Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 79

This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

An edit warring, IP-hopping editor from Romania keeps inserting the following image URLs into the article about Henri Coandă, saying that they are from the "Museum of Technology 'Dimitire Leonida' where part of Coanda archive is kept". I wonder what other editors think of these:

1. http://storage0.dms.go4it.ro/media/2/84/2031/7099030/4/aerodina-1932.jpg
2. http://www.agentia.org/img_editor/userfiles/image/Coanda/coanda%20foto%202.jpg
3. http://storage0.dms.go4it.ro/media/2/84/2031/7099030/3/aerodina-1956.jpg
4. http://www.agentia.org/img_editor/userfiles/image/Coanda/farfuria%20planuri%20coanda%20foto%204.jpg
5. http://storage0.dms.go4it.ro/media/2/84/2031/7099030/5/aerodina-1961-1965.jpg
6. http://storage0.dms.go4it.ro/media/2/84/2031/7099030/7/aerodina.jpg

Are these images at all useful as references? Can they be used as "External links" instead? Binksternet (talk) 01:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

These are clearly primary sources and as such not very useful for the article. (See

WP:PSTS

.) They are still under copyright. If they were not, they could serve as an illustration that in his later years Henri Coandă tried to develop a flying saucer, but only if this claim could be sourced otherwise (with a secondary or tertiary source).

Whether the links can be used as external links depends primarily on whether they are likely copyright violations. Even if they are not, we should not have a list of links to individual pictures. A link to a gallery might be OK, though. Hans Adler 15:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, these aren't even exactly primary sources. The 1932 jpg. ia actually a pieced together montage of several images from different eras. The mushroom (pilz) shaped thing is a 1930's Coanda patent for a Stationary propeller which is often represented as a flying saucer because it has that saucer shape. However it is an object which was meant to replace the prop of a conventional aircraft. The patent is available on espanet, I'll post it here later.Romaniantruths (talk) 03:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Those images are most interesting, but they all appear to relate to Coanda's later work on the "flying saucer" (efficient production of lift via a large massflow of low-speed air, using entrapment around a lenticular bbody by means of the Coanda effect). This does not appear, nor have I seen it claimed hereabouts, that his 1910 aircraft made use of the Coanda effect.

There is a claim that he first noticed the eponymous effect in relation to his aircraft, but that doesn't make these drawings relevant to the 1910 aircraft. You could make as much of a claim about my teapot. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• those images are not related with Coanda-1910, but are part of article about Henri Coanda and his all inventions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.230.155.42 (talk • contribs)

These images show up in the Henri Coanda article in references to claims that he built a jet powered flying saucer for the nazis. The poster asserts that it failed the wind-tunnel tests because the 12 jet engines it needed (Jumos, I think)were not available as they were needed for jet fighters. Why working jet engines would be needed for wind-tunnel tests, he doesn't say.

The Large Image in the first jpg dates to a 1938 patent [1] for a Coanda effect propeller. I believe the other images are of a much later vintage(I'd be willing to give great odds that They post-date June 24, 1947 [Kenneth Arnold]if anyone wants to wager). It is true that Coanda made announcements during the 50's and 60's about a flying saucer craft he was working on that would be incredibly cheap and have an amazing performance envelope. It was the Moller flying car of it's day (if you know what I mean). Romaniantruths (talk) 04:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• the images show up as a overall inventions of Coanda, not (necessary) related with any Nazi flying saucer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.230.155.42 (talk • contribs)

The images appear to me to be unsupportable as references or external links because they are collages of many different images. One is a snapshot of a museum display, but has no encyclopedic explanation associated with it. I continue to believe that these image URLs have no place in Coanda articles. Binksternet (talk) 14:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The website: http://www.the-numbers.com/
Data type: Film budgets
Article where issue as arisen: Resident Evil: Afterlife
Relevant discussion: Talk:Resident_Evil:_Afterlife#Budget

Background

The Numbers offers film information such as grosses, DVD sales, budgets etc and is increasingly being used as a source on film articles. The Wikipedia Film Project currently accept it as a source for box office data:

Context

The issue has arisen in the discussion at the Afterlife page that it should be the preferred source for the budget, because it offers a more precise amount ($57.5 million[afterlife 1]) ahead of the more widely quoted figure of $60 million (The NY Times—"about $60 million"^{[afterlife 2]};the LA Times—"nearly $60 million"^{[afterlife 3]}). Variety, The Hollywood Reporter and The Wrap all carry the $60 million figure too.

Concern

The ambiguous statements of the LA Times and New York Times are certainly consistent with The Numbers, in that $57.5 million could quite easily be "about $60 million" or "nearly $60 million", but they don't back up the figure directly. Nearly $60 million could just as easily be $59 million. My problem with The Numbers is that it has form for misquoting its budget sources. In many instances it simply doesn't give sources for budgets, but here are a few examples of it misquoting the sources it does give for some of its budgets:

Robin Hood ($210 million). Quotes the New York Times which says "...more than $200 million..." [3]
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen ($210 million). Quotes Variety that says "north of $200 million" [4]
Disney's A Christmas Carol ($190 million). Quotes the LA Times which says "nearly $200-million" [5]
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button ($160 million). Quotes the The Hollywood Reporter which says "...at least $150 million..." and Variety which says "$150 million-$170 million" [6]

It seems to draw from secondary sources, and what's worse is that it seems to make up its own numbers. At least in the cases quoted readers can clearly see its misquoting information, but there is a danger that in the cases it doesn't provide sources its estimates will be regarded as factually correct.

My view

The website clearly doesn't seem to have primary sources when it comes to budget information so draws on previously published information. It is demonstrably unreliable when it comes to publishing information from its various sources, so I don't think it should considered as a reliable source for budget information. Betty Logan (talk) 12:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Other views

There is quite appreciable evidence that no numbers are accurate (vide the number of lawsuits about what are, or are not, "net profits.") Where it is clear that studios do not accurately know how much a film cost, there is no reason to dispute any figures at all, as long as readers are informed that all figures are "estimates" of some sort. Collect (talk) 18:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

That isn't actually the issue at hand. Estimates in this capacity are qualified as "expert opinion" and are permitted on Wikipedia—the question is over which sources are legitimate for reporting such opinion. The New York Times is valid for reporting such estimates, but me publishing the same estimate on my own persornal blog isn't. My contention isn't that it is not reliable because it simply offers different numbers, but because it presents numbers that contradict the sources it gives which calls its fact checking policy into question. Betty Logan (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

From what I have seen, the NYT is no more authoritative than, say, Rotten Tomatoes is. All such estimates are pure guesses especially since court cases have shown that the studios do not even know costs. There are, essentially, no "facts" which can be checked. No "primary sources" exist. None. Collect (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The New York Times is a reliable source for reporting, which is what RS addresses. RS does not address accuracy. For instance, the NY Times can be trusted to accurately report a viewpoint by a medical professional. The validity of that opinion comes to down to the expertise and qualifications of that professional—which is a separate issue—and it has no impact on the NY Times as a reliable source, so what you are saying in regards to the NY Times is not correct. The movie industry doesn't release budget statements, but there are industry writers who report estimates. It is not Wikipedia's job to decide who is qualified to make those estimates, and therefore not our place to say which estimates are valid or not—just like it's not our place to decide what is a valid medical opinion or not—since that is determined by the esteem in which that person is placed by their field, so I'll pose the question again: is The Numbers a reliable source for publishing legitimate industry estimates? Betty Logan (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Is the following Master's thesis, published by a press called VDM considered a reliable source on the topic of Longevity myths? Robert Young, AFRICAN-AMERICAN LONGEVITY ADVANTAGE: MYTH OR REALITY?: A Racial Comparison of Supercentenarian Data. I will admit upfront that my view is that the article on "longevity myths" is an original synthesis. The author of the afore mentioned book, who is also an editor here, maintains that it is not and cites his own master's thesis. As you can imagine there is also a thread related to this at the COI/N - Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Ryoung122_on_Longevity_myths. I originally told Mr. Young that master's thesis are not considered reliable sources in general, but he asked for confirmation on that as well.Griswaldo (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

VDM does not adequately check works published.

Was the Masters Thesis by Research?

From which University?

Was the Masters Thesis accepted as an element in the award of a degree?

If the answers are Yes, A Research Accredited University, Yes, then it is a reliable source. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Fifelfoo that VDM doesn't have strong editorial oversight, but I don't agree that MA theses from research universities are reliable sources. There have been previous discussions about MA thesis and PhD dissertations—see e.g. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_14#Dissertations.3F and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_26#Masters_Theses. I don't think there's a strong and lasting consensus about the use of these types of sources, partially because people with knowledge of graduate study understand that theses and dissertations can vary widely in quality, and the oversight of theses/dissertations differs wildly by institution and department. The best advice, I think, is "handle with care"—and if the source in question makes an argument that's outlandish, then it shouldn't be used until the thesis is published with a reliable press, or reworked into a peer-reviewed article, academic monograph, or some other type of source normally considered reliable. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for expanding. I was inadvertently injecting my expectation that Masters (Research) Theses would be externally examined as they are in my system. In relation to the production of humanities knowledge, as long as they're externally examined, or examined internally at a top tier research university, and as long as the MA programme is 2 years separate study, research (not an automagical "top-up" year), I'm reasonably happy. VDM doesn't mean anything other than a more readily available copy of the thesis. If the thesis' own examination meets reliability criteria, then the thesis should be okay. Providing more detail here will help us in detail evaluate this work (Originating University and Department, length of degree, if the degree was research, if they externally examine if you can find, etc etc etc). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I agree with Akhilleus, and especially they should not be used other than for their exact subject, and if better sources are available. However they can provide useful summaries of other scholarship on an obscure subject, which may be hard to find elsewhere. Johnbod (talk) 02:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The issue here is that a Wikipedia editor, and author of the master's thesis, asserts that "longevity myths" are a cohesive subject matter and uses his own MA thesis to source that claim, but fails to produce other sources to corroborate. I don't want to get into the content issues too much, but a couple of us think the current entry is both OR and listcruft, which is why the discussion is going on. Further input would be appreciated.Griswaldo (talk) 02:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Supplying the requested detail can allow RS/N to determine if the source is reliable. MAs are not considered reliable for the establishment of new or original subjects of research: originality is not part of the ambit of masters research. As such an MA could never be reliable on Wikipedia for the establishment of the existence of an object of encyclopedic inquiry existing. Take any OR questions to

) 03:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your input on this mater.Griswaldo (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo is correct. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm planning to write a article about the History of the Parish of Aycliffe, a area now made up of Newton Aycliffe, School Aycliffe and Aycliffe Village. I'm trying to gather some sources together to get a basis. Anyway I've found a book on Google Books, named "The history and antiquities of the county palatine of Durham" from 1857 and it explains the history of the Parish's name on page 524. I've never really used books sources and I don't know if this is reliable or not. Any help or advice with this will be greatly appreciated. Thanks --George2001hi (Discussion) 21:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I see no problem with the source, other than the fact that it is old. But sometimes you have to use old sources because they are the best you got.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

A downside of Google Books is that the material available is heavily weighted towards old sources. This can, and often does, lead to Wikipedia articles containing obsolete information and discarded theories. There is nothing wrong with you citing this book but you should make an effort to locate more recent sources too. Zero^talk 03:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Just a side remark in the form of a sweeping generalization, but for anyone gathering sources on old English parishes, there is often a lack of modern material which adds anything to 19th century work anyway. I make this remark because I think it at least means that the above approach is quite a reasonable starting point. If there are newer sources, as there sometimes are, then great. You can sometimes find references to newer publications on things like local history websites or county archives websites. Might I also suggest British History Online as a place to browse? And there are publications such as the Surtees Society's for this region.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Excellent points and suggestions. As long as everything is clearly referenced it's easy for other editors to note and possibly replace out-dated material with more up-to-date stuff. If we think of articles as 'works in progress' there's no problem. Baby steps to making a better article. It's kinda fun actually hunting for better sources and seeing an article grow in quality. Another good resource is

Archive.org - lots of freely downloadable pre-1920s books there to get an article started.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk

) 09:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all for the advice, I'll try to find a more recent source and if I can't then this one will do. Thanks --George2001hi (Discussion) 10:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

www.visionofbritain.org.uk allows you to search by parish and find all the history. Magnificent website. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I would not say "all of the history" but it is a good resource also. Well noted. It also gives further reading (much of which, as usual, is pre 20th century). Another source which varies in quality a lot depending on what county you are looking at is http://www.genuki.org.uk . (For some counties it gives more detail than the Vision website, but I do not think this will apply to Aycliffe.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone confirm if http://www.wes.org is a reliable news source? It seems to me like just a commercial "evaluation" website, not a credible news agency! Is this really a credible source for encyclopedic content?? It is used in a bunch of articles on wikipedia. Monsig (talk) 05:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

After looking at the website and the Google meta describer ("World Education Services is a not-for-profit organization specializing in foreign credential evaluation") I would have to say that it is not a reliable news source.

Contrast this with IPS Inter Press Service whose Google meta describer states "IPS is the world´s leading provider of information on global issues, backed by a network of journalists in more than 100 countries". Even there I had to go find an independent reliable source to show the validity of using IPS Inter Press Service as a reference in an article: "IPS (Inter Press Service) is probably still the largest and most credible of all 'alternatives' in the world of news agencies." (Boyd-Barrett, Oliver and Rantanen, Terhi; eds. (1998) The Globalization of News London: Sage Publication)

Even World Education Services doesn't call itself a "news source" so why should we?--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

This query was a bit misleading. The source that Monsiq objects to is not the domain wes.org, but rather World Education News & Reviews, which is published by the organization that owns the domain. The "about" page for that source is http://www.wes.org/ewenr/aboutWENR.htm . This is a monthly newsletter publication (formerly in print, but more recently online) that has an editor and whose articles have named authors who generally cite sources. Two of the specific articles that have been cited in Wikipedia are http://www.wes.org/ewenr/05oct/feature.htm and http://www.wes.org/ewenr/00july/feature.htm . Current contents of this newsletter require registration: [7]. --Orlady (talk) 14:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

As noted at the top of the page, it is always helpful to know the article and the edit that is in question, since reliability is generally not an all or nothing phenomenon. In this case, it appears that the article is

WP:RS

.

"World Education News & Reviews" is a newsletter associated with a not-for-profit company advising on credentialling. It appears to have a "masthead" and info about contributing, but the links do not work on their website, so it is hard to know the extent of their editorial control. On the other hand, the newsletter has been cited extensively by others which is a good sign.

George Brown, who wrote the article, has a PhD and peer-reviewed publications in the field.[9] so even if there are doubts about the newsletter then he probably qualifies as a

self-published expert

.

Finally, here is another, clearly reliable [news source, making the same point about the Instantdegrees-Buxton University,. --Slp1 (talk) 15:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like this one can be resolved as: "It doesn't really matter whether the source is reliable or not... because there are better (clearly reliable) sources available for the same information. Just use those instead." Blueboar (talk) 16:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not arguing against a connection between Buxton and instantdegrees.com (there seems to be enough evidence for that from reliable sources) I am asking for evidence that they are also connected to Canterbury and Ashford, as is claimed in the "article".Monsig (talk) 14:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

In

, the statement:

• No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a
  dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists
  , which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.

is sourced to:

• Julie Brigham-Grette; et al. (September 2006). "Petroleum Geologists' Award to Novelist Crichton Is Inappropriate" (PDF).
  Eos
  . 87 (36). Retrieved 2007-01-23. The AAPG stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming.
• DiMento, Joseph F. C.; Doughman, Pamela M. (2007). Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren. The MIT Press. p. 68.
  ISBN 9780262541930
  .

1. I don't think the first is a reliable source: it is a statement by AMQUA, but not within their field of expertise, hence not falling within
   WP:SPS
   .
2. I don't know about the second; MIT Press does have non-fiction and semi-fiction imprints, and I don't know where this book fits (or what it says, as I don't have a copy.)

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Arthur I don't see how the first cite is even relevant to the statement, and it's from a source that predates the supposed event (2006 < 2007). Can you clarify that part. As I see it it fails verification so there is no RS issue. No idea about the second.Griswaldo (talk) 19:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The book is published under "Environmental Studies and Nature" - "Environmental Politics & Policy", not as part of "semi-fiction".[10] I do not know if they even have such a category. TFD (talk) 19:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Climate Change is certainly a reliable source. It's published by the MIT press. DiMento is a double professor at UC Irvine and Director of the Newkirk Center for Science and Society, and Doughman is an assistant professor of environmental studies at UI Springfield. The chapter in question has been written by Naomi Oreskes, Professor of History and Science Studies at UCSD. I found the manuscript for the chapter here. I think the statement used is "In the past several years, all of the major scientific bodies in the United States whose membership’s expertise bears directly on the matter have issued reports or statements that confirm the IPCC conclusion", which is somewhat different from our version (it's positive, not negative, and it's limited to the US, major, and societies with appropriate expertise). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

So, it's reliable, and doesn't support the statement made in our article. Thanks. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec as I got a phone call while writing) This is RS/N, not WP:NPOV/N, so I will only address the question of formal reliability here and make my proposal for fixing the verification failure on the article talk page.

1. Seems to be about as reliable as it gets for this kind of thing, short of a peer-reviewed publication.
2. A snippet from the foreword: "The original idea for the book evolved from a program of the Newkirk Center for Science and Society at the University of California, Irvine (UCI). The Center supported book production throughout its many stages. [...] We are responsible for the analysis, but it is a more complete treatment thanks to the serious, substantive, and detailed comments that the anonymous MIT reviewers supplied." So this is a peer-reviewed book. Hans Adler 19:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

So why are we even here? Does Arthur Rubin aver that the statement "No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion" is unsourced? And will he then insist that it be deleted? That would gut the section on dissenting opinions; should it be left, empty, or removed? Either way the reader will be left uninformed.

As to the narrower question of whether the AAPG has dropped their prior dissent, the organization's own statement would seem sufficiently reliable, But this same user

original research

.)

There is no basis to dispute "no scientific body [dissents]" To disprove it would take only a single example, but none has been provided. (Except for the NIPCC, whose qualifications as a scientific body are disputed.) The opponents of this statement would have the proponents prove a negative, all the while denying the obvious arithmetic. (Given one dissenting organization, take away one, and the answer is: SYNTHESIS!!). As there is currently no basis for dispute of the actual fact, and until there is, there is no need to require a higher quality source. To insist on such a requirement would make the article incomplete regarding a material fact. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, no source has yet been presented for the statement. I don't significantly doubt it, but we cannot have unsourced statements in Wikipedia articles. And I'm posting here, because there is no sensible discussion of my arguments there. Their "arguments" seems to be that

1. The statement is true (i.e., if it weren't I could provide a countering reference), so we don't need a reference.
2. We can combine
   1. AQMUA's statement that "AAPG aligns itself with Crichton’s views, and stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming."
   2. AAPG's revision of that statement (not sourced in the article, but I could probably find it.)

   to produce:

   • "No scientific society denies human-induced effects on global warming," or the rephrasing here.

Perhaps an article RfC would have been more appropriate, but it was suggested that I come here.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It said of national or international standing. I'm sure one could probably quite easily find a society in some school that said the opposite.

Dmcq (talk

) 23:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't intend to imply otherwise. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

On the combination of sources, we have historically relied upon

WP:MATH (as in 1-1=0) ‒ Jaymax✍

05:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm finding it very difficult to see what your point is. Is it that you want the statement rephrased to something like

In 2006 the petroleum society was the only one in the world with a dissenting opinion. In 2007 there was no remaining society in America dissenting since the petroleum society changed their views.

Perhaps you are also saying that one or other of these statements should be removed because there is some requirement that the people who wrote them be eminent in both statistics and climate research and have put the statements forward for review in scientific papers? Not just be some ordinary national level scientific society or some professor writing a book?

Dmcq (talk

) 12:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Arthur, I am currently having the following problem:

• You posted to the reliable sources noticeboard to ask a question that, frankly, appeared a bit strange. This noticeboard doesn't get many enquiries whether a book published by a huge academic publisher is a reliable source, or a newspaper published by a professional organisation. When such sources come up here the question is usually not whether they are formally reliable, but whether they are more or less reliable than some other source.
• After this I would have hoped for an acknowledgement from you that the problem does not lie in the formal reliability of the sources.
• After this proposal on the article talk page, which I think can be easily seen is a good-faith attempt to address the valid concern that you have brought up here (i.e. technically in the wrong place because it's a SYN/OR concern), I expected your response on the same talk page. I am distressed to see that while you continued to be active here, it took you almost a day to make your next comment on that page. What is worse is that your comment there, while formatted as a contribution to my proposal, does not address it at all and in fact completely changes the topic! [11]
• In fact, you chose to respond to my proposal here at the article talk page with a comment here that conveniently ignored my argument concerning the explicit sourced statement about US bodies, and wrote: "And I'm posting here, because there is no sensible discussion of my arguments there."
• As far as I am concerned it's OK to bring something to a not entirely relevant noticeboard in order to get additional eyes in, so long as it happens within reason. What is not OK is when the line to forum shopping is crossed, as seems to have happened here.

