Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Editors can post questions here about whether given sources are reliable, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer. Please post new topics in a new section. If you are satisfied with a response, please tag your thread at the top with {{resolved}}.

The guideline that most directly relates to whether a given source is reliable is Reliable sources. The policies that most directly relate are: Verifiability, No original research, and Neutral point of view. For questions about the sourcing policy, please go to the Verifiability talk page.

If your question is about whether material constitutes original research, please use the No original research notice board.

EIR vs PRA

I would propose using EIR as a source, judiciously and appropriately, just as I would use King and Berlet as sources, judiciously and appropriately. Alternatively, I would propose using none of them. --Niels Gade (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Treating EIR as a relaible source would require overturning or altering an ArbCom case. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Which arbcom case? If there are restrictions on the use of EIR as a source, the same restrictions ought to apply to PRA et al. --Niels Gade (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting question. I'd like to know whether Wikipedia applies policy consistently. --Marvin Diode (talk) 11:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you please link to the arbcom case you mentioned? --Niels Gade (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for this as well. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Since when was the Arbcom given authority on any content matters...? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Is it Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche/Proposed decision#Removal of original work? ...this is a pure content decision and I believe well outside of their authority. Then again, this was 2004, so if this were reviewed I imagine it would have to be tossed. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 15:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom decisions don't come out of thin air (though sometimes they may seem that way). One of the issues with the LaRouche articles that was discovered in the three ArbCom cases involving them is that most of the "pro-" editors are socks of a clever puppeteer, and that he's a tireless promoter of the ideosyncratic ideas of LaRouche. I wouldn't call it a content decision so much as a content-based behavior remedy. It's a practical way of dealing with a behavior problem that otherwise would be impossible to enforce. I don't see any reason for the ArbCom to review their decision. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

So the only Arbcom sanction specifically involving content, which limits what any editor can do with a subsect of valid material, was done to stop one lone editor? That's wildly disproportionate, and still seems to be beyond the boundary of what the Arbcom is permitted to do. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 19:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there some reason that the decison should be reconsidered, aside from a desire for consistency? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that there are certainly some circumstances where it would be appropriate to use EIR as a source. If the ArbCom decision is being interpreted as a blanket ban, that should be reconsidered -- particularly if it is a unique case, where EIR is being singled out for some reason. --Niels Gade (talk) 06:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The EIR and similar LaRouche sources are determined to be self-published sources. Like other SPSes, they can be used in articles about themselves. They just aren't allowed in other articles. It's only s lsight modification to normal procedure. Even its proponents here can't think of a single example of how it would improve the project. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

EIR appears to have a staff of 35-40 people[1], appears in numerous languages, gets cited frequently in other publications. If it is considered a SPS, then PRA web pages qualify in spades. --Marvin Diode (talk) 14:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

While the LaRouche movment isn't generally considered a religion, the thread titled "#Religious sources" below appears to apply. The EIR is a fine source for the views of Lyndon LaRouche. It is not suitable as a source for neutral, reliable facts on other topics. Since LaRouche is the Editor in Chief, it's hard to imagine that the editing staff (no matter how large) would ever contradict him. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Your reference to religious sources appears utterly irrelevant to me. EIR is a conventional newsmagazine, but with the editorializing a bit more blatant than one finds in Time or Newsweek. Also, I tried my best, but I was unable to imagine any circumstance in which the editorial staff at Political Research Associates would ever contradict Chip Berlet. --Niels Gade (talk) 13:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

More imagination, please. Both the research director and the editor of The Public Eye edit my work all the time, as do other PRA staffers, plus outide scholars and journalists asked to review what I write. I get edited and contradicted all the time. Makes for better text.--Cberlet (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, OK, it's coming to me. "You call this an analysis? Where's the damn innuendo?" --Niels Gade (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

LaRouche is the editor in chief, while Berlet is not. Berlet is quoted in mainstream papers as an authority, while LaRouche is quoted very rarely and in a very different context. The two aren't comparable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This thread seems to be going in circles. Unelss there's some new argument to be made I suggest it's time to archive this thread. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Why the haste to terminate this discussion? The matter does not appear to be resolved. I just did a google search for citations from Berlet on Wikipedia, and the number seems disproportionately high. I would like to propose a moratorium on any additional use of Berlet as a source for BLP-related edits until there is a consensus. By this I mean the use of materials published or posted by PRA or Berlet personally -- I have no problem with those instances where Berlet is quoted in a mainstream source. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Haste? This thread has been open for five months. Unless there's a new point to be made we should archive it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that my proposal for a moratorium is just such a new point. --Marvin Diode (talk) 22:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "moratorium" on use of a reliable source, including PRA. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the same request to invalidate PRA that has been made since December. I don't see anything new. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Do the two of you have some sort of ideological affinity for PRA? You seem eager to dismiss a rather extensive discussion and debate on this topic. A source cannot be "invalidated" if it wasn't "valid" or a Reliable Source to begin with. BLP policy says be careful with sourcing. You endorse a guy "whose specialty is smearing anyone outside the traditional left-right categories as an extremist, at best, and a nascent Nazi at worst"? --Niels Gade (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That quote is the same that started this thread five months ago. Nothing new, time to archive this thread. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

And it shouldn't be repeated all over the place either. (There's no need to use Raimondo if other sources are available.) I too, however, would prefer that we cut down on the PRA cites. Chip's written extensively off his own website, so that shouldn't affect too much how he's cited; but the case has not been made that publiceye has a demonstrated reliability equivalent to the other places Chip's published. Of course, any comparison to EIR is ludicrous. Will's comparison to #Religious sources below is spot-on. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

CAMERA may not be a reliable source

I was reading some quotes cited to the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, and I found a few problems related to the ongoing "Jewish lobby" headache.

• This CAMERA blog article [2], uses the term "Jewish lobby", and links to an op-ed piece in the Guardian [3] which uses the term, which in turn links to the actual report, which does not use the term. See Report of the All-Party Inquiry into Antisemitism (UK) The closest the report gets is "An example of this would be remarks about the Israel lobby. No-one would seek to deny that there is well-organised support for Israel in Britain, but in some quarters this becomes inflated to the point where discourse about the ‘lobby’ resembles discourse about a world Jewish conspiracy."

• CAMERA quotes Desmond Tutu saying, in a speech in Boston:

"People are scared in this country to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful, very powerful. Well, so what?...Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin...were all powerful, but in the end they bit the dust."[4]

This speech from Bishop Desmond Tutu was also reported by the BBC. Interestingly, CAMERA appears to have dropped a line from the middle of the quote. The BBC quotes him as saying:

"People are scared in this country, to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful - very powerful. Well, so what? The apartheid government was very powerful, but today it no longer exists. "Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Milosevic, and Idi Amin were all powerful, but in the end they bit the dust."[5]

CAMERA dropped the bolded text, which distorts the meaning a bit. Tutu was speaking against Israeli apartheid at the time.

So I'd suggest that using CAMERA as a reliable source for quotations is somewhat iffy. What comes out of CAMERA may not be what went in. CAMERA may be useful as a finding tool (they're powered by Google), but actual quotes should come from a less partisan source. CAMERA's output is mostly derived from other press sources, so if CAMERA has something, there's probably another source for it. --John Nagle (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

three little dots... make all the difference. The difference between reliability and unrelibility. They put in the elipses. Ergo, they are rleiable. Unreliable sources are the ones that omit material without elipses. The way the old Soviet Union used to airbrush purged politicans out of the photoAmerican Clio (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)American Clio

IMO, CAMERA is generally a reliable source for opinions and interpretations, as long as they're attributed in the text to CAMERA. On questions of fact they are dubious at best, and certainly not appropriate for quotations of living people. <eleland/talkedits> 17:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

See also MEMRI above. Pretty much any quotefarm from an advocacy source should be double-checked with reference to the original documents. Relata refero (talk) 14:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

CAMERA is reasonably reliable, but one must recognize that they are an advocacy group. They're obviously not an academic source, or a major news outlet. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

CAMERA should be treated the similarly to organizations such as CAIR. Both have distinct ideological perspectives, but they usually get their quotations correct. -- Avi (talk) 22:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd use both CAMERA and CAIR for information on themselves and their communities. For example, CAIR can be quoted on itself and Muslims in America. It should not be used for information on Christians, Jews, Hindus etc. (except when decribing their relations with Muslims). I agree with Avi that I'd treat both partisan organizations similarly.Bless sins (talk) 05:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

"CAIR can be quoted on itself and Muslims..." -- Would that were true -- See, e.g. "The 8-Million Muslim Lie," INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY, http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=253930273179676. Just because "major news outlets" believe them doesn't make it so. [Nor will you find any comparable lies from CAMERA.]

CAMERA cannot possibly be considered a reliable source, and they have been caught collaborating secretly with existing Wikipedia editors to subvert Wikipedia editorial processes. See [EI exclusive: a pro-Israel group's plan to rewrite history on Wikipedia]. The linked article includes primary source emails from CAMERA staff and Wikipedia users. Bangpound (talk) 14:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This assumes that the allegations at EI are true. They may be, they may not be. Again, the key to something like Camera is to attribute their statements. That lets readers know that the source may have a bias. Blueboar (talk) 15:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Other than Blueboar's comments, we must not give CAMERA undue weight. It may write pages on a topic but that doesn't mean those pages should be incorporated in wikipedia (even with attribution).Bless sins (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is the crux of the problem. CAMERA is just another ethno-partisan lobby group, albeit an unusually well-funded and well-organized one. There's no need to go quoting them hundreds of times across the 'pedia, especially since they specialize in dredging up fear, uncertainty and doubt. Where their accusations have genuinely "stuck," that is to say where they've been picked up by more legitimate sources, resulted in a correction being issued, etc., they may be appropriate for inclusion. Where they haven't, they're not. <eleland/talkedits> 15:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This debate reminds me of another one. A while ago there was some discussion on using Robert Spencer and Ibn Warraq as sources on Islam (see Talk:Criticism_of_Muhammad#Protection and Talk:Criticism_of_the_Qur'an#Robert_Spencer). It was concluded that these sources were notable but not reliable to be used for facts. Therefore they should be used wherever they are quoted by a reliable third party, and their views should be attributed.

I think a similar arrangement could work for CAMERA. We can use their publications in mainstream sources (e.g. this article in the Jerusalem Post) or when they are quoted in other reliable sources (e.g. this article in Al-Jazeera).Bless sins (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

We should use sources that speak of "Palestinian duplicity" the same day we use sources that speak of "Jewish duplicity". Using CAMERA for "facts" about the I-P conflict is directly equivalent to using the Communist Party of the US for "facts" about the Cold War or the US in Vietnam. It's not that they've got a POV (we've all got one) - the problem with the CP and CAMERA is that they're in lock-step with the governments they support. In CAMERA's case, it's even worse, since they're the angry wing of Israeli POV-pushing. While I'm here, let me state that I've never seen a critic of Israel cheating (eg removing good information for entirely partisan reasons, as we've seen a huge amount of), and nobody has ever tried to recruit me into any kind of cheating enterprise. CAMERA (even worse than the CP) behaves, and has always behaved, like a source that nobody would want to trust. It's bad enough when the protecting of cheats was happening from established editors, lets not encourage this stuff! PR^talk 09:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

PR, please stop soapboxing. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

We've been through a number of clashes regarding quotes by CAMREA; esp. regarding the Jenin "massacre" hoax. When it came down to verifying the quotes, approx. 46-47 out of 50 were already found and the issue still would not go away with Eleland and PalestineRemembered insisting that the Washington Post (who were behind a couple of the quotes) is controlled by a cult. At the time I asked Eleland to pick two of the quotes that he wants me to find in order to alleviate his source concenrs - and he did - and I verified both. I think that CAMERA has proven itself far more reliable about quotes from Arabs and Israelis or stories on Israel related topics than the BBC, the Guardian and the Independant, and I have examples to show for this statement. I do however, fully agree that when possible (adequate replacement is found) CAMERA should not be used, since it is a biased source and if it is used, it should e attributed as the used source. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Use of rickross.com and religionnewsblog.com as external links/convenience links

(The following has been transferred from WP:AN as per the request of User:Durova.)

A number of Wikipedia articles currently link to rickross.com and religionnewsblog.com. With respect to rickross.com, talk page consensus on Talk:Prem Rawat a few weeks ago was that the site appeared to be in breach of WP:EL#Restrictions_on_linking:

Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright.

Our concern was based on rickross.com's copyright disclaimer:

rickross.com: "All META tags, page titles, keywords and other content descriptions used throughout this website are only intended to assist search engines for research and locating purposes. This in no way, shape or form is intended to mislead anyone by implying any official representation and/or relationship exists between this website and the owners of any trademarks, service marks and/or copyrights, which may contain the same keywords and/or titles." ... "Any publisher, Webmaster or news service (i.e., official and legal holder of copyright) that objects to their material being included in this archive may request that it be removed and/or that future material be excluded. An official written and signed request sent via fax or regular mail made by the copyright holder and/or their legal representative on company or legal letterhead will be honored."

Some of the material hosted on rickross.com is for sale online by the legitimate owners. Example: [6] [7]

Religion News Blog has been mentioned as a similar case; in particular, this subpage was proposed on the Prem Rawat talk page as a suitable external link. Here too it seems that copyright owners' permission is not routinely sought:

"Religion News Blog includes copyrighted material the use of which may not always have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner."

The Religion News Blog also carries a rather large amount of advertising.

Please advise to what extent these two sites should be linked, or existing links to them removed.

Note that the Prem Rawat article is also subject to an ongoing Arbitration Case (Prem Rawat arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)).

Jayen466 17:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Rick Ross is a commentator frequently referenced by others, so I don't see we should have a problem discussing what he says in context and attributing it to him, with links to his site to back that up. The blog looks to be a link to avoid, on the face of it. Guy (Help!) 17:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Thanks for your feedback. I understand the point about quoting Rick Ross himself. However, this is not at issue; the copyright question arises because of the large number of press articles and other copyrighted material hosted on the site, evidently without a proper process of seeking permission from the owners. Instead, the Disclaimer page states that rickross.com will take down any copyrighted material if the copyright owners complain in writing. Rather than licensing the material, as required by WP:EL, this seemed to me to shift the onus from the site operators to the copyright owners. In other words, the onus is now on the owners (1) to become aware of the infringement and then (2) to write in to ask for their material to be taken down. As it is, the status of any document hosted on the site seems unclear; it may be the case that the owners are aware of their material's presence on the site and do not object, or it may be that they are not aware (yet) and will complain at a future date. At any rate it seems to me that where the same material is available on the legitimate copyright owner's own website (e.g. nytimes.com), it would be preferable from a copyright point of view to link to the copy at nytimes.com, rather than the one held at rickross.com. Jayen466 18:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

• Hmmm. My usual take on sites that play fast and loose with copyright is to exclude on principle, but here we have a notable individual who may be quoted as an authority. It should not be a problem to link to that content which is unequivocally Ross' own, attributed to Ross, if a compelling case can be made for the relevance of his opinion. Better, of course, to link to a reliable secondary source that describes Ross' views and places them in context. I am not a fan of primary sources in biographies, other than the subject's own site as a source for uncontroversial facts. Any copyright violating material may not be linked, period. Guy (Help!) 18:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Starting at the top of the list of WP articles linking to rickross.com, what would be your view on this link, present as ref. 1 in Kenja Communication (permalink: [8])? I wasn't able to find the article on the Daily Telegraph website (note that this is the Australian Daily Telegraph, not the UK one), although there were articles on the subject present there (and hosted for free). This specific article, however, did not seem to be there. Now, what to do? The thing is that I believe many editors consider rickross.com a very valuable resource, which often has detailed material not available elsewhere. Jayen466 18:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the citation on Kenja Communication, I see the problem.

The citation is worded: "Secrets of sect in sex case. The Daily Telegraph, The Rick A. Ross Institute of New Jersey (May 25, 2006). Retrieved on 2007-02-08."

It should be worded more along the lines of: "Secrets of sect in sex case by Brad Clifton, The Daily Telegraph, Syndey, Australia May 25, 2006 - as hosted on: www.rickross.com, Retrieved on 2007-02-08."

This would make it clear that the Rick Ross site is being used as a convenience link to the Daily Telegraph story, which is the actual citation. Now... the question becomes: is Rick Ross's site an allowable convenience link? Does he need permission permission to reprint the story that appeared in the Daily Telegraph, and if so does he have it? If the answer to that is that he did need permission, and did not obtain it, then his site can not be used. We must omit the link to Ross and simply cite the Daily Telegraph without the link. This obviously requires someone double checking to make sure that the story in the Telegraph actually exists and says what Ross said it did... but this should not be all that difficult... I am sure that we could find a Wikipedian who lives in Sydney and whould be willing to go to a library and check the May 25, 06 Telegraph for us. If Ross does not need permission to reprint the story... or if he does, and obtained it... then there is no problem. Blueboar (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The (Australian) Daily Telegraph article exists and is correctly quoted on the Rick Ross website. I confirmed that through a Lexis-Nexis search; it appeared in the "Local" section on page 13 in the State edition. Is there any suggestion/evidence that Rick Ross misquotes attributed news articles, or is it only a matter of him (possibly) not having licensed the copyrighted content ? If it is the latter, the solution is simply not to link to his site as a convenience link for hosted newsarticles. Abecedare (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for checking and verifying the article's existence. There is no assertion that I am aware of that any news articles on rickross.com have been misquoted. There may be a quibble as to how selective the choice of articles hosted is; this on the Prem Rawat overview page for example appears to be a record of a couple's divorce proceedings, with the only link to Rawat being the fact that one of the couple had once, years prior to the marriage, been a follower of Rawat. This article reports on the opening of an enquiry, and there is no corresponding article reporting on the enquiry's findings (which appear to have been that the organisation was in order, from checking the UK charity registration website). But this may partly reflect the fact that newspapers and courts tend to focus more on negatives than on positives. The scholarly Dupertuis article also present on the Prem Rawat page was, I believe, actually written by a follower of Rawat's. So far the consensus seems to be then – do not use either of these sites as a convenience or external link, but verify the articles' existence and credit them (and link to them, where possible) directly. Jayen466 20:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The consensus you state makes sense to me. Does the Rick Ross website have any original content ? If so there may be a case for using it as a referenced source or external link in some cases; if it only hosts links/extracts from news sources, then it is advisable to cite them directly (after verification), and use rickcross.com only as a convenient resource for editors (as opposed to readers.) Abecedare (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't found much material on the site that to my mind would qualify as an encyclopedic source. I think most of the texts on the site are taken from elsewhere. Plus there are the pages where Mr. Ross is offering his services to worried families. But I agree with the principle that any original material on the site written by Mr. Ross or his associates could and should be linked to, if it's pertinent to a topic covered in WP. Jayen466 21:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:C. Do not link to material that violates copyright. Cite the original source, and if it's not online, too bad. we are allowed to cite treeware, after all. Guy (Help!) 18:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

<deindent>
One final thought for now: It may be a good idea to email Rick Ross (info@rickross.com) and ask him (politely) if he has licensed the information on his website and if he can provide an OTRS verification. We may be able to short-circuit this whole debate if he replies in the affirmative. Any volunteers experienced in the process ? Abecedare (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering the wording of the disclaimer and the absence of copyright acknowledgments I think it highly unlikely that any such licenses exist. I get the feeling the database of news articles is really designed to bring in customers, because looking for original material by Mr. Ross on the site I realised that rickross.com is also a commercial site, offering expert witness and intervention/deprogramming services complete with hourly rates: [9] [10] [11] [12] as well as selling DVDs [13] and soliciting donations [14]. All of which makes me less inclined to consider it a suitable source for linking to in WP articles. Jayen466 22:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

My view is that whenever possible, we should link to original sources. However, if those sources are hard for an average person to reach, then also linking to existing excerpts or full copies on the web is reasonable as long as we believe the copies are uncompromised. The owners of newspaper archives presumably are aware of the web, and I'd expect that they see no value in going after people promoting their work, especially when those people have a scholarly purpose in doing so. Respecting the property of others is certainly important, but I don't believe we must respect someone's property more than they themselves do, especially given the centrality of verifiability to our work. Thus, I'd consider both sites an acceptable backup source for linking. William Pietri (talk) 23:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's thrash this out. Well over a hundred articles link to the site; if these links are to be removed (or redirected to legitimate sites), there should be a good reason to start this work, and it should be backed up by solid community consensus. Personally, I don't see how these sites can be compatible with the copyright policy outlined in WP:EL#Restrictions_on_linking and Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works. In addition I have the feeling that the purpose of both sites mentioned here is not just scholarly, but also commercial; and if the above reasoning by William Pietri (talk · contribs) were to be applied to any site that infringes copyright, then there would be no copyright-infringing sites on the net at all. Because then we would have to assume that the ongoing presence of such material on a site generally implies the legal owner's consent. Any other views? Jayen466 00:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

For the record, this is to say the least not the best characterization of the Rick Ross site links. Rick Ross is a well known expert on groups that many consider cults with huge publicity budgets churning out uncritically reviewed material. The purpose of these Rick Ross links and similar sites devoted to such groups is to provide a ready reference to hard to find published information on many such groups, not to sell services. Wikipedia's restrictions on critical external links have become such that original, critical material by Rick Ross would not be suitable because it is critical, and now you want to restrict linking to Rick Ross as well because he even collects information on these groups although the claim isn't that the information isn't sourced and there is zero chance of derivative liability for Wikipedia. Meanwhile, you can't even put in an article a general statement that critical information can be found on the internet anymore because advocates will demand that you provide anm attributable source for even that or it is "original research", which is absurd. The fallacy here is that there simply isn't a large body of scholarly, NPOV secondary sourcing, only a large amount of primary soured proponency and much less secondarily sourced, published material, simply due to limited interest, and Wikipedia simply doesn't function well in such niche areas. Wikipedia's increasing inability to address the underlying problem with NPOV in such cases by keeping these articles limited in scope for balance results in almost every article on such groups presenting a skewed view. This is just another "cure" that will make the problem worse. Not much point in editing Wikipedia anymore. Bye. --Dseer (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Although I don't know much about religionnewsblog.com, I disagree strongly that a substantial purpose of rickross.com is commercial. The Rick Ross Institute is a registered 501c3 nonprofit. I am of course not saying that any infringing of copyright is ok, but I am saying that there are cases where copyright owners may find non-profit use of limited amounts of their work acceptable and even welcome, and that this is plausibly one of those cases.

We should certainly try to be good citizens and follow the law, but we are not obliged to act as copyright police or to take hard-line positions on IP, especially when it would reduce the quality and verifiability of our encyclopedia. When we have no more official option, linking to web-posted copies of referenced articles on legitimate non-profit sites is not illegal, does not hurt the commercial value of the original work, and is beneficial to us and our readership. I believe we should continue the practice as is. William Pietri (talk) 04:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I was going to weigh in here, but after reading the most recent above comment by William Pietri (talk · contribs) (as well as his previous comment), I don't think I could have said it any better than that. Cirt (talk) 10:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

As to newspapers' copyright policies, here are the relevant pages from the New York Times website: [15] [16] There is nothing there to indicate that unauthorised reproduction of their articles on websites like the ones discussed here is welcomed by them. The same applies to Associated Press: [17] and I believe most other newspapers. In my view, the fact that editors like or applaud the work that the owners of a particular website do cannot be material here: that is an argument that would be open to any editor, with any site they link to. As regards the not-for-profit status of the Rick Ross Institute, Mr. Ross does use the rickross.com site to advertise his professional services and those of his associates, as outlined above. An American Professor of Sociology has described rickross.com as an "entrepreneurial lone ranger attempt to solicit customers". I still think that linking to the newspapers' own websites, where this is possible, is preferable and more in line with WP policy, and that simply referencing the article without the link (possibly with a note in the ref that the copy cited was found on rickross.com) is the right thing to do in those cases where the article is not available any more on the publisher's own website. Interested users can still find the article online by googling for its headline. Jayen466 14:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

That nonprofit institutions take in money is not proof of commercial activity; every nonprofit takes donations, and many sell DVDs and services. Your quote is from 2003 and about the late 90s, and so appears to predate the creation of the nonprofit. If you think the Rick Ross Institute is violating its nonprofit status, you should talk to the IRS, not a Wikipedia noticeboard.

If you've spent any time in a large American corporation, that newspaper has no lawyer-written policy approving web posting of excerpts or articles should be unsurprising. But that doesn't mean that they actually mind their material being re-used as a non-commercial public good. Standards in Germany may be different, but in the US, the doctrine of fair use is an extension of the core of copyright: a limited, temporary grant of property rights to promote the creation and publication of intellectual works. Rick Ross is probably within the legal and moral boundaries of that, and we certainly are. I agree that referencing the original newspaper whenever possible is the right thing to do. However, when I weigh reduced verifiability against a token gesture of extreme deference to a publisher that may be perfectly happy that people are using and discussing their work, I feel that verifiability wins out. That is especially true given that, as Dseer points out, rickross.com has articles about organizations that in many cases work very hard to present and promote a one-sided view of themselves.

And just to be clear, I'm not saying that Rick Ross is necessarily a reliable source on anything other than the views of Rick Ross. He's clearly partisan, so I don't think he personally should be cited except in a "critics say" kind of way. But if he's the only guy with a web-accessible copy of a text that we are citing, we should not place unnecessary barriers in the way of verifying Wikipedia articles based on those texts. William Pietri (talk) 19:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I am quite certain, judging by the Disclaimer quoted above and the sort of material hosted, that rickross.com does not operate within the realms of fair use. Just try getting one of these NY Times articles that he hosts uploaded to Wikimedia Commons with a fair-use rationale and you'll see what I mean. Re your concern for WP:V: my suggestion is either to link to the publisher's website or to omit the link to rickross.com, but state that the copy of the article viewed was that found on rickross.com. That should be done anyway – see WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. (I don't know what the status is if the copy viewed and cited infringes a copyright – perhaps we'd have to raise this in another forum.) In either case, then, verifiability would be ensured. Readers either get the original article, on the publisher's website (preferable in any case), or they can look for the article on rickross.com, since our reference tells them that we found it there. As for the site being non-commercial, I don't think you understand that Mr. Ross makes his living as an "intervention specialist" or deprogrammer, and as an expert witness in court cases. In other words, these pages [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] advertise the professional services by which he makes his livelihood. So in what sense is the site non-commercial if it advertises his commercial, for-profit services? Surely, the business idea is that people surf to the site to read up on the group that a member of their family has joined, and then at least a small proportion of them will click on "Getting Help", where Mr. Ross's services are available at the quoted prices. See Duck test. Jayen466 20:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but the determination of fair use is made by judges, not by Wikipedia's policies, which are and should be much more stringent than what is legal in the US, which in turn may be stricter than what a particular rightsholder allows. That someone makes a living at a non-profit endeavor does not make it suddenly for profit, and neither does providing services. Most educational institutions, for example, are non-profit, but certainly charge money for services, and just as certainly provide a living to their employees. Do they put up their websites partly because the will attract paying students? Surely. But that alone does not mean they are suddenly a for-profit institution, or that other material on that site would suddenly fail the first part of the US fair use test.

Making readers and editors go the extra step of searching the web for a reference whose location we describe doesn't benefit anybody, and it harms the encyclopedia. If we are going to use the article and say where we saw the material, then we should link to it. William Pietri (talk) 23:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can follow your reasoning, but there remains the fact that the links to these sites appear to be a clear breach of our above policies. And the same argument could be made for any other site hosting unlicensed public-interest material. I've left a note on Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems to see if we can get some editors with a clearer understanding of WP copyright policy to comment on the matter. Jayen466 00:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Many news websites have links and advertisements to items they do not own the copyright to, or host items for sale. They are still acceptable on Wikipedia. However, if an item is a blog, it should not be allowed, except as opinion (and chances are this is reflected in legitimate news websites). I believe the policy deals with things like linking to excerpts of Harry Potter on a website that does not have permission to use it. If the text that you are linking to is rightfully used by the website, then it should be okay. If not, well, there you go. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a pretty straightforward situation. If a website illegally hosts infringing material, we should not link to them. Policy makes this clear (Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works, among other places). Additionally, simple legal realities preclude us from linking to such sites. Contributory infringement requires both a reasonable belief that the infringing party should have known the material was in violation of copyright (which is apparent for news "scraping" sites of any sort) and a material contribution to the infringement (which linking from a top ten website would almost certainly qualify). IANL, but a law degree is not required to see why linking to such sites should be vigorously avoided. Vassyana (talk) 05:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is largely affiliated with the open-source community and copyleft, I think we should clarify here: F*** copyright law. People seem to pull out claims of copyright infringement in content disputes, just to push their point-of-view. I.E., a while back, some images I'd uploaded to Wikipedia were deleted by some annoying people because I used copyrighted Wikipedia logos, in the images. Thus, they argued, "That's in violation of copyright." Yes, but is Wikipedia going to sue itself? Is anybody going to somehow use my images, pulled from Wikipedia, in a way that harms Wikimedia financially? Later, I found images which had done the same thing, elsewhere (used copyrighted Wikipedia logos in images uploaded to Wikipedia) which remain untouched. Sometimes, Wikilawyering actually involves real laws, not just made-up ones.

So, the relevant question isn't, "Is this in accordance with the letter of the law?" but rather, "In reality, will Wikipedia get sued?" The second question is particularly important since the government itself often ignores the law and the answer to the second question is no. The legal culpability for linking to another website which violates copyright law is minimal, if not entirely non-existent. Much less, the legal culpability for the Foundation, which delegates editing responsibility to the community is minimal, if not non-existent. Technically, it could be argued that knowingly linking to a site which knowingly links to a site which knowingly links to a site which infringes on copyright is "copyright infringement," but such a ridiculous argument would be thrown out of court. The internet, period, is rampant with copyright infringement. The only way to completely avoid this would be to avoid secondary sources, especially sources like blogs and self-published websites. WP:Copyvio (and all policy, period) isn't like legalist dogma which we pedantically follow, literally, because we all somehow think policy was somehow written on stone tablets, by God, or we have some kind of undying love for copyright law. It's simply practical, pragmatic steps we take to keep Wikipedia functioning and to avoid getting Wikimedia sued. In this case, Wikimedia is not going to get sued from citing Rick Ross and I suggest e-mailing the Foundation for clarification, if you're still concerned.

With that said, what Rick Ross and religionnewsblog.com do could certainly be construed as fair use. If a company thinks they're infringing on copyright, they can issue a DMCA takedown provision very easily and Wikipedia will respond accordingly. Until then, this is just wikilawyering, literally. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

This has to be the most sensible post I've seen on this topic - thank you Zenwhat. Orderinchaos 22:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Reproduction of entire works for public distribution is not anything close to fair use. However, it is classic infringement. You may wish to say f*** copyright, but copyright is a reality and numerous people depend on it for a living (writers, artists, etc). Is there a good chance we won't be sued? Sure. Does that make violating the law or encouraging the theft of someone else's work correct? F*** no. Also, contributory infringement for linking directly to infringing works is not an obscure technicality unlikely to result in court enforcement, but rather a legal reality upheld by courts in the United States. Vassyana (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

In this case, I believe that rickross.com is not doing anything illegal or morally wrong. First, copyright is not an absolute right, and not all copies are illegal, as section of the law on fair use makes clear. As the US Constitution says, copyright exists, "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts". Further, not all uses of somebody else's property are crimes. When the neighborhood children sit on my porch after school, they are indeed on my land, but if a neighborhood busybody called the police for trespassing, I would be outraged. We certainly shouldn't link to people who are engaging in wholesale, for-profit violation of actively marketed intellectual property, and I think nobody would suggest otherwise. But there is a complicated spectrum here, from obvious piracy to sharing abandoned works to educational fair use to simple quoting. We must be responsible citizens, but equally we must not be extremists or prudes. William Pietri (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wholesale copying for broad distribution is not even remotely close to fair use and asserting otherwise is simply ludicrous. I agree there is a whole spectrum of use involved in using copyrighted materials, but I disagree that the use by rickross.com constitutes anything but obvious wholesale infringement. Vassyana (talk) 16:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Then it's a good thing I asserted the opposite. Sorry if my writing was confusing, but "wholesale copying for broad distribution" is one end of the spectrum I'm pointing at, and fair use is close to the other end. Rickross.com is far from the ugly end of the spectrum. It is a legally registered non-profit with an educational purpose collecting small portions of the original salable works, and only those portions related to its mission. Those articles bear no commercial ads. They do not charge for access. The value of the original work seems unharmed. I'm no lawyer, but that sounds like fair use to me.

Back in the days before the Internet, any serious public library would maintain files like this on topics of local interest, and would happily let you read and make copies of articles in the files. This is a functional modern equivalent. We should make use of it to increase the verifiability of our articles when (and only when) we cannot link to the original publisher's version. William Pietri (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"Wholesale copying for broad distribution" is exactly what rickross.com does, so your position comes across as more than a bit incoherent. Whole articles are considered single whole works (just as a whole essay or whole short story from a book is a whole work), not "small portions". Since many of the news services charge for archive access, it most certainly is harmful to the value of the original work in those instances. Regardless, there's a big difference between making private copies from legitimately purchased materials (such as your library example) and publishing the material publicly on a website (which is equivalent to handing out thousands upon thousands of copies for free). Also, the for-profit or non-profit legal status of a venture does not affect the status of infringement. It only affects the fiscal culpability of the offending party. Vassyana (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

As you'd expect, I disagree that my position is incoherent. AllOfMP3 is the kind of thing I mean by "wholesale, for-profit violation of actively marketed intellectual property". I agree that we should stay far away from that end of the spectrum. If there are articles in the rickross.com database that people are actively trying to sell, then yes, let's link to where they are on offer. But otherwise, I see what he's up to as no more sinister than archive.org, which we happily link to. Indeed, much less so, as his collection is surely less than a millionth of theirs. William Pietri (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that there's no real comparison between a web-archive that is cautious to move within the law, has solid academic respect and endorsement, obeys robots.txt and readily complies with the wishes of rights holders, and an advocacy site that republishes news articles without permission. In my own view, your position is logically and ethically flawed (as I've detailed in my responses). Since we are apparently operating on different assumptions and standards of analysis, we will just have to agree to disagree. Vassyana (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Note e.g. [23], [24] and [25] – ? Jayen466 19:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Archive.org may be many things, but they (and Google) have not been legally cautious. I know people who worked on it, and they definitely saw themselves as breaking new legal ground. As Lauren Gelman says "The Internet Archive has been involved in the debate over the future of copyright in cyberspace since its formation in 1995." Like archive.org, rickross.com offers to remove any material on request of the rightsholder. The only obvious difference is "solid academic respect" which is not, as far as I know, an excuse under the law for wholesale distribution of other people's copyrighted works. By your own arguments, we should pull both sites; I believe we should pull neither. William Pietri (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you will find that a lot of people, including Jimbo Wales and probably quite a lot of others don't agree that the criterion should be 'do we get sued'. That is why for example, we respect the copyright laws of countries like Bhutan, even though we are not legally required to (hint: try reading WP:Copyrights). Indeed the very essesence of the copyleft and open source movement is that while the current copyright regime may be flawed, we need to work within it an do our best not to violate it. Nil Einne (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

If people wish to change our policy on linking to sites with unlicensed copyrighted materials, they should attempt to get consensus to change Wikipedia:EL#Restrictions on linking and Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works. If people disagree with the copyright regime, they are free to petition the copyright office and elected officials. Unless the policy is changed, links to such sites should be removed without serious debate. Vassyana (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have a strong concern that some editors are using valid copyright concerns to remove ANY links to sites with critical information about religious groups they favor. Red herring arguments such as "they make money off of this website" confirm my concern -- the New York Times makes money off of their website; should we be banned from linking to it?

I think there is a high value in linking to external websites that simply keep tabs of news stories on whatever issue an article is about, in this case controversy over religious organizations. They should include links, or make their own summaries, instead of simply violating copyright of course. It's best is they are scrupulously fair, but it's not necessary (and not Wikipedia policy) to force external links to meet all of our very strict requirements, such as BLP, no OR, etc.

How about this alternative to RickRoss.com, et. al.: CAIC.org It seems reasonably fair and a site that summarizes copyrighted material instead of copying it. I know that the word "cult" is fightin' words for some, despite the disclaimer on their front page ("Read This First (disclaimer). Both Cults & Isms are listed here. Not every group mentioned on this site is considered a destructive cult. Some are 'benign isms' — different but not emotionally or socially destructive.") We can avoid that word in any case by simply referring to it as CAIC, and linking directly to the page about a certain group or figure, for example [26]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msalt (talk • contribs) 20:16, 27 March 2008

it's not necessary (and not Wikipedia policy) to force external links to meet all of our very strict requirements, such as BLP Note http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#External_links Jayen466 01:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This issue has been hashed out at length before, with no clear resolution. See Wikipedia:Convenience links. If anyone seeks to remove links to articles hosted on Rick Ross's website they should be sure to not delete the articles as sources - we don't need hot links to use newspaper articles as sources. Instead they should reformat the citation so that it lists the bibliographic information about the article so that interested readers can look up the reference on their own. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the fair use rationale, there is a somewhat similar case described here: Fair_use#Practical_effect_of_fair_use_defense Jayen466 20:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I have written to the New York Times and Associated Press copyright/permissions departments to seek their advice; when and if I hear from them, I shall report back. Jayen466 20:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

After thinking about this further, here's my view. From Wikipedia:Copyrights, we are allowed to link to "internet archives", but we don't define what those might be. I can find two obvious ones in use: archive.org and webcitation.org. Both take previously published material and offer it to anybody on the web who cares to ask for it. Both have policies where they will take down material on request. Neither asks for permission in advance. Both are non-profits, and do not put advertisements on the archived material. They do solicit donations and/or offer services. Rickross.com appears to meet all these criteria. Religionnewsblog.com claims to be non-profit, but I haven't confirmed that. They also run ads, but I didn't see requests for donations or offers of services. Otherwise, they fit these criteria. So I would say that both of these sites appear to qualify as internet archives (albeit with RNB possibly closer to the margin) and so should be kept. William Pietri (talk) 16:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

For more info: the term internet archive is wikilinked in Wikipedia:Copyrights; archive.org has official recognition as a library. Not sure it solves this issue, but there it is, FWIW. Jayen466 17:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, excellent point. I was thinking mainly of the US fair use criteria when I was comparing things, as that is the legal hole through which they appear to be driving their multi-petabyte truck. The Internet Archive indeed recently (June 2007) became an officially recognized library as part of seeking some federal funding, so that's indeed an interesting difference. They appear not to have done anything more than they were doing before, however, so I don't think that helps us with a duck test for internet archives. William Pietri (talk) 22:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Both archive.org and webcitation.org are automatic (bot) archivers and obey robots.txt and provide information on how to block them via robot.txt. The archive pages precisely and do not reformat or modify pages. They only archive from the internet. Do these apply to rickross.com? From what I can tell, the answer is no. The pages there are 'archived' manually by the site owner (so robots.txt becomes irrelevant), they are reformated for the site, and I'm not even sure if he only archives from websites. I don't think rickross.com is what we mean when we say internet archive. I would suggest if people find stories online that are relevant to an article, they submit them to webcitation, rather then relying on some more dubious website Nil Einne (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely no justification to link to sites that repost copyrighted material without permission. None whatsoever. "F*** copyright" might work as the slogan for some anarchist wannabe who doesn't understand the whole point behind intellectual property, but it does not currently and never will fly on Wikipedia. With Wikipedia as big as it is, if it did start knowingly violate copyright laws as policy, it would get lawsuits left and right -- and deservedly so. DreamGuy (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, so far this discussion is more or less stalemated. How would you suggest resolving it, one way or the other? Jayen466 20:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I've had a response from the New York Times Permissions Representative at PARS International, short and sweet:

Thank you for your patience as I checked with "The New York Times" legal department.

In all cases, the publisher would prefer to have links directly to the nytimes.com site, all of which is now freely accessible.

Thank you for your consideration of 'The New York Times' copyright material.

(To receive a copy of the mail, contact me by e-mail.) Jayen466 08:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've just learnt that, interestingly enough, Rick Ross has a post in his blog on the man running the "relgionnewsblog.com", "Apologetics Index" and "Cult FAQ" sites. It appears that Rick Ross characterises the man as a fugitive sex offender who runs the sites for profit: http://www.cultnews.com/?p=1636 [27][28] Hmmm ... Jayen466 21:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Msalt said earlier -

I have a strong concern that some editors are using valid copyright concerns to remove ANY links to sites with critical information about religious groups they favor.

Well I have strong concern that some editors are ignoring valid copyright (and other) concerns in order to maintain links to sites with critical information about groups they do not favour. I would think that, especially in clearly POV situations and appearing on rickross.com (or caic.org) is essentially little more than a self-published reflection of the site owners opinions, erring in favour of wikipedia policies and guidelines would be a much more sensible alternative than erring towards ignoring them. --Insider201283 (talk) 21:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Further Discussion of the Nation

(clipped from closed thread.)

I suggest we don't. Not on that note. I've just pointed out that McNeil performed a guilt-by-association slur on Pipes in which she got her facts wrong.[29] How this article, or by implication The Nation, can be considered a "reliable source" when their unreliability is proven beyond doubt is beyond comprehension. Andyvphil (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Please, we're done discussing this. I judge from a look at your contributions that this is probably related to your efforts at Barack Obama media controversy or whatever that article is, but I think this issue has been addressed. Relata refero (talk) 22:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, I had just pointed out that McNeil performed a guilt-by-association slur on Pipes in which she got her facts wrong just before your premature attempt to close. This hasn't been addressed. I don't know what Obama has to do with this. Andyvphil (talk) 12:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It was presumably considered irrelevant to the overall reliability of the Nation. What an article on Obama has to do with it is evident by looking at your contributions. Unless you have something new to add, I don't think there's anything further to say. Relata refero (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have a serious issue with a particular article that was printed in The Nation, and how it is used in a particular Wikipedia article (and it seems you do), then that is something that should be discussed on the talk page of the wikipedia article in question. Go to your fellow editors at the Daniel Pipes article, explain your problems with the McNeil article, and try to reach a consensus on it. If the consensus of your fellow editors is that the McNeil article should not be used... then don't' use it. All we can say at this noticeboard is that The Nation is considered a reliable source. That determination isn't going to change. To continue to beat this dead horse after this determination has been repeated several times by multiple editors is counter productive... and is starting to become a WP:POINT violation. Blueboar (talk) 15:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

There are degrees of reliability, of course, not absolutes. The Nation is generally considered reliable, but it's not, for example, a peer reviewed journal. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, I would note that even the most enthusiastic readers of The Nation would not consider it a source that espouses a neutral point of view. The reason I indicated above that it could be used in the Daniel Pipes article was because the article's writer (McNeil) made certain claims about things Pipes had written, which could be confirmed as things Pipes had written from looking at Pipes' own columns. Furthermore, the Nation article was being used to illustrate what Pipes' critics say about him -- not to report neutral facts. It may be that McNeil also stated other claims about Pipes which were not true, but those other claims were not going to be incorporated into the Wikipedia article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, if a source was intended to be used in Wikipedia only to provide neutral facts, then contentious claims in the source would taint the source and make it a poor source to use even for the non-contentious claims. To put it another way, suppose a source said, "George W. Bush was born in Connecticut, has two daughters named Jenna and Barbara, and planned the September 11, 2001 attacks." I would not cite that source even in support of the statement "George W. Bush's daughters are named Jenna and Barbara"; I'd look for another source instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The false claims have in fact been been incorporated in the article, off and on. And should be, since the fact that they are both made and false is relevant context to the other criticisms by McNeil that are quoted. The claims that Pipes is "notorious" and "anti-Arab" are undermined by the double falsehood engaged in by the same author to link him to ethnic cleansing, and that ought not be concealed. Consider if your example had instead read "George W. Bush shirked his duties in the National Guard and planned the September 11, 2001 attacks." Merely quoting the former assertion, arguably merely a POV take on true facts, misrepresents the flavor of the source. The fact that critics in venues as semi-respectable as the The Nation are allowed, unquestioned, to demonize Pipes in ways unmoored to facts is a very legitimate subject in a section dealing with the criticisms made of him. Andyvphil (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

For Pete's sake... just attribute the view in the text, as we usually do for reliable sources which have a somewhat subjective perspective. As in, "The Nation wrote X about Y." If other reliable sources have disputed what The Nation said about Pipes or whomever, then the following sentence should read: "But source X said Y." Many literate adults are familiar with The Nation and its viewpoint; those who are not can click on the wikilink and see it described, in the first sentence of the Wikipedia lede, as "the flagship of the Left." What's the problem again? MastCell ^Talk 22:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem, again: Actually, McNeil does make "wild, out-of-the left-field [and] potentially libelous claims". She writes, e.g., "Pipes is also a regular contributor to the website of Gamla, an organization founded by former Israeli military officers and settlers that endorses the ethnic cleansing of every Palestinian as 'the only possible solution' to the Arab-Israeli conflict."

