Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 161

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 155←Archive 159Archive 160Archive 161Archive 162Archive 163→Archive 165

Governing Magazine source about ALEC

  • Source: Greenblatt, Alan (October 2003). "What Makes Alec Smart?". Governing.
  • Article: American Legislative Exchange Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (ALEC)
  • Content: Lots, as the article is quite dense and relevant. List of disputed content in this diff. The dispute has been about the reliability of all of the source's content rather than about particular passages.
  • Talk page disccussion: here, permanent link here.

Talk page discussion has centered around the contention that two alleged inaccuracies in the source render the source unreliable as a whole. The two alleged inaccuracies:

  1. The source says ALEC was "[f]ounded in the early 1970s as a conservative counterweight to the mainstream National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL)." NCSL was founded in 1975 as a consolidation of three other entities. ALEC was proposed/founded in 1973 and registered as a non-profit in 1975. In light of this chronology, there is consensus on the article talk page that the source's "conservative counterweight" sentence is not reliable.
  2. ALEC coordinates "task force" meetings among state legislators and private-sector entities (e.g. corporations and think tanks) in which model legislation is drafted and proposed. The source says "The private-sector folks help draft and have a veto over any proposed legislation that the task forces create." One editor contends that language about "private sector folks" having a "veto" is inaccurate and has pointed to this document, which appears to be a leaked internal flowchart about ALEC's messaging/PR. I personally don't see how the flowchart either (a) is a reliable source or (b) refutes Greenblatt's "veto" language.

As far as I can tell, Governing Magazine is an extremely reputable and neutral outlet. According its website it has won numerous journalism awards, has polled among "government and local leaders" as the "most read," most "objective," and most "current" news outlet, and has been cited by a variety of the most well-known and well-respected outlets on both sides of the political aisle. Independent sources (e.g. here, page 3) bear this out. In addition, Greenblatt, the author, also reports for NPR (same guy, see here, here, here) and has even written an article about defending his press credentials.

In light of the above I believe this dispute falls under WP:SNOW. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

As a source, Governing looks about as reliable as you can get, to me, and certainly more reliable than the Alecexposed Wiki. If there are other highly reliable sources directly contradicting what the Governing article says, that would obviously raise legitimate questions. Barnabypage (talk) 19:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree that Governing looks very reliable and should be used in the article. However, I would like to defend the reputation of ALEC Exposed; that project is run by the respected Center for Media and Democracy. Investigative journalists Mary Bottari and Lisa Graves were both awarded the The Sidney Award in 2011 for ALEC Exposed.[1][2] (The Sidney Award is for excellence in investigative journalism.) In 2012, the ALEC Exposed project also won the Izzy Award, given by the Park Center for Independent Media which is based out of the Roy H. Park School of Communications at Ithaca College.[3] So what we have with Governing saying one thing and ALEC Exposed saying another is one of those situations where we tell the reader both versions even though they conflict. Binksternet (talk) 23:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
But they don't conflict. (Or am I missing something?) Not to mention that the flowchart appears to be authored by ALEC, not ALECExposed. ALECExposed appears to have simply marked it up and published it on its website without vouching for its factual accuracy -- disputing it, in fact. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Rebeccalutz said they conflicted, so I took her at her word. I have not looked at the two sources side by side. I have only looked at the Governing source. Binksternet (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Whew, that makes me feel a little saner. I think the ALECExposed file is a red herring, totally irrelevant to this dispute. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Where there are disputes about factual claims (as is the case above concerning a claim that it was founded in response to a group founded after ALEC was founded) common sense says we do not make the claims where the source is clearly inaccurate, or is questioned by other sources. Collect (talk) 22:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Right, that's why there's consensus that the source's "conservative counterweight" sentence is unreliable. The question here is the reliability of the rest of the article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Not Reliable Either Greenblatt or his sources were lying. I don't have the time to check everything but the most glaring errors are as flows:

1 - Greenblatt claims that ALEC was founded as a response to a different organization (NCSL). The NCSL, which Greenblatt claims ALEC was founded as a response to was created 2 years after ALEC was founded.
2 - Greenblatt claims the businesses have veto power over votes inside the organization. Several of ALEC's political opponents have leaked internal documents and written extensively about them. The leaked internal documents contradict this claim as do all of ALEC's political opponents.
3 - Greenblatt says that EEI left ALEC over a dispute. EEI is still a member of ALEC. It is conceivable that they quit and came back but unlikely.

Lets not take the word of a guy that can't even get the year his subject was founded right. Rebeccalutz (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Lets not take the word of a guy that can't even get the year his subject was founded right. - this is probably just a minor elision of the NCSL with its three predecessor organisations, which merged in 1975. ALEC probably was founded at least in part to counter those predecessors. Podiaebba (talk) 01:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Incidentally, as far as I can make out, proven errors and even deliberate lying are irrelevant to whether a source counts as "RS". Podiaebba (talk) 01:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I would hope that proven errors should be relevant to whether a source is WP:RS. "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts...." If the "facts" reported are proven incorrect, that should indicate a poor reputation for checking the facts, unless a specific reason why those facts are reported in error is provided. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree that proven errors should bear on the reliability of the source overall... but in this case we don't have any proven errors. We have one statement of questionable reliability, with a number of plausible innocent explanations for it, such as the one Podiebba advanced. We have no way of knowing what the author knew or meant, so it's difficult to extrapolate. As for Ms. Lutz's issue #2, this is a figment of her imagination. As I wrote above, there's nothing in the leaked document that bears on the accuracy of the Governing source's statement about private sector vetoes. Check the document yourself. Finally, as for Ms. Lutz's issue #3, she is correct that EEI is now an ALEC member again but she admits that EEI could have quit and returned. Her assessment that this is "unlikely" is totally unfounded, and irrelevant. "Unlikely" things happen all the time and are correctly reported without implicating the reliability of the news source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Are there any other sources, at all, claiming that businesses have a veto over "model policies"? I have shown you sources that say that they do not. Is there anyone besides Greeblatt who claims that they do? Rebeccalutz (talk) 16:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Well yes, actually. Here are some: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Given its sterling reputation, Governing is the most reliable IMO. And if you're going to beat this horse about "sources that say they do not," then you'll need to explain where they say they do not. Lead us through it. Communicate. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
The Governing source's assertion that EEI left ALEC over a dispute with Enron is corroborated by this ALEC Watch source (p. 16), which says: "The side that lost – representatives of investor-owned utilities and their trade association, the Edison Electric Institute – walked out of the session and later renounced their ALEC memberships." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Biography Published by Business Week magazine of a business owner.

  • Content: That, in addition to his other claimed educational degrees, McGibney also has an Associate's Degree from Chadwick University, along with a BS or BA degree.

There has been some disagreement on the talk page of the article as to whether or not Business Week magazine is a reliable source. This publication has been in business for nearly 100 years and is a billion dollar company in the business of reporting on business. It clearly meets the guidelines for reliable sources per Wikipedia policy here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources). And it also meets the guidelines involving verifiability, that are found here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability). Dead Goldfish (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Sphilbrick has indicated that the subject of the article has stated that the information is incorrect and is discussing this with business week. To me the source is of questionable reliablity as there is no author. I feel the information should be left out of the artiicle until we verify the credilibilty of the source. An earlier version of the article discussed how the university that this degree comes from is a diploma mill. That is enough to be a BLP problem. GB fan 00:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
The source is businessweek.com, not the magazine - I don't believe the large volume of company and personnel profiles is published in the magazine. However, as a company information database published by Bloomberg Businessweek, it clearly counts as a "reliable source" by Wikipedia standards. Reliable sources can and do make mistakes... if there is a claim from the subject that this information is wrong, then I'd suggest agreeing a reasonable amount of time for the subject to communicate with Businessweek and potentially amend the database entry, and then see what happens. If no change is forthcoming after, say 1 month, then the info stands. Podiaebba (talk) 01:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Podiaebba, that's like saying that the source is Time.com and not the magazine Time. Business Week and Business Week.com are one and the same. And while reliable sources can make mistakes, there is ZERO indication that this was the case. Because of all the activity involving sock puppets trying to edit the article and remove the information I tend to think that this is just a lame whitewashing attempt and not a legitimate issue. Also, how do you know that it is a legitimate issue and not just the subject of the article trying to whitewash things from Wikipedia? It seems a useful way to game the system to me. Dead Goldfish (talk) 02:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
We're not really disagreeing, apart from the fact that I think it matters a bit that Time.com publishes editorial content not in the magazine in much lower volume than businessweek.com seems to, and much of its online content has names attached (AFAIR) - it's not an ideal comparison. I also think the most likely thing is that the information is correct and the subject just finds it embarrassing; but we should give some opportunity for them to address a potential problem. Podiaebba (talk) 06:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Lack of authorship does not mean the source is not RS. It only means the strength of the source is not as strong as one with author information. Many times these sources use un-credited staff writers and that alone is not a reasoning to exclude as non-RS. However...being accurate is our utmost responsibility no matter what. If an editor questions whether the source is actually accurate, that must be addressed as to ignore it is not within the spirit or letter of Wikipedia.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Just as a note. The website of an organization is not "one and the same" as a publication by the organization. Read WP:Identifying reliable sources there is often content on the websites of many organizations/publications that are not subject to editorial oversight and fact checking. Note that even in publications generally regarded as reliable sources there are peices by columnists, editorials, guest editorials, letters to the editor etc. these are not RS. The lack of an author increases the concern as having an author with some credentials and reputation would lend some credibility to the source. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Is this an OTRS issue or is User:Sphilbrick in contact with the subject of the article on his own? If this is an OTRS issue please provide the ticket number. Gamaliel (talk) 06:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

It is an OTRS issue, ticket number 2013112810001642. GB fan 12:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
GB fan is correct, it is an OTRS issue. In addition, Wikimedia legal counsel has been alerted. There's more to this than meets the eye.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Sounds to me like the subject of the article is working fast & furious to whitewash embarrassing information. Sphilbrick let us please hear the details in the interests of openness and transparency so that we can be certain that no shenanigans is going on here undercover and behind the scenes. Dead Goldfish (talk) 20:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Dead Goldfish, OTRS refers to the Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team, a group of volunteers who work with living individuals who have concerns about the information about them on Wikipedia. A person has the right to dispute the information in their article and those volunteers work with them to address those concerns as best they can. They don't automatically do whatever the person asks and it may well turn out that the reference is returned to the article, but until this matter is concluded it must remain out. I've examined the ticket myself and I assure you that there is nothing inappropriate about this matter. Please be patient and do not use Wikipedia as a forum to make unsubstantiated allegations against other editors or the subject of the article. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. As you know from past history, events done in secret are often times subject to abuse and misuse. Dead Goldfish (talk) 09:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree, but we must balance transparency with privacy in matters like these. The only thing secret are the private communications between volunteers and the affected parties, and these can be examined by other volunteers such as myself if there is any reason to suspect inappropriate actions have been taken. If, after this matter is resolved, you have a reason to believe that inappropriate actions have in fact been taken, the matter can be examined again by myself or another OTRS volunteer. Gamaliel (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
As an FYI to you, I contacted Harvard College directly and got an email response saying they've never heard of the guy. So it seems that he also has a fake degree from Harvard. Dead Goldfish (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Whoa, slow down there. The source [10] says Harvard Business School not Harvard College and it only says "attended", not "graduated". If you asked the wrong question (or wrong institution...) that might explain that. Podiaebba (talk) 00:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Good point, so I contacted each of them, too, and they have not been able to confirm any participation by McGibney in any kind of MBA or Executive Education program. You can easily check yourself here: (http://www.hbs.edu/mba/registrar/general/Pages/general-verification.aspx). I have also received confirmation of his Chadwick "degree" from Chadwick University itself. I provided the information to OTRS. Anyone can duplicate the contacts that I did and you will see that, other than the Chadwick "degree", all the rest of McGibney's educational claims seem false. Dead Goldfish (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Oral Citations (2)

Background info
Request

I'd like to approach this noticeboard before actually adding any oral citations. There was a discussion in December about Achal Prabhala's (aprabhala) WMF-funded project. The community here wasn't very perceptive of the idea, partly due to concerns about intellectual property (uploading files on Commons to back up article claims), partly due to a general resistance to the idea.

My colleague Maja and I found several weaknesses in both the general approach of the en.wp editor community and in the particular roll-out by Achal. We pre-released a book chapter, and I gave a talk at Wikimania Hong Kong, both with the aim to re-activate the discussion. Roughly, we claim that:

  1. Indigenous knowledge (IK) is knowledge
  2. Wikipedia wants to be the sum of all knowledge
  3. Wikipedia therefore should aim to include IK

and that

  1. All knowledge is documented in reliable sources (RS) of some sort
  2. IK is documented almost exclusively in non-written form
  3. Therefore some non-written sources are reliable

I would be happy if some of you had the time to go through this argument and the supporting documents, and either prove us wrong or allow oral citations. If neither happens, which would somewhat be the expected result, :) we plan to put this to a test in 2014, taking a few topics for which no/little RS can be found, and develop content based on oral citations. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 09:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The question is too general for this board. Yes, there can be a tension between WP:V and our concern to avoid systemic bias. You should take this to the talk page of WP:V, because it goes to the heart of what Wikipedia is about. Either that or the village pump. Wherever you take it, giving some examples would be very helpful. Can you show that indigenous knowledge is not available in written (codified) form? Perhaps all knowledge is indigenous until it is codified? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Although I am sympathetic to the broadening of Wikipedia coverage, this proposal is problematic across numerous policies. In particular, oral sources are WP:PRIMARY, which means that the WP editor is effectively creating WP:NOR by selecting the source and content that is used. Wikipdeia aspires to include all human knowledge, not 'everything anyone has ever said'.Martinlc (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
In effect the aim of this proposal is to publish things for the first time, which is not the aim of this community, nor the way it is set up. It would require fundamentally different ways of working that would make the rest of Wikipedia difficult to continue. So the more obvious approach is to try to develop a new Wiki?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith: Indeed, the proposal is broad. I brought it here first because it was discussed here before. It touches WP:V --- the paper and the slide show referenced above argue that it is absolutely verifiable. A real-world example is difficult to give at this time because IK is just not available in writing. Template {{cite}} would also need adaptations. Hypothetical examples would be (Sorry, I have no idea how to restrict the {{Reflist}} template to just show the two relevant sources):

The village of Ovitoto was founded in the 1860s by Herero Chief Tjamuaha.[1]

The OvaMbanderu people use the fresh leafs of Securidaca longipedunculata to heal menstruation pain.[2]

  1. ^ Kauraihe Meroro, Deputy Headman of Ovitoto, speaking on the occasion of the centenary of Ovitoto Roman Catholic Church (14 December 2013)
  2. ^ Himeezembi Karokohe, medicine man of the Erindi-Roukambe community, speaking on the occasion of the annual Violet Tree leaf harvest (1 September 2013)

@Martinlc & Andrew Lancaster: Oral knowledge is published orally: A village elder delivers a narrative, other elders listen and correct him if necessary by telling their version of the narrative. It is not just something that happens to be said, it is a ritualised session of knowledge transfer, predictable both in time and content.

Generally, do you contest that Indigenous knowledge is knowledge? If not, do you contest that WP should be the sum of all knowledge? --Pgallert (talk) 10:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the sum of all knowledge and never can be. See WP:NOT for some of the important things that we aren't. 99% of the important and useful knowledge that you and I have is tacit and uncodified, like how to get from my house to the greengrocers, or whether the light is bright enough for me to be typing at the moment. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
You're preaching to the choir. But the matter of the fact is that there is real knowledge out there that is not available in writing, and that's what I'm talking about. Did you check the examples in the documentation linked at the top? --Pgallert (talk) 12:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I think the emphasis you have placed on verifiability is a distraction. To answer the question about Indigenous knowledge, my view is that it may be knowledge but it is difficult for it to be treated as encyclopedic knowledge since the criteria developed for the selection of sources and content based mainly on print culture cannot be readily replicated for oral sources. However it would be straightforward for an expert in oral traditions to select and gather information from the bes evidence as encyclopedic as a shortcut.Martinlc (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Andrew Lancaster's point above that a Wiki could handle this kind of source, and could develop into an encyclopedia of oral knowledge, but it couldn't be this wiki. Both reliability and verifiability are at issue. Wikipedians need to be able to verify that the source is reliable and has been reliably reported: those questions arise frequently on this board, and in the two examples you give I don't see how they could be answered. Just for example, what was the speaker's name for Securidaca longipedunculata and is the identification valid? That's exactly the question that I would ask if I found such a report in a printed or online source, and I wouldn't add the information to the page Securidaca longipedunculata unless I could cite a source that (a) I considered reliable, but also (b) the next Wikipedian would be able to check, and, if necessary, dismiss as unreliable. Andrew Dalby 11:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
@Martinlc, Andrew Dalby: 'Encyclopedic knowledge' surely is what writers of an encyclopedia (=us) consider valuable. From 'IK is knowledge' and 'WP aims to present the sum of all knowledge' necessarily follows 'WP aims to present IK'. That's a syllogism; if you accept the premises you have to accept the conclusion.
As for your second argument, Wikipedians are not just the white-collar workers in developed countries. We have Wikipedians in Epukiro, in Donkerbos, in Otjinene, and for those it is not at all a simple thing to verify facts on WP. Assume they want to verify a fact referenced to the Library of Congress. They would have to learn English. They would have to travel to another country. They would have to learn how our knowledge is organised---Do you remember your first time with a library catalogue? Finding a book is by no means easy. And then they would have to convince the knowledge keeper (the librarian) to give them access. A San in traditional attire might have a hard time lending a book.
It is thus maybe not too surprising that for somebody not acquainted with an African rural IK setting, verifying an oral narrative is not easy. You would have to learn the language. You would have to travel to that country. You would have to learn how IK is organised, how it can be retrieved, and how it has to be understood. After gaining the trust of the local community, oral knowledge might be presented to you for verification.
I am slowly developing into an expert in oral knowledge, and I can already tell you that western scientists misunderstand so much that their representation of an elder's narrative is about the worst source of knowledge you can get. We miss the context, the non-verbal communication, the subtleties in translation, the reason for 'publishing' (orally), and so on. I am publishing in the field---do you want to treat my writing as a reliable source, denying the original author, who didn't get half as many things wrong, the same recognition? BTW, 'primary source' is a red herring in this case: As long as I do not attempt to abstract from an elder's narrative, my writing is still a primary source. --Pgallert (talk) 14:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
The examples you give above are your "representation of an elder's narrative" ... right? So it's lucky you're different from all the other experts, or your material, also, would be "about the worst source of knowledge you can get". Forgive me if I've misunderstood something :) Andrew Dalby 20:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
:) The examples are entirely hypothetical, simply because I do not possess much IK. But no, of course not, thanks for asking. I don't speak the indigenous languages, and my representation would indeed not be better. It is supposed to come from a native speaker who is also fluent in English. We are currently busy developing them into Wikipedians, for now using written sources. I often challenge them by showing how poor certain articles are developed, and they tell me all the content. If I ask them where they know it from, it invariably is the parish priest, the chief, the traditional midwife. --Pgallert (talk) 10:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! I get it now: I didn't understand fully.
Wikipedia developed quite a long way while still accepting material based on what Wikipedians know or have been told by people they trust. Some other-language Wikipedias still do, but here on en:wiki the drive towards reliable sourcing has been going for years: it is deep-rooted and still intensifying. Even the things that everybody knows have to be sourced (... if anyone asks ...) with a source that others can verify. En:wiki differs from academic writing precisely in that it is edgy about primary sources and won't accept "personal information from ...", "letter from ...". So, given this culture, can you get en:wiki to accept "information from an elder"? You have a fight on your hands! I'm telling you what you already know. Andrew Dalby 12:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
So true :) But I want even more. I want en-Wikipedians to understand that the information from an elder in all likelihood is more reliable than the respective writeup from an anthropologist. And I want to convince an audience anchored in a culture of writing that oral knowledge transfer is alive in these days and times. It happens in institutionalised settings, and if someone voices a fringe opinion, then this opinion is attacked by the listeners. It is thus not quite the same as a "letter from ...". The best analogy I can offer so far is a museum guide. When asked about a certain item, or at certain rituals (e.g. guided tour) they will always come up with more or less the same explanation.
Of course we could go to the OtjiHerero incubator or to the Afrikaans Wikipedia, nobody is going to ask for sources there. But I think en.wp is missing out on some really exciting and important knowledge without IK. --Pgallert (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The knowledge contained in Wikipedia is whatever a Wikipedia editor inserts. If the knowledge is not published, there is no way to verify that the so-called knowledge is not a lie. Wikipedia can never contain oral knowledge because Wikipedia does not have a mouth. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The point is that the act of predictably and reliably narrating a piece of history, technology, or culture to an audience, is a way of publishing. Or, the other way round, that en.wp's definition of publishing deliberately excludes all oral knowledge, to the detriment of Wikipedia's vision and mission. --Pgallert (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
This version of Wikipedia's vision is contrary to WP:TRUTH. The disadvantages of the possibly-faulty transcription or summary are outweighed by the chance for editors to consider the Reliability of this secondary source, in my view. Somebody can compile oral traditions into a fixed form, and that can be used by Wikipedia editors if they consider it reliable, so it is not true that WP excludes all oral knowledge, it only excludes that knowledge which falls outside the scope of Primary, RS, and Verifiability policies. Martinlc (talk) 23:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given access to the sum of all human knowledge --- If that was contrary to WP:TRUTH then that would be no problem, WP:TRUTH is just an essay. But it isn't contrary. Oral knowledge is verifiable. Not easily verifiable, not without an effort, but it isn't hearsay. And if I have to convert oral knowledge into 'a fixed form' before I can use it, then oral knowledge is excluded. Or did I misunderstand something? --Pgallert (talk) 07:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
In order for oral traditions to appear in Wikipedia they need to be fixed by someone. You are proposing that WP editors do this directly, and this proposal has been considered problematic as cutting across numerous policies. I have suggested you do so indirectly (ie fix first then into WP), this would be unproblematic.Martinlc (talk) 11:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Not sure I properly understand 'fix' in this context. If you mean recording the narrative and uploading it to Commons, that has been rejected by this very board in the past, for doubts on the ethical implications of indigenous communities' intellectual property. --Pgallert (talk) 08:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
No I meant transform from its primary, oral, form, into a secondary, textual, form, either as a transcript, summary or analysis. Wikipedia is a text medium, so at some point somebody has to do that transformation. If the text version exists outside of WP it can be used as a source. Martinlc (talk) 12:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
'Summary' would be tricky. If I do it myself there is the risk of misunderstanding what is important. 'Transcript' would not make it a secondary source, because in order to get from a primary to a secondary source there needs to be a level of abstraction, and a transcript does not involve abstraction. The 'analysis' I shall leave to the scientists. Any of these would have to be published, right? Which would mean that only what alien visitors to an indigenous community find important, actually is important, and that only their take on how the narrative is to be understood, counts. That does not look like a good approach to me. --Pgallert (talk) 07:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I am at this stage pondering to which venue to next take the issue, as mentioned, I brought it to this noticeboard first because it was discussed here before. I recollect the following objections:

