the Brooklyn Eagle article into this: http://matzav.com/brooklyns-oldest-shul-led-by-rav-yehoshua-fishman-celebrates-141st-birthday - basically changed a few words into Yiddish, like "shul" instead of "synagogue". It seems to credit the Eagle at the bottom, but should this source be used? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Re Emunah, it's a bit hard to say, as the "About" page is not really very forthcoming. The print edition appears to be free: [39][40]. Have you been able to find anything on the publication's editorial staff? I don't know whether I've missed something, but based on what I found on the website, reliability cannot be confirmed. As for the matzav article, it would seem rather more appropriate to cite the original article in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle instead. --JN466 18:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. We'll stick with the Brooklyn Daily Eagle then, and not use Emunah magazine or Matzav.com. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, could I please have your inputs on whether an opinion article written by an anonymous writer in an occasional newsletter for friends and family of the "Monarchist League of Canada" can be ruled out as a reliable source for information that is not about themselves, but rather to:

• Add a layer of criticism and doubt onto reported public opinion polls presented in a Wikipedia article
• Contend that the cited polls were wrong to use the term "British monarchy" in their poll questions

Examples (more examples can be found in this recent previous version where it was used even more extensively throughout the page in this manner):

• "The Monarchist League of Canada found the wording of the question in these polls to have been the least biased of any survey taken on the subject of the monarchy from 1993 onwards."[41]
• "the exact type of wording the Monarchist League of Canada felt skewed later polls."[42]
  
• "the poll's question referred to "formal ties", alleging that it implied that the monarchy was both perfunctory and restraining; that the reference to the Canadian monarchy as the "British monarchy" implied the institution was foreign; and that the entire question was worded to favour a response that was negative towards the Crown, only a negative response to the question bringing a favourable result for the monarchy."[43]
  

The link to the source in question is here: "British Monarchy Ties Wording Skews Angus Reid Poll on Crown Four Ways" from the monarchist.ca site, on page 3 of the newsletter. The article it is being used in is Debate on the monarchy in Canada under the section Polls. A past discussion which included objections to the use of this source is here.

I see a number of significant strikes against this source being considered reliable:

• The piece is by an anonymous writer ("Reporting, analysis, and commentary by Senex"). According to
  WP:RS
  requirement of a reliable author.
• The article is indicated as opinion ("... commentary by Senex")
• The title of the article ("British Monarchy Ties Wording Skews Angus Reid Poll on Crown Four Ways") also indicates an opinion piece.
• The article contains non-professional, non-neutral, non-journalistic opinion and content: the anonymous writer bemoans the fact that Conservative party supporters, which it sees as "historically most natural supporters of the Crown", are not more supportive of the monarchy and exhorts: "Messrs Harper and Kenney have some work to do in their own back yard!"
• The article is in a newsletter. According to
  WP:SOURCES
  : "Self-published media" (including "newsletters") "are largely not acceptable".
• The newsletter is an "occasional" one.
• It is further self-described as being for "friends and family", "an occasional newsletter for friends and family of the Monarchist League of Canada".
• The Monarchist League of Canada is a lobby group that "actively lobbies ... the media, and others ... This is often in the form of organized letter-writing campaigns or through behind-the-scenes manoeuvring."[44]
• According to
  WP:SOURCES, "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. ... Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties
  , which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited."

I request the assistance of your input - the more voices and the more weight the better - because there are a number of tendentious editors that will otherwise edit war to keep this anonymous opinion article as a source for the two POV purposes listed above. Thank you in advance for your time. 65.92.212.35 (talk) 02:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not reliable. An anonymous article from an obscure publication. Blueboar (talk) 03:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. If we could use that, we could use almost anything.

talk

) 07:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. It in no way satisfies

WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk)

06:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Can information in a footnote (in a peer-reviwed science article) that elaborates on a specific issue be used in Wikipedia? Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 10:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say, yes, usually, treat it as if it were in the main body of the article. Footnote text is read by the academic reviewers. Just take care that it is not an aside comment. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the source? What article is it proposed for? What statement is the source going to be used for? Which talk page has this been discussed on?   Will Beback  talk  11:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, anything in a footnote is typically as reliable as anything in the body of the article. That said, I too would be interested in knowing the specific issue here. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks much, everyone. The question was hypothetical. TimidGuy (talk) 09:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Just piping in as an academic. Anything in footnotes or Appendices should be considered as reliable as the main text. Statements are sometimes put there because of presentational issues, not because they are less accurate (or anything like that). LK (talk) 08:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, LK. Good point. TimidGuy (talk) 11:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I've already posted on

I don't think this blog should be used unless it contains a direct reply to Sanandaji. As far as using a blog to host reprints of comments originally published in other venues... no. Cite the original WSJ piece, not some blog that reprints it. Blueboar (talk) 17:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Is

This website has been added to Nethy Bridge and challenged as a self-published source on the associated talk page. The website contains information about Abernethy Highland Games but does not appear to source the information, or be recognized as an official website. Some independent views would be welcome on this site being used as a potential primary source of information. Fæ (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I am the representitve to authenticate that it is indeed official. A news paper article is not a good enough source, however I will leave this up to Wikipedia to decide its authenticity, through my own user name. If you wish to challenge the website I suggest contacting the Abernethy Highland Games to authenticate. Thanks.