The Nation's POV is not what is at issue here. It could be both highly biased and reliable as to facts. But in this case it isn't. GAMLA does nothing of the sort and Pipes is in any case not a regular contributor to GAMLA's website. Since the Nation 's fact checking process was clearly not applied sucessfully to this article this article should not be considered reliable for the truth of any factual claim made in it. That said, the Nation 's website is a RS for the content of the article, and to the extent that the article is mentioned in secondary sources (e.g., claims are made and attributed to it) we can mention its content. But only in the context of supplying the evidence that it is a tendentious piece of crap.(quoting self, 11:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC))

As Jayjg says (what a phrase, coming from me) "There are degrees of reliability, of course..." Blueboar's "All we can say at this noticeboard is that The Nation is considered a reliable source" is nonsense. We can, indeed must, use The Nation in describing the emanations of Pipes' critics, but then we must note that venom directed at Pipes in that venue is not well fact checked. Andyvphil (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I request a bit of clarification here from user:andyvphil on why, considering his argument here against the nation as an RS, why he has repeatedly advocated for the use of a Nation article on the Obama campaign page, and why he has reverted back to that version even when other editors' consensus found the text obsolete, if there is such a problem with the Nation? 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

As usual, without diffs or specifics it's pointless to attempt to reply to 72etc's vaporings. What text is "obsolete"? Andyvphil (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

As usual, you don't seem to realize people can look at your edit history andy... first I want you to deny it happened and then you can have your diffs. this is the Hayes article we're talking about here, in case you're wondering... 72.0.180.2 (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you think you've said that I'm supposed to deny. The Hayes article is also a piece of crap, now that you mention it. I've said so before, so it is clear that you haven't been taking things in. Nothing new about that. Andyvphil (talk) 10:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Again... The Nation is a reliable source. It is a notable publication with extensive circulation and editorial oversight. It is no less reliable than the New York Times, Newsweek, US News and World Report, or any other major periodical. The fact that it has a distinct political slant does not negate its reliability. The fact that a given article in The Nation may contain statements that are deemed inaccurate does not negate its reliability (the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is Verifiability, not "Truth"). Thus, it may be used as a source in Wikipedia articles.

Now, questions about whether any source should be used in a particular Wikipedia article, and questions about how it should be used (for example: should it be used in support of a statement of fact or only in support of a statement of opinion) are legitimate. But these have to be decided at the article's talk page... not here. So... stop being POINTy. Take this argument back to the talk pages of the articles involved. Blueboar (talk) 13:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I've already pointed out that what you are saying is nonsense, and repeating it doesn't make it any less nonsense. "The Nation is... notable publication with extensive circulation and editorial oversight. It is no less reliable than the New York Times, Newsweek, US News and World Report, or any other major periodical."? Really? I don't think so. It appears to do very little fact checking of assertions that align with its biases, as shown by the example I've provided. And the Hayes article 72etc mentions also fabulated an importance to a nonentity named Andy Martin, unsupported by any fact, to perform a convenient smear. Do you have any evidence that it does fact checking, or are you just pulling an assertion out of your rear end? Andyvphil (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Andyvphil, you've made your point, and consensus appears to be against you. My recommendation is that you accept that and move on. We are all sometimes in a minority of one. Relata refero (talk) 11:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It's hardly as simple as that. The Nation is generally considered a reliable source; however, if the claims in question are highly contentious and provably false in some cases, the author in question an otherwise unknown, and the subject a living person, then the determination is quite different. The standards for articles about living people are considerably higher than the usual Reliable Source requirements. I refer you to the opening paragraphs of WP:BLP. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

We're all aware of that. If you read the discussion above, you'll see that we are not proposing using it for "provably false claims", so your concern is irrelevant. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The question is whether The Nation is a RS for McNeil's highly contentious claims when they are made in conjunction with provably false claims, something it is proposed we not mention. I've already given my answer: "...we can mention [the article's] content.... only in the context of supplying the evidence that it is a tendentious piece of crap." Andyvphil (talk) 00:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that you dont have anythong close to consensus for. Unsurprisingly. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

With BLP issues you don't need all that strong a consensus. When you're defending the inclusion of negative material in a BLP written by a person who is otherwise unknown, whose article contains provable falsehoods, and whose article is found, after all, in The Nation, a periodical - not a peer-reviewed journal - well, then, you know you're on extremely shaky ground at best. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Editorial decision. The Nation, however is a reliable source. Move on, already. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Jay says it best: we need a higher standard than RS for BLP's than the Nation, when it comes to negative material. A column in a partisan magazine from a writer no one's heard of (and no one--no one--on this board will admit to supporting) does not rise to the level of quality we're expected to maintain. IronDuke 23:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Jay said it irrelevantly, actually. The Nation is a reliable source. Opinions published in the Nation are notable opinions. If there is consensus on the talkpage of a particular article that a particular piece should not be cited as it has other problems (as Jay suggests), so be it. However, the reliability and notability of the Nation itself is not questioned. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It does seem odd to me that every time I bring up whether this woman has the right credentials to be judging Pipes the response I seem to get is eyes closed, fingers in the ears "I can't hear you I can't hear you I can't hear you." This insistence that we are somehow not allowed to consider the actual writer of the content we are using seemes bizarre to me. Even if we take it as a given the Nation is reliable, that doesn't mean we are obliged to suspend judgment on everything within its pages. IronDuke 15:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Err no, not irrelevantly. You keep acting as if "reliable" is a binary choice - either a source is 100% reliable, or it's 100% unreliable. In reality, sources have degrees of reliability, which depend on the nature of the source, the context in which it is used, the author, etc. In this case, the source is about as reliable as other periodicals with a strong political POV - that is to say, more reliable than a random website, about the same as The Weekly Standard and National Review, less reliable than, for example, Time (magazine), and certainly less reliable than a peer-reviewed journal. Your continually pretending that comments made by otherwise unknowns in a moderately reliable reliable sources trumps BLP is tendentious at best. I didn't really care much about the subject when this discussion started, but your continual misrepresentation of both WP:RS and WP:BLP have, quite frankly, gotten my back up. Now, come up with a really good reason why we should include negative material from an otherwise unknown, from an ideological periodical, which contains known falsehoods, in a BLP. A really good reason. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Why should I? I haven't argued anything of the sort. I have said - several times - that the Nation is a reliable source as we consider such things, and that an opinion published in the Nation is a notable opinion as we judge such things. That is the limit of my statement, and that is the consensus on this noticeboard. On that article talkpage I have in fact pointed out that the contested phrase is used extensively elsewhere, so I am puzzled by the emphasis on this source. I also think you need to review BLP. X policy does not "trump" Y policy. They work together. Reliability works with BLP. In this case, if there are specific objections to this particular article, it should be discussed on the article talkpage. As I and several others have stated above. It does not impact the Nation's general reliability. I hope that puts your back back down, and doesn't cause any further rashes of bold text to break out. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Is the American Medical Association a reliable source?

In the article on "orthomolecular medicine" also commonly known as "megavitamin therapy", it is disputed whether a statement from the AMA Council on Scientific Affairs dealing with Alternative medicine section on Diet/nutrition is a reliable source to which we can attribute criticism of alternative medical systems that use diet and nutrition: particularly the discussion of systems that, as the report says, "promote dietary supplements beyond the Recommended Dietary Allowances". Tim Vickers (talk) 17:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say since its issued by a reputable and well-kown organization in the field in question, to which many people in the field look for professional guidance and standards, it would be reliable in the conext you describe. MBisanz ^talk 17:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The AMA is most definitely a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

That said, it should be noted the webpage you linked to was actually a tertiary source, so you may find even better sources by hunting down its own, which were well indicated. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article has a large number of links to the primary literature, which poses its own challenges. I was trying to find as an authoritative mainstream overview of the field to cite in the lead. User:TheNautilus rejected a direct quote of the American Cancer Society from this report dealing with the subject of "orthomolecular medicine" in general, since he argued they had no expertise outside cancer. This was the best alternative I could find. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This user has indicated that he may refuse to accept any consensus that forms on this noticeboard diff. I get the feeling this is headed irrevocably towards dispute resolution process. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I have made repeated attempts to offer AGF versions that balance and report all sides rather than prominently promote POV. You are repeatedly making (not so?)subtly unfair & provocative statements with undertones that suggest that you want to target me in some way. That needs to change.--TheNautilus (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Funny thing is that AMA has been cited for anti-competitive behavior about disparaging competitors before, the specific page does cite other fields by name but not "orthomolecular" anywhere - an WP:OR violation, and has had highly flawed (but slowly acknowledged, 20+ yrs) attacks on this area, orthomolecular medicine, since Pauling demonstrated a number of embarrassing or serious scientific errors in their methods and publications. Favoring a compromised medical faction to pre-emptively settle or deprecate scientific disputes with flat contradictions this supposed "RS infallibility" is inappropriate.

Blind credibility to economic competitors with repeatedly demonstrated bias and error fails WP:V in multiple ways. WP:V, UNDUE weight, bias, and WP:OR are crucial issues here.--TheNautilus (talk) 18:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that any peer-reviewed article, as opposed to editorial, in an AMA journal, is reliable. If an editorial clearly states the position of an author in that debate, it is authoritative in terms of that position. The New England Journal of Medicine is very good about making biases clear. Policy papers of the AMA, however, are quite another matter. Membership has dropped to about a third of American physicians, and a good number of the members do not participate in AMA politics, but join for journal and other discounts.

Your mention of Pauling, however, does concern me. Now, I have read more of his work on chemical bonds than in medicine, but I have not seen, and they may exist, well-designed randomized clinical trials of his theories in medicine. I have seen things he wrote that seemed essentially anecdotal. I'd really like to see some independent review of Pauling's demonstrations of errors, before I would be ready to accept Pauling, Nobel Prize and all, as a reliable source in clinical medicine. If Pauling was a co-investigator with qualified clinical researchers, with a research protocol approved by an Institutional Review Board, that would be an excellent start. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Many of Pauling's comments about rigor in handling and representing data, as well as his critiques of his opponents, have been quietly acknowledged or adopted over time, without (much or any) credit. In a number of cases, Pauling doesn't have to be right on his hypotheses to show his (AMA, too) opponents were wrong or even grossly out of line in terms of scientific conduct and method.--TheNautilus (talk) 18:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The source you cite claims that: "But the approach taken by some alternative practitioners encourages what many consider the excessive use of health foods and dietary supplements, often of a proprietary nature and meant to enrich themselves while promoting several myths:⁴

1. it is difficult to get the nourishment one requires from ordinary foods
2. vitamin and mineral deficiencies are common

As a study found that selenium supplementation far above the RDA reduced the rate of some cancers by approximately 50%, it would appear to me to be unwarranted to include this pronouncement by the AMA as anything other than an opinion, which must be contrasted with other, competing, belief systems.--Alterrabe (talk) 18:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Surprisingly, that study was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, which seems to be somewhat ironical. It actually failed to show a reduction in the kinds of cancer the study was designed for, but some indication that some other kinds may be affected. It clearly states that a followup-study is necessary before a final conclusion can be drawn. Anyways, this is not any indication of wide-spread selenium deficit - chemo will help many cancer patients as well, but few people claim a lack in cytotoxins.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope that you understand that selenium is a substance naturally contained in one's diet, whereas cytotoxins are not. I also hope you understand the distinction between prophylaxis and treatment. If you take the time to do the research, you'll see that Szent-Györgyi explained the theoretical reasons why Se should be a prophylactic against cancer.--Alterrabe (talk) 07:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It is an "opinion" in the sense that any summary of medical evidence is an opinion. As the opinion of the AMA, it carries suitable weight to be included in an encyclopedia article. I'm not sure what the complaint is; the whole article consists of describing "other, competing belief systems". MastCell ^Talk 18:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

An accomplished biochemist has explained to me that it would be a war crime to force prisoners of war to work the hours that residents at medical schools must because such overwork deprives people of the ability to critically examine what they are being taught, "brainwashing" in the vernacular. I wouldn't describe the point I was trying to make as a "complaint," but rather as an insistence that no blanket "appeals to authority" be made. One text that would do this justice would be: "While the AMA declares that there is no evidence that vitamin deficiencies are common, it has published a preliminary study in its own journal that suggests otherwise."--Alterrabe (talk) 08:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

← I would caution against the approach that Wilk v. American Medical Association invalidates the AMA's position on everything. Jayson Blair's fabrications don't make the New York Times an unreliable source. The question is not so much whether the AMA is infallibly correct, but whether it is a useful representation of mainstream medical/scientific opinion, which for the most part it is. Hence it is a reliable source, as Wikipedia defines the term, regardless of our personal opinions of its reliability. MastCell ^Talk 18:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

My position is that I have offered a neutral acknowledgement that there are significant disagreements, some highly critical and some more neutrally stated in the next to last sentence. The single paragraph designed to good faith represent all sides without overpowering the article with POV that has significant flaws (& attack), in the vein suggested by the uninvolved editor [30], Furthermore, the paragraph could be accurately summarized simply as "This controversial field needs more scientific research to support its claims.".--TheNautilus (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss the article in general, but to decide if the AMA is a reliable, notable and mainstream source to which we can attribute an opinion on this form of alternative medicine. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

"mainstream"? the medical one, yes, not necessarily the Scientific one. "notable" yes. "Reliable" case by case, it is a trade organization beholden to its politics and concentrated financial concerns, where WP:V has too frequently punched holes in its WP:RS on matters of competitors and orthodoxy. Again, the WP:OR concern, and the particular pedigree of the material (many highly partisan sources, not a peer reviewed paper AFAIK).--TheNautilus (talk) 19:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The AMA is unquestionably a reliable source (as per wikipedia's use of the term), and in most instances also a noteworthy source. Just need to be careful that any AMA opinion/recommendation is properly attributed to the organization in the main text itself. Abecedare (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The current version of the lead says "However, the scientific and medical consensus is that the broad claims of efficacy advanced by advocates of orthomolecular medicine are unsupported,[8][9] with the American Medical Association saying that the idea that most diseases can be prevented by nutritional interventions is a myth.[10]" Is this direct attribution acceptable to everybody? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is fine as far as sourcing and attribution are concerned. It would be a problem if the article stated, "X is a myth.[10]" instead. Abecedare (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course more comments in the RfC would be most welcome. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a temporary fix. Having named the other nutritional groups, it is still offtopic or OR, whether or not AMA or the webpage is WP:RS. The specific webpage for that text looks like just partisan opinion inadequately noted or structured, misrepresented as some kind of "nutritional" authority where drugs and nutrition have different evidence bases.--TheNautilus (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The American Medical Association is an excellent RS for describing the mainstream POV in medical science. The different wording (orthomolecular vs dietary supplements in excess of RDA) is not troubling: the former is an "in-term" among those who ascribe to high-dosages, while the latter is a more mainstream description of the same phenomenon. Therefore, the AMA is not only a reliable source in general, but it is also reliable in the context of this article. Antelan^talk 20:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Antelan, you are confuting "big supplements" willy nilly in excess of RDA = "orthomolecular". This is incorrect. Big iron, d,l alpha-tocopheryl acetate, (long) time release niacin, Synkavite (K3) are not "orthomolecular" especially where one component accelerates demand of another (per Menolascino, 1988). It says nothing about protocols, *including the conventionally accepted megadose ones*. If AMA wants to criticize orthomed, they needed to do so directly, or more clearly, in this equivalent of a 16 page precise' to avoid OR issues. The various nutritional groups have significant differences that require identification to avoid OR, especially where some were named.--TheNautilus (talk) 06:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Establishing "mainstream" for clinical medicine, yes. I often find JAMA articles (and advertising) at variance with best medical science, e.g pushing the old LDL biomarker as the crucial CVD risk factor, when so many others/combinations already had much better correlations.--TheNautilus (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Since this article is about a form of clinical medicine, do you now accept that the AMA is a reliable source to which we can attribute mainstream medical criticism of OM? Tim Vickers (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

AMA is sometimes a reliable source. See WP:COATRACK. This particular, lengthy tertiary work (~16 pp) which is itself built upon some reknown, less-than-reliable references that have WP:V problems, is not a reliable source for the WP sentence that it purports to support. This particular AMA article's non-specific blurb is being used as a soapbox for twisted text without RS and balance - e.g. " Claims of consensus" & the underlying sources factchecking is dubious. Work the text to achieve its corresponding RS or suggest a better reference.--TheNautilus (talk) 06:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Our personal opinions on the accuracy of this AMA council report are irrelevant to the discussion. Remember, Wikipedia depends on verifiability, not "truth". However, it seems to me that there is a clear consensus amongst the other editors here that this report is a reliable and notable source to which we can attribute criticism from a mainstream medical organisation of orthomolecular medicine. I'll therefore like to ask you to stop your attempts to remove this source from the lead. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It is a weakly related, POVish source (COI sources that seriously fail WP:V), where an NPOV, direct statement (Orthomed...) really is needed. I am going to ask you to try to collaborate objectively in good faith, and to quit belittling my intent[31] and efforts[32][33] to get an accurate, NPOV lede. Other editors have managed to parse my complex discussions of a complex subject littered with distorted, highly loaded statements from conflicted sources with more collaboration and better WP:V, NPOV, RS results.--TheNautilus (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to understand the concept of the policy here. Is the AMA "most definitely a reliable source" because they are big and famous? No. We should look to third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and I think that the Journal of the American Medical Association just sometimes meets that policy standard. Considering the criticisms that the AMA at times acts as a guild would violate our policy because in those cases they would fail the third-party threshold. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

To check that I understand you correctly, SaltyBoatr, are you saying that the AMA is a notable mainstream medical organisation, but the official report from the AMA council is not a reliable source to which we can attribute the fact that the AMA is critical of this form of alternative medicine? The exact sentence this reference is used in says "..with the American Medical Association saying that the idea that most diseases can be prevented by nutritional interventions is a myth.[10]". What source do you think we should we use to support this statement? Tim Vickers (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

My feeling is that the AMA is acting in the role of a guild here, and making a statement about the policy practice of their members. Still, the statement appears reliable as a statement of the AMA about their medial standards, and does not extend to a greater 'truth'. Therefore I would word the passage "...the AMA has stated that the idea that nutritional intervention can prevent most diseases does not conform to standard medical practice." SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is only used as source of verifiable and directly attributed criticism from a notable medical organisation, the consensus that this report is a reliable source for this criticism now seems clear. As to the specific wording, if you look at the section on Diet/nutrition they use the word "myth" to describe this belief and make no direct comparison to standard medical practice, so I wouldn't want to change their meaning. This sentence was written to be a paraphrased quotation. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I disagree. Plainly, per their policy statement, "The Council on Science and Public Health (CSAPH) reports on medical, public health, and scientific issues that affect the practice of medicine, the public health system, the quality of patient care, and the translation of scientific research into patient treatment.", I see that their declared purpose is to improve "the practice of medicine" in context of the "public health system" and their "patient care" and "patient treatment". In my opinion, I read their policy statement to mean they are speaking to their members about their standards of medical practice as opposed to making at statement about a greater 'truth'. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the purpose they might have had in making this specific criticism, do you agree that this report is a reliable source for supporting the statement that they did make this statement? Please note that the lead does not state that this idea is a "myth", just that the AMA has said that this idea is a "myth". i.e. as the NPOV policy says "When we discuss an opinion, we attribute the opinion to someone and discuss the fact that they have this opinion." Tim Vickers (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

No. Their statement was made in a context of their policy, which is the AMA practice of medicine. A 'myth' in the context of the AMA practice of medicine, yes. But a general myth, no. To omit the context would be a distortion in violation of WP:SYN and WP:NPOV policy, in my opinion. Bear in mind that this also raises a question of global context, and that the American Medical Association is not speaking for global medicine, yet this is a global encyclopedia and a global article. SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

What about "Such ideas are not accepted in mainstream clinical practice, with the American Medical Association saying that the idea that most diseases can be prevented by nutritional interventions is a myth.[10]"? The problem I've faced in finding other mainstream opinions on this form of alternative medicine is that it seems very little-known and most other prominent medical organisations do not discuss it at all. If you can find any other statements by such organisations on this topic I'd me most grateful. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This may be part of a workable solution. It would, however, require that we mention that different countries have medical societies devoted to orthomolecular medicine, some of them with websites. Such as Australia [34], Italy [35], Japan [36], Korea [37], the Netherlands [38], Switzerland [39], the United Kingdom [40], and Canada. The complete list is here [41]. This clearly is a despute between experts, each with their own medical societies, and not between physicians and lay quacks, and if the AMA is invoked, the dissidents must also be. --Alterrabe (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a list of pseudo medical societies established to push the myth.--Kenneth Cooke (talk) 11:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No, giving equal weight to "The Institute for Optimum Nutrition" and the AMA would be a clear breach of our policies, please read WP:WEIGHT. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Quoting the AMA to reflect "mainstream" thinking is fine. But if care is not taken, quoting the American Medical Association as an authority, which it is perceived to be by many, without making it clear that physicians who disagree with the AMA's pronouncements have their own medical associations (and obviously have doctors who have taken the time to investigate the claims and stake their reputations to their belief that the AMA is mistaken) is misleading because it doesn't meet the policy of BALANCE.--Alterrabe (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

¹That pushes a highly presupposed POV, Tim - that the statement is right, dominating importance to get this AMA message out about (not) orthomed. Part of the problem is that *your* 1st paragraph lede miscasts this issue, where OMM generally attempts to correct deficiences (e.g. blood, target tissue level or other accessible sample, or presumed due to diagnosis & treated empirically) to an optimal zone or level, irrespective of clinically diagnosed disease and ameliorates symptoms of people with incurable disease.

²The tertiary source itself, the 11 year old "official" webpage of a trade group, uses bad references with *multiple known errors and serious distortions* (WP:V problems) from known extremist partisans (WP:RS, COI). The version of the statement you are pushing needs both better textual sourcing (e.g. "Orthomed...sux") and a more WP:RS source (page) because it miscasts the overall issues, does not directly address orthomed (despite some OR feeling it does), and gives UNDUE weight to partisan opinions that often have *no* experimental basis (mainstream science??? really?) relevant to orthomed, presented to the casual reader as if they were authoritative, including being the final word of the section.

³Further, I feel that this whole effort, initiated by you, represents the equivalent of pre-emptive forum shopping while misframing the question, "Is the AMA a reliable source" (definitely not always, despite the strong reflexive show of support here). ⁴A better route would instead have been exploring the *various* policy issues with the particular AMA webpage for that quote, finding a better reference, or acknowledge that such a glittering generality implies that AMA is suspicious of the (missing) accused and supports something like " A controversial field deprecated by some critics,[12] many medical commentators...".

⁵For my part, I am willing to provide the references (this weekend) to support "my" version of the 1st three sentences^{(1st paragraph)}, with its crucial distinctions for accurate rendering. The second paragraph currently remains COATRACK hijacked by spurious content from known partisans, not adequate WP:RS. ⁶I strongly suggest that you review proposed version (3c) for the end of the lede's second paragraph and try to collaborate from there.--TheNautilus (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Although I'm not altogether sure what you mean by "represents the equivalent of pre-emptive forum shopping", this is the correct place to get wider community input on your repeated assertions that the AMA citation fails to meet the reliable sources guideline. In addition, your reference to the opinions of the editors who have chosen to comment as simply a "strong reflexive show of support" is rather rude and dismissive. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You've ignored my positive suggestions,^4,6 above,^dif as well as most points^1,2,5. My "reflexive"³ comment simply refers to the facts that they apparently are not looking at, such as its political nature[42], the AMA's "infallible" credibility for sale (eg. cigarette ads^{(1933-1953 ads after 1932 cancer link)} & the 1997 Sunbeam scandal(1997)^{contemporaneous to AMA reference}), or the specific AMA webpage's *known* bias, errors & falsehoods in the underlying references. One problem is that as long as this old AMA committee report, and its adversarial references that fail factchecking (WP:V), are treated as WP:RS asserting it "true" in the lead, the factual situation on WP:V is much like Hillary brazening out her Bosnian tale despite repeated challenges, expecting to be carried on PR capital and TV coverage despite the long documented facts until just blown away by the visuals, at last.

You have been overstating text with undue weight and dismissive to me^{[43],[44][45]} since beginning this, moving too fast to advertise for the more numerous "skeptics" in various ways rather than discuss fairly, collaboratively, or "scientifically" to develop accurate, encyclopedic text in the first place,³ heavily pushing a conclusion with a poor quality reference.--TheNautilus (talk) 16:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning margin and trying for clarity

May I suggest that saying "the AMA" is too broad a term to judge RS? Offhand, I can think of several levels of reliability/verifiability:

• Peer-reviewed research report in a major journal such as Journal of the AMA or Annals of Internal Medicine
• Review article or consensus committee report published in a major journal, with all members required to disclose any conflicts of interest
• Report on an external committee (e.g., NIH consensus, FDA advisory) with disclosures and appointment to the committee by scientific, not political reasons
• Single-author editorial in a journal
• Resolution of the Board of Trustees or other group not organized around scientific criteria
• Report of an external politically-appointed group

I would suggest that the first is reliable, and in all probability the second. The third and fourth are more questionable, although some journals are very careful about #4, such as the (non-AMA) New England Journal of Medicine, where an editorial is almost always supplementing original research reports in the same journal issue.

The last two are indeed questionable. Going back to the more reliable sources, there are research reports that are more or less strong in their methodology. For example, a randomized controlled trial, with double blinding, crossover, and a statistically significant population is pretty much the platinum standard. Meta-analyses that purely compare other original studies can be meaningful, but have to be read much more carefully.

A report that challenges the methodology of another study may indeed point out deficiencies in that study, but that doesn't mean that the position of the challenger is RS and V -- only that the challenge is RS and V.

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

This depends on what a source is used to support. This source is used to support a statement about current consensus within the medical community, in particular the position of the AMA as a prominent medical organisation. Other sources, such as the ones you mention, are better to support statements such as "vitamin supplementation may be harmful in smokers", but this is a statement of the opinion of a notable group, not a simple statement of fact. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Howard. One of the references in the 1997 AMA report, Saul Green's 1992 JAMA article has multiple factual errors that are not even repeated in the subsequent ca 1994 QW/NCAHF webpages attacking a physician scientist despite the QW/NCAHF webpages on the specific MD-PhD still being considered at least recklessly erroneous & misrepresentative by independent 3rd parties (e.g. prize winning investigative reporter with Stanford degrees ). Even where NCAHF dodged state registration renewal for several years after losing another lawsuit and not paying. Incorporating the highly flawed 1992 JAMA reference in 1997, after others' corrections for the public record in 1992-4, is a serious bias problem for the AMA report, and WP:V, WP:RS failure.--TheNautilus (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Tim, properly referenced discussion in the body is fine. Projecting obsolete, flawed work based on biased, some non-refereed, references, and unnamed attribution to orthomed, as authoritiative in the lede isn't. "Nutrition" is very broad & many sided with fault lines and divergences all over, imputing orthomed as the AMA referenced "nutrition" is OR.--TheNautilus (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Tim, very few things in medicine are unambiguous "fact". Quite a few people say they practice medicine in the hope of eventually getting it right.

If I were looking for sources on the validity of the orthomolecular approach, I'd be looking first for consensus conferences, probably at NIH or another nation's equivalent, rather than a professional organization as large as the AMA. More specialized professional associations are apt to be better focused. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 18:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The sources dealing with the medical and scientific consensus on the validity of orthomolecular/megavitamin therapy are in the previous sentence of the lead, this sentence and source deals with the level of acceptance of such ideas in mainstream clinical medicine. Since you seem interested in dealing with these wider issues, I'd encourage you to comment in the RfC. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Neither Jukes' or Jarvis' articles really support the "Less temperate critics..." sentence's "mega-nega"(tive) sound bites on orthomolecular medicine in general and especially in the lede. We still need a *matching* RS source for that "less temperate..." sentence, but I think that single POVish sound bites are poor summaries here instead of summaries that describe a calm, reasoned, notable group's average temper that reflects current science, current medical opinions, not POVish medical opinion from 15-30 years ago that has been shown to be biased, and on the deficient side of right, or deplores & ignores plausible scientific and medical research as "faddism" ad nauseum.--TheNautilus (talk) 02:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Nautilus, I am not sure if I am understanding you correctly, but I must say that the current wording of the article,

"Less temperate critics have even classed orthomolecular medicine as food faddism or quackery."

is inappropriate since the "less temperate" is a editorial rather than a factual description of the critical articles (unless we have sources who call these critics, less temperate). We should simply state what these sources are and what they said, and leave it to the reader to judge whether the statements are temperate, or not. So I would suggest that the sentence we reworded as:

"Some review articles on orthomolecular medicine even classed it as food faddism or quackery."

Abecedare (talk) 03:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

"Less temperate..." was Shoemaker's choice, I am for *summarizing* that there *are* critics without tilting the table by using some (partisan) individual's hottest slag that is prejudicial & very misleading. Quotes would be unbalanced in the tight real estate of the lede. That would replace this particular sentence that is not a direct quote about orthomed, with something closer to this [46] version's 2nd paragraph.--TheNautilus (talk) 08:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I've more discussion noted on the slagging of the Orthomed Lede using old, unreliable "RS" personal attack references.--TheNautilus (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Also Aaronson's Cancer Medicine Chapter 6 is asserted as a reliable source on Orthomolecular medicine, the paragraphs' major points are not correct. It is shown[47] through source text comparison and fact checking to clearly be a combination of error and misrepresentation, however conventional such counterfactual opinons may be.--TheNautilus (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I added this Table to summarize some relative weight criteria, and to link discussions, to the different references that concern the Lede.--TheNautilus (talk) 08:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

more recent (J)AMA reliability & credibility issues

Beyond the adversarial, non-scientific way JAMA has allowed its authors to treat not-so-pharmaceutically-oriented orthomolecular medicine or nutritionally-oriented doctors, let's look at more recent criticism of JAMA in the last 10 years.

New York Times Magazine, 1998 on JAMA, and others:
JAMA's (then) editor-in-chief on an example of JAMA's declining Journal standards in response to wide criticism on an article by Quackwatch and NCAHF authors: While admitting that five years ago the article "wouldn't have made it into peer review"

NYTM on partiality and conflict of interest: Medical journals represent scholarship, of course, but they are also businesses, and most are beholden to drug makers for their economic viability. N.E.J.M. and JAMA had display advertising revenues last year of $19 million and $21.4 million respectively, the vast bulk of it from drug companies. and ...JAMA has yet to shed completely its poor-cousin status, or its eagerness to please.

NYTM on authors' fears:...JAMA has also adopted this policy, albeit selectively, as have other journals, with the practical effect that the journals enjoy an exclusive franchise on the medical information they purvey. As a result, many scientists are loath to speak publicly of their work for fear of jeopardizing their chances of publication.

Certainly this article suggests a problem: Richard Smith (former editor of BMJ). "Medical journals are an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies." PLoS Med 2005;2: e138 The evidence is strong that companies are getting the results they want, and this is especially worrisome because between two-thirds and three-quarters of the trials published in the major journals—Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA, Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine—are funded by the industry

Also this 2005 BMJ editorial implies that JAMA seems to think that there have been previous problems with JAMA's own reliablity (and credibility) "Extra scrutiny for industry funded trials" editors at JAMA have recognised the potential for a problem—perhaps bias, fraud, or shoddy work—in submissions funded by industry. Interesting that BMJ with an even higher percentage of ad revenue thinks JAMA's late found reforms are a too "draconian solution".

"In Search of the Truth or Jerry Springer", Nursing Forum Vol 33, No 2, April-June, 1998 Controversial issues must be presented fairly, without animosity. When authors include bias of personal opinions or prejudiced language, editorial reviewers usually red-flag these indiscretions. In fact, this style of writing often raises questions of the research validity to reviewers. Should authors’ bias be overlooked, however, by reviewers, in-house JAMA editorial staff most certainly would remove inflammatory and biased words. When a journal as prestigious as JAMA publishes a research article ...Was the usual review process of JAMA bypassed, or were reviewers’ concerns ignored? Inflammatory language on the “Jerry Springer” show serves to ignite an audience-the show’s exclusive motive. What was JAMAs motive?

Of course, most recently in the 16 April 2008 NY Times: JAMA itself published one of the Vioxx studies that was cited in Dr. Ross’s article...in 2002, ...the journal’s editor..."I consider that being scammed" and "Journal editors also bear some of the responsibility for enabling companies to manipulate publications." Especially some predecessors.

Seems JAMA, and others, may have some serious house cleaning to catch up on.[48][49] We need to try carefully consider WP:V, NPOV, BALANCE, WEIGHT, FACTCHECKING and RS. Biases, of many flavors have been shown, where AMA and the journals (including JAMA) are still struggling with them today, much less the fallout from in their past.--TheNautilus (talk) 03:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)^{updated 24 April 2008}

Monthly Review reliable source on facts or opinions?

• Note I beefed up the Monthly Review article recently myself including 3rd party info and refs and removed POV wording, to make it clear it is an independent (not organizationally tied) Marxist socialist publication with notable contributors.
• User:Zeq wrote: My expsriance froma personal angle: CounterPunch is a valid source for opinions but not for facts. Is this generally a distinction one can draw? i.e. OK to cite more political publications like these if just on opinions?
• Would this be considered an "extremist" publication? Ie more so than Frontpage.org or Antiwar.com or Political Research Assoc?

Carol Moore 23:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Nothing about this publication says "extremist". It takes a strong political stance and if it is cited great care should be taken to ensure balance. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Marxist views are extreme, and this is no exception. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you substantiate that? Passe perhaps, but Marxism considered "extreme" in this day and age? Try to tell a political economist, a conflict sociologist or a literary critic that Marxism is "extreme." Marxist isn't just some synonym for being a "pinko" you know, Marxist thought has made a pretty substantial impact across the social sciences and the humanities.PelleSmith (talk) 02:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I want to use a Monthly Review quote in an article where Jayjg doesn't want me to use it, claiming this publication is "extremist". While there certainly are extremist pubs this one has published over 60 odd years a bunch of academics and high profile writers. FYI. Carol Moore 02:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I think its up to Jayjg to do more than just resort to "Marxism is defacto extremist," because that's not necessarily true. Like all such statements this one needs to be substantiated. From what I can see this publication is far from "extreme."PelleSmith (talk) 02:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It has quite high academic standards, and an impressive legacy of influential authors who have written there over the years. People like Andre Gunder Frank, Immanuel Wallerstein, Harry Braverman, etc. have made significant impacts on their fields.BernardL (talk) 03:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Monthly Review is an academic journal. The fact that its contributors employ Marxian analytical methods, many of them quite notable thinkers on the left within their field of specialty, is not relevant to its high academic standards. Those who call it "extremist" simply reveal their own political bias, and quite frankly, ignorance on the influence of Marxist thought within the mainstream in this day and age. In many fields its like saying someone who accepts and applies "Einstien's"theories, an extremist. Historical materialism, in its non-crude form, is quite accepted among the mainstream. Nothing extreme about that. Its political views are well within the mainstream of the anti-capitalist left, and come in various schools of thought. In my view those who call this publication "extremists" are in fact the real extremistGiovanni33 (talk) 05:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Einstein's theories weren't political (or politically motivated). That's a particularly weak analogy. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Marxism is not just political class struggle, its also economics, philosphy, a theory of history, and sociology. Marx's influence is quite wide. To reduce it to one crude dimension is not to fully apreciate the real mainstream influences that are accepted by all reasonable mainstream academics in various disiplines. Therefore to cast Marxism as extremist does it a diservice that no informed person of this day and age would make. By your logical you might as well call all mainstream sociologists, even if they is not of the "conflict school" extremists! Likewise for historians, who can not be considered modern historians without resting on quite a lot of Marxism (historical materialism).Giovanni33 (talk) 08:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Monthly Review may be small-m marxist, but that doesn't mean that it is "extremist" in terms of academic work. Just another way in which dastardly pinkos continue to close the American mind. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, how would you characterize Marxism? Centrist? Right-wing? Left-wing? Extreme right? Extreme left? I'm voting for extreme left. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Do us all a favor and familiarize yourself with Marxism. Maybe then you'll understand that it is not only some hyperbolic vestige of the extreme political left but also a highly influential orientation in the social sciences and humanities. Marx's theories were not all simply "political" either in the fashion that you are utilizing the term, and this is exactly the problem with your claims. Bring something substantive to the table here to back the idea that Marxism is de facto extremist. It would be much more appreciated than these empty statements.PelleSmith (talk) 03:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Do us all a favor and familiarize yourself with WP:CIVIL. Maybe then you'll understand that is the purpose of this board is to discuss sources, not editors. Now, where on the political spectrum would you place Marxism? Towards the center, or towards the extreme ends? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you call it when someone comes back to a discussion over and over repeating the same empty point without substantiating it? What do you make of the various answers you've gotten above about the very mainstream nature of fundamental Marxist theories within academia? Coming back as if this hasn't been clarified already, and/or as if you're not capable of reading up on the breadth of Marxism outside of the narrow idea of Marxism as a political orientation synonymous with communism, is rather astounding. We're all big kids here, there is no need to invoke WP:CIVIL just because someone isn't dressing their retorts up with sugar and spice and everything nice. The basic point remains a valid one.PelleSmith (talk) 04:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

PelleSmith, the fact that you claim someone else is making "empty points" doesn't make it so, and the "various answers" and "clarifications" I have gotten have been, in fact, unsourced claims, nothing more. It's ironic, and rather amusing, that you accuse me of the exact things you are doing yourself, but in any event, Marxist publications have a specific and strong polemical orientation, and Marxism is on the far left of the political spectrum - a point which you rather tellingly fail to acknowledge or address. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing extremist about many Marxist contributions. Please see "Ideology," "Historical materialism," and "Political economy" for a start. Also take a look at his foundational work in furthering the concept of socio-economic class. When you are done feel free to take a look at the various different Marxist schools of thought. You may wish to pay particular attention to some rather seminal thinkers listed here like Antonio Gramsci, Herbert Marcuse, Jean-Paul Sartre and Louis Althusser. You will also see mention of movements like the Frankfurt school's "critical theory." But the list of social and cultural theorists whose theorizing has been significantly influenced to varying degrees by strands of Marxism is much longer and includes names like Jürgen Habermas, Raymond Williams, and Pierre Bourdieu. The point, Jay, is that seminal ideas from Marxist philosophy are now entirely mainstream in academic disciplines that deal with social and cultural theory (feel free to look up Karl Marx in any current general sociology text book), not to mention even broader cultural arenas (where no one denies the workings of economy in determining class and distributing power--even if the scale of determination is contested). It may be important to note a basic distinction made in the entry Marxism, between "Marxist school of thought," and "Marxism as a political practice. You could have discovered most if not all of this had you simply gone to Marxism to do some good faith reading, as I suggested. Within the political cultures of the United States and Europe, Marxism, as a political practice may be considered as existing on the extreme left end of the political spectrum. Americans equating any Marxist political practice with Communism, will clearly call Marxism "extremist," again as a political practice they know only through our own anti-communist ideologues. These people have no grasp of differentiating between Soviet Era "communism" and various contemporary strands of political Marxism. In Europe, especially on the continent in former "Western" Europe, this isn't even true. While Marxism may occupy the left end of the spectrum it certainly is not considered "extremist," even as a political practice. As a school of thought, influential throughout the academy and to varying degrees other social institutions and cultural spheres, Marxism is not remotely extremist. As a political practice it is at best, in certain contexts, "extreme." Either way, the Monthly review is an academic journal, and it includes writers from across the spectrum of Marxist thought. If the contributers are respected academics in their fields, then their factual statements should be considered just as reliable as any other. By the way, other than the insinuation we may infer about your equation of all Marxist thought with the anti-communist tunnel vision of Western citizens (to varying degrees) you have yet to produce any semblance of a substantiation that Marxism is de facto "extremist." PelleSmith (talk) 11:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you imagine I need to read about these things, as if you are somehow vastly more informed on the subject, and that my reading them will somehow miraculously shift Marxism to the political center. The popularity of Marxism among academics, and your continued protestations regarding Marxism and Marxist thought are all very well, but it hardly changes where one finds Marxist thought on the political spectrum. And, rest assured, it is not in the center - nowhere close, in fact. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Marxism is not "popular" amongst academics as a political affiliation (this isn't the 1960's). On the other hand aspects of Marxist thought have been highly influential in the development of social theory, which is what everyone here has been telling you. I very naively imagined that you would want to get up to speed about these things instead of wasting everyone's time with opinionated and uniformed commentary. Please feel free to read all the other commentary here concerning you extremism claim.PelleSmith (talk) 03:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Marxism, and Marxist thought, is in Western academe, vastly more popular than it is among the general population. And if you are "naively imagining" anything, it is that I need to "get up to speed" on these matters. I do note, however, the irony of you claiming I am "wasting everyone's time with opinionated and uniformed commentary"; a neat bit of psychological projection. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Jay, if you're turning into one of those people whining about how all academics are biased and don't reflect the sturdy, commonsensical view of the American population, and so reliable sources that don't reflect that view are POV, you need to take a step back, perhaps. NPOV doesn't care what the "general population" thinks. It cares what the best sources think, or 80% of our evolution article would be about how its a vicious atheist hoax. You really need to stop beating this horse, which died some time ago. Monthly Review is fine. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Tut tut, RR, we've talked before about straw man arguments and civility. This board is about sources, not about me. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes we did, Jay, and it breaks my heart to see you learnt nothing at that time. To recap: if you believe that all academia is biased, blah, blah, blah, this entire discussion ceases to be about sources and becomes about you, as you're the one with the problem, not the sources. --Relata refero (disp.) 10:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

RR, I'm quite serious. I've made no such claim, your straw man arguments are not mine, and discuss sources, not editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 11:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"Marxism, and Marxist thought, is in Western academe, vastly more popular than it is among the general population." What is that, precisely? Again. NPOV does not reflect what the "general population" feels. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What is that? A statement of obvious fact, I would think. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't bother, Relata. Jay has always had an idiosyncratic notion of what a strawman argument is; it includes any paraphrase, extrapolation, etc. of his stated position, no matter how warranted, no matter how responsibly and transparently performed, if it's part of an attempt to discredit that position. In other words, just about any attempt to argue with Jay will result in what he calls a "strawman argument," insofar as it will involve, as all intelligent disputes do, reframing your opponent's position in order to reveal its weakness. If Jay were a senator introducing a "tax relief" bill that dramatically reduced government revenue, and you criticized it as "a proposal for increased deficit spending precisely when we can least afford it," Senator Jayjg would call that a strawman argument, because he didn't say "deficit spending," he said "tax relief." Down that rabbit-hole Humpty Dumpty awaits you.--G-Dett (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

How astonishing, G-Dett. You've followed me to a third page. Do you imagine that by claiming I abuse the concept of a straw man argument, you have suddenly become "immunized", and can now present them on my behalf with impunity? Rest assured that is not the case. Jayjg^(talk) 00:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you've accused someone of breaching policy again instead of addressing any of their points. Astonishing.PelleSmith (talk) 01:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you've completely ignored a lengthy personal attack directed at me, and instead complained that I had not addressed "any of their points". Which "point" did you mean, the "Senator Jayjg" point, or the "Down that rabbit-hole Humpty Dumpty awaits you" point? Astonishing. And in the future please don't modify my comments and break my signature. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

No, Jay, marxist theories are central to much mainstream academic work. There is absolutely no way that well-known, academic, peer-reviewed journals that are known to have marxist theories in their makeup can be ruled out as unreliable; it is a misreading of "extremist". Relata refero (disp.) 08:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that most editors agree with me. I'm a libertarian but I'm still able to differentiate between mainstream/RS and extremist marxist pubs, just like I can do with libertarian ones.