The core objection in my view is that oral information is not 'published' as outlined in the WP:RS guideline. I would believe that this is core territory of this noticeboard, but maybe I should take that issue to the talk page of the content guideline. Again, nobody refuted my argument (for instance backed by the main space article Publication) that communities not rooted in a culture of writing can have an oral equivalent of publishing. I'll be grateful for additions and further commentary. --Pgallert (talk) 07:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

us-japandialogueonpows.org

Greetings! It has been a long time since I have posted here, but a new source has brought me here that I would like to bring up for evaluation for possible use on the GA article Jose Calugas. AusTerrapin notified me of a secondary source that identified a medal that was previously unidentified in published sources, the source is as follows:

The source appears to have been written by the article subject's son, a retired U.S. Army sergeant first class, and the President of the Philippine Scouts Heritage Society. The question is, does the website (more specifically the linked page), even though appearing to have been written by the subject's son, a reliable source?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I've had a quick look at that page and at the article's Talk page. So what's the central issue here - identifying exactly which medal he received?
It surprises me if there's not an authoritative military-maintained list of recipients of medals, but that's by the by. Barnabypage (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Correct. The source linked above says that the medal in the image is a foreign award, the Philippines' Distinguished Conduct Star, with the image being referenced being this one:
--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I'd say it's not a fantastic source but it's not an obviously untrustworthy one either, and the author as president of the heritage society is presumably an expert on the subject to some degree. Unless there's anything really contentious about using the identification, it's okay at least until the day a better source turns up. Barnabypage (talk) 08:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Breed clubs as sources

This is the page for the breed club (not a breeding kennel) of the Olde English Bulldog. My issue is, is this a reliable source for the temperament/disposition of the breed? Obviously since this is a breed club their interests lie both in promoting a positive image of their breed and in presenting an accurate picture of it; my issue is that it says things like "...generally excellent with children and the OEB is no exception", which can be found in every dog resource about just about every breed that is not a livestock guardian dog. It is currently being used here extensively. I am aware that it is WP:PRIMARY but it is also one of the most well-developed sources on the breed. --TKK! bark with me if you're my dog! 00:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I would say it's fine for "objective" facts like breed size, typical colouration, etc., but less ideal for qualitative assessments of this kind. Having said that, I don't know how easy it will be to find a "warts and all" discussion of temperament from a RS (no doubt there are lots on blogs and in forums etc.). I have the print version of the Kennel Club breed guide (not available online, as far as I can see), which ought to be a pretty RS, and even though it doesn't exist to promote any one particular breed, it tends to steer very clear of phrasing anything negatively.
Perhaps you could just state it as an informed opinion rather than an outright fact. "The OEB is excellent with children, according to the Olde English Bulldog Kennel Club." Barnabypage (talk) 11:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I share Tikuko's concerns. Every breed club says positive things about their breed. Ditto for other sources that cover specific breeds, and of course our articles are often edited by people who are fond of that breed. Consequently, almost all our articles on dog breeds say that each breed is intelligent, loyal, good with children &c and none of our articles say that the breed is yappy, dimwitted, or destructive. Every dog is above average. bobrayner (talk) 12:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Antonio Veciana

At this article, a claim attributed to a BLP is being sourced to an OpEdNews piece allegedly by someone who is a researcher at the Assassination Archives and Research Center regarding the JFK assassination. The claim in the article is sourced to an op-ed allegedly by a director of that Center, and includes a partial scan of a letter. There's a dispute over this in part because OpEdNews is an entirely self-published operation meaning we cannot verify authorship or the legitimacy of the scanned piece, nor has the claim appeared anywhere else we would consider reliable. The closest I can find is this book review, but it's highly conspiratorial in nature and, again, deals with a BLP issue. I would love some extra input, especially as we do not use OpEdNews anywhere else on the site. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I love that you'd rather come to RSN than follow my request to pick up the phone to the AARC and ask them to republish an article by their co-founder, Jim Lesar. That would actually be useful, whereas this - joy - can produce nothing but hot air and the removal of information that cannot seriously be doubted. You really think someone's impersonating Lesar at OpEdNews (in 3 articles)? You really think Lesar (an attorney) is forging letters? Or perhaps the widow of Gaeton Fonzi is? And to reiterate: if you'd picked up the phone when I first asked you to, we'd probably have the AARC republishing the article by now (or at least agreeing to do so soon). Podiaebba (talk) 20:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
As you see from the point here, it's actually a lot deeper than that. More eyes are always a good thing. If the consensus is that I'm wrong, we can move on from it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
it's actually a lot deeper than that. - what are you talking about? All I see is that you can't even give a straight answer about not being willing to pick up a phone and ask an author to republish an article on a different website. Instead of doing something to contribute to the sum of human knowledge that goes ever so slightly beyond the usual Wikipedia editing and endless talking, you want vindication that your removal of some information is technically correct according to WP rules. Podiaebba (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Podiaebba, while your comments might be 100% correct (I don't know), they're probably better suited for Thargor's user talk. Repeatedly criticizing his/her editing practices on this page discourages other editors from weighing in. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Additional: ex-Washington Post Jefferson Morley, who Lesar is acting for in a FOIA lawsuit, cites the OpEdNews article here. Podiaebba (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Vedontakal Vrop

Is this source:

Reliable for inclusion in Vedontakal Vrop (as seen there footnote #7). Note the PhD thesis was submitted but no indication it was published. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Marginal. It might have been all right alongside other sources. If this is the only independent source, then the article merger should go ahead. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Are these sources reliable to call Al-Jazari a Kurd?

Copying directly from my talk page:

new sources for al jazari article

here are three new sources for the kurdish ethnicity of al jazari please add them to article & change it

http://www.worldclock.com/world_clock_blog+the-history-of-clock_1.html http://www.encyclo.co.uk/define/Al-Jazari http://www.kasimdemir.com/selected-scientist/al-jazari-el-cezeri/

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobanas (talk • contribs) 22:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Why not place this on the talk page of the Al-Jazari article?
AND,
http://www.worldclock.com/world_clock_blog+the-history-of-clock_1.html, appears to be a blog(which are not a reliable source, the section being written by Burcu Afrin(who ever that is).
http://www.encyclo.co.uk/define/Al-Jazari, appears to be two links to Wikipedia, as such is not a reliable source.
http://www.kasimdemir.com/selected-scientist/al-jazari-el-cezeri/, appears to be a mirror of Wikipedia,as such is not a reliable source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

the first link is a historical & scientific website & it is much more reliable than a unknown PDF ! the second one is an encyclopedia & IT is a reliable source the third one is a website wich concenrns with math history they all are reliable & DO not remove the resourced article unless if you have a personal problem with it ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobanas (talk • contribs) 10:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The first source to be used to show a Kurdish ethnicity, and still in the article as the editor insists it is fine despite being told it isn't, is <ref>[http://ismir2011.ismir.net/papers/PS4-16.pdf 12th International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference (ISMIR 2011)] An early example of an automated, programmable musical instrument ensemble was described by al-Jazari (1136-1206) a scholar, inventor, artist, mathematician that lived during the Islamic Golden Age</ref> I haven't checked to see if the conference papers have any peer review, but that seems irrelevant as the authors are all specialists in robotics in music, not in anything relevant to this article. The editor is a new editor whose edits have until today been only to this new article. Today he edited an article to change population numbers and remove a sentence.[11]. That set of edits alone shows we have a problem, he reduced the number of Assyrians in Iran before the revolution 1979 from 200,000 to 20,000 despite the fact the article says that after many left Iran there were between 32,000 and 50,000 left. An IP has just reverted me that I assume is Cobanas. Dougweller (talk) 13:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Steven R. Ness, is a Phd candidate in Music Information Retrieval - Machine Learning - Distributed Cognition [12]
Shawn Trail, is associated with the Dept. of Computer Science, University of Victoria [13]
Peter Driessen, is professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering [14]
Andrew Schloss, is a professor in Electronic & Computer Music, Musical Acoustics, Ethnomusicology [15]
George Tzanetakis, is a professor Associate Professor in the Computer Analysis of Audio and Music [16]
Therefore, this "paper" has been written by academics that have no specialization in the time period or area in question. As such this is not a reliable source in regards to ethnicity. --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Scientists with unconventional beliefs unreliable source?

How do we determine if we can use a scientist with unconventional beliefs, as a reliable source, or is this just an Association fallacy? eg.

Are they a reliable source on only their area of expertise, on their unconventional beliefs, on the application of their field of expertise to their unconventional beliefs? Only on their support of the status quo? --Iantresman (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

This may be more a WP:UNDUE question than a reliable sources one.
On that front, one consideration might be whether the belief is thoroughly discredited, or just controversial. (And yeah, I'm well aware we could spend all day discussing the dividing line between those groups of beliefs!)
In the former case, the scientist's support for it might well be of some biographical interest or of interest to the history of the discredited belief, but we should be careful to avoid implying that their support lends the belief any weight.
In the latter case, the support of a prominent scientist in a related field surely seems worth mentioning. Related field is important, I'd think. Barnabypage (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
How about this thought? We have never had a source that was 100% right in everything they thought or did over the course of their life. We report what is reported and try to balance it. At best, we draw the line of reliability case-by-case, claim-by-claim, and we shouldn't generally assume that because a source was right about something once, they are infallible.Of course, I could be wrong about this. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Three of the unconventional beliefs are considered pseudoscience. But has does that affect their reliability in their main field of expertise?

The answer to this is that Wikipedia looks at individual statements in sources and considers whether they are reliable to support individual statements in WP articles. It doesn't consider whether Albert Einstein per se is a reliable source. Sometimes he will be, sometimes he won't be. Formerip (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Trying to keep this in an actionable format, how can we establish a yardstick with which to say how far out of his or her discipline a scientist can comment before becoming unreliable? This is the foundation of most content disputes in the paranormal subjects. Can we say that a person is qualified to comment about subjects which are specifically part of his formal education--say a cultural psychologist commenting on the cultural history of the middle class--but is not qualified to speak on a question outside of his training, such as one of biology? Or, must we assume the psychologists is qualified to comment on biology because he has a doctorate? Tom Butler (talk) 23:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
There are several issues that should be considered: where is the material published, when was it published and has the science changed since it was published. For example, Newton's theories of absolute time and space are no longer valid, and it would be silly to use 300 year old science texts.
Some scholars publish both inside and outside mainstream academic writing. For example, Newt Gingrich has published work which meets rs on global warming, but I would not use one of his speeches to CPAC.
What is important is not how far outside one's area of expertise one writes, but the nature of the publication. If a geologist publishes a paper on English literature in a peer-reviewed journal, then we need to take into account that the editorial board has determined he or she is qualified and peers have reviewed the article prior to publication. Also, scholars sometimes make statements about subjects that have little relevance to their papers. A physics textbook for example may mention that Newton appears on Margaret Thatcher's coat of arms, then mention something about her scientific training and policies on science. But that would be a poor source for her biography.
TFD (talk) 00:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
This makes absolute sense with peer-reviewed publications, of course. But what about statements by acknowledged experts in one subject, in more mainstream publications, that drift into another subject? An obvious example would be the views of Richard Dawkins on religion.
He is not a theologian or a philosopher and as far as I know doesn't publish in peer-reviewed pubs within those disciplines, yet he is an acknowledged expert on a subject (evolution) that has a clear relationship to some religious questions - and he is not afraid to make his views on those questions heard in mainstream media. Moreover, although technically coming from outside the subject, his views on the subject are taken seriously by many.
I do appreciate we are moving a bit away from "unconventional beliefs" into "non-professional opinions" here and that this does not directly address the original question. My point is that there are areas greyer than the physicist writing about Margaret Thatcher's coat of arms! Barnabypage (talk) 00:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Dawkins' writings are good source for evaluating the factual claims of ID and creation scientists and determining whether their arguments are scientifically valid. Those are issues within his field. However, I would not use these writings as sources for other subjects he writes about. Specifically, although he writes about religious history and cargo cults, his information is taken from other reliable sources. TFD (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

It's impossible to give definitive answers to such general questions. Talking around the subject may be illuminating, but eventually, you need to go for really concrete "Is X good enough to source statement Y in context Z?" questions. (A few of those taken together might help give a general trend.) Podiaebba (talk) 02:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Rephrased question

Let me rephrase the question slightly. Suppose that all these scientists state that in their opinion, that they consider telepathy to be nonsense. Is their reliability any different, if they state that they consider telepathy to be something worth investigating? Does their unconventional beliefs influence this either way? --Iantresman (talk) 14:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't see Podiaebba's comment above (it was hidden by a much longer, irrelevant edit which I have just moved into the next section). You need to cite something that one of them has said about telepathy and tell us in which article you want to use it. Andrew Dalby 17:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
In The Rupert Sheldrake article, reference 14 is: Gardner, M. (1988). The New Age: notes of a fringe-watcher. Prometheus books. "Almost all scientists who have looked into Sheldrake's theory consider it balderdash." [17]
Gardner was a well-known skeptic and had a vested interest in being right as one (COI). he was also trained as a mathematician and holds no apparent qualifications as a biologist. Yet, his 1988 comment about what other scientists thought of Sheldrake's work is used as one of the many references to discredit the still-living man.
The question is, should the incredulity of a mathematician be allowed as a comment about a biologist's theory concerning morphogenesis? Tom Butler (talk) 18:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Easy. And most of those words above are wasted, in my personal opinion.
If Gardner doesn't name or cite some of the scientists he's talking about, his quote is no use to us; cite, instead, scientists who actually have looked into it and given their own opinions. If Gardner does name some of them, his trenchant summary may be useful; retain the quote and add some names. Andrew Dalby 19:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
(1) How do we tell whether a mathematician, physicist, psychologist or biologist has indeed looked into it, and not just read, for example, a newspaper article? (2) Does it make a difference whether it is a mathematician, physicist, psychologist or biologist, I can see them all bringing something to the party. --Iantresman (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Again, if you find a source problematic, cite it and ask for an opinion. Andrew Dalby 17:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Saying that telepathy should be investigated is a matter of opinion, not fact, hence is irrelevant to reliability. If a scientist says this, it has no bearing on the reliability his or her writings. TFD (talk) 23:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll try answering the original question in a slightly different way. The beliefs of authors are not things we should judge on Wikipedia. We know we can cite an author about subject X when that author is considered reliable outside Wikipedia for subject X. But concerning subject Y, we have nothing to say unless we are talking about subject Y, and then we also look at what people outside Wikipedia think of the author and subject Y. We try to reflect what is in publications. It is possible for a person to be considered a lunatic by experts in one field and a genius in another, at the same time. It is not for us to judge that, just to work out what the published experts say in each field.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Iantresman is attempting to subvert WP:VALID at Rupert Sheldrake by attempting to remove from the article any sort of implication that Sheldrakes' morphic resonance poppycock is seen in general by the academic community as complete poppycock and hence leave the reader with the impression that Sheldrakes morphic resonance has actual validity outside of its ability to line Sheldrakes pockets when the woo-able when they purchase his non peer reviewed books. Iantresman's actions getting very near (if not having already crossed) the WP:TE line of the WP:ARBPS. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
TRPoD, your statement here is a gorse misrepresentation of the facts. I submit that your sense of ownership in the article is clouding your better judgement. Please rephrase your statement or line it out! Tom Butler (talk) 00:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
To me, it looks like a good summary of the problem. bobrayner (talk) 11:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Alfvén

I think Hannes Alfvén did advocate plasma cosmology (PC). In 2008, I read The Big Bang Never Happened by Eric Lerner, which advocated PC, and which cited Alfvén as a proponent thereof. The Wikipedia article on Alfvén seems to support the idea that he advocated PC; or at least, “unorthodox opinions”, and had trouble getting his papers published.

