Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

I have a general question about polemic and apologist sources on religious topics.

Religious topics, say

are focii of opinion and disputes.

• Polemicists seek to subvert, attack, criticize or reject positions against these and other religious views or history.
• Apologists seek to support, defend, harmonize or accept positions supporting those religious views and history against attacks.

Query: To what degree are Polemic and Apologetic sources considered "Reliable Sources"?

In particular:

• Secular press sources will gladly publish cherry-picking, one-sided, controversial books with minimal fact checking if they can make money from them. Are the conclusions of polemic / critical books and periodicals considered reliable sources for statements of fact?
• Adherent sources will easily publish responses, which may not be entirely one sided and may have some good fact checking, nevertheless often express subjective views and cherry pick information as well, drawing their own conclusions, sometimes from the same information used by the polemicists. Are the conclusions of appologetic/ supportive books and periodicals considered reliable sources for statements of fact?

I understand about NPOV and showing both sides. This question involves the presentation of material: Should these things be expressed as facts or as opinions that should be attributed?--Blue Tie (talk) 11:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The various conclusions reached about Robert Spencer earlier on this board are generalizable to other apologist/polemical sources. This does not extend to genuinely reliable sources - people with tenure in major universities writing peer-reviewed material or from academic presses. See also the section on Naggar above. Relata refero (talk) 13:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well... first, we have to make sure that these sources meet the requirements for inclusion under WP:RS and WP:FRINGE. Assuming that they do... In general, I would say both sides should be presented (and attributed) as opinions and not stated as fact ... unless supported by neutral, third party sources (in which case it is probably better to cite those than rely on the Polemic or Appologist sources.) Blueboar (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

and if the facts are not such as would be discussed in scholarly writing, then there are the usual sources in general magazines and newspapers. But nothing is more common than for even an academic writer to discuss an issue from a particular perspective: most academic works are in fact written to take an academic position on something interesting, which usually means controversial. So that's why Blueboar is exactly right in reminding us to look at all views, rather than simply an academic paper that supports one or another position. You will not find even the most rigorous peer-reviewed studies on Islamism agreeing with each other. Scholars are as adept as politicians in the art of selective quotation. DGG (talk) 00:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

"This does not extend to genuinely reliable sources - people with tenure in major universities..." Hmmm. I have seen professors write polemical content that is, at best, notable POV. I guess the current rules, followed by the letter, would allow such sources to be reliable.Bless sins (talk) 05:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid so. Relata refero (talk) 17:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeking opinions on the reliability of a secondary source for

.

1) The Disputant claims that the cited review is "self published." The review appears on RPGnet, which is "...owned by Skotos Tech Inc., an online company that runs several entertainment related sites." "RPGnet is an independent web site about tabletop roleplaying games."[2] From the RPGnet review submission guidelines[3][4], reviews are submitted as a proposal through a submission form, which is then reviewed by a RPGnet editor who decides if the review will be published on RPGnet. The proposal submission page notes that %95 of reviews are accepted and gives a publication schedule. Copyright notice states that Skotos and individual authors reserve all rights.

2) Disputant seems to be claiming that the reviewer's history of having worked for the publishers (Wizards of the Coast and TSR, Inc.) whose works are the primary sources for the article negates the reliability of the review. The reviewer had no relation to the products containing information about the article's subject other than as noted by the disputant. He was a free-lance game designer at the time he wrote the review, working for a number of gaming companies. The review, though positive overall, is highly critical of the design and overall content of the product. --Smcmillan (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

*facepalms*

B-b-but the Axe of the Dwarvish Lords is notable! It is the most powerchful weaponth inth all of the landth of Golandia! It was craftedth by the mighty dwarventh warrior-god, Thalazarth, in the fairy caves of Antioch! It was used by the legendary hero, Zandara, in the destruction of the mighty red pearl dragon!

*rolls 1d20 and casts "Delete stupid article."* ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 02:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:SPS allows self-published material to be accepted as reliable if it's written by an established expert on the topic of the article who has previous third-party publications. Having looked over S. John Ross's Wikipedia article I'm willing to accept him as an authority in this field. Since the review is so negative it's hard to imagine he was unduly swayed by having worked for the game publisher previously. EdJohnston (talk

) 05:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion of the reliability of a secondary source for

WP:BK. However, since the review is about a book and not the axe, it cannot be classed as a reliable secondary source, as a mere mention of the Axe itself is a trivial source since it is incidental to the game. --Gavin Collins (talk

) 10:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop making up guidelines that don't exist to push your point of view.--Smcmillan (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Is Carnatica.net a reliable source? The [Music Handbook section] of this website is what I am referring to specifically. I would consider it as a reliable source for several reasons, including because of the prominent names involved in the making of this website (http://carnatica.net/carnatica-team.htm). However, three or four certain editors have called it unreliable with no basis at all. They believe that the [Origins article] found in the Music Handbook section of the website, is inaccurate. So, I would like a second opinion from editors who have not made any edits to the article Carnatic music to hopefully clarify the matter. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

One of the striking features of this site is that none of the material is sourced. This is especially bad for purportedly historical material. They might be considered (reasonably) authoritative when it comes to music, but musicians are not historians. If the site were a wiki, even with closed membership, such material would qualify as

WP:OR. Take it from there. rudra (talk

) 06:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The website is a private(limited) site manned by individuals and the two musicians(sowmya and shashikiran) have a financial stake in it. Shashikiran apparently has helped in the website 'design'. Thats all. Neither have the two of them published research papers (Sowmya might have published something on Chemistry during her days at IIT, Madras) nor are they known researchers. Also the material on the site is unattributed and non-peer reviewed. Add to this the fact that you're abusing blurbs from the site to source the most fantastic and exceptional of claims only worsens matters. The site is non-RS and infact far worse than bharat-rakshak, which itself I contend is non-RS. Sarvagnya 17:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

In other words, even their credentials for music -- ostensibly the focus of the site -- are unclear. It all goes back, I think, to the singular fact of unsourced material all over. rudra (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

We do not require that our sources be sourced. In fact, most of the web-based sources used in Wikipedia articles do not contain sources. So the fact that carnatica.net does not itself have sources is not all that "singular". However, I think it does qualify as a "Self-published" source, which according to both the RS guideline and WP:V limits it's use and reliability. Blueboar (talk) 21:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The remarks of User:Sarvagnya should be ignored as he/she has made edits to the article Carnatic music, and against my request, has attempted to influence a second opinion by independent editors. In any case, what he/she has said has no basis. He/she clearly is unaware of the roles that these musicians have on the website. At the bottom of the website, it clearly states that the concept and content are courtesy of Sowmya and Shashikiran (perhaps except for articles that are solely written and attributed to others such as PPN), while the general editor is N.Ramanathan.

The-Origins-article is generally very accurate, and no disputes have been made over any of its contents, except under 'Literary sources', near the subheading 'Tamil'. However, the assertions made here appear to be based on Dr. S. Ramanathan 's research - Sowmya was a disciple of S.Ramanathan. S.Ramanathan's credentials are very strong. He received a Ph D in Ethnomusicology by Wesleyan University, Middletown, Connecticut in recognition of his musical research into ancient Tamil literature of the Sangam period. He also received praise by the same university for his meticulous research into the foundations of Carnatic music and other ancient Tamil works. He received the most prestigious award in Carnatic music - the Sangita Kalanidhi award (in recognition of him as a musicologist rather than as a composer or vocalist). Given all his credentials, and Sowmya being a disciple of him, wouldn't there be some sense of reliability on this Origins article? Although there are no citations, given the reasonable accuracy of the rest of the article, and the lack of sources that contradict what is being said under the 'Tamil' subheading in the origins article, the source would be reliable, wouldn't it?

The website itself was a Britannica Internet Guide Award Winner. Would appreciate any feedback and comments. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

All of this is pussyfooting around a basic point, in order to wikilawyer some relatively obvious POV-pushing. Carnatic music is not some obscure field, somehow utterly bereft of scholarly peer-reviewed works on the subject. The purpose of citing this particular website , it seems, is to advance the notion that Carnatic music has origins in some form of Tamil folk music. It may, or it may not. But, when there are plenty of published works on Carnatic music, isn't it

) 04:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Despite the issues with your wording, there is something that you are missing factually. Published content indicates that there are unique similarities found between both styles of music (some which are entirely identical). Yet, no source or evidence has been able to rule out the possibility that ancient Tamil music influenced or played a role in the evolution of modern day Carnatic music, and this itself is stated in such published content. In fact, Carnatic music has generally not been compared to any other ancient music form with such startling similarities (except of course Hindustani music). In contrast, this website is quite clear, and considering Sowmya was a disciple of the very person who did extensive musical research in the area, and earned a Ph D (in addition to other awards and forms of recognition) for it, how can one rule out that the statement is unreliable when the rest of the article is reasonably accurate in terms of the origins and history of Carnatic music? Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well then, cite the published content. It's that simple. Meanwhile, for the sake of argument, let us suppose that Herr Doktor Professor X, with more degrees than my arm is long and with scholarly publications by the truckload, is an established expert in field Y. That would entitle Prof. X's self-published material on field Y to be considered

WP:RS status of the self-published material of the student, not of Prof. X. rudra (talk

) 05:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Expert in question is S. Ramanathan, I think. He can be quoted from the journal Shanmukha, which appears respectable, and various publications of the International Institute of Tamil Studies. If a backup is needed that its a notable enough view, then the fact that Bharathidasan insisted on it frequently might be relevant. This is not necessarily the mainstream view though, which appears to be, following Herbert Popley, that in the post natyashastra period two of the forms discussed there - based around the scales madhya gram and sadja gram - eventually developed into Carnatic and Hindustani classical music... at least that's what I've been able to gather, though I was always told that Hindustani has a marked Central Asian influence. Relata refero (talk) 08:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. While the theory of Carnatic music evolving out of "Pann" is not mainstream, a recognized expert such as Ramanathan advancing it in

WP:RS fashion would make it notable. But my understanding is that Ramanathan hasn't made a direct statement of this sort -- if he has, then I have no idea why we should be bothering with this website at all, unless this is where he has made it -- only that the similarities are very marked. This, unfortunately, isn't the kind of historical statement underlying the desire to have the website be recognized. rudra (talk

) 09:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

He appears to have said it quite directly in public at least once. I think the website can be removed, and replaced with something of this sort, while being very careful about undue weight. Relata refero (talk) 10:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

And citing Bharathidasan would let the cat out of the bag, big time:-) rudra (talk) 09:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it would be informative, wouldn't it...Relata refero (talk) 09:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the problem here is the lack of modern scholarly sources that discuss the evolution of Carnatic music. Apart from the theories of S. Ramanathan and Popley, N. Ramanathan argued in Sruti a couple of years ago that modern Carnatic music is the result of a 17th century fusion - in the Tanjore area - of Vijayanagarian caturdaṇḍi with a generic South Indian folk tradition. But apart from these, you're left with generic histories of Indian music, which describe the music that existed in various parts of India at various points of time, but don't really get into the issue of how the various traditions actually evolved over time or the way they influenced each other. I guess that's why the bulk of the history section as it stands (even the bits that folks aren't edit-warring over) are "sourced" to Carnatica, or to articles in the Hindu (such as the rather charming one here which seems to think that the Vijayanagara empire was founded a hundred years before it actually was founded). -- Arvind (talk) 21:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thank heaven, someone who sounds like he knows what he's talking about. Very well, I think we can remove anything and everyting that doesn't reflect those two views. If reliable sources don't study something properly - even if its something that should have been studied to death - there's nothing we can do but keep the fluff out, even if it means that the article has a giant gap. Relata refero (talk) 17:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

For starters, it is incorrect and rather simplistic to say that there is a lack of scholarly sources discussing the evolution of Carnatic music. In fact, there is plenty. What you pass off as discussion of 'generic histories of Indian music' is precisely a discussion of the evolution of Carnatic music and also the mainstream view. Any scholarly work which discusses Carnatic or Hindustani music starts (almost without exception) with the Sama Veda, glosses over refs to classical music in the Ramayana (Lava Kusha), the Mahabharata, works its way through the Natya Shastra, Matanga's Brihaddesi, the Sangita Ratnakara and then part ways. It is the mainstream view that Carnatic and Hindustani traditions shared a common evolutionary path until Persian influence in Northern India around the 13th century took them on divergent/different paths.

Beyond the 13th century and post-Ratnakara, it is the mainstream view that Vijayanagara was the biggest bastion of that tradition which has now developed into what we know as Carnatic music. It was during this period that most of the seminal works in music theory and the pioneering works of Purandara Dasa and other Haridasas emerged.

Post-Vijayanagara, it is the mainstream view that Tanjore ruled by Telugu Nayaka kings provided a safe haven to several families of Vijayanagara musicologists and musicians of Telugu origins who migrated following the plunder of Vijayanagara. Tanjore (and a little later, Mysore and to a lesser extent, Travancore) now became the biggest patrons of the Vijayanagara traditions and continued from where the Vijayangara musicologists and composers had left off.

Thyagaraja and the Maratha ruler of Tanjore(forget his name) have themselves acknowledged and heaped praise on the Haridasas for their contributions. It was infact, in Tanjore (tamil nadu) that Purandaradasa was first hailed as the Karnataka Sangeetha Pitamaha. To simply claim that the musical traditions of 17th century Tanjore materialised out of thin air (or from tamil folk traditions?) to give birth to what we now call Carnatic music is rather disingenuous.

And is it news to me that most of the article, "even the ones that the 'folks' arent fighting over" is sourced to carnatica.net news to me? No. It is not. It is just that I've, for a long time decided to grin and bear it unless it is the most brazen nonsense and until I find the time to do a massive rewrite myself.

It took me a month or two to flush out the "Tamil trinity of Carnatic music" and other assorted crap (Pancha Marabu etc) that some editors had foisted upon us. And I did it with little help from anybody else, save for a srkris. It did leave a bad taste and I took it off of my wl for a while and decided to improve the article 'grassroots up' and wrote two articles Haridasas and Carnatic music and Vijayanagara musicological nonet towards this end - several more remain in various stages of construction offline.

I invited/encouraged Ncmv also to work ground up and source it from scholarly sources, but he seemed disinclined to do so. Or he wouldnt be here championing Carnatica.net as RS. Sarvagnya 18:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It appears to me the issue is essentially competing views about Vijayanagar's influence on 17thc Tanjore. If there are significant minority views in RSes -such as the one that Arvind mentioned above - it might be a reasonable compromise to quote them, however absurd they might sound to you. A good thing to remember is that if it sounds absurd to you, even if properly and neutrally written it might sound equally absurd to our readers. Relata refero (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's even simpler than that. If one looks simply to the evolution of the theory and pedagogy of Carnatic music, then there is indeed an unbroken chain of theoretical works as Sarvagnya discusses, and that is indeed what most histories focus on. N. Ramanathan, however, takes the rather different approach of looking to the practice of Carnatic music - i.e., the way these concepts related to the music that was actually performed - and argues that here we see a significant disconnect between the tradition as it evolved up to Chaturdandi, and the post-Vijayanagara Carnatic tradition. It's this that he attributes to the fusion of Vijayanagarian classical music with a Southern folk tradition.

Sarvagnya, since you ask, N. Ramanathan's theory speaks of a generic South Indian tradition and not something uniquely Tamil - for example, if memory serves, he sees the dance music that was used in Vijayanagara as being a form of this tradition. Also, what I meant when I spoke of the lack of histories was the lack of histories which are histories of South Indian music, rather than of South Indian musicology (or of the theoretical works that were written about music) which is what the bulk of histories actually are. Anyway, I'll see if I can get hold of the article somewhere locally. -- Arvind (talk) 23:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Blueboar, the issue is not so much that the stuff on the site is 'unsourced' as it is 'unattributed'. All articles and even the ones that Ncmv has raised here are unsigned articles and it is anybody's guess as to who wrote them and what their intentions were. Also where did S Ramanathan come into the picture from now? S Ramanathan is the guru of one of the people on the 'board of directors' of this private (limited) website. So? Where on the site does he sign his name against any of the screed? And forget matters of research, the site is full of factual inaccuracies with its dating on the 2nd page of the "Origins" thing. And why is Ncmvocalist bringing what is essentially a content issue to RSN? This is bad faith forum shopping. He'd do well to answer here before he goes forum shopping elsewhere. Sarvagnya 16:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Be civil and assume good faith. He has a perfect right to double-check the what the policy is regarding the website. He has been a lot less combative than many people who've come to this page: see above. You would do well to do the same. Relata refero (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You yourself would do well to stop imagining incivility where there is none. This is not a new issue and I've spent hours on the talk page months ago pointing out the weaseling that has to go into putting together a blinder of a "Panns are the precursors to the Carnatic

Ragas". He chooses, rather conveniently, to ignore that discussion and edit wars and then without even having the courtesy to discuss it on the talk page, he takes it to RSN and ANI and God knows where else. And you want to lecture me about civility and AGF? Thanks but no thanks. Sarvagnya

19:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Civility is not optional.

