Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 127

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 120←Archive 125Archive 126Archive 127Archive 128Archive 129Archive 130

Eddy Brothers

Editor says the article is "based on material copied with permission" from Virtual Vermonter. I'm not sure this is a reliable source for the entire article, or that "copied with permission" is a valid claim. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

You're right to doubt these things :) Virtual Vermonter doesn't appear to meet our criteria as RS. If I'm right, no need to worry about the permission thing because the material should not be used as our source.
The Olcott book, mentioned on the web page, would be a primary source: we might use it with care, if someone can find a copy, but we can't base a whole article on it. The Williams book listed under "sources" on our Eddy Brothers page, published by Knopf, is probably OK: ideally, that's the kind of source we want. Maybe the Cranston book also, but whether it contains much relevant material I don't know. Andrew Dalby 14:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Having recently been fragged for copyvio myself, I know how easy it is to misunderstand and run afoul of close paraphrasing. This article seems full copyvio, to my eyes. The Virtual Vermonter page has no copyright-free notice but it does have an "all material copyright Virtual Vermonter" notice. In addition the story itself is listed as being "excerpted from" a separately copyrighted book by Rich Gray. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, well, the answer on that is that we would need full and precise documentation of any claimed "permission" given by Virtual Vermonter. We can't take an editor's word, because breach of copyright is a legal matter. But, as I said above, I don't see Virtual Vermonter as a reliable source, so we shouldn't be using it to build our text. And the style is not encyclopedic. That's three reasons to delete any substantial material taken from Virtual Vermonter. If we're to retain our article as more than a small stub, we need to consult other sources. Andrew Dalby 11:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
The talk page comments suggest that there is no copyvio: the author and owner of the original work submitted the article himself in 2004. The article should therefore not be blanked on copyvio grounds. It should, instead, be treated like something written by any other editor that happens to be in need of better sourcing and some copyediting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Blogspot

Strange as it may seem, this fella is claiming that Blogspot is a reliable source... Talk:Golden_Dawn_(Greece)#blogspot Shii (tock) 10:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Please follow the instructions at the top of the page, or in the edit window. Some unedited blogspot sites or posts may qualify under SPS or About Self. Others may be fully edited publications in the traditional sense, merely uttered by blogspot. (most, of course, are not) Fifelfoo (talk) 10:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, it appears to be just a random blog being cited as a reliable source for photos of old magazines. Shii (tock) 10:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The reliability of the magazines is quite a different question. A library catalogue would probably be a reliable source for the existence of a magazine. We do have such a thing as a "convenience link", as well, but a Blogspot blog is not ideal even then. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
To be honest Shii, I'm not leaving this page, digging around in an article talk page (possibly the article) to interpret which source I should look at. Could you provide a link to the source in question as asked for at the top of this page and in the top of every edit window. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Here it is: http://jungle-report.blogspot.de/2012/03/blog-post.html Shii (tock) 13:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Shii. This is an unedited pseudonymous blog with no indication of an Expert exemption to Self-published sources. It is manifestly unreliable for the extraordinary claims that a group is a Nazi front. Moreover, it is not reliable as an archive of magazines as there are none of the standard features of a trustworthy archive present (named archivist, deposit policy, accessions system, register, etc.) Not reliable for that article, probably not reliable for anything notable. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Better Business Bureau

Wescom Credit Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I went through the archives and could not find if a Better Business Bureau rating is considered a reliable source. An IP editor has been adding the BBB rating of Wescom Credit Union here and here. This rating does not seem appropriate for a Wikipedia article but I would like to refer to a specific policy or guideline if I remove it. Any advice or pointing me in the right direction to a previous discussion would be appreciated. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 20:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see why not. BBB is a legitimate, respected organization. From a reliability perspective, I don't see an issue, particularly if in-text attribution is used ("According to the Better Business Bureau..."). That said, there might be MOS or WikiProject guideliness regarding BBB, I don't know. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
It's incorrectly formatted, doubtless due to the editor being inexperienced, but it's a perfectly fine source (none better for this fact) and a reasonable enough thing to say about a large business. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate the feedback. I was kind of questioning the BBB citation because of the controversy over its rating system (see Better Business Bureau#Criticism) and I also wasn't sure if this fell under WP:NOT. The formatting is an easy fix. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 02:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Christian Post as reliable source on abortion

Is the Christian Post a reliable source for the claim that Zhang Wenfang, a woman (BLP) in China, was forced to undergo an abortion? I argue that based on the CP's history of what could generously be described as failure to fact-check and less generously described as deliberate propaganda on abortion issues, they are not a reliable source for any story relating to abortion. They regularly report, for instance, that studies show abortion causes breast cancer (all major medical bodies completely reject this), that the morning-after pill prevents implantation, which anti-abortion advocates consider to be abortion (modern studies agree that the pill works by preventing fertilization), and that the recent American healthcare law will fund abortions (this is legally impossible, which is why real news sources agree that these claims are nonsense). Given their obvious subordination of fact-checking to an anti-abortion agenda, they clearly fail WP:RS's requirement that a source have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and are unsuitable for use in WP article space.

Particularly suspicious is the fact that it's been two weeks since this story broke and reliable sources just won't touch it. Mainstream media has been all over the forced abortion of Feng Jianmei, and news outlets are starting to pick up similar stories from other women (eg. the BBC on Pan Chunyan). But Zhang Wenfang is only in sources with an anti-abortion agenda such as LifeNews, National Right to Life News, Christian Post, and OneNewsNow.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Due to Christian Post's demonstrable inability to fact-check to the standards required by wikipedia in this area, this article which falls into this area is unreliable for the extraordinary claim that a state forced an abortion. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. A minor political newspaper that places its political mission above its responsibility to fact-check in a particular editorial area is not reliable, and not extraordinary. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Please note that the Christian Post is not used as a source in the article. The dispute is whether it is appropriate to have an external link to a story about a woman who came forward with her claim to have had a similar experience as the actual subject of the article. The external link is presented as a claim only and the reader can decide for themselves the reliability of the story. I feel this is the appropriate way to handle the situation. (Note also that the BBC story is a likewise a publication of a claimed story - again presenting it as an external link allows the reader to decide for him/herself.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Stating that the Christian Post has an anti-aboriton agenda is itself an unproven assertion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
RS/N deals with editor evaluations of sources according to a depth of consensus and understanding of sourcing issues that the community has developed over an extended period of time. Regarding External Links, you'd want the External Links noticeboard, they have their own criteria that they're obliged to evaluate external links by that differ significantly to the reliable sourcing criteria. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I've re-posted the Q on the EL noticeboard as the dispute is over using CP as an external link, not as a source. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
If you want more info about the Christian Post views on abortion it may be useful to read this page. Arcandam (talk) 03:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Not reliable. The CP is terribly biased with its facts in servitude to its agenda. Binksternet (talk) 14:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Active Anime

[1] < Would this be considered a reliable source? It has a mention on Anime News network, Blu-ray.com cites them without comment, About.com Guide Deb Aoki links to one of their articles, and ICV2 cites them with attribution.

Possibly. The question is for what claims on what articles? Their editorial policy here is fairly sparse. There's no indication that their reviews are weighty. But they do have a minimal "fact checking" apparatus in place. So what do you want to cite for them on what article? I'd certainly dispute that this is a source that contributes to notability. Sandra Scholes appears to have extensive reviewing experience, but again, this doesn't make her opinions weighty. In what article for which claims? Fifelfoo (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Well for example the source is used in Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle for Reception, the article is rated as a GA class article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
No, just no. Those reception claims are cited against "reviews" by non-experts in a shoddily edited blogzine. There's nowhere near enough WEIGHT behind those reviews to substantiate using those opinions in those articles. Sure, we can trust that Active Anime is reliable that those reviewers believed those things regarding the text. What I don't see evidence of is why we should care what those reviewers think. Opinions aren't facts, and these opinions come from people, and a magazine, with no real reason to attend to their opinion at all. Attribution doesn't make up for discussing something which is entirely weightless. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Source I really don't know what to make of

On the Rudolph Rummel article, this was used as a source for criticism. It was apparently posted to "MarxMail.org", and the editor who added it claims that it was written by someone named Louis Proyect. Proyect may be a reliable source but I don't know who he is, and I didn't see his name in the article. It looks dubious to me, but CartoonDiablo insists that I would be biased to remove it.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Not a reliable source at all, unless it was published elsewhere and is just being shared on "MarxMail.org" -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) largely per Jrtayloriv, but in depth: Louis Proyect appears to be a system administrator and political activist. He keeps a collection of contributions he has written to an internet mailing list on his website here. He has been broadly published in left wing presses and scholarly journals ("My articles, many of which appeared originally as postings to the Marxism list, have appeared in Sozialismus (Germany), Science and Society, New Politics, Journal of the History of Economic Thought, Organization and Environment, Cultural Logic, Dark Night Field Notes, Revolutionary History (Great Britain), New Interventions (Great Britain), Canadian Dimension, Revolution Magazine (New Zealand), Swans and Green Left Weekly (Australia).") Some of these publications are reliable in the wikipedia sense. I see no evidence that Noam Chomsky, Crooked Timber and crooked numbers (2006) has been so published. If this were published in GLW I'd think it worth noting, possibly along the lines of "Rummel's statistical competence and methodology has been harshly criticised in the popular left wing press." If this were published in Science and Society I'd say go further and note that scholarly criticism of Rummel's statistical competence and methodology exists. But unless Noam Chomsky, Crooked Timber and crooked numbers (2006) was published by one of the organs Proyect names, I would say we shouldn't use it. Proyect's personal expertise does not go to the criticism of statistical demography of mortality. (And there are, I believe, trenchant criticisms of Rummel's demography in the scholarly press). Fifelfoo (talk) 03:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not sure if it was published elsewhere. I've asked CartoonDiablo to explain if it was or where it originated. It looks totally unreliable to me, but he may have some explanation.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
My very best wishes removed the source. It's up to CartoonDiablo to respond now or accept this removal.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

James H. Fetzer

James H. Fetzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article about conspiracy theorist James H. Fetzer contains the following statement...

A recent interview in which Jones was Fetzer's guest, which revealed the depth and breadth of their differences, elicited dozens of negative comments.

...with an incompletely formatted citation that points to this blog post with replies. I'm not sure if this is a reliable source issue or an original research issue or both. Thanks! Location (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It's both. First, 911blogger.com is not a reliable source and even if it were, comments left by readers may never be used as sources. Second, yes it's original research to read the comments and draw conclusions about them. And since Fetzer is a living person, it's a WP:BLP violation, too. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Per A Quest For Knowledge's reasoning. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Location (talk) 02:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

If I may bring up another one. The article contains this statement:

With Canadian journalist Joshua Blakeney, he has organized a second conference from Scholars, "The Vancouver Hearings", which will be held there 15-17 June 2012.[10]

...with an incompletely formatted citation that points to 911vancouverhearings.com. It appears to be primarily promotional, but there is no "About us" and I'm not sure how this is judged by RSN. Thanks! Location (talk) 03:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

911vancouverhearings.com would not be a reliable source, unless for the opinion of its author. Tom Harrison Talk 12:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks again! Location (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I also have a question pertaining to YouTube as a reliable source. The article states:

On June 22, 2006, Fetzer was a guest on Fox News Channel's Hannity & Colmes where he discussed his stance on several 9/11 conspiracy theories. In July 2006, Fetzer discussed Bill O'Reilly's remark that, if Kevin Barrett had been at his alma mater, Boston University, "this guy'd be in the Charles River floating down, you know, toward the harbor", stating, "When public threats can be made to a citizen's life for expressing his opinions on a controversial topic and neither the government nor the media respond, that is a sure sign we are living in a fascist state."

Although the statements are not currently cited, I believe one or both were previously linked to viewer-uploaded YouTube clips. My interpretation of the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Overview is that clips would need to be uploaded by Fox or a legitimate archiving entity for them to be used as reliable sources. Is that correct? Are these links alone even enough to state that he appeared on Hannity & Colmes or O'Reilly? Thanks! Location (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I found a City Pages article that could be used to support the statement that he was on Fox, but Wikipedia labels City Pages as a tabloid. Would that be acceptable? Location (talk) 17:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Tabloid format is not a disqualifier for reliability! --Orange Mike | Talk 18:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! Location (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
The largest problem with the paragraph from the article is that it synthesizes multiple sources in a way that makes it look like things were said that weren't:
  • On 11 July 2006 Bill O'Reilly said "But here's the problem that I see at Wisconsin. There's no leadership here. There's no leadership in the board of regents at the university. This guy [Barrett]] would have been gone at Boston University, my alma martyr in a heartbeat. The chancellor there, John Silver, this guy would be in the Charles River [floating]throating down, you know, toward the harbor. It wouldn't happen. But here at the University of Wisconsin, there are no standards. This guy can go in and say anything, not back it up, and get paid by the taxpayers. And I'm just stunned." ("Impact." Fox News Network. (July 11, 2006 Tuesday ): 845 words. LexisNexis. Web. Date Accessed: 2012/07/16.)
  • On 25 July 2006, O'Reilly said that Barrett had written a letter about the 11 July broadcast - "So what did Barrett do when he heard I said that? He wrote a letter to my boss saying, quote, 'It has come to my attention that one of your announcers, Bill O'Reilly, has stated on national television that he would like to see me murdered and thrown into the Boston Harbor,' unquote." followed by "Yes, I mean, this guy [Barrett]] is obviously -- there's something the matter. I don't know what it is. But you know, when he -- when he writes that I wanted him murdered." ("Controversial Professor Teaching Conspiracy Theory." Fox News Network. (July 25, 2006 Tuesday ): 879 words. LexisNexis. Web. Date Accessed: 2012/07/16.)
  • Fetzer was not mentioned or quoted on either program, and was never quoted on Fox as having anything to say about the interchange.
The article combines these statements, along with unsourced commentary by Fetzer, and makes it sound like there is a RS for Fetzer's commentary. WP:SYN. --Tgeairn (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to remove that second sentence. I found Fetzer's commentary in a press release], but it does not appear that his thoughts about O'Reilly were reported on by reliable secondary sources. Right now, I'm just looking for a RS to back-up the article's assertion that he has appeared on Fox. Location (talk) 19:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
He has been on several times. I will pull citations and drop them at the article talk page, since they are Fox News transcripts I don't think there's a RS issue. --Tgeairn (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

TMZ

Would this TMZ article be reliable source for info regarding Sage Stallone's death? Shark96z (talk · contribs) 02:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Helpdesk#TMZ Arcandam (talk) 12:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Have you both checked the RS/N archives? Fifelfoo (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Nope. Arcandam (talk) 01:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The article in question is written by a staff writer of an unedited blog. There is no way that this is reliable for news, such as the death or conditions of the death of an individual. Moreover, the "content" is a montage of quotations—and TMZ has no fact checking or editorial policy. This is a definitional example of an unreliable source. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Anandtech

Can someone offer an opinion of the reliability of anandtech.com? This is specifically in reference to Talk:iPhone 4#Can a confirmed user please add a citation for me for the Apple A4 Intrinsity design?. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Anandtech, in my opinion is undoubtedly a reliable news source, articles from the website have been cited by numerous other reputable sources such as "PC Magazine" and has a considerably high Alexa ranking for a special-interest website. The website also has a Wikipedia article that appears to be well-sourced with both primary and secondary sources. I personally have referenced various articles on mobile devices, computer hardware and other technology-related concepts on Wikipedia with article from that website. YuMaNuMa Contrib 09:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Agree, Anandtech is a reliable source for tech news. Currently being used by over 300 articles. Zad68 16:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Anandtech is a reliable source for hardware related stuff. I bought a GTX295 and a GTX580 based on their reviews and the results I got were pretty much the same as the results of the benchmarktests they published (in CoDWaW and Wolfenstein, I did not test every single game). Arcandam (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I've added the citation, thanks all. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Fashion Model Directory

Just curious, would Fashion Model Directory be a reliable source at all? It doesn't seem so to me. For the curious, I'm now in a "dispute" at Lily Cole, wherein the IMDB, Fashion Model Directory, and other similar sites list her birthdate as May 19, 1988. However, The Observer, an actual newspaper, printed on January 6, 2008 that she just turned 20 (link here). The Evening Standard, dated February 26, 2004, states that Cole is 16 at that time (Link here). She twitted a picture of a birthday cake, saying "24", on December 27, 2011 (implying a December 27, 1987 birthdate); (link here). When someone wished Cole a happy birthday the night after December 27, 2011, she replied with a thank you on her verified Twitter account (link here). British Birth Records list Lily Luahana Cole as having her birth registered in February 1988, which fits with the December 27, 1987 date that she asserts. Surely, given her verified Twitter account, this is an open-and-shut case, and something like a Fashion Model Directory can be duly ignored? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 18:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

You could just give her birth date as 1987 or 1988 and give all the sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Why? She celebrates her birthday in December. Nothing worth believing says May 1988. Aside from that, I found two more newspapers that state her right age (17 in April 2005 and 18 in April 2006). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 20:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Scopes Trial

A content dispute has arisen at Scopes Trial involving multiple questions of policy (WP:V/WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV). For lack of a better idea, I'll bring it here and seek some outside opinions on whether the sources are reliable vis-à-vis the statements they're being used to support.

Thanks for any guidance. Rivertorch (talk) 08:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Neither AIG, not CW nor EN is remotely a reliable source. They are all promoting quite particular (and particularly implausible) interpretations of one religion without regard for reality. They could be used as sources for their own opinion, but I very much doubt that these opinions are notable. I don't know how good or bad the editorial policy of About.com is, but again, I fail to see this comment as notable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
AIG, CW, EN are not reliable sources and should not be used - expect in the very limited circumstances described by Stephan. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Right. I alluded to that on the talk page. Many thanks to both of you for your help. Rivertorch (talk) 09:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand about CW, which I mistakenly left in, and also EN, even though the writer is from the Discovery Institute.

What I don't understand, though, is why a creationist perspective can't be given on the play/film Inherit the Wind if it is clearly labelled as such. It isn't a matter of science, but of historical fact, which the play/film clearly distorts in the favor of the evolution side. For just two things, it never mentions the ACLU's involvement, making Scopes seem persecuted, and it made the creationist lawyer traumatize the teacher's girlfriend on the stand when Scopes had no girlfriend and no women were part of the trial. If the serious inaccuracies in ITW aren't addressed, then WP seems to be approving the play/film as fairly-accurate history and a reliable source itself, when it's not. As one of the sources, Austin Cline of the atheism page on About.com, acknowledges, ITW is taken as history. People don't know what the difference is since most will never actually study the trial.

