Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 44

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 40←Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45Archive 46→Archive 50

Ohio State Sentinel for pokemon article

This source in support of this statement "In a The Ohio State Sentinel point-counterpoint, Matthew Thomas Gross felt that Charmander is superior to Bulbasaur, saying Bulbasaur has "shown evidence of sloth and laziness," and has lower speed rating than Charmander. In contrast, Clark Helmsley feels that Bulbasaur is superior, noting that it is higher in four of the six main Pokemon statistics (HP, Defense, Special Attack, Special Defense). Helmsley also feels that Bulbasaur's loyalty is more important than Charmander's ability to evolve into the powerful Charizard." It has been pointed out they have satire articles, which have been categorized as commentary sometimes. See [1] [2][3]. Is the pokemon article reliable for an article on Bulbasaur? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

They also have regular news articles, and commentary articles that are pretty normal.[4][5]. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with Pokemon, but this article reads like one of those satires that say outrageous things in purpose to anger people without a sense of humour?? At most a joke article full of inside jokes that I can't catch, or a parody of those fans who have endless in-universe discussions about which is the better pokemon.
Things like (in page 2) "(...) everybody knows that HP is the most important statistical category we have for evaluating Pokemon" or "my data comes from the National Pokedex, not from one of the lesser regional Pokedexes. The National Pokedex is recognized as the most authoritative source of information on Pokemon" or (in page 1) "Bulbasaur have a shown evidence of sloth and laziness. The official speed rating for Bulbasaur is 45, which is below average, (...) Bulbasaur, you see, is too lazy to move at a reasonable speed. (...) [We also learn that] 'Bulbasaur can be seen napping in bright sunlight.' It goes without saying that any Pokemon who sleeps during the day is hardly dependable." or "Just last week, I completed a full thesis on the virtues of Bulbasaur versus Squirtle, and now I have to do it all over again, but with stupid Charmander." --Enric Naval (talk) 02:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
It is written in a tounge in cheek type of way. The only untruth I think is the thesis part, I think. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
This is for Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pokémon/Bulbasaur, right? If the editors in the pokemon wikiproject have independently checked that they got all the facts right, then I suppose that there is no problem. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I'll see what they say, since I'm not a Pokemon expert. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Aristocide As a Force In History by Nathaniel Weyl

In a content dispute Aristocide As a Force In History by Nathaniel Weyl has been removed [6] pr not a WP:RS, WP:Fringe & WP:UNDUE from an article. Any comments? Only third opinions please. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 06:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The relevant part of the talk page is Talk:Communist_genocide#Sources_that_failed_verification_or_acceptable_sourcing_standards_for_their_claimsVsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
The relevant article is Communist genocide
The full citation is Nathaniel Weyl "Aristocide as a Force in History," Intercollegiate Review 1967: 237-245. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Nathaniel Weyl has an article on Wikipedia, so the community clearly has found him notable enough for Wikipedia purposes. The question is if his opinions can be removed from Wikipedia in case he has something to say about the subject?--Termer (talk) 05:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Having an article does not automatically make his opinion notable on any specific subject. Paul B (talk) 14:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I quote, "Any comments? Only third opinions please. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 06:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)" Fifelfoo (talk) 05:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
RE:Fifelfoo What seems to be the problem? I shouldn't clarify what exactly am I asking? Again, the question is either the removal done by you can be justified pr WP:RS like you did? Comments on Weyl's WP:notability do not answer the question.--Termer (talk) 05:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I quote, "Any comments? Only third opinions please. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 06:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)" Fifelfoo (talk) 05:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, let me put it this way, the reason I'm interested in third opinions only is because I already know what your opinion is. There is no need to repeat it, I got it at the first time when you said it. But in case you insist, and this really bothers you that I ask questions here, feel free to add your opinion once more if you like.--Termer (talk) 06:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The point is your opinion should not be involved here, and that you are interrogating 3rd parties and putting your opinion to them argumentatively. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Weyl appears to be a biased source, and Intercollegiate Review does not qualify as a peer-reviewed journal. Therefore, it appears clear the the source is not a Reliable Source in general, although it may be considered reliable as either the viewpoint of Weyl or of Intercollegiate Studies Institute, the body that sponsors Intercollegiate Review. LK (talk) 12:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Meh. Peer-reviewed helps, but isn't required. What's being cited is not controversial; most of the citation block is about the well-known purges in Soviet history, and that could be cited to other sources if this general knowledge even needs a citation. Then the citation block could be something like "Author used the term "aristocide" to refer to the various purges..." Really an undue weight issue. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Office Open XML support claims

I have an argument about the sourcing of information regarding organizations supporting the Office Open XML file format in the Office Open XML article. An editor keeps removing fully sourced information (at least 20 removals of the information by now) on very obvious supporting organizations like the "Open XML Formats Developer Group" and the "Open XML Community". This is an example of such an removal edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Office_Open_XML&diff=prev&oldid=314061479 This editor current argument for that removal is that the information is not allowed because of WP:SELFPUB sources/references. However WP:SELFPUB does allow reference by organization on themselves provided that those references are providing objective information. And things like the number of members of an organization or the listed goal/mission statement of an organization can be objective read on the site of an organization and referenced as such. It is not unduly serfserving if an organization that is created for supporting development around a file format states on it's site that it does exactly that.

Also the removed information contains quite a few third party references like:

http://blogs.msdn.com/nzisv/archive/2007/06/19/open-xml-community-site.aspx

http://www.infoworld.com/t/platforms/microsoft-says-support-open-xml-growing-036

http://www.infoworld.com/[primary-term-alias-prefix]/[primary-term]/microsoft-escalates-odf-fight-openxml-group-483

http://unweary.com/2006/03/apple-an-openxml-developer.html

http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/development/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=183701603

http://www.macworld.co.uk/procreative/news/index.cfm?newsid=16697&pagtype=allchandate


I have reverted these continouos removal edits quite a few times and have asked for mediation (but no mediator has come forward).

I am really desperate for outside opinion on the issue. Could anyone provide opinion on the sourcing of the material in dispute ? hAl (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Office Open XML#Advice and offer for meditation and Talk:Office Open XML#'Support' by Microsoft-run websites for some background. --Nigelj (talk) 15:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Probably reliable, but this looks like a contentious debate over what "free" means in free software and what "support" means by vendors. Way to much to sort out here, maybe you should ask an opinion at one of the computing Wikiprojects. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I already tried to ask for mediation on the wikiproject page weeks ago but noone responded. hAl (talk) 17:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Dana Press

Would the Dana Foundation Press be a suitable source for medical articles? Would it be a suitable source for commentary from a psychiatrist on a controversial proposed syndrome? I'm thinking of Try to remember by Paul R. McHugh on the satanic ritual abuse and false memory syndrome pages. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it be? Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Unlike a university press or an entity like SAGE Publications where it's clearly identified as a research and scientific press, this is a private foundation with interests in scientific subjects. I don't know it's reputation, history and reliability. Could I use books published by them as a WP:MEDRS? Can the claims found in books published by them be treated and used as freely as those found in a review article in Scienc? The areas this book discusses are pretty controversial and touch on medical, psychiatric and scientific topics so it'd be nice to know beforehand whether it should be treated with kid gloves or can be used substantially without concern. I'd be happier if it could be used freely, but I'd rather know before doing so in a lot of pages. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I think the question is mis-stated. What you should be asking is: "Is Dana Foundation Press" a reputable publisher? We don't really judge reliability based on the publisher, but rather on the individual publication (and to a lesser extent on the reputation of the author) A publisher might publish one book that is solidly reliable, and another that is completely unreliable.
In this case, I see no indication that Dana Foundation Press wouldn't qualify as a reputable publisher. We certainly should not exclude sources simply because they were published by Dana. On the other hand... this is not to say that every thing they publish is reliable. Even reputable publishers can publish unreliable sources. Blueboar (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Yet some press are clearly reliable, correct? If it's a scholarly or university press with a policy of peer review of all publications? I'm asking in the abstract, I had always treated the publisher as the primary source of reliability and university press as sacrosanct. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 10:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Tibor Kozma - is a pamphlet a source?

There’s a small dispute on this article regarding the nationality of this conductor. An editor provided a source, but I don’t agree it can be considered as such. The source is a “Biographical pamphlet of Tibor Kozma at the Tibor Kozma Library at Indiana University” which I think is vague and doesn’t meet the criteria of verifiability. Please visit Talk:Tibor Kozma. Can that be considered a source? Thank you for your time and your help.--Karljoos (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

If it's in the Indiana University library, it's probably reliable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree - good enough as an RS for a fact.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Math by an undergrad at Tea Party protests

My question: Is this http://www.scribd.com/doc/19743935/The-Real-Number-of-Protesters-Zac-Moilanen considered a legitimate source to provide a counterbalance to other, lower numbers, since no official count of the protesters has been made? The math and the sources look correct to me, but I am being told that I cannot use it. Js2849 (talk) 03:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The Scribd document is a self-published source by a non-expert, and hence not acceptable as a a source on wikipedia. Abecedare (talk) 03:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Among the references used for the SPS are "Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum", "President Hussein's 2012 Resignation: A historical Prediction", WorldNetDaily, and YouTube. APK say that you love me 04:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
It's not a RS, and it's quite likely plain wrong - the maths is one thing, but there are so many other assumptions that it's plain worthless. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Chaosmatrix.org occult library

This site is used as a reference source in a number of articles relating to the occult and religion and is a personal website (registered to Matthew Ewing) that has been set up as an on-line occult/magic/chaos magick library. Not all the texts have a clear copyright status or attribution or dates or original source attribution and some are copies of informal emails where relevant text has been pasted within them.

Examples of usage:

As the site itself makes no warranty for the validity of the copies of texts it makes available and is not currently maintained (based on the home page announcement), it does not appear to be sufficiently independent or reliable to use as a reference site. An independent view would help with the rationale to retain or remove these references.—Ash (talk) 09:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a primary source, so it can't be overused. These are the criteria for a reliable source of this kind:
  1. The material cited is not unduly self-serving;
    It doesn't look like it is.
  2. It does not involve claims about third parties;
    Haven't investigated but on first glance no.
  3. It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
    Haven't investigated but on first glance no.
  4. There is no reason to doubt its authenticity;
    Don't think there is.
  5. The article is not based primarily on such sources.
    None of your articles appear to be, except maybe Illuminates of Thanateros.
It appears to be a reasonably reliable primary source.--Patton123 (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

CorenSearchBot

This bot thing found the website that has the content that I'm using in the article I've created. This is not a copyright infringement, which I can prove IF there warning notice provided some instruction on how to go about doing so!!

Wikipedia is unbearably convoluted; although it's a great concept in theory I understand now why it doesn't work in practice. I AM TIRED OF GOING IN CIRCLES.

If there is a way to prove that this is not copyright infringement please tell me. The page I'm referring to is called 'Megaregions'.

Thank you

I'm sorry you had to put up with that. For every dude who posts content that belongs to him (and is even willing to grant liberal permissions for its use), there are like ten thousand others who plagiarize. Anyways, if you can demonstrate that you own the content and are willing to license it under Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike (CC-BY-SA), you can email permissions-en [at] wikimedia.org stating so. @harej 21:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

350 (organisation)

I went through this article and removed some of the "references" that did not support the text, self-published sources, blogs, social networking sites, and press releases. I was reverted without comment.[7] I'd appreciate if an uninvolved editor could look at a few of these sources and comment. Thanks. -Atmoz (talk) 03:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Quick question www.ar-15.us

Is www.ar-15.us a reliable source? I only want to use it to show the rifling twist rate.--Patton123 (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't an RS for rifling twist rate. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Mushgi "reference"

This article is up for deletion. Besides the wikipedia article and a link to it, there are exactly two mentions of this "game" online, one is a youtube video of some drunks in Kentucky yelling at each other, and the other is on a novelist's site. It has been asserted on the afd that the novelist's site is both a reliable source and the one sentence there is enough to establish the game as notable and verifiable enough to merit an article. I do not think so. I find the assertion that one sentence articles can be created/copied from a single random mention online to be disturbing to say the least. I would appreciate it if other people took a look and offered their opinion on the reliability/notability/verifiability of the source and basing an article entirely on that one sentence source. 2005 (talk) 01:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It may be a reliable source, on the AFD it was pointed out the site was written by an anthropologist with expertise on Mongolia. However, a single source is not enough to justify notability. I suggested at the AFD that the article be redirected to Culture of Mongolia which had a brief and unsourced mention of the game. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Memoirs as a reliable source.

Can memoirs be considered a reliable source if the person tells about the facts and events he was not a witness of? Concretely, some WP articles cite Gen. Lebed's memoirs (Lebed, Alexander (Gen.), My Life and My Country, Regnery Publishing, Inc. (1997) ISBN 9780895264220), where he refers to his father's experience during the Winter War.
According to Lebed's memoirs, his father was sent to a penal military unit in 1940, before the shtrafbats were established officially. Based solely on these memoirs inside another memoirs general statements are made in several WP articles about penal military units in the Red Army.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

No, memoirs are not acceptable sources for general history. Memoirs are Primary Sources. Wikipedia, when it comes to history, must be based out of Secondary Sources: credible peer reviewed historical accounts written by historians in the academic press, or subject to equivalent stringency. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Wrong. Memoirs could be considered primary sources in a sense, but primary sources may be used in articles subject to certain caveats. If memoirs are cited in a history article, they should be attributed as such. i.e. General X wrote in his memoirs Y that Z happened. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I treat them as primary sources, and generally will inline attribute. If it is a noncontentious fact that no one else has bothered with, and the individual has no reason to lie on this point, I might omit the inline cite (i.e., that no polls were taken in a congressional campaign.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Fifelfoor, primary sources are fine for making descriptive claims that could be checked by anyone (E.g. the Empire state building is 487 m in height). Secondary sources are reuired for saying stuff like "the Empire state building is quite tall" however.--Patton123 (talk) 19:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
On the third hand... primary sources are acceptable for quotes such as "Upon seeing the Empire State Building for the first time, Primary Author said 'Wow... That building sure is tall'<cite to primary source>" or "According to Primary Author the building is impressive"... of course, whether it is appropriate to quote a particular author, or mention a particular author's opinion, in a specific article depends on many factors (such who the author is, and what his/her connection to the topic is. for example, is the author a noted expert on tall buildings? etc.) Blueboar (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

(od)This is too general. My question was quite concrete: a person A in his memoirs states that the person B told him that he served in a penal unit and was convicted for being late twice. Can this source serve as a support for the statement that the penal units did exist during that time and that such a punishment was usual and widespread?--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

That's probably too controversial, judging from this discussion and nothing else. Is it controversial? If it is, no, if it isn't, yes. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

2009 Pacific typhoon season

Some editors are insisting in designating Tropical Depressions with numbers that are not found anywhere. They can't provide any evidence that such a designation has been assigned by an official agency. Therefore, it is clearly an original research.Typhoon2009 (talk) 14:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

What do you want us to do? This is a noticeboard where we opine on sources with questioned reliability. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Fifelfoo, I know we tell everyone to be bold, but I'm not convinced that applies to typefaces!--Wehwalt (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
If the numbering system exists only on Wikipedia, and it's presented as an official name of the typhoon ( as opposed to a list that happens to have index numbers ), then yes, that's a problem. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Typhoon... Suggest you raise this issue at the No original research noticeboard (WP:NORN). Blueboar (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Church of Satan - churchofsatan.com

This website is used as an unqualified reliable source in a number of articles and BLPs including:

The site has various documents and guides for members, none of which seems to contain a clear editorial policy or standard terms of use for the website. The site is not an open forum or a blog/wiki but there are processes for members to publish publicly available articles on the site and add links to other (uncontrolled) sites, for example http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/SIGARTLST.html and http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/SETI.html (two of the special interest groups).

