Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 115

Archive 110

←

Archive 113

Archive 114

Archive 115

Archive 116

Archive 117

→

Archive 120

When is YouTube a good source?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I have a dispute with another editor about the extent that web-published video can constitute strict publication. I'm too tired to type one more sentence of summary or bickering, so I thought perhaps I could start a thread discussion the topic in the abstract. What conditions do you believe need to be in place to consider a networked video (e.g. YouTube) to be a good, reliable, verifiable source of information? Squish7 (talk) 02:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thats not very specific. I'm no expert but I think never, that doesn't mean you cant use it at all but usually no. It depends on who originally published it and under what license. Weekly Republican Address has 140 youtube videos for example. If the original source is good enough to use but the copyrights are in question it is best to provide only a reference in text without a link:

<ref>person(s), "the title of the production", who published it, the date it was published.</ref>

In stead of, for example:

<ref>Mr G., "Under Pressure", Do Try This at Home, Season 2, Episode 1, 2014</ref>

You could look at other articles how sources are used. Here is a search for "youtube.com".

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=youtube.com&fulltext=1

84.106.26.81 (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• The IP address above is completely incorrect. It's actually very simple about when you can use Youtube. If the video is hosted on the channel of an official news organizations, like the official Fox News or CNN Youtube channel, then the video are both reliable and don't violate copyright. Silverseren^C 04:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't think he was asking for cases where it is obvious. I thought the question was where the line is. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• I have not clicked on all of them at the Republican article but so far a couple are perfect examples of when YouTube can be used. Example: this is a primary source (so use it with care) but it should be OK. The YouTube channel is verified as being official with the link to it from here (lower right). There are some concerns overall (not enough secondary sources, refs are not formatted correctly) but those are a whole other issue. More info can be seen at an essay I started: Wikipedia:Video links.Cptnono Follow-up:Didn't realize we were looking at it as an "abstract". There are too many variables to give an answer here which is why YouTube videos should be judged on a case by case basis.(talk) 20:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

• It is only acceptable when it is the YouTube channel of something that otherwise conforms to WP:RS, like Fox News, and then under the requirements for other broadcast media. It's never acceptable if it's a self-published source (see WP:SPS) unless it's about itself: say, Pat Condell's YouTube Commentaries become popular enough to be relevant to Wikipedia, etc. For example, I could make ten YouTube videos on why space aliens are real and how they put on suits of skin to become our leaders and usher in the New World Order; those videos could then be used to artificially lend more WP:WEIGHT to an extremely fringe cause. From that example, it should be clear why such sources are never acceptable. JohnChrysostom (talk) 13:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Did you really have to pick Faux News as your example? To be a reliable source, there must be a reputation for fact checking, not just a large audience. There are in fact some reliable publishers with redistribution via YouTube channels, but Jon Stewart has made a living for years out of spotting the errors on Faux. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

What if the video is of a BLP subject giving information about themselves that is used to support material in their article? As long as it's unambiguously clear that it is indeed the subject in question, then wouldn't it be permissable to use for some info, like an artist discussing the techniques and materials they use, for example? Nightscream (talk) 09:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

"I use the best materials in the world and possess the best technique. I name my techniques differently to what art historians and art theorists name techniques." cf: The tree shaping case. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Huh? I'm not following. Can you clarify? Nightscream (talk) 03:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Individuals are often the worst source regarding themselves, they are habitually self serving, they are the perfect example of a PRIMARY and an involved source. They have no distance from themselves, and make outrageous claims on a regular basis that experts do not. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and I make a point not to rely on self-published or primary sources precisely when the material in question is indeed potentially controversial or self-serving, like the awards that an artist has one. But when it's something completely innocuous or neutral in that respect, like where the person was born or grew up, what materials they use, that's not really self-serving, is it? Where else would information on what type of paper or which pencil leads an artist uses be found, if not from their own mouth? Nightscream (talk) 02:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding geography and self-identification: British Isles dispute; Eastern European disputes; regarding techniques and methods in fine arts: Tree Shaping dispute. Ethnicity and at least one art technique have so stewed the editing process with their controversial nature that arbitration has been effected. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what the "Tree Shaping dispute" is, and it would help if you would tell me or link me. In any event, the types of pencils, markers, inks or papers that Adam Hughes uses is not controversial or disputed, a point that I thought I had made clearly enough in my last message above. That is why I question if there's anything wrong with relying on a YouTube video of a notable artist explaining the materials he chooses to work with. In what way is this controversial or disputed? How does one dispute the materials a notable flat-out says he uses? What source could possibly be used to contest what materials he uses when working in his own home? Nightscream (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree_shaping. If it isn't in a secondary source why on earth is it encyclopaedically relevant? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is Encyclopedia Britannica a reliable source?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As I am having problems with two users, Athenean and Alexikoua, who keep repeatedly deleting every citation i make from Encyclopedia Britannica, I want to ask if Encyclopedia Britannica can be accepted as a source in Wikipedia or not. I have seen that scores of articles use at a source, so we have to establish if this source should be allowed in Wikipedia. (Edvin (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC))

See for example Talk:Albania#Encyclopedia Britannica is regarded as a trusted source by Wikipedia community. There are several articles involved in a consensus building exercise including Albania, History of Albania, London Conference of 1912-1913 in which many sorts of sources are being offered up for examination including, primary sources--contemporary news paper accounts, secondary sources and tertiary sources. In this case EB stands for http://www.britannica.com rather than Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition. -- PBS (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

A reliable source for what? As is made clear at the top of this page, we need more information. What is it being used as a source for? I'd also suggest you read WP:PSTS - the Encyclopedia Britannica is a tertiary source, and we quite explicitly state that "Some tertiary sources are more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others". There is no yes-or-no answer to your question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

EB is, at best, a tertiary source per many past discussions here. In addition, the online version solicits revisions from readers, which has also been established at RS/N. And since "RS" has nothing to do with "truth", EB is pretty much ruled out as a source - you probably should look at the sources the EB cites instead. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC) Appending: The OP seems to also be posting related complaints at AN/I concurrently. Collect (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I have added Cheers article from EB as "Further reading" source rather than reference. If you want, you can still add EB articles into "Further reading" section; don't forget, be bold! Cheers, George Ho (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

"EB is pretty much ruled out as a source" What?! That's the craziest thing I've read on Wikipedia all day. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Since when was EB ruled out as a source? I've never ever heard that, especially when we cross-post public domain content from old versions of it. Silverseren^C 07:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Multiple discussions on RSN and elsewhere - if a fact needs a cite, the EB is where you look to find a cite, but as a tertiary source it is deficient for most WP purposes. And since the online EB solicits revisions, it is even less an RS. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC) By the way, the 1911 edition was used to "populate" Wikipedia at the start, and is now generally regarded as having been a mistake. It was only "public domain" at the start because of the odd US copyright laws of the time, and most uses on WP are being removed over time. See Wikipedia:1911_Encyclopaedia_Britannica, and the fact that there is a specific template for such articles Collect (talk) 12:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You mean discussions like this, where you're the only person saying it is an unreliable source? I think you're really the only one or one of very few here that thinks Britannica isn't a reliable source. As Andy pointed out above, it does depend on what you're using it for, but that's true for any source. As a whole, the Britannica is reliable, it's just not as good as a secondary source, since it is a conglomeration of secondary sources, but tertiary sources are still perfectly reliable, especially for general, big picture information. Silverseren^C 13:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I fear you have missed a number of discussions on this - including opinionf from Jimbo, Gwen Gale and a number of others about it as a source. [1] Meaning, once editors begin to dig at all into a topic, encyclopedias are out, gone, toast, the end. Stay away from 'em, other than as a means to find out what to look for and where, but even that can be way dodgy, owing to the wanton systemic bias of most any tertiary reference. [2] etc. also show remarkable unanimity that non-specialized encyclopedias are tertiary sources at best. [3] ditto. Sorry - I am far from the only person with this view. [4] shows a view on a GA page. [5] ditto. [6] ditto. [7] ditto. [8] and another. [9] and another. But you could only find s single discussion? I find literally hundreds of them. Cheers - EB was, and remains, "tertiary". And it is specialized tertiary sources which are usable. Not "general ones. Collect (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

It's nice that Jimbo and Gwen Gale have opinions, but personal opinions aren't policy. Our policy states that reliable sources are those who have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Clearly, Encyclopedia Britanica has such a reputation. I mean, are you honestly trying to say that EB isn't a reputable encyclopedia? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

And well over two dozen other editors and admins ... and so far "tertiary sources" remain "tertiary sources." And remember "reputable" != "reliable source" per WP:RS so that cavil fails. The fact is that Wikipedia requires stronger sourcing than tertiary encyclopedia articles are. And that should end the issue utterly. Collect (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It depends on who wrote the EB article. If it is written by an acknowledged expert, then it becomes an article by a secondary source and is then better than a secondary source written by a layman.

Collect, I think you are making a mistake in assuming that all secondary sources are of the same type of quality. For example I have recently been involved in a discussion over the year in which a man was allegedly knighted by Queen Elizabeth I. We have found a secondary source that uses primary sources that does not list the man as one who received a knighthood in that year (but the source may not have surveyed all the primary sources). However, it seems that for this fact many modern day secondary sources rely on Victorian secondary sources, which rely on an 18th century source that cites a 17th century source. We have not yet found a secondary source that cites a primary source. But clearly when (or if) such a secondary source is found, it will be "better" than all the sources that cite older secondary sources. A secondary source that does not cite primary sources, but relies on other secondary sources is no better or worse than a general encyclopaedia as a source, and many many books support facts with citations to other previously published secondary sources. An good example of this is the propagation in may English language books published from the 1960s until the late 1990s of the incorrect figure of 130,000 killed in the bombing raids on Dresden in February 1945. German historians had provided the correct figures back in the 1970s, but these were ignored in many books and articles in favour of David Irving incorrect figures published in his book The Destruction of Dresden. It took a decade after he was discredited in court before the correct figures became generally accepted (and were stated as a fact without hedging in the Wikipedia article).

BTW where is the alleged fact that Wikipedia requires stronger sourcing than tertiary encyclopaedia articles to be found in the verifiability or WP:PSTS policies? -- PBS (talk) 05:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It depends. Nothing wrong with citing tertiary sources in general, but if there are better sources, they should be preferred. Dicklyon (talk) 04:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Another pointless argument about abstract 'reliability'. As far as Wikipedia policy is concerned, there is no such thing. Since the OP has declined to tell us what the Encyclopaedia is being cited for, I suggest that we close this 'debate', and all do something more useful instead... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The issue is, it isn't an RS issue at all, it's a copyright issue. Brittanica is very much an RS. The 1911 edition was used appropriately to populate our early articles about botany, for example. But if we absorb lots of content from a tertiary source that we're basically in competition with, that can cause problems. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

How is it a problem? -- PBS (talk) 05:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised we're even questioning EB's use as a source. If EB is ruled out, then we ought to erase millions of other far more dubious sources which are gaily quoted on Wikipedia but have no verifiable standing - e.g. random websites, newspapers and magazines which may just be one person's uninformed (and possibly biased) opinion. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has certial rules about "tertiary sources." It has nothing whatsoever to do with "truth" but to do with the desired nature of Wikipedia's sourcing. And opinions are citable only as opinions in any case, and most "random websites" are utterly unacceptable, so that sort of argument holds no water. And if something can be found in a tertiary source, it should reasonably be findale in an acceptable secondary source, just as we also rule out most primary sources on the basis that important information should be findale in a secondary source. Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:31, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The basic policy about tertiary sources is 'Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, especially when those sources contradict each other.'

So yes one should avoid using them for particular facts but they can be used to help with the summary and overall structure and with assessing weight. And primary sources can very often be more reliable than secondary sources, just we must not trawl through primary sources for new things but only use stuff which has been mentioned in secondary sources. Basically primary sources give no notability but may be more accurate and have some weight. Dmcq (talk) 11:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

While there is nothing in WP:PSTS against using tertiary sources, there are strong restrictions on the way that primary sources can be used, and unpublished primary sources may not be used. -- PBS (talk) 05:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not always clear cut whether something is a secondary or tertiary source. For example is the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography as secondary or tertiary source? -- PBS (talk) 05:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

You can use tertiary sources for particular facts as well. I think the current policy formulations are often somewhat misunderstood. Imho it is a mistake or misunderstanding to take taking that policy all too literally. The notion that tertiary are per se "inferior" is rather misleading. First of of all there is often no clear cut distinction between secondary and tertiary and more importantly the quality (and domain) of a source is much more important than a formal distinction between secondary and tertiary. Meaning a high quality tertiary source (say an academic special subject encyclopedia or a standard textbook) is often better and more reliable source than some mediocre secondary source. Another thing to keep in mind, is how WP articles are actually written. The (ideal) situation, that a domain expert with an overview of all relevant secondary (and primary) sources compiles them into an article, is simply not a workable scenario for the bulk of our articles/content. Instead many WP articles are written by non experts with only a limited or even no overview of the relevant secondary sources. Such authors usually compile the knowledge of (academic) textbooks and (academic) encyclopedias into WP, which are usually at least partially tertiary sources. From that perspective you might even argue that the bulk of our reliable sources is tertiary to begin with.

As far as the original problem (editors deleting any EB references (or any tertiary reference) is concerned, I'd even consider that vandalism, that is, people removing EB references without replacing it by another (superior, secondary) source. Now there can be individual cases where you can consider an EB reference as insufficient or inappropriate, but that needs to be judged on case by case basis. Also the very recent (user based) content additions of the EB need to be viewed with a greater scrutiny. But then again I find it hard to image a scenario where no reference is better than an EB reference.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

• It seems to me the whole 'philosophy' behind the RS guidelines is to maximise the accuracy of relaying information. A good secondary sources should rely on primary sources, so are one step away from the facts. Tertiary sources rely on secondary sources and therefore are two steps away, so you get an escalation of the chinese whisper effect. That doesn't make tertiary sources unreliable, just less reliable than a secondary source by its very nature; also a good tertiary source like EB is better than a poor secondary source like the Daily Mail (where we've actually had instances of them making up stories (I don't recall similar discussions about EB). So in general, if something is good enough for EB it probably should be good enough for Wikipedia, but the aim should always be to seek out sources that put us closest to the facts. Betty Logan (talk) 06:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Well yes there is potential "whisper effect". However high quality (scholarly) tertiary sources are usually written by experts that looked at all or most relevant primary and secondary sources, which means (ideally) there's no whisper effect at all in such a scneario. Also instead of seeing it from the whisper effect perspective, you can also see it as an error removing filter perspective, meaning good tertiary sources add an additional level of expert scrutiny and are without possible errors and mistakes still contained in original primary and secondary sources. As far as "closest" to the facts is concerned, you could argue that's an argument for primary rather than for secondary sources. But the problem there is, that the perceptions of facts might differ and that for an encyclopedia the simple stating of facts is not enough either (knowledge versus information). Encyclopedia needs to contextualize, connect and explain facts and also consider different perceptions, incomplete information/"missing facts and such. That's exactly where the secondary and tertiary sources come in.--Kmhkmh (talk) 07:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

"Editors can post questions here about whether particular sources are reliable, in context, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer. "

I agree with User:AndyTheGrump. There is no "abstract 'reliability' without exact context. Since the OP has declined to tell us what the Encyclopaedia is being cited for, I suggest that we close this 'debate', ..." without any conclusion due to lack of the context and the fact there is no abstract general reliability.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I added the context as in insert at the top of this section. -- PBS (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry but I can't see the context you added. Does it contain any of below information requested for this page:

• The article in which it is being used. For example article name
• The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting. For example

  text

  . Many sources are reliable for statement "X" but unreliable for statement "Y".
• Links to relevant talk page discussion. See diffs for an explanation.

I am not following this discussion so if there is a context with above mentioned information please talkback me on my talkpage. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

See the second paragraph in this section that starts "See for example Talk:Albania#Encyclopedia Britannica is regarded as a trusted source by Wikipedia community ..." -- PBS (talk) 02:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Unreliable for proposed uses. EB is an unsigned tertiary aimed at the general public. There have been fundamental criticisms of its fact checking, analysis and thoroughness. EB is not a reliable source for most academic topics, as its purpose is pedagogical and not scholarly. The proposed uses relate to the history of Albania, an academic topic. EB is not reliable for this. See WP:HISTRS for appropriate tertiary sources to use in history articles (signed tertiaries published by academic historians or equivalent peers, in the scholarly press, or equivalent press as reviewed, that are aimed at other scholarly practitioners.) Fifelfoo (talk) 02:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Every article in EB is identified with an author, who is often a recognised expert. -- 202.124.75.249 (talk) 00:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Frog (amphibian) identifies a "primary contributor" which is different to "signing;" Australian Cattledog has no named contributor. I'm sorry 202.… but you're not correct. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I had a look at EB1911 on Wikisource while not all articles are signed many are for example the third EB article is signed see: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Aagesen, Andrew" . Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. -- PBS (talk) 05:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

...its purpose is pedagogical and not scholarly.

So what? Exactly the same criticism can be leveled, and with even greater justice, against every single university-level textbook, and we routinely accept such sources as being reliable.

I suspect that you have confused "best possible source" with "meets minimum standards for being a reliable source".

The actual qualities that define a reliable source are not whether it's "scholarly" or "secondary". They are

1. It has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
2. It is published by a reputable publishing house, rather than by the author(s).
3. It is "appropriate for the material in question", i.e., the source is directly about the subject, rather than mentioning something unrelated in passing.
4. It is a third-party or independent source.
5. It has a professional structure in place for deciding whether to publish something, such as editorial oversight or peer review processes.

EB easily qualifies on every single point.

Now—you could certainly find better sources. But the existence of a better source doesn't mean that EB becomes unreliable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Secondary and Undergraduate tertiary textbooks do not possess a "professional structure in place for deciding whether to publish something," fit to the claim. Historical claims emerge from a disciplinary process—this is very distinct from pedagogical purposes. What other fields are willing to accept in relation to undergraduate texts is another matter, but generalist encyclopaedia and undergraduate texts, in the area of history, routinely and overwhelmingly mischaracterise the findings of scholarship, the methodology of interpretation, and the scholarly debate. EB is not reliable for history. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Textbook publishers most certainly do have "a professional structure in place for deciding whether to publish something." How exactly do you think that McGraw-Hill decided whether to publish American History: A Survey? By asking some volunteers what they should do? Or do you think that they hired some professional editors to make that decision?

Additionally, I don't think you're understanding the issue around reliable sources in general. The source needs to be able to support the claim being made. There are no sources that are always unreliable. If EB is being cited in support of a historical claim like "Geroge III was a king" or "There was a plague in London back in the 14th century", then it's entirely suitable and reliable. If you're trying to support a complicated claim, then you need a source that's up to supporting the weight of the complicated claim. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

To fit the claim. Pedagogy is not historiography. If you are citing EB for George III was a king, you aren't following a variety of article writing policies, and further, in the area of medieval history, EB is useless at representing the historiography of kings, particularly pseudo-mythic kings. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, since both Wikipedia and EB are encyclopaediae, it would be hardly correct to write the former based on the latter. In my real life I never saw that scientists used EB as a source for their research articles/reviews. I cannot tell for sure about history/liberal arts, I am not a specialist there, however, I have a feeling that they do not use EB either. I think EB, being a tertiary source, should be avoided when possible.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

That's an excellent point. I've never seen EB used as a source for serious books on archaeology or history. I've always thought it an unsuitable source for articles. A minor point is that EB of course has no NPOV policy. Dougweller (talk) 18:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Well no, EB is a tertiary source that summarizes serious books on archaeology or history. Sure Wikipedia and EB are encyclopaediae, but they are not comparable, the former is written by amateurs who imagine themselves to be encyclopedists and the latter is written by professional encyclopedists who are often experts in their respective fields. EB is a reliable source for an overview of a topic, but obviously specific books on archaeology or history are preferable for detail when available. --Nug (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

In the humanities field there are a few citations to EB, for instance Peter Kropotkin wrote Anarchism in the EB, at the time when he was a premier theoretician. It was a signed article of original research, which merely happened to be printed in the EB. Outside of that, no. Also, and I've said this forever: dog doesn't eat dog. We do not write an authoritative generalist tertiary source, by recycling other generalist tertiary sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes Wikipedia does "eat dog" (and often decayed dogs), and so do others eg: the ODNB. Part of the problem here is one of methodology. Fifelfoo you seem to think that if it is not written as a summary by an editor of Wikipedia citing secondary sources it is tainted. But others think of Wikipedia as a repository of general knowledge and if that can be acquired by legally copying text from other sources, providing those sources are properly attributed (see WP:PLAGARISM) then that is acceptable. As we have tens of thousands of articles with text copied from PD sources and plenty of others that summarise and cite tertiary sources, this is a self evident popular view among Wikipedia editors (we have whole projects dedicated to such ports (eg Wikipedia:WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography). In the long term this text can be augmented and/or replaced with new text that comes from summarising more modern secondary sources, but it the short term it gets information into Wikipdia that is then available to a much wider audience. Not only does it get useful text into articles it also creates articles with a structure that will be familiar to people who have read similar works, and even if the text is gradually improved with summaries of new sources, the structure tends to remain in place. Let me give you an example that I have written this week. I wanted some information on the Battle of Veillane on which Wikipedia did not have an article, so I looked up what was available publicly on the net and three days ago wrote a sub. That stub cites five sources four of which are tertiary sources. I do not think that Wikipedia would be improved by not creating or removing stubs such as this because they cite tertiary sources, instead Wikipedia will be improved when someone, who knows more about the battle than I, who edits my contribution mercilessly by summarising secondary sources. -- PBS (talk) 09:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

A great many editors regret the wholesale incorporation of poor quality content from PD sources. It gets 100 years out of date content into articles, keeps it there, and represents violations of pillars, particular NPOV in relation to bourgeois imperialism. Perhaps you ought to consider more closely weight if you're citing online tertiaries. There are no sources therein cited that are tertiary appropriate for the notability of Battle of Veillane; and the single page citations to contemporary works are radically insufficient to establish notability. None of these has the Battle of Veillane as its topic, and therefore you should feel awful about your contribution there. Go read WEIGHT. Instead of improving wikipedia you've duplicated 19th century ideology for no good end. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

This posting seems a little extreme to me. We should work according to community consensus, and we should be practical. There is no consensus that using tertiary sources should be forbidden, and there is no consensus that using old editions of EB should be forbidden. Arguing that using an old source is breaking NPOV seems like wikilawyering also (and raises some wierd philosophical problems). Let's be a little more nuanced? Instead of trying to make black-white rules on everything we should consider specific cases of using tertiary and old sources. I believe that is the real community consensus?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew and as for the non NPOV in PD sources it is made clear in the plagarism guideline that: "If the external work is in the public domain, but contains an original idea, or is a primary source, then it may be necessary to alter the wording of the text (for example not including all the text from the original work, or quoting some sections, or specifically attributing to a specific source an opinion included in the text,) to meet the Wikipedia content policies of neutral point of view and Wikipedia:no original research (in particular the restrictions on the use of primary sources)." -- PBS (talk) 23:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

@Fifelfoo. As to your comment on the stub Battle of Veillane I've post the relevant part of my comment and yours to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Battle of Veillane an AfD candidate? to see if the readers of that page agree with your point of view. -- PBS (talk) 23:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe noone will object if I summarise the dispute as follows: whereas the EB articles authored by reputable scientists or scholars can be used as a source for Wikipedia in the absence of better sources, it would be desirable to replace them with references to reliable secondary sources when such possibility exists.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC) (@ Fifelfoo) During famines, not only dogs eat dogs, but even humans eat humans, so, whereas EB should be avoided, in the absence of better sources it is better then nothing. By writing that, I, however, do not support the idea to use EB in parallel with reliable mainstream secondary sources. When such sources are available, EB can and should be removed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Self published books

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Criticism of Meher Baba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) relies heavily on self published books by one author:

• Shepherd, Kevin R D (1986). A Sufi Matriarch: Hazrat Babajan (Cambridge: Anthropographia Publications) ISBN 0950868019
• Shepherd, Kevin R D (2005). Investigating the Sai Baba Movement: A Clarification of Misrepresented Saints and Opportunism (Dorchester, Dorset: Citizen Initiative) ISBN 0952508931
• Shepherd, Kevin R D (1988). Meher Baba, an Iranian Liberal (Cambridge: Anthropographia Publications) ISBN 0950868051

Whilst this would normally make me think they are not reliable, I checked WorldCat and they are held by a fair few academic libraries. Does this mean anything, regarding how reliable they are?