The

I would consider it generally reliable, especially in the absence of any dispute. However, since the Allmovie biography simply says that his works "often reveal humanist, ecological themes", it doesn't really support the sentence as written. Not the extra details. However I wouldn't be surprised if it is accurate. It probably just needs better sourcing. Dlabtot (talk) 02:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't get a response to my analysis from the page-watchers:

The Time Cube article lists four sources. PC Magazine and The Maine Campus pretty obviously are reliable sources as they are used. I would say that [46] and [47] pretty obviously are not. I've removed them from the article. Dlabtot (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

That was more-or-less my conclusion too. I'm wondering, however, whether two reliable sources are enough to establish notability.

talk

) 18:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

That's for the AfD to decide. I don't really have an opinion. For what it's worth, both sources describe the extreme nuttiness of the website, not the theory, and the article is about the website, not the theory (if you can call it that). I would also say that both mentions are not trivial as defined by

WP:WEB. Dlabtot (talk

) 19:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

MIT and Georgia Tech aren't reliable sources? These were schedules showing his lectures, which were used to back up the statement that he spoke at those schools. They may be primary sources and wouldn't weight heavily for notability, but there's no reason to remove them. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking at primary sources such as schedules, announcements and other ephemera and drawing conclusions from them is the essence of

original research. That an editor could spend any significant amount of time discussing sources and still not grasp such a simple, basic concept truly boggles my mind and illustrates why so many of the obviously wrong comments made repeatedly by the same editors on this noticeboard receive no response. In this case I made an exception. Dlabtot (talk

) 03:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any conclusion being drawn here. MIT has him on a schedule of speakers. The article says he spoke at MIT. Aside from a remote possibility that the speech could have been cancelled, I don't see a material leap of logic here. Now I think I understand where you're going with this, you're going to say that mentioning these speaking engagements might cause some readers to assume he's more mainstream than he really is. I personally wouldn't read it that way, maybe some people would, some wouldn't. But we're not responsible for original synthesis that occurs in our reader's heads. NOR is about original synthesis that's in the pages of Wikipedia. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

As you point out, the schedule doesn't say that he spoke at MIT. It's just a schedule. That he did so is the conclusion drawn. Again, it boggles my mind that such a simple concept could escape someone with aspirations to edit an encyclopedia. "Now I think I understand where you're going with this" - no, you don't. Because I'm not 'going anywhere with this'. Anything you think you know about me or what I think, beyond what I have actually stated, is wrong. Dlabtot (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to question whether it is correct to describe this as a "lecture". The source describes him as a guest speaker (a short talk, followed by questions). Mentioning this talk (especially giving it its own section) gives it UNDUE weight. MIT has guest speakers all the time. Blueboar (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Dlabtot is correct here. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

(@Dlabtot), OK, if that's all it is, I understand. I wouldn't have a problem with using a schedule to say somebody spoke at an event, but if we want to remove every vestige of doubt, that's easily solved by changing the wording to "he was listed as a guest speaker at XYZ". I also don't have a problem with "lecture" in the colloquial sense, though I would avoid titles like "guest lecturer" as that means something specific in academia. I also wouldn't have a problem with a section on his speaking engagements; there was more than one. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Two editors disagree on whether or not these sources are reliable enough to support this sentence in the Politician section [48] of the BLP on John Hagelin. Please give your input, thanks.

• "He is considered by some to be a "public policy expert" and was endorsed by members of congress such as
  Kara Anastasio, Dennis Kucinich and Jeffrey E. Graham
  ."
• Sources: Our Campaigns, Hagelin Bio [49], Shift In Action, Hagelin Bio, [50], International Conference bio, [51], LA Yoga, Interview with Bob Belinoff, Feb 2006, [52]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Keithbob neglected to mention two issues:

1. The biographies on these websites appear to be copies of Hagelin's self-published biography.[53][54][55] So "Considered by some to be a 'public policy expert'" really means he calls himself that.

2. The ourcampaigns.com website is listing people endorsed by Hagelin, not the other way around. That website is a reliable source for that info, but the proposed text has it backwards.

It is common in politics, entertainment, and other fields for people to have their own official biographies. Those are often reprinted, or even trimmed down to use as introductions to interviews. So the real question here is this: do self-published biographies become more reliable and more independent if they are plagiarized (copied without attribution) by other sources? Or, do they become less so since the publications using them apparently have low standards? Finally, if we did use these second-hand sources, how do we attribute them? "According to websites that reprint Hagelin's biography..."?   Will Beback  talk  21:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to comments from un-involved editors. Some points to keep in mind. My fellow editor says that it "appears" to be copied. So it is only a guess. But even if this were true. Sources do research and check facts, they don't publish text blindly. Also, many reliable sources access information from other sources and when they reprint info from other sources it means they have either checked the facts or feel confident that the information is true and accurate. This is what a news editor/company or book editor/publisher does when publishing an article or manuscript from a writer. Some facts are checked and some are evaluated as obviously true and accurate and show the endorsement of that editor/company when published.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 13:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

They don't say they copied it. They'd have more integrity if they did. It doens't take a linguist to see that the text is the same. Unfortunately, sources do not always check facts. We can't automatically assume they do, which is one reason why this noticeboard exists.   Will Beback  talk  21:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

These sources appear to be essentially reproducing a biography supplied by Hagelin. This is very common, and it's unusual for such sources to do any sort of significant fact-checking on the material provided them. They would be reliable only for non-contentious information. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

A reference to the work of a notable advocacy group was removed from the Steven Milloy article. The report criticizes Milloy, and was being used to support a summarization in the lead that basically describes Milloy receiving criticisms from various groups.

The work removed can be viewed here: [56] and has quotes like, "The irony of the involvement of tobacco disinformation veterans like Milloy in the current campaign against global warming science is not lost on close watchers."