I also proposed, although maybe not clearly enough, that if the research in AiG's article on the discrepancies wasn't allowed, then at least a straight opinion from the article on what creationists see as its bias against creationists be included. Something like, "creationists believe that the play/film is biased in how it portrays the trial," along with Austin Cline's comment on his view that it is not historically accurate. I also want to mention, too, that I haven't seen a comment on including Austin Cline's remarks and if they are considered RS. Psalm84 (talk) 10:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

None of these sources are reliable for the claim. The standards expected for sources here would be scholarly literary criticism, scholarly history of science or scholarly applied theology / religious history. None of the sources meet this standard. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
In that particular section the article, which isn't on the actual Scopes trial but on film/plays about it, there are two sources to Bryan.edu and Allegedthemovie.com, which don't meet that sort of standard.
In the section on plays/films it seems the standards should be closer to those for plays/films/documentaries would apply, wouldn't they? And About.com seems to be a frequent RS for WP. Psalm84 (talk) 10:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I also am wondering, too, are there any RS that are creationist, so that there could be a creationist reply to how creationism is portrayed in the play/film, even if it's just a remark that they find it biased? I am also wondering if the historical inaccuracies and the bias in the film are clear to others. I placed a couple of examples here of the inaccuracies, and there are more in the diff in the original post. Psalm84 (talk) 11:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
How can gutter presses evaluate the historical accuracy of a fictive work? Fifelfoo (talk) 11:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Film critics often do it. A lot of the inaccuracies are blatant. And it is objective that creationists object to how they're portrayed in the film and believe it distorted what happened. That belief is also backed up by those discrepancies. I mentioned a couple, but there are more. Psalm84 (talk) 11:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
So find it in an appropriately edited press, and bring it to RS/N. Bring your sourcing out of the gutter. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Right now since I dropped two sources I'm just talking about Answers in Genesis and About.com. I'm not sure why either are "gutter sources"? And there is a problem with finding such a source that isn't creationist that talks about the inaccuracies in a play that attacks creationism. As I wrote on the talk page: "if AiG is so objectionable, how about a quote from the article which is clearly their opinion that they find the film to be biased and inaccurate?" Psalm84 (talk) 11:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Why would we give any credence to such a fringe unreliable source and their opinion? --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
If a play/film negatively portrays a certain group of people and they object to it, why shouldn't a comment on how they believe they were falsely portrayed be included? And in this case, comparing the trial to the play shows that. Psalm84 (talk) 12:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

None of the sources listed have a suitable fact checking editorial policy. In particular the religious sources listed are sub-tabloid. About is a link farm with an open door policy on content and no expertise. If serious scholarly literalist theologians have engaged with the subject of the subsection of the article, then please bring those sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

We are starting to go in circles - there is no consensus to include your fringe sources in any form and unless you bring new sources to the table there is nothing left to discuss. That other pages need clean-up means nothing to this discussion (leaving aside that 95% of the usage are to talkpages) --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

We are talking about the play specifically, and right in the article, when it gets to the play, it says it was "was loosely based on this trial" and "... not based on any actual event", ergo, it's fiction. It does not need to portray historical accuracy, and certainly does not need any clarification from a "creationist perspective". That's absurd.
  • AIG not RS.
  • CW not RS.
  • EN, I would like to see the specific article cited, it's possible the author may be credible (for his own opinion only), but the site is not RS.
  • About.com not RS.
In response to your question about finding a suitable film review, if you can find a film critic who is RS and points out the creationist view flaws in the movie, it may be RS, but may still fail under WP:WEIGHT or WP:FRINGE concerns, admittedly, you're in a very tough place to advance from, at least that's how I see it.
As an aside, many articles here have poor sources, that doesn't mean we should add one more, it means those other articles with poor sources should be written better, WP:OSE is never a good argument. -- Despayre  tête-à-tête 16:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. My previous post wasn't meant to illustrate that these sources are reliable. Instead, it was meant to illustrate that the problem is more widespread than this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Widespread use of potentially inappropriate sources

I'm going to keep this up here for a bit, so as to specify the problem and allow RS/N editors to examine test cases from these publications. I resolved the single inappropriate use of creationworldview.org already. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/: 1114 external links.

Is Wright, David (9 March 2012). "Feedback: Timeline for the Flood". Answers in Genesis. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) a reliable webpage to act as a reference for Flood geology. Flood geology is a FRINGE science, and so in an article on a FRINGE science, participation in standard scholarly peer review may not be a reliability criteria, as long as the work has been reviewed by the FRINGE community and is used for discussion of FRINGE beliefs. As the work is used as a general reference in Flood geology, no specific claim is sourced against it. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I would say no, unless it is to back up reliable sources. Fringe beliefs that have not been discussed in reliable sources t of the fringe community are probably not noteworthy of inclusion in WP articles. First of all, we have the problem of weight. We cannot tell how prominent a particular belief is within the fringe community based on the say so of highly partisan promotial, advocacy or apologetics sources that do not have a reputation of being neutral sources of relaible information, and in fact have a reputation for misrepresentation.
The question is topical as I was just considering removing this section [[3]] and the second paragraph of this section [[4]] because they are entirely sourced to fringe sources. In my view, creating material based solely on in-universe fringe sources is tantamount to OR based on primary documents. I would appreciate your input.
Furthermore, whether something has been "reviewed" by the fringe community is irrelvant, as the "review" is not truly independent, nor does it resemble in any aspect real scholarly review. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
If there's a peer reviewed journal of Flood Geology, then the papers contained within are probably useful for explaining the beliefs of Flood geologers, edited anti-science is still edited and it would be reliable for the views of that FRINGE anti-science community. It would obviously be completely and utterly worthless in explaining geology. Regarding the two sections you noted, if "Robert Larmer" is a scholarly theologian, or highly esteemed professional practicioner with widespread publications in professional theological presses, his views might be noteworthy. The rest looks like garbage. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Robert Larmer, "Is there anything wrong with "God of the gaps" reasoning, " International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 52: 129–142, 2002. is reliably published, and appropriately peer reviewed afaict, the question would be, does it support the supposition in the text, or is the supposition OR? Fifelfoo (talk) 05:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I was not talking about the Larmer paragraph, but the next paragraph starting with "Christian young Earth creationists". That paragraph does look entirely like OR.
As for "peer reviewed journal of flood geology", I trust that you mean genuinely academically peer reviewed, and not a sham pseudo-academic journal that claims to be "peer-reviewed" as described in the first paragraph of WP:PARITY. I'm not sure, but it seems that you are saying that "editing" is sufficient to make a source reliable. The "editing" that takes place solely within a fringe community does little to add credibility to a source, the same as with "review". An editor has to have a reputation for sound editing within the mainstream community for a source to be considered reliable, and a belief has to be discussed (whether favorably, unfavorably or neutrally) by the mainstream community to be considered noteworthy. Your thoughts? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
You would be correct if the topic were geology, or the scientific correctness of flood "geology," but when representing faithfully the beliefs of flood "geologists" themselves, we should use the best available flood geological sources. Let us consider three sources (Guttersnipe 2011) a christian YEC link aggregator with no authors for the article and no editorial policy, (Fringe 2002) a "peer" "reviewed" Flood "geologist" journal, and (Geologist 2010) a peer reviewed geologist in a normal magazine. We would use them such: "Flood geology is a pseudo-science whose views are utterly rejected by the scientific community. (Geologist 2010) Flood geologists believe X, Y and Z. (Geologist 2010; Fringe 2002) These beliefs fail to account for observed phenomena A, B and C. (Geologist 2010) Flood geologists mainly collaborate through a yearly conference held in East Timor. (Fringe 2002)" Do you understand what I'm getting at here? We should never use guttertrash link aggregators, even when using them to source the contents of the beliefs of FRINGE groups. Some FRINGE groups, such as Flood Geology may have internally consistent systems to verify that Flood Geologists actually believe X, Y or Z; when such systems of confirmation exist, we should use such sources when explaining the content of FRINGE beliefs. Such sources can't speak to the validity of FRINGE beliefs, but they can speak to the content of FRINGE beliefs. Do you get me? Fifelfoo (talk) 06:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
No. I'm talking about any content, not just scientific content. The beliefs of fringe groups are a topic of scholarly interest, and thus require sources deemed as reliable by the scholarly community, whether the source itself originates from within the fringe community or not.
I do, however, agree that the best sources from within the fringe community can be used, with "best" defined by their standing outside of the fringe commnunity. That is, have real serious scholars found the source reliable and used it in their discussion of the topic. A source that is valued and referenced solely within the fringe universe is probably of little value here on WP. I would reject your recognition of "peer" "reviewed" as adding credibility to the source (Fringe 2002), though, if that credibilty is entirely self-assigned or recognized only in-universe, and not by the scholarly community at large.
The example you gave, "Flood geologists mainly collaborate through a yearly conference held in East Timor", is particularly troublesome, because it's not necessarily non-controversial. Fringe communities tend to be extremely factionary, and their publications tend to be exceedingly partisan in this regard. The source you picked may repesent a small off-shoot of the community that does indeed meet in East Timor, but ignores the BIG pow-wow attended by most other factions in Ouagadougou (the infamous "no true Scotsman meets in Ouagadougou" fallacy). Without recourse to out-of-universe sources, it would be impossible to evaluate the reliability of their claim without violating WP:OR. Unless I had out-of-universe confirmation, I would not allow the sentence as you posted it. I MIGHT allow clearly non-controversial statements about themselves in a very limited sense, though, based on such sources, but not about the fringe community as a whole.
Indeed, the reason that I am removing the first section I mentioned above is that it is factionary, and limited to the Seventh Day Adventist element of the YEC community, which promotes vegetarianism. The rest of the YEC community does not really care one way or the other about vegetarianism.
Last of all, please give me your opinion on the SECOND paragraph of this section [5]], beginning with the words "Christian young Earth creationists". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
You don't have to use all caps by the way. I would pull the second and third paragraphs in their entirety. There's no indication that the opinions in the second paragraph are weighty (particularly as the article is YEC, not Answers in Genesis, etc.). The third paragraph appears to have no sourcing other than tripe articles. (You'd think a fucking fringe community would at least be a coherent whole—obviously the "about oneself" exemption only applies to the organisations publishing such organs.) Fifelfoo (talk) 07:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about that. Agree with third paragraph as well. Fringe communities are very rarely unified and uniform. I've been workign on sourcing for the articles on astrology for the past year, and it's almost impossible to identify significant figures or movements in that "community" at all because exremely few reliable out-of-universe sources exist at all. Much worse than with creationism, for which we do have abundant reliable out-of-universe sources. Thanks very much for your input! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

It gets worse. Their stuff is in general unedited shite from non-notables, but they have run a "Technical Journal" with no about information, on which one paper at least claims review prior to publication (cf: Bombardier_beetle#cite_ref-am_5-0); and actually run a "peer reviewed" publication, ARJ to publish pseudo-science. ARJ looks like it would contain "weighty" opinions by biblical literalist pseudo-scientists; if the opinion of a pseudo-scientist would otherwise be weight-worthy in a particular article (noted controversy in non-FRINGE sources, etc, involving the FRINGE). So we can't just nuke this, because occasionally there might be "good" stuff there, but most of the 1000 links are either going to be talk space or utter crap. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Vis a vis 'flood' geologists, J Harland Bretz was no Biblical literalist, but his regional catastrophism was scorned by the American Geological Society, probably from vehement distaste for any form of catastrophic explanation, until his more rigorous interpretation of the data vindicated him - test propositions carefully.Cpsoper (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not seeing how Bretz is relevant to the discussion of a link aggregating website that publishes unpeer reviewed magazines? If you want to start a discussion of the use of a particular Bretz work in a particular Bretz article I suggest you start a new section in RS/N at the bottom. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I quote, 'Flood geology is a FRINGE science' - precisely how the AGS myopically reacted to Bretz. The relevance of neglecting a wealth of important data and of a blinkering paradigm like gradualism should be obvious given this and other historical antecedents.Cpsoper (talk) 23:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

We don't have the privilege that original researchers have of reacting myopically or with good long sight to novel or non-standard hypotheses. We represent the preponderance of scholarly knowledge. If you wish to change the preponderance of scholarly knowledge, then a geological, theological or history and philosophy of science doctorate and subsequent scholarly publications is only 10-15 years away. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

This item has been accepted as a large scale clean-up at Wikipedia:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard/Large scale clean-ups Fifelfoo (talk) 07:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

These represent articles reprinted from Journal of Creation, formerly Technical Journal; a product published by Creation Ministries International. Journal of Creation / Technical Journal has no indication of peer review and has a mission to publish pseudo-science. Answersingenesis.org makes no acknowledgement of Journal of Creation/Technical Journal's copyright, and these items should probably be deleted as copyvio links, when they're not deleted for being non-noteworthy FRINGE science or FRINGE humanities.

Example article: Bombardier beetle
Example source: Armitage, Mark H.; Mullisen, Luke (April 2003). Preliminary observations of the pygidial gland of the Bombardier Beetle, Brachinus sp.. Answers in Genesis. Retrieved 9 July 2007.
Actual source: Armitage, Mark H.; Mullisen, Luke (2002) "Preliminary observations of the pygidial gland of the Bombardier Beetle, Brachinus sp." Technical Journal (Christian Ministeries International) 17:1
Claim supported, "Others such as intelligent design proponent Michael Behe and Answers in Genesis, accept most of the scientific view but contend that "complexity" suggests an origin by design."
Claim fallaciously claims weight to this FRINGE view, and misattributes it. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Vis a vis 'flood' geologists, J Harlen Bretz was of course no Biblical literalist, but his regional catastrophism was foolishly scorned by the American Geological Society, till his interpretation of the data vindicated him - be careful to test things carefully.Cpsoper (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
And that's relevant how? I see that what you identify as your "home page" on your user page contains an array of links to some of the unreliable sources under discussion here. Rivertorch (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, please give an example of unreliability in the citations quoted.Cpsoper (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Technical Journal isn't peer reviewed, it fails to meet the basic criteria for science articles. The claim "Others such …Answers in Genesis, accept [fact]" is manifestly unverifiable from the article as Armitage and Mullisen (2002) was never published by Answers in Genesis. Even then, it is a misweighting, as AiG's opinion (a religious lobby organisation) means sweet fuck all on a scientific article. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Foul language betrays weak argument - to avoid clogging up this noticeboard, see rebuttal on my talk page shortly, where you may reply.Cpsoper (talk) 23:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
If you don't wish to participate in a consensus forming discussion, do not be surprised when your opinions are not included in the consensus formed. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree, Fifel. It is a valuable comment, looking at some of the expressions in the section above.Cpsoper (talk) 23:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad you agree with yourself—mass suspected copyright violation external links are a serious business. Also, as you would know from detailed policy discussions; that while I am sad that your variant of English is so limited, I am not going to go and erase my own variant of English to meet your personal needs. I will perhaps avoid using my own variety of English's natural emphatics, mate, but your decision to withdraw from consensus formation and your use of an effectively ad hominem attack are not particularly good engagement with the policies of our community. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I've gone through this link series, generally replacing these links with citations to Technical Journal and only removing content when the claims were that content cited against Technical Journal was representative of Answers in Genesis' views. Cases where these were indicative of YEC community views as a whole were tagged with an inline weight template, and discussion started on the talk page for the community of editors there to evaluate. Outside of a few scientific articles, these links were on YEC related pages. Links starting http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/ should probably be blacklisted due to the copyvio element; could someone advise on this? Fifelfoo (talk) 02:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Represent a peer-reviewed FRINGE "journal", Answers research journal, which I believe indicates that these views may be weight worthy within the FRINGE science community represented; such that they would be reasonable to use when commenting on the FRINGE practice itself (but obviously not its validity) in articles solely dedicated to FRINGE practices. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Any other links in article space

Represent unedited or at best "popular" magazine articles representing FRINGE science or FRINGE humanities from non-weight worthy opinions. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

http://www.evolutionnews.org/: 207 external links.

Is the headpage of evolutionnews.org reliable for the claim, "According to the Center for Science and Culture's weblog,[3] at least 10 state legislatures are now considering legislation reconsidering how evolution is taught." in Intelligent design in politics? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Is Holocaust Denier Led the Charge Against Academic Freedom on Evolution in Alabama Casey Luskin. Discovery Institute, Evolutionnews.org. reliable for the claim "A notable characteristic of this [free speech on evolution] campaign is the [Discovery] Institutes framing the issues as a confluence of free speech, academic freedom and discrimination," in Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Not really. Such sites are reliable only as primary sources to describe themselves, and then only in the most basic terms. The subjects of articles don't get to decide which of their own characteristics should be termed notable. On a broader note, it looks as if you've uncovered a potentially widespread sourcing problem here. Do those counts include both inline citations and standalone external links? Rivertorch (talk) 06:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I didn't uncover them, another user did. They appear to be at least 50% article space, and most of them references rather than External Links. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
At first sight it looked terrifying, but I see that quite a lot are on talk and project pages. Then there are articles that from their titles are about organisations and individuals involved in this perspective. These probably need a long trawl through to see how many are notable, and whether we have a huge walled garden here or not. The references on science articles, like Bombadier beetle can never be justified, as far as I can see. That creationists evoked the B. beetle might be a notable fact in creationism but isn't a notable fact about the B. beetle. The material should simply be deleted. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

This item has been accepted as a large scale clean-up at Wikipedia:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard/Large scale clean-ups Fifelfoo (talk) 07:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

This large scale clean-up is causing problems for articles like Objections to evolution and Nylon-eating bacteria and creationism that cover the Creation–evolution controversy, which may be notable as a scientific controversy because of the psuedo sicence nature of creation science, but is quite notable as a cultural/political/religious/sociological phenomenon. Anyone with any sense knows that Answers in Genesis is never a reliable source for any scientific topic, but it is a reliable source (and an important one) for what creationists say and think and it is widely cited as such by postings on websites that are reliable sources such as National Center for Science Education, TalkOrigins Archive and NMSR. If we can't cite sources from organizations like AiG or Creation Ministries International it is hard to cover the controversy, especially since those organizations are significant players in the controversy. It is a long established principle that sources that would not otherwise be considered reliable for anything else, are in fact reliable sources for their own viewpoints. Let us stop and discuss this a little before we continue to hack up perfectly good articles like the two I mentioned. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
We are trying to bear that factor in mind. You'll have seen that I divided the articles into categories; that was to help cleanup and allow people with subject expertise to help out with the articles most relevant to them. I see the use of AiG to illustrate the YEC position as an open question. If their position is notable in regard to a topic, it can go in. It isn't always notable. Often, there will be a better source for the same position. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you are trying to keep that in mind, but the edits at objections to evolution in particular don't seem to be consistent with that, and it has sparked a mini edit war. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

AFL.com.au

QClash is currently going through a pre-afd discussion about notability due to a lack of reliable, independent third party sources over an extended period of time. QClash is a sports rivalry, involving two teams from the Australian Football League. The articles sources are comprised solely of the AFL.com.au website and various sub-domains (domains for individual teams).

