This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hagelstein's cold fusion review in Naturwissenschaften
This section was archived by a "bot" before a significant number of opinions (compared to other requests posted on this page) were offered. Given all the controversy at the cold fusion pages, there are not enough opinions here, by far! CAN the article described below be used as a secondary source for various primary sources? V (talk) 07:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
The peer reviewed interdisciplinary science journal
Naturwissenschaften97(4):345-52 is the first review they have published on the subject, being based on a search "through more than a thousand papers in the published and unpublished literature on the Fleischmann–Pons experiment to find results we could use to develop estimates for upper limits of particle emission per unit energy" (p. 346; PDF p. 2.)
Is that review a reliable secondary source in the context of the cold fusion article for the following claims, which appear verbatim earlier on the same page:
"4He has been observed in the gas phase in amounts in proportion with the energy produced"; and
"Such a large amount of excess energy produced with commensurate 4He as a product can be interpreted as indicative of a new physical process"?
Thank you for considering this question. Ura Ursa (talk) 03:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
It is not a review article, and it does not support cold fusion. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Care to elaborate? Why does it say "REVIEW" across the top of the first page? Ura Ursa (talk) 06:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
It does not have the style and format of a review article. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
It isn't a general topical review, but it is a wide-ranging review of particular data which it summarizes. Does that make it any less authoritative as a reliable source for the article? More importantly, why would or wouldn't it count as a secondary source for the two claims excerpted above? Ura Ursa (talk) 08:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
The article is not a review of helium production in such experiments, and it does not evaluate those two claims. But you seem more interested in wikilawyering than in science. Bye. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
It seems like a decent source, but it's not a review article even if the journal decided to paste "REVIEW" at the top. It's more like a commentary. Fences&Windows 23:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand. They went through 1000+ sources tabulating data for summarization. In the process they noted helium correlations, which they reported along with a summarization of their results in a graph. How is that like a commentary? Ura Ursa (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Whether a source is reliable or not is one thing, but when have editors ever before contradicted a respected, peer-reviewed journal as to whether a paper is a review or not? This whole topic has been the bizarro-world stinking armpit of wikipedia for years. 208.54.14.57 (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I "second" that question. Naturwissenschaften was previously argued-about by anti-CF editors here, that it could not be a Reliable Source journal, just because it dared to publish a cold fusion article or three, among all the other types of articles it publishes. The anti-CF editors lost that particular debate (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cryptic_C62/Cold_fusion#Use_of_Naturwissenschaften_article ), so they have since focussed on whether or not particular articles can qualify as sources for used on the main Cold fusion page. I suspect in this particular case, the anti-CF crowd might have to admit that this new article is a Review, which theoretically means that earlier Naturwissenschaften articles might now be allowed to be mentioned in the main CF page, --but that the anti-CF group will also be able to prevent referring to this new article there, because it itself has not been mentioned by other authors in other articles. And, obviously, if this article can't yet be referenced, then the other articles still can't be referenced! My new Question is, then, how may "layers" of reviews of reviews must the rest of the Wikipedia editors wait for, before any of those primary-reliable-source articles can be referenced???? V (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Hm, good point. So let me add another question here:
3. Whether or not it is a review, is it a secondary source for the purposes of including the primary sources it discusses in the cold fusion article? Ura Ursa (talk) 05:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
It's a secondary source published by a reliable publishing house (
Springer Verlag). It's not necessary to clarify whether the article is a review or not. In addition, any original thought in this paper may be used as an expert opinion, but this is a different matter that should be discussed separately from the question of whether the source can be used to present the papers and positions it is presenting. Cs32enTalk to me
16:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
??? What could be the problem? If it is a secondary source that references various primary Reliable Sources, then what in Wikipedia's rules could possibly prevent those primary sources from being referenced in the cold fusion article? V (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Should this be moved to the cold fusion talk page? It looks like it's about to be archived here. Ura Ursa (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I think no. THIS is the place where the Question posed is most appropriate, to await an Answer. (oops, wasn't logged in) V (talk) 04:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Since there is a lull in the conversation, I will have a go at saying something. I have never edited (and scarcely looked at) CF articles. The article reads to me like a research paper. Its Introduction is by way of a review of the current state of the art (as is normal in research papers). In part Hagelstein analyses observations gleaned from other papers and so this lends a broad scope to his paper. The claims numbered 1 and 2 Ura Ursa quotes result from only four papers, one by Hagelstein himself. To me this provides rather a weak review of only speculative claims. In claim 2 “can be interpreted” seems to mean “it is possible for it to be interpreted” rather than “is to be interpreted”. The main conclusion of the paper, which is not by way of review, I take as being that any 4He does not seem to be coming from alpha particles produced by nuclear fusion: “Efforts to account for excess energy in the Fleischmann–Pons experiment based on models that involve energetic particles are unlikely to be successful in light of the upper limits discussed here”. So, the “new physical process” in claim 2, Hagelstein suggests, is not a process of cold fusion involving energetic particles.
I feel it would unbalanced to report the (secondary) two claims without reporting the (primary) conclusion and to report the latter would be premature. I do not know why the paper is labelled “review” and to me it does not matter either way. The thousand papers part is irrelevant. Hagelstein merely says he surveyed these papers to find which ones had observations enabling him to make his analysis and reach his conclusions.
In answer to question 3, I think the paper is a secondary source for the two claims but that things would need to be put in a clear context, particularly bearing in mind the paper’s conclusion. This makes the whole matter very abstruse and difficult to convey succinctly. So, as an editorial decision, I would not put any of this into the CF article. However, I would not a priori preclude the two claims quoted on grounds of
WP:V
, etc.
I hope this helps (though I fear it may not!). Thincat (talk) 12:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I must confess that the copy of the article that I have been able to obtain is corrupted or something --can't open it on my local system. So I have not been able to determine if this Hagelstein paper contains references to an approximate replication of Arata's experiment (involving pressurized deuterium and not electrolysis) that was published in Physics Letters A last year --we've been waiting for a secondary source for that --or if it references certain SPAWAR "co-deposition" electrolysis experiments that were also published in Naturwissenschaften (we've been waiting for a secondary source for those, also!). V (talk) 07:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Try [2] but I think the answer is "no". Thincat (talk) 10:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, but I ran into a paywall...and my funds are tight right now. V (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Can anyone else here find out if this Hagelstein article references the RS primary publications that I mentioned three paragraphs above? Thanks! V (talk) 16:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to also point out that the "review" article under discussion here appears to mention a number of experiments that detected X-rays. This could be very important! If X-rays have indeed been detected, then despite the fact that they are not the desired gamma rays that hot-fusion physicists have claimed should be produced, they are still something more than ANY ordinary chemical reaction can produce. Nor can any ordinary electrochemical cell, running at just a few Volts, generate X-rays, either. Something really unusual would have to be happening in those experiments, if X-rays have been undeniably detected. V (talk) 18:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Using Patch.com as a Reliable Source
Copied from
Talk:Charles Lavine
:
No spam from Patch.com (online news website). All items are appropriately sourced.
Eyespy4you (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Eyespy4you
No, patch.com is not a
reliable source and should not be used as one in a Wikipedia article. I've also gone through the article, trimming a lot of tangential material, and removing a lot of promo/POV material as well. TNXMan
02:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
How does Patch.com's professional editorial advisory board not make this website a reliable source? I ask for a third party review.Eyespy4you (talk) 11:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Eyespy4you
Professional editorial advisory board? At this particular patch site (Glen Cove, NY), their "advisory board" includes, among others, a high school senior, a newspaper intern, an amateur photographer, and more "freelance writers" than you can shake a stick at (source). Hardly a professional anything. TNXMan 11:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
"Phil Meyer is Professor Emeritus in the School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill" and "Jeff Jarvis is the associate professor and director of the interactive journalism program at the City University of New York’s new Graduate School of Journalism." It appears that they have oversight of all Patch.com content. Eyespy4you (talk) 12:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Eyespy4you
Where do you see that? I don't see it on the Glen Cove site, which is the one you're trying to use. TNXMan 13:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, for the main patch site, not for the specific Glen Cove site. The editors for this site are college graduates, nothing more or less (although one did intern for a newspaper, which doesn't count for much).
As a further point, "letters to the editor" or "open letters to such-and-such" are not encyclopedic and should not be included. Wikipedia isn't a place to publish rants from the general public. TNXMan 22:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Note to Community: This was brought here at my suggestion which I gave in a
Talk:Charles Lavine as a result of the dispute between Eyespy4you and Tnxman307. It would be of some considerable assistance to those users if the community could come to consensus on whether Patch.com in general and specific subpages on Patch.com such as, and in particular, [glencove.patch com] are reliable sources. (I'm refactoring this request and adding this note here so that Tnxman307's comments, above, are not taken to be a response to this request.) Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK
) 14:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Like all reliable sources there is a subjective element at work. I've looked over patch.com and the subpage. Patch.com says, "We’re a community-specific news and information platform dedicated to providing comprehensive and trusted local coverage for individual towns and communities." Notice the word platform, not organization. I feel the site would meet the same standard as we hold for blogs. I don't feel the site is inherently unreliable and I would consider it a good source for local news in the specific communities where a patch.com page exists, but I wouldn't take it beyond that. If what you're sourcing to this particular patch.com subpage takes place outside of Glen Cove then it would need to be stated as an opinion attributed to the writer and such a quote would need to make sense in the context of the article.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Additionally, I would like to note that although the biographies on the Glen Cove subpage make mention of freelance writer for major news sources, I was unable to find the names on the about us associated with bylines at those news organizations or google books. This doesn't mean the biographies are false, just that what work they did may not be attributed to them or it may be offline only.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 03:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
For this relatively new and still developing article about a Venezuelan film studio, several questions about reliability of sources have surfaced. (On other Venezuelan articles, there have been charges that some reliable sources are "opeds", so independent eyes would be helpful.)
First, to verify that these are reliable sources for this article
The website is Candela Live, at the bottom of the page is "Raggaeton.co.uk" (claiming "No. 1 magazine for urban Latin in the UK"), but that link goes nowhere, and I can find no page here describing fact checking or editorial oversight (and I do speak Spanish). The Contact us page is of no help.
Added, in particular, this site is being used to source the claim in the lead that the institution is "autonomous"; the source does not say that, and every reliable source seems to say that is a state organization, and its website is a gov't website. I have tagged this (twice, I think), as original research, not in citation given, or verify credibility, but the tags were removed. Funding is run through something that includes the word "autonomous" as part of its name, but that is not the same as saying it is an "autonomous" institution, and reliable sources contradict that claim. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
This is a wordpress website, the Contact us page is unhelpful, and although I speak Spanish, I can find nothing on that site about fact checking or editorial oversight.
This website gives us some information about their backing, but none of that info helps establish reliability. There is nothing about fact checking or editorial oversight or journalistic credentials, and all of the editor pages at the About Us page are dead links, which doesn't inspire confidence.
This site Contact page says it is the Artforum International Magazine, but I can find nothing other than the address-- no indications of editorial oversight, factchecking, staff, etc.
This site's About us pages seems to indicate that they accept essays from contributors, with a clearly stated editorial bias, although it does at least have editors listed. The author is a graduate student in Hong Kong.
Thanks for any feedback; I'd like a read on the sources before I begin improving the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Not one iota of feedback from independent editors; at any rate, most of the marginal sources have now been replaced by reliable sources.[3] However, I still don't know what "Jump Cut" is, and whether it is reliable; ditto for Art Forum International. Thanks :/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Discussion
I wouldn't describe that woman as a graduate student. She teaches at the university, and also is studying for a PhD. Many professors teach while writing a thesis or working towards a PhD. She is foremost a teacher, and secondly a PhD student.ValenShephard (talk) 22:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
It's the other way around, many graduate students do some teaching to help support themselves (and provide cheaper teachers for the University). Now if you can show evidence that she's a professor...
talk
) 14:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Candela Live publish a magazine, there has to be some oversight because they afterall need to secure a publisher, and they have editors. Their article is very detailed and well written, so that seems to indicate that some research when in to it. (It doesn't seem to be based on anything else, it looks like their research.) Its very well balanced and contains alot of important information, we could use it to add alot to the article.ValenShephard (talk) 22:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Art Forum also publishes a magazine, and they seem reliable. They have offices in more than one place for example. I can't see how you would find out who has fact checking or oversight. How do you know they do or don't have it.? ValenShephard (talk) 22:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
the power of culture source on Villa del Cine is relaying the opinions of a Venezuelan film maker, there is nothing to indicate that he is not a reliable source on venezuelan cinema. Also, the website is supported by souces such as international organisations, small NGOs and the Dutch government. So there must be something reliable about them. A government wouldn't support an organisation, even just in name, if it wasn't sure of its credentials. ValenShephard (talk) 22:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Valen, thanks for adding clarifying info, but let's try to keep this from growing overly long; the determination of reliability of sources is based upon the policy page
WP:RS-- reading those thoroughly in terms of how Wiki determines reliability will be helpful in responding here. SandyGeorgia (Talk
) 22:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Why is it so unthinkable to you that a state owned organ can have an indepedant source for funding? They are owned by the state, and the state probably funds the buildings, but another body (explained in the article) decides on funding. There are two sources which say it is not politically motivated for example (the new one also says this, I will add it some time probably). Funding for projects (we know this for sure) comes from an independant body which is not political or controlled by the govenment, it is a group of private and state actors. I don't know how else to say this but as autonomously funded. You could say "funding for projects goes through the independant body whatever its called". The body which handles funding for projects (maybe not for the studios themselves) is called the National Autonomous Centre for Film... Is having autonomous in its title not enough? When talking about such bodies, to say it is autonomous means autonomous from the government, or private companies. ValenShephard (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
It's much simpler than that; does any reliable source say it is "autonomous"? No. But they do all say something about its association with and control by the state. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Which source says "it is controlled by the state"? It is associated with the government, the IPS news source says it is governmental and independant. It can actually be both.. ValenShephard (talk) 00:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Like the IPS source says it is governmental and independant. ValenShephard (talk) 02:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Ville del Cine is part of the Ministry of Popular Culture, and so is the entity that funds it, according to the Venezuelan gov't itself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
One could also describe the BBC as government-owned and controlled in a Socilist-run state with a hereditary head of state (which the UK government admits), yet you did not point this out when you presented it as a source. TFD (talk) 17:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, one differance is that is not actualy part of (or A) govenment department, nor technivly is it funded by the governement , its funded by the licence fee. Which is payable to the BBC, not the governement and is not avaiible to the government to use.Slatersteven (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it is not owned by the government, it is owned by "the people". But detractors could see that as just more socialist propaganda. TFD (talk) 01:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
With the one caveat that its enshrined in law. The differnace here (as far as I can see) is that Ville del Cine is officaly part of a government department, its not accused of being indirectly under the control of the government. The BBC is n ot under law part of any department, its automomous (and actualy has thru the licence fee tax rasing powers, thus is almost a shadow governement in a sense).Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
For the first group, 1. to 4. are news articles by journalists in highly regarded news sources, and therefore meet rs. One problem I see with them is that they provide opinion in addition to news, and those should not be reported as facts in the article. Also news sources are generally best for news, i.e., what is happening now. There is no need to use three year old articles or rely on current articles for what happened 3 to 4 years ago when better sources are available. Google scholar for example returns 23 hits for "Villa del Cine".[4] Google books returns 45 hits.[5] Among these are
peer-reviewed articles although they are mostly in Spanish. TFD (talk
) 17:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
The Google scholar hits include, ummmm ... Wikipedia (when did Wikipedia become a "scholarly" source?), along with several repeats and sources that mention Villa del Cine only once. So far, the only new info I've found in reading these sources is a reminder that Chavez replaced the 1994 Cinematography Law with a new 2005 Cinematography Law that obliges theatres to run more local productions. Other than that, I haven't found anything new or inaccurate in the reliable sources currently being used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
TFD rated the first four sources as reliable. Does that mean I should reconsider returning some of the information within them which I have since deleted? Because it was interesting and informative as I mentioned some time before. ValenShephard (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
You haven't deleted anything from the BBC, El Universal, Time or Newsweek (in fact, you haven't added them yet, either) and TFD has frequently labeled reliable sources on Venezuela (such as The New York Times, the BBC, etc) as "opeds" and containing US and corporate bias,[6] yet he doesn't apply the same standard to
I want to assume good faith over what TFD said. His previous edits or comments are of no consequence to this discussion. I am wondering why I should or shouldn't take one opinion over another? I want to listen to all sides. ValenShephard (talk) 23:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, TFD's opinion that the New York Times, Boston Globe, Wall Street Journal, BBC and many others are "opeds" should give you an idea of whether he applies Wiki's
WP:UNDUE policies (see links in the diff above). SandyGeorgia (Talk
) 23:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Wouldn't it then be a good example of assuming good faith to think that this time he isn't doing that? (Even if he did, I am not familiar with these statements.) ValenShephard (talk) 23:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, let's look at a concrete example; according to TFD's statements about "oped" opinion in reliable sources, you would need to delete this lopsided statement you added to Villa del Cine, because it is certainly speculative journalistic opinion rather than fact (similar to Newsweek's complaints about traffic in Caracas) and doesn't reflect the criticism in the BBC article—criticism which even the partisan, por-Chavez Venezuelanalysis repeats:
The BBC article concluded that "... if the foundation's bosses are to be believed [that production is not politically motivated], then it will simply be good films that come to life, whatever the message", and "[u]ltimately that has got to be good for Venezuelan cinema."[1]
Does that help you understand the problem? Why is some opinion "fact", while known reliable sources are opinion? Yes, you should be careful to avoid journalistic opinions, but you've added something from the BBC which is clearly speculative opinion-- it's a matter of knowing how to use sources, even when reliable, and then applying that standard equally. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, I have never labelled articles as "op-eds", I have never used the term "corporate media bias" and I have never expressed an opinion on Venezuelanalysis. TFD (talk) 02:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
It appears you didn't read the diffs I linked above: here is one sample, and here is your take on Newsweek as a reliable source. Conversely, we currently have a distinctly editorial and speculative journalistic opinion in Villa del Cine from the BBC that has not been removed, although it adds nothing to the encyclopedic content of the article, and significant criticism from that very same BBC source is excluded from the article. It seems that when journalistic opinion is favorable to Chavez, it is "fact", but when unfavorable, no matter how many scores of reliable sources report the same thing (eg, crime and corruption, see due weight), it's journalistic "opinion" and quickly deleted, while favorable "opinion" is left unchallenged. At any rate, in this particular case, all of the reliable sources (and even the partisan Venezuelanalysis) repeat the concerns and criticism, which as of now, have only one line in the article, creating unbalance and POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
You are misrepresenting what I wrote. I never used the term "corporate media bias". It has always been my position that articles in the mainstream media are reliable sources for facts, per
peer-reviewed
articles from academic journals or books published by the academic press. Note your comment, "There will be plenty of academic sources in five or ten years offsetting the current crop of biased academic sources, but we have to address neutrality now, not in five years." You fail to realize that representing the opinions expressed in academic sources is neutrality and must be followed whether or not we agree with those opinions. In fact there are opinions that do not favor Chavez. Incidentally the only text I removed was in the crime section in the Chavez article where I re-wrote the section, which had been based on numerous newspaper articles, despite the fact that it covers a period of over 10 years, using quality sources none of which could be described as pro-Chavez.