Pages on the site have been quoted in Wikipedia articles as if they were reliable sources (not just copies of the text from other reliable sources) or as if the text were an extract from a published Journal (which as original writing for the website they are not). I may have overlooked something here but if the site doesn't make it as a reliable source I would like a clear rationale for removing such references as any source in the area of religious topics is likely to be contentious (with the obvious exception of authors writing about themselves or celebrity interviews; WP:SPS then applies).—Ash (talk) 11:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

In the case of Jack Donovan, there is only one cite to the CoS, it is this section: Jack Donovan#Affiliation with the Church of Satan. The cite is to a press release from CoS announcing that Donovan (a CoS spokesperson) had resigned from the CoS; the cite to CoS is backed up by a 2nd cite to the subject's website also announcing his resignation from the CoS. No problem with that article. Checking others now. L0b0t (talk) 13:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
The link in the reference is to http://www.churchofsatan.com/home.html which in fact does not mention Donovan at all, so appears out of date - please read it before declaring it as okay here.—Ash (talk) 13:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
And you should read the cite. As is clearly stated on the cite itself, the information is in the "news" section (scroll down the page about half-way) and it a press release announcing Donovan's departure. L0b0t (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Cool, found it eventually. I'd say it was about 15% of the way down the page and entitled "REV. 'JACK MALEBRANCHE' RESIGNS FROM CHURCH OF SATAN" (rather than Donovan), just a bit hard to find from the reference given.—Ash (talk) 13:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Giosuè Carducci contains no mention of CoS, no cite to CoS, and no EL to CoS so I'm not really sure why it is listed here. L0b0t (talk) 13:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
There is a link to http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/RMCarducci.html in EL.—Ash (talk) 13:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, missed that one. It is an EL and is not germane to this discussion page. L0b0t (talk) 13:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Marc Almond contains only 1 cite to CoS, a courtesy link to subject's autobiography where subject details his involvement with CoS (subject's book is also cited as a source). L0b0t (talk) 13:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Reginald Bretnor contains only 1 cite to CoS, again a courtesy link, to the book The Church Of Satan: A History of the World's Most Notorious Religion (ISBN 978-0962328626) by Blanche Barton, a history of LaVey's organization. L0b0t (talk) 13:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with your reading of the reference. This is a web citation, not a book citation. It links to http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/CShistory2MC.html which in turn mentions the book "The Church of Satan" as further reading at the end of the web article. The text of the web article referenced should be the facts under review, not the book which is mentioned in passing.—Ash (talk) 13:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
The CoS website section that is cited contains an excerpt from the book itself. You are welcome to change the template to a {{cite book}} if it bothers you that much. L0b0t (talk) 13:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Er, yes it bothers me because it is not an extract and was never a simple book citation. The article actually states that it is "condensed from" and "with supplemental material". This makes the text original rather than an extract.—Ash (talk) 13:59, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
So far, all of the articles listed, with the exception of Theistic Satanism, seem to be appropriate uses of the CoS cite. Theistic Satanism however, is a mess. Most of the sources look inappropriate (blogs, opinion pieces, and the like) and could use the attention of some editors more familiar with the subject than I. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 13:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
For what it might be worth, George D. Chryssides in Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements listed this website as the first of three websites on page 486 in his section on "Useful Web Sites". Whether that makes it reliable is possibly a different matter, but I think that it probably qualifies as acceptable in most circumstances, even if not necessarily the best possible source. John Carter (talk) 19:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Citing a source that requires payment

This seems questionable. I have to pay to check a reference and if I remove the referenceas unreliable due to payment requirement it's put back with the claim that the guideline is for external links only. Isn't an inline citiation with a link to an offsite webpage external link?--Amadscientist (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

External links and references are not the same thing. External links are general information pages, put at the bottom of the article. References may often cost money to check - books for example, or subscription journals.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Using a reference that is not available online for free, is not a problem at all. Often the highest quality references (books, academic journals) fall in such a category. It is not ok to remove such references, unless you are confident that they are fraudulent or being misrepresented. If you believe that a particular reference, which you don't have access to, is dubious request the concerned editor for a quote and further details on the talk page, ask at WP:LIBRARY, WP:Refdesk, or even here and someone may be able to look it up. Abecedare (talk) 03:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I actualy just reverted it, so I will self revert it back with an apology, though for clarity, could someone explain the precise difference between a website reference which requires an online payment and a book that has to be purchased. It seems to me that the security risk alone would make it something to disuade, as well as produce a promotional effect to a news organization which requires payment for the full news story. I have an odd since of right and wrong I guess.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

  • There isn't really a difference between having to buy a book (or journal access) and having to pay for lexis nexis. Protonk (talk) 04:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Well there really is a difference but if you don't want to discuss it I can understand, this is probably the wrong place for that anyway. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
    • We are not promoting a news source or journal when we link to their website; we are just crediting them for spending resources on the actual reporting and writing that we (as a tertiary source) rely on, and telling the reader where to look in order to find further details. It would be unethical, and arguably illegal, to use their labor without credit, and a disservice to our readers to not provide a link if one is available - even if it requires payment. This is no different from our expecting that people who quote wikipedia articles at least acknowledge the source (as required by CC-BY-SA and GFDL) and ideally link to it. Abecedare (talk) 04:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) What's the difference as far as we are concerned? I'm not sure where you get the impression I don't want to discuss it. Protonk (talk) 04:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
    • madsci, are you referring to content that can only be obtained via internet and must be paid for? That might be a problem but is fortunately quite rare. In actual fact, you can verify most content for free by visiting your local library (or using our own WP:LIBRARY). If any source, webware or treeware, is pay-only we would prefer to replace it with a freely available source. Ultimately though, we trust our editors who have paid the money to accurately report what they have read. As noted, you can always ask the editor to provide quotations to back up their assertions on what is in the source. Franamax (talk) 04:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes it's possible to contact the author(s) of a particular text and ask for confirmation of a quote.  Cs32en  08:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
This came up fairly recently. It is customary to add (fee for article) at the end of the ref. Aside from that, there is not much you can do. I've written several FA's about Nixon's early career, and much of that involved LA Times, NY Times, Wash Post articles not available for free online, but certainly available by visiting a library that has the paper on microfilm. A free source would be preferable, but is very often not possible.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
We'd be unlikely to produce a quality encyclopedia if we limited our sources to those that are available online for free. Dlabtot (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Usually when I cite newspaper articles whose only online copies are behind for-pay barriers I just give the details that I have for the print article and omit any url. On the other hand for academic journal articles I do usually include a link, because that still would allow large numbers of Wikipedia readers to find the articles for no additional cost by using their employer's or their local university library's site license for the content. That all seems to me a reasonable balance between properly citing our sources and not promoting for-pay sites, but I'd welcome contrary opinions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I actually only do so because all of the newspaper database resources I find give some crufty url which appears to demand session data. If newspaper archives organized themselves like JSTOR or the nytimes (just click on a few of their old stories: Year/Date/Subject/title, it is perfect) I would feel more inclined to link to them, regardless of promotion concerns. Protonk (talk) 22:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Daily Pioneer / Sandhya Jain

I don't believe that legal commentary by this author is reliable, based on this article:

"Indians will be shocked to know that America’s Black adult citizens don’t have an automatic right to vote, like Whites do. That privilege is granted for 10 years at a time by the reigning American President since John F Kennedy; Mr George W Bush granted the latest extension, and no amendment has been mooted to end this mockery of Black citizenship."

A cursory glance at the Voting Rights Act demonstrates how remarkably out of touch this author is with reality.

The article was published two months ago, and has not yet been corrected. Bhimaji (talk) 07:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Radiantenergy:

  • Please read the quote again it only says - "That privilege is granted for 10 years at a time by the reigning American President since John F Kennedy" - this is not a wrong statement. If she had said "George W Bush extended for 10 years then it would have been a wrong statement. In 2006 George W Bush decided to extend this Act for 25 years.
  • Secondly there was opposition from the Republicans in 2006 against renewing the 'Voting Rights Act of 1965'. What's this act? This Act outlawed the discriminatory voting practices on African Americans in the United States and its provisions prevented limited voting discriminations in the South. If George Bush didn't extend this act in 2006 it then there would have been discriminatory voting practices in the South. After 25 years there will be another round of debate about this act and it will be up to the President at that time to renew this act again.
  • I don't see there is anything wrong in what Sandhya Jain reported above. Whether we agree or not this Act pretty much decides on the voting priviledge rights of the Black Americans living in the South. Radiantenergy (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Nonsense. The act precludes descriminatory measures on racial grounds. It would equally outlaw discrimination against whites if there were a black majority in a jurisdiction. It does not justify the claim that whites have a legally automatic right, but non-whites do not. Indeed the concept of an "automatic" right for any group is nonsensical. In theory, in the future any law might be passed changing voting rights. Paul B (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
How does this act helps Black Citizens and why is it so important to African Americans?
  • The Fifteenth Amendment prevented states from denying citizens the right to vote based on race. However this legislative act prevents states from enforcing discriminatory tactics aimed at preventing minorities fair opportunities to participate in the voting process. Earlier there were variety of ill-conceived tricks. Such was the “grandfather clause.” One had to descend from citizens who had the right to vote, which meant, in most cases, former slaves and their descendants couldn’t vote. Some states continued to disenfranchise blacks by requiring literacy tests.
  • This Act protected citizens' right to vote primarily by forbidding covered states from using tests of any kind (like literacy tests) to determine eligibility to vote, by requiring these states to obtain federal approval before enacting any election laws, and by assigning federal officials to monitor the registration process in certain localities. Congress has amended the Act several times since 1965 to include other ethnic groups under its coverage.
  • Pretty much this act re-enfranchised black southerners, helping elect African Americans at the local, state, and national levels. Radiantenergy (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Just a note, the quotation from the Daily Pioneer above is wrong in almost every detail. (1) The United States' black adult citizens do have the right to vote on the same basis as white adult citizens under the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution since 1870. However, the problem was that this right was openly violated by some states and localities until the Voting Rights Act of 1965. (2) The Voting Rights Act contains provisions requiring certain states and localities to "pre-clear" changes to their election laws or policies with the Justice Department or a Federal court. These provisions are subject to expiration and renewal, and have been renewed several times, most recently for 25 years (not for 10 years). However, even if they were not renewed, black people would still have the right to vote. Other provisions of the Voting Rights Act are permanent and do not require periodic renewal. (3) The decision to renew the pre-clearance provisions is not made by the president unilaterally; it requires a regular act of Congress. (4) John F. Kennedy was not directly involved in the Voting Rights Act; it passed in 1965, almost two years after he was assassinated. Lyndon Johnson was the president who signed it into law. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Insufficient context. What do you want us to do? Fifelfoo (talk) 07:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
This concerns the article Sathya Sai Baba, an Indian guru of disputed respectability. The Pioneer is a source used to include material defending Baba, which some editors want to remove. The source to be included is different from the one quoted here, which is unrelated to the Baba article and which is unly mentioned here to suggest that the journalist Sandhya Jain is not very reliable. Paul B (talk) 08:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, too late at night, forgot to include the link to this article.
I highlighted the voting rights act "confusion" because, quite honestly, I don't think that a source with such non-existent fact checking and editorial control should be part of Wikipedia. Bhimaji (talk) 08:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Jain's writing is listed under op-ed. It represents her own opinions and the opinions of the Pioneer. It is not a work of factual journalism. It cannot be relied upon for facts outside of Jain's own mind.
Usage a, "However neither Sai Baba nor any organisation associated with him has been charged or implicated for sexual abuse, either directly or indirectly, and that reputable media agencies and independent journalists have not been able to confirm a single instance of sexual abuse linked to Sai Baba or his organisations." is a copyvio of the article quoted. Sandya jain (as the by-line is) in the article "Move to malign Sai Baba fails" is giving editorial opinion, not journalism. Usage a cannot be substantiated. The commentary and copyvio should be removed. Check entire article for copy vios from jain's article.
Usage b is factual, and can't be substantiated from an editorial.
Usage c is acceptable: fact of the matter is jain's commentary.
Usage d is contradictory: a withdrawn suit does not result in trial. Useage d goes to facts. Unacceptable as facts from an editorial.
Usage e is OR fantasy and lies, should be deleted as not substantiated in the source, even though the source is not RS for international law or US law.
Usage f is an incorrect use. Cite directly the papers involved.
Finally, the source is misformatted as a citation and appears incorrectly.
Source is only an RS for the opinion of Pioneer and Sandya jain. Source is not-SR for: facts of the case (its an op-ed), international law. All footnote subletters correct as of 08:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) diff read: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sathya_Sai_Baba&oldid=314635012

Comments from Radiantenergy:

Bhimaji, did not present the facts correctly. He started with another article totally unrelated to the Sathya Sai Baba article by Sandhya Jain and about a totally different subject. I would like to clarify on a few things here.
  • The Daily Pioneer article used in the Sathya Sai Baba article is this - http://www.dailypioneer.com/166239/Move-to-malign-Sai-Baba-fails.html.
  • The 'Daily Pioneer' article is mainly centered around the 'Alaya Rahm case filed in the Superior Court Of California in 2006'.
  • This was already discussed in detail in the WP:RS for a week and conclusions were made by reputed wikipedians about the 'Daily PIoneer' article and the 'Alaya Rahm case'. Here's the link to the earlier WP:RS discussion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=304058770&oldid=304057209#Question.
  • It was a very long discussion between 4 experienced outside wikipedians who looked at the 'Alaya Rahm case covered in the Daily Pioneer article and the BBC documentary' for almost a week.
  • It was concluded in that WP:RS discussion that the above 'Daily Pioneer' article related to the 'Alaya Rahm case' is reliable sourced. The above 'Daily Pioneer' has important refutations to 'Criticism on Sathya Sai Baba'.
  • It was concluded in the WP:RS that 'The Daily Pioneer' article must be included in the Sathya Sai Baba article and removing it will be a violation of BLP.
  • I don't see the point in discussing the same material that has already been discussed in detail for a week in the WP:RS board earlier and on which conclusions were already made. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
The Pioneer article reported that the Alaya Rahm case was dropped. This isn't an opinion, this is a fact. The article stated that there has been no charges of any kind against Sai Baba. This is a fact not an opinion. Most of the article is reporting not opinion.Sbs108 (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • This Reliable Source notice board is for finding if a source is reliable or not from other outside wikipedians. In this case this source 'Daily Pioneer' had already been discussed for a week in the WP:RS board by 4 experienced wikipedians. This source was declared as reliable. I think there is no point in continuing this discussion about the same material which has already been dealt in detail. This only causes more confusion to the editors. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 21:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I presented an example of factual inaccuracies from this source. Yes, the articles were on different subjects. So what? We're talking about the reliability of the source. I am arguing that Jain is not a reliable source. Articles on different subjects are completely relevant - if Jain is inaccurate about one topic, why should we trust articles on another subject? Bhimaji (talk) 21:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Radiantenergy:

  • Bhimaji, just because you didn't want to implement the conclusions made in the previous WP:RS discussion that 'Daily Pioneer' is reliably sourced - you brought it again. You presented the case wrongly with out mentioning any of the facts that this source was already discussed earlier in the WP:RS board. That's misusing the WP:RS board.
  • This source 'Daily Pioneer' was debated for a week by independent wikipedians and conclusions were made. That's has to be respected and implemented.
  • Also you presented the case wrongly citing a different example. The 'Daily Pioneer' article revolves around 'Alaya Rahm case' and you did n't even mention anything about the 'Alaya Rahm' case above.
  • The Other Sandhya Jain article has nothing to do with the Sathya Sai Baba article. The administrator Mfield already mentioned in the talk page that once a source is declared as reliable in the WP:RS its not up to the editors to second guess the source that amounts to Original research.
  • BBC documentary which you speak high of had several wrong statements and incorrect facts. They called "Sai Baba is nothing but a mafia man, conning the people and making himself rich". This is factually inaccurate. There is no evidence to prove that he is a Mafia man. This is an absurd statement. So as per your argument every BBC reference by Tanya Dutta must be removed in this article and every other article in wikipedia right?.
  • As per your arguments if BBC made factual inaccuracies in one documentary then why should BBC be trusted anywhere else?. Also there is a whole article criticising BBC in wikipedia as well as controversies. [8], [9]. Using your logic BBC should never ever be trusted again?
  • To Conclude WP:RS already declared 'The Daily Pioneer' article covering the 'Alaya Rahm' case as reliably sourced. We have the court document links from the 'Superior Court of California Website' supporting it. As declared by Priyanath in the previous RS discussion this 'Daily Pioneer' should be included if the 'BBC documentary' is allowed in the article. Removing it will be a BLP violation.
Quote from User:Priyanath in the WP:RS discussion on why its important to include the 'Daily Pioneer' in the article.
IMO, the combination of one older BBC video, plus other maybe marginally reliable sources that dispute or update it, brings into play the core BLP guideline of "We must get the article right". This isn't about reliable sources as much as it is about BLP, which holds the trump card ("getting it right"). For that reason, I don't think the material should be covered in the article at all, since there is so much to question about it. For that reason also, I think that a primary source can be used to show that a BLP article isn't getting it right (as much as I am normally opposed to primary sources). Priyanath talk 21:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
To Clarify: The BBC video as a source, by itself, clearly doesn't "get the article right". I don't think it belongs in the article. However, if the BBC video as a source remains, then the other two sources must also be allowed in order to fulfill WP:BLP. Priyanath talk 03:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC).
The other 'two sources' referred by Priyanath above are the 'Daily Pioneer' and the links to the 'Alaya Rahm case from Superior Court of California website'.
  • I don't see any reason in continuing this discussion about a source 'Daily Pioneer' which has already been discussed before and recommendations were made in this same WP:RS to include it in the article. This topic should be marked as resolved and closed. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 04:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Before Radiantenergy's presumptuous demand for a halt in the discussion and a quick resolution of the matter in his favour is satisfied, for those not familiar with the long history of the article on Sathya Sai Baba, may I repeat a comment on the Daily Pioneer online article that I made recently. I suggest, quite simply, that it is the content and style of the article itself, not the validity of the media source, that should be looked at before a decision is made.
quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba#Trying_to_move_forward_with_this

begins:

The Daily Pioneer may be a Reputable Source but in the article in question here the journalist has written from a very subjectively charged and partisan viewpoint. Consider these quotations:

“a lingering, insidious smear campaign”

“Ardent Sai defamer Robert Priddy admitted on his blog that Channel Nine MSN “would not have removed the video had there not been legitimate complaints about the content and disinformation in their video”.”