The Australian Football League itself owns and operates the AFL.com.au website. This source is already used over 4,000 times on the site so this source covers far more than this singular topic.

A point has been raised that we should consider sources from the AFL.com.au to be independent, third-party reliable sources for topics about the Australian Football League and Australian Rules Football. The basis of this claim is that because the writers label themselves 'journalists' they do not have any conflict of interest and should be considered independent and third-party for the purposes of wikipedia and it's various guidelines in regards to topics involving those subjects.

I have several problems with that in regards to WP:THIRDPARTY, WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFY. A third party must be independent and unaffiliated with the subject. This site is owned and operated by the Australian Football League and the title of afl.com.au is The Official Site of the Australian Football League. There is a clear conflict of interest and complete lack of independence on display in the very title of the site. The writers on that site are paid for by the Australian Football League to write on topics owned or directly involving the company that hired them, that the articles are directly affiliated with the subject and topics. Hiring and paying someone who calls themselves a 'journalist' to write them doesn't make the resulting article any more independent or reliable than having had someone titled 'marketing manager' or the CEO write them.

I believe this source cannot be considered an independent third-party source on topics related to the Australian Football League. Can I get a ruling or consensus on this? Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Responders please note the history of this user. Thanks. Footy Freak7 (talk) 10:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
That has nothing to do with this request. Your issue with myself has been sorted by administrator review and is not relevant. Macktheknifeau (talk) 10:28, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
It has plenty to do with this request as it is a continuation of the same behaviour behind another cover, and lends itself firmly to an act of bad faith. That's all I need to say. Footy Freak7 (talk) 11:35, 16 July 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.

afl.com.au appears to be a news aggregation site. Many, many articles there are harvested from external sources, and those that aren't seem to be written by reputable journalists. My random pick was [6] which includes a footnote "The views in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of the AFL or its clubs". The poster seems to be implying this is like a media department writing COI material (which is complete nonsense). I see no reason to think this is not a reliable source. It is also true that Macktheknife needs to WP:DROPIT. Moondyne (talk) 12:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

What Moondyne said. I see no reason why the league would NOT be a reliable source of information about itself and teams in the AFL. This also appears to be part of an ongoing issue where Macktheknifeau is forum shopping after articles about the A-League were deleted. --LauraHale (talk) 12:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I think you're misunderstanding the issue. I have been allowed by an administrator to continue checking these articles and that is not to be considered 'disruptive' so I would kindly ask you to consider the issue at hand. As to the issue itself, the site has hired hundreds of staff members to work in it's new media-marketing arm very recently and a great deal of it's content is now written by members of it's own staff. While it may have been an news aggregation site in the past it's articles are now written by people employed by the company. This isn't about reliability as much as independence. The writers for the AFL.com.au media-marketing arm are paid and funded by the AFL, under the banner of the AFL, on the 'afl.com' website. They are reporting on their own company and it's products, they are paid by that same company, and they write about their companies own league, products and the teams that participate in it. The issue is that some people wish to use these sources, paid and bought by the AFL, to be considered 'independent' (and thus to use them as proof of notability), despite their content by produced by a company and staff members with direct affiliation with the subjects, violating WP guidelines on notability, independence and third-party sources. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Prior to a major change to the AFL Media earlier this year, it could be argued that the AFL and club sites had a conflict of interest, but as Mack well knows, they reorganised themselves and expanded into a fully fledged news organisation and claim to have complete editorial independence from the AFL commission. Unless this can be proven to be false we should AGF and for this year's articles use it equally to any other news outlet. As I said on the QClash talk page, some believe that all Australian news outlets are conflicted in some way due to sponsorship, licensing, access or accreditation reasons. In any event it is rare that we must rely only on afl sites for verification, most topics (including the one that sparked this notice) are almost always virtually duplicated on all of the main news sites. Whether they are still available online or protected by a paywall is one of the reasons why AFL links are often easier to use. I have frequently recommended to new editors to try to use at least one non AFL site source to fulfil beyond any doubt the independent requirement of GNG. Finally, there is actually no problem with using some non-independent sources to verify information, if it is considered a reliable source. It is only to prove notability that the independent clause is important. (edit conflict addition) calling AFL media a marketing arm is insulting to the journalists involved and Mack needs to AGF and drop it. Are journos from The Times or The Age marketing arms for News Corp or Fairfax? Their main aim is to sell newspapers, isn't it?The-Pope (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
and a quick search on the Fairfax and Courier Mail sites has found a few refs on each. Mack still doesn't seem to understand that these articles aren't GA/FA level and can be improved by what else is out there.The-Pope (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
If those News Corp or Fairfax journalists were reporting on their own company then yes, of course they would have a conflict of interest and should be considered non-independent in regards to Wikipedia guidelines, and I doubt us saying so would be an insult to them. The same thing matters here in my view. My concern is people attempting to use the non-independent, non-third party afl.com.au sites as proof of notability for topics that are directly owned by the AFL itself and as such ignoring the guidelines that consider direct affiliations non-usable for the purposes of notability. Anything outside this 'proof of notability' issue is a secondary issue that isn't the focus of my request for clarification here. I have no problem using AFL.com.au articles to confirm details, but not being used as proof of notability on topics directly affiliated with that company. Macktheknifeau (talk) 06:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Well thats different to what you asked for an opinion on. This is the WP:RS noticeboard. WP:N/N is thataway. Moondyne (talk) 13:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Internet marketing: Niche marketing

Hello, I noticed that the Niche Marketing section of the Internet Marketing page needed work, so I re-wrote it over the course of a day or two. Several times I attempted to use a self-published source (blog) from an expert in the field. I attempted to argue that the source is an expert based on their having been invited to publish five articles on a recognized online journal in that field (They have been a contributor also on other journals in the field, but I chose the most recognized one.) The source was a how-to blog for SEO and the author (Aviva Blumstein) was previously published on Search Engine People which was recognized as a reliable third-party source by: http://www.searchenginejournal.com/so-you-want-to-start-a-big-seo-blog/29976/ and http://unbounce.com/online-marketing/75-top-marketing-blogs-to-make-your-rss-reader-fat/ and http://www.invesp.com/blog-rank/SEO

Am I misunderstanding the following policy from WP:RS: Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources; see WP:NEWSBLOG. 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.

In particular, the section in question is the Niche Marketing section of Internet Marketing which can be found at this link to id 502828086. A useful diff for the section might be this.My attempted justification can be found on the talk page of Internet marketing, in a section entitled "Niche Marketing section needed work" The sources I'm citing can be found at: http://www.debi-z.com/2012/03/27/convert-the-converted/ and http://www.debi-z.com/2011/05/09/how-do-i-find-the-best-keywords-for-my-site/

Please explain to me if and how I'm being silly. Thanks! 109.65.136.189 (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

You've been told by at least three different experienced editors that it's not appropriate; please see WP:FORUMSHOPPING. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I was also told to ask here by one of them, if you look at the talk page there. Apparently that was inappropriate advice. 109.65.136.189 (talk) 22:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
My mistake, two of them said to ask here. Maybe it wasn't inappropriate advice at all. Also, I'm still looking for an explanation as to why I'm wrong, if I am indeed wrong, as I stated in the above paragraph. If you are so convinced that I'm wrong, perhaps you could explain it to me. 109.65.136.189 (talk) 23:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I see no argument above making a credible expert exemption. Cite the sources that make this author an "expert" (and I'm looking for DOIs here). Fifelfoo (talk) 23:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your response! Are you saying that a reliable source can't grant reliability to another source, or are you attacking the reliability of the granter? Furthermore, what do you mean by DOI in this context? Do you mean that you want an ISBN of a book they've written? I'm sorry for my ignorance. 109.65.136.189 (talk) 23:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Cite which sources you believe makes this author an "expert." Include a full citation. I am expecting to see a DOI because I don't accept gutter trade press as providing any indication of expertise. Also cross citation by other reliable sources doesn't grant reliability. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok, if that's true then I'm simply mistaken. I don't have that level of verifiability for the source. However, what would even be an example of a source on Internet Marketing that would be acceptable in your view? I can't think of any sources that would fit the bill. Also, to clarify your point on granting reliability, if a news agency publishes the work of a reporter, does the reporter now have reliability, or just the posts that were published by the news agency? I have a feeling that this is the part I wasn't understanding. Thanks for your help! 109.65.136.189 (talk) 23:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
The best sources for internet marketing are any of the scholarly peer reviewed journals of marketing (also general business or management journals occasionally publish marketing). The next best sources are independent trade presses with an editor, editorial board, editorial staff and paid journalists. (This should be demonstrable either in their "Editorial Policy" or "About Us" page).
A newspaper does not grant a journalist any reliability, except when the newspaper actually publishes a journalist's writing. A long standing journalist, who is highly esteemed, may be an "expert" journalist in wikipedia's sense. This would allow them to independently self-publish journalism. However, when such "experts" make "extraordinary claims" it is usually questioned why an expert has chosen to self-publish and thereby avoid the editorial controls placed over them when publishing in an edited mode. In some cases, such as John Pilger we know why, he has always been an independent journalistic documentarian. In other cases we question why a journalist has suddenly become committed to the New England New State independence movement in Australia—perhaps they're not reliable when self-publishing. Similarly a journalist who is an expert journalist can't suddenly write history. Nor a historian write journalism. Expertise is field specific.
A newspaper that quotes another source does not make that source "reliable." Deep-throat is not reliable for US politics. The Newspaper's publication of Deep-throat's allegations is reliable. Edited independent works can analyse unreliable sources and publish reliable results. Academics who use qualitative techniques in marketing question unreliable respondents; through academic processes they produce reliable publications. Their work doesn't make Jane Undergraduate reliable for marketing. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, that was a really good explanation. I'd vote for it to be included in WP:RS ! I'm still a little unclear on the last sentence or two, though. Are you saying that being factually correct and being reliable are two completely different things? What's the difference? Can one be reliable and factually incorrect? Can one be factually correct and unreliable? Also, would I be wrong in concluding, after having read this, that a large percentage of sources on Wikipedia would be considered unreliable (and there just aren't enough people enforcing the principles)? 109.65.136.189 (talk) 00:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Being factually correct and being reliable are two completely different things. If I make 100 statements and 99 of those are lies then I am not very reliable, but still that one statement is factually correct. It is possible for a reliable source to make a honest mistake and be factually incorrect. For example Encyclopaedia Brittanica is pretty reliable, but it still contains a couple of factual errors (see: Wikipedia:Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia). The main difference between reliable sources and sources that are not reliable is the fact that reliable sources try to minimize the possibility for factual errors to slip through, for example by using peer review or avoiding primary sources. On the other hand it is also possible that a very unreliable source, like a gossip-blog, is factually correct about something. Indeed, most people who use Wikipedia never read the rules. Arcandam (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

center for american progress

i was wondering if this report [7], published by "center for american progress", complies with wp:rs, and if it can be used as a source on the islamophobia-page?.-- altetendekrabbe  14:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It is a serious report, but given the subject it should be cited with attribution, like "According to ...". Zerotalk 15:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
ok, thanks.-- altetendekrabbe  16:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
The Center is a politically-progressive American think tank. Its reports should be taken seriously, but as Zero says, should also be properly attributed. The report itself is a good source of further leads to sources that could be directly used in the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

musicOMH

is musicOMH a reliable source to use for critical responses about songs and albums? For example, this. Till I Go Home 12:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Is a 1988 book evidence for current Ukrainian attitudes?

The opening paragraph of the article on Little Russia states that "The term has become an archaic one, and anachronistic usage in the modern context was considered strongly offensive by Ukrainian nationalists." It cites the following source for this statement:

Eternal Russia:Yeltsin, Gorbachev, and the Mirage of Democracy by Jonathan Steele, Harvard University Press, 1988, ISBN 978-0-674-26837-1 (page 216)

I fully agree that this is a reliable source for attitudes by Ukrainian nationalist attitudes at the time it was written. But it is it a reliable source for now?--Toddy1 (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Then set the claim in its historical context: "As of the late 1980's, the term had become an archaic one, and its anachronistic usage was considered strongly offensive by Ukrainian nationalists."(source) -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Is an SPLC intelligence report a reliable source for information about the men's rights movement?

Source in question: Leader’s Suicide Brings Attention to Men’s Rights Movement - an article in the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Report, Spring 2012, Issue Number: 145.

Material in question: factual statements about the men's rights movement (like "The suicide of Thomas Ball drew additional attention to the Men's rights movement") and additionally as a source for the opinion contained within the article (like "An article in the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Report stated that some prominent men's rights advocates vilify women.") Obviously, opinion would have to be included only with appropriate weight, but issues of weight are outside the scope of RSN. This material would either be included in parts of the article on men's rights that already discuss the men's rights movement, or included in a new article about the movement itself (an RFC is currently underway on the talk page.)

I believe that the article is a reliable source for both the factual issues involving the men's right movement that it discusses as well as the opinion of the article. The SPLC is a well-regarded group that I would compare in stature to the EFF or the ACLU. Their intelligence report is a quarterly magazine that has editorial oversight that is widely circulated among (and frequently cited as an authoritative source by) academics, the media, and law enforcement officials. I believe that the article meets WP:RS, and I see no significant reason why it wouldn't be reliable for both statements of fact and statements of the opinions of the author.

Most of the arguments against the use of the article involve the fact that the article does not attempt to be neutral. I'll leave a notification of this discussion on the talk page of the article, so that editors who believe the article should not be used have an opportunity to explain their opinions in greater depth.

The discussion on the article talk page currently is generating an awful lot of heat and rather little light, I would appreciate it if some of you could throw out your opinions either here or at Talk:Men's rights about the reliability of the article in both contexts I posed. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

They clearly have a level of fact-checking in place, although I would not put them on the level of ACLU. This is serious investigative journalism, but it is "breaking news". The simple answer is "use with caution". Look for corroboration; see if any of the stories have been taken up more widely in the press. The most dramatic instances quoted in the story may turn out not to be notable in our terms. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
The SPLC has specific political positions which appear to make much of their material subject to being treated as "opinion" and not mere statement of objective fact. Always attribute opinions to those holding them. And be wary of using their statements in WP:BLP articles. Collect (talk) 11:44, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Itsmejudith has struck the right note. Fact checking is good, but as a recent news item it should be treated more carefully than a well-researched long-term survey. Binksternet (talk) 14:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
It does not appear that the SPLC has a position on Men's Rights, but rather on hate groups. Thomas Ball was a member of the Massachusetts Fatherhood Coalition. That is not a hate group; it is a rights group and so something the SPLC would be expected to support. That it does not, may be seen as a microcosm of the environment in which the Men's Rights groups often operate.
Tom Ball did not "war on women," he committed suicide by setting himself on fire in front of the courthouse, leaving a manifesto-- his reasons for what he was about to do (pour gasoline over himself and light a match). His reasons were despair, not hate (except psychologically, as suicide is rage turned inward). However, that is not the implication of the article.
The article implies that a father's rights group is equivocal to a hate group, that a suicide of despair is equivocal to an attack on women. Only if we accept a premise that a rights group is the same as a hate group is the SPLC a "reliable source." The question is not "reliable," rather, the question is "source." The article was virtually silent on rights.
I admit that, as policy goes, this is a grey area, but couching the argument as one of "reliable source" with an emphasis upon "reliable" is missing the point. The article not only does not address Men's Right's, it equates the subject to hate groups. That is a clear "ends justify the means" agenda on the part of the SPLC which has no place in the Men's Rights article-- unless such an agenda matches that of the editors. We ought the have ethic that the use of such an article is inappropriate-- as inappropriate as calling one man's suicide a "war on women" and calling a Men's Rights group a "hate group."
I submit that if one cannot talk about Men's Rights without discussing a specific man's "sins" then the agenda has become to articulate why men should not have rights. I can think of no other rights-based group which is expected to overcome such an obstacle-- and that does lead to despair-- and probably hate of those who place such obstacles before them. Therefore, I further submit that the SPLC is a questionable source on Men's Rights, reliable or otherwise.--cregil (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
We don't make up our minds about sources on the basis of whether or not we agree with their conclusions, or on the political stances they adopt, but on objective criteria like the ones I and others presented above. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It depends on what it is being used for. I am unable to comment without knowing what the proposed text is. (I say this because the author has refuted what many have used it for in the past). Arkon (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I have details on what I want to use it for in the original post of this section. That's probably not how I will word it exactly, since the context of the sentence will depend on how the RfC closes. Basically: facts about the MRM in a section dealing with the history of the MRM, and probably the opinion of the author briefly mentioned in a section about public reactions to the MRM or something similar to that. (Obviously sticking with what the text supports and not using it to say something like "The MRM is a hate group" since that's both not supported by the text and explicitly disavowed by the author.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:33, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
That agreement or disagreement with the article's point of view is not at issue is exactly right. Agreement with an article does not make it a source anymore than disagreement with article makes it not a source.
In this political season in the US, we are painfully aware of the political claims made by each side about the other. So while each party is a reliable source for its own policy, neither party has proven to be particularly reliable about the other. Therefore, one question we are expected to ask about a reliable source is, "On what subject is it considered a reliable source?"
Since we see nothing to indicate that the SPLC is involved with Men's Rights, it cannot be assumed to be a source, reliable or otherwise, on Men's Rights. The article in question is not about Men's Right. It is about misogynist hate groups. To seek to provide physical and legal resources for battered husbands and their children, for example, has nothing to do with misogyny or any other kind of hate.
Is the SPLC a source on such matters as Men's shelters, battered husbands, fairness in child custody, resources for at-home-Dads, social issues such as negative portrayal of men in advertising, or any other men's equality and rights matters? If not, then it appears to not be a source related to the subject as it is silent on the subject of Men's Rights.--cregil (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Sources don't need to be directly involved in a movement to be reliable sources about that movement. Indeed, our sourcing policies generally emphasize the use of secondary sources and of independent sources. The fact that the SPLC as a group is not generally actively involved in men's rights issues doesn't (at all) mean that they can't be used as a source for information related to the men's rights movement, as long as they have published information about the men's rights movement in a way that meets our reliability standards. This article speaks explicitly about the men's rights movement, and as outlined by other people in this section, it does meet our reliability standards. Once the RfC passes (and it does look likely to pass) to move men's rights to men's rights movement, I'll be looking to incorporate information from the SPLC article in to the MRM article. (I think it could be fairly done sooner than that, since the existing article has a decently long section talking explicitly about the men's rights movement, but think it would be better to hold off till after the RfC ends to make major content changes.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

India and state terrorism

The following sources are being used in this article, I had removed them as SPS but they have been reverted back in. Sources used For Whom the Bell Tolls: America or the Jihadists? Trafford Publishing and this [8] published on a personal website.