Second question - also does any author published in the publication automatically become a RS? Or more specifically: Allen Ruff described in the article in question as: "historian and long-time Madison political activist, author, staff member at Rainbow Bookstore Cooperative and radio voice on WORT (89.9fm, Madison), is a founding member of US Out Now, the Madison Area Peace Coalition, Jews for Equal Justice, and a member of Solidarity." Or do I have to research and find out how many academic degrees he has. Thanks. Carol Moore 13:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

What the answers above point to is that the publication should not be considered extremist, and that it can be a reliable source for facts. This does not mean that anything included therein is a reliable source for any and/or all types of facts. I don't think the author you mention has any degrees of note, and by the looks of his myspace page he's more of a novelist than a "historian." That's not to say he's incapable of writing accurate historical essays or books. Could you tell us what piece from the Monthly Review you want to use, and what content you are using it to cite. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've done some looking around and I suspect this is the link in question, which is a book review. It is being used for the following statement: What sets Petras' work apart, first off, is his dropping or blurring of distinctions. The terms "Jewish lobby," "Israel lobby," and "Zionist lobby" are used interchangeably. Others, at least on the Left, have worked to mark the important distinction between Jews, as Jews, regardless of their differing ideologies, and those supporters of Israel, Jew and non-Jew alike, who actively promote and support Israel's racist and expansionist practices. Petras facilely drops that distinction in the article titled "Jewish lobby". I don't see any prima facie reason why he isn't quotable here. I note that Chip Berlet has quoted Ruff in the past on the subject of antisemitism in extremist political movements, so I would think he seems to be a reliable source. Wikipedia certainly does trust Berlet extensively on the subject. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oddly enough, that quote of Ruff from Berlet was removed, on the basis that he was "non-notable" or "unknown" or something. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Seriously? That's pretty disappointing Jay, I'd expect more than that, and for the record, as concerns that edit, there is nothing in this thread that suggests Emmanuel Branch is notable.PelleSmith (talk) 01:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Disappointing? How so? As for that edit, Branch doesn't have to be, as long as Ruff is. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Disappointing because it shows beyond a reasonable doubt that your concern is not with the reliability of a particular source but only with pushing a POV, however you can slice it. That is disappointing in general, but even more so here, on the "Reliable Sources Noticeboard."PelleSmith (talk) 03:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Err, no, that's utter nonsense, however you slice it. The fact that someone decided to remove Ruff from that article a week and a half after this discussion started was an unexpected bit of luck really: I didn't even realize he had been cited there, but it certainly showed beyond a reasonable doubt that people here (including you) want to have it both ways, so they can push whatever POV they prefer. Ruff is reliable and notable when it suits them (and you), and not so when it suits them. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

WTF? "People here"? Do you mind being a little more direct instead of insinuating things in this unpleasant, indirect manner? Who, for example, is arguing in favour of retaining Ruff in one article and removing him from another similar one, apparently on the basis of POV? It sounds like its just you. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Really? When does it "suit me" Jay? Please do enlighten. My problem was with your claim that a particular publication was de facto extremist because it is Marxist, and not with its particular contributors. You have not raised any concerns with my other later commentary, about the actual use of Ruff in Carol's case (see below). You may infer what so ever you wish about my hypothetical opinion regarding the validity of using Ruff in other instances when it suits you, but the fact remains that I have yet to offer such an opinion. So let the record be unequivocally straight that I do not in fact wish to use Ruff for anything, nor have I offered any guidance on using him for anything with the exception of what you see below. Mindboggling I know, but I think if you pay attention it might turn out pretty clear.PelleSmith (talk) 04:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I pay attention to everything worth paying attention to. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for tracking down quote in question - amusing response. If more specific is better here, will do :-) Carol Moore 19:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Yeah I can't see a reliability issue here at all. Correct me if I'm wrong but Ruff's review problematizes the way that Petras actually uses the term in his book. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad the we are having this discussion since the publication in question is quite clearly not extremist, but how was this ever an issue of RS?PelleSmith (talk) 10:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The complaining editor wrote: "Ruff's claim to be a historian rests on his book about "Charles H. Kerr & Company", a socialist publisher, not about the topic of this article." Carol Moore 12:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

For the purposes at hand in the entry I don't think Ruff's status as a "historian" actually matters, and I don't think it relates to reliability either. From a notable Marxist publication, that publishes notable Marxist academics and intellectuals, we have the critical review of a book in which the critic takes issue with (as part of a larger argument) the author's use of the term at hand, "Jewish lobby." The fact that the critic is an essayist published by this journal is absolutely fine for this purpose unless I'm missing something. I could see Ruff's status (or alleged status) as a historian, and his known area of expertise, brought up in regards to reliability only if he is being cited on factual historical claims. This is simply a critical opinion published in a journal.PelleSmith (talk) 14:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Pelle is correct, both about this final point and about the distinction between Marxist scholarship and Marxist politics, a distinction the complaining editor – who would presumably argue that Eric Hobsbawm is not a reliable source – is ignorant of.--G-Dett (talk) 09:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett, it's really best not to presume about "the complaining editor", or even discuss him, per WP:CIVIL. Discuss the sources. Now, regarding your argument, I wasn't aware that Marxist scholarship and Marxist politics were unrelated concepts. Presumably Marxist politics are based on the political theories of Karl Marx. On what, then, is Marxist scholarship based; the political theories of Groucho Marx? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Harpo would have been the best Marx of all to respond to this nonsense, as no words are needed – just a toy horn blown in your face and a fish dropped down your trousers. But you are there and I am here, alas, so words will have to do. Political Marxism holds that workers will come to control the means of production and supports revolutionary movements directed toward that end. Marxist scholarship is a different thing. It offers rigorously materialist accounts of history, literature, art, etc., is skeptical of grand meta-narratives (often, oddly enough, including the meta-narratives of Karl Marx), and emphasizes the role of systems and institutions over that of great leaders, artists, geniuses, etc. Both have genealogies tracing back to Karl Marx, yes, but those genealogies are as separate as yours and the orangutan's are to the ancestor you have in common. No offense.

Example: When commentators describe HBO's hit show The Wire as Marxist or "neo-Marxist" [50] [51]they don't mean the show or its producers are subtly advocating a workers' revolution, or even garden-variety wealth distribution, or indeed any kind of political program at all. They don't even mean it's liberal. They mean this:

The Wire is a Marxist’s dream of a series, actually, precisely because of the emphasis on exteriority you identify here: it’s not that the characters don’t have psychologies, but that that’s not what Simon is currently interested in. He wants us to pay attention to the systems of the city, and so he shifts attention away from the individual psychologies of the people involved...

Sometimes one kind of Marxist is also the other, sometimes not. Much as a psychoanalytic literary critic should not be confused with an advocate of Freudian psychotherapy and leather-couch talking cures. Nor should it be assumed that a Nietzschean philosopher (say, Richard Rorty) believes in a race of supermen to whom ordinary morality does not apply (he certainly does not). Ideas evolve, Jay. Sometimes they evolve dramatically, and yet are still known by the name of the "ancestor" whose intervention made them possible. The process is known as dialectic. It's the main intellectual engine of something called the Western tradition. You might want to look into some of these things before posting your next scandalized omigod it's Marxism! Call the cops type of response.--G-Dett (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Jay, I've already written and then erased three responses to the above statement, each as dry as possible, and decided that all of them, while covered and protected by WP:SPADE, would also be extremely hurtful to you. The simple truth is that you don't appear to know very much here, so perhaps you should do a bit of reading first. May I suggest the introduction to the five-volume Routledge Historiography series, which quite clearly lays out the differences between Marxism and marxism, and the degree to which the latter is part of mainstream thinking. As for that nebulous area called "critical theory", which has influenced and lies behind so much of sociology, anthropology, literary criticism and the humanities in general - well, some people view it as a subset of marxism, some as a bastard stepchild that run away from home, whatever. The point is that I think you aren't making very much sense, and are arguing past the point of rationality. Perhaps if you don't believe me, you should try and check yourself. for nobody else will agree with you. --Relata refero (disp.) 10:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

RR, we are here to discuss sources, not editors. This is not about me, and never will be, because this is the Reliable source Noticeboard, not the "Discuss Jayjg board". I can't be any plainer. I've removed the personal attack from your recent comment. Stick to sources. Please explain, in your view, why "Marxism" is something completely different from "marxism". Jayjg ^(talk) 11:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Jay, it is clear to me that you don't know what you're talking about, or you wouldn't have asked the question. It would be equally clear to anybody else with any experience of the humanities - and my experience is hardly as deep as those of some other people on this board. There isn't anything wrong with not knowing, only in an expectation that if it were true, you would know - the sort of expectation that leads you to read a bald statement of fact (a repetition of something you yourself have said) as a personal attack. Both PelleSmith and I have first explained it; then directed you to reading that would help you discover it for yourself, if you're unwilling to extend us a minimal amount of good faith; what else do you expect us to do? We aren't here to re-teach the history of modern critical theory for you. Still, since you are apparently require "soundbites" - as rudra would put it - here are Sil and Doherty: "in the 20th century, the Marxist legacy itself became somewhat bifurcated: as its call to action became appropriated by Leninism and then..by totalitarian Stalinism, Marxist thought in the west survived in nontraditional circles through a focus on its analytical dimensions.... in this form alone - the Communist Manifesto as theory - does Marxism survive in many mainstream academic departments." Andrew Abbott: "..academicization brought Marxism into the mainstream. Once the serious academicization of Marxism began.. Marxists joined, indeed often led, the large-scale social scientific swing towards the cultural and the immaterial we observe today". (Obviously, this is limited to certain fields: in economics, in particular, the Paul Sweezys of the world have long disappeared.) Right, hope that helps. The check's due at the registrar's office next week. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

RR, I'm going to have discussions with editors who are better able to stick to the purpose of this board, discussing sources, not editors. Hope you don't mind. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There isn't any discussion left to have. There comes a point when it stops becoming about discussing sources and becomes about the person who doesn't accept consensus. That point has been passed. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No, this board is never about discussing other editors - it's only about discussing reliable sources. Period. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, when you actually bring more than one easily dismissed point to the board instead of complaining at length about how nobody is paying you due respect when you haven't quite earned it from your statements, this board will have something to discuss aside from speculation on the reasons behind your obstructiveness. I note that at least five editors have pasted long explanations, and answered questions patiently, without you responding. This board is for discussing sources and sourcing. Try doing it, and we won't discuss why your sourcing is usually terrible. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Jay, you haven't actually "discussed" the reliability of sources, instead you have trolled the discussion others are having with what amounts to this--Marxism is de facto extremist, and should you divert attention from this claim with substantive argumentation I will either repeat myself or when possible throw policy at you. There have been several good faith efforts to help you understand "the differences between Marxism and marxism," but you have told us that it is naive to think that you "need to get up to speed" on anything while making us believe that these efforts were perhaps not "worth paying attention to" in the first place. Regarding your policy diversions, quit playing the victim, its getting really boring.PelleSmith (talk) 13:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

If Monthly Review isn't RS then New Left Review, a UK journal that is pretty much equivalent, may not be either. And NLR is cited on the Ludwig Wittgenstein page and probably on dozens of others too. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The absurdity of this discussion, and the ignorance behind it, can be seen in the earlier comments about Albert Einstein. Jayjg is evidently blithely unaware that Einstein submitted an article to the very first issue of Monthly Review and it was dutifully published in the May 1949 issue[52]. I suppose in Jayjg's cosmology this makes Einstein an "extremist". The fact is, outside of the United States, Marxism has been a mainstream movement in much of the world for most of the 20th century. The German Social Democratic Party considered itself Marxist until the late 1950s as did many social democratic parties in Europe (Marxist as opposed to Marxist-Leninist - Jayjg may be unaware of the fact that there is a difference). Jayjg may also be interested to learn that the Mapai party in Israel, its forerunners, and many of its leaders including David Ben Gurion also called themselves "Marxist". According to Jayjg's worldview, this makes them all extremists. Jay, the Cold War is over and Joe McCarthy is dead. Your attempt to stigmatize "Marxism" as "extremist" and dismiss any Marxist source as unreliable doesn't belong in a serious encyclopedia. Time to take off those ideological blinkers. 207.245.2.34 (talk) 03:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, Einstein's expertise lay in physics, not in social theory or politics - and what he writes on matters of political theory has essentially nothing to do with his writings on physics. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Just came across the discussion on Talk:Enclosure where someone distinguishes "marxist, Marxist and neo-Marxist" historians. Seriously, the encyclopedia would not be able to cover the transition from feudalism to capitalism in English history if we were banned from using the work of academic historians in these categories. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting to see this discussion, since at the Talk Page on the 1929 Hebron Massacre we were told that "JewsAgainstZionism" were extremist - but repeated requests for evidence produced nothing whatsoever. The problem appears to be that JAZ carried an eye-witness account (from a Rabbi who later founded a respectable school in the US) blaming the Zionists for the 1929 Hebron massacre. All reference to this account has been ruthlessly edit-warred out of the article, even from external links. (The article on the JAZ itself was later deleted, despite it being a much, much bigger and more notable group than many of which we have articles, far more credible than eg the cheating CAMERA, and is generally stuffed with useful references). Knowing what we do about editors who set out to cheat, and who have held up editors in this discussion as being admirable, it might be worth revisiting many of these articles. PR^talk 09:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Great non sequitur, PR. Is your point that The Monthly Review is as reliable as the anonymous "JewsAgainstZionism" website, or that Marixsm is no more radical than anti-Zionist haredi philosophy? Either way, I don't think you're making the point you intend to. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No, he's also implying something about you which is increasingly obvious to everyone else here, so I suggest you ignore it magesterially, rather than focusing on the one comment that is not directly addressing, and crushing, your argument. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The question of what happened to the page on JAZ is not one for this noticeboard, but I will have a look at it as there does not appear to have been a merge discussion before the redirect. As for whether it is a reliable source, please note that the case is very different from that of Monthly Review. Monthly Review carries articles by academics and by political commentators who are also published by other serious publishers. JAZ is an advocacy group and its website is not likely in itself to be a reliable source. Such websites are sometimes used as convenience links, however, so it would be useful to work out if it is extremist or not. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

A comment like 'Marxism is extremist' is a non-argument, based on philosophical ignorance (Marxism refers to a great variety of movements, from Salon-Marxismus to lumpenintelligenstia fringe rants, from refined analysis to revolutionary activism), and thus evinces lack of familiarity with the Western intellectual tradition, in short, it is nothing more than a personal opinion reflecting a popular cliché, pushed as though it were a consensual historical verdict, and confusing in that it muddles politial history with analytical tradition. I think this has been amply demonstrated by many editors here. If the point need further hammering home, look at Ernest Gellner's work, one of the finest polymaths of modern times, intensely liberal in his outlook, yet in constant dialogue with Soviet analytical traditions derived from Marxism, in his own chosen field of anthropology. In Soviet anthropology, society is 'submitted under the concepts, terms, and ideas of Marxism', he writes, and follows up:-

'But what kind of Marxism? Here, once again, the visitor from the West is liable to get a surrise - an agreeable surprose as far as the present visitor is concerned. . .The Marxism of Soviet anthropologists is entirely and refreshingly clear, and it is about real things, namely societies and their organization, and not about cloud-cuckooland. . . What it says about society and social forms, from primitive communism via patriarchal clans, slave society, feudalism, and capitalism to socialism and communism . .it is not obvious at all that there is nothing to learn from Marxism, or that no plausible anthropology can be erected within the dframework of these doctrines. Indeed, the Marxist five-stage typology seems to me rather comparable, in logical status, to functionalism. . .I have offered a tentative defence of the Marxist typology - it gives a coherent theoretical approach, where the rival vision has none.' Ernest Gellner, State and Society in Soviet Thought, Basi Blackwell, Oxford 1988 pp.4-6

What of Leszek Kolakowski's indispensable trilogy? Kolakowski is a life-long opponent of Communism and a historian of the intellectual traditions that make up Marxism. At the conclusion of his work he remarks, nonetheless,

'Marxism as an interpretation of past history must be distinguished from Marxism as a political ideology. No reasonable person (please take note User:Jayjg) would deny that the doctrine of historical materialism has been a valuable addition to our intellectual equipment and has enriched our understanding of the past. . . If Marxism has led towards a better understanding of the economics and civilization of past ages, this is no doubt connected with the fact that Marx at times enunciated his theory in extreme, dogmatic, and unacceptable forms. If his views has been hedged round with all the restriuctions and reservations that are usual in rational thought, they would have had less influence and might have gone unnoticed altogether . .From this point of view, the role of Marxism may be compared to that of psychoanalysis or behaviourism in the social sciences. By expressing their theories in extreme forms, Freud and Watson succeeding in bringing real problems to general notice and opening up valuable fields of exploration; this they could probably not have done if they had qualified their views with scrupulous reservations and so deprived them of clear-cut outlines and polemical force.' Leszek Kolakowski, Main Currents in Marxism 3 vols. Oxford University Press, vol 3 (1978) 1981 p.524

One might add that most of our ethics come from extremisms, in that all religious cultures, from Judaism, Christianity and Islam, to Buddhism, can be traced to orginative contexts that marked them as extremist. Most people who read books know this. I don't know why one has to frig round arguing the point. One should edit pages whose subject matter one knows well, and not bring to bear on them formal objections based on finicky rule-waving and generic clichés about what are often intricately nuanced topics in academic literature Nishidani (talk) 10:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Kowalski's quote is kind of interesting. He basically says "Marx's theories were ridiculous, but he was so loud and stubborn about them, that the people refuting them were able to actually write something valuable". Anyway, is Allen Ruff's book review an "interpretation of past history" or is it written from the POV of "Marxism as a political ideology"? Given the fact that he quite openly writes from a political agenda (he discusses terminology in terms of whether or not it "serves any progressive purpose", and insists that the view that "Jewish-American opinion is monolithic in support of Israel... is precisely one of the falsehoods that the Left needs to demystify") and concludes by stating that the book he is reviewing "should be examined as a case study of what happens when even a prominent left intellectual abandons a clear class-based, anti-imperialist understanding of politics," I think it would be obvious that it's the latter. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't. A "class-based, anti-imperialist understanding of politics" is precisely what underlies this form of political and cultural theory. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg He basically says the opposite of what you deduce from the quote. Even Gellner's famous attack on Wittgenstein could be labelled, as it was by offended Oxfordians, 'extremist'. Were you familiar with the trilogy you would see an immense amount of work showing how deeply Marx's thought is embedded in traditions deriving from thinkers as diverse as Plotinus and Eriugena. You're too young to remember Goldwater's remark back in 1964 'Extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice'. He lost: the most recent President underwrites the dictum. Extremism can refer to anything pushed to its logical conclusion, even, in epistemology, commonsense can take on 'extreme' forms without people waving sticks at it. I would remind you that everything is written from a POV, and you simply dislike Buff's, but that is no reason for suspecting the source.Nishidani (talk) 09:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's the irony, Nishidani. Your write that I "simply dislike Buff's [POV]"; but in reality Ruff (not "Buff") actually supports my so-called "POV" in the article in question! That's right, Ruff says that the term "Jewish lobby" is a misnomer, and that Petras' book on "the Lobby" is a sloppy, poorly-edited, error-ridden, wrong-headed work. You see, it turns out that my concerns over the source had nothing whatsoever to do with its POV, and everything to do with whether Ruff and Monthly Review were reliable sources. I guess that's the kind of mistake one can make when one assumes bad faith. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty bogus. You clearly didn't and don't like what Ruff has to say despite the fact that he is critical of the term. Here is what he says: "Others, at least on the Left, have worked to mark the important distinction between Jews, as Jews, regardless of their differing ideologies, and those supporters of Israel, Jew and non-Jew alike, who actively promote and support Israel's racist and expansionist practices. Petras facilely drops that distinction ..." Now, I'm pretty sure you don't support the notion that Israel might have (in Ruff's words) "racist and expansionist practices." You proceeded later to use a comment Ruff made about a non-notable member of the left uncritically as it suited your POV. The fact that you continue to disrupt this noticeboard with trolling, accusations of policy violations, and various forms of misinformation makes it particularly hard to stomach your latest suggestion, that someone else has now violated policy in not assuming your clearly "good faith editing." Just give it a rest.PelleSmith (talk) 01:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I actually agreed with most of what Ruff says, particularly about Petras's book, which is a poorly written conspiratorial mess, and about his sloppy use of the term, which is appalling. The fact that you continue to disrupt this noticeboard with your egregious civility violations and bad faith make it particularly hard to stomach your last suggestion, that I, in fact, did not like what Ruff said. Please regain control of yourself, and comport yourself in a way that is appropriate for this board. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

ihro.in

Since past few days, User:Singh6 has been adding references from ihro.in to a number of articles.

Does http://www.ihro.in classifies as a reliable source? The website supposedly belongs to "International Human Rights Organisation", but surprsingly the activities of this "International Human Rights Organisation" are limited to the Punjab insurgency. This seems to be more of a Khalistani propaganda site. The "Discussion board" of this "international" organization is situated on Yahoo groups.

While there were undoubtedly human rights violations during the Punjab insurgency, this site greatly exaggerates them. Surprisingly, inspite of being a "Human Rights Organisation", it does not talk about atroicities committed by religious militants during the Punjab insurgeny. It only criticises the Indian government, while glorifying the fanatic religous militants.

There are many neutral sources on the Khalistan crisis and this site doesn't seem to be one of them.

According to whois information, the domain is registered by an individual Tanveer Singh, not some international NGO.--202.54.176.51 (talk) 12:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that it doesn't seem to be an independent human rights body. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Extremist source, probably. See this, if anything remains of it after I take out the copyvios. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've removed references to this site numerous times from the Khalistan-related articles. It definitely isn't NPOV. All their "human rights" articles seem to be exclusively focused on Punjab and attack the Indian Government. Usually organizations have a .org. This one has a .in. Makes it a little suspect. whois returns the owner as an individual (Tanveer Singh), who lives in India. The Registrant Organization field is "self", which leads me to believe that there is no organization behind this website. --vi5in^[talk] 15:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment/Challenge - It is a totally misleading and false statement by respected Wikipedia member vi5in that there is no organization behind this website. Please see this organization in news: IHRO is not a one man show. Please read Indian Express, The Tribune, Amnesty International, The Tribune, Other, Express India, Times of India, University of Minnisota, Times of India, UNESCO, Feeds Farm, Punjab Newsline and Sikh Spectrum.Singh6 (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Site- Respected Wikipedia community, as per my analysis, IHRO is not Khalistani Propaganda Site. Being normal humans, we also have a responsibility to keep the true history intact. We should not let our national affiliation over-ride our unbiased reporting. It appears that Punjab Police and other Indian security forces had simply crushed the Khalistan Movement, but it is not true. Thousands of Boys were killed in fake encounters and then cremated secretely. Even innocent family members of militants and others were tortured and killed by Govt of India. "Human Rights watch" has indicated that even world famous "Amnesty International" was not allowed to visit state of Punjab by Government of India. Please note that the related news always appeared on "The Tribune", one of north-Indian newspapers and Ajit, a regional newspaper of India etc. Since The Tribune (a 125 years old newspaper group) did not have online editions prior to 2001 and Ajit didn’t have any online editions untill very recently, hence eliminating the very few NPOV available sources will be equivalent to murdering history as well. Yes! we are proud Indian citizens, but while suppressing information about thousands of murder and rape victims, we should not forget that the victims idintified by www.ihro.in were also citizens of our respected nation. Please throughly read "Amnesty International", "Amnesty International, "Human Rights watch" where it says that "Thousands of mothers await their sons even though some may know that that the oppressor has not spared their sons’ lives on this earth. A mother’s heart is such that even if she sees her son’s dead body, she does not accept that her son has left her. And those mothers who have not even seen their children’s dead bodies, they were asking us: at least find out, is our son alive or not?" and "ENSAAF". I beg you, please do not murder history by suppressing the already extremely less availibility of online sources of information regarding Punjab. I will never add any Khalistani propaganda sites as references, but I have personally seen the crimes committed by govt security forces and I strongly beleive that IHRO is not biased.Singh6 (talk) 07:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, obviously, a person who believes that gun-weilding religious extremist terrorists are "martyrs"[53][54][55][56][57] will find IHRO unbiased. But apart from your belief, what proof do you have that IHRO is really a respected international organization that can be used as a reliable source, and not just some Khalistani propaganda site? 202.54.176.51 (talk) 05:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well! also a person who beleives that convicted sexual offender Kanwar Pal Singh Gill‎ is a Noble Sikh, will also find www.IHRO.in biased because it talks about the crimes committed by him. Also, if you can try to tilt the information from Amnesty International, The Hindu and India Together etc, then you will definitely find it biased. Also a person (you) who has received several vandalism warnings and who had even lost his editing previlages on wikipedia for his POV editing/vandalism see your talk page will definitely find a Human Rights organization as biased. --Singh6 (talk) 08:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you can read English, you probably noticed that the IP address 202.54.176.51 belongs to a service provider from which thousands of users connect to the Internet. I am not responsible for any of the vandalism from this IP address.

Also, I never said anything about reports from Amnesty, HRW and other such organisations. My objection is limited to this "IHRO" organiztaion which is not notable at all, and has no credibility. Show me a single edit where I removed any references to Amnesty or HRW. You probably failed to notice "While there were undoubtedly human rights violations during the Punjab insurgency" in my edits.

You're trying to divert others' attention from the real issue again and again. The issue here is whether IHRO is a reliable source or not. You're criticizing KPS Gill, ranting against Indians, calling terrorists martyrs, but you've not provided a single reason why is this "ihro.in" website credible. It's registered by an individual. Even I can register a website or an organization and name it "International Human Rights Forum" and claim that Sikh terrorists raped thousands of Hindu women. What would make this website credible?

The question of martyr varies. For example Satwant Singh and Beant Singh (assassin), both assassins of Indira Gandhi, are declared martyr by Akal Takht, the highest Sikh body. Has Akal Takht declared these persons martyr? If that is the case, then a category Category:People declared martyr by Akal Takht can be created. But a general category Category:Sikh martyrs is inappropriate. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree.

The source in question is probably partisan source. However a little query. "While there were undoubtedly human rights violations during the Punjab insurgency, this site greatly exaggerates them" - How did you know this? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, you're not going to find a reference because nobody (except Khalistani lobby) gives a damn about what this unnotable website publishes. But, you don't have to be a Sherlock to guess that this website greatly exaggerates things. Here are a few quotes from this propaganda site:

• "In total, all over Punjab, the army killed over 10,000 Sikhs to gain control of the Sikh shrines."[58] - what bullshit. The number of people killed in Operation Bluestar, Black Thunder and other operations in Sikh shrines was nowhere close to 10000. Using such sites is as a reference would be mockery of facts and history.
• "Soon after the partition in 1947, the Indian authorities decided to come down heavily on the Sikhs and to curb their political power."[59] - this is bullshit, Punjab had mostly Sikh chief ministers: Pratap Singh Kairon, Giani Gurmukh Singh Mussafir, Gurnam Singh, Lachhman Singh Gill, Zail Singh (alos President of India), Darbara Singh, Parkash Singh Badal, Surjit Singh Barnala, Harcharan Singh Brar, Rajinder Kaur Bhattal
• "It is clear beyond doubt that Delhi, ruled by Brahminical Hindus, has always been hostile towards Punjab and the Sikhs."[60] - bullshit again. When was Delhi ruled by Brahmin powers? Anti-Brahminism and Reservation for non-Brahmins is the most visible policy of the Indian politicians.
• "The history of Punjab during the last 500 years is primarily the history of the Sikhs."[61] - wrong again. Punjabi history is full of Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus. Before 1947, the only district in which the Sikhs were in majority was the Ludhiana district (41.6%) [62]. It was only due to the partition and later Khalistani terrorism, that Hindus and Muslims went away.

Also, this website calls itself "International Human Rights Organisation". How come its activities are limited to exposing human rights violations only in Punjab, and that to only the ones committed by Punjab police? This site explains the history of Punjab insurgency without even mentioning atrocities by Sikh militants who are considered terrorists not only by India, but also by US and Canada (which are not "Hindu"). Why won't a "International Human Rights Organization" website that is not Khalistani propaganda site talk about Khalistani terrorists and thousands of other things?

• "We in IHRO, therefore, urge the sanitized Indian people to reject the Constitution without any reservation"[63]

202.54.176.51 (talk) 09:42, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Reply Respected Sir/Madam, Please answer Otolemur crassicaudatus’s exact questions, i.e. "While there were undoubtedly human rights violations during the Punjab insurgency, this site greatly exaggerates them" –How did you know this? ..... Please answer the exact question about exaggeration of Human Rights Violation (and NOT some other THINGS, as you have cleverly tried to move away from his question) by this site .... Also, your next sentence that Obviously, you're not going to find a reference..., Well, Respected Sir/Madam, you have been asked to prove, So PROVE !! Please Do Not avoid again!!! ....Now!! Eventhough you have cleverly avoided the answer and tried to start a new chapter on history, Remember! Several books could be written on your word THINGS which you have raised. I would still answer your points this time (But will expect your answers on every single question raised so far... NO Avoiding Please): --Singh6 (talk) 09:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Answer of 1st Point - 1984 Sikh's Kristallnacht-Part 1 clearly show that Indian government imposed Media blackout at the time of Operation Blue Star. And, at the end of this Operation, Weapons allegedly recovered from the militants were displayed to the world but the causalities were NOT. Official figures of fatalities were 83 soldiers and 493 militants and civilians including 30 women and children but unofficial estimates went on to thousands. Now regarding IHRO, it is not an (Indian) official site, but instead an independent source so if it is showing an independent version and not the official (Indian) version, 2 Harvard Human Rights Journal states that 3680 pilgrims were staying in the hostel inside the Golden Temple complex, leading scholars to question the accuracy of the government’s estimated death toll. According to eyewitness accounts, over 10,000 pilgrims and 1300 workers were unable to flee the complex before the attack. This information further proves the IHRO report as NPOV. 3 SGPC also clearly stated “Thousands of Sikhs were martyred in the holy precincts of Darbar Sahib” further proving the IHRO report as NPOV. 4. Indian Member Parliament’s speech inside Indian Parliament clearly stating that thousands of pilgrims were murdered inside Golden Temple thus proving IHRO reports as NPOV again. Singh6 (talk) 09:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Answer of 2nd Point - Please listen Indian Member of Parliament’s speech inside Indian Parliament again for the answer Another Indian Parliament Speech & Anand Marriage Act 1909 state how Sikhs are forcibly clubbed under larger Hindu umbrella since 1947. No Justice for Sikhs in India Human Rights, Indian Government tried to bribe Sikh parents to reach a compromise on its abduction of their son . I can type a lot more but our scope of discussion is IHRO being NPOV or POV, hence I will leave it with these proofs for now. Singh6 (talk) 09:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Answer of 3rd Point - Already answered that Sikhs are being forcibly clubbed under Hinduism per Indian constitution. Sikhs were forced to launch several agitations/morchas to get every single justice from Govt of India. Even state of Punjab was formed on Nov 1st 1966 only when Sikhs started an agitation for Punjabi speaking state. Singh6 (talk) 09:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Answer of 4 (A) Point - Seems you have intentionally ignored word Primarily in IHRO’s NPOV statement. Eventhough Sikhs were in minority in joint Punjab but they continuously fought with Mugals/Afghans during last several hundered years and eventually they forced both Mugals and Afghans out of their land and made it their kingdom, they even went further and added state of Jammu & Kashmir, northern Himachal Pradesh, today’s Pakistani states of North West Frontier Province, Pakistani Punjab and several other areas into their kingdom. Punjabi history is primarily filled with history of Sikh Gurus, their desciples, Sikh Kings, Sikh Generals etc. Hence IHRO information is again NPOV.Singh6 (talk) 09:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Answer of 4 (B) Point - Even Amnesty International state that the issue of impunity for abuses committed by Khalistani groups during the militancy period is marginal. Hence! IHRO does not have information about those crimes which were either not committed at all or which were very marginal in nature. Next, answer to why IHRO talks about Indian Security force’s crimes - Please read HRW, Indian Government and Indian security forces are repeatedely blamed for torture, extra-judicial killings, murders and disappearances‘ of tens of thousands of Sikhs AND rapes of several Sikh women (regardless of their age) by HRW and Amnesty International . Remember both of them are not Khalistani sites. Difference is: IHRO has more information because it was already based in India and Amnesty International was refuced entry into punjab by Indian Government. In other words [Amnesty International] and [HRW] are also stating similar to what IHRO state in its reports proving its NPOV status.Singh6 (talk) 09:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Answer of 5th Point - The Tribune and other explains that the Sikh representatives of constitution committee led by Sardar Hukam Singh had rejected the draft of Indian Constitution and had refused to sign it but. But their protests were ignored, and the Constitution was adopted in 1950. Also, Since Sikhs constitutional rights which Sikhs had enjoyed prior to 1947 were abolished in Indian Constitution in 1950 AND Article 25 was added into it which made Sikh, Jains and Budh religions as part of Hinduism, hence IHRO, being a Human Rights body might have advocated the rejection of biased constitution, references prove it being NPOV.Singh6 (talk) 09:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

And now, User:Singh6 is using Wikipedia:Canvassing to turn wikipedia into a Khalistani propaganda site (few examples: [64] [65]). Congrats. Now, anybody with a website and friends to support your terrorist propaganda can write anything on Wikipedia. 202.54.176.51 (talk) 10:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Reply - Extremely few "Limited posting/Open Transparency messages" to Otolemur crassicaudatus and a mixed set of respected wikipedia adminstrators/members are considered as friendly Notices underWikipedia:Canvassing. I presented totally transparent facts. Respected Sir/Madam, Regarding your calling my discussion as terrorist propaganda, I request to stay in your sences. This is simply a discussion, so please dont show ur real extremist mentality. Singh6 (talk) 09:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I have already mentioned the Archive issue with other 125 years old north-Indian Newspaper group, i.e. [The Tribune which does not have archive records prior to year 2001 and Frontline does not have archive prior to 1997. Further, HRW clearly states that Punjab government institutions have equated human rights activists with terrorists and consistently used the insurgency to justify their actions and The Punjab police have also associated human rights activists with Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence [ISI]. I beg you to not to follow Punjab/Indian government’s criminal path, Please don’t get influenced by Indian extremism, Please keep Human Rights Organization IHRO as "NPOV" to support several articles with valid references.Singh6 (talk) 09:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree that Indira Gandhi and Rajiv Gandhi governments have equated human rights activists with terrorists and during their times, Punjab Police tortured some innocents by calling them Khalistani terrorists. But that DOES NOT justify actions of Khalistani terrorists who have killed hundreds. And not everybody killed by brave Sikhs like KPS Gill was innocent. Almost all of these were terrorists.

Of course, this has nothing to with IHRO.IN being a reliable source. You are again deviating from the topic and not mentioning what is the credibility of this site. This site is registered by an individual who is urging people to abandon Indian constitution and who is hailing Khalistani terrorists as martyrs. HOW can this be a reliable source for any topic related to Khalstan? 202.54.176.51 (talk) 07:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Chair IHRO: IHRO- A unique body -- IHRO is a unique body among NGOs for it is an organisation of principally legal professionals that has a special legal point of view in its approach to human rights issues.

Its professionalism naturally entails the IHRO to take the mandate one step further in becoming a source of reference for governments, intergovernmental organisations, such as United Nations, as well as local and international human rights NGOs.

We believe that regular public reporting and documentation can help to ensure that human rights concerns are not subordinated to any political or other questionable considerations.

We call upon all those committed to protecting human dignity to join this important movement to make the 21st Century, a century of Human Rights with a motto:

“Human Rights is my property, no one can take it away from me.”

Movie Credits: does Wikipedia trust our observations?

Kind of a provocative title, I know, but this subject seems to keep coming up, and I am wondering if it isn't something that we can stem the tide of confusion with by tweaking the policy.
Currently, when writing film summaries (or, I would imagine, book summaries as well) we write from an observational point of view. 'This and this happened', and so on. Sometimes, like in Jackie Chan films, out-takes from stunts play during the credits, and as such, are often included in the articles. As well, in Children of Men, a film about the possible extinction of the human race from infertility, while the credits roll, the sounds of children laughing and shouting are heard throughout. In Fitna, the credits include the alias, 'Scarlet Pimpernel' as the director/editor/etc of the film. In the case of CoM, we don't have a RS citation wherein someone says, 'hey, didja hear dem kids chuckling about?' while in Fitna, we have a very reliable source that states unequivocally that the 'Scarlet Pimpernel' thing is an alias for a production company.
My question is this: when we are faced with unsourced info that is observational (and therefore primary info), do we follow WP:PSTS? If we have a source that clarifies that an observed phenomena (be it laughter of children in CoM or a simple ambiguous usage of the nom de plume Scarlet Pimpernel in Fitna), does it take precedence in how we bring that to the article? Thoughts, please. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that in movie and TV shows plots a bit of leeway is given as it relates to descriptive aspects of the primary source (i.e. the movie or TV show itself), but caution should be exercise not to indulge beyond making descriptive claims and into analysis or other OR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, how would you apply that reasoning to the examples above? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed above... but I will repeat... film credits are text... no different than the text of a book. The fact that this text happens to appear on film and not on paper is irrelevant. When reading film credits we do not use an "observational point of view" the way we would with the rest of the film. Film credits are something we can read and cite... just as we read and cite information that appears in a printed book or on a website. Now... that text is a primary source for that information... so all the cautions discussed at PSTS would apply. We should stick to relating the basic facts listed in the source, and not use it to support analytical or conclusionary statements. For those we need reliable secondary sources. Blueboar (talk) 01:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Which I believe were presented for the third example, Fitna. The citation notes that the 'Scarlet Pimpernel Productions is an alias for a (Dutch) production company. As the infobox should contain the most concise info, we should note that production company. It is furthermore noted in the body of the article. How would you deal with the CoM example, Blueboar? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I think that the article should list "Scarlet Pimpernel Productions" (cited to the credits) in the info box, and discuss the disclosure that this is really an alias for a dutch production company (cited to your source) in the main text.

As for CoM... I don't think your comparison is quite apt. The fact that one hears the laughter of children while the credits roll in CoM is an observational statement. It is possible for different people to make different observations. Technically, stating this observation is a form of Original Research (however it is an exception to our NOR polcicy). The fact that the credits of Fitna list "Scarlet Pimpernel" does not depend upon observation. It is not Original Research. It is verifiable Fact. Blueboar (talk) 14:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

So, are you saying that noting hte laughter in CoM is an exception to our NOR policy. Might I trouble you to point to where in the page it says that? It would be awesome to memorize that particular nugget.

I guess I should have mentioned that the laughter in CoM is noted in the closed-captioning versions of the French (and presumably the Spanish version as well, as the US/UK version provides for all three, including SDH) and subtitled Japanese versions of this film. Though bootlegging is a monumental problem in China (and subsequently cannot be considered as a reliable source), the Chinese subtitling notes the laughter as well. I am not sure how we deal with subtitling and how they should be interpreted/used in film and tv articles, though. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Material observed in films is original research, the source being the person who observed it. Personal observations of Wikipedia editors are not considered reliable. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Jayjg... By your logic, we could say that material observed on a website or in a book is OR, the source being the person who observed it. No... the source is the film, not the person who watched the film. Now, since the film is the primary source, any interpretation of the film by our editors is clearly OR... but basic facts about what occures in the film is not. The only hesitation I have about Arcayne's CoM laughter example is that I could see two different editors disagreeing as to whether the sound is actually the laughter of children or not (could it be some other noise... or could it be adults laughing?). In other words there might be interpretation involved in the statement. My guess is that if we were to raise this example at NOR, the consensus would be that it is not OR.

Arcayne... the exemption is not specifically stated in NOR... However, the topic has been discussed numerous times on the talk page and at the NOR/noticeboard. There has been a clear consensus on those pages that stating basic observations (such as the plot) is not OR. I am confident that they would say that stating that one can hear laughter at one point in a film is not much different than stating something about the plot. Feel free to ask on either of those pages if you wish confirmation of this. But to repeat my main point: citing the text of film credits is not the same... as it does not involve "observation". Blueboar (talk) 19:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No, the analogy doesn't work. Books can be read and quoted exactly; one cannot do the same for a film. "Basic observations" are indeed OR, as is a claim that one can hear laughter at a point in the film. The fact that so many articles violate the WP:NOR policy is neither here nor there; in the fullness of time they will be brought into line with policy too. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it works quite well; both are observed phenomena, not an evaluative processing of that phenomena.

Using your reasoning, any plot summary is OR, which is just plain silly. Its the reason that observed information that meets a consensus (ie, 'yep, all that happened in the movie') is excluded from the NOR policy by both time and consensus. I would suggest that if you are aware of a new or emerging consensus regarding this, perhaps you could illuminate us as to where it can be found. The film is the explicit and implicit source for the film. So long as we are not evaluating what these observations mean, there is no original research. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

the analogy is off because we are not talking about 'observed" phenomina in this case, but about the printed text of the credits. This is material that can be read and quoted exactly... just like a book. The laughter in the CoM is more analogous to how we deal with plot elements in the movie... we can bluntly state that this laughter occurs, and cite the movie as the primary soruce for this statement, but we can not discuss why the laughter occurs or what it might mean. That would be an analysis that goes beyond simple observation, and for that we would need a secondary source. So while both the apperance of "Scarlet Pimpernel" in the credits of one film, and the sound of laughter in another are both cited to a film... they are really different issues with different levels of reliability and OR. Blueboar (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Blueboar on citing the film as a primary source for the laughing children. In case it isn't clear to people not familiar with MOS:FILM, the reason plot sections do not use sources is because they focus only on the most important (such as non-trivial) elelments of the film. This means, that every aspect of a plot section can be sourced in reliable sources. Exceptions to this guideline encourage the use of sources to solve disputes about the plot. The sound effects of children laughing in the credits are supported by primary source references to closed captioning. But there are no secondary sources which support their inclusion. And, since their inclusion is being used to advance an implicit theory about the conclusion of the film, it is OR to include them. I have tried to compromise by including a closing credits section that includes all major elements. Arcayne removed the two most reliably sourced elements (songs whose importance was sourced to the LA Times), and instead chose to focus on the elements he personally believed to be important. Viriditas (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could point to any recent article space addition where I have suggested an interpretation, Viriditas. I have asked you to do this at least a half-dozen times. You can't because it hasn't happened in over a year. You would do well to avoid making assumptions about what I am implying; you've been rather solidly wrong for the past 16 months. The children's laughter is not trivial. The fact that the credits are black and white is trivial. As it is something markedly different from other films, it specifically becomes non-trivial.

Perhaps you might wish to actually present the entire truth, as the music was moved from the closing credits section to the section called - oddly enough - Music. lol. In fact, I reworked the sections to compensate for the rewrite.

In case I am accused of something else equally unlikely, I wasn't on the the Grassy Knoll" in Dallas. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure you are in the position to speak of "truth". You've been repeatedly asked not to move the information out of the credits section. By doing that, you are deliberately emphasizing your personal theory. And could you please answer why you think the sound effects of laughing children is important to the article? You have the burden of proof, here. Without reliable sources, we can only go on your personal opinion, and that's not how Wikipedia works. So, please answer the question. Why is the sound of laughing children in the credits important to the article, and why have you spent a year defending its inclusion? I can of course answer that by going into the archives and quoting your reasons, but that would just bring up the OR allegation again, so please explain in your own words. Responding with "it's an observable part of the film" is not a reason. We have eliminated dozens of "observable", trivial aspects of the film, and we rely on RS to tell is what is important, not the personal opinions of editors. Viriditas (talk) 08:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

According to which reliable source is the children's laughter "not trivial"? If no reliable source takes note of it, then it's original research. Please rely on secondary sources that discuss the film. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Jay, I agree, but Blueboar is treating this like the film project treats plot, which means, in an undisputed synopsis, plot sections do not require sources. Now, this particular piece of material has been disputed for a year, with extensive discussion in the archives. It has been repeatedly added to the article not because it is simply an observable part of the credits, but because the editor who keeps adding it is convinced it is a commentary on the film. So, for that reason, it is OR. Unless we can verify that the information is important with a RS, I don't understand why it keeps getting added. Now, I have offered to compromise, and allow it in the article as long as the editor allows sourced descriptions of the credits as well. He refuses to do this because by allowing the credits to be discussed in full with sources, it throws a wrench in his attempt to specifically isolate and highlight a selective aspect of the credits, and by including the credits in full, it diffuses his OR. It is interesting to note that the version the editor in question is arguing for came directly from an anonymous submission to the IMdB. Viriditas (talk) 02:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, but that is an inaccurate assessment of the issue, Viriditas. Blueboar's assessment is an accurate one. The material to which you speak - the existence of the laughter and shouting of children heard in the closing credits - is undisputed. You yourself have on many occasions referred to it and have even added it to the article with a cite video template. What is in dispute is the idea that you feel including posits some meaning (or interpretation) of the laughter. You continually suggest that I want it in as part of some plot to add interpretive value to the simple statement, referring to edits of mine from over a year ago. You cannot find anything more current quite simply because I am not the same editor I was a year ago (hell, who is?), back when I was a relative newbie to the Project.