Brian Josephson believes in homeopathy? I don't know.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 14:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

"Upstream swimmers"

Some interesting testimony here by Richard Peltier on "The Denial Machine". Those researchers who made their name for a result from contrarian thinking tend to apply it everywhere. Scientific progress depends on some such, challenging conventional thinking, but it is rare to have it pay off even once, let alone twice. Josephson entertains alternative thinking (see his contribs at talk:Cold fusion, though I don't think he's actually said that it works). That doesn't mean he's gullible, just open-minded. But to take that openness as wiki-evidence that CF works would be a disservice to him, to his work, and to WP. If he actually does have a substantive result (vice opinion) to publish, he will have no difficulty doing so in a major physics journal. His Nobel will ensure at the very least the careful attention of editors and reviewers. Once that result is published, we'll have something to work with on WP. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Don Lusk

Are Cartoon Brew and The Animation Guild's blog considered reliable sources? Or, to be more precise, are they reliable enough to support an entire article? The case I am looking at is Don Lusk, and (according to the author) there are no other sources on which to support the article. He seems notable, but notability is based on sources and not my personal opinion, and I honestly can't tell whether what's there now is sufficient. I have no strong opinion here, I'm just seeking a consensus. Canadian Paul 00:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

None of the sources cited by that article are reliable:
  1. Cartoon Brew: This is a self-published source with apparently no editorial review. The author, Amid Amidi, is also the website owner and its sole editor. As a self-published source it cannot be used for a WP:BLP.
  2. Animation Guild blog: Same thing. The source describes itself as a blog and the "thoughts and observations" of its leaders and "reflects their individual personal opinions." Again, as a self-published source it cannot be used for a BLP.
  3. IMDb: This occasionally comes up in the noticeboards. We do not consider IMDB pages to be reliable sources as they can be written by the article subject and there is no editorial review.
So, with no reliable sources remaining, per WP:GNG either reliable sources should be found or the article should be nominated for deletion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

demographia.com

http://www.demographia.com/

We really need some viewpoints on this. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Note reliable. Here is a link to an article about them in Vancouver Magazine. It is run by Wendell Cox's company, and its objective is to promote automobile use and road construction. TFD (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
If this isn't considered reliable, then the UN urban agglometation data and the CIA country population data should be removed as well in my opinion. Just because they are considered reliable sources, that doesn't mean that they area reliable. I've already worked to disprove that the CIA is a reliable source at User:Elockid/Source Comparison. The UN's World Urbanization Prospects, is a poor source and was so poor in fact that it was nominated for deletion. Demographia's data in my view is much reliable than the UN. First off, unlike the UN, Demographia has a consistent definition that can be used to compare entry by entry. Since there is no universal definition of what a metropolitan area/urban area/agglomeration is, other lists become problematic since they employ different methodology for each entry. Probably the best one I've heard is the London vs. New York argument. The common argument is that if London had the same definition as New York, the population would be X million. At least with Demographia, there's an explanation of their methodology and in doing so, readers can actually compare between entries. Even with an official data available, the UN has grossly underestimated data for some entries. Demographia has some consistency with official data. See below for some examples:
City Official Demographia CityPopulation UN
Jakarta 23,308,500 (2000) 26,746,000 (2013) 26,400,000 (2013) 9,769,000 (2011)
Osaka 19,342,000 (2010) 17,175,000 (2013) 16,800,000 (2013) 11,494,000 (2013)
Seoul 25,721,000 (2012) 22,868,000 (2013) 25,800,000 (2013) 9,736,000 (2011)
There are other entries where the UN grossly underestimates data. Comparing it to the sources available, Demographia has more consistency than the UN. Elockid (Talk) 03:29, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
UN figures are lower because the use the population for the city rather than the metropolitan area. They say they get their info from national governments. However Democraphica says (p. 4) that it gets its information national governments too, when it is unavailable they make their own estimates or use UN estimates. Citypopulation also says it takes its figures from government sources. There is no reason to use Demographia, you just need to decide whether to use city or metropolitan figures. TFD (talk) 05:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
For major cities we surely need to give all the main population estimates, explaining any discrepancies. All this stuff is in the public domain. Each country publishes its census results and these publications are reliable. The UN estimates are also worth mentioning. I can't see that this website adds anything. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
After running into a problem while trying to edit an article that had had deleted material Wendell Cox/Demographia, I was kindly directed to this discussion. How bad is the spamming of this disputed resource? And I agree that if there are (reliable) conflicting population estimates that they should be included.24.0.133.234 (talk) 12:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces (talk · contribs): That is blatantly not true. No source will tell you that Tokyo has a CITY population of 35+ million. I can go on and will take more than a page. Elockid (Talk) 14:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Not following you. Demographia says that the "Tokyo-Yokohama Metropolitan Area had a population of 34,472,000 in 2005, while Tokyo prefecture had a population of 12,571,000." They provided Japan Statistics Bureau and Statistics Center as a source.[18] The UN provides a total of 35,622,000 for the "urban agglomeration" of Tokyo.[19] Most of the difference is accounted for by Demographia excluding Yamanashi. In any case, why would we cite Demographia, when they get their numbers from elsewhere? TFD (talk) 15:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I've had a look at the links I've removed and I can't see any evidence of them showing their sources or their calculations. If their sources exist, it would be nice to review them and perhaps see if we can reconsider, but at the moment, I don't see how it's possible to consider Demographia a reliable source. That's ignoring the potential conflict of interest that exists as it's not really an information resource but a consultancy with various business interests. Nick (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
UN figures are lower because the use the population for the city rather than the metropolitan area. How does that exactly hold true when you just stated the UN provides a total for Tokyo for "urban agglomeration" rather than city? There are plenty of data where numbers are not readily available for metropolitan areas/urban agglomerations/urban areas. Chinese cities (they don't come up with a metropolitan area figure and even just counting the urban cores for those cities leads into SYNTH/OR problems). Pakistan (their last census took place in 1998 and I have yet to find their metropolitan areas/urban agglomerations/urban areas), and Egypt, Russia are some examples where metro/urban/agglomeration data is not available. Even if they were available and we were to use solely official, we would get back to the London vs. New York debate. Elockid (Talk) 17:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
This is taken directly from the UN site: Population of urban agglomerations with 750,000 inhabitants or more in 2011 (thousands) Urban agglomerations are not cities and it's common knowledge that they are not the same. Common perception of what an urban agglomeration is that they are similar or to but not necessarily the exact same as a metropolitan area or urban area. They are also often interchangeable. Are you saying that despite the UN having a vastly different number it is still a reliable source despite the fact that the official source for Seoul puts the metropolitan area at 25+ million or the fact that other sources say otherwise? While I agree that it's important to include disputed numbers, but when the data is just obviously wrong not even remotely matching that from the established data or other comparable data, then common sense dictates that it's not reliable. Elockid (Talk) 18:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
@Nick: it's in page 5 (page 7 if viewing pdf) of the report that I linked above in the table. Elockid (Talk) 18:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not we should use UN statistics is not particularly relevant here; the key is that Demographia is not a reliable source. I pointed to a number of reasons on User Talk: Jl2047a, foremost among them being there is clearly no editorial oversight with a history of fact-checking. The grammatical quality of the document indicates a non-professional production. And it is known that the author is an advocate for a very specific form on city planning which presumably would/could be affected by population statistics. Finally, there is no reason to believe that Cox's definition of the urban area is equivalent to Wikipedia definition, especially since he explicitly states that he's making his own decisions based on satellite imagery. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

It's entirely relevant. What I am pointing out is that if you consider Demographia to be unreliable then the UN is just as if not more unreliable. Why should we consider them reliable? Because of the perceived notion that they have editorial oversight? I suppose you even say that the CIA population data is reliable for countries such as Turkey or the Phililppines? No they are not. It's quite obvious that the large disparity in data even comparing to that of official sources blatantly shows clear lack of editorial oversight or a lack of effort at fact checking. What I am getting that is the data presented by Demographia is more reliable and of which I've already outlined above. If you guys say the data from Demographia is questionable, then prove it by showing data that's says otherwise. Elockid (Talk) 00:44, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Elockid, the UN figures you linked to in your table represent the city population while the figure of 35M for Tokyo you just threw out represents the metropolitan area. So the UN provides both, you must choose which to use. Or use another reliable source, just do not use Demographia.. TFD (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Not true again. The Osaka figure is not that of the city population. Like I said in my expanded comment, those are data for "urban agglomerations". Elockid (Talk) 00:47, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
The UN data for Osaka shown above is Osaka Prefecture, while the numbers from Demographia are for the Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto region (Keihanshin). And guess what else. The UN's figures for New York City will probably differ from Demograhia's figures for New York State, and vice versa. Why on earth does any of this matter? TFD (talk) 19:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's not correct again. Kobe is in the Hyōgo Prefecture which is included in the UN figure. This matters because there's source bias at present. In any report, paper, article, etc. the most important thing you do is always check your sources. Even though there are considered reliable sources, they are perceived notion, not actual reliability. The most logical approach is to see if really in fact the source is reliable. I said previously that the metropolitan/urban/agglomeration data is not released by all census authorities. In situations like these, why shouldn't Demographia be used? People have stated that the UN should be stated but why? I am under the assumption that because of source bias, in these type of situations, the UN data despite the number inaccuracies/inconsistencies, will be preferred by those saying that Demographia is unreliable while also considering that the UN is. What I am trying to get at is that we are not really doing our jobs in determining the reliability of a source but using source bias instead of concrete evidence to do so. There's not a comprehensive review of which I mean looking at other sources to help determine the reliability of the data. I do really appreciate that you tried to find concrete evidence to support your stance and prove that Demographia is unreliable. Elockid (Talk) 21:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I said that Osaka was in the Osaka prefecture, not that Kobe is in the Osaka prefecture. Still not following your logic. If the UN figure for Hyōgo Prefecture is accurate, what does that matter if one of their lists provides the population for that prefecture? TFD (talk) 06:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
When you said, The UN data for Osaka shown above is Osaka Prefecture, I assumed that you meant that the UN figure I listed above is based on Osaka Prefecture. I am saying that this is not true because Kobe is not part of the Osaka Prefecture. Kobe is included in the figure shown above. So the figure can't be based on Osaka Prefecture. In other words, the 11 million figure given by the UN neither matches the official nor is it with agreement with other sources. It's not the Osaka Prefecture or Osaka + Hyogo. Furthermore, going back to the statement you made above how the lower figures are attributed to the city population being used, how reliable is a list then that uses a metropolitan definition for one, a city definition for another, or an urban agglomeration definition according to the UN, etc.? I don't care that this the UN. What I care about is that they are 1) consistent with the official source, 2) consistent with other sources or 3) have some methodology/consistent definitions. In any comparison study, if the definitions for data are different for each entry, then that would not be a reliable study. The UN source fails at 3. Not all the numbers are bad or inaccurate as seen in cities like Tokyo. But the fact that point 3 is lacking means that it is not reliable. Readers want to compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges. At least with Demographia, there is consistency with definition/methodology.
I am saying that source reliability shouldn't be based on reputability. Not everything a source publishes or releases is reliable. All sources make mistakes. No source is perfect. This is why it is important to take information from multiple sources. However, the UN has consistently published data that doesn't match the criteria I listed above. Just because it's the UN, it doesn't mean that we should include it (there is an argument above that they should be included) especially when multiple editors/readers have highlighted the problems with the urbanization study. However, disqualifying Demographia on the basis that it adds nothing extra, wouldn't the UN not add anything extra either? Basically, treat the sources fairly. Elockid (Talk) 14:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I was directed here because my edits to the Wendell Cox, which is also the redirect page for Demographia page, were reversed. I'm still waiting for clarification on what if anything that has to do with this matter.

Also, there is quite a bit of information which explains exactly where Cox is getting the Demographia numbers from in the pdf. yearly report which btw contradicts what some of you have been saying here about the data. Such as the fact that satellite is used. Yes it is used, but the reasoning is explained that satellite photos are not being used to count or estimate population but to find areas that were otherwise not mentioned. Copied from the 2013 Annual Report are the sources from where the information is derived--Sources for Base Population & Land Area Estimates A: National census authority data agglomeration data (land area or population). B: Demographia land area estimate based upon map or satellite photograph analysis. C: Demographia population from lower order jurisdictions, including reduction for rural areas. D: Population estimate based upon United Nations agglomeration estimate. E: Demographia population estimate from national census authority data. F: Other Demographia population estimate. L: Demographia population estimate from local authority data. N:Combined urban area using national census authority data http://www.demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf a comprehensive listing of urban area (agglomeration) population and densities (edited to add24.0.133.234 (talk) 01:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)) I'm not totally convinced that the data is bad even if Mr. Cox has some kind of contentious or unpopular, or self-serving, agenda. And I'm not convinced that the editor who was adding Demographia numbers and info. to the multi-infoboxes was operating under a COI either. Is it possible that those numbers/info-headings are available on international Wikipedias and that the editor speaks another language? I'd like to see if that editor returns to answer questions or comment on what it was they were trying to do there. Although they were asked to please slow-down, and they are a single issue account I'd like to assume good faith here until proven otherwise.24.0.133.234 (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't think the editor will be coming back. I strongly believe that this user was editing under good faith and was blocked harshly. While the massive additions may seem like spamming, they definitely were not in my view. I would even venture to say that anyone who is involved with demographic statics would agree with me that they were not spamming. We're not the only project that uses Demographia. We have some of the largest projects such as Spanish,French, or Italian projects also who use Demographia. If they were really spamming, believe me as someone who blocks a number of spam accounts, I would have taken action or intervened myself (I had already noticed this user adding Demographia before the issue was brought up with the editor). Elockid (Talk) 02:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't able to access the Vancouver Magazine article earlier but now I can (this was mentioned above). From what I can see, there's some strong or at least elevated liberal bias/anti-conservative bias in there. Even non-neutral sources can be reliable but news articles should strive for neutrality. The bias in the article leads me to believe that there is at least some liberal agenda in the article. In my opinion, this article reads much more of an editorial. Elockid (Talk) 02:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but you have a consensus of this board. Not reliable. The UN and CIA issue is a red herring. A city's area (administrative) is determined by its national government. The area of its agglomeration is determined by geographers and demographers. Its population is ascertained by a census. There may be inconsistencies across countries; we have to live with them. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, no one (with the exception of one) has given any strong or reasonable proof why it's unreliable. They have neither given evidence to disprove the reliability of the source. Rather personal analyses were presented without any links or evidence to prove why it's unreliable. The only user who was obtained any sort of concrete evidence was TFD. Elockid (Talk) 21:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, we don't have to give proof. It doesn't add anything to what is already known about city populations. It just crunches stats that are already available in reliable sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry to say this, Elockid, but I think it's the other way around. We need "strong or reasonable proof" that it is a reliable source. I think Qwyrxian hits the nail on the head with his above post starting with "Whether or not we should use UN statistics is not particularly relevant here...". There are just too many indications that this is not a good source. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
@Judith: not giving proof is ridiculous. In any debate, you must have proof when you are questioned. If you insist on saying that Demographia doesn't have anything to ask, would you mind please finding me then the metropolitan/agglomeration/urban population (not the city, county, prefecture, province, etc.) of Cairo or perhaps Karachi from the official sources?
@Anna: I am going to be in disagreement. I have attempted to prove that the data is reliable by showing that it is reliable using other reliable sources. In any debate or argument, like statements made in an article, you must show support for statements with evidence. What are these indications? For example, what exactly in the source (specific passages) would make people agree that it's not a reliable source. What is written in the passage that leads to question the data? Part of a debate or argument is for everyone to give concrete evidence, not for one to. If the opposition can't come up with evidence or even refute the data I have presented, then I see no basis for the arguments being made by the opposition. Elockid (Talk) 23:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't think we have to prove that it is unreliable. Strong indications that it is unreliable are enough to disqualify it. We have to trust a source beyond a reasonable doubt. There is doubt, by several editors, for several reasons.
You say that it is reliable because some figures seem to make sense. Well, an unreliable media source may get the facts in lots of stories right, but that doesn't mean we should consider it a reliable source. We have to examine such factors as the source's agenda, the presence of editorial oversight, and yes, the grammatical quality. Would we really trust an online newspaper that failed in those respects? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

No source can be trusted beyond a reasonable doubt. Even "considered" reliable sources fail at times. U.S. cities even challenge the Census bureau sometimes and wins. Also, the fact that the CIA has been on this noticeboard multiple times further shows that "considered" or "perceived" reliable sources are not trusted beyond a reasonable doubt. This is why you merit other factors such as comparison between other sources when able.