Are these suitable for anything at all, never mind what they are currently being used to cite. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Every source is suitable for something, even if it's just to say "Some guy wrote the following words on his personal website..."
These sources are self-published, and so whether they are reliable for any normal purpose will depend on whether the authors are recognized experts under the WP:SPS rules. Do you know anything about the authors? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Not true that every source is suitable for something. See previous threads about Facebook pages. Gautam Matra is the author in question. I find nothing about him online at all. No reviews of the book. Not reliable. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
What if the author in question is given attribution for the content that is cited by his book? For example, Gautam Maitra writes so and so in xyz book etc. Per WhatamIdoing, every source is suitable for something. In this case, Maitra's work is being used to cite that India's support of the LTTE is regarded as state-sponsored terrorism and that several neighbours have accused India of being involved in state terrorism. Both these statements are not even something ambiguous, but rather a widely known accusation/fact. It might have been a different scenario if Maitra was, without attribution, being used to cite something that was not as widely known (and hence his work could have been legitimately challenged). Mar4d (talk) 06:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing might have gone on to say this: "what some guy wrote" is only a candidate for mention on Wikipedia if the guy's opinion is notable. That's not for this board, but, if Judith's correct that Gautam Mitra doesn't show up anywhere online at all, it could be hard to demonstrate that his opinion is notable. Andrew Dalby 10:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
We need much better sourcing than this for a controversial topic in international relations. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I'd have said that it might not be WP:DUE, rather than risking confusion with WP:Notability, but Andrew Dalby is otherwise correct. Even something as weak as a Facebook page is 100% reliable for a claim that a given Facebook page contained certain words on a given date, but that doesn't mean that we should include that information. However, that's technically a question for WP:NPOVN, not RSN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, agreed. Andrew Dalby 09:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • If as Mar4d says it is common knowledge the "India's support of the LTTE is regarded as state-sponsored terrorism and that several neighbours have accused India of being involved in state terrorism" then he should have no trouble finding an academic source to cite this well known factoid. He is also conflating State terrorism with State sponsored terrorismDarkness Shines (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • According to this source support was not as full on as the SPS would suggest. "The LTTE enjoyed material and moral support from Tamil Nadu State in India" Historical Dictionary of Terrorism p399 That is a state, not the Indian government. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it acceptable to use Drowned in Sound as a source in Oxbow (band)

Specifically, this review was used to source the following information.

It was described as "2007's greatest LP" in Drowned in Sound

Robinson's vocals have been described as..."genius soundbites emerging from his catalogue of last real bluesman howls, yabbers and harrowing squeals".

Here is my reason for removing the information

I did some research and found that DiS has been repeatedly described as unreliable at RSN. See this and more importantly this. Drowned in Sound's terms state that "We accept no liability in respect of any material submitted by users and published by us and we are not responsible for its content and accuracy". The sight contains user submitted content, and the particular content we are dealing with was submitted by "Adam Anonymous". That hardly gives me confidence in the reliability of anything posted by him. In any case, the information presented by him is his opinion which means that it was described as the best album in 2007 by a contributor of DiS, not DiS itself. I find no reason for Wikipedia to feature the opinions of a contributor, hidden by anonymity, to a site that doesn't take responsibility for it's content or the accuracy thereof

Thanks for helping out on this one! Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

That review is absolutely no use as a source as far as I can see. It's nothing more than the opinion of a random person. 2 lines of K303 20:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Unless Adam Anonymous is a professional music reviewer, no it does not count as a reliable source. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes it is. To clarify, at the time that the reference was removed, it was used to source 'The band's 2007 album The Narcotic Story was positively received by critics, being described as "2007's greatest LP" in a review from Drowned in Sound', which makes much of the above argument moot. Previous discussions at RSN have involved few editors and very little time. Previous discussions here and here demonstrate consensus that the site is a reliable source for reviews. The site contains a forum which is clearly not to be used as a reliable source, but material submitted by the site's regular contributors (listed here) which include respected music writers John Robb and Everett True clearly are. The site has has received awards and accolades such as being named 9th on the Observer Music Monthly list of top 25 internet websites, a nomination in the Best Music Website category at the 2007 PLUG Awards and the Best Website category at the 2007 Shockwaves NME Awards, best music website nomination in the BT Digital Music Awards, Best Online Music Publication award at the 2007 Record of the Day awards. On the issue of a writer using a pseudonym, this has happened through the history of rock music writing, with several writers for the British weekly music press writing under pseudonyms (Johnny Cigarettes, DJ Fontana, etc., etc.) - it's a very weak argument for treating a source as non-reliable. --Michig (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Much like the ones provided to demonstrate that it isn't a reliable source. The site is a respected music site - we don't require every individual writer for a given publication to also be well known and respected. --Michig (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC) The source was being used as a reference for the opinion expressed by one writer for a respected music website - if you look at the content of the article it was not there to claim that this was the opinion of the website itself. This is just like every review in every publication - the opinion of the writer concerned, which that publications sees fit to publish. No different to Johnny Cigarettes reviewing an album for the NME. --Michig (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
No, we require a reliable source to stand behind the review, or the reviewer to have been previously published in the area of the review. There is no indication that the any sort of editorial oversite went into the post. It is just some comment by some guy who is likely not even using his own name. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Reviews are different from 'regular' sources since vitually any source is reliable for its own opinion. So, the issue here isn't reliability, it's WP:WEIGHT. Is this user-submitted content? Generally speaking, when doing reception sections of artistic works, you want to cite the most notable reviewers possible. IOW, if Rolling Stone reviewed their album, it would be a great opinion to include in the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
"likely not even using his own name" - I think you might be right there, just like many music writers. If Drowned in Sound, one of the most respected music websites in the UK published this review, then we should assume that DiS stands by the review. --Michig (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
This isn't user-submitted content, it's a review from one of the site's listed regular contributors - the sort of content on which the site is judged and has been judged in the past. Your argument re. WP:WEIGHT is perfectly valid - I have been adding numerous sources to this article over the past couple of days after it was deprodded, and there are more out there but I have been repeatedly diverted from improving the article by reverts and discussion on the talk pages of the article and the editor who tried to get it deleted. The weight issue would be a valid point of discussion on the article's talk page, ideally after all available sources have been reviewed and incorporated, and as you say, reliability is not the issue here - it's a writer's opinion and nothing else. My intention was to eventually move the detail of the critical opinion about that particular album into a separate article, but at this stage I am at the point of building up the content. Nobody else has made any significant constructive contributions to the article during this time. I don't feel encouraged to go ahead and continue improving the article by going through and adding the rest of the sources, however, as experience so far suggests that these will just be picked over, removed, and further discussions initiated, before the work can be completed. --Michig (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
User Michig added a citation to The Village Voice, for the undisputed fact that Robinson is the vocalist. The Village Voice actually compared his voice to Adam Sandler's Cajun Man, and noted his Oxbow connection. When I added this comparison, Michig removed it, leaving the ridiculously vacuous "sounding between Robert Plant and Nick Cave" as well as information about Robinson's "professional fighter" status. It depends on whose Oxbow is getting gored....
Nonetheless, Michig has repeated advised me to "step away" from his article.
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
This illustrates the problem here. The Village Voice citation was not there to prove that Robinson is the vocalist, it was added as a citation for Robinson contributing to an album by DJ /Rupture - it's citation number 13 in the article. The Village voice comparison to Cajun Man was a reference solely to one track on the DJ /Rupture album, not related to Robinson's vocals with Oxbow, and the above user added it as though it was a statement of fact. Given that K.W tried to get the article deleted, stated that he has no interest in the subject, and has been disruptive since the article was deprodded, I would say that was advice that should have been followed. --Michig (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Anybody who followed your "work" on that article can see what your opinion is worth. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
It's sad that this sort of nonsense has now been dragged here, and now with cheap personal attacks, but should anyone wish to make their own judgment: Version before my "work": [9] and after: [10]. I've had enough of this behaviour. --Michig (talk) 22:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
You are too modest about your contributions: Consider this re-insertion of a BLP violation, re-insertion of the vacuous ("unique sound") and unsourced ("created an international following that has been growing ever since"), etc. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I hope you're impressing yourself with this off-topic nonsense because I doubt anyone else is impressed. Your first link above is addition of sourced content, the second was due to an edit conflict.--Michig (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
DIS appears to have at least 4 levels of contributors:
  • Administrators [11]
  • Writers [12]
  • Contributors [13] (our Adam Anonymous)
  • Users [14]
I was unable to find anything that defined what the various status mean. It would seem likely that Admin and Writer status would be considered "backed by the site" and therefore reliable, if the editorial content of DIS is in general considered a reliable source. The others are anybody's guess. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I rather think it's similar to what we have on Wikipedia. Administrators (obviously), writers (trusted high-volume editors), contributors (other editors, gnomes, etc.), and users (those who just read Wikipedia). Generally the first two are also "backed by the site" in the sense of having gained the trust of the community. I don't see how such a heirarchy makes a site useful as a reliable source, though. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I was going on the assumption that the site overall was because it is listed here Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Review sites (although it would probably have been a better presumption that DIS should be removed from that list)-- The Red Pen of Doom 22:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
The Guardian also has editorial staff, writers on the payroll, and freelance contributors. I suspect most newspapers do. We don't only accept articles in the Guardian as RS's if they're written by its regular staff. We go by the status of the newspaper, and I believe we should take the same approach with a music website, particularly a respected one such as this. It's not like sites such as SputnikMusic where anyone can create an account and publish reviews there. --Michig (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
The Guardian is a leading international newspaper, and DiS is a weak source. There's no comparison. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
(e/c) Your analysis is clearly off. All content in the guardian goes through a HEAVY editorial screening before it appears, except for the on line user posts. And the on line user posts at the guardian are NOT allowed as sources. A central question about using DIS is how much editorial oversite of the posts happens?-- The Red Pen of Doom 22:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Take all of this with a grain of salt, the majority of this is based on guesses and opinions. So I went ahead and created an account on Drowned in Sound. It initially required me to answer what Mike Skinner is also known as and what Indie band wrote Is this it. At that point, I became a user. Note that this review was created by a "user". It appears that after answering those two questions, I am fully capable of contributing to the site. On another note, I have the opportunity to provide my full name and it "will be used for review credits". I'm not entirely sure what those are for, could they be to become a contributor? On another note, I attempted to go to the site's about page to see if I could learn more about what their process and I ended up on the Wikipedia page for Drowned in Sound. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • This demonstrates the difference between Users and Contributors. There are an awful lot of User accounts on that site and relatively few 'Contributors', some of whom are well known, established professional music writers. Don't you think 'review credits' might just mean putting your name against a review that you write? The site indicates that 'User Reviews' part of the site is currently in 'Beta'. It wasn't there in 2007. --Michig (talk) 06:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
"relatively few 'Contributors', some of whom are well known, established professional music writers." - we still have no criteria about what makes a "contributor" other than guesses. If someone is a "well known, established professional music writer" then their commentary, where we can verify it is them, can be allolwed. "Adam Anonymous" however, is not a "well known, established professional music writer" and even if he was, we cannot verify that this DIS account is his and not Randy from Boise claiming to be him. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The site doesn't meet the requirements for authorship, editorial oversight, IMO; I wouldn't claim to know a huge amount about it but I believe the lower level "contributors" are at best part-timer, probably more like glorified wiki-editors/bloggers/hobbyists. I just did a quick search of my local hometown music forums and found at least one guy posting links to reviews he'd written for it. Content by the respected regular contributors should be treated as reliable but trying to piggyback the anonymous reviews onto that is untenable if there's any question of the site's authority and editorial oversight. It should be treated as a situational rather than a blanket reliable source. In any case, saying that the work is "genius" and the "greatest" of the year is IMO WP:EXCEPTIONAL and if credible there should be found other, better respected sources to back it up. bridies (talk) 03:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

  • I suggest this discussion is closed. The reference is no longer in the article, so it would be a waste of time continuing to discuss it. I don't intend to waste any more of my time addressing theories about how the site in question may be run, and I would suggest that everyone else moves on to something more constructive.--Michig (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
    The question was asked: Is DiS reliable (in this instance). It seems that the consensus is that DiS is not reliable in itself. There is great skepticism about much and perhaps most of DiS's content, which does not have editorial review. Is this a fair summary? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
    I'm not sure, I asked this question in the context of this specific instance. In this context, it seems like it has been determined as unreliable. I don't know that I'd use it as a source, but I don't think that a blanket statement on the reliability is evident from this discussion. Ryan Vesey Review me! 08:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
    Ryan,
    It is good in law to make narrow decisions. However, in deciding the scope of consensus, the question is how narrow are the arguments than others have made.
    I would suggest excluding you, Michig, and myself---since we were involved before---and read what the other WP editors have written.
    The other WP editors have evaluated this case by evaluating the site (checking out reviews of familiar artists, etc.); they have found that the site is unreliable. Almost none of the WP editors here restrict themselves to "Adam Anonymous", but rather all WP editors are arguing about the characteristics of DiS.
    I would amend my suggested consensus with this caveat: "If a reliable writer credibly posts a review at DiS (and this review does not seem like a string of cliched nonsense, "last of the great bluesmen", etc.), then the writer's reliability could be transferred from his writing in edited/reviewed fora"---as others have stated. As usual, Michig and other editors are free to revisit the general case of DiS as a reliable source (as long as the repetitiveness of such discussions are seen as good-faith and non-disruptive). Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
    as an overall judgement of DIS, the contents would not appear to meet the standards of generally having editorial oversite. it may be an important community voice in the music world, but wikipedia is an important voice in the information world, and wikipedia is not a reliable source. individual posts under the standard view of WP:SPS may be occasionally valid. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

the wayward wind (song) page

Resolved

Boy, it's too hard to figure out where to tell someone that a mistake has been made. On The Wayward Wind (song) page, at the bottom, all Anne Murray's albums are listed. This obviously doesn't belong there. I don't know how else to notify someone that a mistake has been made. Anne Murray's information obviously is not supposed to be listed at the bottom of this page.

The Wayward Wind appears to be fine and I am not seeing any other duplicate pages. maybe there was something wrong with your browser? try clearing the cache. if the problem still exists, please post a link on my talk page User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom - your question is not really about reliable sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Would DA be a RS?

I'm a pretty big book fan and as such, I edit a lot of articles about books. Every so often (rather often, depending on the genre) I'll come across a book that has a review by Dear Author, such as this book.[15] I'm halfway between seeing the site as a reliable source and half not. It is essentially a book blog when you get down to it, but the site is also seen as a pretty reliable source in the publishing industry, with the site being quoted by other sites (not just no-name book blogs) and portions of their reviews being placed on book jackets and the like. They've also been somewhat responsible for the publishing of various authors by way of putting the first page of an author's work on their site. (Agents and the like see the page and if they like what they see, they contact DA and get the person's contact info and publish the book, which has actually happened.)