Please review the diffs I listed above. You continue to overlook
WP:DUE-- when scores of reliable sources present same, due weight must be given and all mainstream views should be reflected in our articles, which is why I compiled a long list of mainstream views that are not present in any of the Venezuela/Chavez articles. But I'm glad you're concerned about speculative journalistic opinion being present in articles, even from reliable sources-- I suppose this means you'll be deleting the BBC journalistic opinion that is currently in Villa del Cine, saying it must be good for Venezuelan cinema, soon? Certainly, info that is reflected in multiple mainstream reliable sources is very quickly deleted from Ven/Chavez article, yet this "opinion" that is favorable to Chavez stands-- let's be consistent. SandyGeorgia (Talk
) 11:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
This discussion seems to have hit the point where it is better dealt with on specific article or specific wikiproject talk pages :) Fifelfoo (talk) 11:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Why? I have yet to get a single response on the reliability of the marginal sources from any independent editor, or in fact, from any involved editor, and every talk page discussion results in the same handful of editors responding (which would be the same group of editors at WP Venezuela). Isn't the purpose of this noticeboard-- or any dispute resolution forum-- to get feedback from independent, uninvolved editors? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
OrthodoxWiki
It has been claimed that OrthodoxWiki "was found acceptable as a valid source" - apparently generically - "from the Reliable sources noticeboard". I have failed to find a record of any such decision in the archives here. I would be grateful for a confirmation or denial of the claim.
The reliability of this source had been questioned in the following passage, where the link is actually to an article described as needing help from an expert on the subject:
Orthodox Christians have usually understood Roman Catholicism as professing St. Augustine's teaching[1][unreliable source?] that everyone bears not only the consequence, but also the guilt, of Adam's sin.[citation needed] This teaching, which is contrary to that of the Roman Catholic Church,[2] appears[1][unreliable source?] to have been confirmed by multiple councils,[clarification needed] the first of them being the Council of Orange in 529.[1][unreliable source?]Esoglou (talk) 15:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
As its a wiki I would be supprisd it has passed RS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
No, never reliable since it's an open-edit website. (From the mainpage: Welcome to OrthodoxWiki, a free-content encyclopedia and information center for Orthodox Christianity that anyone can edit.)
talk
) 15:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
The only place it appears to be discussed is here [[7]] and it is not found to be RS, in fact it seems to be declared non RS.Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
The contribution here is what indicated that the website was a valid source. [8]LoveMonkey (talk) 15:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Soory I think you may have mis-read this. Its talking about offical church documnets and theologians whoi publish in peer-reviewed journals. I see no mention of this Wiiki.Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
OK I left a message on the sys ops talkpage User talk:Jschroe for Orthodox wiki. Because there is a significant amount of articles on Wikipedia that use Orthodox Wiki as a source. I used the site and removed the source conflict tags as the articles on Orthodox wiki have to be confirmed by the sysops on the site and there is no anonymous editing there. I thought that the site met the criteria from the discussion. After Esoglou was able to use random church websites as sources in the article I thought that meant that I could use the Orthodox wiki per what editor User:Wikiant stated and that no one else here but Andrew responded as to what I could do about Esoglou using random websites as sources. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I think you are completely misreading the reply by Wikiant you linked. He states that church and diocese websites are a step above blogs, but that peer-reviewed texts by scholars are to be preferred. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Here are at least 500 or so articles here on Wikipedia that use Orthodox Wiki in them. [9] in one way or another. What can now be done to correct this situation? LoveMonkey (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Remove them as you find them. You can also request a bot to scrape them from the system, but that would probably take a while.
Thats very strange Saddhiyama because I ported the article New Martyr from Orthodox Wiki and used Orthodox wiki to source it, indicated that in the article and I notice that article (for one example) did not show up in your link of searches. Also I get a whole different set whenever I remove the space from between the word Orthodox and the word wiki before I do a search. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
This list shows you where orthodoxwiki.org is used. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes it appears to list 572 articles in total. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
(ec) The link you provide doesn't mention this OrthodoxWiki website at all. Not that it would matter. It's an anyone can edit platform, so that's case closed.
talk
) 16:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Also I have already added several articles from Orthodox wiki to Wikipedia. There is actually a license issue that had to be addressed. This is the disclaimer that was created to confirm that Orthodox wiki allows use of its content here on Wikipedia. Like here in this article
Saint Sophia Cathedral in Harbin As of May 9, 2010, this article uses content from Orthodox Wiki, which is licensed under the CC-By-SA and GFDL. All relevant terms must be followed. The original article was at "St. Sophia Cathedral (Harbin, China)".LoveMonkey (talk
) 16:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
BTW COULD YOU GUYS ONCE WE GET THIS SORTED OUT HELP WITH ESOGLOU STILL USING RANDOM WEBSITES IN THE ARTICLE TO SOURCE HIS CONTRIBUTIONS. PLEASE PRETTY PLEASE YOU GUYS WERE REALLY FAST TO RESPOND TO ESOGLOU POSTING FASTER AND MORE THOROUGH AND ALLOT MORE PEOPLE RESPONDED THAN MY EARLIER POST AND I COULD REALLY USE THE HELP. Esoglou has pepper the entire article with invalid in source tags to the sources I have provided. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Please do not shout. can you give some exampples of sources you wish to challenge here.Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Just trying to get attention. I already link to the examples in my posting here before. That I provided before and only Andrew attempted to help. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Trying to get attention is no excuse, besdies which you were getting attention. Moreover I think you amay be mis-represting again (if you arte talking about the disusion I link to above. Its clear a few Edds joined in. Just no giving you the answer you wanted to hear.Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I think you are trying to guess at my intentions. I'm saying help on the article itself not just here on the noticeboard. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
(ec) We're not horsetrading here about some other sources and other edits. Just giving (hopefully) unbiased advice. OrthodoxWiki is a very clear cut case. If there are other sources in other articles you'd like examined, open a new section (or sections) with a little context (i.e. "is such and such citation a reliable source for the following edit: tktktkt").
talk
) 16:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Again I did that already. I will however provide three. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Esoglou added this one to a syllabus and not to any content. It has a form for hotel reservations...
1.Roman Catholic writers and others have generally attributed to Cassian the teachings labeled Semipelagianism, but this opinion is now questioned, as is indicated by the title, "Was John Cassian a Semi-Pelagian?", of a paper presented by Stuart Squires of the Catholic University of America at the 2009 meeting of the American Academy of Religion and the Society of Biblical Literature [10]LoveMonkey (talk) 16:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
If you put this in a new section at the bottom of this page, I'd be happy to take a look at it. For now, it has no business in a section explaining why the anyone-can-edit "OrhtodoxWiki" is unreliable. There is no connection between these things.
talk
) 17:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I am moving the content now. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
2.The Reverend Dr Theodore Stylianopoulos, pastor of St George Greek Orthodox Church, Keene, New Hampshire, United States, provides yet another indication of the diversity of Eastern Orthodox belief with regard to the nature of hell. "Many Orthodox saints and writers", Father Stylianopoulos says, "assume the general view of hell as a place of punishment, even by means of material instruments such as fire, whether of the soul after death or both soul and body after the resurrection". He adds that one Orthodox interpretation of hell, "based on certain Orthodox luminaries such as St. Isaac the Syrian, St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Gregory the Theologian", asserts that "hell is a spiritual state of separation from God and inability to experience the love of God, while being conscious of the ultimate deprivation of it as punishment" [11]LoveMonkey (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Please start new sections, these are not linked to this discusion.Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I would hope for understanding as I have not been called to task until now for using Orthodox wiki and I am not alone in using it as a reliable source for articles here. When I first ported articles from Orthodox Wiki here to Wikipedia there was a discussion on this 3 years ago. Administrator User:Pastordavid and Administrator User:Mangojuice worked out the copyright issues and there was no mention of Orthodox Wiki not being a reliable source for articles here. It is not like I had not (at least I thought) addressed this with them then as I have no authority at Wikipedia and I am merely a volunteer. I wonder if one of you editors here could contact User:Mangojuice and see how he thinks this should be addressed. Just asking is all. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
You seem confused between
talk
) 18:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Well I think I am in the ballpark. However what about all of those other articles? LoveMonkey (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
They need taging (as (I have now done with some) stating that they need better sourcing.Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
What about all those other articles? Any citation to "orthodoxwiki" can be removed on site as it's an unreliable source.
As per editors Bail and Slatersteven here again is random websites in the Roman Catholic Eastern Orthodox theological difference article.
Esoglou added this one to a syllabus and not to any content. It has a form for hotel reservations...
1.Roman Catholic writers and others have generally attributed to Cassian the teachings labeled Semipelagianism, but this opinion is now questioned, as is indicated by the title, "Was John Cassian a Semi-Pelagian?", of a paper presented by Stuart Squires of the Catholic University of America at the 2009 meeting of the American Academy of Religion and the Society of Biblical Literature [12]
This does seem a bit iffy to me. Whilst we can verfiy the title of the papaer presented we cannot verfiy what the papaer says. Its more an undue then an RS issue.Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
The citation is only to the title of the paper, showing that the question has been raised, no more. It doesn't show what position the presenter of the paper took on the question. Esoglou (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
But withoout the context of the discusioon we canot say that it has been raised as anything more then a mild oibkect of theoretical argument. For all you (or I) k ow it was "if we ask the silly and totlay non-sensical question".Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the "question" being raised may simply be provocative. For all we know, the first sentence of the paper says "Only the foolish and uneducated have ever described him as a semi-Pelagian." Titles don't cut it. Get the paper and read it and then (if it supports the edit) do so. Or find another source. We can't interpret syllabi, paper titles, etc... without reading them.
talk
) 17:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
2.The Reverend Dr Theodore Stylianopoulos, pastor of St George Greek Orthodox Church, Keene, New Hampshire, United States, provides yet another indication of the diversity of Eastern Orthodox belief with regard to the nature of hell. "Many Orthodox saints and writers", Father Stylianopoulos says, "assume the general view of hell as a place of punishment, even by means of material instruments such as fire, whether of the soul after death or both soul and body after the resurrection". He adds that one Orthodox interpretation of hell, "based on certain Orthodox luminaries such as St. Isaac the Syrian, St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Gregory the Theologian", asserts that "hell is a spiritual state of separation from God and inability to experience the love of God, while being conscious of the ultimate deprivation of it as punishment" [13]LoveMonkey (talk) 17:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
This is RS for the Fathers views. Which is how it seems to be being used. I also bleive that this was the kind of source discused last time. Why his views shouold be notable in another matter.Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
3.Roman Catholic teaching holds that "by free will (the human person) is capable of directing himself toward his true good" [101] but not first without the will of God to do so.
[14] Here I am just requesting a more specific source. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I cannot find were the last source supports the last part. I would therefore say this is not supported by the source. I wouod also sugest discuse each source in a soperated catagory, it ight get confusing if some one reponds that a source is good.Slatersteven (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
May I be permitted to observe that the last (unsourced) "but not first without the will of God to do so" was inserted by LoveMonkey. Esoglou (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
OK. Lovemonkey exaclty which part of the passage are you objecting to?Slatersteven (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
4.
1. The "citation" is to a schedule for a conference, not the paper itself. The paper itself would be an RS and likely supports the rather non-novel assertion. Find the paper or one like it and source to that.
talk
) 17:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
So what type of a citation tag should be added to the passage to reflect this, as this is not my contribution. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Citation needed {cn}.Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
The citation is only to the title of the paper, showing that the question has been raised, no more. It doesn't show what position the presenter of the paper took on the question. Esoglou (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
2. "Father Ted" (i.e. Dr. Theodore Stylianopoulos) is a reliable source for such matters (Harvard Divinity PHD and has taught at the Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology [15]).
talk
) 17:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
OK as he is a theologian his opinions are notable.Slatersteven (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
OK but those opinions go against the theologians I noted in works that those theologians created and presented to councils with other Christian factions. It also goes against what is officially posted by the SCOBA, OCA website that is not a parish website but the actual diocese website. As one priest personal opinion does not trump nor equal the whole churches. Please also note that Esoglou is using this person's opinion to make statements in the article that what they say indicates that the theologians representing the Orthodox church in the World Church Councils are not actually properly or correctly representing them. As this Editor Esoglou mentioned on the article talkpage that these theologians are not valid because Stylianopoulos mentions in his article that he is supported by church fathers and saints. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
That does ot invlaidate him as a source. If tehre are issues of Un due then this is not the place for that argument. Same with NPOV. At the end of the day he si RS for his views.Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree I pointed this out to the editor Esoglou and check his response. [16] I will follow up with the noticeboard there. Thanks LoveMonkey (talk) 18:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
3. First, you didn't provide the first link ("101") That link is to Cathechism of the Catholic Church, hosted by the
talk
) 17:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes to number 3 we are in agreement. I could not validate comment with the source. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Summarise
At this time
Source 1 is not RS.