There are also a few books published by this publisher which "aspires to help bring forward a new, creative universal outlook that embraces and transcends divisions of east and west, north and south, believers and nonbelievers. We invite wisdom and good humor from all directions to help you formulate your own individual wisdom—to stimulate, not to dominate, what must be a creative, individual process." - Are they reliable? SmartSE (talk) 22:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hum. A little Googlery reveals that (a) Shepherd appears to be self-taught, and to apparently lack academic credentials, and (b) there have been run-ins with him (and/or his supporters) in the past over the question of his notability etc - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin R. D. Shepherd. In any case, the answer seems to be that as far as Wikipedia is concerned, his works are unlikely to meet our criteria as reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Digressions about sockpuppetry and user talkpage comments Fladrif (talk) 15:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
AndyTheGrump, your brief comments imply a lot without saying much, and then you jump to your hasty conclusion. I'm afraid that where clarity is required, "a little Googlery" is not sufficient. There is indeed a history to discussion of Kevin Shepherd on Wikipedia, which goes all the way back to 2006, when an editor calling himself SSS108 questioned the reliability of Shepherd's books on the Talk Page of the Sathya Sai Baba article. Given the extreme controversy surrounding the latter, it is not surprising that a heated edit war was in progress, and one of Shepherd's books (Investigating the Sai Baba Movement) became the focus for this due to the stance he had taken on Sathya Sai Baba in Appendix One. Editor SSS108 was subsequently banned from Wikipedia. The last time I was involved in this was when an editor calling himself WikiUserTalk made me the subject of a sockpuppet investigation in February 2010. WikiUserTalk created his account on 7 February, and ceased to edit on 13 March, just before the sockpuppet investigation concluded in my favour (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Simon_Kidd/Archive). By the way, another editor contributing to the discussion (with whom I had no previous contact) referred to the investigation in terms of harassment of myself. At the time of the sockpuppet investigation, editor DGG was asked for his opinion on the subject (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG/Archive_37_Feb._2010#Simon_Kidd_.26_Kevin_Shepherd). I draw your attention to the following passages in particular (emphasis added): "Self-published sources can be used freely in general (a) to document the views of their author, and (b) as sources for non-controversial routine facts about the author. Whether they can be used otherwise depends upon special cases. The two possibilities of interest here are, first, if the author is very well known and widely accepted as an authority in the subject, his postings or informal are usable for many purposes -- Shepherd is not anything near sufficiently accepted as an authority for his postings to be usable; second, if the particular work involved has a reasonable degree of acceptance in the subject -- his books, not his postings, are in a number of academic libraries, and I think sufficient to indicate that they are regarded as worth considering. There's a general factor to consider: the overall nature of sources in the subject. As I indicated in an earlier response, most sources in this general subject, with the exception of a few widely regarded works, are less than satisfactory; very few of them are independent either of the desire to promote the subject, or the desire to denigrate the subject. Some otherwise unsuitable ones are however acceptable as showing what the legends about the subject say, or what he is reputed to have said (which is not quite the same thing as what he actually said). At some times, all we can do is achieve the balance of opposing unsatisfactory sources. Actually, quite a bit of the world is this way. Sources are not reliable vs. unreliable -- they are of varying degrees of reliability. We use the best of what we can get. The above is I think either generally accepted at Wikipedia, or in my opinion ought to be. DGG ( talk ) 16:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC) "I removed the unpublished web source already removed as an EL, from within a reference in the Shirdi Sai Baba article. I see no point to continue this discussion here. I have given my opinion clearly enough, or at least as clearly as I am able to. DGG ( talk ) 16:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)" Following more comments from WikiUserTalk, DGG concluded: "For I believe the third time: in my opinion, judging by the usual external criteria that I know how to apply as a generalist librarian, his published books are in an intermediate zone, considerably more acceptable than many of the other sources in the article. If nothing else, Marianne Warren demonstrates that herself, for she takes his views seriously enough to comment on them. It is very common in Wikipedia to try to dismiss a view one does not like by finding some reason to reject the sources supporting it. I have frequently seen sometimes successful attempts to call certain sources inadmissible, when they are in such an intermediate zone. I think this misunderstands the nature of evidence, for nothing is absolutely reliable or unreliable for all purposes. The insistence that his books cannot be used is just as lacking in balance as the attempt to use his website as if it were a published book. My opinion was asked and has been given: the initial positions of neither side were correct. The other party here has accepted this, but you have not. Anyone who looks at this further can use what I have said as a basis for understanding the issues to the extent that they choose. The article talk pages would be the place for further discussion for those who wish. DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)" I note that the editor calling himself SmartSE (who has initiated this inquiry and who has been involved in discussions about Shepherd in the past) has also invited DGG to give his opinion on the subject again (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG#Self_published_books). In my opinion, DGG was right to draw attention to the "less than satisfactory" nature of "most sources in this general subject". After all, if you look at the references in the Meher Baba article, you will find that over half (9 out of 16) of the books are published by organizations with connections to Meher Baba: Sufism Reoriented, Sheriar Foundation, Avatar Foundation, Manifestation. I'm sure that an analysis of other NRM articles would tell a similar story. As for Shepherd being "self-taught", as a teacher and someone who has been involved in education in one form or another for many years, I could write volumes on this subject. I will refrain from doing that here, but merely observe that I would have thought that you would have had some sympathy for an "autodidact" (to use the term that you apply to yourself in the sidebar on your user page, and as someone who "believes that one should never stop feeding one's brain"). After all, Wikipedia itself is a testament to the fact that amateurs can successfully learn and apply the critical apparatus usually associated with academics. Simon Kidd (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC) I think that DGG should be asked to respond here himself, rather than having others quote him (we don't know the context). As for sockpuppet allegations etc, they are irrelevant to this discussion. And finally, yes, you are right, there is nothing wrong with being an autodidact - but what matters for our purposes is whether a self-taught expert on a subject receives recognition for his/her expertise (as, indeed, is - or should be - the case for academics). I'd therefore ask for evidence of this recognition to be provided. Looking at the 'Criticisms' article itself, it seems rather strangely constructed, and rather more about Brunton than about Meher Baba - I have to ask whether it is actually encyclopaedic at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC) I would be happy for DGG to offer his opinion again, although I note that he has many demands for attention. In the text I have quoted above, he did say: "Anyone who looks at this further can use what I have said as a basis for understanding the issues to the extent that they choose." As for the article itself, I didn't create it but I have been working to remedy its defects (see the Talk Page, especially http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Criticism_of_Meher_Baba#Keep_the_article_and_make_it_more_encyclopedic). Simon Kidd (talk) 03:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC) Btw I would like this issue (the reliability of Kevin Shepherd as a source on Wikipedia) to be resolved once and for all, as I thought it had been after DGG's comments last time. For me (a full-time teacher with two children, who can only contribute to Wikipedia occasionally), that it should come up again is an immense waste of time. When I'm on Wikipedia, I'd rather just do some editing. Of course, the process of deciding the issue is itself far from satisfactory, since it is not transparent. In other words, a negative outcome here may be more a reflection on Wikipedia than on Kevin Shepherd. Simon Kidd (talk) 03:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC) Just as an aside, can you explain what you mean by 'not transparent'? Are you suggesting that anyone is discussing this issue elsewhere, in secret? If so, I'd like to be told where this is going on, as I'm not involved... AndyTheGrump (talk) I would be happy to explain. The process is not transparent for the following reasons. First, and foremost, the contributors to the process are usually anonymous. In most cases, no one knows who anyone else is and what their credentials are. Now, anonymity may be regarded as a good thing in Wikipedia circles, but it does cause certain problems. This leads to your other question. I am not suggesting that anyone is discussing this issue elsewhere, but I am pointing out that there is no way of telling whether anyone is. There is no way that you, or I, or anyone else on Wikipedia can tell whether there are editors trying to influence the outcome of a process. That in itself is a lack of transparency. Second, the Wikipedia guidelines themselves are often complicated, ambiguous and difficult to interpret. They have evolved over time and often require judgment in their application. Such judgment was demonstrated, I believe, in the comments of DGG quoted above. Notice how Fladrif has said below that "the answer is simple", and yet DGG said "sources are not reliable vs. unreliable - they are of varying degrees of reliability" and "nothing is absolutely reliable or unreliable for all purposes". Fladrif doesn't seem to have absorbed DGG's comments at all, which makes me wonder whether he has even read them. Of course, when you combine these two things (guidelines requiring judgment, and contributors who are anonymous), you have a situation where the anonymous editors can use the ambiguity to their advantage. This is most likely to happen in relation to controversial subjects, where there are often sectarian interests (DGG also noted this). The discussion of Kevin Shepherd on Wikipedia has been in controversial contexts since the beginning in 2006. You say that you are unaware of secret discussions. Perhaps you are. The rest of us have to take your word for that. You ask to be told if there are such discussions, but that is a rhetorical statement. If such discussions were taking place, why would the participants tell you? It is this complex of issues that I describe as non-transparent. Simon Kidd (talk) 09:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC) WP:SPS is straightforward and has a simple test for whether a SPS may be used or not. I have great respect for DGG's analysis, which I read thoroughly before posting, and, notwithstanding that it was something posted on his talkpage and not part of a discussion on RSN, largely agree with it. It is a well-reasoned,careful and nuanced analysis of how a SPS may be used, once a SPS has met the threshold test for inclusion. My own reading of the situation is that this is a simple case, because these sources do not meet the two-pronged threshold test of WP:SPS. Positing conspiracy theories is not helpful. I have no dog in this fight; I have never posted on any article or talkpage related to this subject-matter, and know less than nothing about it or any controversies that may be attached to the subject matter. I have never discussed anything with any other Wikipedia editor off-Wiki on any subject, and have pointedly declined to do so on the few occasions several years ago I have been asked to do so. I am simply offering, as a frequent contributor to RSN, my impartial and unbiased analysis of whether the sources at issue meet the threshold requirements of WP:SPS. Fladrif (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC) Fladrif, thank you for your candid statement, and I accept your words as genuine. I am also pleased that you have such a high opinion of DGG's nuanced take on this. I would ask you only to take into account my latest posts below, and also the guidelines on Statements of opinion. Simon Kidd (talk) 05:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The answer is simple. These are self-published sources. Thus, we go to the second question, is the author recognized as an established expert who has been previously published in the relevant field by reliable, third party publishers. My takeaway from the RFD about the author is that the answer to that question is that (i) there is no reliable, third party source establishing recognition of his expertise in the field, and (ii) he has not been published by reputable third party publishers, only in vanity press publications. Thus, he meets neither prong of this two-prong test, and these books do not meet the requirements of SPS. Fladrif (talk) 05:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Getting a book published is not a very high bar to jump over. Self publishing just shows effort on the part of the person doing it. The only thing I have seen which might give them any sort of usability in an article is that someone else has commented on them. If other people had referenced them to some extent that would show they were recognized but no evidence of that seems to be around. At the moment I really can't seen any reason for saying the books are a reliable source. So agree fully with Fladrif. Unfortunately as editors in Wikipedia we can't just go around recognizing just anything we like as reliable and there's already an awful lot of trash which is counted as okay, putting the bar even lower would increase the proportion and amount of rubbish to a quite unmanageable extent. Yes the occasional gem is lost but hopefully someone will recognize them eventually. It's not our job to search for such gems, we are not qualified to do that. We depend on others to find them. Dmcq (talk) 10:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Dmcq, you say that "no evidence ... seems to be around" that others have commented on Shepherd's books. Really? No evidence at all? Where did you search? How about the following: (1) Marianne Warren, PhD, in her Unravelling the Enigma: Shirdi Sai Baba in the Light of Sufism (multiple references); (2) Antonio Rigopoulos, The Life and Teachings of Sai Baba of Shirdi (multiple references - go to the Google Preview and search for "Shepherd"); (3) an Encyclopedia of Hinduism (listed in the "further reading" sections for the articles on Meher Baba and Sai Baba of Shirdi); (4) Anne Feldhaus, Images of Women in Maharashtrian Society, page 264; (5) a German Encyclopedia of Theology, Theologische Realenzyklopädie, page 547. As DGG said (quoted above): "his books ... are in a number of academic libraries, and I think sufficient to indicate that they are regarded as worth considering". Finally, I agree that Wikipedia editors can't "go around recognizing just anything we like as reliable", but in saying that you subsume all Wikipedia editors in the same category. I am a Wikipedia editor with a background in the Humanities and Philosophy for over twenty years; I have worked in academic bookselling (Shepherd's books were sold in the main academic bookshop in Cambridge, where I worked for four years) and publishing; and I have actually read Shepherd's books. Combined with the evidence above (that specialists have cited Shepherd and that his books are in a number of academic libraries), am I not in a position to judge whether his books are reliable? As is clear from the extensive Bibliography in his Meher Baba: An Iranian Liberal, Shepherd had access to documents that would not be found elsewhere in the archive. So yes, I am using my own experience and expertise to recognize the books of this author as "gems" that have a role to play in the contribution to knowledge. Simon Kidd (talk) 12:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

As the originator of the article, may I simply state that in another book listed in the Bibliography, namely Meher Baba’s Early Messages to the West, edited by Ward Parks, that when Parks writes on the subjects of both Paul Brunton and Rom Landau there is the acknowledgement that (a) “Though no devotee of Meher Baba and a sharp critic of Meher Baba’s follower’s, Kevin Shepherd turns his critical eye on Brunton’s account, in Meher Baba, an Iranian Liberal (Cambridge, England: Anthropographia Publications, 1986), pp. 146–76; and (b) “For a review of Landau’s assessment of Meher Baba, see Kevin Shepherd, Meher Baba, an Iranian Liberal, pp.176–82. If a book produced by a publishing house (Sheriar Foundation) devoted to Meher Baba is prepared to accept the writings of Kevin Shepherd, a non-devotee, as valid contribution, then I certainly have no reservations in including his account of the background to Brunton’s and Landau’s criticisms of Meher Baba in the article. --Stephen Castro (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

We cannot accept the opinion of a Wikipedia editor, no matter how informed, as to the expertise and qualifications of an author; we must rely upon independent, reliable, third party sources for that. If we are to accept these various references to some of his books in third party sources, some of which are incidental, others of which are more substantive, and at least two of which strike me as indictments of his scholarship, rather than endorsements (Warren writes While most of his arguments concerning Sai Baba’s Sufi connections are strong, he provides very little corroboration from the Sai Baba literature itself. For example, there is no evidence that he read Dabholkar’s Sri Sai Saccarita nor that he knew Marathi or the Maharashtrian Bhakti tradition. In fact, no bibliography was given with his monograph. and Shepherd is very opinionated in this book. For example he summarily dismisses Narasimhaswami as an opportunist, whose only interest was in elevating himself through writing the biographies of holy men., and Rigoupolis writes that Shepherd surprisingly seems to ignore the existence of the latter's major contribution...which he never mentions), we are still left with the second prong of the requirements of WP:SPS, that he have been previously published by independent,reliable third party publishers. I am under the impression that he has not been published by a reliable, non-vanity press. If that is correct, SPS unequivocably bars use of these self-published books. That his self-published books are cited, or sold in academic bookstores, or on university library shelves, does not permit us to ignore the clear requirements of WP:SPS. Fladrif (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Fladrif, you are cherry picking from Rigopoulos and Warren, both of whom are scholars who appear in the 'Further reading' section of the Sai Baba of Shirdi article. Shepherd wrote two books that deal directly with the subject of Shirdi Sai Baba. The earlier of these (Gurus Rediscovered: Biographies of Sai Baba of Shirdi and Upasni Maharaj of Sakori, 1985) was described by Rigopoulos as “a ground-breaking work” (The Life and Teachings of Sai Baba, p. xxvii); and Marianne Warren declared that “Shepherd was the first author to question this Hindu bias and to redefine the broad ‘Muslim’ category … most of his arguments concerning Sai Baba’s Sufi connections are strong.” (Unravelling the Enigma, p. 15). That they had criticisms of Shepherd is not unusual in a scholarly context, whether or not those criticisms were justified. In his 2005 book, Investigating the Sai Baba Movement, Shepherd addresses the critical comments by Rigopoulos and Warren (the Index contains 39 page references to the former, and 25 to the latter). It should also be borne in mind that both Rigopoulos and Warren were devotees of Sathya Sai Baba, and would not therefore have been sympathetic to Shepherd's critical comments about their guru. Warren later changed her opinion about Sathya Sai Baba (see what she wrote in this letter, for instance, including her comments on Rigopoulos).

We are actually going over old ground here, as many of the relevant points were made when WikiUserTalk (clearly an SPA) questioned the reliability of Shepherd as a source almost two years ago. He even brought up the Warren comment about the bibliography, to which I responded. See the discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Upasni_Maharaj#Kevin_R_D_Shepherd_as_a_source. Simon Kidd (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that commonsense is required here rather than attempting to uphold an interpretation of the letter of the “law.” Wikipedia is based on guidelines, not laws, and each case should be judged on its merits. In my own ongoing research into the subject of Paul Brunton, and to a lesser extent Rom Landau, I have found nothing that contradicts what Kevin Shepherd has written. In fact, a recent letter from Paul Brunton to Meher Baba, which the latter wrote in December 1930 shortly after he had left the Meherabad ashram and commenced on his travels in India, has only just come to light, and that letter fully substantiates Shepherd’s writings on the subject. See (http://mymeherbaba.com/pipermail/tavern-talk/Week-of-Mon-20110718/000863.html). The commonsense approach to Shepherd’s books has already been stated on this page. Simon Kidd’s quotes from the experienced editor DGG surely need to be seriously reflected upon. Wikipedia is concerned with knowledge, and unless what Shepherd has written on the subject of Brunton and Landau can be proved as unreliable by the objectors on this page, then I feel that his books should be accepted as a reliable source in the article. --Stephen Castro (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Your "own ongoing research" is entirely irrelevant to this discussion - see WP:OR. And no, 'objectors' don't have to 'disprove' anything: the relevant guideline is clear: "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" - WP:USERGENERATED (emphasis in the original). If we are to ignore the guideline, we need to see arguments based on something other than original research. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• I was asked to comment. I think the criteria for what counts as a RS in this area are somewhat more flexible than in many others, and self-publication is not as strong a reason for total rejection as it might be elsewhere. Some of Shepherd's books are in reputable libraries, and there have been citations of his work. I'd never use his works as sources for BLP, and I've argued in accord with the consensus at WP:Articles for deletion/Kevin R. D. Shepherd that he is not a notable author. But the material here does not depend solely or even principally on him, he usually seems to be only a supporting source, often for what has another citation also, and I think they are usable in the context of the article under discussion. But I've never had occasion to look at Criticism of Meher Baba before, & I think it a clear POV fork, POV based, non-neutrally written, with the over-extensive quotation of of material that to a considerable extent belongs elsewhere. About 80% seems devoted to not Meher Baba, but Brunton, a rather less significant figure. So I don't think it matters much whether these books are used for this article: the article has much worse problems. DGG ( talk ) 19:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The situation here is reminiscent of the perennial debate about Joe Baugher [10], a hobbyist who has apparently become an expert on airplane registry numbers, whose website is widely used as as a reference in publications, but who has never himself been published by a third party publisher within the area of his expertise. My own take is the same has here - WP:SPS requires more. Others contend thatWP:SPS should be relaxed, because Baugher is the best source available and there is no alternative source. It would appear that there is either an impasse or a detente about that issue in those articles, with Baugher continuing to be used as a source, and people continuing to complain about it. I take it that there are probably other, better sources available in this instance, so that same kind of argument may not be applicable here. It would seem that if there are other sources of higher quality, those are what should be cited in lieu of these. Fladrif (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the view that if normally reliable sources sources can't be found for a topic we should lower the standards to use whatever is available. If the only good sources on a topic are self-published, or otherwise inadmissible, then we shouldn't cover that topic.   Will Beback  talk  07:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The argument "Some of Shepherd's books are in reputable libraries" (DGG above) has no value. If you self-publish, it's part of your self-imposed job to get your book into libraries. You often do that by direct-mailing the libraries you consider most visible and useful to you, and often by giving them copies of the book. Andrew Dalby 10:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but that is only part of DGG's point. Are you saying that NO self-published books should be used as sources? And what about books that are published by organisations associated with a religious leader? As I said above, if you look at the references in the Meher Baba article, you will find that over half (9 out of 16) of the books are published by organizations with connections to Meher Baba: Sufism Reoriented, Sheriar Foundation, Avatar Foundation, Manifestation. I'm sure that an analysis of other NRM articles would tell a similar story. Are these dubious sources that should be excised? What would happen to these articles if that happened? The most extensive biography of Meher Baba was written by one of his disciples, Bhau Kalchuri. It is in five volumes and published by Manifestation. A book written by a disciple and published by an organisation linked to the Meher Baba movement! And yet, the Meher Baba article has GA status. How do we apply the Wikipedia guidelines in cases like this? Simon Kidd (talk) 10:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