However, I know that it being a blog does sort of put a crinkle in the mix, so I thought I'd come here and ask. To me it's a RS and the reviewers on the site are considered authorities, but I figured I'd come here and ask.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:USERGENERATED deals with personal blogs, but per WP:RS, "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." If site reviewers are established authorities, and have been published elsewhere, it would appear you are good to go. Best to cite the expert, AS an expert. For example, if Roger Ebert were accurately quoted in a blog, it would be he as the expert who lends the credence to what is being quoted... not the blog. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

New York Daily News - reliable source for attribution of "Incidents of zombie-like behavior in 2012"

Incidents of zombie-like behavior in 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article has any number of issues that need to be dealt with, but is the screaming headline from New York Daily News [[16]] a reliable source to base the inclusion of a new "incident" into the article? -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Typically, we do not cite news headlines as these are (generally speaking) not written by the author, but by the editor trying to get the reader's attention. I'm not sure if there's a rule that says that, but that's typically what we do. In that particular news article, there's a quick summary beneath the headline that says, "Bus driver responsible for the zombie-like attack took a long liquid lunch before jumping on the hood of a passing woman's car, biting her when she got out, reports say." Does anyone know who typically writes these? If it's written by the journalist, I would say that it's reliable; if it's not, that I would say no. Of course, that's assuming that Incidents of zombie-like behavior in 2012 is a real topic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
re: "that's assuming that [it] is a real topic. " got any advice on how to proceed on that front? I am at a loss and just attempting to keep it from getting worse. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
The actual source for this is the Shanghai Daily—there's no reason to think that the New York Daily News article contains any original reporting, so why not cite the Shanghai Daily? Of course, then you have "intoxicated man gnaws woman's face," which says nothing about zombie-like behavior. Even if the headline were WP:RS, it doesn't say that this is a zombie attack—it asks if it was a zombie attack. I think it's important to be careful when reading articles like this to differentiate between what the reporter says happened, and what the reporter or in this case, editor, implies might have happened. These days if you want to get a lot of ad impressions, news articles have to imply things that are titillating, but of course they don't actually say these things, and we ought not to take the implication as if it were a statement. Abhayakara (talk) 17:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Why on earth do we have an Incidents of zombie-like behavior in 2012 article? How did this survive Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Zombie controversy. Nick-D (talk) 02:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

why do we have it? the AfD process is broken + ZOMBIES. -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

the middle east quarterly

the middle east quarterly (meq) is publication of "the middle east forum" (mef). mef works, according to their website, "to define and promote american interests in the middle east and protect the constitutional order from middle eastern threats." one of the tools to achieve this is the middle east quarterly.[17]

this publication must surely fail our wp:rs-policies? here on wiki the meq is used as a source on primarily controversial subjects like the books of bat ye'or and so on.-- altetendekrabbe  17:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

they sound like an advocacy group and their opinions should be clearly identified by text in the article as coming from them (if their opinions should be included at all as a significant or noteworthy set of opinions.) -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Since 2009 [18] its peer reviewed academic journal thus it acceptable source much like Journal of Palestine Studies --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 17:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
i agree. their opinions are controversial and non-neutral. as a start meq-related content should be removed as it violates wp:npov and is wp:undue, in my opinion. what we need is sources that comply with wp:scholarship.-- altetendekrabbe  18:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
What is sourced to MEQ?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 18:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


The Journal of Palestine Studies is published and distributed by the University of California Press so I'm not sure the comparison works...not that that necessarily matters. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

MEQ has come up several times before. Not to be regarded as a straightforward academic journal. What claims is it being used to support? Itsmejudith (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
As far as I see in the article the only thing that MEQ is sourced for is "Johannes J.G. Jansen, Professor of Arabic and Islamic studies at Leiden University, wrote that "In 1985, Bat Ye'or offered Islamic studies a surprise with her book, The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam, a convincing demonstration that the notion of a traditional, lenient, liberal, and tolerant Muslim treatment of the Jewish and Christian minorities is more myth than reality" IMO as it attributed to scholar in the relevant field so I think its should be OK.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
jansen is *clearly* a counterjihadist...[19]..."the impossibility of bridging the gap between islam and the west"...? sounds very familiar to the rhetorics of another age... here's another quote, "to portray the crusades as the equivalent of the jihad, as the multiculturalists do, is a false presentation of the matter, an absurd distortion of history. it is like equating a cold with aids: both are viral diseases that lack appropriate curative drugs." and we all know what the crusaders did to the jews and muslims. he's a counterjihadist, nothing more nothing less.-- altetendekrabbe  19:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
So what he is scholar if the field thus his opinion is notable but lets hear from uninvolved editors shall we?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Also be careful about WP:BLP you can't call people names and source it to some blogs--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I 'm seeing WP:REDFLAGs here, but you need further opinions. Which articles are we looking at? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Bat Ye'or.And here is the link [20] What exactly is red flag here ?As I understand its favorable book review.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 20:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
He was a speaker at Counterjihad Brussels 2007: European Conference Resists Islamization according to this Darkness Shines (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
There are still some WP:BLP problem especially at last sentence--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 21:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
he was the tutor of theo van gogh, here's a pearl: ""we do not realise that the threat of violence, and violence itself, can only be stopped through the controlled and cunning use of violence". the dutch secret service (auvd) should get a special department "that gets its hands dirty, if need be".[21].
everything is, of course, "islamic propaganda" [22]. here's another: "hans jansen criticised the subservient role he considers the churches and the government are adopting towards islam". wow, the churches *and* the government in netherlands? really? what kind of a conspiracy is this? :P no wonder he is found of bat ye'or.-- altetendekrabbe  21:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Agreed we must be careful about BLP. Writers have a right to express their opinions. At the same time, we have to take care about which sources we can use. If this professor really is close to Geert Wilders, that's a possible indication of extremism, in our definition. That's a red flag for me. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
he's in the counterjihadist-movement where you have worse people than wilders.-- altetendekrabbe  21:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
OK but it can be complicated. The animal rights movement has some advocates who are definitely extremist and some who definitely aren't. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
The main question still stands can be used for his opinion on Bat Ye'or book?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 21:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Need more uninvolved opinions. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Middle East Quarterly is included on the HighBeam Research site, so I assume it meets minimum standards of a reliable source, at least in their eyes, and considering that is a site owned by Gale Publications, that's a fairly good recommendation. That leaves the specific quote quote Shrike produced. , it seems to me generally acceptable, barring possibly the use of the word "convincing". On that site, in the Journal of Ecumenical Studies, in a review of her later book The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam, it says of this book, "Her earlier The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam (reviewed in J.E.S. 25 [Winter, 1988]: 104-105) was a ground-breaking work that gave definition to the hitherto unexplored sociopolitical and religious concept of "dhimmitude." So I'm guessing the favorable view of the book is supportable as well, although I might prefer the 1988 review of the book, which unfortunately doesn't seem to be on the site. John Carter (talk) 22:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Is HighBeam really anything other than a centralized Archive system? Yes, Gale is very relible to accurately present previously published content, but I am not sure they are doing anything other than "this is what was published in that source". -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
HighBeam is very handy (I declare an interest because I got free access for a year as a Wikipedia contributor) but it doesn't guarantee reliability. We have to judge individual publications as we always would. Andrew Dalby 08:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
agree on that. in addition, book reviews like jansen's are not necessarily scholarly pieces, as pointed out in our wp:rs-policy. they can be opinions and summaries as well. given the fact that jansen is involved with the counterjihadist-movement his views on bat ye'or are neither neutral nor reliable... both authors are part of the same extremist political movement.-- altetendekrabbe  09:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

There seem to no consensus if the source should be used or not maybe a RFC is a proper way to continue?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 10:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

RfC would be inappropriate because this is the place to get comments about sources. Opening further discussions elsewhere would be "forum-shopping". My view, after considering all the issues, is that this is not reliable for reviews of the subject's work. Scholarly reviews exist, positive and negative, as well as some reviews in mainstream news media. This source is much more of the nature of political commentary, and it is a tiny-minority view. Therefore exclude. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
i agree. filling up articles with minority partisan political commentaries is not good way to build an encyclopedia.-- altetendekrabbe  11:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Agree. Not a reliable source. Their statement on peer-review is deeply troubling. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
And note that, even if we were to accept that, as noted above, MEQ has been peer-reviewed since 2009, the article in question[23] was published in 2005. So the journal's current status is irrelevant; when the article was published, it was not subject to peer review. RolandR (talk) 16:56, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
very good point. thanks.-- altetendekrabbe  17:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

While I think that the right decision has been made in this context, a then unreviewed journal of doggerel is not the best place to "appreciate" a controversial academic's work in a highly politicised domain—particularly where the journal of doggerel claims that the academic's work is actual reality, rather than theory—we should remember that reliability is not undercut by politics, it is undercut by politics that lacks the scope to discuss the content and claim. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Pink Slime source

People in the beef industry have referred to the additive as "pink slime" due to the product's unique appearance.<ref>{{cite book |title=The great food robbery: How corporations control food, grab land and destroy the climate |last=Genetic Resources Action International (GRAIN) |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= |year=2012 |publisher=Pambazuka Press |location=Oxford |isbn=9780857491138 |page=57 |pages= |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=7-XSc2znVFoC&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=pink+slime&source=bl&ots=_arUmvz0HO&sig=kaYqn5WE9Z-HMBNDYQ1bNBNv27o&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FegJUMv5JsjBrQGLvLHBCg&ved=0CEMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=pink%20slime&f=false |accessdate=July 2012}}</ref>


Has a minor problem - the source uses Wikipedia as one of its sources. The book was issued on 28 April 2012 by "Pambazuka Press". [24] demonstrates that one of the listed sources for the new book is Wikipedia. The book has no named authors, and is not from a peer-reviewed or recognized academic publisher. "GRAIN.org" is not recognized as any sort of authority on anything that I can find. [25] it appears to be mainly a political organization.
The book is described:
This book is intended to reveal the ways in which corporations seek to increase their control over the food system so that they can be more effectively challenged. It aims to provide information and analysis that enables and inspires people to take action to take the food system back from corporations and put it in the hands of people.
I suggest that where a book is so recently issued, uses Wikipedia as a source, and is not written nor issued by a publisher known for editorial control per WP:RS, that it is, in fact, not a reliable source. Collect (talk) 22:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Your suggestion is excellent RS/N reasoning. CIRCULAR concepts only apply when a work does not have independent review processes sufficient to overcome the stigma of citing wikipedia. For example, a scholar published in Routledge is free to cite wikipedia. An unauthored work published by a lowgrade press is itself unreliable due to the lack of publishing and authorial competence. The core problem is the lack of editorial review of the book, and as such we ought to reject its claims in relation to food science. (GRAIN.org might be competent in relation to food politics, but this is not the issue at stake.) Fifelfoo (talk) 03:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Is the Anchor Bible Dictionary a reliable source for archaeological claims?

I have a few concerns concerning the sourcing for Nazareth, (see article talk page for details), but I would like an opinion about one source in particular. The article says:

"James Strange, an American archaeologist, notes: “Nazareth is not mentioned in ancient Jewish sources earlier than the third century AD. This likely reflects its lack of prominence both in Galilee and in Judaea.”[30] Strange originally speculated that the population of Nazareth at the time of Christ to be "roughly 1,600 to 2,000 people", but later, in a subsequent publication, at “a maximum of about 480.”[31]"

with the citations being:

[30] Article "Nazareth" in the Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

[31] E. Meyers & J. Strange, Archaeology, the Rabbis, & Early Christianity Nashville: Abingdon, 1981; Article “Nazareth” in the Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

(Wikipedia does not have an article on James F. Strange or Eric M. Meyers, but Strange is mentioned at Yahad Ostracon and Meyers is briefly mentioned at The Jesus Family Tomb.)

Is the Anchor Bible Dictionary a reliable source for archaeological claims that have no citations to peer-reviewed science? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Without genuine academic peer-review, neither of these sources meets our requirements as a erliable source for archeological claims. All the more so as Strange seems to have no qualifications as an archeologist. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Dictionaries produced by non-scholars and aimed at non-scholars, such as the Anchor Bible Dictionary, are not suitable places to publish scholarly archaeological conclusions. Scholarly archaeological conclusions are required to support claims about historical Nazereth's population and importance.
Abingdon press is a mass sectarian press, with no indication it has the competence to support the publication of scholarly monographs. Seek scholarly reviews of Archaeology, the Rabbis, & Early Christianity in scholarly peer reviewed journals, bring such reviews here. If they're positive they may overcome the limits of Abingdon's capacity to publish. Until you find indication that Archaeology, the Rabbis, & Early Christianity is accepted by the community of scholars, don't use it. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
This is a bit outside of the scope of my question, but would someone be so kind as to take a look at my other concerns on the article talk page? It's pretty short.
If this was in my normal area of editing (engineering) I would just edit the page to reflect what reliable sources we have and take out claims that aren't backed up by a RS. I suspect that trying to do this on a page which touches on religious beliefs like this one is very likely to unleash a storm of protests, so I want to make absolutely sure that I have all my ducks in a row before trying.
There appears to be a large amount of debate on the internet about this, mostly from blogs that freely admit that they have an agenda. A few of the more widely-quoted (and, of course completely unreliable other than for documenting that a controversy exists) blogs are:
PRO:
http://www.ichthus.info/CaseForChrist/Archeology/intro.html (Search on "Nazareth")
http://www.facingthechallenge.org/nazareth.php
CON:
http://www.nazarethmyth.info/
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/nazareth.html
--Guy Macon (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
When making claims about the contents of religious texts, the appropriate sources are scholarly theologians (and in some cases truly Expert practising contemporary theologians), scholarly religious studies academics, and scholarly literary criticists of religious texts. When making claims about the historical past (WP:HISTRS), appropriate sources are scholarly archaeology, scholarly history, and occasionally scholarly historical anthropology etc…. We have a responsibility to properly attribute and weight all non-FRINGE scholarly opinions, based on their acceptance in the preponderance of scholarly literature. I would suggest doing research on the scholarly opinion regarding Nazareth's historical significance before editing, so you're aware of the scholarly context. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
  • One should generally avoid things with names like "bible dictionary", but each case has to be considered on its merits. Contrary to what Fifelfoo claims, the Anchor Bible Dictionary is one of the most scholarly publications in this class, edited by a well respected scholar and containing articles signed by many eminent academics. The multi-volume series it appears in was recently taken over by Yale University. The reliability of this should be treated about the same as the best encyclopedias like Britannica. Zerotalk 00:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The comments about James Strange that Guy Macon is posting are completely wrong and probably a violation of WP:BLP. The fact is that James Strange is an archaeologist, involved in actual excavations. See for example this, this, this, this, and this. Very very obviously a reliable source. Zerotalk 00:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
You have been arguing that Strange is not an archaeologist due to being unqualified. For someone whose profession is archaeology, such statements are false and defamatory. So, no, I won't retract it. I don't have any sympathy with your ignorance either as it takes about one minute with google to determine that Strange is an accomplished archaeologist who is frequently cited by his peers. His coauthor in the book you don't like is even more eminent. It is also easy to determine that they are both specialists in the required subfield of archaeology. Zerotalk 10:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Please don't put words in my mouth. I am not "arguing that Strange is not an archaeologist due to being unqualified" I am asking whether there is a reliable source that supports the claim that Strange is an archaeologist. The citations you list above do not support that, and your argument that they do is WP:SYNTHESIS. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
    • So cite the YUP edition, it is more recent anyway, and cite it properly. A wide variety of scholarly encyclopaedia articles are less than desirable: the unsigned ones for example. Doubleday (and before them Anchor) simply don't have the capacity to supervise scholarly outputs. Similarly, I'm less than willing to accept Expert arguments about scholars when they're publishing in non-scholarly presses. Reviews of the work in question in the scholarly literature are far superior to demonstrating that the scholar has indeed on other occasions published scholarly content. The issue is if the article desired to cite from in scholarly. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC) As discovered below YUP takes full responsibility for all Doubleday and Anchor elements of this series. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be a more recent edition. The article on Nazareth is signed by James Strange. As a summary (2 pages) by an expert, it is fine for the few uncontroversial things being cited to it. It could be replaced fairly easily, but there is no urgency. Zerotalk 10:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
"The few uncontroversial things being cited to it"? You call a speculation that the population of Nazareth at the time of Christ was 480 -- a claim that I have shown that there is a huge debate about -- so uncontroversial that we are to accept it without a citation to a reliable source? I can think of only two possible explanations for you making such a claim. The first possibility is that you don't understand or verifiability policy. Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines#Uncontroversial knowledge clearly defines uncontroversial knowledge: "Some statements are uncontroversial and widely known among people familiar with a discipline. Such facts may be taught in university courses, found in textbooks, or contained in multiple references in the research literature". Either add a citation to a reliable source for the population of Nazareth at the time of Christ, or the statement must be removed. The second possibility is that you are unable to overcome a bias that causes you to be willing to ignore Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and should recuse yourself from editing this article. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Anchor Bible Dictionary arbitrary break

    • I haven't been able to find specific reviews, however this work has been cited admiringly regarding its extensive analysis of language use in New Testament Studies ( http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0028688500006056 ), "For the latest over-all survey of the languages in first century Palestine we refer to E. M. Meyers – J. F. Strange, Archaeology, the Rabbis & Early Christianity (Abingdon-Nashville, 1981), ch. 4, pp. 62–91." This methodology paper also treats its conclusions on Greek versus Aramaic as standard: McIver, Robert K., "Methodology and the Search for the Historical Jesus: A Response to John Dominic Crossan" (1999). Theology Papers and Journal Articles. Paper 23. It is relatively widely cited ( http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?cites=8951557329322791848&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en ), but a quick check of citations indicates potentially superior sources for historical Nazereth, ( http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=7_rtx8zTBOAC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&ots=96a7yGl450&sig=IiKMzKLMQ8VL1W4IAHPaKWL7_GU#v=onepage&q&f=false ). YMMV. I think it seems like the text is treated as a member of the scholarly publications in its field. (I wish they'd find better publishers than minor, non-scholarly, sectarian presses for this stuff). I re-emphasise: Anchor/Doubleday isn't an appropriate scholarly text, cite the YUP version if, and only if, the piece is signed; regarding the Abingdon work, I believe it to be reasonably accepted in the scholarly literature, but by checking who cites the work in scholar I found multiple potentially superior works whose primary focus is on social and economic history in the region (for example). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC) As noted below YUP has taken full responsibility for the scholarly quality of all Doubleday and Anchor impression works in this series. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
      Our policies do not require the citation of a "scholarly text", and if the two editions say the same thing, by the same author, then demanding the one with the fancier-sounding publisher is silly, bureaucratic hoops to jump through. We normally prefer (NB: not require) scholarly sources because we think them more likely to get it right. So long as the facts are right, then any minimally reliable source, even if wholly non-academic, is acceptable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
      The quality of the source needs to match the quality demanded by the claim. It is that simple. You can take your personal truth regarding facts and shove it up your personal original research. If you want to meet policy and consensus regarding V in areas covered by scholarly work, guess what you need to cite? And mass market paperback publishers aren't that. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Per this discussion, I ask again: What policy and what consensus (at least what consensus that is not limited in its application by WP:CONLIMITED)? What you have said is arguably the best practice, but neither policy nor consensus requires it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
"Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made." WP:IRS. Think about "appropriate to the claims made." in the context of a pulp presses' dictionary. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Yale University Press describes the six-volume ABD and its companions as "a prestigious collection of more than 115 volumes of biblical scholarship" and thought highly enough of it that they bought it and promised to keep publishing every volume.
But Fifelfoo seems to be saying here that if the version in your hands was published before the 2007 acquisition, then it's not scholarly on the grounds that the enormous original publisher has some non-scholarly books in its list, but the minute that the same book, with the same contents, says "Yale University Press" instead of "Doubleday" on the copyright page, it's okay. This is silly. We have a reliable source saying that ABD is a scholarly publication. YUP—Fifelfoo's preferred publisher here—is selling the exact 1992 volume being cited here. We don't need to rely on Fifelfoo's personal opinion about whether Doubleday is capable of having a scholarly source in its list. This is a scholarly source and should be treated like any other scholarly tertiary source (which is to say, it's reliable-but-not-best for most purposes). There is nothing "inappropriate" about using a prestigious scholarly encyclopedia (IMO it's more encyclopedia than dictionary) as a source for basic information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
That is exactly what I am saying, and your quotation of YUP makes me reverse my position because you've demonstrated that the acquisition is due to the scholarly quality of the entire series (not just "new" YUP releases). How can you demonstrate it is scholarly? Do you have reviews of the Anchor edition in scholarly theological journals? I'd accept these as proof that it is scholarly. Do you have reviews of the Doubleday edition in scholarly theological journals? I'd accept these as proof that it is scholarly. Can you point to the YUP acquisition document praising it? You did! In fact Yale points out my criticism is valid when they say, "This sale will enable Doubleday to enhance its existing focus on publishing general religious titles for the trade market." Doubleday and Anchor are not scholarly presses, they work in the trade market. But when YUP acquires a work because, "Yale University Press will publish all backlist and new volumes in the series, to be renamed Anchor Yale Bible, going forward. […] Yale University Press will be adding a highly-regarded line of books that strengthens its existing publishing program and serves its mandate to publish serious works that further scholarly investigation and advance interdisciplinary inquiry." Then this for me counts as YUP taking responsibility for the editorial content of the entire series. I'm sure we're all familiar with now reputable sources that began in the gutter press. New Left Review began as the unreviewed dissident communist Reasoner within the Communist Party of Great Britain (possibly in the CPGB historians group...). NLR is scholarly. Reasoner ain't. YUP's acquisition statement demonstrates that all of the Anchor series were scholarly. RS/N needs a process to use for demonstration of source reliability. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