(Actually, as a consultation of the online comments on the Pioneer website will attest, Priddy denied it at the time: "Invalid claims By Robert Priddy on 3/31/2009 10:33:58 AM

"You wrote: Ardent Sai defamer Robert Priddy admitted on his blog that Channel Nine MSN “would not have removed the video had there not been legitimate complaints about the content and disinformation in their video”. "You have not given any source, as ther is none which states this. It is totally untrue.)”

Consider also the following wild suggestion:

"The controversy persisted because of the doggedness of ex-devotees, possibly persons who infiltrated the ashram in the guise of devotees, with the intention of maligning Baba later."

And this bit of of sensationalism:

"Who inspired these venomous former devotees to launch investigations into vile rumours? Devotees say the ‘Anti-Sai Movement’ is an extremist hate group which habitually makes wild allegations, including the laughable claim that the Baba is allied with terrorists! One magazine published a fake picture of Sai Baba holding hands with Idi Amin!"

Her final exclamation: "Gutter allegations tend to choke on their own stink."

Is journalism of this nature worthy of being considered reputable? (See http://www.dailypioneer.com/166239/Move-to-malign-Sai-Baba-fails.html) Ombudswiki (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC) Ombudswiki (talk) 06:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


Comments by Radiantenergy:

User:Ombudswiki, is discussing about 'Opinionated Journalism' and asked - Is journalism of this nature worthy of being considered reputable inspite of being declared reputable?.

  • Is the 2004 BBC documentary which is used in the 'Sathya Sai Baba' article - another example of 'opinionated journalism'? - Ofcourse - there were several strong statements.
  • Does that make BBC 'Unreliable also' as per the above argument by User:Ombudswiki?. Here's a question to ponder?
  • The 2004 BBC documentary 'Secret Swami' had dramatic dialogue and emotional statements building the 'Criticism on Sathya Sai Baba' slowly based on Alaya Rahm allegations. BBC documentary had very strong criticism on Sathya Sai Baba mainly projecting critics such as Premananda's views.
  • The 2004 BBC documentary - reporter Tanya Datta was openly biased.

Some examples of strong statements from the BBC documentary criticising Sathya Sai Baba:

  • "His distinctive 1960s orange robes and Afro hairstyle make him instantly recognisable...." -- This statement is indeed satirical.
  • "He certainly has friends in high places, and throughout the scandal, his popularity has remained intact..."
  • "number of former devotees who have turned away from his teachings, claiming he has ruined their lives..."
  • "I remember him saying, if you don't do what I say, your life will be filled with pain and suffering." - dramatic statements and dialogues..

In the article Sai Baba: God-man or con man? by Tanya Dutta has the following strong statements. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/this_world/3813469.stm

  • "Sai Baba is nothing but a mafia man, conning the people and making himself rich", he says of his bete noire ... Is this statement not opinionated?. Does it sound fair / impartial? Example of a sensational statement with factual inaccuracies.
  • "But Brooke's allegations were dismissed out of hand by the tightly controlled Sai Baba Organisation..."
  • "He believes that the country's biggest spiritual leader, Sri Satya Sai Baba, is a charlatan and must be exposed."

Inspite of all these above opinionated statements and conclusions in the BBC documentary by Tanya Dutta - BBC is still used as a source in the Sathya Sai Baba article. As per the above argument by User:Ombudswiki - BBC must be declared as 'unreliable'.

The editors who complained about 'Daily Pioneer' - Sandhya Jain's opinions did not have any problems with the opinionated statements from Tanya Dutta presented in the BBC documentary.

  • In Conclusion: As I mentioned above 'Daily Pioneer' is a reputed reliable source as per the earlier WP:RS discussion and recommendation.
  • The contents from the 'Daily Pioneer' has been presented neutrally in the article.
  • There is no mention of Robert Priddy in the article. The 'Daily Pioneer' has important refutation to 'Criticism on Sathya Sai Baba'.
  • 'Daily Pioneer' should be used in the article as per the earlier WP:RS recommendation and leaving it out because of objections by a few editors will lead to serious BLP violations in the article as pointed out by User:Priyanath in the earlier WP:RS discussion.
  • The Earlier WP:RS recommendation on 'Daily Pioneer' must be respected and implemented to keep the article in balance.

Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 09:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Ombudswiki:
Radiantenergy, you are wandering again. The subject is the contents of the Pioneer article. The following statement (one of your "Conclusions") is meaningless but still indicates, among other things, that you have not even read my evidence (above): "The contents from the 'Daily Pioneer' has been presented neutrally in the article."
Far more worrying is your categorical statement: "There is no mention of Robert Priddy in the article". This is untrue, as can be seen by referring not only to the online article itself but to 2 specific quotes in my last posting:
“Ardent Sai defamer Robert Priddy admitted on his blog that Channel Nine MSN “would not have removed the video had there not been legitimate complaints about the content and disinformation in their video”.”
(Actually, as a consultation of the online comments on the Pioneer website will attest, Priddy denied it at the time: "Invalid claims By Robert Priddy on 3/31/2009 10:33:58 AM
"You wrote: Ardent Sai defamer Robert Priddy admitted on his blog that Channel Nine MSN “would not have removed the video had there not been legitimate complaints about the content and disinformation in their video”. "You have not given any source, as ther is none which states this. It is totally untrue.)”
Why do you behave in this way? Ombudswiki (talk) 07:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Let me clarify what I meant. I said above that "There is no mention of Robert Priddy in the article" - I meant that "There is no mention of Robert Priddy name in the Sathya Sai Baba article". The 'Daily Pioneer' has been presented neutrally in the Sathya Sai Baba article. Wikipedia reports what other reliable sources reports. We cannot remove a reliable source - "Daily Pioneer covering Alaya Rahm trial" for the above reason you stated. We already had this discussion in the Sathya Sai Baba talk page. Even the administrator MField replied that ProEdits / Robert Priddy's only basis for claiming the source is unreliable is the fact that is mentions his name and thus it must be in some way biased. Here's the link to the discussion MField added - [10] In wikipedia this cannot be used as a reason for removing a reliable source from the Sathya Sai Baba article. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 12:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Editors actively involved in the article should not really be commenting here. I'd like to restate my assessment of Jain's article as quoted in the article in question here, "Jain's writing is listed under op-ed. It represents her own opinions and the opinions of the Pioneer. It is not a work of factual journalism. It cannot be relied upon for facts outside of Jain's own mind." I don't particularly case what past RS discussions found. OP-ED pieces do not present facts, but opinions. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Fifelfoo, I would like to just clarify on one thing. The article http://www.dailypioneer.com/166239/Move-to-malign-Sai-Baba-fails.html by Sandhya Jain is not listed under OP-Ed - The Daily Pioneer has a separate link for Op-Ed articles here http://www.dailypioneer.com/OPED/oped.html. This article was published in the Sunday Pioneer Edition Newspaper. http://www.dailypioneer.com/166239/Move-to-malign-Sai-Baba-fails.html. An op-ed, is a newspaper article that expresses the opinions of a named writer who is usually unaffiliated with the newspaper's editorial board. Sandhya Jain is a part of the 'Daily Pioneer's' editorial team. Here's the list of the editorial team from the Daily Pioneer - http://www.dailypioneer.com/COLUMNIST/Column.html. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 14:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

  • As far as I can tell, this isn't a news article. It is an editorial piece (whether or not it is technically called an "Op-Ed" is irrelevant). As such, it is not a reliable source for anything but the author's opinion, and WP:BLP must be taken into account because this editorial makes some rather extreme claims against named living people. I'd leave it out, myself. Surely there are reliable and unbiased news sources we can rely upon? *** Crotalus *** 15:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Here are some facts about the Daily Pioneer.
How many times to we have to go through this. This source was already discussed on the reliable source board and deemed appropriate for the Wiki article. Just because one editor doesn't want the source in there because it counters false and unproven claims does not mean that it should be removed. The only portions of the article in question in the Wiki Sai Baba article are facts such as the dropping of the Rahm case. This is what's in the article right now
"However The Pioneer reported that though Alaya Rahm's allegations gained publicity his claims were not thoroughly investigated until the 2006 lawsuit. Alaya Rahm filed his allegation lawsuit against the 'Sathya Sai Baba Society' in the Superior Court of California on 6 January 2005. The Pioneer sought to cast doubt on Rahm's credibility, saying that Rahm and his family members had publicly praised Sathya Sai Baba in retreats during the same time at which Alaya Rahm alleged abuse. [170]. It also reported that during the lawsuit Alay Rahm admitted to daily using illegal street drugs and alcohol from 1995 to 2005 during his abuse allegations, according to the BBC documentary Secret Swami and the Danish documentary Seduced By Sai Baba. On 7 April Rahm withdrew his lawsuit. The trial did not find any wrong doings by Sathya Sai Baba. [170]. The Pioneer also noted that no offers of monetary settlement were paid to Alay Rahm. Under the international doctrine of res judicata Alay Rahm can never file another lawsuit against Sathya Sai Baba in the United States or India for the same claims made in this case."
"The Pioneer newspaper published an article about the failed smear allegation campaigns on Sathya Sai Baba. Reports from The Pioneer said that an insidious smear campaign against Sathya Sai Baba quietly fizzled out when Channel Nine MSN removed a biased anti-Baba broadcast from its official Website. The Pioneer said the reasons for removing the video were due to legitimate complaints about the disinformation in the video. The Pioneer has published the details of the 2006 failed Alaya Rahm sexual allegation case on Sathya Sai Baba. Alay Rahm allegations on Sathya Sai Baba gained media attention and was covered in the BBC documentary and later in Seduced By Sai Baba and in Secret Swami. It was also published in Britain's The Daily Telegraph and India's India Today."
Please tell me how these are "opinions".Sbs108 (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
It's an op-ed piece written by an unreliable writer. Maybe the Daily Pioneer news section is a reliable source, but this op-ed is not a valid source for anything other than the writer's opinion, and there is no evidence that this opinion is in any way notable. Our verifiability policies require sources with a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," and this writer has a proven track record of inaccuracy as demonstrated by the repetition of a voting rights urban legend. (See [11] for a specific debunking of Jain's ridiculous claim about black voting rights in the United States.) Moreover, this op-ed also contains claims against Alaya Rahm which violate BLP since they are negative statements against a living person that are not published in a reliable source. You are also citing this op-ed piece six different times which would be a textbook example of undue weight even if it weren't for the other issues mentioned here. On the one hand we've got the BBC, Daily Telegraph, and India Today; on the other hand we have one op-ed. Our sourcing policy on this matter is clear and any further attempts to insert this crap will be reverted without discussion as per WP:BLP. *** Crotalus *** 20:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
The article was fair and balanced before user ProEdits tried to tip the scales again and if gone unchecked would have turned the article into a replica of his website which by the way was done more than a few times in the past. One more time..it was already discussed and the majority of neutral editors stated that it was reliable enough to be in the article. Come on... its two paragraphs in a huge article,the WP:UNDUE argument doesn't hold up. We can't weigh sources against each other in order to refute a source with information that someone doesn't like.Sbs108 (talk) 21:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Crotalus: The Daily Pioneer by Sandhya Jain is not Op-ed piece. The Daily Pioneer article was published in the Sunday Pioneer Edition Newspaper. http://www.dailypioneer.com/166239/Move-to-malign-Sai-Baba-fails.html. It was published in the 'Sunday Pioneer Edition' on March 31st 2009. As I mentioned before they have a separate category of article which are op-ed here - http://www.dailypioneer.com/OPED/oped.html. Your above reasons does not justify removing the above reliable source from the Sathya Sai Baba article. You are not even willing to look at the earlier WP:RS discussion and have already started edit-warring in the Sathya Sai Baba article.

  • Your words were "and any further attempts to insert this crap". This is not how a source should be addressed. Your arguments seems biased and one-sided.
  • You tried to remove this reliable source and edit-warred in the Sathya Sai Baba article inspite of this being an on-going discussion.
  • This source was declared reliable in the earlier WP:RS discussion. The recommendations from that discussion must be upholded.
  • It will be a BLP violation if this source is removed as it has very important refutation to Criticism of Sathya Sai Baba.
Quote from User:Priyanath in the WP:RS discussion on why its important to include the 'Daily Pioneer' in the article.
To Clarify: The BBC video as a source, by itself, clearly doesn't "get the article right". I don't think it belongs in the article. However, if the BBC video as a source remains, then the other two sources must also be allowed in order to fulfill WP:BLP. Priyanath talk 03:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC).
The other 'two sources' referred by Priyanath above are the 'Daily Pioneer' and the links to the 'Alaya Rahm case from Superior Court of California website'.
  • A reliable source cannot be changed as per convenienece so far your arguments have been one-sided. There is nothing above convincing to remove an important reliable source from the Sathya Sai Baba article.

Radiantenergy (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This is TL;DR, bit time. The comment in the source in question is a kind of ham-handed legal analysis of Section 5 re-authorization. Sunset provisions in bills are not rare and Section 5 is not "voting rights" but is ancillary. We shouldn't link to it or support claims with it. Protonk (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi User:Protonik: This source about the 'Voting Act Rights' is not used anywhere in the Sathya Sai Baba and is not even relevant to this article. Bhimaji who added the discussion mentioned it unneccessarily and lead to this confusion. We are talking about a different source http://www.dailypioneer.com/166239/Move-to-malign-Sai-Baba-fails.html - which is actually used in the Sathya Sai Baba article. My point is that this source - 'Daily Pioneer on Sathya Sai Baba' was already discussed for a week earlier in the WP:RS and was decalred as reliable. I don't see any point in coming to RS discussion and going over the same source again and again. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 22:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This section is still at least 10x longer than it needs to be. Protonk (talk) 22:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I can summarise the issue quickly.
  • The discussion is about an article published in the Newspaper "Daily Pioneer" and is being used as a source for the Sathya Sai Baba article. This source was extensively discussed here in the WP:RS. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=304058770&oldid=304057209#Question for a week and was declared as a reliable source by 3 wikipedians. This source has important refutations to Criticism on Sathya Sai Baba. They mentioned in the earlier RS discussion that removing this source 'Daily Pioneer covering Alaya Rahm trial' will be a BLP violation to the subject 'Sathya Sai Baba'.
  • Some users who did not want to comply with the earlier recommendation started the above discussion. They did not provide correct links and facts. Their problem is that the article mentions "Robert Priddy's name". Who is Robert Priddy?. Robert Priddy is an 'Anti-Sai Baba activist' well known in th web. He started edit-warring in the wikipedia 'Sathya Sai Baba' article as User:ProEdits since his name is mentioned in the above 'Daily Pioneer' article and wanted this source declared unreliable. Above are the arguments and counter arguments about this source. It does not make any sense to me to continue discussion about a source which has already been declared reliable. Wikipedia publishes what other reliable sources publishes. We cannot change a source from reliable to unreliable because its being opposed by Priddy. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 22:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Your summary is highly inaccurate:
1. You are confusing "source" and "article." The source is Sandhya Jain, writing in the Daily Pioneer. The source produces multiple articles. You can not say that one article is a reliable source and another article is not.
2. Sandhya Jain writes articles for the Daily Pioneer containing material that is demonstrably false - debunked by Snopes, no less.
If the facts in Jain's article are supported by other sources, then those other sources should be used. Anything that can not be found in other sources should not be used in the article. Bhimaji (talk) 22:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Bhimaji, the source and article definition are quite clear to you. I see that you are defining your own new rules in wikipedia about a source and an article.
As per your argument then we must not look at the source "BBC" rather we have to look at works of Tanya Dutta who documented BBC and judge if her work is reliable. Then same applies with source 'Daily Telegraph' and with Salon.com source - You are saying we must look at every author and then decide if their work is reliable or not. If I want to include CNN as reference as per your statement we should judge if 'Lou Dobbs' work is reliable? Your explanation only shows your personal opinion. That's not the way wikipedia works. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 23:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


  • Sandhya Jain writes, "The controversy persisted because of the doggedness of ex-devotees, possibly persons who infiltrated the ashram in the guise of devotees, with the intention of maligning Baba later. Key blogs in the defamation were robertpriddy.wordpress.com; barrypittard.wordrpess.com; briansteel.wordpress.com." On his own website, http://bdsteel.tripod.com/More/pparthivisit08.htm Brian Steel talks about his visit to Puttaparthi in October 2008. Sathya Sai Baba's home town and abode. (On Robert Priddys website aka wikipedia editor, ProEdits... "Recently, Brian Steel returned from a surprise visit to Puttaparthi bearing a swag of documents and audiovisual material that, under his critical scrutiny, reveal far more mischief than their devotion-blinded authors surely ever dreamed would be perceptible to commonsense and reason." http://barrypittard.wordpress.com/2008/12/21/revealing-materials-on-sai-baba-of-india/ " On a surprise visit to see the ashram, Brian Steel discovered that things are not as they were in various respects. Not least, the gaudy propaganda venue, the Chaitanya Jyoti "museum" is undergoing 'damage-limitation' http://barrypittard.wordpress.com/2008/11/12/brian-steels-secret-visit-to-see-sathya-sai-baba/ ")

How is this reporting falicious? It seems to be accurate.