I would submit that you are the only person believing the inclusion of this information is a representation of interpretive value, and it is that perfectly speculative thinking that we cannot allow here. We cannot include speculation any more than we can disinclude something for speculative reasons.

I think that the compromise suggested by Blueboar - ie., noting the laughter without any interpretive weight to it - is a fair one. However, the remaining sticking point is apparently the inclusion of to musical selections to the closing credits which better serve the article (and thereby the reader) by remaining in the section appropriately titled 'Music'. This is not a denial of the multi-layered value of the musical choices by Cuaron; it is instead an arrangement of related material for the ease of reference for the reader. This is why I oppose the omnibus addition of the musical selection to the closing credits. It is not part of some wacky conspiracy or whatnot to "isolate and highlight" the credits; show a bit more AGF, please. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a secondary source that shows that the sound of children laughing in the credits is a notable topic for inclusion. To date, there are none. The two songs that only appear in the credits are unique, and do not appear in the film, like the rest of the music. These two songs also take up the majority of the credits, whereas the sound effects of children laughing and end titles do not. I can see no reason not to include the two songs in a section about the credits when these songs only appear in the credits and are reliably sourced to the staff writer of the LA Times who discusses them in the context of the credits,. In the same way, the theme section includes a discussion about religious themes found in the music. It is your selective use of material and sources that is problematic, as it coincidentally supports, promotes, and furthers your POV. That's just not how we edit Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 10:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sources for technical facts in computing

The knee-jerk reaction to a link to a forum post seems to be the immediate quoting of the Wikipedia Verifiability policy and the section: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions."

While I respect the concept that chat forums are not reliable sources, I suggest that a chat forum as a repository for computer source code, that can be immediately compiled and run by anyone, is an exception because it becomes a place to verify the truth of a statement like: computing 6.13 + 3.45 takes longer than computing 6 + 3. (The reason is because floating point operations just take longer.)

This is different because it is *NOT* a statement in a forum that "floating point calculations take longer", it is referencing code that proves this. That is a very different matter.

I suggest that another way in which a website forum can be used as verification is as a basis for historical data pertaining to that website.

In making an argument for the lack of support offered by a small software product, I qouted the number of posts made by support staff in the "official" Powerbasic forum.

Since there are, and most likely never will be any "Reliable sources, like third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy... peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." that take an interest in small technical details of minor software compiler, a moderated "offical" company forum that requires posters use their full real name would seem to be a good source when used, as described above, as a repository for computer code.

in the case of Powerbasic, I contend that it is also a good source for statements and actions of the powerbasic staff. Comments welcome. RealWorldExperience (talk) 08:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"These specific examples cover only some of the possible types of reliable sources and source reliability issues, and are not intended to be exhaustive. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context, which is a matter of common sense and editorial judgment."

Given that there are no published sources of technical computer science details for minor compilers like Powerbasic in this day and age, the companies technical forum IS a source of "reliable" material. The arguments I make are "directly and explicitly supported" by the COMPUTER CODE or SIGNED STATEMENTS on this forum. It is hard to imagine a more reliable source for information on this subject. RealWorldExperience (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

As a programmer myself with some familiarity with this subject, I would say that a 'floating-point addition necessarily takes more calculations, in any formal system (because you have to move the point around), and thus more circuitry to get done in the same number of clock cycles, as compared to a fixed-point or integer addition of the same bit width. However, this is far from saying that "computing 6.13 + 3.45 takes longer than computing 6 + 3." as we do not know how complex the circuits are, and we don't know if 6.13 is stored and treated as a floating point number. It may be correct to say, in the reverse, that 6+3 can always be done at least as fast as 6.13 + 3.45 (floating-point or not), because even if for some odd reason floating point is faster on a given integrated circuit, then one could simply do 6+3 as floating point arithmetic and get at least equal speed because you're using the same circuit. The same could be set for software - an algorithm that makes integer arithmetic at least as fast as floating point is always available regardless of the hardware, because if all else fails, an integer can be stored as a floating-point number.

But all of this, however true it may be, constitutes original research. And you really need to cite a book or a paper or something like that. A forum isn't acceptable as a reliable source, as anyone could be responding in the forum. Even if the forum is specifically about that topic - one can assume a little more expertise from the contributors because it's more likely to attract that kind of base. But the same holds true for a wikipedia talk page, and articles don't cite their own talk pages as reliable sources. Kevin Baas^talk 19:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The kinds of forum run by some software houses, where users post questions and technical experts employed by the software house reply, might be RS, but most kinds of forums aren't. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Kevin your point is well taken, and you are correct that it is possible for floating point calculations to be as fast as integer calculations under unique circumstances. I tried to pick an example that would be easily understood by non technical people in the general case. I would argue that your point makes the case for using computer code to determine the actual results, since it IS possible to count the clock cycles used for both operations fairly easily with software.

I submit this is not original research as it is dealing with the INTRINSIC nature of the product. It is like making the statement "gasoline can burn when ignited". If you imagine for a moment, that gasoline is a esoteric product that few people have even seen, and of those, most are not interested enough, don't have the time or have never thought of dropping a match on it, then it becomes clear that the resulting combustion is not original research, but one of the INTRINSIC natures of gasoline.

As it turns out, a few people have dropped a match on the gasoline, and as you or anyone else can instantly verify (in this case with computer code) the results might lead you to determine that you might not clean the BBQ with it.

Your question about the user base of a forum being unknow is Mu as the forum is a resource for the code NOT the opinions of people.

If it were possible to cite a book or a paper then this problem would not arise. but it isn't. Why would anyone spend the time and money to publish a book when more information than you could fit in ten books is available with the click of mouse?

RealWorldExperience (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I submit this is not original research as it is dealing with the INTRINSIC nature of the product ... snip

Unfortunately not. It's counterintuitive, I know, but without published verification, that kind of appeal to personal ability to verify is still original research. If, say, I wanted to add to the Margarine article the not-widely-known fact that "the melting point of Snibbo margarine is 40°C", there's no way I'd get away with the argument than anyone can verify it by buying a pack of Snibbo and a thermometer. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

If 200 people, actively engaged with margarine on a daily basis had independantly performed these tests and written about them extensively on a various websites, I would argue that this is not original research. It is a documented attribute of margarine. The only stumbling block is the source.

Wikipedia CURRENTLY has HUNDREDS of articles that make very specific technical statements that are absolutely true yet do meet the letter of the verification requirement. At some point it will be encumbant upon Wikipedia to acknowledge this and adapt with the times. You are never going to see these kinds of details in print unless their scope impacts many people in a tangible way.

You will get contributions from all over the world (in many languages often translated to english) on specialized internet forums. In the case of computer code, this is not ambiguous nor an opinion, simply a set of machine instructions that lead to a consistent, repeatable result (the requirement for scientific fact) RealWorldExperience (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Religious sources

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). Can someone confirm that for the above usage books[66][67] and recorded sayings by Prabhupada will act as a WP:RS reliable sources for the related topics to the views of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. (for example ISBN 0912776668 ISBN 0892132647) I appreciate you comments and views from other editors and the admin. Wikidās ॐ 08:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I would see those as RS for articles on related topics; in the same way that books published by the Catholic Church can be used as RS for topics related to Catholicism. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 08:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Can this be confirmed by some of the admin? Wikidās ॐ 08:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This depends. Religious documents are often primary sources. If e.g. the Bible had one obvious meaning, we wouldn't have had the persecution of the Cathars, no Thirty Years War, no Auto-Da-Fe, no Spanish Armada (or at least one under different pretext), no Mormons (or a much larger group ;-), and probably not even Roe vs. Wade. Secondary sources published by a religious organization can be reliable sources about this organization's public position. But selective quotes can be misleading - try to justify the Crusades with the Sermon on the Mount ;-). Also note that the Catholic Church does not speak for Christianity, and that e.g. Scientology has dissembling about the "truth" as a religious tenet, as mundanes are considered to be not ready for the truths. I would be very careful about proper attribution here. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: And please note that admins have no special role in questions of content. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

So how does one see if one publication is RS and the other is not RS, as the case be is with secondary sources or commentaries on primary that are the basis of a certain religion? Thanks - clarity will be very much appreciated. Wikidās ॐ 09:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has its own religious mysteries. I'd say the appropriate chapters and verses are WP:Bold and if another editor objects WP:AGF. Smallbones (talk) 11:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

This questions has come up a number of times on this board, on WT:RS, WT:V etc, and I think there is a general consensus on the use of religious sources, and I'll try to summarize my understanding of it. There are basically two types of religious sources:

1. Primary religious works, such as the Bible, Koran, Vedas etc. These should never be used alone to support a statement of fact or, particularly, analysis. However if a secondary source makes reference to a specific passage in these texts, it is fine (and perhaps even a good idea) to add an additional reference to the exact text. Even then, one should take care of the translation and edition that one picks for the primary religious sources. Certain religious texts have significantly different redactions, translations, attached commentaries or are of unknown provenance; in such cases even greater care is required in quoting them.
2. Writings by sectarian leaders/teachers such as some Baptist pastor (Daniel Taylor), Shia Ayatullah (Muhammad Hussain Najafi), or ISKCON author (Bhakti Tirtha Swami). These sources can be useful to express the sect's own views of itself and the world. However great care should be taken that these opinions are carefully attributed, and the sectarian authors views on what Christians, Muslims or Hindus believe in general are not stated as facts (such as, "Christians believe that grace is the only path to salvation"). Finally, academic writings (by neutral scholars) that summarize or analyze such leaders' view should be preferred, whenever they are available.

Of course, particular applications of these "guidelines" may require discussion on the article talk page. Any comments on the summary and my understanding are welcome. Abecedare (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Abecedare hits the nail on the head. This is a fairly accurate description of good practice on-wiki regarding these matters. A red flag for religion articles is heavy reference to and/or quoting of primary religious texts, especially when dealing with a particular sect of a religion. His second point is equally valid. It's very important to note when views presented are those of a particular leader within the faith or of the organization itself. It's very good practice to rely heavily on reputable academic descriptions and analysis of sects and faiths. Vassyana (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Religious sources tend to have big problems in seeing their own religious beliefs, practices, rituals, texts in contexts. For example, often they do not know the basiscs, let alone mention, that their religous movement was an off shoot or influence by another organization decades ago. Andries (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, the uncritical use of religious souorces to desribe beliegs and practicies tend to yield very bad articles. For an example see Word of faith. Uncritical self-descriptions should have no place in this or any encyclopedia. Andries (talk) 17:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I endorse Abecedare's first point 101%.Bless sins (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm also with Abecedare on this one - I share that view. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 23:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Consumerfraudreporting.org

http://www.consumerfraudreporting.org is apparently an anonymous self-published website. I'm dealing with an editor (and an admin no less) who is claiming it's WP:RS. Thoughts? --Insider201283 (talk) 23:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me to be run by a reputable non-profit. However, attribution is hard to find. On the other hand, there's little in the MLM article which is sourced. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

"seems" to be? There's no attribution at all. As for the lack of sourcing of the rest of the article, I entirely agree. That however is extremely poor reasoning for allowing a bad source. --Insider201283 (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I must disagree with Arthur Rubin's assessment. It does not, in the least, seem to be run by any kind of non-profit, reputable or otherwise. It may be superficially presented in that fashion, but even that is making a stretch. It's quite obviously a privately run ad-supported site. There is no note of non-profit status and not even an "About Us" page. It's a self-published source with no indication of authorship and, as such, certainly not a reliable source. Vassyana (talk) 02:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Opinion/editorial

Are editorials reliable sources for extreme claims? In particular is this editorial a reliable source for claiming that there is "apartheid" in Mecca. Is it also a reliable source to claim that the "apartheid" is rooted in the Qur'an, the Islamic holy scripture?

Please note that the above is an opinion. For the author JONATHAN V. LAST, though he makes political commentary, I could not find any credentials in religious studies or Islam.

While I understand that some may argue that this comment may be notable enough to quote and attribute (is it?), but can it be used unreservedly as fact? Bless sins (talk) 04:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

An editorial is only a reliable source for the author/publication's opinion (see this for a thoughful comparison between columnists and news reporters). There may be exceptions, but I can't think of any for mainstream media sources. I am not talking about "editorials" in medical journals etc, which AFAIK are considered to be reliable reviews of the field

Of course, if the opinion is thought to be notable enough, it may be included with proper attribution; and if it cites sources, those may be usable. Abecedare (talk) 06:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. Is there any doubt that there are specific religious prohibitions on non-Muslims entering Mecca? There are surely dozens of sources attesting to that, we don't need a random op-ed, surely? Could you explain a little further?

The piece by Sohail Hashmi in the 2003 Buchanan-Moore book might help if a discussion of the origins of the prohibitions, which appears to be a puritanical extrapolation of the status of the cities as haram, might help. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok I should've explained: This editorial is being used as source to claim that the prohibition constitutes "aparthied". There are not a lot of sources that say this, infact, this is the only I've seen so far. Bless sins (talk) 12:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If it is a matter of a extreme minority opinion, it's more a consideration of undue weight than reliable sourcing. In this case, we're dealing with a topic that is very widely written about that has no shortage of sources on just about any reasonable related topic. In such cases, it's an easy bet that if only one source makes a claim that it is a extreme minority view not suitable for Wikipedia. Similarly, if only a very small handful of extremist, small press or otherwise fringe sources make a claim, we can be fairly assured it is similarly an extreme minority opinion. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 02:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The extreme minority opinion is that excluding all people not of a particular religion from an entire city is not discriminatory. The (relevant here) argument seems to be that it is not, because that the authorities and the members of the included religion(s) refuse to call it such -- which is not surprising, given the nature of discrimination. However, multiple third party RS and V sources ascribe it as such. Bless Sins and other revisionists are making weak attacks on all posted sources in order to render them invalid and thereby avoid both the objectively definable as well as commonly described categorization of this phenomenon as religious discrimination. Moreover, this is involving the inclusion of a picture on a Portal, not an article. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Also the content makes no mention of the Quran nor does it attribute religious discrimination in Mecca to it. That is a hyperbolic straw man and not part of the dispute. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 20:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The article sure does make reference to the Qur'an when it says:

What are the roots of this apartheid? The Koranic revelations were given to the prophet Muhammed in Mecca, which was then a pagan place. Soon after...God's command to him, that the environs around Mecca should only be for Muslims...

Thus the article is calling religious beliefs of the Muslim people to be the "roots of this apartheid", which can be considered to be a bigoted statement itself.

"However, multiple third party RS and V sources ascribe it as such." That is the point of the discussion. Use third party RS sources (if you can find them), not this editorial that has marginal reliability.Bless sins (talk) 20:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It's as reliable as most of the sources used for these "apartheid" claims. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

For whatever the article says about origins, source it to, as I said above, Sohail Hashmi in the 2003 Buchanan-Moore book. Better, yet, start an article on the historical position of non-Muslims in the two cities, which will give you sufficient space to explain nuance. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Closing credits on Children of Men

An RfC has recently been opened in relation to this topic. Another request regarding the issue of WP:OR has been opened on the OR noticeboard. Please read it if you are interested in the background. This message will be brief as the RfC and noticeboard requests explain most of the problem.

Presently, there is no reliable source available to describe a particular sound effect that appears in the closing credits of Children of Men. In order to help the editor who keeps adding this trivia to the article, I recently devised a solution where we would create a new section, "closing credits", and describe all notable aspects using the {{cite video}} tag to source it, complete with the time the sound effect appears. When i did this, the editor removed the primary source citation, claiming that it wasn't neeeded. This deletion appears to be contrary to WP:V, as the importance of this particular sound effect has been challenged and debated for a year, as the talk archives (and current talk page) show.

The question: can the film be used as a reliable, primary source (a self-reference) to describe a trivial sound effect that appears in the credits, and if so, should the time parameter in the cite video template be used to note its appearance? We can support the trivial sound effect with the film as a primary source using the cite video template, but the editor continues to remove it.

Another problem emerges. The editor who keeps adding the sound effect to the article and removing the reference, has a history of trying to draw a relationship between the use of the sound effect in the credits and the appearance of the closing title credits, claiming in many discussions that it has special meaning and importance. But, there is no reliable source that supports this relationship. To support this relationship, the editor removed all elements in the closing credits section except the sound effect in question (which can only be sourced to the DVD) and the mention of the closing title credit, which has RS, but does not discuss the sound effect in any of those publications. Viriditas (talk) 10:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

With respect, that a sound effect happens could reasonably be sourced to the video. But everything beyond that is OR, and while a little latitude might be granted in uncontroversial cases, this isn't uncontroversial. Now, I'm not going to pass judgement on an editor without hearing his say, but... have you considered WP:ANI? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for not responding earlier. I should endeavor to point out that much of Viriditas' post is a bit skewed, but considering our mostly unpleasant past interactions over the past year, I am not terribly surprised that I would be painted in the worst possible light by him/her. It is not the first time such has occurred. However, I'm not going to address that here

The specific "trivial" sound effect is the laughter of children during the closing credits at the end of a film about the human race dying out from infertility. While the reader can draw their own conclusions as to what that laughter and shouting means (that the human race did not die out, that the laughter of children was the Upanishad prayer, that a sound editor fell asleep at work, etc.), no citation in fact exists that explains the sounds. However, the source of this problem has apparently been raised a number of times at this noticeboard, most recently here.

The determination (a clear prior consensus) is that the sound, as observable phenomena that is not contested as to what it is (though dissent clearly exists as to its meaning and importance) is allowed. It would appear that this consensus has grown out of discussion here spanning the past year, and were therefore not available at the time this matter first came up for discussion in the CoM article talk page. I was certainly unaware of it until just recently. As well, I certainly don't consider the notation of laughter to be uncontroversial, though notable and contentious discussion has shown it to be otherwise. It was a knife fight just to get the source noting the presence of the shantih words at the end of the film into the article.

However, Viriditas added the section on phenomena in the closing credits that discussed the presence of the children's laughter (as observable phenomena) and the shantih (with quoted citation as to meaning). I disagreed that the cite video template, time-stamping the instance of the laughter, was necessary. The section is called 'Closing Credits', and the laughter and shouting of children runs throughout; there seems little ambiguity as to where the laughter occurs, so citation seems like overkill - especially so when the laughter is observable phenomena. I am not aware of any FA articles that currently utilize the cite video template, and FA is what the article should be aiming for, right?

I removed the statements about the music as non-notable bloat (as there was no citation speaking to the plot-worthy weight of them), and removed the cite video template timestamp (as we know precisely where the laughter is). The specifics of the template say it is useful to include time-stamps to navigate to a particular area. As the section specifically names the section, and the children's laughter occurs throughout the closing credits, the usefulness of the template is redundant to the section text.

Lastly, I think the addition of songs to the section are in fact trivial, as no citation exists as to their special meaning to the movie. I haven't seen any FA articles that note - uncited - any soundtrack's song being intrinsic to the movie's plot, though I know of a few non-GA articles where a song that appears in the soundtrack is important to the plot (Eddie and the Cruisers, for example). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Response from Viriditas

My apologies for not responding earlier. I should endeavor to point out that much of Viriditas' post is a bit skewed, but considering our mostly unpleasant past interactions over the past year, I am not terribly surprised that I would be painted in the worst possible light by him/her. It is not the first time such has occurred. However, I'm not going to address that here

I have never once mentioned your name above, so I have no idea how you could have been "painted" in any light. Every single claim I've made can be substantiated by dozens of diffs, past RfC's, third opinions, discussion by the film project, etc. You have not pointed out how anything I have stated above is "skewed" in any way, and I look forward to your evidence. Viriditas (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The specific "trivial" sound effect is the laughter of children during the closing credits at the end of a film about the human race dying out from infertility. While the reader can draw their own conclusions as to what that laughter and shouting means (that the human race did not die out, that the laughter of children was the Upanishad prayer, that a sound editor fell asleep at work, etc.), no citation in fact exists that explains the sounds. However, the source of this problem has apparently been raised a number of times at this noticeboard, most recently here.

And here we get to the crux of the issue. Arcayne's pet theory about how the audience draws some kind of conclusion from the sound effects in the credits, belongs to him and him alone. Not a single film critic, author, journalist, or reliable source has commented on this pet theory except Arcayne, and he's been talking about it for a year in the talk page archives, edit warring and trying to push his POV, which is essentially classically-defined as original research. This has been explained to Arcayne by at least a dozen different editors with absolutely no change in his editing behavior. What's even more bizarre, is that he claims to have raised the issue previously on the noticeboard, where he said, we cannot list an observable phenomena...the laughter of children during the end credits of the film Children of Men. Observable phenomena cannot replace citation. So, he's arguing the exact opposite of what he argued here before. I think the facts are really clear on this issue. Arcayne has engaged in a repeated pattern of OR and using unreliable sources to support his POV for over a year, including edit warring and gaming the system. Viriditas (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The determination (a clear prior consensus) is that the sound, as observable phenomena that is not contested as to what it is (though dissent clearly exists as to its meaning and importance) is allowed. It would appear that this consensus has grown out of discussion here spanning the past year, and were therefore not available at the time this matter first came up for discussion in the CoM article talk page. I was certainly unaware of it until just recently. As well, I certainly don't consider the notation of laughter to be uncontroversial, though notable and contentious discussion has shown it to be otherwise. It was a knife fight just to get the source noting the presence of the shantih words at the end of the film into the article.

This is not true. The trival sound effects have been contested on the talk page for a year, because you've consistently been trying to include them to support your OR. You've never done the slightest bit of research on the article. That is what is required to find reliable sources. Erik found the RS for Shantih for you and you still have not used them in the article. Viriditas (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

However, Viriditas added the section on phenomena in the closing credits that discussed the presence of the children's laughter (as observable phenomena) and the shantih (with quoted citation as to meaning). I disagreed that the cite video template, time-stamping the instance of the laughter, was necessary. The section is called 'Closing Credits', and the laughter and shouting of children runs throughout; there seems little ambiguity as to where the laughter occurs, so citation seems like overkill - especially so when the laughter is observable phenomena. I am not aware of any FA articles that currently utilize the cite video template, and FA is what the article should be aiming for, right?

This is not true. You added the material to the plot section against the consensus of the active editors. Recently, you returned to your old ways and you added it to the themes section. No reliable source could be found to support the inclusion of the sound effects in the theme section. As a compromise in good faith, I moved your material to an "end credits" section (later changed to closing credits). Your disagreement with using a cite video template to show when the sound appears is completely spurious. WP:V is pretty clear on sourcing controversial statements, which is exactly what this is in your own words. You claim that the laughter and shouting of children runs throughout, however there are at least three songs that break those sound effects up, two of which only appear in the credits and are just as important to the closing credits as the sound effects of children laughing. You claim you are not aware of any FA-Class articles that use the cite video template, and that is one of the most absurd argument I've ever heard. The cite video template wasn't even used until 28 July 2005, which is why older FA's might not have it. All you would have to do is visit what links here to see how incredibly silly your statement reads. Many FA-Class articles cite films as primary sources, with or without the cite video template. The FA-Class article Chaco Culture National Historical Park cites the film The Mystery of Chaco Canyon three times, and it was added before the article became FA. FA-Class article Final Fantasy uses the cite video template and it was added to the article years before it passed FA. Same with J. R. R. Tolkien and many other FA-Class articles. So we see that contrary to what you say, the cite video template is used by many FA-Class articles. After having this discussion with you again and again for over a year, I'm getting the strong sense that you just make stuff up without thinking that people will actually take the time to look into what you are saying. How many times have I checked up on you, Arcayne, only to find that you had invented and manufactured claims out of thin air? What's going on here? Viriditas (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the statements about the music as non-notable bloat (as there was no citation speaking to the plot-worthy weight of them), and removed the cite video template timestamp (as we know precisely where the laughter is). The specifics of the template say it is useful to include time-stamps to navigate to a particular area. As the section specifically names the section, and the children's laughter occurs throughout the closing credits, the usefulness of the template is redundant to the section text.

There are no citations "speaking to the plot-worthy weight" of the sound effects of "laughing children", so why is it in the article? The fact is, there are citations in multiple sources discussing the three songs used in the credits and their relationship to the film, even in the current article (for example: Crust, Kevin. "Unconventional soundscape in `Children of Men'", Chicago Tribune, 2007-01-17). These sources discuss the songs you removed: John Lennon, Jarvis Cocker, and John Taverner. So again, we see the opposite of what Arcayne claims to be true. What the heck is "non-notable bloat"? The songs you removed from the credits have been discussed in multiple sources. The "sound of laughing children" has not been mentioned in any reliable source. Viriditas (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Lastly, I think the addition of songs to the section are in fact trivial, as no citation exists as to their special meaning to the movie. I haven't seen any FA articles that note - uncited - any soundtrack's song being intrinsic to the movie's plot, though I know of a few non-GA articles where a song that appears in the soundtrack is important to the plot (Eddie and the Cruisers, for example).

The entire section on "closing credits" is trivial. Since I have been following your edits to the article for the last year, I am aware of what you are trying to do. You removed the songs from the closing credits section to bolster your pet theory of some kind of relationship between the sound effects of laughing children and the use of the closing credit that reads, "Shantih". You've discussed your personal beliefs and pet theories at length in at least five separate talk archives. There is no reliable source on the planet that supports your original research. Read what Shoemaker's Holiday wrote. Sound effects can reasonably be sourced to the video, but everything beyond that is OR. And a quick look at the cite video tag shows that multiple FA-Class articles use it, as well as many other citation styles. The songs that you removed can be sourced to critical commentary in multiple reviews, one of which already appears in the article. Your reason for removing them doesn't hold water. Viriditas (talk) 02:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The reasons given for removing an accepted method of citation are flimsy and it does appear that there is an attempt to push some original research. "I am not aware of any FA articles that currently utilize the cite video template, ..." is either Clintonesque wording (not aware?) or just an uninformed statement. Many FAs use cite video: just access Template:Cite video, click on what links here, and scan down the list to take your pick: there are quite a few and they aren't hard to find. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I did look at the long list, Sandy. Are you aware that many of those do not use the cite video template in the way that Viriditas seems to think its used? Let's take Dungeons & Dragons, for instance. No real cite video template to be found. Odd, that. Not in Batman, either. A few others garnered the same result. Now, I am not saying that cite video is never used, or that it cannot be used to specifically note time-stamps of important events (especially when they would be otherwise hard to find), but I am not going to comb through the 500+ article list to find an FA article that just as likely doesn't use the template in the way being suggested. Perhaps 'Clintonesque' is an unfair characterization of my roundabout asking for examples of when cite video is used; I imagine characterizing your claim that than I "can scan down the the list to take (my) pick: there are quite a few" as McCarthy-esque would be received the same way. Maybe you do me the favor of pointing out a few Featured Articles that use the cite video template in the way that Viriditas seems to think is appropriate.

The main point here is that are observable phenomena are exempt from NOR rules; they are from the film itself, much like the plot, which requires no citation whatsoever. The only reason it is exempt is that editorial consensus agrees the shape that the plot summary takes, so as to remove any speculation or incorrect events. When no one disagrees as to the plot summary, then its reasonable to believe that the plot summary is accurate. By the same token, any observable part of the film, from nuts to soup, falls under this same exemption. So long as there is no meaning prescribed to these events without secondary citation, noting the existence of the event is not OR, and is verifiable by anyone who sees the film, which is the primary source. As everyone (even Viriditas) agrees that the laughter and shouting of children does indeed occur in the film, it is not a contentious point.

That Viriditas continually calls the addition of this info my "pet theory", I think it notable that I did not add the info into the article recently - Viriditas did that. I have not in three days, three weeks or three months added any theory as to what the laughter means into the article, and without citation, I am not likely to do so.

The argument of triviality has been raised and is, in my estimation, the only real issue here. Yes, we can note the laughter of children without citation, as it is observed phenomena. Yes, we can note the instance of the 'shantih' phrase, as it has multiple citations speaking to it. What remains is whether these are trivial or not. Personally, I don't think they are, but I have admitted bias in the matter, and Viriditas has made it clear over a year and a half that he feels they interfere with what direction he feels the film article should take. I'd long since settled in to await citation about the meaning of the laughter. I don't intend to add any theory ("pet" or otherwise) about what it means without a solid citation. In fact I haven't in recent memory, which is why the instances being recalled by Viriditas are over a year old.

Honestly, I think the laughter and the shantih are worth noting, as the reader can make up their own minds as to the value of them. I don't think we need to time-stamp pointing to where it occurs, since the section named 'Closing Credits' is the only place it happens, and happens throughout. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I will repeat my comments from the NOR noticeboard... stating the blunt statement "the laughter of childred can be heard during the closing credits" is not OR. We can cite the film itself (a reliable primary source) for this fact. However, I really do not understand why this fact needs to be mentioned at all. The reader is left with the question: "Why was this mentioned? Why is it significant?" The problem is that any explanation of the significance would be original research unless it is backed by a reliable secondary source. It would be best to leave this information out until such a source can be provided. As a blunt statement of fact, it really does not add anything to the article. Blueboar (talk) 04:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is OR - it's an interpretation of a primary source. If it's true, and significant, some reliable secondary source will have written about it. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI...some of the proponents are treating the credits section as a "plot section", citing WP:MOSFILMS which says that citations are not needed for general information about the plot. However, to be consistent with WP:V, the films guideline allows for exceptions where citations should be used, especially for ambiguous material. Arcayne has argued for a year that there is a connection between the sound effects of laughing children and the conclusion, but in fact, there is none; on the other hand, there is self-referential evidence (from scene 12 in the film) that the sound effects are used in the credits to remind the audience of the missing sound of children throughout the film. The question becomes, is this important to the viewer? It could or could not be, we really don't know, which is why I have asked for secondary RS. To date, there are none. Arcayne wants to leave it in using the citation-less standard of the films guideline for plots. But this still doesn't override WP:V, as the guideline makes clear. Viriditas (talk) 02:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any edit I've done within recent memory has added any interpretation (or "connection") of the laughter of children to the outcome of the movie. Sure I did such over a year ago, but who here can say they are the same editor they were a year ago? Lol.

As the question has shifted from whether it can be noted to whether its trivial or not, maybe the RS noticeboard is the wrong place to discuss this matter. Since it is an observational part of the film, it fulfills the same criteria as does the plot, which is kept reliable via consensus. And consensus in this case agrees as to the existence of the laughter. So long as (uncited) interpretation is not added along with the observation, it seems appropriate to present the full picture of the film to the reader. We don't chew the food for them by providing out own interpretation, but we do in fact give them the actual food to chew themselves. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty easy, Arcayne. The three songs you removed from the credits are supported by a RS. (Crust, Kevin. 2007-01-07. "Sounds to match to the 'Children of Men' vision". Los Angeles Times) The trivial sound effects of "children laughing" that you find so important, are not. Viriditas (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty sure your citation doesn't say the laughter sounds are trivial. but please, feel free to actually post a link that can verify that statement. If they are instead citations about the music, they might be better off in a section about music - which there already is in the article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, the burden of proof is on the editor adding content. The content you added about "laughing children" is not found or supported by any reliable source. Because it is unsourced trivia that you are using to push a POV about the conclusion of the film (in the words of User:80.192.175.116: As the screen fades to black, sounds of lots of children laughing is heard, showing that her baby was the answer, and humans are able to conceive once again) we can't use it. If you can find a RS, great, but until then, it doesn't belong in the article. Viriditas (talk) 01:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, what do the words of an anon active since 2006 have to do with this conversation? You keep bringing anonymous users who add the laughter of the children - I am quite sure what you are saying, aside from pointing out that the casual editor has added in observable info. If you are suggesting that the anon is a sock-puppet of mine, could I trouble you to present a SSP or RfCU report to back up that accusation? The anon appears to still be active - you could file one today. I could accept your apology as soon as it's complete. :)

For the nth time, could you point to a recent occurrence within the last year when I have advocated adding an unreferenced evaluation of the children laughing in the article? If not, then might I suggest that you stop introducing it?

In regards to the songs I "removed", you might want to examine the edit a bit closer. They were moved, not removed - to the section called "Music" - which, oddly enough would seem to be the place where the reader would go to find information about the music from the movie. Information about the different themes is found in the section that they fit under, be they hope, religion or other contemporary references - no matter where they appear in the film. Same thing about "Production". We don't move around the bits disruptively to make a point, treating the article like a battleground.

I have provided the burden of proof, despite your misinterpretation of the phrase. I have shown you policy and guidelines, discussions that you began on two noticeboards (here and NOR) clearly indicate how your opinion is in the minority, despite your attempts to mislead them. It is not unsourced trivia - name other movies that have children laughing during the end credits or have the words 'shantih, shantih shantih'. You can't? Guess what, that's notable, not triivial. You are allowed to disagree with that assertion, but consensus has formed. You have already agreed to cite the instance of the laughter using cite video. It is supported by the primary source of the film, and I advocate using cite video to time-stamp it (which is what you did in the first edit before engaging in this distraction).

I would urge you to make an argument that doesn't constitute accusing me of sock-puppetry or using my fourteen month old newbie edits to reinforce your arguments. It has grown rather tendentious. Do not mistake my deference in not filing a complaint for unwillingness to do so. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You're not making any sense. A consensus has formed. MovieMadness, MPerel, Blueboar, and others agree that the music can appear in the credits section and that sources are acceptable. In other words, you are not following consensus. Viriditas (talk) 22:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I am, and your 'refusal to understand' is growing tedious, Viriditas. The consensus formed (of a great many more than you seemed to have noted - hmm, odd that) noting that the only issue here - I repeat, the only issue - is about whether the laughter of the children should be cited, or does it fulfill the criteria of exception afforded to the plot. I am compromising as to the usage of the cite video template (which I had previously opposed). You might recall that this is the same edit you offered less than a week ago yourself. This compromise does not include placing a musical section in the closing credits. It is cited, and doesn't fall under the aegis of this discussion. It has since been moved to the music section, re-written and citation work was tightened up by yourself. It's fine there. Are you of the misconception that I think the music should be removed? If not, I think we are done here. Go ahead and add the cite video template to the laughter. Nothing else, though. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

Not sure why Viriditas was quoting an anon IP whose comments do not appear in the article, but I guess its immaterial. As mentioned preciously, discussion on no less than four articles (two of them noticeboards) has considered it 'clear consensus' that the children's laughter is observable phenomena and as such, doesn't require citation. The shantih is cited, but even if it weren't, it too would be includable, as it is also observable. Now, if we wish to change policy as to how we use at WP:PSTS, we have to address the following:

"Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source."

As the source of the laughter (and the Shantih) both fulfill this criteria, let's read on:

"Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:

• only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
• make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source."

and since there is no interpretive value being added to the observation of the laughter. check and check.

Okay, that was from WP:NOR. Looking at WP:V, we see:

"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."

Since the phrase 'burden of proof' has been tossed around willy-nilly a few times, lets put it into the context intended by the actual policy. The burden of proof, such as it were, is to prove that something actually occurred, or that a citation is in fact what it claims to be and represents what is claims to represent. As there is no editor who challenges the existence of the laughter or where it occurs in the film (any more than someone challenges the plot of a film) the burden of proof has been clearly met. Were someone to say, 'golly, that sounds like a string quartet there at the end' or 'are those dogs I hear barking?' there might be an issue. However, it is not. Everyone agrees that the sound is indeed laughter, and the laughter is indeed from children.

Lastly, the contested information has been contested as being trivial. Okay, let's look at that, as well:

"Trivia sections should not be categorically removed. It may be possible to integrate some items into the article text. Some facts may belong in existing sections, while others may warrant a new section. Migrate trivia items to prose, or to focused lists (such as "Cameos" or "References in popular culture"), whichever seems most appropriate. Items that duplicate material already contained elsewhere in the article can be removed in most cases."

Though we aren't dealing with a list of trivia, I think the intent remains the same. Even were the contested statements to be considered trivial, we usually try to incorporate them into the article text. This was already done, as presented in the Closing Credits section already present in the article.

Were that not persuasive enough, the guidelines on handling trivia say almost the same thing about integrating stand-alone trivia

"Stand-alone trivia usually make excellent candidates for integration into the articles they appear in."

and in fact, the recommendations on handing trivia (same article) backs that up rather clearly:

"Trivia that can be integrated into a relevant discussion of a specific aspect of an encyclopedia subject should be integrated into that text if it exists. If no such text exists, but it would be relevant, it should be created."

This would mean that the trivial bits about the music previously added to the Closing credits question should likely be added to the aptly-named section 'Music'.

It is quite likely that the editor taking issue with the inclusion of this information is seeing this as a sourcing or content issue, which might be part of the problem. It is instead a citability issue, which I think has been resolved through a closer look at the actual policies and guidelines. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Bravo. That's a wonderful example of wikilawyering and gaming the system. In reality, the "observable phenomena" of what you describe as "children's laughter" is your interpretation of a sound effect. To me, it sounds like children talking and playing on a playground, and it was apparently not significant for any reviewer or critic to make note of it. Please place your interpretations of trivial sound effects aside, and focus on finding reliable sources for your claims. Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source. All challenged material. There are no exceptions. Viriditas (talk) 09:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess I am exasperated by your behavior, Viriditas. You have asked me to provide policy and guideline reasons why the info should be included, and when I do, you accuse me of wiki-lawyering and gaming the system. I have made all the point I really need to here. Your misinterpreting phrases from those guidelines aside, I feel I am on more solid ground here. You of course are free to disagree. I would suggest that you pursue DR or mediation, as you have yet tointroduce a single shred of policy that refutes mine. In the interest of staying cool, this will likely be my last post on the matter. If you should rebut with an uncivil remark, I will take that as an indication that further administrative action will be necessary, as you will not be wishing to dial down the incivility an personal attacks. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Book by Pete Earley

I tried to mediate an editorial conflict here but get in trouble. I think this boils down to a simple question: if a book qualifies as a reliable secondary source, and therefore a claim from this book should be included per WP:NPOV. The book was based on inteviews with a former KGB oficer Sergei Tretyakov. The book was published as follows:

Pete Earley, "Comrade J: The Untold Secrets of Russia's Master Spy in America After the End of the Cold War", Penguin Books, 2007, ISBN-13 978-0-399-15439-3.

According to the book, the KGB conducted certain special operations to promote the nuclear winter theory. However, all references to this are repeatedly deleted from the article. Actually, this book has been used for reference in many WP articles, but it was challenged as a source only in nuclear winter. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 18:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Published by Penguin, it would seem to be reliable. If another reliable source contradicts it then both should be mentioned. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, but User:William M. Connolley repeatedly deletes any references to this book by Pete Earley in different articles claiming the source to be "unreliable" [68][69][70]. What can I do? He does not even pay attention to a standing ArbCom request about him.Biophys (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You have to start by asking him why he is deleting the material (even if there has already been a lot of discussion, no harm in asking him to briefly re-state his position on this text). Then if you can't get a sensible conversation going, you need to go through the appropriate stages of dispute resolution (RfC, mediation).Itsmejudith (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, we talked, had a sensible conversation going, but did not come to an agreement. If I understand correctly, this source is reliable.Biophys (talk) 02:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That's my first impression. I would be interested to read views to the contrary and other contributors to this noticeboard may have a different view. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

unsigned website with zero sources and severe bias hosted on an odontology website

I need independient uninvolved confirmation that odontcat.com is a non-reliable source. See reasons on title. It's being used on Coat_of_arms_of_Catalonia on both sides of a POV argument. Actual page being used is this one,

The page being used has probably terms that can indicate bias as "Count-Kings of Barcelona" and "so-called Crown of Aragon". The site has grave errors, probably caused by bias trying to give more importance to Catalonia, see "With the marriage (...) in 1137, the Kingdom of Catalonia and Aragon was born"[71], but there was never anything going by the name of "Kingdom of Catalonia and Aragon". Only page with something ressembling a source is one that has some data tables on it. The entry page to it has very few incoming links [72], so it's non-notable and certainly not cited as reference.

Please someone take a peek and give a second opinion confirming or denying the non-reliability --Enric Naval (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This gateway is destined to professional dentists and dental hygenists, students and any person that might be interested in the dentistry world. say what? it's a gateway for dentists that also hosts some material on catalonia? em.. --87.114.40.124 (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

A quick google finds many references to th "Kingdom of Catalonia and Aragon", include on official EU websites[73]. The site itself doesn't pass WP:RS muster, but it seems reasonably well put together, so I'd suggest anything it claims should be able to be verified from other sources and those sources used. For example, this europa.eu article would I think be an acceptable source for the claim of the marriage leading to the creation of that Kingdom. --Insider201283 (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If you use quotes, the number goes down to 106. If you try to look at all the results, there are only 24 in reality, the rest are omited for being very similar. Almost all are travel guides or travel articles like this nytimes article about how cool Barcelona is. There are no documents or articles from historians naming the term, except for the europa.eu article and this document about dance on 15th century, which also uses a non-standard term like "Alfonso III of Catalonia and IV of Aragon", and this document about Landscape and national identity in Catalonia (ouch @ potential bias in using names that increase importance of Catalonia).

(rant: that damned europa-es site includes "aragon" inside the catalan area, and only talks of the Crown history on catalonia article, and not on aragon, valencia or balearics articles. Still not as biased as the other one, since it says "King John I of Aragon and Catalonia", so at least it preserves the original order of the titles. It's also centered on languages, and only mentions history of the Crown tangentially)

Well, I'll try to use the europa.eu web instead where I can, and I'll replace it with cites from Payne, Chaytor and other historical authors that I can get from paper sources as I find them. Thanks for the help. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

So that leaves us with 24 sites... surely at least one of them is reliable. Blueboar (talk) 04:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

To put it in context, "kingdom of Catalonia" has 1180 results [74], and "Kingdom of Aragon" has 168000 [75], with the first page of results including the Britannica[76], a call for papers for a magazine about critical-history study of alchemy[77], a list of abstracts of a University of Valencia website[78] and a book by historian Chaytor[79]. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

After looking at this, I would say that WP:FRINGE applies to this term, so it needs an extraordinary source for inclusion on the article. It's extremely little used in comparison with "kingdom of aragon", and don't mention the relative quality of sources. Ídem for "kingdom of catalonia", I think Sclua can easily agree with me that it's simply inaccurate to the point of incorrect, with catalonia never having been an actual kingdom at any point of history --Enric Naval (talk) 03:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ídem for "Count-Kings of Barcelona" 82 results vs "Kings of Aragon and Counts of Barcelona" 773 results and better quality, and "so-called Crown of Aragon" 5 results, 2 of them being copy/pastes on forums of the odontia page and "Crown of Aragon" 59100 results including 2 history books and the official page of the Archive of the Crown of Aragon.