"Are you saying that NO self-published books should be used as sources?" If I was saying that, I made a poor stab at it :) Andrew Dalby 16:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of RSN is to solicit input from disinterested editors Fladrif (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As another example, consider the articles on Sai Baba of Shirdi and Upasni Maharaj of Sakori, both associated with Meher Baba. First, both articles use Kalchuri as a source. The Upasni Maharaj article also uses the four-volume Talks of Sadguru Upasani Baba Maharaj, edited by Godamastu and published in Sakori by Shri Upasani Kanya Kumari Sthan. The Shirdi Sai Baba article (which also has GA status) uses Dabholkar's Shri Sai Satcharita, published in Shirdi by Shri Sai Baba Sansthan; Bharadwaja's Sai Baba the Master, published in Andhra Pradesh by Sree Guru Paduka Publications; and Narasimhaswami's four-volume Life of Sai Baba, published by the All-India Sai Samaj (an organization of which Narasimhaswami was the President). Simon Kidd (talk) 12:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Contrary to the use of Shepherd's references, the references from Kalchuri's "Lord Meher" in the biography articles of Meher Baba, Upasni, Shirdi Baba and elsewhere do not refer to his personal opinions but strictly and only to historical recorded facts. kalchuri composed the biography by using diaries kept by other disciples who were on the field and recorded the happenings daily without including any comments or personal opnions. These diaries are also available publically. Hoverfish Talk 13:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Hoverfish, have you actually read any of Shepherd's books? And what you say about Kalchuri is absolutely not true, since anyone can see that Kalchuri's work is replete with his own (devotional) interpretation of events. I have been studying Kalchuri all afternoon as I work on the Meher Baba's critics article, and I merely have to look at the page I have open at this moment (Volume 5, Page 1609) to see the following: "These comforting words were a consolation to his lovers. They had no idea yet that, in any event, the whole burden of humanity's suffering fell on Baba's slender shoulders, as he possessed universal mind." This is not a "historical recorded fact". There are many other examples. You do make a useful point, however, which relates to the point made by Fladrif above, that "if there are other sources of higher quality, those are what should be cited in lieu of these" (i.e. Shepherd's). There are several points to be made in response to this. First, there is some truth in it. Shepherd relies on accounts of eyewitnesses to the events, including Kalchuri and Purdom. But his books are "critical", in the sense that they cross reference the sources. In fact, he is very forthcoming about his sources. His Selected and Annotated Bibliography in Meher Baba: An Iranian Liberal is 48 pages long. It is subdivided into Teaching and Biographical sections, and then there are sections on Periodicals, Diaries, Correspondence and Oral Sources. This brings me to a second point. At an early stage in his life, Shepherd had connections with key figures in the Meher Baba movement (see his Autobiographical Reflections). It is clear from the correspondence section of his Bibliography that he has a sizeable collection of correspondence, some of it unpublished. Similarly, his oral sources include people like Adi S. Irani (Meher Baba's younger brother, who lived in London from 1956) and Delia De Leon (whom Shepherd interviewed at her home in Richmond, London, in 1966). So Shepherd has primary source material, much of it unpublished. Surely that in itself makes him a significant source. Third, where he expresses them, Shepherd's opinions are his own, and his own books can be taken as reliable sources for his own opinions (see Statements of opinion). Therefore, I would say that if there are multiple sources for a historical fact, and they do not contradict one another, then it would make sense to take the earliest source. But where it is a question of interpretation, of authorial opinion, then Shepherd's self-published books are reliable sources for his own opinion. As far as I am concerned (and this is my own editorial practice), statements of any author's opinion, self-published or not, should be prefaced with qualifiers such as "According to (author) ..." Furthermore, Shepherd's opinions are highly informed ones, sometimes informed by unpublished primary source materials. Perhaps this is why Rigopoulos and Warren gave such serious consideration to his books. Simon Kidd (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC) What I said is not that Lord Meher does not include Kalchuris opinions and emotional expressions, it is full of them. What I said is that we do not include references here to anything but reported historical facts. The main editor of Meher Baba's biography article, User:Nemonoman, has gone over each and every reference, especially since, at the time, he was being closely checked by User:Jossi, whom you know well, and they both made sure that all the references are exclusively about facts. On the contrary the refs given here are full of Shepherd's evaluations and opinions. But my argument is off subject here, as do not have enough knowledge of the rules to talk about reliability of sources. I merely added this note about the way the sources are used in the articles involved, because as far as I can tell, these references are simply promoting Shepherd as a writer or specialist or whatever here and I find this unacceptable. Hoverfish Talk 15:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Ok, then allow me to add a question. How did Nemonoman and Jossi make sure that "all the references are exclusively about facts", given that Lord Meher has gone through a process of translation and retranslation, from Marathi or Gujarati into Hindi and then into English? Shepherd has a lengthy endnote on this in his Investigating the Sai Baba Movement (pp. 265-8). I can't include all of it here but, referring to Lawrence Reiter (editor of the second edition of Lord Meher), he writes: "He has observed that Kalchuri has compiled and edited in the Hindi language sources that were written in other languages. Those sources include Behli J. Irani's unpublished biography in Gujarati, and the diaries of Dr. Ghani, Ramju Abdulla, F.H. Dadachanji, and Kishan Singh. Kalchuri's Hindi was subsequently translated into English by an Indian hand (Feram Workingboxwala), and afterwards edited by Reiter." In his preliminary Erratum to Vol. 17, Reiter says that "errors have inadvertently occurred in the collecting and retelling of stories" and that "in translation there will be errors, not only in content but also in meaning". I noticed myself today (in Volume 5, page 1612) that Rom Landau is described as Italian, whereas he was in fact born in Poland of Polish-German parents. And that's not the only factual mistake I've come across recently. Simon Kidd (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Looking into this, I found this rambling entry, evidently written by Shepherd, detailing (among many things) his issues on WP and elsewhere online with harrasment by User:Joemoreno (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), User:joe108 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), User:SSS108 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), User:Andries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), involving articles at Robert C. Priddy, Sathya Sai Baba and related wp:RFA. Warning: beware of wp:outing. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC) For another perspective on this, see the following entry from Barry Pittard's blog: Brian D. Steel Updates References To Kevin R.D. Shepherd Writings (Brian Steel is a Wikipedia editor). Also, Guru’s Partisans Banned From Editing Of Wiki ‘Sathya Sai Baba’ Entry, in which he refers to Shepherd as a "rational, competent, independent British writer". Simon Kidd (talk) 10:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Well I had a look at the references that Simon Kidd provided. Two seemed to definitely not consider Shepherd to be a expert in the field as far as I can see and one did. As to Simon Kidd being an expert that is irrelevant. Wikipedia editors are not reliable sources of anything, that's why reliable sources are needed. So from the one that does seem to recognize Shepherd there is a small indication that they are okay for use but I would certainly agree with others that if better sources are available use them. If there is good evidence the author was involved with the subject then they can also be used as a primary source I'd have thought. Dmcq (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Well, I certainly wouldn't apply the term "expert" to myself! There are, however, degrees of familiarity with this field of study. And it is a field in which the standards of evidence are more akin to those in the Humanities than in Science or Mathematics. DGG was getting at this when he said that sources are not "reliable vs. unreliable -- they are of varying degrees of reliability" and that Shepherd's published books are "considerably more acceptable than many of the other sources in the [Sai Baba of Shirdi] article". A lot of the arguments above claim that this is a simple case, but I am arguing that it is not simple, and this is why DGG's verdict is so significant. As for Shepherd being an "expert in the field", perhaps Dmcq could substantiate his claim with supporting evidence in the form of quotations. Otherwise the rest of us are in the dark. In my opinion, the word "expert" here is moot. Are we talking about academic expertise? As a matter of fact, I don't think that there are many academic experts in this small corner of the NRM field, which would go some way towards explaining the difficulty in finding references to Shepherd's books. As I pointed out above (and as DGG indicated), many of the sources in Meher Baba and related articles were written by devotees and published by organizations associated with the subjects themselves. Even Rigopoulos and Warren, although academics and published by mainstream publishers, were devotees of Sathya Sai Baba. I wonder how many people have absorbed what Warren says in the letter published here (which I already posted above). For one thing, she admits that she had been "caught in a 'Cult'" when she followed Sathya Sai Baba. But she also says: "Even Rigopoulos was not discriminating enough in his book on Shirdi Sai, accepting Sathya Sai's pronouncements as gospel". So Rigopoulos, an academic whose book, The Life and Teachings of Sai Baba of Shirdi, was published by a university press (SUNY), is criticised by another academic for taking his guru's pronouncements on the subject of his book (Sai Baba of Shirdi) as gospel truth! Should we now strike Rigopoulos out as a reliable source on Shirdi Sai Baba? I would argue no, but we need counterbalances provided by people like Warren and Shepherd. It's a pity that Warren died before she was able to publish the book she refers to in her letter. So again I would just like to point out that it is my familiarity with this field that makes me aware of these complex factors when I'm editing (and also enables me to bring them to people's attention on this page). Actually being familiar with Shepherd's books, for instance, allows me to point out (as I did above) that he possesses unpublished primary source material. How many other people in this discussion would even be aware of that? I am not so bold as to claim that my word should be final. I just want people to be aware of all of the evidence before they make up their minds, and also to consider the complexities of evidence in this area and that judgment is required in the application of Wikipedia guidelines. People with sectarian agendas will, of course, always be biased, but I implore those of you who have no such biases to consider seriously what I am saying. Simon Kidd (talk) 02:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC) I would also like to add that "self-publication" is a very broad category, and that I agree that there are very, very many self-publications that should not be used on Wikipedia. I am just arguing that Shepherd is a serious author with a long track record of self-publication in this area, and that he should be accepted as a reliable source. I am very familiar with his books and the critical apparatus that he employs. Btw he has made his own observations on self-publishing here, and it links to a longer "Publishing Statement". Simon Kidd (talk) 04:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC) I hear that Shepherd and his mother had correspondence with Meher Baba in the 1960s, and later with some of his prominent disciples, that they became involved with another spiritual teacher, against Baba's orders, that this caused them to become ostracized by the English Baba group and that in the 1980s they send letters to all Baba centers around the world defending themselves. I also hear that Shepherd has a dislike of followers of Meher Baba and considers them "sectarian", although no sect actually exists. Considering all this, I cannot be expected to believe that Shepherd is free of bias and clean from sectarian/antisectarian agendas. I am not sure if this is relevant to the issue of reliable sources in Wikipedia. Hoverfish Talk 04:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Hoverfish, in a court of law this would be dismissed as "hearsay". If you want it to be taken into account, then please could you also provide some evidence. An attempt to discern what really happened between Shepherd (and his mother) and the English Baba group would require a detailed study of all the evidence. Hearsay from one side in that conflict is not sufficient. It would be like the judge in a court case hearing the evidence of one side only. Have you ever spoken to people after they have fallen out with one another (e.g. in cases of divorce)? You get one story from one side, and another story from the other side. Shepherd's point about Meher Baba's followers is that they constitute a de facto sect, whether or not they recognise themselves as such. They have a tomb, canonical texts, and sometimes display psychological traits characteristic of cult adherents (I visited the Meher Baba Centre in London in the 1990s, when Don Stevens was giving a talk, and I noticed how several of the other attendees attributed some very mundane coincidences to the deceased Meher Baba's intervention in their lives). I also think, in the interests of objectivity, that you should declare if you have a particular interest in Meher Baba. On this page, you describe yourself as "a reader of Baba-related literaure", which you distinguish from your Wikipedian role. Perhaps you could elaborate on this. My own credentials are clearly available on my User Page. Simon Kidd (talk) 05:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC) I must confess, as a new editor on Wikipedia I am finding this page somewhat surreal. So, please do forgive me if I seem a little naïve. As an observer, it appears to me that there are a number of personal agendas to be discerned in the comments being made on this page. To my mind, some are bordering on fanaticism, or pedantry gone mad.. I included a few of Kevin Shepherd’s books because (a) they provided a reliable, and verifiable, source of information on the subject, (b) I had found nothing that contradicts what Shepherd wrote, and (c) the material I have used from Shepherd’s books are relevant to the article. I had also included a predominant number of books from publishers who were specifically formed to specialise solely in books about Meher Baba to the exclusion of any other subject—books that are largely devotee-oriented in content. Now, I am prepared to accept the commonsense comment of the experienced editor DGG re Shepherd’s books, as recently posted on this page 27 Jan: “… the material here does not depend solely or even principally on him, he usually seems to be only a supporting source, often for what has another citation also, and I think they are usable in the context of the article under discussion.” I also accept the criticism of the article. I am currently engaged it trying to improve it, which will take several weeks to achieve. Can we now please move on? --Stephen Castro (talk) 12:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC) @Simon Kidd: I don't see how a court of law applies here. I can do whatever I like in my private life outside Wikipedia and I don't have to give any explanations about it in any discussion in Wikipedia in the interest of any objectivity. I did not write any books that are being quoted here, so my preferences outside Wikipedia are irrelevant. I also did not question anything about you. As far as I am concerned you are editing Wikipedia and this requires no credentials I should inspect. - What some followers of Meher Baba do 30 years after his death is their problem exclusively. If their group-organization passed as notable for Wikipadia and if there were a reliable source describing their behaviour, then one could use that information in an article. As things are till now, there is no group that one has to belong to be considered "follower" of Meher Baba's teachings and no official recognition of following. - Of course I distinguish between my interest in literature outside Wikipedia and what can be entered as information in an article. I consider various writers as "gems" in various fields and yet if their writings were brought in Wikipedia as articles or as sources for articles, I would expect them to comply with all the requirements of notability. Hoverfish Talk 13:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Additionally: "Hearsay from one side in that conflict"... I have never been on either side of the conflict. I merely mentioned that there has been a conflict, which you seem to confirm. I made no evaluation about it, but merely stated my doubt about Shepherd's neutrality in the issue. Hoverfish Talk 14:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of WP:RSN is to solicit uninvolved editor input. The noticeboard is not for the purpose of providing yet another battleground for the combatants to perpetuate their on- and off-Wiki disputes over the author and the subject matter. Thus, I have hatted this digression. I might well have hatted more.

Several uninvolved editors have given their opinions on the subject. I read the consensus as being that Shepherd's self-published books are not reliable sources under WP:RS. Whether or not he is an expert, he has never been published by a reputable third party publisher, and thus does not qualify for use under the limited exceptions of WP:SPS. Most of those commenting conclude that the sources should not be cited. While some editors are open to relaxing the requirements of WP:SPS, they note that sourcing is the least of the problems involved in the articles in which these sources are being used, and that it appears that there are better sources which do meet the requirements of WP:RS that should be used instead of Shepherd's books. Fladrif (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Fladrif, if that is the conclusion you have drawn from the above discussion, before others have had a chance to respond to legitimate points I have made (which you have relegated to obscurity), then all I can say is that this is a kangaroo court, and a travesty of due process. Simon Kidd (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Doubtless those apparently “better sources” being from publishers, quite often linked to a charitable trust, which specialise solely in books about Meher Baba, to the exclusion of any other subject. Such books are written by devotees of Meher Baba, for devotees of Meher Baba, and in the case of one multi-volume project, initially funded by devotee benefactors. Kevin Shepherd’s major work, Minds and Sociocultures: An Analysis of Religious and Dissenting Movements, was actually published by a third party publisher, namely Philosophical Press, Cambridge, in 1995. I do assure you, it was not a self-published work. --Stephen Castro (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Philosophical Press, Cambridge does not appear to be a reliable, third party publisher. I can locate no other book published by this publisher. Shepherd states on his website that it "was published by a freelance agent sympathetic to my work". [11] Fladrif (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

To confirm that the sympathetic agent was not also a small-time publisher, I just searched Cambridge University Library catalogue, which seemed a likely source in this case, and I could only find this one book from "Philosophical Press". My search (I know because I used to work there) should give complete results back to 1976 if not earlier.

I think Fladrif has summarised correctly, and I also sense that the disputants, aware perhaps of wasting their own time, are hoping to waste as much as possible of other people's. Andrew Dalby 09:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, thank you for looking into the matter. At least that book was not self-published. I don’t of course accept the “reading” of consensus by Fladrif that Shepherd’s books are unreliable. I have used his books now in two articles, and I believe to the improvement of those articles. The first article, Hazrat Babajan, was previously exclusively based on devotee-oriented publications, and the subject of that article used principally as a peg to fly the banner of Meher Baba. The edits I made, using further sources and references, which included Shepherd’s contribution, allowed Hazrat Babajan to be seen as a significant religious figure in her own right—a notable Sufi saint who had her own following and recognition. The use of Shepherd’s books in the context of an article to provide clarification for the reader, and for the improvement of that article, is something I will continue to do. --Stephen Castro (talk) 07:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• So, how do you read the consensus of uninvolved editors? What in my summary, which Andrew agrees is accurate, do you think misstates the NB consensus. It sounds like your version of NB consensus is that so long as you think a source is reliable and want to use it you're free to ignore noticeboard consensus on WP:RS and WP:SPS? Read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.Fladrif (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
• Also, "at least that book was not self-published" is a curious conclusion. When it is the only book published by a publisher, and the author identifies the publisher as a sympathetic agent, I would draw exactly the opposite conclusion. It is clearly not, even by the most fanciful of imaginations a "reliable third party publisher", which is the actual language of WP:SPS, regardless of the convenient shorthand often used here. Fladrif (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• I've been working on a response to post on the Talk Page, rather than here, and this will address my own concerns with this process in a comprehensive way. I haven't finished writing it yet, but I expect to post it within the next couple of days. This may cover the same ground as Stephen Castro, but probably in more detail. Simon Kidd (talk) 14:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• I have already stated on this page that I accept the commonsense comment of the experienced editor DGG re Shepherd’s books: “… the material here does not depend solely or even principally on him, he usually seems to be only a supporting source, often for what has another citation also, and I think they are usable in the context of the article under discussion.” I happen to agree with that commonsense view, and as I have extensive knowledge on the subject of the article, I will use my own editorial discretion in the sources used. I have tried to provide a balance of devotee and non-devotee publications regarding the subject of the article. I actually know Shepherd is a reliable source of information on the subject, and also the most comprehensive source available out of all the books listed in the Bibliography. --Stephen Castro (talk) 17:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Four Five neutral, disinterested, uninvolved editors with extensive experience at RSN conclude that Shepherd's books do not qualify as reliable sources. One neutral, disinterested, uninvolved editor with extensive experience at RSN concludes that Shepherd isn't notable, the books could not be used in a BLP, but his books are mostly being used only as supplemental citations for material already supported by other reliable sources, and the article in question is such a mess that whether or not you use Shepherd's books hardly matters. Consensus isn't a vote, but you're going with that ringing endorsement over the 80%83.33% landslide that says they shouldn't be used.Fladrif (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not count myself in the consensus, but I still count 5 opinions against (AndyTheGrump, Fladrif, Dmcq, Will Beback, Andrew Dalby) against one of DDG. Am I wrong? Hoverfish Talk 17:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You're right. Ever since that unfortunate incident using the lawnmower as a hedgeclipper, I get confused with numbers over three. Higher math. Fladrif (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe that Stephen Castro is getting at a valid point, although I wouldn't express it the way he has, and it has nothing to do with a head count. I will post an extended response on the Talk Page over the weekend - I haven't had time this week, due to work commitments. Simon Kidd (talk) 03:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Once again, work and family commitments prevented me from completing my response over the weekend, but I am making progress with it and will post ASAP. Simon Kidd (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I have finally posted a statement on the Talk Page. Simon Kidd (talk) 13:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Disruption
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Since Fifelfoo has seen fit to hat my analysis as a "disruptive soapboox", I will copy the concluding points here in slightly modified form: 1. Fladrif states that the consensus of uninvolved editors is that "Shepherd's self-published books are not reliable sources under WP:RS". A little further down he says that it is a consensus of five against one. He doesn't specify who the five are, although Hoverfish provides the following list of those "against": AndyTheGrump, Fladrif, Dmcq, Will Beback and Andrew Dalby. By my count it is more like three (AndyTheGrump, Fladrif and Andrew Dalby) against two (DGG and Dmcq). Dmcq's position is ambivalent. And Will Beback's only comment was: "I strongly disagree with the view that if normally reliable sources sources can't be found for a topic we should lower the standards to use whatever is available. If the only good sources on a topic are self-published, or otherwise inadmissible, then we shouldn't cover that topic." Even if we accept that as a negative verdict on Shepherd (and ignore the fact that it raises some interesting issues for several of the NRM articles in Wikipedia), it is still four against two. But such a head count is not my major concern. 2. Before I turn to that, I want to finish examining Fladrif's attempt at a conclusion. He states: "While some editors are open to relaxing the requirements of WP:SPS, they note that sourcing is the least of the problems involved in the articles in which these sources are being used, and that it appears that there are better sources which do meet the requirements of WP:RS that should be used instead of Shepherd's books." This is misleading for several reasons. First, the "problems" referred to (by DGG) related only to one article (Meher Baba's critics), not to "articles" in the plural. Second, Fladrif consequently implies that there are "better sources" in all of the articles (plural) that cite Shepherd. Again, DGG was only referring to the article under question. It is quite simply inaccurate that other sources are more reliable than Shepherd in the articles that cite him. This point was made by DGG in 2010 in the context of the Sai Baba of Shirdi article, when he stated that Shepherd's published books are "considerably more acceptable than many of the other sources in the article". This was his conclusion as a non-specialist in the area, and it is confirmed by my experience, as outlined above. Stephen Castro made the point again, in response to Fladrif: "Doubtless those apparently 'better sources' being from publishers, quite often linked to a charitable trust, which specialise solely in books about Meher Baba, to the exclusion of any other subject. Such books are written by devotees of Meher Baba, for devotees of Meher Baba, and in the case of one multi-volume project, initially funded by devotee benefactors." But this point of Castro's was ignored, in favour of a digression. 3. The preceding point is important, because Fladrif accepts the reality that some editors are open to relaxing the requirements of WP:SPS, but he rejects this possibility not (as he did earlier) because of a "threshold test", but because of a mistaken belief that the other editors claim that there are more reliable sources in the articles that cite Shepherd. I have indicated that the opposite is actually the case. First, DGG said that Shepherd was more reliable in the Shirdi Sai Baba article. Second, Shepherd is no more unreliable than authors published by organizations associated with the subjects of NRM articles; indeed, in my experience, he is more reliable. Third, Shepherd is at least as reliable as Rigopoulos and Warren, who were both devotees of Sathya Sai Baba when they wrote their books, and Warren expressed her own misgivings about Rigopoulos' blind acceptance of statements by his guru. 4. Returning to the "head count", in the context of Fladrif's misleading statements I believe that such a count is meaningless. As a philosopher, I find that the whole discussion on this page lacks any rigour. Points are made and then not addressed (such as Shepherd's possession of primary source materials, raised by me and noted favourably by Dmcq), and even obscured by "hatting". Inaccuracies are purveyed, such as the one by Fladrif that I have just described. 5. As far as I can see, it is not a question of how many are "for" and "against", but of what arguments are "for" and "against". I believe that there are several arguments "for" Shepherd's inclusion in a handful of NRM articles. First, Shepherd has been cited in these articles for several years, and the only questions about his reliability have come from sectarian interests (SSS108 and WikiUserTalk, for example). Second, Shepherd is at least as reliable (and often more reliable) than other sources cited in these articles, as recognised by DGG. Third, Shepherd has been cited approvingly by academics in the field. Fourth, Shepherd is in possession of unpublished primary-source material. Fifth, none of the subjects of these articles is alive (thus avoiding any BLP issues). 6. Standing against these arguments is, I believe, only one argument, which has been referred to as the "threshold test". This is that Shepherd hasn't "previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Two of the contributors (DGG and Dmcq) make a case for relaxing this, based on the context of unreliable NRM sources in general. To my mind, a small majority in favour of a single "against" argument should not sway a minority in favour of several "for" arguments, especially in a process that exhibits such a lack of rigour. 7. In all of the above, I am not arguing for a wholesale purge of unreliable sources in NRM articles. DGG's argument is the most realistic here: "most sources in this general subject, with the exception of a few widely regarded works, are less than satisfactory ... all we can do is achieve the balance of opposing unsatisfactory sources. Actually, quite a bit of the world is this way. Sources are not reliable vs. unreliable - they are of varying degrees of reliability. We use the best of what we can get. The above is I think either generally accepted at Wikipedia, or in my opinion ought to be." We are talking about historical, not scientific, evidence here. Shepherd is one source among others, and it is the responsibility of article writers to satisfy themselves of the reliability of their sources. One way of achieving this is obviously by "triangulating" different sources, and not relying on a single source. For factual points, my own policy is to use the earliest reference first, if I have access to it. I would only use later sources if there was some question about the reliability of earlier ones. An example of my putting this policy into practice can be seen in my recent editing of Azar Kayvan (see note 2). 8. Furthermore, as per the reliable sources guideline (Statements of opinion), I can't see why Shepherd's books should not be regarded as reliable sources for his own opinion, which is an informed opinion that has been cited by Rigopoulos and Warren. As long as the standard scholarly convention is followed, inserting the inline qualifier "Shepherd claims that ..." or "According to Shepherd ..." and so on. 9. Finally, if an author like Shepherd is caught in the "net" of the so-called "threshold test", then I think it is time to take another look at this test. After all, the policies and guidelines have evolved to their current state to meet the various exigencies of providing reliable information. I would imagine that an author like Shepherd is rare, perhaps even unique in Wikipedia annals. He may be a "test case" for existing policy. The relevant part of SPS would only need to be modified slightly, perhaps along the following lines: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. In exceptional circumstances, a self-published author may be acceptable if he has multiple publications, over a sustained period, uses the scholarly apparatus, and is cited by other (preferably academic) authors." 10. In conclusion, Shepherd is a significant contributor in a relatively obscure area of academic interest. It is an area where sources tend to be unreliable in general. His books have been cited favourably by academics in the field, in spite of their own devotional biases. The distribution of his books across major libraries in the English-language-speaking world is as widespread as that of such academics. He has been accepted as a source in the NRM area by an experienced editor and administrator (DGG), in spite of long-standing (albeit intermittent) hostility from some sectarian editors. His own published books have been informed by unique primary-source material. And perhaps the most significant point of all, as well as the simplest and most obvious: no editor has ever demonstrated a single unreliable fact in any of Shepherd's cited books. This is one of the recommendations covered by the advisory comment at the top of this page. Smartse fails to provide, as per point number 4, any "exact statement in the article that the source is supporting", let alone that the source is unreliable. Simon Kidd (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC) I would simply like to point out that beyond the recently created article Critics of Meher Baba, references to Kevin R. D. Shepherd have also been included in the following articles: Holotropic Breathwork, Upasni Maharaj, Sai Baba of Shirdi, Azar Kayvan, Sheriar Mundegar Irani and Hazrat Babajan. Hoverfish Talk 22:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Also in several of these articles, references to the very books said to be by devotees of Meher Baba, in particular by Bhau Kalchuri, have been added by Simon Kidd himself. That there is a serious lack of notable secondary literature on Meher Baba is a well known fact. Even the reviewer of the biography article pointed this out. Hoverfish Talk 09:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC) Hoverfish, apart from the Azar Kayvan and Upasni Maharaj articles, can you please point out where I added "references to the very books said to be by devotees of Meher Baba", since you say that I added references to them in "several" articles, and I have no recollection of adding any others. In any case, I'm not sure what your point is. I've never said that Kalchuri or anyone else shouldn't be used in these articles, merely that I can't see why Shepherd is being singled out, since he's at least as reliable as many of the other sources, and probably more reliable (as DGG pointed out in 2010). A couple of the articles you mention are instructive in this regard. In Azar Kayvan, I corrected another editor who supplied the muddled quote from Kalchuri. In the footnote, I drew attention to the error in Kalchuri, which is contradicted by the more reliable quote from The Glow (as well as other evidence from Kalchuri himself). When Shepherd refers to this episode, he appears to use The Glow, since he doesn't perpetuate Kalchuri's mistake. In the Upasni Maharaj article (footnote 1), I pointed out that Shepherd contests the reliability of Narasimha's biography of the subject, based on a diary entry by Kishan Singh in September 1954 (published in The Glow). According to Singh, Meher Baba said of Narasimha's work: "Half of it is good and half of it absolute nonsense". Shepherd points out that neither Rigopoulos (The Life and Teachings of Sai Baba of Shirdi) nor Warren (Unraveling the Enigma: Shirdi Sai Baba in the Light of Sufism) show any acquaintance with the Kishan Singh diary in their accounts of Upasni. In these cases, I have only referred to the devotees' books in order to draw attention to their unreliability! All of this information could be useful to researchers in the future. Simon Kidd (talk) 12:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Penumbra (band)