I can also argue that there are strong indications that the source is reliable with no willingness to show proof either. But that doesn't really give any basis to my argument. The Urban Area Report grammatical quality is far from terrible, unprofessional, or a source with elementary grammatical skills. I don't see anything in the publication that has a negative agenda. I don't see any indications of spam or promotion either. If we were to discredit sources based on source agenda, then sources such as MSNBC or FOX would qualify. But the source agenda doesn't disqualify them as unreliable for a number of people (Personally, I think both these sources fail in more than one areas of what a qualifies as a reliable source). I'm sure there are other similar sources out there. If the facts or data are wrong then there isn't much of a presence of editorial oversight. However, there is information that is believable and correlates with that of established data. It's not like the data was pulled out of thin air either. Please note that 24.0.133.234 mentioned about the sourcing above. Elockid (Talk) 02:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

As explained, the source has an agenda - it opposes public transit. Also, it gets its numbers from somewhere else. The oil companies that support the site do not visit all the cities of the world and count inhabitants. TFD (talk) 06:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Hmmmm, you do make good points, but I still think there are too many indications that it's a bad source. I think we should err on the side of caution and select alternate sources. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
@TFD: How does a source that opposes public transit make it a bad agenda? Also, this was taken from 24.0.133.234 above. "Also, there is quite a bit of information which explains exactly where Cox is getting the Demographia numbers from in the pdf. yearly report which btw contradicts what some of you have been saying here about the data." It's not like the data is made up and it's quite evident that they're not.
@Anna: The problem is that there are not many alternate sources. In many cases, from what I have seen, official sources can be difficult to find due to a language barrier. Sometimes even if there is an English version, they are not as comprehensive or lacking in information that would be in the country's native langauge(s) or they simply do not release a figure for metropolitan data/agglomeration/urban. Even though some official sources like China release urban core figures, and suburban figures, combining figures can be construed as OR or SYNTH as they are not official definitions. A study done by Forstall gives examples of other available sources out there which are WorldGazetteer, CityPopulation, Mongabay, and CityMayors. The links for WorldGazetteer are dead, Mongabay uses Wikipedia as a source and CityMayors use UN data for an agglomeration list (it's essentially a mirror). There was previously another website that published similar data but they have gone through an extensive revamp and they do not have their data publicly online. We could use Forstall's study but many editors have pointed out that the figures are outdated and there are many other cities missing from the list (it only goes to top 25). If were to not use Demographia, CityPopulation and the UN would be really be the only sources available. Readers like to compare cities and get an idea of how big a city is. So another one of the points why I included the UN is that readers are unable to compare cities. We really don't have alternate choices to choose from. Elockid (Talk) 16:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Readers like to compare cities, yes, but the info may simply not be there. The EU has defined a Larger Urban Zone and we could cite area and population for those using Eurostat. In other areas the work on ensuring comparability hasn't been done, except by the UN. It isn't a one-off website that is going to get that comparability. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
At the risk of being repetitive, let me summarize. You have provided no evidence that Demographia is reliable. And your evidence against the UN is based on comparing figures for different population areas.
Let's look at one example in Demographia: "the Toronto, Hamilton and Oshawa metropolitan areas...are combined into a single combined urban area." It also says "Toronto, ON, Canada: Includes Hamilton and Oshawa." Since they provide a population of over 6 million, they are clearly referring to the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTA). The description is however a little misleading, because both Oshawa and Toronto are part of the Greater Toronto Area. Of course using the GTHA makes sense for Demographia, because the area is served by Metrolinx, a public transit authority. But other than providing the population for the GTHA article infobox, what use is it? Even then it is problematic because it does not actually say it is describing the GTHA. And it does not provide the population for the GTA, Toronto, Hamilton, Oshawa or any of the other municipalities inside the GTHA.
TFD (talk) 19:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Um, no. Unlike the other commentators in this thread who quote, "we don't have to give proof" or "I don't think we have to prove that it is unreliable", I have actually attempted to give proof on more than one occasion. For example, I did so by explaining where to find the sources they've used. In fact, 24.0.133.234 went ahead and copied the whole section. Not only that, but I also showed that the data is consistent with other sources. Again, it would seem that the opposing editors lack of proof has been criticized by 24.0.133.234 as I already mentioned above. The proof you have given yourself has bias as I explained above. If you want me to go into finer detail by highlighting the specific passages that show bias, then I will. The description is however a little misleading, because both Oshawa and Toronto are part of the Greater Toronto Area. This is incorrect in terms of official definition. As you can see here, the statistics bureau of Canada does not include Oshawa in their CMA definition. Unless I'm missing something, that is the only definition that they use. The source that states Oshawa is part of GTA is not an official one. Elockid (Talk) 21:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Result of debate

I see four editors who consider this an unreliable source. I think consensus for acceptance as quite unlikely. I propose that we remove the occurrences of figures with accompanying demographia references from the remaining articles where they occur. Some helpful links for that purpose:

Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Considering that there a lot of pages, it would be a much better idea to first inform other users such as in WP:WikiProject Cities, Wikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planning or the affected pages. With 1,540 watchers as of this post, I'm pretty sure most people don't watch this page and as such, it doesn't represent the wider of view of editors who might happen to have a different opinions than either myself or yourself. Even just looking at the talk pages where Demographia is mentioned, there really isn't anything definitive. Elockid (Talk) 21:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I endorse your suggestion and have posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Urban studies and planning#demographia.com. Very best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Further discussion

Coming here afresh from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Urban studies and planning (I worked as an urban planner in the UK for 30 years), I'm slightly bemused by the intensity of this discussion and the suggested actions. Obviously, different sources using different methods of analysis and definitions will come up with different population figures. There is no bright line between "right" and "wrong" figures; they are all estimates - but, obviously, we should use the most accurate and up-to-date, and best researched, estimates, and explain (or at least link to) the basis for them. Equally, there is no bright line between "reliable" and "unreliable" sources. The idea that any information provided by a source that is perceived to have an agenda should necessarily be discounted, and any references to it should be expunged, is surely misconceived - it would mean that any information provided by (using UK examples) newspapers such as the Times, Telegraph, Guardian, Independent, etc. should be automatically removed from WP as they each have a clear editorial political agenda; such an action would be absurd. Just because a source is perceived to have a political agenda, it does not necessarily mean that the information it provides should be disregarded; it depends on their reputation for checking facts. This discussion doesn't lead me to conclude that Demographia has any better, or worse, reputation, in that regard than any of the other organisations cited. I can be convinced either way on that. But, even if it is less perfect than other sources, it still should not mean that all references to the site should be expunged. Editors should look for better sources, use them wherever they can, and - if Demographia is the only source for a given fact - its limitations should be set out. I am opposed to simply expunging Demographia-sourced information from articles because of what editors perceive as the political agenda of its source. The limitations of the source should be mentioned, and where necessary information should be tagged for checking and improved sourcing by other editors. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC) PS: I now see that this discussion was initiated by the actions of User:Jl2047a, which were, and are, unexplained (but not WP:SPAM). Clearly, they need to explain and justify their actions in adding that material. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

If during your work as an urban planner, you were required to provide information about the population of Muslims for a report that would be viewed by the public, would you source it to the English Defence League website? Why or why not? TFD (talk) 09:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, source of demographia.com exists on dozens or hundreds of articles and several articles based on this source, why no one has been informed? This is too big a change in Wikipedia to changed ​​it by few people with quiet/hidden discussion about which no one knows. Furthermore, in my opinion Demographia is reliable source, better source than UN or similar. Subtropical-man (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC) In other words, page of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is seldom (or at all) read by most users of Wikipedia. There was no information on talk of articles about the discussion about Demographia, despite the fact that many articles use this source. Consensus does not exist/this is too small and weak consensus to mass changes on Wikipedia. Please start / continue the discussion in a larger group of users in a more accessible place than Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 161. Subtropical-man (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Container names

A question has been raised in Tin box relating to various names for containers, specifically decorative metal ones. Common names used by households include “tin”, “can”, “tin box”, “tub” or whatever one chooses to use. Manufacturers often call these “steel can” or “steel packaging” [20] [21]. Two authoritative books in the packaging industry are;

  • Soroka (2002) Fundamentals of Packaging Technology, Institute of Packaging Professionals[22], ISBN 1-930268-25-4
  • Yam (2009) “Encyclopedia of Packaging Technology”. Wiley[23], 978-0-470-08704-6

These two books have chapters on cans that indicate the preferred name of the containers in question to be “cans”. Some editors have rejected these published sources. Is there agreement that these books are reliable sources or should these be ignored? Thank you. Pkgx (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Are these reliable sources for the origins of an ethnic population?

This refers to Ingushetia#Origin of Ingushetia's population. I don't understand quite how the first sentence, about the derivation of the word, relates, but the source seems ok. The second source, George Anchabadze, is probably ok and confined to tradition. "The Soviet-Russian anthropologists and scientists N.Ya. Marr, V.V. Bounak, R.M. Munchaev, I.M Dyakonov, E.I. Krupnov and G.A. Melikashvilli wrote: "Among Ingush the Caucasian type is preserved better than among any other North Caucasian nation", Professor of anthropology V.V.Bounak "Groznenski Rabochi" 5, VII, 1935. Professor G.F.Debets recognized that Ingush Caucasian anthropologic type is the most Caucasian among Caucasians." gives me problems. It's sourced to [24] and starts "Dear reader" and is signed by someone called Yusuf Timerhanov. You can try to read it in Chrome, which gives a full translation but the formatting is terrible. It appears to be a rambling essay. As for the list of anthropologists and scientists, I'm not clear what comes from the weekly newspaper Groznensky Rabochy. The 'rambling essay" does have (as translated) "Prof. V. Bunak in the 30s of XX century. said: "Among this Ingush own Caucasian type survived more than any of the other North Caucasian peoples" (Grozny Worker 05/07/1935) anthropologist Professor G.F.Debets acknowledged that kavkasionsky (Ingush YU.T,) anthropological type "most of all Caucasian Caucasian" (Anthropological studies in Dagestan. "TIE. T.23.M., 1956, p.214). These data are almost identical to expressed Marr, R.M.Munchaevym AND . M.Dyakonovym, E.I.Krupnovym, G.A.Melikashvili etc." so perhaps this quote comes from the Grozny Worker ( the Groznensky Rabochy) originally, but it's obviously taken from the essay so we can't be sure it's accurate and in any case I'm dubious about something from what was undoubtedly a political newspaper. I also note that in 1935 Igor Mikhailovich Diakonoff was 20 years old. Then there's the problem of the use of a review of Nichols paper for " An American linguist Dr. Johanna Nichols claims that: "The Nakh–Dagestanian languages are the closest thing we have to a direct continuation of the cultural and linguistic community that gave rise to Western civilization" Dr. Henry Harpending, Univetsity of Utah supports her claims in the article". Although she says this, her point is that she is using language "to connect modern people of the Caucasus region to the ancient farmers of the Fertile Crescent." (quote from the review). Source is fine, quote is confusing. Nichols or rather the review of Nichols is also used for "Invention of agriculture, irrigation, and the domestication of animals" - definitely not what the source says - it says "Archaeologists have long known that some 10,000 years ago, ancient people in Mesopotamia discovered farming, raising sheep, cattle, wheat, and barley. And researchers knew that by 8000 years ago agriculture had spread north to the Caucasus Mountains. But they had little inkling of whether traces of this first farming culture lived on in any particular culture today." The other source for this statement is a YouTube video[25]. It's clear from the editor's edit summaries that they are not exactly amenable to changing any of this (he/she even restored the YouTube video after I removed it). Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The editor has posted to my talk page calling me a vandal, but he does quote Nichols as saying "I am not an ethnographer or historian" - now she is clearly a reliable source for the language issues, but do we also need this disclaimer? Dougweller (talk) 14:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
A bit more on the Grozny Worker: "The newspaper Groznenski rabochi ('Grozny Worker'), which started coming out as early as 1920 (some sources give 1918), was later made the organ of the Chechen Oblast Party Committee, the City Party Committee and the Supreme Soviet of the Worker's Deputies, and published five times a week in Grozny. By the early 1930s, there were 16 newspapers published in the Chechen AO."[26] The Chechens: A Handbook By Amjad Jaimoukha. Dougweller (talk) 14:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
The main problem I see with the use of Nichols quotes here isn't so much their reliability but rather the way they are being manipulatively used. Nichols stated that the Nakh languages were connected to ancient farmers in the Fertile Crescent, and of course this may very well be true, but the problem is the way it is placed on the page. It gives the impression that this is their ethnic "origin", that the Ingush people are the direct heirs to the society which gave birth the "Western civilization," when of course that's a huge simplification at best. Really, this sort of seemingly nationalistic use of quotes isn't appropriate, in my opinion at least. And btw, this account in question has a long history of heavy POV-pushing, edit warring and so on- see Khaibakh massacre, etc... --Yalens (talk) 05:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Official blog for the University of Tokyo

In my sandbox at User:MezzoMezzo/sandbox, and maybe within the next hour or so in an actual article, there is a biography of a Japanese professor of Islamic studies, Kojiro Nakamura. It's small though the sources I have found so far are reliable, and his specialty (as well as location) seem unique enough to warrant an article.
The University's Center for Philosophy has an official blog here with a discussion regarding a presentation of one of Nakamura's books along with the rought topic. It seems like it could support at least a one-line mention of the book in the article, but I am unsure about a few things.
According to WP:USERGENERATED, "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." Well, that post is officially from the University's Center so it seems official, but the post was written by some guy named Shoko Watanbe and I don't know if he is an expert himself, some kind of a TA or maybe just a temp. Does the fact that this is published on the University website meet the standard in and of itself for a one-line mention of that book in the Wikipedia article on Kojiro Nakamura? MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

See now Kojiro Nakamura. The other sources look fine, and show that he's an expert in his field, so a serious publication by him in his field is worth mentioning. I wouldn't rely on that web page for detail, as it might be just a tiny bit biased in his favour :) but I would say it's worth linking to as a source of information about the book. Andrew Dalby 13:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Shaheen Foundation

Under the auspices of the Shaheen Foundation, Air Cdre M KAISER TUFAIL (Retd. published a book entitled the Story of Pakistan Air Force – A Saga of Courage and Honour. I believe that this makes it a WP:SPS. It is not widely cited see [27].

Per WP:SPS there may be an excemption as Air Cdre M KAISER TUFAIL (Retd) could be considered an expert but there is a further problem that this WP:SPS is being used in the article to quote another individual in the article Operation Chengiz Khan. If considered an SPS, then part of policy states explicitly:


The quotation used appears to be quite explicitly prohibited. As usual comments from uninvolved editors would be welcome. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Just a little clarification. The book Story of Pakistan Air Force – A Saga of Courage and Honour was not written by Kaiser Tufail. There are two sources that need to be discussed here: 1). The book Story of Pakistan Air Force – A Saga of Courage and Honour and 2). a writing by Kaiser Tufail published in Defence Journal. -- SMS Talk 18:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
You're right [28], digging a little further the book is printed by Z K Packages, Lahore [29] who it would appear normally print advertising. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

http://MaxPreps.com

They list an on-staff editor.[30] Website is owned by some subsidiary of CBS.

However, they aim to cover "every high school athlete" in the country (or maybe the world). Reading between the lines, any coach or teacher (or maybe parent) can sign up, and upload data. Educated-guess-ify-ing here, but methinks the editorial staff does not actually have the human capacity to fact-check this much information... instead, they have the traditional "email us a correction" link at the bottom of the page.

p.s. This source was being cited for high school track-n-field accomplishments, e.g. "first place in 4x100 relay at state track championship meet in 2013", in an article about the high school. The wins in question *were* at the state level, so methinks regular newspapers cover that also. Does such a thing pass the WP:NOTNEWS threshold, if MaxPreps turns out to be qualified as WP:RS, or if a better source can be found? Or is it WP:TRIVIAL since every state has such things, every year? Policy says that "national spelling bee winners are listed but the local spelling bee winner is not". What about state champs? In pole vault, and ten other events? Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Steam in the Air

This book is claimed to be scientific. But as long as I can see from the preview it has no signs of a formal academic peer review neither is it published by a scientific entity (a university for exemple) nor can I find any academic credetials of it's author. I would be interested in how wikipedians would value it's scientific status and it's repute as a potential reliable source on aeronautics history, and especially how it's reliability might be advocated? What be the indications of academic and wikipedic reliability for a book on aviation history in general? Эйхер (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

This book, Steam in the Air: The Application of Steam Power in Aviation During the 19th And 20th Centuries, ISBN 1844152952 , appears to be a reliable source though not peer-reviewed in the academic sense, or scientific in the experimental sense. It is the work of many people, so its text is likely to have been reviewed by those who helped the author. Maurice Kelly is the author and I have no idea what qualifications he has except that the book appears to be very well written and informative. I would be confident to use this book as a reliable source. Binksternet (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
He's a former Chief Engineer Officer in the British Merchant Navy. He's published several books on engines generally. The book is not self-published and was issued Pen and Sword. For the purposes of WP it's a reliable source. Whether it's the best or even an adequate source for any particular content addition is unanswerable until you inform of the content which it is proposed that this text will support. FiachraByrne (talk) 13:59, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
To say, I'm editing now the arcticle about Mozhaysky's airplane in Russian Wikipedia. This book is likely to be the onely non-russian work to cover the story of Mozhaysky in detail and it looks quite thorough on the matter. The main issue is that it states that: "...it does seem that the craft possibly became airborne for a distance of between 65 and 100 ft." I have investigated quite a lot of russian sources about Mozhaysky's aeronautical experiments and in no russian source that can possibly be considered reliable I found an exact distance covered by the Mozhaysky's vehicle. An "evidence" is known that claims distance an order of magnitude bigger that in Kellys book, but it is known to be fraudulent anyway. Эйхер (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Okay, this book is perfectly suited to support the statement that Mozhaysky's aircraft may have achieved a short flight 65–100 feet long. Binksternet (talk) 01:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
The situation is a bit complicated, however, by the fact, that coverage of the matter in western sources is a bit strange. Editing the article I had to reject some claims made in some books written by most credited authors (such as C. H. Gibbs-Smith or John D. Anderson), for example, that the vehicle was piloted by I. N. Golubev - survey of russian/soviet sources clearly indicates that no reputable russian researcher ever considered Ivan Nikiphorovich Golubev to be anything other than an imaginary creature, even Cheremnykh[unreliable source] and Shipilov[unreliable source], most notable hoax-mongers, had to remove this name from the second edition of their famous hoaxbook about Mozhaysky. Since I found no russian source in the bibliography of Gibbs-Smith's book, I then concluded that personal credentials of the author are not sufficient to use his writings in support of the very unusual claim, especially given that he doesn't contend explicitly the other viewpoint (i. e. he is likely to be innocent of this other viewpoint). Now the disagreament between the Mr Kelly's book and the consensus of russian researchers is not so evident if really essential at all, but because of Ivan Nikiphorovich I grew a bit cautious about foreign authors writing about Mozhaysky. Эйхер (talk) 13:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I would not throw out Gibbs-Smith and Anderson just because they get the pilot wrong. For Wikipedia's purposes, they are still reliable sources. You may decide to tell the reader several different versions, attributing these different versions to the various authors. Binksternet (talk) 00:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I didn't mean throwing them out altogether. I just meant that I reject only some of their statements. Эйхер (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I would tend to treat Russian-language scholars, principally due to their proximity to archival primary sources, as more reliable for the facts pertaining to this vehicle than other authors and academics. This is particularly so if Kelly has not indicated in his text from whence his information on this matter is derived. If the flight claim is to be included I would be inclined to relegate it to a footnote and name the author who has made the claim. While the book meets the reliable source criteria of WP - which is quite low really - that does not mean that all relevant claims in the book should be included in an article of this type. You're entitled to weigh the sources and put forward arguments for the use of the best sources as they pertain to particular content decisions. FiachraByrne (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Flight (or rather 'lift-off') claim is, of course, to be icluded, since it was held by many scholars, the difference is that reputable russian scholars always declared explicitly, that all known accounts of the event are scanty recollections put on the paper more than twenty years after it, and they contain no information more than "the vehicle separated from the ground but, being unstable, rolled over the wing, which then was broken" (and not all accounts notice the fact of separation). In such circumstances a report telling exact distance looks as a one off, especially knowing that citing exact distance of "the world's first true aeroplane flight" is so characteristic to innumerable "Russia is the mother of everything" books/articles having their roots in the Campaign against Rootless cosmopolitansЭйхер (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Then, by weighing the totality of the available sources for this event, you can reasonably eliminate this specific claim as probably erroneous and misinformed - especially if the claim is not explicitly sourced to any credible archival material. FiachraByrne (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree, this is reliable simply because it came from a reputable publisher (Casemate Publishers). Any publisher worth its salt will consult with subject matter experts to confirm factual accuracy before printing. The fact that the book probably didn't receive formal academic peer review is largely irrelevant. This isn't primary scientific research, it's a history book. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
There are people who write quite queer history books. Эйхер (talk) 12:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I think that the opinion that formal academic review is irrelevant to the production of good history sources is problematic. FiachraByrne (talk) 11:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
  • [Off topic] Could you help out at this query below?

thesafemac.com

An IP editor has added these [31][32][33] to Softonic.com claiming adware/malware. Can this site be considered reliable? It's copyrighted by "Thomas Reed", and there's a general bio but there's no real bona fides listed aside from owning a software business. It also doesn't seem to be cited by or discussed by news, magazine, book, or scholar sources. There have been several attempts to add non-RS malware or 'potentially unwanted program (PUP)' claims - see Talk:Softonic.com. Just looking for the RSN stamp either way. --Lexein (talk) 02:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Just to confirm your own assessment, it's a self-published blog by a (in WP terms) non-expert. It's not a reliable source even if the particular incident he describes at the above links appears to be credible. FiachraByrne (talk) 13:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks - now it's on the record. --Lexein (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm the IP editor - mostly unfamiliar with WP, & RS in particular (many articles refer to less reliable sources than this) - but I do now see why it's not suitable. Thankyou both. 146.90.48.2 (talk) 05:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The reply to the point you make is ... wait for it ... "Wikipedia is a work in progress". We just have to get all those other articles up to standard as well. Andrew Dalby 09:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Question on Referencing in Bill Greiner

I have a question regarding referencing in the article, Bill Greiner, that I recently created. The discussion about it is currently found on the talk page of this article. Specifically, I included two blog articles that I cited and referenced in the article that were removed by another editor. To me, the blog articles supported that the subject of the article was a UB President, and that

"Greiner's instruction and mentorship earned him the admiration and respect of many students, particularly those in the UB Law School"

(thus also including undergraduate students vs. only Law School students, as was the context, originally stated in the "UB Legacy" section). Therefore, to include the blog articles is acceptable because of the context in which they were used in the article. I've researched about the use of blogs, and I understand that they are viewed as "questionable" and "largely unacceptable," but my perspective is that they are not all completely unacceptable. The blog author (same author for both blogs) was a UB student, is a UB graduate, and had respect for the subject of the Wiki article; she also stated that she knew him at UB at the time that he was the President there. The blog author includes one or more photos of herself with Greiner in both blog articles, as well as a primary source document that was authored by Greiner, essentially making her blog article a secondary source. Based on this information, would the blog articles be considered unreliable sources, and should they be maintained or removed? One of the articles can be found at: Team Greiner: UB's Champions. The other article is on the same page, but published at an earlier date: How Time Flies: Graduating from UB...20 Years Ago. Depending on the answer to these questions, I then have another question that includes these articles in that they have been published in LinkedIn groups, such as UB Alumni Association. Therefore, the publisher of the article is LinkedIn, correct? And so, would that make the blog article less controversial for including in the article, Bill Greiner? I've seen blogs and LinkedIn used in other Wiki articles in that they pertain to supporting the article, its context, and are relevant, valid, and verifiable. Please advise. Thanks, Daniellagreen (talk) 04:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Blogs may sometimes be acceptable, but this is not one of those cases. Linked-In is not the publisher of information on personal pages. Even if one argued that it was, it has no oversight over what is presented, hence the pages would not be reliable, except in specific cases. TFD (talk) 01:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Governing Magazine source about ALEC

Talk page discussion has centered around the contention that two alleged inaccuracies in the source render the source unreliable as a whole. The two alleged inaccuracies:

  1. The source says ALEC was "[f]ounded in the early 1970s as a conservative counterweight to the mainstream National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL)." NCSL was founded in 1975 as a consolidation of three other entities. ALEC was proposed/founded in 1973 and registered as a non-profit in 1975. In light of this chronology, there is consensus on the article talk page that the source's "conservative counterweight" sentence is not reliable.
  2. ALEC coordinates "task force" meetings among state legislators and private-sector entities (e.g. corporations and think tanks) in which model legislation is drafted and proposed. The source says "The private-sector folks help draft and have a veto over any proposed legislation that the task forces create." One editor contends that language about "private sector folks" having a "veto" is inaccurate and has pointed to this document, which appears to be a leaked internal flowchart about ALEC's messaging/PR. I personally don't see how the flowchart either (a) is a reliable source or (b) refutes Greenblatt's "veto" language.