Source 2 is RS for his views
Source 3 is RS, but not for the statement it is being used to support.Slatersteven (talk) 18:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I agree. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
May I question the judgement on source 1 as now expressed? See the context, which states: "Roman Catholic writers and others have generally attributed to Cassian the teachings labeled Semipelagianism, but more recently the question has been raised: 'Was John Cassian a Semi-Pelagian?'" (followed by the source). Is the source not really a reliable source for the fact of the presentation of a paper of that title at the meeting in question? Esoglou (talk) 18:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Comments. On "source 3" the first bit was perfectly cited (don't want any wikilawyering later). It is the second bit (in its entirety - "but not first without the will of God to do so") that needs a citation. @Esoglou on "source 1". It seems highly likely that this is a correct summation. But it's a brochure that could have been written by anybody. Not good enough on its own. If it matters to you, get yourself to a library and read his paper. He might even send you a copy yourself by email if you ask.
talk
) 18:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. No, it doesn't matter at all much to me, and I will not try to hold on to it. My question was out of curiosity much more than for practical purposes. I presume you know well that, with regard to source 3, "the second bit" was an insertion by the editor who questioned the whole thing. Esoglou (talk) 19:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Spiral Dynamics: ABC Radio, Haaretz
Hi there, could you please look at the following issue:
Thanks, --Pevos (talk) 09:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Sources are OK, its the use made of them which is the issue. The first reports the claims of the originator of Spiral Dynamics, for a substantive claim one would expect reliable third party sources. The second simply reports that a group of people got together and talked about a possible use, it hardly supports a claim that it has been applied. --SnowdedTALK 09:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
In the applications section, I inserted "Based on Spiral Dynamics, Don Beck worked with Bill Clinton, Tony Blair and Nelson Mandela." Please check out if it is supported by the sources (same sources). --Pevos (talk) 06:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Snowded deleted it again, with the claim that it was no third party source. But IMHO the sources meet all criteria of
WP:3PARTY. Snowded treats the sources as if they were self-published by Don Beck. --Pevos (talk
) 17:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Please READ my comments on the talk page. The sources are reliable, its what is in them that is the problem. The ABC one example is a transcript of an interview with Beck in which Beck makes various claims. There is no validation of those claims. If he has worked with Clinton, Blair and Mandela then surely its notable enough that there is a source (other than Beck) which reports it. I also note that you are making no effort to discuss this on the talk page --SnowdedTALK 17:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Here you can read it: Snowded wrote on the talk page: "Its a claim by Beck and that is all that is reported in the sources. You need a third party reliable source, at the moment it could just be self-promotion." Exactly that is what I am asking here on the noticeboard: I think I have provided third party reliable sources, and I ask for the opinions of several editors. --Pevos (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Let me explain it to you again. You have a reliable source (the ABC transcript) which reports a claim about South Africa by Beck no more. For all we know that claim could be exaggeration or even untrue. To make a statement that the claim is true and substantial would need a reliable third party source. If the claim is true then surely there is one. The second source "haaretz.com" simply reports that people are going to get together to discuss the method, there is no report that they did or that it had any effect. Neither is there any material to indicate that those attending the event have any notability or infuence. The material in the sources (regardless of the status of those sources) simply does not support the material you have inserted which, to be honest, appears to be advocacy. --SnowdedTALK 06:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
"Arguably, an independent and reliable third-party is not always objective enough to evaluate a subject. There are many instances of biased coverage by journalists, academics, and critics. Even with peer review and fact-checking, there are instances where otherwise reliable publications report complete falsehoods. But Wikipedia does not allow editors to improve an article with their own criticisms or corrections. Rather, if a generally reliable source makes a false or biased statement, the hope is that another reliable source can be found to refute that statement and restore balance. (In extreme cases, a group of editors will agree to remove the verified but false statement, but without adding any original commentary in its place.)"
Is this what you want to say? Do you consider it such an extreme case? And in this case you need consensus to remove the verified but false statement. --Pevos (talk) 07:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
What are you talking about? You have no third party source of any type, you just have a transcript of primary source (Beck) making claims. --SnowdedTALK 16:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
I would agree with Snowded if it were just the ABC interview and claims by the subject. But the Haaretz article explicitly states: "has a proven track record, after having applied the method successfully in South Africa. His 36 visits to that country between 1981 and 1988 greatly influenced the thinking of political leaders, key businessmen, religious leaders and the general public. Beck also served as an adviser to British Prime Minister Tony Blair's "policy unit," as well as helped former U.S. president Bill Clinton on racism issues, the Chicago municipality in dealing with poor neighborhoods, and the World Bank on Afghanistan's future. Beck also has assisted boards of directors of aviation companies, large banks and government institutions." Dlabtot (talk) 03:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
The Haaretz site is just a news story picking up a press release or similar. Now given the nature of those claims, which are significant wouldn't you expect something in the odd text book, or in a researched article in a newspaper or similar? How many books have been written about the end of apartheid? The volume of material on Blair's policy unit is vast before we get onto Clinton. Per [[WP::NEWSORG]] "Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article is something that must be assessed on a case by case basis". In this case we clearly need more --SnowdedTALK 05:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Click through the Haaretz link and find: "Akiva Eldar is the chief political columnist and an editorial writer for Haaretz." So this is editorial opinion of that one man rather than a "news factoid". Hcobb (talk) 05:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I did when I originally checked it out, its still a news story. Its not a column where facts have been verified etc. The story also only covers a meeting about a possible application, not an application. Its is dated 2006 and it is the only news story that appears on that site if you search on "Don Beck" or "Spiral Dynamics", again if this was notable in the Middle East one would expect more than one four year old story. We have to be very cautious about broad claims from consultants and "movements" like Spiral Dynamics as to fact and influence. As I said, if such substantial claims were notable they would be reported in literature and so far we have seen no evidence of that. --SnowdedTALK 05:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
When in doubt, use with attribution, but it appears to be a solid
Sorry it doesn't. Its a web based news service reporting on a workshop with no additional sources to back it up. It reports a claim, it does not validate the claim. WP:RSS says we have to look at each case on its merits if a newspaper report is used and in this case it is very very clear that such claims would have other sources if they were valid. There is also an important point of principle here. We can't let wikipedia become a promotional vehicle for any of a hundred management consultancy fads. Allowing a piece obviously drawn up from a press statement in a fairly obscure web site to corroborate a claim to have worked with major world leaders would be a very bad precedent.--SnowdedTALK 06:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Your assertions are not consistent with the facts as I see them as a neutral, uninvolved editor who has examined the sources, their context, and the way they are being used. Dlabtot (talk) 14:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Wiki markup
The article "
this page as a source. It's a Help page from Wikipedia and we shouldn't call it 'reliable'. I think that it should be replaced for some external source (in fact, when we talk about a reliable source, "external" is redundant) . Thanks.” TęĻęŞ (PT@LCG
) 08:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia should not be used as a source for most topics, but wikipedia is a perfectly reliable primary source for information about Wikipedia. self-reference is an exception to reliable sourcing rules in most cases:
Joe the plumber's memoirs would not be considered a reliable source for most political issues, but they would be considered a reliable source for his own political activities. --Ludwigs2
17:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, firstly, the question here is about Wiki markup, which isn't Wikipedia, so it isn't being used as a source on itself. Secondly, Wikipedia is an open wiki and these are
largely not acceptable. Thirdly, Joe's memoirs are a reliable source for what he says in his memoirs, but not necessarily for an historical account of his political activities, as not being independent. Kenilworth Terrace (talk
) 19:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for you both. I'm agreed with what Kenilworth said. Wikipedia and any other wikis are not reliable sources. Therefore, primary sources can be used only when published on a reliable source (
Yes, WP is not a reliable source for the general topic of wiki markup, better to find other sources, and that should not be hard. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
While all the above is true, there are occasions when commonsense overrules normal procedures. The article includes: 'In MediaWiki, this convention was replaced with the [[…]] notation, which Wikipedia calls "free links".[ref:
Wikipedia:Free links]' and it seems pointless to look for a reliable source supporting such a light-weight statement, particularly when any external source would be less reliable than the Wikipedia help page. Johnuniq (talk
) 01:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
What Wikipedia jargon for something is seems rather unecyclopaedic unless there is an external source for that nomenclature. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 11:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, and we are not immune to our own standards--if something isn't covered in reliable sources, it is not notable enough for inclusion. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
So... is it a consensus? What should be done in this case?” TęĻęŞ (PT@LCG) 12:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, it seems that some feel the source is reliable enough given the situation, and some don't, as a matter of policy. But I think the more important question is whether this particular point is notable.
Wiki markup is not a help page for wikipedia and wikipedia is not a howto. Absent external sources, I would argue it's not (although that's an issue for another noticeboard). As an aside, I think we should be cautious in applying common sense over procedure in regard to information about WP--to not do so could create other problems elsewhere, where others would like to apply common sense over procedure for topics they know and love. --Nuujinn (talk
) 14:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Filmbug.com
Is filmbug.com, more specifically, the Dictionary, considered a reliable source? It is being used to source the addition of "Action drama" as a subgenre in the
The'FortyFive'
18:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
The editorial oversight of this website is unclear. The authors or editors are not named, nor are the editorial policies stated. I don't see any indication that it meets
Yes, my understanding is that the content is user-generated, but, in the absence of any guidelines, how is one to determine value? ---
The'FortyFive'
01:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I would say it is not a reliable source. I can't see any academic oversight or peer verification, nor is it clear who is writing the article. BOVINEBOY2008 03:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree, user generated content and definitions don't often play well together to meet the criteria.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 01:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Sunni
Is it ok to use this PDF to cite the Turkish Prime minister
"Traditional" is meaningless in this context and shouldn't be used, really, ever as a modifier for the Muslim faith (since most everyone claims they're "traditional" even when they believe and do novel and new things. The Salafy's, for instance, are modern radicals. But i digress). At any rate, Erdogan is a Sunni. He leads a Sunni-based party (part of a long string of Sunni based parties inspired, if now different from, the Sunni Muslim brotherhood), he prays at mosques led by Sunni Imams, and he comes from a country where 80% of the people are Sunni. This shouldn't be challenged -- and it's such common knowledge that no one dwells on it. However, here are some sources that contextualizes him as a "sunni islamist." [17], [18][19].
talk
) 12:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, traditional is POV and shouldn't be added. Thanks you Bali for the sources, I will have a look at them. I will ask for opinions on the talkpage, I am thinking just to add somewhere in the text a simple he is a
I saw the word traditional as meaningless as well and thought it was a way to end any radical Sunni rumors as well. Thanks for the help as well. --NortyNort(Holla) 07:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Is DemocracyNow a reliable source?
In
David H. Koch [20] DemocracyNow.org is being presented as a "reliable source" with an edit summary DN is a reliable source). Is democracynow.org a reliable source? Is a "video report" from that site a "reliable source"? Collect (talk
) 15:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Not in a blanket sense. It's an advocacy group, not a news outlet. The "video" source aint very good. If there was a print version where the sources for the claims could be examined it might be OK (if it looks like the research is solid i.e. if it said "based on publicly available tax records" they gave $100 million... maybe you mention it, with attribution. If it's on the order of "a little bird told me" then no). The more I think on this, the more i lean "no" though; that's a lot of money, there's a lot of people digging into this kind of stuff -- one would expect a non-partisan source to have something similar to this at this point if true. If the only source for such a claim is as partisan as Democracy Now, prolly not (and i suspect without watching the video that someone being interviewed is making that assertion -- not "Democracy Now." You might be able to walk back the cat if you figure out who that person is and how his/her research was done.
talk
) 15:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Democracy now is a very opinionated almost an activist source and I wouldn't add it unless I wanted to push their activist claims. which I don't.
Might someone remove DemocracyNow video from EL list if it is not RS? The other editor is already musing "censorship" <g>. Collect (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
The FCC? The FCC licenses and allows all those Morning Zoo programs too. There are no "reliability" police at the FCC. The show is certainly a prominent one, but one with a very clear and self-declared point of view. At any rate, this is the reliable sources noticeboard.
talk
) 18:04, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
So you are saying the FCC will not let you say fuck on air, but they will let you lie like Fox? Let's put this another way. Do you think the FCC would allow Kavkaz Center – a terrorist news service – to broadcast on air? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 00:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
The program is one that is heavily editorial in nature and slanted (like Fox). Whether one "lies" and the other always tells the "truth" is up to you. But Democracy Now has a very strong point of view and political agenda, and in that they and Fox have something in common. As for the FCC. No, in the US you can't say
talk
) 00:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
This is indeed the reliable sources noticeboard.
External Links do not actually need to meet the RS criteria. And that there is a transcript of the interview in question. Which turns out to be an interview with Charles Lewis (journalist) about this article published in the The New Yorker. This is also a reliable source, and the article should probably be used as a source for information in the articles. Whether the Democracy Now interview meets the criteria for External Links is another matter, unrelated to its status as a reliable source. --Slp1 (talk
) 02:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
The New Yorker article is certainly a reliable source for that piece of information (Democracy Now is about as reliable as Glen Beck or O'Reilly however, but who cares. Got a better sources.) As for External links arcana, i have no opinion (well, my opinion is that there should be no external links at all, but i don't make policy).
talk
) 02:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Obviously, yes. Why is this even being asked? Is there some argument based on
WP:Identifying reliable sources as to why it would not be? What is that argument? Dlabtot (talk
) 06:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
It is being used for a "video report" on an article in an RS which is already in the list of references. Thus it adds no actual content other than the "video report." DemocracyNow is not the source of the article. Where a source adds nothing, but is used solely for introducing a "video report" I suggest that the cite is unnecessary (the solid printed material is already in the article) but is primarily a link to an outside locus which is , for this purpose, not RS. Collect (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
What I asked is if there was some argument based on
WP:Identifying reliable sources as to why it would not be a reliable source. It is clear from your response that there is not. Please stop forum-shopping this noticeboard in your content disputes. Dlabtot (talk
) 20:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Off2riorob (who comically chimes in above as a supposed disinterested party just passing through) have adopted some conspiratorial view that articles are "under siege" in an "organized manner" leaving you "frightened" see conversation ---> here. Nevertheless, Democracy Now! clearly meets the definition of a reliable source, per Wikipedia's guidelines, which is what the purpose of this page is for. Your real contention should be whether this particular video report merits inclusion in the article as an EL, which should have been taken to the articles TP, rather than you and Off2riorob merely picking up your shield to protect and "repair" the "Koch articles" (as you state). But you’re also being disingenuous by pretending that your concern was simply with Democracy Now! as you also removed(at the same time) an 28 minute NPR audio report by Jane Mayer - seen here and cover story article from The New Yorker - seen here from the EL's (the article ironically that the DN video referred to). Redthoreau-- (talk
) 15:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
(out) The issue is using a video report as a reliable source. Clearly opinions of DemocracyNow must be clearly cited as opinions. Wikipedia:Reliable_sourcesLike text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third-party and be properly cited does not appear to be the case when it is just linked as "multimedia" and not marked as "opinion." The essay on Video Links states: However, such links must abide by various guidelines. Linking to such sites is often discouraged due to misuse. Note also that I retained all links to print media - and deleted links to audio and vudeo matter, trying to be consistent with "best practice" for WP:BLPs. As for "forum shopping" as charged by one person - that bit is ludicrous. Collect (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Not sure what you are talking about. It is an interview, in video and and transcript form, with Charles_Lewis_(journalist), Executive Editor of the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University. Why are you falsely labeling it as 'the opinion of DemocracyNow'? Dlabtot (talk) 01:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually, it does not appear that the issue using a video report as a reliable source. It does not appear that this has been used or proposed as a source in the article, but rather than as an external link, a very different matter. If the video and transcript were being used as a source, Charles Lewis' comments in the interview would need to be attributed to him (not Democracy Now, of course). As a reliable source, Democracy Now can be trusted as a host for the interview; and since the video is hosted at Democracy Now's website there is also no issue about copyright (which is the "misuse" problem that so often applies with videos). All in all, I am not sure what the problem is. Why is there any need to subsection the External Links anyway? --Slp1 (talk) 01:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Slp on this. Democracy Now can be trusted (i.e. "reliable) to be truthfully carrying an interview with "Charles Lewis" if they say so. The question of whether Charles Lewis' opinions/comments/etc... are relevant to a given article is an editorial matter. But has very little to do with the overall reliability of Democracy Now (in a wikipedia sense). At any rate, the appropriateness of an external link, I don't think can fairly be determined here. (Though if i understand Slp i think i agree with them; seems superfluous if it isn't needed to support article information).
talk
) 02:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
fok.nl
I found this review on fok.nl using Google News Search: [21]. I'm hoping it can be used in Thunderdome (music festival) as a source regarding the CDs, perhaps as a source in a new section about praise and criticism.
I don't speak Dutch, but from what I can tell it appears to be user submitted, but that user seems to be a current member of
). Also, I don't know if any member of the site can post reviews, or if the members can pretend to be whoever they want.