I do know, however, that it is extremely irritating when people conveniently "ignore a discussion and edit war and then without even having the courtesy to discuss it on the talk page...". Relata refero (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"Civility is not optional" - I dont recall saying that it was. However, not sugarcoating or refusing to sugarcoat your responses or calling a spade a bloody spade is not the same as "incivility". Go figure. And do it offline. Sarvagnya 20:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that sure was civil. Try again, and do it online. Relata refero (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It is perfectly reasonable to ignore the attacks and snide remarks of someone who either fails to practise any sense of etiquette, or is incapable of doing so. Replying to such attacks and snide remarks is not what I consider a discussion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) To get back to the original discussion, I would not trust a site that says Carnatic music has divine origins and that "Carnatic music is also believed to have originated from the Gods". Can we see some facts please, rather than bogus statements like these. If the site is really quoting from some published sources, it better mention it. Wikipedia need not refer to unreliable websites like this. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 18:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well I think the consensus here appears to be that the site itself shouldn't be used. Relata refero (talk) 18:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Is the inclusion of references from the subscription

) 22:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I would have thought it is nearly always a reliable source. Whether it is available only on subscription is not an issue, as it is in many libraries. What reasons have been given by editors who don't think it appropriate? Itsmejudith (talk) 12:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely it is a reliable source. Whether or not there is a subscription charge is irrelevant to whether is is a reliable source for use in an article. The issue regarding subscriptions and links to be avoided is speaking about

External Links, which is a different matter from references from which we source articles, which may or may not be available online for free (or even not all, books for example). --Slp1 (talk

) 17:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

We try and avoid things behind subscription walls if there's a decent free equivalent available, but the DNB has no free equivalent. Its also a largely impeccable source. As Slp1 says, our WP:EL policy is to largely avoid such links, but that doesn't have anything to do with its acceptability as a source. Relata refero (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source? It seems a little to commercial for me with all those advertisements, and the fact that it's written by students make it for me a little shaky. This user over at Talk:Knight Rider (2008 film) is trying to state that Knight Rider and Viper, both television shows about cars, have some sort of closer connection beyond that (besides NBC as well). The user's first reference was just his observation, the second was a blog, and the third this. I mean they look weak, if there was some sort of connection between both shows, I'm sure there would be more sources than some blog and a student press. Any thoughts? _{El Greco}^(talk) 02:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Very poor sourcing on this article, and to my mind too much use of reports in minor Christian news media. I'd appreciate further opinions, because newspapers with a religious affiliation may be RS, e.g. the

) 13:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Newpapers with a religious affiliation are certainly RS for the opinions of the religious sect that publishes them... however one does need to be careful to check whether the particular religious sect or denomination publishing the paper passes the undue weight test. An extreme religious view point is probably too Fringy to include in the average article.

We even have to be careful when discussing some Mainstream denominations. Take the Baptists as an example. It is hard to say that anyone speaks for all Baptists. The Baptist Church is fragmented and split. There are large groups (with multiple congregations, comprising hundreds if not thousands of adhearents), and there are small groups (no more than one tiny congregation, with a website) ... all call themselves Baptist. A newspaper that reflects the views of one of the larger sects would certainly be notable. One reflecting the views of one of the small sects may not be. It is important to find out which you are dealing with, determine how much weight the publishing body should be given, and attribute any statements so the reader knows who is saying what and how prevelant the views expressed are. Blueboar (talk) 14:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Oddly enough, the

Jewish Chronicle is fairly non-denominational. It's an ethnic paper, not a religious one. Jayjg ^(talk)

03:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about that, but its certainly true of the Christian Science Monitor. Relata refero (talk) 07:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I do' know about that, that's why I said it. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure, but we'd probably like to hear from others who do. Relata refero (talk) 08:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Swami

) 14:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good so far. Wjhonson (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This thread continues below. Religious authorities as Reliable Sources. It isn't that straightforward, as what is being proposed is to translate Adidevananda's Kannada, as opposed to using sources in English, which brings to the fore the basic issue that there are many "authorities" on the subject. rudra (talk) 05:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The website http://www.newadvent.org publishes something called "The Catholic Encyclopedia", which states its object as providing information on the "entire cycle of Catholic interests, action and doctrine".

Like many religious works, this work too seems to be POV towards a catholic perspective:

• By searching "Jesus" the encyclopedia summarizes the entry as "The incarnate Son of God and the redeemer of the human race."
• Regarding Martin Luther the "encyclopedia" says "Like every victim of scrupulosity, he saw nothing in himself but wickedness and corruption. God was the minister of wrath and vengeance. His sorrow for sin was devoid of humble charity..."([6])
• Regarding "Muhammadenism" (or Islam) the source says "It is hardly necessary here to emphasize the fact that the ethics of Islam are far inferior to those of Judaism and even more inferior to those of the New Testament." ([7])
• Regarding Judaism: "It is the Christian Church, which ... has extended to the confines of the world the knowledge and the worship of the God of Abraham, while Judaism has remained the barren fig-tree which Jesus condemned during His mortal life." ([8])
• Hinduism is described as "the popular, distorted, corrupted side of Brahminism." The "encyclopedia" opines "We have nothing to learn from India that makes for higher culture. On the other hand, India has much of value to learn from Christian civilization."

While this source may undoubtedly be written by Catholic scholars it is not a reliable source on history, non-Christian religion, ethics etc. However, it may be acceptable to use this as a good source of Catholic views on particular subjects.Bless sins (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It has some of the same problems, and strengths, as the 1911 Britannica. (It dates from around the same period, IIRC, and is similarly in the public domain. Newadvent just hosts it; it was originally published by the Catholic University of America, I think.) I have used it in the past as a reliable source for church terms, some medieval terms, and the legends of the saints. I hardly suppose anyone is going to use it as a legitimate source for

Brahminism. Relata refero (talk

) 20:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

While I agree it should be used for Catholic views and concepts (like you said, church terms, catholic saints) what about using it as a source for history of Muslims? What about using it as a source for Islam, or the prophet Muhammad?21:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I would be very dubious about that, unless its in a very specific context where Catholic views are required, and even then, I would suppose something post-Vatican II is necessary. Relata refero (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The NewAdvent link (which hosts the old 1918 Catholic Encyclopedia) has been a controvercial issue on several of the Project:Freemasory pages (see the discussions about it at

Christianity and Freemasonry, Anti-Masonry, and Knight Kadosh as examples). Citations to the CE have to be handled very carefully... and statements drawn from it should be clearly attributed as being from that work, and therefor potentially outdated. It certainly should not be used for expressing current Catholic views on a given topic. I would say the New Catholic Encyclopedia (either the 1968 edition or the most recent 2007 edition) is better for statements about current Catholic dogma, beliefs, teachings, etc. In many cases, you have to place anything that the old CE says in a historical context... as reflecting Pre-Vatican II Catholic thinking. Blueboar (talk

) 19:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I imagine the situation may have some analogies to the 1906

Jewish Encyclopedia, which can be a reliable source on a number of issues, but has a number of anachronisms including a very distinctive theological point of view ("classical Reform") which Reform Judaism has largely moved away from (although the POV has by no means totally dissappeared), and it of course omits all the developments that occurred in the last century. (For example, practices which it claims totally vanished from Judaism underwent revivals later, other practices changed, etc.). Although its viewpoint generally remains a significant one, opinions sourced to it should generally should be prefaced with "According to the editors of the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia..." or similar. I imagine the 1918 Catholic Encyclopedia might be similar. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk

) 19:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The 1918 Catholic Encyclopedia is probably a reliable source for the pre-

Vatican II views of the Catholic Church. It is not a reliable source for anything else, including, in many cases, current Catholic teachings. *** Crotalus ***

20:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Would it be fair to say that such sources are acceptable as citations for limited statements of opinion (and attributed as such) - the limit being that such statements should reflect the opinion in a historical context ... but such sources should not be acceptable as citations for statements of fact? Blueboar (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, any source is inherently a reliable source for attributing statements to itself. The question is whether that source's opinion is worth noting in a particular article. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

True, but I think we have to go a step further in these cases, and clarify the historical nature of the source... I don't think it is enough to simply say: "According to the 1918 Catholic Encyclopedia, We have nothing to learn from India that makes for higher culture. On the other hand, India has much of value to learn from Christian civilization.<cite to NewAdvent>" Readers could come away with the idea that this is still the current opinion and thinking of the Church, and it might not be. But, a statement along the lines of "In 1918 the Church's opinion was that We have nothing to learn from India that makes for higher culture. On the other hand, India has much of value to learn from Christian civilization.<cite to NewAdvent>" would be both accurate and acceptable. Blueboar (talk) 21:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

On matters of history prior to its original publication, it would probably be reliable, or at least as reliable as such a clearly partisan source would be. I would not consider it to be a particularly good source for, for instance, the History of Bahrain, but if it were to contain some information in that regard it could be reasonably counted as Notable and probably Reliable, at least in so far as it states something which was believed to be true at the time. Certainly, for discussion of topics relating to Christianity, particularly Catholicism, it would probably count as reliable, although I wouldn't quote it directly too often as it probably contains a lot of nonencyclopedic language, if not explicit POV, as indicated above. John Carter (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• There are obviously problems associated with using the 1918 Catholic Encyclopedia as a source for topics related to non-Catholic religions, denominations, and religious figures, as with Martin Luther, Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism above. Fortunately, I think few editors here would seek it out for those purposes. On the other hand, for biographical articles on Catholic saints, popes, bishops, etc., the Catholic Encyclopedia may be quite useful. I think we can generally rely on editors' good judgment as to how to use the Catholic Encyclopedia in Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I recently removed a couple of statements by this author from an article. From what I've been able to see, I don't think he has any particular credentials as such, and it really does seem like he's a bit of an extremist. The book he's edited -with, apparently, a professor of English - turns up barely a couple of hits in Google books. I'd like some sense of the circumstances under which he's quotable. Relata refero (talk) 19:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Please be more specific with your objections to him, other than you not wanting to quote him in the Shahak article. "A bit of an extremist" applies to all sorts of people who are regularly quoted in Wikipedia articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Here are my objections:" I don't think he has any particular credentials as such, and it really does seem like he's a bit of an extremist. The book he's edited -with, apparently, a professor of English - turns up barely a couple of hits in Google books." If a "bit of an extremist" applies to others, remove them as well. Relata refero (talk) 07:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

O.K., explain what you mean by "a bit of an extremist". Jayjg ^(talk) 03:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the main objection is that his views are

fringe views, not held by many people and possible only himself. A fringe opinion really should not be included. --neonwhite user page talk

03:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking for specifics here. Which of his views are "fringe views"? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not normally how we operate, but since you're special, Jay, the article titled "Leftists for a Second Holocaust" might be a clue....Relata refero (talk) 08:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

He does seems to hold extremist and

fringe views. Alot of what he has written, in some case seem to be untruths. So i would only use this source in articles about himself. --neonwhite user page talk

17:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree strongly with your removals. Paul Bogdonar does not meet the standards for exceptional claims pertaining to biographies of living persons, which is where many references linking to his self-published website have been inserted. BernardL (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Err, which articles are you referring to? Relata refero is trying to exclude Bogdanor because he's trying win a content war regarding Israel Shahak, who is not a "living person". Jayjg ^(talk) 03:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

No, Jay, I've never edited that article before. You're the one who wants to win a content war, and that will surprise nobody. Relata refero (talk) 07:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, yes you have edited the Israel Shahak article before - the link you provided is an example of one of your edits there. And you seem quite determined to win a content war there too. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Jay, I brought this here immediately after editing the Shahak article, okay? Which I have never edited before, but which you, it appears, have been defending as a cesspool of partisan and unreliable sources for years. So please, don't try claiming I'm the one who wants to win a content dispute, because I may die laughing. Relata refero (talk) 08:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Occasionally I come across articles that use this site as a reference. I'm not too worried about the news articles, which can generally be replaced by alternatives, but I am worried about the use of the "political affiliation" information in the section on world newspapers. Here is the page on England, which seems broadly correct; but the page on SA, for example, isn't really as accurate. And its one of those places that say "Wrong? Write in and tell us!" which hardly inspires confidence. Safe to remove links as unreliable if they seem inappropriate? Relata refero (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It'd be helpful if people could provide assessment of the sources that exist here.

The claim to being "the second best DJ in Poland" is a claim to notability at least, but there's some confusion.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi i'm looking for an opinion on a source. Is this piece an RS http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/05/verschfte_verne.html#more due to it being on the official website by one of there foremost authors, or is it a blog. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 01:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The reliability of the Atlantic is transferred onto any part that is subject to the same editorial review as their normal articles (i.e. is this more like a blog or a regular column?). It doesn't seem at all obvious to me which this is (many newspapers make it very explicit, labelling some articles as "opinion pieces"). Instead, the Atlantic calls these "voices" and Sullivan's even have their own title, which no others do, furthing my confusion. I did look at some other of the voices pieces, and some do certainly smell like blogs. But from skimming that page, I didn't notice anything that would make me consider it unreliable. Is it used to cite anything that's being disputed? Someguy1221 (talk) 03:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

This is for the Waterboarding article and EVERYTHING is disputed, i want to use it as a source for the Gestapo waterboarding people and then getting the death penality for it by the norwegians in 1948. The article uses as its source a court record that is on the web as part of the "Web Genocide Documentation Centre" hosted by the University of West England (which is a primary source but usually we want a secondary mentioning it). So i am certain that its accurate, i just want outside opinion as to it being an RS. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 04:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Err, why not use the original in the Times? Relata refero (talk) 05:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Or for a straight news piece, this one? Relata refero (talk) 05:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for those Relata refero. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 05:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

There is an extremely lengthy discussion on the Louis XIV article's talk page about sources. I'm not sure this is the right place to post about it, but an outside opinion might be beneficial. If this is not the proper venue, I'd certainly appreciate any suggestions about where to turn next. Thanks, Coemgenus 03:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I see there's an RFC, and hopefully that will take care of it. With regards to this post, could you list and explain at the RFC what sources are in dispute? Someguy1221 (talk) 03:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The definition of an aggregation on the Object Composition page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object_composition#Aggregation) seems to tell that it differs from a composition by not having ownership on the members it contains. Thus, when an aggregation is destroyed, its aggregated members are NOT destroyed as well.

However,in the classical book "Design Patterns : Elements of Reusable OBject-Oriented Software" by Eric Gamma, Richard Helm, Ralph Johnson and John Vlissides, the definition of an aggregation gos like this: (p. 22) "Aggregation implies that one object owns or is responsible for another object. Generally we speak of an object having or being part of another object. Aggregation implies that an aggregate object and its owner have identical lifetimes."

It seems to me that both definitions are antonyms. So, what is the correct definition?

This noticeboard is for deciding what constitutes a reliable source. As I suggested to you in your first post, this is a question for the

reference desks. Someguy1221 (talk

) 04:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources for ISKCON related articles

Question

) 07:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, there is a site commonly used in ISKCON articles, [10], is this a reliable source? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 07:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Religious sources are reliable sources for religious viewpoints, so it's not uncommon for religion articles to use religious sources to explain the meaning of any religious title and nature of the role that religious leaders have in the religion or religious organization (which are, after all, religious matters). I also wouldn't have a problem using them for routine biographical information analogous to the blurb a University faculty web site has on a professor or a company web site has on an executive. I wouldn't use them for non-religious or non-routine information. Membership in ISKCON would appear to be a substantial notability claim. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The above makes good sense. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Question Thanks Shirahadasha. On the official GBC website it states that there are "around 48" members. [11] So my question now is are all 48 notable due to membership on the GBC of ISKCON? These 48 could be a good starting place for establishing a minimum standard for notablilty for religious leaders in ISKCON. I believe there needs to be some criteria set for establishing, "what is a notable ISKCON religious leader?" Maybe the answer is all 48 and many more, any thoughts? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I placed this second question on relavent projects pages, as that may be a better place for the question of criteria. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Question Is ISKCON Desire Tree, a Mutltimedia portal a reliable source. [12]. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In most contexts I would say no. Is this being used somewhere? Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that in this context it should not be used. My mistake. I suggest iskcon.com as the reliable source. I would suggest vnn.org is not. thanks MBest-son (talk) 10:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I've read here and there that you cannot use Youtube as a source, and yet, doing numerous google searching fails to turn up any policy that says so. In particular, I'm hoping to use Youtube as a source to prove that a band was on a TV show. If the interview with the band was flighted on Romanian TV, and there is a clip on Youtube, is this not acceptable as a source to prove they were on TV?

Also, what source can I use to say a website was formed on such-and-such a date? Can I not use the whois record? Such as www.whois.sc/kord.ro

Thanks Rfwoolf (talk) 09:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

We had a fairly detailed discussion on YouTube as a source

external links prohibition on linking to known copyright violations. As a corollary to this, any program broadcast only or originally over youtube or a similar website is almost never reliable. Someguy1221 (talk

) 10:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the useful post. I am now going to search how to cite a television program airing. Rfwoolf (talk) 10:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It's all in {{

Cite video}}, in case you're having trouble finding it. Someguy1221 (talk

) 10:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Rfwoolf (talk) 11:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I have placed a request for discussion at the

page. Basically, the Animal Liberation Front raided UC Riverside in 1985, took a lot of animals, and made a video. The ALF is considered an extremist group, and they are anonymous. PETA acted as their press office, and called news sources on their behalf. The ALF video detailed the story of Britches, an animal that they claim was liberated in the raid, and ultimately transferred to a sanctuary in Mexico. The story of Britches exists in the ALF video (hosted at PETA TV), and in two books by Lantern Books. These books are authored by Ingrid Newkirk (head and founder of PETA), and Steven Best (former ALF Press Office head). The books repeat the claims made in the video. However, the ALF is anonymous, and neither Best nor Newkirk claim to know who the ALF agents were (or they would bear criminal liability). In any case, the request was to move the page to a new title reflecting that it is about an ALF raid on UC-Riverside, and that the detailed facts from the ALF video, and the books based on it, be GREATLY reduced and altered in content to indicate that they reflect the claims of the ALf.