Is this a reliable source that a notable group [the Union of Concerned Scientists] has criticized Milloy? BigK HeX (talk) 20:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say plainly yes. The UCS is a prominent and widely cited organisation. The item you mention is on its website.

Of more concern to me are some of the other sources used in the article, in particular [www.prwatch.org PR Watch], a web publication of the Center for Media and Democracy. Has anyone come across this before? Does it seem like a reliable source? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Well thanks for commenting but as an editor involved in the disrupted field, please allow uninvolved editors to comment. thanks.

Off2riorob (talk

) 20:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I've gone through 600 edits on that article, and don't see a single one from User:ChrisO. So ... ummm ....?? BigK HeX (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The UCS document appears to be a primary source and unless there are other sources to support this criticism, it is a questionable source for contentious text in a BLP. I would say, for sure, that it doesn't qualify for a mention in the lead on the basis of this source alone.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Under what definition is it a primary source? It appears to clearly be a secondary source. As to its appropriateness, the UCS is a notable and high-profile organization, albeit one with a clear agenda for which it advocates. Under those circumstances, the report seems useable as a statement of the UCS' opinion, with inline attribution (e.g. "According to the Union of Concerned Scientists..."). MastCell ^Talk 20:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't look like a very mainstream published wikipedia reliable source to me, and its in the archives? I don't know about this thread it seems dissociated from the edit war that started this, and how is it possible to discuss citations without also an offer of what content the user want to support with it, anyways this was what the user added...

User added this citation to support another citation that was supporting this content... Milloy's close financial and organizational ties to tobacco and oil companies have been the subject of criticism from a number of sources, as Milloy has consistently criticized the science linking secondhand smoke to health risks and

user added this citation and removed a citation required template for this content ..When another researcher published a study linking secondhand smoke to cancer, Milloy wrote that she "... must have pictures of journal editors in compromising positions with farm animals. How else can you explain her studies seeing the light of day? http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/the-arctic-climate-impact-assessment/

user added this citation and removed a citation required template for this content...as well as by climate scientist Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, who criticized Milloy for taking "one result out of context and present[ing] unwarranted conclusions, knowing that a lay audience will not easily recognise their fallacy."http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html

[[[the Union of Concerned Scientists]] is obviously a reliable source. Whether it is an appropriate source in a particular BLP is a question for the BLP noticeboard. Dlabtot (talk) 03:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

@ Mastcell What makes you think a privately run adcovacy group is suitable for a BLP? Were is their editorial control? What makes them a reliable source for a BLP?

talk

) 09:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I called it a primary source because it appears to be self-published. Is that true? Or has the document or excerpts been published in secondary source?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• This is at the wrong noticeboard. The question is not whether UCSUSA, PR Watch and realclimate.org, which were taken out of the article here, are reliable sources, the question is whether these sources are in line with our BLP-related policies and guidelines. If this were presented at BLPN, I would say that these are very clearly not appropriate sources to use in a BLP, per the following policies and guidelines:
  • "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below);" (
    WP:BLP
    )
  • "Avoid self-published sources: Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, or tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources as long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." (
    WP:BLP
    )
  • "Further reading and external links: External links about living persons, whether in BLPs or elsewhere, are held to a higher standard than for other topics. Questionable or self-published sources should not be included in the "Further reading" or "External links" sections of BLPs, and when including such links in other articles make sure the material linked to does not violate this policy. Self-published sources written or published by the subject of a BLP may be included in the FR or EL sections of that BLP with caution; see above. In general, do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of this policy or violate the External links guideline. Where that guideline is inconsistent with this or any other policy, the policies prevail." (
    WP:BLP
    )
  • "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer: see WP:BLP#Reliable sources." (
    WP:SPS
    )
  • "In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that are not fully compliant with this guideline or that contradict the spirit of WP:BLP." (
    WP:ELBLP
    )
• The question whether these sources are reliable for anything else is a moot point in this context. However, if the press releases and other claims made by these sources about Milloy have been reported in multiple press articles or reliably published books, any such press articles or books would be acceptable sources for this BLP, subject to
  WP:NPOV. For example, there is this book, this article, and there may be other sources like that. --JN466
  15:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would dispute those policy criteria, but how do they relate to what is being discussed here? RealClimate is a self-published source, agreed, but I'm doubtful of whether PR Watch would fall into that category and the UCS certainly would not. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The UCS document is a press release reporting on their own research. Good BLP practice would be to look for any press or book publications that have covered the story. (Also, unless I am mistaken, the press release does not even mention Milloy, which makes its use in his BLP

WP:SPS.) --JN466

00:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is a USA Today review of a book commenting on Milloy's involvement with ExxonMobil. Both the review and the book, which likely contains further information, are unequivocally suitable sources for this BLP. I believe this

WP:BLP. Here another source that I think could be used without falling foul of BLP concerns. --JN466

01:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: "The UCS document is a press release reporting on their own research."

Actually, I linked directly to the paper containing criticism of Milloy from the UCS at the beginning of this thread (and even quoted from it). I've asked a specific question on a source (as other sourcing questions have other solutions); I hope to hear whether the UCS publications are regarded as reliable sources as far as that the UCS is critical of Milloy. BigK HeX (talk) 15:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Not an acceptable BLP source, in my view, per "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer" (

WP:SPS). But this Inter Press Service

article, which reports on the UCS report, is absolutely fine to use, as are the other sources I mentioned above. The IPS article contains the following passage:

Indeed, according to the report, even some of same individuals involved in the tobacco industry's efforts contributed to ExxonMobil's campaign. Steven Milloy, for example, whose Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (ASSC) was created by tobacco giant Philip Morris in 1993 to raise questions about the link between second-hand smoke and cancer, has served as a member of the Global Climate Science Team (GCST), which ExxonMobil helped create in 1998, and run the Free Enterprise Action Institute to which the company has contributed 130,000 dollars - or almost two-thirds of the group's total expenses.