Is "This CD is full of history and indispensable in the collection of real hardcore fan!" an accurate translation of the last sentence? Jiiimbooh (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Just on the Dutch, yes it says "This CD is one and all [totally] history and indispensable in the collection of the real hardcore fan!" Not sure about the rest of your question.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! "Full of history" sounds better to me though. I'll write something along the lines of "Ben Martijn wrote that the CD 'is full of history and indispensable ...'" (unless that is incorrect). Jiiimbooh (talk) 16:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
EDIT He is listed under crew, so he's not just a regular user. I think it could be used then, but I'll see if someone else comments. No one from The Netherlands here? I don't feel confident about quoting it if someone doesn't confirm if the translation of the last sentence is correct (see above). Jiiimbooh (talk) 19:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I'll use it as a reliable source as long it's a comment from the member of the band Secretaccount 21:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I think it can only be used as an example of an opinion. Jiiimbooh (talk) 16:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
internationalliving.com
Resolved
Can this website [23] be considered a reliable source for the purpose of ranking countries by quality of life? To me it appears that it shouldn't, as it is a self-published website. I also believe it is on Wikipedia's spamlist.
talk
) 15:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Certainly not. Looie496 (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Looie, why wouldn't it be considered? We use rottentomatoes.com scoring in many movie articles and from reading over the site their country ranking is based on their interpretation of data from external and internal sources. The site is the site of a published magazine, albeit inherently biased. How does this source differ considerably from
This diff [25] looks like the content edit in question. I don't see an issue with it in this context, but if the section is undue weight for the publication without adding much that's a debate for the article talk to form consensus on.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 04:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
seems fine to me. The assertion that internationalliving.com is a 'self-published website' is a blatant falsehood. Dlabtot (talk) 04:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Which version to cite?
I don't know if this is the right place to clarify this; if not, please point me to the correct forum.
I read an article in a newspaper, which I wanted to cite in Wikipedia. In order to give an easily checkable reference, I checked the newspaper's web site, where I found that this article had appeared one day prior to the print publication, under a different title. Which would be the correct citation in Wikipedia -- the date and title under which the article appeared in print, and in which I read the material I wished to cite; or the date and title online, easily checkable by other editors? Would it be permissible to cite the printed date and title, with the associated URL, or would this just confuse matters? RolandR (talk) 09:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Nothing to stop you doing both within one reference tag since you have seen both, as something like, "'details of printed article', previously published online as, 'details of online article'". David Underdown (talk) 09:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Cite the one you actually saw and relied upon to produce the article content, if you used both, cite them either together or separately under both titles and dates. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Happens all the time. I usually timestamp with the date of the web publication, and add (printed edition: <different date>) - see the refs in Haus_des_Meeres. The Austrian newspapers cited there may have 3,4,5 ... web versions of the same text, so it pays to search for the most detailed, unabridged version. East of Borschov 11:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
In the specific instance which led to this query, the headlines were different, although the text was identical. In the print edition, the headline focussed on a possibly contentious statement in the article, which was what I was putting in the article. The online version, which I actually referenced, had a more neutral headline. The headline appears in full in the references section. I was concerned that if I used the print headline, while giving a courtesy link to the online article (or if I omitted a URL altogether) then I might be accused of distorting sources and misquoting. Are there any guidelines for such an instance? RolandR (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
You relied on the online article, cite the online article :) Fifelfoo (talk) 12:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
No, actually I relied on the printed article, which was the one I read. When entering this, I checked against the online version and noted the different title and date. RolandR (talk) 12:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
It's a bit of a complicated issue; this often happens with news agency articles, where the headlines differ radically depending on which source prints it. In general, you should cite the version you used, and in the citation make it clear that the web version had a different publication date and headline. That's one of the disadvantages of citation templates (assuming you were planning to use one): even though they come in dozens of varieties, each with dozens of variables and options, they still have little flexibility to encompass complicated citing. Jayjg (talk) 23:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I was indeed trying to use a citation template. The article was the one cited in this edit to Michel Houellebecq. The article I read in the Guardian, on 8 September, had the headline "Houellebecq fights off claims of plagiarism in new novel"; the same article online is dated 7 September, with the headline "Michel Houellebecq novel ruffles literary world again". I'm still not sure what would be the correct way to cite this, and would appreciate it if someone could either show me, or amend the citation that I actually gave. RolandR (talk) 17:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Forget using the citation template. Try this instead: <ref>Davies, Lizzy (8 September 2010). "Houellebecq fights off claims of plagiarism in new novel". ''[[The Guardian]]'', Main section, p. 16. Published online (7 September 2010) as [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/07/michel-houllebecq-novel-plagiarism-accusation "Michel Houellebecq novel ruffles literary world again"]. Retrieved 15 September 2010.</ref> Jayjg (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Myself, I add any extra detail after the citation template: {{citation blah blah blah}} The online version had title "X" with the exact same text.</ref> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enric Naval (talk • contribs) 17:15, 15 September 2010
Thank you. RolandR (talk) 16:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I think you should always primarily cite the printed version if you have access to it. You should also include the page number. The web version is always secondary to what is printed. Sometimes, when citing the NYT archive, I pick up the page number from the web, but it feels a bit like cheating. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 03:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
In this case, since the text is identical in both versions, and the only difference is the date and title, then this does not much matter. But there is a problem in citing the printed text alone, since if the online version is significantly different I could be open to (understandable) charges of misquoting or worse from anyone without access to the printed version, but who checked online. In fact, some publications (The Guardian certainly, and probably others) will correct significant mistakes in the web version, which could then be considered more authoritative than the printed version, in which a correction will not appear until some time after the original publication. And there are many publications which I could check online, but to whose printed version I have no access. RolandR (talk) 07:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
My point is that printed citations are better because there are persistent, web versions will disappear. As for the differences, we should have something similar to the laysummary field in the {{Cite journal}} template for on-line versions. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
It looks like an open forum to me. So, no. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Clearly not as the site states: "The information you find here on EthniCelebs.com is not guranteed to be 100% correct, but the site does strive to be as factual as possible. EthniCelebs.com is an entertainment news commentary database that simply lists what it believes are the ethnicities of celebrities. The information is provided for entertainment only. In no way does it intend that users should rely upon ANY of the ethnicities provided for any purposes whatsoever."[26]Jezhotwells (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Right thanks for commenting, it is quite similar to a stable wiki with a fair number of contributors which are reliable for externals, appears to have been stable for quite some time, anyway, thanks.
Quite obviously not reliable; open wiki, and disavows the accuracy of its contents. Jayjg (talk) 23:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but wouldn't all open wikis do that? (we do that) No open wiki will claim its content is guaranteed to be correct and we assert here that open wikis are good for external links?
WP:EL links normally to be avoided, nu 12. # Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked. - This article at this open wiki is stable and has been for a couple of years and it has a substantial number of editors and all I want to use it for is to put the person in a cat
That's the guideline for external links. That something just meets the requirement to be added as an external link to a relevant article, doesn't mean that we can use it as a reliable source for sensitive information like someone's ethnicity. The standards for such info in a
Yes, for external links, BLP or not that applies, cats are imo on a similar level, if we support stable open wikis as external links then it is a quite similar position to use one for a pretty indisputable category. So can I add it like this as an external link?
What would be the rationale for adding an open wiki as an external link? And even if one could use it, how would that affect ethnicity categories? Jayjg (talk) 00:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
If you want to use a source as support for a category, then you use it as a reliable source, not an external link. If it doesn't meet the requirements for reliable sources, then it can't be used to support the inclusion of a category.
Yes, that is clear , the point was, that although a cite may not be reliable enough for a WP:RS and therefore it is not reliable enough to support content in the article and therefore if there is not content in the article that supports the cat we can not add the cat but it is close to being a reliable stable enough open wiki to add it as an external link, using the open wiki exception nu 12. As an additional point, it is not a big issue, it is part of a discussion related to the fact that there are thousands of thousands of uncited ethnicity claims all over the wikipedia and afro american cats are added at random without any cite or content at all.
Removing or seriously sourcing all unsourced claims of ethnicity from Wikipedia would improve our biographical articles massively. On the other hand, I don't believe that your source really is an acceptable wiki: no one can tell what the history of a page is, you can't change a page, you can only submit biographies and comment on pages. That's not what I consider a wiki with "a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors", since there is no way of judging this. I would support removing all links to this sire from Wikipedia, as we should never use such a source for any claims. Their page on
As posted below, the ones the cite wikipedia org would not need to be used as those details are already cited in our articles. This discussion is less about this one particular open wiki but more about the thousands and thousands of unsupported ethnicity claims that proliferate across this wikipedia. As in, this open wiki would be a little bit better than absolutely nothing that perhaps one hundred thousand uncited claims of ethnicity that are like a rash across this wkipedia right now, this is the actual problem.
Considering that they have no indication of how reliable they are (e.g. their page on Kevin Costner, who has according to their Ciara page the same ethnic ancestry, gives Wikipedia as a source), I wouldn't advise on using this wiki for a, by its nature, possibly contentious topic, and since it is the basis for the wiki, I wouldn't use it anywhere on Wikipedia.
German Irish Cherokee, all cited in our article. Although this would fail the mirror test, it would also not be a worthwhile addition as the details are already cited in our article.
I think you can just put her in the category African American anyway. If it is sourced that she comes from Austin, Texas, there is no doubt that she is American, and from her photo she is obviously black, therefore African American. If she defines her ethnicity any other way then there will be sources to that effect. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Judith, thanks for commenting, this is the partly the issue... Is it ok to add people to the African American cat without any content in the article or a cite that supports it, just by the simple claim that they sure do look Afican American?
The last part is correct, I think, but it does leave the issue of whether people who are "African American" or "Black" can be put in categories contatining these terms. We don't normally think that something has to be particularly relevant in order to apply a cat, just factual. It looks like this is part of the issue in this particular case. --FormerIP (talk) 11:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
If there is likely to be any doubt, then we should be careful and find a source, and even a stable wiki is not a good enough source. Common sense says that she is African American, but since BLP sourcing requirements are stringent probably best to leave it until you can find a source. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Well Fram, people like to tag these genetic labels on, it is widespread practice on this wikipedia, there is little to no care about if it is relevent or not, someone who is Afro American goes around labeling all other Afro Americans. A sort of my gang mentality. I myself am in the group that dislikes such labeling and I often remove such claims but its like resisting a tsunami.
In this case, Fram is correct, and Itsmejudith is unfortunately incorrect. One cannot assign someone a label of "African American" simply because "from her photo she is obviously black, therefore African American".
Can we say she is "black" because "from her photo she is obviously black"? There's no synthesis involved in that. There's no interpretation involved (any more than there is in understanding the meaning of a sentence), so how would it be OR. Photos and videos surely pass RS, so where is the BLP concern?
That said, we probably don't need to mention someone's race or ethnicity unless there is a particular reason to - in which case, there would surely be something more than a photo to go off.
I notice that in
Martin Luther King, although it names him as a leader in the Black Civil Rights movement, nowhere does it mention that he himself was black AFAICT. By the logic that we need to be incredibly careful about all this, he should probably be removed from the various "African American..." categories he is in. I double dare someone to go over there, remove the categories and then demand Reliable Sources that King was indeed African American. --FormerIP (talk
) 01:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay, just realised that BLP wouldn't apply in this case, so no need to point that out. Nevertheless, you get my point. It's a bit daft to be demanding sources for the fact that someone is black. --FormerIP (talk) 01:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict, and with something of a similar point). Not necessarily. It might be daft, but if someone did ask for a citation for MLK being an African American it would be easy to find. Pictures can be deceiving and we shouldn't be deciding on ethnicity based on our opinion. For example, is this woman] black? Slp1 (talk) 01:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Pointing out that there may be cases where there is ambiguity or it is not clear what the picture tells us does not really affect the vast majority of cases where this is not an issue. Text sources can also be ambiguous or there may be obvious reasons not to trust them ([27], [28]), this does not mean we cannot take information from text sources. The point about demanding a source for the claim that MLK was black is not that it would be difficult to comply with, but that the demand would appear absurd. If an interpretation of policy would lead to people doing absurd things, then I'd say the interpretation of policy must be faulty. --FormerIP (talk) 10:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
(out) [WP:BLP]] - if any claim is averred to be "contentious" by any editor then it must have a solid source. Pictures, alas, are not a "source" for asserting ethnicity. Now it may well be that any given assertion of contentiousness may be "faulty" but the policy does not say it is up to any individual to assert that something one editor finds contentious is not contentious. The rule is clear - and
In a case where there was any reasonable bone of contention as to what the fact of the matter actually is, then fair enough. But there doesn't seem to be one in this case. The editor who wants the material removed also says "She is indeed African American". Plus, there is no good reason for supposing that a photo of someone is not an RS. --FormerIP (talk) 11:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
A photo doesn't explicitly state what a person's ethnicity is; the viewer has to use
WP:NOR to guess it. Can I now look at photos and decide who "looks Italian"? "Looks Jewish"? "Looks Russian"? "Looks Irish"? "Looks Mexican"? Obviously not, despite the masses who believe they can discern these things. Jayjg (talk)
16:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
We're only talking here about black people though. It isn't OR to recognise a black person (the issue of when a black person is heavily made up, or "almost white", or photographed from a distance or whatever has been discussed above - we can treat these as we would any ambiguous source). --FormerIP (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
What? "It isn't OR to recognise a black person"? Where is that special exemption codified? Jayjg (talk) 03:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
The point is that it is not codified anywhere that we can't use photographs as sources. In many cases, information can be taken from photographs about which there cannot be reasonable doubt. The information "Naomi Campbell is black" can just as easily and reliably be drawn from a picture of her as from a newspaper article which says "Naomi Campbell is black". Manchester United's home strip is red, Angela Merkel is a woman, Naomi Cambell is black. These are all uncontroversial claims that can be based on photos, and we don't need to be pedantic. It is, of course, theoretically possible that someone has photoshopped the picture of Wayne Rooney, Angela Merkel is actually a man in drag and Naomi Campbell is not a black woman, she just looks like one. But those things are only as likely as a text source containing duff information, which happens all the time.
Of course, this doesn't address the issue of whether Naomi Campbell being black is important to include in her article or not, which is another matter. But I think a photo of here in the article is enough evidence for someone to attach an appropriate category tag if they want to. --FormerIP (talk) 09:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Editors cannot and should not use images or videos to make their own interpretation. From images alone: What is
WP:ELNO #12 (currently in dispute since is any Wiki truely good enough). Find some RS and there shouldn't be a problem. Editors can make noncontraversial statements based on images from my understanding of the guidelines but the fact that ti is even here makes it a problem. Is there also a spam problem? Why are we linking to that site anyays? Cptnono (talk
) 10:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree, editors should not use photos in this way. You definitely cannot determine someone's ethnic origin just by a photo, a photo of a person that looks like a woman may still be of a man in drag, etc.
talk
) 11:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Here. And the tagline in the Google Books search (if it comes out the same for others) states "Presents the life and accomplishments of the African American singer who received four Grammy nominations for her first album.". We good now? SilverserenC 16:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
No this is a search result, we cannot view what the text actualy says. As such we cannot verify this is what is said, or just a bad abstraction.Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
...someone needs to get the book and verify then? SilverserenC 16:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Or find a better source, yes.Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
By the way what does the women (by the way why you should not use google searches to determine something [[29]]) herself say. Do we know?Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I hope other people are looking for a source as well then. I still am. It's really annoying that, based on things like the Nigeria tour, which only had African-American singers in it (and Ciara was there), it is quite clear that she is indeed African-American, but it is OR to make that conclusion. OR is really annoying sometimes. SilverserenC 16:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Request for page number when the statement and the source are overviews.
Roman Catholic–Eastern Orthodox theological differences
.