The page of the band 'Penumbra' on wikipedia, says that the band is active from 1996 till present. But I did some reasearch on some different information sources, and I came to the conclusion that the band has split-up in 2009, cause the only sourses that say Penumbra is still active, are wikipedia and sites based on wikipedia. Metalarchive says they've split-up, and their last.fm biography stops at 2009. Their Myspace has a comment about them being split-up. So I think it's pretty clear Penumbra isn't active anymore. I edited the wikipedia page saying "1996 - present" to "1996-2009". I would appreciate it when this edit gets confirmed, except if anyone thinks the band is still active, I don't know them personnaly, so I'm not 100% sure, but I'm like 90% sure they've split-up in 2009.

Hi. Please sign your posts in the future with brackets and four tildes ~.

Your edits won't stand in the article if they are not sourced to a WP:RS. I'd suggest you check out WP:Five Pillars to start with. This Notice board helps readers determine whether sources are in fact reliable and can actually be used to support content in articles. So you might look for reliable sources to support your contention that the band is no longer active. (olive (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC))

Correct, if you have been reading sources and found this information by all means put it in Wikipedia, but mention where you got it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:12, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The Making of Modern Israel

The book The Making of Modern Israel by Leslie Stein has been cited in 1948 Palestinian exodus, and other hot-button pages, in support of contentious and novel assessments of the historical narrative. I have never before heard of the book or the author, and am struggling to ascertain its reliability. Although there are nearly 70,000 Google hits for the title, almost all are Amazon or other bookshop sites. Looking closely, I have found one critical review on Tikkun, and one, possibly supportive, behind a pay-wall at Social Science Research Network. I have found precisely 0 reviews at Google News archives. Although Stein is described on the Amazon website as a "Senior Research Fellow at Macquarie University", he is neither a historian nor a Middle East expert; his field of studies appears to be development, and in particular the Japanese economy. Given this, and in the apparent absence of any serious peer reviews of the book, can it be regarded as a reliable source for contentious statements? RolandR (talk) 10:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's some stuff I found in a 2 minute search. Not sure how you only came up with Tikkun.

• polity [12] quotes blurbs from various reviews in some reliable sources.
• Israel Studies Review [13] (can't read the actual review, but someone took the trouble to review the book)
• The Australian Jewish News [14]

Then I stopped looking. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

As TDA notes, Google gives different results, depending not only on geography, but also on previous searches. I had seen the first site you quote, but blurbs are certainly no evidence of anything. I too can't actually read the ISR review. It's significant that the review in Australian Jewish News (which I had not found in my Google search) states "He is unashamedly pro-Israel, and at times some readers may feel he is too one-sided"; this does not inspire me with confidence in the book's reliability. RolandR (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I found these links: [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]. Sometimes Google doesn't give us the best results first time around and different countries may have different issues searching for sources. Stein appears to be mentioned in a few notable places. Of course, that does not make Stein reliable in general. However, there is a tier system of reliability in my opinion and, in this case, Stein certainly meets the threshold for inclusion as representing a prominent view on the Arab-Israeli conflict. He should not be treated as an authoritative source on what actually happened, but his views are worthy of inclusion with the typical considerations we give partisan sources.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

How did you came to the conclusion that he is a partisan source?--Shrike (talk) 05:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments from reviews: "Stein’s work is in many ways a partisan account of the early years of Israel’s existence"[21]; "While Stein takes pains to declare himself a dispassionate historian, he is clearly making an argument"[22]; "He is unashamedly pro-Israel, and at times some readers may feel he is too one-sided"[23]; "He remains cocooned in his avowedly unashamed sympathy for 'Israel's general plight'."[24]; "Stein is a proud Zionist and never questions the murderous rampage of Zionist fighters against the British before Israel's birth"[25]. Thewre is barely a mention which does not note the author's bias, and the author himself states that he is "unashamedly sympathetic to Israel's general plight". This is clearly a partisan source, whether reliable or not. RolandR (talk) 11:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

This should placate the editor who opened this discussion

• The book is from a well-known publisher Polity that publishes scholarly texts[26].

• It is subject to a vetting process and peer review which makes it compliant with WP:RS. It is readily available and verifiable per WP:V.
• The author has published a number of scholarly texts[27]
• The book has been listed as a “good read” on the Barnes & Noble website[28]
• And here is the publisher’s Synopsis and exhaustive list of peer review and accolades (cut and pasted):
  • "Israel moves forward. Palestine stands still. Israel builds its future. Palestine guards its past. Stein's work provides a good introduction to this sad saga for the perplexed and the uninitiated." History Today "This volume could very well last as required reading about Israeli history for the next decade to come." Shofar: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Jewish Studies "Stein takes us on a fascinating tour, highlighting major and lesser events in the history of young Israel." Democracy and Security "Balanced, well researched and will substantially extend the knowledge of any student of Israeli history." Birmingham Jewish Recorder "Leslie Stein explains in this eloquent, highly readable and well-researched study how the Israeli state overcame the threat to its existence and emerged as the most feared military power in the Middle East ... Stein's account of the events leading up to the 1967 war is one of the most masterly and lucid to appear in years ... There is little doubt that his study will be viewed as an indispensible authority on one of the most intractable conflicts of our time." Tribune "This book can serve as a refresher course for more knowledgable readers and a sound introduction for novices." Hadassah Magazine "There is little left uncovered in this up-to-date and meticulously researched book. Anybody wanting a quick and easily understandable account of Israel's formative years would do well to read this refreshing, informative and concise telling." Canadian Jewish News "He offers a good historic overview of the respective period, his book is elegantly written, easy to read and his knowledge of the material is broad." H-Soz-u-Kult "Any reader of this book, however familiar he or she is with the history of this crucial period, is bound to learn something." Jerusalem Post "The deeper into the twenty-first century we get the less we know about the twentieth. This ignorance has so distorted even educated people's grasp of the conflict between Israel and its Palestinian and other Arab neighbours that public discussion of it routinely descends into half-bias, half drivel. Leslie Stein's elegant and learned book is, first of all, truthful, a rare enough quality in this research area. Beyond that, it is well written and argumentative in the sense that his topic requires. The years 1948-1967 constitute the crucible of discord. Without a clear understand of these two decades, which this volume so amply provides, the citizen is in the desert with only mirages to (mis)lead him or her." Martin Peretz, Editor-In-Chief of The New Republic "With great verve and a robust appreciation for the Zionist achievement, Leslie Stein accurately captures the drama, excitement and danger of the fledgling Jewish state's first two decades, thus putting its current tribulations in perspective. Daniel Pipes, Director of The Middle East Forum (Pennsylvania) and Taube/Diller distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University "The Making of Modern Israel is an invaluable contribution to our understanding of one of history's most extraordinary and inspiring stories. Leslie Stein is to be commended for authoring what is certain to become an indispensible resource for scholars, decision-makers, and students." Michael Oren, Senior Fellow at the Shalem Center, Jerusalem and author of Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East "Continuing his masterful previous history of Israel before statehood, Leslie Stein tells the complicated story of the state's first nineteen years in this highly readable, admirably concise and eminently fair-minded account. Threading his way deftly through controversial minefields with sure footing, Stein manages to convey the best up-to-date scholarship with unusual clarity. This book is strongly recommended for the general reader and as an excellent introductory text for the classroom." Alan Dowty, Emeritus Professor of University of Notre Dame and author of Israel/Palestine "Anyone who wants to find the way through the internal politics and external wars that accompanied Israel in its early and formative years can rely on Professor Stein. He gives it straight. This ought to become a standard work on the emergence of Israel to the place it holds on the international scene." David Pryce-Jones, former senior editor of National Review, former literary editor of the Financial Times and of the Spectator and author of The Closed Circle--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 07:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The contentious information is :

Some historians have argued that if anyone was seeking the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, it was the Arabs who were seeking to ethnically cleanse the region of its Jewish population. They point toward the ever-increasing vitriolic rhetoric espoused by various Arab leaders and commanders in connection with their plans for the Jews of Palestine.

As mentionned here above, this is a wp:rs source.
But more, this is not totally speculative. It is true that the wording could be neutralized : the sentence : if anyone was seeking the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, it was the Arabs is pejorative. But the information that some historians argue (this part is important !) that Arab [and some of their leaders] wanted to exterminate the Jews is true. Benny Morris in his last book 1948, Efraim Karsh in Palestine Betrayed, Zvi Elpeleg in his biography of the Mufti, Klaus-Michael Mallmann in Nazi Palestine argue this. To be perfectly NPoV, the arguments they use to justify this and the arguments given by others against this should be introduced too. Eg, Yoav Gelber wrote that it is speculative (and not scientific) to try to give the aims of the Arabs given we don't have access to Arab sources of the period ; Benny Morris support the idea that Islam is antisemite ; Karsh choses some quotes (and forget others) such as the fake Azzam one, ... 87.66.170.243 (talk) 10:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Regarding the author, Leslie Stein is an Associate Professor in the Department of Economics, Macquarie University. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

One of the reviews above says concerning Stein's book that "Stein estimates that the victorious Israelis expelled half of the 800,000 Palestinians displaced." This doesn't dovetail very well with the text that's being proposed based on this book. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

@Dailycare : on the contrary. It proves this guy is very neutral.

• about half of the Palestinian refugees of '48 were expelled (particularly during operations Nachshon, Dani, Hiram and Yoav). Morry writes this in his book 1948 and this explains why several historians compare or claim Israelis performed an ethnic cleansing.
• but Morris also claims (and several others given here above) that, would the Arabs have won, they would have done the same.

If Leslie Stein reports both these points of view, it is good for his reliability.

(It seems it is a tertiary source).

@RolandR : "This is clearly a partisan source, whether reliable or not."

He seems to look a little bit like Morris. He is one-sided as a person but reliable and more neutral in his profession. I underline I don't know this author but he seems worth reading even if disappointment could come after this reading. A good review by Daniel Pipes is of course a very bad point.

@all : another review : "On the whole, it is not easy to judge Stein’s “The Making of Modern Israel”. He offers a good historic overview of the respective period, his book is elegantly written, easy to read and his knowledge of the material is broad. The strong points of the book are to be found when he describes domestic developments and political decision makings. Yet the book is troublesome in the sense, that he is at times overtly Zionistic and thus in his judgments often very one sided and apologetic. Consequently he rejects findings of the so called New Historians like Avi Shlaim or Ilan Pappe right out of hand, with the partial exception of Benny Morris. But even the latter’s works are hardly incorporated when reaching critical conclusions. Thus the weakest point of the book is the almost total declining or ignoring of most of the findings of the New Historians."

91.180.49.186 (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

If Stein says that the Israelis expelled half of the refugees directly, then does Stein really say that it was really the Arabs who were seeking to ethnically cleanse the area? I think that's a key question. If Stein says both things, then it would be easy to agree with the reviews of Stein that say he's very partisan. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

• Stein doesn't really try to hide his partisan orientation. But I just want to call attention here to what he writes in his preface:

"Based mainly on secondary sources, this book is grounded in a wide study of the received literature, both in Hebrew and English. Hopefully its strength lies in a judicious synthesis of the published material yielding the reader a reliable and novel account of Israel's fateful and turbulent infancy. Although unashamedly sympathetic to Israel's general plight, I have not stinted in reporting the country's blemishes and occasional misdeeds."

Hmm. "Fateful"? "Occasional misdeeds"? So Stein has no training or academic credentials in history, right? And he's not done historical research himself to produce this book, i.e. his comments indicate he hasn't interviewed people who actually took part in the events he narrates, nor has he read, investigated, or compared primary source documents, either. What he did do was read the results of actual historical research and find a publisher for what he thinks is a "judicious synthesis" of what he read. So if any of us did exactly the same thing to produce our own "judicious synthesis" that was "unabashedly sympathetic" to the side we each prefer, how would that be different? And he's "unashamedly sympathetic" to the plight of Israel, but makes no mention of sympathy for the plight of Palestinians? Maybe that's because the conditions they live under are so much better than those Israelis live under? Unashamedly sympathetic, indeed.  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Per WP:HISTRS, Stein's absence of historical training, Stein's poor reviews (Shofar 29.1 2010 says, "for students and sophisticated lay readers. ... revisit in overly lavish detail the few topics which will be familiar to many or most readers, while neglecting topics which are prominent in Israeli culture and society but are somewhat less known outside of Israel." "On some topics, Stein's discussions might have benefited from reference to literary texts or recent scholarship." Don't use, it doesn't represent the standards of historical scholarship. Especially per IP91's review. Why not try Benny Morris One State, Two States Yale University Press ISBN 978 0300122817? Fifelfoo (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. How does one economist become "some historians"? Even if Stein is a reliable source, this opinion should be reported as "According to Leslie Stein..." or "According to one economist...". Zero^talk 10:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I agree. Nothing wrong with using a source like this in most cases, even if Fifelfoo is right to point out that it is not perfect. But for this subject obvious caution is necessary and it needs to be kept quite firmly in mind that the source is not ideal, especially if other editors are raising objections. For partisan (or arguably partisan) bits, attribution can at least be used, but other sources might be better.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Joan Shawlee

Hi. Based upon the request of another editor, I would like to know if this reference link is acceptable to confirm the actress in question's date of birth. Given that these records are based on those of the Social Security Administration, while they are not 100% accurate due to either human error (I have a sadly deceased personal acquaintance whose date of birth was January 17, 1935, but appears on SSDI as January 18, 1935) or false dates provided, it appears to be a reliable source, certainly reliable enough to use in the absence of any source. Thanks for your advice. Quis separabit? 19:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm the "another editor" (sounds vaguely naughty). I was noting my concern for its use in this particular article as a review of previous discussions on this board revealed a hesitance to fully accept the reliability of many of the online genealogical databases, and it contradicts the New York Times obituary that I had included as a reference. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand Ponyo's concerns but beg to point out that the Associated Press (AP) merely (and I don't know how) provided an estimated age due to a lack of info. Shawlee was not particularly famous and apparently had no close family or children to provide any date of birth so it was not pursued. However she died in 1987, and we all agree the world has changed a tad since then. In this instance there is no competing year of birth from any reliable or semi-reliable source, only an age estimation from the AP from a quarter century ago.

Just to add my two cents (or five cents, whatever the going rate is these days), it is a tad concerning that information gleaned from such sources as the U.S. Social Security Administration (Social Security Death Index), census records (ancestry.com), Burke's Peerage (thepeerage.org) and the General Registry Office of England and Wales (findmypast.co.uk) are apparently seen by other Wikipedia editors and my peers, whom I respect, as generally semi-unreliable sources. There are some editors who rely on Caskets on Parade/Book of the Dead (http://daggy.name/cop/bkofdead/index.htm), which is replete with errors. I believe, as a rule of thumb, then, that unless a competing date/year of birth is proferred from an equally or more reliable source that information gleaned from these sources be allowed to stand until/unless a valid challenge is raised,and then each case be handled on an individual basis. Yours, Quis separabit? 20:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed that you have commented above about findmypast.co.uk and I will put in a reply up there. The case isn't quite the same (I think).

In general, I'd say, it is useful to be able to cite intermediate sources that mirror or reflect solid reliable sources that are otherwise inaccessible online. I think, if we are confident that the mirroring is reliably done, we should be prepared to use such citations. As we do, for example, with Google Books and archive.org. Of course it's much less attractive, and less useful to our readers, if these intermediate sites set up a paywall. In such a case, they are not in fact increasing the general availability of the information. So, without banning paysites, we should prefer sites that are free and contain reliable information. Andrew Dalby 09:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh I agree. I don't like having to spend my own money buying credits, etc. Findmypast.co.uk is £6 for like 50 credits or something (I don't remember exactly) and Intelius is $1.95 per individual search (it's cheaper if you buy a package, but I choose not to since I don't use it that often), but it is what it is. Sometimes curiosity or the need to confirm something leads me to have to pay. Isn't that what information is coming to anyway, like the New York Times's digitization? Yours, Quis separabit? 21:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Mmm ... I know what you mean; but we don't quite know whether it's going that way or not. The jury's out. There is also vastly more free information on the Web than there was, say, three years ago. Since we as Wikipedians are providing free information, our best friends are other good sites that provide free information :) Andrew Dalby 09:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hah, so the California Death index at Rootsweb [29] gives the same date but 1927 as a YOB. Perhaps a footnote would work in the article? – Connormah (talk) 04:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

How is www.familytreelegends.com even close to being a reliable source for this date of birth? It claims she was born on 5 Mar 1926, and died in May 1987. The problem with that is the Associated Press article of March 31, 1987 saying she died March 22. So are we planning to ignore the fact they have her death date completely wrong and assume they have her birth date correct? 86.183.59.192 (talk) 20:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a problem with all primary sources, but sometimes citing a primary source is acceptable. If it is one filled with errors or there is some other reason for doubt, we can attribute it ("According to...") and let readers understand where it comes from. Note that I am assuming this site is one of those genealogical sites which contains lots of old published records. User generated content on such sites, such as family trees etc, is another more difficult matter. I basically think all Andrew Dalby's comments are about right.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarism vs. third party publication, RS or not?

Question: If a newspaper article is a blatant copyvio of a primary source (i.e., a verbatim copy of a primary source), can one claim that the newspaper article is a reliable third party source for the information?

Some context:

1. User:TopGun added several references to back a claim in the article Rashid Minhas.
2. I showed that the original source of the info is a COI/POV source (the subject's employer/Pakistan Airforce), and the other references either copied from it verbatim sans any attribution, or are from the non-RS Pakdef.info site (See here for the consensus on Pakdef.info's non-RS nature).
3. TopGun now claims that, since he considers one of the venues of the plagiarized content to be a notable news source, therefore the information has been "published" by a reputable reliable source, and hence can be used directly without qualifiers.

My question is: when a news article demonstrably plagiarizes from a primary source (and has no content other than the copy-pasted text), does it become (a) a third party source for the information, and (b) a reliable source for the information?

More details of the context can be found here. --Ragib (talk) 09:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

A copyvio is not "cured" by saying "someone else committed it". If it is a copyvio, it is a copyvio. If we know it is a copyvio, then it is still a copyvio. Collect (talk) 12:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

This isn't an issue of a copyright violation, and to call it plagiarism is to misconstrue what is really going on. Having glanced at the RSN Archive linked above, I see more heat than light. I see this situation as comparable to the instances, which we see all the time here, of a press release simply being printed by a news organization verbatim, without it being identified as a press release. The best practice in such instances is for us to treat the publication of something by a legitimate news organization as a RS but, where we know it is a press release, attribute it even if the news organization does not. Fladrif (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

If the work is a verbatim copy of a primary source, treat the work as primary (and note in the citation, what the source copied is). Republication of a primary source does not change its primary nature. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Re-publication of a press release is not necessarily a copyright violation. People issue them for the express purpose of getting them published, after all.