As far as I can tell, Governing Magazine is an extremely reputable and neutral outlet. According its website it has won numerous journalism awards, has polled among "government and local leaders" as the "most read," most "objective," and most "current" news outlet, and has been cited by a variety of the most well-known and well-respected outlets on both sides of the political aisle. Independent sources (e.g. here, page 3) bear this out. In addition, Greenblatt, the author, also reports for NPR (same guy, see here, here, here) and has even written an article about defending his press credentials.

In light of the above I believe this dispute falls under WP:SNOW. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

As a source, Governing looks about as reliable as you can get, to me, and certainly more reliable than the Alecexposed Wiki. If there are other highly reliable sources directly contradicting what the Governing article says, that would obviously raise legitimate questions. Barnabypage (talk) 19:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree that Governing looks very reliable and should be used in the article. However, I would like to defend the reputation of ALEC Exposed; that project is run by the respected Center for Media and Democracy. Investigative journalists Mary Bottari and Lisa Graves were both awarded the The Sidney Award in 2011 for ALEC Exposed.[34][35] (The Sidney Award is for excellence in investigative journalism.) In 2012, the ALEC Exposed project also won the Izzy Award, given by the Park Center for Independent Media which is based out of the Roy H. Park School of Communications at Ithaca College.[36] So what we have with Governing saying one thing and ALEC Exposed saying another is one of those situations where we tell the reader both versions even though they conflict. Binksternet (talk) 23:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
But they don't conflict. (Or am I missing something?) Not to mention that the flowchart appears to be authored by ALEC, not ALECExposed. ALECExposed appears to have simply marked it up and published it on its website without vouching for its factual accuracy -- disputing it, in fact. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Rebeccalutz said they conflicted, so I took her at her word. I have not looked at the two sources side by side. I have only looked at the Governing source. Binksternet (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Whew, that makes me feel a little saner. I think the ALECExposed file is a red herring, totally irrelevant to this dispute. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Where there are disputes about factual claims (as is the case above concerning a claim that it was founded in response to a group founded after ALEC was founded) common sense says we do not make the claims where the source is clearly inaccurate, or is questioned by other sources. Collect (talk) 22:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Right, that's why there's consensus that the source's "conservative counterweight" sentence is unreliable. The question here is the reliability of the rest of the article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Not Reliable Either Greenblatt or his sources were lying. I don't have the time to check everything but the most glaring errors are as flows:

1 - Greenblatt claims that ALEC was founded as a response to a different organization (NCSL). The NCSL, which Greenblatt claims ALEC was founded as a response to was created 2 years after ALEC was founded.
2 - Greenblatt claims the businesses have veto power over votes inside the organization. Several of ALEC's political opponents have leaked internal documents and written extensively about them. The leaked internal documents contradict this claim as do all of ALEC's political opponents.
3 - Greenblatt says that EEI left ALEC over a dispute. EEI is still a member of ALEC. It is conceivable that they quit and came back but unlikely.

Lets not take the word of a guy that can't even get the year his subject was founded right. Rebeccalutz (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Lets not take the word of a guy that can't even get the year his subject was founded right. - this is probably just a minor elision of the NCSL with its three predecessor organisations, which merged in 1975. ALEC probably was founded at least in part to counter those predecessors. Podiaebba (talk) 01:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Incidentally, as far as I can make out, proven errors and even deliberate lying are irrelevant to whether a source counts as "RS". Podiaebba (talk) 01:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I would hope that proven errors should be relevant to whether a source is WP:RS. "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts...." If the "facts" reported are proven incorrect, that should indicate a poor reputation for checking the facts, unless a specific reason why those facts are reported in error is provided. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree that proven errors should bear on the reliability of the source overall... but in this case we don't have any proven errors. We have one statement of questionable reliability, with a number of plausible innocent explanations for it, such as the one Podiebba advanced. We have no way of knowing what the author knew or meant, so it's difficult to extrapolate. As for Ms. Lutz's issue #2, this is a figment of her imagination. As I wrote above, there's nothing in the leaked document that bears on the accuracy of the Governing source's statement about private sector vetoes. Check the document yourself. Finally, as for Ms. Lutz's issue #3, she is correct that EEI is now an ALEC member again but she admits that EEI could have quit and returned. Her assessment that this is "unlikely" is totally unfounded, and irrelevant. "Unlikely" things happen all the time and are correctly reported without implicating the reliability of the news source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Are there any other sources, at all, claiming that businesses have a veto over "model policies"? I have shown you sources that say that they do not. Is there anyone besides Greeblatt who claims that they do? Rebeccalutz (talk) 16:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Well yes, actually. Here are some: [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42]. Given its sterling reputation, Governing is the most reliable IMO. And if you're going to beat this horse about "sources that say they do not," then you'll need to explain where they say they do not. Lead us through it. Communicate. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
The Governing source's assertion that EEI left ALEC over a dispute with Enron is corroborated by this ALEC Watch source (p. 16), which says: "The side that lost – representatives of investor-owned utilities and their trade association, the Edison Electric Institute – walked out of the session and later renounced their ALEC memberships." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm looking for an uninvolved admin to close this discussion. Any takers? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Florida Center for Investigative Reporting article about ALEC

  1. ALEC "advocates for legislation favorable to its patrons, mainly U.S. corporations." (in first sentence; removed here)
  2. "The Florida bill had been pressed by the National Rifle Association and its Tallahassee lobbyist, Marion Hammer."
  • Talk page discussion: here, permanent link here.

Two editors have contended that the outlet (FCIR) is a biased advocacy organization. I can't find any evidence of this whatsoever. FCIR was founded in 2010 so there isn't a slew of information about it, but what is out there appears very strong. It started on a grant from the Ethics and Excellence in Journalism Foundation. Both its editorial staff and its board of directors are composed of seasoned professionals with backgrounds at mainstream, nonpartisan outlets. It is also partnered with WTVJ, Miami's NBC station (owned and operated by NBC, not a franchise) and its stories are carried on the website for WLRN, Miami's NPR and PBS affiliate. Prior to joining FCIR, the author of the source, Howard Goodman, had a 35-year career at the South Florida Sun Sentinel.

The same editors who contend that FCIR is biased also contend the source is a unreliable per WP:BLOGS because it categorizes itself under "Blog, Government, Justice, Politics." However the source appears to fall squarely under WP:NEWSBLOG, as the author is a seasoned professional and the piece reads as carefully edited news reporting, at least for the portions being cited.

In addition, content #1 (for the first sentence), which appears somewhat bold on its face, is fully consistent with many other reliable sources that say roughly the same thing but in more words (e.g. New York Times, Bloomberg Businessweek, Guardian 1, Guardian 2, Governing 1, Governing 2). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Goodman is no longer at FCIR, but here's his old staff bio, courtesy of the Wayback Machine. Strong credentials, as expected. Here's his LinkedIn page. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Reliable. The credentials are good as is the reputation of FCIR. I would like to point out that Wikipedia does not require any of its reliable sources to be free from bias. Binksternet (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
It is a reliable source. TFD (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Not Reliable The author is a retired op-ed columnist writing in the blog section of a non-profit, which he has left. It should not be used as a source for controversial wording for which other sources cannot be located. Rebeccalutz (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

How does it matter that it's a non-profit, or that Goodman left? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Unreliable. Funded by George Soros,[Note 1] fact checking of some information showed that progun data was omitted, such as Florida crime data,[Note 2] shown on John Lott's site.[Note 3] There is plenty of additional info out there on this.
  1. ^ Richard Moore, The real problem with George Soros and his left-wing media, Lakeland Times (Wisconsin), Sept. 11, 2011.
  2. ^ Crime in Florida: Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), Florida Dept. of Law Enforcement, last visited on Dec. 4, 2013.
  3. ^ John Lott, Soros funded Florida Center for Investigative Reporting claims: "As Firearm Ownership Rises, Florida Gun Murders Increasing", John Lott's Website, Apr. 21, 2013.

GregJackP Boomer! 00:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a sad day when a couple of bloggers are somehow more reliable than a professional journalist with more than 35 years of experience in established, reputable newsrooms. The "Lakeland Times" is hardly a reputable outlet, and there's no evidence they have an editorial staff, let alone that Moore's piece received any editorial review. There's also no evidence Moore is in fact an "investigative journalist" as he claims to be. This is a guy who pushes the discredited conspiracy theory that autism is caused by vaccines. As for Lott, this is a self-published blog (again, no editorial review) that criticizes a different FCIR article written by a different journalist -- yet he doesn't even suggest that any of the article's content is false, just that the journalist reported on the wrong thing. People are always bickering over whether statistics are meaningful, but Lott's criticisms of FCIR are not about the factual accuracy of the reporting. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Not convinced it's reliable for these claims in particular. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Why not? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
In your initial post, you stated "Two editors have contended that the outlet (FCIR) is a biased advocacy organization. I can't find any evidence of this whatsoever." I found two sources in about five minutes and noted that there were plenty of other sources out there. The Pew Research Center has done a study with IIRC included all of the CIRs. I haven't cited it because I haven't taken the time to look at the actual studies (2011 and 2013) that showed slanting of news. When I get some time I'll look at it in more detail, but it clearly appears that the two editors were correct. I can't explain why you could not locate the information, as I mentioned, it only took me about 5 minutes. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 04:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not seeing the necessary journalistic integrity for such claims to be sourced to it without relevant attribution. This information, in theory, can be provided by better sources that aren't questionable. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Is the claim actually disputed? No, because the general idea of what ALEC is is widely available. A discussion about the reliability of this particular source seems an excellent way to waste electrons. Podiaebba (talk) 01:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, unfortunately the claim is actually disputed. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Reliable. WP:NEWSBLOG applies. Not op-ed, reportage. Not an optimal source, but good enough for points that are supported in other sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Can it be used to source text for which there are no other supporting sources? Rebeccalutz (talk) 16:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Of course; that's what "reliable source" means. Binksternet (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but check that it is broadly what compatible with what other sources are saying. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
This seems indisputably reliable based on the evidence presented by User:DrFleischman. A Blogspot post by an ideologue like Lott does not appear to be sufficient evidence to dispute this. Gamaliel (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm looking for an uninvolved admin to close this discussion. Any takers? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Biography Published by Business Week magazine of a business owner.

  • Content: That, in addition to his other claimed educational degrees, McGibney also has an Associate's Degree from Chadwick University, along with a BS or BA degree.

There has been some disagreement on the talk page of the article as to whether or not Business Week magazine is a reliable source. This publication has been in business for nearly 100 years and is a billion dollar company in the business of reporting on business. It clearly meets the guidelines for reliable sources per Wikipedia policy here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources). And it also meets the guidelines involving verifiability, that are found here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability). Dead Goldfish (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Sphilbrick has indicated that the subject of the article has stated that the information is incorrect and is discussing this with business week. To me the source is of questionable reliablity as there is no author. I feel the information should be left out of the artiicle until we verify the credilibilty of the source. An earlier version of the article discussed how the university that this degree comes from is a diploma mill. That is enough to be a BLP problem. GB fan 00:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
The source is businessweek.com, not the magazine - I don't believe the large volume of company and personnel profiles is published in the magazine. However, as a company information database published by Bloomberg Businessweek, it clearly counts as a "reliable source" by Wikipedia standards. Reliable sources can and do make mistakes... if there is a claim from the subject that this information is wrong, then I'd suggest agreeing a reasonable amount of time for the subject to communicate with Businessweek and potentially amend the database entry, and then see what happens. If no change is forthcoming after, say 1 month, then the info stands. Podiaebba (talk) 01:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Podiaebba, that's like saying that the source is Time.com and not the magazine Time. Business Week and Business Week.com are one and the same. And while reliable sources can make mistakes, there is ZERO indication that this was the case. Because of all the activity involving sock puppets trying to edit the article and remove the information I tend to think that this is just a lame whitewashing attempt and not a legitimate issue. Also, how do you know that it is a legitimate issue and not just the subject of the article trying to whitewash things from Wikipedia? It seems a useful way to game the system to me. Dead Goldfish (talk) 02:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
We're not really disagreeing, apart from the fact that I think it matters a bit that Time.com publishes editorial content not in the magazine in much lower volume than businessweek.com seems to, and much of its online content has names attached (AFAIR) - it's not an ideal comparison. I also think the most likely thing is that the information is correct and the subject just finds it embarrassing; but we should give some opportunity for them to address a potential problem. Podiaebba (talk) 06:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Lack of authorship does not mean the source is not RS. It only means the strength of the source is not as strong as one with author information. Many times these sources use un-credited staff writers and that alone is not a reasoning to exclude as non-RS. However...being accurate is our utmost responsibility no matter what. If an editor questions whether the source is actually accurate, that must be addressed as to ignore it is not within the spirit or letter of Wikipedia.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Just as a note. The website of an organization is not "one and the same" as a publication by the organization. Read WP:Identifying reliable sources there is often content on the websites of many organizations/publications that are not subject to editorial oversight and fact checking. Note that even in publications generally regarded as reliable sources there are peices by columnists, editorials, guest editorials, letters to the editor etc. these are not RS. The lack of an author increases the concern as having an author with some credentials and reputation would lend some credibility to the source. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Is this an OTRS issue or is User:Sphilbrick in contact with the subject of the article on his own? If this is an OTRS issue please provide the ticket number. Gamaliel (talk) 06:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

It is an OTRS issue, ticket number 2013112810001642. GB fan 12:30, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
GB fan is correct, it is an OTRS issue. In addition, Wikimedia legal counsel has been alerted. There's more to this than meets the eye.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Sounds to me like the subject of the article is working fast & furious to whitewash embarrassing information. Sphilbrick let us please hear the details in the interests of openness and transparency so that we can be certain that no shenanigans is going on here undercover and behind the scenes. Dead Goldfish (talk) 20:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Dead Goldfish, OTRS refers to the Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team, a group of volunteers who work with living individuals who have concerns about the information about them on Wikipedia. A person has the right to dispute the information in their article and those volunteers work with them to address those concerns as best they can. They don't automatically do whatever the person asks and it may well turn out that the reference is returned to the article, but until this matter is concluded it must remain out. I've examined the ticket myself and I assure you that there is nothing inappropriate about this matter. Please be patient and do not use Wikipedia as a forum to make unsubstantiated allegations against other editors or the subject of the article. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. As you know from past history, events done in secret are often times subject to abuse and misuse. Dead Goldfish (talk) 09:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree, but we must balance transparency with privacy in matters like these. The only thing secret are the private communications between volunteers and the affected parties, and these can be examined by other volunteers such as myself if there is any reason to suspect inappropriate actions have been taken. If, after this matter is resolved, you have a reason to believe that inappropriate actions have in fact been taken, the matter can be examined again by myself or another OTRS volunteer. Gamaliel (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
As an FYI to you, I contacted Harvard College directly and got an email response saying they've never heard of the guy. So it seems that he also has a fake degree from Harvard. Dead Goldfish (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Whoa, slow down there. The source [43] says Harvard Business School not Harvard College and it only says "attended", not "graduated". If you asked the wrong question (or wrong institution...) that might explain that. Podiaebba (talk) 00:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Good point, so I contacted each of them, too, and they have not been able to confirm any participation by McGibney in any kind of MBA or Executive Education program. You can easily check yourself here: (http://www.hbs.edu/mba/registrar/general/Pages/general-verification.aspx). I have also received confirmation of his Chadwick "degree" from Chadwick University itself. I provided the information to OTRS. Anyone can duplicate the contacts that I did and you will see that, other than the Chadwick "degree", all the rest of McGibney's educational claims seem false. Dead Goldfish (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


Well it seems to me is that the group thinks that Business Week magazine is a good source. Thus, the consensus is we keep it.Dead Goldfish (talk) 09:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Story of Pakistan Air Force – A Saga of Courage and Honour