  • Sandhya Jain further states, "a lingering, insidious smear campaign against Sathya Sai Baba" Robert Priddy writes blogs almost daily about Sathya Sai Baba from topics like calling Sathya Sai Baba a tranvestite ("He is known for having been a transvestite in his youth, if not even nowadays in his gown with his ladylike motions." http://robertpriddy.wordpress.com/) to topics like "Sathya Sai sees Hanuman as a real figure"... This is indeed a smear campaign and has been lingering... (Robert Priddy -ProEdits writes "what is the connection between the Archbishop of Canterbury and Sathya Sai Baba?") ? Robert Priddy-ProEdits, seems to be trying to fill the space on his website, it does seem to be a 'lingering' campaign...

Therefor Sandhya Jain's writing is again accurate.

  • Brian Steel, -Ombudswiki, writes previously in this RS notice board, "

(Actually, as a consultation of the online comments on the Pioneer website will attest, Priddy denied it at the time: "Invalid claims By Robert Priddy on 3/31/2009 10:33:58 AM " Robert Priddy is quite vocal about his beliefs, http://www.blogcatalog.com/blogs/sathya-sai-baba-bhagavan-sri-sathya-sai-baba/posts/tag/robert priddy/ so theres nothing new with his vocalising his opinion on a web page where his name is mentioned.

  • This entire discusion began with "Indians will be shocked to know that America’s Black adult citizens don’t have an automatic right to vote, like Whites do." This has nothing to do with the Sathya Sai Baba article. the article in question wasn't even cited by Bhamaji until six edits later. it seems like he forgot the topic.
  • If a mistake in presenting some articles deems an entire source unusable, please consider the BBC has made errors in reporting.

• 2001: the Ten O'Clock News broadcast an apology for wrongly calling a director of the Oryx Natural Resources company of Oman a "convicted terrorist". • 2003: the BBC apologised for the radio broadcast in which the reporter Andrew Gilligan said that Downing Street had "sexed up" the Iraq dossier which alleged Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction which could be deployed within 45 minutes. • 2007: the BBC was fined £50,000 for doctoring the results of a phone-in on the children's programme Blue Peter. (doctoring results!!)http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1557285/Other-BBC-apologies.html

"The pair (Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross of the BBC) left answerphone messages for the 78-year-old Fawlty Towers star in which they told him Brand had slept with his granddaughter and joked that the actor might kill himself as a result."http://express.lineone.net/posts/view/68155/BBC-apologies-for-tasteless-radio-prank- is the BBC considered reliable by Wikipedia?

  • Refrences in the Sathya Sai Baba article to the Daily Pioneer are in context with the article subject, Sai Baba.
  • Robert Priddy says the Daily pioneer is false in reporting his words, "I have never written any such thing in any blog, basta! In promoting this lie by the Daily Pioneer, this entry is chiefly an insidious extension of Gerald Moreno's massive highly visible web agenda to assassinate my character without any reliable evidence." Who is Gerald Moreno? Why is Robert Priddy blaming him? why do other editors have to discuss such off topics?
  • i agree with editor:Protonk "This section is still at least 10x longer than it needs to be."

and Sandhya Jain's comment "The controversy persisted because of the doggedness of ex-devotees" seems relevant on this discussion. (begun by an editor who forgot the topic)

Thanks!

J929 (talk) 00:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


Bhimaji writes "The source is Sandhya Jain, writing in the Daily Pioneer. The source produces multiple articles." The source is the Daily Pioneer. The BBC is the source for Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross, in the way the statement "(Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross of the BBC)" is worded. The BBC (source) had to apologise for Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross. http://express.lineone.net/posts/view/68155/BBC-apologies-for-tasteless-radio-prank- if her article "US unequal to India" http://www.dailypioneer.com/190509/US-unequal-to-India.html is wrong, the Daily Pioneer will have to apologise for her.

J929 (talk) 00:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Mammary intercourse

Hi, this book
Peter Davis (1996). Auckland University Press (ed.). Intimate Details & Vital Statistics: AIDS, Sexuality and the Social Order in New Zealand. pp. 125–127. ISBN 1869401395.
cites a women, presumably a prostitute, talking
"A lot of people are starting to like pearl necklace because you don't use a condom for it. It feels like sex but no condom...if you've got big ones"
That passage is being used as a source to support this text
"(Mammary intercourse) is one of the activities that prostitutes use as safe sex alternatives for clients who refuse to wear a condom, because mammary intercourse on large breasted women can feel like penetrative sex."
For me, it looks like a self published source (a citation of someones opinion) and Original research (making conclusions from the text), specially compared with what reliable sources talk about the subject.
But the other user disagrees, so I'm bring this issue to the noticeboard.--Nutriveg (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Academic sociology accepts the concept of discussants and interview. "The Social Order in New Zealand" paints this source as sociology. The Auckland University Press is a reputable University Press, ie, an academic press. There is nothing wrong with the document, as it has passed under the eyes of an academic sociology and an academic press reviewing process, it isn't OR or SELF. The problem is that the quotation does not substantiate the claim. The sex worker was talking about client preference for simulation of "real sex". The wikipedia article is claiming sex workers prefer the act for Occupational Health and Safety reasons. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC) Source acceptable per wikipedia conclusion. Recommend: improve encyclopedic language, "sex worker," seriously reconsider "large breasted women" with possibly, "women with large breasts" due to objectification. Expand use of Davis, According to Davis (1996)... Fifelfoo (talk) 00:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The context in the book is safe-sex practices that do not require condoms. I don't think the passage is stretching Davis, though it could maybe be tweaked. Clearly these practices are only more popular in this context for "Health and Safety" reasons, since an insistence on condoms in 'normal' sex is the only meaningful context of the phrase "becoming more popular with clients as a way of not having to wear a condom." Paul B (talk) 00:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
This is not "self published" by any stretch of the imagination, since it's from a book published by Auckland University Press. Though the author does not use the actual word 'prostitute' to describe the individual speaker, the context is clear that he is summarising inteviews with prostitutes (though he politly simply uses the term 'women' and refers to their 'clients'). The author Peter Davis summarises: "these actiivities were becoming more popular with clients as a way of not having to wear a condom." and then illustates this with two quotations from prostitutes, one of whom refers to an increased preference for "pearl necklaces" and the other to mammary sex. In other words the quotations are not the source, the conclusions of the author are. The author has simplt picked out these quotations (presumably from many interviews) to illustrate his point. The text in the article seems to be an accurate summary of Davis' conclusions. The source is not the random assertion of an unnamed prostitute. It is Davis. Paul B (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I'm not assuming the book is self published, but when a book cites someones opinion, it doesn't mean the book supports that opinion, it just cites it, without taking much criteria about that since it's clear that's someone else opinion. In that sense I see that opinion in the same level of a self-published source, since there isn't the same level of editorial control over it. So it is as reliable as the prostitute is.
In that sense I find that source (the prostitute talking), very unreliable to say that "It feels like sex but no condom...if you've got big ones" and if a condom is necessary or not.
In the sense of original research she doesn't say mammary intercourse but pearl necklaces which is a sexual term with a different meaning that doesn't necessarily need mammary intercourse. She also doesn't define the specific kind of sex it feels like. To who it "feels like sex" (to both?). And she also doesn't say what's big (the mouth, the hands, the fake genitalia, ...). And who is the "you"? The client who has big hands or a "big doll"? This is all interpretative and so original research.--Nutriveg (talk) 01:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like a reliable source, but its being misused. This woman is not an expert, and even if she were, it seems to be an OR summary or what she said. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The source is good: original research conducted and published by journalists or academics is not forbidden OR by our rules, in fact quite the opposite. I have already reworded the referenced section in response to an earlier deletion of it by User:Nutriveg (which had a different justification given) and would welcome further work by a neutral editor. I believe this discussion is in fact a continuation of the disputes raised by this user at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User Simon Speed being disruptive and before that at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User systematically reverting my edits. --Simon Speed (talk) 11:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the editor's motivations are fairly clear. The absurd suggestion that the woman does not "say what's big" is just muddying the waters. It's very clear that she is talking about breasts and about rubbing a penis between them to achieve ejaculation at the neck area - hence the "pearl necklace". It is not original research to interpret the obvious meaning of a text. Indeed I'd go so far as to say that the OR is in the desperate attempt to construct wildly implausible alternative readings simply to exclude legitimate information. OR is a problem of exclusion as well as inclusion. Paul B (talk) 11:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
My motivation is to reflect reliable sources, like this. I don't oppose the use of reliable sources and citing their conclusions. Implying motivations won't help.
Still on the WP:OR where does she say that it's like penetrative sex? How she could reach that conclusion? Is she an authoritative opinion or is just bias advertising a specific service she provides? Beyond that mammary intercourse is less sensible and invasive for a woman than vaginal sex, so a prostitute would favor that practice instead, where we have another conflict of interest. Is she an authoritative opinion to say what needs condoms or not?--Nutriveg (talk) 13:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
(see my comment below). --Enric Naval (talk) 03:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

The main problem here is one of WP:SYNTHESIS -- coming to conclusions not actually present in the source. On top of that, geez, with all the sex experts out there you'd think people could find a source that's (ahem) explicit on the topic so there'd be no need to read things into an obscure source like this. DreamGuy (talk) 14:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to make clear "Simon Speed" claims that he "already reworded the referenced section": The text and references on the top of this section are exactly those of the article's last version.--Nutriveg (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I deleted the word "can" which Nutriveg had used as a pretext to delete the entire section on the grounds that it was "advice". --Simon Speed (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
about synthesis, see the author's text in page 125 [12] (the paragraph above "Results", see also the end of page 127 and the start of 128. Those are the author's own words and conclusions. The prostitute's quote in page 127 is preceded by an author's comment: "If a client could not be persuaded to wear a condom, there were safer alternatives that could be practiced. These activities were becoming more popular with clients as a way of not having to wear a condom. As one woman said:" and later on "One of the rules set by all of the women was to practice safe sex at all times with clients. All the women stated that if a client refused to use a condom or practise a safer alternative (...)". The quotes were picked by the author as examples of what he is saying, chosen from "semi-structured interviews" with 45 women. The chapter is actually called "Safe sex and parlour work". Please read the actual source and don't comment only on the quote presented here.
Anyways, I tried this. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


If a sociologist who has conducted discourse / interview research published in a peer reviewed manner or under a respectable Academic press has used a respondant's quote to typify an attitude or behaviour, the sociologist has elevated the quote from being a single opinion, to being the sociologist's opinion. Its called illustrative quoting. Better context is needed, ie, ' In the opinion of Sociologist X, respondent Y is correct in saying, "foo" ' Fifelfoo (talk) 04:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
See [13]. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the particular fact being referenced is terribly controversial, given the number of prostitutes adverts you can see for "French". It has made it into this sociological survey and there doesn't seem to be any source to the contrary or even an argued POV. This whole thing is just another of User:Nutriveg's little games. --Simon Speed (talk) 14:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
If this book is directed for prostitutes that citation reflects at best their POV, promoting "mammary intercourse" to "fell like sex", "no need to use a condom" and "safe sex". I don't see how it could be safe to rub a unprotected penis in the same place someone else (another client) just ejaculated.--Nutriveg (talk) 18:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Please.... the book is not directed at prostitutes.... the preface of the book has the background and motivations of the ediotr (page xii), it's about researching HIV and AIDS impact in New Zealand. If you scroll up to page viii you will see "[The editor's] current research interests are in health policy and health services, and he convenes the post-graduate programme in public health at Auckland", and he is a "'senior lecturer in medical sociology (...) trained in sociology and statistics (...) completed a doctorate in community health (...) published in the sociology of dentistry and in class and stratification studies." .... This is guy is making research into health stuff and sociological stuff, and the book tries to cover the research made in NZ.
I also noticed that Davis is the editor, and the author of the specific chapter is actually Austen Woods (I'll fix the citation now) "[She] is a doctoral student in the Department of Sociology at the University of Auckland. Her research interests include the social construction of sexuality, and the impact of HIV/AIDS on sex-worker communities in New Zealand and the US. Both her doctoral field work and and her dissertation have been supported by the Health Research Council of New Zealand. In 1993-94 she attended the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley, and in 1994-95 she worked at the Centre for AIDS Prevention Studies in San Francisco. (...)"[14]. Again, this looks like serious research into HIV and AIDS impact. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Enric's last edit made that article text look much better, I've posted comments in that article talk page. Thank you.--Nutriveg (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Use of owners' club websites to verify automotive data

I've contributed to several articles on old cars, and an issue here Austin Montego (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has started me thinking. This issue is a general one on old vehicles, the article cited (and historical edits) are to illustrate this.

When a vehicle manufacturer is either

  • no longer trading
  • no longer promoting or supporting users of a vehicle

is it appropriate to provide links to an owner's club instead?

The potential problems here are that

  • there are more likely to be editing errors on a non-commercial site
  • there could be unbalanced opinions
  • some content could be a "primary" rather than "secondary" source
  • some "clubs" are nothing more than internet forums

However the potential advantages are

  • possibly the only secondary source that is easily verifiable
  • for more obscure vehicles, there may not be any books or reviews summarising production
  • technical data may be taken from "primary" manufacturer's documentation
  • production histories may be summarised from "primary" manufacturer's promotional materials
  • some owners' clubs are members of wider "historic vehicle federations"

So - are the websites of vehicle owners' clubs a reliable source? Are there some simple rules that could be applied here? The general Wikipedia advice on fanclubs appears to be written for biographical and entertainment articles, not semi-technical ones on older vehicles. Wikiwayman (talk) 09:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this is the wrong question. Whilst it's a high standard for an owner's club to meet to be seen as an authoritative source (although some do meet this), the WP:CRUSADE that seems to be happening at present is to remove owner's club from even being WP:EL (user:Biker Biker has been doing this lately, as several editors have noted). That's a lower standard to meet, and most vehicle marques could be expected to have at least one club that meets this. Where the vehicle is old enough for manufacturer maintenance to have become a problem, very many clubs are involved in spares or technical support, which surely makes them meet this. In particular, real-world owners' clubs are not the purely on-line forum or fansites that WP:ELNO rightly warns against.
If we phrase this question too narrowly as "Are owner's clubs WP:RS?" then we ask too much of them. Not _all_ clubs will be. Nor do we expect most uses of the club on Wikipedia to require this: use as a source might, use as a link doesn't. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
As requested, "If you could clearly support your argument with reference to WP:ELNO point 11, I believe that would take us a step forward."
WP:ELNO#EL11 states:
"Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies)."
Note also that a fansite is defined thus:
"A fansite, fan site, or fanpage is a website created and maintained by a fan(s) or devotee(s) interested in a celebrity, thing, [...] or the like."
There are thus many car-related fansites. These will not generally be WP:RS or suitable WP:EL. This much is agreed.
However we're discussing "owners' clubs" here. The reason these don't fall foul of WP:ELNO#EL11, 3rd item is that a "fansite" in our definition is firstly "a website". Owners' clubs are real-life groups, not primarily websites. They might have a website, but this is secondary to their primary goal of events, meetings or parts-related support - all of which are real-world items, not the purely or primarily web-hosted that WP:ELNO#EL11 is against. The web site of a real-world owners' club is thus not merely a fansite, according to our definition, thus doesn't fall foul of WP:ELNO.
There are also the exceptions to WP:ELNO#EL11, as noted within it. There are certainly a number of restoration or kit-car build blogs that are highly valuable resources within this context. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm really glad this is being debated. To answer a point raised so far, most owner's clubs don't just fall foul of WP:ELNO#EL11, they fall foul of the very first of the criteria which states "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." That's a really important point. Clearly there are owners clubs which are notable, especially those which are now the chief source of information for a model or marque no longer in production. In these cases I think the question of whether a club can be considered a reliable source goes hand-in-had with the question of whether the club is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article in its own right. Take the MG Car Club as an example. It is a long-established club (1930s) which at one time was owned by the company itself. One of its officers, Wilson McComb, has published a definitive history of the marque. The club clearly has a wealth of information in its possession about the marque and the models which are long out of production. In my opinion the club is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article and to be considered as a reliable source. Unfortunately the club's website contains little that can be referenced – the majority of its content needs membership of the club and registration on the website, so the only output from the club that can be referenced are its printed publications, or the few PDF's that do exist in the public facing sections of the site.
I do support the idea that some owners clubs should be accepted as reliable sources. However, I would propose that the first question to be asked when considering whether a club is a reliable source is whether it is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article. The second question is whether the club actually has any referenceable publications i.e. those in print, or those online which do not require registration for a Wikipedia reader to view.--Biker Biker (talk) 17:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
"Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." isn't hard to achieve - frequently because of copyright issues. I link to many external sites where they have a photograph (or indeed own an exhibit) where I can't otherwise source a similar image. Sometimes I can travel to visit them to take my own photo that I can then put onto the Commons, but this isn't always practical.


I'm certainly not disputing any of the points of WP:ELNO, but there are many, many cases when they're adequately and obviously met.