Add to this that it has near-to-zero WP:V verifiability, and I would say that this website is biased to hell and back, and not reliable at all except for sourcing which are the most biased statements you can find on the web. The europa-eu website is also unsourced, so no WP:V, and, combined with the use of that term, I think it's neither a reliable source at all. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Please, notice that Enric Naval is aragonese and is involved on the talk page. The first united Parlamient of the Aragonese and Catalans was called by the Crown of Aragon and Catalonia, on 13th Century, so the name is not biased and like this, the rest but this is not the talk page ideal where to talk about this. Please, Enric Naval do not try to clear the sources you do not like.--Sclua (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That's "crown", not "kingdom". I remind you of WP:AGF and WP:NPA --Enric Naval (talk) 03:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Jin Jing - between hero and traitor

Hello. There are three sources quoted for Chinese netizen attacks on Jing, two of them being kind of blog-like (China Digital Times in English, the other in Chinese). The third is the reputable German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung, effectively backing up the other two sources. Now some removed the first two sources by saying they were "unreliable", but once this has been done the text quickly was changed to run along the line "according to one German media, there were attacks by Chinese netizens against Jin Jing", making it look like an isolated report. What is your view? Should we keep all three sources or remove the bloggish ones? Part of the problem is that the attacks took place on Chinese internet bulletin boards, so it is only natural that primarily blogs report about it. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Suddeutsche Zeitung is a reliable secondary source and should remain as the main source. The bulletin boards can be seen as primary sources. I suggest removing the one in Chinese and keeping the one in English for convenience and as a backup to the German newspaper. As the English wikipedia we prefer English-language sources where they are available, but Suddeutsche Zeitung is a respected newspaper. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

British Isles sources

Hi. The term "British Isles" is controversial in Ireland. Sources say that the term is objectionable and say things like "objectionable to many people" or "often objectionable". These descriptions appear in serious published histories of the British Isles and by serious historians of the British Isles. An editor on the British Isles page is repeately denying that these sources are acceptable and is reverting phrases in the text that reflect the references. Some of the references are here[80]. Are these sources acceptable, reliable, verifiable? I view them as very much so, since they are scholarly views published bby some of the most serious publishing houses in existence. Another editor on the article is describing them as "academic tracts" and discounting them. If a Cambridge University press published history of the british isles says "many within the Irish Republic find it objectionable", is it justified to use "many" as a characterisation of the number of people who find it objectionable? Wotapalaver (talk) 16:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

yes, for the reasons you give. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Frieda Harris

The above article is a direct, verbaitim copy of this webpage. According to the talk page this is not a copyvio, as permission apparently has been granted to copy it... but it still bothers me that we have an article that simply copies another webpage. I also wonder whether the underlying source is reliable. Blueboar (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

AuthorHouse

Hi. I'm having a bit of a dispute with an editor, and would like some advice about a source, as I'd really like to keep things civil. The source is Saylor, Jane. "The Road You've Traveled", AuthorHouse, 2006. I think both of us have agreed that it is not a reliable secondary source, as it is self-published. The dispute revolves around whether or not it is a primary source in regard to whether or not AuthorHouse should be described as a vanity press. The other editor argues that the book is published by AuthorHouse, and is therefore a primary source on this issue. My argument is that it would be a primary source in regard to "claims made by Jane Saylor", but not as it is being used. Currently the sentence reads "AuthorHouse, formerly known as 1stBooks, is a vanity press that provides print on demand services". Any help to clarify this either way would be much appreciated. - Bilby (talk) 23:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

AuthorHouse has published a book, "The Road You've Traveled," which states on page 63 that AuthorHouse is a vanity press. Since this information is coming from the publisher itself, this qualifies as a primary source for the fact that AuthorHouse is a vanity press. Qworty (talk) 05:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I did acknowledge that above, I thought, but perhaps not clearly enough. I guess I have two concerns. The first is that just because it was published through AuthorHouse does not mean that it is a primary source for AuthorHouse. AuthorHouse do not hold themselves responsible for the content of works published through them, and do not edit the books - a point that has been main elsewhere in regard to this type of publisher, very often by you. Second, even if it is a primary source, it is still not a reliable source, and cannot be used to support the line as it stands. I can reasonably see "Jane Saylor has described AuthorHouse as a vanity press", or maybe even "An author published through AuthorHouse has described them as a vanity press". If it was accepted as a primary source I could even see "AuthorHouse have described themselves as a vanity press" (but for that we would have to consider the times when AuthorHouse stated that they are not a vanity press), but not "AuthorHouse is a vanity press". Either way, I'd like to hear other opinions on the matter. - Bilby (talk) 08:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

A book published by AuthorHouse is not generally a reliable source. But it is an acceptable source for statements about the publisher itself, in the same way that the website of a political advocacy group is an acceptable source for statements about the stance of the group. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yet a website by a political advocacy group is written by the political advocacy group, and therefore can be said to be represent their views. A book that a publisher prints is not written by them and does not necessarily represent their views, especially when that publisher does not have editorial control. Perhaps a better comparison would be with a forum, where the comments made by users do not represent the views of the owners, even if though the owners are providing them with the means to speak? - Bilby (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Feminism reliability

Hi, the user User:Cailil has made the following change to remove critisicm of the quality of this particular source which I believe to be fundamentally flawed. He insists on describing the research as being the opinion of the United Nations (I am unaware if an organisation like this can have an opinion), when it was the result of a study for the UN.

I think it is either important to maintain this criticism or remove the reference.

Also at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism#civil_rights the reference #104 is not verifiable, it is simply a statement that someone stood up and said something at a conference, I don't see how this can be considered a reliable source.

I'm sure there are many more unreliable sources here and I can attempt to identifiy these if it seems worthwhile.

There are many other issues also:

Here the same user has used an edit description that is misleading, the edit is completely different. The article has does not appear to be representative of worldwide views on the subject either and is heavily influenced by this single editor.

Other articles edited by User:Cailil also do not seem to exhibit a NPOV, e.g. Sexual Objectification where the page seems to be written entirely from a feminist perspective, including content under the sub-heading for the objectification of men.

Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.60.134 (talk • contribs) 01:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I notice that the UN study link leads to a 404 Document Not Found page, so I can't check what it really says. (However, it's clear to me that a study called "United Nations Human Development Report 2004" should never be referred to as "A study for the United Nations". That's just trying to downplay the study for no reason.).

You mean Sexual objectification. As a very short superficial review, Cailil's edits seem correct: removal of unsourced text under the men section [81], preceded by the addition of sourced text a reference under the women section[82] and a reword that reduces the number of words on an unsourced paragraph on the women section[83]. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

 Remark: See comments about this IP being an edit warrior, and relevant checkuser case --Enric Naval (talk) 13:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

In case anyone is still interested in this, I'd like to point out that the Human Development Report is eminently reliable and can be quoted without attribution. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing this Relata refero and Enric Naval. I'm always happy to have people review my edits. I have no idea what the IP has against me (other than the fact that I reverted their vandalism) or what their problem with the UN is. But that aside the user is a block evading sock IP of User:80.192.60.20 and has been making a number of personal attacks about me over the last 24 hours. They've been reported to the original blocking sysop and other than this post I'm following WP:RBI--Cailil ^talk 14:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Below I have listed several problems with Section 28 of the report in question.

• There is no information in that report regarding what constitutes work and this is one of the units used in the calculation for the ratio of work between genders in section 28.

• The report clearly states that the information it presents in section 28 is an estimate (this would preclude it from being considered fact).

• The report indicates in section 28b that "Classifications of market and non-market activities are not strictly based on the 1993 revised UN System of National Accounts" with no comment as to why this is not adhered to or what classifications are used.

• The report indicates in section 28e that it does not perform a weighted average. This indicates that the figures are unrepresentative of the population that has been selected as a whole.

• The report indicates in section 28b that it is considering selected developing countries yet the criteria for selection is not given.

• The report includes non OECD countries under a heading of OECD countries (Israel, Latvia) in Section 28.

• The report indicates Section 28b uses data based on time use surveys that was available at the time. It does not provide references for where this information has come from.

• Section 28 presents a list of the "Burden of Work" which is undefined. This is also listed by country yet there is significant difference in the dates at which this information was obtained for each category (differences of more than 2 decades can be seen).

This is just from reading section 28 as referenced. I haven't looked at the rest of the report but I would find it remarkable that this report could be considered reliable information. 80.192.60.134 (talk) 16:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Disclaimer on page 6:

The analysis and policy recommendations of this Report do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations Development Programme, its Executive Board or its Member States. The Report is an independent publication commissioned by UNDP. It is the fruit of a collaborative effort by a team of eminent consultants and advisers and the Human Development Report team. Sakiko Fukuda-Parr, Director of the Human Development Report Office, led the effort.

I think that the paper needs to be attributed like "The Human Development Report Office commissioned "The United Nations Human Development Report 2004", which estimated (...)" or similar wording. The title of the report should be preserved, since the UN allowed the report to bear its title, and the disclaimer only says "not necessarily". As for reliability, it's probably very reliable. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The Human Development Report is, quite simply, the state of the art in development economics, and is reviewed by hundreds of academics, independent scholars and area-specific expert consultants before being released. If it has chosen to use a different form of accounting, we can rest assured that it has done so because that form of accounting is more appropriate. The data collated and analysed by the HDR are used without question by thousands of scholars, and feature in doctoral dissertations and peer-reviewed papers without comment. Simply put, and concerns about the reliability of the report are delusional. If anything deserves to be stated without attribution, its the HDR. Wikipedia is unlikely to ever reach the HDR's level of reliability. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Here[84] you will find Kevin Watkins, Director at the Human Development Report Office of the United Nations Development Programme giving an overview of the contents of Volume 7, Number 2 (July 2006) of the Journal of Human Development: Alternative Economics in Action.

This journal has coverage of the Gender-related Development Index (GDI) and Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM) used throughout the aforementioned 2004 report.

Of particular relevance is that in this summary he states "The papers and findings from the on-line forum were discussed at an expert meeting in New York in January 2006, which led to specific recommendations on revising the measures." Note that that the referenced report in the feminism article is from 2004, before the experts recommended the measures be revised. (Also note that the previous editor has just implied that these experts are are delusional). A particularly appropriate paper in this issue is "The Uses and Misuses of the Gender-related Development Index and the Gender Empowerment Measure: A review of the literature", described by Kevin Watkins as follows:

"The paper by Dana Schüler examines the uses and misuses of the GDI and GEM by researchers and policy-makers in the past ten years, and discusses some interesting proposal to reform the GDI and GEM and ways to better interpret these measures. In particular, she highlights that very frequently the GDI is erroneously interpreted as a measure of gender inequality. This reflects a poor understanding of the (rather complex) measure as well as the great demand for an internationally comparable measure of gender inequality. "

Contrast this with the following text describing the use of this index in the 2004 report:

"The gender-related development index (GDI), introduced in Human Development Report 1995, measures achievements in the same dimensions using the same indicators as the HDI but captures inequalities in achievement between women and men."

The abstract for the Dana Schuler paper can be found here[85] along with abstracts for the other related papers in this edition that focus on these metrics.

It is clear from the above quotes that the experts have decided that the metrics is not fit for the purpose of measuring gender inequality. The metric is pervasive throughout the 2004 report. I have also raised the 8 bullet points above related specifically to section 28. I think it is clear that the reliability of the source is called into question, when the metrics being used are being discussed in academia as insufficient and panels of experts are moving to replace them. 80.192.60.134 (talk) 23:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, 80.192.60.134, the article is using the report as a source for "Gender, work burden and time allocation" and not for GDI, so your entire comment is moot. I'll have to agree with Relata that the report does not need attributtion on its current usage. If the report is ever used to report GDI, *then* the article should caution about the meassures possibly being outdated. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Question on sources regarding personal letters and buinsiness letters from public individuals

I have been working on two types of articles: politics and literature. I want to research personal corespondence between some authors and their pubishers to gain insight on how they viewed each other in relationship to their success. For instance, how much impact did the publisher have on the success of a particular invidual and how much impact did the success of an author have on their pubishers success. I think this information is particularly noteworthy in regards to the the success of their careers. I woulld like to research personal letters that are in archieves at libraries. How would I cite these sources and are these sources appropriate for wikipedia?

In regards to politics, I have worked on several articles for US presidential candidates. I wanted to add endorcesments from foreign leaders to the endorsement artilces of candidites where I nknow the foreign leadres supports the US candidate for president. Is it appropirate to add letters of endorsements which have from the offices of these leaders? it would be a primary souce document. It is me i think (talk) 17:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

As to the letters between authors and publishers... It sounds like an excellent project, but unfortunately it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. What you wish to do would be termed "Original Research" on Wikipedia, and that is not allowed (see WP:NOR).

As to the political endoresements... first, such letters would have to be published in some form for them to be used at all. If they are published, they would indeed be primary sources (and, thus, only usable with great caution and lots of limitations). It would be much better to use a secondary source (something like a newspaper), that reported on the fact that the foreign leader endorsed the candidate. Blueboar (talk) 19:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Classical CD liner notes

Hi

I'm interested in expanding the article on the conductor Jascha Horenstein as my first foray into a non-trivial addition to Wikipedia. Would liner notes from CDs in the BBC Legends series be considered reliable sources ? They are often written by people who knew the subjects of the CDs, for example Joel Lazar, who was Horenstein's assistant in the last years of his life. On a related note, I'd like to add examples of different schools of critical thought regarding his Mahler recordings. Would quotes from a website such as http://www.musicweb-international.com/Mahler/index.html be appropriate ?

Thanks

MuppetLabTech (talk) 01:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why not. I see some of the other notes are written by people such as Jeremy Siepmann and Graham Melville-Mason. I'd say they are impeccable as sources. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ramey

There is currently an edit war occuring over the inclusion of this source over at veterinary chiropractic. There is currently no consensus on the page for inclusion, but I would like some outside opinion on whether this is a reliable source. I have so far not commented on the talk page about the reliability of this source and have tried to stay outside this debate. Any arguments below are quoted (but not attributed) off the respective talk page. DigitalC (talk) 00:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Source: ""Veterinary Chiropractic"". www.chirobase.org.
• Arguments for inclusion:

"...best available reference for the specific topic of risk of injury..."

"...David Ramey is a notable equine specialist in Hollywood, who has written a number of books..."

"He is a notable expert on the topic. Per WP:SPS, we can include the text and ref"

• Arguments against inclusion:

Chirobase.org is not a reliable source, nor does it meet WP:MEDRS.

"A statement from an unscientific, non-peer-reviewed, opinion piece is inappropriate for this section (regardless if the source is pro or con chiropractic)."

"It's old, unscientific, an opinion, not peer-reviewed, and unsourced to any piece of scientific literature."

"I know of no caveat to WP:RS which states that when a reliable source can't be found then you can dredge up and use whatever unreliable source is available."

":"...it is not an WP:SPS as it is not published by Ramey, but rather by the partisan website. Second, even if it were a WP:SPS it would fail some of the qualifications, especially #2 "so long as... it is not contentious;""

• Comments from outside observers on whether this is reliable or not?

Here is the current text in the article. David W. Ramey, a doctor of veterinary medicine, argues that there is a risk of injury to a horse if overly aggressive maneuvers occur. Manipulating the spine of a dog with a degenerative disk carries the risk of severe and permanent harm to the spinal cord. * David W. Ramey. "Veterinary Chiropractic". Retrieved 2008-04-15. Please note. David W. Ramey is a notable equine specialist, who has written a number books. And EVJ mentions him a few times. Per WP:SPS, a notable expert on the topic meets Wikipedia's standard. The article is written by Ramey. Could attribution help? WP:ATT has been included in the text using the author's name. The source also qualifies under WP:PARITY because the topic is considered WP:FRINGE. For example, even the American Chiropractic Association, the largest professional association of chiropractors, states the term veterinary chiropractic is a misnomer. Further, Ramey is the best source available specifically for safety information. QuackGuru 01:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The American Veterinary Medical Association apparently does not see it as fringe. CorticoSpinal (talk) 05:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, Ramey certainly has published other books [86] and his credentials look excellent. To me he qualifies as an expert in the field, so that the self-published nature of the work might well be considered a reliable source. On the other hand, it is published on a highly partisan website. However, why doesn't somebody wade through Ramey's book "Complementary and Alternative Veterinary Medicine Considered" [87], published by Blackwells, a highly reliable source, and source whatever is required from there. Slp1 (talk) 01:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

PS it is also available as a search inside at Amazon.[88] So is another book of his, Consumer's Guide to Alternative Therapies in the Horse [89]--Slp1 (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

His "expert" "opinion" is dated and is supplanted by new (2008) verifiable, peer-reviewed high quality research published in a high impact veterinary journal. The case isn't whether or not Ramey is notable; it's that that he's 1) been annoited an expert without ever publishing one paper in the literature 2) annoited an expert specifically on the topic of spinal manipulation and veterinary care 3) is a dated source which has been updated by recent, robust research and 4) his "opinion" is being used to contradict what the peer-reviewed source says. Now that some facts have been laid out, let us continue this discussion with the proper context. Next? CorticoSpinal (talk) 04:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It sounds as if Ramey's book published by Blackwells is a reliable source and so also is the 2008 paper. The article can present both. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

CorticoSpinal seems confident that Ramey should not be considered expert in the field. However, I disagree. He has written two recent books (1999, 2004) on the subject of alternative/complimentary vet medicine published by reputable publishers, has written at least two articles in peer reviewed journals on the same subject [90] as well many other books, including a 2007 book on evidence based practice in the field. He has also been on the AVMA committee responsible for the guidelines of use of alternative/complimentary vet medicine. It is clear to me that he meets the bar as an expert in the field whose opinion is notable. As I said before, it would be better to use his peer-reviewed books/journal article as sources, however. If you think his opinion has been supplanted/updated by recent research than you should argue that on the talkpage, though my personal take would be that the very small studies reported currently in the article, both of which clearly suggest that further research is needed, are not a slamdunk showing that Ramey is out of date.--Slp1 (talk) 12:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

My main contention was that his sourced material was being used to dispute and supplant the 2008 peer-reviewed research. Also, the source being used from Ramey was specifically a 1990 piece from chirobase as opposed to one of his books. These were also noted in the talk page. The research section clearly said that "further research is needed" (it is the research cliche, after all!) but the section on "safety" proposed by QG using a 1990 chirobase article from Ramey which was used to contradict a 2008 research paper is a non-starter. CorticoSpinal (talk) 17:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Once again, I don't share your certainty about it being a 'non-starter'. The sentence in question talks in part about dogs, and the two studies that are supposed to "contradict" it both concern horses. The studies are in fact extremely weak methodologically (e.g. no control group in one case, and the horses didn't actually have back problems in the other.) In neither case was the issue of safety addressed as far as I can tell, which is Ramey's concern, and the studies couldn't possibly have any meaningful data on the subject in any case given the very sample sizes. But this part of the issue isn't a question in fact a discussion for this page. My view of the subject in question is that the website document is likely a reliable source given its authorship. However, since Ramey repeats his concern about the possibillity of injury on p. 95-96 of "Consumer's Guide to Alternative Therapies in the Horse " at least that part can be sourced to a very clearly reliable document.Slp1 (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ramey is not be used to contradict a 2008 research paper. This is the only source of informatiom about "safety" in the article. We should continue to use the Ramey source. If another source becomes available we can consider replacing the Ramey source. There are books written by Ramey. We can't use any of the Ramey books unless someone actually reads it. There is a lack of research on Veterinary chiropractic and we are using one of few available sources. QuackGuru 18:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh but you can read them, QuackGuru. Click the links I gave above to electronic copies of the books on Google books and Amazon, sign up to Amazon, and get reading! Both books will be very useful for the article.--Slp1 (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

So that I am clear on your position Slp1, do you agree that the currently used source is not reliable, due to its age and the fact that it is published on a partisan website? DigitalC (talk) 23:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually no, quite the opposite. Ramey has been published widely by peer-reviewed sources. The article in question therefore appears to qualify under per WP:SPS. I don't see anything more other, more reliable sources, regarding safety issues that would indicate the article is out of date. Having said that I believe that there are better, more clearly reliable sources by Ramey that can be used to source the issue of safety in the article, and these should be used where possible.--Slp1 (talk) 23:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

How can it qualify under WP:SPS when the source in question isn't self published? DigitalC (talk) 03:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Self-published does not mean it has be be published on Ramey's website. See WP:SPS for the lists of content it includes (self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources.) In this case, self-published means Ramey wrote something and somebody hosted it for him. But once again, I have pointed out that there are several, clearly reliable sources for the safety issue which still have not been included in the article. It seems more and more to me that people are arguing about this particularly source because they want to keep what they see as 'negative' content out of the article, rather than being committed to a well-rounded article that presents all the notable, reliably sourced content in a NPOV way as they should.--Slp1 (talk) 23:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] This interpretation is a violation of WP:AGF and I would ask the S1p1 retract it. If S1p1 would care to join the talk page perhaps s/he would become more aware of the salient points of the debate as opposed to making unfounded speculations. CorticoSpinal (talk) 23:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's just reword it then. No matter how you cut it, well-sourced 'negative' content is being kept out of the article, rather than being included to make a well-rounded article that presents all the notable, reliably sourced content in a NPOV way as is required by Wikipedia policies. Lack of mention of critical issues or controversies is a big red flag that something's wrong. -- Fyslee / talk 04:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I've looked at the talkpage page: that's in part where my questions about what is going on here comes from. But I would be thrilled if the pro-chiropractic editors would prove me wrong by writing for the enemy using reliable sources.--Slp1 (talk) 23:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

In this case, we have no way of knowing that he wrote this, let alone WHO published it. I have tried looking through the links you posted above Slp1, but have NOT found relevant sections of his book. DigitalC (talk) 02:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

We know who published it: the chirobase.org website, managed by Stephen Barrett, MD, and Samuel Homola, DC. They have legal and technical advisors listed at their home page, and host many signed, dated articles and reports. Do you have any reason to doubt that Ramey authored the article as claimed? It seems totally in keeping with his other writings to me. Try this [91] for the book link to some comments on safety in horses.--Slp1 (talk) 02:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that link doesn't work for me. I get " You have requested a page that is not available for viewing. In order to view this page, you must be signed-in to an Amazon.ca account that has made a purchase in the past.". I have never purchased through amazon.com. I have reason to doubt ANYTHING/EVERYTHING that comes from S. Barrett, MD and Samuel Homola, DC. DigitalC (talk) 05:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

What is your reason to doubt anything/everything that comes from S. Barrett, MD and Samuel Homola, DC? QuackGuru 01:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Because I have read factually inaccurate statements presented as truth on their websites in the past. However, that is not the point of this thread. DigitalC (talk) 10:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] Agreed with Fyslee that articles can't all be about pizza and fairy tales (to quote John Lennon). That being said, we need to have decent sources to suggest it and if there's something BETTER than Ramey in terms of scholarlyness, than we should find it. Also, it's unfortunate that many people seem to have been "educated" on chiropractic care from Barrett and Homola. That actually explains a lot of the shenanigans around here. CorticoSpinal (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Radical Gun Nuttery! website

I am interested in hearing second opinions on the ongoing discussion[92] where I am concerned that the chart 'image:rtc.gif' is based on data drawn from the website Radical Gun Nuttery! not being a reliable source. My instinct is that this private website, with unclear fact checking, is not a reliable source. There is also the argument that the WP:OI policy controls because this is a "diagram". I am thinking that it is a diagram, but it portrays ideas/data, that come from this private website. SaltyBoatr (talk) 02:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Unreliably sourced material is still unreliably sourced. There's a difference between snapping a photo of a celebrity or landmark (two prominent examples of user-generated free images) and making an animated diagram based on a unreliable source. For images regarding statistics and the like, they should cite reliable sources like anything else. I will raise this issue at WT:NOR, as the clear statement that images do not generally advance unpublished ideas arose out of nonsense like this. Vassyana (talk) 02:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

History of changes to Right To Carry laws

Here is the graphic in question. It does not advance any unpublished idea. The year in which a state enacted a concealed carry law is an uncontroversial fact and can (tediously) be sourced (about 40 citations needed). The idea that many states have enacted such laws in recent years is also public record and is already sourced in the article. A timeline is not an unpublished idea that needs a source in and of itself. There are plenty of user-constructed timelines in Wikipedia. By way of comparison, please see the article Timeline of the 2004 Atlantic hurricane season, one of numerous timeline articles. It even uses the wiki tag timeline. I could, as a Wikipedia editor, reconstruct this diagram by hand, with a cite for each state, and donate it to the Commons and it would have the same end result (other than the waste of time that could be spent upon more meaningful contributions). Such diagrams are protected and in fact encouraged by WP:OI and if this diagram is not allowable, then the hundreds or thousands of such user-constructed diagrams should also be deleted from Wikipedia. I do not understand how SaltyBoatr's opposition to this diagram improves the article in any manner. Nobody contends that the diagram is inaccurate, which is not surprising in that it consists of a collection of uncontroversial dates. kevinp2 (talk) 05:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

There are tons of unquestionably reliable sources covering the gun control debate and associated laws, many of which discuss issue-laws and the timeline of their development. WP:OI is not intended as a free pass on using unreliable sources and to assert otherwise is simply absurd. It is even more ridiculous to assert that unreliable and self-published sources are acceptable in the face of abundant, easy availability of highly reputable sources. Such an assertion simply flies in the face of the core content principles of Wikipedia and common sense. Is it easier to find information on self-published and unreliable websites through Google than to actually use library resources? Sure it is, but the concept of using reliable sources is a principle of Wikipedia, while the concept of using the most convenient sources is most certainly not. Vassyana (talk) 05:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

So what solution do you propose? If the Rtc.gif page contains citations for all of the 40 states, is that sufficient? I am willing to do this provided that nobody moves the goalpost at the last minute. kevinp2 (talk) 05:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

That should probaby be enough, IMHO. You can make a list of citations and data on the "source" field. Make sure they are reliable sources like links to government sites. Wait for more users to confirm this, please. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt it should require 40 separate citations. Give me a day or two and I will check for sources to see if we can simplify matters a bit. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 08:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The original sources were two, Clayton E. Cramer & David B. Kopel's 1994 paper, Laws"Shall Issue": The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit, and the NRA-ILA Right To Carry Fact Sheet. Since I've been in contact with a number of people regarding the status of states that the NRA had simply gotten wrong. (A number of the states that the NRA has listed as having been no-issue prior to their adoption of their shall-issue law had, in fact, been may-issue. Since 2003, the NRA has been listing Alabama, Connecticut, and Iowa as "discretionary-reasonable." With respect to Alabama and Connecticut, that's simply a definitional difference, both have laws that could be read as discretionary, but they are enforced as if they were non-discretionary. With respect to Iowa, the NRA is simply wrong. Sheriffs in Iowa have discretion. Some issue permits reasonably, some do not. That makes Iowa no different than California.)

So, I started with those two data sources, and corrected the data based on information provided me by people with direct knowledge of the legal status of those states. And, of course, I updated the data from the news reports of the states that have passed shall-issue laws since I first created the image, in 2001.

It wasn't my idea to put my image on that page, but I was asked, and I approved it. Since then it seems I've had to periodically jump through hoops to get it to stay there, with admins pulling it because it didn't have permission from the copyright holder (which is absurd, as I had tagged the original upload with the "I, the creator, release" language. Now it's being challenged because it's not properly sourced. You won't recognize me as an expert in this area, despite my eight years of active involvement? Will you recognize Dave Kopel and Clayton Cramer? The NRA-ILA research staff?

--jdege (talk) 01:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that could part of the problem. You see, you should use only published information, and refer to where the information was published when you use it to update the information. This is what allows other editors to WP:V verify the information. This means that you should discard the non-published information that you got personally from people, since it's not verifiable by wikipedia standards, and then list the news reports with enough information to verify them (like newspaper name, date of publication, etc) and explain very briefly what changes you made based on that source. That's probably why people was complaining of the image not being properly sourced. You just need to use the sources on a different way. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You're confusing two issues. The RTC graphic and web page are published information. It's not a wikipedia entry, and it's not subject to wikipedia rules. It was included in a wikipedia entry, which is an entirely different thing. The question is not whether the image was properly sourced, but whether the image is a proper source.

And, for that matter, if you'd read the page you'd have understood that the "personal communications" I'd had were with people who could provide me with sourced information. Clayton Cramer has a fair reputation as a historian in the field of gun rights, and his information was backed up with citations to legal opinions referring to the existing permit laws in the states in question. None of the information I used in generating the image was uncited.

--jdege (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

http://bourabai.kz/landscheidt/

Having edit warred about this for too long, I'm belatedly asking for an opinion on whether this counts as a WP:RS for Theodor Landscheidt. I assert that http://bourabai.narod.ru/ is clearly one bods personal webpage, dressed up as his personal institution. User:I Write Stuff contends that because the FAO has used text by the sites owner [93] (on the entirely unrelated subject of forest fires in Kazakhstan), therefore the site itself is reliable, apparently on any subject it covers, and in particular on the subject of Landscheidt. Your views are sought William M. Connolley (talk) 22:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure why I have to repeatedly correct you, however it is the institutes page, Bourabai Research Institute. They are located in Kazakhstan, perhaps which accounts for the bad design, however as pointed out above, the United Nations used a report issued by the research institute. I have asked William to state why its not reliable, it seems he has had a personal issue with Lanscheidt since they are in the same field, and recently filed a failing AfD on the subject. The institute further states they had specific permission from the family of Lanscheidt to publish the information. The subject of their research is a red herring as they have information about scientists in various fields which they feel made significant contributions. I have asked William to show something that would prove the information is false, fabricated, or something other then personal opinion which seems to be gauged in their web design ability, he has either refused, or is unwilling. --I Write Stuff (talk) 23:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to add, the non subdomain page is: [94]. The Narod.Ru page should not be the one pointed to. William has also stated "is likely a reliable source for forest fires; thats what the FAO used him for. But not for L" L being Landscheidt, so apparently we can trust them about stuff, just not about stuff William does not want to see on Wikipedia. The site, which William admits is reliable in some form, states they received the information from Landscheidt's family as well. The information is not particularly gratifying either, just a mention of an award from an institute he is a member of. --I Write Stuff (talk) 23:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[this originally posted to the RS talk page; I've moved it here William M. Connolley (talk) 07:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)]

Basically a "Private research institute", which in Central Asia-speak means that it isn't recognised by the government or the local academy of sciences. In this case, the hobby horse of Karim Khaidarov, so exactly as reliable as he is reliable. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Whatever it is, on the very home page they push Aether theory, they disprove the Theory of Relativity (and show that the vacuum speed of light is not constant), they claim that much of Southeast Asia was created during a 2.5 hour cometary bombardment (and, interestingly, apparently little to no continental drift has happened since then - the maps show India snuggly against Asia all the time), they show that Quasars are near and red-shift is an illusion, and so on. Sorry, that is an international collection of kookery. If they conned the FAO into citing a report, good for them and bad for the FAO. They are not a reliable source on anything. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately your personal opinion on their work does not decide if its RS or not. Its also not appropriate to state they conned the FAO into anything, as you obviously have no proof, however if you do have proof of some perpetuated fraud, please post it here. --I Write Stuff (talk) 12:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

By posting here, you ask for my personal opinion. And I'll take a bet that almost anybody with even a marginal scientific education who spends five minutes looking at their home page agrees. This is a collection of not even convincingly masked pseudo-science. It's the kook side of talk.origins ca. 1992, with images added. Ted Holden would be proud of it... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping more for policy based arguments, not "I don't like what they study", but it has been resolved none-the-less. --I Write Stuff (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It is clearly not a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 13:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Found better source, thanks for all who participated. --I Write Stuff (talk) 14:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Gush Shalom

Is this brief mention in the San Francisco Chronicle sufficient to attach the epithet "left-wing" to the Israel peace organisation Gush Shalom? Itsmejudith (talk) 13:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You can find a few books sources identifying Gush Shalom as 'left-wing'. But the question is, why does one have to label invariably a movement that is not clearly politically alligned as 'left wing', particularly when 'left' and 'right' wing parties in Israel tend, much as in the US, to share policies that peace activists oppose? It is rather anglocentric to do this. Live on another continent, and you find this far more complex. The Catholic Church in Italy, in political terms, tends to support the right wing in politics. In matters of international politics and issues of war, many of its activists and even political representatives, can be found on what might be called the 'left'. In the dumbdown word this kind of language passes muster. It's hardly good descriptive language for a gloabl encyclopedia Nishidani (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The Chronicle is quite reliable. Of course, I fail to see how "left-wing" is in any way necessary in an article about it, which would presumably discuss its views in more detail rather than as a brief caricature; and if a modifier for the times they are mentioned in other articles is required, surely "Israeli peace activists" or "vile traitor peaceniks" or whatever is more appropriate, as that is their defining characteristic? --Relata refero (disp.) 14:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with both former comments. I would point out that :

1. In Israel, left and right doesn't mean anything.

2. on wikipedia, we should avoid writing : this group, who is ..., claims that.

Whatever are the 3 dots, it is completely pov and tends to say something that is not needed.

Personally, when I feel it is important for the reader to understand who claims something, I just put this between brakets : [[ ... ]] assuming the reader is "adult" enough to click to go and read if he likes.

(this being said, I would say Gush Shalom is far-left :-)

Ceedjee (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

When I see these type of questions, it always raises a red flag for me. Use the best sources available, look for consensus of sources (or lack thereof), avoid WP:UNDUE, and always use good editorial judgment and look for consensus of involved editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Wise advice. I think we're all being careful here. There is a great deal of room for improvement in this and related articles. Israeli peace camp is dire by any account, and has been tagged for a long time. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I see they are cited in the lead as describing themselves as a 'national camp', presumably a calque on a Hebrew term. But 'camp' in the sense being used here in the title, in English, meant primarily 'a body of adherents of a militant doctrine, or theory'. It was common during the cold war, predominantly to describe the left. Perhaps editors should reflect on its appropriateness (to my ear it jars in slightly POVing things) to describe a 'peace movement'. Good luck Nishidani (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Physical attractiveness

Physical attractiveness (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch There is a dispute between me and Loodog (talk · contribs). The question at the center of this is whether or not random, editor-selected images need sources when they are meant to serve as illustrations of the article topic. Dorftrottel (ask) 16:23, April 28, 2008

The general principle is no, you do not need a source to justify the inclusion of a picture. Of course you need to ensure that you do not create a WP:copyvio and you should also be careful not to introduce bias in your captions. You should use the talk page to try and reach consensus about the criteria on which pictures should be selected. I would say that the article could do with a greater variety of pictures. A Rubens painting would be nice because his work is often cited as an example of changing standards of beauty throughout time. Also, you should really have at least one dark-skinned person. And what about someone who is ageing beautifully - with or without surgery? Itsmejudith (talk)

The problem is that in this particular article, images are automatically statements on what beauty is. Including an image of e.g. Michele Merkin in this article, is for all practial purposes identical to including a statement like "Michele Merkin is beautful". Dorftrottel (complain) 17:15, April 28, 2008

In this case, I would fully expect the relevance of an image to be cited to reliable sources. Michele Merkin may indeed be physically attractive, but an illustration here should be encyclopaedic as well as - er- pretty. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You'd be on safe ground with Marilyn Monroe.Itsmejudith (talk) 19:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks all so far. I think I'm requesting an RfC at the article talk page. Dorftrottel (talk) 20:00, April 28, 2008

Energy & Environment

I am being told this entire Journal is never to be used as a WP:RS source for information. They published some background information on a scientist and it was removed stating they are not permitted to be used, is this the case? For more information you can see publishers page: [95] your feedback is appreciated.

Wikipage on the journal: Energy and Environment, editor Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen. The staff also seems to be highly documented in Google scholar:

• Editorial board: B W Ang [96], Maarten Arentsen [97], Max Beran [98]
• Book review editor: Debra Johnson [99]
• Editor: Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen [100]

Comments appreciated. --I Write Stuff (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

E&E is not carried by any science citation index I know off. It is barely "published", being available in extremely few academic libraries. The journal has been heavily criticized, even by some of the authors it published, for sloppy review standards. The editor in chief has publicly stated that she publishes paper based on political preference. This is not a reliable source for anything controversial. It is usable as a primary source about the views of published authors. On a different angle, in my experience even high-class journals don't usually fact-check the author blurb unless it is extremely implausible. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Choosing what to publish based on political leaning is the nature of publishing. If we are to take you correctly, you are stating that we can never find a WP:RS source for the information, since everyone could have possibly received the information from Theodor directly, of which you haven't shown to be true in the first place, and everyone who would publish the information could have simply decided not to check it. Doesn't that put the information into a convenient black hole? --I Write Stuff (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

At first sight, it looks like an academic journal, but a minor one. And the editor is a geographer; the editorial board are mainly social scientists; the articles concentrate on economics. Furthermore, if there are indeed criticisms of the journal by academics then this should be taken into account. Looks like it is not a good source for scientific fact. Particular articles may be good for summarising viewpoints in energy economics. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It is being used as a source for information about one of the people who contributed. An award he won is noted in the journal, would the journal not be a reliable source for basic information regarding the people they publish? Further its not an extravagant claim as the award is from an institute that the person is a member of. --I Write Stuff (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

First, in scientific publishing the decision what to publish is usually based on blind peer review. Of course an editor has some influence, but the process is reasonably transparent, and doubtful cases cause quite an uproar, as e.g. the Sternberg peer review controversy and the Climate Research controversy.

Sourcing the award to this paper is a different question than accepting E&E as a reliable source in general. I'd put this author blurb at about the level of a self-published CV as far as reliability is concerned. This means it's ok for uncontroversial claims only.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as Theodor is a member of the society, long term member prior to his death, and they have published his work, would you consider an award by them to fall under controversial, or uncontroversial? --I Write Stuff (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If someone has won an award, one would expect a better source than an author blurb in a journal. The normal source would be the award-making body. The question of how reliable the journal is may not actually be relevant here. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

See discussion below:Schulte's 2008 extension of Oreskes' 2004 study of Global Climate Change articles for further discussion on Energy and Environment

• Journal: Engineering and Environment is published 8 times a year. ISSN 0958-305X. It has been running for 19 years. Energy & Environment’s editorial board includes 11 professors and 5 PhDs. Energy & Environment has a Google rank of 5/10. It has an Alexa ranking of 1,373,807 with 125 in links.DLH (talk) 02:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

::I commented at the Schulte discussion to the effect that, that besides not being covered by Web of Science, it's subscribed to by only 23 US/Canada/UK libraries, according to worldcat--7 being national libraries that take everything--for a popular field like that, this is negligible.  Certainly not usable for statements of scientific consensus. An author blurb in general is  less reliable than a CV, because it's more condensed, often by the journals publicity people.  If the award is significant, there should be a better source.  DGG (talk) 13:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Verification

I'm wondering if this would count as a reliable source.

http://www.thelostworlds.net/index.html

The site contains a great deal of originally published content, but also contains an archive of deleted materials from a video game series, which is what is being sourced. In some cases they also provide the cut content itself, such as screenshots and audio clips, etc. I've looked around and this site seems to be the only one devoted to archiving such materials and thus is the only reliable so source for this material. So, can I use it as a source? The Clawed One (talk) 23:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

So,um...can anyone help? The Clawed One (talk) 04:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

dredg references

I am currently attempting to improve the dredg article. As the band is sub-mainstream and only recently gaining media acclaim, I am having trouble finding sources that Wikipedia might consider "reliable". The following are sources that I have used that I would like comment on:

• traversing.net - This is a fan website that, within the dredg fanbase, is regarded as a trustworthy source. I host and administrate the associated message board, so there may be some conflict there, but I have provided none of the information on the page. At least one member of the band visits and posts on the message board.
• Numerous interviews from websites such as absolutepunk.net and thepunksite.com, where the band provides much of their background.

Any input one can provide on where to search for better sources or how to resolve any current problems would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. --Ars Sycro (talk) 01:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Five word source

Can this source be reliable for squeeeezing out info?

All it gives is five words: "Religious Apartheid in Saudi Arabia" (which isn't even a full sentence), no explanation, no rationale, not even references to published works. While Freedom House is generally a good source, are we obliged to quote it in such cases?

I think the very fact that users have to resort to five word sources shows that this view is not covered by better sources, and thus should not be in wikipedia.Bless sins (talk) 03:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

What is it supposed to be a reliable source FOR? It seems to be the title of an image that was hosted at Freedom House. If the claim was that "There was an image labeled 'Religious Apartheid in Saudi Arabia'", perhaps. Otherwise, I wouldn't think it would meet WP:RS. DigitalC (talk) 04:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It is to be used to say that there is "religious apartheid in Mecca". I too would agree that this source can be used to describe the webpages of Freedom House (though how notable it is to the organizations reputation I don't know) . But the question is, can this source be used at Mecca to accuse the city of practicing "religious apartheid", when there are no explanations, rationales, references. There isn't even an author, i.e. this is an anonymous composition.Bless sins (talk) 04:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The soruce was used to say that according to Freedom House, there is a religious apartheid in Saudi Arabia. This is fully attributed in all articles where the source is used. In that sense, it can be used. And the author is, obviously, Freedom House. Yahel Guhan 04:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"The soruce was used to say that according to Freedom House, there is a religious apartheid in Saudi Arabia." No it is being used in the Mecca article. Thus Mecca is being accused. Last I checked "Freedom House" isn't a person. All works are written by a person. This personis called an author.Bless sins (talk) 05:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It is being used in the Mecca article, to state that Freedom House believes that the law forbidding muslims to enter Mecca is apartheid. Freedom House is an organization of many people conducts research and advocacy on democracy, political freedom and human rights. Sounds quite reliable to me. Show me the policy that requires a "one person author" for reliability. Yahel Guhan 05:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi,
Yahel, this is not a WP:RS source. This is just a comment !
Bless sins, you perfectly know there are strict religious laws in SA and that they could be linked to some sort of segregation or apartheid, so, as a wikipedia's editor, you are assumed to look for RS sources and add all relevant informations related to the topic. If you don't bear critics toward Islam, you should avoid editing this topic on wikipedia -> here are dozens of references, you (both) can just try pick up more relevant ones to give a fair picture of the matter, without political agenda.
Ceedjee (talk) 06:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Is ign.com a RS ?

ToS - http://corp.ign.com/user-agreement.html

I can't see an accuracy disclaimer, but the style and tone of the site makes me uneasy because it's being used as a reference for personal details on biographies. Thanks -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 11:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Might be reliable for some aspects of videogaming. Definitely not for biographies. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

They do conduct interviews [101] so personal details may possibly come direct from the the person concerned own mouth . Garda40 (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Interviews are clearly RS because they're (almost certainly) verbatim. It's the star biographies which are the problem - http://uk.stars.ign.com/index/people.html I've investigated further, and found that they are publicly editable so the content disclaimer does come in to effect, denying responsibility for inaccuracy. Am I correct in thinking that they cannot be considererd RS in a similar vein to Wikipedia and Internet Movie Database (IMDB) ? -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 13:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like the analogy to IMBD is apt. The parts of the site that are publicly editable are not RS. Other parts might be. Use with caution. Blueboar (talk) 13:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. Maybe use it the way that students use Wikipedia; maybe not cite it, but use the info as a path to find better sources. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That said, what on earth is someone using an agreement as part of a biography for? Do you hae any more info on that? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Like similar sites, the bios are usable for uncontested uncontroversial routine details. Obviously the bios are not sources for negative or controversial content. On the other hand, the reviews are by their staff, and I think acceptable both for information an=bout the games and for notability. The reader blogs are, as general, essentially useless. DGG (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That's at odds with what others have said and my understanding of RS. The bios are publicly editable, doesn't that make them uncompliant with RS whatever ones view of the information ? -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 17:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Suite101.com?

I wrote the following, then was told that it included a blacklisted link. Is there any info as to why it was blacklisted?