I would have thought covers what you wanted to put in the article. --JN466 18:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Strangely, the ahya.org biography of Sa'ad Ibn Abi Waqqas is also word-by-word mentioned in N.K Singh's book. I don't know who copied from whom.—  Hamza  ^{[ talk ]} 07:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

So, kindly also tell whether i can use the N.K. Singh source if ahya.org is not reliable.—  Hamza  ^{[ talk ]} 07:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it is clear that ahya.org is not a reliable source. The N.K. Singh book is published by Global Vision Publishing House looks at first glance to be a reliable source, while not written by this N. K. Singh. On second glance, I suspect that this N. K. Singh actually owns the publishing house.[57] (note the "published by Dr. N.K. Singh.." ) [58][59]. In order words, the work is to all intents and purposes self-published. I would suggest finding other sources, if possible. Certainly if other more reliable sources contradict the information here, they should be given priority. Slp1 (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Marc B. Shapiro is an expert on Jewish religious thought and writing. The Seforim blog is a group blog where a number of authors post relatively scholarly pieces on Jewish religious books and thought. I'd like to use this article by Shapiro (specifically the material in footnote 22 about Isaac Bunin). Is this reliable enough to be used in a Wikipedia article? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this would qualify as reliable under the expert exception clause of

WP:SPS. Blueboar (talk

) 22:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Blueboar;

WP:SELFPUB as long as it follow the requirements given there. Nsaa (talk

) 22:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. As long as we know it was posted by him. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The organisation

That probably would depend on the nature of the specific "information". If it's a research report that's dated, identified as to authorship, cites sources, etc., it might be a suitable source for some types of Wikipedia content. However, if it's an anonymous pamphlet or an opinion essay printed on plain white paper, it would be no better than an anonymous blog. It would be helpful to have some examples of the materials you have and how you would like to use them. --Orlady (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The one example I have at the moment runs to 2300-odd words, cites 7 sources, but is undated and does not name an author. Some phrases appear to be copied from Wikipedia. The example I have is information on Prem Rawat; an editor there has proposed we could use it as a source. --JN466 19:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Ombudswiki has posted some excerpts here. --JN466 19:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That sounds extremely suspicious as it seems to be Wikipedia citing Wikipedia, and Wiki articles are by our own guidelines no reliable sources.

In general I think it is essential to have an idea about the quality control that is in place with INFORM. With scientific papers it is peer review, with newspapers it is the editors, with books the publishers have a look at it. So who is checking these sources at least nominally. Arnoutf (talk) 19:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

From looking at the website, I would presume the staff. They have two research officers, and an assistant research officer. ("Who we are" on their website.) --JN466 19:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the INFORM article on Wikipedia sheds some light on this movement and their motives. It seems to particularly focussed on sects. So I would be carefull to use it in any articles not on sects, and even in article on sects a certain level of caution is always (and I mean always also when people quote Nature or Science) a good idea. Arnoutf (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

They apparently don't have anyone "fact checking" basic mathematical inconsistencies. This was the first fact on their "facing the facts" page -- "Fact: A study of 104 participants in Unification Church (Moonie) workshops showed that 71 dropped out within two days, another 29 dropped out between two and nine days and an additional 17 dropped out after nine days. Only nine workshop participants actually stayed over 21 days to join the Unification Church." The organization is run by well respected sociologists, and the research staff have advanced degrees, but that's doesn't mean that they are not sloppy with the information that they put out. If they are using Wikipedia as a source I'd say its not worth using as a source. Track down the sources they use instead ... if they are reliable then that's great.Griswaldo (talk) 20:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a school in sociology not interested in numbers ;-) But indeed if simple additions are too complex that indicates little internal quality control. I would go for the source materials as Griswaldo suggests. Arnoutf (talk) 20:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Also I have been worried from the start with their claims of support by "professors, London School of Economics, British home office and mainstream churches". I maybe a cyncial Dutchman but I think one of our proverb "Goede wijn behoeft geen krans" (Good wine does not require awards) would be well used here ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow ... it takes some effort to start with 104 participants and have 117 drop out. Those Moonie workshops must be boring as hell! Blueboar (talk)

And keeping nine participants in the workshop on top of that..... Bistromatics in my view Arnoutf (talk) 20:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Eileen Barker, a widely-respected and eminent sociologist, both founded and still actively runs INFORM. Any incidents of text shared by a Wiki article and materials from INFORM may as likely be due to sharing a common source(s) or the Wiki editor using material from INFORM. Regardless, INFORM does have a good reputation for fact-checking. It also has a sterling reputation in the academic community, and based on how I've seen this source treated in other work, I would regard it to be just as RS as a publication from the Sociology of Religion department of most universities. • Astynax ^talk 21:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I would accept their official publication readily as those of a university. I would accept their webpages, unpublished work and working papers readily as the webpages, unpublished work and working papers of universities. With the utmost caution and suspicion. (but I do apologise for the unjustified jokes which may shed bad light on their undeniable competence on their topics) Arnoutf (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that Eileen Barker is one of the most reputable sociologists around, as are people like James A. Beckford, who is also involved in INFORM. However, the passage "The primary criticisms of Prem Rawat since the 1990s have been for a lack of intellectual content in his public discourses and for allegedly leading an opulent lifestyle" in the report is very clearly based on the last sentence of our lead in Prem Rawat. Moreover, this sentence in our article mostly cites sources from the 1980s. The sentence has been much the same in our article since at least December 2008 February 2008. --JN466 21:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That, to me, indicates the same amount of sloppiness that the mathematical inconsistency I pointed to does. We have no idea who maintains these pages and who compiles these reports. With all do respect I highly doubt that the organization has a "reputation for fact-checking" on their web publications. Says who? I agree that they are a well respected organization run by competent and well respected sociologists (as I already said), but just like the webpages of a university department, sociology or any other, there are no guarantees at all of fact-checking. In our department the admins (who have no qualifications) maintain the websites. I've also come across tons of "reports" hosted on departmental webpages that are collaborative undergraduate projects. Webpages affiliated with institutions of higher learning are not de facto reliable, and I would strongly caution against believing they are.Griswaldo (talk) 21:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Lest there be any misunderstanding, the editor at Prem Rawat did not suggest citing INFORM's website, but the information texts they e-mail or mail out in response to private enquiries from the general public. The passage I quoted is not from their website. --JN466 21:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