The question for this noticeboard is what is appropriate in this situation? When a Wikipedia page is apparently based nearly entirely on a video made anonymously by an extremist group? --Animalresearcher (talk) 04:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the subject, but as long as there are secondary sources that describe the video, you are OK. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The article has several sources cited, so it is not based on the primary source (the video) only, but on descriptions of it in published sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. That there were experiments at UC Riverside, a raid, and animals removed has multiple sources. That there was a monkey named Britches, who was examined by an ALF vet, with a corresponding veterinary report, and later was transferred to a sanctuary in Mexico, all come from one source, anonymous extremists. The secondary sources are based on the primary source and are published by Lantern Books. And the authors of the secondary sources both acted as press officers for the anonymous extremist group. By the nature of the incident, the anonymous extremist group creates a fact-checking firewall to protect themselves. None of the secondary sources could possibly have engaged in fact checking. And they are by extension agents of the extremist group by acting as its press agents. The request is to move the article to make it correspond with third party reliable accounts of the incident, and to minimize the contributions of sources from extremist groups with no fact-checking. --Animalresearcher (talk) 11:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Put more somply, the entire Britches portion of the story is an ALF propaganda piece that is loosely based on an actual incident. There are no third party referrals to the ALF/PETA propaganda piece (reliable or otherwise), the Britches story bore no significance in the incident outside of marketing for PETA and ALF. The secondary sources are heads of PETA and ALF. --Animalresearcher (talk) 11:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read

WP:NOT#SOAP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

03:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I read it. I still do not see why you are directing me to read it when I am requesting that SOAPbox style propaganda, from unreliable sources, be removed, not added. It would seem the other alternative is to warn the reader that the sources have a documented recent history of unreliable reporting - with reliable third-party sources on the unreliability. --Animalresearcher (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Ingrid Newkirk and PETA references unreliable?

I am currently requesting discussion on removing the Ingrid Newkirk sources from the Britches page, and would likely seek to do it across all the animal testing pages. The issue with reliability arises here http://dels.nas.edu/ilar_n/ilarjournal/40_1/40_1Roots.shtml In the Unnecessary Fuss incident at U Penn, ALF raided U Penn and took research videotapes from researchers. Ingrid Newkirk and Alex Pacheco (founders of PETA) produced the edited video "Unnecessary Fuss" from the original source from the researchers. In this particular case, the Office for the Protection of Research Interests was investigating the U Penn labs because of the PETA video, and they requested all the original sources. The OPRR found that the video was edited to deliberately mislead the viewer, and contained many errors in the voiceover by Ingrid Newkirk. In this particular instance, because OPRR had both the original sources and the edited video, it is clear that the source is not just unreliable, but intentionally so. The removals being requested will be things sourced to Ingrid Newkirk and PETA materials. The relevant section from the third party reference above is

ALF gave the stolen audio-/videotapes to PETA. PETA edited the tapes, added a "voice-over commentary," and circulated the edited tape entitled Unnecessary Fuss to schools, newspapers, television networks, dozens of television stations--and Congress. Congress and members of the general public were shocked at the cruelty to and disregard for the research animals presented on the tape. PETA then petitioned the PHS to close the laboratory and punish the investigators, Drs. Langfit and Genarelli, for violation of the PHS Policy.

OPRR refused to act on the basis of evidence contained in an edited tape. The University of Pennsylvania claimed that Unnecessary Fuss was a caricature of the actual proceedings that had taken place in the laboratory. For more than 1 yr, PETA refused to turn over the evidence it had to OPRR. In the spring of 1984, PETA sent the unedited tapes to the US Department of Agriculture (USDA1), which in turn sent them to OPRR. OPRR asked 18 veterinarians, mostly diplomates of the American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine, who were for the most part employed by various institutes within NIH, to review the tapes and report on their findings concerning violations of the PHS Policy or the AWA....OPRR discovered that Unnecessary Fuss presented the case history of only one of approximately 150 animals that had received whiplash. By clever editing and inaccurate voice over, the viewer was led to believe that the inhumane treatment depicted on the film was repeated numerous times. In actual fact, one baboon was badly treated, and the film repeatedly showed the particular mistreatment while the commentator narrated that the mistreatment was repeated on a long series of different animals. In all, OPRR identified approximately 25 errors in the voice over description of what was taking place. Typical was the statement accompanying an accidental water spill that acid had been carelessly poured on a baboon.

Is it appropriate on this basis to recognize Ingrid Newkirk and PETA as unreliable sources?--Animalresearcher (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Background: There is a short piece of writing called "Footprints". It is often said to be anonymous, but five people have also claimed to be the author. Until recently, the page on the piece said exactly this. Since then, User:76.91.240.181 has been repeatedly adding a piece of text to the lede saying some variation on this:

Although released as an "anonymous contribution", it is often mistakenly attributed to

Margaret Fishback Powers. Carolyn Joyce Carty

is the only author of the most popular version known as Footprints poem; One night a man had a dream whose copyright actually reflects it's anonymous contribution of authorship. See U.S. Copyright Record

Here is my question: is Carty's registration of copyright at the U.S. Copyright Office (on 24 February 1986) sufficient to settle her claim that she wrote the poem (in 1963)? I am thinking it isn't (and I am getting a little tired of reverting these edits), but I wanted to be sure before I take any more action. Marnanel (talk) 03:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

An article in

Money Magazine claims that the issue is still up in the air, and that a lawsuit is possible. Our article on Footprints (poem) (as of today) talks as though the issue is still open, and I believe that's the correct conclusion for us to draw. If a court decides to award the copyright and one zillion dollars to the estate of one of the five claimants, then we can report that. EdJohnston (talk

) 04:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll escalate the issue if they continue. Marnanel (talk) 04:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi all,

A question, can The

) 19:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've reviewed www.skepdic.com several times in relation to various articles and have not found it to meet the criteria of

WP:V

. It's a self-published website of one person's opinions, that he calls common sense in his "about" page. The website covers so many topics that if it were "blessed" by this noticeboard, it would quickly spread through all of the topics in Wikipedia that Robert T. Carroll happens to have an opinion on, and posted on his website

I'm not saying that Robert T. Carroll is wrong about everything he writes, but his website is like a biased encyclopedia presenting topics according to the beliefs of one person. It's a tertiary source, not secondary, and is without editorial oversight since it's self-published. In addition, it's an advertising supported profit-oriented website that presents Amazon links to his own products, and targeted campaigns of Google Adwords to bring clicks and dollars from his site visitor's interests in "A Collection of Strange Beliefs, Amusing Deceptions, and Dangerous Delusions", that is the tagline of his website. It does not seem an appropriate basis for Wikipedia citations. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

However,

WP:RS) and contains an extensive citations section (as do the individual webpages). Carroll also updates his page regularly and provides cross-linking. And the places where it would be cited are areas considered pseudoscientific, with minimal input from reliable (and skeptical) sources - Indigo children, Reflexology, and more. It's a reasonable approximation of the scientific mainstream, which generally doesn't say much on many of these topics. I'd say it gives a good broad overview of the topic and skeptical responses and therefore has its use. WLU (talk

) 20:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... perhaps we should say that it is reliable if attributed (ie any reference to the dictonary should be phrased to make it clear that it is Carroll's opinion on the subject), but not for blunt statements of fact. Blueboar (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that since he has been published as an expert in this field by John Wiley & Sons, self-published material can be acceptable as per "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Tim Vickers (talk) 22:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Blueboar's suggestion (reliable if attributed in the text of the article) is a good general compromise, and similar to what's been done for sources that are notable but have a specific agenda. It's also worth noting that the Skeptic's Dictionary is cited predominantly in relation to fringe topics; in many cases, it's actually among the most reliable sources in such articles, yet is held to a disproportionately high standard.

Parity of sources probably comes into play in many of these cases. MastCell ^Talk

23:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That matches with how I would see it, thanks. Since I've got people on the phone, so to speak, what about using it as an EL? WLU (talk) 00:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "Robert Carroll, writing in the Skeptic's dictionary states that..." is a good way of dealing with it. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I can see some use to that approach, but it needs to be handled carefully. For example, if it's on his website and not in the book, then there is no editorial involvement at all, so "Robert Carroll, writing on his Skeptic's dictionary website, states that..." could be appropriate.

As

Parity of sources is a good point. In areas where there are actual, scientific sources, they should be preferred, and Skepdics used only when stronger sources are not available. If one of his Skepdics articles quotes a more reliable source with a footnote, then it seems it would be better to look at that reliable source and quote that rather than Skepdics, when possible. --Jack-A-Roe (talk

) 04:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's true as a general rule. MastCell Talk 04:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

At first glance, I see the site has a lot of ads. The page on MPD (DID) appears to be extremely biased and ignores a majority of data in the field. It also appears to be self-published and not peer reviewed. IMO, it would be better if it were not cited in scientific articles at all, and with caution in other articles.

talk

) 04:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

<undent>Ads are one criteria, if it's the only worthwhile mainstream external link then the ads may be a necessary evil. MPD/DID appears in the print version (which I own), I believe in substantially the same form though I've not checked. And Carroll cites, obviously, the skeptical sources, but he does cite them. I'd say the self-published nature of the web entries is OK - given the publication of a book by a very good publisher, in my mind it establishes expertise - if we can use weblogs of notable researchers on the biology/creationism pages, then this is similar.

Any time any article can be mined for sources, the more scholarly source should be used. One thing that SD has that other sources don't always provide is a broad, textbook-style introduction to the subject, from a mainstream science perspective. Very valuable. A question for the more experienced editors - I prefer to avoid the "X said in Y source approach", particularly when there is a completed citation template available. WLU (talk) 12:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel like one should be cautious using this as a source. His article on a topic that I'm familiar with had errors. His sources for this information were the sort that are disallowed in Wikipedia. This problematic information was cited in Wikipedia, and even as we were debating its inclusion he removed it from his web site. It doesn't inspire confidence. TimidGuy (talk) 12:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: WLU's comment: My feeling is that if we're quoting a fact reported in the New York Times, then we don't need to say "James Doe wrote in the New York Times that..." We can just use an inline citation. For an opinionated summary from a less well-vetted source (e.g. Skeptic's Dictionary), we are better off making explicit in the text whose opinion is being cited (e.g. "Robert Carroll, author of Skeptic's Dictionary, says..." MastCell ^Talk 20:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If there's a policy I'd love to cite it, otherwise whenever someone asks, I'm going to say "MastCell said..." :)

That's a good nuance, thanks for the comment. WLU (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:ATT may be what you're looking for. Guy (Help!

) 23:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

KTTV Fox 11 news report

Resolved

 – See last post

Is a newscast by an established news corporation acceptable as a reliable source? Specifically, I am referring to a Fox 11 news report, broadcast by

Los Angeles, California

), which is available online (on the broadcaster's website). I wish to point out some statements made during the report, attributing them to the source within the paragraph's wording. Citation would be:

• "FOX 11 Investigates: 'Anonymous'". MyFOX Los Angeles. KTTV (FOX). 2007-07-26. Retrieved 2007-08-11.

The point of contention involves the "

) 16:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd be wary already of Fox News because I can explicitly recall them labelling Mark Foley a Democrat. Even more so because I've seen the report in question - I doubt 4channers ever blew up vans. Will ^(talk) 16:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but given their wide audience reach, their report deserves to be mentioned. I agree that we don't present the statements as facts, but as claims attributed to the report. During the explosion of the van, the video displays the text "Demonstration", and the narration says that it was a threat ("now thought to be a hoax"), not actually performed. Ayla (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Unreliability doesn't decrease with reach. No unreliable sources in articles. Will ^(talk) 17:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Unreliability doesn't decrease with reach, but reach promotes notability, and notable sources should be cited (with claims appropriately attributed) irrespective of their reliability. This is the difference between the two formulations:

• "Anonymous" is a group of hackers on steroids, domestic terrorists, and are collectively an Internet hate machine.
• KTTV Fox 11 News [...] aired a report on "Anonymous", calling them a group of "hackers on steroids", "domestic terrorists", and collectively an "Internet hate machine".

To draw a (weak) analogy: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust is mentioned in both Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Holocaust denial#Iranian President Ahmadinejad. Not because he is a reliable authority on the subject, but because he is a notable enough international personality for his controversial claim to be noticed. Ayla (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

But wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. The KTTV Fox 11 news technically counts as verifiable. We can't go making assumptions saying one news source is untrue and another is true without inserting political bias. 4.242.141.245 (talk) 02:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No, but we are allowed to say that one source sucks and shouldn't appear at all if it would violate

undue weight. Someguy1221 (talk

) 04:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

undue weight. Ayla (talk

) 11:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight can be applied where a viewpoint is only voiced by a single source. It's usually only good to apply where that single source is outnumbered by contradictory sources. I don't know if that's the case here, I'm just pointing out the one good reason to nix a reliable source. The significance of a viewpoint is impossible to judge where only a single source asserts it, and there'd be no point for the undue weight provision if merely being published in a reliable source skirted it, as we'd be right back at the verifiability policy. Someguy1221 (talk) 12:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't yet encountered any reliable secondary source which contradicts or debunks the Fox report (although, to be fair, I'm not sure whether I've met any reliable ones corroborating it either). However, the absence of such is not a justification for omitting the only one we have, particularly when the only reasons for its disqualification are the editors' subjective opinions against it. And even if another secondary source corroborating it were to be found, what is the guarantee that it wouldn't also be dismissed as unreliable by opposing editors? The closest example to this issue that I could find in

WP:SOURCES is "mainstream newspapers", and they are considered as "reliable sources". Ayla (talk

) 16:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't so much proposing we dismiss the source as I was presenting the conditions upon which the source could be dismissed even when presumed reliable. I also haven't seen directly contradictory sources. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to add a bit, if a source exists that literally debunks this report, that would be all the more proof that this source should be used (and then debunked). Someguy1221 (talk) 23:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Reconsidering your earlier statement on

undue weight, I figured you might be right that the report, being the only one mentioned in the article (outside of Chanology), is currently given too much weight. And, as Cirt said (below), in its own subsection it would be a primary, not a secondary, source. The issue might be alleviated when the section is eventually expanded to include other reports and sources (such as the Global News report). Ayla (talk

) 06:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should rely on this one source alone for this entire subsection. In a subsection about the FOX report itself, this is actually a primary source. Are there any secondary sources out there that satisfy

) 19:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't met any yet, although today I saw one which provides an account of another pre-Chanology activity (in canadian medal of freedom) which involved the arrest of an alleged paedophile. Maybe we should create a new subsection to cover all these reports, and include the Fox report as just one of the several paragraphs? Ayla (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Better idea. Still too much heavy reliance on a source itself, to describe that selfsame very report... Cirt (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

FTR the source for the report of the arrest of the alleged paedophile has been on the talk page for Anonymous (group) for some time. DigitalC (talk) 02:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I must have missed it. Did it also give the link for the video? If yes, do you remember which subsection of the talk page it was mentioned under? Ayla (talk) 06:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

if we are still discussing if this source should be used, then I say yes. so far no evidance has been presented that contridicts the fox news report, and the only critisism that I can see is that they use pecock terms in their reporting, but nothing that proves that it is unreliable. The group did post phone numbers and passwords about people in order to attack them...someone claiming to be from Anonymous didsend video's showing a blown up van...Lulz is defined as a "corruption of lol", and the group does claim to "do it for the Lulz, we do everything for the Lulz". and they did, as a group, invade a kids computer game as black caricters with afros and suits to disrupt operations. Now as to the extent that this report should be used...well that can be decided on the talk page and through

bold editsCoffeepusher (talk

) 03:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree; most talk page discussions I've read criticized the sensationalism of the report, not its factuality. Ayla (talk) 06:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Two further sources mentioning the Fox report have now been added to the article. Ayla (talk) 20:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

By now, three secondary sources which refer directly to the Fox report have been added to the

) 00:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

CDuniverse.com is a reliable source?

A user contacted me due to my removal of content cited with the mentioned source. I explained him why it is not a reliable source (it's a extremly commercail web site). The user claims that since I'm not an admin I can't say what's reliable or not. I asked him to read

WP:RS

but he also claims the web site it's not listed so it can't be considered as not-reliable.
So I decided to ask it here. And the edit summary of this diff clearly shows the users doesn't understand certain guidelines. Like 22:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

CDUniverse seems OK as a reliable source for reporting basic info such as lists of tracks on a CD. Editors use Amazon often. If CDUniverse were considered unreliable, we'd have to question the use of Amazon too, and that would affect a lot of articles. Although the site is a retailer, they are a secondary source in that they are reporting information about a third party. I'm not addressing your comment about the user's edits, just the general question about CDUniverse and other major web retailers. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The web site was cited for a future album. I agree it can be used for a track listing, but this album haven't been released yet. That's why I question this web site.

^{It's a zero!}

22:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I would consider leaves the tracklist out until it is officially released. I can't find any other store that has a tracklist yet so it's hard to confirm. --neonwhite user page talk 16:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

CD Universe is reliable for basic info like track lists and guest appearances on songs. It's a retailer just like the

Amazon.com, so if it's unreliable, then surely those sites are too. Spellcast (talk

) 08:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Is the New York Times a

WP:RS

?