A lot of these sources that we are talking about are not available online. I would very much like to read the sources we are basing this article on in context. I believe that it would be well within fair use for someone with access to these sources to quote a paragraph or two on the article talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Guy, most humanities works have a "long tail" of tens or even hundreds of years; they are also very much paper library oriented (except for the past two years of publications). You may have to hit a high quality scholarly library. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


I found this[26], for what its worth. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Alarmed to see top editors falling out so quickly. There are some complexities here, and it necessarily takes a few posts to work it out properly. Itsmejudith (talk) 01:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I think it's the usual problem for the regulars here: someone asks whether a source is reliable, and half the group says, no, it's unreliable because it's not the best imaginable source, and the other half says yes, obviously it's reliable, because it meets or exceeds the minimum standards set forth by the guidelines and policies. And when you throw in a suspicion that the "unreliable" answers are knee-jerk anti-Christian bigotry (which would be appalling in this context, because modern archaeology was practically invented by Christians for the purpose of studying religious history), then you get prompt a falling out.
In the future, I suspect that we could reduce this miscommunication by saying "best" when we mean "best" and "reliable" when we mean "complies with WP:RS". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
No, it was not that at all. All posters were addressing the criterion of a fully scholarly source, essential for an archaeology article. It was about haste, probably. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I think that party of the problem is an unexamined assumption. Zero0000, who is no stranger to wikiconflicts, seeing me question the reliability of his sources assumes that I want to remove material from the article. My actually my goal is, if at all possible, to keep the material and add a new and better citation. Removal is only a reluctant last resort. My main issue is that the sections that are about archaeology really do need to have citations that can be traced back to a peer-reviewed source for all controversial (likely to be challenged) claims. Claims that there was a population of 480 there in the first century -- or any population at all -- are very likely to be challenged and need to be backed up by peer-reviewed science. I really do think that previous editors accepted poor citations for religious reasons, and that the article will be far stronger if we only report what is in the peer-reviewed science. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Judith, there is no rule requiring every single source in an archaeological article to be "a fully scholarly source". Every source must be reliable, meaning that every source must meet or exceed the minimum standard set forth at WP:RS. Some sources should be fully scholarly sources, but "some" is not "all", and "reliable" encompasses far more than "fully scholarly". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
(e-c) Guy, this is a different point from the one first made. Now the question seems to be not whether the source is a reliable source, which it pretty much clearly is, but whether it is one of the best sources on the subject, which in fact is the kind of sources we would prefer to use. Standing on its own, I would have to say no, it is not one of the best possible sources. The question then would be whether we can find better sources. This might not be as silly a question as some might think. Remember, we are talking about Israel here. A lot of material relating to this subject might not have been translated or made easily available in English. The problem is whether anyone has access to those better sources, wherever they are. I would agree if possible better sources, including academic ones of some sort, would be preferred. Even some non-scholarly books might be preferable. This page lists a book by Charlesworth, generally regarded as a very good scholarly author, and mentions a few others. But, at this point, I don't see any good reason to necessarily remove the information, although admittedly it would be a good idea if better sources were found. John Carter (talk) 23:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Anchor Bible Dictionary second arbitrary break

I have a followup question. Let me know if it belongs in a new entry. Is this page

http://web1.cas.usf.edu/main/peopleDetails.cfm?ID=9537&DeptID=0-1259-000

a reliable source for the claim "James Strange is an archaeologist"?

On the yes side, are these statements:

"He was Montgomery Fellow at the W.F. Abright Institute for Archaelogical Research in Jerusalem in 1970-71 and NEH fellow at the same Institute in 1980."

"Dr. Strange's research interests are in Biblical Archaelogy,"

"Strange has participated in field archaeology annually since 1969 and has directed the excavations at Sepphoris, Israel annually since 1983"

On the no side is this:

"James Strange is Professor of Religious Studies and Director of Graduate Studies. He has served both as Chairperson of Religious Studies (1990-93) and as Dean of the College of Arts and Letters (1981-89). He earned a B.A. in Philosophy from Rice University in 1959, an M.Div. from Yale Divinity School in 1964, and a PhD. in New Testament Studies from Drew University in 1970."

...no degree in archaeology, and nowhere does he claim to be an archaeologist.

Related questions: would the above justify calling him a "biblical archaeologist" or "amateur archaeologist"? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

First, the Anchor Bible Dictionary is a reliable source. Depending on the date of publication, and the length of the material included, and the potential bias of the author of any individual article (which happens rather often), and other things, it may not be the best source, but it is reliable. Second, Strange I think could reasonably be described as a Biblical archaeologist, given his status as a director of excavations. However, if one wanted to get really OCD about it, one could describe him as a biblical historian who has directed archaeological digs. John Carter (talk) 22:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
People who are paid to do archaeology cannot be described as "amateurs". Amateur vs professional is all about the money. University degrees are not relevant: Abraham Lincoln, for example, was a lawyer despite having attended school for only a total of 18 months in his life. He was a professional lawyer because people paid him to do the work, not because he spent years in a classroom. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Counterexample: "Dr. Carl Baugh, Director of the Creation Evidence Museum, began his excavation project on the Paluxy River in Glen Rose, Texas in March 1982. Since that time, Baugh, along with teams of volunteers, has uncovered over 400 dinosaur tracks and over 80 human footprints in Cretaceous limestone." Source: Creation Evidence Museum People pay Baugh to do archaeology, but he is no archaeologist. Baugh is a creation scientist, and Strange is a Biblical Archaeologist (not to compare the two - Biblical Archaeologists are real scientists)
Also, Abraham Lincoln became a lawyer in 1836 when he passed the bar exam which was administered to him in Sangamon County Circuit Court and obtained his law license. It was then and still is no illegal to practice law or call yourself a lawyer just because someone is willing to pay you to practice law. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I am addressing only the question of amateur vs professional: You don't become a professional _____, no matter what _____ is, until you get paid for doing it. An unpaid attorney, archaeologist, or armadillo hunter is an amateur. The word derives from "doing it for love", i.e., not for money. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
If he's published archaeological conclusions in scholarly peer reviewed archaeological journals, then he's an archaeologist. If he's got a PhD in archaeology then he's an archaeologist. If he's published archaeological books in a University Press (or similar) and they've not received hostile reviews in the scholarly peer reviewed archaeological journals, then he's an archaeologist. If he's published archaeological findings in the mass-marked non-fiction presses, and these have been reviewed positively in the scholarly peer reviewed archaeological journals, then he's an archaeologist. Membership of the practicing scholarly community is the criteria, this is most easily evidenced by research publications that meet the standard of scholarly acceptance. (This answer in terms of considering expertise in terms of reliable sourcing, not in terms of reliably sourcing wikipedia claiming he's an archaeologist) Fifelfoo (talk) 02:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The claim in question is both extraordinary and controversial, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. Furthermore, the claim is archeological in nature, and thus requires a genuine archeological source. The Anchor Biblical Dictionary clearly fails as a source because it was not compiled with the intention of being an authoritative source on archeological matters, nor did it receive any sort of review from an archeological standpoint. The author of the article is also not a recognized expert in the field of archeology to the extent that his claim should be given any weight, published as it is in without the benefit of peer-review. He seems to be a minor character in the field of archeological research in Israel, with no formal training and a modest and unspectacular pubication history. He has never particpated in excavations at Nazareth, nor does he have the training, expertise or stature to give his claims about Nazareth any special credibility. In fact, his claims sound like little else than armchair speculation. Sorry, but claims about archeology pertainign to Nazareth by an archeological lightweight who has no special knowledge about the site in question that are published in a non-peer reveiwed, non-archeological source carry little weight, especially since no one in the archeological community has bothered to comment on them in independent reliable sources. The claims do not appear to be part of the schlarly debate on the topic, and thus should not be mentioned here in WP. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

This paragraph should get a prize of some sort. Zerotalk 12:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

It is really quite absurd to imagine that someone who has been the director of several archaeological excavations in Israel is not an archaeologist. The State of Israel issues excavation permits carefully and sparingly, of course he's an archaeologist. Incidentally, he also wrote the article on Nazareth in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, under the auspices of the American Schools of Oriental Research (one of the most respected academic organizations in archaeology) and published by Oxford University Press. I guess Dominus Vobisdu will tell us it is really a children's book. He spent three years as Fellow at the Albright Institute of Archaeological Research in Jerusalem, the most famous institution in Middle East archaeology, of course he's an archaeologist. His coauthor Meyers was even the director of the Albright Institute for a while. Can we stop this nonsense now? Zerotalk 12:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

People stumbling on this section might not realise what is going on. There is a fringe theory that Nazareth was uninhabited at the time of Jesus, and some of its adherents have been trying for years to push it into Nazareth. It must be true, but the archaeologists refuse to cooperate. They even do things like digging up houses from that time period, bad bad archaeologists! Zerotalk 12:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

  • The confusion may have resulted from the fact that his son, James R. Strange, helps him do his field work. James F. Strange is the one qualified in archaeology. is/was a lead archaeologist at the site of the ancient city of Sepphoris. Notice these links: University of South Florida, A blog of someone working with the Strange family (second generation includes the son and a daughter): Here; James F. Strange has published in peer-reviewed journals. He is leading in excavations at the site of the ancient city of Sepphoris, three miles from Nazareth. His opinion most-likely is biased in favor of the existence of the ancient Nazareth of Jesus, but there seems no doubt that James F. Strange is a competent and respected archaeologist. Note these search results from Google scholar here. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Regarding evidence for the existence of Nazareth, it may still be FRINGE to doubt that it existed, but the lack of evidence is a valid concern. This helps explain why the excavations at Sepphoris hold significance for these Christian archaeologists. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, nobody ever claimed that Nazareth didn't exist. The claim is that there is no evidence of human habitation between the Late Iron Age (c. 700 BCE) and Middle Roman times (c. 100 CE).[27][28] I personally doubt that claim, based upon arguments by Richard carrier,[29], but the fact remains that the only citation to a RS the article has on this[30] dates the artifacts found to "the first and second centuries CE". All I am saying is that if Wikipedia says that there were people living in Nazareth at the time of Christ, we need to have a citation to a RS that says that. Right now we have no such citation. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

  • That is cutting an awful fine line. If there are no humans, then Nazareth, as a human construct did not exist during that time. So there is no ongoing question regarding James F. Strange's credentials as a bonafide archaeologist? If a reputable archaeologist, such as James F. Strange, speculates about Nazareth at the time of Christ and is quoted in a reliable source, then his opinion is okay to cite, I would think. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think anyone questions James F. Strange's credentials as a biblical archaeologist, but as a reliable source for the claim we are examining there are at least two participants in this discussion who question his qualifications. First, Dominus Vobisdu above, who wrote
"The author of the article [James F. Strange] is also not a recognized expert in the field of archeology to the extent that his claim should be given any weight, published as it is in without the benefit of peer-review. He seems to be a minor character in the field of archeological research in Israel, with no formal training and a modest and unspectacular pubication history. He [does not] have the training, expertise or stature to give his claims about Nazareth any special credibility. In fact, his claims sound like little else than armchair speculation. Sorry, but claims about archeology pertainign to Nazareth by an archeological lightweight who has no special knowledge about the site in question that are published in a non-peer reveiwed, non-archeological source carry little weight, especially since no one in the archeological community has bothered to comment on them in independent reliable sources. The claims do not appear to be part of the schlarly debate on the topic, and thus should not be mentioned here in WP."
I myself also question the claims, partly because Richard Carrier, who I have found to be very reliable when he reports a fact (his conclusions are another matter), wrote "some peer reviewed discussions of late seem to concede the possibility that there is no definite evidence of an early 1st-century Nazareth" That statement is enough for me to require actual peer-reviewed science that supports the claim. Nobody has pointed me to a peer-reviewed paper where James F. Strange makes the claim, and nobody has pointed me to a peer-reviewed paper that James F. Strange may have consulted before making the claim, and nobody has shown me that James F. Strange is enough of an authority on this that I am willing to accept his word that there are -- somewhere -- peer-reviewed papers that support the claim. In fact, I suspect that if I had access to the Anchor Bible Dictionary article on Nazareth, I would find the he presents the claim as opinion or speculation, not as a fact that is backed up by peer-reviewed science. I also question the fact that this is the only source that anyone has come up with that gives a population estimate for the period in question. Where did Strange get this data that nobody else can find? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Haven't investigated James F. Strange enough to defend his credentials. Archaeology in the Middle-East has moved away from biblical reference points. There are some very good older archaeologists who are very reputable but still could be called "Biblical" archaeologists. Regarding Nazareth, I am okay with a strict skeptical standard. Wikipedia is served well by such. I have tried to find any kind of information about early 1st-century "Israel". Outside of the biblical manuscripts, there isn't much available about anything. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
This seems to be a cut and dried case of an article basing a claim on a source that does not meet our criteria for being a reliable source for that claim. Think about what we are being asked to accept here. We are expected to accept a Wikipedia article giving an estimate of the population of Nazareth at the time of Christ. Everything about our reliable sources policy points to a requirement that there must exists a peer-reviewed archeological paper that makes that estimate for that period. We are being asked to accept that somehow Strange knows the population without any sort of evidence, based upon a statement he made in a publication that is not peer reviewed. Given the high visibility of this particular topic, if there really was a peer-reviewed paper backing up Strange's claims, we would know about it. So how, exactly, does Strange know what the population was? Unless he has a time machine, he must base his opinion on peer-reviewed science, and we know he does not have any peer-reviewed science to back up his claim. To accept Strange as a reliable source for the the population of Nazareth at the time of Christ goes against everything our verifiability policy stands for. Verifiability means that we can verify that he knows what he says he knows, when in actuality we know that he has no way of knowing that. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
That's just not true. There is absolutely no "requirement that there must exists a peer-reviewed archeological paper" that says anything about this. Wikipedia requires reliable sources. We do not require "peer-reviewed papers". Peer-reviewed papers happen to be one of the many types of sources that are typically reliable, but we do not require a peer-reviewed paper for every fact about history or archaeology. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Does anyone have access to this? It says something about estimating the population using Safrai's method, but I can't see what the answer is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I can get ahold of the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus, but it would take a few days. But I also agree with WhatamIdoing above. Guy Macon said we can only use academic journals. We can and do have other sources available, and they are of sufficient quality that they can be used as well as academic journals. Also, yes, we are not obliged to use exclusively academic journals anyway. But, back on point here, Google books here lists several books which discuss the matter. One of which I just pulled out, the Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible also edited by David Noel Freedman. It says something about the respect an editor is given when two different encyclopedia want him as their main editor, right? I have started to get together a list of dictionaries on religious topics at User:John Carter/Religion reference, but haven't gotten around to adding them all yet, and having looked at the reviews I found as I pulled them up, and the general academic opinion of the editor, it is basically counted by academics as being on a par with academic journals in terms of reliability. Quoting Eerdmans page 951, in the article on Nazareth written by Jonathan L. Reed, "At the time of Jesus, Nazareth was an obscure village S of Sepphoris. ... Evidence for a necropolis helps determine the extent of the 1st-century-ruins, which correlate to a populataion of well under 500. Nathanel's exclamation in John 1:46, 'Can anything good come out of Nazareth?' aptly symbolizes the town's obscurity in the 1st century." The bibliography for the article includes B. Bagatti, Excavations at Nazareth I (Jerusalem, 1969); E. M. Myers and J. F. Strange, Archaeology, the Rabbis, and Early Christianity (Nashville, 1981); J. E. Taylor, Christians and the Holy Places (Oxford, 1993). Maybe it is a bit of a guess, but I assume those sources support the content of the article. Now, by saying this, I am in no way saying that the article should not include some information regarding how this conclusion is apparently questioned, because that seems to be valid as well. However, that quote, "some peer reviewed discussions of late seem to concede the possibility that there is no definite evidence of an early 1st-century Nazareth" explicitly uses the word some. "Some" is not all, or even a majority - it means some. So based on the evidence I have seen, there is sufficient evidence to include the material on both sides, using the language "some" used in the source regarding the numbers of those who question it. It might be better if someone found on the secondary sources included in the Eerdmans bibliography, but I think we can use either that book, or the Anchor, as a reliable source in its own right. John Carter (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I have the article from Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus and it does indeed address the population of Nazareth. Thanks to WhatamIdoing for finding it; it will improve the article. The author (Paul Foster of the University of Edinburgh) says that one method would give 630–720 and another method would give 200–220 which "appears to be an underestimate". Then he cites Strange's estimate of at most 480 from the Anchor Bible Dictionary. Note two things: one is that Strange is very widely cited on ancient Nazareth because he is regarded as an authority on the subject, and his article in Anchor Bible Dictionary is one of those which is widely cited. Second, not in this article nor in any other article I have ever seen in the professional literature since the 1950s excavations of Bagatti is there any credence given to the possibility that Nazareth was unoccupied in the time of Jesus (let alone for many centuries as Salm's amateur theory insists). The possibility of it being unoccupied is hardly ever even mentioned. There is in fact no controversy over this question among archaeologists. People who want to write the article on the basis of there being a dispute should first prove that there is one. Of course there are disagreements over details, but that is how science works. Zerotalk 06:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
And by "prove that there is [a controversy]", we mean by citing sources rather stronger than http://www.nazarethmyth.info and http://www.jesusneverexisted.com, which seem to be the only "sources" cited as proof that these academic books and journal articles are all wrong.
It seems to me that we've determined that both the ABD and the article from Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus (1) are reliable sources for statements about the population of Nazareth during the time in question and (2) represent the mainstream academic views on the subject (i.e., the population was a couple of hundred, and exact estimates vary according to the method used). Does that sound like the consensus to everyone else? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Snopes.com