Secondly you seem to be confusing WP:RS and WP:EL. Not meeting WP:RS is no reason to remove WP:ELs! Nor is citing WP:RS policy an excuse for their removal. I'm concerned that this question has been raised in this particular forum, as that's already prejudicial in holding links to the higher standard of sources.
Thirdly (and this seems to be the crux of your deletions) you're confusing "clubs and forums and fan sites" (c.f. your commit messages). These are clubs. They're not forums. They're not fansites. We have policies against forums, we have policies against fansites, we do not have policies against real-world clubs with a concrete and relevance presence off-line.
As to why I only addressed #11, that would be because that's the one I was asked to expand upon. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I think you are confused about my confusion. I was discussing WP:ELNO in response to your mention of it and not in relation to the rest of the question about reliable sources. That's why I then went on in the second paragraph to talk specifically about reliable sources, so let's stay focused on that top. However I will reiterate that WP:ELNO criteria #1 is a catch-all. If a link doesn't add anything that would be in the article were it to be of FA quality, then it isn't warranted as an external link. --Biker Biker (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Another possible EL / RS confusion: There is no requirement that RS's have to be freely accessible. That content, like that from the MG Car Club may need registration and membership to be accessed does not prevent it from being referenced on wikipedia.John Z (talk) 21:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I didn't know that, thanks. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I will make one comment. For almost all of these cars, there are better sources available. Morgans, Allards, Austin-Healeys, MG's, Triumphs, etc. all have hundreds of books about their creation, their creators and their internals. Anything you find on one of those club websites w/ respect to the creation or function of those cars can be found in one of those published works. That's not by itself a reason to exclude club websites as sources, but we shouldn't be including the sources because they are claimed to be "the only ones out there". For 99% of all the claims which can be made about these cars, that simply isn't true. Protonk (talk) 21:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Again, we're confusing WP:RS and WP:EL. There's hardly a shortage of good books as sources (although most of the car articles do suffer from downright bad sourcing, via the "cheap coffee table book of shiny cars" refs). However there's frequently value in an on-line version of these, particularly for things like scanned owners' manuals that a club site will often have but WP doesn't. Nor does the existence of content in one book (which isn't available to everyone) preclude linking the same content from an accessible on-line supply. To some extent RS do this, but not EL. An EL justifies itself in comparison to the content in our article (not in other sources) and there are very many cases where they easily meet that first WP:EL condition. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the inputs from everyone so far, I'm learning a lot from this discussion. Apologies for raising some confusion between WP:RS and WP:EL; I'll take that home as a learning point.
Having had a look at what can't be included in a featured article, can I suggest the following with regard to EL's to conclude that part of the discussion?
  • Any website of a vehicle owners club that provides its members with at least two of the following items (spare parts, real-world meetings, printed newsletters, insurance, membership of a wider federation of historic vehicle clubs) AND has media on it that cannot be included in an FA article (e.g. manufacturer's promotional material) can most certainly be included in an article as an EL. It would be advantageous to include the reason for the EL in the article thus: "XXXXX Owners Club - contains promotional photographs".
  • Any other website EL needs to be judged on its merits in relation to the subject of the article and again should include a reason for inclusion of the link.
Getting back to WP:RS, the concept of notability is an interesting one - the example in question was not a good car (I had one) and the only book I have found available (well-known online bookstore) that is specifically about it is a workshop manual. So in technical terms it isn't notable, and if that was the only reason for inclusion in Wikipedia, it would be hanging on a wobbly nail. But in terms of the Austin marque it is notable (last large car built) and it is also notable in terms of the decline of the British car industry. "Austin Rover Online" (www(dot)aronline(dot)co(dot)uk) has huge amounts of information and media collected from former Austin employees. It looks like it should be WP:RS - but I can't explain why! Wikiwayman (talk) 09:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Sounds terrible. "at least two of " , ""AND" , "has media on it that cannot be included in an FA article" implies that all WP:EL can now be deleted from any organisation, no matter how relevant, that _doesn't_ include media with a copyright issue. That's carte blanche for the deletionists! For one thing it precludes links to any organisation that observes copyright as strictly as WP does, solely on that ground.
There is no reason at all to take two policy-based justifactions for why a link _may_ be included and then wrap them in a spurious combinatorial requirement to claim that they're then forbidden unless all of these requirements are met simultaneously. That's without even looking at the additional "at least two of" constraint.
We already have WP:policy. What's wrong with that policy? Why does it have to be restricted even further? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with the policy; that's why I made my second point. I suggested the first point to clarify what absolutely should never be deleted on the grounds of WP policy, because it clearly shows the site isn't a fansite and provides something extra to what can go in the article. If you don't think my suggestion is helpful because it could be (mis)used in reverse, then I can understand that. In any event, as a personal choice, I now intend to improve the description text of any EL's I add. Wikiwayman (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Reliable Internet Sources for Information on Sathya Sai Baba

There are 5 official Sathya Sai Baba websites, which have been set up in the past 10 years:

www.sathyasai.org The original site for the Sathya Sai Organisation (1999-).

www.srisathyasai.org.in The International Sai Organisation.

www.sssbpt.org The Sri Sathya Sai Books and Publications Trust (recently renamed the Sri Sathya Sai Sadhana Trust Publications Division).

www.radiosai.org Radio Sai Global Harmony.

www.saicast.org Sai Global Harmony and the International Sai Organisation (for Streaming Videos).

All official information can be obtained from these extensive sites, or from those run by official branches of the worldwide Sathya Sai Organisation. All of these bear official responsibility for what they say (for example if any of their information is incorrect or misleading).

All other websites and blogs which deal with Sathya Sai Baba from a devotional point of view (and there are increasingly large numbers of them, some of them very big and popular), are unofficial devotee sites run by individual devotees or groups. Many of these unofficial devotee sites promote a miscellaneous variety of devotee information and promotional material of many kinds - for which they bear no official responsibility. Although the largest of them often also relay much of the official information to devotees (e.g. the translated and edited Discourses of Sathya Sai Baba), this is already available on the extensive official websites listed above.

I suggest that, in the light of the above, the 5 official websites and Sathya Sai Organisation sites are Reliable Sources (within the specialised Wikipedia definition) and that unofficial devotee websites and blogs cannot automatically be assumed to be Reliable and that references to them should be reassessed and judged. Special attention should be paid to existing Wikipedia references to the largest and most popular websites or blogs mentioned at some time or another in various articles about Sathya Sai Baba, for example:

www.saibaba.ws, www.saibabofindia.com, and sathyasaibaba.wordpress.com (which, amongst a plethora of devotee information about experiences with Sathya Sai Baba, quotations from devotee books, bhajans, photographs, etc., includes a separate section specifically devoted to attacking critics of Sathya Sai Baba).

To regularise the situation for the main Sathya Sai Baba article and the several others about him, his mission and his Organisation, I therefore suggest that it is time to re-examine all references to unofficial devotee Internet sources, with a view to converting the references to official ones, where possible, or deleting them. Ombudswiki (talk) 23:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Official sites are self-published. Devotional sites are self-published of the movement. Both are only RS for, respectively, the opinion of the official organisation, and the opinion of the devotional culture of the movement. None are RS for anything but opinion. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • We need to standardize and clean up. We may not be able to do in a day but we can start the process. Better references should be used. We should not use either pro-websites nor negative attack websites in the Sathya Sai Baba article.
  • I was looking at another religious group "United_Church_of_Christ" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Church_of_Christ. This has used references to all their official websites. If we want to write an article pertaining to the details of a religious organisation or a group their beliefs etc the official websites need to be used. You won't find this information in other secondary sources like a Newspaper.
  • Sathya Sai Baba article is another religious article. This article has to be treated in par with other religious movement articles. If in other religious articles if there is no problem in using their respective official sites I don't see why this article should be treated with an exception. Thanks. Radiantenergy (talk) 12:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
It is a false argument to claim that because Fred does ill, that Susan should do likewise. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 12:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
One other use to which official, but not devotional, sites can be used is to cite quotations from official documents that are posted on the site. An example of this in the UCC article is the section "Statements of doctrine and beliefs" contains a quotation from the organization's "Constitution and Bylaws", which is cited to that very document as hosted by the organization. To the extent that it is appropriate to cite such a primary source, the official site is the best possible host of an official document.
It is the responsibility of all editors of this and related articles to work to use only the highest quality of sources. See the two ArbComm cases listed on the article's talk page. This includes removing low value sources that agree with the editor's personal point of view. GRBerry 15:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

INFORMATION ON CUBAN ATHLETES WHO ARE CONSIDERED "DESERTORS" BY CUBA

Anyone have information on obtaining information from Cuba on Athletes which are considered "Desertors" by the Cuban Government? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.56.102.39 (talk • contribs)

  • I'm assuming you have a particular athlete in mind and you are trying to find information about this athlete's sports activities when they were still in Cuba. My recommendation would be to figure out what the major newspapers were in Cuba when this athlete was competing and try to figure out what libraries in your country would have those newspapers on microfilm. Since copies of these newspapers were sent outside Cuba to other countries, it would be impossible for the Cuban government to suppress the earlier coverage of those athletes from before they defected. Similarly, the Cuban sports federations probably compiled newsletters, yearbooks or other records of their athletic championships and sent some copies abroad. They may be locatable in your country. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

MLM, USAToday quoting a trade organisation in a lifestyle section

At Multi-level marketing another editor believes that this USA today article is an an acceptable source for the single quote uncontextualised paragraph "While earning potential varies by company and sales ability, DSA says the median annual income for those in direct sales is $2,400." In the USAToday article, the sentence is a wrap around from a quote from the DSA, in a bullet point, in a life-style section. I do not believe that an unattributed dot-point quote from an involved organisation in a lifestyle section of a minor tabloid newspaper is an appropriate source for commenting on median annual incomes in the contemporary United States, or to imply that Multi-level marketing is a stupid occupation on wikipedia (no matter how true that may be). Fifelfoo (talk) 15:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

  • That's a peculiar characterization of USA Today. I dispute it. Also, as a matter for discussion, who else is going to survey income of direct salespeople? Plenty of surveys of consumer confidence and producer inventories are done by trade organizations. What is wrong with attributing the figure (which I imagine is 24,000 not 2,400) to DSA and calling it a day? Protonk (talk) 17:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Attribution sounds good, but I don't see why it would be 24000 and not 2400. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
      • you don't see why median annual income for a particular profession wouldn't be less than 5000 dollars? That means half of the answers in the survey reported income below 2400 dollars. I guess the median income would be very low if the DS job was a 2nd or third, but it pretty unbeleiveable that median income would be that low. BLS.gov says median income for telemarketers is 24,770. So in that case the USA today is literally wrong (though I suspect it is a transcription error). Protonk (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

60 Minutes and the Assassination of Werner Erhard

Source in question
  • Self, Jane (November 1992). 60 Minutes and the Assassination of Werner Erhard: How America's Top Rated Television Show Was Used in an Attempt to Destroy a Man Who Was Making A Difference. Breakthru Publishing. ISBN 0942540239.

This book is being put forth as a source by those that support the controversial training programs Landmark Education and Erhard Seminars Training developed by Werner Erhard. It was removed as a source, but this was disputed [15], [16], [17], [18]. The book should not be used as a source on Wikipedia: it fails WP:RS as it comes from a non-notable publisher, lacks coverage in reliable sources, lacks editorial review, and both the publisher and author have a bias as being associated with Erhard himself and his controversial trainings. The book's publisher has acted as Werner Erhard's attorney.

Rationale
  1. The book is biased: the author self-admits in the book to being involved with Erhard's training for several years prior to writing the book.
    Jane Self describes her association with Erhard's trainings as such: In 1988, I started a lifelong relationship with Landmark Education, a corporation designed for ongoing personal growth and development (it was called Werner Erhard and Associates when I started).
  2. The publisher is biased: The publishing company is associated with an individual named "Walter Maksym", who has acted directly as the attorney for Werner Erhard when Erhard sued individuals discussed in the book itself.
  3. "Breakthru Publishing" is not regarded as a publishing company respected for editorial review, and has no standing within any of the fields related to this book's subject, such as journalism, psychology, or religion.
    • When attempting to check if their website lists any form of editorial review - it appears that the website is itself abandoned [20].
    • A listing of other books published by Breakthru Publishing yields only "Diet's Don't Work" and other series of marketing/sales to self-help clientele - nothing related to investigative journalism, see [21].
  4. There are no independent reliable secondary sources that significantly discuss the book.
    • The wiki article about the book was deleted essentially for this very reason: (AfD discussion).
    • Search in books show it is not cited as a resource [22].

I present this issue here to see if previously uninvolved editors can help make a determination if this book is an independent reliable secondary source. Than you for your time, Cirt (talk) 22:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read the book, so I can't speak to the actual quality of the writing (although if you say its subpar, I'll believe you). But given the close relationship of the publisher and Erhard, the type of fare the publisher usually puts out and the fact that the book has not apparently been reviewed or analysed by any reputable entity I'd say that any mention of the source in a Wikipedia article, and especially wrt claims about a living person, should require at least a couple of sentences describing its background and doubtful reliability. Without such caveats I don't think it would be an appropriate source for any article except one about the book or the author. Nathan T 22:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, such caveats in prior sentences before the source would then itself be WP:OR in article mainspace, as such, the source should probably not be used/mentioned in article mainspace at all. Cirt (talk) 22:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Looks like the book is basically a WP:SELFPUB source. If the person's view is already shown to be notable then it could be used as a source for what his opinions are, but the book cannot demonstrate notability or be used to support facts. DreamGuy (talk) 12:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

That the book itself is not notable is not relevant to the question of its reliability, but does make it harder for us to accurately judge its reliability.

We no longer have an article on Breakthru Publishing, because of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breakthru Publishing. Editors there noted that the article described the press as a vanity press, and none of them found reason to disagree with the article. That is a reason to conclude that the book is not independent of its author. Accordingly, the book should be treated as a self published source. The next question then is whether Jane Snee has previous work in the relevant field that is published by reliable third-party publications. I note DGG's opinion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jane Self that she has "one unimportant book, and nothing else". DGG usually looks hard for opportunity to include articles, and if he found nothing else I'm willing to rely on his conclusion. So I conclude that this is not the variety of self-published source that can be used in articles about subjects other than the author of the source. GRBerry 15:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

We shouldnt play both sides against the middle. If the book was written and published by people associated with the group, then SPS specifically allows it as a source in articles about the group. Its opinions may be cited with attribution; I would recommend mentioning not only the title of the book but the publisher, which lets readers know it came from a specialized source. Language about the author's and publisher's association with the group, far from being original research, should be included if citable to reliable sources. In fact, the deleted articles could have been resolved as a merge/redirect to the article about the group. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
DreamGuy (talk · contribs) commented above: If the person's view is already shown to be notable then it could be used as a source for what his opinions are - the community determined that the author's viewpoint is actually not notable, thus there is no reason to include commentary from a non-notable individual. GRBerry (talk · contribs) concluded that: this is not the variety of self-published source that can be used in articles about subjects other than the author of the source. As the community came to a consensus to delete the article about the author, the source should not be used. Cirt (talk) 15:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
If Breakthru Publishing is run by the group's attorney, then the source would be citable as a press release from the group. I would also suggest looking into a deletion review to create a merge-redirect for the deleted articles. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The source cannot be properly attributed as such, which would be WP:OR on a main-article space page but plainly obvious as demonstrated above. Thus, the source should not be used. As there is a lack of independent reliable secondary sources on the book and on the author, there is no sourced material to merge, thus delete was the proper outcome. Cirt (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

It's plain that the book can't be used as an independent reference about Erhard; it may seem contradictory, but I think the association is too close to use as an independent source and not direct enough to qualify as a self-published source. Even if the book were published by Landmark itself, it would be subject to these limitations (quoted from WP:SPS):

  1. The material is not unduly self-serving;
  2. It does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  4. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

The title itself violates these limitations, so it seems clear that the book is not suitable as a reference under any circumstances. Nathan T 15:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