I am not going to discuss my proposal here, because the key question is original research, not reliable sources. And I ask you not to continue discussing it here. Take it to

13:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The query was properly posed here. It was a question relating to reliable sources, and, as such, in fact, this is quite the proper noticeboard for the query. Nor is it thus proper to aver that the query is not proper here. Thanks. Collect (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Please restate the query in your own words so that I can understand what makes you believe it is in the right place. (In Arthur Rubin's original formulation it seems to me that it was a combination of a query with an obvious answer and a query that doesn't belong here.) Thank you. Hans Adler 14:37, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

My understanding on the Talk page was that Arthur had two related concerns - (1) the combination of data from two sources per

WP:MATH, which doesn't belong here, and (2) on the reliability (RS) of the source for "The AAPG stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming.". Quoting Arthur: "The AQMUA editorial letter is not a clearly reliable source" and "it's clearly an editorial, they would have no reason to fact-check". I was one of those who, not making progress on the Talk page, suggested he bring it here. ‒ Jaymax✍

21:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Physicist Harold Lewis resigned from the American Physical Society recently, in protest over what he calls the "appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change." The Register reported his resignation here, and I added this cite to Lewis's Wikibio diff, replacing an earlier cite to a blog. The originally posted copy of Lewis's letter appears to be here, and his protest resignation has received considerable notice, for example this blog lists six newspapers carrying the story online. The Register's story appears to me to be the best quality of the lot, and is written by the only reporter who apparently contacted Lewis for comments.

Editor William M. Connolley reverted, commenting "happily, all that has to go - el rego isn't an RS". I asked him to specify his objections here and here, but he hasn't yet replied.

This diff is an accurate quote of Lewis's letter (though the selection could be improved), and this Register story is (to my eye) better-than-average journalism.

Can this Register article be considered a Reliable Source for Lewis's resignation? Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Please note archived discussion, which is on topic, but may not be conclusive enough.--SPhilbrickT 17:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw it earlier, but thought it was old and inconclusive. (I probably should have referenced it, but I'm new at this; first RS/N  ;-)) Since then, the Register has become more active in reporting & commenting on environmental news. What I've seen of that has been respectable. Pete Tillman (talk) 17:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Just don't use it as a source on Wikipedia itself...--Daggerstab (talk) 20:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The Register is definitely an RS for computer security and privacy issues, and I'd support citing it alonside other sources if the Register went into the most detail on this resignation letter. But anyway, it looks like the editing has moved past that point, and the article now cites multiple secondary and primary sources for discussion of the letter. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, though I may add the Register article back as a cite, if it still seems appropriate. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• just in the future always note that the Register as a source will almost always be reverted on sight mainly due to their articles attacking Wikipedia. Thus it is largely distrusted regardless of whether its relaible or not. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 13:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Which appears fairly ridiculous to those editors who had been reading The Register for professional reasons years before WP came along. It's true that they love to skewer sacred cows ( the iPhone is another ), but that, or having a picture of a buzzard on the cover doesn't make them non-RS. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

"'the Register as a source will almost always be reverted on sight mainly due to their articles attacking Wikipedia." I'd call that vandalism; being critical of Wikipedia is not a valid reason to discount a source, obviously. Dlabtot (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Here are the links: http://www.sterlinghospitals.com/ and http://drdo.gov.in/drdo/labs/DIPAS/English/index.jsp?pg=homebody.jsp&labhits=710 .

Sterling Hospitals is a large organization, possessing official medical and scientific standard certifications, and who's work is supervised by various entities, including governmental ones. If it publishes something, it must be approved by various supervising bodies. The same goes for DIPAS, which is a governmental organization and a research facility. Its publications are approved by multiple supervisors before they appear on their official site. Please comment. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 12:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

For context - there has been some concern at

McGeddon (talk

) 13:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks,

McGeddon. The correct talk link would probably be Talk:Prahlad_Jani#DIPAS_and_Sterling_Hospitals. And we are speaking about 15 days under supervision in laboratory environment in 2010, if people are too lazy to read it all in the Reminders. lol. -- Nazar (talk

) 13:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely with McGeddon. I also replied on the Prahlad Jani talkpage [12]. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Although I do appreciate your input, guys, I think we need some more neutral opinions here. Both

) 12:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

A self-publishing hospital is clearly not reliable enough for that kind of

WP:REDFLAG claim. Hans Adler

13:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

McGeddon and Hans Adler are correct here; it does not qualify as a

WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk)

22:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks everyone. That should be enough, I believe. -- Nazar (talk) 14:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Sulmues is bent on using a 19th century source (from 1872) to "prove" that the town of

) 21:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing it here, Athenean. In the current version written by me, I clearly describe how "John Murray, a British book travel writer" sees the city in the 19th century [15]. What I have a hard time understanding is why we would remove old sources, when we have no new ones on how a town looked in the 19th century. My opinion is that we would of course replace an old source as soon as a new one becomes available. Wikipedia works like that: it's the best world possible. As of today. If you or anyone else tomorrow bring a more contemporary source that will, of course, be more reliable and will strike the reader as such, please feel free to remove my source and to enter the better and newer one. But why remove immediately old sources, when they can give us some information on the town's articles, when they can give us the flair of the past? Especially when the source is in English and clearly researcheable from the reader. Thank you for your attention.--Sulmues ^(talk) 21:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

When will you understand that 19th century travelers are not

talk

) 21:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I see a lot of contemporary travel books entered in Wikipedia as references. "Bradt travel" for example is everywhere. The Murrays travelbooks have been classics in the 19th century like Bradt is today. The point is that you will deny me every 19th century source, just on the ground that they are old, even if I bring you the censuses from that century. You will just tell me that they are too old. Censuses in the 19th century can't be done a posteriori though. --Sulmues ^(talk) 21:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

As a totally uninvolved admin, I'd think that unless Murray had an agenda, it would be entirely appropriate to mention how he perceived the town. That, and no more, and no conclusions to be drawn from it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! That and that only will be said. Unfortunately I'm being edit-warred there [16]. --Sulmues ^(talk) 22:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I should add that the source uses language to describe the town such as "the filthy streets, comfortless houses, and wild-looking population proclaim the Albanian town" [17]. That is just soooooo 19th century. I mean, come on. Is this the kind of source we should be using here?

talk

) 22:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You need to read 19th century language with some caution. "Wild" simply means "non-civilized by 19th century British standards". The wording that we use in Wikipedia today can be slightly different. Good Articles such as

Teuta of Illyria which use sources such as Polybius don't use Polybius language either, but still successfully source from him.--Sulmues ^(talk

) 22:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course, you need to be cautious about this kind of source. But the description quoted by Athenean says as much about Murray and his culture as it does about the place he visited, and I think most readers will "get" that.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

All he says is "the Albanian town", he doesn't say anywhere that it is populated by ethnic Albanians. He could just mean "Albanian" in a strictly geographical sense, i.e. that it is in what they referred to in the 19th century as "Albania". Many older sources refer to

talk

) 22:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not know if it should be used, all I am saying is that it may be used. I am aware of no guidance on age of sources; clearly you try for the most recent possible reputable sources, but I've used even 18th century sources in FA's, simply because you take what you can get. Whether the source should be used is a matter to be discussed among the editors who work on that article.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Considering that we have plenty of contemporary works I really don't see a reason why a 19th century traveler should be preffered, especially when the terminology was diferrent that time.Alexikoua (talk) 23:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Alexikoua we could add Mann's contemporary source that still says predominantly Albanian speaking, so you can't avoid that issue.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 23:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Why not use that source then (either on its own or in addition to the other one if absolutely necessary)?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I am getting the impression this is one of those Balkan ethnic things that sensible editors run away from screaming. Either way, I have no opinion as to whether it should be used, I merely opine that it can be used, as set forth above.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this. In other words Athenean is not quite right to question this IF the ONLY problem is that it is "old". However, I see Athenean does indeed have other concerns such as whether the author concerned was really talking about Albanian in the same way it would be understood today. Indeed such ethnic terms are not always clear, rarely stable, and never have been. That would be a content discussion best left to those who know the subject though I am afraid.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

PRIMARY by non expert not reliable. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not necessarily disagree, but I prefer Wehwalt's wording. The question for me, which I believe is a content question, is whether knowing what an Albanian town is would be a subject requiring expertise or not. Obviously for example, if an article needs to mention whether a building was standing in the 19th century, a 19th century travel writer would be fine?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you need to be a specialist to conduct ethnodemography? Yes, yes you do. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I understand your point and I tend to agree with it. The reason your remark might not be obvious to all is because it assumes that calling a town Albanian requires "conducting ethnography". I do agree that this is probably correct, but then this agreement requires an opinion about this particular content. The content argument is (I think) that this ethnic term in that period is not a simple and clear terminology, like some ethnic or national terms are in some periods. Do you agree with that summary?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Ethnic identity as a phenomena and as an object of social study is sufficiently complex that it requires expertise to untangle. This is more so in the Balkans. This is more so in the 19th Century. This is doubly more so in the Balkans in the 19th Century. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

That seems reasonable in this case.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• Not RS. Also, if the book is used to proved that the town was Albanian it is original research. TFD (talk) 03:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

TFD, just on terminology, "original research" is not a problem when we are talking about sources. What WP does not want is original research by Wikipedians publishing for the first time on Wikipedia. Perhaps what you mean is that this would be a "primary source" which means more or less original research outside Wikipedia. Primary sources can be used, but that does not mean Athenean is wrong to question the source. I think the explanations most relevant are those of Wehwalt and Fifelfoo above and I think you probably are saying the same thing as Fifelfoo? See

WP:PRIMARY. Does that make sense?--Andrew Lancaster (talk

) 07:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I would like to point out that any 19th century source must be used with caution even if it by an accredited scholar or academic. The reason is simple-the theories they used have since been disproved or replaced and some studies were as much for propaganda as they were for science. Sensationalism, tabloid like articles, and finally Yellow journalism were common in many papers of the day. As the

) 18:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not think this is a valid generalization. It depends on the subject. 19th century sources are often very good, and need to be used for some subjects. Not all of them were sensationalist journalism. Having said that I can sympathize with the other concerns being raised above by Alexikoua and Fifelfoo, which revolve around this being a subject requiring some expertise.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Remember when we say "19th century" we are talking about 1801 to 1900. Much of the good quality stuff came near the end of that period. Phrenology (1810-1840) is a prime example of the quality of the science being done in the early part of that century.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you mean but I think it depends what field you are working in. For some fields what you are saying is right. Just for example there have been a few questions about things like British genealogy and parish histories lately. The old art of antiquarian document collecting was already going strong in the early 1800s, and some (not all of course) of the better sources from the 1700s are still important sources today because old documents and stories sometimes disappear, and also sometimes fields of study go out of fashion leaving few people or publishing houses to work on even secondary sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• The source is dubious at best. It's a non-expert writing in the 19th century, so two major strikes against it being a
  WP:UNDUE - why would Wikipedia care what his opinions were on this topic? Jayjg ^(talk)
  21:53, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Uploaded Primary Source PDF files as Reference

Primary sources are discouraged, but assuming there is a legitimate primary source, is there a rule that says that a primary source uploaded to a wikipedia page cannot be used as a reference? I'm told there is such a rule but I haven't seen it. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

To be more specific, the file is a signed court document. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 22:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Court documents are highly discouraged for a number of reasons. If the case is notable, one should be able to find a second party discussing it. Collect (talk) 22:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

There are limited situations where primary sources (such as court documents) are appropriate. However it is very easy to misuse them... a lot depends on specifically what you want to use one for. I suggest that you read and fully understand WP:No original research before attempting to use one. Court documents have a very limited range of situations where they can be used appropriately, and a huge range of situations where their use would be inappropriate. So... extreme caution is advised. Blueboar (talk) 23:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, there seems to be a consensus in the matter that the court documents are necessary in this instance. I dloaded the document from an external website, uploaded them to a wikipedia page (so the reference would be there if the external site changed), and then used the wiki pdf page as the reference. I noted the original source on the wikipedia page. The question is whether that is improper, and I should only use the original source as the reference rather than the wiki pdf. Thanks. SpecialKCL66 (talk) 23:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing on Wikipedia is a

original research. --Orange Mike | Talk

13:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

We could probably give you a more definitive answer if you were to tell us what the court document is, where you got it from, and how you intend to use it (in which article and in support of what statement). Blueboar (talk) 13:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Something else to consider... looking your edit history, I am guessing that you want to use this document in a BLP (Biography of Living People) article. Please read

WP:BLP, as there are extra restrictions on what can and can not be used in BLPs. Blueboar (talk

) 17:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

This question is potentially different from anything we have considered before. It all depends on what you mean by "signed". Our normal concern is that if a citation of a document points to a web site other than the organization that wrote or published the document, then the web site must be reliable, because otherwise the document might have been altered. However, we have never discussed documents with digital signatures (and where the

certification authority is reliable and the class of digital certificate is intended for serious matters). In this case, the authenticity of the document would not be in question, no matter where it was hosted. Jc3s5h (talk

) 17:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• What is the url of the source in question? http://patterico.com/files/2010/05/OKeefe-Factual-Basis-Final-Signed-Version.pdf -- In other words, this blog: http://patterico.com
• In which article is the source being used? James_O'Keefe
• What is the exact statement in the article that the source is supporting? "The government later confimed there was no evidence O'Keefe intended to commit any felony."[18]
• Where is the relevant talk page discussion, if any? [19] Dlabtot (talk) 20:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Obviously a PDF that you got from some blog and then uploaded to Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Duh. Dlabtot (talk) 20:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, there are good reasons that "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."—(from

WP:PRIMARY) That court document is the result of a plea bargain and compromise hashed out by lawyers. What does that document really mean when it says that "further investigation did not uncover evidence that the defendants intended to commit any felony after the entry by false pretenses despite their initial statements to the staff..."? There really should be reliable secondary sources explaining this in the context of the plea bargain, and also showing that this really is a notable statement that should be given weight (and not just plea bargain legalese written so everyone can cover their backsides). First Light (talk

) 21:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I would agree. Blueboar (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment about whether this source should be used if it were reliable. I agree with Dlabtot's conclusion that this source is not reliable, but disagree with his reasoning. It is not obvious that all PDFs found on blogs are unreliable, only that this PDF is unreliable. A PDF with a digital signature and a high-grade digital certificate from a recognized certificate authority would probably be reliable no matter where it is hosted. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

If this were obtained from a reliable venue like Lexis... or if someone hiked down to the court house and obtained a hard copy from the clerk... Would we then have to judge it as "reliable"? Yes, it would still have the other issues (high potential for OR, primary document used in a BLP, etc.) that would limit its use, but I think we would have to call it reliable. Blueboar (talk) 21:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

"A PDF with a digital signature and a high-grade digital certificate from a recognized certificate authority" - I agree that such a document, were it to exist, might be reliable, depending on the relevant criteria from

WP:Identifying reliable sources. Also, if a pig existed with a 200 foot wingspan, it might be able to fly. Let's see which happens first. Dlabtot (talk

) 21:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Here are some pig with the 200 foot wingspan, but they are in captivity; all that remains is to spot one in the wild. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI, when I removed this from the

) 22:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

reliable forum post?

=/\=

| 16:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Without looking or caring, a forum post is only reliable as to the opinion of the poster on that forum. ANY other use is as an 'unreliable' source. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Bruce is arguing on Talk: Corrupted Blood incident that the post is an official one from the computer game manufacturer in order to lead off discussion, and not a post from a random forum member. That might be acceptable, any opinions from computer games articles people? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

how does the forum, and how do we evaluate that it is from the manufacturer and not some gamer Randy in Boise? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Good question and in this case Blizzard itself provides the answer in Forum Flags. A post by an authorized representative of Blizzard Entertainment must have three things: be in blue, have the Blizzard icon, and be identified as a "Blizzard Poster". Tigole's post is in blue, and he has the Blizz icon where the level number should be and "Blizzard Poster" is underneath his name. All three criteria are met so Tigole is indeed an authorized representative of Blizzard Entertainment. As I said on the talk page it is all a matter of understanding how the forums of Blizzard work regarding reliable source criteria.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Obviously not

WP:RS. Strike that, looks good, per below. Dlabtot (talk

) 20:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Forum Flags: "An authorized representative of Blizzard Entertainment. Note: Individual Blizzard Employees can select their own special icon. Look for "Blizzard Poster" and a Blizzard icon to identify Blizzard Posters with custom icons."

Tigole has the Blizz icon where the level number should be and "Blizzard Poster" underneath his name ergo per Forum Flags he is "An authorized representative of Blizzard Entertainment". Clearly a

) 22:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Credible source?

Moved from

WT:FA. NW (Talk

) 17:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been doing some required work with others on Razer (robot) that was suggested be done the last time I brought it up for Frequent Article Nomination. We're almost done bar one issue which was how could we source how Vincent Blood left the team and show there was a split. All I've managed to discover is this BBC source which was written after Robot Wars was finished which only lists the other team members as part of the team, ommiting Blood which both me and the major contributor wasn't sure if this would be suitable. In addition, I think there is a Youtube video that shows Razer being demonstrated without Blood being there which was done after Robot Wars. My question is, would either or both of them be suitible in sourcing a team split within FA requirements? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the BBC source is reliable, but I also think that if source A lists members x, y, and z, and source B lists members x and y, but not z, and thus you say there was a team split, you have fallen nicely into

WP:ORN. --Nuujinn (talk

) 10:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

quote-oriented RS question

I recently reverted an IP on to be, or not to be, but now I feel bad about it. Apparently the problem is that there are a handful of slightly different versions of the soliloquy available (differences in punctuation, small wording changes such as using "despised love" or "depriz'd love". I assume these come from different folios and are in fact all reliably sourced, and the differences are too minor to include all of them. so in a case like that which version do we use? There's about half a million academic sources available on the internet to choose from (and more non-academic sources then there are stars in the known universe).

It's not really a major issue, except that I'd like to forestall mistaken reverts like the one I made. Any guidance would be appreciated. --Ludwigs2 18:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

In a way, this is similar to arguments over UK vs US English. Neither is "wrong". ... I think you are correct in saying that there are multiple variations that are reliable, and so which to use isn't really a policy issue. It is really something that can be determined by consensus of editors (I would suggest letting the editors at the Shakespeare WikiProject decide). Blueboar (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

perhaps mention the others if appropriate. Dlabtot (talk

) 21:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, that sounds like a plan - I'll drop a notice over at the wikiproject and leave it in their capable hands.

And Dlabtot, thanks: I haven't read Shelley in ages, and I'd forgotten how much I enjoy it. There are just some things that shouldn't be neglected in life... --Ludwigs2 22:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

A new article on an academic journal called Iranshenasi was created today. The only source given is an article in the Encyclopaedia Iranica. Looking at the page About Iranica the source seems reputable enough. However, when I read the article about Iranshenasi, things get more problematic. The style and wording are such that this article would not survive for 5 minutes on WP... Lots of peacock and weasel words, nothing sourced. I put refimprove and notability tags on the article, but they have been removed twice now by the article's creator. If EI is accepted as an RS, then I guess Iranshenasi might squeak by our notability standards, but otherwise I think it should go to AfD. (I have looked for other sources -even a homepage of the journal- but have found none; however, that is immaterial to the discussion here). --Crusio (talk) 15:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

My comment: The editor of the journal is 80+ old and from what I know, he is probably not computer literate. But i do recall seeing a website some years ago, however the website is in Persian. I would have to do a google search for it, except that the word Iranshenasi is very popular in Persian. So that argument is not really a good argument (Wikipedia does not require a website). The writer of the article in Iranica is Abbas Milani who is a Professot at Stanford [22]. I have provided more refences to the citation of the journal itself.

Also I am not sure why Crusio deleted: "The founding

."