What changes when the periodical re-published the press release (perhaps verbatim, perhaps with minimal tweaking) is not the primary-secondary-tertiary nature of the source—it's still a primary source, and you may still WP:USEPRIMARY sources in limited ways—but the addition of editorial oversight and subjecting the content to the same (perhaps minimal) fact-checking that the publication normally employs. That means that it is technically a legitimately published news story (and still a primary source).

We have had a problem in the past with editors saying, "Oh, but I magically know that they didn't fact-check this paragraph in this newspaper story, so we can't use that material", and that's Not Okay. If the newspaper editor approved the story, then you have to assume that it meets their (possibly low) standards. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a confusion here. There was NO press release. The news site essentially lifted content verbatim off the Pakistan Army/Air Force's website without any attribution. --Ragib (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

An organization might issue the same text in several forms, for example, as a press release and on its web site. The fact that a newspaper article is virtually the same as an organization's web site does not prove, by itself, the newspaper didn't get the information from a press release. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

No confusion. I didn't say this was a matter of reprinting a press release; I said that this was comparable to reprinting a press release. I think that, in this context, the issues and analysis at RSN should be pretty much the same as with reprinting a press release. Fladrif (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Because this noticeboard is not about copyright, which is a complicated subject, the most important thing to say is that yes, when something gets taken up and printed by an RS it does give it some respectability. I think the question of whether it becomes "secondary" is a good example of why trying to define reliability based on the primary/ secondary/ tertiary distinction is like trying to define a fixed point on something moving. It is often easier to define whether something has a reputation for being reliable than to say whether it is secondary.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Genealogies on Wikipedia

Do genealogical articles (such as Romney family and Pratt family requires sources for the genealogical claims? Or is WP:PRESERVE paramount over WP:RS? The articles at this point are heavily unsourced genealogical OR and SYNTH as far as I can tell, and past practice has been that Wikipedia does not use commercial "genealogical sites" for sources. Ought this be changed? Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd start by suggesting that they need sources to establish notability. Everyone has ancestors (lots of them), but so what? If there isn't a source for the genealogy without resorting to WP:OR, we shouldn't have an article in the first place. And with regard to commercial "genealogical sites", given their propensity to scatter disclaimers over their 'data', I'd be inclined to treat them with scepticism until evidence to the contrary is proffered. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Posit that the "family" is notable - do claims made in the "genealogy" need genuine WP:RS sources, or is the existence of the family sufficient to obviate the use of sources for genealogical claims? Thanks. Collect (talk) 03:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I would think not. Genealogies are basically OR performed by various family members, which explains why different family members can come to different conclusions in their own genealogical research. If they ever stuck their heads together and did more serious and expert research, they might discover who is making errors and come up with a definitive, single, version. If such a version were conclusively endorsed by known historical experts in such matters, IOW third party sources, we might be able to accept such a version, but otherwise its basically OR which we can't endorse. We just need to be cautious and depend on third party sources. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course these articles need citations -- why would they be any different to the rest of the enyclopaedia? Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Question - Whereas the Romney family article, mentioned by the OP, is, as of now, reasonably well-sourced in its content, that pertaining to the Kennnedy-Shrivers contains en toto a mere half-dozen citations for its entire, exhaustive listings. Rather than WP's merely appending {{fact}} tags, per wp:PRESERVE, to so many of the names listed, would we be perhaps better off were we to jettis this article's pedigree table and many of the entries included in its various lists and start from scratch? What do other editors think?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 09:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Reasonably sourced? About half at most - with a huge amont dependent on OR at best. The Pratt one? Virtually all unsourced per WP:RS. Huge leaps of genealogical research based on flimsy material - kuje Mitt Romney saying his or great-great-grandfather was Parley P. Pratt "maybe" and similar strong genealogical sourcing. The policy requires that the unsourced stuff be simply removed - that much is clear. Wikipedia is not Ancestry.com. Collect (talk) 13:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

    The policies require that unsourceABLE material be removed, not that unsourcED material be removed. If it is possible to provide a reliable source for the information, then you are not required to remove it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Indeed, WP:V states that "Any material that requires a citation but does not have one may be removed." (my emphasis) Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• And WP:BLP has rather more strict words (not just "may be removed") - recalling that many of those in the "genealogy" are not yet dead. This is not a matter of simply saying "someone may be able to find a source" since the only source proffered in much of this is not WP:RS by a mile <g>. Collect (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Or not: BLP only applies to living people (I'll bet that Parley Pratt has been dead for a number of decades) and it only applies to contentious claims. And even then, BLP does not prohibit you from supplying a reliable source yourself. "The only source proffered in the article" is not the same thing as "the only source that's ever been published in the entire world". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Nevertheless, Collect would be perfectly justified in removing the unsourced material. Anyone who wanted to restore it would face the WP:BURDEN of finding sources to verify it. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and there is no need for articles on notable families to carry the whole genealogy. They should concentrate on the notable family members, and if possible should be a narrative rather than a family tree. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, many (most?) notable individuals have only non-notable ancestors. Thus including a genealogy at all should only be done for the few that really do qualify. Roger (talk) 14:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - The removal of notable wives' names (eg Ann Romney|Ann]], Lenore) names I thought was simple institutional wp:BIAS. But now that the name of principals have been removed, there appears to be an actual bigotry at play. But, pushing that impression aside and resuming an assumption of good faith, I offer the questions: The lede, as sourced, at Pratt family defines it as descended from P.P.Pratt, so what would justify removal of him from ensuing list? And the lede at Romney family (US) defines it as notable primary due to G.Romney, so what would justify removal of him from that article's list?--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• The P.P. Pratt listing was contributed in the Pratt family article's very first edit in 2005, by User:Dr U and was there for five years, until its recent deletion. Yet in the article's current references #s 2 and 3 (Reuters use of info from Mormon studies scholar Brooks and the article by historian Bowman) are quotes referencing notable familial descents from, specifically, Parley Pratt.
• (And, as for the Romney family article, George Romney, Mitt, or both are mentioned in, for example, just about each one of the article's current first dozen references, so I don't follow the reasoning behind deleting their respective entries in the Romney family article's list, either.)
• WP is a tertiary source and can but rely on the available sources. So, the bottom line is, since the "Romney family" article's sources amply demonstrate that George's mom, Anna's, (paternal) grandfather was P.P. Pratt, this relationship between the two families is what the Romney family article should continue to reflect. Sure, per user:Collect's argument (taking it at face value--which may ohl=enr may not be a fool's errand)...it's absolutely within the realm of possibility--no matter how infinitely small--that George was misinformed/lied about this genealogy. Indeed, if a source is found that calls this relationship into question, then the text can and perhaps should be edited to shade in this doubt arising from the sourcing: eg, via "according to George" or some such formulation. Otherwise, WP should simply state the relationship, per the article's existing, ample sourcing on the point.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 03:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This diff is an open-and-shut case of improper removal of sourced content, when user:Collect deleted two citiations to a Jennifer Dobner and Glen Johnson Associated Press story when deleting the article's summaries about George Romney and Mitt Romney.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 10:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

.....Btw a google search of news sources turn up dozens of hits for "parley," "pratt," "romney." Here's ten I picked out at random:

1. (from 2 days ago) Nat'l Review
2. (from 2 days ago) George Mason Univ
3. AP
4. CNN
5. FOX
6. LA Times
7. Time
8. Boston Globe
9. NPR
10. SLC Tribune

Google Books produces 810 hits. Google Scholar even produces 180.

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:RS does not mean that every article with "pratt" and "romney" in it is a source for specific genealogical claims. Nor does it mean that claims not found in a source suddenly become usabe in any article at all. I fear that is the problem here -- but Wikipedia != Ancestry.com. Collect (talk) 13:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Broad statements not hewing to the facts at hand may convince the ill-informed but Wikipedians as a whole will be more convinced by interpretations of logic and events supportable by actual fact.

1. Wrt the erroneous claim that Collect did not remove sourced material: Note the fact that, e/g: (A.) There is a Pratt family article because George Romney's mother belongs to a family that is notable in its own right; yet, despite the score of sources that establish this connection, Collect insist that the two families have no connection. (B.) There is a score of sources that George and Mitt are in the Romney article, some providing individual vitae--yet Collect removed both entries in that article's list, along with the additional AP source, providing an accouting of the Romney clan's genealogy, which source had been appended to both.
2. Wrt the erroneous claim (wishful thinking?) that Wikipedia does not provide notable genealogical information: Note the fact that, e/g, the following categories are among those included below the article on Wikipedia about the Dunham-Obama-Robinsons (a combined article under the rubric of "Family of Barack Obama" because neither the Dunhams nor the Robinson families are notable independently from their relationship to the current US president):

   -Obama family
   -African American genealogy
   -African-American families
   -Families
   -American families
   -Genealogies of individuals
   -Family trees
   -First Families of the United States

   --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 02:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" is not a reason to violate Wikipedia policies. You are using such sources as "jared-pratt-family.org" which are blatantly not "reliable sources" for a genealogy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 04:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

To the contrary, a url need not even be provided. But I provide two for each citation. Double. Twice as many as just one. An infinite amount more than the number..."required."

The material in question was pubished in the late 19th century by the Improvement Era magazine and the Deseret News newspaper. The Association merely hosta a transcription of the same. Thus one can access the originals, via the citations, or one can review transcriptions of the same. (Btw, the Pratt Association was founded in the late 19th century by mathematician and scientist Orson Pratt. The associaion's historian, Matt Grow, co-authored (with preeminent Mormon studies scholar Terryl Givens) the biography of Parley Pratt that was published by Oxford Univ. Press in 2011. An entity is considered a reliable source about itself. In this case, the entity only hosts a transcription. The orig- .. -inals are accessible via the citation, along with the transcriptions. How can you delete photographs of 19th-century newspaper articles and an official Improvement Era webpage that hosts a copy of the magazine's old article--merely because the Pratt Association also provides a copy of this information? Is the Pratt Association some kind of tar baby for you that forever mars anything it touches? Things that were valid sources suddenly become invalid merely because the Association also hosts a transcript? --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 06:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

When user Collect engaged in the pointy prank of the removal of entries for Mitt, George, Lenore, Ann, et al, from the Romney family article's list, he simultaneously deleted a citation that was attached to both of the entries for Mitt and George referencing an AP story that had been hosted on the Fox News website. The AP story goes as follows:

Gaskell Romney, Mitt Romney's grandfather, was not a polygamist. He married Anna Amelia Pratt, the daughter of polygamists and the granddaughter of Parley P. Pratt, the apostle with 12 wives. Their marriage took place Feb. 20, 1895, in Dublan, Mexico.

Gaskell Romney had moved to Mexico with his parents in 1884 amid the proliferation of U.S. laws prohibiting "unlawful cohabitation." Anna Pratt was born in Utah but had emigrated to Mexico and lived in one of nine colonies established by the church over the border.

Gaskell Romney and Anna Pratt had seven children, including George Wilcken Romney, the former Michigan governor. He lived with his parents in Mexico until 1912, when the family returned to the United States.

George Romney married Lenore LaFount, who does not appear to have polygamy in her family tree. The couple, now deceased, had four children, including Mitt Romney.

If Collect has a source calling into doubt that Helaman-Pratt-daughter Anna begat George R., he should bring it to the fore (and we'll inform celebrated genealogist Gary Boyd Roberts, who henceforth can asterisk the same!).--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Read WP:NPA and note that the material I removed was unsourced or improperly sourced for the full claims as made in your genealogy article. Please finally read and understand WP:RS and the fact that a source must back up the entire claim being made. The edit you cite as being improper removed a link you created for the "Pratt family" - which was unsourced. It removed Miles Alonzo Romney which was unsourced. It removed Thomas Cottham Romeny also unsourced. It removed Vernon Romnay which was sourced to "politicalgraveyard.com" which is a site run by a single person and is not RS. And so on. Most did not even have an attempt at citing a source. Curiously enough, Wikipedia likes to have claims being sourced. This is not a "pointy" obsession of mine, it is not a "prank" - it is the rules. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

How does a family article that had been on Wikipedia for 6 1/2 years belong to me (who has hardly touched the material at "Romney family")? I am pointing out to the community that you had removed, for whatever your rationale and motivations, notable, sourced data from the article on shaky grounds.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not mean to impute ownership only that this is the article at issue. Moreover, the fact that an unsourced or insufficiently sourced article existed for any period of time does not change what Wikipedia policies state. Lastly, WP:RS is not "shaky grounds." Collect (talk) 00:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Concerning the original question of this posting, I think the answer is clear enough? Yes, articles about families should be verifiable and they should not be original research, just like every article. Of course we have many articles with no obvious sourcing, but they do not all necessarily need to be deleted. Many can be verified, and verifying is better than deleting when possible. Deleting things should not be justified by saying "its the rules". Every edit we do should aim to improve the encyclopedia. Consider WP:PRESERVE and WP:IAR. If a deletion is contested then in any case it should not be rushed through. Use the talk pages or noticeboards like this one. There should be no rush to delete.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Reliable paper; unreliable writer

What do we do when we have a paper that is presumptively an RS, but we know that the writer of the article in question, appearing in the paper, is not reliable but rather is questionable. For example, would we rely on an article in The New Republic that was written by Stephen Glass?--Epeefleche (talk) 08:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The reliability calculation has many factors and is unique to each situation. One thing to look for would be corrections or other responses from the editors. Stephen Glass's reporting was carefully reviewed and the editors determined which articles had problems and which didn't. The fact that he made up some facts didn't mean he made up all of them. So even with that example the answer depends on the exact source and the assertion it's being used for. How do we know that this writer is unreliable?   Will Beback  talk  08:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Which would be nice if we knew whichfacts weren't. Not all problem articles had full corrections made, which means use of such articles is problematic at best, and another source would outweigh it by an order of magnitude. I believe it is dictum that a person once convicted of perjury will not be believed on any issue at all? Collect (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a court of law. And this noticeboard doesn't answer hypothetical questions. Epeefleche, do you have a specific question relating to the use of a particular source as a reference for a particular statement? AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no useful generalizable answer to this question. The specifics of the case must be examined. What writer, what citation?Bali ultimate (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Given the above, I should come back when I have more specifics. I noticed that we have articles that list, inter alia, journalists who engaged in fraudulent activity. See, for example, Stephen Glass and Jayson Blair and some (though not all) of the other entries at List of hoaxes#Journalistic hoaxes and Journalistic scandal#See also. I was considering that -- if articles by such authors in RSs are not themselves considered RS material -- I would look to see if we have any such refs at the Project. But before I started looking, I thought I would check here as to how such refs would be considered at the end of the day. It seems that some editors would accept a Stephen Glass article as an RS ref in certain circumstances, and others might instead view him as having rebutted the presumption of reliability by his actions. Perhaps the issue is premature for this page, as a couple of editors suggest.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Stephen Glass' articles have been corrected or retracted by the New Republic, as have Blair's by the Times. Reliable sources are reliable not because they never print errors, but because they have a system in place to prevent or at least correct errors which do make it into print. We shouldn't be citing retracted work (unless we make clear that it was retracted). And we should strongly question the reliability of sources which fail to retract or correct errors when they're identified. MastCell ^Talk 18:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks. One issue (premature for this noticeboard, I understand) is whether or not the work of an author such as Glass or Blair loses the presumption of reliability (even if published in an RS) once he has been revealed to have written articles of this ilk. As to your point that the RSs have retracted or corrected these editors' error-ridden articles, we have the challenge that our online sources may carry the older articles. And don't necessarily indicate that the pieces that contain fabrications have been corrected or retracted by the RSs in question. See, for example, this article in Highbeam Business, which our wp article on Glass suggests (pointing to a questionable RS?) and which a NYT article indicates was one of Glass's fabrication-laden articles. But I understand that some editors consider this discussion premature.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
      • That's an excellent example of why we need to link the original source, not a copy of it hosted at marijuanalibrary.org or HighBeam. But I think you've identified a real problem, and I didn't mean to dismiss it. The problem isn't unique to Wikipedia - for example, a recent survey of the scientific literature found that retracted papers continued to be cited at an impressive rate, even after their retraction. The bottom line is that we need to be careful with sourcing. MastCell ^Talk 19:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• There is no useful generalizable principle to be found by discussing Glass or Blair. Even for evaluating an article by one of those two there is no generalizable principle. What source, what citation?Bali ultimate (talk) 19:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Reliability is an attribute of the publication not the writer. We expect that these publications will publish retractions for errors or false information. TFD (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2012 (UT/p>C)

Reliability can be an attribute of a publication or a writer. See the policy page. Perhaps a useful point to remember is that our policies do not say that we must include all things which can be reliably sourced. The policy works the other way around. So whenever we have reasons for doubts about a source, we can rightfully aim to avoid being controversial. Having said this, the area where this can go wrong is if a controversial source is a well-known one which needs to be mentioned in order to avoid breaking WP:NPOV.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley

I came across a citation:

Charles Cawley, Medieval Lands, Earls of Kent, Holand, retrieved on 2 May 2010

in Anne of York, Duchess of Exeter.

On further investigation it turns out to be:

• Cawley, Charles (3 June 2011). "Earls of Kent {1352}-1408, Holand". [http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/Intro.htm Medieval Lands]. Foundation for Medieval Genealogy. {{cite book}}: External link in |title= (help) (Contents)

As can be seen by this search Medieval Lands is used as a reference in over 500 Wikipedia articles.

The introduction says:

It must be emphasised that many areas still remain to be checked as the research is still incomplete. When consulting the documents, it should be assumed that any information which does not include references to primary source material falls into this category and should therefore be treated with the appropriate caution.

Also:

The "back-to-basics" approach to primary source material has produced many surprises. It has enabled numerous new discoveries to be made and many challenges to traditionally accepted family relationships to be proposed. By way of example, browse for Æthelberht King of Wessex (ENGLAND, ANGLO-SAXON and DANISH KINGS) and the wives of Péter Orseolo King of Hungary (HUNGARY, KINGS). The approach has also highlighted many cases where little supporting source material has so far been found, despite extensive research, indicating the possibly dubious nature of some supposed connections.

Is Medieval Lands a reliable source? If not then can it be used as a WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT? -- PBS (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any indication that this website is reliable for history. I can't see who the authors are or any affiliation with a university or reputable research institute. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The author appears to be Charles Cawley; the site states that "Charles Cawley is a retired corporate lawyer who now devotes himself full time to historical research".[30] So not a historian or an authority on medieval genealogy. RolandR (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• per WP:HISTRS, nope. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

We can't cite it as a reliable source because (so far as I know) Charles Cawley and his site aren't referenced as scholarly by academic sources. If I'm mistaken there, and they are so referenced, then that would change.

We can certainly cite it under "External links" -- it is an extremely useful site to serious readers because it cites primary sources scrupulously and because it says honestly where the sources have not yet been found. I don't know any site more useful for someone who's beginning to investigate a medieval family connection. If we only have 560 links to it, that's far too few, because many such people would start from Wikipedia and would be helped by a link to Medlands. Andrew Dalby 10:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Not rs, it is hosted by a genealogical website which is run by amateur volunteers. TFD (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

OK then the unanimous consensus from the few who have expressed an opinion here, it is not suitable as a secondary source how about for those facts in the source, where the source cites a reliable source under the WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT rule? -- PBS (talk) 09:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

If there's a middle way among the requirements of Saywhereyougotit, Reliablesources and Wereallydontmuchlikeprimarysources, I don't know what the middle way is. My method has been (a) if I have time, to check the sources that Charles Cawley cites, and cite them; (b) in any case, to ensure that Medieval Lands is among the external links. I expect someone else will come along with a better solution :) Andrew Dalby 12:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

As it is not a personal website, given the description of how it is made I see no problem to cite the entries which name the primary sources, as these are the checked ones, (and the other ones comes from non primary sources as I understand it) but then we are basically dealing with a good collection of primary sources. There is no absolute ban on using primary sources, but they are not ideal. When it comes to medieval genealogy I would say this type of imperfect source should not be shunned too much. Even professional writings on medieval genealogy are often full of assumptions and traditions, and the best ones often also just collect primary sources and let readers see the options. So that is probably what we will end up with too in some such cases. (I see no reason to prefer blithe reproduction of traditions such as can be found in well-known publication such as Burkes or whatever, just because they are well-known and frequently cited.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Amazon.com for publication/release information

Does citing Amazon.com in order to support the publication info (date, publisher, etc.) or release info for a film or TV show violate WP:NOTADVERTISING? I cite Amazon sometimes in order to support such info, but on editor is arguing to me that this violates WP:NOTADVERTISING because Amazon is a vendor whose sole purpose is to sell things. My position is that just because Amazon is a vendor does not mean that this is our intent in citing it, since we may have a function for an Amazon item page that is distinct from Amazon's function for it. Such links, after all, are always placed in the Infobox and External links section of the articles for such companies, so that would seem to underscore the fact that different people can have different uses for a given webpage or website: The page on the website of a vendor may have a business function for that vendor, but it obviously can, in some limited instances, have encyclopedic value for Wikipedia. The same would hold true, I'd imagine, for WP:EL, which says the same thing about links included in the EL section not being purely promotional. Any thoughts? Agree or disagree? Nightscream (talk) 23:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Please follow the instructions at the top of the page. We do not deal with hypotheticals, but in concrete reliability issues. (In particularly I would suggest that deposit libraries and the bibliographic page / credits / object cover are suitable places to find bibliographic information. Amazon's bibliographic perfection is far from inerrant) Fifelfoo (talk) 00:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Until something is released, it falls into the "crystal ball" category. Amazingly enough, sometimes things are not released on time, or ever. Collect (talk) 01:47, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

What Amazon says about such things is perhaps notable enough that we could use them with an "According to Amazon.com..."?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:47, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The Looney Tunes Show

While looking for reliable sources that first season of The Looney Tunes Show, this site was brought to my attention. My natural instincts are that this is unreliable as it appears to be a blog run by a guy named Peter Vidani who doesn't appear to have any real ties to the show beyond a simple fanbase. Although, there was a message by one of the show's writers Tony Cervone mentioning the season finale but with no mention of a source. Still I can't be for sure, so what's the verdict? Sarujo (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Not reliable, it is an unedited blog. The post purporting to be content authored by Tony Cervone cannot be reliably demonstrated for wikipedia purposes to have been written by Tony Cervone, and is published on an unedited blog, and is therefore unreliable. Thanks for your question, sorry about the delay in answering your inquiry. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Oral Citations