INFORM supplies background information to the British government and other governmental bodies, a function which is mirrored by similar organizations in other nations. It is also consulted by others in academia. Caution or suspicion may be justified, though that does not make it anything less than RS. That the sentence quoted is very similar to the last sentence in the lead does not mean that they didn't do a fact-check (indeed the sentence is based upon other sources which use similar language, and those actually are criticisms). If there is something in their information which conflicts with an equally RS source, the simple solution would be to explain that there are 2 views and cite both. If they are way out on a limb and disagree with many and better references, then cite the other sources. If there is no conflict with other, equal RS sources, then I guess I don't see the problem: INFORM is an RS reference. • Astynax ^talk 22:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess what I'm struggling with is whether something sent out to private correspondents upon personal request is a published source per

WP:V. --JN466

23:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Many sources are only available upon demand, or by visiting the publisher. Most dissertations, for example, require a special request or a visit to the host library. The circular reference issues are a big concern, but the "available on demand" doesn't appear to be a problem in and of itself.   Will Beback  talk  23:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The crucial issue is the meaning of "published". "Publish" comes from the Latin 'publicare' to ‘make public’. Has this material been made "public", I don't think so. One definition of "publish" is - to prepare and issue (a book, journal, piece of music, or other work) for public sale. This material hasn't been "issued". The idea I assume is that something is considered substantial enough to warrant the expense and effort of "publishing". If this is "publishing" then any letter written by INFORM would be "published". And, of course, the other issue is, is this material "self published"?Momento (talk) 04:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow your argument. This brochure is available to the public upon request. How is that different from a dissertation?   Will Beback  talk  04:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

We wouldn't normally use a dissertation either, at least that is what I've understood from previous discussions. Also, with a dissertation, or an article in a journal, we know that it will be the same each time we look at it. Is this the case here? I might have a COI here, as I have two postgrad qualifications from LSE, but hopefully this doesn't affect my attitude towards this.

talk

) 07:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS do allow dissertations to be used with care. Not all would be allowed (unfinished or failed dissertations, for instance, would not), and they must be used with care so as not to give undue weight. • Astynax ^talk

08:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Dougweller has a good point, but I don't know if we have an answer. I gather than some folks here have received their brochure(s). If they looked as if they came from desktop printer then it'd be different from if they'd been professionally printed. If there's a date or edition number that might help the issue of referring to the same version. (Even printed books may have multiple editions over the years).   Will Beback  talk  10:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I still have not seen any indication that a brochure produced by this organization (for what reason btw?) should be considered reliable based on "a reputation of fact checking and accuracy". Where does this reputation come from vis-a-vis said brochures? If their web content is any indication I'd say no way. I mean no offense, btw to LSE or the very qualified individuals associated with the organization, or indeed to the work they do, but until I see some evidence that their webpages, emails, fliers, and brochures have the afore mentioned reputation its status as an RS remains completely dubious. What's the problem with hunting down their sources? They aren't publishing research studies but supposedly using other sources to put together this information. Those sources are either reliable or unreliable and its best to use those.Griswaldo (talk) 12:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Some of the sources are reliable by our standards, others (allegations from ex-followers' private websites) are not. --JN466 13:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• I've made INFORM aware of this discussion; they have acknowledged the error on the website and fixed it. They also say they don't use Wikipedia as a primary source of information; whilst they may check the references given here, they don't quote directly from it. I may find out more about how the information is compiled in a couple of weeks' time. --JN466 13:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

What is your opinion regarding their statement about not using Wikipedia based on the evidence that you presented that they really seem to be using it? Just curious. Also, they have not fixed the number blunder yet, but I'm sure they intend to.Griswaldo (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

When I looked at the "Facts" page before my last post, it was changed (I had to switch browser to see it; the old version was still in my browser's cache). Now, the one sentence I quoted above definitely owes its existence to Wikipedia -- the combination of those two particular criticisms, and that particular wording, leave me in no doubt – but I have no reason at all to disbelieve their statement about the way they generally work (which, as they say, sometimes includes looking at our sources here). I'm still inclined to think that their reports are not published sources in the meaning of

WP:V, but I am interested in what they do, and they have expressed an interest in what I do here; I'll pay them a visit in a couple of weeks, where they'll be able to tell me more about how they generate their information. I'll let you know and report back to you. --JN466

15:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Darned cache! I'm a Luddite what can I say? I think the discrepancy you mention above (as well as the numbers problem) might be a sign of lax editorial control over some of the content by organization higher-ups. I hope this helps them tighten up ship.Griswaldo (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