  • We've concluded, and I see no reason to revisit that, that it is effectively a self-published source by the group. What we haven't yet done here, is examine its use to support specific claims in specific articles. In part, that is because the query raised here was quite broad and didn't list specific claims for review. But digging into what I can find, I see the following specific issues:
    1. Whether the book itself can be listed in Werner Erhard#Other books. (Formerly, it was in a "Related publications" sub-section. That header is no longer is used.) In that section, the claim effectively is that "This is a book about Ernhard." This is not resolved by determining whether this book is a reliable source, and arguments that the book is/is not a reliable source are not relevant to the decision to list it. What is relevant is if a reliable source can be found to assert that the book is a significant one about him. That would be a question about a different source, not yet presented here. Editors looking for such a source should be looking for one that is not self-published.
    2. Whether the book can be used to support two claims removed here in Scientology and Werner Erhard. In this article, these are claims about Scientologists/whatever the official name of the Scientology thingy is. Since this book is a self-published source, it should not be used in this article.
    3. In Landmark Education I don't find that it is used or in dispute at all, so there is nothing to comment on currently.
    4. Whether the book itself can be listed in Erhard Seminars Training#Related publications (the "Books" subsection). The claim effectively is that "This is a book related to Erhard Seminars Training." Again, this is not resolved by determining whether the book is a reliable source, and arguments that the book is/is not a reliable source aren't relevant. What is relevant is if a reliable source can be found to assert that the book is a significant one about E.S.T. That would be a question about a different source, not yet presented here. Editors looking for such a source should be looking for one that is not self-published.
    5. If there is any other claim at issue, I failed to find it. Feel free to ping me again if another specific claim is identified. GRBerry 15:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if anybody at this point is suggesting the book be cited for facts, but it may be appropriate to mention that the book exists. Perhaps when writing about the 60 Minutes piece, we could say something like "A book entitled XYZ appeared soon afterwards from Breakthru Publishing, which had published several other books related to the Human Potential movement". Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
To look at it more deeply:
  • I'm not sure it's possible for a source, if it was otherwise a reliable secondary source, to fall into a limbo where it's too closely tied to its subject to be a secondary source but not closely tied enough to be citable as a primary source. Seems to me that primary/secondariness can be a sliding scale where a source can have some aspects of both and can be cited with some of the caveats are both. Disallowing the middle would exclude for instance a lot of material published by think-tanks.
  • That wouldn't necessarily be true if the original source was self-published. For instance, if something is self-published by friends or fans of a group, it may not be citable in an article about the group. But on the other hand, if the self-published source was endorsed by the subject of the article, then it may be citable.
  • Has anybody bothered to look up Breakthru in a corporate database to see who its president, etc are? That could settle the question of whether it's closely tied enough to be used as a primary source in an article about itself.
  • A few of Breakthru's titles were known outside the Human Potential movement. Such as Diets Don't Work by Dr. Bob Schwartz, which was in a number of news articles,[23] and How to Make the 33 Ruthless Rules of Local Advertising Work for You[24] by Michael Corbett, which was republished by Pinnacle.[25] It occurs to me if these books came out in today's media environment instead of in the 1980s, we'd have no problem finding enough sources for an article about the publisher.
  • I'm not sure how the Texas corporations website works, but I did find "Breakthru" and "Breakthru Training" registered as a trademark[26], #73276395 for a weight loss seminar to a Robert M. Schwartz. Perhaps Breakthru Publishing began with the 1982 diet book.
  • Diets Don't Work starts off with an acknowledgement to Erhard.[27] There's also a review of the "Outrageous Betrayal" book on Amazon by a user called "Michael Corbett" which speaks positively of attending the EST seminars.[28]
  • While it's difficult to say what the relationship between Breakthru and the lawyer's company is ( or a company called The Media Source which also has some of the same books ), it wouldn't be inaccurate to say that the publisher published a number of books related to the Human Potential movement, and such a statement could be backed up by a couple of Worldcat entries.
  • However, apparently there are a couple of secondary sources making a connection. Google Books is showing a journal called The Cult Observer (p.12, vol 11-13, 1994) which has "Steven Pressman, author of Outrageous Betrayal (St. Martin's), a recent book highly critical of Erhard, says that Breakthru Press has ties to Erhard"[29]
  • So I'm convinced that a brief mention that such a book exists would be relevant in the Erhard bio in relation to the 60 Minutes controversy. Per mention of the publisher in the secondary sources immediately above, plus mention of the book in what appears to be a primary source by the subject of the article, at www.wernererhard.com/controversy.html Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much for this excellent research - now that we have a reliable source for some explanation of the source's bias, it could be included very briefly as you suggest, with a caveat and explanation. Cirt (talk) 01:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

AOL Black Voices Buzz

I feel this www.bvbuzz.com is a reliable source. It is an AOL run webite on content important to AfricanAmericans. AOL also has an hispanic version with information important to Hispanics. Some feel that AOL BV Buzz is a blog and delete it as a source citing not a WP:RS. If so then:

-Ausiello (http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/) too must be not a WP:RS as well as. It is a blog posted on ew.com (formerly tvguide).

-Marc Malkin (http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/marc_malkin/index.html) too must be not a WP:RS as well. It is a blog posted on eonline.com. Marc even has 'blog' in the url, but it is accepted?

Above (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Jake_Tapper_ABC_News_White_House_Correspondent.27s_Blog) Hullaballoo says ...columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control....

AOL BV Buzz isnt a blog, but it does follow this rule Hullaballo wrote in that what is reported has to be sourced. The authors answer to AOL editors. If there are any lies it is retracted & AOL apologises.

Please weigh in. Thank You. 70.108.121.71 (talk) 00:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I have serious doubts about the use of that particular source, it is posted blog style and doesn't seem to indicate that it isn't a blog. There is a source in place to an accepted reliable source rendering this source unnecessary. I also see that there are questions regarding WP:COI and identity of the IP that questions this in the insertion of the source. [30] eonline.com and ew.com are acceptable reliable sources. Using the word "blog" in urls isn't a point of question at sites considered reliable sources otherwise. I can't see that it is unquestionably reliable or even necessary. LaVidaLoca (talk) 00:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Looks reliable to me. It seems to be one of those online newspapers that thinks it's cool to call itself a blog. I think they pay their bloggers, have editors, and are part of a company with a legal department. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Are there links that you found that would confirm this? I find it a bit disconcerting to see how hard the poster has pushed this link over the reliable sources already present. LaVidaLoca (talk) 06:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not saying its better than other sources. I don't really know what this is all about. The page says "AOL Black Voices is the premiere site for African American news, viewpoints, and community." so it looks to be AOL's black news site, and they're a part of Time Warner. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what it is all about either, but when I checked into what was spurring the request, I saw several direct questions about the poster being Jawn Murray, the author of the piece, and the IP refusing to answer the questions. Seemed interesting. LaVidaLoca (talk) 07:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

What is interesting? The question is whether or not AOLbvbuzz.com is a WP RS. There is no COI. Equally I ask wild/pink 's motives in their pushing for tvguide to be the sole source, does that make you question whether they are related to matt or work for tvguide? AOLBVBuzz is a reliable source. It is run by AOL, who answers to TimeWarner, a big well known medi conglomerate company. So no bullsh*t/lies/rumours will be published because Time Warner could be sued for libel, defamation, etc. AOL BV Buzz's reporters/columnists/journalists are a paid staff that have to have concrete reliable sources just as the L A Times,Chicago Tribune,NY Times, & Washington Post all require. 70.108.122.230 (talk) 13:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with basic Wikipedia behavioral guidelines, including WP:CIVIL, WP:COI, WP:NPA and WP:AGF. I saw no pushing of a specific source on the part of either of two long term editors with literally 10s of thousands of edits and thousands of articles. There is no validity in your assertion that other editors are pushing POV on given sources, just questions regarding your identity and the source in question, which are interesting when they aren't answered. Saying there is no COI and not responding to a direct question are two entirely different things. From what I can see, there is no need for the second source because the statement needed is reliably sourced. LaVidaLoca (talk) 23:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Twitter

Is Twitter reliable?It isnt just for normal people. President Barack Obama togovernment agencies (http://www. twitter.com/CDCEmergency) to tv showrunners (http://twitter.com/NealBaer Neal Baer) to tv shows(http://twitter.com/nbcSVU) to actresses/actors, singers, artists, etc are on it. Twitter has a verification (info : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/twitter/5475445/Twitter-launches-verification-service-to-protect-celebrities.html) process so that if the account is the government or sports team, etc; twitter verifies it. I've seen edits be reverted saying "twitter isnt reliable". Yet on many pages, numerous things are inputed with Perez Hilton or Miley Cyrus 's twitter as the reference. Just wondering. Thank you. 70.108.121.71 (talk) 00:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I suspect that we will be behind the curve on this. Where there is some reliable verification that a twitter account is connected to a human, that twitter feed can be used in accordance with our policy on self published sources. In English, that means if we know Miley Cyrus's twitter account is owned by her (or her publicist) we can say "Miley Cyrus said XYZ". We cannot use it to say "Miley Cyrus said ABC about this other person" because our policy on biographies of living persons prevents us from using "blogs", broadly defined. However I will add two words of caution. First, there have been no shortage of "fake" celebrity twitter accounts, even ones that lasted for some time. Second, just because that twitter post is known to be from person XYZ doesn't mean that what they have to say is important enough to go in the article. Protonk (talk) 00:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Twitter isn't overall considered a reliable source. Tweets from verified sources only should be used sparingly, and in the same way a personal website is used - to source statements made by a celebrity about something pertaining only to the celebrity. In almost every case, there is no reason why a tweet is necessary and sources that are widely considered reliable should be used. I'm not certain I'm entirely secure about even verified accounts. Sometimes, one celebrity account verifies another and it isn't clear that this isn't a questionable practice. For instance, I noted that Alyssa Milano spoke up for an account for Christina Applegate. Their verification process isn't exactly streamlined and standard at this point. It seems to me that anything notable should always be related to a reliable source, not just tweeted. Perez Hilton should never be used as a source. LaVidaLoca (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Seconding LaVidaLoca; however, people should consider if a 140 character message is capable of being relevant. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
There is the issue of being certain that the tweet is actually by the person it supposedly is from. We can deal with that on a case by case basis. But it would be extremely, extremely rare for a tweet to be sufficiently relevant to merit mention in an encyclopedia article without it first having been recorded and discussed in a reliable secondary source. So I would tend to believe that if no better source than twitter can be found it is very strong evidence that the material does not belong in an article. GRBerry 15:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Are tweets reliably archived somewhere? If not, not matter how reliable they are, they fail verifiability. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Good observation Stephan. I've got no clue whether or not there is a reliable archive. GRBerry 13:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
There is no central archive for tweets and any poster is free to delete a post at any given time. There is little in the way of long term structure, nor an intent to provide one. It's tantamount to instant messaging in an open forum and thus, I can see no way that Twitter could be considered a reliable source, both for archive reasons as well as ongoing issues regarding verification of some accounts and the proliferation of imposter accounts. LaVidaLoca (talk) 23:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Joyce Reason

The creator of the article Joyce Reason insists that his sources are reliable and establish notability. I've tried, to no avail, to tell him that since one is a catalog, and the others are primary sources (that is, sources by the subject, not about the subject), they cannot be used to establish notability, though I would say that they are quite relevant once notability is established. Not wanting to start an edit war, I brought the matter here for comment instead. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 14:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

They're all primary sources. The catalogue is not a secondary source. A librarian generated published catalogue (ie: Joyce Reason: A retrospective) would be a secondary source. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Invasion of Grenada miss in military history of Cuba

Hello, I noticed "military history of Cuba" didn't cover Invasion of Grenada and My English not great but I want let you know and hop if someone can help to edit to add Invasion of Grenada to that one. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.107.121 (talk) 04:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Does a book that only collates primary sources count as a secondary source?

Ashtar (extraterrestrial being) is currently reliant on a single source: Partridge, Christopher Hugh (2003), Christopher Hugh Partridge (ed.), UFO Religions, Routledge, ISBN 9780415263245 Chapter 8 From Extraterrestrials To Ultraterrestrials: The Evolution of the Concept of Ashtar; by Christopher Helland pgs.162-178

This chapter does little more than collate quotes from the primary sources (being self published accounts from people who claim to have been in real telepathic contact with Ashtar, a UFO commander). The chapter is fully viewable on Google Books on the link above.

Does such a collation count as a suitable secondary source in order to build an article around, or is there a valid argument to consider the source as equivalent to a primary source? A lengthy discussion on the matter has not reached any firm conclusion on the article talk page.—Ash (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Quotes in a secondary source about primary accounts can only be considered primary accounts. Secondary sources are academics or journalists that interpret primary sources and use evidence and references. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Ottava, if the source uses the primary source in its analysis that is one thing, but just repeating the primary source a second time does not make it a secondary source. nableezy - 23:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

No a secondary source gathers its use through its thorough and masterly analysis. A compilation or source book does not display this. An academic historical source cool may contain essays or introductions of journal article length, but the level of peer review is usually less than that of a collected volume of papers. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Some context that may bear consideration. I'm actively involved in editing the article whose (presently single) source is being challenged by Ash. A review of the current talk page of the article under discussion may be informative here. The material that Ash is challenging is actually a single chapter in a book consisting of papers submitted by acknowledged academic specialists in an admittedly rather esoteric subject, that of "UFO cults". The material in the book itself was vetted and edited by a well known (at least in his field) specialist in new religions and popular culture named Christopher Hugh Partridge, whose editing work appears in books published by several well known academic presses, including Oxford. "Worldcat" notes that Partridge's work as a specialized editor occurs in "35 works in 45 publications in 6 languages [within] 3,045 library holdings" worldwide.[31]. If someone cares enough to check the academic credentials of the individual contributors to the book currently under discussion, each of them in turn will be discovered to be an acknowledged mainstream "authority" in their field of study, who are in turn cited by their peers, including Christopher Helland the author of the specific chapter being challenged. Despite its title, this book is not a haphazard collection of self published essays thrown together by unknown writers, it's a professionally vetted and edited academic volume from a respectable mainstream publishing house, that has itself been cited in other works and favourably reviewed in academic journals[32]. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 01:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Glancing at page 162, it looks like a normal, reliable, secondary source to me. I wouldn't go using quotes from the book as facts, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not making any extraordinary claims regarding the authority of this source. I'm simply maintaining that it meets a basic level of acceptable reliability according to our policies pertaining to reliable sources WP:RS. Even a cursory general search on Google substantiates the claim that Helland, the author of the chapter that is being challenged here, is cited as an authority on this (again admittedly) rather "fringe" topic by mainstream academics for at least the past nine years or so.[33] Ash the opposing editor here, appears adamantly insistent on the notion that despite its fairly ordinary yet obviously acceptable academic provenance in the "literature", that somehow we as Wikipedia editors are empowered to 'second guess' the choices being made by the authors of what is deemed reliably sourced material; on what should and should not be considered "authoritative" in their own selection of primary source material, seemingly based, if I'm understanding their argument correctly, on our own personal authority on the subject. As I mentioned earlier, for those so inclined, a visit to the article's talk page itself might prove helpful contextually. It should be noted that this article has now been nominated for deletion on grounds similar to what I'm discussing here.[34] Despite an ongoing bout of influenza, I believe now would be good time to add another reference to the article. Isn't Wikipedia wonderful sometimes? :) cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 05:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

What exactly are you using it to say? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I was utilizing it as what I considered a contextually reliably sourced and innocuous chronological baseline 'frame work' for further reliably sourced additions to the material. Other sources have subsequently been added to help to substantiate it. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Mackenzie Phillips

On the talk page, there is a discussion on whether the description of "consensual" can be used in the article. Please feel free to weigh in. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 01:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Controversial statements should not be paraphrased, they should be quoted and attributed. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
And People magazine is not an acceptable source for a WP:BLP. L0b0t (talk) 03:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Really? a lot of the featured BLP articles seem to use People. It's not The National Enquirer or the Daily Mail which are basically never reliable. People is not without problems but it can be reliable depending on what it's used for, ie, they don't have a reputation for making up direct quotes from celebrities or their representatives. Siawase (talk) 16:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
People is reliable, per our definition. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

LaRouche

I believe there's an Arbcom ruling out there that basically says all LaRouche-associated publications are unreliable, and you can only cite them when talking about the LaRouche movement. Does anyone know what I'm talking about? Can someone provide a link to where this codified? Thanks in advance. Yilloslime TC 06:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

It's here, point 1 under Remedies. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 06:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks!! Yilloslime TC 15:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Its an opp edd but not as we know it

This is related to NGO above. Are Opp-Edd pieces RS in BLP's. I can find nothing that says they are not but it has become another sticking point on Marc Garlasco.Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The question is who is the source and how notable he and the body who puclished his opinion. Criticism which appears on multiple major news sources areclearly addmittable into a biography regardless if they are opinion pieces. Off course, the opinion needs to be attributed to its writer so that there won't be confusion between opinion and fact. Also, the language used on wikipedai should be a bit conservative to fit the neature of the encuclopedic medium. It would be an easier discussion and review of relevance here, btw, if the text and the used citation are provided. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Suvorov's libel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_by_burning#Modern_burnings Contain a section with explicit anti-Russian libel from Victor Rezun (known also as Victor Suvorov) - a man accused of high treason in Russia, by the way. It is well known that in fact people convicted to death in USSR were executed in much more humane way - by a pistol shot to the head. So - Suvorov's book should be considered a work of fiction - not a historical source - as there is no other confirmation of his claim.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.153.159.71 (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Request goes to source content, not reliablity, can't be actioned Fifelfoo (talk) 01:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

NEW INFO JUST RELEASED ABOUT HOFFA CASE

Does this count as pertinent info for the Jimmy Hoffa page? Since I can't add it in, maybe someone else would like to. --Spectre7277 (talk) 03:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

http://www.clickondetroit.com/video/20911524/index.html

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news/local/090914_hoffa_book

http://www.wxyz.com/news/local/story/FBI-Continues-Mysterious-Dig-in-Detroit/Fo44poqS-UKCVXrJ6RYBLA.cspx

http://abcnews.go.com/US/fbi-confirm-dig-search-jimmy-hoffa-body/Story?id=8583134&page=2

The ones that speculate that maybe the FBI's dig in Detroit is possibly a search for Hoffa aren't appropriate, as there's no verifiable facts involved. Some of the other links may be appropriate, but I'll leave it to others to review the best use of those links. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