Is snopes.com considered reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editorofthewiki (talk • contribs)

Yes, sort of, in certain contexts. Are you talking about this? The snopes article is based on Dave Marsh's book Louie Louie. You may be able to find it in your local library. Arcandam (talk) 03:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. I'm sure this has been asked a bajillion times, but what about about.com? Specifically http://oldies.about.com/library/weekly/aa091602a.htm and related links? ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 03:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
My initial guess was that it wouldn't be; however, it appears like it is reliable. It is a part of the New York Times Company. Check the page for a random contributor Aaron Gold. This appears to be the contributor who added the information. Ryan Vesey Review me! 03:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Generally speaking, I would say that Snopes is reliable but not About.com. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Why? Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Too expand, if we can trust the information they provide us about their contributors, the author of the link given is "an entertainment critic and journalist who has been published nationally for over a quarter century, and has written about oldies music for most of that time". Aaron Gold, who I linked to earlier, works full time for about.com and is a consulting producer for Top Gear. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Maybe I don't understand the site well enough to comment conclusively ... my impression is that about.com contributors are well chosen for their expertise and the site is professionally managed. I'd incline towards saying "yes, reliable". Andrew Dalby 08:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
To be more precise, About.com itself is not reliable, but the individual authors fairly often qualify for expert status (see WP:SPS) and are thus reliable sources no matter where they publish. That's why we say that "source" has three meanings on Wikipedia (author, publication, and publisher). Only one of the three needs to be acceptable. In this case, the overall publication (About.com's website) is unreliable, but some of the authors are. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Campus Circle (newspaper) and Campus Circle Media

Inre: February 22, 2010 interview in free alternative newspaper Campus Circle as used in the article The Last Hurrah (2009 film) for sourcing non-controversial information in The Last Hurrah (2009 film) "Production" and "Critical response" sections:

From "Production":

The movie is filmed in one single, continuous 88 minute shot. The film is considered part of the mumblecore movement because of its shooting style, emphasis on dialog, and focus on Generation Y relationships. The director states that the film was inspired by Richard Linklater and Woody Allen, with dialogue intended to be "a lot of fast-paced one-liners. A lot of philosophy."[3] Obstacles encountered while shooting the film as one take included coordinating a film crew in a party scene filled with extras, and equipment limitations such as cameras with 30 minutes shot length. Filming took five nights of shooting attempts - on the fifth night, "the film came together."[3]

From "Critical response":

Campus Circle wrote that teen comedies have become reviled due to their becoming "synonymous with cheap laughs and awkward, over sexual punch lines,"[3] but that Last Hurrah "reminds audiences of what has since been lost from the high point of ’80s filmmaking."[3]
Refcite: Stokell, Spence (February 22, 2010). "Jonathan Stokes: The Last Hurrah Director Takes Five" Campus Circle. Retrieved July 15, 2012.

Campus Circle's "about us" and "media" pages stress that their target demographic are readers between the ages of 18 and 34, gives company history and background leading to the formation of "Campus Circle Media" in 2000 as a group of 33 alternative newspapers nationwide that are distributed both on and off college campuses in their respective cities, and offers that they now network with over 34 different publications in 32 different markets.[31][32] Their "contact us" page shows that they have different editorial departments and, in serving college and university age students on campuses across the US as part of their target demographic, they have main offices at a non-university address in Los Angeles.[33] The bottom of their main page shows that along with the online version, hardcopy issues are published 49 times a year.[34] So... is the source reliable enough in context to what is being sourced? Or not? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any reason here to think that it is less reliable than any other weekly entertainment rag.
I assume that you're worried about it being considered a student newspaper. It's not. We accept sources that young people read. We worry about sources that inexperienced people write. That's why we have a general dislike for student newspapers: the students who write, edit, and publish those papers don't normally know what they're doing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

David Jay Brown a reliable source for blog post re cultural views of drug use?

Would a blog post by David Jay Brown be considered a valid "expert" self published source for a commentary about the mainstream media and cultural views of use of drugs? Specifically His commentary here for use in Incidents of zombie-like behavior in 2012?

Absolute, definite, imperative NO. Not reliable for anything at all except for what cranks think. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:19, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Why not? He's written non-self-published works about marijuana. That's the definition of "expert" under WP:SPS, isn't it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Dungeons & Dragons sourcebooks

Several discussions at Dungeons & Dragons related AfDs and talk pages lately have been going nowhere, due to the contested issue of the independence of certain sources. The articles are all concerning creatures within the Dungeons & Dragons game system (this one, for example), and the sources in question are all sourcebooks for the Dungeons & Dragons game system.

In the articles, the source in question is the Tome of Horrors sourcebook. What is the difference between the Tome of Horrors [35] and the Monster Manual that makes it independent? Both are sourcebooks for Dungeons and Dragons, and both are nothing more than a list of entries for monsters to be used in the Dungeons & Dragons game, and both require other Dungeons & Dragons books in order to be used. The only difference is that one was published by a company that owns the rights to Dungeons & Dragons game system, and the other was published by a company that uses the rights to Dungeons and Dragons game system. That's the only difference.

There is not a single policy, guideline, essay, or even consensus that comes anywhere close to suggesting that using the rights as opposed to owning the rights makes any difference when establishing the independence of a source. The fact that rights to the game system are used at all makes it not independent of the game system whose rights this sourcebook is using. How is a sourcebook written specifically to be used with Dungeons & Dragons independent of Dungeons & Dragons? Having a different publisher does not make it independent; two publishers being independent of one another is not the same as a publisher being independent of a game system it's publishing books for. There seems to be a confusion among editors between third-party publisher (i.e. not the rights holder) and third-party source (i.e. unaffiliated with the subject, in this case Dungeons & Dragons). We don't use a video game to establish notability for the same video game, so why would it be different just because the medium changes to a table-top format? Third-party publishers have created video game content for games before, this doesn't make it an independent source, and if an article about a video game creature only cited the video games themselves, I don't believe anyone would seriously argue that those would be independent sources.

Am I wrong in this line of thinking, that something is not an independent source on the sole basis that the sourcebook's publishers do not own the rights to Dungeons & Dragons? (and this is ignoring the fact that this only contributes to a single line in an "Other publishers" section in these articles, and that the articles aren't based on third-party sources per WP:SOURCES). - SudoGhost 04:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

you are correct - "third party" sources need to be fully independent. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:15, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
While Dungeons and Dragons sourcebooks may make for useful citations as in references to works that discuss the topic, they are not good as sources in the sense of works that we write wikipedia from. They are certainly not useful for establishing notability. For example, if Lamia (Dungeons and Dragons) were widely discussed in sources providing notability, it would certainly be appropriate to have the sourcebooks where Lamia are described "in universe" under the Further Reading section; but, it would not be useful to base the content of the article on the sourcebooks. We are an encyclopaedia where readers are interested in Lamia (Dungeons and Dragons) as culturally notable; not as in-universe. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Your first sentence is self-contradictory. Sources are the only thing we cite. That's why the page on how to type up a proper bibliographic citation is called WP:Citing sources. I think that what you meant is that we want articles to be based primarily on independent/third-party sources, just like WP:V says ("Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources..."). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The Charley Project

Disappearance of Robin Graham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Is this webpage from The Charley Project a reliable source for these statements in Disappearance of Robin Graham:

The case of Robin Graham's disappearance has been included in television specials about missing persons. It remains an unsolved mystery.

Some speculate that Graham was a victim of the Zodiac Killer.

Thanks! Location (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

no. a self published source can only make claims about itself (ie the website or the project) so if the website says "This could be the work of the Zodiac Killer" the website could be used as a source for a statement in the article "The Charlie Project thinks it is the work of the Zodiac Killer (citation to website)", but the inclusion of such a statement in the article would need to be based on the fact that the opinion of the Charlie Project was an important point of view WP:UNDUE. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback! Location (talk) 01:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I was wondering that, too. There is only one non-self published source in that article and it only mentions The Charley Project as part of a listing: [36]. Location (talk) 02:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Alternative reliable sources for personal info in an article

Some advice is needed for alternative sources that we can consider reliable for personal details in a Wikipedia article. Recently, the Brittany Binger article has included information about her engagement to a person, and we've recently had some editors who claim to be personally involved that she is no longer engaged. What sort of sources can we consider reliable here, other than mainstream media? We have a blog that has been used as a source, but it is a gossip blog. Does this engagement information even need to be included in the article in the first place? If we remove it entirely would that satisfy the issue well enough for now? -- Avanu (talk) 03:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

RS/N works through specificity. Could you please cite the blog being used to claim that the engagement took place. Personal correspondence or knowledge (for example, "I personally know that this engagement is broken off") is never acceptable. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Source for engagement: http://www.cleveland.com/tribe/index.ssf/2012/01/sorry_ladies_grady_sizemore_is.html
Source for breakup: http://www.terezowens.com/grady-sizemore-brittany-binger-call-off-engagement/
-- Avanu (talk) 04:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

So, do I have to tweet it again since the newspaper used Twitter as it's only source despite it being true? I don't want to have to do that. Jpjpstar (talk) 04:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  • I have not looked at that article, but my standard response to a situation like that would be to remove any claim that is not of essential encyclopedic value and for which there is a plausible belief that the information may be incorrect. If there are multiple reliable sources saying someone is engaged (and none saying otherwise), and if that information is considered somehow valuable, the normal approach would be to include it. I underlined "reliable" because with gossipy stuff one often finds multiple websites that are merely repeating the opinion of one source. If someone is particularly concerned, they should ask at WP:BLPN and could consider a personal statement via email to WP:OTRS. [When I wrote that text, the sources were not listed here. Looking at them very quickly makes me think "omit" is the right response because there are reasonable grounds to doubt the accuracy, and very strong grounds to not take the original source as a definitive statement, and the information is very dubious from an encyclopedic point of view.] Johnuniq (talk) 04:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The Plain Dealer is the major daily newspaper for Cleveland, with the largest circulation of any newspaper in Ohio, and the 16th largest in the US [37]. How does this not meet guidelines for a reliable source? TimofKingsland (talk) 06:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Ditto. It and The Columbus Dispatch were usually considered the best dailies in Ohio. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Attempt to find their editorial details on their "official" website; it is an exercise in futility. When I eventually did find something purporting to be such, on a non-official website, I was more impressed with the editorial policy displayed on heavy metal music review (edited) blogs. Reliability is about demonstrable reliability. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Have you had a look at their awards pages (via their about us) page? The newspaper has been recognised by a large number of independent organisations, such as universities, press societies, etc. TimofKingsland (talk) 08:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
That isn't their webpage, consult http://www.cleveland.com/ where the article is a) published and b) claimed to be the website of The Plain Dealer. We are not an apologia for fucking idiotic US publishing modalities: cleveland.com does not supply any editorial information. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The Facebook page for the PD contains more information. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
That is their website. Look at the bottom of every page "Get today's news (...) from The Plain Dealer, exclusively on our affiliated Web site, cleveland.com!". Or cleveland.com - "We are the online home of The Plain Dealer featuring real-time news (...) from Ohio's largest newspaper." ThePlainDealer.com is the official website of the newspaper, online versions of the article are put on cleveland.com. As stated on both of the websites. TimofKingsland (talk)
So the source as cited we're dealing with here, which was published on cleveland.com; is clearly unedited. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The source was published and edited by a reputable newspaper, who republish the content of the newspaper on their affiliate site cleveland.com. The choice to publish the material on cleveland.com rather than their own website is a business/marketing decision by the newspaper, and has nothing to do with the reliability of the newspaper, or the content they produce. This is like arguing that using a book that is republished freely on google books as a source is not acceptable because google books have not re-edited it themselves, despite the original publisher of the material being considered reputable. The Plain Dealer is a an established newspaper, therefore the content they produce is reliable, even if they decided to publish the online version of their content through a website other than their own (like a publisher allowing their books to be read on google books). TimofKingsland (talk) 10:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Demonstrate by citing against theplaindealer.com or a physical copy. Because cleveland.com contains no editorial information regarding theplaindealer.com, and shows no evidence that they're a credible news archive. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The evidence is on PlainDealer.com, clearly the official site of The Plain Dealer, which directs users at their home page to read online copies of their content at cleveland.com (and at ever other page on the site). Cleveland.com is clearly The Plain Dealer's official source for online copies of their newspaper, as per The Plain Dealer's website. TimofKingsland (talk) 11:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no evidence that cleveland.com is an accurate, complete, correct or true archive of anything. If we cite cleveland.com, then cleveland.com must be reliable. If you have consulted a paper copy of The Plain Dealer, containing the article in question, then proceed. But if you are going to hold to citing cleveland.com you'd better remove the content because there's no evidence that there is any editorial control over cleveland.com. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
even if it were in the NYT, we would not be printing BLP information sourced only to a report of someone's twitter feed. engagement announcements are almost always entirely trivial to the subject of the article and should not be included to begin with. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Cleveland.com is unquestionably reliable. Continuing to doubt that cleveland.com is The Plain Dealer is disrupting the function of this noticeboard. No comment on the other issues at hand. Hipocrite (talk) 12:20, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's a report on a tweet, but I'm not interested in whether the content is kept or not. I don't care. Other editors have been edit warring about it. I'd rather stay out of it. I'm concerned about the idea that Ohio's biggest newspaper cannot be cited on Wikipedia because the site they host their content on is different to the site they use to handle subscriptions and business matters. In the case of a major news event in Cleveland, the inability to cite the online edition of Cleveland's largest newspaper will hinder Wikipedia's coverage. It seems the argument is about a technicality - that they have chosen to use another company to host their material online, rather than handle it themselves. But this is just like using another company to print their newspaper. The reliability of a newspaper is not determined by who prints/hosts it, as long as they are appointed to do so by the newspaper. Or why is this not the case? And why should we not trust a reliable source to choose its own content publisher? Or do we have a consensus that The Plain Dealer articles sourced at Cleveland.com can be used as a reliable source? Only one editor disagrees with this. TimofKingsland (talk) 13:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This discussion just confirms in my opinion that WP:RS needs to explicitly state that RSes are not required to publish an "editorial policy" online or to have an "editorial board". Real newspapers don't publish editorial policies in their print copies either, and many "editorial boards" are responsible solely for opinion pieces. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Off topic here. For the talk page of WP:IRS. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
from the website: "Binger, from Bellevue, Ohio, announced the engagement on her Twitter account. The former Playboy Playmate in June of 2007 Tweeted a picture of her engagement ring." yeah, its a twit. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Just noticed your post. I hadn't look that closely at the source material. You're right, it is a story on a tweet. TimofKingsland (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

To get back to the original question, sources for biography subjects' personal lives include published biographies, the mainstream media, (taking account of WP:RECENT), possibly the subject's own official website or official fan club, statements by their agents, and that's about it. We do not cover celebrity gossip. Have a look at some featured biographies. On Cleveland.com, if you dig around you can see that it is closely related to the Plain Dealer. It's annoying to have to dig around. Perhaps a reader will email them and ask them to add an About Us section on their website. Itsmejudith (talk)

OK, again, not arguing for inclusion, but out of interest, how does WP define celebrity gossip? I would have thought an engagement announcement covered in an RS would be notable as a detail about their personal life, especially if it was to someone else notable. This was reported in the sports section, which might not be the most reliable section of the paper, but it's not the gossip section. TimofKingsland (talk) 13:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Announced engagements, pregnancies, weddings, divorces (to give these celebrity-intensive events in chronological order) aren't tittle tattle. "Friends said" stories are tittle tattle, as are "she looked tipsy" stories. Even so, the announced situations are not always notable. It depends on the biography. Posh's marriage to Becks has to be included in both biographies, but in the case of a scientist you wouldn't want more than "she is married with four adult children". Itsmejudith (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
That's what I would have thought. On top of that, I would have thought if the engagement was to someone else notable (especially if they are more notable than the subject), it would increase its notability. If a scientist with an article on them here announced their engagement to Lady Gaga, I would expect this to be much more notable, and worthy of a mention in an encyclopaedia, than if they announced their engagement to their high school sweetheart. In that situation, it's quite likely reliable sources would only mention the engagement if it was to someone "notable" like Gaga, as they would consider the engagement more notable. This case is obviously different: the subject is not a scientist, and their (ex?) fiancé is not as famous as Lady Gaga. But their fiancé was more notable and well known than the subject. And the fact that the subject has made a career of being a TV personality (i.e. being paid for who they are), their personal life becomes important to their career in a way it does not for a scientist, and I would argue it becomes more notable. That seems to have been the approach taken for the "Snooki" article. TimofKingsland (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Publication from Prof. Colin Rourke, University of Warwick

It was suggested to make an inquiry here to verify that the following publication is reliable:

Title: Hadley: a study in fakery (version 2)

Author: Prof. Colin Rourke, Mathematics Institute, University of Warwick, COVENTRY CV4 7AL, UK[1]. This full address is mentioned on the bottom of the paper.

Publisher: Aulis (including link to the paper)[2]

The paragraph “Anomaly 2: The outward shadow” is the topic of the Wikipedia article Examination_of_Apollo_Moon_photographs#Inconsistent_color_and_angle_of_shadows_and_light, second paragraph.

When Prof. Colin Rourke wrote this paper he was working for the University of Warwick. He made several publications. Such further information can be found on his private homepage, via a link from his university homepage.