Can this book which is published by the PAF a reliable source for claims on the outcome of combat missions undertaken by the PAF during the 1971 Indo-Pak conflict? It is currently being used to support this edit, however neutral academic sources such as Ganguly, Sumit (2002). Conflict Unending: India-Pakistan Tensions Since 1947. Columbia University Press. pp. 67–68 & Pradeep P. Barua (2005). The State at War in South Asia. University of Nebraska Press. pp. 222–223 state that the operation was a complete flop, and given the IAF was dropping bombs on Pakistani targets a few hours after the preemptive attack the source is also obviously wrong. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The first book is written by the Pakistan Air Force, making it an official government publication? Or it was written by an individual general/major/private/whatever in the PAF, and published by a commercial entity? Who is the publisher, in other words?
  If the publisher was a vanity press or similar, then it would not count. But if the publisher was somebody respectable like Random House (or the equivalent in Pakistan), then it does count as a Reliable Source -- though of course the text should point out that the author of the stuff *was* in fact the PAF, or a member thereof, or whatever, so that we do not mislead the readership.
  The case where the book is an official government document, published by the Pakistani Air Force (or similar), seems to be a special case to me. Usually, when an individual or a corporation publishes information about themself, then WP:ABOUTSELF applies, we don't accept controversial self-promotional stuff. However, when the publisher is a government, do we count them as automatically being a reliable source? The language used when a government writes about themselves is *different* and is called propaganda by enemies and inconvenient truths by allies. Regardless of whether academic RS's disagree with what the Pakistani govt publishes about themselves, and their military, it seems like the fact that the PAF claims success belongs in wikipedia, despite this being WP:ABOUTSELF in some sense.
  Can anyone else comment, that will help tip this conversation in the right direction? When some government publication says X, and then some non-allied govt say NOT_X, plus some professors say NOT_X, should we describe the conflicting reliable sources (pointing out the COI problems so the readers get the full story), or can we omit the use of X entirely? Imagine that "France...England" is under discussion instead of "India...Pakistan" if it helps.
  Anyways, shooting from the hip, my first reaction is to say, put the quote in, as long as somebody can verify that page 451 says that... but if possible, verify that the wing-commander and/or pilot allegedly being quoted has not published a denial. If either of them *did* issue such a denial, publically (or if the opposing govt did so in their place... or if some academic specifically denies the event), put that Reliably-Sourced-denial in the very next sentence. Should no such denial be known to exist, just write a generic sentence which neutrally says "Except for this book published by the Pakistani military, other sources have described the efficacy of the Pakistani bombing raids as $quote[1] and $quote[2] and $quote[3]". HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Lets make this more simple....I say to my self... If other reliable published sources do not include the information that I have found in one book/website etc..., then that information may be —by definition—not important enough to include. Just need to do a little researcher....do other reliable sources find the info relevant enough to mention in there publications? If there are 2 side to the argument (both having merit) ....then the sources should be indicated (identified) in the statements in my opinion...thus our readers can see and judge for themselves the merits of each statement as they read the sources if this is possible (should do our best to make it so). -- Moxy (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
The first diff shows a malformed quote, with the appended sentence "However no neutral or non Pakistani sources exist which can corroborate this happeing" [sic] clearly meant to be outside of the quote, sourced to the defencejournal.com ref which follows, and not sourced to the PAF book. Regarding reliability, this book written by the Shaheen Foundation (a trust of the Pakistan Air Force) in 1988 is going to favor the PAF a good deal—just look at its peacock title. The interview with Flt Lt Harish Sinhji is given by Pakistani sources, but Sinhji eventually escaped captivity to return to India. He should have been able to corroborate the interview, to confirm or deny what he told the Pakistani captors. The 1988 book is cited by other writers from all viewpoints who apparently use it for operational details available nowhere else. In general, the story about PAF accuracy in bombing Sirsa is certainly possible, but this accuracy should not be presented as typical of PAF operations that night or it will overbalance the article in favor of the PAF. The story should be summarized and not quoted so that larger context can be brought to bear. Binksternet (talk) 22:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with all of the comments here. If you review the discussion below, the original source is a WP:SPS. Even if the exception for a noted expert applies, per WP:SPS this book should not be used to source a quotation of an individual who is not the author. The original editor who has been edit warring this quote into the article has again reverted on the basis that this WP:SPS is quoted in another article citing the original book as the source. I have reverted him on the basis that policy is clear that a WP:SPS shouldn't be used to quote an individual who is not the author and simply because another article by the same author quotes it, is not sufficient reason to shoe horn the quote in. Comments are invited as to whether my interpretation of policy is indeed correct. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone find out anything about this book so I can see if it's an RS?

N.D. Kodzoev. History of Ingush nation - all I'm finding is its use in our articles or copies of our articles. Thanks. I started looking as it was being used as a source for archaeological information, and I'm always happier when such sources are archaeologists. Dougweller (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

It's this book, I think. There doesn't seem to be an English translation. Kodzoev is referred to as a "famous Ingush historian" in this article from the journal, Manuscripta Orientalia. FiachraByrne (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
The only thing I can add that the works by N.D. Kodzoev are both published and recited by others in a book printed on behalf of Russian Academy of Sciences. But, to judge from Google Scholar, he is likely to be a historian in general sense rather than an archaeologist. His other works in Russian, I found in the Web, are: "On so called 'custom' of bride kidnapping", "History of the judicial system of Ingushetia" and so on. Эйхер (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks everyone. Dougweller (talk) 07:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Editorial control in specialized playground source play-scapes.com?

Source: http://www.play-scapes.com/correspondent_post/peter-pearces-curved-space-diamond-structure/ Article (well draft): Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Curved Space Diamond Structure Content:

Frequently referred to as “The Soap Bubble Castle”, the installation at the Hakone Open Air Museum in Japan, originally installed in 1978, has been refurbished and is still being enjoyed and explored by children today.

The source seems to be independent and to support the text it is cited for, what I can't tell is if it has any editorial review process, or is simply a glorified and specialized blog. There is a link which allows anyone to apply to be a "correspondent" but I can't tell if any review is done before a person is approved, or if any review is done of content before it is posted. Advice please. DES (talk) 20:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The about/contact section of the site makes it clear that it's an enthusiast blog by someone with a very different day job. Sorry. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I am reviewing the draft, I am not its creator. I am curious, what link did you use to find the "about/contact section" of the site? I looked for such a thing and didn't find it. DES (talk) 15:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
It's at http://www.play-scapes.com/about-contact/ - the link only appears when you move the mouse over the name "Paige Johnson", underneath the logo.
I agree with Itsmejudith. It's probably a pretty reliable source in the normal sense but not, unfortunately, a RS in the Wikipedia sense. At least that does mean you could use it to find facts which you could then confirm elsewhere with Wikipedia RS, if you see what I mean. Barnabypage (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, had I spotted that link I would never have come here. FYI I do understand the implicatiosn of WP:RS and how sources can be used here on Wikipedia, and how notability can be established (the issue here). I am an experienced editor, an occasional AfC reviewer, and an admin. It looks like an interesting site, but not usable as a reveiw of a creative work to establish notability here, unfortunately. Thanks again. DES (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Playboy Wiki

Wikilister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an SPA who has added hundreds of links to Playboy Wiki. It is a fan site and wiki created by fans. Just on those two counts we would usually not allow its use here. The editor claims it is okay with Playboy. We need to get this settled because this wiki has content that I suspect would normally be behind Playboy's paywall, IOW we're linking to copyrighted content, possibly without Playboy's consent. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The editor has been notified: User_talk:Wikilister#RS.2FN_discussion_about_Playboy_Wiki. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
  • It seems to fail on three counts: firstly, it's not an official site by any definition; secondly, it's a wiki; thirdly, it seems, as you said, that the site has material that would normally be behind a paywall. Maybe the site is offering sneak previews with the tacit blessing of playboy.com, but playboy can't have it both ways. Wikilister alleges that the site has the blessing of playboy, so it seems sneaky sort of marketing. Notwithstanding, I don't see how the identity of the individual who runs or administers the site is of any great relevance to how/if we link to it. -- Ohc ¡digame! 06:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I am the editor in question here. The questions here seem to be (1) whether the Playboy Wiki is authorized by Playboy, i.e. an "official" site, and (2) whether the content there is sufficiently useful and reliable.
(1) Regarding "authorization by Playboy", I have previously directed attention to the © notice in the sidebar of every page of the Playboy Wiki, and to the Whois registration info that is linked under "Credits" at the bottom of its home page: http://www.playboywiki.com I suppose that just anyone could add an unauthorized © notice, but I don't know how anyone could fake the fact that Playboy Enterprises International renews the domain registration of the Playboy Wiki every year. Still, here is some more evidence for you:
(A) Links for the Playboy Wiki in Playboy's paysite, the Cyber Club: http://cyber.playboy.com/members/extras/new/index.html
If you happen to have been a Cyber Club member, you can check that link yourself. The new Playboy Plus site is supplanting the Cyber Club, but you can still get in via a link on the Playboy Wiki's homepage. For non-members, here are a pair of screenshots of that page: http://www.playboywiki.com/file/view/CyberClub-Extras-A.jpg / http://www.playboywiki.com/file/view/CyberClub-Extras-B.jpg
Such links are scattered throughout the Cyber Club. Here is another example on a Playmate's page (this one is "safe for work"): http://cyber.playboy.com/members/playmates/jukebox/1993/03
There you are encouraged to "Check out Kimberly's entry" at the Playboy Wiki. Again, here are a pair of screenshots for non-members: http://www.playboywiki.com/file/view/CyberClub-Wikilink-A.jpg / http://www.playboywiki.com/file/view/CyberClub-Wikilink-B.jpg
The search engine for the Cyber Club has been disabled, since they want you to go to Playboy Plus instead, and I don't have a screenshot to "prove" it, but other sometime Cyber Club members could attest to the fact that its Search page included a note to the effect that, "If you're having trouble finding a model here, try the Playboy Wiki" — and there was a link there too.


(B) The roots of the PB Wiki: I have previously cited the fact that while the Playboy Wiki was created by and is maintained by "fans", it was established by Playboy administrators on their behalf. Here is the top of the list showing the earliest members: http://www.playboywiki.com/wiki/members?orderBy=date_created&orderDir=asc
"Organizer and Creator" pb_paul (aka Paul Thomas) was the "Director - Online Community and Social Platforms" at Playboy Enterprises, Inc. He has since moved on. The second listed Organizer, Playboy_Official, was originally the chief administrator of the Playboy Forums, but that account now belongs to Daniel Richard, the current "Playboy.com Product Manager - Playboy Plus Entertainment" - yes, the person in charge of the Playboy.com site, links to which are being replaced by Playboy Wiki links. Smith5000 was the last Cyber Club employee, who helped re-establish the PB Wiki with the new Playboy Plus team. Herm45 and FireballTarget are two of the original "amateurs" who started the wiki, were later made "Organizers", and are still active with it. They are just two of the currently active editors though.
If you need to see Playboy administrator pb_paul actually establishing the wiki, here he is establishing the home page, Feb 5, 2009 10:06 am: http://www.playboywiki.com/page/history/home?o=300
And here you see that it actually was he who put that Playboy.com © notice in the sidebar the day before, when he had got final clearance from Playboy's legal team: http://www.playboywiki.com/page/history/space.menu?o=400


(C) Current evidence on the Playboy Forum site: (First a warning - the Forums currently are prone to ad banners that I personally find sometimes lewd. I hope there won't be one that offends you.)
This ties in with the previous bit, in case anyone wants more proof of pb_paul's credentials, since he's not around for cross-examination. Here are the threads he started at the Playboy Forum, then part of the Cyber Club: http://www.playboyfanforum.com/search.php (Sorry, there isn't a stable direct link. You have to enter PB_Paul (case sensitive) in the box for "User Name".)
Those forums are not currently linked directly to the Cyber Club's successor, Playboy Plus. But they are the same forums with all the old posts, and are maintained by the above mentioned Playboy.com Product Manager, who posts there as "PBDan". Check out the links at the top of any Forums page - there's "JOIN PLAYBOY PLUS!" / "What's New" / "Articles" / "Forum" / "Playboy Wiki" / "Playmate Personal Pages Archive"
Hmmm.... I wonder where that "Playboy Wiki" link goes, and why it would be there on the official Playboy Fan Forum site run by a manager of Playboy Plus?


(2) Regarding the usefulness and reliability of the Playboy Wiki: It was indeed created and is maintained by "fans", but this should be understood in the older, honorable sense of "amateur" before it came to connote "unprofessional". Most of us have encountered people in paid positions who don't know a fraction of what some old friend with years of familiarity knows about the so-called "professional's" supposed area of expertise. It is such a group of select "amateurs" for whom the Playboy Wiki was established by administrators of the Cyber Club. The ones invited to work on the PB Wiki weeks before it was opened to the public, were longtime members of the Playboy Forums who had started a thread with posts that listed every appearance of a given model anywhere on Playboy's online sites. That is what convinced administrator PB_Paul to trust this group with the Wiki project.
(A) How useful and reliable has it been? After about 18 months, it was complete enough that the PB Wiki's records helped administrators recover lots of content lost in a botched update of the Playboy Girls Network. On this Forums thread http://www.playboyfanforum.com/showthread.php?34425-Updated-Playboy-Girls-Network-Templates/page11 there are 10 pages of people reporting what's missing, and then in posts 102 & 109 begin references to the PB Wiki and specific help in recovering the lost content. Cyber Club users found it useful enough that within two years the Wiki had more daily traffic (about 5,000 unique visitors) than the Forums. It became even more popular during the transition from Cyber Club to Playboy Plus, helping users navigate PB+ and helping the new PB+ staff get their bearings. PB+ even quoted PB Wiki notes in their entry on one of the earliest Playmates. The PB Wiki and its editors continue to be useful for Playboy Plus staff to check their work, especially as the Wiki expands coverage comparing Cyber Club and Playboy Plus content. PBDan says they check it, so you can ask him.


(B) More pertinent for Wikipedia users is whether they are better served with Playboy Wiki links than with the older Playboy.com links. You can judge that for yourself. Check any Playmate with a PB Wiki external link. Compare what you see there with what you see if you click the "Playboy.com Previews" link down in the lower right of the PB Wiki page. That "Previews" link is all that you would get with the old Playboy.com link, assuming that link wasn't broken. The Playboy.com link typically presents a handful of pictures and says "go join the paysite". The Playboy Wiki links certainly don't discourage anyone from joining Playboy's paysites, but there is far more information available to non-members. They can see exactly what content there is—or is not—for any given Playmate on ALL the Playboy sites, as well as links to a sister wiki that details appearances in print Special Editions, and usually IMDb links as well. It would seem that Wikipedia would favor links that provide more info that is not directly in Wikipedia's pages and links that provide such info without simply demanding that a visitor sign up and pay money. It would seem that Playboy Wiki links fit that description.


(C) A final note regarding "reliability" and "recognized authority". Please note that the Playboy Wiki does NOT try to provide the kind of biographical info that Wikipedia pages provide. Its focus is on detailing what pictures, video, and other content (like online chat transcripts) are available for any Playboy model on any Playboy site online. Playboy administrators recognized the competence of the team of "amateurs" that they allowed to do this under the Playboy banner. And that was when Playboy still had staff who were themselves longtime knowledgeable fans. For documenting what Playboy has and where it is—and that is what the PB Wiki mainly claims to do—there is no better site than the Playboy Wiki. If anyone wants to claim otherwise, I defy them to prove it. If you know the stuff yourself and you are familiar with PB Wiki, you will know that it's good. If you don't know the material well enough to judge for yourself whether the PB Wiki should stand as a "recognized authority", then whom would you recognize? The Playboy staff that spent more than a decade with the Cyber Club? They are the ones who opened an empty storefront for the Playboy Wiki team, hung the Playboy sign on the door, and handed over the keys. And they watched it, more or less approvingly, over the next two years. Or would you prefer to recognize the authority of the new company to whom Playboy has since outsourced its online presence? They too rely on the Playboy Wiki, and one of their officers presides as one of the Organizers of the Wiki. He leaves the actual editing though to the amateurs because he knows they know their stuff. Or at least, he hasn't heard that they don't. If you know they don't, then you should tell him. Wikilister (talk) 13:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
A simple question, if the "Playboy Wiki does NOT try to provide the kind of biographical info that Wikipedia pages provide", why should it be cited or linked in Wikipedia? AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
OK, short answer. Because it supplements the info on Wikipedia's Lists of Playmates. What would be the point of a link that tries to duplicate the Wikipedia info? Also, a Playboy Wiki link is "a link to an official page of the article's subject" as specifically excepted in the case of "external links to avoid": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ELNO No one has questioned the propriety of "official" links to "Playboy.com". The Playboy Wiki links incorporate those. They provide more comprehensive info by replacing one official link with another. Wikilister (talk) 13:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
""Fansites", ...even if they are endorsed or authorized by the subject, are not considered official websites" (WP:ELOFFICIAL). Nikkimaria (talk) 15:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Would you make no distinction between a "fansite" started by people who just want to say "Boy we like Playboy!" and a site initiated by Playboy itself with the intent (and actual result) of enabling qualified amateurs to build something that paid staff had long considered doing, but for which they did not have sufficient time and budget? It's easy to dismiss "fansite". This is a bit more than that. Wikilister (talk) 00:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

First of all, this is the wrong venue for this discussion. The links in question are not being used to source any article content, instead they being used in the External Links section. External links are not required to meet Wikipedia's definition of reliability. The appropriate guideline is WP:EL and the appropriate noticeboard is WP:ELN. Second, external links to open Wikis are allowed. You'll note that virtually every article on Star Wars, Star Trek and Doctor Who has an external link to Wookieepedia, Memory Alpha and TARDIS Data Core (respectively) (yes, I like sci-fi). Third, I don't really know much about copyright discussions, but there are a number of links at the top of this page for where copyright issues can be discussed. I suggest starting a discussion at one of the copyright noticeboards where other editors more knowledgeable about copyright issues can help you. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree completely with your first point, but on the second: WP:ELNO does allow open wikis "with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors" (and several of the sci-fi wikis qualify), but WP:BLPEL (which would be the applicable policy for many of the Playboy links) is stricter in excluding such sites. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I can see your point regarding Main Pages dedicated to particular Playmates. Perhaps Playboy Wiki, Playboy.com, IMDb, and certain other external links frequently found in such pages should be removed. Those pages are primarily biographical and WP:BLPEL standards should certainly apply. But I take issue with your emphasis on WP:BLPEL for the Lists of Playmates for a given year. There are short "biographical" notes for each Playmate, but the main purpose of the Playmate List pages is to show which Playmates were featured in a given year. The emphasis is not on the Playmates individually, but on them collectively. It is no longer "biography" of individuals, but a list of, for lack of a better term, Playboy's "product" for that year. Hence the propriety of the longstanding though often broken Playboy.com external links for each Playmate listed there. The subject of the page is Playboy at least as much as it is Playmates, so Playboy should be entitled to the WP:ELNO exception regarding external links. And I hope I have exhaustively established that Playboy Wiki links are perfectly appropriate substitutions for the long-unquestioned Playboy.com links. Wikilister (talk) 01:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Lists of short biographies are still biographies, and the pages being linked to in most cases are individual not collective. And you've established no such thing, given that even if we accept that Playboy is the subject these links still don't qualify as "official". Please note also that the canvassing you've been doing is inappropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I think that the next logical step (assuming this hasn't already been done) is to determine whether or not these external links are copyright violations. If so, end of discussion: they should be removed. If not, then I suggest opening a discussion at WP:ELN while inviting members of the appropriate Wiki Projects to participate in the discussion. In this particular case, I would think that means WP:WikiProject Pornography. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
What is missing in (1) (A) (B) (C) above, so that you still have questions about copyright? Wikilister (talk) 00:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I have no idea. Copyright issues are beyond the scope of this noticeboard. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. In any case, if Playboy considered that site a copyright violator, Playboy would say so and do something about it: that's when we would delete our links to it. Andrew Dalby 16:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Correct. Playboy owns the Playboy Wiki's address, has a direct line to its "Organizers", and can pull the plug any time they want. A Playboy official is and always has been an "Organizer". Wikilister (talk) 08:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I can't see any problem with the external links in question, and will now go state the same thing the the more appropriate venue named below. Azx2 18:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

As Nikkimaria and Quest For Knowledge have suggested, a discussion has been opened in a more appropriate venue WP:ELN#Playboy_Wiki_as_an_external_link_in_Playmate_Lists. Wikilister (talk) 08:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

YouTube Wide Screen

Hi I found a really useful source Vonderau, Patrick (2010). "UNDERSTANDING ORLOVA: YOUTUBE PRODUCERS, HOT FOR WORDS, AND SOME PITFALLS OF PRODUCTION STUDIES". Wide Screen. Retrieved 2013-12-14. for the page Marina Orlova (Internet celebrity). Is it reliable?--Sinistrial (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Reliability of Central Independent Television

In 1988 someone who was a witness to an event gave first-hand video testimony to a programme made by Central Independent Television, a part of the UK's third terrestrial broadcast network. Is Central Independent Television a reliable source for this witness testimony? Is it necessary to point out that the testimony is available on Youtube and described in various books, including one republished by Simon & Schuster? Surely not. Surely this is a waste of RSN's time.