The dig in Detroit has nothing to do with Hoffa, that's just the Detroit media spin on it all. The links that talk about the cemetery, especially the Detroit Free Press Article linked below is the newest information in the case that was turned over to the FBI. Thanks for the quick response. --Spectre7277 (talk) 23:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news/local/090914_hoffa_book

http://www.freep.com/article/20090914/NEWS06/909140312/1202/RSS



== IS THIS WIKIWORTHY ENOUGH??? LATEST INFORMATION ABOUT HOFFA INVESTIGATION ==--Spectre7277 (talk) 03:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=011008&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=9876538&referralPlaylistId=playlist

Neverwinter Nights 2 Vault

Hi- I was wondering if I could get some more input on a number of references used in Neverwinter Nights 2: Mysteries of Westgate, before taking it to FAC. Specifically: [35], [36], and [37]. My feeling is that most of NWN2Vault is unreliable because it is user-contributed content, but the first of these seems to be an official press release or the like (so it would be a primary source, but not otherwise an unreliable one), and the latter two are interviews with the game's designers which appear to have been conducted by the site's operators or somesuch, but I'm not positive. Here again, what the game designers said is probably primary but reliable. However, before going to FAC and then having this come up, I was wondering if I could get some feedback beforehand. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

*ping* (just don't want this to be forgotten with all of the discussions below). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Should I just take the article to FAC without any discussion on this? It would be really great to hear some more opinions on this first, though... –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Worthy of note here is that this is an IGN website. While fan-submitted content may not be reliable, some of it certainly will be. The first link is certainly a press release (and so a primary source). It is linked at that location from Atari's own website under "News" ([38]). It's reliable for anything else a primary source is reliable for. I believe that the two-part interview should be usable as well, given the standing of the hosting website, but it's not quite as clear-cut as the press release. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the input! It is much appreciated. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Just chiming in with agreement with Moonriddengirl. Hobit (talk) 21:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree w/ Moonriddengirl as well. Sorry I didn't see this earlier, the watchlist got kinda clogged w/ whatever IPA dispute is going on below. Protonk (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you all very much for the input! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Isaac Bonewits as a reliable source

I've recently been arguing with a tendentious editor about the use of books by Isaac Bonewits as reliable sources, particularly on the subjects of Neopaganism and various Neo-druidism type articles. An example of Bonewits' influence and expertise might be his classification of types of Paganism but that is hardly his only contribution to understanding these subjects. I'd really like some feedback and other opinions on whether Bonewits can be considered a reliable source. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 02:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Any book in particular in question? Cirt (talk) 03:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Sure, this one: Bonewits's Essential Guide to Druidism. (2006) Citadel ISBN 0-8065-2710-2, ISBN 978-0806527109. Pigman☿/talk 03:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
(And, by the way, does anyone else think that the particular possessive "Bonewits's" looks wrong? Seems to me it should leave off the last "s" but I'm unclear whether that is proper convention or my personal confusion on the issue.) Pigman☿/talk 03:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Citadel Press seems like a reputable publisher, cited in a few other books, but I'm (so far) unable to come up with any book reviews of the work... Cirt (talk) 03:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
What is the page you're having the dispute on?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Bonewits' (as some English style has it for possessives with s ending words) works appear to be Reliable Sources on: His practice of druidism; His scholarly opinion as a religious officiant on religions within his core tradition. I would not consider Bonewits as a RS for sociology of contemporary pagan practices, and, as he is obviously an involved thinker, I'd suggest you look for a second independent source using / critiquing his new theoretical / theological constructions before use. Bonewits is not a historian or archaeologist: his opinion on paganism before 1950 should be less esteemed, and historians and archaeologists should be sought out. His typology of pre 1950s paganism is acceptable, as it is in itself a theological construct (and as long as its discussed as an idea, not as if an actuality). No inherent problem in Bonewits as a religious commentator on the modern. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Excellent precis of his areas of expertise, Fifelfoo. I think I agree pretty thoroughly with your assessment in all particulars. Thanks for the feedback. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 04:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Fifelfoo, may I ask you to clarify "I would not consider Bonewits as a RS for sociology of contemporary pagan practices" a little? As far as I can see, it is precisely in this capacity that Bonewits is being called upon in the article Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism, which is the only use of him I am questioning. Not sure why Pigman pointed to other articles. Thanks in advance. Davémon (talk) 09:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Further to this I am also in doubt about Bonewits' independence from celtic-neopaganism and whether his writings can be used to help establish wp:notability of the subject of Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism. Again, any external input on that would be good.Davémon (talk) 09:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Urgh, just, urgh. He's an involved party, he's not an academic sociologist. Bonewits should really be treated as a PRIMARY source at Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism. (I checked the usages, they're using him to comment on the validity of practices, and to classify them... he's way to involved as an advocate of a theology here.) Fifelfoo (talk) 10:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC) (Being treated as PRIMARY doesn't mean he's wrong, it just means you can't use him as an RS, seek SECONDARY sources).
Thank you for clarifying your position. "urgh!" is the right word. Davémon (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Here is my take on this. After doing a bit of research on Bonewits and Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism, I am going to cautiously suggest that this author can be used as a reliable secondary source. Here is my reasoning: 1. Bonewits does not self-identify as a Celtic Reconstructionist, but as a Druid. Druidry and Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism are not the same religion - this is implied in Bonewits' own book (the one that is question). Bonewits at one time seemed to have practiced something that could be termed, for lack of a better word "eclectic polytheism" and was a founding member of Ár nDraíocht Féin: A Druid Fellowship (ADF), but has never identified as a "Celtic Reconstructionist Pagan". Therefore, I think he can be used as a secondary source if his credilbility can be established. To suggest otherwise is to imply that the writings of someone of a Christian persuasion cannot be used as secondary sources simply because the individual is a Christian. We would not make such an assertion under that case and we must apply the same rules here if we are to be neutral. 2. Whether or not Bonewits is a reliable source is a bit more complicated. Obviously other writers have agreed that he may be used as reliable source as a commentator on modern paganism and I agree with that. I do not, however, agree that he is involved in the "Celtic Reconstructionist Pagan" religion, but in Druidry. While they may be two differenct sects of neo-paganism, the two are clearly separate religions and should be treated as thus. In other words, while the differences are subtle, they are there to any obvious readers. Modern Druidry had its start in the Druid Revival of the 1800's which was more akin to Freemasonry and such. Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism had its roots in the polytheistic reconstructionism that went on in the 1960's or 1970's. 72.94.173.25 (talk) 12:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Deir Yassin Remembered board of advisors for opinion on IDF modus operani

The following text was inserted for criticism towards Operation Defensive Shield:

Cheryl Rubenberg is on the board of advisors of "Deir Yassin Remembered," an organization founded to commemorate the 1948 Deir Yassin Massacre and its mythos. As a board member of a Palestinian commemoration blog which advocates -- outside the scope of the sad historic incident -- that Israeli-Jews are Zionist murderers and ethnic cleansers who should not be in Israel to begin with, it is misleading to quote her as if she were an unbiased source for "writing" (read: accusing) the IDF of working "systematically" to destroy Palestinian records. JaakobouChalk Talk 14:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Jaakobou, using the word "mythos" to describe the commemoration of the Deir Yassin Massacre is insensitive and provocative.
And are you talking about this Deir Yassin Remembered? Which Elie Wiesel was invited to join, but declined to? Tiamuttalk 20:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
She is more than just a member of the board of advisers of Deir Yassin Remembered, she is also the writer of books published by high quality university presses on the topic. She also is associated with the Middle East Policy Council. And the source is not citing Deir Yassin remembered, it is citing a book published by Lynne Rienner Publishers. nableezy - 16:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Wasn't this organization previously called American Arab Affairs Council and keeps promoting the idea that the US shouldn't support Israel? JaakobouChalk Talk 16:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
(ec) Whats that have to do with whether or not this book, from a reputable publisher, is a reliable source? What does her being a board member of Deir Yassin Remembered have to do with whether or not this book, from a reputable publisher, is a reliable source? nableezy - 17:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Is this publisher university affiliated and has its publications fact-checked or is it independent? JaakobouChalk Talk 17:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Independent publisher of "academic and scholarly books and journals in the social sciences and humanities". There is no requirement that it be from university presses. nableezy - 17:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Does the publisher have any requirement for fact-checking? They obviously don't check the political activism situation of whoever they publish. JaakobouChalk Talk 17:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
What you think is the "political activism" of the writer is not an issue in their reliability. nableezy - 18:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
A) So the publisher doesn't have any requirement for fact-checking? JaakobouChalk Talk 19:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
B) So if someone on the board of members of Arutz Sheva publishes analysis on Palestinian activities in an independent publishing company, it would not be an issue in their reliability? JaakobouChalk Talk 19:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
They are a respected publisher. As to your second question, seeing as how Arutz Sheva is comically used as a "source" in many articles I dont see how that is relevant, but for your amusement I would answer that if that person where otherwise qualified and published a book by the same publisher it would be a reliable source. nableezy - 23:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
She sounds like an expert. We might want to use attribution, since everything about the conflict is controversial. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm worried even with an attribution since the Deir Yassin group advocates that Israel shouldn't exist. I'm sure far better sources can be found if this is issue is notable enough. JaakobouChalk Talk 17:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
This is not cited to Deir Yassin Remembered. And even if the author does feel that Israel should not exist[citation needed] bias is not equivalent to unreliability. nableezy - 18:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Please don't twist my words, I was referring to the Dier Yassin organization as the one who opposes the existance of Israel. Her affiliation with this organization puts a major dent in the subjectivity of her "analysis" on how the Israeli army conducts itself. Considering how much emphasis is put to everything Israel does and if this indeed occurred "systematically" then better sources would be easy to find. JaakobouChalk Talk 19:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Please note that what Rubenberg is being used for is the detail as to what institutions were affected (which I added above), alongside her opinion that they were systematically targeted. Please also note that in the context of the UN report which says that PA institutions were destroyed and Amira Hass' article, which also says institution databases were targeted and destroyed, Rubenberg is not being used for an exceptional claim, but a well-established one. Tiamuttalk 19:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
If it is a well established one, then better sources can be easily provided. We (read: you) wouldn't need an independently published political activist for pushing POV (and faulty) opinions (read: allegation theories). JaakobouChalk Talk 20:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
p.s. please don't confuse between destruction of terrorist supporting institutions with destruction of data. In fact, the data was collected by the IDF as evidence to prove that these institutions were indeed financially supporting civilian targetting organizations as well as giving out orders. JaakobouChalk Talk 20:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Cheryl Rubenberg's opinion is a legitimate one, and the detail she provides as the institutions destroyed complements the existing text on this subject (from the UN report and from Amira Hass). I see no reason not to include this material, which is cited a reputable academic publisher. Your assumptions regarding the political positions of Deir Yassin Remembered, and your view that Rubenberg is somehow guilty of something by her association with this organization to a degree that disqualifies her from being a reliable source, fall afoul of basic principles like WP:NPOV. Tiamuttalk 20:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
And Jaakobou, here is the page for the board of directors of Deir Yassin Remembered. I don't see Rubenberg's name there, do you? Tiamuttalk 20:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
You bring a highly suspect interpretation of NPOV to this issue. Rubenberg is mentioned as actively affiliated with them on multiple sources (e.g.) and I remind you again that you're under WP:ARBPIA restrictions. JaakobouChalk Talk 20:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
???
So your position is that because a 1995 article mentions Cheryl Rubenberg as sitting on the board of the organization Deir Yassin Remembered - whose board members today do not include her, but do include people like Salman Abu-Sitta, Hedy Epstein, Paul Findley, Ilan Pappé, and Mordechai Vanunu - we should disregard that she has published six books in this area of study, and consider her an unreliable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiamut (talk • contribs)
Vaanunu was in Israeli prisons for 20 odd years and Pappe was asked to resign by his own university after promoting an academic boycott on the school he was teaching in. Rubenberg is published under an independent publisher who does not fact-check her (bogus) claims. I seem to be repeating myself here, but if this is such a notable issue, then I'm sure better sources would be easy to come by. Wouldn't they? JaakobouChalk Talk 21:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Having a POV and being an advocate doesn't stop people from being reliable sources. Cheryl Rubenberg is a former associate professor in political science at Florida International University, the author of four books on the I/P conflict, as well as numerous papers and book chapters, and she is or was the editor of the Encyclopedia of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. [44] If you're saying we can't use her because she's an advocate for the Palestinians, we'll likewise have to stop using anyone who's an advocate for Israel. That would leave us with almost no sources for the I/P conflict, and perhaps none. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure there'd be a few out there who are respectable enough journalists and scholars that we can use without resorting to the likes of this "systematic"ally biased commentator who's published independently without any semblence of fact-checking. She is assciated with more than a mere adocacy group but with one that is opposing the existance of Israel (no less). I am willing to compromise to adding her with a 'pro-Palestinian advocate' descriptive if we're to insist on her "systematic" approach to the issue but it doesn't strike me as a good source to take if the issue is indeed notable. JaakobouChalk Talk 23:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I've seen you support all kinds of pro-Israeli sources, some with some pretty extreme views. The point is not what the POV is, but whether the person is acknowledged by others as a knowledgeable source for the issue at hand, and whether the publisher is a decent one. I don't know where you get the idea that Rubenberg's publisher has an editorial process that's different from any other. If there's any issue about a source, use in-text attribution, but do that for all the sources who express a POV or engage in advocacy, not just this one. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 23:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Ad hominems aside, you're side stepping my above comment completely. (a) there are enough people who research and criticize Israeli actions who are not associated with groups that advocate that Israel shouldn't exist -- if this a notable issue than it should be easy to provide one. (b) Rubenberg's publisher, much like the author, is independent and does not fact check what its authors publish. I will also add that (c) the IDF collected data rather than systematically destroy it - which makes Rubenberg's claim of a destructive modus operadi towards data an exceptional analysis. Anyways, I can see that we now have 3 voices coming to an agreement on adding the advocacy status descriptive and I can live with that.
Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 01:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Nobody came to an agreement about adding "advocacy status". If you want to explicitly cite her you give her name, you dont call her a "pro-Palestinian advocate", unless of course you would like to make it so any mention of Dershowitz carried a similar disclaimer. And you are making up rules that dont exist. The publisher is a quality publisher specializing in academic texts, the author herself was a professor at a University and has been published by high quality academic presses. The book is a reliable source. nableezy - 01:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
And do you have any evidence at all that the publisher "does not fact check what its authors publish"? Any at all? nableezy - 01:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Dear Nableezy,
(A) Was the citation used published by a quality academic publisher or by an independent non-academic one?
(B) Is the author directly connected with a Palestinian "commemoration organization" that utilizes anti-Israeli notables Vanunu and Pappe ?
Warm regards, JaakobouChalk Talk 02:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Question 1, by an independent publisher specializing in academic works and scholarly journals. 2, wholly irrelevant. Though I note that Pappe is a reliable source as well, and that a discussion on this noticeboard said the same thing. nableezy - 02:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Can you clarify what does "specializing in academic works and scholarly journals" means? Do they fact check these journals? Is there a peer review proccess?
p.s. Ihaven't addressed the Dershovitz comparison because he's a responectable non-independed teacher at Harvard and his opinons are, unlike independently published opinions, quite notable. JaakobouChalk Talk 03:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Rubenberg was a professor in the actual topic of conversation, Dershowitz is not nor has he ever been. And yes, journals they produce are peer-reviewed, such as the Journal of East Asian Studies. If you have any evidence that the publisher is not respected please present it instead of making proclamations without evidence. nableezy - 04:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Setting aside the false and irrelevant comparison, Rubenberg's current status is independent political activist. Both groups mentioned in association with Rubenberg are severly anti-Israeli. One promotes that Israel shouldn't exist and the other tries to persuade the US to stop backing Israel. This activist is pushing the POV that Israel destroyed data "systematically", an inherantly false analysis. If this analysis is accurate, it should be easy to find better sources. (see 'exceptional claims' on the WP:RS). If you insist on using a political activist, due to her teaching it for a couple years somewhere and then leaving the school to live in Gaza, then we have an agreement that they should have a proper attirbution to this factv(e.g. her activist status). Personally, I think there's better sources out there for an encyclopedia to use. Call me crazy for not liking sources who are active/motivated on fringe groups that would take the likes of Vanunu, a man who sat in Israeli prison for 20 odd years, on board position.. and the other group that calls Israelis "colonialists" is just plain silly. JaakobouChalk Talk 10:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I would be inclined to accept Rubenberg as an authority for an ordinary claim, though to be used cautiously. However, I agree iwth Jaakobou that this is an extraordinary claim and if true, there should be some other source possible, high level media sources not derivitive from Rubenberg.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
There is absolutely no agreement that you call her an "activist" in the text, people said attribute to Rubenberg, not make judgments about her in the text. And her most recent position wass editor of the Encyclopedia of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. This book is a reliable source and nothing you have said, besides attempting to poison the well with irrelevant fallacies, changes that. nableezy - 13:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Heyo Nableezy,
Is it untrue that she is connected with two pro-Palestinian advocacy groups? JaakobouChalk Talk 14:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
It does not matter if it is true or not, it has nothing to do with the reliability of this source published by a respected publisher. Nothing at all. nableezy - 14:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Do what SV says. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources to demonstrate that claiming a "Gay Agenda" has been used as "Propaganda"

The following 3 sources have been quoted on Gay Agenda as they describe the use of the term "Gay Agenda" by right wing groups as "propaganda".