This relates to research done by a WMF fellow on oral citations. Are oral citations now accepted on en.wiki as reliable sources? They seem to have been used in this article, maybe others as well. Cheers, Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 05:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Maybe. Have they been published in a reliable source? (It seems that the answer is "no" in this particular instance.) ElKevbo (talk) 05:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• My inclination is that they aren't good enough for notability, but are good enough to be used as sources. Even in academic research audio sources are acceptable: notability though is an entirely separate matter, and must be decided separately. In this case specifically I do not feel that it establishes notability, as the person interviewed has no academic authority in the field. He is simply a layperson, who has played a game of unknown notability.NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• I guess the question is whether Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hall Ball would suddenly be notable if one of the hall residents mentioned having played it in an interview. The issue isn't whether audio sources (WMF funded or not) are "enough", but whether they establish notability. I think in this case, as with Hall Ball, the answer is no. And would still be no if the interview transcript in question, proving that one interviewee claimed to have played the game, appeared in Nature. Pakaran 05:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• Primary sources cannot be used to demonstrate notability. The "oral citations" in this case are primary sources, and the person being interviewed is not an academic authority on the subject. In the absence of multiple, independent, secondary reliable sources, notability is not established as per en.wp standards. Primary sources can only be used under very limited circumstances. There are two other articles incorporating "oral citations": Dappa Kali and Neeliyar Bhagavathi. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 06:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• Agreed. In general, oral citations cannot be checked for accuracy. They are therefore akin to primary, or even self published sources. Because of that, at best they might be used as statements of opinion, but not as statements of fact. That being said, the research raises an important point, what to do when languages simply do not have sufficient printed material? It could be that some day there will be a system developed for establishing fact-checking and accuracy in oral citations, which would open up a new venue of reliable sources. Until then though, I would not consider oral citations reliable.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 06:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• In the other two articles that I have mentioned, one of the interviewee is a school teacher from a village, and the other is a person who has a house in a village. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 06:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but commons user Aprabhala is not a professional or academic ethnographer; they're a commons content creator. Aprabhala's content would need to have been published through a minimally reliable ethnographic recording structure prior to being mirrored on commons. Aprabhala's respondent might be an appropriate respondent, but Aprabhala has removed any credibility of their respondent's content by uttering the audio file in an uncontrolled manner. Audio files are just as publishable as any format. Recordings of appropriate respondents could either be primary, or secondary, depending on expertise and involvement; but, you can't just dump audio on commons (an unedited wiki, produced by the public) and have it as acceptable. Also those files appear to be copyvios as the respondants (the copyright holders and authors) don't appear to have released the work from the low quality bibliographic information listed—the English transcript makes this violation of the respondent's copyright obvious. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• The respondent in Hindi does say that they do not have any issues with their work being published on Wikipedia, but that release information is neither specific enough nor in writing. So your argument holds. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 07:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• What if the person I interview has been in an academic or professional capacity with an organization and can hence give information that is not documented so far in written? Like interviewing a museum director or an on-field researcher working with tribes? Noopur28 (talk) 07:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I suggest you get them to release the work (their speech) via an appropriate commons licence. It depends claim by claim. An expert of Australian Professorial standing: ie a senior end career researcher who is internationally field significant at the discipline level; yeah, off hand statements and characterisations by them in the course of an interrogative interview are relevant—particularly where no higher quality source is available. Early and Mid Career academics, of lesser standing, are more likely to make claims that are not publishable, ever. Academics are generally appointed, and promoted, on their capacity to write research findings. When academics do not write and publish research findings either their research is "black" as in government secrets, or their research is irrelevant, untrue or methodologically FRINGE.
  • On the other hand a museum curator discussing an object (or museum!) who isn't making extraordinary claims is a professional doing what they're paid to do. Similarly practicing folklorists, or community elders who are repositories of knowledge, have systems of verifying truth. Now, these don't hold up to high quality reliable sources, like academic publication; and often community truths are falsehoods. So you can say, "Elder X, who is the repository for the Y oral tradition, states that..." and attribute their expert opinion; but I would suggest not writing an article in Wikipedia's voice claiming the facts that X claims.
  • And for goodness sake: get proper copyright releases, and publish them in an edited / reviewed context before mirroring to commons. Establish a society of edited community speaking if you have to. Indicate standards. Indicate rejection and acceptance standards. Commons is not a site of first publication. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, Commons IS a site of first publication. The huge majority of documents in Commons have not been published before. Yann (talk) 10:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
      • First publication? For documents simply uploaded there? Mind you, why do we have so many documents there that haven't been published, is Commons being used as web storage? Dougweller (talk) 10:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Commons may choose to host what ever it pleases: it is an open wiki with its own governance community. "Stuff I found on Commons" is not an acceptable source for wikipedia. Stuff only ever uttered on commons is [in such a vast majority of situations that it nears all situations] not acceptable source material for wikipedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
        • And with an ethos not always shared with other Wikipedias I gather. I don't know what we do about that, nothing I guess. Dougweller (talk) 13:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
          • Commons may need to consider that it isn't a GLAM level repository of cultural data. I'd be happy to curate within my competence audio content on a edited expert supervised common repository of first publication. But commons ain't that repository. Something to take to meta if people really feel the need to publish oral reports from oral communities. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

convenience break

• It seems that everybody, including the questioner, is ignoring the motivation of the Wikimedia paper Oral Citations. If I read this correctly, it is about non-Western languages where there is a lack of books and other types of sources that Westerners consider to be reliable. For these languages, many of Wikipedia's rules and much of the discussion above seem hopelessly culturally imperialistic. It is not that there are not reliable sources in these languages, just that the Western or "more developed" world's standards of what is reliable do not apply. That said, I don't think that oral citations will fly on the English-language Wikipedia anytime soon, with some exceptions.

Some set of standards needs to be developed - probably for each language or each country. I'd suggest setting up a separate organization in each country - the Wikimedia Foundation might help on this or even provide all the money (I'm very generous with other people's money) - but it's a different purpose than Commons and will certainly have different rules. Setting it up separately in different countries will allow local conditions to be considered - which is what the research paper was all about.

There's a surprising exception to all this. See StoryCorps, a US organization that has recorded about 40,000 interviews over 9 years which are on file with the Folkways department of the Library of Congress. They are also broadcast on NPR radio stations. There would be no problem quoting from one of these as far as I can see. This might be the exception that proves the rule: if you get a well financed, Western style organizational structure and file your results in a major Western library, then you can use oral citations! Smallbones (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd be wary of the Folkways material actually, as it is all primary source stuff in an area where that sort of stuff is tricky to use. And use of oral material to get around publications issues doesn't fix those issues; indeed, it just exacerbates them. Oral accounts directly published in Wikipedia, were they in English from the start and from English-speaking, western countries, would be discounted on principle, and I think rightly so. Adding translation to this doesn't improve the material. We must accept that the English Wikipedia may not be able to cover non-English material that well, and I don't think we are forced to lower our standards of documentation simply because some other source does. Indeed, that's one of the constant sources of friction here: that people want to cite English-language materials whose standards are poor (e.g. credulous herbalism material). That said, I wouldn't be absolutely opposed to oral material, properly recorded, from widely acknowledged authorities in the field in question. That essentially amounts to us acting as the publisher of a secondary source which can then be cited. Meeting all the steps of that standard, however, is still a pretty high hurdle to jump. Mangoe (talk) 15:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see you question the use of the "Folkways" material - but I was a bit inaccurate. There's a Smithsonian Folkways project for music (only?) that works with the LOC, and then there is The American Folklife Center] at the LOC which works with StoryCorps. The 2 "Folks" may or may not be "completely" separate. But Folklife with StoryCorps is not about music - so likely doesn't have the same problems. They do have problems as far as accessing the bulk of the material, and the type of material they do publish seems quite unencyclopedic (I'll say "touchy-feely"). Nevertheless, I'm going to add material from their story on NPR to the article on Electrolarynx. It qualifies under our current rules for RS being on NPR, has a written version that is easily checked, and most importantly in this article, has a person talking with an electrolarynx, so that you can hear what it sounds like. Perfect for this situation.

Nor do you address the big issue here of "cultural imperialism" - though that clearly does need to be worked out with new methods or institutions and probably changes in policy as well. A long row to hoe, but we shouldn't completely write it off at this level. Smallbones (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't address cultural imperialism because it has POV problems both ways. If you're going to take the relativistic view implied by the rejection of "imperialism", then I would say that, well, we aren't these other cultures, so we don't have any obligation to conform to their standards. The non-relativist viewpoint (that one set of standards is what everyone suffers under) is really what we do have here, and frankly I'm willing to defend it as being objectively superior. And the consequences of accepting that is that there will be subjects which we cannot treat because good enough sources for them don't exist (which is to say, there may be sources, but we don't consider them adequate). If (to use the example at hand) the quality of scholarship on Indian folk religion is poor, then we may not be able to write much about it. I can tell you that we have constant headaches over herbalism, even with western material, because it's difficult to pick out anything that relates with any authority what represents actual and historic practice, and it's even worse with aryuvedic material. Mangoe (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I too am willing to defend Wikipedia's epistemology as superior to a free acceptance of oral reports. However, I am willing to accept that interviews conducted by: minimally trained sociologists or ethnographers; with expert-in-field respondents who are repositories of oral knowledge; that are published in an authoritative manner; that do no violate the respondent's copyrights; that do not "ram-raid" the oral culture to expose that culture's IP to imperialist commodification—may meet the reliable sources criteria of wikipedia as appropriate secondary sources, or occasionally as appropriate primary sources. I'm going to ask for a couple of comparisons below in a new section. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I do suggest that everybody actually read the research. I don't think it applies especially well to the English language Wikipedia. But I do think we should address the question posed by that paper. There are 200+ language versions of Wikipedia. Perhaps 50 of them have extensive book, newspaper, and magazine publishing - things we'd accept as reliable sources. So what are the 150+ left out languages supposed to do? Just translate from the 50 "published languages" - that would indeed be cultural imperialism. Say that they don't have, in their own terms, reliable sources - ditto. So do you have an answer for them? Don't think it matters? - ditto. Smallbones (talk) 01:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

If they want to use a shitty epistemology/methodology like the Dutch encyclopaedia, then I will frown upon them and others may follow. If they want to use a less stringent epistemology/methodology like the French or Germans, then I will be less pleased with their work and others may follow. If they wish to meet the epistemic and methodological standards of the en. culture, while making use of repositories of oral knowledge, then they will need to develop a systematic method to ethically collect and copyright release oral records, and a method to utter them in the sense of publication in a mode that demonstrates standards equivalent to the demands of reliable sourcing. Even then, they'll have problems with the en. epistemology when they interview "non-experts." (I am willing to consider culturally acknowledged elders and the equivalent as experts on their culture's meaning systems and values; and, occasionally even external reality). And that means something a great deal better than dumping audio files onto Commons. It means requiring a "closed wiki" from the foundation for these purposes, and accessing enough people with certified professional capacities to authorise documents to authorise the publication of such works as reliable. The choice is of course a choice for the movement, the foundation, and the editorial communities of various encyclopaedia. I'm testing the waters below with a request regarding systemic bias areas of knowledge, using a highly Imperialist approved methodology and epistemology, publication mode, copyright status, and ethical criteria. Lowenstein in many ways represents a "best case," particularly given the academic praise of her work in review. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think for most of these languages it would help to say "You can do this if the collector has a Ph.D." If they don't have extensive book publishing, they probably don't have many Ph.D. or even universities. But individual language versions or country chapters could probably work something out. Let me put some fairly randomly chosen names on things to better illustrate, though my knowledge of details is limited. Say the speakers of Soranî or of Kirghiz want more articles on things on their own turf - a perfectly reasonable thing to do with Wikipedia. But the 5 million Sorani speakers are in a very difficult spot in the world, and perhaps they don't have their own university or even a Sorani language press. What should they do? I'd say if they could get an online depository, and a part-time editor-in-chief to review everything, they might be able to collect oral histories from "elders" or well-known leaders, even if there were only a 2-day seminar attended by a dozen Wikipedians on how to properly collect and transcribe the interviews. They wouldn't care that you'd look down on them even more than you do on the Dutch. We're pretty far afield from the usual en:Wikipedia questions here, but I think we can send the questioner off with something a little better than "we've got good rules and don't try to change them." Smallbones (talk) 02:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Some of the Dutch editors have a problem (and some of those seem to come to en. because of our structure of knowing from texts). If a language community sorts something out, then I'm happy for them as long as they're part of the broader encyclopaedic project. But Foundation might like to liase with UNESCO and establish multilingual edited repositories for minor languages. The Foundation may end up becoming a useful tool in helping language communities to codify their own structures of knowledge, knowledge officialdom, publication, etc... and that would then become the Kirghiz or Soranî reliable publication system. Boot strapping a textual revolution for a language community is important work... past attempts (I'm mainly aware of the Soviet "Own language" attempts, during periods of less Great Russian chauvanism) have had mixed results. The minimal criterion, even if it doesn't meet our criterion, is permanence (as opposed to ephemerality), invariability (ie: editioning, versioning), utterance (multiple geographical site availability), identity of work, identity of publishing/utterance, identity of authorial authority. These are important things for an encyclopaedia as they're bound up in what a "text" is officially, and encyclopaedias are textual objects (even if the form of textuality is braille or audio files, or video). Fifelfoo (talk) 03:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Reliability of Australian professionally recorded and curated Oral History for Australian economic and social history articles

Wotcher. Wendy Lowenstein was an oral historian of Australian working class people. In particular there are three works which I want to use to expand articles, and to create a new article 1970s-1990s systematic attacks on the Australian working class by capitalism. Oral histories are needed as Australian working class people don't speak for themselves through a reliably sourced literature, and the Imperialist academic literatures of Industrial Relations and Labour History submerge the authentic proletarian voice and knowledge of the people. Subsequently I want to use Lowenstein recordings held at the National Library Australia to advance these articles. Some of Lowenstein's books were originally self-published, then published commercially after success. Others were published by reputable class-warfare presses with a history of not doctoring the contents of their publication or demanding a political line. Lowenstein herself has been praised for her capacity to find, uncover, curate, select and present representative oral history samples from Australia's hidden and downtrodden proletarian experiences.

• Wendy Lowenstein & Tom Hills Under the hook : Melbourne waterside workers remember working lives and class war, 1900-1980 Prahran, Vic. : Melbourne Bookworkers in association with the Australian Society for the Study of Labour History, 1982.
  • http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/218626?lookfor=Under%20the%20Hook&offset=1&max=84
  • Widely reviewed in the academic literature
  • For MUA, Dockworkers, Hungry Mile, the scab union (to be written), Dog Collar Act, class warfare, Australian ruling class, etc.
  • The primary interviewees are late career or post retirement expert dockworkers.
• Wendy Lowenstein Weevils in the flour : an oral record of the 1930s depression in Australia South Yarra, Vic. : Hyland House, 1978.
  • http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/69032?lookfor=weevils%20in%20the%20flour&offset=1&max=1101
  • And various other presses; widely reviewed etc.
  • For Great Depression in Australia, rabbitoh, class warfare, backyard abortion, the Australian communist eviction struggles, Australian petits-bourgeois during the Great Depression
  • Interviewees vary in professional capacity to speak, but trend between mere workers, and professionals reflecting on professional experience (Doctors, Communist Party activists, Labor Ministers, Union Leaders, late career professional farmers, etc.)
• Wendy Lowenstein Weevils at work : what's happening to work in Australia : an oral record Annandale, N.S.W. : Catalyst Press, 1997.
  • http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/15108?lookfor=weevils%20at%20work&offset=1&max=10
  • For 1970s-1990s systematic attacks on the Australian working class by capitalism and other more recent class war articles. Also possibly for other "life under wartime in Australia" articles on more specific incidents and underground knowledges. In particular, Michelle and Marcus's stories (60-66) on The Commonwealth Employment Service's brutalisation of the unemployed in the 1980s and 1990s. Michelle is a published author in unemployment studies in Australia and Marcus is a submitter to Parliamentary inquiries on unemployment and Australian work and economic structure.

Could other editors please comment on the reliability of these oral records being used. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I assume that the article oral history would describe Lowenstein's work. From your description, her books would be as reliable as other oral histories. The problem I see is that the histories would be primary sources. There is also the likelihood that events from years ago may not be recorded properly. These recordings are source material that writers could use to help write this neglected history, but until they do that I do not see that we could use them. However as primary sources they could be used to add color to articles. "Neutrality" is also an issue, because articles must provide more weight to mainstream opinion. TFD (talk) 02:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Lowenstein's work is as described at that article. Lowenstein's books are primarily a series of tightly edited interview transcripts, with titles added by Lowenstein. Sometimes the interviews are only the respondent, occasionally with Lowenstein's response. Lowenstein makes no or little effort to analyse respondent reports with her own historical narratives; outside of the introduction and occasional connecting segments of text. Some of Lowenstein's respondents are arguably EXPERT for professional practices in the past. Most respondents are not arguably EXPERT. The books are dominated by respondent texts; rather than the more analytical oral history where the analysis predominates, and respondents are only summarised or quoted to evidence a social science/humanities claim regarding the oral testimony. Lowenstein makes no explicit evaluation of the truth-value of the respondent's works, other than through selection and edited presentation. Again thanks, Fifelfoo (talk) 02:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

A non-trivial query indeed. The original recordings are certainly "primary sources" while the published works are "secondary sources" by the idiosyncratic Wikipedia definition - the problem in any case is that any given oral history pretty much stands on its own as opinion of the person being interviewed. Best use would probaly require treating any given interview as an example of one person's experience, and not trying to extrapolate much further than that. "Mainstream opinion" is thus a bit of a straw issue - as long as the individual quotes were not used to make general statements there should be no problem on that account. Is this what the quey was about? Wikiversity would possibly be a better venue for an article if one wishes to draw conclusions from disparate single interviews where the conclusions were not explicitly drawn by another author. Collect (talk) 02:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, if I'm going to conduct original historical research, I'm going to try to publish it myself through the scholarly publications systems :). But when I'm bludging and I've got Lowenstein beside me, does Lowenstein enact enough professional conduct to make these primary sources secondary; to make these involved sources third party sources? Does Lowenstein as a professional conducting this research transform the interviews into material suitable for wikipedia's notability and/or reliability guides? The other issue of using them as "illustrations" rather than proof is also interesting. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• I see nothing wrong in using them, just be careful to not overreach. I am unsure if Imperialist academic literatures of Industrial Relations and Labour History submerge the authentic proletarian voice and knowledge of the people is entirely accurate though Darkness Shines (talk) 11:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The main value of this sort of research in labour history, it seems to me, is to provide impressions and analyses of those really close to the events. So an interview might yield "at this point morale was still really high", rather than "the strike was formally ended on 14th February". Interviewees may, for example, get one strike muddled with another, while still having an overall view of how the movement developed. Therefore this kind of research often won't yield good fact-by-fact info of the kind we love in Wikipedia. Best solution is to attribute. "According to an interviewee of Wendy Lowenstein...". HTH. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Copyright question: who owns the copyright in an orally delivered statement not read from a written or other tangibly fixed format? When it's recorded, there's obviously copyright in the recording, but who owna it? The recorder or the speaker? DGG ( talk ) 03:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• No. Oral citations are Original Research by definition.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Christian Science Monitor

Is this a good source for the claim in LMFAO (group)? Come to that the Wall Street Journal gossip column actually misrepresents the TMZ (who are the source I was thinking of removing to start with) video. Should we even bother with trivia like this? Rich Farmbrough, 22:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC).

• Please follow the instructions at the top of the page, particularly the one about providing a citation. The citation presents RS/N editors with sufficient orienting information to begin their considerations. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

In February 2010, SkyBlu was involved in an altercation with politician Mitt Romney on an airplane during the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver. The rapper stated that Romney attacked him from behind, putting a "vulcan grip" on his neck. SkyBlu was arrested by Canadian authorities as a result of the altercation but released when Romney refused to press charges and caught a later flight. The altercation was mentioned in a video showing SkyBlu being escorted off the aircraft by authorities where SkyBlu and RedFoo give an account of the incident.

The CSM citation isn't any good for the reality of what did or did not happen. That's a blog, that at that time was frequently humor/gossip with little or no effort to verify facts. I guess it's a good source for the fact that the guy made those claims -- but there's little doubt that he made those claims. Trivia like that doesn't belong in an article on Mitt Romney, but that probablu won't stop it.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Citations

This is the full paragraph. Rich Farmbrough, 22:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC).

• WSJ represents Sky Blu as bringing up the "Vulcan" phrase, where it's actually Red Foo. Looks entirely derived from TMZ.
• TMZ is generally frowned upon
• CSM only cites TMZ
• NY Daily News is, I think, not generally considered a RS. It too cites TMZ as the source for Sky Blu being the "assailant".

Rich Farmbrough, 22:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC).

OK given that this is all sourced to TMZ and the secondary sources are unreliable I pulled it. Rich Farmbrough, 21:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC).

Citing sources that exist only on a darknet (Freenet)

While editing on the Freenet, I was wondering how one should add citations that reference a page on the Freenet network. The direct edit I wanted to add was adding sources to statements of existing plugins (their factual description) and the best sources I could find was their official websites, but which is located on the Freenet network. How do I describe the requirement that in order to reach the source you need additional software? Belorn (talk) 07:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there a uniform resource locator for these sites, regardless of requiring extension software? Is there a standard address protocol? If so, use that. Then comment in the bibliography or citation that such-and-such capable software is required to access the resource. The sources you're talking about using sound like low reliability primary involved sources though. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I had a quick look at this, what is currently note 11 seems to use the URI schema for Freenet. Is there a public web-gateway to freenet? Rich Farmbrough, 13:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC).

James Tod

James Tod was an amateur historian who studied & wrote on India-related topics in the period ca. 1800-1835. His principal work was the two volumes of Annals and antiquities of Rajas'han. He has one major biographer - Jason Freitag - who has described that work as being "manifestly biased". Others have noted that it is a "a romantic historical and anecdotal account" (historian, Crispin Bates); "erroneous and misleading at places and they are to be used with caution as a part of sober history" (V. S. Srivastava, Rajasthan's Department of Archaeology and Museums); and that he had a "general reputation for inaccuracy ... among Indologists by late in the nineteenth century" (Michael Meister, an architectural historian and professor of South Asia Studies). William Crooke, who edited the 1920 edition of the Annals and, like Tod, took inspiration for his own studies from folklore etc, said that Tod recorded "the facts, not as they really occurred, but as the writer and his contemporaries supposed that they occurred." Crooke also says that Tod's "knowledge of ethnology was imperfect, and he was unable to reject the local chronicles of the Rajputs." More, his "excursions into philology are the diversions of a clever man, not of a trained scholar, but interested in the subject as an amateur."

Tod is still lauded by those whom he praised in India and his Annals in particular are used as sources across a wide range of our articles, although his name is frequently mis-spelled. Obviously, he will not have got everything that he wrote wrong but the difficulty is that we cannot judge which bits are correct etc. Can we treat him as a reliable source for statements of historical fact etc? Or should the usage of him be restricted. If the latter, what are the limits? - Sitush (talk) 08:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• Use for opinion only given the criticisms his work have received. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

All historians were amateur at that period, so that doesn't count against him. And all historians have to be suspected of bias. Mainly, his work can no longer be authoritative, because so much basic research and discovery hadn't yet happened in his time. I agree with Darkness Shines. His opinion, as a classic author in English on this subject, may well be worth quoting, but always naming and dating him in the text ("James Tod, writing in 1829, believed that ..."). Andrew Dalby 12:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, folks. I think that I should make it clear without going into too much detail, examples of which are in the linked bio article, that he was plain wrong about numerous things, including genealogies, because of translation issues. He also relied on people from one caste/community - the Rajputs - for his information & translations that gave rise to his construction of a history of a region that included other communities. He also had a day job for > 20 of those years, which is not necessarily true of other historians, ie: he was not a "gentleman historian", so to speak. It is not a "suspicion" of bias: he is recognised as being very biased. - Sitush (talk) 13:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

James Tod article has sentences such as this: "Tod relied heavily on existing Indian texts for his historical information and most of these are today considered unreliable." Then the article goes on to seek support from Macaulay. David Kopf (University of Minnesota) says this: "In the first place, Macaulay agreed to go to India and remained there as long as he did primarily to accumulate a modest fortune, which would enable him to pursue a literary career in England. Secondly, while in Calcutta, instead of immersing himself in any of the languages,cultures,or regional histories of the Indian subcontinent,he spent most of his time studying the Greek and Roman classics. Thirdly,he admitted repeatedly that he viewed his Indian sojourn as a period of exile.". I don't understand how is Macaulay an authority against Tod's accuracy.