Also the journal is well counted in google books [23] despite being in Persian. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• As far as I can see from the article history, I did not delete the first part of the statement that you cite ("The founding ... Persian literature"). I did delete the second part of that statement (editorial board members) according to long standing practice in articles about academic journals. As for the website, of course that is not a requirement for an article in WP. I was looking for it because it often provides helpful clues when looking for sources on a subject. I included the fact that I didn't find one here to stress the importance of the question whether the blurb-like article in Encyclopaedia Iranica constitutes an RS or not, as it currently is the only source available. --Crusio (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

If its claims of peer review and invatation only are true (as well as its other claims of accademic quality) then its RS, no matter how an article is writen. It can be assume sthat its writen (again assuming its claims are true) by an expert in the field and has been peer reiwed (unless tey invite non experts to write artciels).Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

@slatersteven:. The article is written by an expert [[24]] in the field. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

@Crusio: The article is a not blurb. However, if you need other citations for the journal [25] [26]. Also the article is written by a Full Professor at Stanford [27]. "Important articles on the Shahnameh and related topics have been published in the periodical Iranshenasi in Persian, but with an English resume."[28].. and etc. Note also again the journal is in Persian, so you should not expect quadrlion citations but the amount is still impressive in google books. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Given this its RS.Slatersteven (talk) 16:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• I disagree. Several fringe science journals are peer-reviewed, too, so that is not the all and only (I'm not saying EI is a fringe thing, of course, just that referees are not the only thing). I just find the article on this journal in EI overly laudatory. The WP article is reflecting this, too. I'd appreciate some more opinions of other editors here. --Crusio (talk) 08:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• • This can be a problem. Even peer reviewed articles are not always RS, just as not every book by an established publisher is automatically a reliable source. I certainly don't think that it can be used for the claim about its authoritativeness.
    talk
    ) 10:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not see where the concept of "peer-review" cameup although the Encyclopaedia is peer-review. If you look at my response to slatersteven, it is about the number of citations and also the academic positions of the scholars (full professor of Norte Dame/Stanford and a full professor of Columbia). This is not a matter of opinion but simply following the definition of

. First Crusio is not stating what source he has a problem with? Iranica, Yarshater, Milani, Iranshenasi, Columbia University, Stanford and etc.? This is surely very vague. One is not using the concept of "peer-review" to establish .

The Encyclopædia Iranica is not just a necessity for Iranists; it is of inestimable value for everyone concerned with the history and culture of the Middle East. Prof. Richard Bulliet, Columbia University, in International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies [29]

Prof. A. Banuazizi, Boston College, inInternational Journal of Middle East Studies [30]

For example

states: "The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes."

Now google books has [31] a total of 20,000 citations. Google Scholars close to 1500-2000 [32]

If we follow guidelines, then I do not think normal users can decide if full Professors from

he has found a major problem. If it is the universities? Columbia and Stanford. If it is the publisher? Columbia university. Following guidelines and you will see hundreds of scholarly citations for Iranshenasi as well as Iranica. For Iranica it should not be suprising, but for Iranshenasi which is a Persian journal, that is still a very large number.

Note the Iranica article states about the journal Iranshenasi: "The new journal’s advisory board included an impressive array of scholars from around the world. Three members of Iran Nameh’s Advisory Board joined Iranshenasi: Peter Chelkowski, Roger Savory, and Zabihollah Safa. ". If you have a problem here, then I can tell you that the most important authors in Islamic studies, Near eastern history and Iranology write for Iranica. If you think its editor is unreliable than again do a google scholar check. Please do a google books and scholar search for each name. [33] [34] and etc.

As per Iranica, here is the columbia university link on it [35]. Here is a news link on it [36], it is a no contest and anyone who knows anything about the field of Iranology or Near Eastern studies, references this source.[37] [38] (22,700 results in google books, written from scholars in many many fields).

QUOTATIONS FROM SCHOLARS WORLDWIDE : A real tour de force. There is no project in the entire Middle Eastern field more worthy of support than the Encyclopædia Iranica. Prof. Richard N. Frye, Harvard University in Journal of the American Oriental Society

The Encyclopædia Iranica volumes are the most extensive and important contributions to the study of Islamic and pre-Islamic Iranian history and culture that have been made in this century. Dr. Prudence Harper, Curator of Ancient Near Eastern Art at Metropolitan Museum of Art

The foremost reference work on Iran ever produced and one of the premier reference works in the humanities published in our time. Prof. Roy Mottahedeh, Harvard University in Middle East Journal

The Encyclopædia Iranica will be judged as the most significant contribution of our century to the advancement of Iranian studies as a scholarly enterprise. Prof. A. Banuazizi, Boston College, inInternational Journal of Middle East Studies [39]

Une grande entreprise. Prof. Gilbert Lazard, Membre de l'Institut, in Journal Asiatique

The Encyclopædia Iranica is not just a necessity for Iranists; it is of inestimable value for everyone concerned with the history and culture of the Middle East. Prof. Richard Bulliet, Columbia University, in International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies [40]

La première fois qu'une encyclopédie pluridisciplinaire sur l'Iran est mise en chantier. Prof. Jean Calmard, University of Paris, in Abstracta Iranica

This monument of scholarship in Iranian Studies is a mine of detailed information, with bibliographical references, on every aspect of Iranian history, thought, languages, and civilization. Dr. Farhad Daftary, Institute of Ismaili Studies, in Journal of the American Oriental Society

[Encyclopædia Iranica] is an invaluable aid not only to Iranian scholars but also to scholars of Assyrian history, ancient Greek and Roman history, and the history of Islam, as well as archaeologists and historians of culture and religion. Dr. N. I. Medvedskaya, Oriental Institute, St. Petersburg, in Vestnik Drevnej Istorii (translated text)

Encyclopædia Iranica is indispensable for any scholarly work of specialists in the fields of Iranian and Islamic Studies. [It] deserves the highest praise and full support. Prof. Werner Ende, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität inZDMG(translated text)

Une grande entreprise qui fera certainement date dans l'histoire des études Iraniennes. The late Prof. Z. Telegdi, University of Budapest in Archiv Orientalni, Prague

Mit der vorliegenden Encyclopædia ist ein jahrhundertwerk in Angriff genommen worden. The late Professor Bertold Spuler, University of Hamburg, in Der Islam

By contrast [to the Encyclpædia of Islam] Islamic art and architecture play a far larger role in ... Encylopædia Iranica ... [It] includes many biographies of artists, including painters, calligraphers, potters, metalworkers, and woodcarvers, as well as entries on cities and media, such as ceramics, carpets, and calligraphy. Dr. Sheila Blair & Dr. Jonathan M. Bloom, inMiddle East Studies Association Bulletin

Encyclopædia Iranica is a real treasury of competent, up-to-date information, and an important research tool. Dr Rüdiger Schmitt, University Professor, Universität des Saarlandes, Germany

--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 00:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• I consider the encyclopedia to be a RS. Unfortunately, even RSs contain portions that are not a totally reliable as their general contents--there is no such thing as a totally reliable source for all purposes. It is imaginable that the encyclopedia may be somewhat over-enthusiastic in covering other sources in its own field; it is imaginable that there may be a degree of COI. I'm not much happier with their article on this journal than Crusio is. But an edited sources like EI has the ability to make editorial pronouncements and judgements about the quality of people and things, such as an unedited source like Wikipedia does not--this is precisely the reason why we require opinion to come from such a source. I consider it good evidence for the notability of the journal in question and I would even include an attributed quote about the journal's importance. DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd like some opinions please! Are www.filmsnobbery.com and www.ferntv.ca suitably reliable to show the notability of

) 21:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

No. Dlabtot (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Dlabtot, thanks for the reply (it seems I should have created more of a controversy in order to generate more debate!), but I would be grateful if you could also explain your reasoning, so I can steal your words to explain to others..! Of course, someone else could weigh-in, prizes available! Bigger digger (talk) 21:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything that indicates either of those sources meet our RS criteria. I'm not going to try to prove a negative. Dlabtot (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

To elaborate, per [WP:RS]], "articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Also, "anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." It is not immediately apparent that these websites have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and therefore there is no reason to believe that they are anythyng but normal blogs, which are presumed not to be reliable.  Sandstein  18:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Sandstein, that's what I was after. Bigger digger (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Over on the

which cites then contemporary article from Journal Dental Research, Science, Journal Dental Research, British Med. Journal, British Dental Journal, and the Journal American Dental Association to show that Weston Price wasn't the one lone nut Barrett implies him to be.

I even added more modern sources (Ensminger, Audrey H. (1994) Foods & nutrition encyclopedia: Volume 1 CRC Press, Page 546; Chernoff, Ronni (2006) Geriatric nutrition: the health professional's handbook Jones & Bartlett Learning, Page 193) to show the ideas presented in this old paper are not entirely out of date and we have

WP:OR

tag being put on those claims rather than the Barrett claim. I have even found two reliable references that show that Barrett's claim "This "focal infection" theory led to needless extraction of millions of endodontically treated teeth until well-designed studies, conducted during the 1930s, demonstrated that the theory was not valid" (citing a 1951 and a 1982 article) to be in error.

The 2009 Textbook of Endodontology by Gunnar Bergenholtz, Preben Hørsted-Bindslev, Claes Reit putlich by Wiley page 136 states that the focal infection theory never really died and Saraf (2006) Textbook of Oral Pathology Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers pg 188 states: "It is becoming more validated that the oral cavity can act as the site of origin for spread of pathogenic organisms to organisms to distance body areas,..."

Now in the light of all this can Barrett be considered a reliable source?--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I might be inclined to look into this, but you are not writing very clearly. Perhaps you can rework the description of the problem, taking in mind that the kind of readers you expect here have no prior knowledge of the conflict and can easily be confused by overly terse formulations or unclear sentence structure. (Feel free to remove this comment.) Hans Adler 18:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, BruceGrubb's concerns need to be made clearer.

A review of similar RSN discussions would also be helpful: Search for "Stephen Barrett" at the top of this page. From what I see, Quackwatch and the related sites run by Barrett have been repeatedly found to be reliable sources for skeptical viewpoints on a range of alt-med and fringe-med topics. --

talk

) 18:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem with Barrett's article is it's main thrust is regarding Holistic and Biological Dentists with only three paragraphs on Price with only the one regarding focal infection theory having any references and as shown by the above even that statement is suspect. Furthermore I have found out via the link provided that Price's book was originally published via Paul B. Hoeber, Inc; Medical Book Department of Harper & Brothers so you would assume (or at least hope) some form of peer reviewing was going on there.

Barrett's own Biographical Sketch page on quackwatch.com states despite having honorary membership in the American Dietetic Association and teaching health education at Pennsylvania State University for two years that he is a "retired psychiatrist" so evidently even he doesn't consider himself a nutritionist.

Furthermore right in Price's own book is a forward by Earnest A. Hooton of Harvard University which in part states "A quantity of excellent evidence has been amassed which indicates that dental caries is, to a great extent, connected with malnutrition and with deficient diets." Now this totally flies in the face of Barrett's statement "he ignored the fact that malnourished people don't usually get many cavities." Ok, how does that work?

In short, in terms of Holistic and Biological Dentists Barrett's article as a whole is reasonably sound but the information on Price has major problems--most of the claims are not sourced and the one point that is appears to be in error likely because the source material used is so out of date.

"This is why the dental and medical communities are cautiously reconsidering the biological plausibility of the 'focal infection' theory." Henderson, Brian; Michael Curtis, Robert Seymour (2009) Periodontal Medicine and Systems Biology, Wiley; Page 33)--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Barrett is a good debunker and a useful pointer to the scientific standing of theories. But it should usually be possible to find better sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I should point out that

WP:SPS

is quite explicit regarding the use of such self-published sources as Barrett: In some circumstances, self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications(sic).

The biggest problem is the lack of reference to all of Barrett's nutritional claims regarding Price's research. If there is one thing I still remember from my research days is that is better to overcite claim then to undercite but in this section there is nothing. So where are these claims coming from?--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Barrett & Co. are technically reliable sources (sometimes borderline cases when things are just published on the web), but generally not of a very high quality so far as scientific claims are concerned. Citing them in spite of the often relatively poor quality of their research and the mixing of fact and opinion is a necessary evil for some topics because they are often the only sources addressing a fringe topic from something remotely like a mainstream POV. But ultimately there is very little difference between something that Barrett publishes on his website and the climate change denial on a "conservative" blog. Both must be taken with some care and are automatically trumped by better sources, where available.

One problem with Barrett is that apparently he lives in a world that only has black and white – no colours and no shades of grey: Holistic dentists are charlatans and cite Price as an authority, so Price must have been a charlatan. Price was a charlatan, so everything he did must have been wrong. Everything he did was wrong anyway, so it's OK to say so without any further research (which would of course be a waste of time). That's the problem with debunking: In contrast to scientific discourse it's all about the one and only true "scientific" belief rather than facts.

Barrett may be an expert on modern fringe theories, but he is certainly not an expert on the history of dentistry. E.g. I doubt very strongly that when Barrett says "Price also performed poorly designed studies [...]" he means what a qualified scholar would mean by that: That Price, who died in 1948, performed studies that were poorly designed for his time. I am not even sure that Barrett checked whether the studies were up to modern standards. Much more likely "poorly designed" is just his way of saying he doesn't agree with the results. That's much more in line with Barrett's thoroughly unobjective writing style. Hans Adler 22:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

To say it very clearly: An article about a leading dental researcher who died in 1945 is an article about dental/medical history, not a fringe article. Barrett (i.e. things self-published by him without any editorial overview) is to some extent a reliable source on fringe. He is not a reliable source on dental history. Barrett has an extreme POV that makes it necessary to be careful even about what he says in the field of fringe. This extreme POV obviously affects how he treats this historical topic: He is mistaking what appears to be a perfectly legitimate stage in the history of mainstream dentistry (whether it was an error or not) with fringe. Hans Adler 23:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Hans. The criticism section doesn't really belong in the entry. It isn't relevant to Price, but to contemporary holistic dentistry.Griswaldo (talk) 23:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I never heard of "holistic dentistry" (sounds very suspicious), but if it is sufficiently notable it may be appropriate to mention it in a "legacy" section of the Price article, without giving it undue appearance of validity. What is not appropriate is keeping it unmentioned but bashing Price as a proxy for something that came up after his death. Hans Adler 23:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

That sounds fine, but the "criticism" section seems inappropriate, which I think we're in agreement about.Griswaldo (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Hans Adler. Your point is exactly what I mean though I need to correct you on one minor issue--Price died in 1948 not 1945. As I have shown with Charles F. Bodecker's paper there was a lot of articles published regarding a connection between nutrition and tooth decay in the 1920s and 1930s and the Orthomolecular Medicine News Service article "Vitamin Deficiency Underlies Tooth Decay" provides more references from that time including three by Price himself in the Journal American Dental Association. Even the focal infection theory is getting a second look.

Very simply put holistic dentistry works from holistic medicine's idea that the body is one unit and that actions on one part can effect others ie a problem in the mouth can effect the body and vice versa. The problem is when other ideas like homeopathy or controversial issues like mercury fillings are involved.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it is significant to note that Barrett has been involved in quite a bit of litigation over his writings. He has not lost all, but enough it appears to warrant caution regarding his credibility. Furthermore his lack of training and expertise in dentistry are a handicap to his ability to bring suitable analysis and historical perspective in the case of Weston Price's research. Apparently some don't feel the litigation against Barrett to be appropriate content to include in his biographical article, though it appear relevant to me given his profession. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 17:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem is that most of the sources that make comments regarding litigation against Barrett are iffy under normal

WP:BLP requirements they are totally unusable hence that is why there isn't anything regarding these cases in his article.--BruceGrubb (talk

) 19:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I should mention that of Barrett's claims only the focal infection theory one has any reference and those can be shown to be possibly out of date. In fact, searching through Price's book shows some serious errors in Barrett's claims.

Barrett: "While extolling their health, he ignored their short life expectancy and high rates of infant mortality, endemic diseases, and malnutrition."

Price: "This physician stated that there were about 800 whites living in the town and about 400 Indians, and that notwithstanding this difference in numbers there were twice as many Indian children born as white children, but that by the time these children reached six years of age there were more white children living than Indian and half-breed children. This he stated was largely due to the very high child mortality rate, of which the most frequent cause is tuberculosis." (Chapter 6)

"The changes in facial and dental arch form, which I have described at length in this volume, develop in this age period also, not as a result of faulty nutrition of the individual but as the result of distortions in the architectural design in the very early part of the formative period. Apparently, they are directly related to qualities in the germ plasm of one or both parents, which result from nutritional defects in the parent before the conception took place, or deficient nutrition of the mother in the early part of the formative period." (Chapter 19)

"It is important to keep in mind that morbidity and mortality data for many diseases follow a relatively regular course from year to year, with large increases in the late winter and spring and a marked decrease in summer and early autumn. [...] I have obtained the figures for the levels of morbidity for several diseases in several countries, including the United States and Canada." (Chapter 20)

"Dr. Vaughan in her reference to the data on the annual report of the chief medical officer, the Minister of Health, states as follows: Our infant mortality returns show that over half the number of infants dying before they are a year old die before they have lived a month..." (Chapter 21)

The direct quotes from Price's own book showed that he was very much aware of the high rates of infant mortality of native peoples and the effects of endemic diseases on them so how can Barrett claim Price is ignoring these things without a single reference backing up that statement? Better yet since Price published through Paul B. Hoeber, Inc; Medical Book Department of Harper & Brothers (who was publishing textbooks like Modern Practice in Dermatology back in the day) while Stephen Barrett is self published with the majority of his claims unreferenced how can we say Barrett trumps Price regardless of how old Price's work is, especially when we can show via old source the claims are in error? There is something very wrong with that picture.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Hans Adler's comments of 14 October are, I think, the most relevant. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I also concur with Adler's statement. One answer may be to minimize the significance of Barrett by citing other critical sources, including any of those in Barrett's own bibliography that can be checked. I looked around in a newspaper archive and found many references to Price's once-fringe view that organic, unprocessed food is healthier for teeth and the whole body. But I also found this reference:

• Some of the more controversial ideas stem from the work of Dr. Weston Price, a dentist and author of the 1939 book "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration." Price, a harsh critic of modern civilization, said that both root canals and amalgam fillings should be avoided and advocated a diet of nutrient-dense whole foods. But many dentists who advocate holistic approaches are less extreme.
  • Dentists adopt unconventional treatment options. Julie Deardorff. Chicago Tribune McClatchy - Tribune News Service. Washington: May 9, 2008.

So the implication is that Price had views that are still considered controversial and extreme by some. We should neither hide this view nor rely on Barrett as the only source for it, but we shouldn't overstate it either.   Will Beback  talk  06:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Hans and Will (and others). Barrett is a not-always-reliable source for a generic skeptical POV, and giving him his own one-line section seems to over-weight the skeptical POV significantly. I'd suggest that we rename the 'Foundations related to Price' section to something like 'Modern day usage', and put the Barrett bit there with respect to his dispute with the Price foundation. --Ludwigs2 08:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem is "The Great Divide" in the August 6, 2008 Washington Post paints a slightly different portrait of Price's views:

"She advocates butter on bread "so thick you can see teeth marks in it," plenty of meat and unpasteurized, or raw, milk.

Those are foods recommended by Price, a Cleveland dentist who traveled the world studying primitive diets. His 1939 book, "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration," concluded that a diet high in the vitamins found in animal fats and untouched by "modern" innovations such as refined flour, sugar and chemically preserved foods was the key to preventing chronic disease and tooth decay."

This give a little less radical view of Price.

As I see it we have two issues regarding Price--how radical were his ideas for his time and how radical are they for now?

"Vitamin Deficiency Underlies Tooth Decay" by the Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, February 19, 2009 states

A recent authoritative review showed a clear association between cavities and heart diseases [5]. More importantly, this same study showed that people with poor oral health, on average, lead shorter lives. The association between cavities and diabetes is also a subject of active, ongoing research [6-8]. Connections between heart disease, diabetes, and dental decay have been suspected for decades. Many of the scientists who called attention to this have proposed that diets high in sugar and refined carbohydrates were the common cause of these diseases [9-15] Dental diseases, mental diseases, heart disease, infectious respiratory diseases, and heart disease are all at least partially caused by common failures in metabolism. Such failures are inevitable when there is a deficiency of essential nutrients, particularly vitamins D, C, and niacin.

There is especially strong evidence for a relationship between vitamin D deficiency and cavities. Dozens of studies were conducted in the 1930's and 1940's [16-27]. More than 90% of the studies concluded that supplementing children with vitamin D prevents cavities. Particularly impressive was a study published in 1941 demonstrated the preventative affect of "massive" doses of vitamin D [28]. And yet no subsequent studies in the scientific literature suggested a need to follow up and repeat this work.(sic)

Those numbers are references that go with those claims. The 1930's to 1940's stuff reads like a who's who of reliable publications: New York Journal of Dentistry, Journal of Nutrition, American Journal of Public Health, British Dental Journal, Committee for the Investigation of Dental Disease, Journal of the American Dental Association, Medical Research Council, British Medical Journal, and American Journal of Diseases of Children

While a little more of a mixed bag the modern stuff has Institute of Dentistry, University of Helsinki, Finland; University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Newark, NJ, USA; Instituto Nacional de Perinatologia, Mexico City, Mex. Archives of Medical Research; Caries Research (2002); Diabetes Care (1981), Oregon State University Press (1986-revised 2006) rounding out its roster.

So with all those supporter of some of Price's ideas past and present you have to ask just how fringe are they?