The sentence I sourced "The great theological division of East and West, as is believed and taught by the Eastern Orthodox, can be seen to have culminated." I sourced with an entire section with the Orthodox theologian Archbishop Chrysostomos section from his book Orthodox and Roman Catholic Relations from the Fourth Crusade to the Hesychastic Controversy (Etna, CA: Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 2001), pp. 199‒232 However editor Esoglou when an added a request to the sourcing asking for a page number to a section of a book that already has the page number at the top of the document in its link to the source. How does someone report editors for wiki- hounding and what can be done about the misuse of sourcing tags? LoveMonkey (talk) 13:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I might be blind but I can see no page numbers. I just see a link to a PDF. Also it is good practice to actualy include a page number when using a source (unless of ourse its a one page source). Including a range of pages whilst not out of order can make verfication harder. Also the fact you source an entire section rather then a specific passage does raise questions of whether the source supports the staetment.Slatersteven (talk) 13:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
It was one sentence. As I indicated. The entire source is the actual subject of that one sentence. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I may be wrong but I don't think you can source in that way. A source has to explicitly say something, but this appears to be interprative.It talks about teh debate but seems to in no way say it was a culmination of these debates.Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Please note how on the sources I provided to the statements in the article the Esoglou put not only [page needed] but also [failed verification]. Esoglou has done this repeatedly even when I show that the sources almost say verbatim what I have sourced. Esoglou then tries to argue over the meaning of words on the talkpage and by forcing verbatim statements makes the articles people quotes and or copyright infringement. Esoglou did this spat last night. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I have also been unable (on a quick scan) to verfiy your claim. So it seems to me the tags are valid.Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the diff, I'm guessing that this is part of a wider NPOV dispute. Without looking into that, the cites don't seem to have page numbers and they ought to. The claim is specific, so if it is in the source it is likely to have been said within a single page. It does not look like an overview of the whole source or a range of pages. So the tags are appropriate. --FormerIP (talk) 13:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Provide the page numbers used. (i.e. pps. 38-53 or whatever). Tag seems appropriate. If they are provided already and the other editor misunderstood, discuss it on the talk page. If you want to get into behavioral stuff, try here
talk
) 13:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
The PDF, source's name is "Orthodox and Roman Catholic Relations from the Fourth Crusade to the Hesychastic Controversy (Etna, CA: Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 2001), pp. 199‒232". The sentence states the division between East and West theologically culminated in the controversy. The very top of the PDF lists the page number that it reprints i.e. pg 199-232. I am sorry you both missed that. I will add the entire name of the PDF as can be seen that it contains the page numbers in the source of the source that is named after the page numbers so that people can see the page number without opening the PDF. Since that appears to maybe be the issue, even though the source is itself as a whole some 34 pages in all and an overview of the conflict. I also have copied a good bit of it and added it to the article. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
The more I look at this the more dubious it seems. The edit desired is "The great theological division of East and West, as is believed and taught by the Eastern Orthodox, can be seen to have culminated into a direct theological conflict between the Eastern Orthodox Church and Roman Catholic church known as the
talk
) 14:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
We did not miss the page numbers at the top of the source (well I did'nt) the point is that I have been unable to find a statemtn in the source explictiyl supporting your text. If there is such a statement then give us the page number. If there is no such explicite statemtn then the source does not support the text.Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
This is unfortunate as I graciously apologize to anyone here I have offended this is 1,ooo years of cultural war and from my perspective the side I represent has been greatly misunderstood and distorted. Again I am sorry for angering anyone and I appreciate any input positive or negative you have provided. I can not resolve this conflict nor do I seek to per se nor am I asking anyone else here to. I am just asking for a fair representation of the source(s) I have read and understand and I have provided. I do not care if people agree with me I only care to as much as possible add the sources and their perspective as best as possible to the related articles here in Wikipedia. I do not have this level of contention on all of the article I work on, only the controversial ones. As User:Jimbo himself has gotten involved a time or two (see Neoplatonism and Gnosticism for example). Having this kind of conflict on long standing conflicts is noting surprising but it is unfortunate that people do become confrontational and then make things impossible for both sides to have their say. LoveMonkey (talk) 14:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Bunk. What page number? Can't name one, then don't complain about the tags. And take your 1,000 year-old cultural war somewhere else.
talk
) 14:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Here is a passage from the article.
"At the same time, the theological issues which it brought to the forefront both helped to define and distinguish the peculiar traditions of the Orthodox East and to form the course of future dialogue with the Roman Catholic West. In this latter sense, it was the incisive formulation, by the Hesychasts, of the spiritual “psychology” and theological essence of the Orthodox Faith which doomed subsequent attempts at Church union, if simply because this formulation brought to bear on such efforts the profound chasm, with regard to Church polity, on the one hand, and spiritual life, on the other, that had developed between the Orthodox East and the Roman Catholic West during the age of the emergence of the Papal monarchy and Western Scholasticism."
Bunk or not (this is from the first page) how might I rework the sentence to reflect the above statement from the article page into the controversy article? LoveMonkey (talk) 14:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
This does not support the text you wish to include.Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Page 225 “The Hesychastic Controversy, in essence, gave theological
expression to the Orthodox resistance to Papal
supremacy.”
Page 226 “In many ways, then, the Hesychastic
Controversy brought Orthodox soteriology into
direct conflict with the rise of Papal monarchy.”
Seem to be the only pages that really draw any such conclusion, and this does not support your text. So it would be fair to write in the article.
"The Hesychasm controversy or the Palamite controversy." theological division of East and West can be seen to have resulted in a direct theological conflict between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the rise of Papal authority”Slatersteven (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
"Bunk. What page number? Can't name one, then don't complain about the tags. And take your 1,000 year-old cultural war somewhere else.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)"
Why are you involved in this supposed impartial discussion and making comments like that? LoveMonkey (talk) 14:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Frustration I suspect. The tags are valid. And if you have non RS probloms take them to the appropriate place.Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I have told no one to take whatever subject they are working on and leave the project. I have not ever told anyone as a contributor to leave wikipedia. Let alone done such a thing on a noticeboard where people turn for help to improve their articles. I will make the changes you have suggested as I did just yesterday and again I appreciate peoples time. However there is now no way that the tone in this discussion and the one I had here yesterday can been seen as impartial. Why are you allow to vent your frustration but I am not? LoveMonkey (talk) 14:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, frustration. You just don't seem to hear the advice you're given. This noticeboard is not the place to bring 1,000 year-old cultural wars. It's a place to get a straight answer on sourcing standards. You've gotten that. If you have broader content issues/disagreements, try arbcom, the drama boards (AN and AN/I), RFCs, etc... The divisions between the RCs and the Orthodox are not exactly a specialty of mine, but i know enough to know that they're complex, have evolved over centuries and within particular cultural contexts, and are resistant to binary explanation (since, after all, there are a number of issues on which theologians on both sides disagree amongst themselves.) For what it's worth, steven's summation up above seems an accurate and neutral reflection of the content of the cite.
talk
) 14:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I would sugest you take it to the users talk page. But I will say one thing i think is relevant to this discusion. You have attmepted to 'prove' your point by referance to something that has nothing to to with the source itslef (1.00 years of history) as if this negates Wikipedias policies (I may have mis-read what your intention was).Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I was good enough to apologize to Bali. I have not edited any articles with you-Bali. I do not know you and you do not know me. I was just yesterday posted on my talkpage that I need to stop showing my frustration at Esoglou. I have not asked to deny any historical perspective and leave Wikipedia. Nor after the fact have I continued commenting after I showed an unacceptable bias. Wikipedia is definitely broken. It is a failure. If you gentlemen where in my shoes and had done this for the years I have done and then ask for help and get treated like this. It could not be seen as anything but hostility. Unbias and NPOV is a respect for both sides not telling people to leave Wikipedia and or leave entire side of episode in history's perspective off of Wikipedia. That what the noticeboard told me.. Why am I wasting my time? LoveMonkey (talk) 15:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
"I would sugest you take it to the users talk page."
I think I am entitle here to my opinion. My opinion of the conduct of the editors on this board with the exception of Andrew so far is that you don't like being challenged. Well User talk:Slatersteven go look at the article talkpage. There is already four archives of talk since esoglou started editing the article. Those 4 archives have brought me here. Wikipedia doesn't work. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Unbias and NPOV is a respect for both sides not telling people to leave Wikipedia and or leave entire side of episode in history's perspective off of Wikipedia. That what the noticeboard told me. No one here has told you to leave wikipedia or leave entire side of episode(sic) in history's perspective off of Wikipedia. What you're being told is to stop bringing your content disagreement here (this noticeboard). This noticeboard is to explain what a reliable source is and how to use it. You've gotten a clear answer. As for your other disputes, you've been told where to take them (though of course there's no guarantee that you will be personally satisfied with responses, here or elsewhere).
talk
) 15:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Bali you telling me to take the subject and leave wikipedia is right here. If there is a conflict with reliable sourcing don't pass the buck. Those tags by Esoglou are a sourcing conflict I came here to resolve that I came here for help. Also you have shown your bias and I am more than positive that your personal "frustration" will and has already clouded your judgment and I (from my wikipedia experience) can expect you to continue to do this just like Esoglou does. No matter how valid the source or sources or how real the history. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Let me be emphatic: Take your broad content disagreement to one of the appropriate forums. This noticeboard is not the appropriate place. That is the meaning of take your 1,000 year-old cultural war somewhere else. Multiple editors have explained that the correct answer to the question "Is a tag requesting a page number from a citation appropriate? is "Yes."
talk
) 15:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
And let me be emphatic you called my apology bunk. That is beyond the pale. I obviously made a mistake to even try. I apologized and you attacked me you don't even know me. What is this person doing on this noticeboard? Why is this person here? Why is this personal allowed to talk to people like this? LoveMonkey (talk) 15:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
You asked whether it was necessary to provide page numbers. Two people have patiently explained to you that it is necessary. I agree with them. It's just possible that you will get an uninvolved respondent with a different view, but I doubt that you will now. So what you need to do is to absorb the advice you have been given and go and apply it. Or if you still disagree perhaps you would like to step away from the issue for a bit and go and edit other articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I apologized to Bali. Bali then insulted me. He called my apology bunk. You are now trying to blame me for his behavior. No one asked you. Follow your own advice. Why you would attempt to justify bad behavior and argue for it? How is me asking for advice AND THEN AGREEING and then apologizing for any potential bad feelings equivalent to treating someone's apology with hostility? Why did you do that? What did I do to you? I have followed the advice I got from the board here. I came here for help. Now look at the behavior of people here. This type of behavior is proof Wikipedia does not work. People like you are at fault. Who are you attempting to criticize me for apologizing and then not addressing the person who insulting me and my apology? Why did you even comment? Why have you not addressed what Bali did? Why are you defending him? LoveMonkey (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Bali insulted your edit not you (it’s a subtle difference but an important one (that I happen to disagree with)), As to many of your other points. This is not the place to discuses them. If you think you are being ignored or treated unfairly (or uncivilly) then the place to raise it is ANI. If you believe that there are POV issues then the place to raise it is the NPOV board. If you are not getting the answers there you want to see then taking it to another board is forum shopping, and that is against the rules.Slatersteven (talk)
Bali should not be insulting any wikipedia editors. Other editors should not be critical of my behavior and then turn around and attempt to justify Balis. As for ANI. Why not. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
No one (as far as I can see) is defending Bal. What you are being told is that this is the RSN board so all we should (and ew don't allways) discuse here is sources. We all sometimes forget that but there is no point in continuing to ignore it when told that you are no longer operarting within the confines of the board.Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
No one is criticizing Bali for the insult. But you and Itsmejudith are pointing out my behavior and giving me plenty of advice and how wrong I am. Also your giving me bad advice. Bali's conduct does not fall under AN/I. It would be an Rfc and before you direct people to boards that will get them in trouble for posting to the wrong board you should consider that. As posting this to AN/I and getting it wrong would not bode well for my case correct Slatersteven. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
What on earth do you want at this point? So far, we've found in this thread that you misrepresented a source in the course of answering your original question (is a request for a page number in a citation appropriate? you asked. Four of us have answered yes.) I called your response to this advice (the odd apology for causing "offense" when no one said they were offended, the reference to other's anger when no one showed any signs of anger, the irrelevant to this noticeboard but indicative of your attitude reference to a cultural war you're fighting, the veiled and absurd reference to the editors here being involved in a conflict with you or suppressing points of view -- i.e. Having this kind of conflict on long standing conflicts is noting surprising but it is unfortunate that people do become confrontational and then make things impossible for both sides to have their say.) bunk. It was and is bunk.I won't apologize for my characterization of your comment. And all of this is irrelevant to this noticeboard.
talk
) 14:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
My point is your wrong for what you did and should be smart enough to apologize if you misspoke. Can you not see that? Or are you going to ask me to reflect again for you? LoveMonkey (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I have repopsnded ono youe talk page as this now has nothing to do with RS but is a dispute between users.Slatersteven (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Musicianguide
Can someone experienced comment on their thoughts of http://www.musicianguide.com/ as a reliable source. We are currently using it in
chat!
) 10:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. So according to a press release, "Net Industries LLC publishes educational websites and is the creator of JRank, a free site search engine. ...Net Industries' online properties include... http://www.MusicianGuide.com..." http://www.netindustries.us/ is their official website but it doesn't even list musicianguide. It doesn't say anything about their fact checking, sourcing, or reliability. And if you go to the actual musicianguide site, they have text that says "Content on this website is from high-quality, licensed material originally published in print form. You can always be sure you're reading unbiased, factual, and accurate information." but anyone can make a claim about their site. I'm sort of neutral on this, but I think I'm tending towards it not being reliable.
Is there really no other place you can go for that text? In looking at the John Berry article, it seems that line about brain surgery was copied verbatim from musicianguide, which is a copyvio issue and should be removed. But the line is about an interview done on Billboard; couldn't you just use the original Billboard article? — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!) 12:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
(
personal site. In light of this I'd say when in doubt, leave it out.--Cúchullaint/c
12:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
In this case, MusicianGuide is being used to source something in
Billboard Magazine. Much better to go the original source, and (trumpet fanfare) here it is. --Slp1 (talk
) 12:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Cheers all. There was a general idea to use the site as a source for the whole article, hence asking, but thanks for finding that direct link :D --
chat!
) 14:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Jackie Evancho Forum Reference
I have recently gotten into a debate with
reliable sources guideline to show that forum posts are not counted as reliable sources because of their lack of verifiability and reliability. But the user have asked me to prove that the guideline directly states that that reference cannot be used. Instead, I am taking this here to have more experienced users weigh in. You can see my discussion with the user here. SilverserenC
02:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, forums are not reliable sources, neither is youtube. If the editor is trying to make the point that the voice is real I suggest this good article from the LA Times [31]. If this is to show that the described incident happened on the show no source may be required unless the action is in dispute. --Torchwood Who? (talk) 03:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Heh, I already put that source in myself a couple of days ago. Well, I hope your response helps explain things to him. I suppose i'll go take the forum reference out of the article then. SilverserenC 03:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Lol, no problem. In reference to sourcing events in TV shows tvguide.com has episode summaries for future use, but they are sparse [32]. There may be other sites with more detail. Just FYI.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 03:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Apparently, 1archie99 is not satisfied with just "one person" responding to this discussion I opened, per this edit he made, re-adding in the forum reference. Can some other editors please explain to him how a forum thread is not a reliable source? SilverserenC 05:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
The document given at jackievanchos.org is not an RS as the forum post is SELF. Correct video citation would require locating an authorative copy where the judge makes that statement. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I am currently at 3RR, so either someone else will have to remove the forum link or i'll have to do it a day from now. (It would be a huge sign of good faith and responsibleness if 1archie99 did it himself...) SilverserenC 06:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
What looks like a regular anonymous user at a forum where anyone can post is not reliable. The video doesn't prove anything other than that the judge said that she didn't lipsync, and it's probably a copyright violation. The program itself (with episode number or broadcast date) could perhaps be cited if an official video isn't online. Jiiimbooh (talk) 06:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that. Where I said no other source required I was implying the material can self source if it's something like a plot summary or televised event.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 07:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I did not originally put the disputed citation into the article; just thought it was worthwhile to leave it in because it actually showed via video the actual portion of the broadcast that my edit described. Because the purists only took to the discussion, not even the editor that originally put the cite in the article spoke up; only a description, not the actual event remains as a citation. Readers will have to take it on faith that the remaining cite is a true depiction. I wanted to leave all doubt behind what actully occurred. Because only the fanactics spoke that is not happening. I will now consider the matter closed.1archie99 (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
It was added back in again by another user whose username clearly broadcasts a COI issue. I'm still at 3RR, so can someone else please help with this? SilverserenC 21:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Conference papers
I'm working on the article Lady of Quality (a book written in 1972 by Georgette Heyer; it's set in the early 19th century). In 2009, there was an academic conference on Heyer's work [33]. One of the presentations, by the organizer of the conference, contains information that may be useful for this article, but I don't know whether it is considered a reliable source. The author sent me her slides, with a note that she has not written this up or submitted to any journals, so it has not been peer-reviewed or officially published. The author is a university professor who teaches English literature. She has been previously published, but her focus has previously been Shakespeare and Renaissance literature (several centuries before Heyer). [34] I've got this article at FAC and want to make sure that the source is considered sound before I incorporate any of the information. Thanks for any opinions. Karanacs (talk) 14:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I think so. The conference organizers would have to pass her, and also a presenter certainly puts her reputation on the line by getting up in front of peers. Write a very detailed reference note, though!--Wehwalt (talk) 14:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
(ec) She was the conference organizer (or at least the main contact), which made me a little more unsure. Thanks for the comment. Karanacs (talk) 14:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I'd agree it should be used, especially in the absence of other sources. Johnbod (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't feel comfortable answering this question without knowing what sort of information is involved. Looie496 (talk) 17:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
The information likely would be considered reliable if it had been published, but since it hasn't been, how would any reasonable editor "check your work" that is supported by this information? This seems to defeat the entire reason for our policies requiring information to be backed up by reliable sources, and instead we'd be asking readers to rely on you. Nothing personal of course, I mean you in the royal sense. — e. ripley\talk 17:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
If you are sourcing to slides that are sent to you, and not published then they can not be used as a reliable source. Because they are not publicaly availiable. We do not allow sourcing to private correspondence. If they are puplished, but not peer reviewed, then they should be treated as a self puplished source.