Would w-w-w.suite101.com be considered a reliable source? I'm not familiar with it, so I don't know their level of scrutiny for the things that are written. (Specifically--someone wants to use http:// preschool-tv.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_caillou_controversy (commented out the link) to illustrate the existence of a controversy re: whether the cartoon character of Caillou is "too whiny".)Gladys J Cortez 19:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

David Horowitz Freedom Center

Can anyone tell if publications by David Horowitz Freedom Center qualify as reliable sources. There is a related discussion here. Note that one of the sides, User:Kallahan, filed a complaint to Arbcomm [102] instead of asking here.Biophys (talk) 19:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

not reliable for any purpose whatsoever except for their own opinions about things when its relevant to quote them in context. Especially not reliable in describing the activities of their admitted enemies. DGG (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I have seen your discussion here. It was confusing. Do you qualify them as an "extremist source" and why? The source was used to list projects funded by Soros. This looks innocent to me. I was also reading several articles from their FrontPage Magazine. They provided interesting opinions of well known experts, which did not seem to contradict anything I knew. Biophys (talk) 01:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Horowitz's site should not be used to source anything at all about his political opponents - even seemingly innocent info. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, but I like their style. See this photo at the very bottom. This is not a forgery I hope?Biophys (talk) 04:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC) Also, I believe this is real interview of Pipes. Can we use something like that, or it might be a forgery?Biophys (talk) 05:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a political advocacy site. One thing that should always be remembered about such sites (left, right or centre) is that they do not originate news. Virtually always, the documents they post up on their sites are available in other sources. Or if they carry an opinion piece by a notable commentator then that commentator has usually also written in a more reliable publication, and that should be chosen in preference. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

So, we have:

• special:linksearch/*.discoverthenetworks.com
• special:linksearch/*.discoverthenetworks.org
• special:linksearch/*.horowitzfreedomcenter.org
• special:linksearch/*.frontpagemag.com (around 1,000 links)

I don't see any evidence that Frontpagemag is any less polemical and opinionated than Horowitz's other sites. What should be done, here? Guy (Help!) 14:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, Jay says (in Archive 9) that he doesn't like my jihad against FPM... bravely ignoring him, I've generally removed a lot of links to FPM and CounterPunch and the like unless

• the link is an article written by the individual
• the linked article is by someone who is closely associated with the subject of the WP article, and the article doesn't contain anything particularly negative
• the linked article is written by an otherwise notable authority and isn't used to support anything about a living person. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

unreliable FrontPageMag and this "Freedom Center" are both highly partisan, but the unreliability doesn't stem from that. If you search the archives, you'll find how FrontPageMag has a habit of making stuff up. I wouldn't be surprised if the center did the same.Ngchen (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Austria

I know this isn't the proper place, but I can't navigate; The article for Austria has been replaced with the article for Australia, with all instances of the country name being changed. I know nothing about Austria, so I can't fix the article, but it is compromised to a severe degree. Mods, please erase this entry as needed, but please do try to fix the Austria article

It's been fixed. Blueboar (talk) 02:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Stark's book

Is Rodney Stark's book,

Victoryof Reason: How Christianity, Freedom, and Capitalism Led to Western Success. New York: Random House.

a reliable source on historical facts? More specifically can we use Stark as a source on non-Christian religions (such as Islam, Hinduism, Judaism etc.)?

The reason I'm asking this what I found on the back of his book:[103]

[...]Simply put, the conventional wisdom that Western success depended upon overcoming religious barriers to progress is utter nonsense. In The Victory of Reason, Rodney Stark advances a revolutionary, controversial, and long overdue idea: that Christianity and its related institutions are, in fact, directly responsible for the most significant intellectual, political, scientific, and economic breakthroughs of the past millennium[...]Christian theology, Stark asserts, is the very font of reason: While the world's other great belief systems emphasized mystery, obedience, or introspection, Christianity alone embraced logic and reason as the path toward enlightenment, freedom, and progress. That is what made all the difference. In explaining the West's dominance, Stark convincingly debunks long-accepted "truths."[...]This is a sweeping, multifaceted survey that takes readers from the Old World to the New, from the past to the present, overturning along the way not only centuries of prejudiced scholarship but the antireligious bias of our own time[...]

Notwithstanding Christianity's inherent superiority of all other other religions, as argued by the book, what really raises the WP:REDFLAG is that this book claims to be "revolutionary" and to "debunk long-accepted truths", calling "centuries of scholarship" to be "prejudiced." In my opinion the clause

Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality reliable sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included.

is applicable, since this is not a "high quality source" on Hinduism, Islam, Judaism or non-Christian other religions. What do others think?Bless sins (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Blurbs tend to make overblown claims, even in academic literature. However, Stark is a respected figure, so is as reliable a source on historical facts as any other qualified scholar. As for his theories, they should always be specifically be attributed to him. Paul B (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Stark is certainly reliable. This particular book, however, if described as above, is indeed likely to be ruled out of most articles per WP:UNDUE. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow your argument. The Undue Weight rule refers to the importance or influence of particular theories. The inmportance of Stark's theories are to be determined by considering the extent to which he is deemed an important commentator on religious history. The facts on which he draws are a different issue. If Stark says a certain text religious published in 1500 contains certain content I see no good reason why it should not be footnoted to this source. Paul B (talk) 06:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're correct, and I should have expressed myself better. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Paul, I agree with you in theory, when you say "Stark says a certain religious text published in ..." However, on the occasions that Stark is accurately representing a historical document (etc.) there are much better and less theoretically invested sources to use here, and I would say those other historical sources are always preferable. It is also not easy to disentangle his presentation of historical facts from his theoretical aims, and as such it is hard to know how selective his historical presentation is. While he certainly isn't creating historical facts out of thin air he also makes more analytical statements based upon his own selection of such facts. These types of statements, based upon analysis and interpretation of a selective set of data, will inevitably be presented themselves as more or less factual. When and how do we tell someone using Stark that this claim is ok and that one is not? Again I think it is simply better to stick to less theoretically invested, and more historically adept sources for basic information. Then Stark's claims can be used but only when attributed. At that point it does become an issue of WP:UNDUE and not necessarily one of reliability.PelleSmith (talk) 12:21, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Rodney Stark is a very well respected sociologist of religion, and should be considered an extremely reliable source in that capacity. In terms of "historical facts" he is much less reliable, and please note that he is not a historian. Almost all of Rodney Stark's historical argumentation comes about, or came about at some point, in order to buttress his various notable, but by no means popularly accepted, theories religion in modernity (which again is his true field as a sociologist). With that in mind I would not consider him a "high quality source" on the history of any religion, but most certainly a high quality source on contemporary religious trends. I would treat any historical claim he makes as "exceptional" and therefore either find an alternate source (or two, three, etc.) or not use him if there is none. On this contemporary sociological work, if you utilize any of his more contested theories or approaches I would attribute as necessary (as in don't use him in an unattributed way as to imply that theories of modern religious behavior derived from rational choice theory are the status quo throughout sociology).PelleSmith (talk) 00:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add that this does not mean that he does not theorize historically, as he and other sociologist of religion clearly did and do with frequency (see Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, or Peter Berger). This historically informed theorizing, however, does not make him (or Durkheim, Weber, Berger, etc.) any more so a recognized authority in religious history. In fact I would say that those three, along with Stark, all exemplify a high degree of historical (and cross-cultural) cherry picking of facts convenient to their respective arguments. Again, I would say don't turn to a sociologist as your only reference for historical facts.PelleSmith (talk) 01:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say Stark would be a reliable source for the fact that fish farming was common in French monasteries of the eleventh century, and such similar straightforward facts. An interpretation of Jewish or Islamic scripture, for example, does not count as a similar straightforward fact. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I would agree. In other words facts that are easily sourced elsewhere.PelleSmith (talk) 11:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

He is not the highest quality source for historical facts, for sure. However, I can see no good reason to exclude the book on that ground. The difficulty is determining where fact ends and theory begins. Also, it's worth comparing this blub to those on books by Niall Ferguson, for example, who is Professor of History at Harvard University. They make similar claims for radical new interpretations etc, etc. It don't think it is appropriate to judge reliability of sources by publishers blubs. Paul B (talk) 06:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Niall Fergusson should certainly be used with similar caution! Counterfactual nonsense is still considered very marginal in the profession, and so is NF. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, people really didn't like it. Alan Wolfe in the New Republic:

The Victory of Reason is the worst book by a social scientist that I have ever read. Stark's methodology has nothing to do with history, or the logic of comparative analysis, or the rigorous testing of hypotheses. Instead he simply makes claims, the more outrageous the better, and dismisses all evidence that runs contrary to his claims as unimportant, and treats anyone with a point of view different from his own as stupid and contemptible, and reduces causation in human affairs to one thing and one thing only. How in the world, I kept asking myself as I read this book, could someone spend so much of his life trying to understand something as important as religion and come away so childish?

He also says: "Stark's proper academic discipline is what used to be called apologetics." Wow. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Wolfe is harsh, but not without good reason. His reservations about Stark's use of historical data are quite to the point in my own view and this is why using Stark as a source for historical facts is problematic, especially if, as Paul B hints, theory and data are not easily untangled.PelleSmith (talk) 11:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that this book was not reviewed by any of the publications one might consider the standard barers in sociology and/or religious studies. In fact it has barely been reviewed by academic publications, which is noteworthy because of who the author is. Here is another blurb about the book from First Things:

WHILE STARK'S technological and economic history seems sound, at least to a nonspecialist, the intellectual history that undergirds the argument is shot through with preposterous assertions and glaring omissions. To declare reason the invention of Catholic theologians is absurd. To speak slightingly of classical Greek "learning" and "lore" without making clear that the signal Greek achievement is philosophy, the effort to understand the world by reason alone, is a travesty. Stark makes Aristotle and Plato sound like bumpkins whom no truly reasonable man would think of taking seriously.

The more I look the more "exceptional" I find this book and its contents.PelleSmith (talk) 11:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Bless Sins,
You are right to wonder if and how this material could be used. This is indeed an exceptionnal claim. I would suggest to keep this analysis and only add it to an article if there are several other ones, claiming the same or the opposite in order to have the npov picture of the analysis carried on this issue.
From what I know concerning this matter, it is not christianism who carried on western alleged advanced culture but rather greek philosophers whose teachings came back in Europe after the Middle-Ages through islam philosophers and some monastary archives. But this is certainly not the christian religion. Some talk about the judeo-christian culture too but this is not exactly in this context; this rather refers to the western conception of the world that takes its roots in judaic and christian conception of life (and once again, not religion).
Regards, Ceedjee (talk) 10:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Some comments.

1. Stark has not, to the best of my knowledge, recently self-identified as Christian. That is, he's freely identified being raised Lutheran, but doesn't write as a Christian or an apologist, let alone a Christian apologist. Thus, we have no particular reason to suspect what he has to say about non-Christian religions is biased by his own personal belief system.
2. Stark quite amply footnotes his books. If there's something he's argued as a tertiary source, it shouldn't be too hard to track back to a secondary source.
3. Likewise, he's also relatively careful to present detailed records of what he's found empirically.

Based on these, I think the clear answer to the question as asked is "yes, Stark is reliable."

However, none of this should mean that any of his conclusions can be taken as anything more than the conclusions of one, sometimes minority, scholar. When he presents one interpretation of the facts, it should properly be presented as such. The book in question was rather open in proposing an alternative interpretation of Western success than that provided in Guns, Germs, and Steel Jclemens (talk) 06:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

PhD theses

I have a difference of opinion with two users who maintain that a PhD thesis is not a reliable source. This seems strange to me, since such a thesis is always peer-reviewed, or rather reviewed by higher qualified scholars. They are easy to verify, too, and I see many references to PhD theses on Wikipedia. Since there is nothing on PhD theses on WP:RS, and the guideline is not exhaustive, I'd like to know how PhD theses are viewed by other users. (Note: I am not asking for a comment on this one specific case. The issue is likely to come up more often.) Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I just found that the question has been asked before.[104] The response seems to be that a PhD thesis can indeed be a reliable source for the reasons I mentioned. Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

most of times. Yes. It is a wp:rs source.

But some care should be taken anyway.

It would be better if it had been published and if it would be quoted by other scholars.

And if there are many other scholars of higher level (eg University Prof) who developped the topic but concluded differently and if this PhD thesis claims something unusual and not widely accepted, high care should be taken.

I remind you that Galilee's thesis rejecting geocentrim would have been refused by wikipedia at the time because it was : WP:OR and not accepted by the majority of his peers. Ceedjee (talk) 10:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Am I correct that if parts of the thesis are previously published articles, that helps as well? Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Definitely, but in that case it may be easier to cite the articles.Itsmejudith (talk) 11:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It varies from field to field and from university to university. In economics, for example, dissertations are usually three papers; the first of these is carefully reviewed, and is the one on the strength of which the person goes on the job market. The two others are frequently, even at the best universities, little more than term papers which have not been extensively gone over by the thesis committee. In history, however, most chapters of a unitary dissertation will be considered reliable, if from a decent university. Sometimes problems creep in: the best known case of a problematic dissertation is that of Joel Hayward. Could you tell us the specific case we're discussing? --Relata refero (disp.) 12:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

We're not discussing a specific case, as I am expecting to find a good number of theses relevant to the topics I'm interested in. The one that led to my question though is: P. Kooiman, "Some empirical models for markets in disequilibrium", PhD thesis, Erasmus University Rotterdam, 1986. It contains 6 chapters, 3 of which (2,4,6) had been published before. The chapter that caught my attention though was chapter 3. It was this chapter that sprang new research, as the method was applied to a model of the Dutch Central Planning Bureau. I want to refer to the method, and the method can only be found in the dissertation. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It sounds a bit obscure for WP. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Disequilibrium analysis was really big in macro around the 1980s, so a reference for the original derivation of a method of aggregating submarkets is fine, especially if you can also cite the usage of the method elsewhere. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The supervisor of the thesis appears to have been Teun Kloek, who is a pretty major figure. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I gather further that the mathematics in ch3 provided the basis for the two-submarket empirical analysis subsequently published in the European Economic Review, so that's another plus. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Chapter 3 showed that the assumption of a specific distribution over submarkets leads to a macro-economic relationship that looks like one that was always thought to exist, the 'UV-curve' (if unemployment rises, vacancies go down, and vice versa). There used to be a big divide between micro-economic theory and macro-economic models. A relatively small number of researchers closed that gap by proving the macro equations consistent with the micro theories, thereby opening up the field of disequilibrium analysis. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I would generally expect a PhD thesis to be a highly reliable source. To obtain a PhD, the author usually has to become the world's foremost expert in his subject, since by definition it has not been studied before. I owuld expect anyone objecting to a PhD thesis has rarely read one let alone tried to write one! As noted above, it has to be peer reviewed by the examining committee. Excepting mail order PhD scams, I would say that a PhD thesis should be a highly reliable source. DLH (talk) 02:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Skip Mason Website Reliable Source or personal website? [105]

Would this be considered to be either a reliable source or a non reliable source personal website? also would this be considered to be NPOV website [106] (read here for a better idea of NPOV question) ? [107]

"DISCLAIMER: THIS PAGE IS NOT AFFILIATED WITH THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION. ALL COMMENTS ARE THOSE OF THE EDITOR. SOURCES ARE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST. APOLOGIES IN ADVANCE FOR ANY SPELLING ERRORS. " IS stateed at the bottom. [108]

He also states here [109] ". As a historian who recognizes that laying a foundation for any period of history, I find their omission inexcusable and without merit. " I believe this violates NPOV. Any opinions? [User:Ireallylovethis|Ireallylovethis] (talk) 02:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• I would say not. It looks like personal opinion with no editorial review process. Guy (Help!) 14:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

alright, well over here there are some of his articles that he has written [110]. Does this make it more of a personal website or a reliable source website? Going thru some of the articles it seems as if it may read as a column due the questions and answers that exist with every article [111]. With sources only available by request how can we be sure whether or not this is fiction or non fiction? [112] Ireallylovethis (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

So I'm basically rewriting the entirety of Metal

What I'm going to do is, since the whole article's unsourced junk, is just rewrite the whole damn thing in my userspace, then when I'm finished, just ask someone to merge the histories. Anyway, I have about 3 textbooks regarding metals. Is this enough? I'm ultimately trying to get Metal to FA, but GA would be acceptable too. Ziggy Sawdust 14:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It should definitely be possible to get an article on this subject to FA. Your three textbooks sound like just the right place to start from. Some editors might be able to add some other facts from different sources, but if you stick to the principle that the article should be basically in line with what is being taught at undergraduate level then you are on the right lines. Contact the appropriate Wikiprojects to let them know what you are doing. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

When is it appropriate to stub an article?

A user has recently removed most of the content of Black theology, and to date added only a substantial bibliography listing sources he apparently intends to use rewriting the article from scratch. While I admire his intention to base the article as much as possible on peer-reviewed journals and scholarly publications, I don't think that the previous state of the article was really bad enough to merit stubbing. This is a sample of the article as it was; citations at that point included a book by Cornel West, a news story from NPR, and class materials used for an undergraduate class at Wake Forest University. I think that in removing this material the user may be "making the perfect the enemy of the good". He's written a justification for his removal of the text at Talk:Black theology#Response — my own view is that although his motives are good, his way of going about the planned improvement to the article is counterproductive. I wanted to ask the readers of this noticeboard what the standard way to deal with a fair-but-not-great article is, and whether it's appropriate to stub an article which has sources that do not meet the highest level of scholarship but do meet the standards of WP:RS. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend reverting the editor's action, and encouraging him to work on a full revision in userspace. But I haven't been active for the past year; perhaps things have changed. -- Visviva (talk) 08:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend listening to people on the talk page who show evidence of knowing what they're talking about on the subject. Ewenss (talk) 05:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Unpublished papers presented in academic conferences

Can we consider unpublished papers presented in academic confererences as reliable? More specifically, could we consider the papers listed on this page as reliable? For more information on this specific conference, please check this and this. The question is arising because the reliability of one of these papers has recently been challanged on the ground that the paper has not been published. Any comments, please? Arman ^(Talk) 03:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The quality of conference papers varies hugely. They are often accepted on the basis of synopses alone. I'd suggest that their reliability depends entirely on the established status of the person giving the paper as a specialist on the topic. Paul B (talk) 10:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Varies hugely. See #Conference proceedings RS? above. This gets asked so often I think we should add a footnote to RS. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Reliability of WSWS

World Socialist Web Site is a site run by the International Committee of the Fourth International. There are nearly 700 links, many of them as sources for commentary in articles on living individuals. I found it because a lengthy diatribe was linked as a source for the uncontroversial fact that Ken Livingstone keeps newts, probably the single best-known fact about his private life. Is this actually a reliable source? Guy (Help!) 11:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Except for their own opinions, I'd say almost certainly not. FCYTravis (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

My God, Red Ken and Gussie Fink-Nottle have something in common!

If the opinions of the World Trostkyite movement are required for an article, we can quote the WSWS. Otherwise, best not. Not quite an advocacy source, as Troskyism doesn't really have anything specific to advocate for any more; also not as muckraking as some others, as they focus on meta-issues more often than not; but even so, definitely overpoliticised. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Michigan Highway website

The http://www.michiganhighways.org/index.html website is being used on numerous Michigan Highway articles. I would like to get an opinion on its reliability. It is a self-published source and it states this here [113] with the statement "this entire website was created and is maintained by a single individual." Any feedback is appreciated. --Holderca1 ^talk 20:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually it is used on more than 200 articles on Michigan state trunkline highways. The most common usage is for the highway length and historical data. The highway lengths we've been able to re-source to GIS data or MDOT Control Section/Physical Reference Atlas maps or even Google Maps which have shown that his stated lengths are accurate normally to the tenth of a mile over what the State of Michigan gives currently, a difference we chalk up to rounding and changes in accuracy of GIS data over time. As to the historical data, he lists [114] for his list of sources, which sadly isn't complete.

Chris Bessert, the website author, works in transportation planning in the Grand Rapids, Michigan area. His site has appeared in the Detroit Free Press three or four times and in the Traverse City Record-Eagle once. He has also been hired by the Mackinac Island Tourism Bureau to produce [115]. According to User talk:CBessert though he has taken some issue with usage of the information on his site back in 2005. Recent attempts by myself to enlist his cooperation though to help establish exact dates of publication for articles in the newspapers has until recently proven fruitless. Perhaps someone else from Wikipedia would have more luck contacting him for further information.

His claims as to how much the source materials for his site are credible given that a FOIA request by myself was returned by the Michigan Department of Transportation asking if I had a dollar limit. MDOT's FOIA officer stated:

The information you are seeking will contain quite a bit of researching and could produce hundreds of pages of documents. This could end up being quite costly to you. Do you have a dollar amount threshold. Under the FOIA statute, we charge $19.80/hour of labor and $0.15/copy. Your request could take 50+ hours of research along and I have no idea how many copies it would produce. Can you try and be more specific as to what type of information you are looking for?

even though I requested specific documentation on 10 specific historical changes to M-28 and M-35. Such request was phrased in such a way to produce around 10-15 specific documents each of which should be around a page or so maximum. Imzadi1979 (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide links to where you have found that he works in transportation planning in Grand Rapids and links to the newspaper articles mentioned. I think the part I find most troubling is the last three bullets of the sources page that state: "Information provided by Michigan citizens and travellers across the state," "Information gathered by myself over third-century of travels around the Great Lake State" and "Hundreds of other sources..." These three basically sum up the main problem of using a self-published source. Simply working for a transportation planning organization does not automatically make one an expert in the field. Also, you really haven't address the "whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." You mentioned the map, but I think just having a map published only makes one an expert on making a map, not on documenting the history of the highways. I still would like to see these newspaper articles to see what they are all about. Are they articles that he wrote? Simply having a newspaper article written about the site does not satisfy "whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" since it isn't his work that is being published. --Holderca1 ^talk 14:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Self-published does not automatically equate with unreliable. The Michigan highways site is without question the best single source of information for historical details of Michigan roads. Yes there are occasional errors and in some places the tone of the writing is speculative or advocating some position. The editor has proven willing to correct any errors that are pointed out and as for the tone, that is pretty readily identifiable and can be routinely addressed through WP's own content and style guidelines. Disqualifying high-quality sites such as this on the basis of a guideline intended to keep out spurious self-pubs would be a disservice both to editors and readers. older ≠ wiser 20:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I would think referencing a self-published site that may have errors would be a disservice; the reader should ideally be able to trust the cited sources. Imzadi1979, you might want to see if you can visit MDOT's offices and browse the meeting minutes; then they wouldn't have to do the research. --NE2 03:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Eh? Any source, whether self-published or not contains errors. The NYT, WSJ and many other venerable sources contains errors -- and many go uncorrected. So what? We have a highly knowledgeable resource, that is for the most part quite accurate and is willing to update information that is shown to be incorrect. What exactly is the problem again? The purpose of WP:Verifiability is that any reader can verify that the information presented in the article corresponds with the cited source. It does NOT require that readers must be able to independently verify all the information contained presented by the cited source. However, I also agree somewhat that this single source should not be so heavily relied upon, especially for details that are somewhat conjectural. older ≠ wiser 12:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

What meeting minutes? MDOT isn't AASHTO. I need the transfer of jurisdiction resolutions. I requested those resolutions for M-28 and BUS M-28's history (which includes on change for M-35) under the FOIA and was quoted a $1,000 estimate for research fees since all the documents are in a storage warehouse. MDOT also requires a 50% good-faith deposit to begin the research. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The Highway Commission is newer than some of the changes that Michigan Highways documents. So even if they have minutes, jurisdiction isn't transferred until approved by the State Administrative Board and logged with MDOT and the counties and/or cities involved, but I don't know how long that arrangement dates back. MDOT has the records... if you're made of gold to dislodge the copies. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Minutes of whatever meetings they approve highway changes at. Hopefully these minutes will be in a format such as microfilm that you can access. Do you know where Chris got the information? I assume he didn't pay $1000 per highway, so there's obviously a more-easily accessible source. It's also possible that they have a single list of all transfers located somewhere, but you asked for the specific resolutions, and they may have thought you needed all the details in legalese. --NE2 04:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Chris got his information from MDOT, a vast collection of the old state road maps and interviews in the field with people, according to Patrick Allen at MDOT. There isn't any single coordinated source for the transfers. Currently, the State Administrative Board approves resolutions transferring or assuming jurisdiction over property by state departments. There is a PDF online from 1940 on for these resolutions, but only the transfers between the City of Ishpeming, MDOT and the Marquette County Road Commission affecting the realignment of BUS M-28 (notated as M-28BR) in July of 1996 are listed there. That resolution is cited. The 1989 extension of M-28 past I-75 to terminate at M-129 would have necessitated a similar transfer from the Chippewa County Road Commission (unless MDOT still retained jurisdiction as unsigned trunkline) but it's not listed even though older transfers are. If anyone can suggest another avenue outside of FOIA requests to MDOT at the tune of $19.80/hr. for research and any necessary redaction of exempt materials under Michigan's version of FOIA, I'm all ears. Until then though, the research has been done already and published online. I've been wrangling e-mails back and forth with MDOT's FOIA Officer so I apologize for not researching the 4 articles that cite the website already, but the website's author has yet to reply to my e-mails. Imzadi1979 (talk) 05:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Information from interviews with what people? Employees of the DOT? Locals that live along the road? The main problem with the site is that he doesn't properly cite his sources. So it is practically impossible to verify the information on it. As mentioned above, the site has been known to have errors that were corrected, but what about the errors that haven't been found yet? From looking at some of the information that is sourced with this site, it appears that a lot of realignments are being sourced. I would think this info would be able to be found by comparing the route on old maps. Also, the M-28 extension in 1989 seems like it could be simply sourced with a map showing the extension. --Holderca1 ^talk 15:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is a source for the 1989 extension of M-28: [116] --Holderca1 ^talk 16:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Historical cost and inflation - editor conflict of interest, grateful views on reliability of own material (single-source, exceptional claims)

Editor Nicolaas Smith, an advocate of what he refers to as real value accounting, has his own website and self-published book. There were several episodes of promoting his own work (with warnings about conflict of interest, questions about self-published material, and an episode of sockpuppeteering and some blocks for disruptive editing and personal attacks under different names).

After these rounds of issues, he had an article published in a South African accounting journal, and since that time has taken to referring continuously to his own (single) published article.

I would like others to take a look at these articles and comment, if at all possible, particularly on historical cost. My view is that exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and this user has a conflict of interest (he is promoting his own theory on which he has patents pending). It is a single issue which is being promoted (the Truth, of course).

To declare my own issues and interest in having other editors' comments: a) I have had conflicts with this editor before, on his periodic returns to promote his agenda again; b) these have led to personal attacks on me; c) This editor seems to take any intervention on my part as a personal affront (leading to some previous blow-ups); etc.

Please note that I am explicitly NOT attempting to turn this into a re-run of his issues before with sockpuppeteering and personal attacks, etc - just making the history clear regarding the one-issue agenda. Perhaps there is some content that can be contributed, but various articles seem to be turning into his personal agenda-promotion pages.--Gregalton (talk) 18:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

He certainly seems to have massively rewritten both articles, with dozens of successive edits, but I'm not an expert on the subject so your best bet is probably an article RFC. Guy (Help!) 19:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Vanity Press Publishing

Are books published by a vanity press considered reliable? They are self funded but not self-published. How much editorial control do vanity presses exert and are some more reliable than others? --neonwhite user page talk 22:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Books published by a vanity press essentially fall under WP:Self published sources. The editors check things like spelling and poor grammar, but rarely edit content or check facts. So there is little editorial control as this guideline intends. That said... Such books can be reliable for some things, but not for others. For example, they are usually reliable for statements of the author's opinion, but may not be reliable for statements of fact. We would need a more specific example to make a clear determination. Blueboar (talk) 13:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Being published by a vanity press does not add any reliability at all to the base work. Hence, consider them self-published, and judge accordingly. There are a small number of books - the ones I know of are Terence Rees' reprints of obscure works by W. S. Gilbert with a few pages of scholarly commentary - that are self-published, but written by acknowledged expert on subjects that are simply too esoteric for a major publishing house to take up, and, if the subject itself is notable, these can be useful sources for adding depth to an article. But the key here is that the author is an acknowledged expert already, and the subjects can be shown to be notable through other sources. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that they arent actually self-published merely self-funded. Obviously this could not be used as evidence of notability of the author but i assume the content would have to be fact check by the publisher as any publisher would do. As far as i know some of the bigger reputable vanity presses act in the same way as other presses and in that way are probably as reliable as say the press. --neonwhite user page talk 21:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure as to what you mean by the bigger publishers - if you're referring to Xlibris, Lulu, iUniverse and the like, then I'm led to believe that they aren't generally fact-checked by the publishers, and hence the AuthorHouse court case. But you may be referring to someone else. - Bilby (talk) 03:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually i was incorrect AuthorHouse and iUniverse both describe themselves as 'supported self-publishing' and 'a simple and effective self publishing process' so this does mean they come under SPS. Though it is concievable that a vanity press could fact check, it's probably best to assume they don't unless evidence to the contrary is available. --neonwhite user page talk 12:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Vanity presses, buy definition, are simply in it for the money that the author provides. I don't think that eveen the best vanity press would do much more than spellchecking, maybe minor copyediting. Fact-checking? Ain't gonna happen. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

burjdubaiskyscraper.com

Over at the Burj Dubai article, there is quite a debate going on over whether burjdubaiskyscraper.com is a reliable source. I, and some other editors, believe the site to be not a reliable source because it appears to be a fan site written by someone who may have some access to the building site or one of the people who work there. The site provides some great photos (mostly without any copyright or licensing info), but any building status, current height or number of floors information usually provided without any source being given. It makes it difficult for anyone to verify that the information provided is accurate. The more recent site updates have included some source information, but when we try to verify the accuracy, the information cannot be found (except on the skyscrapercity.com forums). For example, on 19 April burjdubaiskyscraper.com stated that Burj Dubai had reached 636.9 m "according to SOM.com" (SOM is the building's architect), but following the link gave no such height, nor could any current height be found anywhere on som.com. Despite this lack of verifiability, a couple of editors say that we should use burjdubaiskyscraper.com because it "...has been correct on its height claims. Every time. Since the beginning of construction." - and with one editor going as far as breaking the Three Revert Rule and being close to me requesting they be blocked (again). Astronaut (talk) 13:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree that this site doesn't seem to be reliable. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

standingstrong.org

I've just reverted User:Jayjg, removing the following text from Hamas:

In Hebrew, the word "hamas" translates "to frighten, terrify, confound, stun, confuse, perplex." "Hamasim," whose root word is hamas, translates "violent men."(ref)[117] http://www.standingstrong.org.(/ref).

Given prior history I expect some kind of argument over whether this standingstrong.org is reliable, as silly as that may sound. Can we agree that what is apparently the personal website of a Messianic Jewish activist with no relevant academic qualifications and a strong political bent is neither reliable nor significant to this subject? Especially when he explicitly cites the very Wikipedia article he is being cited to support? <eleland/talkedits> 01:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That source should never be used unless we find that the opinions of that source are worthy of inclusion in which case we should attribute the opinion cited to that source. E.g. "Standingstrong.org says that God wants Israel to be in the possession of the 'chosen people'." ScienceApologist (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm also very concerned that a WP editor thought the added sentence actually contributed something of note. The translation of "Hamas" into Hebrew results in the same meaning that it had in the original Arabic and the same meaning as when it is translated into English or into Navaho. That is what translation is. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a remarkably shoddy source. It also appears to be inaccurate. A Google Books trawl finds numerous sources discussing the word "Hamas" in the context of the Hebrew Bible; apparently it's usually translated as "violence". [118] -- ChrisO (talk) 08:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hogenakkal Falls

There is an ongoing controversy regarding the exact location of the falls in question relative to the borders of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. The details can be found in the extensive discussion of the talk pages. Several sources have been produced to justify inclusion in one or both states. However, in several cases, there seems to be a question of original research regarding some of the sources. If anyone has the time to read the rather lengthy discussion, and it includes much of the recently archived discussion as well, I think we would all be more than grateful. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Raw Story

Hello all, I would like to get some opinions on The Raw Story. Is this a reliable source? Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say not usually, when taken on its own. OK, so some prestigious news media are using it, but I think we can assume they use it mainly as a primary source and they make their own checks on facts before going to print. If a story is very important then it will eventually appear somewhere else. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Jamestown Foundation

Discussion in progress at Talk:Russia Today TV. Perhaps an analogous issue to the late March discussion about The Nation and Daniel Pipes, though there are some differences.

The Jamestown Foundation is basically a neoconservative organization. They are generally pretty careful with their facts (I'd use them as a source for a particular fact, though I wouldn't necessarily expect them to give me a balanced picture), but in this case they are being cited as critics of the TV channel in question. I don't think that's the best choice. I'm not saying they are, in principle, uncitable here. I am saying that we would strengthen the article by citing, instead, similar criticism from international human rights groups (or media critics) with more of a history of even-handed criticism of propaganda and censorship. In short, they are not a bad source, but why not seek more clearly credible sources? -- Jmabel | Talk 18:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Retrosheet as a reliable source

Copied from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/J. R. Richard:

• Reliable sources unresolved: the article is almost entirely sourced to retrosheet.org, the personal hobby site of a baseball fan, which says "Retrosheet makes no guarantees of accuracy for the information that is supplied"; the site gathers data from volunteer baseball fans,[119] and says,[120]

  In order to volunteer or to obtain more information, contact David Smith at the address, telephone number, or e-mail shown below. Retrosheet is an all-volunteer organization and the costs of daily operation are largely borne by individuals who generously cover their own expenses for postage, photocopying, etc. There is one substantial continuing expense for the organization and that is the DSL connection for our computer server, which holds our website. We do request donations to help us with the monthly cost of the Internet connection.

  Sports Illustrated as cited above says, "It now operates from the basement of Smith's Newark, Del., house, which holds 11 file cabinets of data and a DSL server." and "All Retrosheet's data is proofed and checked against day-by-day and season totals maintained by the Hall of Fame," yet the website itself "makes no guarantee of accuracy". This needs to be resolved, because the article is almost entirely sourced to this site. Is this over-reliance on internet research, and can the article not be cited to better sources ? The other question is why he isn't covered by reliable sources? Is this the standard of referencing we expect in a featured bio? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • What sort of reliable source could you have for statistical data? I doubt MLB or organizations like SABR would actually upload logs for every single baseball game ever onto the Internet. Remember, who are the people behind sports organizations like Retrosheet, Baseball-Library, and Baseball-Reference? They're all a bunch of average Joes who are deeply interested in baseball. I don't see how one person can be more reliable than another when all they're doing is recounting numbers, not facts or opinions. Do you have any alternative suggestions? I will fix the dash issues. I think MFC changed all the dashes in the refs a while back from en to em. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 00:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I wish I had a solution, but I'm stumped. If it were one or two statements, I wouldn't be so concerned, but I'm not yet convinced it's reliable, yet I'm realizing that almost the entire article relies on this one source. SI says "checked against ... Hall of Fame", but does that statement have any meaning for non-Hall of Famers? If Hall of Fame really had the data, you could get it from them, and it would be reliable, which is why I feel that SI statement appears meaningless. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
      • How about a query at WP:RSN? I've pulled out all of the relevant info about the site in my post above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
        • The Hall of Fame has data for every single baseball game and stats for every single player. Retrosheet just takes the HoF's data and uploads it to the Internet. I wish I could reference the stats to the Hall of Fame, but they have not made their stats available online. I'll see if there's some sort of huge baseball encyclopedia with game logs. Anyway, inquiring at RSN would hopefully resolve this matter. As I mentioned before, Cricinfo was similarly started by an average Joe, who just began compiling statistical data for matches and player careers. Should we bring this site up as well? It's the most common reference in any cricket FA. Dashes fixed now, by the way. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 00:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Could I get some opinions here? Essentially, Retrosheet is taking statistical data collected by the Baseball Hall of Fame and uploading it onto the Internet. Since humans are involved in this process of uploading numbers and other data, the website notes that they don't make any guarantees regarding the accuracy of the site. But seriously, what's the difference between an expert inputting simple data and an amateur baseball fan doing it himself? Since this site is just a repository of numbers and names, I'm thinking this may warrant special circumstances with regards to the reliable source policy. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 01:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Is the data actually collected by the Hall of Fame, or by fans? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I realize that the Hall of Fame data is not online, but would it be possible to get a hard copy of their information? That way you could cite the Hall of Fame information directly, and forget Retrosheet (or use it merely as a courtesy link) Slp1 (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The actual data is collected by MLB. To my knowledge, the Hall of Fame holds this information. These baseball fans then chose to upload the HoF's data onto the Internet. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 01:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that. It's just that the Hall of Fame has a research centre [121] who could presumably provide someone with the same information provided by the website. If someone could get to see hardcopies from the HofF, then one could cite them as the source, rather than the website.--Slp1 (talk) 01:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Technically, yes. But how would we attribute it? "Hall of Fame"? I doubt these documents are part of some formal compilation. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 01:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, what now? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 01:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well the hard copies wouldn't be on the website, so no affected by this. But I actually do have another idea. The retroweb references are talking about specific performances in specific games, right? These would have been reported in daily newspapers in articles and box scores the day after. These would be, guess what, WP:reliable sources!! You could probably get these online if you have access to Lexis-Nexis or something similar, or microfiche at libraries, I guess.--Slp1 (talk) 02:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

We found a whole lot more data on the FAC; have a look there, or bring that info over. It may be enough to establish the author of retrosheet.org, David Smith, as an expert published by reliable third parties, per WP:SPS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Play party (BDSM)

There is an edit war on Play party (BDSM) between two editors who want to add content for which sources apparently can't found. I am just applying what WP:V says, that the burden is on people who want to add disputed content to find sources. And yet they show no signs of wanting to stop inserting this unverifiable content... and if it is verifiable they don't seem to care about finding sources. Can an admin or somebody look at this? I'm just doing what WP:V says, it's frustrating to get such resistance to sourcing. --Rividian (talk) 11:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Though I am not extremely experienced with this, my opinion concurs with yours. If the information is not sourced, it is the responsibility of the user who added it to cite it, not anybody else's. If the person keeps reinserting the material, do not edit war with the person. If simple explaining on the talk page does not work, and the person has been repeatedly reverting, consider reporting them to WP:3RR (thought I think an admin already warned the user so you do not have much to worry about, if he continues to behave inappropriately, contact an admin and he will be blocked). — Parent5446 ^{(t n e l)} 02:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Use of interviews from AvatarSpirit.net

Resolved

Currently, the Avatar: The Last Airbender article is having a dispute over AvatarSpirit.net as a citation. Though it is only the secondary issue that is being argued, the reliability of the site is questioned. The site is a fansite for the show Avatar: The Last Airbender. Though fansites are automatically tagged as "unreliable", this site holds actual interviews with the staff of the show (sometimes at Comic-Con, sometimes privately). It is being argued that the site, just because it is a fansite, made up the interviews (there are about ten to fifteen interviews in total). Should this source be used, or is it really probable that the interviews were created out of thin air? — Parent5446 ^{(t n e l)} 19:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

My understanding from the Avatar FAR is that it was being argued as unreliable because it violates copyrights? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That is a separate argument. Here is whats happening. User:Collectonian is arguing that this source is BOTH a copyvio and unreliable (examples of the unreliable argument are on the article's talk page). The copyvio argument is being settled elsewhere. I just wanted to ask about the source's reliability because Collectionian brought it up and one user suggested I ask here. — Parent5446 ^{(t n e l)} 01:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

As I understood it, the question is, can a fansite that engages in copyvios of others' works be reliable? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, basically. Keep in mind that copyvios and reliability are two separate entities. So please do not say it is unreliable simply because it has episode transcripts and screenshots that are considered copyvios. — Parent5446 ^{(t n e l)} 01:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Parent5446, the problem is that the reliability of the site is being questioned not just because it is a fansite, but also because it has copyright violations featured prominently on the site. It is possible for fansites to reach the level of reliability if they themselves become known for their knowledge of the topic (say a fansite of a sports team that is often quoted in the local media), but the question here is how can you trust a sources information if they do not respect the laws of the country in which they are located... --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see what you mean. So in the end, this would not be considered a reliable source? — Parent5446 ^{(t n e l)} 02:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, the copyright violations make it difficult to call it a reliable source. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I do see your point, but can copyvios make a source so unreliable that not even their interviews can be trusted? — Parent5446 ^{(t n e l)} 03:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read our definition of a reliable source at WP:V and then justify their reputation knowing that they break the law. Besides, I thought we resolved this on the FAR? It's citing a minimal bit of text that can be cited to another source, and over-relies on one source. Rewrite it, re-cite it, done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I get the point (though I still have some objections). BTW, the issue was partially resolved at the FAR, but it is still cited in the article. I do not know what Rau J's status is with replacing it (he said he knows some other site). — Parent5446 ^{(t n e l)} 03:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Boxofficeindia.com

I want an opinion about the boxofficeindia site. It has being used extensively by a group of editors on Indian cinema related articles. is being touted as the "OFFICIAL SITE FOR INDIAN FILM STATISTICS" on this FAC. However, I see no evidence whatsoever of any such thing anywhere on that site or anywhere else. Admittedly, some sources do quote from this site here and there, but then that isnt enough to qualify any source as RS. For that matter, even wikipedia and several popular blogs are quoted quite often in the media. That does not automatically make wikipedia or those blogs RS. I will appreciate some outside views. Thanks. Sarvagnya 16:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that this source is not just "quoted" in other RSes as claimed by the above editor, but used as a source of information. Reputable newspapers/websites in India (The Times of India, Hindustan Times, Rediff) as well as western newspapers (such as Times Online), use it as a source of information ("According to..." etc.), not just mention it. So actually there is an evidence, and the evidence is more than clear.

This is a major website for box office statistics in India for Hindi films (Bollywood). The site updates itself weekly; their way of working and everything related is detailed, and the information that is featured there, is often approved in the media by other sources.

Good to note that many editors accepted its use on Wikipedia and its reliability, while the above user is the only one who has ever questioned its reliability during the last two three years.

Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming the relevant policy would be Wikipedia:Reliable sources#News organizations, for what it might be worth. John Carter (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

BOI is a self published source and the policy in question is WP:SPS. This is what WP:SPS says --

“ Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.

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. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.