Finally, Price wrote this in a 1923 book called Dental Infections, Oral and Systemic: "since 1870 the average length of life has been increased by fifteen years, that marked reduction has occurred during this period in infant mortality and in mortality due to tuberculosis, typhoid, smallpox and many other diseases."

Short life expectancy, high rates of infant mortality, and endemic diseases being eliminated by modern culture were addressed by Price years before and more over Price uses this very book as a reference in Nutrition and Physical Degeneration (Chapters 2 and 18). But according to Barrett claims Price ignored the very things Price himself noted in 1923 even while referencing said work. Does this make a lick of sense?!?--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The more I find on Price, the more I realize he wasn't even close to being the crackpot that Barrett would like us to believe. I'd say he was quite progressive and had a profound effect on dentistry. I've added some relevant material that illustrates this. I also realize that the article has been emphasizing his work on nutrition and ignoring his research in general dentistry. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 15:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

In this instance Barrett seems to have gotten into the mindset that since Price's ideas are used to promote questionable theories Price himself was proposing a questionable theory. Barrett annoys me because like him I am a skeptic but when he mixes genuine issues with poorly (if at all) researched claims that are easily disproved (as with Price) he puts not only that article but everything else he says in doubt.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Bruce the most frustrating part of this mess is that when people go out of their way to defend Barrett, in this instance, they do damage to his overall reputation. I think at this point it is clear that Barrett does not meet the criteria to be considered an exception to

WP:SPS on this issue. See my last response to ScienceApologist here, for instance. Barrett's critique is based upon information that he does not have the relevant expertise to be spouting off without very good citations. He is not an expert on the nutritional history and consumption behaviors of the natives that Price did fieldwork with. People really need to stop pushing this issue in my view.Griswaldo (talk

) 12:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Remember that when Barrett started his website he was trying to hold back a tide of internet misinformation about health. So he produced a listing, as comprehensive as one person's could be, of pseudoscientific areas where buyers ought to beware. It has its biases and has been - or ought to be - superseded for most purposes now. It certainly will never match up to the best standards in history of medicine. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

We also run into real problems when, against our better judgement, we use sources like Barrett because of some "ends justify the means" type of reasoning. IMHO that is part of what is going on in this situation. There is too much leeway given to "critics" and "skeptics" when people think their arguments are doing us a service somehow. We need to be particularly cautious of sources that have as their MO advocacy as opposed to accuracy, and Barrett fits that bill quite clearly. The details for people like Barrett aren't as important as the service they providing to society. I don't personally disagree with his approach in the sphere of internet advocacy against fringe science, but it is not what we're looking for here at an encyclopedia.Griswaldo (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

(BLP violation removed --

) 14:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC))

(Remove indent)I agree. It is not like the situation in

article claims that at the time of writing Barrett had not won a single lawsuit that went to trial.

What I would love to know is how do you present a case claiming homeopathy is quackery so poorly that you lose it? With stuff like "Clinical Trials (2003-2007)", "The laws of chemistry and physics, as we understand them, say that homoeopathy cannot possibly work any better than a placebo if a treatment has been diluted to the point where none of the original molecules remain." - Adam Jacobs, Director Dianthus Medical Limited. Rapid response to BMJ 1999;319:1115-1118; Linde, K, et al. "Impact of study quality on outcome in placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy". J Clin Epidemiol. 1999 Jul;52(7):631-6; Ernst E, et al. "Meta -analysis of homoeopathy trials. Lancet. 1998 Jan 31;351(9099):366); "Belladonna 30C in a double blind crossover design - a pilot study." J Psychosomatic Res 1993; 37(8): 851-860); "The end of homoeopathy" The Lancet, Vol. 366 No. 9487 p 690. The Vol. 366 No. 9503 issue (Dec 27, 2005); J. D. Miller "Ultrafast memory loss and energy redistribution in the hydrogen bond network of liquid H2O" Nature 434, 199-202 (10 March 2005) proving a key claim of homeopathy to be false; and many more (including James Randi) to show homeopathy not only doesn't work but can't work just how in the name of sanity do you effectively blow it?--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

BLP/N

I have brought up Ronz' removal of content from this noticeboard at the BLP/N. See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Noticeboards.2C_source_criticism_and_claims_of_BLP_issues. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I am doing some editing on the Ulster Defence Regiment article and another chap there has called into question the reliability of a book I am using to verify some of the material. Can someone please tell me if the book "A Testimony to Courage (The Regimental History of the Ulster Defence Regiment) is a reliable source to use? The ISBN is: 0 85052 819-4

Thank you in advance.SonofSetanta (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Curious which chap called it unrelaible? Mo ainm~Talk 17:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe the book in question is considered to be not a whitewash but definitely a favorable portrait, as the title should have tipped you off; he is probably reliable, though, on such topics as infiltration of the UDR by the Protestant paramilitaries and their maltreatment of Catholic UDR members. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC) (a Prod and a republican)

I am absolutely taken aback that a genuine request for assistance yields such an awful sectarian comment. I had hoped that people of position on Wikipedia would be above such behaviour. Can anyone genuinely help please without using such bitter language.SonofSetanta (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

? I'm puzzled; I thought my language was quite moderate, and indeed in harmony with Major Potter's own reports on the topic! I'm sorry if I somehow gave offence inadvertently. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Who claimed it wasn't a reliable source? And what is sectarian about the comment made by Orange Mike? Please be aware the wikipedia doesn't allow

personal attacks Mo ainm~Talk

17:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

You should not ask whether an individual is a reliable source but whether a book is. This book was published by "Pen and Sword Books" as one of their "regimental history books".[41] But reliability refers to the facts in the book, and the history of this regiment is controversial. You need to determine how historians view the regiment and this book may not address that. TFD (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Good point, Deuces. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I simply want to know if Potter's book can be taken as a true source of facts (facts only - not opinion, unless supported by other sources) and if Potter can be referred to in the article as the "Regimental Historian". I don't want to enter into speculation on the Ulster Defence Regiment or accusations about it. The Wikipedia article already explores that in great depth. I will use what I'm told here as absolute. With regards to what historians feel about the regiment this is the only history currently available so it's all I have to work with as a Regimental History, apart from a book written by a journalist in 1991 and some smaller histories produced by former members of lesser rank.SonofSetanta (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It states in the book that the MOD have not endorsed any part of the book, nor the unofficial sources refered to and Potter himself states that "I must also emphasize the the opinions expressed, were they are not attributed, are my own." Having said that I would say that Potter in general is reliable but being a former UDR member anything contentious would need attribution to him. I'm also at a loss as to why a "new" editor would come here when their was no question of the reliability of the book on the talk page. Mo ainm~Talk 18:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

In the first few pages of the book there is a disclaimer that reads ". . . this does not imply MOD endorsement of any part of this book". I will also add that the so-called journalist Chris Ryder is a respected author on The Troubles, which Potter does not seem to be despite the claims he is a "historian". Former soldier turned writer yes, but not a historian. O Fenian (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I would consider it to be a reliable source. TFD (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a particular case of a general phenomenon - organisations commissioning their own histories. These are usually reliable as to facts although you must avoid anything that is obviously self-serving. Also, especially in sensitive areas like this, be aware that the history will be slanted towards the organisation's own perspective. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Itsmejudith is correct. Generally reliable about uncontentious facts, caution must be taken to avoid self-serving material, and particular care must be taken in contentious or disputed areas. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Should the concerns expressed above on the book be sufficient to require that

attribution of the authors opinions be agreed? As the editor has stated that they wouldn't for a minute suggest that "A Testament to Courage" is the official UDR history, that they also agree then that Potter is not the official "Regimental Historian" and should not be referred to as such in the article? Could the editor possibly indicate who in this discussion called into question reliability of the book? --Domer48_'fenian'

22:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Potter states that he was "invited by the Colonels Commandant" to compile the history of the regiment. That suggests it is official. That and the fact that the finished work is kept safe and unpublished by the British Ministry of Defence.

I don't see why there's such a fuss about it. I asked a question and expected to get the sensible answers I've had from some people. I suppose I should have realised that anything to do with Ireland is going to get some people on a soap box. I think that's my point really. I'd rather have the "soap boxing" done here than see it happen on the article discussion page.

Could someone give me a view on the "official status" of Potter please - as regimental historian of the Ulster Defence Regiment? SonofSetanta (talk) 12:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

You have been given it by different editors, Potter is an ex UDR soldier and not a historian, he states himself that they are his opinions in the book, do I need to give you the quote again for the third time? Mo ainm~Talk 15:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm asking for an informed, independent opinion. SonofSetanta (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me could you explain that comment please? Mo ainm~Talk 16:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I would like an opinion from an appointed person who isn't involved in Irish affairs. I'm not seeking an argument with anyone. I'll scout around and see if I can find some help elsewhere on Wikipedia. There's no rush, the article isn't going anywhere. SonofSetanta (talk) 14:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I have now referred this question to Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Help_Required_With_Source and Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Help_Required_With_Source . SonofSetanta (talk) 15:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The reliability of the source is a question to be answered here. Balancing is for NPOVN. I probably count as an editor uninvolved with Irish affairs. It looks to me that the book, while not the official history of the regiment, was compiled with their consent. It's been cited in a few places. I suggest you treat it as a history text, not of the highest standard perhaps, but of adequate standard in the absence of other history texts. It may well be biased, and the solution to that is to balance any contentious points with views of other historians. Don't be tempted to reproduce any of its biases or to use points that are opinion rather than fact. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Judith is absolutely correct here. I see no reason to deem the source as unreliable. Balance with other reliable sources if something Potter says is contested... and attribute, so the reader knows who says what. Blueboar (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No where on the UDR talk page has anyone ever suggested that the book wasn't a reliable source. Mo ainm~Talk 17:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears to me that it has. Much emphasis seems to be laid on Major Potter's opinion by several posters opposed to the use of his work. What is more relevant though is that he is named, but not explained, and it seems odd to me that the man who compiled the official history of the regiment cannot be called the "Official Regimental Historian". Even if his book is not the official version which as we know is unreleased.SonofSetanta (talk) 14:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you need any further comment from uninvolved editors? I agree with Blueboar that some attribution is necessary but at the moment the amount of attribution interferes with readability. Attribute anything that might be contentious, but not simple points of fact. You will probably have to discuss it line by line on the talk page. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I think one aspect of my request is completely satisifed - over attribution. I'd be very pleased if you could give me an opinion on the term "official historian" with regards to John Potter so that it can be explained to a reader that it was he who compiled the official history - even if his book isn't.SonofSetanta (talk) 14:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

He did not compile any official history, he compiled the archive. All this means is he is an archivist, or to put it more simply, a filing clerk, or to put it even more simply, he collected pieces of paper. He is not a historian, his book is not official, he has not compiled any official history, most of those facts are in black and white in the book. O Fenian (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

To answer your direct question, SonofSetanta, we do not usually attach descriptions to the authors of our sources. It isn't necessary, and doesn't add anything to the credibility of the sources. When you attribute to Potter, use Harvard style: "according to Potter (date), the regiment did this or that". That's my view, wait a bit to see what Blueboar says and if there are any other non-involved views. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean Judith. I'll change what I've written about him as a result of your comment. Thank you. SonofSetanta (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

There is an article called Targeted killing. The content of the article are being discussed. The first two sentences of the article are:

Targeted killing is the intentional killing–by a government or its agents–of a civilian or "unlawful combatant" targeted by the government, who is not in the government's custody. The target is a person taking part in an armed conflict or terrorism, whether by bearing arms or otherwise, who has thereby lost the immunity from being targeted that he would otherwise have under the Third Geneva Convention^{[tk 1]}

...

References

1. ISBN 0521870887
   . Retrieved May 19, 2010.

In the article this book is cited 27 times (a,b...aa) under one citation.

From the talk page:

You are citing a book you should include page numbers (See

talk

) 22:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

"Normally". Especially for "non-indexed" books. The google search function is a handy indexing tool, in addition to the book's table of contents and index. If the page is not accessible, one still gets to see the page number.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Epeefleche is the main contributor to the article and I believe the only contributor to the first two sentences. I need a third party who is not currently involved in the discussion to explain to myself and Epeefleche whether or not my request for page numbers is reasonable and normal, or if the refusal to add page numbers is reasonable and normal.

talk

) 00:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Opinion by uninvolved editor: Requesting a page number is not unreasonable or abnormal. If Epeefleche is using a Google books url for the book instead of actually having the book in his possession, you can help him/her out by trying to verify the page number yourself. If you can't find it, then I suggest deleting the citation and the text it supports. Cla68 (talk) 00:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• (ec) The argument for not including the page numbers makes some limited sense, but we generally require them for books. This seems particularly important in a politically contentious article like this one. If the real concern is a practical one about having lots of different footnotes all going to the same book, I recommend using either Harvard citation or {{rp}}, with which you can add page numbers after a footnote like this: ^: 27ff. Hans Adler 00:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

W

• The whole point of having citations is so that the material can be
  WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, including the page number. Dlabtot (talk
  ) 01:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
• I don't even see why this is a question. Of course it's reasonable to ask for the page number. I have a hard time understanding why editors wouldn't include the page number in the citation in the first place. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

  See above. I asked it because of the retort by Epeefleche to my request for page numbers, that Google searches use an index and therefore fulfil to the letter the requirement of

  talk

  ) 05:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Unless someone actually is looking it up in a book. I heard a rumor that a few of them still exist. Dlabtot (talk) 06:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, require page numbers. Besides, the definition given above looks very POVish. I do not think one should draw such far-flung conclusions on the legality of targeted killings based on only one source. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
• Yes, require page numbers. It's the only way to
  verify anything, which should be expected on a controversial article like Targeted killing. Opinion by uninvolved editor First Light (talk
  ) 10:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Page numbers shouild always be included (unless you are linking directly to the page in question).Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Page numbers should be included in the citation regardless of a direct link--links die from time to time, and without a page number it's much harder to verify. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• There are circumstances where page number references could be the second-best option, but this isn't one of them. Absent page numbers, these references are useless. Mind you, writing articles based on Google books excerpts is dangerous anyway. The only way to be sure of what a given source says about anything is to read all of it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'll second this one. Editors, if you want to use a book, especially for a controversial article, please get off your behind and get down to your library and borrow it, or else buy a new or used copy online. Used books online are usually fairly cheap, even including postage. Cla68 (talk) 00:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• Page numbers should always be included wherever possible and especially if a specific reference book is used multiple times, in order to differentiate between the pages used and where the information came from. We can't expect our readers to look through an entire book to find the right section, that wouldn't be helpful at all. Silverseren^C 00:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• I find the mere notion of not requiring page numbers entirely preposterious. What if the book is 500 pages long? There is a culture of not including page numbers for journal articles because they're traditionally short, but for books it should be an absolute requirement. Use the shortened footnote format or {{Rp|pages=17–18}}^: 17–18 notation. Betty Logan (talk) 00:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I understand using page numbers is convenient and helps people to verify and is nice for us to suggest and encourage, but when it comes to policy and REQUIRING and stating "if no page number is provided remove the statement and reference" that is preposterious. Removing a statement that is sourced but which the page number is missing is not acceptable and not supported by policy. Policy clearly states that verifiable does not mean that "you, right now, can, easily, without effort, look something up without getting off your ass away from the computer". If you have to read 500 pages to find something, I feel sorry for you, but oh well. As for Google books- page number for the actual book is provided as the books are nothing more than scanned pages from the physical book, usually they line up with Google's page number; as for limited viewing AGAIN- we dont care, policy is clear that verifiable does not mean verifiable for EVERYONE, just SOMEONE, find someone who can verify it, you dont have to be able to verify everything yourself and policy says we dont think that's reasonable. For this specific case make the source a general source to the article, you dont need to cite a source 22 times in one article. For FL status if something was being sourced that many times that is what we would do.Camelbinky (talk) 01:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and if its on Google books, there is a search parameter on the left side, put in a key word and search the book for it, it will give you all the pages that the words you put in show up on together. Really, its not that hard. If I source that Pakistan was created in 1948 to a 500 page book about India, do a search for Pakistan 1948 and maybe five pages show up, look at each one and you find it. Gee, 5 mins to verify something! Dont break a sweat.Camelbinky (talk) 01:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but if one is adding a ref, presumably one has read the referenced work, and knows the page number, and one should provide same. If I stumble across a source without a page number, I'll probably add it if I can find it. But in this particular case the question is whether it is appropriate to ask for page numbers in a reference added by another editor. It is, I think, perfect reasonable to ask for a page number. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Making a source verifiable doesn't imply "everyone" or even "someone", but enough information should be provided so ANYONE would be able to locate the source and check the claim. The guidelines stipulate that page numbers should be included for lengthy sources, so the general interpretation of that guideline on here indicates that by not including the page numbers the claims are not adequately sourced. It's up to the article editors how they handle content that is not properly sourced, but if they are not happy about it being added then there generally isn't a consensus for it to stay there unless the problem with references are addressed. Betty Logan (talk) 01:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The

WP:VERIFY

, including the bold letters:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article.

The article under discussion is not only "likely to be challenged", it is being challenged. Pakistan being founded in 1948 is not ever likely to be challenged, so it's a poor comparison. Page numbers are more than "appropriate" in this case - they are essential for the editor to fulfill the "burden of evidence." First Light (talk) 01:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

This is setting a terrible precedent for removing sourced material based on incomplete references where the source is clearly stated, simply for lacking a page number. Terrible and scary and totally against our policies. Yes, it is fine to ASK, but if an editor says "Sorry, I'm too busy and frankly I dont want to", then ok, do it yourself then, but removing sourced information is terrible. I pointed out a very easy way to find the information yourself in Google books by searching for keywords within the text, its not that hard. This is one more instance of people wanting to tag and/or remove anything that doesnt meet their standards and put the burden of actually doing something on someone else. What is better? One source placed as a general source, or in this case placed 22 times but without page numbers, or losing that information altogether? Or sadly, if all of you get your way, that one source placed 22 separate times, gee that's so much better to clutter a reference section with the same source 22 different times, over and over and over and over and over (was going to do that 22 times but getting pointy) with only the page number different. I have seen reviewers at FA get snippy and not like the use of Ibid and abbreviated ref names and a separate bibliography section (using Waite, p. 187 and so on and then the full-length cite at the bibliography section; see: Albany, New York for good use of it, and as an article who's FA status was, partially, rejected for the editor's refusal to not use that style). It is one thing to "mandate" something at this noticeboard... but if FA reviewers have different ideas that make implementation difficult, you are only hurting the encyclopedia.Camelbinky (talk) 01:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Should does not equal must. And I believe we'll have a huge argument if anyone even thinks about changing that now that I've mentioned it, so please take to the talk page before attempting to do so. Second- burden applies to unsourced material, this IS sourced. Removal is unacceptable. WP:V is clear- you do not have an absolute right to verify everything YOURSELF or easily. If a source is located only in a museum in Texas, and you live in England, get a plane or find someone in Texas (real example from WP:RS/N and what we told them).Camelbinky (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Must provide a page number. If challenged, and an editor who uses a source can't provide a page number, that's a red flag that they probably haven't read the source and don't have access to it. There is no good reason to avoid providing a page number (or numbers, i.e. pages 56-62 or whatever). Not really a debatable point. This is the basic level of scholarship one would expect in a first-year high school paper.

talk

) 02:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

e/c No, the burden is on the editor, and not the reader, to verify "clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate", "any material... that is likely to be challenged". First Light (talk) 02:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Although page numbers are required for book-length sources, the first response to a missing page number should be to request one (by adding the "page number needed" tag or otherwise). Immediate deletion is only warranted in the case of highly dubious, incendiary or potential

WP:BLP violating sources. Otherwise it is an unfriendly action whether allowed by the rules or not. I'm not impressed by the argument about FA status; we are supposed to be here to write good articles not to win accolades. Zero^talk

02:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• Let me point out that the comment I made above was in no way advocating the removal of text and sources that don't have a page number. I'm actually rather shocked that the discussion has turned that way. Like Camelbinky says, if a source is referencing something that is likely to be or is being challenged, then editors should look for the info in the reference and not just delete it all out of hand. That is definitely not helping the project. Silverseren^C 02:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Tagging is probably more appropriate if the material has become integrated into the article, but if this is new stuff being added to a perfectly good and well sourced article then editors are within their rights (and probably right to do so) to insist that the references should include page numbers. Including page numbers is the established norm (for good reason!) and if you relax that condition you are handing out a licence for editors to fabricate details and providing vague references that will be practically useless for verifying any claims. Betty Logan (talk) 02:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Is it not the case that PBS is asking Epeefleche to provide page numbers for citations Epeefleche provided, numbering 27 instances? My thought is that Epeefleche should provide page numbers, since PBS is in effect challenging the source, and with 27 references to the same book, it's a bit much to expect PBS to track them down. It's not hard to provide page numbers while you're working with a source, and much harder to try to figure out what another editor was doing when they were adding citations. And Bali ultimate is correct, this is the bare minimum that would be required of students reaching adulthood. If the material is newly added, or the work of a single editor, asking for page numbers is perfectly reasonable. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Asking is fine, yes. What I meant is that you shouldn't just delete the sources without asking or even checking yourself if the user is busy. References should be checked for veracity before being removed. Otherwise, that just opens the door to making the project extremely shoddy in terms of sourcing. Silverseren^C 02:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that just deleting the material without asking would be bad, but in what circumstance should an editor be considered "too busy" to add citations to any article multiple times without including page numbers? Not adding page numbers as you add book citations seems pretty shoddy to me. --Nuujinn (talk) 02:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's true. It is shoddy, but it still happens...a lot. And editors might be on a Wikibreak or something else might have come up. I just want to make sure that some users don't come to the conclusion that they're free to just remove information if the original editor isn't around and they don't feel like checking for themself. Silverseren^C 02:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources as much as possible are not removed. Dead links should not be removed automatically. General references are allowed. A challenge to be a legitimate challenge needs to have some rational basis or raise reasonable doubt, otherwise it can be ignored. Lambanog (talk) 05:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

•As some might suspect, there is some background to the above. There may, just possibly, be something driving the inquiry more than simply intellectual curiosity. And if not for AGF, the phrase "POINTy" might come to mind. Just to put this in perspective ...