A few final thoughts before I quit this particular discussion:

• There are many services which offer vetted summaries of information aggregated from their databases, most with some sort of limitation as to access. That would include major news services such as Reuters, government agencies, etc. And those summaries seldom come in the form of a glossy brochure (nor have any of the theses I've received from universities). So this question isn't limited to INFORM.
• There is a difference between "information on demand" sources. Some spew out raw data, which in my view would only be RS here in a very limited way at best (i.e., as backup reference for a statistic or statement published elsewhere). Others aggregate snippets from published works on a particular subject. And yet others do offer edited and vetted summaries of information.
• Wikipedia's constraints do not apply to third-party sources which editors may use. It is ridiculous to challenge a RS based upon a demand to know what are its own sources and how their authors or editors have used them. The resources we cite may themselves synthesize, make extensive use of primary sources, do original research, etc. Demanding that editors know or speculate about who, how, why and with what motivation for references makes policy unworkable.
• I'm not an editor of the article in question, nor have I used INFORM as a reference. But I would not like to see this and similar sources to be disallowed as non-RS. And again, whether or not they looked at (or have been influenced by) Wikipedia is irrelevant if they fact-checked that information. In the example provided, the statements are been well-supported. Moreover based on a quick search, phrases such as "opulent lifestyle" (c.f. and "lack of intellectual" (or analogues such as "quasi-intellectual" or "lack of theological content") appear in other sources noting criticisms. So, neither the wording in the article, or in the INFORM report, are unique, though I can certainly see why the question arose.
• INFORM is a respected organization composed of people with solid, even exceptional and outstanding, academic credentials, despite what seem to be thinly veiled slurs here. Their materials are backed by the organization, and I cannot imagine why they would not be viewed as RS in the same way we would hold materials from Reuters, the CIA, etc. They seem to fit well into
  WP:V's: "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources where available, such as in history, medicine, and science, but they are not the only reliable sources in such areas." as well as the explanation found in the Reliable source examples essay: "the proceedings of official religious bodies and the journals or publications of recognized and well-regarded religious academies and experts can be considered reliable sources for religious doctrine and views where such views represent significant viewpoints on an article subject." Despite its eminent scholarship and credentials, INFORM is not infallible. Nor is any other reference we accept as RS here, and the usual caveats apply. I would think in an article with such a contentious history, how a reference is used is going to be more important, i.e., some material which may be suitable in articles such as Elan Vital may not be suitable for inclusion in the BLP for Prem Rawat
  .

I apologize for being so long-winded, but I cringe at the thought of setting another precedent which will be dragged into future debates attempting to constrict our use of academic sources. • Astynax ^talk 19:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

In the snippets provided there are four obvious mistakes.[60] They call Maharaji "the Maharaji" and "Maharishi". And they say his father called what he taught "the Knowledge of the Divine Light and Holy Name" which is incorrect. And this "prohibited for most premies" is also incorrect. Not a great testimony to fact checking..Momento (talk) 00:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

He is called the Maharaji nowadays - his old name was Guru Maharaj Ji. "Maharishi" does appear to be an error, but a minor one. I don't see the error regarding the teachings. Divine Light and the Holy Name appear to be, or have been, part of the movement's teachings.   Will Beback  talk  04:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Why do you bother to write these things? He is not called "THE Maharaji" any more than you are called "THE Will Beback"! "Maharishi" doesn't appear to be an error, it is an error. Whilst knowledge of the Divine Light and Holy Name may have been part of the movement's teaching, Hans Ji Maharaj only described what he taught as either "the techniques of Knowledge" or "Knowledge" as per his article. And, for good measure, Rawat's father's title is not "Shri Hans Maharaj Ji" but "Shri Hans Ji Maharaj". And he spent the majority of his time teaching in North India not in "Sindh and Lahore in what is now Pakistan". It is "the Houston Astrodome" not "the Huston Astrodome". Rawat's "mother and brothers returned to India" is also incorrect, one brother stayed in the US. And, of course, "prohibited for most premies" is also incorrect. So that makes eight obvious errors in less the thirty sentences.Momento (talk) 07:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Most of what your pointing out is nit-picking. "Maharaji" isn't a name, it's a title like "professor" or "king". Whether it takes a definite article or not is as more a matter of local usage than anything. "Ji" is a common honorific, and tossed in wherever handy. "Huston" is just a typo. Two brothers went to India, even if another stayed in the US, so that statement isn't wrong either. Premies in the 1970s were strongly encouraged to turn over their inheritances and other assets to the movement, as has been widely reported. The source may or may not qualify as reliable for various reasons, but your list of so-called "errors" isn't among them.   Will Beback  talk  07:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to correct your last points Will Beback. Title or not, in English we say "Good morning Professor", "Good morning Maharaji", not ""Good morning the Professor", "Good morning the Maharaji". Even the INFORM document says "known as Maharaji". Yes, Huston is a typo and that is an error. And the statement - Rawat's ""mother and brothers returned to India" is incorrect because not all of them did. The correct description is his "mother and two of his brothers returned to India" and therefore it is an error. So they are errors, "so-called" or not.Momento (talk) 00:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You're right that we wouldn't use an article when addressing someone by title, but we would when referring to them. "The professor went to market" instead of "Professor went to market". The matter of the brothers is not an error, it just omits a minor fact. Aside from Prem and Satpal, the other brothers are not-notable.   Will Beback  talk  01:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