Standards for conference presentations vary tremendously across fields. In my discipline we accept all contributions that are minimally on-topic, with no peer review. Note also there are people who organize sessions so they have a platform to present their pet views. I'm not saying that's going on here, but we have to be careful.
talk
) 17:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
This is literary criticism, and the particular focus is a subject I have not seen covered in other sources (although, to be fair, there has been minimal work in serious criticism for this author/genre). To my knowledge, this was the first-ever conference devoted to this author's work; I don't know what the standards for inclusion were, nor am I very familiar with the overall standards for this type of conference.. The presentation was presented in public, but the author has yet to write it up as a formal paper. I am unsure whether the presentation itself counts as publication; if not, then I agree that this is an SPS and I don't think the author is an expert in this field. Karanacs (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Which does make a lot of difference. As Short Brigade Harvester Boris has indicated, a lot of conferences more or less let anyone present anything at all relevant to the conference, and they may all get published eventually, so even if published I'd argue that only a presentation by someone who was a known expert in the field could possible be called a reliable source.
talk
) 18:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't appear to be published, therefore it is not
Agree, if it's not actually published, there's no way for anyone to check it. If the presenter does end up self-publishing it in some form, it would probably fall into the realm of
self-published sources we can potentially use (and if it gets published in a journal, so much the better).--Cúchullaint/c
12:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Slides by themselves don't matter. What matters here is that the results of research have been a) Not peer reviewed b) Not published. Unpublished => Not RS. Wait until they publish the results of their research. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
If the organizer of the the only conference on the author, and an Eng. Lit. prof, is not an expert, per Karanacs, they are going to have difficulty finding "peers" to review her work! Johnbod (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
^The Roman Catholic Church teaches that "original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 405).
Compassionate Spirit website
This page is currently used as a reference in the article
WP:RS or not, and also, separately, whether it is an acceptable source to establish notability. These questions are not, by the way, being asked in reference to this existing article, but in general. If it is sufficient both as a RS and as a NOTABILITY source, I am considering using it elsewhere as well. John Carter (talk
) 21:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
It appears to be Aker's own website. So the question is if his opinion of the book is notable (the edit in question: "Keith Akers hailed the book as "a breath of fresh air in historical Jesus literature" and commended Tabor's use of extra-Biblical sources.") As tot he specific question of notability, other potential concerns are whether there's an association between Aker's and Tabor, whether they have the same publisher, whether they swim in the same fringe circles (or not) and so on. Taking a look now.
talk
) 22:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok. Aker's isn't a scholar or a bigwig in biblical studies that I can tell (his own bio here [36]). So what we have is a self-published book review. I don't think this would satisfy the "multiple, non-trival reviews" bit of the book notability guideline, so if this kind of review is all you have to establish notability for a book, i wouldn't think it would be enough (for what my opinion is worth). As for the reliable source question -- I could certainly see arguments against using him if people were objecting (if, say, he was praising his book from his personal website while magazines and scholarly journals were trashing it), but if no one is objecting...
talk
) 22:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Understood. Like I said, I wasn't so much concerned about it in regards to this particular article, but in general. And there is no real doubt the book is notable, so I might just try to find some other reviews. Thanks for the responses. John Carter (talk) 22:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Tabor has a page on his blog to reviews and press mentions here [37]. A lot of that looks a lot better than the Aker's cite (the first article appears to be a US News exploration of the questions raised in the book, though i could be wrong; just scanned through the article for half a tick).
talk
) 22:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer to the additional Tabor reviews. In defence of Akers I should say that he has published a book on Jesus, and that book has been independently and multiply reviewed. Perhaps he's not a scholar (I'm not sure) but do all reviewers have to be scholars to be cited on WP? --Michael C. Pricetalk 20:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
No, doesn't have to be a "scholar" (lots of excellent and well-received popular histories are written by authors who don't have particular academic training, for instance) but we need some evidence that there's something that makes the self-published opinion notable. Judging by his self-description, he's an enthusaistic amateur with an idiosyncratic point of view. If his review had been published in a reliable source (particularly the quality press or specialty academic publications) that would make it easier to consider it reliable (since professional editors had determined that his opinions were worth broadcasting). But the bar gets higher if it's self-published (as it is in this case). As for Akers, it seems his 2000 book The Lost Religion of Jesus: Simple Living and Nonviolence in Early Christianity is the most relevant one. Hits in google scholar? 4 (two of those to Akers citing himself). ("Akers, Keith" yields 31, most of those seem to be about vegetarianism or Akers own work). While that's not positive evidence that he's not particularly notable in biblical studies, it's a good sign of that (Tabor gets 200 or so hits, a number of those appear to be citations in other academic works).
talk
) 20:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
As I said above, the original question was not asked specifically about the article on The Jesus Dynasty, but rather on the reliability of the source as an RS in general. That is currently the only page that cites it as a source. Whether the review deserves to be on that page, and the amount of weight it might be due, were as I thought I indicated not the real discussion. Basically, the author is a self-described "Ebionite", and he has written a significant amount on his website about an "Ebionite Community" to which he is not affiliated. If it makes it any clearer, the question was really about whether that website would be sufficient to serve as a second reliable source for a separate article on that group. John Carter (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
His self-published writings aren't good for anything but his own opinion. Since he doesn't seem to be any kind of a player academically or in any other area (certainly not an acknowledged biblical or historical scholar) I would say you probably shouldn't use him. He's just some dude with an opinion. If others start taking note of some of his opinions, and publish them, then those bits of his opinion become more useable.
talk
) 19:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Newspaper question
If a newspaper publishes a story - in the paper itself, rather than on its website - does that make it any the less of a story? I ask because a reference to a story in a newspaper has been questioned as "possibly fake" as it did not appear on the paper's website. (Although thousands of readers would have held the story in their hands). The "fake" comment crops up here, on 12 September: [38]. A copy of the story has, however, been uploaded at Commons here: [39] - although it has been nominated for deletion. I have used refs to newspapers, books etc not found online in many articles without problem - so I just wondered if this was a new Wikipedia policy?-- Myosotis Scorpioides 21:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Offline sources are fine becuase some one theoreitcally could track down the Micro-film of the paper that day. However the Scan on the commons seems to be an add that was placed in the paper rather than a "News story." So yes offline sources are fine but if its a recent date (especially in the last 10 years) and other stories that are contemporary to it are there and its not it would be a big
References should primarily be made to the printed versions of newspaper stories – with full page numbers etc., as they are persistent. Links to on-line versions should be provided, if they are available. However, in your case the article does not seem to be a newspaper story, but some kind of advertisement. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
On top of that, most local community newspapers print all sorts of manner of junk that is not notable enough to be used as a source for demonstrating notability on Wikipedia. DreamGuy (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Web based magazines as sources?
I would like to know if the following web based e-magazines and e-"journals" are reliable sources for literary constructs:
Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
To give more context to the above, I'm asking if these sources are reliable enough to show 21 line fusion sonnet is a new kind of sonnet. (and given references are [43], where one such sonnet is published, [44], where the "creator" of such sonnets provide a definition). (For the latter, please don't assume "Dr." implies a PhD ... apparently the "creator" of these sonnets uses "Dr." upon receiving an honorary D.Litt from a obscure local non-academic literary society.). --Ragib (talk) 16:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I would be concearned about SPS here. Is there any evidacen that these onloijne magazines exercise any kind of editorial control?Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I doubt that any of them are anything other than SPS or blogs. This is definitely a personal blog published by this person. --Ragib (talk) 19:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
We'd need much better sources to establish newness of any literary form. DreamGuy (talk) 18:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
@Slatersteven-You can kindly visit the sites.They are old e-journals and reputed ones with very well edited contents.Apart from this the article has references of othe sites and journals also.Unsignificant materials have not never been published by these journals.Muse India also has a wiki article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poet009 (talk • contribs)
I have and they look SPS vanity sites to me.Slatersteven (talk) 19:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
The other concern is this: I'm highly suspicious of any publication that prints content attributed to "Dr. X", when the person is clearly not the holder of an earned doctorate or a medical degree of any kind (only an honorary D. Litt, that too from a totally obscure non-academic organization). Reputable scholarly publications or one with at least some editorial control would never fail to catch a self-proclaimed "Dr.". --Ragib (talk) 19:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
There are other references too and many wikipedia articles have used these sites of muse india and other voices project or google books site as references before.I don't think they are vanity sites.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Poet009 (talk • contribs)
That does not show these are reliable sources ... only means we need to remove them if used as sources in other Wikipedia articles, unless the sources are proved to be reliable. --Ragib (talk) 19:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Can we have some soures toi sho0these sites being cited by RS please?Slatersteven (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Ragib, Now you need to edit many things .Why haven't you done it before?yes they are reliable.Each of the journal has editors and one cannot just publish anything they want.The contents have passed through an editors' eyes.If they are non reliable you need to give proper evidence as so many wikipedia users cannot be wrong while using them as references.
@Slatersteven let me browse the net to find Reliable sourse for these journals.
For Muse India visit the link of one of the most reputed newspapers of India.[45]
There is reference of google books in the article too and look this site can never be a SPS vanity [46]
I would say that the Hindu referance does go a long way to establish that Muse is RS.Slatersteven (talk) 20:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
It establishes that Muse is a web-journal/magazine, but I'm wondering if it is reliable as a scholarly publication. From the article, it seems that the author was using the word "journal" to mean "magazines", not a scholarly publication. --Ragib (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear Ragib, then I must say no newspaper is also scholarly.Remove everything that is non scholarly.Does wikipedia says that the reference HAS TO BE scholarly.No.It says it must be reliable and it is dear Ragib.
No that is a red herring. There is nothing to say that being 'just a magazine' invalidates anything as RS. However the Hindu article only says that Muse's themed issues are of a high standard. As such we really need a bit more.Slatersteven (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Another reference.After all my comment is that each of the website is not a vanity website.No one can post anything without editing and descission of the editors there and they are descent references for a short article.[47]
Actualy they can, its called my space and allows anyone to post poetry.Slatersteven (talk) 20:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear Slatersteven "my space" is for posting but only few selections from my space are entered into the main journal content per issue under the section selections from my space and the rest of the thematic contents book reviews etc are directly sent to the editor for consideration.Many major poets have contributed in this journal including Sunil Gangopadhyaya, the present Sahitya akademi president.
None the less the magazine does in fact publish 'from the readers' material. it would therefore be neccersary to establish that any material that you are using as a source has undergone the editorial process (also the fact that major poest have been published there is as much of a red herring as it not being scholatic). I the case under discusionl you source only establishes tht this 21 line fusion sonnet has been writen by Mr Sonet, it does not establish anything else (including its newness). IN fact the source has published the poems wihtout any editorial comment so we cannot know if these are published becasue of their worth or becasue they were sent in. I also think there may be notabiltiy issues here rather the truely RS issues.Slatersteven (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
The other site links in the article also needs to be checked.In none of the sites anyone can post their material except the editor.Also the other external links.[48] also google books link and other voices in Poetry link.Other voices was one of the sites listed in UNESCOs World Poetry Portal.As a whole I think notabily is there though there for the article to be there are bits of conflicting issues which might be solved keeping in track with new issues of reputed journals.
I would be happier with more main stream sources revieing tnhis new form. What worries me is that none of them seem to.Slatersteven (talk) 21:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I would try to find them but these links are enough to keep this article but may be this article needs to get stronger with some more references.References of two print journals have also been added.Editor Yumugesa has quite an experience with editing sonnet articles and haikus etc.I am witing for his comment too.
"Unlike the more common 14-line format, these sonnets comprise 21 lines, with new rhyming variations." is not supported by the text, the text is just the poetry itself. There is no anaylsis so you cannot claim the source says that this is a new form of Ryming or that they differ from any otehr type of ryme. Also the Crisi Chronical source was writen by the subject of the artciel so cannot be called third party so is not RS for this subject.As indead is the oterh source. So two thirds of the sources listed here are in fact by the subject (and the third appears to be as well). It dos not matter where a source is published (and there is some reason to say that Muse may be RS) it who writes it that is as important.Slatersteven (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
The Huffington Post is often criticized by feminists and conservatives alike for objectifying women by pushing disproportionately negative coverage of females, such as actress nipple slips.[35][36][37] The Huffington Post has also been accused of sexism in general, outside of its entertainment page.[38][39][40][41][42][43]
Currently this looks like a minefield of sources that look questionable to say the least.
The only one here looking remotely anything like a RS is Washingtoncitypaper.com which still can't have that high a ciruclation enough to be given Due weight escpieally since a google search is not encouragingThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Even the best of those are nonnotable bloggers on a larger site. The first three had potential, but who are the people complaining even? Nobodies. Coverage would have to be more mainstream to be worth a mention in the HuffPo article. DreamGuy (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
The Institute for Global Jewish Affairs has claimed that The Huffington Post promotes anti-semitism through its routine negative coverage of Israel, citing as examples its news stories, commentary, and the comments posters have made with regard to Jews.[29]
Are you asking whether the Huffington Post is RS? We have discussed this before, look at the archives. I think the answer was yes. We can source articles to it without having to bring in any biases, whether sexist, antisemitic, liberal or otherwise. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
I think the OP is questioning the sources used for content in the Wikipedia Huff Post article itself, which do appear problematic to me. ActiveBanana (bananaphone 21:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
As always, opinions from any source are usable as opinions, and referred to as such. WP does not vouchsafe that any opinions are "facts." Collect (talk) 12:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
This "institute" appears to be an arm of the
WP:QS, so anything they say should be carefully attributed, that is if used at all. WP:V says that promotional sources shouldn't be used if the material can be seen as unduly self-serving, and labeling critics of Israel as anti-semites by the JCPA does sound self-serving to me. --Dailycare (talk
) 16:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Just saying that "opinions from any source are usable as opinions" is highly misleading, as there's the question of notability and fairness. If this is the only source making this claim the opinion is not notable, and it would be a violation of NPOV to include it in the article. DreamGuy (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
It is simply not true that "opinions from any source are usable as opinions"; this is a confusion of the guideline that self-published sources are usable for opinions about themselves (and which specifically excludes their opinions about third-parties). The site www.jcpa.org doesn't seem to meet any of our usual tests for a reliable source – peer-reviewed material, a defined editorial process, a reputation for accuracy. The 19 hits on Google Scholar don't show much evidence of being cited elsewhere. Unless someone can demonstrate that other reliable sources regard www.jcpa.org as reliable, then don't think it meets our requirements in RS. --RexxS (talk) 01:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Jesse Ventura and 9/11 conspiracy theory
On March 9, 2010,The Huffington Post published and subsequently removed an article written by former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura with the following explanation: "Editor's Note: The Huffington Post's editorial policy, laid out in our blogger guidelines, prohibits the promotion and promulgation of conspiracy theories – including those about 9/11. As such, we have removed this post." Accusations of censorship soon followed.[30][31][32][33][34]
Same as above. Notability. Including whining from some notoriously whiny blogs/boards when there is no real world coverage of it is making a mountain out of a molehill and violating NPOV in the process. DreamGuy (talk) 18:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Cited definitions - how should we treat them?
I accept that copying large chunks of text without crediting the author is plagiarism, but where is the line? E.g. it is often useful to be able to cite a dictionary-style definition as part of an article, so the reader has a clear understanding of a particular term. Is it acceptable to copy the definition of the term verbatim from a source such as a dictionary, glossary or encyclopaedia as long as it is referenced? Does it have to be in quotes? And what if it's just one or two words different (without altering the sense)? An example is coal drop which is taken from the source cited. Of course, normally this would then get expanded with other material, whilst keeping the cite intact. --Bermicourt (talk) 23:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
IANAL, but; There is plagiarism and there is copyright violation. As long as we have correct references we are not comitting plagiarism. We might however be comitting a copyright violation. Also just altering a few words does not prevent violation of copyright. However facts are not copyrightable.