1. The editor who posed the question above (PBS) first redirected the 100K "targeted killing" article, with its 150 refs, three times[42][43][44] in 2+ hours (and also deleted its associated talk page, also three times)[45][46][47] --despite four warnings. With bare edit summaries, that failed to provide a reasonable basis therefor. The effect? The same as deleting the article (without an AfD). Oblivion. Nobody could see the article, as it was the only search term for the article. Some might consider that edit warring, and disruptive.
2. He did this in the face of multiple entreaties to him to desist, explaining why his bare edit summaries to the extent that they even pretended to be substantive, were frivolous -- all to no avail.[48][49][50][51][52][53]
3. He then, when another editor brought it the matter to ANI, took the occasion to threaten me--which other editors thankfully suggested to him might not be wise;[54]
4. He then, despite the fact that there had been talk page discussion for months, with a consensus to create the targeted killing article, said he saw no consensus. And started an RFC on the same precise question. And there, despite nearly a unanimous disagreement with his position that a targeted killing page should not exist (and comments to the effect that he was being tendentious), refused to agree that near-unanimity was consensus.
5. He then tag-bombed the targeted killing article, and engaged in other tendentious behavior, for which he was warned.
6. He was just blocked today for: "WP:Disruptive editing. Continuing pattern at Targeted killing and Assassination. Wikipedia:Tendentious editing."

Some might call it coming to court with "unclean hands".

Having said all that, PBS--you will note--never indicated that he couldn't see what the page numbers were. Simply by hitting the link that is provided. As I suggested he do. I have no reason to doubt that he can see the page numbers here, which clicking the link in the ref provides -- along with, for the bulk, the actual pages themselves.

Of course, even in the wake of all the above, it is an interesting question.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

If the numbers can be obtained by just clicking a link then it would take all of two minutes for you to do that and add the page numbers to the references. You could have fulfilled what was a natural and reasonable request given the very clear guidelines (whatever the history between the two of you) instead of wasting the time of everyone who contributed to the discussion. It's not someone else's job to improve your references when you are perfectly aware of the problem, the guidelines, and the request. Betty Logan (talk) 05:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No one is obligated to do anything. We are all volunteers and under no contract. If the page is accessible, there is nothing stopping the editor with the complaint from doing it him/herself. Lambanog (talk) 05:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

By contributing to Wikipedia we are obliged to follow the guidelines for doing so. It's disappointing that we have an editor who is going against the spirit of the guidelines and playing language games to try and avoid adding page numbers when it would be a relatively simple task, and an imperative one if the links should ever stop functioning. It demonstrates to everyone in this discussion that he doesn't have the best interests of the article at heart. Although it may be simple for the other editor to add the page numbers I can understand his objection to picking up someone else's slack. Betty Logan (talk) 06:15, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Betty -- Lambanog hit the nail on the head. I know you are a strict constructionist. But I had thought you were more given to following the guideline about AGF. The spirit of the guidelines, as well as the bald words of the phrase "normally" in the guideline -- which rules of construction would inform us has a meaning, and is not to be willy nilly ignored -- both militate in favor of the conclusion that where the editor can see the page number (as he can here), both the spirit and the language of the guideline are satisfied. The guideline is all about editors being able to see the page numbers. They can. And if you want to go beyond that, and explore issues of "spirit" and "disappointing", then guidelines about tendentious editing and wikilawyering come into play. And we still come out at the same place.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• Many sentences on wikipedia, indeed -- all too many articles, lack even one ref. Of any sort. Refs of various sorts are allowed. We accept bare ones. Inlines are preferred. Every single sentence in the targeted killing article, which has attracted PBS's intense scrutiny, has one or more inline citations.

We don't go about deleting sentences with inline citations, without good reason. Here, PBS can (as far as we know) see not only all the relevant page numbers, and the index, and the table of contents, but also do independent searches in the book. And there is certainly nothing at all dubious, incendiary, or a BLP violation here. Except, of course, PBS did try to hide the entire article from all Wiki readers, so perhaps he does have a reason to wish to complain about the RS-supported language which he can plainly read, and the page numbers which he can plainly see.

WP:Page numbers

does not require one to provide page numbers. It says "you should normally ... in the case of a book, specify the page number(s). Page numbers are especially important for lengthy, non-indexed books ...".

There is a purpose for the word "normally" in the rule. It makes the rule other than an absolute one. This situation describes just such an instance where the "normal" rule is not necessary -- for reasons I describe. The reader can see the page number, and often even see the page itself. Some editors here would like to read the rule as though the word "normally" does not appear. They're construing a rule other than the one that we have before us.

This is not a "normal" situation. It is a book with an index. It is a book with an accessible index. It is a book where the page numbers can be seen by clicking on the link provided. It is a book where PBS would not appear to have any earth-shattering need to push this point other than to be POINTy, and seek to have people on this page say that while the rule is not an absolute rule -- well, let's ignore the clear language of the rule, here they should treat it as thought the word "normally" is not in the rule.

And with what result, if no page numbers are supplied? Will we delete all book refs now on wikipedia that lack page numbers?

If not, what other result would follow from such a requirement?

Cla68 suggested that PBS can help by verifying the page himself. I've not seen PBS accept that advice.

Dlabtot seemed not, by his response, to recognize from PBS's description that by clicking on the name of the book in the ref, he would see the relevant page numbers. In fact, many of the editors seemed not to understand that, from their above comments. So again -- the ref links directly to the pages in question, within the book, and identifies the page numbers in question. (And I've never seen a googlebooks link die -- though gnews links do, all the time.)--Epeefleche (talk) 05:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The explanation for "normally" in the guideline can be explained quite simply. In the case of very short books (pamphlets) there may be no need for a page number (in the case of some older ones they did not have page numbers), secondly some ebooks (such as those from the Gutenberg press) may not have page numbers, and certain online references books (EG OED) do not return page. I think in those cases most editors would understand why page numbers are not provided (and hence the qualification normally).

But in this case that is not so. The book is cited as

talk

) 06:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

And I think you are being tendentious here, which is exactly what you were blocked for yesterday. Do you question something in that sentence? Have you not found the page numbers? Yes, I would refer to these numbers for this citation, as they would all as an editor above indicated bear on one another (the editor who suggested reading the entire book), and are a small fraction of the entire book. Have you already hit view all. You will see relevant parts of the table of contents and index as well, which may lead you to find even more interesting related material. But I imagine you know that, and have engaged in this as an extension of the above-described tendentious editing related to this very article that led to your block.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The consensus was that the block was unwarranted. The administrator who blocked my account, unblocked it and has agreed that (s)he will not bock my account in future (see the

talk

) 11:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

@Camelbinky. I think there are several different issues being mixed. The original question of Epeefleche could be answered clearly and unanimously. It is definitely better to have page numbers, and it is normal to request them. Epeefleche is also right to say that Google books does not even work for all users, depending on where they log on. However, that unanimous response might not resolve all disagreements, of course. Your point about whether not having a page number is cause for deletion in all cases is a finer point, and you certainly not wrong to point that out. I certainly think that it would not be nice for someone to delete things quickly or aggressively just because of page numbers. Still, as long as you are given time, I do not really see why page numbers would be a big problem in this case?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we should strive to preserve possible references when incomplete. I find it a bit disconcerting that the discussion here is drifting to editor behavior not relevant to this noticeboard. To me, it's very simple--if the reference is to a book with page numbers, and I added citations without page numbers, and someone else asks for the page numbers, regardless of whatever other disputes we may be involved in, I should provide the page numbers, especially if they are easy to find. By not putting in the page numbers, I was sloppy and should neaten the place up a bit. But if I'm working on an article and stumble across citations lacking page numbers, I should add them, especially if they are easy to find, because helping fix articles is why I am here. If the page numbers are easy to find, this kind of disagreement should not occur in the first place. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

This summary sounds correct to me. I would say that if the page numbers are easy to find then both involved editors do not have much reason to be in a dispute because either should be able to solve it right away, without stress. If that is the situation then this is not really an RS question, just a question of people needing to be constructive.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

But suppose that one editor is not convinced that a book says what the other editor thinks it says, then the party who is of the opinion that the sentence is not a correct summary of the source, can not even begin to address the issue directly unless the text in source can be clearly identified. To take it to an absurd to level demonstrate a point, there are 29 volumes of the 1911 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, but if an editor (and in the past this has happened a lot) sticks an {{

talk

) 12:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Is that the case in this particular example? If the source is unclear, would it not make sense to bring up the question on the article's talk page, putting for the question about how the source is used, see if anyone else has an opinion, and perhaps asking the author of that particular citation for input? I think it is perfectly reasonably to ask for page numbers, but if none are forthcoming for whatever reason, it seems preferably to me to ask for additional input and give it some time to see if anyone can clarify. If that doesn't happen, being bold and recasting the text to fit the source makes sense, unless one cannot find a reference, in which case deletion is appropriate. It seems to me that we're well past the initial question here, but the underlying point should be I think that we assume and operate in good faith to improve the article. Whether or not a chunk of article text accurately represents a source is clearly a content question that should be raised on the article's talk page, but when I look there I see obviously contention that cannot be solved in this venue. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

@PBS. Not sure why it is relevant or practical to "take it to an absurd to level demonstrate a point"? And if there is a real reason for accusing someone of faking some information that goes well beyond questions of RS, and of course that would be a problem.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Whilst page numbers are good, be aware that different editions (including reprints in different countries) will have different numbers.--Michael C. Price ^talk 10:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course but the way that is handled is by providing additional information (such as publisher and year) see for example the article

talk

)

• This is just an edit dispute where PBS, who has long opposed the very existence of the ‘Targeted killing’ article has forum shopped to the ends of the Wikipedian earth to get rid of it. He’s been taken to ANI over it, RfCs he’s started have gone badly against his wishes, he edit warred to redirect the article to ‘Assassination’ (effectively wiping the ‘Targeted killing’ article out of articespace). He advocated merging the article to ‘Assassination’. He’s slapped {Biased} tags on it. And then he comes here right on the heels of being given a 48-hour block for his behavior over ‘Targeted killing’, which was lifted only after he pledged not to edit on that article or its talk page for the remainder of that RfC (the one that is not going per his wishes). That was the situation as of last night for me as I went to bed. This morning, I learned that he took his battle here with the above ‘War and Peace’ tome, which was clearly the product of a great deal of time and effort.

  This is just more forum shopping and wikidrama that is (*sigh*), yet another example of WP:Tendentious editing—a form of disruption—by an editor whose views are not shared by the rest of the community and he won’t let it go. Much of this is documented with links here on Talk:Targeted killing. It is just that simple. PBS is one of our early admins and knows better than to do this. He is clearly angry.

  I suggest that the community here simply point out to the shepherding editor of the ‘Targeted killing’ article how best to address the legitimate needs for citing the article. I have to go to work but I’ll check back and see if PBS is continuing to fan flames here (or elsewhere). I will advise him here and now that he would be exceedingly wise to let the volunteer wikipedians who are experienced in citation matters to take this matter from hereon with no more badgering over the ‘Targeted killing’ article—here or anywhere else on the project. Greg L (talk) 13:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that material should not be deleted purely and simply because the citation lacks page numbers... however... we must accept that a citation without page numbers is a flawed citation... and per WP:BURDEN, it is up to the editor who wants to add or keep the material to provide an unflawed citation.

That said... when there is more to the challenge than just lack of page numbers (such as when an editor questions whether the citation actually supports the material) that is a different issue. We are no longer talking about deleting purely and simply because of the lack of page numbers. We are deleting "for cause". Blueboar (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I think most of us would agree with policy, that the burden is on the editor to provide page numbers, and should be given some time to do it—rather than simply deleting the content. That's also the only way it can be reasonably determined if there are other causes for deleting the material. That's why editors should provide page numbers, from the start, for any material that is likely to be challenged. The forum shopping by PBS is arguably a legitimate issue, but for another forum. First Light (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• Citations to books absolutely require page numbers in order to fulfil the verifiability requirement. Google Books is not a substitute, because that service may stop working at any time. The request to provide page numbers is entirely reasonable, whatever the past history of the article or the involved editors may be, and should be complied with speedily.  Sandstein  18:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• It seems to me this discussion is shifting too far into hypothetical situations. If you come across an article where the references aren't up to scratch, it is of course detrimental to just delete the information. The original contributor could be more than happy to provide extra referencing information. This isn't what this is about. There is virtually full consensus that references are better with page numbers, so that isn't under dispute either. The editor who has added the material has participated in this discussion and is aware of how people feel on the subject of page numbers. The issue isn't about what to do when we come across poorly sourced content, it's about what to do when an editor is point blank refusing to improve references that we all agree are deficient when it would be relatively simple for him to do so. If an editor point blank refuses to improve references to the standard we generally see in books and college papers, then is it really unreasonable to prevent the material from being added until he gets the references up to scratch? Betty Logan (talk) 20:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that begs the question of whether Epeefleche does in fact refuse to provide page numbers. Epeefleche, would you be willing to add page numbers to the citations in the near future, given what appears to be general consensus here that page numbers are a Good Thing? And if you are not so willing, could you explain why that would not be possible (or desirable, if that is the case)? --Nuujinn (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, we've covered extensively the hypothetical (and with the exception of Sandstein) tend to all agree that you need to provide page numbers, however if someone doesnt because they are busy, that is NOT a reason in itself to speedily remove a reference, if it is easily done to fine the pages yourself do so, if not ask nicely, and give the person a reasonable amount of time, if they dont respond (they retired without saying anything, on wiki-vacation, died, car accident, real-life more important, etc must be taken into consideration), then tag, and as a last resort- remove; this takes time, if you dont have the time to do this, then why assume others have the time to move so quickly and respond to your request? This noticeboard should in fact Betty be about the hypothetical more than the specific. This is no longer a content dispute, this is a personal dispute and dispute resolution should be taken, this was a step and it pretty much failed, the particulars of this specific case really need to be taken elsewhere, as it is unlikely to reach any conclusion here. We've dealt with what should happen should this case occur again.Camelbinky (talk) 22:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Camelbinky, sorry if I wasn't clear, but I'm not asking Epeefleche to rush, nor will I take it amiss if they are too busy, or just don't feel like it (which is a possibility and I think a reasonable reaction given the dispute between them and PBS). I'm just asking for clarification as to whether Epeefleche is willing to add the page numbers in the near future. If they demur from answering or providing the numbers, I figure I'll take a crack at adding them. I don't regard this conversation here as a personal dispute, there may well be some who view it as such, but I think the majority of editors participating do not see it as such. At least that is my hope. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• Epeefleeche, to complain about PBS's perceived motive for requesting page numbers reflects poorly on you. I don't think I've ever seen stronger consensus on this noticeboard that someone is wrong as we have for you declining to provide a page number upon request. Just add the page numbers. If you don't, I'll remove the content and source myself. Cla68 (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
• To spare the community further wasted time on this, I've added the page numbers (538-47; the chapter, as all who have clicked through are aware, on targeted killing). I appreciate the points made by the editors. I agree with some, disagree with others (and note that many were made under a misapprehension, as discussed above), and stand by what I said above. Unlike PBS, who has been blocked for tendentious behavior w/regard to his continued disruptive editing in regard to the article, I choose (even though I feel my comments are correct) to spare the community further wheel-spinning here. Thanks to all.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Better late than never. Too bad you didn't just include them in the first place as recommended or once challenged as required. That would have saved everyone a lot of wasted time. Links can go bad, so your 'explanation' of why you chose to ignore policy carries no weight. And your gratuitous personal attack reflects badly on yourself. Dlabtot (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Epeefleeche why the ad hominem parting shot? To repeat what I said earlier: the consensus was that the block was unwarranted. The administrator who blocked my account, unblocked it and has agreed that (s)he will not bock my account in future (see the archived ANI and my talk page).

In the article War of 1812 there was (and is) a clause "(Another frigate had been destroyed to prevent it being captured on the stocks.)" which was supported by this citation: Theodore Roosevelt, multi volume The Naval War of 1812 Or the History of the United States Navy during the Last War with the United Kingdom to Which Is Appended an Account of the Battle of New Orleans.

Care to make a guess as to which sentence in that citation supported the clause (A serach/grep will not find it). See the discussion on the article's talk page page it is actually in Part II page 47 "Ross took Washington and burned the public buildings; and the panic-struck Americans foolishly burned the Columbia, 44, and Argus, 18, which were nearly ready for service." that was worked out via another source that is not cited but which is more likely to have been the origin of the clause. "Rushing down to the river, they set fire to a new Frigate, Columbia, caulked but still in the stocks and nearly ready for launch; and to the new Sloop of War Argus, which lay along side the wharf virtually ready for sea" (Ian W. Toll six frigates. p.435) This is why page numbers are usually essential to verify summaries of the sources cited in Wikipedia articles.

Epeefleeche do you now see that the

talk

) 00:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• PBS -- As I indicated above, to spare the community further wasted time on this, I'm not going to feed your tendentious behavior here. If you are curious as to what my response would have been had I chosen otherwise, you can divine it from what I have already said. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:07, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Important comment regarding page numbers on in-line citations

Comment: I agree page numbers should be included if available but and here is the kicker sometimes such numbers are not available. One such example is in the

Weston A Price article where one reference reads ""Weston A Price" New York Times Jan 24, 1948" because when you order from the New York Times article archive they give just the article rather the article in context so often you don't have a page number! Electronic versions of printed articles (such as USAToday and Times

also don't have page numbers of the printed version either. USAToday is particularly annoying because stories often have different titles between the electronic and paper versions meaning if for what ever reason the link ever breaks you are going to majorly SOL at ever finding the printed version of that article.

This is why I get so annoyed when in talk people just link to an article rather than telling us what they are linking to (the dreaded [55] or "This has the needed information" nonsense) Years later that link may not work so if Internet archive didn't make a back up how is anyone going to know what you linked to?--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Well this is a case where the page numbers were available, but an editor was obstinately refusing to provide them, perhaps based on personal animus towards another editor. Obviously if they aren't available they can't be provided. Dlabtot (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You then agree that the [56] and "this article is important in the talk pages is just as bad if not worse, right?--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Repeated reversion of request for citations

Israel and the apartheid analogy is a minefield article, plagued by edit-warring, repeated deletion discussions, and other problems. The article contains long lists of supporters and opponents of the use of this analogy. However, although there are citations for all of the supporters, most of the opponents are simply listed with no evidence. Last week, the list of opponents was duplicated in the article. I removed the duplication, and deleted the unsourced claims. (I also deleted one unsourced alleged supporter). This was reverted by another editor, so I added "citation needed" tags to the unsourced alleged opponents of the analogy. This request has been reverted three times by the same editor, without any attempt to supply the information or to verify these claims. Was my request reasonable, is this repeated removal of the tags disruptive, and if no evidence is provided that these individuals iindeed oppose the allegation, would it be appropriate to remove the names? RolandR (talk

) 07:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You added citation needed tags to every individual, even those already mentioned in the body. Another editor complained about your drive-by-tagging. I took the liberty of adding five or six cites but for now a template is okay, no need to spam the section with obnoxious tags that clearly poison the integrity of the article. And you Roland are the one edit-warring. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The referencing in the article is in need of attention. One refimprove tag should be added at the top. One of the regular editors should immediately convert all the article names currently in block capitals to initial caps. The over-referencing in the lede should be drastically reduced, which might of course take more time. I suggest both of you look through the article carefully, judging it in relation to good article criteria, and try and agree a list of things to do. General improvement of the article may sort out some of the bias questions. At least it will separate the actual points of dissent from the housekeeping tasks. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Veritaserum

The article for Alfred Enoch draws on http://www.veritaserum.com/movies/actors/alfredenoch.shtml as a key source. Veritaserum cites its sources as IMDB and http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org. I would like to challenge the associated material as needing further citations/verification but would appreciate confirmation on my opinion about this source. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 09:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I would say it's not reliable, and even if it were, it'd be better to be sourcing to this stuff to something other than a tertiary source at best. The general consensus about IMDB is that it's not a reliable source, and Leaky Cauldron appears to be a Harry Potter news aggregator site (which isn't even working at the moment). If the information that was from Leaky Cauldron and IMDB could be found elsewhere in a reliable source, that would be better. I'd say, given all of this, that Veritaserum can't be used to source this information. — e. ripley\^talk 14:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

While Veritaserum is one of the main Harry potter sites (and I would actually rely on it for any of my personal need to know questions), it is definitely not a reliable source. They have no reasonable fact-checking on the site, so it doesn't pass the necessary requirements for it to be considered reliabel on Wikipedia. Silverseren^C 23:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

e. ripley and Silver seren are correct. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Anarchist Catalonia

Once again, the fact tags have been replaced with either incomplete or unreliable references

Self-published sources, including

   * http://www.buckyogi.com/footnotes/nata.htm
   * http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/SPmontseny.htm
   * http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/spain/coll_catalonia_dolgoff.html

are definitely not acceptable in this case.