Oh, but the testimony was repeatedly rebroadcast between 1988 and 2003. And in 2003 the programme added three episodes, which caused controversy and were withdrawn. And the topic of the programme is the assassination of JFK, and the testimony could be taken as evidence that Jack Ruby wasn't acting alone (although equally, it could be taken as evidence of Ruby being a confused lone nutjob). As a result, Central Independent Television is, according to User:Gamaliel, not a reliable source for an interview of a witness. In a world where WP:RS means anything, I do not see how - and the assertion that the 2003 controversy (see The Men Who Killed Kennedy) renders the 1988 broadcasts unreliable for something as basic as what a witness told them on camera boggles the mind. Podiaebba (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the issue is not the broadcast, but the testimony. The broadcast of first person testimony is still first person testimony. It's not fact-checked. Assuming I'm understanding the conflict here, I'm inclined to agree with User:Gamaliel on this one that the witness alone is not good enough of a source for this information. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
the broadcast of first person testimony is still first person testimony. It's not fact-checked. - this is an unsupported assertion. We can certainly expect Central Independent Television to have done such fact-checking as would be required to establish, eg, that the person on camera is the person who was known to be present at the time, as demonstrated by many witnesses, employment records, yadda yadda. And since the testimony concerns a call received by the witness, no further fact-checking is going to be possible, unless the call was recorded. Now if you want to rephrase it to insist that claim is explicitly attributed to the witness instead of asserted as fact, well fine. Podiaebba (talk) 17:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I think you do. There's two issues, the unreliability of the source itself, and WP:PRIMARY issues regarding the testimony itself. On Talk:Assassination of John F. Kennedy we brought up the issue that this testimony was basically unexplored and unfactchecked, just parroted uncritically by unreliable conspiracy publications. Gamaliel (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
You're just digging a deeper hole: you're demanding that testimony which is obviously something which can only with some effort be brought within the official view be widely explored by mainstream sources - yet you reject a UK terrestrial network, and a book republished by Simon & Schuster. Further, in referencing the testimony in Jack Ruby, I made no attempt to explore implications; it's just a straightforward factual claim from a credible witness, made on-camera to a mainstream UK network - so why are you insisting that the implications of it be explored? Feel free to do so if you want! Podiaebba (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Looking at the conflict closer, The Men Who Killed Kennedy has been thoroughly discredited, so no, this is absolutely not something we can use. Absolutely unreliable. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Wait, what - you're also asserting that a controversy about content produced 15 years later renders a mainstream UK channel an unreliable source for on-camera witness testimony repeatedly re-broadcast in the preceding 15 years? Please explain exactly how that works. Bearing in mind that nobody (AFAIK) asserted that anything broadcast in 2003 was faked, which is really the only way to begin to assert that the 1988 testimony can't be trusted. Podiaebba (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
According to journalist Max Holland, the 1988 broadcast was entirely unreliable as well: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/holland3.htm. Gamaliel (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
OK, that's relevant (and should be used as a source in the article about the documentary). But your summary "entirely unreliable" is misleading: the issues appear to have been a failure to pursue leads, and in particular to interview two men accused of participation in the assassination, not that any specific testimony wasn't by who it was supposed to be, or any fakery like that. Podiaebba (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I think both issues are relevant. If the testimony appears in a thoroughly unreliable and discredited source, there are issues to consider such as duplicitous editing that may render the testimony unreliable itself. And even primary source that is untainted in this manner should be vetted by reliable journalists or historians before we consider employing it in an article. Gamaliel (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Duplicitous editing? The Youtube extract allows anybody to judge for themselves the implausibility of that speculation. The only thing required here of Central Independent Television is confirming that the guy is Billy Grammer - and I don't see anyone suggesting they interviewed people who weren't who they were alleged to be. Podiaebba (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
So even if we assume Central Television, which was censured by the British Parliament, nearly sued, and forced to air an entire broadcast retracting the claims of the first two episodes, was acting entirely above board when it comes to this specific element of the broadcast, we still have the issues of weighing and using primary sources appropriately as per WP:PRIMARY. Gamaliel (talk) 18:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Well if you want to avoid anybody using WP:PRIMARY as a "you're interpreting something that's not there" cudgel, we just put in a bloody transcript and avoid even the merest hint of paraphrasing. As for weight: the article is big and the claim is significant. Two lines does not seem excessive. Podiaebba (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
retracting the claims of the first two episodes - you are, once again, being misleading. Your statement implies that all the episodes' claims were retracted ("there never was a JFK! He's still alive!" ...?), rather than the ones (mainly) where they pointed the finger at three people as the alleged assassins. Podiaebba (talk) 19:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I am not being misleading, you're missing the point, which is that a source proven so thoroughly unreliable should not be trusted even for specific claims which have not, to our knowledge, been disputed. Gamaliel (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
No, you're being misleading by obscuring the actual problems with the source, which is most dramatically the failure to (properly) investigate the alibis of the three people accused. There is no claim of anything resembling fakery of the type that would call into question Grammer's interview. More generally, Holland's criticism is A consistent pattern is that people who were nowhere to be found in 1963-64, when the investigation of the assassination was at its height, suddenly surface from deserved obscurity with the most astounding stories. Frequently their reputations are doubtful at best and several are convicted felons. Allegations of criminal conspiracy are casually made without even the pretense of supplying any proof or corroboration; it is simply enough to level the accusation...[44]. Grammer doesn't fall under any of those headings. He was right there in 1963/4 (according to Groden, Grammer gave an affidavit to the Warren Commission); he was a police lieutenant and I'm not aware of him having a doubtful reputation; the story isn't particularly astounding given that other warning calls were documented by the Warren Commission and Ruby's motivation was never credibly established; and the sole allegation Grammer makes is the fairly obvious conclusion that Ruby wasn't acting spontaneously or alone. Podiaebba (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
The actual problem is that this documentary was made by duplicitious bullshit artists and has been proven to be unreliable in the most fundamental way possible. Sometimes broken clocks tell the correct time, but it's not up to us to disprove that the clock is incorrect at any given moment of the day. For a source to be used in Wikipedia, it must be proven reliable. If Grammar's claim is credible and accurate, then another, more reliable secondary source should be used to cite it. If such a source does not exist, then Grammar's claim is not signficant enough to include. Gamaliel (talk) 05:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Your source is not the channel, it's the person. The person is not a credible source for your claim. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
And your evidence for that is what? The Warren Commission itself documents warning calls received to the Sheriff's Office and FBI - and whoever did that would surely call the Dallas PD too. The witness was the police dispatcher on duty at the time of the alleged call. Podiaebba (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
The source for a statement made in a television interview is the person being interviewed, self-evidently. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes and no. The witness is the primary source, and the television programme which got hold of the witness and decided to broadcast him, the secondary. Podiaebba (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
No and no. The witness is the sole source for the statements. The TV programme reported that the statement was made, nothing more. You cannot make an unreliable source 'reliable' by association. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
A TV programme is not a self-published blog - it involves editorial control. It helps establish, eg, that witness X is in fact X, and not somebody posting online claiming to be X who is in fact a New York dog. Podiaebba (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Has anyone suggested that the person interviewed isn't who it is claimed to be? Anyway, it is beside the point. The person interviewed (whoever he is) is the sole source for statements he made. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
This is all too abstract for me. Podiaebba, could you please provide an concrete example of a CIT source you intend to use and how you intend to use it? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
This is the edit in question. Gamaliel (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually it's this one (nearly the same but not quite). I would be willing to rewrite to attribute the statement explicitly in-text to the witness, and to edit the ref so that the primary ref is to Central Independent Television, and the secondary sources relying on it are more clearly secondary. Podiaebba (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I see multiple sources there. Podiaebba, rather than responding here, please review the instructions at the top of this page and list the source, article, and content at the top of this discussion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Nobody else follows that recommendation... but fine, it might be helpful. Podiaebba (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

As an aside, it should be noted that the YouTube clip is almost certainly a copyright violation. Not only can it not be cited as a reference, it shouldn't even be linked on talk pages etc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I assume you're familiar with fair use - so do you want to explain why this 1-minute extract from a 2-hour programme doesn't qualify? Podiaebba (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Because 'fair use' doesn't cover linking to copyright violations. Not remotely... AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
"Fair use" would apply to the youtube video, not the link. Obviously. Podiaebba (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not interested in debating this. Material uploaded to YouTube etc in breach of copyright cannot be linked. Read Wikipedia:Video links, and if you still can't understand the policy, ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Material uploaded under "fair use" is not a breach of copyright. Wikipedia:Video links is being silly in its near-blanket exclusion of fair-use material, as if there is no way for editors to ever judge that a specific small extract from a large source does qualify. Podiaebba (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
If the link is added to the article, I will remove it. It violates core policy on copyright. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Video links is not even policy, never mind "core policy", so neither is it's "we can't tell if it's fair use" handwaviness. Fair use video is not a breach of copyright, and neither is linking to it. Podiaebba (talk) 20:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Podiaebba, did you invent the "fair use" claim on behalf of the Youtube conspiracy theorist? I just see a Youtube channel that copies other people's content. Wikipedia:Copyrights makes it pretty clear that we shouldn't be linking to it. bobrayner (talk) 20:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Fine, Wikipedia:Copyrights is policy. But it seems equally unwilling to take the legal doctrine of fair use seriously, in terms of how the four factors are actually applied. I wouldn't put my life on this particular video qualifying in a court of law, but I'd put good money on it, as each of the four factors weighs strongly towards a fair use conclusion. Podiaebba (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
We can't link to it (it is an outright copyright vio even if you want to call it fair use. But we can reference that program "under the table" to speak as long as we know the broadcaster, broadcast date, etc all the other factors needed for citing video. --MASEM (t) 21:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Fine, I concede that WP policy seems to preclude linking due to excessive timidity, so we need argue no more. However, as I said above, IMO this video clearly meets all four of the factors for determining "fair use", and sticking the adjective "outright" in front of your assertion of copyright violation does nothing to alter that. Podiaebba (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
There are four facets of fair use in US law: amount of work taken (small here), impact on commercial opportunity (very low), the nature of the work (a "documentary" (whether reliable or not), generally better than fictional works), and the use/transformation of the work. This last one is the sticking point, because its only there to support the uploader's desire to show a conspiracy, and that would likely fail being used for education, etc. For us, we would not allow that linkage due to that aspect. You can quote and cite the work, and we don't care if you use that video to make the transcript from which you can provide limited cited quotes, but we just can't include the URL for it. This might seem extreme, but WP does take a very hard-nosed approach to copyvios on external links, because under US law, that can be considered enabling and putting the Foundation at risk. --MASEM (t) 22:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
The use of the work is the dissemination of historical testimony not otherwise available. I fail to see how that doesn't provide a valid research/education use regardless of what conclusions may be drawn from the testimony by the uploader or anyone else. Well, whatever, it's academic. Podiaebba (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Restatement

At 3am on Sunday, November 24, Ruby made an anonymous call to the Dallas Police, speaking to Lieutenant Billy Grammer. He warned Grammer that he knew of the plan to move Oswald from the basement and that if the plan went ahead "we are going to kill him". (Grammer, who knew Ruby, found the voice familiar at the time of the call, but only identified Ruby as the caller after the shooting).

  • Content (possible alternative):

According to Dallas Police Lieutenant Billy Grammer, an anonymous call was received by Dallas PD at 3am on Sunday, November 24, with Grammer taking the call as police dispatcher on duty. According to Grammer, the caller warned that he knew of the plan to move Oswald from the basement and that if the plan went ahead "we are going to kill him". Grammer, who knew Ruby, said he found the voice familiar at the time of the call, and after the shooting realised the caller had been Ruby.

Podiaebba (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, still baffled. What is the source whose reliability we're discussing? The Youtube video? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
The youtube video is just a helpful addition so you can see the testimony itself. The original source is Central's broadcast interview with Grammer - or Grammer, as interviewed by Central, or however you want to look at it. The Douglass book is given as a written source describing the interview. Podiaebba (talk) 20:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the clarification. It seems to me you're talking about two separate sources: (1) the broadcast interview and (2) the Douglass book. As these are two separate sources they should have separate ref tags. That will go a long way toward clearing up the confusion (mine, at least). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
As for the interview, the source isn't CIT, the source is the specific episode of The Man Who Killed Kennedy. (See WP:CITEVIDEO#Television programs as references). And although no one has actually stated this, I assume from the discussion above that the episode we're talking about was one of the ones that was withdrawn, correct? If so, I believe it is a reliable source but likely not a verifiable one. It's reliable because it's difficult to imagine a whole television interview being fabricated; if the guy said something on camera to an unreliable media outlet, he still said it. But remember that WP:RS is nothing but a slave to WP:V. Verifiability also trumps the WP:TRUTH. We can't expect our readers take us at our word that Grammer actually said those things. If you can't find a video that comforms with WP's copyright policies then there will be no way for readers to verify what Grammer said or didn't say. In that case you'll have to rely on other sources, such as the book. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Erm, OK. No, it was from the first episode, "The Coup D'Etat" (1988); the first two were criticised, but not, AFAIK, in relation to Grammer's testimony, and weren't withdrawn as such. AFAIK it was rebroadcast repeatedly; it's the 2003 episodes which are "withdrawn" and not to be shown again... I think. (It's a bit irritating to have to get into the detailed history of a documentary I've never seen, just to defend the usability of an on-camera interview it includes.) As to WP:V if we ignore the youtube extract - well it does exist for sale on DVD, albeit second-hand at a fairly hair-raising price [45]. More generally: does WP:V really make it impossible to cite TV programmes that aren't available for free online?? Books that aren't available online are cited all the time... Podiaebba (talk) 00:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Well that's reassuring that it's from one of the episodes that hasn't been withdrawn. In that case, the video will likely show up in library catalogs, correct? You should be able to confirm this at WorldCat or somewhere else. I'm no expert in these matters, but libraries solve the problem of out-of-print books. If you can find that the episode is generally available in library catalogs then I'm personally comfortable with it as a reliable and verifiable source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Now that I look into the guidelines, I'm slightly off the mark. I don't think retracted episodes are citable at all since sources have to be not only reliable but published as well. As the publisher withdrew them I don't think they can be called "published" anymore. As for the non-withdrawn episodes, such as the one you wish to cite, only a single archived copy need exist. So, if you find only one copy in WorldCat then you're good to go in my view. Just remember to attribute, as you did. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
OK, thanks. WorldCat has The first episode and a collection of the first six. Podiaebba (talk) 01:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Transcripts and recordings of what people said are generally good sources for what they said. But they are primary sources and should only be introduced when mentioned in secondary sources. Presenting it the way it is makes it appear to be a credible statement, which is misleading. A reliable secondary source would explain the unlikelihood of the account being genuine. TFD (talk) 04:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the recording is a primary source, and primary sources should be cited with care. That said, quoting Grammer directly is exactly that kind of careful use. It's no different from quoting passages from a book (the illustration in WP:PRIMARY). There is no requirement that a primary source must be mentioned in a secondary source to be used in this way. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
First, it was referenced in a book by James W. Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable, reprinted by Touchstone Books (an imprint of Simon & Schuster, one of the four largest English-language publishers) and recommended by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, Gaeton Fonzi and Daniel Ellsberg [46]. Second, no-one has adduced one iota of evidence that the account is not genuine or accurate, whereas I've several times (in discussion above) made various points why the account is credible, fitting with other evidence and not contradicting any. I can repeat those points if need be, but the most basic point of evidence is that anonymous warning calls to Sheriff and FBI were documented by the Warren Commission [47], and a call to the Dallas PD in the same vein at the same time is rather likely. So when the dispatcher on duty at the time of the documented calls says he received such a call too, that shouldn't raise any eyebrows. The only "huh?" is the dispatcher's identification of Ruby as the caller, on which we have to take the word of a Dallas PD Lieutenant with no reason I can see to make this up. (There's also a rumour that the dispatcher signed an affidavit documenting the call in 1963/4; apparently this is in Robert Groden's book High Treason, a bestseller in 1990.) Podiaebba (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
One more thing: The Men Who Killed Kennedy isn't the first public source for the dispatcher's claim. Henry Hurt, a journalist, interviewed him in 1984 [48]. Podiaebba (talk) 22:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Restatement2

According to Dallas Police Lieutenant Billy Grammer, an anonymous call was received by Dallas PD at 3am on Sunday, November 24, with Grammer taking the call as police dispatcher on duty. According to Grammer, the caller warned that he knew of the plan to move Oswald from the basement and that if the plan went ahead "we are going to kill him". Grammer, who knew Ruby, said he found the voice familiar at the time of the call, and after the shooting realised the caller had been Ruby.