I have been challenged[13] that my cite[14] to this New York Times article[[15] ]is not a reliable source. I would welcome a third opinion. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Depends. Are there better (academic, scholarly) sources available for that topic? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree that the

New York Times does have definite opinions on a number of legal matters, but its editorial staff are not lawyers. Although briefs in legal cases are not normally reliable sources, in this case the amicus curiae briefs filed on both sides of the current Supreme Court case were created by some of the country's most famous legal professors and Supreme Court bar members and may actually represent the most reliable current sources for the key arguments on each side of the question. I'd certainly take their opinion over the New York Times'. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC). Clarification: Not every brief that's been filed, just the ones by top law professors and regular Supreme Court practitioners. --Shirahadasha (talk

) 16:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Those would never be reliable sources, as you can't possibly have a document that was created with a stronger agenda in mind. It would still, however, likely be a notable viewpoint, but one almost certainly covered by secondary sources to save you the trouble of arguing it. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I would normally completely support that view. This particular article however, is a report that quotes several leading law professors - Tribe and co. - and makes a specific connection between liberal law professors and changing views on the 2nd amendment. I don't see it as enormously problematic. Relata refero (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Further, in any passage on changing attitudes of a section of lawyers towards the second amendment, citing the original legal briefs would be OR. We'll get little help from law reviews there as well. This article seems absolutely acceptable for that discussion. Relata refero (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The New York Times is more than reliable for presenting as facts what the views of others are, and for supporting the notability/prominence of independently expressed viewpoints. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected, I didn't look as closely as I needed to at the context in which the source was being used. While I believe that Supreme Court briefs by key figures on the Supreme Court bar are reliable evidence of what the major arguments on each side of the constitutional issue underlying a Supreme Court case are, I'd agree they aren't reliable for secondary analysis of those arguments, such as whether they've changed in recent years. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking further at the context, it looks like you are trying to add content in which the New York Times suggests that the collective-rights theory is the better argument on the grounds that it is the view of more lower court decisions. The fact that the Supreme Court has taken the case appears to be evidence that the issue is regarded as one of current dispute and uncertain outcome where both sides have a shot of having their arguments persuade. I would tend to avoid a secondary-analysis approach that tries to argue for which side is right separate from the arguments themselves. I'd simply present each side's arguments fairly, identify the lower court decisions that have gone each way with citations to them including dates, and leave it to the reader to draw their own conclusions. I don't see efforts to predict who is most likely to win through meta-analysis as being what Wikipedia is for. See

WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. I'd be more inclined to use the writings of law professors than newspapers to present the arguments. If law professors think the number of lower decisions is important, this can be included and cited as one of the arguments, but I don't recomment including it as a "neutral" or "narrator" meta-analysis. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk

) 17:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree. The newspaper is a reliable source for the number of law professors who are beginning to think a particular way; the briefs themselves are the best source for the arguments to be made. We shouldn't take a stand on which is the better argument, merely who thinks which is the better argument. Relata refero (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The crux of the NPOV dispute is the current status of the court, not the opinion of legal pundits. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It is a reliable source for two things: (i) factual, unopinionated news reports (this does not include letters to the editor, or editorials, or comment etc.) (ii) opinion pieces when they are authored by reliable source (such as a professor), or when thye are used about the author him/herself meeting the conditions of

) 16:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Lonestartimes.com

Further to this

WP:RS. SaltyBoatr (talk

) 16:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds insane. Nuke it. Relata refero (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:LAME

Guys, you are dangerously close to being worth a mention in

) 18:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Amy Winehouse/The Sun & British tabloids

Another editor keeps insisting on inserting tabloid gossip diff printed in British tabloids into the Amy Winehouse article, which recount supposed comments by family and friends. I am highly doubtful about the reliability of such sources, especially given the tone and content of such sources, such as here, here and here. These publications seem little different to me than similar American publications such as The National Enquirer or The Star. Does Wikipedia permit such dubious references? Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't want the Sun used, no. Its not the National Enquirer, true, but its a tabloid nonetheless, and impermissible on a BLP. Relata refero (talk) 11:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

So if someone gives an interview to the sun, it's impermissible under BLP? have I got that right? it's never to be used for BLP purposes? --Fredrick day

I've always been troubled by the problem of interviews in unreliable sources, so I'll let someone else deal with that, pointing out only that people have sued tabloids in the past, saying that their remarks were edited to sound more sensational. Relata refero (talk) 14:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I've left a note with the editor directing him to this section. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It is the source that is considered reliable, not individual articles. The Sun isn't a reliable source; this doesn't mean that everything they say is incorrect, but it does mean that they don't have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Even if they did, controversial points should ideally be taken from a secondary source; if they publish an interview, then they would be acting as a

WP:BLP notes that extreme caution should be used with primary sources (especially with criticism), and that secondary sources are much preferred. Chris Bainbridge (talk

) 10:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Religious authorities as Reliable Sources

Are religious authorities considered WP:RS sources even if they do not have PhDs from accredited universities? This question is extremely relevant in the Hinduism related articles since much research and study has been done by people who are considered authorities in the field who are considered "religious authorities" by many and have gone through what might be considered a different line of education than what is considered traditional education as introduced through the British System Kkm5848 (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of "experts" who don't have formal accreditation, and there are plenty of idiots who do. The reliability of an individual should not be decided based on his higher education achievements, but on the weight he holds in his academic community. For example, a scientist who has published widely on a particular subject and has been positively reviewed by other scientists could be considered a reliable source for any non-controversial claims he makes in self-published sources. And even if you doublt the reliability, if everything I said about him still holds, he would still possibly have a notable point of view that should be mentioned. So if a "religious authority" has published widely on religion, and have been positively reviewed by more obviously reliable authorities, they can be considered reliable sources for anything non-controversial, and possibly noteworthy points of view for anything controversial. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

We shouldn't really be judging the reliability of an individual at all. We should be judging the verifiability of what he or she has written. Has it been published? Is it peer reviewed? etc. Some might be acceptable and some might not. --neonwhite user page talk 01:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The reliability of an individual can and should be judged when we are talking about the individual as a source. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper). Someguy1221 (talk) 01:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Third party sources are preferable. Primary sources don't have a great degree of verifiability and should probably me only used as an opinion. --neonwhite user page talk 00:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Typically, these people are not published in "peer-reviewed" publications, but are found to have had other such people provide supporting statements independently w/o referencing the person...in other words, two people both reach the same conclusions independently...other times, they are published, and others than reference those statements in derivative works. Kkm5848 (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Many major religions have formal peer review processes, often analogous to academia's for determining who they regard as reliable. Major religions which have well-established accreditation, credentialling, and reputation procedures are just as entitled to determine who is reliable to represent their viewpoints as the academic community is entitled to present its. The

WP:SPOV, the community indicated that it does not favor academic viewpoints over others. Academics are reliable for representing academic viewpoints. But if they do not have a reputation for reliability in (for example) the Catholic community, then they are not peer-reviewed in that community and they are not reliable for presenting Catholic viewpoints. This means that if they are used as sources and editors object, they need to be attributed as academic sources so that the basis of their viewpoint will not be misrepresented. In practice attribution to identify which viewpoint a source represents is not difficult and results in articles that clearly signal who represents what. (According to Professor X at the University of Y, doctrine evolved in the following manner, while Cardinal Z's analysis for the Vatican reports that the Catholic Church has regarded it as always being the same...) Best, --Shirahadasha (talk

) 15:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a misreading of what the rejection of

WP:SPOV meant. Academic and peer-reviewed sources are privileged always; if we feel a particular notable voice is under-represented in an article, the correct way to go about it is to find an academic study that tells us what that voice is saying. Relata refero (talk

) 08:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If they are talking about their own religion then it's a different matter than if they are talking about a religions they don't follow. // Liftarn (talk)

I'd like to clarify that this doesn't mean every corner church or web site can set up a separate denomination and evade notability requirements by claiming to be reliable sources jn their own denomination. It requires not only that the religion have an established credentialling/review process, but the religion iself needs to be significant and its viewpoint regarded as important by the world in general (not just among themselves). In practice this is pretty much limited to major, world-wide, historically important denominations. Best, --

Catholicism and certain other branches of Christianity, (and certain branches of Judaism or Islam). Additional note: The approach admittedly tends to favor traditional, organized, centralized, authority-oriented religions over decentralized/non-traditional ones, but the concept of "reliability" in general tends to favor established authorities and conventional views, and isn't any different here than in other fields. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk

) 06:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your point. Hinduism would qualify as one of what, exactly? rudra (talk) 06:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"..major, world-wide, historically important denominations"? Relata refero (talk) 07:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought the point would be to clarify who in Hinduism could be considered an authority on what, not discounting the lamentable fact that having a name beginning with "Swami" and ending with "ananda" tends to put a hammerlock on the average audience's mind and turn it to mush. rudra (talk) 08:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

On

WT:RS I've made the specific point that for Sunni Islam, Orthodox Judaism, evangelical Protestantism and Hinduism, we don't have the luxury of quoting religious authorities directly. We need to quote secondary sources that can identify the mainstream or notable voices for us. This does not apply to Shia Islam, Mormonism, mainline Protestantism or the Catholic church, of course. Relata refero (talk

) 08:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Suggest holding the discussion in only one place. I do agree with the basic point that it varies by religion and hence the question of whether a religion has widely-agreed on experts and authorities that the religion as a whole generally relies on needs to be discussed on a case by case basis. I also agree that local, retail-level religious leaders can't be quoted just because they have a title or web site, but there needs to be reliable evidence that the figure is regarded as a major authority. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 14:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Lets take the example of Hinduism->there are hundreds of traditional sources of authorities -- these people not only have a long list of followers but have typically written books and lectured in India and sometimes around the world. Many of these people have extensively studied history / culture / math / science / etc -- things that are not considered to be "strictly" religious by today's definition -- but is included as a traditional part of Hinduism and discussed in Hindu scriptures. If one of them gets up to discuss something that is a part of what they have studied -- a specific example would be "Vedic Mathematics" -- do we consider them to be an authority on the topic?

second question. as often happens; their viewpoints often collide with subsets of academic "experts" who have not necessarily focused on that explicit topic; but in the general area. Who is considered to be authoritative. Lets continue on the Vedic Math example: If Prof. Michael

) 23:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Image of a document

Editor

. The image shows what appears to be some kind of document written using what appears to be the cyrillic alphabet.

Problems: 1) this is an image of what appears to be some kind of document, the image itself is not a certified copy of any document; 2) it is uncertain what the document in the image actually is: the author, David Shankbone has titled it "Russian Birth Certificiate of Michael Lucas," but in the summary description of the image he says it's Lucas's passport; Editor Hux thinks it's a birth certificate passport; Editor WJBscribe thinks it's a birth certificate; and, 3) the document in the image is written in a language other than English and it is uncertain what it actually says: two editors have offered their interpretations of what's written on the document in the image, [19] and [20], but their transliterations (?) are selective and are not complete translations, and their facility with the language in the document in the image is unknown.

Question: Can an image of a document be used a reliable source if: a) it's unknown if the document in the image is official; b) it's unclear what the document in the image actually is; and, c) it's unclear what the document in the image actually says? --72.76.99.66 (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The use of a primary source to establish a fact, may be permissible in some circumstances. A primary source such as the scan of a passport, would fail

WP:NOR violation. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

16:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Jossi here. Going strictly by policy, I am afraid that I would find it difficult to justify adding data based on the scan of a document.

That being said, if the document has been provided by the subject of the article in order to correct information in the encyclopaedia, I really think that it might be an opportunity to ignore the rules. Relata refero (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the subject himself has requested that we correct his birth name, which he says was Treyvas rather than Bregman. This is the kind of change that would normally be agreed to as a courtesy. Since the article is so controversial, people have been demanding evidence for everything. It seems harmless to include a link to the photo of his birth certificate, though someone who knows Russian might tell us whether it's really a birth certificate or some other document.

Talk:Michael Lucas (porn star) (click 'See inside' to be taken to the first page of the book). EdJohnston (talk

) 18:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me like a birth document, although I'm basing that on interpretation of the document rather than what it says. Father, mother, nationalities, probably location of birth, issued when he was 16. According to Passport system in the Soviet Union the birth certificate contained the nationalities of both father and mother, as this document does. This doesn't look like the other documents which are described. The image might be useful as an illustration in an article about this kind of document, by an editor who knows what kind of document it is. -- SEWilco (talk) 19:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If there is sufficient evidence provided, that the document is provided by the person itself, then maybe. I am still concerned about breaching

WP:NOR: Wikipedia is not a first publisher of information. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

17:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Welcome, Anon, to the Wikipedia Forum Shop, where we offer a choice of forums to suit all pockets. We're sorry to hear that the other forums you've tried have failed to satisfy, would you like a refund or a credit note? Guy (Help!) 17:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I have sent Lucas an e-mail on how to confirm that he supplied the information, to confirm he released them for GFDL (so any educational purposes of a Soviet-era passport and birth certificate). I never called this document a passport, an an anonymous user did. Lucas called it his birth certificate. I have have no reason to assume he would lie, and he offered five different proofs of his name; I thought three expired documents would suffice, including the birth certificate. His father's name was never given to him; for some reason this IP seems to think this is something that bothers Lucas, to be called Bregman, his father's name. But since Lucas is openly and defiantly Jewish, and since his father works for him at his company here in New York, the only irritation coming from Lucas is that we are giving him a name he never had. Anyway, Lucas is to send new photos for his page he is licensing GFDL, and confirming the documents through the OTRS system. I certainly don't think given this ever-evolving IP range's complaints should be given any more heed on Wikipedia, not the way they have acted. Lucas has only tried to work with us (and politely, I might add). Also, I will have an interview, and uploaded audio to fully verify it, with Lucas over at Wikinews. --David Shankbone 14:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No comment on the other issues here and I've no idea about the context or the subject, but (as far as the Russian goes) it does appear to be a Birth Certificate, not an internal passport. It does give the name Treyvas (that is, took mother's maiden name) and was issued in 1972. I can't testify to authenticity but it does look like standard-issue birth certificates.--Gregalton (talk) 13:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's the sequence of how this photo came to be here: somebody holds up a document and a second person takes a picture of it. The second person uploads the photo to WP. The first person, working through the second, says, "this is my document and this is what it is and this is what it says." Anybody can do this. It simply cannot be verified. It's

WP:OR.--72.76.9.74 (talk

) 14:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) You know, there's an easier resolution to this issue. Have Lucas send in an official copy of his university transcript.--72.76.9.74 (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we are done asking Michael Lucas to dance for a banned IP troll, who has been blocked by admins such as

User:WJBScribe and User:Shirahadasha. He will be e-mailing sufficient certification into OTRS, which is the way we have always handled these things. Good day. --David Shankbone

15:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

A certified copy of his university transcript would be proof postive of his name and would be so much easier. Have him send an official copy of his university transcript to OTRS. Are you saying that there is no transcript, that Lucas did not attend university?--72.76.9.74 (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Enough already. I blocked our anon friend for a while so people can work out what to do without the distraction of his inflammatory comments. Guy (Help!) 17:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

With full knowledge that the IP editor is trolling (and in agreement with JzG's block of him), I agree with Jossi. As I opined on the talk page and on AN/I, this is a level of verifiability that comes down to "A trusted Wikipedia editor said it was." With no disrespect intended to any of those editors, that's a standard of verifiability that seems below what we should be striving for. I agree that the document itself can and should be used via BLP if it's provided to OTRS -- isn't that exactly why OTRS exists? Nandesuka (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• It's one of those "uncontroversial trivial facts" cases. Subject says X, we have a kind-of-a-source for X, the only dissent is from an tabloidish magazine (likely poor research) and an anon pushing an agenda at which we can only guess because he won't tell us. So: take it at face value unless and until there is some legitimate dispute about it which rises above the level of poor fact checking by a poor quality source. Guy (Help!) 23:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with all of that except nymag is not tabloidish at all. I think its fairly certain they made an error here because this isnt something that should matter to anyone except Lucas. I really can't believe we are wasting our time worrying about it. Relata refero (talk) 08:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been editing the

) 09:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The very link you cite makes it clear these sources do not explicitly meet the requirements for scholarly sources. I normally don't care so long as they're reliable at all, unless there is reason to doubt. And from looking at the discussion on the talk page, that would certainly seem to be the case. In theory, you could argue these sources in as "expert opinions," but that's something that requires a

dispute resolution. Someguy1221 (talk

) 10:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to get an RfC here, though going to this board might serve similarly. In brief, Pooua, wishes to add material saying that the Dey of Tripoli raised his demands, which in turn caused Jefferson to suspend payments to Tripoli thus precipitating the Second Barbary War. I would merely like him to cite a genuine work of history that says that. So far he's produced a couple of polemicists and a member of the "curriculum" department at a small university writing in a non-peer-reviewed online blog-review.

There have been several other problems with that article. In case anyone is wondering why, this is the Treaty that includes the line about the US government being "not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." Relata refero (talk) 12:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, the treaty does have the line about not the US not being founded on Christianity; it is cited in the article. I have read Hitchens, Time and the Wash Post and they certainly qualify as reliable sources. (

12:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure who is saying what in the unsigned comments below (and am not going to look into it), but my comments were to the effect the Hitchens, Time, and Wash Post certainly meet RS; the tvsquad.com comment was re it being cited as a RS in tv contexts. I have not looked into the dispute on this treaty article (and am not going to). These are reliable sources and may be used. --Jack Merridew 09:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Reliability depends on context, I'm afraid. If we're using tvsquad as a source on a plot summary of Star Trek, its OK. If we're using it as a source on

jet propulsion engine, not so much. Ditto Hitchens and co. Relata refero (talk

) 09:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice twist, but no dice. If Hitchens speaks to the issue you're disputing, he can be cited; Diito Wash Post and Time (and Newsweek you mention below). tvsquad.com is not a reliable source for squat. --Jack Merridew 12:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Explain to me what makes Hitchens a reliable source on an obscure historical fact. Seriously. Please do. Relata refero (talk) 13:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, is someone citing tvsquad.com in a notable historical article?

OK, I think you may have missed the point. Hitchens may have a notable view in terms of the Christianity or otherwise of the US, but he has no legitimacy as a scholar of how the Barbary War was started. Neither does Newsweek or Time. Relata refero (talk) 14:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Someguy1221, you say that there is some reason to doubt the statement that the Pasha of Tripoli raised his tribute demands after the first Treaty of Tripoli was signed. What is your basis for claiming there is reason to doubt it? No one in the article or its discussion page has produced any quote or source that disputes the claim. Furthermore, there are other reference materials that make the same claim, though they should not be necessary.

Jack Merridew, you are confusing who is claiming what. Hitchens was not quoted to say anything at all about Christianity in this nation or in relation to the Treaty. He was quoted to document that the Pasha of Tripoli raised his demands after the first Treaty of Tripoli was ratified. And, yes, it is silly to object to using him for this reference. What is so hard to believe about a pirate nation not complying with the terms of a treaty?