I could be wrong, but I don't think it can be determined except by a judge in a court of law. If a source says "The house is red", we may be able to say "The house is red" (without the quotes), and it's not a copy vio or plagiarism because the statement is so simple that it doesn't need to be put in our own words. It's just simple information that cannot be copyrighted. If the statements become more complex, the possibility of running afoul in some way increases, and we need to summarize the information (which isn't copyrighted), without using the same wording or expression (which is copyrighted). This can be tricky per Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Anyways, it's always a judgement call unless an actual US judge makes a ruling, so we need to stay far from the line. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Anent definitions - in technical areas, the term as used in a popular dictionary may not be congruent with scientific usage. Where any doubt exists, the more specific the source to the topic, the better. In the US, by the way, courts have held that simple statements of fact can not be copyrighted. This was pretty much a result of telephone directories (pretty much lists of numbers, names and addresses) were found not to be copyrightable. Collect (talk) 12:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Normally, I'd recommend such a derivative sentence to be replaced by the source text inside quotes (making clear it's a quotation) and clearly referenced. There's no question that a properly-quoted short extract from an attributed source is acceptable for copyright purposes. By making the quote explicit, the editor does not commit plagiarism, since there's no inference that the editor is claiming the work as their own. Nevertheless, in this case, the entire article text consists of one sentence and a sentence fragment. By
WP:DICTDEF, it would be much more suitable for Wiktionary, unless it can be expanded substantially in the near future. I've created wikt:coal drop and attributed it to the present article. It's a new article, but if it is not expanded in a reasonable time, I'd suggest deletion – it's currently an orphan. --RexxS (talk
) 02:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
YouTube video as wikipedia article reference
Here
wp:original research, then realised that they were probably at the wrong venue. I suggested they come here. FYI and comment! Regards, - 220.101talk\Contribs
07:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Creating and editing videos is only a little more difficult than writing text these days, so I can't see how a video from an anonymous uploader on YouTube is likely to meet our expectations for a
reliable source, as the site has no editorial process for ensuring the accuracy of what is presented. I'd suggest that the default assumption is that YouTube is not a reliable source, and the burden of proof in any individual case is on the editor wishing to use it as a source. --RexxS (talk
) 02:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
The main exception is when it is a release from an organization such as Virgin Atlantic or something that is using Youtube for advertising purposes... but then it has to be treated as a primary source and with care that it is actually what is being presented.---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus! 02:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Cato publications on Rand's centrality to Libertarianism
Is Brian Doherty, Ayn Rand at 100: "Yours Is the Glory", Cato Institute Policy Report Vol. XXVII No. 2 (March/April 2005). reliable to substantiate "Ayn Rand has been described as "the most popular and influential libertarian figure of the twentieth century."" Given the grandiose claim, is it reliable to substantiate Ayn Rand as the most popular and influential libertarian figure of the twentieth century.
Cato Policy Reports are not listed as Peer Reviewed by Ulrich's
Is http://www.cato.org/special/threewomen/rand.html reliable to substantiate "that, "[m]any, and perhaps most, future libertarians first encountered libertarian ideas through Rand's novels, whether they ultimately accepted her Objectivist philosophy or not.""
Brian Doherty should be a good-enough commentator for Ayn Rand's significance in libertarianism; his opinions should be attributed. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
It is sad that some editors cannot tell the difference between an op-ed and reasoned commentary. We reject those sources in articles about social scientists for the same reason that we reject them for articles about natural sciences. TFD (talk) 01:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
The Cato Institute does not seem to peer-review its contributions, nor state its editorial policies. However, it does attract numerous hits on Google Scholar, with many of its articles being cited elsewhere – although that's not a guarantee of reputation, it's at least an indication. The overall status of Cato Institute as a reliable source is unclear, and I'd recommend against using the second and third links as the sole source for a piece of text. On the other hand, using the piece by
Brian Doherty (journalist) as a source could rely on Doherty's notability as a published "expert" in the field, but it would have to be treated as an opinion and attributed. --RexxS (talk
) 02:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Linkedin BLP
Is Linkedin good enough for sourcing an unreffed BLP? Us441(talk)(contribs) 00:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Generally, no. The problem is that LinkedIn does nothing to verify that the person making the account is actually the person in question. As such, we can't reliably state that the information is accurate. Even if it were allowed, it would fall under the restrictions for self-published sources about themselves, which can be found at
WP:SELFPUB; the fifth point on that list says that "[they may be used as long as] the article is not based primarily on such sources." Qwyrxian (talk
) 00:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Agree, generally not reliable, especially if there are no other sources at all.--Cúchullaint/c 13:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Le Monde Diplomatique
Can Le Monde Diplomatique, particularly its maps, such as this one [51] be considered a reliable source?
talk
) 01:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Le Monde Diplomatique is a very high quality news source in general. As to the map, the question of reliability is transfered (partially). In this case to the source: "La Question alabanaise, Fayard, 1995." Le Monde generally does well with what it broadcasts, but is not infallible (of particular interest, if there is doubt, is when Le Monde ran this map; sometimes things are thought accurate that are changed/corrected later by further research. The book, after all, is 15 years old). All that said, if the book is not available for review, and there is no specific argument that the source is wrong, it's probably OK. However, a further question arises: Why would one use a map when, likely, the key piece of information desired (not clear what in this case) should be in a piece of text somewhere? Graphics in newspapers in general frequently fudge the precise contours or borders and simplify in other ways for visual force. Using maps, in general, from newspapers as sources can be problematic because there interpretation can be subjective (can be, not always). Sorry I'm not more helpful (hopefully someone else will hapen along). My French isn't good enough to read and offer an opinion on the source of the map.
talk
) 02:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
This isn't its map, but a map created by chartographer Philippe Rekacewicz, who claims to be using a book by Rexhep Qosja as a source. The thread isn't about Le Monde Diplomatique, which like every other newspaper doesn't take responsibility for the reliability of its external partners works. The map itself has many errors that make it unreliable. The most obvious are:
OSCE
) Leposavic, Zubin Potok, Zvecan and Strpce are districts were the Serbian population is the majority. The map presents only Leposavic as an area of Serbian majority in the north and in the south has replaced Strpce with the area of Dragas, an Albanian majority area.
The Rekacewicz map doesn't reflect the Albanian majority in Struga, Debar and it presents the area of Resen Municipality as 30-50% Albanian, while Albanians form only about 9-10% of the region.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 07:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
All of that is beside the point. LMD, a reliable source, has published the map, which originates from a book published by Fayard, a reputable publisher and itself a reliable source. The comments above about purported mistakes in the map appear to be original research, and in themselves do not invalidate its use. If you have reliable sources challenging the accuracy of the map, they could be cited in the relevant article. Our criterion, remember, is verifiability, not truth. This map is indeed verifiable from eminently reliable sources.RolandR (talk) 08:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
(unindent)It can hardly be called original research because my comment is based on the two census maps that you can check yourself. Yes, I agree that our criterion is verifiability and like Bali ultimate said it would be great if someone actually had the book. Btw the map doesn't originate from the book, it was created by a chartographer who claims to be using the book as a source.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 09:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
The map of LMD is actually verified by an endless bibliography, so I see no problem with that all.Alexikoua (talk) 11:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Which bibliography? The census itself challenges it. In addition is completely outdated: 1995 vs 2010 is a long time. We know that around 1 million people have emigrated within Albania only. Philippe Rekacewicz has made changes to Qosja's map in 1998, and there are no explanations on where he took the census data. Since he is not referencing his own work (he's simply saying that he has "updated" Qosja's map according to national censuses, without specifying which), although LMD is a reliable source, its cartographer's work may not be regarded as a reliable source: it fails reliability since there are no references. In fact putting the Albanians as a minority in the whole Korçë County is an absurdity. --Sulmues(talk) 12:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
We don't demand that our sources provide their own sources. LMD has its own editorial control and standards, and takes responsibility for what it publishes. It has always been considered a reliable source, and your own original research and synthesis above is certainly not sufficient reason to reconsider this. RolandR (talk) 13:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
(unindent)Newspapers don't take responsibility about what their external partners do. We're here to discuss the map of the chartographer. The map is supposedly a 1998 map based on Qosja with updated issues. Obviously it's a wrong map as anyone can observe by checking the census of Kosovo and the one of Macedonia(there's nothing OR about checking someone's claims)--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 13:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Z, do you have other sources which disagree? You seemed to be saying you did? I think that direction of discussion is more important than arguing the logic of the situation because this noticeboard is intended to be for quite rules-based discussion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I thought that the official census of Kosovo and Macedonia as sources were enough, but there are many sources disagreeing with the obvious errors of the map. Btw that cartographer created maps that contradict each other like this map which is about the same subject [52], but shows a different status(this map was created too on 2008). Philippe Rekacewicz created two maps about the same subject in 2008 and they contradict each other as well the official census of Macedonia, Kosovo, Montenegro etc. Andrew I can create a list of all the different sources that disagree with the cartographer but isn't the fact that he created two maps in the same time period about the same subject that contradict each other and the official census of numerous countries enough to prove that his work isn't reliable.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 14:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I always thought LMD was an excellent source, and I'm glad to see I have been vindicated. Background: This dispute originated in the Commons over this map [53]. Originally the map was identical to version of LMD, then it was tampered with by ZjarriRrethues & Co. claiming "mistakes" (in other words, OR). Particularly odious is the use of grey to color the areas in Greece on the grounds that "no official data" apparently means "no data at all". When I present these users with data, e.g. from LMD, they claim "mistakes" and start
talk
) 14:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
(unindent)This isn't about LMD and please don't IDHT the fact that you have two maps created by the same cartographer published both by LMD and they contradict each other and the official census of numerous countries. Athenean we're not discussing LMD's reliability but the map's reliability. This a map by Philippe Rekacewicz saying that he's using Qosja as a source not a map happened to be on LMD.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 15:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
The two maps don't appear to me to contradict each other. LMD is RS, not much more to be said. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, I agree with Zjarri: The Korçë County looks completely different in the second one as compared to the first one. --Sulmues(talk) 15:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
The two maps are entirely compatible and make the same point, although one shows by means of hatching which two populations are ppresent and the other is a shaded thematic map of the percentage of Albanians only. Albanians are the majority in Albania apart from a few areas in the south east, in nearly all of Kosovo, as well as in some border areas of Montenegro and Macedonia. They tell the same story for Korçë County, as well: both say that Albanians and another ethnic group are present. One map applies a different kind of shading to the north of the county than to the south; the other colours it all the same because it is a thematic map at county level. And, on top of all that, it's in Le Monde Diplo, a newspaper at the quality end of the market if ever there were one. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I have opened a discussion thread at the dispute resolution board in the Commons here [54]. Participation by editors from uninvolved nationalities is particularly welcome (and from involved nationalities much less so),who participated in this thread would be great as I feel that is the only way progress will be made.
talk
) 16:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Uninvolved nationalities! No, we contribute as Wikipedia editors. I hereby formally declare myself to be involved because a) I speak French and Le Monde Diplomatique is a French publication and b) I am English and LMD is also published in English. We are all as involved or uninvolved as each other. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Le Monde Diplomatique is a WP:RS – and if I remember correctly – is world renowned for its reliable high-quality maps. -- Petri Krohn (talk
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following was written in the main monosodium glutamate article but then constantly removed by three editors: sciencewatcher, Ddbrodbeck and Sakkura.
On the other side, John Olney, who was elected to the Institute of Medicine of the United States National Academy of Sciences, stated: "[W]henI first reported that glutamate can kill neurons by exciting them to death, this finding was not only rejected, it was ridiculed by established authority. It required about 15 years before the pendulum began swinging in the other direction. ... it is my belief ... it probably is an occult contributor to neurodevelopmental disabilities in human populations throughout the civilized world."[1] The American Academy of Family Physicians, one of the largest medical organizations in the United States, concludes that an overstimulation by glutamate generally may result in neuronal damage and has been implicated in neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer.[2]Health risks of MSG remain a subject of controversy.''
double-blind experimental design and the application in capsules because of the strong and unique after-taste of glutamates.[5]
On the other side, John Olney, who was elected to the Institute of Medicine of the United States National Academy of Sciences, stated: "[W]henI first reported that glutamate can kill neurons by exciting them to death, this finding was not only rejected, it was ridiculed by established authority. It required about 15 years before the pendulum began swinging in the other direction. ... it is my belief ... it probably is an occult contributor to neurodevelopmental disabilities in human populations throughout the civilized world."[1] The American Academy of Family Physicians, one of the largest medical organizations in the United States, concludes that an overstimulation by glutamate generally may result in neuronal damage and has been implicated in neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer.[2]Health risks of MSG remain a subject of controversy.''
Since the issue of possible health concerns connected to MSG is, indeed, an issue of controversy as it can be seen in
Main article:
Health effects research into Glutamic acid
the main MSG page section should reflect a short summary of that controversy not just one side of the issue.
Also, the sources for the critical side of the issue are reliable.
Sakkura, Ddrodbeck and sciencewatcher claim these sources were not good, and were violating the weight which must be given to specific positions. I disagree. And others before me did too. If you see the talk page of the issue, it becomes evident that user sciencewatcher i. e. has removed all content in the past, which questioned the safety of MSG. But wikipedia should not become a place for industry agenda-pushing.
There is also a dispute about the source EUFIC. EUFIC is linked to under External Links with the description "The facts on Monosodium Glutamate" (it has been changed by me, but will probably be reverted). EUFIC's funders, however, include: Coca-Cola, DSM Nutritional Products Europe Ltd., Ferrero, Groupe Danone, Kraft Foods, McDonald's, Nestlé, Pfizer, Procter & Gamble, Suedzucker, etc
Sakkura, Ddrodbeck and sciencewatcher consider EUFIC to be a reliable source for nutrition issues nevertheless. They wrote the following:
Just because there is a conflict of interest in the funding does not make a source "unreliable". We include many drug studies funded by the drug companies themselves (and this is generally noted in the text). The EUFIC website does seem to represent the scientific consensus. --sciencewatcher (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I concur. It should also be noted that EUFIC receives funding from the EU, so it isn't just funded by the industry. Sakkura (talk) 21:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
So we need an opinion about the validity of three sources:
Thx. And I ask the above mentioned editors to stay out of this. Just let third parties decide.—JCAla (talk) 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Uninvolved user response. These three sources are all quite different. EUFIC is likely to receive much more industry funding than EU funding. It can't really be regarded as scientifically neutral, but is probably OK for an external link. The link should be described correctly. A university interview with an alumnus is not a suitable source for a science article. Moreover, it's not clear that the subject of the article is talking about dietary consumption of glutamate. American Family Physician is a regular peer-reviewed journal. The issue about using it in a science article is whether an individual article should be regarded as a primary source. Ideally, we are looking for reviews of the literature rather than individual items in the literature. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your time, Itsmejudith. If EUFIC (although not reliable) is ok as an external link, then links to NGOs such as Truth in Labeling should be also, right? Because such links have been removed by the above users. Truth in Labeling are an NGO campaigning for MSG to be labeled on food containing it.
Also, the university interview was done with John Olney, who was elected to the Institute of Medicine of the United States National Academy of Sciences. He has campaigned for greater regulation of monosodium glutamate (MSG), aspartame and other excitotoxins for over twenty years. So he is talking about MSG but I see your point that it does not become evident in the linked interview. What about the following source (as a better replacement source)? It was released by the United States General Accounting Office and states:
"Dr. Olney said that large doses of aspartame or combined dosesdoses of aspartame and monosodium glutamate, another food additive, could cause brain damage in infants and young children. He claimed that, based on research done by himself and others, L-aspartic acid (a component of aspartame) exhibited the same toxic response in the brainas exhibited by monosodium glutamate in earlier studies. He stated that the neurotoxicity (poisonous to the nervous system) of the substances is augmented when they are combined. ... Regarding Dr. Olney's objections, the Bureau of Foods ... noted that L-aspartic acid and monosodium glutamate can act similarly and are of about equal potency but did not agree that their effect would be augmented when combined." USGAO source p 9-10
This should be a valid source. What do you say?
So the three issues to be considered are:
1 If EUFIC as an unreliable source is included under External Links, Truth in Labeling can be included also.
2 The USGAO report explicitly mentions the effects of monosodium glutamate as described by John Olney and the Bureau of Foods. It constitutes a reliable source and should not be removed when included into a short summary about health concerns in the main monosodium glutamate article.
3 Although the American Family Physician source may not be ideal, it is still considered valid and reliable and thus should not be removed.
Do you agree on these three points or on some of them?—JCAla (talk) 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I would say, regarding:
1). No, sources should be evaluated individually. Truth in Labeling home page says "This Web site is dedicated to people with problems that once defied medical diagnosis -- people who discovered that elimination of MSG from their diets let them be well," so they have a clear bias, and I note that many of the web pages there (all that I visited) lack references to any scientific material (see this, and [http://www.truthinlabeling.org/formulacopy.html this, which contains data from an unreferenced "canadian study". Clearly not reliable.
2). Yes, the USGAO report you mentioned explicitly mentions that Dr. Olney claimed that monosodium glutamate is harmful, and that he claimed that conclusion was based on studies done by himself and others. I think it is a primary source that should probably not be used for that reason, could only be used in a very limited way if at all, but it basically reliable in terms of the claims made by Dr. Olney. Whether or not those statements should be in the article on MSG is another question.