Based on discussion above and additional source, restating again for clarity. Podiaebba (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

A person can't be a source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying - re Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, a media source should be "the source". However, in practical terms, Grammer is the primary witness source, and specifying all 3 of the secondary media sources mentioned adds clarification (particularly as one impuned source provides on-camera interview, and one good source relies on that interview). How would you suggest rewriting the Source statement? Podiaebba (talk) 11:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not convinced there's a way you can restate this to suddenly make this a useful source for your claim. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
The claim is that Billy Grammer said something. The claim is on-camera and repeatedly broadcast on US and UK television, and documented in several books, including one interview done prior to that claim by someone else (there are also various other books after the TV interview which refer to it, which I haven't bothered to mention). It takes the most extraordinary effort to claim that we cannot reliably source what Grammer said - or else just a blunt and unexplained assertion. Podiaebba (talk) 12:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
We can't use primary sources in this manner, otherwise anyone could claim anything and it could make it into the encyclopedia unvetted and unverified. The secondary sources which do independently discuss this claim are thoroughly unreliable, one is a documentary which became the laughing stock of the UK and is inexplicably and uncritically cited by a few books, the other is a book which is based around the claims of a literal mental patient that he was in the assassination squad. Gamaliel (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
This is entirely unreasonable. You are applying the "some random person came forward with a tall tale of conspiracy" skepticism to the very specific and limited claim of a Dallas PD police officer on duty at the relevant time. This is a highly respectable primary source, who was interviewed by a journalist (Henry Hunt) and on-camera for a documentary. That Hunt has a chapter in his book where he gave credence to the claims of a person others think a loon has no bearing on Hunt's journalistic credentials as regards finding an interviewing a Dallas PD officer, or overcome the fact that his book was published by a mainstream publisher. Equally, the documentary's reaching of questionable conclusions has no bearing on the validity of the on-camera statement of the police officer, corroborating Hunt's interpretation of his interview with him, or overcome the fact the interview was repeatedly broadcast in US and UK without anyone objecting to it. (The programme was re-edited to remove questionable claims broadcast in 1988; Grammer's interview stayed in, and was repeatedly rebroadcast.) If we apply these same hyper-skeptical "you can't even mention that" standards to the Warren Report, which has made all manner of claims disproven later, then very little can be said about these events at all. Podiaebba (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
It's not unreasonable, it's Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia requires reliable sources, and you can't use unreliable ones because no one can find a specific objection to the small part you want to use. Gamaliel (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
But you're defining "reliable sources" in a manner that suits you. A Dallas PD officer speaking about on-duty experience would normally be considered a good source unless proven otherwise; so it only needs his claims reported in mainstream media. Oh, but because you don't like what he said, suddenly publication in mainstream media isn't good enough - errors and controversies (alleged errors, not necessarily proven to be errors...) make the media sources unreliable per se. And secondary sources covering the claim are considered "uncritical" if they repeat the claim (you're substituting your judgement there for judgement of an author and publisher, which you're not supposed to do because no-one cares what WP editors think). Perhaps you could explain exactly what part of WP:IRS justifies this approach. It helps, I know, to ignore the principle that sources are not reliable or not in a binary manner, but reliable for some things in some contexts and not others. Podiaebba (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
A police officer is not automatically a reliable source, and there are already previous examples, such as Roger Craig, of Dallas Police officers making up false claims regarding the Kennedy assassination. And even if it were, it would still be an unvetted primary source, which we simply do not use in this manner. It has absolutely nothing to do with what he said and everything to do with the fact that this primary source has been unexamined, unverified, and unvetted by reliable secondary sources. Your time would be better spent trying to find reliable sources than to try to fabricate imaginary motivations for people who disagree with you on matters of Wikipedia policy. Gamaliel (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
A police officer is a reliable source until proven otherwise; Craig was proven otherwise. I did go off and find an entirely independent secondary source - a book written by a former Reader's Digest journalist and published by a mainstream publisher. You simply dismissed that without bothering to provide sourcing for your factual concerns about an unrelated matter in that book or explaining where WP:RS says that errors in a reliable source make it unreliable for any information. You might also explain WTF you mean with your constant references to "vetting" i.e. explain how Grammer could be "vetted" and by whom - "vetting" is a term which appears in WP:RS only in reference to academic publications. The standard term vetting doesn't seem to apply - no-one is offering to employ Grammer, and the only transferative meaning would be checking that Grammer is who he says he is, and there is no evidence that either of his interviewers made the SNAFU of interviewing an imposter (and if they had, one would think someone would have noticed by now). Podiaebba (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Why don't you explain where in WP:RS it says that a claim by a police officer automatically makes it into a Wikipedia article and does not have to be corroborated or verified in any way whatsoever. Gamaliel (talk) 23:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
You know very well (a) I never said anything like that (A police officer is a reliable source until proven otherwise above was intended in the general sense, not the Wikipedia sense, as is crystal clear from my previous comments and the context of the entire tediously lengthy discussion). (b) it's irrelevant as there is no general requirement for claims to be corroborated or verified [whatever that actually means for a person testifying an identification of an anonymous caller in an unrecorded phone call...], only reported by reliable secondary sources. Mainstream media, like Hunt's book, are considered such. Now how about addressing my question instead of trying to distract from the actual issue, which is how you can assert that a book from a mainstream publisher, written by a journalist, is not a reliable source, against the usual WP standards? Podiaebba (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
A book from a mainstream publisher by a journalist is generally a reliable source. When a journalist whose experience is limited to local Virginia papers and Readers Digest writes a book based on the claims of a mental patient who said he was part of an assassination hit squad, I would say that disqualifies it as being a reliable source. Sources and claims aren't automatically accepted as usable for Wikipedia articles until disproven by others. The onus is upon the editor who wishes to use them to demonstrate that they are reliable. Gamaliel (talk) 00:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I would say that disqualifies it as being a reliable source - well firstly you've (again - starting to detect a trend...) misrepresented the source. The book is not "based on the claims of a mental patient", this is just one chapter in the book - and furthermore, being a mental patient is not in and of itself conclusive proof of anything. I don't know the details, but it's perfectly conceivable that the patient was telling the truth. Not every mental patient is delusional, and not everything that a delusional mental patient says is untrue. You haven't provided any sources to prove he wasn't telling the truth, never mind proving that it was unreasonable of Hunt to give him the time of day, never mind proving that it was so unreasonable of Hunt to give him the time of day that it renders everything else Hunt writes in the book unreliable - not just one bad decision, but a decision so bad and so obviously bad that he is not to be trusted to tell you that water is wet. Now the onus is not on me to disprove your claim that WP:RS does not apply to this case - it lies on you to prove it, and you've done nothing to further that case but offer your unsupported opinion. Considering that politico.com based an article on the book in 2011 [49] (just in 30 seconds Googling), you've got some work to do, and you've made no attempt to do it. Podiaebba (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I have not read the book, but if I have misrepresented it, so has Professor Augustus Burns, whose review in the peer-reviewed Illinois Historical Journal [50] states that the aforementioned mental patient (whose name I will omit due to the fact that I'm unsure whether or not he is alive, but Hurt writes that he is "a multiple felon, an ex-convict, a raging alcoholic, a diagnosed psychotic and schizophrenic") is the "rock" upon which "Hurt builds his case". The review is rather scathing: "Hurt offers naught but old theories and boundless speculation. The work is little more than one unsubstantiated possibility balanced on another...The most puzzling mystery to this reviewer, however, is not suggested by the author, but by his work: How did he get this book published as nonfiction?" I don't think I've ever read anything so blunt and harsh in an academic book review. Gamaliel (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I haven't read the book either. I have, however, read Burns review, now you've drawn my attention to it, and have to again note your selectivity. No-one can come away from reading that review thinking "oh yes, this guy totally takes this topic as a legitimate subject of historical research, and just has a beef with this particular attempt at it". The review begins with "Have you heard the latest news about President Kennedy? Investigative journalist Henry Hurt asserts for the zillionth time that the slain President was the victim of a diabolical conspiracy." This sets the tone. Some random snippets: "Hurt repeats all the familiar conspiracy cliches: The Warren Commission was negligent, stupid, and probably manipulated." ... "There is more, of course. Oswald did not necessarily kill Officer J. D. Tippit; Jack Ruby was a pawn of organized crime who died of cancer while withholding the truth that he was party to the great conspiracy; the single bullet theory is utter nonsense; " ... etc. Burns (the author of the review) also faults Hunt for entertaining contradictory possibilities (eg Oswald being a CIA agent or KGB operative or a Castro agent) without making up his mind. But nothing he actually writes in the review indicates that Hunt is mistaken about facts. Instead, he savages Hunt for the conclusions Hunt draws from them. In short, the review is an excellent basis for saying that Hunt is not a reliable source for the claim that Clay Shaw had a sexual relationship with David Ferrie (the speculative example, liberally hedged with conditionals by Hunt, which Burns gives). It is not a basis for saying that Hunt's interview with police officer Billy Grammer is unreliable as to the fact of Grammer's claims. Podiaebba (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
My selectivity? I am not the one who wants to selectively pluck factoids out of piles of manure and claim they are reliable diamonds. It appears nothing will sway you from your course of accepting these terrible sources, not a censure from the British parliament, not nationwide ridicule, not a savaging by a professional historian in an peer-reviewed journal, so it seems there is little point in continuing this exchange. Note that the policy is reliable sources, not reliable factoids. If the sources themselves are unreliable, we shouldn't be using them at all. Doesn't it concern you that all the sources you've been able to find on this Grammer claim are so embarrassingly unreliable? Doesn't it give you pause to think that maybe this claim is just as unsound as others these unreliable sources have made? Perhaps Grammer's claim is accurate, but given that it's been ignored by actual, reliable sources, that tells me that it's too insignificant and unreliable to include here. Perhaps this is an unjust oversight, but it's not the role of Wikipedia to correct the mistakes of historians and the media. Gamaliel (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not being selective - that would imply that I've read all these books and decided to pick one thing. Rather, I came across one factual claim (in online reading prompted by the 50th anniversary) which drew my attention, which turned out to be documented in mainstream-published books and made on-camera. What is telling is that whenever I try to get into specifics of why these sources have been criticised, you retreat into generalities, and then assert that instead of what it says at the top of the page about source reliability being relative to statements, that instead sources are reliable or not in toto. I expect you will now find some other way to repeat this process, because that's all you've got, unless you intend to make a real fist of the "significance" issue by pretending that no historical detail which isn't reported every time a guy's name is mentioned 50 years later is permissible. As to inclusion of this claim in "reliable" sources - presumably by that you mean sources that support the Lone Gunman theory. Because that theory's just so obviously true, and therefore any evidence or argument that contradicts it is by definition untrue and unreliable, and that's not at all assuming your conclusion, no. Podiaebba (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Again you demonstrate the futility of attempting to discuss this with you. Since you're unable to seriously engage with the clear evidence demonstrating the unreliability of your two sources in particular, you conjure up an imaginary motivation for me that's made up out of whole cloth, just like the bulk of the 'evidence' in the two sources you want us to use in the encyclopedia. Gamaliel (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Well I guess that's an admission of defeat: instead of addressing my points, you complain about my supposedly impugning your motivation, whilst in passing reasserting the position I have challenged without acknowledging or responding to my criticisms of it. My comment does not address your motivation at all, it is about the manner in which you defend your position. I cannot divine your motivation and am uninterested in it. Podiaebba (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Wow. I've never seen anyone backpedal so quickly. Gamaliel (talk) 03:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
It requires a far lower level of literacy than you clearly possess to misconstrue my statement as badly as your comment indicates you have. If you have simply given up trying to address my arguments, then I guess this conversation is over. Podiaebba (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Stop the personal attacks, and stop the barrage of excuses for unreliable sources. bobrayner (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
If you think the above was a personal attack, you may be underqualified to be engaging in discussion on an online encyclopedia. As to barrage of excuses for unreliable sources - I've repeatedly asked for an explanation of how WP policy addresses the invalidation of the presumption that mainstream media sources are deemed reliable, without any response. I've also repeatedly pointed out that reliability is contextual, not absolute: the question of reliability is specific to the reporting of the very limited claim made at the beginning of this section. In previous discussions, mainstream media sources which deliberately and knowingly published false information were still judged reliable, on the basis that policy doesn't do anything to explain how the presumption of reliability of mainstream media sources can be overturned. Podiaebba (talk) 23:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
If you think your remark wasn't a personal attack, you may be under-qualified to be engaging in discussion on an online encyclopedia where civility is considered one of its fundamental principles. Gamaliel (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
A personal attack would be "you're too stupid to have understood what I've written". My comment was the opposite: that you had clearly demonstrated that you are literate enough to have understood what I had written, making your "backpedal" remark suggest you had given up on having a rational argument and were merely trying to distract from the issues with irrelevancies. Podiaebba (talk) 12:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Your obvious attack and your weak attempts at backpedaling from what was an obvious attack to any literate individual have already distracted from the issues you are trying to raise. Lashing out at other editors is not the best way to convince them that you have a rational argument to present. Gamaliel (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, let's see, we're currently up to (i) falsely accusing me of "backpedalling" from questioning your motivation (you know I did not, and the comment you claimed was "backpedalling" explicitly rejected the idea that I had) and (ii) latching onto bobrayner's erroneous claim that I made a personal attack, which I'm quite sure you're equally aware is wrong. You've comprehensively given up on even pretending to address the substantive issues and are left with mere distraction tactics. What will be point (iii), I wonder? Podiaebba (talk) 22:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Reminder: per the instructions at the top of this page, the issue is the reliability of the sources available for the content being sourced from them. The issue is not the absolute, proven reliability of the sources for everything they've ever said (a standard which very few sources meet). Podiaebba (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Restatement2 is getting there. The proposed text should should be tweaked to say that Grammer was recalling events that were two decades old, and that Grammer's testimony did not come out in the 1960s or '70s, that he did not appear before the Warren Commission, that he did not tell them about the phone call. Marrs says Grammer did not actually answer the phone around 2:00–3:00 am (Becker says 2:30, Savage says "around two", Douglass says 3:00) but Grammer was requested by name by the caller, so the call was handed to Grammer by the first (unnamed) policeman. (Savage says Grammer was Communications Officer on duty.) Also, Grammer recognized at the time that his boss would have to know about this call so he co-wrote a report for Chief Curry, but did not tell Curry the voice might have been that of Ruby; instead he said the caller was anonymous. The proposed text should say that Grammer found the voice not familiar enough to put a name to the caller at the time. I think it would be interesting to know whether Curry read the report before Ruby killed Oswald, and what, if anything, Curry did about it. It would also be interesting to get some kind of explanation why Grammer chose to stay silent for 20+ years. Was he warned against saying anything, or simply scared of what might happen? Or did he fabricate the Ruby stuff in the '80s? Binksternet (talk) 02:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Those are interesting points (sourcing for them would be good). On the question of when Grammer said what: I've seen it said that Groden's book High Treason claims Grammer signed an affidavit in 1963/4 as part of the investigations of the time, but was nonetheless not called by the Warren Commission. As to why he went public in the 80s, rather than the 70s when the HSCA was active - fair question, though the HSCA investigation was cut short, and he also might not have wanted to go public before retiring. Could you suggest a rewriting of the content? NB A serious treatment of this topic would require a separate article specifically on Ruby's shooting of Oswald, which at the moment totally overwhelms Ruby's article. Podiaebba (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Sources for Criticism of Jainism

I would like to know whether these three sources are reliable when talking about Criticism of Jainism.

--Rahul (talk) 05:13, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

The first definitely isn't. The BBC source is on the limits of reliability because it is such a short overview. The Anekant essay is reliable for one view of what Jainism believes but it shouldn't be presented as the only view. These Criticism of religion articles are a pain in the neck. They should all go, really. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
I think you might be right. I have nominated this article for deletion, if you like, you can participate. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticism_of_Jainism --Rahul (talk) 06:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Itsmejudith, you read about WP:DONTLIKE yet? Bladesmulti (talk) 08:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
When asked about reliability of sources, that's what I try to concentrate on. I have a long-standing view of all the Criticism of (religion) articles, which is that they are WP:POVFORKs. That goes for Criticism of anything articles, but there is also a major problem with the diversity of what "criticising" a religion actually is. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Not essentially true. A lot of criticism that are either non-refuted, or impossible to refute. It means that it's a criticism.. Now if someone legend criticize like.. "bible lacks so much science, it claims earth is only 6000 years old and sticks to adam+eve" then we must recognize it, since it's imposible to refute, neither it's unreliable information. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Now I see that you have created several problematic articles, and we will have to examine everything you have been doing. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Clearly if you can't handle or backup your own point, but ready to make unnecessary compliments and getting off topic, just don't start. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

SORCER - experienced eyes, please

While I appreciate the rules for posting items here the matter is beyond one reference/source. The article has a welter of scientific papers, most of which are certainly primary sources. Some of the references may be sufficient to establish the notability of the item.

Attempts at discussion with proponents of SORCER are failing, probably because of the mismatch of the culture of Wikipedia with the culture of the world of Academe.

I propose to give no further information here in case my view biases the thoughts of editors whose eyes are needed on the article. I am trying this noticeboard since it is specialist in nature, though migrating to an RFC may be needed if experienced editors cannot reach a consensus.

Please visit the article, form a view, and, ideally, seek to establish consensus on its talk page. Fiddle Faddle 17:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

This one is difficult, quite a challenge, not at all simple to assess. Which of you are up to the task? Fiddle Faddle 11:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
@Orangemike: - i dont know what his expertise on computing systems is, but he is very good at cutting through promotional crap. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
An excellent suggestion, thank you. There is careful work to do with this article assuming sufficient WP:RS sourcing is able to be distilled from the multiplicity of references given. My take is to assess and ideally prove verifiable notability above all else, hence this noticeboard for sources. Fiddle Faddle 14:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Two specific references have been given at Talk:SORCER#SORCER_third_party_review_and_analyses. Please visit that section and inspect the references, considering whether they are WP:RS. Fiddle Faddle 08:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Business Week

Different reliable news sources have a section on their website listing information about people. Are they considered reliable? Do they fact check all the information? [51] Dream Focus 16:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to say, because reliability isn't boolean, and it depends on what you're using the source for.
Bearing in mind Bloomberg's editorial control and their jealously-guarded reputation for data-driven services, I would be happy using that profile of Grady Hall for basic uncontroversial content, but it does seem slightly promotional so be careful not to let the promotional tone seep into article-space. bobrayner (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Who has written the article? That's what more important, even if the article is from CNN. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Is College Football Data Warehouse a reliable source?

I tried updating the coaching record of Mike Yeager, using the source that had already been cited in the article: [52], but Epicgenius kept reverting the update. When I pointed out to him what the source said, his reply was, "I will try not to laugh as I look at the data table and see that the math does not add up at all." The WP article on College Football Data Warehouse says "The website has been cited as a source by The New York Sun, The Fort Worth Star-Telegram, The Columbus Ledger-Enquirer, The State, and The Lawrentian. It has also been widely cited in historical college football books, and in scholarly journals such as the Journal of Sports Economics, the Utah Law Review, the Tulsa Law Review, the Oklahoma Law Review, and Sports Law." Is College Football Data Warehouse a reliable source or a laughable one whose math does not add up at all? 70.134.229.223 (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but the average of the two numbers 0.000 and 1.000 is not 0.7. That is what the cited source says, so I think that the math may be wrong. Epicgenius (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
LOL! It says no such thing. It says his record is 1-12, for a winning percentage of 0.07692. Do the arithmetic: 1/13=0.07692. (Hint: It's a percentage, not an average.) BTW, you might be interested in reading this. 70.134.229.223 (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
The record checks out in a couple of places. Carthage went 0\x963 while Yeager was coach in 2012 and 1\x969 in 2013. Overall, that's one win and 12 losses, or a winning percentage as the IP calculated. Since College Football Data Warehouse is the standard source used in infoboxes, I don't see a need to corroborate against another source. \x97C.Fred (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Ouch, that is an insult to my so called genius. Anyway, I apologise and will ask another editor to revert the change, since I am using a mobile device and ll have difficulty making the edit. Epicgenius (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

List of new religious movement and cult researchers - inclusion criteria

According to agreed upon inclusion criteria to the list,

Inclusion in this list assumes having both the requisite training as well as actually conducting at least one research study on cults and/or new religious movements (using accepted methodological standards common in the research community), published in a peer-reviewed journal or academic book.

As it stands, a few inclusions do not fit the criteria:

  • Steven Hassan - a self-published and self-described "cult expert" has had none of his work published in a peer-reviewed journal or book. Furthermore he lacks the requisite training, being a Mental health counselor
  • Flo Conway has an undergraduate degree, with a possible Masters degree in an unknown discipline. She, along with Jim Siegelman (undergraduate degree in Philosophy) wrote a book called "Snapping", a non-peer reviewed publication.

In both cases, the inclusion criteria is not met. Proponents for the inclusion of these individuals argue that since they have been mentioned in peer-reviewed works by third parties, that they should be included - however the article is about maintaining a list of researchers, and not individuals mentioned in peer-reviewed publications. Zambelo (talk) 03:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_161&oldid=1142578456"