I have found Tod to be more often correct in his historical facts than wrong. As others have mentioned let us not forget this work was completed in early 1800's and sure there must be mistakes but are mistakes larger than correct facts? No. If for some particular detail "A" other sources dis-garee with Tod and the evidence is against him by all means don't use him in corroborating "A".

Muhnot Nainsi represented a tradition of very accurate history writing in India. Richard Saran and Norman Ziegler have used Nainsi's Khyat extensively for their two Volume scholarly tome [31] "The Mertiyo Rathors of Merto, Rajasthan Select Translations Bearing on the History of a Rajput Family, 1462-1660, Volumes 1-2, University of Michigan Press".

My questions are:

Since Tod used local historians and historical Khyats, baats, etc (Introduction to Saran and Ziegler have an excellent survey on this and I am willing to take photos and stick them here if any one is interested) as sources, in addition to using Persian and other Mughal histories, why is that a negative against Tod?

If what Tod says is also accepted by other modern historians why is it wrong to use Tod? Ror Is King (talk) 03:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• When crazy Stu shouts the sky is blue, we don't reference him, we reference a paper that's conducted a scientific analysis of the sky's chroma. Tod's methodology is so abominably out of date that he fails to meet any of the criteria of knowledge generation in history. We cite historians, we don't cite 19th century Grand Tourers of the sub-continent. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

"Tod's methodology is ... out of date" is true, of course. You should be ashamed of the rest of that, Fifelfoo.

This picture of Tod with his research assistant is nice, I think. Andrew Dalby 12:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Would like to point out that some very informed people don't think Tod is crazy Stu. Dr Richard Saran (PhD University of Michigan 1978: Thesis: "Conquest and Colonization: Rajputs and Vasis in middle period Marwar") and Dr. Norman P Ziegler (PhD University of Chicago 1973: Thesis: "Action Power and Service in Rajasthani Culture: A social history of rajputs in middle period Rajasthan") say that : "Tod was among the first British army officers of the early nineteenth century to gain an in-depth view of Rajputs and Rajasthani society. His comprehensive history of Rajasthan and its local kingdoms besepeaks his knowledge, gained through years of association with this area and painstaking work with local documents." (From Page 1, Volume 1: The Mertiyo Rathors of Merto, Rajasthan Select Translations Bearing on the History of a Rajput Family, 1462-1660, Volumes 1-2, ISBN:978-0-89148-085-3 Link [32] ).Ror Is King (talk) 07:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Ror Is King, the reliability of Macaulay, Nainsi etc is not being questioned here and is a sideshow. - Sitush (talk) 06:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• You have stated on James Tod page "Tod relied heavily on existing Indian texts for his historical information and most of these are today considered unreliable.". Nainsi's text is one such text and there are many more such texts in rajasthani language. You are saying all rajasthani history khyats are unreliable. I just proved to you Nainsi, a rajsthani khyat writer is not unreliable. Furthermore you use Macaulay as an authority to demolish Tod when as David Kopf has shown Macaulay did not even read any historical texts in Indian languages. How can such absurd POV be allowed to root on Wikipedia? Ror Is King (talk) 06:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• This discussion is not about the James Tod article; nor does that article make the claim that you suggest, as has already been explained to you on that article's talk page. Read the sentence that you quote again. - Sitush (talk) 06:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Everyone can see on James Tod that you are using Macaulay to discredit Tod and Macaulay did not read a single piece of Indian history written in Rajasthani languages. You say and I quote from James Tod:"Tod relied heavily on existing Indian texts for his historical information and most of these are today considered unreliable". And then you say: "Macaulay, the historian and politician who held high office in India, wrote in 1835 that "a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia,". How on earth is Macaulay a historian? Did you read Kopf's piece given above? Ror Is King (talk) 07:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• For history articles: don't even attribute, burn with fire, quote only critical appreciations of him by Post-Rankean professional historians, per WP:HISTRS. For articles on Tod himself, quote and reference only where secondary sources on Tod quote and reference him, and use the secondary sources colouring and judgement. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• The only Tod quotes that should be used, and sparingly, are ones that are countered or supported by later scholars. Such quotes should have a purpose in the article, to show changing attitudes. Tod should never be used alone to support a supposed fact. Binksternet (talk) 17:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Binksternet's advice is good. Andrew Dalby 10:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Indians in Afghanistan

On this RFC a user is saying that one of the sources is of no use. Here is the source MUSTAFA QADRI [33] ABC/The Drum. The source in question is from a well respected journalist. Profile at ABCProfile at The Guardian He is widly quoted in academic books as an expert on the region such as, Fawaz A. Gerges (2011) The Rise and Fall of Al-Qaeda OUP p175. Debra A. Miller(ed) (2009 Afghanistan Greenhaven p222. Joanne M. Lisosky, Jennifer H. Henrichsen (2011)War on Words: Who Should Protect Journalists? Praeger p252. Is he good for the statement that India has no troops in country.? Darkness Shines (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems likely he'd get this fact right, but that is an opinion piece. As such, if citing it on this subject, I would do so with an inline attribution. Andrew Dalby 12:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

By inline you mean cited directly after the statement? Or write that he has said such and such? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Either, I guess. It would be better, if possible, to find a source on this that isn't an opinion piece. Andrew Dalby 16:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

There is another news piece from Time which is also used to cite the statement, thanks for your input. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

That news piece says exactly the opposite of this. I'll verify the newly added one too. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Old Testament as only source

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Early and Later Israelite Campaigns, where several articles are identified that are sourced exclusively to the Old Testament. Comments and suggestions would be most appreciated. Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't meet WP:HISTRS. Or anywhere near. And this is something we have a consistent policy on. Many parts of the world have had annals or chronicles; they are primary sources. We can never base articles solely on them. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

While the Old Testament is a lovely literary text that makes claims about what happened in the past, like many texts that are a compendium of oral history redactions, assembled for political and religious purposes separate to the veneration of a God, it does not meet the standards of Wikipedia's history requirements as Itsmejudith notes. Scholars primarily inspired by the religious text could write theological or religious history accounts of the importance in the text of such a battle, which would need to be characterised as devotional approaches to the battle. But for historical claims proper, you would need to seek out scholarly histories of warfare in that region. Just because a battle isn't "history" doesn't necessarily make it unnotable. Compare and consider in relation to another war from a devotional literary text: Kurukshetra war Fifelfoo (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Definitely not reliable as a source of historical information without corraboration. The OT was written as a religious document, and not as a historical document in the sense history is understood by modern scholars. A lot of the events portrayed in the OT are innacurate, distorted or simply fabricated. that doesn't make them non-notable, as Fifeloo rightly points out. Just not historical. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The Old Testment is a sufficiently well-studied text that I would expect to find a scholarly discussion in the literature for every historical event that it mentions. If so, then those should be used. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely, and even when the OT corresponds with other contemporary (with the OT) sources, there is often important scholarship on the relevance of the inclusion of the events in the OT. It should be born in mind, though, that the OT is actually not a single source, but many sources rolled into one. It is the nature of "sourced exclusively to" that is important. If the OT is the only documentation that an event occurred, we should still cover it, but we should be citing commentaries as well as the OT itself. Rich Farmbrough, 13:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC).

Sarfaroshi Ki Tamanna by Krant M. L. Verma

Krant M. L. Verma, who also edits Wikipedia as Krantmlverma (talk · contribs), has written a 4-volume work titled Sarfaroshi Ki Tamanna about Indian revolutionaries. He has been citing this book as a reference in the majority of his contributions Awadhesh.Pandey (talk · contribs), who also maintains the article Krant M. L. Verma, has also been adding this book to several articles (e.g. [34][35]).

I first started doubting the reliability of this book, when the user Krantmlverma added a claim to several articles that Keshab Chakravarthy and K. B. Hedgewar are the same person (e.g. [36]). I find this hard to believe because none of the reliable biographies of Keshab Chakravarthy or KB Hedgewar available on Google books, journals or other online sources (other than Wikipedia mirrors) mention this. (see Talk:K. B. Hedgewar#Keshab_Chakravarthy_and_K._B._Hedgewar)

Can this source be considered reliable? The author (probably) barely passes the threshold of notability. Also, I sense a conflict of interest here: both Krantmlverma and Awadhesh.Pandey have been adding the entire excerpts from ML Varma's books or blog posts to various articles (e.g. [37][38]). Google returns only yellow-page listings for the publisher "Praveen Prakashan". But multiple Wikipedia articles cite it as a source -- all these citations were added by either Krantmlverma or Awadhesh.Pandey.

Is there a guideline on these kind of sources? I mean, books published by Wikipedians who use them as references to back up their contributions? utcursch | talk 06:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that is a self-published source. If it is to be added then it should be done by an uninvolved person. Equally, I have been digging around on and off since you raised this general point elsewhere a while ago - it doesn't look reliable to me, but that is based on searching purely English texts etc. WP:FRINGE seems distinctly possible. - Sitush (talk) 06:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I share a similar view. The user has mentioned some other sources saying that "Previously he was involved in such type of revolutionary activities. This fact has been disclosed by so many writers". It's not clear to me if these sources talk only about his involvement in "such type of revolutionary activities" or directly support the assertion that Keshab Chakravarthy or KB Hedgewar were the same guy. Either way, these sources seem to be RSS-affiliated publications, and at best, this might be a fringe theory. utcursch | talk 07:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• I'm going to remind editors of the very extensive and broad community sanction placed on sub-continental caste and political party articles and attendant discussions right now. Let's stay civil and work out the reliability of this text. I encourage editors to search deposit libraries, and scholarly libraries with a South Asian collection. I also encourage editors to search Indian university libraries. Good luck, I'll keep an eye on this thread. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Worldcat returns this for the publisher: [39]. The specific author's work is here. After finding this, I'm a little less impressed by the publisher's credentials. Clicking on "shopping", it seems they do general import/export as well as publishing. JanetteDoe (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

TMZ for info in Celebrity Rehab article

I'm not going to ask if TMZ is generally reliable, since that's been asked and answered here before, and the consensus in the seven past RSN discussions I found (December 2007 May 2009 June 2009 December 2009 August 2010 March 2011 December 2011) seems to be that it generally is, and that even The New York Times called it as such. What was also said was that it should be used cautiously, and on a case-by-case basis. So I want to know if TMZ is reliable for the following three pieces of information that an editor removed from the Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew article, on the basis that TMZ is not reliable:

• [Drew Pinsky] reportedly visited Rachel Uchitel personally in order to convince her to join the fourth season cast. (TMZ citation)

• Carey relapsed and returned to porn, starring in and directing a parody film called Celebrity Pornhab with Dr. Screw, a decision that Pinsky said saddened him. (TMZ citation)

• Michaele Salahi was later removed from the show because, according to TMZ sources, she harbored "no addiction," and thus had "no reason to be there."(TMZ citation)

In the meantime, I will look for other sources, but since I don't know how successful my search will be, I'd like those here to chime in, just to be sure that this is one of the "cases" that they've mentioned in the past. Nightscream (talk) 05:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I have reviewed much of the past discussions, and thanks for posting them. I agree with editors who say we should use this source, if at all, with the caution mandated by WP:BLP. Some relevant sections on this policy include a link to WP:WELLKNOWN: In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. Regarding non public figures, the policy says: exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, focusing on high quality secondary sources. Material published by the subject may be used, but with caution.. The above in my mind rules out using TMZ when it breaks a story and is the only source reporting it. As for reliability, I am bothered by the number of links provided in the articles that hint they are providing evidence but are in fact advertisement. This was particularly true for the Carey story which said: "in our behind-the-scenes footage, you'll see there's not much difference between the satirical XXX flick and the actual TV show. The word "footage" was a live link, but none was available. This does not increase my confidence in TMZ's accuracy. I think your chosen course of action is wisest, look for more sources.--Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 12:56, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The Names of Loyalist Settlers and Grants of Land which they received from the Bahamian Government while a British Commonwealth!

William Lockhart Granted 160 Acres by the Crown of England in the 1700's.

"The Early Settlers of the Bahama Islands with Account of the American Revolution" by A. TALBOT BETHEL (1039)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.151.103.8 (talk • contribs)

The above section was by 66.151.103.8 Fifelfoo (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

familysearch.org

Is familysearch.org a :"relaible source" in Romney family"

:::*[[G. Ott Romney]] (December 12, 1892-May 3, 1973) was born in [[Salt Lake City]], the son of George Ernst and Hannah, and died in [[Alexandria, Virginia]]. He was the third head football coach at Brigham Young University, coaching for nine years from 1928-1936. His national positions included Chairman of the National Recreation Policies Committee, National Director of the Recreation Section of the Works Progress Administration or WPA, assignments with the American Alliance of Health, Physical Education and Recreation, and membership on U.S. President [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]'s Council on Youth Fitness. During [[World War II]] he served as Chief of Recreation and Club Unit Services to the [[United States Armed Forces]] through the [[Red Cross]]. He married Ruth Harding in 1919, and they are parents of three children - two girls and one boy.<ref name=AF>[http://www.familysearch.org/eng/default.asp "Ancestral File page on George Romney"], Ancestry of G. Ott Romney. Family History Department, The Church of Jesus Latter Day Saints. Retrieved December 5, 2011</ref><ref>[http://www.byucougars.com/staff/athletics/g-ott-romney "G. Ott Romney Staff Bio"], Brigham Young University. Retrieved December 5, 2011</ref>

Also are "staff bios" and the like RS for genealogical claims in the same article? Thanks. Collect (talk) 12:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Neither would be reliable sources for the article, because there is no evidence that there is fact-checking of the biographical information. FamilySearch does provide copies of primary sources that would be reliable, for example birth certificates, but they would be of little or no use for the article. TFD (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with TFD. A lot of material in Familysearch is user contributed without oversight. A lot of it is not, but it is sometimes hard to sort out which. Anyway the Ancestral Files are certainly based on user contributions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Using the abstract or full body of an article

Hello I’d like to ask for a favor to the board, it’s a simple question. Some days ago I observed that in the Potato article it says three times that "the cultivated potato was originated in Peru" which I consider breaks the neutrality of the article because for other sources I’ve presented including the ones used to back that claim it is also considered that the area covers a region of western Bolivia. [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45]

Consulting with one of the editors this source was presented to me, which undoubtedly is a reliable source but it seems we reached a bottleneck with the way we interpret this source, the abstract of the source says:

• Our analyses are consistent with a hypothesis of a “northern” (Peru) and “southern” (Bolivia and Argentina) cladistic split for members of the S. brevicaule complex, and with the need for considerable reduction of species in the complex. In contrast to all prior hypotheses, our data support a monophyletic origin of the landrace cultivars from the northern component of this complex in Peru, rather than from multiple independent origins from various northern and southern members.

But later in the body of the article I found, what I consider a clarification regarding the actual frontiers of the area defined:

• The topology of the entire data set is in concordance with the morphological (21), RAPD, and RFLP results (22) in defining a northern (species from Peru, together with S. achacachense from northern Bolivia) and southern (species from Bolivia and northern Argentina) clade of the S. brevicaule complex. This geographic split does not exactly follow country borders, but very closely so. For example, the northern clade contains S. achacachense PI 558032 from the department of La Paz, Bolivia bordering Peru, and the southern clade contains S. leptophyes PI 458378 from the department of Puno bordering Bolivia.

My friend Marshal dismisses my observation saying that an abstract cannot contradict the article so the only information valid is the one in the abstract, while for me I don’t think it’d be contradicting itself but that clarification would indicate that the area where these scientists traced the origin isn’t exactly following the national borders and covers a portion of the Bolivian territory as well. That’s why I bring the question to this board hoping someone would analyze the source and provide us a more experienced opinion on the matter.

Additionally if it’s possible I’d greatly appreciate if someone could determine if the sources I presented are effectively outdated or not.

The source is A single domestication for potato based on multilocus amplified fragment length polymorphism genotyping by David M. Spooner*, Karen McLean, Gavin Ramsay, Robbie Waugh, and Glenn J. Bryan, PNAS 2005 [46]. The discussion and other sources cited can be fully read here and here. Any advice, explanation or interpretation would be very welcomed, thank you in advance. Teberald (talk) 03:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• The source is the article, not the abstract. Abstracts are not appropriate to read or cite from, when an article is available. Even if the article is unavailable to you, it is inappropriate to cite the abstract. It is certainly inappropriate to cite a source without having read it in full and digested the variety of statements within it. So no, don't cite the claim from the abstract, cite the claim from the body of the article having read and considered the full article. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:13, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the quickness of your response and would you consider the first sources I used are outdated or are they still valid? I mean these ones [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] Teberald (talk) 04:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Please supply full citations for the sources you want us to look at. See the top of the page, or a style guide for academic writing, for how to format a full citation. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, when you use a paper as a source for the author's opinion, it becomes a primary source and you need to establish the degree of acceptance of those opinions. Generally papers are good secondary sources for opinions of earlier writers. For example, a paper will say, "While most writers believe x, I shall argue y." While we can use the paper as a source that most writers believe x, we do not know what weight, if any, should be given to y. See WP:MEDRS which explains the proper use of sources in medical-related articles. TFD (talk) 05:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry using the templates they'd be:

• Hawkes, John (1987). "The evolution of cultivated potatoes and their tuber-bearing wild relatives". Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution. 36 (1): 189–208. doi:10.1007/BF01986960.
• Miller, Joseph; Spooner, David (1999). "Collapse of species boundaries in the wild potato Solanum brevicaule complex (Solanaceae, S. sect. Petota): molecular data" (PDF). Plant Systematics adn Evolution. 214: 103–130.
• Ad Hoc Panel of the Advisory Committee on Technology Innovation, Board on Science and Technology for International Development, National Research Council (1989). Lost Crops of the Incas: Little-Known Plants of the Andes with Promise for Worldwide Cultivation. Washington D.C. United States: The National Academies Press. ISBN 0-309-07461-4.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Francis, John Michael (2006). Iberia and the Americas: culture, politics, and history : a multidisciplinary encyclopedia, Volume 1. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 9781851094219.
• International Potato Center. "Potato".
• Luján Claure, Lauro (1996). "Historia de la Papa" (PDF). Revista Papa, Órgano Informativo de la Federación Colombiana de Productores de Papa, FEDEPAPA (16).

I have some doubts about the last one, it's in Spanish but says it was first published in the journal "Potato, Informative Organ of the Colombian Federation of Potato Producers FEDEPAPA" just in case.

And thank you also TFD for the link it was quite useful to help me to give the journal articles a proper use.Teberald (talk) 05:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Hello. I would just like to point out that I find Fifelfoo's claim awkward ("Abstracts are not appropriate to read or cite from"). Abstracts are part of the article (a summary, and generally also used as the introduction). Citation guidelines exist for referencing abstracts, and it's certainly not inappropriate in academia to reference abstracts.

Teberald's question, which is quite clear after reading his message, is for someone to provide an analysis of the source itself. Given the question, the responses provided so far do anything but answer it (Potatoes are not medicine; well, not conventionally).

My view on the matter is that the information found within the body of the article, when read along with the abstract (you're supposed to read them; it's not just a randomly filled space), clarifies the position that potatoes originate in southern Peru. Added that, after finally being able to access the article, I found the following quote:

• Page 5: "A 'single' origin is here supported to mean an origin from a single species, or its progenitor (S. bukasovii), in the broad area of southern Peru."

The book Advances in Potato Chemistry and Technology (Academic Press, 2009), a secondary source, has also presented the findings of this article.

I hope this helps. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 06:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know what institutional or disciplinary culture you come from, but from a humanities perspective, you are suggesting something both ludicrous and obscene. We don't cite summaries of texts we've read, and the divergence of the abstract form from the actual content is often quite remarkable due to constraints, non-specialist target audiences, and the short form. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I find it surprising that you honestly believe that it is "ludicrous and obscene" to cite or read abstracts (unless you are recanting your claim about "reading" abstracts?). The purpose of citation is to bring forth the information used during the research process, either as a direct citation within the text or in the bibliography. If the abstract was used during the research process, it should be mentioned. As long as the information is backed up by stronger material, no need exists as to why anyone should fear citing abstracts.

I also do not appreciate you questioning my credentials. In any case, I assume that the following sources must have only read the abstract as well?

• Jai Gopal and S. M. Paul Khurana, Handbook of potato production, improvement, and postharvest management (Psychology Press, 2006), page 7: "Spooner et al. (2005) supported a single origin of potato from a wild species progenitor in the S. brevicaule complex in southern Peru."
• John Reader, Potato: a history of the propitious esculent (Yale University Press, 2009), page 25: "In particular, DNA sequencing has enabled a team led by research botanist David Spooner to trace the origin of all modern potato varieties to a group of about twenty morphologically similar wild species, known as the Solanum brevicaule complex, grown by farmers in Peru more than 7,000 years ago."
• Alison Krsgel and Alison Krögel, Food, power, and resistance in the Andes (Lexington Books, 2011), page 34: "Recent genetic analyses of wild species of the potato point to a single point of origin for the tuber's cultivation to the north of Lake Titicaca, approximately seven thousand years ago. The research botanist David Spooner argues that all modern-day varieties originated from a widl species known as Solanum brevicaule complex, thus contesting the multiple-origins argument."

I believe these sources are recent and secondary enough to certify the origin of the potato's domestication in southern Peru. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 06:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion primarily concerning the use of abstracts

Abstracts are certainly NOT part of the article, and they are absolutely useless as sources. Their only function is to give potential readers a crude idea of what the article is about so that they can decide whether to read it or not. Data and conclusions in abstracts very often does not reliable reflect the content of the article. and often flat-out contradicts it. That is because they are often not updated properly as the content of the article is revised, and therefore contain information from previous drafts of the article that has since been rewritten or corrected. I've translated hundreds of scientific articles and prepared them for publication. I almost always throw out the abstract provided by the authors and write my own version by cutting and pasting from the article itself. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

This exact question was recently discussed in great detail here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_100#Using_sources_which_one_hasn.27t_actually_read. It's quite long, but it looks to me like consensus is that an abstract is not quite the same as the paper itself, but is still a scientific work written by the author, so citable. --GRuban (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

A lot of the input there was from people who are not familiar with the scientific publishing process. Abstracts are NOT part of the article, they are not peer-reviewed, they are often written by someone else than the author (I've written hundreds), and they often do not accurately reflect the content of the article. They are intended SOLELY for the purpose of helping the potential reader decide whether the article is worth reading, and using them for any other purpose cannot be justified in any way whatsoever. They absolutely are not intended to be a citable source of scientific information, and are thus completely useless as reliable sources on WP. Consensus cannot trump WP:RS. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• I haven't read all of the responses after my last post, but it has been kindly brought to my attention (from Teberald) that there might be a "problem" between me and Fifelfoo. However, just as I wrote on Talk:Potato, I know Fifelfoo from past discussions and I also know that he is an expert regarding source citations. Yes, I disagree with him regarding the abstracts, but that's all. I have always valued Fifelfoo's advice, and I am not angry with him (or anyone at the board) by that matter. I appreciate the work done here by the RS/N, and all other noticeboards, because they play one of the most important roles in the development of the project. Again, I have no problem with Fifelfoo, and I apologize if my prior statements made anyone else think a problem existed. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Sometimes heat is a waste product from work between productive editors, its okay, and its okay to differ. Given I "bought" in on the issue of abstracts, I'll be answering the more substantive question now that there's citations available. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Now that I've read the responses from Dominus, all I can state is that I am disappointed he has such a terrible perspective on abstracts. However, he certainly is right on stating that most abstracts tend to be "bad", but that's just because most people don't know how to write them (and they should, considering it's what most people end up reading anyway). For example, not to pick on Dominus, but "cutting and pasting" is one of the worst ways to write an abstract. I have met many people who do that. The purpose of the abstract is to summarize the information from the article, not simply to cut and paste important points.