Relata refero wrote the last unsigned line before my comments. Pooua (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The sources you mention above seem reliable enough to me. We're not obliged to use scholarly sources. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Scholarly sources, when available, should always be preferred over the news media. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

That's your opinion, not what the policy says. What matters is that sources be used appropriately, which depends on the context and editorial judgment. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

What, Hitchens on history? Are you sure you're feeling well, SV? Relata refero (talk)

With regards to scholarship, the guideline literally says, "The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals." Reliable news sources are still obviously reliable for reporting facts of the matter and what others have claimed about them, as well as establishing the notability of a viewpoint. But when we're speaking on terms of the scholarly significance of a viewpoint, then by the guideline a news source does not explicitly satisfy it. And then all we're left with is a content dispute, which this is not the appropriate venue for. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The bibliography at First Barbary War might prove useful. rudra (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Normally, when I write a research paper, I would want to use the best sources I could. At the same time, Wikipedia is meant to be open to everyone to contribute. That won't happen if Wikipedia requires people to use only rare or difficult to access materials. I mean, I find myself spending about $50 per article that I write, as I buy books off Amazon.com. Not everyone is willing to do that. The Internet and libraries can only go so far. So, either Wikipedia is going to be a populist encyclopedia, open for anyone to contribute, or it is going to limit its contributions just to specialists who have access to materials not easily available to the public. I believe that insisting on peer-reviewed, scholarly materials in every citation violates the spirit of Wikipedia.

Another example is the quote from Eaton, which I pulled from David Barton's book. Several people complain, because I used Barton as my source. My only alternative is to find a way to gain access to a $200 rare book. That is not reasonable, and it is perfectly legitimate to use the quote from someone else who has seen the book. Pooua (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. Wikipedia is a volunteer effort, yes, but that doesn't necessarily rule out excellence. There's nothing wrong in trying for better, more reliable or authentic sources. This whole dispute might have been better handled if sources deemed inferior were substituted with a {{cn}} tag instead of text being deleted altogether, as there are no specific grounds, as far as I know, to consider the assertion controversial. rudra (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a good number of other sources word their discussion of it to imply that Jefferson never intended to pay the pirates off after becoming President. In the absence of a discussion of why what happened from reliable sources, rather than Christopher Hitchens trying to make some sort of overwrought comparison between current Iraq and nineteenth century Libya, I thought it best to remove it. Relata refero (talk) 08:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Jefferson was on record being opposed to the idea of paying protection money. In the event, however, the Pasha (being a greedy idiot) gave Jefferson a gilt-edged excuse to do what he wanted to do anyway. I think the LOC materials make that pretty clear. rudra (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing against someone using a better source, if they have one available. But, in this case, no one has provided any source other than the sources that I have provided. They are simply deleting anything that is connected in any way, however remotely, to the view that the U.S. was a Christian nation at her founding. That means any source, author or editor who has ever shown sympathy for that view is being cut out of this article, bit-by-bit. Pooua (talk) 22:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

"The bibliography at First Barbary War might prove useful. rudra" - FWIW, one of the books listed in that bibliography is "Victory in Tripoli: How America's War with the Barbary Pirates Established the U.S. Navy and Shaped a Nation," by Joshua London. I used Amazon's "Look Inside" feature to confirm that this book discusses the increased tribute demanded by the Pasha of Tripoli. I've ordered the book from Amazon; I should get my copy in a week or so, along with a few other books that I bought on the subject of Tripoli. Pooua (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, now what happens? Some of the editors say that my sources are sufficient; some say that my sources are not. What happens next? 204.253.82.210 (talk) 02:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

To me the solution to this is quite simple... rephrase the contentious assertion as a statement of opinion (ie that of Hitchens), not as a statement of fact. Blueboar (talk) 02:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

dispute resolution. Someguy1221 (talk

) 02:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Blueboar, they aren't statements of opinion; they are statements of historical facts. The question is whether articles in "Time" magazine and "Washington Post" can be used as sources for this article.

Someguy1221, I've already gone through several of the options on DR. In fact, that page is how I got here. And, here we have apparently not resolved anything. Pooua (talk) 03:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you ever reach the part about

mediation? The purpose of this board is to discuss the reliability of a source. If a consensus cannot be reached here, or if the true concern is the application of a source who's reliability is not in dispute, then it is necessarily the case that the problem will not be solved here. As with the first link I just gave you, the proper course of action is to keep calling attention to the page, through appropriate venues, until a consensus is reached. And as you'll notice on DR, there's a heirarchy of venues to attempt if consensus fails. Someguy1221 (talk

) 08:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It's unquestionable that both the Washington Post and Time magazine are reliable sources. To argue otherwise borders on the absurd. Yes, if there's a better, more scholarly source available for the same assertion, by all means use that, but "I don't like Christopher Hitchens because he's a polemicist" doesn't make Time any less of a reliable source. Nandesuka (talk) 07:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

As a matter, of fact, I like Christopher Hitchens. But that doesn't mean that someone who calls himself a contrarian, is considered a polemicist, and has not academic qualifications, is ever a reliable source for details of historical fact regardless of where he is writing! Relata refero (talk) 08:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. They are both reliable sources per wiki policy. The point of having footnotes is so that the reader can see the source and judge it for themselves. Tyrenius (talk) 07:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

As for "per wiki policy", remember "The word "source," as used in Wikipedia, has three related meanings: the piece of work itself, the creator of the work, and the publisher of the work. All three affect reliability." Relata refero (talk) 08:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd appreciate some guidance here, as I'm at an impasse with another editor. While it's in mediation, I think we need some third-party input. Let me describe the problem and my proposed solution abstractly, and then link to the specific.

Website A is wiki-like, and anyone can go in and edit. I don't disagree that, if the site was used as the sole reference for a point, website A itself would not meet

.

Professionally, which doesn't necessarily operate by Wikipedia rules, I've taken material from far more disreputable sources, but, if the specific material can be validated through more reliable sources, I consider the datum, but not the source as a whole, to be reliable.

In this case, the sole piece of information taken from a site is the name of organization from which organization 2, the focus of the article in question, derives its tax-exempt status.

Given this name, it was possible to look up organization 1 in a commercial database (Website B) of tax-exempt organizations and verify its existence and its tax status. The individual doing the tax report was identical to the contact named in Website A.

Also given the name of organization 1, a Google search for organization 1 AND organization 2 retrieved a solicitation, on Website C, for donations to organization 2. Organization 2 asked for checks to be made out jointly to organizations 1 AND 2.

While I agree Website A does not appear to have tight security controls, it was only used as a means for finding a search argument that did turn up an accepted reliable Website B, and an appeal from Organization 2 itself, documenting a relationship between 1 and 2.

I contend that when a piece of information from a questionable site can be confirmed by two other independent sources, it should be within

, to use that single piece of information for a limited purpose. Another editor argues what US lawyers call "the fruit of the poisoned tree", which means that if any evidence was not obtained lawfully, any other evidence derived from it is inadmissible.

What is the opinion here? The specific mediation link is Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-02-04 Code Pink.

If the consensus is that a questionable source cannot be used as a search argument to find agreed reliable sources, that solves the particular situation, and I will gracefully withdraw from editing the article in question, and will not use the technique in any other article edits.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 23:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source to cite a fact, why are you still using the unreliable source at all? Fruit of the poisoned tree is irrelevant if you burn the tree after the fact. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't completely disagree with you. The questionable source was challenged earlier, and I then did additional research and got better sources, but the poisoned tree, earlier, became an issue. When I cite the more reliable sources, the other editor claims I am engaging in OR, or at least original synthesis, to have gone out and done searches that confirm an allegation.

If there's a good way to edit it out and still have the additional references make sense, that would be fine. It might be ideal for another editor to make those changes, as I may be too close to it. My sense is that it is proper to describe the chain of sources that led to the ultimate data, but others may not think that way -- it is stylistic, and perhaps coming from some of my professional experience in various areas.

Thanks! Yours might be a potentially viable solution, if it's acceptable in the emotions surrounding this article.

Hi there, is a book published by Lantern Books a reliable source for the article on Animal testing? The reference is number 140 in this version of the article. Thanks Tim Vickers (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

So-so reliable for its current use. The presence of the second source helps make the book more reliable, however given that the publishers and author are against animal testing, an external, third-party, verification of the claimed problems would be prefered as addition to the existing pair (newspaper coverage, for example). LinaMishima (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt reply, LinaMishima. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, there is no proof that Lantern books are not reliable. Also, point of view rules should only apply to cases where biased editors are taking reliable sources out of context to futher their cause. Neutrality on wikipedia extends only to "fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources" BETA 05:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

From the publisher's webs site: " Gene Gollogly is CEO and President of Booklight Inc. and Lantern Books. He is also Director of Anthroposophic Press." Their list is divided between "Animal Rights & Vegetarianism / Spirituality & Health / Social Thought " Note the wording: not animal testing, animal rights. They are in that field at least a specifically partisan group, and I would consider them reliable only in the sense that the books they publish represent the opinions of their author, and their own sector of he animal-rights activists. The book cited is used in the article for the description of a particular experiment. The other source listed is the abstract of the grant request for the group of experiment I consider that reliable for the planning; there is no really reliable source given for the actual experiment on the particular monkey. However, the author, Ingrid Newkirk, is among the more mainstream opponents of animal testing, and the book is also cited in reference 143 on that page for information favorable to the other side of the controversy. The publisher in general no, this particular book, maybe. DGG (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems OK then, since author is notable and a recognised expert. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Animal Liberation Front references

• Note - sources under discussion are:
  • ALF video hosted on a personal blog
  • ALF photo on ALF website

I also removed a link diff to the Animal Liberation Front website. Do people here agree that this is not a reliable source? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Tim, it's inappropriate of you to be removing anti-testing sources, then coming here trying to get support for them as non-reliable. The animal rights perspective has a place in that article. It is not a tiny-minority opinion any more, and the ALF is being used as a source of information about a raid they conducted. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You may notice that I also removed some sources used to advance a pro-testing argument, and described the argument they supported as an example of OR, so please assume good faith. The ALF is described by governments as a terrorist organization, and the Animal testing article is not about the ALF, so I thought it might be a bad idea to include such questionable sources. This is the appropriate place to get second opinions about the reliability of sources, and I have asked for some more opinions on this. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

There are no governments who have categorized the ALF as a terrorist organization. The U.S. Dept of Homeland Security has said they are a "domestic terrorist threat," which is not the same thing legally as a terrorist organization designation (it has no consequences for the ALF, such as making it illegal to be involved with them). There is no such description of them in any other country, and in fact the police officer in charge of the dept that investigates animal rights-related offences in the UK has called the description nonsense.

But regardless, they are a reliable source for something they were directly involved in. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

SlimVirgin is correct here. Sources may be biased, they simply have to be used within the correct context. However I do support the removal of the above link to an image, as I don't think the image actually adds to the information. LinaMishima (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Context is all-important. As I wrote on the page, "the idea of an 'appropriate' source is important. We don't use Ingrid Newkirk to explain how to breed fruit flies, and we don't use a fruit fly expert to explain how the ALF removed an animal from a lab." SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that using a questionable source that is "widely acknowledged as extremist" in the article about the ALF would be entirely appropriate, but this article is not about the ALF. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The section it is in is about an ALF raid. They can obviously be used as a source about events they were directly involved in. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Sources from a biased group may also be used to describe the opinions of the group and the actions that the group claims to have taken. We include sources with opposing biases when using such material in order to maintain

due weight. Those policies do not prevent the use of biased sources, they simply promote their use in context and with accompanying sources that are neutral and/or of opposing bias. LinaMishima (talk

) 23:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

If there are alternative, mainstream, independent sources reporting on the raid, we should use those rather than the ALF's release. That is not negotiable. Relata refero (talk) 06:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced the ALF reference with one from the NY Times, reporting on the raid (Link). Tim Vickers (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It's an AP story, not NYT, and it's fine to add it, but there's no reason to remove the other sources, which say and show different aspects of the story. You're just looking for an excuse to remove links to a source you don't like, Tim, and that's a misuse of this board. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to remove an unreliable primary source from an extremist organisation and replace it with a reliable secondary source from a mainstream newspaper. I think your reversion of this change is unwise. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You also questioned Ingrid Newkirk and a publisher because you don't like them. You've questioned the status of senior scientists who disagree with you. You've stated or implied that BUAV is an extremist organization when it's probably the most respected anti-vivisection group in the world.

The ALF has a videotape of the raid that section discusses. They are the only source of that videotape because they took it. You have no grounds at all for removing it, except that you have a very strong pro-testing POV (considerably stronger than most of the pro-testing scholarly sources on this subject), and trying to use this board to help you is a misuse of it. A view that you have expressed on that talk page is described by one scholarly source as a view that defies common sense. You have to allow views that you detest to be heard. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do not attempt to personalise this discussion about a source. LinaMishima said she didn't think the image link added anything to the article and Relata refero suggested we substituted a reliable mainstream source instead. I followed these suggestions and you reverted me (diff). I would welcome further feedback on the suitability or otherwise of these sources from other uninvolved editors. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Slim, Tim showed good faith by asking for guidance here and then following it. Cla68 (talk) 00:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The image link seems moot, since it is now a broken link <edit-now working again>. I'll remove this but leave the link SlimVirgin insists is a reliable source for further discussion - an ALF video hosted on a blog that states "Many of these people obviously get a buzz out of the torture they administer and the name of the game is power. There is not a shadow of doubt in my mind that they would do these same things to humans without a second thought if it were given legitimacy....This sadistic breed of scientists did not suddenly appear from nowhere and live only in Nazi Germany. They exist everywhere."". Tim Vickers (talk) 04:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is not about the Animal Liberation Front. It is about animal testing. The ALF, as an extremist source, can be used in articles about itself, but should be avoided in more mainstream articles. As such, I see no justification for including the video. Relata refero (talk) 11:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

We do not not need every possible source. This is not a scholarly publication aiming at a complete historical evaluation, but just an encyclopedia, and we use the most reliable sources available. Lets look at the sources under discussion: [21] is a an example of an unpublished unauthoritative partisan source . It is not acceptable as a reference, and would not be acceptable even it contained only text. Nor would anything from that blog be acceptable for any purpose other than an article to show the opinions of the author of the material. Nor would a video from peta.org be acceptable; we do not have any reason for confidence in the objectivity of their editing. In any event, it's a primary source, and WP is not a collection of primary sources. If there were no other sources on this particular animal we might consider the text--but this is not the case. I can not see the use of either of them as justified. i think just the same about the external link to [22] in the context of this particular article, tho if the film is notable, it could be used in an article about it. DGG (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The section is a summary of an article about an ALF raid. The issue of appropriateness is key here. Sources must be used appropriately, which boils down to common sense and editorial judgment. The article does not say:

"According to the Institute for Laboratory Animal Research, non-animal alternatives are unable to model interactions between organisms and the environment, but the Animal Liberation Front disagrees."

That would be an inappropriate use of the ALF as a source, for obvious reasons. It does say (words to the effect of):

"According to the Animal Liberation Front, the baby monkey they removed from the laboratory had a noisy sonar device strapped to his head when they found him."

That is an appropriate use of the ALF as a source, because they were there, they found him, and they know what he looked like when they found him better than anyone else. If others disagree that he was found that way, those sources can be added too, but there's no reason to remove the ALF's description. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Except that the ALF is an extremist source, and we do not quote them in regular articles except when secondary reliable sources have determined that what they are saying is credible. There appears to be a clear consensus that quoting them directly in this context is inappropriate. Relata refero (talk) 11:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you show me where policy says that? SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Guideline.

WP:RS#Extremist sources. Relata refero (talk

) 12:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

First, RS isn't policy. Secondly, the section in question is a summary-style mini-section about an article on an ALF raid, so it's RS-compliant. Third, that provision is also in the policy. I'm concerned that you're answering questions here about sources when you're not familar with the policy. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• First, I did say guideline. If you want advice about reliable sources, I will quote the guideline about reliable sources. If I had said "according to policy", you would have said, "RS isn't policy". I said "According to a guideline" specifically, and yet you 'correct' me. (Clearly I cannot win.)
• Second, if it is important or verifiable enough to be mentioned in a summary, then reliable sources covering the subject of the daughter article should have mentioned it.

And they do. That's not the issue. The issue is that it's fine to use the ALF as a source too. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I rather fancy nobody agrees with you. To repeat, extremist sources should be used only in articles about themselves. This is not an article about them. It is part of a summary article; we should use mainstream sources. That is how policy is generally understood, and, indeed, how it was written. Relata refero (talk) 13:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Third, I'm well-aware that the policy has a similar restriction against questionable sources. (Though not precisely "that provision", as you seem to think. In any case I prefer WP:RS, which uses the term 'extremist' more prominently, is written more clearly, and bolds the text forbidding their use.) If you already knew in both cases, why did you ask? (If you didn't know, don't lash out at me.)

I think it was me who wrote it, both in V and in RS, though that's from memory. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I suspect it was you who wrote the WP:V version. In any case, you knew it was there, right? So why ask me? (Unless policy is generally understood in a manner not commensurate with what you intended, in which case you have my commiserations as a fellow-writer.) Relata refero (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I will pass over your 'concern' as touching but misplaced. You would be better served rewriting the section in line with policy. (And guideline.) Relata refero (talk) 13:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

It's perfectly in line with policy, as I wrote above. And I don't think my concern is at all misplaced. The people who answer queries here should know the sourcing guidelines and policies better than anyone, letter and spirit, theory and practice, and that's clearly not the case. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you did write it above, didn't you? Unfortunately, all you wrote was an assertion ("its fine"). The letter, the spirit, and the custom of policy and guideline are all against you here. The letter, which clearly states "in articles about themselves". The spirit, in that we do not trust extremist sources to be reliable reporters of such incidents; and trust only what reliable sources have determined is worth reporting. Custom, which I can assure you is the case, as someone accustomed to answering queries and observing the answers of other experienced users. I am truly disappointed that someone who apparently wrote a lot of our policy should be so uncertain about what it actually means.