”

So, now tell me --

What are the credentials of those who run BOI? Are they expert statisticians? Are they film experts? What exactly are their qualifications? Has their work in the relevant field been published (note: "Published" is not the same as "quoted") in independent third-party sources? If so, where? When? By whom? Unless you can answer these questions convincingly, I do not see how this source can qualify as a reliable source. Sarvagnya 18:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

To verify it's "self-published" we would want to know who the "self" being "published" is. The site doesn't seem to indicate that. If you can provide information as to who the company behind it is, that would probably help. From this page, it looks to be self-published by boxofficeindia.com, who isn't expressly said to have any other affiliations. No indication of that firms other affiliations is shown. While that doesn't necessarily make it reliable, newsweek.com is "self-published" by Newsweek, so presumably it could be discounted on the basis of the evidence so far presented as well. Please provide information on what you know about the organization which disqualifies it as "self-published". John Carter (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Your argument is as disingenuous as your analogy. Newsweek has for its editor a certain Mr. Fareed Zakaria whose credentials and expertise is there for everyone to see. When Newsweek publishes an article, it is signed by responsible reporters and Fareed Zakaria who both put their credibility on the line. BOI otoh, if we were to take your words is run by a nameless, faceless individual(s) who arguably have no "credibility" to put on the line. How WP:RS is that?! Sarvagnya 18:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

And your refusal to answer a direct question hardly helps your own case. No one made you claim it was a self-published source. You did that on your own. I asked you to provide evidence, and you responded with your typical refusal to directly answer coupled with your typical insults. Either withdraw the claim that it is self-published and file the complaint based on other matters or provide sourcing which indicates that it is. John Carter (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not for me to prove that BOI is a self-published source. It is for you to prove that it is not. If it is not, tell me who is the publisher? Who is the editor of that site? What are their qualifications? Who/what are their sources? What are the qualifications of their sources? Several questions remain. You are the one who is defending that source. So the way it works is that I do the questioning and you provide me with the answers. Regards. Sarvagnya 19:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sarvagnya, please cease misrepresenting the statements of others, as you did above. I have stated it seems to be a reputable source, a la Entertainment Tonight, for the industry. I am not saying I think it is a particularly good source, just that I assumed (I did say that, if you bother to look) to qualify under one standard. Not only have you completely and utterly failed to provide any evidence to disqualify it on the basis of your stated reason for disqualifying it, you misrepresent the statements of others in a perjorative way and seek to place them on the defensive. Such conduct is far from acceptable. Please either provide the source to verify it is in fact "self-published" as per WP:SPS, which is the reason you gave for seeking to disqualify it, or provide some other basis. However, even under that clause, the clause saying that it might be acceptable on the basis that the corporate author has had their work "in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". It has been indicated that information from this site has been so published. Please cease trying to shift the burden on someone else. Either indicate that it is self-published, or acknowledge that the specific reason you gave among several may have been mistaken. And I urge you once again to try to control your language. Outright misrepresentation of the statements of others is not particularly appealing. John Carter (talk) 19:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I urge you to focus on demonstrating the RSness of your source and stop imagining insults and incivility where there is none. Sarvagnya 19:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You seriously just argued that people must prove a negative in order to invalidate your argument. The burden of proof is on you here, since that's patently wrong, and others have pointed out to you that it does not seem self-published. --Haemo (talk) 19:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. It is not self-published. Who then is the publisher? What are their qualifications? Who is the editor.. does he/she have a name? What are the editor's credentials? Care to answer some of those questions? Sarvagnya 19:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If you aren't using the "self-published" basis, personally, who cares? And I accept that you weren't intentionally personally insulting, although you clearly do not think that you have an cause to apologize. However, I would ask you to please cease presuming to tell others what they have to do because of your citation of a policy which is not demonstrably relevant. Such an appearance of arrogance appeals to no one. The question that seems to arise is whether this source can be shown to be unreliable, given that it does seem that at least some reliable sources cite it as a reliable source. And, in fact, other editors have used it as a source in 250 pages or so, without any previous questions regarding its reliability. That isn't proof of anything, but it can give cause to wonder whether you might be mistaken. Please indicate exactly why you believe that those who have cited the source, who presumably were acting in good faith, were mistaken to do so. Like I said above, I think it probably does qualify, in the same way as Entertainment Tonight does, particularly given that it has been quoted in other reliable publications. There is a question here about the anonymity of the individuals involved, but that is an entirely separate matter from your allegations of self-publication. However, in all honesty, in a lot of cases I don't know who wrote or edited some of the articles that appear in newspapers, either. What I guess I'm looking for is some evidence to question the sources reliability. Rhetorical questions are not evidence. Do you have any evidence to question the sources reliability, given that it does seem to be regarded as reliable enough to be cited as a source in publications relevant to its field? John Carter (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If we can't verify who is behind boxofficeindia.com, then it cannot be used as a reliable source. Unfortunately, a whois reveals the domain is registered through a third party domain seller, so the site owner cannot be verified. The only domain contact given in the registration is a hotmail account, not typically used by companies and organizations, making it questionable that there is a real organization behind the website. Is there any other source that someone can provide verifying who is actually behind this website? --MPerel 20:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

While I can't say you are wrong about that, I am not myself aware of any rules which state that verifiablity must include knowing the source. There are several anonymous news articles published elsewhere, and in some cases they are found to be unreliable, although only in some. I acknowledge I don't myself know of any other such sources which are used out there, but that is a separate matter. I'm afraid I don't know of any policy, guideline, or decision anywhere which makes the statement you made above. Neither do I know if this source has a reputation for fact-checking or accuracy, because I don't know this source. But it does seem to have sufficient reputation to be cited as a reliable source on occasion anyway. Maybe this is a really unique case, and I can't say it isn't, but I'm tending to think that even an anonymous source, if there is a clear appearance toward continuity of writing, like a website known by an anon company, might conceivably qualify as reliable for the information it is relied upon for by other sources. I honestly don't know though. Does anyone know of any other anonymous corporate sites which are cited, and how reliable they are regarded as? John Carter (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This site is not a self-published one. As said by John, "If you aren't using the "self-published" basis, personally, who cares?" - and even there, I don't think we can ignore the fact that not only Indian, but even reputable western newspapers like Times Online use the site as a source of information. The editor is Ashok Tilak, as I've read several times. This is the main problem with Indian sites, their lack of international/wide recognition. That's why they're often considered unreliable. Shahid • ^Talk2me 21:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I can sympathize with the challenge you are facing finding sites that qualify as reliable sources for the Indian film industry. I just conducted a brief search trying to see what reliable sources are out there for it, and am not really finding anything so far, so I see what you are up against. As far as Ashok Tilak, I see some blogs mentioning him, but those can’t really be counted as verifying that he is the owner of the site, and even if that can be verified, one of the main criteria that needs to be met for a reliable source is (as John mentions above) "a reputation for fact-checking or accuracy". WP:V describes examples of sources that meet this as "peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." Those are the kinds of sources that have a higher degree of scrutiny and fact-checking, which is why, btw, we need to be able to verify who is behind the site or we won’t know what structure they have in place for fact-checking to qualify it as reliable. If it does turn out to be a one-person website, it might be difficult to meet the fact-checking reliability criteria. Can the information that is being sourced by this website be sourced to something else? One other thought, you might contact the site and see whether they can provide you with something more substantial that publicly verifies who they are so we can further evaluate whether they meet reliability criteria. --MPerel 22:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed comment MPerel. I must say that I wouldn't have fought for this site if it hadn't been credible to me from the beginning. As someone who is very involved and updated with the Bollywood media news, I can assure that all the info provided on the site is correct. It was just an aside comment. Now, I think the fact that this source is being used in such reputable sources as Hindustan Times, Times of India and Times Online, is an integral part of finding an evidence to prove its reliability (as it was suggested by User:Nichalp and User:Spartaz back in time who later approved it). Let's remember that. You can see information about the site on here in detail as well. The problem, as I said, is the very minor international recognition Indian sites receive. Shahid • ^Talk2me 23:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry. But, a source doesnt become reliable by 'proclamation' or from editors' assurances or 'judgement' that they are reliable. Neither you nor Nichalp or Spartaz can simply 'proclaim' a source as RS. You are required to demonstrate that the source has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. And this exercise starts by telling us precisely who runs a site, a newspaper, a journal etc., and what their credentials are. And MPerel raises a very important point when he asks - "...Can the information that is being sourced by this website be sourced to something else?" -- the answer IMO is a firm no. The site in question makes truly exceptional claims about the box office collections by giving us precise and ostensibly authoritative numbers. Facts and figures are always "exceptional claims" and "exceptional claims require exceptional sources". This site in question is very far from being an "exceptional source" for the kind of information it gives. Sarvagnya 00:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, whichever part of that was a response to Shahid's point is probably wrong. If this source is , as Shahid claims, by other reliable sources, that is, indeed, the best possible sign (and our original standard!) that it is reliable. Private investigation is secondary to that basic criterion. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! Shahid • ^Talk2me 13:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, we dont go by that standard. By that standard, wikipedia and several other wikis and blogs would be reliable sources too. But, we know better. Sarvagnya 16:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well it's wrong of you to think that you are the one who decides what the standards are. Editors like Nichalp, Spartaz and now Relata seem to think differently. You are by far the only editor who thinks so. Wikipedia is a bad comparison, but we are not talking about just mentioning it, but using it as a source, just like Times Online etc do with BOI, they use it as a source of information. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Would you now stop putting words into people's mouths and go about telling us who exactly runs this site and what their credentials are? And stop misleading people with exaggerated claims. I did a search for <"boxofficeindia" site:rediff.com> and similarly for hindustantimes and indiatimes.com and the results are not flattering. Rediff returns results almost entirely pointing to reader responses on a discussion board and HT and ToI between them have less than 10 references to this site. Sarvagnya 17:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll quote Relata: "If this source is , as Shahid claims, by other reliable sources, that is, indeed, the best possible sign (and our original standard!) that it is reliable. Private investigation is secondary to that basic criterion."

And it doesn't matter "how much" -- the matter here is that it does. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) What surprises me is the disclaimer in their website which says: "You acknowledge that BOXOFFICEINDIA.COM and its affiliates do not control, represent or endorse the accuracy, completeness or reliability of any of the information available on the web site". With such a disclaimer saying that the website cannot vouch for the accuracy of the contents, I am not sure if we can consider the site as reliable. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 03:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Just what then would you consider a reliable source for Indian film statistics??. If there is a site which shines like a freshly polished shoe with accuracy and reliability, dear god please let us know. I doubt you'll ever find a better site than that for Indian film statistics. I really don't know what you expect to replace it. But because we don't have detailed profiles on the personel that run the site this means we should remove a valuable source from 250 articles because you can't know the shoe size of the BOI editors? Besides this would it really be impossible to find out who compiles the stats? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 09:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I dont know what you'd replace it with. But if you dont have reliable and verifiable sources, then according to policy, such information does not belong on wikipedia. Sarvagnya 16:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

There is an editor, as I said, and such disclaimers as that you will find in many reliable sites. That's not the problem. The problem is: Saying that the site cannot be considered reliable if it is used as a source of information in sites like Times Online, Hindustan Times, Rediff etc., is like invalidating these sites too. If Times Online can use it, believe me, so can we. Shahid • ^Talk2me 09:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

In response to Amar, I think I've seen such information posted by other sources who themselves rely on primary sources. There have been cases, where companies have misrepresented material to others. In this case, unfortunately, the only people who would legitimately know exactly how much money a given film has gotten wouls be the film companies and theatres themselves. If they were to collaborate to misrepresent that evidence, for whatever reason, no one short of a court would necessarily know otherwise. But it could be the case, potentially, that one of the film companies might be found, at some point, to have misrepresented a given film's box office earnings. If they did, and BOI published that in good faith, they could themselves, at least potentially, be found to have acted outside the law. Perhaps, and the Indian editors would know this a lot better than I would, there may be a historical case when an Indian film company was found to have released fraudulent data regarding a film's box office. Personally, all I see the statement cited really saying is, "The only people who know the truth regarding this matter have told us this. If they're lying, not our fault," and that is a more or less standard disclaimer. John Carter (talk) 14:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

break on Boxofficeindia.com: special invitation for broader input

Fresh eyes to the above discussion are needed. Objectivity thus far appears a bit compromised due to the fact that there is a related FAC at stake, and emotions seem to be running a little high on both sides. The removal of this source from the related article would likely gut it (note: I overstated that a bit, see below), though leaving it in perhaps compromises policy regarding reliable sources. This is a discussion that deserves wider input as some of the interpretation of policy being suggested has broader implications than the particular FAC (is a source made reliable because other reliable sources regularly cite it, and is there ever reason for leniency in this?). I was invited to weigh in on the above discussion and I in turn am inviting a variety of established editors to weigh in, if they can be coaxed, who as far as I know, have no connection to the affected FAC or any of the editors on either side, and who have particular experience and demonstrated wisdom dealing with reliable sources. Here is a briefing of the facts as I understand it:

1. It is unclear who is behind the site, though blogs seem to identify the owner as an individual named Ashok Tilak, whose credentials are not known.
2. There does not seem to be any other source available that provides the information this site provides (a particular problem when dealing with non-western subjects).
3. The information provided does not seem to be particularly biased or controversial, basically just some compiled statistics that appear useful.
4. The site has a disclaimer about the information being reliable.
5. The site appears established in the topic’s circles and is regularly cited by reliable sources such as newspapers.

2, 3, and 5 may lend merit to leniency in RS interpretation, while #1 and 4 appear problematic. Thoughts? Disclosure: the following editors are receiving specific invitation for input by me via their talk pages, though all feedback is encouraged please: JzG, G-Dett, Vassyana, SlimVirgin, Fred Bauder, Viriditas, Shirahadasha, DGG, Jossi, Piotrus, Avraham, Keeper76, Risker, Erik, El C. --MPerel 03:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Sorry to squeeze in MPerel, but #5 above does not seem to be true. I havent seen any evidence of this source being widely used in Reliable Sources. Sarvagnya 05:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• From: http://boxofficeindia.com/cpages.php?pageName=about

ABOUT US - Boxofficeindia.com is the premium boxoffice site for hindi films. The site is by far the largest box office site in India and the second largest box office site in the world in terms of reach and viewership. After years of hard work, Boxofficeindia.com has been able to get a team of reporters and representatives to give the most up to date and authentic news related to the business side of hindi films.
SOURCES -All data prior to 1954 is estimated depending on the how long a film ran as actual collections were not published. After that the data has been estimated from what has been given in trade journals. Many figures from 2004 onwards are what the distributor or producers have declared. As corporates are entering the industry, box office figures have become much more transparent and most corporates issue collections of their films. When collections are not issued for films, the network of Boxofficeindia.com is today big enough and is able to get collections from most centres around India through our various representatives.

Unless the source is used for contentious claims, I see no reason why not to use it. And if we do use the source, we can simply attribute the figures to the source: According to site XYZ ..., as to not to assert these figures as facts. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, imo, whether what is being cited is contentious or not is besides the point. And fwiiw, this site is being used to cite 'facts and figures' - which imo is inherently "exceptional". Also, it is being used to cite claims like "biggest grosser of the year".. "biggest grosser of the decade" etc.,. Sarvagnya 04:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The removal of this source from the related article would likely gut it, ... No idea where this notion comes from. Unless the article has changed dramatically since the last time I looked, the source in question is used to source four short clauses. This situation seems to be turning into a tempest in a teapot, and I suggest that if the actual text being cited is examined, solutions may emerge. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I had another look, and when accounting for named refs, it's more than four clauses, but it's still not substantial and nothing even close to "gutting the article"; if the editors who are so engaged in this dispute will look at the actual text cited, again, I believe solutions will emerge. There are not BLP issues here, even though it is a BLP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I overstated! Not trying to stir the pot. I'm also looking beyond to the broader implications besides the FAC issue prompting this of how to handle similar reliable sources issues. It seems like this situation may come up again, particularly for non-western topics, where there is a shortage of sources available. I'm wondering whether there should be leniency for using weak though non-controversial sites that are cited by other reliable sources. --MPerel 04:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Common sense should prevail. As SandyGeorgia said, if editors involved tone-down the rhetoric a bit and re-look at the material, solutions will emerge. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

SG, regardless of how much impact it may or may not have on a given article, the larger issue here is whether the site qualifies as RS or not. afa I can say, I see no evidence whatsoever that it is RS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarvagnya (talk • contribs) 04:35, May 11, 2008 (UTC)

I'm not here to engage in the dispute over reliability, as that would create a conflict. I'm here to clarify the statement that the removal of one source would gut the article. Certainly if a questionable source were being used to extensively cite a BLP, such that the article would be gutted without it, the article wouldn't still be listed at FAC. I believe calmer minds can find solutions if the rhetoric will subside and editors will actually examine the text being cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• We use the best sources we have. Web sources of this general sort have always been considered acceptable for routine details that are not controversial, so that part isn't really in serious question. I suppose the question is whether it can be used for judgements or matters of opinion as well as straight-forward facts; even for this, I see no reason why it would be any more reliable if it had claimed to be conventionally edited & published. Generally accepted informally published sources of this sort will increasing be the kind of source that will available, and we might as well get used to it. DGG (talk) 04:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry.. but I dont see sources like these being acceptable.. not without either ignoring or rewriting WP:RS and WP:SPS. Sarvagnya 05:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll say what Relata said above, and many of us say many times to the same editor: "If a site is cited by other reliable sources, that is, indeed, the best possible sign (and our original standard!) that it is reliable. Private investigation is secondary to that basic criterion."

Now, Reputable newspapers/websites in India (The Times of India, Hindustan Times, Rediff) as well as western newspapers (such as Times Online), use it as a source of information. Haven't we had enough of these continious discussions? Isn't that clear that the site is reliable? Spartaz, Nichalp, John Carter, Relata refero, Blofeld of SPECTRE, all of them agree with it being reliable. Sarvagnya is the only one who has ever raised any concerns against this site. Newspapers use the site as a source of information, and if they can, clearly so can we. Please see also User:Geometry guy's note on the FAC. Shahid • ^Talk2me 05:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• I absolutely do not buy the idea that we should use an unreliable source simply because we don't have a better one, the question cannot be answered relatively in that way, it must hinge on the reliability of the site itself and whether it meets our criteria. In this case, I would say (somewhat cautiously due to lack of transparency in editorial oversight) that it does appear to meet the criteria, as it is widely cited by other reliable sources and is not known to be contended. We should review this if anyone comes up with a dispute over their figures, or if we get information that shows deficiency in editorial oversight. Guy (Help!) 07:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry.. but there is no evidence whatsoever that it is being cited widely in reliable sources at all! Atleast I havent seen any so far. A google search is revealing -

• The Hindustan Times returns a grand total of 1 hit
• The Times of India group returns a grand total of 6 hits

That by any stretch of imagination isnt flattering. Sarvagnya 07:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, in "widely cited", the matter is not "widely", the matter is "cited". The fact that this is used, is a direct evidence of its reliability. Also good to note that these sites don't really publish that many articles about box office. Shahid • ^Talk2me 08:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Says who? I mean, which policy or guideline? Would you bother to point out? Sarvagnya 16:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

If a questionable site is used as a reference in a reliable source like the ToI, that does not automatically make it a reliable source itself. Newspapers sometimes reference claims to extremist sites; does that mean they are reliable now? Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Frankly this site does not seem to be questionable. As for being cited in RS sources, first of all, not according to a number of editors who said that it is a great evidence when someone challenges a source. Of course, not automatically, but when it comes to the extent of being cited not only in Indian sources like ToI, Rediff and HT, but even western sources like Times Online, and the source itself is very active, so we can't ignore its notability and reliability. I haven't seen any extremist source being used as a source of information. And now, the first thing that comes to my mind is that if Times Online can use it, I can't see why Wikipedia cannot. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, WP:RS and WP:SPS does not work that way, and secondly, a solitary citing in Times Online does not mean anything. Thirdly, Times Online is not an encyclopedia and works differently and is governed by its own policies. Fourthly, we are governed by our own policies none of which bestow RS-hood by association. Sarvagnya 19:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You say it. Many other editors think differently. And it does, if reputable sources can cite it, so can we. Ask all those editors I mentioned above. Again, there is absolutely no significance to the number of times it's been cited, but it's been, and here is the significance. The fact that Times Online used it and mentioned it and cited it. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, that argument does not hold water. If you look at something similar, Wikipedia does get quoted in reliable sites like CNN but that would not make Wikipedia a reliable site. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 08:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but Wikipedia is a very bad comparison in this case, because it's a very well recognised site, and people can trust it according to their knowledge. But blogs for example, you will never find blogs cites as sources of information. I was back in time asked to find an evidence, and I didn't find one, but many. And this "according to" only shows that we can use this source as long as we state that in this manner. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Reply to Mperel's and Sarvagnya's important questions

Sarvagnya asks "which policy or guideline?" says that "The fact that this is used [by reliable sources] is a direct evidence of its reliability." Mperel asks "is a source made reliable because other reliable sources regularly cite it"?

As Relata refero points out, this idea has a long history here at Wikipedia. The phrase "Find out what other people say about your sources" and the suggestion "to cross-check with an independent source" appear in Beland's original version of the page and Radiant!'s first guideline version

But the idea that "cit[ation] by other reliable sources ... is indeed the best possible sign (and our original standard!) that it is reliable" is still there, hiding in plain sight, implicit in our basic guideline, our lex generalis:

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

The rest of the WP:RS guideline and parts of WP:V is lex specialis explicating this sentence, but as WP:RS wisely states, not exhaustively, as some editors seem to argue. The dictionary meaning of "reliable" - able to be relied on (by whom?) is clearly relevant. (And the source at hand, BOI seems prima facie reliable and making unexceptional claims - Would we be having this discussion if it contradicted known reliable sources?) That accepted source A in fact does rely on source B is evidence of nonzero weight that B is reliable in the ordinary sense, and I and many others hold, according to Wikipedia rules. Look at "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". How do we evaluate reputation? Our practice is not to only use sources for which we could find another source explicitly saying this is a great source with great fact-checking and accuracy - and how do we evaluate "the another source" then?

No, the action of citing and using a source speaks louder (and more frequently) and directly about "reputation" than the rarer, but implied, words "this source is good (accurate, fact-checking), we've checked it out." And citations are easy to mechanically google and find, objective and practical.

As Sarvagnya says "a source doesn't become reliable by 'proclamation' or from editors' assurances or 'judgement' that they are reliable." But he is wrong when the he states that "this exercise" of determining a source's reputation "starts by telling us precisely who runs a site, a newspaper, a journal etc." That is simply not what the key word "reputation" means. Reputation doesn't mean "biographical" "credentials" information about a person or institution, which is a useful but indirect means of establishing reputation. Reputation means what other people or institutions think about him, her or it. Were Michael Scheuer's books unreliable sources when he was still anonymous?

Indeed, reputation of a journal, person or text is often based on mechanical computation of citation indices based on the raw fact of citation alone, and not only here at Wikipedia, where it is often used as a criterion of notability. We should not be reinventing the wheel when we think about source reliability. Looking at "who cites it" is second nature and best practice in source evaluation in many fields, in academia, journalism, law (where there's even a word for it - Shepardizing), to many editors and in the real world in general.

This idea is entirely in line with how other core policies and practices work at wikipedia like NOR - we should endeavor as far as is possible not to substitute our own judgment for that of published sources. Avoiding it would mean we put our "objective" and changing wiki-criteria above published reliable sources' opinions. That isn't the wikipedia way. Another parallel example is notability. Recently at AfD, two of the most acute and respected editors (who argue here pro -BOI) argued to delete, or only weakly to keep Sara Roy - she's only a Research Associate at Harvard (biographical, credentials, objective info) - why have an article on her? But it turned out that she is citably well known as the world's #1 expert in her field. "Reputation" data does and should trump "objective" data, and citation clearly can speak for reputation.

However, it might be a good idea to make this more explicit and less reliant on talmudic/jesuitical disputation.

So my proposal is a line in WP:RS like

"That an accepted, high-quality RS uses a source is evidence for the source's reliability for use in the same manner as the accepted RS." The "in the same manner" and "high-quality" parts are there to satisfy Nishkid64's and Sarvagnya's "RS-hood by association" concerns.

And maybe we should also have a sentence somewhere, or an agreement, to the effect that we are not trying to reinvent the wheel, but just to adapt the best and standard academic, journalistic, legal, real world practices in source evaluation, which certainly includes this "shepardizing" idea, to the wonderful world of Wikipedia.John Z (talk) 10:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't see a good reason to object to the website. Although it would be better if we knew for sure who ran it, and better still if it weren't a personal website, it does seem to be quite meticulous in its detail, and if it's being used as a source by the mainstream media, it should be okay for us. WP:V says that self-published sources may be used "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." Strictly speaking, that means the work should have been published under the source's byline, but I feel the meaning could be stretched in this case to include being used as a source for other publications, because the material isn't contentious. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 06:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Clarification requested Is there a dispute over a specific asserted fact at the base of this? If so, that particular matter should be discussed in context. DGG (talk) 23:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that's what Jossi and I tried to point out above, but with all this hollering, perhaps no one's listening :-)) The specific stats cited have to do with the movies, not with Preity, and the editors haven't discussed whether they are challenged. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Clarification - I am not sure why this is being brought up. My question here has only been whether this source is RS or not. This source gives facts and figures and numbers and my question here is whether the source qualifies as RS for such information. If it can be shown that this source is RS, fine. If it cannot, then according to our policy it does not matter what claim it is being used to cite, it simply has no place on wikipedia. Sarvagnya 17:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It can be shown -- I've provided several such evidences, which have been accepted by most editors.. Oh except you. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Clarification There is no specific dispute over specific facts asserted in the article Preity Zinta, which is in FAC. The site has been used to support numerical figures (box office earning of particular films) at least three times. And the site has been used to support non-numerical claims a few more times (such as, XYZ film was a hit). Sarvagnya has not exactly disputed/challenged the figures with other figures, but objected against the source.

The site has also been used in many other articles related to Bollywood.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: Also posted to AN and Village pump. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Not at all: Everything is fine and always the media results and article approve the facts on the site. Sources I'll show later. Shahid • ^Talk2me 04:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

All data prior to 1954 is estimated depending on the how long a film ran as actual collections were not published. After that the data has been estimated from what has been given in trade journals. Many figures from 2004 onwards are what the distributor or producers have declared. As corporates are entering the industry, box office figures have become much more transparent and most corporates issue collections of their films. When collections are not issued for films, the network of Boxofficeindia.com is today big enough and is able to get collections from most centres around India through our various representatives. - If figures from 2004 onwards are publicly declared by the producers, then these primary sources need to be discovered and used instead. As for pre-1954 material, I personally am not comfortable relying on what are explicit estimates by a site run by someone with no pre-existing credentials or public methodology to his estimations. (This is not a judgment of the data itself.) If 1954-2004 films have been estimated from trade journal data, then the trade journals presumably can be researched and discovered as well. It would be very nice and convenient for BOI to be a RS, but unfortunately, as much as we may all wish for this to be the case, I see a lot of circular reasoning. Finding some primary sources would settle the question definitively for all, I think everyone can agree. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you expand on the circular reasoning? --Relata refero (disp.) 08:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure - the argument that the source is reliable because it's been used in other articles, or even other publications. Reliability has nothing to do with prior usage of the reference - if it were, then all that makes a source reliable is having already been used, which would presumably be in the prior cases also because it had already been used. Were this the case, then you start getting into a Gresham's law situation where the bad drives out the good. Which is precisely why RS was implemented. You can't prove reliability, but you can indicate it. Now, per RS and V:

• Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
• Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals.
• Items that are recommended in scholarly bibliographies are welcomed.
• Items that are signed are preferable to unsigned articles.
• Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as the The Washington Post, The Times of London, and The Associated Press. [emphasis mine]
• 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. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. [emphasis not mine]
• In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.
• Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications.
• Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.

Now, given all of those factors, and the fact that this is a self-published site (ie the publishing of books and other media by the authors of those works, rather than by established, third-party publishers), I don't think it meets encyclopedic standards at the moment. Any claims involving box office data presumably is either being sourced from otherwise available data or is being estimated, which would be original research. Either way, we shouldn't use it, because in the former, better sources exist, and in the latter, the data is being fabricated to a degree (however accurately is irrelevant). That other publications choose to rely on what may be spurious data is not our concern, because our standards are ours, not theirs. The information would be useful for these articles, but the question is not about the information, but the source. So once again, given that BOI itself indicates that more reliable primary sources such as trade journals and corporate announcements exist, it would appear that there is a better avenue for referencing this subject, albeit one that may require more research work offline. For better or worse, it may be less convenient, but it is more rigorously adherent to our standards, which ultimately makes for long-term viability. I'm sorry - I wish that there were a better online source, too. But this one is not it. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable answer. I do have one question, which might be somewhat theoretical, but might also apply in this case, I don't know. I do know of some sources, like advertising companies, which don't always release their information directly to the public, but sometimes just to middlemen. I can't be sure if that is the case here, though. In cases like that, the primary sources might not be explicitly available. Alternately, they might have be release as press releases, which are basically ignored by most if not all other sources and thus can't be found in them. Like I said, I can't know if that is the case here or not though, not being particularly well acquainted with Indian cinema. John Carter (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You may very well be correct, but that doesn't mean that we abrogate our own policies and guidelines in order to allow in more information. The sourcing is as important - if not more so - than the content, because the sourcing is what establishes this site's own external reliability. See also WP:BURDEN. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think there's an excessive amount of noise about this. There do not appear to be any other sources of equivalent or better reliability on the subject of trade returns; there do not appear to be any stated questions about this site's numbers; there do not appear to be any inherently extraordinary claims cited to this site. (Whether it should be used to cite crucial parts of an FA is another matter, and not the province of this noticeboard. WP:FA? nowhere says that sources should be of impeccable quality. It should, of course, but it doesn't.) --Relata refero (disp.) 08:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

"...There do not appear to be any other sources of equivalent or better reliability on the subject of trade returns; there do not appear to be any stated questions about this site's numbers; there do not appear to be any inherently extraordinary claims cited to this site..." - and exactly where in WP:RS is it said that all that makes this site a RS? And talking of FA criteria, look up 1c - "...claims are verifiable against reliable sources..." Sarvagnya 16:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

This is reliable. We have proved the reliability of the site, you haven't proved the opposite. Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it seems to me that this source would be an effective equivalent of Entertainment Tonight, and be called, by its detractors, a "shill" for the industry. That's fine. However, the policy in question seems to me to explicitly state that we prefer sources which are, as it were, "more reliable" than this one. That does not mean that we would rule out the use of them if the material in question would qualify in most eyes as being encyclopedic and there were no clearly more reliable sources apparently available. If anyone can find sources that meet WP:RS for this information, I hope to see them. If not, then I can't see any objections to using the only sources apparently available, provided we indicate in the text as neutrally as possible that there might be questions about the absolute accuracy of the information in at least some cases. I have also contact User:Girolamo Savonarola, the lead coordinator of the Film project, for his input as well, considering his project is very likely among the ones that would be most impacted, one way or another by this discussion, and, possibly, that he might know some more information, or get access to some more information, than some of the rest of us. John Carter (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeh right John. I may be saying that for the N^th time, but nevertheless who has not seen that yet -- the source is used as a source of information not only in 300 Wikipedia articles, but reliable newspapers and websites. And good to note that during all the time of its existence on Wikipedia, it's been challenged by only one user, whereas many other editors have supported it. Shahid • ^Talk2me 17:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Not that it is germane to this discussion, but purely out of curiosity, what exactly is the parallel beween Boxofficeindia.com and Entertainment Tonight? And as for your plea that sources are OK if RSes cannot be found flies in the face of what WP:V says -- "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—meaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." Sarvagnya 19:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I answered the first point above, if you read it. They both can be said to be "shills" for the industry. And, if the material can be found at the site in question, then it meets Verifiability, according to the quote you just made. So it seems to meet the standards of verifiability as a source, by your not appearing to challenge that, if not necessarily being the most reliable one. John Carter (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• sigh* Verifiablility is not met unless the source is RS. The quote I made has a wikilink to RS.. please click on it and read it. Sarvagnya 19:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:V: "The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context." The information provided on the site as well as the figures and verdicats -- all as one -- are factually accurate and approved, as can be seen in other reliable sources (BTW, another evidence that it's reliable). And I'm not talking about the site itself being cited and used, which is the first one. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been asked to comment here by editors on both sides of the discussion. This is a long thread, and I've only skimmed it, so I can't be sure my comments will be particularly helpful. I was prompted to comment here because of this comment I made at the FAC for Preity Zinta which uses boxofficeindia.com as a source for nine or ten box office figures/comparisons. The main points of that comment are that attribution, not truth, is fundamental to Wikipedia, and that the ultimate arbiter on reliability is the reader, so (just as with our neutral point of view policy) our slogan should be "let the reader decide", and we should provide the reader with the information necessary to make that decision. I don't think I need to develop that argument further, so I will focus on a separate misleading aspect of reliable sources policy. The misleading aspect is that the policy seems to refer to a source as an object/entity (a book, a website, a news agency) and ask us to judge the reliability of that entity. While this simplification sometimes causes no problems, it is a simplification. A source is not an entity, but a source for a particular piece of information, and when we discuss a source of information, the information is just as important as the entity in assessing reliability. For instance, a Veganism society may be a reliable source for the fact that Vegans don't eat eggs, but it is not a reliable source for the health benefits (or otherwise) of Veganism. If boxofficeindia.com is being used to provide opinions on the quality of movies, then the case for reliability is extremely weak or non-existent. If it is being used to provide (comparative) box office figures, the case for reliability (with caveats about attribution) is much stronger. Geometry guy 17:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

In my clarification to DGG, I did point out that the question was whether BOI was reliable for the kind of info it provided - ie., the number, facts and figures it provides. The answer to that surely does not lie in our readers. Our readers, it may be argued are the ultimate arbiters of our(wikipedia's ie.,) reliability, but they should not and are not the ultimate arbiters of our sources. Our choice of sources is governed by our policy, not by how readers judge us. And there is nothing misleading in treating our sources as entities. The info provided by the "entity" is only as reliable as the entity itself. And that is precisely why we have WP:SPS. The only way we can judge the reliability of any information is if we had a way to know where it was coming from and if possible, the methods of research employed therein. In other words, unless we know who is behind BOI and more importantly, what their credentials are, there is simply no objective way to judge their content. And as with your Veganism example, BOI also is a reliable source for an article about themselves.. ie., if the BOI site proclaims that they started operations in 200x.. then it is reliable for sourcing such claims. They are not reliable for anything they claim to be experts in unless they can show us some evidence of being the experts they claim they are. Sarvagnya 18:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, Gguy, I agree with your comment. Secondly, Sarvagnya, John asked you to prove that BOI is a self-published source; you haven't still done that. After User:Haemo interfered, you yourself said, "OK. It is not self-published." So WP:SPS does not apply to BOI. Shahid • ^Talk2me 18:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Goodness gracious! I said BOI is not SPS?! BOI publishes BOI. That is what they say on their own "About us" page. Let me break this up for you -- if I publish my own article or you publish your own article or BOI publishes BOI's own article.. we all are still "self-published" sources. Now, if you disagree with the very definition of a "Self-published" source, then just say so. Sarvagnya 19:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought you said above that it wasn't a self-published source, and that you were right then. That policy is more or less meant to apply to political tracts published by candidates about themselves, similar blogs, and similar hype written and published by the subject themselves. BOI is not the subject of it's work, though. What it does is describe films which it seemingly has no part in the creation of. Neither does it seem to directly profit in any way from the films, so it's description of film intake almost certainly does not qualify as SPS, as you more or less admitted above. Unless you've received comments offline from one of the parties you asked clarification of the policy from, I have to say that you are almost certainly wrong regarding applying that policy in this instance. This is not to say that it might not qualify as unreliable according to other policies, but there's no real reason to think that policy applies in this case at all, as others have said above. Why are you continuing to try to press that apparently irrelevant policy in this discussion? John Carter (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. User:Harel said: "The burden of proof is on you here", and here is your diff. Now it makes some things clear. You said that, and skipped that later, not having proved the opposite. Shahid • ^Talk2me 19:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm very confused as to this view that SPS are fine except for political writings about oneself. As per SPS:

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.

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. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

Now, this website has been created by an individual who is not a news organization, so this would be considered self-published. Given that, he has no prior credentials in the field, nor any prior work published in reliable sources. And as the SPS says, any information really worth reporting which is reliable is highly likely to exist in multiple other sources.

The fact as it stands today is this: we don't know where the information is actually coming from. Maybe he has the account sheets direct from the production companies, maybe all of the numbers are completely made up, but the fact is that we have no way of discerning in either direction. And therefore, according to Wikipedia's current standards, this is not a reliable source. Whether or not the information is actually true is not relevant (though presumably, anything which could prove so would probably be a better source anyway). How other publications' editorial boards choose to use the site is also not relevant - many publications are happy to use IMDb as a reliable source; we do not.

As for the question of Box Office Mojo and similar sites, the site information section of that website indicates that their sources are the studios themselves, and the site, to my knowledge, is run by individuals with prior credentials in the field. Therefore a comparison between the two sites would not be equal. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think that's exactly what I was saying. So far as I can tell, the site is published by a corporation. I think at this point it might be OR to say that corporation is a single human being. And I wasn't saying that any other self-published sources by politicians, actors, writers, or anyone else would be reliable. I was just saying that, so far as I can tell, this is not an SPS in the sense of it being a site owned by the entity which includes material specifically about itself in the information, which so far as I can tell is what SPS is supposed to be. Now, having said that, I could be wrong. But Newsweek.com would fail the same rule, if it were applicable here. John Carter (talk) 20:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

"The key distinguishing characteristic of self-publishing is the absence of a traditional publisher. Instead the creator or creators fulfill this role, taking editorial control of the content, arranging for printing, marketing the material, and often distributing it, either directly to consumers or to retailers." What separates Newsweek from SPS is that Newsweek's reporters do not publish the magazine, they do not exercise editorial control over their articles, and they don't do their own fact-checking. These are farmed out to other individuals who therefore can vet the material as need be. That is what distinguishes traditional publishing from self-publishing. There is no indication that this site exists as anything other than a site run by an individual, however well-designed it is. The best guess that anyone has - and it is just a guess - is Ashok Tilak, whomever that may be. Non-self published press sources publicly identify their editorial boards and contributing reporters - that indeed is a key element of reliability - transparency and putting one's reputation behind one's work. If evidence can be found otherwise to show whom is running this site, I would be happy to see it. As other editor pointed out elsewhere, for all we know, teenagers are running it. How would we know?

This information may not be reliably able to be sourced online. That's difficult, for sure. Offline probably has a bevy of far better sources, I would imagine. If not, then it may have to be conceded that the information simply can't be used period. That's a very tough pill to swallow, I know, but it is better than being "determined to fight for this source to the bitter end". Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact is if you are going to disregard apparently "self published data" (which it isn't exactly because they have clearly stated that they use filmproduction company sources to compile it) in favour for "published data", Internet sources are often compiled differently than a traditional Oxford Press source in a book or something. Whoever the authority, somebody has still had to display the details given on a website. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 11:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Self-published has nothing to do with where the data is coming from - it has to do with how the site is written, edited, and published. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Arb section break -2

Well I still can't see what makes it self-published. And regardless of this site's reliability, I agree with Geometry guy's comment above.

And actually we do know where the information is coming from. We just don't know the precise trade journals, and from 2004 on, from distributors.

Now BOMojo also seems to be conducted similarly: Brandon Gray is said to be the one who started it, but we don't know who he is. Yet, this site is considered reliable.

Look also what Mojo states, "Box Office Mojo is regularly quoted in such publications as the Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Bloomberg, Forbes and has appeared on CNN, CNBC, Access Hollywood and Fox News among other television broadcasts." - that's all to show how reliable they are. So does BOI. Both sites are very similar. Only that BOM is an American site which has wide recognition, and BOI, an Indian site which suffers from the same problem as many other Indian sites: lack of international recognition. Shahid • ^Talk2me 20:03, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It has to be said that when I've been doing much work on geo articles I myself have questioned data on demographics particularly in the non-english speaking world which has been distributed apparently by reliable government sources. The site has stated that it is the leading compiler of the statistics or whatever and by the government but in the same way it doesn't transmit all the personal details of the credentials of the people who compiled it so we never know if it is entirely accurate. We just assume that they are done correctly by able people and in good faith and record the data as according to census records. Given that we try to use the best source possible, it is up the reader personally to decide whether to trust what is written in these sources and indeed in what is reported on wikipedia. There are hundreds of thousands of wikipedia references obtained in the same way. The same is for BOI and Box Office Mojo. Evidentally they do have some claim as a source because they are not blogs and have been cited in national newspapers, distributed to millions, but further than this they specialize in collecting data on films. WHy would they bother solely dedicating their time and effort to achieving this if they only intended displaying false data?. It is quite ignorant to suggest that a site which clearly dedicates a lot of time to compiling the data wouldn't wish to have it as accurate as possible like us on wikipedia. Ideally it would be better to obtain statistics directly from the film production company itself but the concern over this really is beyond belief. If a questionable source is replaceable then by all means replace it but the reality is there is nothing that is considered "more reliable" for statistics on Indian films. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 11:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read this whole thread, but I agree with the last point made by Blofeld that in absence of a "more reliable" website, boxofficeindia.com should be considered as a "reliable source". There is no Indian Government website which can provide similar information (if you want reason for this, I'll try to search and provide a reason why such a thing is not possible) and boxofficeindia is a 'third-party' 'neutral' website (they do not produce films). Also, I have found at least one evidence that a reliable site like The Economic Times is citing boxofficeindia.com as a source: check this page. GDibyendu (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with you GDibyendu. And not only this source, but also Rediff, Hindustan Times and even international newspapers like Times Online use it. It's too much to consider that unreliable. And yes, it appears to be the only active and famous site for BO statistics in India. Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Blofeld, to use the argument that we should use one source unless we find a better source, you will have to change policy first. Per existing policy, sources dont become RS simply because better sources dont exist. That simply is not the way WP:RS works. Also, if you find any sources that are suspect during the course of your work on geo articles, by all means question it. You can bring it to this board for more eyes to look at. But, just because you choose to ignore something elsewhere does not mean others should not question sources like BOI. And talking of BOI, unless the identity and credentials of those running the site is known, we cannot take their words at face value. For all we know, they may be lying when they tell us that they're getting their numbers from "trade journals". Like User:Stephan Schulz says in another discussion below -- "Reliability is not the default assumption, it must be positively established." Sarvagnya 16:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

But the same could be said of any site that states something. If the New York Times happened to have a similar list and they stated that the statistics were compiled from "trade journals" the likelihood is you would take their word for it even if there wasn't anything on the author of the web page. You would naturally assume that as it is the NY Times it must be 100% correct. Would you automatically assume they were lying?? Your;re argument doesn't appear to be about the writers of the web page rather the integrity of the site itself. The question is would removing all figures reported from those websites in the 300 or so articles actually benefit wikipedia as a resource (which is intended to document reported facts and figures) because people one or two editors think the site "might be telling a mistruth"?. P.S I have re-referenced hundreds of articles which I questioned the reliability of in the past so please don't make out as if I "ignore" questionable sources. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 16:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You're citing opinions of other editors only when they support yours, but ignoring opinions of many other editors, who agree that the site is actually reliable. As for the credentials you're talking about, as said by John, "If you aren't using the "self-published" basis, personally, who cares?" Shahid • ^Talk2me 16:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that the NYT has an editorial control board, they have researchers and fact checkers, and they disclose their names to the public. That is precisely why they are not self-published, and a key reason why they are considered reliable - they have high standards of transparency and accountability. This is not to say that they are 100% reliable, because no source is, but these factors make for a strong disincentive against falsification, since their reputation is based on the work they stand behind.

As for Box Office Mojo, the site publicly discloses the names of its writers, and openly acknowledges that they source directly from the studios and production companies. And even if they didn't, we would still have several other reliable sources for the data. If the Indian information is indeed reliable, there will be other ways of sourcing it. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

But even if we knew who compiled the data personally we would still be having the same conversation because it is more about the reputation of the site. Meanwhile as 100kb of comments are posted here articles on entire Indian states like Bihar are unreferenced and are in serious trouble. Perhaps its high time priorities underwent change on here ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Nine objections directly from policy and guidelines

Template:RFCpolicy This is mainly from WP:RS and WP:V -

1. Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. - there is no evidence of fact-checking

2. Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals. - has not been vetted

3. Items that are recommended in scholarly bibliographies are welcomed. - not referenced to any bibliographies

4. Items that are signed are preferable to unsigned articles. - completely unsigned; we have no idea who is running the site

5. Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, such as the The Washington Post, The Times of London, and The Associated Press. - not a mainstream news organization

6. 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. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. - there is no evidence otherwise given that the author of the site has prior expertise in the field, that his writing has been published prior to his work on the site by reliable publications, or that the site's information can be independently verified.

7. In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is. - the site gives no evidence of any editorial control processes.

8. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. - does not meet this standard

9. Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves. - as per above, there is no evidence of fact-checking.

The source fails for all of the above reasons, not just one of them. No amount of argument or rhetoric will make all of these disappear - so I would encourage the editors to do any of the following: a) continue to research the site to find more information about how they operate, b) do some real-world research to find other sources that may be indicated to exist on paper, and c) drop this source and cease the semantics which others may misinterpret as Wikilawyering.

Lastly, as per Shahid's wishes expressed to me for more editors, I am putting this up for RfC. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I've said this before (like several months before) I've been saying it all along and I say it now.. this site, as Girolamo demonstrates above (something which I've done without luck for months now) is not a Reliable source per existing policy. The only claim that is being repeated ad nauseum is that this source is used widely in Reliable sources. Not only is that claim not true, it is also of no consequence as it finds no support in either WP:V, WP:RS or WP:SPS. Unless the defenders of this source care to address the specific policy concerns listed above (and above and above and way above), their semantics will not be misinterpreted, but rather interpreted rightly as wikilawyering and disruption. This has been going on for months and I am being hounded with ANIs and RfCs and it has to stop now. Sarvagnya 18:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The above summary is rather misleading in terms of comments. "Reputation for fact-checking" =/= "evidence of fact-checking". A reputation is demonstrated by being cited elsewhere. I have no idea what the other points are supposed to mean, frankly. They're not all necessary conditions for reliability.

As for other remarks, I seem to see various references to the use of this site in reliable sources. Perhaps he can quote occasions where other reliable sources have dismissed the numbers? Or where other reliable sources have used some other source for numbers? Or where contradictions are apparent? If none of that is true, I fail to see why a self-stated months-long crusade was even necessary to attempt to remove all references to a site, repeatedly used elsewhere, that doesn't even appear to be vaguely controversial. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Fact checking is evidenced by the presence of editorial controls such as copy editors and researchers. All major news organizations have them. When we require a "reputation for fact checking", this implies that something must indicate it; we don't simply assume that all websites have such a reputation prima facie. This is not about controversy; it's about reliability. The issue has been forced due to an FAC, which is makes it germane to the moment. As for the opinions of other reliable sources, we don't take them into account in the guidelines - news organizations do not compile public lists of what they regard as unreliable; they simply abstain from using them in most cases.