Since there is obviously a problem with sources on this page, which is very long-standing, I am removing references which do not cite page numbers. It is essential to verify statements, and an article which repeatedly cites the "sources" above has lost the benefit of the doubt.

There are a large number of contentious, uncited claims on this page. There is no excuse for this; the article may have been written a long time ago, but the concerns I raised over a year ago have not been addressed. If there is no improvement in sourcing, I will delete all of the tagged statements in two week's time. BillMasen (talk) 11:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The first source is a

WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk)

03:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

First is not reliable as noted by Jayjg

Second is not reliable due to publisher lacking reliability in the field

Third is not reliable due to the publication format (unable to attribute). Seek the original works mentioned in the third. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree w/Fifelfoo.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Reliability of two sources

Can someone determine whether this [57] and musicOMH [58] are reliable enough to pass the FA candidacy of Goodies (album) Candyo32 16:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

On the first, no, due to lack of oversight in that publication, but use the references provided after reading them and determining their reliability; No, the second isn't a source, it is the title page of a web publication. For the second, please supply a citation and link to the actual material you intend to use so we can determine if it is reliable. Also, please supply the material you intend to support with the citation. The editorial oversight of the second may or may not be reliable depending on the content supported. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Blog article

http://ibnlive.in.com/blogs/dpsatish/237/61930/mangalore-diary-highrises-malls--beautiful-bunt-women.html Is this source reliable in the

IBN Live, it is a blog operated by a professional journalist of the news channel and is under the control of the news channel.115.242.217.252 (talk

) 14:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

ibnlive is a commercial news source. DPSatish's blog is an opinion piece, with little editorial oversight (copy editors haven't removed asterisked section breaks). The reliability of the source depends on the purpose for which it is being used. Can you quote what the source is being used for in Mangalore? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Birthday.se as a source for titling BLP articles

Recently I've seen a user moving BLP articles with birthday.se as a source. Birthday.se is a Swedish site for finding more in-depth information about a particular person's birth date. Does birthday.se qualify as a source? HeyMid (contributions) 15:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not about sourcing. It's about article naming. See

Taemyr (talk

) 15:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Living persons could be hurt by the following link

The link here [59] could create harm to living persons. Can you please block it?--Zucchinidreams (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

This ought to be taken to

WP:AN/I for discussion. Thanks. Fifelfoo (talk

) 00:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source regarding background of actions of Nazi collaboration movement?

Recently an editor has put a pdf file[60] that according to him claims as "fact" that people murdered based in part on lists made by Nazi Ukrainian collaboration organisation were "cooperating with Soviets". This goes against established information in mainstream publications.

Is this reliable to be a source about Nazi mass murder and its background?

The text of the pdf is in cyrilic and Ukrainian-meaning that we have to rely on google to translate it.However there are sentences and statements that if correct make me question the sources reliability on the issue of murders committed by Nazi collaborationist organisation OUN.

I found following examples(note that this is from google translation and a bit messsy):

• Jews traditionally made much of among the NKVD, and the Jewish sensing that she finally pursued at the state level since September 1939 actively involved in the Soviet political and social life.

• Therefore, the OUN and actions during the Second World-ar aimed at ethnic-Ukrainian unification should be seen primarily in plane of the anti-colonial struggle

• no surprise that the young insurgents quite sincerely hated the Jews

• The incredible influence of Jews inadministrative and punitive apparatus

• Second, you should never forget that In 1939-1941 showed a bright pro-Soviettion a large part of Jewish youth

• Under the leadership Lenin Jews were involved in all aspects of the revolution including its dirtiest work(I think this is a quote).

• Activities of Jewish fighters who on the eve creation of Israel, European mass-killinging and Arab settlers in Palestine (which, by the ?? Incidentally, Jews have lost almost two thousand years before then-First and occupy it based mostly , the allegations of their own religious books that that this land was promised to their people by God

• He writes that Jews made :is incredibly zhor-flow of slaughter,

All those statements if correct seem to indicate a highly biased work-I couldn't find its english translation, nor review in any journal. The text seems to be partially defensive towards OUN and attempts to portay its actions against Jews and Poles as "anti-colonial struggle". It is also used to claim Polish intellectuals murdered based on lists prepared by OUN were "cooperating with Soviets". Non-controversial sources on the murder note that those murdered had in majority no political involvment. An editor on discussion page claims that this claim originated "from source cited under footnote 4 - Кальба М. Ми присягали Україні. ДУН 1941–1943. – Львів, 1999. –С. 117 – - “memoirs of the Myroslav Kal’ba – mentioned as Schutzmann Myroslav Kal’ba - one of the Nachtigal and later 201 Schutzmannschaft Battalion member"

I believe this article isn't neutral nor reliable to source activities of OUN and its involvment in Nazi mass murder.I would welcome any comment.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how well i'd rely on Google Translate to be correct all of the time. You're losing a lot in translation, i'm sure. But the base site where that work is hosted is the site for the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. Because of that, I would tentatively say that it is a reliable source. Of course, that doesn't mean that a source isn't biased, just that it is reliable. You'd have to start a discussion on the talk page, perhaps an RfC, to get consensus on whether the work is biased or not. Silverseren^C 23:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

He is quoting a lot of stuff out of context.Faustian (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if that's true or not and it doesn't really matter. This board is just to determine if a source is reliable of not. I've given my opinion on that, any further discussion on how the source is to be used should be done on the article's talk page, not here. Silverseren^C 00:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

How should we proceed with a biased source. Should we for example mention more about the author's claims-that for example OUN activity is claimed by him to be "anti-colonial" struggle? Also per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources it would mean that such biased source is not fit to be a good one for exceptional claims? Is there any other board for discussion of this or can we do it here?--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Realistically, a biased source should not be used in an article. However, you claiming by yourself that the source is biased doesn't hold any water. You need to hold a Request for Comment on the talk page of the article to get other users involved, so that they can weigh in on whether the source is biased or not. The consensus that develops from that can then determine what should be done. I repeat from before, content-based discussion, other than determining the reliability of a source, should not be conducted on this board. Silverseren^C 00:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

As I've outlined on the talk page [61] part of the issue is whether the author is making these claims himself or whether he is including them as a representation of other people's views (i.e. the difference between "I think THIS" vs. "These people believed this and I'm just presenting what they believed)". This matters for the reliability of the source but doesn't determine it. If he is just presenting the views of OUN (Ukrainian nationalists - actually, EXTREMIST Ukrainian nationalists) then this source is reliable in so far as it documents their views reliably, but this needs to be noted in the text. It should not be used to source a "fact", just a particular POV (i.e. we don't use Mein Kampf as a reliable source for "Jews are bad", but we can use it for "Adolf Hitler thought Jews were bad"). Because the source is in non-English, and Google translate sucks, it's not actually clear what is going on here (i.e. is he making his own argument, or just presenting other people's thoughts?). But if the statement is his own, it IS largely contradicted by other sources. Add that to the fact that he appears to be citing some very questionable primary sources (again - is he citing them to illustrate their point of view, or as "fact"?) the issue becomes even more murky.

talk

) 00:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

What might be best is to attribute the source's use to him directly, regardless. That way, any problems with whether it is his personal opinion or the opinion of a separate group will not matter all that much. Just to be clear, i'm talking about organizing however the source is used in a sentence that begins or ends with "according to [author of the source]". Silverseren^C 00:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

This would work if we knew whether or not he is presenting his own ideas or presenting the ideas of others. There's a big difference between "Scholar X says Y" and "Scholar X says that people Z said Y". That's at least part of the issue here. So attributing the statement to the source doesn't solve the problem. It evades (part of the) the question. The other part being that if he does say Y, and is using sketch primary sources as basis, that should at the very least be mentioned.

talk

) 04:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Judging a scholar's work based on his choice of primary source for a specific piece of information seems to be original research, right? There is no indication in the text whatsoever that the author doubted the veracity of the claim. He didn't say "according to...X" He just said "X" with a ref. The ref didn't include any editorialization either. So the claim is owned by the author of the work we are discussing. Therefore when citing this in the wikipedia article I wrote "According to Patrilyak (the source in question).." I will note that the only source provided contradicting this one is a newspaper article. I tried to include both in the article, as both seem to meet criteria for RS.Faustian (talk) 00:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I will note that the only source provided contradicting this one is a newspaper Not a very good argument Faustian-most extraordinary claims don't have contradictions in reliable sources-that Obama isn't a space lizard for example. In fact the more outrageous the claim the less will be there coverage of it in the publications. So far besides this publication and single sentence no proof nor any background was present by you from anywhere that would support the claim that those were regarded by Germans as ooperating with Soviets nor that they did--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that there are extraordinary claims including for example that some among the murdered were in talks with Stalin to form a pro-Soviet government in opposition to the Polish government in London. Please note that claim makes them de-facto guilty of high treason and complete defames their memory. In my opinion the claim is of such extraordinarity that it needs other reliable sources to back it up. As for the "professors actively cooperating with the Soviets" claim, the only one who can judge that are the Polish authorities which never ever brought up a single claim of any wrongdoings in the conduct of the professors, and in fact their reputation is beyond any doubt. Similarly 100s and 100s of Polish historians have never detected any "active cooperation" with the Soviets either. J.kunikowski (talk) 00:53, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Note that there is somewhat a controversy regarding Nazi era research by Ukrainian historians-see this publication by Ivan Katchanovski, Ph.D.Visiting Scholar Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian StudiesHarvard University: [62] President Yushchenko, nationalist parties, and many Ukrainian historians attempted to recast the OUN and the UPA as a popular national liberation movement, which fought both against Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, and to present OUN and UPA leaders as national heroes. They either denied or justified by its pro-independence struggle, the involvement of the OUN and the UPA in terrorism, the Nazi genocide, and the ethnic cleansing. I think this might be case with what we are dealing with here to some extent.Of course since we have to rely on google translate and its clumsy translation all this subject becomes very difficult--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 01:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no mention in the quote about the author of this book specifically nor about the Ukrainain Academy of Sciences specifically. Of course there are "historians" pushing all sort of nonsense. THere is no indication based on your quote that this is one of them.Faustian (talk) 01:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, googletranslate gives his words as Therefore, the OUN and actions during the Second World-ar aimed at ethnic-Ukrainian unification їнshould be seen primarily in plane of the anti-colonial struggle. Those are his words, correct? It does fit with many Ukrainian historians attempted to recast the OUN and the UPA as a popular national liberation movement--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 01:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the word "popular" in your quote. Nor anything about them being "national heroes." The idea of OUN/UPA being focused on attaining independence is hardly fringe or anything - actually most scholars view it that way. The Ukrainian nationalist ones just deny that they committed a lot of brutal crimes while pursuing their goal. The source we are talking about certainly doesn't deny that.Faustian (talk) 04:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you please supply a standard citation of the work in question? not a link, a citation. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure. І.К. Патриляк. Військова діяльність ОУН(Б) у 1940—1942 роках. — Університет імені Шевченко \Ін-т історії України НАН України Київ, 2004. I.K Patrylyak. (2004). Military activities of the OUN (B) in the years 1940-1942. Kiev, Ukraine: Shevchenko University \ Institute of History of Ukraine National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. pg. 323.Faustian (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I.K. Patrylyak and the Institute of History of the Ukraine and the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine are reliable and high quality sources unless demonstrated _specifically_ otherwise. As Patrylyak is published in an academic press, his work is reliable and scholarly. An attack on the scholarly nature of his work would need to be made on the credibility of Patrylyak, the quality of his specific book, or/and either the IHU or NASU in a scholarly setting by a historian of Eastern Europe in the twentieth century. Such attacks would need to indicate that these elements of the source are not scholarly in nature and are untrue.

Secondly, why aren't editors using the much more accessible to the English reader, David R. Marples (2007) Heroes and villains: creating national history in contemporary Ukraine which deals with the role of the national myth, the OUN(B), and the quality of contemporary Ukraine historiography. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem some editors are having is with a particle point that Patrilyak discusses which doesn't seem to be discussed in Marples' book.Faustian (talk) 14:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The "point(s)" in question is the claim that the professors cooperated actively with the Soviets and that some of the murdered meet with Stalin and were in talks to form a pro-Soviet government in opposition to the Polish government. Faustian you correctly note that this "doesn't seem to be discussed in Marples' book". Could you please provide any other source which would make the said claims? That would be very helpful. J.kunikowski (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no wikipedia policy that states that in order for a source to be reliable, any piece of information taken from that source must be corroborated with other sources. There is no policy mandating additional hoops to jump through with respect to a source's relaibiity if some people don't like some information.Faustian (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

In reply to Faustian from above, if the material isn't contained in the English language Marples, then there is no problem with sourcing it from the equally scholarly and reliable Patrylyak. Fifelfoo (talk) 16:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice.Faustian (talk) 16:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistency of BC and BP in the same article

Resolved

The article

Before present

) standard practice is to use 1950 as the calibrated carbon dating reference then do I convert 2400 BC to 4350 BP with a footnote saying "source is 2400 BC converted to BP using 2400+1950=4350 BP"?

--Senra (Talk) 12:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I would advice against that. Conversion from radiocarbon BP to historical BC(E) is non-trivial, and calibration curves still change. It's not simply a cultural preference, as conversion between different calendars, but actually quite challenging. Also, BP dates come with a number of caveats (e.g. it gives you the age for a piece of wood, not for the piece of furniture...). I'd leave them separately, and maybe explain why they are this way, maybe in a footnote. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure this is an RSN subject but I agree with Stephan. Anything which makes an article worse is a bad edit, even if that means bending a style guideline.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Stephan; rather than attempting to convert, this is best handled by just stating what the different sources say, possibly in a footnote. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Given the above, article now says "... suggests the peat in this area was formed by a large marine incursion in about 2400 BC."^[1]

^[1]Worssam reports "Radiocarbon dates of about 2400 years B.C. ... (Godwin and Willis 1961, p.66)";{{Sfn|Worssam|Taylor|1975|p=93}} Adventurer's Fen, Wicken, Cambridgeshire, tree no. 1: 4380 ± 140 {{Sfn|Godwin|Willis|1961|p=66}}

--Senra (Talk) 11:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

YouTube used as source on Deadwood (TV series)

In the

The'FortyFive'

01:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected during the edit war. Please discuss - revert warring is not OK, period. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Two things are under discussion here, as sources

• David Milch, Speech to USC class COMM426 [unpublished], 2008-01-24.
• David Milch, Speech to USC class COMM426 [unpublished videorecording], [samizdat] via Youtube, [unknown date].

Neither appears to be reliable for film criticism (the establishment and identification of themes) due to the Self Published nature and Primary nature of the source: David Milch, the executive producer of Deadwood. Neither would be reliable for his opinions either, as neither is published in the sense of responsibility taken for them by a publisher. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

(This is a copy from the talk page.)

YouTube does not confer credibility to videos published on it the same way the reputable NY Times does. However, it also does not taint the credibility of every video published on it. YouTube videos are so diverse and lack any kind of editorial oversight which means YouTube does not lend its brand name to any of its videos one way or the other. This means, quite rightly, that any random YouTube video cannot be considered a credible source outright - which is what the people here who are against the edit are saying. It also means that not every single YouTube video is absolutely not credible just because it's on YouTube. This is a good example of why it's important not to be dogmatic about rules. Some of them, like this one, are ill stated.

The video in question is not used as a reference by pointing to some random ten second quip said by some unknown talking head, edited wildly, and published in a dubious context. It's an hour long video taping of a university lecture. There is no voice over narration or additional footage. It's obviously unedited. The ref provided is a time mark in the 4th part of the lecture pointing directly to the relevant part (it continues to the 5th part), and it can be easily discernible it's not out of context. And it's a recording of David Milch, who is clearly visible, audible, and identifiable. Milch is the main man behind Deadwood. It has been established in numerous reputable articles about him, and maybe there is a point of adding those to his wiki article, if they are not there already. He is the creator, executive producer, head writer, and notoriously all around "auteur". So all in all, barring a terrible sinister attempt to troll people with philosophical rambling (and we are assuming good faith all around), this is a prima facie good source. The single counter argument is "but it's YouTube", which is not a valid argument because no one is asserting credibility of the recording based on the YouTube brand. The source is good because of all the above arguments for it. 109.186.62.61 (talk) 06:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

One more thing, the title of this section is misleading. In this case, YouTube is not the source. It's the medium. No one is asserting the source is credible because it's published on YouTube. It's a prima facie good source. 109.186.62.61 (talk) 06:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

YouTube videos can be used as a source. However, the reliability of the Knight Chair in Media and Religion, part of the University of California's Annenberg School for Communication needs to be established. The uploader says it is the official channel. It looks to be academic in nature (which editors tend to approve of), but without secondary coverage I suppose it could be argued that it isn't worthy of inclusion. I would lean towards keeping this one, though.

We do not have a policy on YouTube for sources (just external links) I recently created an essay based on policies, guidelines, and previous discussions @

WP:VIDEOLINK.Cptnono (talk

) 06:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Also see: USC Annenberg School for Communication and JournalismCptnono (talk) 06:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

And the only thing I see wrong with the material cited is that he "repeatedly" says. Realistically, even if this was SPS (which it is not but it is him speaking) I might still be OK with it since who better then to say what his intentions were. Of course a proper write up on it in would be preferable. Cptnono (talk) 07:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Uh... a lecture is a mode of communication; but, nobody is taking responsibility for the lecture except for David Milch himself. If you want to argue that it being a lecture in undergraduate teaching lends credibility to the source, I would also challenge this: undergraduate teaching is not a venue for the advancement of film knowledge, it is the equivalent of a TERTIARY source. Additionally, as Milch is the "auter" and is commenting on his own work, this should be treated as self. If Milch is being used for an analytical critique of Deadwood, or for its reception, or for its construction of film, he isn't reliable. The other two features of a reliable source are lacking: reliable publisher, and reliable mode of publication with review. Youtube isn't the problem with reliability: the fact that this is an unpublished and unreviewed lecture by a very interested party in the work is the problem. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

You're over-analyzing the issue. Take a look at the disputed article. The ref link is used to back a text that says what Milch said, attributed to him, and is having Milch on video saying it. That video is beyond a source - it's a proof. You said a guy said something and then you showed a clear unedited video footage of him saying it. What counter-argument is there? That the video is fake? That it's not really Milch saying it on camera? That it was taken out of context? (It's an hour long unedited video.) I think it's just common sense. 109.186.62.61 (talk) 09:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't work on your idiosyncratic version of common sense. It works on reliable sources. The video given is not reliable for the claims, "Milch has pointed out repeatedly in interviews that the intent of the show was to study the way that civilization comes together from chaos by organizing itself around symbols (in Deadwood the main symbol is gold). Initially, he intended to study this within Roman civilization (the central symbol was to be the religious cross), but HBO's Rome series was already in production and Milch was asked by the network if he could stage the story in another place."