(Please don't go changing the policy now, more in keeping with what you believe it actually should say! That is generally frowned upon.) Relata refero (talk) 13:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I wrote those words in the policy in the first place, so why would I want to change them now? For the second or third time, that section is a summary of an article about the ALF, so they are being used entirely in keeping with policy, which stresses the importance of using sources appropriately, rather than like a robot. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You might want to change them because they don't say what you thought they did. I did think that was clear, but perhaps lack of clarity is infectious. (Sorry, couldn't resist that.)

SV, nobody agrees, or could in good sense and clear conscience agree, that summary sections are exempt from the general policies applied to main articles. As I pointed out above, there is absolutely no reason why that would be the case, and several reasons why it wouldn't. The letter is against it, as we have established. Good sense is against it (non-robotic common sense) because we don't trust extremist organisations enough, and we trust reliable sources to pick and choose the things that should be in a summary. It's completely inappropriate to use an extremist reference in a summary section of a main article. (If it weren't, all main articles dealing with slightly contentious issues could be rewritten to include vast numbers of extremist refs. And that would be - er - inappropriate.)

I suggest again that you take the advice that I and others here have all given, and return to working on the article with the inappropriate references removed. Relata refero (talk) 14:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I think SV is right. Any organization, extremist or not, may present its own information or testimony about itself, where it is being addressed. So if we have a section or article that focuses on X, saying some source claims X did Y in a particular incident, X can be a reliable source to reply to it. Crum375 (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I really don't want to continue to argue this. Still-

That's an interesting approach, but not really customary. It is probably true that it is applicable in an article that focuses on X, but there are good reasons why it is not true or practised in articles that focus on something else, with a section that mentions X. Relata refero (talk) 18:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion Relata, I too agree that extremist primary sources should not be used if there are alternative mainstream reliable secondary sources. I've asked for a few more opinions on this at WP:V and we will see if we can come to consensus on this issue. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The argument made above was that this was "appropriate use of the ALF as a source, because they were there, they found him, and they know what he looked like when they found him better than anyone else." is false. In addition, the argument that this is a section about the ALF (and therefore allowed to use sources that would otherwise be disallowed) is also wrong. This is not a section on the ALF any more than a policeman's description of the scene of a crime would be considered a statement about the police force he works for. The description must be assessed according to how reliable a witness is perceived to be. Our Verifiability policy makes it abundantly clear that we can't consider the ALF a reliable witness in this matter. But let's see how the professionals dealt with the ALF's claim: the Associated Press article was written by an organisation whose full-time job is to assess and relay the facts. Do they say "260 animals, including Britches, were stolen from the laboratories at the University of California, Riverside in a raid by the Animal Liberation Front." (as the Animal testing article currently does). No, their heading is "Group Says It 'Rescued'260 Animals From Lab" and later:

Vicky Miller, of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, said in a call to the Washington bureau of The Associated Press that 16 members of the group took 21 cats, 35 rabbits, 38 pigeons, more than 80 rats, more than 70 gerbils, 9 oppossums "and an infant primate who had been the victim of sight-deprivation experiments since birth," from the university's Riverside campus.

Nowhere in that article does the AP put their journalistic weight behind those claims. Now, I'm not saying they may be false, but if the AP don't trust them enough to state them as hard facts, then neither should we. The text should be rephrased to make it clear that these are the claims of the ALF, not hard facts. Additionally, now that we have a reliable secondary source for this sentence, restoring the link to the ALF video is utterly

21:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

That's right. We always have to watch for clues about whether news sources believe them. DGG's comments above hit the nail on the head, as usual. I also agree with Relata refero. We don't need every possible source for a subject, just the best, most representative ones. These extremist sources can and should be omitted. Cool Hand Luke 21:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Based on the apparent consensus of uninvolved editors here, is there any objection to me removing these references? Tim Vickers (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The references have now been removed. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Crum375 has replaced these references in the article, stating that he sees no consensus to remove them on this page diff. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's wrong, of course. Still, all we can do is advise. Editors can choose to ignore the input of the uninvolved at their own eventual peril. Relata refero (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Reliability of source http://www.ozo.org.ua/biblioteka/Tys-Krokhmaliuk-Yuriy-UPA.djvu for WWII history article - included many myths about non existed battles with non-existed SS-division headed by non existed high ranked SS-man - Sturbahnfuehrer SS General Platle and later under General Hintzler. Also Xenophobic (Jewish-element, Russian-communists etc). Also Reliability of sources based on mentioned book. ThanksJo0doe (talk) 22:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Has the book been quoted elsewhere? Relata refero (talk) 08:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Not, but article Ukrainian_Insurgent_Army predominantly based on it as directly, as a citation from secondary sources to advance position - UPA as liberators and anti-German fighters (while German does not give any info about "battles"Jo0doe (talk) 05:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

We have two papers, Cazin (1987) (J.C. Cazin et al.. "A Study of the Effect of Decimal and Centesimal Dilution of Arsenic on Retention and Mobilization of Arsenic in the Rat," Human Toxicology, July 1987) and Linde (1994) (Linde, K., Jonas, W.B., Melchart, D., et al. (1994) "Critical Review and Meta-Analysis of Serial Agitated Dilutions in Experimental Toxicology," Human and Experimental Toxicology, 13:481-92), the first of which is a study of the effect of homeopathic dilutions of arsenic on rats, and the second is a meta-analysis which reviews this paper and gives it a "QE > 50" rating which is characterized in the abstract as "high quality." These papers have been challenged, but they have been verified and no verifiable and reliable sources have been put forward to challenge Cazin or Linde. We have been going in circles, and it might be helpful to have clarity from someone here as to whether these are reliable sources for our purposes.

(portion supplied by User:DanaUllman who has the papers): Jonas, Kaptchuck, and Linde (2003)(Jonas, Kaptchuck, and Linde, "A Critical Overview of Homeopathy," Annals of Internal Medicine, March 4, 2003, 138,5:393-400), reference Linde (1994), and assert that "unusual effects of ultra-high dilutions in rigorous laboratory studies continue to be reported."(page 397) Here, these authors re-assert their affirmation that their study found effects from homeopathic medicines in "rigorous laboratory studies." Linde (1994) notes that they evaluated between 24 and 31 criteria (depending on the model studied), though we do not know the details about this criteria. Although one might assume that blinding might be a necessary component of "high quality" research, there may be some types of studies for which other criteria of research design are more important. Likewise, randomization is not always viable in animal research nor might it have any significance in evaluating whether the study was a high quality one. Just as blinding is not typically used in surgery, not every component of human trials may be necessary in determining high quality research on other areas of scientific inquiry. —Whig (talk) 06:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It appears, even from Dana's comments, that "high quality" is not used by Linde in reference to Cazin. The "abstract" defines the quality rating "QE > 50" as being "high quality", but that characterization doesn't appear in the paper. Furthermore, although this is a weak use of "

WP:SYNTH

, we are using the following facts, all from Linde:

"QE > 50" is defined as "high quality".

Linde states that he uses papers which satify "QE > 50" and have no "serious methodological flaws".

Linde uses Cazin.

to construct the statement that Linde considered Cazin "high quality", providing evidence that Cazin is an

WP:RS. — Arthur Rubin | (talk)

13:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Arthur, you are wrong in one place, where you say- "The "abstract" defines the quality rating "QE > 50" as being "high quality"". The abstract does not. "High quality" is defined explicitly at no place in the paper, hence my objection to the use of quotation marks in this connection. It may be inferred that this is what they thought, but it is not said. I think Dana has got his 50%'s muddled. The one that appears in the Abstract is this one "Among the high quality studies, positive effects were reported 50% more often than negative effects". As you can see, and as I phrased it before, the Abstract "asserts" the phrase "high quality" and describes a feature they claim to have found in "high quality" studies but it does not define "high quality" and nowhere in the paper are we given the tools to do this. They independently describe a class of studies with "QE>50%", but nowhere do they specifically call these "high quality". To be strictly accurate, the Results section does not even include the material to support that statement from the Abstract, it is produced ex nihilo. If the Cazin and Linde papers were not copyright I'd happily circulate copies to let others see just how bad they are, but unfortunately that is not possible and I paid my own real money to get them from a library serviceOffTheFence (talk) 14:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Journal of publication is really just a rule of thumb so far as

weighted

as additional evidence for the earlier report. I have found no high impact paper unequivocally confirming or refuting these results or discussing any specific methodological problems that would require their dismissal. As I see it, this makes them fair game for inclusion with the caveat that context must be provided. The profound lack of a plausible theory of action and the absence of multiple incontrovertible converging lines of evidence (in vitro studies showing activity, a well-defined minimum in the dose-response curves, effects of tinctures catalyzed using different arsenic compounds, that sort of thing) are relevant to this presentation. Common methodological problems that would be immediately apparent to the savvy reader, such as lack of blinding or randomization, should enter the discussion, and simple uncontroversial well-accepted metrics of reliability and quality may be computed and presented so long as they may be easily verified by anyone with access to the papers.

So yes, in the absence of similar quality references indicating otherwise, these old papers may be included in the

talk

~ 22:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to all for the various inputs. I think I have enough now to draft a new section that takes this all into account to achieve an NPOV statement of both papers' content. OffTheFence (talk) 23:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue here is determining what is a massacre, for inclusion in this list. Some editors are using Wikipedia itself as a source: they only accept a massacre if there is a corresponding article which uses the word massacre in the title and lede. Sources such as the

or academic works are not accepted. So, what is a reliable source in this context?

Colonel Warden (talk) 14:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

That's incorrect. The current criterion for inclusion is that the event should be named a massacre according to reliable sources (it may be one of two or three accepted names for the event). The venue for determining this has been devolved to the article, rather than multiple debates on separate events on the list talk page. If the name with "massacre" is the one used, then obviously it should be the article title or in bold in the lead. Sources such as NYT or academic works are accepted if they validate "massacre" as a the name (not just a description). Tyrenius (talk) 14:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not clear what is meant by this devolved venue point. What if there isn't a separate article? Colonel Warden (talk) 16:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure either, but the rest of what he says is correct. If reliable sources refer to an event as a massacre (and this is not being taken out of context), then we can list it among massacres. There is no requirement that there must be an article on Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The current criterion for inclusion in the list is "events which are known by the word "massacre" in their name." Whether that is or is not the case is best examined in detail in the article on that event, rather than multiple debates on different events on the List talk page. If an event does not have sufficient notability for an article, then it is doubtful whether it merits inclusion in the list either. There are already over 600 articles on events named "massacre".[24] That is plenty to be going on with, as the list only contains just over 50 of them at the moment.Tyrenius (talk) 17:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I note that the article is up for AfD, and that the issue of criteria for inclusion in the list is being debated there.

My take... as long as an event is discribed as a "massacre" in a reliable source, it can be included in the list... regardless of whether it is discribed as a "massacre" elsewhere in Wikipedia or not. As for what to do if there is no separate article... I have to question whether an event (massacre or not) that does not rate its own article (or at least a prominent mention in a broader history article) is notable enough to be listed. I would suggest that the list be renamed as "List of notable massacres" with inclusion criteria stating that the event should either have its own article, or be mentioned prominently in a broader history article. Blueboar (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

"List of X" implies "List of notable X."

WP:UNDUE and plain old common sense prohibit listing insignificant cruft alongside notable topics. But oftentimes an article on a notable topic doesn't exist simply because no one has bothered to write it yet. That does not prohibit it from having mention in a list if it is indeed verifiable by independent and reliable sources. Someguy1221 (talk

) 19:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The list's sole requirement is myopic. Requiring the word "massacre" in the name rules out The Holocaust (and routine unnamed associated procedures), events given titles before English included the word "massacre", and researchers who chose a synonym of "massacre" to name an event. If RS use synonyms for "massacre", editors of an article could use same or other synonyms. -- SEWilco (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read through the article talk page archives and the current AfD for the considerations involved here, then join in the appropriate debate. This is the Reliable Sources board and the question about that issue, "Some editors are using Wikipedia itself as a source: they only accept a massacre if there is a corresponding article which uses the word massacre in the title and lede. Sources such as the

) 20:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous. Named so by reliable sources? What if those have different standards by which they judge? In the Indian media, something in which three people die is also called a massacre in at least two reliable sources. Not only is that list pointless, but saying "any RS" in these circs makes it even more pointless. Relata refero (talk) 08:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Where are you finding "any RS"? Your argument otherwise applies to all uses of sources, not just to this article. Tyrenius (talk) 01:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but all articles don't have this particular problem of inclusion, obviously. Its like if List of political dissidents was handicapped by completely different understandings of the word "dissident" across RSes by country. Relata refero (talk) 07:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Another really good example is

talk

) 10:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, even confining consideration to people found guilty of it is not inherently NPOV. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm in the process of trimming and editing an article called List of supercouples. Currently a website called soapcentral.com is being used as a source for some of the claims, and I'm unsure if this should be allowed. My concern is that much, if not all, of the content appears to be user and fan generated. Some opinions would be greatly appreciated. AniMate 17:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This issue was already very recently debated here and at

talk

) 18:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw that. You guys got it wrong. AniMate 19:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

No, we didn't, AniMate. All aspects of that source were discussed, and what was deemed reliable about it was its news source for soap opera topics, which it is very reliable in concerns to that.

talk

) 19:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

.

• Internet Speculative Fiction Database. This is a database which allows open data entry, but the data entry is moderated by administrators. Hence it's not quite clear if it is subject to the restriction on sites anyone can edit. An additional point is that the reference is not being used to source anything that is not also sourced from the magazine issues themselves; the value of this source is that the ISFDB provides an online index that is useful to readers who don't have access to the magazine itself (as of course most won't). So it's a convenience, and is not the sole source.
• Magazine Datafile. This is definitely self-published, by a bibliographer, Phil Stephenson-Payne. It is used only for one fact: the name "Clifford Hong", who is the editor of an issue of the magazine. The only other source I know for this information would be to go to Addall, put in "Clifford Hong" in the author field, and search. You'll find one copy of the magazine for sale, confirming that Hong was the editor. Is either of these a reliable source? Stephenson-Payne's site is widely used as a reference work, and in fact he is now hosting a major index of anthologies put together by William Contento. (I am also citing that index, but Contento is an acknowledged expert in the field, and his indexes are regarded as critical references; Stephenson-Payne is not self-publishing those -- he's publishing Contento's work -- so I feel those are OK.) Stephenson-Payne doesn't have independent reference works referring to him as an expert, though, as Contento does.

Thanks for any help on these. Mike Christie (talk) 20:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

On the article

) 20:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I have only one question: Has this website ever been mentioned by a reliable source? Alternatively, is this website maintained by individuals that can be presumed reliable given coverage they have received from reliable sources? Very simply, if the answer to both of these questions is an emphatic NO, then this website is utterly indistinguishable from complete bullshit (in either the truth of its claim of 330 engineers or in the presumption that these 330 are at respected or properly credentialed). Someguy1221 (talk) 00:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

At no point has such a source been produced, so I am unsure. I would assume not. --Haemo (talk) 00:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

If the answer had been Yes to either question, would it be correct that the site's reliability would be determined by how the site or its creators were reported? (Like if the New York Times cited it as a group of conspiracy theorists or something else that does not indicate reliability?) Anynobody 00:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It is absolutely not an acceptable source, as it is not a reliable source. Furthermore, it is unacceptable per

WP:RS to link to that site. --Aude (talk

) 01:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

My further question is whether the information from that website about the engineers etc has ever been quoted/reported by a reliable source? ie is information considered notable (or I guess reliable) by anybody other that specific website? Slp1 (talk) 01:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, at no point has such a source been produced, so I am unsure. --Haemo (talk) 01:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Is

00:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Brian Whittaker of the Guardian (who has a Masters' in Arabic language) has exposed at least two cases where MEMRI promulgated translations which were misleading at best, and probably knowingly fraudulent. MEMRI has also been extensively criticized for its extreme one-sidedness in the guise of "Media Research". Finally, all of MEMRI's founders are former Israeli military intelligence officers, Israeli neo-cons with deep links to Likud, or both.

That being said, MEMRI might sometimes be a reliable source for opinion and commentary, but I'm very leery about using such a group for factual information in the absence of independent confirmation. <eleland/talkedits> 01:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree. It can be used if properly attributed, and when describing opinions and not facts. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

See here for a related discussion. Relata refero 19:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a related question which is a little trickier, and pertains to the use of sources like MEMRI and CAMERA for opinion purposes.

Basically, these organizations can be counted on, every time, 100%, to praise Israel and condemn perceived enemies of Israel. Pretty much anything that happens in and around Israel, they'll express an opinion on it, and it's always the same opinion. They are well-funded and active, but it's very difficult to know how significant their views actually are. Nonetheless, such groups tend to be used heavily in Middle East articles as sources of criticism and commentary.

Now, there are some occasions when these groups do get play in actual media outlets. There was a fraudulent

Sabeel-bashing editorial in the Boston Globe recently by a CAMERA member, and MEMRI scored a media home run with their mis-translation of Tomorrow's Pioneers material. Obviously, those controversies deserve mention. But a lot of the supposed controversies MEMRI, CAMERA et al document don't seem to exist outside of a narrow partisan "echo chamber" environment. Pallywood

is an excellent example - Israel wonks are obsessed with it, but the media don't take it seriously and probably haven't even heard of it.