As for more evidence of better sources, see here. It is clear that far better primary sources exist and can be used. Lack of will amongst our editors to track these down is not an acceptable justification to argue for sites with no transparency, pre-existing reputation from their contributors, or editorial controls. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You know, I share Blofeld's exasperation that this is such a major issue when, say, the article on one of India's first Cabinet ministers looks like this. I really shouldnt comment further. That being said, I will.

Your argument continues to conflate reputation with evidence. If evidence is provided of fact-checking or oversight, excellent. But a reputation for fact-checking is implied when it is quoted without comment elsewhere. We do not assume all sources have any such reputation; which is why we could check to see whether others, who have professional reasons to seek accuracy, quote the source.As you point out, news orgs abstain from using unreliable sources.

About the primary sources: may I point out we traditionally prefer to avoid primary sources for OR reasons. If the primary sources in question are "trade outlets and Independent theater trackers", the latter are frankly going to be open to the same problems as here, and the former aren't independent third-party sources anyway. Frankly, a source that collates this information, makes it generally available, and is quoted by (to add to the list)

• the trade organisations themselves, according to AFX’s Company News Feed, the major European financial numbers source,
• the largest multiplex company in India,
• the European Union's official body on the subject of film statistics and information in its main annual report on worldwide statistics
• the largest Indian chamber of commerce in its frontline report on the film business
• the Hindu, the most reliable Indian newspaper, and,
• to top it all off, Variety, which is the last word on the subject of the movie trade,

causing all this drama on the basis of vague private investigation not turning up details on their editorial board is really strikingly unnecessary. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

(Oh, not to mention being quoted in peer-reviewed articles such as

• Mannathukkaren, Nissim (2007). "Reading cricket fiction in the times of hindu nationalism and farmer suicides: Fallacies of textual interpretation". International Journal of the History of Sport. 24 (9): 1200. doi:10.1080/09523360701448349. ISSN 0952-3367. Retrieved 2008-05-14. and
• Stadtler, Florian (2005). "Cultural Connections: Lagaan and its audience responses". Third World Quarterly. 26 (3): 517. doi:10.1080/01436590500033891. ISSN 0143-6597. Retrieved 2008-05-14.
• and being used by business-school experts on Indian industry as a central source of numbers for their research on the Indian film industry. --Relata refero (disp.) 20:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC) )

Relata, thank you. That is exactly what I have been waiting to see. I will concede the point. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Citing an e-mail posted on a personal site to disprove academic sources

Could someone please evaluate reliability of this source which is repeatedly inserted in article Holodomor denial by a group of users? This e-mail type source was used to "disprove" academic books published by notable historians in Harvard University Press and other similar places. Some relevant discussion can be found here. Thank you for consideration.Biophys (talk) 22:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That is thin gruel indeed. In no way should a quote from an email message from a scholar at WVU be tacked onto any article which makes use of Conquest's massively praised books. At most, it may be relevant in Conquest's biography or any articles on his books. - Merzbow (talk) 00:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Tauger's one of the greatest living experts on historical famine. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Is an email being used to override peer-reviewed literature? Good God! Sarvagnya 01:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

!! --Relata refero (disp.) 09:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a post to H-net Russia, copied on the author's university website. The author is an academic expert in the field. The post is mostly brief bibliographical commentary mainly on the published, peer reviewed papers he has on his site. It basically saying 'read this paper' & 'this is what it says'. What he says about Conquest is reasonably citable to him as his, Tauger's expert opinion which is expressed more fully in the papers and exchanges. People seem to enjoy arguing rather than reading the papers there that he, Mark Tauger, has kindly provided for the edification of us Wikipedians who are unable to ever move from their computer. He even offers to email anyone a pdf of papers he has not provided for download. With all this together, I think even this brief H-net post qualifies as a reasonably good source for us, the terminally lazy. Of course someone should look at the papers and use them, but surely it is a reasonable guide for now. It's similar to the introductory remarks of an author to a book of his own collected peer-reviewed works, surely a reliable source. Does anyone waste time peer-reviewing such remarks? Is there a problem with using such remarks for explaining one side of an academic controversy? (As long as, of course, we make clear it is one side and not a consensus). John Z (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Is the H-net list or whatever it is peer-reviewed or archived after review (I believe the latter is what qualified the Talk Origins list as reliable on another issue, maybe an ID editor can clarify)? If not, then it's completely self-published, and certainly not suitable for debunking Conquest's books on random articles (published by major university presses, Oxford last time I looked). This entire issue can be side-stepped if you would just cite to his published papers. - Merzbow (talk) 05:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That was the out that I claimed to try and end the T:O brouhaha. FWIW, I wouldn't use this on a BLP.--Relata refero (disp.) 08:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, we do not use the talk.origins newsgroup as a source, but the TalkOrigins Archive website, which has significant editorial review and selectively archives the newsgroup, quite often in the form of significantly reworked articles. Mere archiving is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for making an online forum into a citable source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

He's characterizing mainly his own work, encapsulating his own published criticism, in a way which doesn't really need peer review, and which would most likely not have much if any if it were published in a book. And as an academic expert, self-publishing can be OK. There is no doubt that he is accurately summarizing his own views, perhaps more accurately than an anonymous wikipedia editor might. I'm not making any statement of whether it is appropriately used in the article, just that in context, to me common sense dictates that taking it as a source for Tauger's (published, peer-reviewed) views is not unreasonable, and will result in a more neutral article than one without it, just as common sense dictates that an even better article could probably be written using the papers. It should say Mark Tauger has criticized Conquest's book etc. citing the post and the papers perhaps, not leaving it at anonymous scholars allegations. I only saw this here and have never been involved in the article. It sounded so outrageous I looked a little more into it, and was, like you, suggesting that the editors on both sides there take a look at the papers and think about improving the article instead of obsessing about rules and violations. If people do and as is 99.9999% likely they agree Tauger on Tauger is accurate, what could be the harm, where is the rule-breaking of quoting this, along with the papers, then?John Z (talk) 08:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, John. That was exactly the point I made on the talkpage.

That article is probably the worst article on Wikipedia - worse even than israeli apartheid, new anti-semitism and state terrorism - and among its flaws is an overdependence on harvest of sorrow and interpretive claims based on that book not supported elsewhere; also all the crucial references are sourced to expatriate community newsletters - even the references that claim that this phenomenon exists as a well-defined phenomenon at all. More eyes that are attached to people not trying to right historical wrongs would certainly be appreciated.

Incidentally, whatever Conquest's other virtues, HoS is generally not considered the best example of his work, and nor is it necessarily close to the mainstream view on collectivization. It would take a brave man, or one completely ignorant of one of the past half-century's harshest internecine struggles in academia, to ignore the fact that many people in his field thought Conquest was as irremediably biased as the New Historians of the 1950s. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not an e-mail, but a posting by a qualified scholar on a well known academic discussion list, and it is based upon that individuals published work in peer reviewed sources. Thus it fulfills the exemptions under which such sources can be sued--the material has whatever authority Prof. Tauger may have. True, the posting certainly does appear a little dubious, especially its reference to "a complex of natural disasters that (with one small exception) no previous scholars have ever discussed or even mentioned" -- the accustomed wording of those relying upon fringe sources. But the actual sources are not the posting but his academic articles --the posting just reports upon them & summarizes--if a reference is used it should go to them. I deliberately wrote this without looking above at other comments, and I see that John Z cqme to the same conclusion. I furthermore agree with R.r. that Conquist's work in general is not considered uncontroversial. Edit carefully & find a consensus wording that explains the disagreements. DGG (talk) 04:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The email refers to published sources. One can find relevant page of those publications and use those instead of the email itself. --Be happy!! (talk) 10:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Fwiw, because this email is hosted on the expert's own site and not on a discussion list, it is reliable to the extent that we can atleast be sure that the views in the email are the professor's own. However, if published peer-reviewed sources can be found for the claims made in the email/posting, we dont need this source. If published peer-reviewed sources cannot be found for the claims made, then we shouldnt be using this source, atleast not to counter other published/peer-reviewed sources. Sarvagnya 21:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Read the link. He's summarising and quoting his own work. Nothing in it isn't elsewhere, we're just too lazy to dig it out - and personally, I'd rather use his summary than my own. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. I didn't notice that it was hosted on expert's own website. I think therefore it can be considered reliable for what it says (i.e. the view of the scholar). --Be happy!! (talk) 10:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Schulte's 2008 extension of Oreskes' 2004 study of Global Climate Change articles

The proposal is to cite this Schulte 2008 reference under Naomi Oreskes as follows:

---

Klaus-Martin Schulte reviewed 539 papers on "global climate change" from the Web of Science from January 2004 to mid-February 2007, updating research by Oreskes.

”In the present review, 31 papers (6% of the sample) explicitly or implicitly reject the consensus. Though Oreskes said that 75% of the papers in her former sample endorsed the consensus, fewer than half now endorse it. Only 7% do so explicitly.”

---

DLH (talk) 04:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

See discussion at Talk Naomi_Oreskes. Particularly: Criticism and Controversy

• Evidence relating to this being a reliable source:
• Article: Scientific Consensus on Climate Change? Schulte, Klaus-Martin, Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, March 2008 , pp. 281-286(6)
• Author: Klaus-Martin Schulte, MD, FRCS, Consultant of Endocrine Surgery, King's College Hospital NHS Trust, Denmark Hill, London SE5 9RS UK. Further of Schulte's publications.
• Journal: Engineering and Environment is published 8 times a year. ISSN 0958-305X. It has been running for 19 years. Energy & Environment’s editorial board includes 11 professors and 5 PhDs. Energy & Environment has a Google rank of 5/10. It has an Alexa ranking of 1,373,807 with 125 in links.
• Editor: Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen is Research Associate in Political Ethics at the Institute for Applied Ethics. She has written International environmental policy: Interests and the Failure of the Kyoto 2002 ISBN:184064818X.
• Summary: Klaus-Martin Schulte reviewed 539 papers on the phrase "global climate change" from the Web of Science from January 2004 to mid-February 2007, updating Oreskes research from 1993-2003.

In the present review, 31 papers (6% of the sample) explicitly or implicitly reject the consensus. Though Oreskes said that 75% of the papers in her former sample endorsed the consensus, fewer than half now endorse it. Only 7% do so explicitly.

Schulte applies the same scientific methodology as Naomi Oreskes' paper - objective statistics about all scientific papers in Web of Science in a given time period citing the prescribed phrase “global climate warming”. Oreskes' Letter was one page long. Schulte's paper at 6 pages long provides more detail.DLH (talk) 03:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Scholarly Searches: Schulte's paper is now indexed by Google Scholar. DLH (talk) 04:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Article Posted: A public PDF of Schulte's paper has now been posted. It can be publicly reviewed and compared to Oreskes' LetterDLH (talk) 02:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. Exactly what are you proposing to use where? (i.e. there is obviously some big dispute behind this so please crystallize the issues for us, and somebody from the opposing side should do so as well). At first glance, "Consultant of Endocrine Surgery" does not inspire huge amounts of confidence in the ability of said author to write about climate change. - Merzbow (talk) 03:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, here is the related discussion. Consensus there was heavily against inclusion of the above material in that article (a BLP). For future reference, it's a good idea to notify existing venues if you bring up discussion of an issue in a different venue. Personally, I've nothing to add to what was said there. - Merzbow (talk) 03:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

---

The references under the proposed text above are:

• 1 Scientific Consensus on Climate Change? Schulte, Klaus-Martin, Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, March 2008 , pp. 281-286(6)

---

DLH (talk) 04:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The major controversy as I see it is that Naomi Oreskes published a Letter in Science claiming scientific consensus for global warming. She particularly claimed there were no papers objecting to anthropogenic global warming. This scientific "consensus" was picked up by IPCC and Al Gore. Schulte extended Oreskes' study, finding significantly different results. Since these more recent statistics on published papers do not uphold Oreskes' claimed global warming scientific consensus, there appears to be a systematic censorship of the paper even being cited at Naomi Oreskes web page. Every possible excuse is given that this is not a reliable source, that this author is not reliable, that the journal is not reputable etc etc. I believe that published scientific studies sufficiently defined to be readily reproducible by another scientist should be sufficiently "reliable" to be cited - especially when published by a senior credentialed scientist with other publications. I request Wikipedia refereeing on this issue. PS Thanks for the note on linking it. I have done so both ways.DLH (talk) 04:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I edited the proposed text above to focus just this one reference by Schulte to start with to focus the discussion.DLH (talk) 04:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Energy_and_Environment is not a reliable source. WP:RS says "Peer-reviewed scientific journals differ in their standards. Some court controversy, and some have even been created for the specific purpose of promoting fringe theories that depart significantly from the mainstream views in their field. Many of these have been created or sponsored by advocacy groups. Such journals are not reliable sources for anything beyond the views of the minority positions they are associated with." Energy_and_Environment is not indexed by the ISI and was created to promote global warming skepticism. --TimLambert (talk) 10:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You made an assertion and cited Wiki policy. The only eidence shown is that it is not indexed by ISI. IT is indexed by Google Scholar. Skepticism and testing is the essence of Science and critically important. Please address the substance of the evidence above. Even if Energy and Environment were a minority publication, it could still be reliable within its minority position. Wikipedia does not exclude minority positions. A look at the table of contents shows articls on both sides of the global warming debate. e.g., Reducing Anthropogenic Atmospheric Carbon Loading

I see someone began a discussion on Energy and Environment above at 41.DLH (talk) 02:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

With respect to the science: the quality of scientific journals is judged by other scientists in the subject, who are the relevant experts. But anyone can see what they think, by comparing the measures of citation. One can also see the auxiliary factors that reflect it: listing in standard indexes, the reputation of the publisher, the library holdings, and the apparent quality of the editors and contributors. Within the natural sciences, the basic criterion for any established journal is being covered by Web of Science & the 2nd is the citation impact factor there (it takes 3 years until there is enough data for an impact factor). this journals has been published for 19 years, and is not even included. That alone is enough why no scientist would take it seriously--it fails the two basic tests. "Multi-Science" is a very minor commercial publishers. Fails the 3rd test. subscribed to by only 23 US/Canada/UK libraries, according to OCLC worldcat--and 7 of them are national libraries that take everything as a matter of principle--for a popular field like that, this is negligible. Fails the 4th, very decisively. The editor in chief has never published a paper anywhere cited by more than 9 other papers, even including his own journal. Fails the 5th. Conclusion: an extremely low quality scientific journal. Certainly not usable for statements of scientific consensus. DGG (talk) 13:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Using the Seduction Community website for a review on Stylelife

I added [122] to Neil Strauss to give at least some balance. Several attempts have been made to remove it (or sabotage it by editing the url). It's been removed again, in good faith I believe, on the basis that it is from a blog. It isn't, it is from the Seduction Community's main website (they also have a blog), but I said I'd check that it was ok to use it. Any reviews of 'Stylelife Academy' are likely to be on sites like this one, and I think it is an appopriate site to use, but I'm open to correction. Thanks.--Doug Weller (talk) 08:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLP: we really want to avoid non-RSes in biographies. This appears to be a self-published blog post on a community site, and as such, isn't really acceptable. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

firstly it is not the seduction community's main website, secondly while just maybe and perhaps it might be allowed in an article if worded right in this case as it is about a living person much more care should be taken (WP:BLP) so I'll have to agree that it shouldn't really be here. Mathmo ^Talk 09:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I take your point. Hard to keep it from being pretty much a promo though. --Doug Weller (talk) 11:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Is a Fonds Finding Aid a good source?

can anyone tell me how well this Technocracy Fonds Finding Aid would rate as a source, to me it looks to be good other than a small chunk that is referenced to an old article here, which im not going to use, it looks to be derived from reliable sources and created by a reliable organisation

Formula One related sources

Could anyone inform me whether the following sources are reliable as I'm having trouble explaining how they are reliable at this FAC:

• http://www.chicanef1.com/main.pl
• http://www.gpracing.net192.com/home.cfm
• http://www.galeforcef1.com/

Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 13:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It would appear difficult to prove that those sites are reliable per the criteria. If any alternatives are available, I would use them. AlexJ (talk) 14:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I've removed some of then, but I personally think there is no problem with them, it's not like the material I am referencing is contentious as such, so I canoot see why it can't be used. D.M.N. (talk) 14:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with pure repositories of statistics and other data, in those cases the information is simply right or wrong. In this case ChicaneF1 has never been shown to be at fault, as far as I am aware. The problem comes with interpretive editorial commentary such as that offered by the other sites. In those cases there are many other sources, including reputable news organisations, which should be used, if possible. I am alo a little wary of gpracing and galeforce as they are fossil sites that have not been updated in years, and may vanish at any point. In a FAC these points may become important, but for the majority of articles I subscribe to the "something is better than nothing" argument. Pyrope 15:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Are there any other comments regarding this? D.M.N. (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I am disappointed that criticizers of these sources as reliable do not come forth to present their arguments. However, perhaps this could be used as a precedent for the reliability on each. Guroadrunner (talk) 00:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment -- ChicaneF1.com and F1DB.com are good to go and are reliable sources. BBC/ITV/SPEED Channel telecasts are reliable (that's a source I use). Don't know about galeforcef1 or gpracing.192net.com -- Guroadrunner (talk) 00:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia a reliable source?

Is there a policy about citing another Wikipedia article as a source? In my opinion, given the no OR policy, Wikipedia can't be considered a reliable source. Instead, the editor should cite the original source cited in the other article. If the other article doesn't cite a source, then it can't be a reliable source itself, correct? ThreeOfCups (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. In fact, no open Wiki is considered a reliable source. You arew correct about citing the reference, not the article. --Haemo (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

This, of course, does not preclude a "see also" sort of footnote. For instance, "Views on the subject are mixed.<ref>See Controversy related to the subject for full details.</ref>" - this is not, however, recommended. At all. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I would discourage such footnotes... there are better alternatives: For example, I would see if I could link it "in text" (by typing: "Views of the subject are [[Controversy related to the subject|mixed]]... which would come out as "Views of the subject are mixed".) Blueboar (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, self references should usually be avoided. You should be writing a self-contained article — it should not contain notes such as "see the discussion below" or "see this page here for more info". --Haemo (talk) 04:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

However, if the coverage of a point would fill up too much of an article, having it in another article is always acceptable, if it's not being done to create a POV fork or the like. Break-out articles are a long standing practise. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want to fork information to another article, typically it is best practice to use one of the following: 1) an inline link, 2) {{main}}, {{see also}}, or {{further}}, 3) link to another article in a See also section. I would recommend one of those. Gary King (talk) 00:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The actual policy regarding citing Wikipedia articles as sources, or rather not citing Wikipedia articles as sources is at WP:SPS on the last line: "Articles and posts on Wikipedia may not be used as sources." That's pretty clear. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Reliability of video "Search for the Truth"

Please see Talk:First Vision#Mormonism Research Ministry for a discussion regarding the reliability of a video (Search for the Truth (video)) that was linked to the First Vision article and has since been the subject of an editing dispute (not yet a full-blown edit war; see that article's recent history). I ask for input from the community in this discussion, since the few editors involved in the discussion there can't agree on whether the video is a reliable source for the First Vision article, and past bad blood between those editors makes it unlikely that we will be able to reach agreement cordially on our own. Thanks in advance for helping resolve this dispute. alanyst ^/talk/ 23:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I see the dispute is over its use as an WP:EL, not as a source in the article. It's certainly not suitable as a source, coming from an anti-Mormon group of evangelical Christians. But I notice there are links to a bunch of Mormon apologetic sites also in the ELs. fairwiki.org? Ugh. Just zap all the links to polemical, unreliable sites in the article, please. - Merzbow (talk) 06:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

"It's certainly not suitable as a source, coming from an anti-Mormon group of evangelical Christians." Are you saying that only pro-mormon groups are suitable as sources for articles concerning mormonism? That would be a surefire recipe for ensuring that NPOV is not attained. Duke53 | ^Talk 13:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

No, even biased sources can be reliable. But the standards at WP:RS should in general be followed. How does a video produced by an evangelical pressure group satisfy those standards? Although WP:EL is not the same as WP:RS, the guideline still says "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research." I think the burden is on those who want to add links to material self-published by religious pressure groups that the material in question has garnered positive reviews by reliable sources who can vouch for said accuracy. - Merzbow (talk) 17:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Anti-Mormon evangelical groups should not be used to reference controversial statements about Mormonism, nor should they be included as external links for the subject of Mormonism. Likewise, pro-Mormon polemics or blogs should not be used for similar reasons. --Haemo (talk) 20:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Mormonism is a major religion (or at least a major one among the minor ones ;-), and has received good academic coverage[123]. There is no need to go for borderline sources, much less to obvious attack pieces. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

"I think the burden is on those who want to add links to material self-published by religious pressure groups that the material in question has garnered positive reviews by reliable sources who can vouch for said accuracy". And who, exactly, decides who the reliable sources are? If it comes down to groups 'endorsed' by the lds church there will never be NPOV.

"Likewise, pro-Mormon polemics or blogs should not be used for similar reasons". Again, we are headed down a path where lds owned publications would have to be called into question for their practices and standards, which are not only universally NOT considered to be unbiased, but are viewed by many as pure propaganda. Duke53 | ^Talk 02:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Read the guidelines. It is not sources endorsed by the LDS. --Haemo (talk) 02:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Duke, you're asking a fair (no pun intended) question here, but it's broad enough that I don't think we can help much further without discussion of specific sources in specific contexts. An article by BYU Professor Daniel C. Peterson in Ensign needs different treatment than text from Bushman's book, and in turn an uncredited LDS video used by missionaries again is different. There's no easy checklist here. - Merzbow (talk) 03:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Merzbow, you are stating what I consider to be the crux of the problem, but where do we go in determining what has value and what needs to be discounted? MRM seems to be a credible organization ... just because it challenges mormon beliefs we can't pick and choose which parts of their viewpoint to accept as credible or dismiss as 'not credible' according to the whims of a few editors. Duke53 | ^Talk 14:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see mrm.org as satisfying any of the requirements at WP:V or WP:RS. - Merzbow (talk) 18:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

"I don't see mrm.org as satisfying any of the requirements at WP:V or WP:RS" I would dare say that the same exact thing could be said about FARMS, but they seemd to used here extensively as a 'credible source'. Their methodology is questioned by many from outside the ranks of the lds faithful. Duke53 | ^Talk 20:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

FARMS may be an apologetic working group, but it has official status with BYU and official backing by the LDS church. And BYU Professors like Peterson do write for it. This doesn't make it reliable for facts (i.e. "Joseph Smith was a prophet"), but is reputable enough as a source for LDS opinion on certain issues. In contrast, mrm.org seems to be a tiny organization without even the pretense of scholarly association. I'm sure there are far better sources you can find that take a skeptical view of LDS claims. - Merzbow (talk) 21:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• "FARMS may be an apologetic working group, but it has official status with BYU and official backing by the LDS church". Which, on its face, means absolutely nothing about its credibility.
• "... but is reputable enough as a source for LDS opinion on certain issues" So, I was correct ... we can pick & choose which issues we feel that they are 'reputable enough on'. That is simply a load of malarkey, AFAIAC. A source is credible or not .... size or 'scholarly association' not withstanding. Duke53 | ^Talk 12:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope. A source may be reliable on many things (the NYT normally is), but unreliable on others (as most mainstream newspapers, the NYT has a very mixed pedigree for science coverage). In particular, self-published sources are often reliable about the opinions of the publisher, but may be very unreliable with respect to other things. There is no sign that MRM is remotely reliable for anything but their own opinion. I have not looked at FARMS at all, so I have no opinion on it. But MRM is not a reliable source on Mormon beliefs. Checking Google Scholar, I'd say that e.g. this book by historian Richard Bushman and published by the University of Illinois Press looks like a reasonable source on Mormonism and the First Vision. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

"There is no sign that MRM is remotely reliable for anything but their own opinion" Ditto for FARMS, regardless of any 'affiliation' they may have. Duke53 | ^Talk 13:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

That may well be (or not...) - as I said, I know nothing about FARMS. But that is a separate discussion. Here, as the headline suggests, we discuss the reliability of MRM. As far as I can see everybody except for you (?) agrees that MRM is not a reliable source on issues of Mormon practices and beliefs. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:39, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

BUT, none of the members of the huge group of editors discussing this here has given a reason for MRM being 'not reliable' other than the fact that they are small in number, have no 'affiliation' with other groups, have a stated mission of questioning mormon beliefs and are evangelical Christians. Yeah, I can see where that makes them 'not reliable'. Feh. Duke53 | ^Talk 14:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Reliability is not the default assumption, it must be positively established. Do you have any argument why the group should be considered reliable? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

" Reliability is not the default assumption ..." Aha! I was waiting for someone to state that unequivocally; it should be come in handy in challenging articles where FARMS is accepted without question as a 'reliable' source. Thank You so much. I will be linking this discussion in some edits from now on, since 'everyone but me' agrees on this .Duke53 | ^Talk 15:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow your logic. Everybody but you (?) agrees that MRM is not a reliable source. I have stated some of my reasons for this. Others may have other reasons, so be sure to not attribute my opinion to everybody. And, without judging their weight, I note that people have provided at least some argument that FARMS material may be reliable, namely the association with a major university, and the fact that established experts write for it. And even if you consider FARMS unreliable (again, I don't even know what the acronym stands for, so I have no opinion on this), articles written by recognized experts for FARMS may well be reliable independent of any association with the organization. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

...addition, after reading FARMS. No, I would not consider FARMS as a reliable source on historical questions. They probably are fine on issues of LDS scripture details and opinions of the church. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Poles.org aka Pinkowski-Institute

See Pinkowski-Institute which hosts Poles.org website. Article is up at AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pinkowski-Institute. I had created this article because this "Institute"/Website is used as source on Wiki to promote POV, and I want to have this investigated properly. Should have found this board here earlier. The case is loosely connected to Edward Henry Lewinski Corwin. -- Matthead  Discuß   19:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Personal website of Edward Pinkowski. Exactly as reliable as he is reliable. Which doesn't appear to be much, as he doesn't seem to have any formal affiliation/training. However, his self-published history of Polish-American soldier Leon Jastremski was reviewed in a couple of historical journals. If necessary, he could be used as a source for Polish-American history, and that's it. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Edward Henry Lewinski Corwin

I had created Edward Henry Lewinski Corwin as this author's 1917 book is used as source on Wiki, and the author turned out to he a NY based physician. Article was since expanded by a new user, which is kind of odd. See also mainly Talk:First Partition where this author was quoted often. -- Matthead  Discuß   19:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It's quite common for someone to become a WP author when they find an article on a topic they know about or have an opinion about. This isn't anything suspicious or wierd or odd. New users do, of course, often not know site policies, but they can learn and generally do. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Morven is talking about, but if Corwin is being used for anything contentious, I'd remove him. Or someone should, I don't want the Poles and the Ukrainians angry at me in the same week. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Morven talks about new user Adalbercik (talk · contribs). For controversy, see Talk:First Partition (of Poland). -- Matthead  Discuß   23:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup, that seems obvious now. Wonder what I was talking about. --Relata refero (disp.) 05:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably a copycat of User:AdalbertusPL, known also in Polish Wikipedia as Wikipedysta:Adalbertus. Not very impressive editor usually starting less important but more controversial articles as Ghetto ławkowe - Polish version of Ghetto benches - see Polish Wiki and his counterparts User:M0RD00R and User:Boodlesthecat in English Wiki. Main theme: anti-semitism - a rare merchandise to peddle these days - where there is none - someone must invent it, lol. greg park avenue (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Primal Therapy

Hello. There is a dispute on the Primal Therapy article regarding no original research. Specifically, one of the edit warriors there has created a self-published website in which he makes anonymous serious claims about 3rd parties. He then inserted quotations from himself of his opinions into the text of the wikipedia article itself.

I removed that quotation (although I didn't remove the reference to the self-published website), and I added something to the discussion in which I pointed out that the quotation violates no original research and WP:verifiability.

My change was reverted, the quotation was re-added to the page, and it was pointed out (in the discussion) that the author was an "eyewitness" so it's supposedly legitimate. I pointed out that no original research specifically forbids "eyewitness" testimony from anonymous, self-published websites; and I removed the quotation again. This time, I provided a detailed explanation on the discussion page of which policies the quotation violates and why (here, at the bottom of the section).

My change was reverted again, and the quotation was re-added, this time without discussion.

I do not wish to revert any further because I would run afoul of the 3RR rule. Furthermore, I don't wish to participate in the ferocious edit war raging there. The user in question (PsychMajor902) has made 12 consecutive reversions to various primal therapy-related pages over the last several days, and it seems probable that he will revert my changes once again. (Note that sometimes he reverts by not using the 'undo' button but by manually reverting the text).

Please note that most of the page editors are "interested parties", including myself--I underwent primal therapy many years ago and did not witness the events claimed on the author's self-published website. However what I witnessed (or didn't witness) is not really relevant; wikipedia is not the place for personal observation or opinion. I just wanted to offer a full disclosure here.

I don't believe there's any possibility of consensus, since I have pointed out (repeatedly and in great detail) the relevant wikipedia policies, but the the editors in question revert relentlessly anyway without any meaningful discussion or explanation.

I would like the page to be protected with the quotation removed, and for the relevant editor (PsychMajor902) to be limited to one reversion. Thanks.

Note that I first added this post to the no original research noticeboard but they told me to put it here. Thanks.Twerges (talk) 00:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

A few thoughts. First of all, it would be helpful to know which website needs to be evaluated. The page history for primal therapy is pretty convoluted; however I think this is an example of what you mean. Am I correct? The second problem is that at least one of the links in that diff do not work. Specifically this one results in a 404 error page. As far as I can tell, the website doesn't seem to be a reliable source, but I haven't checked every page. Finally -- and while this may not directly address the issue, it may provide the best solution -- could an alternative source be found? Briefly checking PubMed, there seem to be number of peer-reviewed published critiques of the therapy, any of which would likely be appropriate. Jakew (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, you are correct; this is the disputed link. Sorry I didn't make that clear in my post.

As far as I can tell, the website doesn't seem to be a reliable source, but I haven't checked every page.

Even though some pages on the source may be better than others, the entire website is self-published, which seems not to qualify it as a reliable source. Also, the entire website is anonymous, and much of the website makes highly contentious claims against 3rd parties (see [124], also pages on personal attacks in therapy, intellectual abuse, your stories (all anonymous), etc). The policy on WP:verifiability mentions anonymous claims, contentious claims, and claims against 3rd parties.

...I haven't checked every page.

I don't dispute all the pages from the source, and I don't dispute inclusion of a reference to the source. I only dispute the inclusion of a quotation saying "in my [the editor's] observation, its less effective than placebo" (ie, harmful).

Finally -- and while this may not directly address the issue, it may provide the best solution -- could an alternative source be found? Briefly checking PubMed, there seem to be number of peer-reviewed published critiques of the therapy, any of which would likely be appropriate.

Good point. I certainly don't object to any citation from the actual literature. I only object to the insertion of an edit warrior's personal observations into the page. I would absolutely favor the deletion of the quotation and its replacement by something from a reliable source.

However I doubt anything further can be found. Essentially every critical citation of primal therapy is already included on the page. If any further critical citations from reliable sources can be found, we should add them; but I doubt much more will be found.

Furthermore, I doubt the opinion from the editor's quotation could be supported by the literature. The quotation claims that, in the editor's opinion, primal therapy is less effective than placebo (ie, harmful). Since there has been extremely little experimental research about primal therapy one way or the other, I doubt the claim could be substantiated.

Thanks for your attention.Twerges (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with this thread. I have read most of that site and it appears to be a rliable source with some verifying evidence. The observation was stated as a judgement, and there is other literature suggesting primal therapy could have iatrogenic effects (Insane Therapy, Ayella, Psychobabble, Rosen) and that cathartic ventilation therapies have had iatrogenic effects. Its a reliable source because it is written by someone with the experience of the therapy and the therapist training program, and someone who is no longer stuck in the cult-mind set, and someone who has no financial interest in psychotherapy - this is a rare combination and a valuable source. There is absolutely no evidence that any of the editors who wish for this liknk or quote to remain are the author(s) of the material in question.Aussiewikilady (talk) 06:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that it's a reliable source. Keep in mind that being a reliable source isn't merely a matter of looking good or citing sources; a reliable source must be a reliable source, as defined at that page. A reliable source must have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This usually involves being written and maintained by more than one person who exercise peer or editorial review. And the source should be mentioned or cited by sources whose reliability is not in question, as anyone can set up a website and then claim to be reliable. Now, none of this is meant to be an accusation against the website in question; it is merely an explanation of why we don't trust any randon website, even it it cites sources and all that jazz...Someguy1221 (talk) 06:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Your Archives wiki

Could anyone advise on the reliability of the Your Archives wiki? I want to use the list here for the Albert Memorial article. The list seems to be a direct transcription from the official source mentioned here: "The subjects are listed in the official history." (ref to "N.M. pp. 65–90."), where "N.M." is "The National Memorial to His Royal Highness the Prince Consort, 1873." Unfortunately, this official history does not appear to be online. So is it acceptable for me to refer to the wiki as a source for the list, while still making clear that the ultimate source is the official history? Carcharoth (talk) 10:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Working list is here. Carcharoth (talk) 10:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this reference from eurolang.net a reliable source?

• "Apple shun language diversity". 2007-10-30.

There seems to be no way to view this source unless you have an account at eurolang.net and, as far as I can see, there seems to be no way to get an account. Wikipedia:Citing sources states that one purpose of citing sources is "to ensure that the content of articles can be checked by any reader or editor" and this citation seems to fail that.

The citation is used at Mac OS X#Lack of Language Provision and there has been some opposition to the source while other editors seem to be OK with it however I think there may be a little bit of bias involved in some of the opinions. For this reason I think it needs to be addressed here, away from the bias. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The page being cited is verifiable by subscription... meaning you have to subscribe and pay to view it (there is a button on the main page that leads to information on how to do so). We have long held that having to subscribe and/or pay to veiw a source is not a violation of WP:V and WP:RS. It is like having to obtain a library card or having to pay to purchase a book. As long as anyone can subscribe, it meets our criteria. Now, as for bias... that is a different issue. Bias does not nescessarily make a source unreliable... and bias issues can often be solved by proper attribution of who holds the opinion being stated. However, some sources are biased to the point of unreliability. Whether the source in question is biased to the point of unreliability is best determined at the talk page of the article... by those who know the subject matter better than we do here. Blueboar (talk) 21:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Boxofficemojo

First off, I do think that www.boxofficemojo.com is a reliable source for many things. For movie gross, opening weekends, max number of theatres etc, etc, it is reliable.

However, the films in its database do not go back before 1980, so the RANKINGS surely cannot be used to make sweeping statements like "X is the 12 highest grossing documentary" - there were some major documentaries on the Beatles, Rolling Stones, etc, with substantial mass market appeal. Box office mojo does not include them.

In short, the limits of the source are being roundly ignored throughout Wikipedia. What should we do? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

ISTR that it gave what looked like sensible info for inflation-adjusted box office takes, putting Gone With The Wind in the top spot, so there must be some pre-1980 content if that's still the case. Is there a better source that should be preferred? I'm not familiar with one. Perhaps simply noting "according to boxofficemojo.com" would give the proper context to this apparently best available, but incomplete, source. Jclemens (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Who's behind this site? What are their credentials? If it can be shown that it is run by experts who have had their work published in independent third-party sources, it might qualify as a reliable source. Otherwise, it would not. Sarvagnya 17:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like a personal web site to me. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess we could use it as a source, if no other sources are available, while attributing it.Bless sins (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• I would consider Boxofficemojo.com a reliable source. The founder and editor of that web site is Brandon Gray, who is frequently quoted in the mainstream media as a commentator on how movies are performing at the box office. See quotes from him at E! Online, Bloomberg News, San Francisco Chronicle, and USA Today, just this month alone. Gray is aware of the limitations of the data available to him; for example, on his list of the highest grossing documentaries, the top of the page says "1982-Present". [125] The site also indicates that "Since box office has been more closely tracked in recent years, the calendar gross data is generally considered more comprehensive after 2001, while pre-2001 estimates are considered approximate." [126] So editors should be aware of the site's limitations while still considering it reliable as to the data it does have. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed. The problem stemmed from a fight at Expelled:No Intelligence Allowed over using box office mojo to make sweeping claims of ranking over all time. Actually, given the restricted definition of documentary used by Box office mojo, I don't really think we should mention the ranking at all. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

What would the criteria be for RS for Location hypotheses of Atlantis?

This is an article which by its very nature is going to have fringe stuff in it, which is as it should be. But given that we can't use notability as a criterion for inclusion, and presumably we don't want to just include everyone who can write something on a web page, presumably we have to ask for some sort of RS? And if so, what? In some cases it's easy, they've been mentioned in an academic journal, no problem. But that bar is probably too high. Is attending a conference on Atlantis enough? A self-published book (which several have) surely isn't enough, but I don't know what is. Right now I'm discussing this about someone named Franke, and for the life of me I can't figure out what would be a reliable source for him. Any assistance would be much appreciated.--Doug Weller (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, notable hypotheses get in already, so let's set those aside. As for the rest, it's reasonable to ask that the hypothesis has been either discussed or published by a reliable source or an expert in the field. But recall, the status of expert is established (via WP:SPS) as someone who has published in the relevant field in reliable sources. As to the sources themselves, a conference with a website is not inherently a reliable. Obviously, anyone can set up a conference in their living room and start a website. So we require that any sources excersize a modicum of fact checking to ensure accuracy (WP:RS). And obviously, anyone running such a source can claim as much. So I think it's very reasonable to require that any claimed RS that meets these criteria actually be notable. However, if that conference essentially lets anyone in, and has no checks on what people can say in it, then attending it is irrelevant to one's expert status, and nothing said in the conference can be presumed reliable. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that attending a conference is not enough. I attended several conferences in college as an undergraduate. I would be appalled at the idea that that meant I was a reliable source on the subject of any of them. John Carter (talk) 00:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The conference, at least this year's, seems to be organised by some respectable people, not all 'believers'. This year's conference has 47 speakers it seems.[127] -- it is the successor of one 3 years ago [128] whose participants ranged from academics to tour guides to lawyers. So, does presenting a paper at this conference make it a RS? Here's a list of 52 submitted and presumably accepted abstracts so far [129], some by people who are clearly notable, others by people who are complete unknowns (eg J Teeluck). Although it may be a respectable conference, I'd argue that presenting a paper there and even having it published in the proceedings is not enough to make it a RS.--Doug Weller (talk) 12:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Chilean-Australian: request for comment

Hi! A vigorous - and now somewhat nasty - debate has emerged over the article Chilean Australian over the size of the Chilean-Australian population. The sole protagonists are myself and User:TeePee-20.7, and much of the discussion is on Talk:Chilean Australian.

TeePee is referring to an essay, written by a student intern and published on the website of the Chilean Embassy in Australia, that details the history of the Chilean-Australian population. Much of the article is quite informative and reasonably well written. However she estimates the Chilean-Australian population to be 45,000 without explaining how she arrived at this number.

In other articles that look at ethnic groups in Australia, Australian Bureau of Statistics 2006 Census data is used to present the number of persons (a) born in a particular country, and (b) declare to have ancestry to a particular country (either alone or in combination with one other ancestry).

TeePee is strongly opposed to using this data, and instead insists on solely referring to the essay reference. I do not think the essay's estimate is accurate.

There is one limitation to the ABS data - somebody who has a Chilean ancestry might only choose to declare themselves according to their new Australian identity, or their European heritage. However I have included a caveat which draws attention to this minor flaw, as well as a statistic on how Chilean-born Australians defined their ancestral backgrounds in 2001.

I believe this version should be used.

TeePee has adopted a highly aggressive posture (and has been previously blocked), and has claimed I do not adequately cite references (even though six out of the seven references in the version above go to my ABS sources). No amount of compriming, humouring, reasoning or exercising of a time-out has worked. Wikipedia would benefit from a third party opinion on this page.

And by all means, seek his side of the story. Kransky (talk) 10:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorting through the Propaganda

1st point: True

2nd point: False, very vaguely True - I am not referring to the essay written by the intern who was at the Chilean Embassy. I am referring to the data published by the Chilean Embassy on their website! There is no indication that the intern provided this information as she is not credited to it on the page but Kransky fails to fathom this.

3rd point: True

4th point: False - This is completely false and once again Kransky is lying! If you read the discussions between us you will be able to see this and infact you can even certify that the data has been used so once again Kransky has chosen to act inappropriately and lie once more.

5th point: True - This one took him a while. I had to tell him this because he could not comprehend it before hand but then he adds the caveat trying to shut me up hoping I would not revert his edit where he sneaked in unreferenced information which he has constantly been doing. Only he is not able to comprehend that just because you're Chilean doesn't mean you will put down your ancestory as Chilean as Latinos in general are very multiracial and might wish to put down European, Native American or even specific countries such as Germany in which to indentify as their ancestory.

I believe the current version as of 20:41, 12 May 2008 should be used.

Once again he is disparaging me and behaving inappropriately. I will not even attempt to put into words the patients I have displayed with him you can see this when you intervine in our dispute.

Thankyou for your time and I hope we aren't too much of a burden on you. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Not a burden as commenting on sources is what the page is for, but it would really help if all could be civil and assume good faith. In my view the web page of the Chilean embassy in Australia is a good source for an estimate of the number of Chilean Australians. The Australian Census is also a highly reliable source. The easiest solution is to present both and attribute them to their sources. In the case of the Census, be sure to make it clear what Census respondents were asked to provide. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

What is this argument about exactly?

Are you asking if the report found here is a reliable source for population statistics? I'm assuming this is specifically in regards to the conclusion they reach: "Adding to this second and third generation Chileans living in Australia, we arrive at a Chilean-Australian population of around 45 000 persons." I'm afraid that embassy conclusion is nothing but an educated guess and I see nothing to say otherwise. That said a couple questions to ask are: 1) Does this "educated guess" include children and if so 2) does the census data include children for these particular questions (which I highly doubt, but I'm not a demographer so I'm not entirely sure). If the embassy is including children in their guess, as second and third generation people of Chilean ancestry then their guess doesn't seem at odds with the census data. There may be other problems with the census data reporting ancestry, but that should be dealt with through reliable sources. In the end I think you need to keep the census stats in the info box, discuss whether or not an educated guess from the embassy is worth mentioning in an attributed fashion, and perhaps clarify any notable facts or problems that can be reliable sourced about the census data.PelleSmith (talk) 19:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I don't disagree with what you say, and note that the embassy draws on the Census figures throughout. It quotes the Census population figure at the beginning of the paragraph and is not trying to dispute that figure, simply to add another dimension. Honestly, it should not be difficult using these two sources to write a simple factual account of the population. No call for a dispute of any kind. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Request assistance

I wrote a very detailed, well-researched section using about eighteen newspaper articles in Jedi census phenomenon. The newspaper articles came from google news. Then someone without even a userpage came trolling in the article. A bot even reverted the person one time. The writing on the article is a mix from all these sources, sometimes pulling a single fact unique to each one as many of the news articles repeat the same information while other news articles include facts not mentioned by the others and they all must be included or certain parts are removed as unreferenced. I included them at the bottom of the paragraph for readability. The articles are done in the ref name="" tag as at the top the news articles also cite that a real church exists in Jedi census phenomenon as before it was just a joke so they are referenced at the top and the bottom using ref name="" tags to avoid duplication.

I would like a neutral party to come help out on this. William Ortiz (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

• I have looked at the article and your edits and User:Juansmith's. First of all, I do not believe that your edits were vandalism, but I also do not believe that Juansmith's edits were vandalism either. Juansmith may not have a user page but he has been an editor on Wikipedia for over two years. I believe that there is a problem with the way you have organized the citations of these 19 sources. For example, suppose I wanted to find out which source was used to establish that the defendant's attorney told the court that the defendant was unemployed. I shouldn't have to look through all 19 sources to find the proof. If some facts were found only in a particular article, those facts should be cited to their particular source -- rather than having a 10-sentence passage containing multiple facts with a blanket citation of 19 different sources. Furthermore, some of the coverage of this incident is not clearly related to the Jedi census phenomenon. While the establishment of a Jedi church in Wales is arguably related to the census phenomenon, I don't see how the fact that the organizers of the church were assaulted relates to that. Much less do I understand why the employment status, history of alcohol use, or sentence given to the assailant are worthy of coverage in an encyclopedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)