The key assumption here is that the abstract is indeed a summary. (From my perspective) It is perfectly correct to cite an abstract, but I'll only concede that it's risky as the information within the body of the article may contradict it. If the information within the abstract is indeed contradicted, then that makes the abstract unreliable. However, that is the necessary premise for the unreliability. Abstracts should not simply be dismissed as "un-citable" for no good reason. And, as I wrote before, people should not be discouraged from citing all places where they got their information (even if it came from an abstract).

In this case, the Spooner (2005) article's abstract is validated not only by his own statement within the article (Page 5), but also from the three sources I have presented (all which interpret Spooner in the same manner). It also shows that Spooner's research has been notable, and has been positively received by the scientific community (I haven't found anyone which contradicts him; added that David Spooner seems to be a notable figure in his field of research). Given the information, it is not necessary to cite the abstract; but if that was all there was cite, then there would be nothing wrong with it.

And, again, this is just my view on the subject (well, not just my view, my colleagues would agree with me; but you get the point). I understand that discrepancy exists as to how abstracts should be used. This is not the first time I have heard that abstracts should not be cited, so Fifelfoo's and Dominus' position is not random (I don't know what the general academic consensus is on them, or if there even is one). Ultimately, the important point is that of using the most reliable information when conducting research. If one cites the abstract, one runs the risk of being fooled into wrong information (which another editor/researcher can dismiss with better sources). Best Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of an abstract is most definitely NOT to "to summarize the information from the article", but to give the potential reader of the article a rough idea of whether the article is pertinent to their interests. The METHOD by which it does this is summarizing the information from the article. Using the abstract for a purpose for which it was not intended cannot be justified. You yourself wrote that "most abstracts tend to be bad", and that "it's risky as the information within the body of the article may contradict it", and you imply that they have to be verified by comparison to the article itself. This is an excellent argument for NEVER using abstracts as sources, even if they are "all there was cite".

As for the consensus of the scientific and academic community, it's unaminous: Abstracts are compeltely worthless as citable sources for scientific or scholarly information. I've never encountered a scientist, editor or reviewer who believes otherwise, and I have never seen an abstract cited in all of my 29 years in academic publishing, at least in my field, and doubt that such a cite would pass peer review. As for your last sentence, it is against WP policy to shift the burden of providing a reliable source from the person providing the source to the persons who find it unreliable. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Anent use of abstracts, I saw one used virtually in toto in an article - and this was defended as normal practice on Wikipedia. [53] and the abstract was presumably of the exact type of article for which such abstracts here appear to be not properly used as sources. Collect (talk) 15:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The only guideline I can find is at Wikipedia:Citing sources#Links to sources which states "However, you may provide the DOI, ISBN, or another uniform identifier, if available. If the publisher offers a link to the source or its abstract that does not require a payment or a third party's login for access, you may provide the URL for that link." It is rather vague, but I interpret that as abstracts may be linked by use of an identifier: ArXiv, ASIN, Bibcode, doi, JFM, JStor, MR, PMID or the like. Abstracts should never be linked to the title as the source (and neither should reviews of the source, which I see fairly often). Note that the use of identifiers is considered "not important to cite a database such as ProQuest, EbscoHost, or JStor..." ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:10, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

This may be getting a little beyond the point, and perhaps we (as in the WP community) need to come to a consensus specifically on the usage of abstracts. By which I mean, to actually have a guideline, like WP:ABSTRACT or something of that sort.

You keep telling me that abstracts are not summaries, but sources support my position:

• Abstract (summary) article: "An abstract is a brief summary of a research article, thesis, review, conference proceeding or any in-depth analysis of a particular subject or discipline"
• Google Books ([54]): 10,600 hits of "abstract is a summary".
• Google Books ([55]): 4 hits of "abstract is not a summary".

Abstracts don't have to be verified by the article's body, but they should whenever possible. That's what I meant.

Given that citation guidelines exist for abstract ([56]), it serves to demonstrate that abstract citations do happen and are not prohibited by the academic community.

That you haven't encountered someone (other than myself, apparently) that certifies the usage of abstracts really weakens your argument about the scientific community. I have met both kinds of opinions in the past, and they are both valid conclusions given their premises. Those of us who advocate abstract citation are not doing it to encourage people not to read an article, but rather to encourage people to provide evidence for the material they have researched. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

An abstract should be an accurate summary. Experience shows that oftimes problems do exist. I recall being given an "Executive Summary" for a contract which was, simply put, a lie. Wikipedia does, indeed, need a strong position on when abstracts can be used, for what purpose they can be used, and what amount of the abstract should be allowed as a quote rather than going to the actual article. Collect (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, the common problem I find is that the "concept" often does not meet "reality". However, given the situation, should a consensus be reached where abstracts are discarded as unreliable? What about those abstracts (like the one from David Spooner) that are accurate? What if only the abstract is available for citation? The guideline would have to be as comprehensive as possible. However, I think that we can all agree that one is absolutely needed (And "WP:ABSTRACT" linking to "WP:CONCEPT" should be changed towards "WP:ABSTRACT" becoming its own page and guideline).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 16:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Style guides may give guidance on how to cite an abstract, but it is up to us to determine whether an abstract meets our verifiability policy. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

As Fifeloo, Collect and myself have pointed out, and you yourself admit, abstracts cannot be assumed to be accurate summaries of the actual article. They often contain significantly divergent information, usually left over from early drafts of the article, or innacuracies because of the fact that they are condensed.

The Purdue writing lab "guidelines" you link to are not authoritative except for "homework" purposes, at the discretion of the instructor. I doubt whether any professor at Purdue would allow the sources listed on the page for a serious undergraduate thesis. As such, they are irrelevant for our purposes.

Also, you've painted yourself into a corner. The only way you could know that the Spooner abstract is accurate is because you have verified it against the actual article. On WP, a reliable source is need to verify any information. If the source itself needs to be verified, it doesn't qualify as a reliable source. This may need to be clarified in WP:IRS. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

We don't need a separate guideline: a section in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources will do nicely. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I have not admitted that abstracts are not to be assumed as reliable. In fact, my argument is that given the definition of what an abstract is (a summary, as verified by the 10,600 hits in GoogleBooks), we should assume that they are reliable unless proven to the contrary.

My usage of links is to provide evidence for my position; however, it seems easier for you to complain about them than to provide something other than your opinion into the discussion.

I am not in a corner. If you read my prior posts, you will see that four independent sources verify the information from the Spooner abstract. Given Spooner's notability, I would have used the abstract alone for citation (him and his team being credited). However, the only reason any check took place in the first place was because the information was challenged by another user (my friend Teberald).

Ultimately, on the principle of WP:AGF, and given the correct definition of an abstract, my conclusion is that abstracts should be assumed as reliable until proven otherwise. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

AGF should only be applied to the motivations of Wikipedia editors, not to authors of sources. It's a cultural norm for Wikipedia editors intended to foster community and cooperation among a large and diverse group of people and as such it's a completely inappropriate to apply it a priori to other contexts. ElKevbo (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

First of all, as you should have learned in grade school, when you assume, you make an "ASS" of "U" and "ME'. Your assumptions are invalid and cannot be defended. Your "dictionary work" is completely irrelevant, as the question at hand is not WHAT an abstract is, but WHAT PURPOSE it serves, and the purposes it serves eliminates it as a reliable source here on WP.

As for AGF, it doesn't have anything to do at all here. AGF extends only to other editors here on WP. It does not extend to sources or their authors or anyone else. In fact, as far a sources go, the rule to follow is "guilty until proven innocent". Spooner's notability is completely irrelevant here. Anyway, nobody has made an assumption of bad faith here against anyone, so the point is moot.

You have now been told by Terebald, Fifeloo, Collect and myself that abstracts are not reliable sources. You have failed to present any valid justification for your dissent. Time to drop the WP:STICK. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I really don't understand what strains your mind, but I suggest you calm down. My assumptions are not invalid, and your aggressive comments will not scare me into thinking otherwise. No real academic consensus exists on the part of abstract usage (at least no evidence from your part has been provided up to now). What you diminish as "dictionary work" is at least verifiable, whereas your opinions are nothing more than that.

WP:AGF has plenty to do in this discussion of reliability. If an editor tells me that all he has found to verify his position is the abstract of an article, and the article itself is unavailable for whatever reason, then I shall assume that his edit is being done in good faith and will not argue against him citing the abstract.

Finally, drawing out random user names will not validate your position. Teberald came here with a series of questions (only one being partially answered up to now), and Collect has been kindly guiding the discussion on the right path. Fifelfoo stated his position and got on with his life. We agreed to disagree on the abstract, and that was that. You're the one here that is (for whatever reason) venting your anger on a simple discussion regarding abstracts (unecessarily using obscene language and "scream" capital letters).

So, take your own advice and drop the stick which you have carried into the discussion. Life isn't a battlefield. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

From past discussions on this noticeboard I believe there is no consensus about whether abstracts can be used. In my opinion abstracts are often at least as carefully written as articles, and by the same authors. In such cases, picking one random sentence from the body of an article might actually be less likely to give a good context-insensitive summary than citing the compressed abstract. I guess in other cases, abstracts are sometimes just blurbs, perhaps not even written by the original authors. So it is probably not possible to have a single rule.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion primarily concerning the reliability of sources relating to Potato speciation and geographic origin

It would help if separate to discussing the role of abstracts, if editors critiqued the sources given in the discussions above regarding the potato, so as to assist article editors in understanding the reliability of various sources and the weight to assign claims. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Spooner article is definitely reliable. Abstract is definitely not. Hawkes is a little old, but probably reliable unless contradicted by a more recent source using more advanced molecular techniques. Judging from the titles and publishers, I would be reluctant to use Ad hoc, Francis, IPC and Lujan as relaible sources on the origin of the potato. Though these sources may discuss the topic, that is not their primary focus or aim, and they'd only be repeating information that had been published elsewhere in more specialized literature, without much critical evaluation or vigilance on the part of the authors, editors or reviewers. Citing them would be like citing information from the Introduction section of a scientific paper- not a good idea, especially if it contradicts more specialist work. I would be intersted in what sources they use, though. It would be nice to find a recent review article. That would be the ideal source. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hawkes (1987) is contradicted by Spooner et al. (2005). Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Then go with Spooner. Molecular biology methods in 2005 were WAY more advanced than in 1987. Spooner does not contradict Hawkes, as far as geography is concerned. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I've read the Spooner 2005 paper, which is clearly the most reliable of the sources provided. The conclusion is: "Because 21 of the 22 examined accessions of cultigens are in Grade A (Peru and immediately adjacent northwestern Bolivia), it suggests that they originated from populations in this geographic area." This is pretty much consistent with Hawkes hypothesis that the potato was domesticated somewhere "around Lake Titicaca on the border of Peru and Bolivia", although I get the impression that Spooner is thinking of a slightly larger area that extends further into Peru and Bolivia than just the immediate Lake Titicaca area. In either case, both Hawkes or Spooner say that the area in question extends on both sides of the present-day border. The best phrasing would therefore be that "the potato was domesticated near what is now the border of Peru and Bolivia" or "...in what is today the highlands of Peru and Bolivia". This agrees with both Hawkes and Spooner. It's also is consistent with the Simmonds, Iberia and IPC sources, as well. Saying that the potato was domesticated (only) in Peru or (only) in Bolivia is not supported by any reliable source.

To be very clear, the statement that "The Peru-Bolivia border seems to have been the closest they got until Spooner's research which specifically places the origin in southern Peru" is not supported by or consitent with the Spooner article, and is OR/SYNTH, and an abuse of the source. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

You're not reading the source correctly. First, Spooner mentions that the cultigens originate from the "geographic area" of Grade A. Then, Spooner specifically mentions which area. Moreover, this understanding is validated by several other sources. Examples:

1. Spooner (2005), page 5: "A 'single' origin is here supported to mean an origin from a single species, or its progenitor (S. bukasovii), in the broad area of southern Peru."
2. Jai Gopal and S. M. Paul Khurana, Handbook of potato production, improvement, and postharvest management (Psychology Press, 2006), page 7: "Spooner et al. (2005) supported a single origin of potato from a wild species progenitor in the S. brevicaule complex in southern Peru."
3. John Reader, Potato: a history of the propitious esculent (Yale University Press, 2009), page 25: "In particular, DNA sequencing has enabled a team led by research botanist David Spooner to trace the origin of all modern potato varieties to a group of about twenty morphologically similar wild species, known as the Solanum brevicaule complex, grown by farmers in Peru more than 7,000 years ago."
4. Alison Krsgel and Alison Krögel, Food, power, and resistance in the Andes (Lexington Books, 2011), page 34: "Recent genetic analyses of wild species of the potato point to a single point of origin for the tuber's cultivation to the north of Lake Titicaca, approximately seven thousand years ago. The research botanist David Spooner argues that all modern-day varieties originated from a widl species known as Solanum brevicaule complex, thus contesting the multiple-origins argument."
5. Jaspreet Singh and Lovedeep Kaur, Advances in Potato Chemistry and Technology (Academic Press, 2009), page 157: "More recently, Spooner et al. (2005a) have provided evidence for a single domestication in Peru from the northern group of members of the S. brevicaule complex of species."

I initially made the same mistake of thinking Spooner meant all of Grade A, but he is actually being more specific than Hawkes. In essence not really contradicting him (rather, more accurate), but technically providing new evidence that contradicts the old. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 04:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The only paper that counts here is the Spooner paper. The others are irrelevant.

I've read the paper yet again, and nowhere does Spooner say that the potato was domesticated only in Peru. He says that it was domesticated "in the broad area of southern Peru". This is not synonomous with "in southern Peru", and does not exclude the part of the range in northern Bolivia, especially considering that he specifically cautions that the ranges do not exactly follow political borders, and that he still has problems clearly distinguishing the species involved from other members of the northern clade. He even gives another caveat when he says "assuming present-day distrutions".

Sorry, but your conclusion that the potato was domesticated on only one side of the present-day political border is one that Spooner did not make. Nowhere does he mention narrowing the range within the northern clade to exclude Bolivia, or even narrowing it at all, except to exclude the southern clade. The safest wording is still "the potato was domesticated near what is now the border of Peru and Bolivia", which is true even if it was domesticated only in Peru or only in Bolivia, or both.

Or much, much better: "... in the Andes Highlands near Lake Titicaca". After all, political borders have no significance in geobotany. In fact, that is the version that I would use, as there is no real value in mentioning specific countries at all, especially if it leads to nationalistic bickering. The one thing we know for absolute sure is that neither Peru nor Bolivia were even around when the potato was domesticated, so the domestication of the potato had absolutely nothing to do with either country. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hahahahaha. You're reading the Miller & Spooner (1997) article!

Here is the link to the Spooner et al. (2005) article: [57].

It says "Full Text (PDF)" on the right side. Click on it and that should link you to the information.

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 05:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm...but how could you have read "in the broad area of southern Peru" if that was on the 2005 article?

Also, the aforementioned quote is quite specific. Southern Peru back in the day remains southern Peru nowadays. "Southern Peru" does not include Bolivia. All of the other sources, including Spooner, had a perfectly good opportunity to include "Bolivia" in their concluding analysis (as in: "in the broad area of southern Peru and northern Bolivia"). None of them did it. The sources clearly use the term "southern Peru", and trying to claim it means otherwise is an inappropriate usage of the sources. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 05:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I read them both back to back, but in the second post, I made sure that everything was in the 2005 paper. And again, the other sources you listed are completely irrelvant. Sorry, but I don't buy what you are selling, especially with regards to political borders. I do believe that you are going beyond the intent of the authors of the article. And I'm beginning to sorta get the idea that your motives might be nationalistic, which is where my good faith starts wearing thin. Just a friendly reminder that that sort of stuff does not go down well here. In fact, I'm tempted to change the wording in the article now to "the Andes Highlands near Lake Titicaca", but I'll wait a few days until other editors have their say, and remain open-minded for now. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

You should explain why you think the sources I present are irrelevant. They all have the same view on the Spooner (2005) article: Domestication took place in present-day southern Peru. That's exactly what the sources state, and that's exactly what should be in the article.

I'm also seriously starting to doubt your motives on this discussion. Your claim of "the Andes highlands near Lake Titicaca" is the one that has no verification from the sources. Spooner clearly writes "in the broad area of southern Peru". Why that confuses you is beyond my understanding.

Modern political borders are being used to define specific areas. I haven't read a book that writes that stonehenge is located in a European island; they use "England" to define the present-day location of the monument (even if England didn't exist back then). And when they mean England, they mean only England (not Scotland or Wales). That's just how it is. Trying to accuse me of nationalism will get you nowhere. Again, watch your WP:Wikiquette.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 06:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

They're irrelevant because they don't have a view of their own.

Actually, all of the sources are consistent with "the Andes highlands near Lake Titicaca", Spooner included.

Next, you seem to be ignoring the word "broad".

And I'm well aware where the borders of WP:Wikiquette lie. I chose my words with extreme care. I've been jerked around by nationalist editors many times in the past.

Like I said, I'll wait a few days until other editors have their say, and remain open-minded for now. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be ignoring the words "southern Peru". Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 06:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I've taken this to the language board (Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language), to see what is their understanding of the sentence. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 06:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

And yet another source to verify my position (this one is actually really detailed):

1. Gavin Ramsay and Glenn Bryan, "Solanum," in Wild Crop Relatives: Genomic and Breeding Resources: Vegetables, edited by Chittaranjan Kole (Springer, 2011), page 264: Spooner et al. (2005) published a large-scale study using amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) markers. A total of 438 AFLP polymorphisms were assayed on 362 wild and 98 landrace accessions of potato from the Commonwealth Potato Collection and the USDA Potato Genebank at Sturgeon Bay. Cladograms were presented using Wagner parsimony methods, and these demonstrated a clustering of the majority of the accessions in the study into two clades representing the northern and southern S. brevicaule complexs, the main groups of species found in Peru and Bolivia plus Argentina, respectively. All the land-race accessions in the study clustered with the northern group and in particular a group of species from southern Peru. [...] Together, these studies indicate that the original domestication event took place in central or southern Peru at an altitude of around 3,000-4,300 m, that the original domesticates formed hybrids with other Andean wild species after migration under domestication, and that backcrossing has yielded new combinations of mostly Peruvian nuclear DNA with a range of different cytoplasms, including a relatively distant event to generate the nuclear-cytoplasmic combination found in most Chilean and European potatoes.

There is more information. Ramsay and Bryan have done a huge analysis of all information (not just Spooner), and here is the link to GoogleBooks ([58]). Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 06:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and we also have this source:

• Himilce Novas, Everything you need to know about Latino history (Penguin, 2007), page 35: "Archaeological discoveries indicate that the potato was cultivated in Peru more than seven thousand years ago, and DNA tests on potatoes have pinpointed a narrow region of origin, southern Peru, and not a wider area stretching from Peru to northern Argentina, as was thought until very recently.

Is this enough evidence, or does anybody want to keep wasting my time more? Hugs.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 07:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

No. Penguin mass market paperbacks with the title "Everything you need to know about..." are not adequate sources for the speciation and geographic origin of species of "potato." Fake wikilove doesn't paper over battleground statements. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

If I'm making battleground statements, please go ahead and report me to the board. Here is the direct link: Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance. I trust your decision, just as I trust your analysis of the Novas source.

Now, back to the topic at hand. I wonder if David Spooner wrote another article after 2005? After all, such a notable botanist should have further tried to present his research to other places. Well, I wonder...oh, what about the following:

Mercedes Ames and David Spooner, "DNA from herbarium specimens settles a controversy about origins of the European potato," in the American Journal of Botany (2007, [59]): "Potatoes were domesticated in the Andes of southern Peru about 10,000 years ago. They had a monophyletic origin from a wild species of the Solanum brevicaule complex in Peru (Spooner et al., 2005a; Spooner and Hetterscheid, 2006)."

NOTE: This article didn't even mention Bolivia. I wonder why?

Is this source valid or not? Should we try to contact David Spooner? More hugs.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

This looks like one of those discussions which really should be considered as a wording question, and people should try harder to find consensus. It should be possible to use the main article which everyone seems to agree on, in order to make an uncontroversial sentence or two. If it is really difficult, you might be forced to quote the original article exactly ("in the broad area of southern Peru", an area which may or may not include a bit of Bolivia!). OTOH, if such a quote would be felt to miss something important in the context, then ADD something about what else was in the article, rather than trying to argue the more controversial approach of saying that a direct quote would say something wrong. Aim for what is most easy to agree with. For example "based on the fact that most cultigens came from Peru and immediately adjacent northwestern Bolivia". BTW some of the posts in the above discussion are a little argumentative IMHO: it is obviously relevant to any discussion of how to read one expert article, to see how other published experts read it, and it is also clearly not true that only a Penguin edition is being used to do that - nor that Penguins are so obviously unciteable either.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Andrew. I think the statement you propose ("based on the fact that most cultigens came from Peru and immediately adjacent northwestern Bolivia") does accurately present what the sources are stating. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Concerning the Ramsay and Bryan (2011) source

I have another question:

• Gavin Ramsay and Glenn Bryan (2011) seem to have evaluated Spooner (2005) and other sources, and they have reached the conclusion that potatoes were originally domesticated in central and southern Peru. While their research is more recently published (last year), it may be too soon for other experts to have included it into their analysis (I haven't found another source which mentions their research). On the other hand, Spooner's research (of 2005) seems to have had a wider usage (as demonstrated by all of the authors, including the Penguin source, which are essentially dealing with his project; some directly, others indirectly).

So, is the source reliable or is it unreliable due to it being so recent? If it is reliable, how could it be included? Should more weight be given to Spooner (2005)? Thanks in advance.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I think in general the argument that new science should be ignored until it is cited is used when the source is not strong (unknown author or journal) or when it is "WP:REDFLAG". At the other extreme, well known authors and/or well known journals, should pretty much always be fine because WP policy even allows us to use the blogs of such people. What if the author or journal is not clearly well-known, and not clearly REDFLAG or FRINGE? I would tend to use it if there is no reason not to. At least in genetics, which is fast moving, an over-strict approach could create WP:NPOV problems because articles 3 or 4 years old are sometimes no longer reflecting the mainstream, and can even be quite far from it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Andrew. Right now we are planning to contact David Spooner and hear his explanation on the matter. Specifically, what he means by the term "south Peru". Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)