My recommendation: Reliable. The only reason why it might not be judged as reliable is the content of the paper which is contrary to the “published opinion”. But this is never stated to be a criterion. Andrew199 (talk) 07:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

References:

  1. ^ "University Homepage of Prof. Colin Rourke". Retrieved 2012-07-25.
  2. ^ "Hadley: A Study in Fakery". Aulis.com. Retrieved 2012-07-25.
Aulis describes itself as a "flexible outlet" for publishing anti-orthodox content. In other words, it is a peer-review-free zone that publishes fringe content. Looking through the other papers published on that site will lead you to the same conclusion. This is not a reliable source for anything but author's opinions, which are only significant if there is some special reason for caring about that author's opinion, such as in an article on himself.. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
It is the author who is responsible for the content of a paper. And here we have a paper from the University of Warwick. The question is therefore whether the Warwick University is reliable or not. Andrew199 (talk) 20:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Warwick University is exceedingly reliable. Has the uni put its weight behind this particular paper. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
This appears to be the self-published (except through Aulis.com, as noted above) work of a professor of mathematics there; it's also available through his personal ftp page as hadley.doc, but interestingly enough is not mentioned on either his personal web page there or in his (badly out of date) CV linked from that personal web page. While he appears to be an expert in topology, there's no sign that he is an expert in photographic analysis or in forensics in general. There's no peer review or university endorsement of this paper that I can find. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The examination of photographs, as any examination, can be approached from different sides. A mathematical contribution on behalf of Warwick should therefore be welcome, even if the concerning review process is not known to us. Andrew199 (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Is this a fringe claim?

We have to printed, reliable sources for the outcome of Talk:Battle of Dirschau, as a Polish victory ([38] and a book by historian Leszek Podhorodecki. There is also a website ([39]) that calls it a Swedish victory; it does not cite any sources, through the author seems somewhat reliable ([40]). I think that the website is less reliable, and without support form other sources, it claim is fringe-ish. Another editor uses it to argue that the battle outcome should be changed from Polish victory to indecisive. What would our resident experts on reliability suggest? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Easy. Wikipedia does not call the "winner". We cite the opinion of each source to the source itself. And we only use "reliable sources" per the strange Wikipedia usage. Collect (talk) 12:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
a quick scan on google books shows quite an array of interpretation on the battle. wikipedia should present the notable views in the proportion that they are held by mainstream scholarship, generally determined as by how they are presented reliable sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I was not seeing any interpretations other than Polish victory/Swedish defeat. Could you point me to those you found? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
it was a "quick scan" and I saw things like "was a minor swedish vicotry" (which on closer inspection turns out to be self published and so not reliable unless Robert Firth is a notable historian)
and its only a snippet view so you cannot really verify exactly what is in the work but [41] "Battle of Dirschau: Swedes defeat Poles " in The northern wars: war, state, and society in northeastern Europe, ... by historian Robert I. Frost.
a close inspection could very well show that those are non-notable and/or fringe interpretations. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I saw and discarded the first source a while ago, as it was self-published (as you note) and also got the date wrong. Robert I. Frost is a reliable historian, but I'd like to see a little more before including him in the infobox; he may merit inclusion in the text, however. (He also gives the date wrong, same as Robert Firth; I wonder if they are using a different calendar?) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
[Edit conflict:] We can't count the website [42] as a reliable source, though I agree it looks good. The Robert Firth book has no claim at all to be reliable in our terms. The Robert I. Frost text, assuming Red Pen of Doom cites it correctly (I can't verify) is potentially a reliable source allowing us to say that the result has been called both ways. And it would be good to say that, because, clearly, if you read the text of our page and of other narratives about this battle, it was not really conclusive and it isn't surprising that evaluations differ. Andrew Dalby 14:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I would not use the Frost claim without having some one be able to verify the actual text. The content in the snippet view appears pretty straightforward, but without being able to verify it in full context it is not really supportable other than as a discussion point that there are apparently alternate views. -- The Red Pen of Doom 14:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

[43] "The History of the Swedes" seems to state that Dirschau was "restored" to Poland in 1629. This strongly suggests that Poland was not in control of Dirschau and that Sweden was, as of 1629. It may be of interest that different countries in Europe may or may not have adopted the Gregorian calendar at that time -- Poland appears to have used it from 1582, and Sweden from 1700 (sort of - it took 44 years to fully align). Interesting reading for sure. Collect (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

If the sources disagree, I would suggest putting something like "Disputed" or "Interpretations vary" for "Result" in the Infobox, with a link to the section of the article or a footnote which explains how the sources diverge on who won the battle and why. Cla68 (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Or just leave that field of the infobox blank, and explain the differing accounts in the lead and final sections of the article. Nick-D (talk) 06:59, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Dhimmi

In the dhimmi article, is Abdullahi Ahmed An-Nai'im, Toward an Islamic Reformation: Civil Liberties, Human Rights and International Law, Syracuse University Press 1990' p 90 reliable for the statement "In classical Islamic law, dhimmis were treated differently from Muslim men in the administration of criminal law and would also face humiliating and discriminatory distinctions in personal law."? Is An-Naim not writing specifically about punishments for fornication? Would such a statement be cherry-picking? The book is scholarly; as the title indicates it is also advocacy (haven't read it in full, but seen Google books preview). At the start the author describes it as "a preliminary work introducing a revolutionary approach to Islamic legal reform". p xiii. The author is a legal specialist, PhD in law, and a former political activist, not a historian. There were major differences between the letter of the law and how it was implemented, as he recognises on several occasions, and as historians stress. Itsmejudith (talk)

For reference his webpage[44] and his wiki page Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im the author is clearly a scholar in the field but maybe used with attribution to alleviate any concern--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
in the main text, *perhaps*. in the lead, no.-- altetendekrabbe  14:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Looking for uninvolved comments, thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The author is an academic expert in the field of Islamic law and human rights, with numerous books published on the topic of Islamic law by academic presses. The specific source you are using is an on-topic book, published by a university press. If thou want to edit the sentence win question to better reflect the specific claim (wrt fornication) - do so, but there is no doubt this is a relabel source. 71.204.165.25 (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The source may be 'reliable' in the abstract, but that is not what is at issue. Is it 'reliable' for the material it is cited for? I say clearly not, simply on the basis that the word "would" is unsupported - or more accurately, is contradicted by the source, which argues that such discrimination 'might' have occurred, but was by no means a universal given in the practice of 'classical Islamic law'. I'd also point out that the material under question is in the article lede, and as such should summarise what is said in the body of the text - it doesn't, so regardless of its validity, it doesn't belong there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The problem with this sourcing seems to be the claim that formal distinction existed in law which is necessarily actual social discrimination. The source doesn't adequately support this claim. It supports most of the rest of the content, this is "AndyTheGrump"'s would. The author appears to hold the opinion that formal distinction in law is necessarily concrete discrimination at all times in all places, this claim could be attributed, but then we are forced to ask if the author is competent for such a claim. I'd say yes because this claim is a trivial argument in law. But in history it isn't a trivial argument, and it certainly isn't widely accepted (it'd be accused of anachronism out of the box). Correspondingly the concept that this was "humiliating" is a more historical than legal claim, that I worry about. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Am I right in thinking that al Qattan in the International Journal of Middle East Studies is a better source, and can supersede this one? Itsmejudith (talk) 22:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
I would suggest using scholarly peer-reviewed journal articles in preference to this source, and replacing this source with such articles as they exist. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Zodiac and Horoscopes

It seems User:Bobrayner will keep removing reliable information from the Chinese Zodiac and not from the Western Astrology articles. I keep informing the user if you keep remove per WP:BOLLOCKS the user should have had the common sense to remove the BOLLOCKS information from the characteristics from the (Western astrology) section as it also pertains BOLLOCK book sources. If the user does not do anything with the Western Horoscopes. I will keep the information of the Chinese Zodiac signs if the user does not do away with Western astrology characteristics, and please inform the user why the user did not complete the rest of BOLLOCKS information from other Chinese zodiac signs.--GoShow (...............) 17:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

All the astrology articles need cleanup. If you can find sources for Chinese astrology that would be helpful. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
From what I can see from Chinese zodiac, the only edits Bobrayner has made was to add fact tags. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I've taken a lot of the b*ll**ks out of the Chinese zodiac now, and made suggestions for further improvement in a discussion already open on the WikiProject Astrology talk page. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Something that bothers me about zodiac sign articles, which are mostly astrology but sometimes contain elements of astronomy, is reliable sources for the dates on which the sun enters and leaves a given sign. A pattern in these articles is that someone will quote an online astrology source which gives definite dates. For reasons stated in the next paragraph, these dates are necessarily an approximation, but at least they are a verifiable approximation which vandalism-fighters can refer to when dubious changes are made. Then some well-meaning IP comes along and changes the dates to a different approximation, which while plausible, disagree with the cited source.

The dates are necessarily an approximation; the two biggest factors causing different dates are the time zone and the place of the year in the four-year leap year sequence. I imagine the various online sources are using Universal time, but this is seldom stated explicitly. The method of choosing a typical or average date over the course of the leap year sequence is never stated. Perhaps an approach is to make the various infoboxes more rigorous with citations to reliable sources that explicitly state their methodology. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Race and Racism

Encyclopedia of Race and Racism by Gale group [45] in article about "Anti-Semitism in the Arab World" says the following "Manifestations of anti-Semitism erupted in the Arab world during the late twentieth century. However, discrimination against Jews has relegated them to second-class status under Arab hegemony (“dhimmitude”) since the successful uniting of the tribes in the Arabian peninsula by Muhammad (570–632) in the sixth century." I want to use it as one of descriptions of dhimmitude in dhimmitude article.Thank you in advance--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 06:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC) The article is authored by [46]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

While not an outright bad source, that appears to be a tertiary source from a publisher which, according to its website, is focused on e-research and educational publishing for libraries, schools and businesses. A secondary, and preferably scholarly, source would be much superior, especially given that this is a sensitive and disputed topic - our Dhimmitude article states that some scholars consider this concept to be a myth (please also see WP:PSTS for background on the relevant policies here). I hope that this is helpful. Nick-D (talk) 06:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
The thing is there already some secondary sources its not the only source.Maybe it could be used with conjunction with other sources?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
As a non-authored article in an encyclopaedia aimed not at scholars I don't see why we should pay this any attention under WEIGHT and exceptional claims (claiming a tenuous theoretical construct is reality). These claims are meant to come from scholars. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
It does authored by him [47]--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 07:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Steven L. Jacobs has no experience in Islamic history in the 6th and 7th century. An article authored by a non-specialist in a generalist encyclopaedia is irrelevant to exceptional claims (such as a historical theoretical construct actually existing in reality). See WP:HISTRS for suitable sources regarding establishing one historiography (particularly tenuous ones) as actual fact. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

IRMEP document link for FARA article

Regarding narrowly this diff showing removal of a link to a Dept of Justice document the Institute for Research Middle East Policy obtained through FOIA and put on its website (along with many others). The document supports statements by two other WP:RS. (For your convenience, here is the actual document link: Photostat of November 21, 1962 letter from U.S. Assistant Attorney General to American Zionist Organization regarding registration as foreign agent.)

At this April WP:RSN discussion over two dozen WP:RS discussions of, quoting from, reprinting of IRMEP materials were presented and several editors opined it was fine to link to its documents in this manner. (I can repeat the list and a number more if people really want to see them again.) Nevertheless, User:Biosketch who made the above edit claims there is no such "consensus" to link to such documents on IRMEP's site.

Unfortunately, despite the title of that first thread “IRmep: actual reliable source evidence re: FOIA docs” editors who do not want IRMEP opinions seen as WP:RS kept bring up that issue resulting in a ridiculously long thread. So hopefully if we focus on one article and one document we can have a short discussion without the histrionics generated last time. CarolMooreDC 15:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Isn't its primary source?Why it needed in the article at all?--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
Primary sources are fine to back up WP:RS and are often used to provide weight and credibility to other WP:RS, as well as to provide details missing in them. Like the date, the actual author, and the actual text. Also, when some editors are trying to downplay or even delete any mention of some fact in what seems to be a politically censorious fashion, it's helpful to provide documentary evidence. CarolMooreDC 16:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
If the statement is already supported by RS, why is the primary source required as a source and not simply placed into "Further Reading." What additional claims does the primary source support that are not already supported by other sources? Fifelfoo (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Right now sources only say that the request for registration happened in the 1960s. I'd like to put the exact year; the actual foreign agency funding the operation also is mentioned. I am not sure how that bears on whether IRMEP itself is WP:RS as a link to this primary source document. CarolMooreDC 03:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Carol; that is a legitimate use of a primary document, where secondaries already mention the fact, and the document, and we're only referring to the document to clarify points secondaries have already mentioned. Reasonable enough. In my other life, I am a historian, and regularly use archives of a variety of qualities. Looking at the separation of the archival unit from the general unit within the organisation, the archival unit's specific mission relating to the promulgation of acquired public documents, and both example documents and example collections—ie, examining the archival quality of the ILA archive of the IRMEP—I am convinced that the ILA meet the minimal acceptable criteria for an archive of primary documents (complete, context, in full, invariant, provenance, etc.) Thus I am convinced that it is reasonable to use the primary source in the above manner: 1) Secondary sources establish the point exists, and the importance of the point; 2) The primary source is only used to clarify the point (year, name) of elements already considered important; 3) the archive supplying the primary source is minimally trustworthy as a publisher of archival material (that's a high bar minimum btw). Without point 1; without point 2; or without point 3 this would be bad. See WP:HISTRS for why I reason in this manner regarding primary sources use in historical articles. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Fifelfoo, Wikipedia's criteria for determining what qualifies as a reliable source are summarized at WP:RS as follows: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Can you demonstrate how you concluded that IRmep has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy in determining that we can rely on its documents for their authenticity? Also, this is already the fourth or fifth time that the IRmep organization is being brought to RSN: in none of the preceding discussions was a compelling argument able to be formulated for accepting IRmep as a reliable source for anything other than the opinions of Grant Smith.—Biosketch (talk) 04:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Read IRS closer, Biosketch. This is about the reliability specifically of ILA at IRMEP for copying documents from the US government's National Archives or from US government FOI procedures, and then mirroring them, intact complete invariant. This isn't about secondary sources regarding the actuality of the middle east and the weight or verifiability to ascribe to opinions written by a politicised author. Do you see the difference? Supply intact, complete, invariant and provinenced archival material is radically different to supplying appropriate history, sociology or political science of the middle east? This is why the claim supported issue is relevant. I would still suggest, and defend, not using IRMEP for secondary sources in connection with the middle east. I would suggest, and defend, not writing articles or facts in articles based on content in the ILA (due to PRIMARY and WP:HISTRS's discussion of primary). Fifelfoo (talk) 04:54, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
ILA (an acronym for "The Israel Lobby Archive," which is a classification not used in any of the purported FBI documents) is a component of IRmep's website. Unless IRmep is itself considered a reliable publisher, which is what I'm insisting be demonstrated per WP:RS's criteria, ILA doesn't qualify as a reliable publisher either. ILA and IRmep are for all intents and purposes the same entity here. What has convinced you that the documents hosted at "Israel Lobby Archive" are authentic?—Biosketch (talk) 05:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Typology and typesetting, administrative markings that archived or released documents ought to possess, degradations from photoduplication or scanning, artefacts from large digitisation actions (photographic bleed through, etc), the amount of provenance information supplied with the documents, the fact that documents in series are complete, the absence of markers of variance, and the stated mission of the ILA subgroup's mission regarding the archives in various pages discussing what it is and how they work. These reliability criteria only relate to the ILA function; not to IRMEP commentary. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but none of these features establish IRmep's "Israel Lobby Archive" as a reliable source for documents it claims to have obtained from archives of official United States agencies. Reliability is established by things like peer-review and a reputation for fact-checking. As long as the authenticity of these documents isn't upheld by sources themselves known to be reliable, our own evaluation of them is insufficient. Compare the editor User:Fifelfoo's comment re cleveland.com above:

There is no evidence that cleveland.com is an accurate, complete, correct or true archive of anything. If we cite cleveland.com, then cleveland.com must be reliable. If you have consulted a paper copy of The Plain Dealer, containing the article in question, then proceed. But if you are going to hold to citing cleveland.com you'd better remove the content because there's no evidence that there is any editorial control over cleveland.com.
— User:Fifelfoo

—Biosketch (talk) 06:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
No, let's not compare. We are talking here of a convenience link for an official document. Are we certain that this is the original? I haven't looked. Re Cleveland.com, I think Fifelfoo is probably mistaken, and have posted on talk IRS at length about local newspapers. This is quite a differentcase. I suspect that, as Carol hinted, behind this query is a slow burning war on Israel Palestine articles to "get sources on" or "get sources off" Wikipedia. Sort of 1x Ilan Pappe = 1x Alan Dershowitz. Tell me I'm wrong. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
You are right, of course. IRMEP has a lot of govt documents relevant sites are reluctant to carry for political reasons. (After I finish my IRMEP wikipedia article in the fall we can discuss whether its opinions, just like the opinions of a number of advocacy groups, also can be used in articles.) Right now I just want to use links to and info from the documents themselves.
I think the credibility of IRMEP for posting accurate documents is evidenced by [this April WP:RSN discussion listing over two dozen WP:RS discussions of, quoting from, reprinting of IRMEP materials. Since that list was made, Grant and/or his documents have been covered in Courthousenews.com, Sacramento Bee, WBAI Pacifica radio (interview) as well as a number of the sources mentioned in the WP:RSN archive. I haven't seen IRMEP challenged on the grounds it is manufacturing or messing with documents.
Just for the heck of it I just did internet search of November 21, 1962 Assistant Attorney General American Zionist Organization and this was the highest quality source making it available. (Actually what we should do is get all this stuff into the National Archives via GLAM! Thanks for inspiring that idea, Biosketch!) CarolMooreDC 17:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

{outdent}} Biosketch wrote above: As long as the authenticity of these documents isn't upheld by sources themselves known to be reliable, our own evaluation of them is insufficient. Given that request for such information, let us again list such sources that do just that, the first two very directly, the rest by simply using them:

  • Most recently IRMEP released new FOIA documents from the FBI (See PDF here) showing that current Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was involved 30 odd years ago in illegally purchasing United States nuclear technology for Israel’s nuclear program. Antiwar.com published Smith's article on this; Gary Null at WBAI radio interviewed Grant Smith here. I am not sure at this point if IRMEP also obtained and released the original documents which resulted in the publishing of a book on the topic (reviewed here) or relevant to this The Israel National News article. This obviously is still a developing story and I'm sure more WP:RS will use Smith's documents in the future.

I would hope NPOV editors agree that this is more than sufficient evidence that: "the authenticity of these documents is upheld by sources themselves known to be reliable." If not, we are going to have to scour Wikipedia of thousands of primary source references. CarolMooreDC 22:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_127&oldid=1193888176"