So you have dropped your previous argument "Whether it takes a definite article or not is as more a matter of local usage than anything". And now saying what counts is when we "refer to them". In which case you're still wrong since Rawat is referred to as "Maharaji" not "The Maharaji" as in "Maharaji was born in 1957" as per every other source in the world. And, of course, omitting a fact that creates a false impression is an error.Momento (talk) 02:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Grammatically, Indian honorifics such as Maharaji work like nicknames; like "Sting" for example for

Anson Shupe and David G. Bromley, where they erroneously assumed the honorific "Ji" was Rawat's surname, and formed sentences like "Ji then travelled to the United States". Marvellous. --JN466

02:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

In some cases, that may be true, but it's not universally practiced, even in India. This issue came up regarding Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. He is referred to both as "Maharishi" and "the Maharishi". I've found the latter in many Indian publications, while the former is very common in movement literature. In any case, I don't see sufficient significant errors to discount the publication for that reason, though there may be other reasons to do so.   Will Beback  talk  03:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Maharishi just means "great seer", and there have been many of those throughout history; hence you will find "the Maharishi" as well as "the Maharishis" (all those who have occurred in history). But I agree that intimacy also plays into it. A daughter will say, "Dad came round". Someone who is not a member of the family will say, "The dad came round". I think this colours the Western English approach to such names. It may mean nothing, but when Khushwant Singh wrote that article for the NYT, the picture caption stated "Maharaj Ji [...] receives a devotee's homage", where I think a Western journalist might have plumped for "The Maharaj Ji ...". I agree it is a minor issue though, and INFORM are certainly not unique in using "The". --JN466 03:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to include in the article

The use of Hansard as a source has been discussed here before ([64]) and it seemed then that the consensus was that Hansard can be used, with care, especially when what it says is supported by a secondary source. The question is whether the specific statement linked to above can be quoted from verbatim in the article given above despite the concerns that it is PPOV (whatever that is) and a primary source? Varsovian (talk) 08:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

A few is a

weasel word and should be avoided if at all possible. However, this seems to be an ongoing content dispute for some time, and it is much more complicated than simple removal of sourced material by an uninvolved editor. I am not sure this is the right place for that larger discussion. Arnoutf (talk

) 10:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"A few" is directly from a reliable secondary source. It is also pertinent to the topic. Yes, this is an ongoing content dispute. A content dispute when one party has repeatedly violated (perhaps unknowingly) pretty much all content related Wikipedia policies (including OR, POINT, POV, and SYNTH). Normally I would be fine with the use of a primary source in such a way but the guideline does say it needs to be used with caution. I am not seeing this caution being exercised here. Rather, an attempt is being made to use this primary source push a particular POV. So yes, larger context matters.

talk

) 15:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources about WWII related events normally manage to correctly state the date on which Britain and France declared war on Germany. The reliable source you speak of (and which contains weasel wording, as is pointed out below) doesn't manage even that. Varsovian (talk) 11:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution. The word "few" unfortunately comes from the secondary source which is quoted in the article. But let's leave the discussion about the article to the article's discussion page. The matter here is whether the above quote be included on the basis that, when backed with a secondary source, Hansard is an RS? Or do the constraints of PPOV and WP:PRIMARY mean that the quote can not be used? Varsovian (talk) 10:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hansard is a verbatim transcript of the proceedings in question. It is (in the days before the UKParliament tv channel) the most reliable source available for what a politician on his hind legs in the House said. If Hansard says that the Foreign Secretary said it, there is unlikely to be a better source - and indeed the other source may just be quoting Hansard. However, I am taking it that the issue is with the spin on the thing. 25 is a number. Few is a criticism.Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It is acceptable to use the Hansard record to reference a quotation, even one which contains a great deal of "spin", so long as it is attributed (e.g., "MP Henworthy stated, 'All Americans are pigs.'"^[1]). Where the "spin" can fall into

WP:OR is when an editor uses the transcript to back his/her own conclusion or synthesis, which must instead come from a third-party reliable source. • Astynax ^talk

20:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The Hansard website is not a verbatim transcript of the proceedings in question. The hardcopy Hansard is a verbatim transcript, but due to time and labour constraints the website has been scanned from the hardcopy version and has not always been corrected. If anyone wishes to disagree with that they are welcome to do so, but His Majesty's Farces should obviously be His Majesty's Forces. O Fenian (talk) 09:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's been put thru an OCR scanner, hasn't it. The current stuff uses one feed for the print and electronic versions, so it is error checked, but they've probably got work experience trainees generating the archive stuff (I once, a long time ago, worked in a similar role for the Royal Commission on Historic Monuments, transferring information from cards to microfilm for £30 a week)

Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

A recent WP Peer Review of the Article Twelve Tribes communities expressed concerns about the source. "Swantko, Jean (2000). "The Twelve Tribes' Communities, the Anti-Cult Movement, and Government's Response". Social Justice Research 12 (4): 341–364."

A Revised version appears in Regulating religion: case studies from around the globe edited by James T. Richardson by

Relevant literature in google books uses the journal article. as well as relevant literature Both source are published in "Springer" publications.

Specifically where the article is cited is:

The final deprogramming in Chattanooga was conducted in January 1980 by Ted Patrick[14] and was assisted by one of the Chattanooga Police Department's detectives in falsifying charges in order to perpetrate the "rescue" of member Rebecca Westbrook.[20]

Swantko is a member of the Twelve Tribes as well as their lawyer and married to A Church Elder. The question Is the source reliable and verifiable enough to make this claim despite COI of Swantko? Weaponbb7 (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

No I would not, assuming (and at this time I see no reason to not to) that this is RS. The source does not say that Mr Patrick was involved in the de-programming, just that he was a de-programmer (but that might be reasonable assumption) nor that (as far as I can tell) this was any kind of final programming. Nor sloes the source say that the detective was involved in any de-programming, just the kidnapping. I would also like to see what contact your suggested edit fits into.Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That a paper is used does not mean the author agrees with it. One of the most cited papers in the 1990's was the paper on cold fusion, mainly because many scientists tried to explain the flaws in the original paper and how it may have happened.