"mis-translation" or not! The difference between the tomorrows pioneers translations are minute and well within slight veriation you get when you translate anything. Given this is all that can be said against an organisation that translates thousands of TV broadcasts as well as newspaper reports every year this is clearly a very accurate translating service (used by the BBC). MEMRI does not have a news agenda it just translates what is said in the arab media. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 12:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

So, what is the guideline for judging when an opinion is important enough to be mentioned? Personally, I would favor keeping to reliable factual sources and only using partisan sources when it's been established, factually, that a genuine controversy exists. Is that the usual practice? <eleland/talkedits> 20:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

For evaluating whether or not they are echo chambers and to what degree they should be quoted outside their narrow concerns, I would suggest

WP:FT/N. Relata refero

20:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I use the FTN often and greatly appreciate it, but I am leery of bringing such a fine, effective institution into the Israelistinian tarpit. <eleland/talkedits> 20:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I just thought that Moreschi and co. might be able to evaluate the notability of opinions quite dispassionately. Relata refero 20:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

More specifically the question (at least the question I have) is whether MEMRI is a reliable source on the Qur'an, its

) 18:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you are asking the wrong question. What you should be asking is Is MEMRI a reliable source for views on the qur'an,

Islamic theology. Any answer your second point. Either it is or it isn't. Yahel Guhan

22:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The MEMRI seems to talk of Islam as if it is an expert. The question is, should we consider it as one? Also, "Either it is or it isn't" never works, since there are exceptions.Bless sins (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It is very, very easy to quote from someone else's scriptures in ways liable to incite hatred. So severe and obvious is this problem that, if MEMRI really claim to be a source on Islamic Scripture (do they?) that would be another reason never to use them.

There used to be a Israeli holocaust survivor, soldier and professor who insisted on exposing what appear to be serious extremism within Judaism. Our article on him doesn't discuss his apparently well-founded views on the religious exhortation to kill civilians. Instead of which, we re-publish the very most unpleasant things his opponents said about him ("diseased mind, Nazi views"). Why would we give a body like MEMRI, an attack-dog of well-funded anti-Muslim propaganda and extremism, better treatment than an individual who put his career and personal safety on the line to oppose extremism? PR^talk 17:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why this is relevant. MEMRI is a serious organisation, that it can be argued that they have erred in translation on two occasions, just goes to show what a RS it is. Any major news source print daily corrections and apologies, so 2 mistakes should invalidate a source? Please! Lobojo (talk) 01:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. - as Eleland points out above, MEMRI has just the opposite reputation. Dlabtot (talk
  ) 02:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Eleland hasn't "pointed out" any such thing, he's just given his opinion. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Which appears generally supported by others. Relata refero (talk) 07:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

By whom? I see a number of "others" stating the exact opposite. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I did give my opinion, Jay, but most of my posting was devoted to relevant factual information about MEMRI from 3rd parties (I can give the exact citations if anything is in doubt.) I think it behooves you to address that, rather than resort to what is, frankly, an obnoxious filibustering tactic of the sort one would hear in an argument among schoolboys. "That's your opinion!" — well yes, everything I say, by definition, is my opinion. Also, I'm rubber and you're glue, etc. <eleland/talkedits> 03:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

A columnist has claimed that MEMRI erred in two translations? Out of what, thousands that they've done? That's hardly proof they're not reliable. Nor is being "one-sided" in choosing sources the same as being "unreliable" in translation. And finally, regarding your claim that the founders were "former Israeli military intelligence officers, Israeli neo-cons with deep links to Likud, or both", well-poisoning is not an argument for unreliablity. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

A columnist with a Master's in Arabic language has opined that MEMRI's errors are "difficult to attribute [...] to incompetence or accidental lapses. [...] there appears to be a political motive." He concludes that "Responsible news organisations can't rely on anything it says without going back and checking its translations against the original Arabic." This is something which we rarely get at Wikipedia; a specific, third-party assessment of a source's "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." In two other columns, he discussed his unease, as a journalist, with MEMRI's apparent secretiveness and selecitveness. He wrote that "The reason for Memri's air of secrecy becomes clearer when we look at the people behind it. The co-founder and president of Memri, and the registered owner of its website, is an Israeli called Yigal Carmon.
Mr - or rather, Colonel - Carmon spent 22 years in Israeli military intelligence and later served as counter-terrorism adviser to two Israeli prime ministers, Yitzhak Shamir and Yitzhak Rabin. [...] Of the six people named, three - including Col Carmon - are described as having worked for Israeli intelligence.
Among the other three, one served in the Israeli army's Northern Command Ordnance Corps, one has an academic background, and the sixth is a former stand-up comedian."

In the second column he quotes a former US ambassador in the Middle East saying, "This service does not present a balanced or complete picture of the Arab print media. Its owners are pro-Israeli and anti-Arab. Quotes are selected to portray Arabs as preaching hatred against Jews and westerners, praising violence and refusing any peaceful settlement of the Palestinian issue."

Again, it's not my personal assessment that MEMRI's links to Israeli spies and Likudniks is problematic; it's the assessment of Whitaker and the sources he quotes. And he gave far more than two examples of problems of translation, mis-attribution, or questionable interpretations.

Whitaker was not alone in his assessment; according to Glenn Beck of CNN, his network's "Arab desk" (I am assuming he meant "Arabic desk") ordered the MEMRI tape of Tomorrow's Pioneers pulled from all of the networks after they became aware of its "massive problems." They said that "several Arabic speakers" they consulted all agreed on the mistranslation. [25] As'ad Abukhalil, who is a professor at UC Berkley and a native Arabic-speaker, provided a detailed line-for-line analysis which confirmed the findings.

The weight of sources here is pretty overwhelming. MEMRI is a shady, highly partisan group with a reputation for "sexing up" its translations, which are specifically selected to highlight the worst aspects of Arab media. <eleland/talkedits> 06:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, being selective in sources has little to do with "reliability". Whitaker's opinion piece is one source critical of MEMRI - one, and the CNN transcript you provide doesn't say anything about Glenn Beck "pulling" the tape, or "massive problems". The transcript states that CNN disagrees with the translation of one sentence; it also points out that Mustafa Barghouti said that the "very unfortunate video" in question had been pulled, indicating that MEMRI's concerns were well justified. And finally, blogs, even "angryarab.blogspot" aren't reliable sources. Far from the "weight of sources here" being "pretty overwhelming", they are, in fact, quite underwhelming. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Jay, congratulations for noting that a CNN transcript which didn't mention Glenn Beck didn't say anything about him pulling the tape. Really now, could you,

WP:AGF just a tiny bit? That wasn't what I was providing the transcript for. That information came from Glenn Beck's talk show; an online mirror exists here

.

Whitaker has written three articles critical of MEMRI, not one, which I have already told you, and I believe I linked all three above. Here, I'll give the links again, since I know you're busy: Selective MEMRI Langauge Matters Arabic Under Fire Furthermore, Whitaker did not merely provide his own opinion, but also quoted from other sources who were critical of MEMRI, including Wm Rugh, former US ambassador to Yemen and the U.A.E.

Another MEMRI translation, of the 2004 bin Laden tape, has been widely discounted. [26]

Blogs are, of course, self-published sources. However, we are not talking about a random blog, but the blog of a professor of Political Science whose expertise is in the Arab world, about which he's written three books. "

Established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications

," anyone? I congratulate you on noticing the self-mocking "Angry Arab" title of the blog; perhaps you should dig a little deeper.

Finally, your dodge about Barghouti confirming the tape had been pulled was just a waste of time. Jay, everyone acknowledged the program was horrifying, even when you translate it accurately. The tape being pulled has absolutely no bearing on whether MEMRI's translation was correct. <eleland/talkedits> 07:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I watched the video - there appears to be a dispute about one sentence. MEMRI stands by its translation. Regarding Whitaker, again, he is one source critical of MEMRI. Unsurprisingly, Juan Cole has chimed in as well, but Juan Cole's claim that a word was taken out of context is not, actually, the same as being "wide discredited". All of this is mighty thin gruel for a broad claim that MEMRI is unreliable. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

David Shulman is one of the world's leading authorities on

) 13:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You've entirely misrepresented me; I have no issue with Shulman being a reliable source regarding Dravidian linguistics or Tamil studies. Feel free to use him in the Dravidian languages article. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, if its published by the University of Chicago press, it seems reliable enough. I will say nothing about whether it violates

WP:UNDUE

.

Note also that while his research interests are listed as Dravidian studies, he is a University Professor at the HU, and is entitled to teach in any department. Relata refero (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Err, nonsense. He's not going to be dragged in to teach a course in Chinese, or particle physics. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

He's reliable on some topics, and not on others. Where he (or anyone else) is expressing a political opinion, especially employing polemics, it would be unfair to employ that quote as a source for a scientific finding, when he doesn't claim that it is. Academics write with the implicit assumption that their readers can distinguish between what is their opinion (which they're entitled to) and scientific finding (which is subject to scrutiny). In this particular case, Shulman does nothing to substantiate his view except to express it. So what we're left with is that a notable person had a strong opinion about something. --Leifern (talk) 23:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Leifern. I also don't quite understand the function of this noticeboard, which I had never seen until a few days ago. Starting a new discussion here basically "forks" a discussion that is already taking place on the article talk page. That seems confusing and inefficient. Shouldn't this "notice"board just contain notices that there is a particular dispute being discussed, and a link to the discussion? 6SJ7 (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. There seems to be an abuse of the concept of a "reliable source" going on here. A person might be a reliable source in one area, but not in others - in general, people are reliable in their areas of expertise. A mathematician is not a reliable source for a medical claim, a historian is not a reliable source for a claim about astrophysics, and an expert in Dravidian linguistics is not a reliable source for claims about the psychological makeup of Israeli settlers. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You're employing two strawman arguments in a double-dodge. Everyone understands that someone might be an RS in one area and not another, so that's strawman #1. But what you're claiming is that a book put out by a prestigious peer-review academic press is non-reliable because the author doesn't have the right degree. Nishidani (and I, and others) are saying that proper Wiki-vetting of reliable sources does not entail scrutinizing resumés in order to second-guess academic peer review. If an author's chops are good enough for a prestigious academic imprint and a glowing review in the New York Review of Books, then they're good enough for Wikipedia. Period. Now the question of whether a particular passage is well-selected, appropriate, etc., is a separate question but

WP:RS

has absolutely nothing to do with it. Steve and I do not think this passage is well-chosen. But you are on your own in poring disapprovingly over a resumé accepted by the University of Chicago press.

Strawman #2 is that the passage in question is a claim "about the psychological makeup of Israeli settlers." No it isn't. It's a claim about cultural, political, and institutional tolerance of lawlessness in Israeli settlements in recent years. It reads:

Israel, like any other society, has violent, sociopathic elements. What is unusual about the last four decades in Israel is that many destructive individuals have found a haven, complete with ideological legitimation, within the settlement enterprise. Here, in places like Chavat Maon, Itamar, Tapuach, and Hebron, they have, in effect, unfettered freedom to terrorize the local Palestinian population: to attack, shoot, injure, sometimes kill - all in the name of the alleged sanctity of the land and of the Jews' exclusive right to it.

The word "sociopathic" here is obviously being used in its lay sense, and no literate person will understand it as a specialist's psychological diagnosis. That's just a total red herring. What can be said about this passage, and has been said by me and others, is that its ratio of rhetoric to information make it a less-than-ideal extract from an acceptable source.--G-Dett (talk) 03:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You yourself are employing two strawman arguments. Strawman #1 is that I'm claiming that a "book put out by a prestigious peer-review academic press is a non-RS because the author doesn't have the right degree". Were the statements made by Shulman regarding the psychology of settlers peer-reviewed by experts in settler psychology then? Of course not. Can you name the "peer-review" process that took place regarding Shulman's statements? I don't think so.

Strawman #2 is that Shulman is using the term "sociopathic" in a rhetorical sense, that he didn't really mean it literally. But if it's just emotive rhetoric, then what's all the noise about him being an "expert", and this being "peer-reviewed"? Moreover, why would we want to include this kind of emotive rhetoric in an article? What's more, we know that the rhetoric is false, the Israeli settlers don't really have "unfettered freedom to terrorize the local Palestinian population: to attack, shoot, injure, sometimes kill". So, even more empty rhetoric. It's a useless quote for any number of reasons, and it's astonishing that people would seriously try to include it in any article, much less using the laughably weak pretexts advanced for its inclusion. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Jay, are you able to communicate in anything other than strawman arguments and false allegations of strawman arguments? You've substituted "rhetorical" vs. "literal" for my terms, which were "lay" vs. "specialist." These are very different words; look them up. You don't need to be a psychologist to talk about "violent, sociopathic" elements in society; stop with that nonsense. Shulman's book is a reliable source, period. We know this because it was vetted and published by a prestigious peer-review academic imprint, and warmly received by one of the most eminent review journals in the world, and praised as one of the best books of the year by Slate. Any

WP:RS objection is null and void on its face. If you're concerned about declining standards in academic publishing, Wikipedia is not the venue to address this. If you're concerned that this extract is not the best choice of material from this reliable source, then good, we're agreed. Join me on the talk page instead of dodging me there; we'll work it out.--G-Dett (talk

) 04:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, are you able to communicate in anything other than strawman arguments, false allegations of strawman arguments, and violations of

WP:RS claim to the contrary is null and void on its face. If you're interested in promoting ever-more strawman arguments, such as my being "concerned about declining standards in academic publishing", Wikipedia is not the venue to do so. And if you're concerned about people "dodging" discussion on the relevant Talk: page, then bring it up with the person who brought this whole dodge to this board in the first place. Jayjg ^(talk)

04:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Jay, your post above is

WP:NPOV and other policies. Try to perform that role with a modicum of intelligence and modesty.--G-Dett (talk

) 04:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, your post above (and indeed many of your posts) are violations of

WP:V does not say that every word published in every book published by any University press is, by definition, reliable. The University of Chicago Press publishes all sorts of things, including Norman Maclean's novella A River Runs Through It, and The Phantom of the Temple: A Judge Dee Mystery, a detective novel, and Tricks of the Light, a book of poetry. Oh, and Discuss edits, not editors. And finally, Discuss edits, not editors. Jayjg ^(talk)

05:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing in the source about psychology, at least not to a minimally literate eye. The book is reliable on the settlements, period. What to use from it is an excellent question; when you have a better understanding of core policies you'll realize this is not an

WP:RS question. Stop telling me about the author's expertise in Dravidian languages, a subject you don't understand and I haven't raised (i.e., another strawman). If you're concerned about the decline in standards in academic publishing, fine, but stop talking about it here; your opinions on that subject are, again, by definition, worthless.--G-Dett (talk

) 05:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

at least not to a minimally literate eye = violation of

WP:CIVIL. Stop. Discuss edits, not editors Furthermore, your continued assertions that Shulman, an expert on Dravidian languages, is a reliable source for assertions about the psychology of settlers is just that, an assertion with no basis in policy. And, as has has been shown, publication by a university press doesn't instantly turn material into an unimpeachably reliable source; it's just one indicator of potential reliability, and not necessarily the most important one. If you're interested in promoting ever-more strawman arguments, such as my being "concerned about declining standards in academic publishing", Wikipedia is not the venue to do so. Oh, and Discuss edits, not editors. And finally, Discuss edits, not editors. Jayjg ^(talk)

05:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Your deliberate and calculated misrepresentations of content disputes, your ongoing abuse of core policies, and your incessant trolling of good-faith editors are a continual affront to the project. I don't expect you to stop, but I wish you would.--G-Dett (talk) 10:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Please comment on edits, sources, and article content, not other editors, and please review

WP:CIVIL. Jayjg ^(talk)

02:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop playing

WP:GAMEs, abusing core policy, and trolling noticeboards and talk pages. Your deliberate and ongoing disruption of Wikipedia is an "editor" as well as "content" issue.--G-Dett (talk

) 18:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, this is the Reliable sources noticeboard, not the "Rant about those you dislike noticeboard". Please focus on edits, sources, and article content, not other editors, and please review

WP:CIVIL. Jayjg ^(talk)

22:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

A number of inquiries here are about whether such-and-such or so-and-so is a "reliable source" (and just that), usually because someone else has contested it. Now, it's all very well to show credentials, but what often gets lost is exactly what for which the source is a

) 01:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It is all about context: In which context is this source used, and to support what text in the article. These questions are better discussed in article's talk and not here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Quite so. Relata refero (talk) 08:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

There are several aspects to how reliable a source can be. Is the author a tenured or tenure-track academic? Is his speciality in a related field? Is the particular work published by an academic imprint or a peer-reviewed journal? Does the publisher have a reputation for accuracy and editorial control? And so on.

By the way, any attempt to demonstrate that because the U of Chicago press published poetry, it has ceased to have a review process on its academic work is a little pathetic. Relata refero (talk) 08:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Your point about his specialty is rather critical. And, as has been rather conclusively shown, University presses do not "peer-review" everything they publish. And this particular work is, in fact, described several times as a "diary" in the New York Review of Books articles. It's his personal feelings and impressions, not a peer-reviewed study of Israeli settlers. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well my apologies if, as some maintain, this is not an appropriate page in which to ask experienced editors and administrators for advice on what constitutes

WP:IDONTLIKEIT than anything else. Joseph Needham was qualified as a biochemist, and only studied sinology privately. He coauthored perhaps the best work on the history of Chinese science. That Shulman's primary field is Dravidian linguistics is by no means a disqualifier. It seemed sensible to cast a broader net to get a larger catch of informed judgements. Surely to experienced hands, the issue is straight-forward?Nishidani (talk

) 11:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) My goodness, what a strange situation must be going on over at the relevant talk page. I'm too squeamish to look, I admit.