Firstly, it involves after the fact justification, "Initially, he intended to study...", secondly it makes claims about other agents which Milch is not reliable for, "Milch was asked by the network," thirdly, the second involves bombastic rhetoric implying Milch is correct, "has pointed out repeatedly," fourthly, the video is meant to support "the intent of the show," not "Milch's stated intent with the show" but the intent of the text itself. The video given isn't reliable for this. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Three more fundamental questions... 1) who is "KnightChair" (the user name of the person who posted the video to YouTube)? 2) Does he/she have permission to post the video to YouTube? (If not, then there is a potential for a copyrite vio here.) 3) Can we be sure that the video has not been edited in a way that changes Milch's words? Without these answers we can not call the video reliable. Blueboar (talk) 13:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The University of California's Knight Chair in Media and Religion has been addressed and does not appear to be a copyright vio. It is also reasonable to assume that an academic institution would not modify the video especially since it would serve no purpose. Fifelfoo is correct that the wording would need to be tinkered with. No secondary source so far is the only concern I can see at all even though I think verifiability is met so still lean towards inclusion.Cptnono (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I have been monitoring this discussion for a while and thought I'd weigh in now that it's in cool down mode. After reading some of the discussions about using YouTube for a source, I feel that as a community, we must establish a firm rule for YouTube. The simple fact is that content on YouTube is user-generated, with no editorial oversight (with the exception of some legally contentious material). WP:RS is clear about self-published content with no editorial oversight. It does not pass muster. The video in question is allegedly from a good source (USC), but we here cannot verify that A) that video actually comes from that source, and B) that someone has not altered its content. If the video had been included in a DVD, or shown by a broadcaster, it would have been exposed to scrutiny. But YouTube is like Wikipedia without the references; I could, with enough technical savvy, create a video proving life on Venus. Please understand I am not inferring any shenanigans are afoot with this video. I do feel, however, that the large potential for shenanigans that YouTube represents makes it unsuitable for an encyclopedia. I realize this issue is still being hashed out here and many other places, but I'd like to state my position (for what it's worth).

Is it not possible to source this video directly from USC? That would cut YouTube out of the equation. We seem to be in agreement about the fundamentals of this argument: i.e. that sources need editorial oversight to qualify as reliable sources. IP appears to seek an exemption from this, as the source is highly relevant to the topic at hand. A good analogy for this would be an excellent thesis that has not been peer-reviewed yet and posted to the internet. There is a certain amount of long-term patience required with WP. If Milch stands by his comments on the video, they will eventually be available in a peer-reviewed form, i.e. his own writing, academic writing, or established film criticism. As I have noticed with YouTube referencing in other articles, this is premature. Deadwood is a relatively new topic, and it will take time for criticism to coalesce. The Interior(Talk) 21:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

above comments copied from Talk:Deadwood (TV series) by The Interior(Talk) 21:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

There have been numerous discussions about YouTube. Attempts at creating a policy or guideline have failed (the reason I created an essay linked up above). There is a precedent for the acceptance of YouTube videos if they are from RS on their official channels. If this part of USC is considered RS then it should be fine.Cptnono (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

General question - Does anyone know what is involved in making a YouTube channel "official"? Does YouTube verify these channels? Knowing this would help re: RS. The Interior(Talk) 21:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

From what I can tell it is a case of if it is reasonable to assume. The AP, for example would be all over that channel for copyright violations (logo and videos) if it was not official. Some of those bigger guys have relationships with YouTube and do attempt to get copyright material removed. And I just remembered, there sources discussed it when the AP was launched. In this case, I would be shocked if it was not the official channel. It looks legit and I see no reason why someone would pretend to be the department. However, there is no way of actually knowing 100% without shooting off an email (which may not even be responded to). Some common sense should apply.Cptnono (talk) 21:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Is mediapost.com a reliable source of info?

As I look at it, there appear to be reviews by a number of folks and subsequent comments by decidedly non-noptable folk. I'm being told that the writers of the reviews are regular journalists doing a gig at Mediapost, but I'm not finding any of the reviewers' bios, to verify that. Has someone else come across this issue? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Difficult question. It's the website of a commercial enterprise geared to providing services to media, marketing and advertising professionals. Those services include newsletters and trade publications. It has a named editor-in-chief. I would say it's at the lower end of reliability. Was there a specific article or statement in contention? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

OWOW

We have thousands of links to http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com, many of them as sources in

WP:BLPs. VRTS ticket # 2010090810000806 states that the site has the subject's name wrong. I am unconvinced of the reliability of this as a source. Guy (Help!

) 12:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Editorial policy [63] and [64] indicate this is not an RS. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Fifelfoo is correct. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

BUAV and antivivisection.info

Hi,

I did a quick search and neither BUAV.org or antivivisection.info came up. Can the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) article which lists Amerijet as a primate transporter here and the National Anti-Vivisection Alliance (Nava) listing of Amerijet here be used to source a claim along the lines of

Amerijet is one of only a few airlines that still transports primates to be used in experimentation. They have transported primates from the islands of Saint Kitts and Barbados, and elsewhere in the Caribbean and South America, to the United States. The shipments were for companies, such as Primate Products, Inc. and Worldwide Primates, that provide primates to laboratories. In August 2009, Amerijet was cited by the USDA for failing to meet federal standards in regards to enclosures holding 15 tamarins.

in

talk

) 00:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Advocacy groups should generally be cited with attribution. If the advocacy group is the only place a claim appears, questions of

WP:UNDUE may surface as well. Dlabtot (talk

) 01:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Dlabtot is correct. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Superman 2 date

Superman 2 was released nationwide in June 1981, the same summer as Raiders of the Lost Ark. Countless sources, however, list it as a 1980 release. No doubt this confusion comes from copyright filings but it was released in 1981 for sure. Thank you.

Do you have any sources for any of this? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

From Superman II: "It was released in Europe and Australia in late 1980, and in other countries throughout 1981." ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, no source is given for that claim in the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

A list of release dates is on IMDB. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 03:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Is @WestWingReport on Twitter a reliable source for the

First Transcontinental Telegraph

?

Someone please help verify

Talk:First_Transcontinental_Telegraph#Belated_149th

.

Also, is this US-centric? Was there an earlier trans-European telegraph? 71.198.176.22 (talk) 01:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing not, per

WP:TWITTER, but I may be wrong. --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)}

02:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that section or source in the article. Am I missing something? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, the IP made a post to the article's talk page at

Talk:First Transcontinental Telegraph#Belated 150th. Maybe that's what s/he's talking about? --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)}

03:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh right, I see. I can't imagine how that source could possibly comply with

WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk)

04:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant 149th. My mistake. At least there is now plenty of time to verify this fact. Sorry I was off by one. 71.198.176.22 (talk) 07:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a worthy project, I look forward to seeing it at FAC, IP71. I think there are times when twitter is useful, tweets from a person can be used to show their plans and whatnot. However, I do not see why a better source is not available for a historical fact.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Wired.com

Specifically, this:

http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2009/06/the-140-project-filmmakers-capture-140-seconds-of-home/

Does it meet

WP:RS

and why/why not?

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bytemeh (talk • contribs)

Without being familiar with this particular subject (The 140 Project) or circumstance (whatever article you're editing) specifically, after reading over that specific article I have no concerns with its reliability. I would say that

WP:RS). It looks fine to me. //Blaxthos ( t / c

) 20:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Wired (magazine) is a popular 17 year old mainstream technology magazine, that's won numerous awards. It's generally considered to meet RS as a mainstream news source, though it depends on what claim that particular article is being cited for. Can you provide a link for the context? Thanks. --GRuban (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, guys! I am specifically trying to find more reliable sources to prove that Canadian actress Emily Schooley is in fact notable by

Frozen North Productions had with her after she publicly outed them for poor business practices. The AfD debate got quite messy, so I am trying to hunt up 'enough' evidence to prove that she is notable, get her article re-written sufficiently to get it back on Wikipedia, and put a stop to this whole mess. Bytemeh (talk

) 21:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Since this article doesn't mention her, it's not clear that it will help much in your goal, but best of luck to you. The more articles about notable people we have, the better. --GRuban (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Bytemeh, sorry, but you're barking up the wrong tree here. Without going into too much detail at the noticeboard for reliable sources, that article was deleted following a deletion discussion,

WP:HOTTIE--I'm kidding.

I would like to ask an administrator to consider closing this thread: wired.com is a reliable source, but, with all due respect, that doesn't help Bytemeh's case of notability by proxy approved by the Reliable Sources board. Drmies (talk

) 21:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ha, cute.

WP:HOTTIE should solve everything. (One editor aside from myself did advocate an overturn, but I can see how that would get lost in the discussion there.) I mostly wanted to know if Wired, in conjunction with other links, would be reasonable for notability or not. Let's not even get into the mess that was the AfD or any of the continuing debates. Trying to be as reasonable, rational, and neutral as possible here. Bytemeh (talk

) 21:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Wired is reasonably reliable, but being mentioned in it doesn't prove notability. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, notability requires 'non-trivial' coverage, for example, if Wired had published an article whose subject was Emily Schooley. Dlabtot (talk) 06:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Social Networking source

There is a question from an editor regarding the use of a video archived on a social networking site, viz: Suzuki v. Consumers' Union. It's agreed that the video is authentic and useful, as well as being extremely rare. It doesn't appear to be available anywhere else since it was withdrawn from distribution after the settlement of the related court case. The problem is that WP:ELNO #10 prohibits using links to social networking sites. How can we use this source without running afoul of WP:ELNO #10? Santamoly (talk) 00:39, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

"It's agreed that the video is authentic." So cite the original work. My photocopies of a journal article are "authentic". I don't cite the Kyocera copier. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you miss the part where it's agreed by all that it's not available anywhere else? Hence the discussion. It's only available on the "social networking site" MySpace. Using your example, the video is stored in the memory of the Kyocera copier, not anywhere else. Santamoly (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Who agreed that the video is "authentic"? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

As an involved editor, I've seen nothing to indicate that the video is fake or altered, but I myself can't vouch for its authenticity since I'm not familiar with the source.

WP:VIDEOLINK requires that "Reliability of the uploader and video must always be established", so it would seem the burden of proof is on the presenter ThatSaved (talk

) 23:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

the hobbit is available in my local library. I still cite the author title and publisher of the book and not my library. Cite the original publication. Do not link to copyvios. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

not so sure about that... see:

WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT Blueboar (talk

) 00:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works; So cite the samizdat / bootleg, but don't link to it. In that case it would be OriginalAuthor, (copydate) [Originaldate] "OriginalTitle" [electronic copy of a video.] Original Publisher Location/Broadcast channel, Digitally copied and distributed via Current Host or Samizdat. For example, Tolkien, JRR The Hobbit London: Presslypress, 1991; versus Tolkien, JRR The Hobbit originally as London: Presslypress, 1991; reprinted in samizdat EbilBookPirateDistro, [?2009] as an .ePub file. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

[?American Suzuki Motor Corporation] / [?Gladstone International] (2007-07-02) [?undated] "Suzuki v. Consumers Union." [electronic copy of a video.] Originally: Video B-Roll; In bootleg/samizdat: "caleb cannon"[pseud.] "possumassaliant"[pseud.].

It is hard to see what makes this a reliable source for opinion, given that ASMC/Gladstone don't explicitly take responsibility for the work, similarly Video B-Roll. The source lacks an internal distribution date, or indication of a distributor other than Video B-Roll. About the only thing certain about the work is that it is an electronic copy of a video and that it has a clear title. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

As above, there's no indication that the video meets the requirements of

WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT applies to Reliable Sources only, since one does not cite unreliable ones. Jayjg ^(talk)

23:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the position of being excessively legalistic to the point of perpetuating ignorance. A defective reference, in the absence of a better one, will at least serve as a reminder, a placeholder if you will, that a better source is out there somewhere. One can even remark that this is the best information uncovered to date, albeit not perfect. But you seem to be saying that complete ignorance of the fact that information exists is preferable to a clue leading towards a better source. This doesn't sound like an intellectually sound position at all. Santamoly (talk) 05:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

We have no indication that "that this is the best information uncovered to date".

WP:V tells editors to use reliable sources, not to use unreliable sources if reliable ones cannot be found. Something is not always better than nothing. Jayjg ^(talk)

06:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment: If might add a point here. There are valid reasons that I had to go through Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_24#Using_a_posting_to_Youtube.com_by_the_copyright_holder to show that I could use a youtube video as a reference. Yes, it was (and is) annoying as all get out but there are very good reasons for it. Personally, we should use a demonstrated official channel copy of the video in question just to save on the migraines.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Source reliability on historical articles

Resolved

 – The parties seem to have found a text-sourcing combination which works.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

What sources are acceptable for articles about historical events and figures? Are news articles acceptable? Books promoting

fringe theories?

The dispute revolves around these two edits: [65] [66] The first edit inserts a fringe source to support a statement that doesn't appear in any of the biographies about the subject; the second replaces one of them with a news article that is apparently circularly based on the article itself at an earlier date, as is set out here.

I ask that this discussion be kept within a narrow focus of the question, and not blur off into a digression about the fringe theory itself. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

As as RSN question there is a basic way of answering which is that Wikipedia does not demand the exclusive use of academic sources, and news articles are also acceptable in many cases. Just because a subject is historical does not seem to me to make a generalizable difference to that remark. Books making fringe theory arguments can of course also be used carefully in some cases if those fringe theories are notable and agreed to be needing coverage, which appears to be the case with the de Vere = Shakespere theory. How to balance those things is of course another question. So: If I understand correctly the material that needs sourcing is a statement saying that de Vere had a large number of works dedicated to him?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

For clarity, I would ask that you link-cite the appropriate Wikipedia policy section when answering. Thanks much. Tom Reedy (talk) 21:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The source required is to ground the words '(Oxford) was 'one of the leading patrons' of the Elizabethan age.’

De Vere is one of the most studied aristocrats of the Elizabethan court, with an Oxfordian bio. Ward's (1928), and a very recent, perhaps definitive documentary life by Alan Nelson of Stanford, which also supplies all the relevant documents. Comprehensively just these two run to 900 pages. Other works such as Pearson's (2005) go into huge detail concerning his finances. We have Stephen May's several studies (1980, 1991, 2004) on his poetry and patronage. We have numerous articles on specific incidents in his life, etc.etc. In addition we have numerous studies on the Elizabethan theatre, its patrons. Just one to mention here is Paul Whitfield White, Suzanne R. Westfall (eds.)Shakespeare and Theatrical Patronage in Early Modern England (2006), and generally Jane Milling, Peter Thomson, Joseph W. Donohue (eds), The Cambridge History of British Theatre: Origins to 1660, (2004). There is indeed a burgeoning field of patronage studies for the period.

Given the huge volume of available material, which some editors are accessing, it is asked why a BBC page written by a staffer with a degree in media, discussing Oxfordian theories, should be sourced for such a simple affirmation. It has been shown that the BBC page actually borrowed that phrasing from wikipedia.

The question essentially is, therefore, can an unsourced comment in a wikipedia article be reliably referenced, as requested, to an article which patently borrowed that comment from the wikipedia article? That, to minds like myself, is purely circular, and extremely dangerous for the repute of the encyclopedia as a reliable synopsis of RS on any topic. Nishidani (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't say that I noticed it being proved that WP was the original source, but I guess what you are saying is that there are heaps of better sources. If that is true, then of course these would be preferred. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Andrew for supplying some basic policy info. I expected as much so have no comment on his policy analysis except to say that he is spot on. In regards to Tom's opening statement and Nishidani's rejoinder to Andrew, however, I do have a few comments:

• Both Tom and Nishidani mention bios on Oxford. They accept Ward's bio, even though they admit it as "Oxfordian", and have quoted extensively from it, even though it is as fringy as much of the work they seek to exclude, and is hopelessly outdated.
• The modern equivalent to Ward (1928!) is Ogburn (1984), who provides copious biographical material, including much that had not been discovered prior to Ward's original work. Ogburn's "The Mysterious William Shakespeare" is just as Oxfordian as Ward, so to accept one and reject the other is untenable. Besides, as Andrew notes "Books making fringe theory arguments can of course also be used carefully in some cases if those fringe theories are notable and agreed to be needing coverage, which appears to be the case with the de Vere = Shakespere theory." So both Ward and Ogburn, as well as Anderson[[67]] and Price[[68]], for example, are acceptable as long as we are careful about it and don't give them more weight than necessary.
• Labeling Nelson as the "definitive" biography is a highly controversial claim. Many disagree and going by the Amazon reviews[[69]] (not very scientific, admittedly), the biased nature of the work (Tom Reedy, who filed this very report, even called Nelson a "muckraker") should warrant an equally careful approach when it should be referenced and how much weight it should be afforded.
• The works by Ogburn, Anderson and Price (the most recent authorship works that make the minority view arguments) easily fulfill the basic RS requirement of being published by "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and have been commented on extensively by mainstream scholars. Ogburn's book is even included in Tom and Nishidani's wiki article on the Authorship question as one of the milestones in the history of the entire issue. To ban it (or the others I have mentioned) from wikipedia sourcing on this and related subjects would be against policy, as outlined by Andrew above.
• Finally, the whole issue of whether the SAQ is fringe (in terms of the Wiki definition) is not a closed case. There are many who believe it is either borderline or (dare I say it) even approaching mainstream. James Shapiro, the most recent mainstream commentator on the authorship issue admits as much in a recent interview. Check the headline on the article he recently had published: [[70]], where Mr. Shapiro writes "Alas, poor Shakespeare: Conspiracy theories about the authorship of his plays have gone mainstream". Smatprt (talk) 23:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Smatprt, when I said fringe proponents can be used carefully, please do not forget the qualifier. If Ogburn is to be considered a fringe proponent, then it might be appropriate to attribute anything surprising which Ogburn says as coming from such a proponent. You appear to want to cite it as a mainstream source without such qualification. That might be appropriate if it is, but again, please do consider this aspect.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I see my request to stay on topic was in vain. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

For my own part I've tried. Not sure if you say I've gone off topic? Anyway you might want to consider whether everyone agrees on what the topic is. I found it necessary to look at the edits being contested. I suppose what is being disputed there might not be described the same way by all parties. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

To get back on topic, I would propose the following sources to ground the words "leading patrons of the Elizabethan age":

• Stephen May is mentioned above as an acceptable reference by Nishidani: According to May in The Poems of Edward DeVere, Seventeenth Earl of Oxford and of Robert Devereux, Second Earl of Essex:"The range of Oxford's patronage is as remarkable as its substance. Beginning about 1580 he was the nominal patron of a variety of dramatic troupes, including a band of tumblers as well as companies of adult and boy actors. Among the thirty-three works dedicated to the Earl, six deal with religion and philosophy, two with music, and three with medicine; but the focus of his patronage was literary, for thirteen of the books presented to him were original or translated works of literature." Note that May assigns 33 dedications to Oxford.
• In The reign of Elizabeth I: Court and Culture in the last decade (John Alexander Guy, Cambridge University Press, 1995, page 230-232), Guy devotes several pages to Elizabethan patronage. In discussing the leading patrons, the first measuring stick he uses is the number of printed dedications each of the major patrons received:

• Queen Elizabeth, 75
• Earl of Essex, 66
• Thomas Egeron, Viscount Brackley, 31
• followed by a number of other nobles ranging from 21 dedications (Lord Burghley) down to 10 or less for a number of other nobles.

Given May's figure of 33 dedications noted above, its clear that DeVere was in the top 3 or 4 nobles in terms of patronage.

• May also notes "The writers who dedicated more than one work to him provide a further measure of the very real value of his patronage."

Given the above mainstream references, especially the comments by noted scholar Stephen May, will these two references suffice? If so, I am content to have them replace the BBC reference that is in question.Smatprt (talk) 05:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Smatprt, you're on the right track, but you need to look at the context of those figures. They only tally up the dedications in the decade of the 1590s. Comparing one decade of dedications to Oxford's lifetime total is misleading. I was thumbing through that book last night and wondering why Oxford wasn't listed until it hit me that most of his dedications were before that decade. Also some works had several dedications, which explains the dissonance between number of dedications (33) and number of works dedicated to him (28, IIRC).