In this case we have to analyse the original article on its ow value. So let's first look at the journal. Social Justice Research. Published by Springer, so a decent academic publisher. No reason to doubt reliability there. It is indexed by the large indexing machines for science (including Web of Science ISI) and it is the official journal of the International Society for Justice Research [65]. The journal has not yet received an impact factor as it is a recent addition to ISI

Now to the article itself, it has been cited 4 times (which is not very often considering its publication in 1999, the more so as it has been used 3 times in 2001 by one single author). For the author himself this is the only publication in the Scopus database (Scopus on this author - no free access), so it is likely this is the only peer reviewed paper published by him.

When skimreading the article, it becomes apparent that the author is arguing against prosecution by governments. This is perfectly fine in the scientific discourse and is called position paper. A position paper however is explicitly intended to advocate a specific point of view and is therefore in general not neutral.

Taking this altogether I would say that this is a not very notable, but reliable and verifiable source that nevertheless should be used with the utmost care since as a position paper it is best treated as a primary source. I hope this helps Arnoutf (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Well perhaps thats because there is persecution, well documented persecution. Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Consider also that this is a negative BLP claim that is being made with the source. I think when that consideration is taken into account there is no reasonable way you could use a shaky source like that.Griswaldo (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Well as the topic is very narrow the citations are narrow too, however in the New Religions Studies where the Article cited by the right people where it is appropriate twice by Massimo Introvigne, James T. Richardson in two articles in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion about NRMs in europe. Sociology of Religion, 2006 by Richardson. Considering that this article is cited by these two Top Scholars in the Law in New Religions studies is no small feat. An unpublished Manuscript by Swantko is used in a source in the most recent publication on them (Palmer 2010 in Nova Religio). Timothy Miller Also Reccomends the artilce in another recent Artilce also in Nova Religio. And perhaps there is a hints of persecution in the writing becuase there is well documeneted persectution of many NRM especially in Europe and the US. I borught it here not becuase i question its reliability but becuase i knew others would and have.Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• The original publication in which the article appeared, and its presence in Regulating Religion by James T. Richardson, speak in its favour. Richardson mentions the article in the introduction, and just gives a factual summary of its content. Now, the Times Free Press article [66] says that Rebecca Westbrook was abducted in 1980. Swantko mentions the abduction of Kirsten Nielsen in 1981, also by Patrick. Does this not mean that 1980 as the date for the last deprogramming may be wrong?
• Note that in Westbrook's case, the police officer complicit in the deprogramming actually was her father, according to Swantko; the matter concerned, in Swantko's words, "a falsified arrest warrant to get his 27-year-old daughter into protective custody". I think if the statement were kept, the family relationship would be worth mentioning in any event, for context. However, the big question is, was the protective custody arrest warrant ever found to have been improper by a judge? I don't have much time for literature research right now, but I was unable to find anything in google news or newspaperarchive about the case. Without corroboration by other sources, I would not write the statement as we have it, as it makes it sound that her father was found guilty of a crime. Swantko's religious affiliation, just to address that point, is of no consequence here. --JN466 19:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Note that both Swantko and the Times Free Press seem to have the name wrong. It appears to be Westbrooks, not Westbrook or Westbooks. There is background on the case, recounted from the daughter's point of view, here. Her father is now deceased, according to that article. --JN466 19:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • It is clear from this that she didn't press charges, so the matter did not go to court. It seems a rather sad story all-round, really. I think it should be phrased somewhat more sensitively in our article. Another possibility might be attribution, either to Swantko or Swantko and Westbrooks (Swantko cites her). --JN466 19:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I can do that I brought it here I had the Peer Reviewer wanted it checked a source. I consider it highly reliable but can understand people concern about COI but this is Peer Reviewed journal as well not a hachet job on their website or in Freedom magazine. Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The source is RS all right, but it offers an opinion on matters of law that weren't tried in a court. Also, knowing that the detective in question was the woman's father casts a somewhat different light on the Chattanooga Police Department. And I think the 1981 Nielsen case was in Chattanooga as well. Perhaps something like this: "One of Patrick's last deprogramming cases in Chattanooga occurred in 1980; it involved a police detective who, according to Swantko, had his 27-year-old daughter arrested on a falsified warrant in order to facilitate her deprogramming, with the support of local judges." --JN466 22:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The

peer-reviewed based on the policies on their website for submission of manuscripts. If it were peer-reviewed the personal background of the writer would be irrelevant. The facts would have been checked, and errors that did appear could be detected by subsequent writing. TFD (talk

) 22:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

On the Springer website for Social Justice Research, under "Submission of Accepted Manuscripts", it says "After a manuscript has been accepted for publication and after all revisions have been incorporated, ...". Also see [67]: "Reviewers: Please click the 'Login' button from the menu above and log in to the system as 'Reviewer'. You may view and/or download manuscripts assigned to you for review, submit your comments for the editors and the authors, and track the progress of your manuscripts through the system." The journal is described as peer-reviewed on numerous university websites, e.g. [68], [69], [70], [71]. Even without this prior review, a chapter in an academic book edited by someone like Richardson and published by

Kluwer Academic (Springer) meets RS. --JN466

23:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)