3). Yes, I think the site may be considered a reliable source, but this blub is not appropriate for the
WP:SYNTH. But that's another notice board. --Nuujinn (talk
) 09:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but American Family Physician is not the highest quality source, and if it contradicts higher quality medical secondary reviews, should not be used. WRT Tourette syndrome, the AFP physician printed several errors; it just isn't as high quality as some other medical sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I agree that it is not the best source and should not be used if better sources on the same topic are available. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
1) If a bias is reason for not including an NGO such as Truth in Labeling under External Links, EUFIC should not be included. An organization which evaluates the safety of food products, produced by some of its major funders is not a reliable source and not to be included. Either there are only reliable sources or sources with a bias are allowed. You cannot outrule the bias by one organization and allow the one by another. Agree?
2) Since there are scientists (who enjoy a very high prestige among some scientists) who consider mononatrium glutamate to have considerable health effects, these concerns should be mentioned (if only shortly, but nonetheless mentioned) in a summary about MSG health concerns. Agree? Such a new health concern section could read:
Health concerns
Main article:
Health effects research into Glutamic acid
A report from the
double-blind experimental design and the application in capsules because of the strong and unique after-taste of glutamates.[5]
On the other side, scientists like Dr. John Olney, who was elected to the Institute of Medicine of the United States National Academy of Sciences, stated that monosodium glutamate exhibits a toxic response in the brain.[11] Regarding Dr. Olney's findings about the neurotoxicity of monosodium glutamate the U.S. Bureau of Foods agreed that monosodium glutamate can act similarly as L-aspartic acid (a component of Aspartame) and both "are of about equal potency".[11] Health risks of MSG remain a subject of controversy among some experts.[11]
Do you consider that version appropriate?
—JCAla (talk) 15 September 2010 (UTC)
No, I don't, but my feeling is that it is better to have discussion of specific wording of the article on the article's talk page, rather than here. I will point out, however, that I think you are grossly misrepresenting the USGAO report, and suggest you might review
WP:SYNTH
, BTANB.
Regarding 1) above, no, I do not agree. Truth in Labeling is clearly not a reliable source, whether or not it is an NGO, and my opinion on that hasn't anything to do with their bias. The "evidence" presented there is not supported by references, and they have no standing as a reliable source in general--claims based on personal email, anonymous quotations, and unnamed studies are simply not reliable, and thus Truth in Labeling is no more reliable than my personal blog.
Regarding 2), No, but not because I believe that such negative health effect do not exist (aspartame gives me severe headaches, and msg is apparently linked to migraines in some of my friends). The question is what can be properly sourced, and the USGAO report you present does not support the claims in the text above. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, then we strongly disagree.
Regarding 1): Truth in Labeling does source many of the information they give. See here, here 2, or here 3. They use what you would call reliable scientific sources.
Regarding 2): How do I mispresent the USGAO study? They write: "He [Dr. Olney] claimed that, based on research done by himself and others, L-aspartic acid (a component of aspartame) exhibited the same toxic response in the brain as exhibited by monosodium glutamate in earlier studies. He stated that the neurotoxicity (poisonous to the nervous system) of the substances is augmented when they are combined." I summarized: "[S]cientists like Dr. John Olney, who was elected to the Institute of Medicine of the United States National Academy of Sciences, stated that monosodium glutamate exhibits a toxic response in the brain." (This is true and mentioned in the USGAO report.) The report further states: "Regarding Dr. Olney's objections, the Bureau of Foods ... noted that L-aspartic acid and monosodium glutamate can act similarly and are of about equal potency but did not agree that their effect would be augmented when combined." I summarized: "Regarding Dr. Olney's findings about the neurotoxicity of monosodium glutamate [should have added: and Aspartame] the U.S. Bureau of Foods agreed that monosodium glutamate can act similarly as L-aspartic acid (a component of Aspartame) and both "are of about equal potency"." (This is true and mentioned in the USGAO report also.)
You guys are very well organized around here. You know the possible effects of MSG as you stated yourself. Everyone makes their own choices in life and is responsible for them. If you are interested in a correct presentation of the issue then tell me how you would shortly summarize the concerns by some scientists about the health effects.—JCAla (talk) 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to answer all of this, but I think most of it isn't relevant to this noticeboard. You're here to ask for feedback about the reliability of sources, and you're getting responses. I'm sorry you don't like them, but that's how it goes sometimes. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Two questions: 1) why are primary sources being used in that article, and 2) why are such old sources being used? Per
WP:MEDRS, the sources should be secondary reviews, not primary sources, and there are plenty available at PubMed. See this Dispatch for help in locating the kinds of secondary reviews that should be used in medical articles-- using high-quality recent reviews will help avoid disputes. SandyGeorgia (Talk
) 18:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
This all sounds like cherry-picking. Observing the responses in brain tissue to glutamic acid (as described by Olney and the AAFP sources) does not mean that anyone who ingests glutamic acid is exposed to these harms. To make such claims you would need an experiment where it is proven beyond doubt that dietary GA actually crosses the blood-brain barrier. I therefore think this is a clear example of
WP:SYNTH. Also, please bear in mind that an article published in an AAFP journal by no means reflects the official opinion of that body! JFW | T@lk
18:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
This is pretty serious abuse of sources, as Jfdwolff has pointed out. The American Academy of Family Physicians article is about memantadine. A prescription drug. Olney's interview is about glutamate's neurotoxicity. Neither article is about MSG. Neither even mention MSG. It is generally agreed that glutamate is an excitotoxin, as Olney initially discovered. It is certainly not agreed (and not even contended by either source) that ingesting MSG leads to glutamate-induced neurotoxicity. This thread is way too tl;dr, but I'm deeply concerned by the sort of editing I'm perceiving here. MastCellTalk 21:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I think the discussion as to whether the sources are reliable is irrelevant, what is more relevant is that they are being misused in
no original research policy. Even if they were considered reliable they could not be used the way they are, they do not discuss MSG directly, but rather excess glutamate activity and its role in neurodegenerative diseases. The editor should wait for reliable sources to report on the neurotoxicity potential or lack thereof of MSG.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?
23:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
In the USGAO report the term monosodium glutamate (MSG) and its possible effect as described by Dr. Olney and the Bureau of Foods is explicitly mentioned. The American Family Physicians article had already been dropped as a source. It is very interesting that none of you has come up with a better suggestion how to include the serious concerns issued by scientists such as Dr. John Olney or Dr. Russell Blaylock and others. I have considered SandyGeorgia's suggestion about PubMed. Resulting from that research I would now propose the following as text and sources to be added to the health concern section:
On the other side, health risks of MSG remain a subject of controversy among some experts. One case study found that patients diagnosed with fibromyalgia syndrome for two to 17 years, who had all undergone multiple treatment modalities with limited success, had complete, or nearly complete, resolution of their symptoms within months after eliminating monosodium glutamate (MSG) or MSG plus aspartame from their diet.[12] Another study was conducted with self-identified monosodium glutamate (MSG)-sensitive subjects to determine whether they had a statistically significant difference in the incidence of their specific symptoms after ingestion of MSG compared with placebo. Headache, muscle tightness, numbness/tingling, general weakness, and flushing occurred more frequently after MSG than placebo ingestion.[13] Scientists like Dr. John Olney[11], who was elected to the Institute of Medicine of the United States National Academy of Sciences, and Dr. Russell Blaylock have campaigned for greater regulation of monosodium glutamate.
Sources are both from PubMed. Now, is there an agreement about these sources being used as proposed above to improve the MSG article's disputed neutrality?
—JCAla (talk) 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I fear that one of us is misunderstanding both the purpose of this noticeboard and the policy against
original research. This noticeboard's purpose is not to vet text for an article, that should happen on the article's talk page. You need to try to reach a consensus with other editors there regarding what the article text should be. Regarding this] and [this], I believe, without assessing their quality or value, that they are generally reliable. But they are primary sources, and thus need to be used with care, and we should seek instead to use high quality secondary sources. What is more troubling to me is that your summaries do not accurately reflect the papers' abstracts (I have not read these papers in their entirety). In the first, you fail to mention that the cohort was four patients, that the authors called for further study, and only claimed that elimination of MSG had "the potential for dramatic results in a subset of patients". In the second, you do not mention that the dose of MSG is pretty large nor do you mention that the subjects self-identified as MSG sensitive. It seems to me that your representation of these sources involves sweeping generalizations and pushes a particular point of view--one with with, ironically enough, I am sympathetic, although for which in my own searching about, I have yet to find high quality reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk
) 10:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Then you obviously did not read carefully what I wrote. I indeed mentioned that the subjects self-identified as MSG sensitive. The author of the first study was impressed by his/her findings that he/she called for further study. So that can be included yet makes no difference to the study's results. I further consider these sources reliable and high quality.—JCAla (talk) 17 September 2010 (UTC)
You are correct regarding the self identification, I have struck that part of my comment, please accept my apology for my mistake. But I stand by my assessment that in these summaries you are apparently engaged in OR and are also apparently not interested in presenting the materials at hand with
WP:IDHT. What you really need to make your point is a secondary source from a reliable source that assesses from reliable primary sources, but that's a topic for other venues. You have my opinion and that of others--the question is, what will you do with those? I will be interested to see. --Nuujinn (talk
JCAlahe the sources are an improvement as they are not synthesising but they are still primary sources. Primary sources can be considered reliable sources if used cautiously but secondary sources are generally considered better sources. This source and this source would probably be better choices of sources, rather than citing primary research studies. Here are other secondary sources and some more for review. Not all will be as reliable as one another, check publisher and author for quality of books if using as secondary sources in articles.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
No matter my opinion regarding primary and secondary sources ... thanks for the hint, Literaturegeek.—JCAla (talk) 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Independent Political Report
Is the Independent Political Report a reliable source for news about minor political parties in the United States? Its website says it "is dedicated to covering America’s third parties and independent candidates, and providing a forum for the intelligent discussion thereof. IPR has been linked to by major sites like Politico, The Washington Post, Politics1, The American Spectator, Reason Magazine, and The American Conservative." TFD (talk) 14:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Not RS. Articles do not appear to be signed. Editorial control does not appear to be in effect. Articles are primarily reprints of other news sources verbatim. Signed articles by accepted specialists would be okay. Unsigned articles do not appear to have any indication of oversight, verification, or editorial control. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Per above, depends on who wrote it and/or if it also appeared in more reliable source. Case by case basis cause has good stuff and has unreliable tripe. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't look like it's reliable in and of itself, though it could be used to locate sources that are.--Cúchullaint/c 21:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Original concept is published by myself Polar codes, it was found and incorporated by independent researcher into LZHAM data compressor. ... Polar codes are also mentioned by expert in industry Matt Mahoney in his Large Text Compression Benchmark. The site is long, search for Polar codes and you can find there an explanation. Explanation means recognition of novelty by industry expert. Mahoney do not explain other algorithms because they are known. I note that Polar codes is not an article. It is simple note in Wiki informing readers about one more way of entropy coding.
WP:RS, but I'll be happy to hear alternative views. Anybody? Dicklyon (talk
) 07:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
The chances that anyone leave a message here are the same as winning lottery. The user who voted for keeping the article already exists. Here the link to discussion Sebastian Garth nominated article for deletion but during discussion changed his opinion after I provided reference to Mahoney test inventory. C-processor (talk) 16:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
It's not clear what source Sebastian Garth accepted; is it the one we're discussing here, or is there any other? Dicklyon (talk) 05:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
No, they all are different from mine and first and second are different between each other.
LTCB definitely does not qualify as a reliable source--it falls squarely under
self-published sources. If you want to add info about polar codes, you need citations in reliable sources. The field of error coding, error fixing, etc. is widely discussed in a number of academic journals; if a citation cannot be found in an academic source, it's highly unlikely that the subject is important enough to merit inclusion in any article. Qwyrxian (talk
) 00:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually, from my search where I found the links above, I found an extremely large number of reliable sources discussing Polar Codes. I think they are indeed notable...just not C-processor's version. SilverserenC 02:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Right, different topic; not what we're discussing, just same name. Dicklyon (talk) 05:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Etymonline.com
Is Etymonline.com considered a reliable source? It was used as a source on the
The'FortyFive'
15:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, the list shows a few dozen respectable sources, but individual entries don't cite them, so it is essentially impossible to verify which source was used for an entry. I'd have my doubts unless I saw some scholarly wp:reliable sources treating the website as credible. LeadSongDogcome howl! 20:53, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
The author appears to have written books on local history and worked as a journalist, but I don't see any particular credentials in this field.[55] The page does, however, feature an image of an attractive woman draped in a thin silk shawl for some reason. I think there are probably better sources out there, perhaps we can use some of the ones he cites.--Cúchullaint/c 21:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Makes sense. The article in question needs more and better sources all around. ---
The'FortyFive'
23:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
In this case the site doesn't give much more information than probably appears in a good dictionary. I'll check out the OED.--Cúchullaint/c 01:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
It's a long-standing curated site that I've been using since before I discovered wikipedia 5 years ago. I see no reason to not treat it as a
WP:RS, even though as many note it does not always make clear what source applies to what entries, and it doesn't have a lot beyond what's in other sources. It's just more accessible. Dicklyon (talk
) 04:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Bible
I am having a dispute on
Authors of the bible. Can anyone tell me if they think these two books are reliable sources: [56] and [57]RomanHistorian (talk
) 04:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, considering the first book's author has a wikipedia article, that one is likely reliable. Ditto for the second. Actually, the second author for the second book as well. I think both of those would count as reliable sources. Though other users are free to tell me if I am mistaken. SilverserenC 04:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
It looks like an area where there is disagreement in the sources; represent the alternative viewpoints fairly, with reasonable balance, and it should be OK. Fighting over which source to rely on isn't going to provide a resolution. Dicklyon (talk) 05:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I have done that but two other editors keep just reverting my changes to the mostly citation-less version and claiming that my sources are 'extreme' while citing no evidence or sources pointing to this. I thought that all legitimate sources were suppose to be treated the same, and no one was supposed to just ignore legitimate sources because they don't like what the sources say.RomanHistorian (talk) 05:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Zondervan is an "Evangelical publisher of Bibles" their academic publishing is in, "college and seminary textbooks". Now I'm assuming here that just because a press has a bent, doesn't mean that they subsume the quality of their publications to their bent, this is a reasonable assumption when they claim to publish academic works. So RS, but is it HQRS? Textbook publications only are not a good sign, textbooks tend not to convey original research as peer reviewed by academic readers prior to publication. The quality of the source would depend on the Author being a specialist, ie, having a research higher degree in theology, church history, history of the bible as a document. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
That is a fair point. But the article before had very few items cited. Are textbook citations not vastly preferable to no citations? Also, the books are not really textbooks but more of introductions to the Old and New Testaments written for amateurs. They are actually two of the best selling biblical criticism books on Amazon.com.RomanHistorian (talk) 05:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Citing any RS is preferable to citing no RS. The works status as High Quality RS in terms of FAC comes down to the specialist standing of the authors. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Can someone post their view of the sources on the discussion page of
Authors of the bible? The other editors seem to not care what I am saying.RomanHistorian (talk
) 05:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Note: I am extremely concerned about the other editors on the talk page, where i'm seeing things being thrown about like,
"You rely heavily on protestants who swore an oath to 'affirm agreement with the theological perspective presented in the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, the core doctrine of many conservative Presbyterian churches'. As a result, you removed all of the books that protestants don't accept!"
"RomanHistorian is quite ignorant of biblical scholarship"
"I don't think you can convincingly claim to be the champion of neutrality after removing all of the books that protestants do not accept in their canon."
"If you cannot recognize this distinction, perhaps you are too conservative to edit in a balanced manner."
These sorts of comments are deeply concerning me. SilverserenC 05:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
There have been a large number of personal attacks against me, mostly by these two. They call me ignorant, extreme, and unreliable. I offer to compromise and they will have none of it. Every compromised version of the article I offer is rejected and reverted, and none of my arguments (like these two books being reliable) are accepted by them.RomanHistorian (talk) 05:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I opened a case on the issue I am having (
Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-09-20/Authors of the Bible). If anyone can offer assistance it would be very much appreciated.RomanHistorian (talk
Resolved
![[28]](http://i2.squidoocdn.com/resize/squidoo_images/-1/lens1944434_120826166919191.jpg){kind=link}
![[39]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cooperbook.jpg){kind=link}
![[53]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Presence_of_Albanians_in_%22Greater_Albania%22.png){kind=link}