I thought May's statement, "The writers who dedicated more than one work to him provide a further measure of the very real value of his patronage," was interesting, and it's instructive, given the assertion of some that no evidence exists that Southampton was Shakespeare's patron. This is what we mean when we talk about double standards. Since few real records of money changing hands are extant, dedications--and especially more than one dedication from the same writer--are used to gauge patronage, but when it comes to Shakespeare that criterion doesn't apply.Tom Reedy (talk) 14:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Patronage is an extremely complex topic, and when I read the phrase I took it out not only because the 'leading patron' is (a) unsourced but also because it is (b) question-begging. The latter because it could mean Oxford was a leading granter of annuities or money to writers and actors or (b) a leading provider of posts in government offices, (c) a leading provider of hospitality, lodgings to people active in culture (d) a leading figure among those who lent their name to some artistic activity, in order to cover it with prestige etc.etc. Of all of these aspects in Oxford's life we know little or nothing, hence my insistence on a very strong source. Nishidani (talk) 15:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It's salutary to see the principle accepted at last that academic sources are the appropriate references. However, they cannot be used in violation of

WP:OR, as above. You appear to now support the phrasing by a series of deductions, making a conclusion not in those sources.Nishidani (talk

) 09:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Where academic sources are available for academic topics, they should be preferred. Where there is a dispute about the status of some academic opinions as fringe, academic field reviews should be preferred to determine what the standard of research knowledge is in the field. BBC is not known as editing to an academic standard. Penguin may or may not, depending on the particular work. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not usually possible simply to substitute better sources for poorer ones to reference identical text. The good sources must be read through and reflected accurately. Otherwise, the result is likely to be

original synthesis, which is what I think Nishidani is concerned about. Itsmejudith (talk

) 09:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

A clear problem when writing an encyclopaedic article on a topic covered heavily in academic discourse and relying on access to popular material by deep searching. But accessing Review Articles or major monographs, which survey a field, is inherently useful, as these contain the standard of academic debate, and when read and assimilated by an editor, allow better judgement about the quality and fringe status of other works. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the best response to the original question asked in this thread is that news articles are acceptable, but that, given the choice, academic works or other published accounts which have been seen as having academic merit (not all biographies are necessarily "academic works," for instance) are the preferred ones. I tend to agree with Fifelfoo and others that the best way to proceed here is to see which sources have been given the greatest credit in the academic community and make the bulk of the material in the article relevant to them, with perhaps some of the material in the article about the so-called "fringe theory", although the amount if any of such material is probably best determined at either

WP:FTN or on the talk page of the related article, possibly with an RfC on the subject. John Carter (talk

) 16:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

One can indicate what has reported in news, however, there is much that appears in news regarding both current and historical events which is politically and otherwise motivated and in no way represents reliable or even responsible reporting, even at the generally venerated BBC. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:44, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Way up at the top of this discussion, User:Tom Reedy asked that responses include ref's to WP policy. The policy is at "WP:IRS"[71]. Here's a relevant quote, "Reliable sources may therefore be published materials with a reliable publication process; they may be authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject in question; or they may be both." The trick, when sources do not agree, is to make sure that all reliable POV are represented rather than choosing one over another. WCCasey (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, what makes this particular use problematic is that it is an entertainment piece written not by an authoritative author, but by a television presenter. The subhead from which the quote was pulled may have even been written by a copy editor instead of the author, and if it was fact-checked (I don't know BBC Oxford's policy), it appears that the Wikipedia article on Oxford is what was used, as well as for the image.

Another factor in the use of this particular source is motive. What is the motive for insisting that the term "leading patron" be used for this article, given that it does not appear in any of the many scholarly sources available? Should the editor not instead be trying to word the article accurately to the best sources, instead of Googling the preferred phrase to support his edit? I submit that the motive for this edit is not a desire for accuracy, but for

advocacy instead. Tom Reedy (talk

) 20:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

In this particular case one possible action is to contact the author/news service to find out the actual source for the statement to determine how reliable it is. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 22:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I did, and I'll report any reply. ITMT, it doesn't really matter. If the statement was made in any other source we'd have found out by now. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments from others were requested on the biography project page, so I'll add three --

• When this discussion began, the statement that Oxford was a major patron during at least part of Elizabeth's reign would have been already largely justified by the following sentences. They could be improved with further detail, and citations could be added to support these details. A Wikipedia article (like almost any piece of historical writing) has to propose interpretations and justify them, otherwise no one learns anything. To ignore the justifications, and demand a citation for the generalisation, is time-wasting.
• To me (based on what I read above and in the article) the only dubious word is "leading". In context, if Queen Elizabeth was in the list, no one else who valued their neck would claim to "lead". If this was the word that irritated the editor who placed the "citation needed" tag, fine. But the answer would be to adjust the statement, not to find a citation for the precise wording.
• Just to broaden it for a moment, reliable written sources for non-current events are (a) reports by people who knew because they were there, and told the truth afterwards (b) work by people who have studied such reports and draw honest and sensible conclusions from them. Beyond this, it's up to the author(s) and readers of the encyclopedia article to make judgments. But a report in a modern news publication would scarcely ever qualify as a reliable source in this context: the journalist wasn't there and, nearly always, wasn't allowed time to do the studying. So, in historical articles, we still cite modern news reports, but it's nearly always because they say something about modern historians (and others) and their theories (fringe or not); and we make it clear in the text that that's why we are citing them. OK, to come back to this case, it's not a fringe theory that Oxford was a major patron; it should be evident, and our job is to make it evident by providing detail. The article already did this, though further detail can be added. Andrew Dalby 09:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

In the messy real world, sometimes a newspaper journalist does some good research and writes a useful review. WP editors, who are all volunteers working at their convenience, might not have had time to do the same work (or academics might not have written a secondary review, if the subject is obscure enough) and so, until they get the time they may sometimes use sources which are not the best sources. I am not saying that is the case here, but just reacting to a generalization with a counter-generalization. :D --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I did say "nearly always" :) Anyway, you're right, Wikipedia articles don't start out perfect, and part of the task of perfecting them is finding the really good sources to employ and to cite. Andrew Dalby 12:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• I think context is missing here. I found the page full of
  WP:OR violations, and poorly sourced to primary source archives. To show how deep the problem was I listed
  23 examples of statements that were speculative, poorly sourced or unsourced besides the phrasing about patronage.
• The number of accessible sources on this specific issue, and his life, is extensive. Since it is simple to remove
  WP:RS
  addressing all aspects of Oxford's life, I set to fix that aspect of the page.
• I began to rewrite, sourcing every statement to standard academic works. (The whole rewrite has been blanketed now by a reverting IP who prefers archival references no one can verify). All those archival sources are referred to in secondary sources readily available, but which some editors refuse to use, on doctrinal grounds, or dislike.
• In the meantime I asked for a source for this phrase from its author, and the source he provided turns out to be himself, mostly likely.
• The wiki phrasing in question was composed by
  WP:RS
  . A wiki editor makes an historical generalization, it is picked up by a news outlet, and then the news outlet is cited as independent proof for the validity of the historical generalization.
• Since we have an entire sub-chapter on Oxford's literary patronage in a very exhaustive recent biography of de Vere by Stanford's professor emeritus, the Elizabethan specialist, Alan Nelson, in his Monstrous Adversary (2003) pp.236-248, and dozens of articles ranging over his patronage and that of other Elizabethan nobles (I have read 10 such articles available, aside from the biographes).

• In reply to Andrew Dalby, book dedications are not, in themselves, evidence of patronage in any of its several forms. Books dedications were evidence, often as not, of the authors’ desire for patronage. How therefore the evidence for book dedications is to be used to illustrate ‘leading patron’ (as opposed to a person whose patronage was much sought) is an issue best left to historians familiar with the period, not to wiki editors tempted by
  WP:OR to make, as the editor apparently did here, a judgement which, so far, in 14 months, has failed to find an adequate, independent, external reference. Were we all not under a voluntary topic ban not to touch the page while external input was provided, the whole issue of Oxford's patronage, with several article and book references, would have been written detailing every scrap of evidence, and what the consensus of Elizabethan experts has determined about Oxford's patronage. The lead should reflect that section in the body of the text, and not invent a phrasing which then obliges the subsections to prove it. The rule is: write historical articles from sources, do not write off the top of your head, and then wait round for years for someone to source your prose's assertions. I thought these were basic principles of the encyclopedia? Nishidani (talk
  ) 10:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani, I'd have to disagree about your statement concerning rules and principles, and say that in practice this particular encyclopedia typically works based on people writing and then sourcing. This can and does work because a lot of people know something about a subject and therefore they can focus on writing clearly, keeping in mind what they already know can be sourced, and then they can source it later. Other editors watching them will also often typically know the same sorts of things, and will often ring a bell if they seem something going beyond what can be well sourced. It is very hard to define

WP:CK

sometimes, but I think it is very reasonable to be flexible about it when articles are being improved from a low standard at least (which is where most articles are and have been historically). People who edit the other way around, learning about the subject as they work and only editing after they've put together their notes from sources, also exist I guess, but I think they are neither typical nor are they better for WP in any simple sense. IMHO WP would not exist if we only had editors of the latter type.

Coming back to this particular case, sorry if this sounds thick, but I am unclear about whether there is actually any disagreement about what the verifiable facts are which should be in the WP article, or is this just a dispute about which refs are preferable? I was starting to think the latter, but you also make an accusation of OR. What is the OR? Is it the equation of many dedications with much patronage?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Andrew, the facts are that Oxford was a patron, and that the extent of his patronage in relation to other patrons of the era has yet to be determined, so we don't know if it was extensive or paltry in comparison to others, much less whether he was a "leading" patron. (Just guessing from what I've read, I'd say he might have been above the mean but hardly in the front of the pack, given that 7 of those dedications were from one writer and a few others were multiple dedications found in one work, but my opinion is beside the point.) The edit in question gives it a notability not found in the biographies and scholarly papers written about him. The crux of this discussion is whether in the absence of such scholarly evidence, can a popular article written by a television presenter be used to cite a description of his patronage found in no other source? That's really all there is to this. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, so there does seem to be real disagreement about what should be written and not just what the best sources are. In such a case it sounds like no possible solution can answer all possible criticism and then it seems interesting to ask whether the strongest sources really disagree with the weak source or sources?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the point is, should a weak source, possibly copied from wikipedia, determine the phrasing for a passage on an historical issue for which there are an abundance of scholarly sources. Should a quick piece by a Media Systems journalist determine how we write the details of a formerly obscure Earl in Elizabethan England. The simple solution is to drop the dubious source, keep that phrasing for a month, and in the meantime read, as some of us are, several hundred pages on the issue of patronage to find if anything like that 'leading patron' can be found there. No source on the page, with a question, is clearly better than a bad, perhaps plagiarised source, from a journalist with no background in the subject he descants on.Nishidani (talk) 12:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nishidani, but first of all that WP is the ultimate source seems an uncertain (if reasonable) guess at this stage, and secondly according to Tom the text being sourced is not really the same as anything you have an abundance of sourcing for. And I am reading between the lines that it also does not really disagree with those abundant better sources. Still getting to practicalities, if people are searching for sourcing right now why not just mark the spot for a while with an {{rs}} tag or something similar? (Rather than deleting the source. See

WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT.) I guess some of us will also be wondering if just tweaking the wording would solve the problem, maybe just making it a tad vaguer, but I suppose you guys would have discussed that idea?--Andrew Lancaster (talk

) 13:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It's very probable wiki is the source, but even a shadow of a doubt would suggest extreme caution in using it, otherwise the impression is given wer are careless about sourcing, and even risk making it circular.

The BBC source says something neither I nor Tom have found anything in scholarly RS for, 'one of the leading patrons'. He was certainly quite an active patron of the theatre and of writers around 1580-1584. The Elizabethan age is a long one, full of aristocratic patrons. You see, Elizabeth had the most dedications, but we have extensive documentation on her exercise of patronage, she helped with money, with securing 'jobs' or 'income. Dedications as proof one can infer he was a major patron of the arts are tickly.

• Note that in the wiki
  Elizabeth I of England
  article, there is no mention of this in the lead, and the text tells us she was not, despite the 76 dedications, a major patron of the arts.(sourced)
• Earl of Essex has nothing about this, though he two was a significant patron of the arts, and that could be easily documented in academic sources.
• Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester is described in the lead as 'a principal patron of the arts, literature, and the Elizabethan theatre.' (and we are given two fine sources on this, not newspapers)

Elizabeth was a major patron of de Vere himself, whose life is mainly a losing battle against the massive exhaustion of a wealthy estate, whose diminished fortunes he sought to shore up by seeking Elizabeth's patronage, by speculations, and by marriage. As to tweaking I'm fine with 'de Vere was notable for his theatrical and literary patronage' and variations of same because I can easily source that. We can't edit that page, but, sure, your suggestion is one possible way out. My only point here is to plead for sourcing that gives the reader out there the assurance that what he reads reflects what the scholarly consensus is. That's how I construe my job here. Though, to reply to what you wrote earlier, I have credentials in a few fields, I never write off the top of my head on those, but prepare beforehand, even if I have a thorough knowledge of the subject, and I only enter articles like this when, on reading them, I find a lot of things that strike me as fanciful, since they don't correspond to what I recall of the period. If I get a source that backs that phrasing, I'll certainly edit it in, and not wait for consensus. Nishidani (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• It sounds like a compromise of some kind is possible and likely to happen??
• BTW I personally have no problem at all with people who pre-prepare their wording and sourcing in order first and to bring it in together, and I sometimes do it myself. My real point was that it is not really common and we can not demand that it be considered a basic rule or principle of how this encyclopedia must work.
• Back to the subject: you say you want to make sure WP reflects scholarly consensus, but it is not always easy for groups of editors to come to consensus on what the consensus is. What WP reports can not always be restricted to what is scholarly consensus of course.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Scholarly consensus on this particular area is not difficult. Compromise? Well, we were told not to make controversial edits. An editor made one, introducing a controversial number of sources, including this one. It might be actionable, but that doesn't interest me. I think the fair compromise in the circumstances is simply to revert to the status quo ante, before the ban came into effect. That means, the unreliable source, or dubious source, or wiki-copied pseudo-source goes out, the phrasing the original editor put in stays up, with a citation needed tag. I think that's a fair compromise. Sticking to the strict letter of the law, plus respect for quality sourcing, without being punitive.Nishidani (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Andrew, I agree that most editors don't provide references beforehand (although

WP:RS certainly comes into play. Like you, I sometimes do so myself, but I'll usually tag my own edit and note in the edit summary "ref coming" or some such. Tom Reedy (talk

) 14:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of being off topic I also do that sometimes. And I find editing bit by bit on the article, tagging yourself and then filling in the sources as time allows, is more well-accepted by other editors than trying to pre-prepare text and sourcing in a draft and then making big edits. What's more, and this is important, other editors not only feel better about being able to follow the progress but they can and should then tweak your tweaks and sometimes find better sourcing before you do. That is after all how WP really works: letting people leave jobs un-finished, so that jobs can be split up.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Summing up. Would an uninvolved editor read over this and sum up the consensus, please? Which to me appears to be that newspaper articles written by non-specialists are superseded by better sources when available, and that wording should reflect the source rather than deep-searching popular literature to find a source that matches the wording. As to this particular edit, the wording as it stands is not supported by any reliable source, but the phrase "noted patron" is acceptable to all. Does that sound correct? And if so, would someone close this out? Tom Reedy (talk) 00:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Compromise, as per Nishidani. I have been following the conversation to absorb the various comments from uninvolved editors and I'd like to thank everyone for a good, thorough discussion. Nishidani's compromise phrasing of

" 'De Vere was notable for his theatrical and literary patronage'

is acceptable to me and it seems that "noted" also works for Tom. As the three of us are the "involved" editors, I think we have something we can all live with. As far as references, I think the primary mainstream critic we can agree on is Stephen May, who Nishidani notes above, and who I find acceptable as well. From May, who probably falls somewhere between Ogburn and Nelson in terms of neutral commentary, we have:

• "Abundant evidence of Oxford's lifelong devotion to learning occurs in the contemporary trib-utes to his patronage. " May notes that these tributes lasted from 1574 to 1599. (page 8)
• "The writers who dedicated more than one work to him provide a further measure of the very real value of his patronage. " (page 8)
• "The range of Oxford's patronage is as remarkable as its substance. Beginning about 1580 he was the nominal patron of a variety of dramatic troupes, including a band of tumblers as well as companies of adult and boy actors. Among the thirty-three works dedicated to the Earl, six deal with religion and philosophy, two with music, and three with medicine; but the focus of his patronage was literary, for thirteen of the books presented to him were original or translated works of literature. " (page 9)
• "Oxford's genuine commitment to learning throughout his career lends a necessary qualification to Stone's conclusion that De Vere simply squandered the more than 7o,ooo pounds he derived from selling off his patrimony (p. 582), for with some part of this amount Oxford acquired a splendid reputation for nurture of the arts and sciences. " (page 9)

The citation for all these quotes is:

• Steven W. May, The Poems of Edward DeVere, Seventeenth Earl of Oxford and of Robert Devereux, Second Earl of Essex (Winter,1980). Studies in Philology, Vol. 77, No. 5, Texts and Studies, University of North Carolina Press, pages 8-9, Accessed: 23/10/2010 17:40 http://www.jstor.org/stable/4174058

Comment:Frankly, an offer of alternate wording, based on the existing facts already known to we editors, would certainly have been welcome prior to this. I proposed "leading" in the lead from a good faith reading of the article. If the word so offended, suggestions were certainly welcome. "Major" ,"Notable", "Noted", etc. - all capture the lower sections on patronage pretty well, as far as I am concerned. As we know, the lead captures the article and, as noted by others here, there is plenty in the two sections on patronage to justify the existing (or similar) wording. Placing fact tags on specific words and then demanding a reference for the exact wording, especially in a generalization, seems like a waste of time and energy. As also noted above, there has been no sourcing offered that says De Vere was not a major patron, quite the opposite if you consider the primary sources. As noted above, they people who were there, and wrote it down, are the most reliable sources, since all future scholarship derives from these primary sources. The copious tributes, if one bothers to read them, paint a vivid picture of De Vere, and flattery notwithstanding, the re-occuring themes of learning and patronage, and devotion to the furthering the arts and sciences, are extremely well documented. Smatprt (talk) 02:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

On reflection, if we want to avoid any interpretation or generalization, we could also simply quote May as follows: "According to historian Stephen May, "Oxford acquired a splendid reputation for nurture of the arts and sciences." (page 9)

• And on a side note, I received a message today from BBC reporter David Gilyeat who wrote: "I'm open to the idea that I subconsciously borrowed the phrase, but the interviews I conducted for the article contained a wealth of content that I did not use in the finished piece, and the consensus to me was that de Vere was a high profile patron of the arts in his day. ". It sounds like even if he did (subconsciously) borrow the phrase, it was because his research and "wealth of content" led him to believe it was accurate, and not out of some sloppy journalistic lapse. (And I suppose we could add "high profile" to the list of possible wording!) Smatprt (talk) 03:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Smatprt, I think your earlier compromise suggestion is a better text if you can all accept it. (De Vere was notable for his theatrical and literary patronage.) Detailed attribution ("According to historian Stephen May") sometimes becomes necessary if no compromise is possible and then WP needs to report different positions. Is it really necessary here? It seems that everyone basically agrees as much as they need to in order to get a decent straightforward text into the article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Since Smatprt has said this phrasing is 'acceptable', that makes two of the three involved editors. It's not quite what I want. I think Tom would prefer 'noted', but it solves two problems. It dispenses with the suspect source I challenged, and reformulates in a way that needs no source, because it is something no authority would disagree with. Let's just hear what Tom has to say. We have a 2 thirds consensus, but unanimity on these things is nicer. In the meantime, thanks for that mediation, Andrew, and to others for their input. Nishidani (talk) 09:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

(adding an opinion since I commented above) To me the dubious word was "leading". I could happily accept the suggested De Vere was notable for his theatrical and literary patronage; and I would say that this doesn't need to be attributed specifically, because it is not contentious and because it is justified by the details that follow.

It was kind of David Gilyeat to reply so helpfully. Andrew Dalby 09:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

"Noted," "notable", la même chose a moi, although "noted" is better grammar and reads more smoothly (using "notable" makes Oxford a condition, not necessarily contemporary, while using "noted" makes him the object of action by his contemporaries, which is evident from some of the dedications). No reference is needed, since the bone of contention was the degree of notability. I'm sure a study of Elizabethan dedications has been done by someone, but I can't find one and from what I've read in the course of this conversation Oxford was somewhere in the middle in terms of numbers. And we certainly prefer not to quote in the lede, although the main William Shakespeare article offends in that regard. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, then. That's unanimous, thank ***(*) and the independent Rs commentators. I guess we can close this, if someone neutral editor just plunks a note on the Talk:Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford page to the effect, with a link, that this particular issue is resolved for the lead, which will, when, sometime within the following decades our topic ban expires, read by consensus at that point: 'De Vere was notable for his theatrical and literary patronage' /sourcing not needed).Nishidani (talk) 13:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

"decades"? Centuries, maybe. It took 6,000 words to determine the use of one word inserted with no support 15 months ago. At about 4,800 words, that means about another 29 million words to go through the entire article, a little more than a century's worth. Then it's on to all the other SAQ articles that have been edited in the mean time. Timely enough for Oxfordians, I'm sure. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Get a notary to add a codicil to your will, so your heirs can take up the burden as a kind of family tradition, on pain, if in default, of being disinherited (and don't use a derivative fund to cover the costs, or hedge your bets). I'm childless, so I think I'll have to borrow that monkey in Gore Vidal's Kalki to keep hammering out on the proverbial ape's typewriter, with a good internet connection prepaid with the proceeds of my estate! Nishidani (talk) 17:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Have no fear. The Trust is immortal! Tom Reedy (talk) 17:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

1. ^ ^{a b} Cite error: The named reference Iranica was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. ^ Peter Chelkowski [72]
3. ^ Heshmat Moayyad [73]