A book published by a scholar in a major university press, and positively reviewed by notable sources, is not only a reliable source, it's in the top tier of reliable sources. Logical contortionism, and drawing one's adversaries into sidelines about

> 11:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

University presses are generally good sources, but everything has a context. As has been conclusively shown, despite the claims University presses do not "peer-review" everything they publish, and I can bring hundreds of other books as obvious evidence of that. Also, this particular work is, in fact, described several times as a "diary" in the New York Review of Books articles. It's his personal feelings and impressions, not a peer-reviewed study of Israeli settlers - he is writing as an activist, not as a scholar. And, again, he may be a scholar, but his expertise is in an unrelated field. Scholars of Dravidian languages are not experts in the psychology of Israeli settlers. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Without necessarily agreeing with Eleland here, I personally think that a comparison between this section and that on Paul Bogdanor above is instructive. Relata refero (talk) 11:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Further to

which include phrases like "An estimated 400-800 civilians were killed in what has come to be called the ‘Tiananmen Square Massacre’" (article). It seems to me that this is more than enough but this is disputed by reference to some "hidden text". Colonel Warden (talk) 09:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I trust this is not making a

POINT. Those sources are fine, but the arrangement on the list article is to first establish the name of the event in the article on the event, before including it in the list. Alternative names can be put in bold at at the beginning of the lead section of the article on the event. This is what the commented out text says in the list article. Tyrenius (talk

) 11:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Your last sentence provided enough of a clue to find the "hidden text" which I had not prevously found, despite searching for it (I was looking behind the Hide links). It starts, "This article is a list of events which Wikipedia calls a massacre, either in the article title or in bold in the lead.". This seems too self-referential to me and is not consistent with the general method of a Wiki in which redlinks and similar imperfections are supposed to be tolerated. Our usual practise is that reliable sources are the touchstone for inclusion. Furthermore, this novel policy, if accepted, would encourage

pointy editing - editing other articles purely in order to meet the formal requirements of the article that one wanted to edit. This would provoke edit wars across articles which does not seem desirable. Colonel Warden (talk

) 13:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Colonel Warden here... the article is called List of events named massacres not List of events named massacres in the lead of their Wikipedia article. If a reliable source establishes that an event is called a massacre, it should be included in the article. Blueboar (talk) 14:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

No, because while not discussing this particular addition that opens the door to minority terms being included. The whole point is that if a term is in widespread use, it should be in bold in the lead of the relevant article. Therefore it needs to be in that article first, as has been repeatedly explained, so this forum shopping is pointless. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I find this to be an unacceptable limitation, and possibly a NPOV violation. While it is true that the article on

Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 does not use the word "massacre" in it's title or put the word in bold text in the lead... the article does use the term "Tiananmen Square Massacre" several times in the main text. Thus, both the article and numerous reliable sources establish that this term is used... the event is indeed "named massacre"... it should be on your list. I think this is consistent with the intent of the Admin who closed the recent AfD debate with the ruling that the article be renamed. However, to make sure, I have asked her to pop over to the article and clarify her intent. Blueboar (talk

) 15:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you check the many, many previous version of the articles, and the talk page archives. We're not saying it can't go in the article, just it has to be in the other article first. So instead of forum shopping here, the next step would be to go to actual article and add it there. So why hasn't that been done? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It has been done... but given the history of that article, it will probably be undone. However, you neglect to address the issue that the term is used lower down in the article's text. Thus the article establishes that the term is used. It is backed by reliable sources. Thus it should be included in your list. You need to change your inclusion criteria so they are in line with policy. Blueboar (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It is in line with policy, try reading. If it's not a common enough term to go in the lead of the article about the event, it's

undue weight including it in this article. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃

16:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't we have a policy stating "Wikipedia is not a reliable source"? That would seem to make nonsense of the list's criteria for inclusion. It's bizarre situation when Wikipedia article titles and leads are deemed more reliable than published sources. --

) 16:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop knowingly posting untrue statements. The article talk page and AFD which you've posted to repeatedly make this quite clear, as you are more than aware. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't stop what I haven't started. Unless you've been living on Mars for the past 20 years, you should know perfectly well that the "Tiananmen Square Massacre" is commonly called the "Tiananmen Square Massacre" in English. The article talk page and the AfD are as clear as mud. --

Folantin (talk

) 18:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Since this has moved beyond the scope of this notice board (the sources that Colonel Warden askes about are clearly reliable), I think it best to move further discussion back to the list's talk page. I have formally proposed a change in the inclusion criteria which should address the concerns expressed here. Blueboar (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. Especially since arguing whether the "Tiananmen Square Massacre" qualifies as a massacre or not is too ludicrous for words. --

Folantin (talk

) 17:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Then let's not argue. The criterion at the list article was adopted to stop edit warring as editors fought to add their "favourite" atrocity to the list. So after Tiananmen, we would have somebody adding Fallujah. 9/11 anyone? As there is presently a consensus among the regular editors to continue with this criterion, if you are unhappy with this state of affairs I suggest you propose a workable alternative at

Talk:Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 and get agreement there that it is a common alternative name for what happened. I am sorry a couple of people seem unhappy with how things are but having worked hard to foster the compromise to end the edit-warring, I am loath to see it return, just so somebody can have their favourite massacre included. --John (talk

) 18:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

And I see you've reverted its inclusion again. Unbelievable. Why on earth are you editing a "List of massacres" if you don't know about the "Tiananmen Square massacre"? Hint:" The Tiananmen Massacre may be the best-documented massacre in recent history" (Brenda K. Uekert Rivers of Blood: a Comparative Study of Government Massacres, Greenwood Press, 1995 p.31). --

Folantin (talk

) 18:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the inclusion against consensus for the second time. If several editors are reverting you, it can sometimes be a clue that you are editing against the

consensus. Rather than edit war, at this stage it is better to discuss in talk, I find. --John (talk

) 18:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Two editors (you and your associate One Night in Hackney) do not equal consensus and consensus most certainly does not trump Wikipedia policy. There are reliable sources for the inclusion of this item on the list (plus it's common knowledge). I am not relying on the whims of other editors who have taken it upon themselves to decide exactly when an article is "stable" before reliably sourced information can be added to an article. You seem to be in violation of

Folantin (talk

) 19:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

My "associate"? That sounds a bit weird. What do you mean by it? If something being "common knowledge" was enough to merit its inclusion here, the encyclopedia would look somewhat different. Instead we use

WP:3RR as well. --John (talk

) 19:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not edit warring. I am merely trying to add the most obvious piece of information to a Wikipedia article in the face of pointless obstruction. You know perfectly well that the "Tiananmen Square massacre" (113,000 Google hits) is called by that name in English (or "Tiananmen massacre" - 55,100 Google hits). Plus, we have brought reliable sources to this Reliable Sources Noticeboard to prove it. Yet I am still prevented from adding this information to the page by you and another user. --

Folantin (talk

) 19:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion arising from my explanation of the AFD closure seems (finger-crossed) to be leading to a consensus on the inclusion criteria for this list: see Talk:List of events named massacres#Explanation_and_question_from_AfD_closer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Please don't interpret this as forum shopping, but a debate over an image from this site is currently under way at

so even if the site is determined to be non-RS it won't necessarily affect the image debate.)

That said, is this a reliable source for articles dealing with the Middle East, like

00:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well , there have been a systematic effort to censor that image , first by doubting it's copyright license , then by it's claimed Unencyclopedicity and now by it's reliability. That's a picture released by an official source (a part of Iranian government) and the overall effort of the opponents is based on denying the reliability of a government (Iran). I'm not asking to believe anything that governments say or show, but deleting official statements of the governments with the rules that Wikipedia deletes the web logs or ordinary people's comments is impossible. If the opposing party thinks Iranian government is lying, they can add their comment to the text or their source to oppose it, but they can't omit the official Iranian government statement as "un reliable"! Summary: Personal sources are different from governmental official statements, and judging about their "reliability" needs different process.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Alborz Fallah, as I said this thread isn't about the image, rather the rest of the site and its information like The Land Rover Jeep and Zorro's horse and articles like the one about Iran Air flight 655 which constantly refers to the USS Vincennes as the USS Vincent. Anynobody 03:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

More like "request for cluebat" rather than RS/N: should a leak that has been unconfirmed be used as a source in an article? Will ^(talk) 16:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the best way to ask this question is to present the actual example where this occured to me:

. On the backside of the cover there are several comments, one of which is this:

"A superb analysis. Be prepared for one heck of a journey through time and mind."

Ron Paul, member of Congress

House Banking Committee

Now my questions: Is this reliable information? Can it be used to claim that Ron Paul approved Griffin's analysis of the Fed? How do you cite such a comment? Can you verify the accuracy of the comment? Thanks for any replies. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not see a reason why to dismiss that quote, although you need to take into account that flap comments in book covers are usually promotional in nature. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

If a book jacket quote is taken from a larger critical review, you should cite to that review instead of the book cover. Dishonest publishers have been known to pull a single positive comment out of what is otherwise a negative review ... so it is important to present the quotes in context. This is probably not applicable with Ron Paul quote you are asking about... but it is worth repeating as a general rule. Blueboar (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right on all accounts. Indeed, in this particular case Griffin himself says: "I sent a copy to him with the request that he write a brief statement that we could use on the book’s cover". FeelFreeToBe (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the question is rather: Is it reliable although it is self-published material? I'm asking because I don't see an easy way to verify the accuracy, unless the comment is taken from a larger review. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 17:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well... I don't think it is a self published source ... Paul didn't publish it, nor did someone working for him. I am also not sure what you mean by "verify the accuracy"... is there reason to doubt that Ron Paul actually wrote these words? Blueboar (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

To follow up on the point Jossi makes above, within the book publishing industry the practice of providing blurbs for other authors' books is well-known for a lack of sincerity. I don't think it would be wise to assume support from the quote. I also think the point about publishers pulling cites out of context from longer reviews is a good one thought that may not apply in this case. If Ron Paul has expressed public support for the book, that'll be available somewhere. If not, perhaps he doesn't support it. I don't think this is a reliable source for his support. Mike Christie (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

To Blueboar: With "self-published", I meant that Griffin published Paul's comment on his book, and I'm thinking about including this information in an WP article about G. Edward Griffin. I don't believe that Griffin invented this comment, but he is a controversial figure so I don't want to include any information which can be easily discredited. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

To Mike Christie: I was unable to find any other source, in which Ron Paul mentions the book, but I find connections observed between Ron Paul's fight against the Fed and Griffin's book. Griffin just asked Paul for a short comment for exactly the purpose of publishing it on the book's cover. But I don't believe that Ron Paul would read a book, understand it and comment it without really meaning it. Perhaps he doesn't widely recommend it elsewhere, because it doesn't support his line of political argumentation, that he needs for political success. It still looks to me that he approves the analysis which lies behind Griffin's argumentation. I'm happy if you can argue against this, because I don't want to use this information if it's not solid enough. FeelFreeToBe (talk) 21:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You're quite likely right that Paul would not provide the blurb if he didn't believe the book's argument. Unfortunately I think that's not quite good enough. What's needed is something that someone who knows nothing about Paul can look at and decide is reliable evidence that Paul supports the book. I don't think you have quite enough here, and with polarizing figures such as Paul I think it's important to be rigorous on sources. Because of the general nature of blurbs, it's not enough to show he wrote an approving blurb. The request Griffin made is the same sort of request that gets made in the publishing world all the time. Many years ago I had an editor cut a comment out of a review of mine; the comment made mention of a blurb in support of an argument I was making, and the editor pointed out that the blurb wasn't good enough evidence to be cited. That was a blurb on the back of a work of fiction, but the rule applies throughout the industry. Now, if you can find a statement of Ron Paul's that says "I never provide blurbs or quotes for books that I don't one hundred percent support" then you have something -- not ideal but certainly usable. Mike Christie (talk) 21:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your experience. Another argument supporting your view just came to my mind: The fact (?) that Paul does not recommend the book elsewhere (although he did recommend some books) indicates to me that his own opinion might not be as close to Griffin's as implied by mentioning the blurb comment. That makes it an

WP:NPOV issue as well - probably too delicate for inclusion. Well, I guess that leaves me with citing only the article from USA daily, which at least doesn't come across as a claim that Paul approves everything Griffin says, just that they fight in the same arena (against the Fed). FeelFreeToBe (talk

) 22:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

A big problem with blurbs on book covers is that they are usually edited and taken out of context. Somebody may say, "The book is nonsense and I wouldn't recommend it to anybody" and it comes out as "I would ... recommend it". Corvus cornix_talk 00:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone comment on the

| 23:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, just remember what the notability subguidelines exist for. We say that winning an oscar makes an actor notable, but that's not because oscars are just superduper notability enchanted awards. We say that because whenever someone wins an oscar, they're sure to have multiple, reliable, independent sources on themselves (many in regards to what they did to win that oscar). So then to argue that winning an origins award makes an entity notable is to show that winning such an award guarantees the existence of reliable sources to such an extent that we'll keep that article at an AFD even if no sources are provided other than proof the award was won. And just checking google again, "academy awards" gives 15000 times as many news hits as "origins award," so I'd say it's certainly not as safe a bet. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Then why does

I don't know a literary prize to automatically dismiss the recipient out of hand as being non-notable. I would *do* argue that winning an Origins Award does basically guarantee that there will be reliable sources for the subject. --Craw-daddy | T

| 00:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

If you run through the other sub-guidelines, you'll notice a common theme in most is the syphoning off of the primary criterion as seperate from the others. You'll also notice choice phrases like "The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with attribution in reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist" from

verifiability, which is the actual threshold (and a very inflexible one) for inclusion. I skimmed some random articles from the lists of winners, and I didn't actually see any reliable soures in them. But then, plenty of articles aren't sourced, so that might not mean anything. Anyway, if your last argument is correct, then yes, winning the award grants notability. I just haven't seen any convincing proof. Someguy1221 (talk

) 00:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I did the same for the literary awards. It seems a fair few of the main articles on the awards themselves are pretty poor references (if at all). (And, yes, the one on the

Origins Awards itself could use some work.) --Craw-daddy | T

| 00:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• On its own, a trade association award such as the
  POV. --Gavin Collins (talk
  ) 22:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

And as stated above, an Oscar does not by itself confer any sort of notability. After all, that's just a trade award too. All of the press generated by them is just effectively copying a press release, and the rest is covering who was wearing what sort of dress on the red carpet, and who's dating which model. As also stated, the prize suggests that whoever wins it will have reliable independent sources about them, as I believe I have been effectively demonstrating with the references that I have been adding to many articles for those games/publications that win Origins Awards. When has the Academy ever published the reasons why they give an Oscar to someone. Heck, they don't even want to publish who are the members of the Academy!  :) So it's a secretive trade membership that gives out awards to its own members, and has been effectively hoodwinking the public for more than seventy-five years. The process for the Origins Awards has varied over the years, and has been the subject of many discussions in various forums and some other columns. Currently the nominations are made by the Academy of Adventure Gaming Arts & Design, and the final votes are performed by the public. Hence, I don't think the "jury" of the public would state the reason for their decision. Nor, do I recall, hearing the reasons for the particular films being nominated for some category of Oscar award. In any event, I'm still waiting for compelling evidence (not POV) for the Origins awards not being indicators of notability, in the same sense that Oscars are. I'm not claiming that the winners "inherit" any sort of notability, neither do Oscar winners for that matter, but namely they both indicate that the recipients will be the subject of multiple independent sources. (It is funny, however, that phrases such as "The person has received significant recognized awards or honors" appear in

WP:RPG/N.) If you look closely, you'll actually see that most awards are effectively "trade awards". From the Pulitzer website, you find that "In early March, 77 editors, publishers, writers, and educators gather in the [Columbia University] School of Journalism to judge the entries in the 14 journalism categories." So, again, it's a trade award... yet it's a major literary prize too. So what's the difference? I hope that I can stop having this same argument at some point in the future... And I would welcome further comment from someone other than myself and Gavin.collins as we have been making the same statements to each other for sometime now. --Craw-daddy | T

| 00:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Trade association awards are used as evidence of notability all the time. The Oscars are awarded by the Academy, which is comprised of people in the movie trade. This does not make an Oscar an unreliable indicator of notability. No one thinks that notability is "inherited" from the award. Awards are evidence of notability. No guideline says that awards organizations need to have a "jury" which publicizes the reasons for their decisions. I've never seen the Academy Awards publicize their reasons for decisions either.

Any argument that says Origins awards aren't a valid indicator of notability are just silly. This conversation shouldn't even be necessary. Rray (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The Origins Awards are to RPGs as the

Emmies are to television, what the Pulitzer is to journalism, and what the Nobel Prize is to its various fields. They get less coverage because RPGs themselves get less coverage; they are just as important within the field as any other award is to its respective field. Now so far, everyone who's spoken on this issue has a bias (with the possible exception of User:Someguy1221; I don't know his feelings) either wanting the Origins Awards to be capable of conferring notability, or wanting them not to. As Craw-Daddy says, what we need to see is someone who has no bias, no stake in the argument, to take an objective look at the circumstances and tell us what they think on this issue. BOZ (talk

) 03:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

How about the closing admin on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GURPS 4e Basic Set (2nd nomination). To quote: "..proponents of article are strongly encouraged to locate and cite reliable secondary sources; press releases from award-givers are less than ideal". I think those comments set an important precedent. --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

AFDs are not meant to be precedent setting, they deal with one issue independent of others. Besides, that AFD was returned as keep, which you choose not to quote. Web Warlock (talk) 15:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't run based on precedent anyway. And policies aren't determined by closing admin's statements in AFD's. Rray (talk) 00:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

In answer to Gavin's three arguments presented above, I'd say that the first and the last points are irrelevant; as currently stated, I don't see a basis in actual Wikipedia policy. To my mind, what's important is the middle point - winning an award is not the same as notability. An article on an RPG (or an aspect thereof) shouldn't get a "free pass" just because it won an award. That said, the Origin Awards can and should be used as evidence to help establish notability. It just shouldn't be the only evidence. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• To answer the original question, they are clearly a strong indicator of notability. I think BOZ sums it up well. Hobit (talk) 06:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)