It has been argued in the CFD for category:anti-gay propaganda and on Talk:Homosexual agenda that these sources are biased and do not prove the point that the "gay agenda" argument has been termed "propaganda". I believe the debate is spurious and created in order to "prove" that classifying anything as propaganda causes too much argument for the classification to be used on Wikipedia.

I welcome independent views on whether there is any merit in the opinion that these sources are not factual or they should be treated as biased sources in their analysis of the political and religious arguments that a "gay agenda" has been used as anti-gay propaganda. I hope that consideration is given to the fact that some of these sources have undergone academic peer review before publication.—Ash (talk) 11:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Why not just use attribution? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
The question is whether these sources are sufficiently independent to justify the classification (anti-gay propaganda), not just a mention in the body of the article.—Ash (talk) 16:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
We just report reliable sources, and don't generally care too much if the source (not us) has a POV. Use attribution if you think they're saying something controversial. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Conflicting sources

When this conflicts with this, which one should we believe? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Are they usually reliable? If so, use "A says x, while B says y". I suspect they are of dubious reliability, however. You might want to ask for input from the fine fellows at WP:MMA.  Skomorokh  23:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
If you want to be safe, I would recommend what Skomorokh points out (listing both). Wikipedia doesn't choose sides unless there is a clear right and wrong, or that there is a major consensus either way. There doesn't seem enough information to determine in this case. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I think I'll follow Skomorokh's suggestion and take it to the WikiProject. Thanks, guys. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Sungazing

hi, i was wondering if i can use the source Hira Ratan Manek Sungazing DVD to support information about the actual practise of sungazing. ie. guidelines, rules, safety precautions etc... on the Sungazing page. Sungazing is a practise and there needs to be some form of defining a "safe" practise in order to distinguish it from staring at the noon sun for hours.
For example, the DVD states one should only sun gaze during "safe" times when UV levels are below 2. Usually within one hour after sunrise and one hour before sunset. The practise also entails a very gradual start. One begins with sungazing for 10 seconds (during a safe time) and each day increases the time by ten seconds, to a limit of 45 minutes.

there is also information here... http://www.sungazing.com/652.html http://phoenixtools.org/sungazing/practise.htm

youtube has copy of the DVD http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlCJPxxKoaY these sources are just for the facets of the practise itself. Thanks!

J929 (talk) 02:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

As I have outlined on Talk:Sungazing, I disagree with citing Hira Ratan Manek's DVD as fact because the medical sources I have found unanimously state that staring into the sun is bad for you. Outside opinions are welcome. Skinwalker (talk) 02:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Skinwalker, plus Wikipedia is not a "how-to" guide, it is beyond the scope of Wikipedia to outline how to do something and when it safe to do so and how to do it safely, especially something that is so complicated you have to start with a predetermined safe time and you can increase your time over time. We dont want to be held liable if we are (or our source) is wrong and damages someone, nor do we want someone to get damaged if a vandal should change the wording or time allotments on a page even for just an hour or day before before the correct information is reverted back. Better safe than sorry I think. Sorry, but really you shouldnt put the information is, even though I think it is very interesting information.Camelbinky (talk) 02:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Source in Oscar Wilde

See Talk:Oscar_Wilde#Maynard for the discussion that led here.

Oscar Wilde has been on my watch list for a long time (both because he is an LGBT writer and because I'm generally a fan of his). I just popped in from a long wikibreak and discovered that an editor's sourced additions to the article were reversed with the comment that "this article is not a reliable source".

I was curious, so I checked out the source in question. It's published in a collection of essays from a very reputable academic press (Blackwell). The article's author is John Maynard. After a quick Google search, I found that Maynard is a professor at NYU with a rather impressive CV in the field of Victorian literature (of which Wilde is a part).

Confused at the dismissive tone of User:Ottava Rima's talk page post, I commented that we shouldn't so blithely condemn the article as "non academic" and I expressed surprise that Ottava Rima would act so disrespectfully to what seems to be a notable academic. You can see the talk page to see how the discussion went (i.e. not well). I made no edits to the actual article, as I felt that would probably just devolve into an unproductive edit war.

The question I want to ask here is this: Ottava Rima seems of the very strong impression that s/he can dismiss this article as reliable based upon disagreeing its content. From what I remember of my tenure here long ago, we cannot simply dismiss such an academic source without referring to other reliable sources which would argue the point. In other words, editors are not allowed to make evaluations of the content of sources that come from reputable, peer reviewed presses.

I have seen piles of utter crap in published articles before, but I always thought that the standard on the Wiki was to counter those articles with other reputable sources which discuss the topic. Editors cannot simply rule on the content of sources by their own fiat (unless, in my opinion, they have some sort of credentials, but even THAT is not policy!). Whatever shape the final article takes, dismissing peer reviewed sources is dangerous at best. --CaveatLector Talk Contrib 21:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The source appears fine to me, I'm not sure what ottava rima's problem with this is. I have placed a note on the talk page to say this is being discussed here. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
1. The source lacks references. 2. The source only mentions Wilde in passing. 3. The source presents a fringe point of view. 4. The writer is not an expert in Wilde studies. These four things show that the source cannot be used in the matter attempted (in order to declare that Oscar Wilde was a pederast). As I stated, find the material in an actual Wilde biography by an expert who studied the matter and then it could be added. Otherwise, this source fails the requirements. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Ottava Rima, you do this repeatedly, and will argue unrelentingly that an author is not acceptable because you, OR, (OR by initials, OR by nature) think so, rather than because the author is a problem. I see nothing remarkable or problematic in John Maynard's statements. They are simply a summary of established knowledge. That is the nature of companion books of this kind. Established experts contribute. As for the assertion that Oscar Wilde was a pederast, that's hardly in dispute by anyone. I am by profession a Victorianist. Paul B (talk) 23:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Established knowledge? Please, find a source for that. You cannot just make things up. He had no source for his statement. If you can't find it in a Wilde biography, why are you even claiming it is established? Come on, at least pretend to have some intellectual integrity before arguing for the inclusion of a source. There is no legitimate way to claim that -that- source represents common or majority view, and guess what? If it did, you would use the -other- sources. Either way, your argument has no merits and your pushing it is disturbing. "that's hardly in dispute by anyone" That is a pure fabrication and it is disturbing that you would claim such. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
John Maynard's CV looks fairly authoritative to me. What is the issue with citing his opinion in the article? Jezhotwells (talk) 00:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
So, would a physicist be able to speak on engineering simply because they are close? That CV proves that he has -nothing- on Oscar Wilde. At least two of them are collections of essays, which further undermines his statement as an expert. The section is not about opinion furthermore. Plus WP:FRINGE states that only -notable- opinions are included. His opinion is not notable. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
That is not a meaningful analogy, as you well know. Paul B (talk) 09:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
The source is fine. I do not have to find a source, since this board is about determining the value of specific sources. This specific source is fine. Your arguments are spurious. The absence of footnotes in the source has no bearing on its reliability. Wilde is mentioned in the context of a discussion of the relevant issue. The source does not present a fringe point of view, but a mainstream one. There is in practice no such thing as "Wilde studies"; there are studies of various aspects of nineteenth century culture, including literature, social attitudes etc in which Wilde's life and work are implicated. For example, an expert on Wilde's verse may well be less qualified than an expert on the sexual underworld at the time to comment on his sexual behaviour. Paul B (talk) 00:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
BTW we do not expect a reliable source to "find a source" either. Nor do we accuse them of making things up just because we feel like it. Paul B (talk) 00:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you understand how WP:FRINGE works. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you do. BTW, I am a regular contributor to the relevant board. Paul B (talk) 00:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
What is fringe about Wilde being homosexual or a pederast?
  • "Creating the Sensual Child: Paterian Aesthetics, Pederasty, and Oscar Wilde's Fairy Tales" by Naomi Wood in Marvels & Tales, Volume 16, Number 2, 2002, pp. 156-170
  • Michael Matthew Kaylor, Secreted Desires: The Major Uranians: Hopkins, Pater and Wilde (2006)

Jezhotwells (talk) 00:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The flow of conversation seems broken here, but I am responding to the above and indenting enough to make sure it's clear. From what I've seen, the actual topic under dispute is under what terms Wilde perceived his own homosexuality, not that he was homosexual in general. The sentence under dispute makes VERY specific claims. If those claims are supported by other sources that are reliable, great. Otherwise that's an indication that they are, in fact, fringe. 14:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
And please don't dismiss legitimate biographers as an "expert on verse". This individual has not proven themself an expert on -any- aspect of Wilde. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
No one has done so. Your misrepresentations are as plain as day. I gave an illustration of a general point about the nature of sourcing and expertise. Paul B (talk) 00:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Maynard is an established expert on Victorian literature and sexuality in the same. That should be good enough for Wikipedia. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

If Ottava Rima can produce sources that disagree with Maynard then please do so. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
And lets not forget that "[Wilde] thought of himself as in a tradition fostered by Greek pederastic love, expressed guilt for his same-sex acts/desires." is the statement in question. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
That is not how Fringe works. You must prove that it is the dominant view. There are dozens of biographies. You have to prove that the reliable biographies that are recognized by critics do view it as a dominant theme. Maynard is not an established expert on Wilde. He may be an expert on -Browning-, but that does not make him an expert on Wilde. The fact that you would try and claim such shows that you don't understand the field. It is clear that there are three people who aren't respecting the rules. You guys go to push this forward and I will ask AN for blocks for pushing such nonsense. Respect the rules or stop. It is clear that the source for reliable info on Wilde's biography comes from Wilde biographies. The fact that none of you seem willing to stick with them is really telling that you are not here to improve the page. My record in the articles on the field verifies my knowledge. I even have an FA on a biography of a Victorian individual that was related with pederasty. That shows that I know what I am talking about. So stop the nonsense. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Ottava Rima, kindly stop threatening other editors. I am merely pointing out that an opinion in an essay by a respected expert on Victorian literature and sexuality is a good source. There may be other opinions that counter this. If so please produce them and have both in the article. Please read up on WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Jez, you are not showing how this works. Controversial points of view must demonstrate that they are mainstream. This would require at least referencing one standard Wilde biography claiming it. The fact that you are ignoring this is really problematic and shows that you are not acting appropriately. This is a major problem. Everyone knows that biographies are build off of biographical sources. Biographical sources are not those that merely state things in passing. They are major works devoted to the topic. Please stop now. And your referring to the above is only verification of disruption. I suggest you go find a biography or don't respond. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Forgive me, personally, if I find an FA on Wikipedia slightly less impressive than a Ph.D. from Harvard and an appointment to NYU...Regardless of whatever qualifications you think you might have, you're not empowered to make these estimations without outside sources to back it up. Those are the rules to which you refer. The very idea that Oscar Wilde being homosexual or being a pederast is "controversial" is ludicrous on its very face. The briefest of glances at your edit history shows a blatant disregard for WP:CIVIL that I am sure AN would be very interested in. Your clear habit of bullying people by calling them "disruptive" and threatening AN actions against them approaches the level of ridiculousness. --CaveatLector Talk Contrib 02:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
No, you don't get it. WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:FRINGE make it clear that -you- need to provide a legitimate source and prove that it is mainstream within the field. This means that the source must be on the topic and must deal with the subject in a major manner. This is not three lines in an uncited source by a guy who has no publications on the individual. The only sources that are legitimate to make such claims are scholars who have devoted themselves to studying Wilde. That is how RS works. This is a historical individual, and historical standards apply. You must use biographies which are -historical- works when talking about a biography. If you don't like that standard, then you don't like how Wikipedia works. That FA proves that I know exactly how to measure reliable sources and it deals with this very topic. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Your understanding policy is wholly wrong for reasons that have already been given and which in your usual way you choose to ignore, preferring to repeat yourself ad nauseam. No one agrees with you. Get over it. Paul B (talk) 09:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Lets see - I have multiple FAs with one being in this very field (a Victorian biography dealing with claims of pederasty). I have also proven how this is not an expert on Wilde studies and, with the hundreds of biographies -on- Wilde, it is rather obvious that you haven't checked any of them. Every post you make like the above only verifies that you are here to disrupt. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I concur with Jezhotwells that Maynard, an academic in a good university, publishing with a university press, is a good enough source for the article on Wilde and I think this will be the consensus of uninvolved editors on this page. By the way, a physicist might very well be citable on an engineering topic. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
You honestly think three lines in a publication -not- on Wilde by a professor who does't have a background in -Wilde- is able to trump hundreds of biographies on -Wilde- by professors that study -Wilde-? There is no possible way, and to claim such is disruptive. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
It does not trump them. It agrees with them. It is you view that is fringe. You are trying to deny that Wilde qwas homosexuual with the utterly fantastical claim that "At least 50% of the critical biographies I have read state that the "attracted to men" was, at best, homoerotic and not homosexual and is based on a misunderstanding of what "Socratic/Platonic" love means (i.e. love of friends that try to help each other attain spiritual completeness)." That is an outright falsity. No recent biographer would make any such ludicrous claim. It exists entirely in your fantasy world. Paul B (talk) 16:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

First off, I understand that editors here might have had histories of personal conflict and both sides are using aggressive language, but people need to take things back a notch here, as the comments above on both sides are not helpful.

Second, this person MAY may be a reliable source (I do not know yet, leaning toward it, but would need more info), but it'd only be reliable for his own opinion. We do not present the conclusions of single sources as if they were facts, especially when they are considered controversial. The statement in question is a pretty strong one, and academics are known for making conclusions others don't agree with. Before we say that it's a fact we should have more sources. If there's any currency to this opinion then it should be trivial to find other sources saying the same thing. If not, then we either cite it as being that one guy's opinion... or maybe it is fringe and doesn't belong at all. It needs to be hammered out more.

And, seriously, this is pretty basic stuff so I'm surprised at the comments above. Maybe the hostility above made people forget our standard procedures on sources. DreamGuy (talk) 13:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy, a few months ago people were pushing pederasty across multiple pages. These people were misusing sources, violating weight, etc etc. There were blocks. This is just a redux of it with nonsense claims. They can't find the statements in actual biographies so they are trying to claim that they don't need to rely on biographies. They refuse to find another source because there are none. It almost came down to a topic ban against these individuals before but they stopped. However, it seems like they are back again. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
DreamGuy, your cooling down advice is very helpful, thank you. Ottava Rima, when you have a moment to consider, I do hope you would like to withdraw what you said above: "to claim such is disruptive". The purpose of this board is to ask uninvolved editors, interested in sourcing, to comment on the quality and appropriateness of sources. That's what I did, and it can't count as disruption. I suggest that we remember also that questions on this noticeboard are only about the suitability of sources for articles. There follows afterwards a further series of questions about whether a sources is used properly, whether it needs attributing, needs balancing etc. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Itsmejudith, your blatant disregard for standards has no place here. You cannot make an argument claiming that a source that is not an expert on a field with only three lines has some validity to trump biographies devoted to the subject. Furthermore, itsmejudith, this belonged on the -fringe- noticeboard, not reliable sourcing, and anyone with a clue would realize that it has everything to do with that subject. You can claim all you want about this noticeboard, but your comments are absurd and improper. WP:FRINGE applies to the reliability of a source to make a claim within a topic, and, as DreamGuy pointed out, this can only be taken as the opinion as the author and only as the author. As such, RS is a secondary component to Fringe and should be dealt with appropriately. You would have to know that if you truly understand what these noticeboards are about and what the policies are about. As such, your comments are highly inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Uhhh...does the cited claim raise any WP:REDFLAGs to anyone else? FRINGE and all that aside. I can agree that Maynard is reliable enough to talk about Wilde but I can't agree that he is reliable enough to anchor the claim that Wilde was a pederast. Is there another source that makes a similar claim or a review article that addresses his claim? Protonk (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Protonk - there are only a few sources that do, and most claim that Wilde's "Socratic love" was a claim of pederasty. I have many major biographies that explain how the "Socratic love" deals with "Platonic love", which means non-sexual and deals with education and spirituality. So, the foundation of it is very wrong. (and the one citation used to claim that Wilde had a gay love affair is amusingly misused in the article as the quote even makes it claim that they never had any sexual contact). Ottava Rima (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Agree with you completely, Protonk. Maynard goes nowhere near saying "Wilde was a pederast". In fact he says "we are all social constructionists now", and the main thrust of his argument is that sexual orientations are constructed within the cultural and social contexts of their time. Maynard's chapter is in no way whatsoever a fringe text. It is serious academic work and can be used. But if it is used due care must be shown for its complex set of arguments. It must not be quoted out of context or treated as if it was a collection of facts. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
"It is serious academic work and can be used" - No. Publisher does not make something not fringe. Fringe is based on its point of view among the majority of works. Maynard promotes the idea of pederasty on these biographies. That is in the minority of -Queer Theory-, let alone -all- literary theory. It is not grounded in fact nor evidence. He is not a biographer of Wilde. There is no way to claim he is an expert on Wilde, and the fact that you would to claim otherwise is a severe promoting of something that clearly goes against our policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
And Itsmejudith, please don't make directly false claims like you do above claiming that "Maynard goes nowhere near saying 'Wilde was a pederast'." It has already been shown that Maynard wrote that Wilde "thought of himself as in a tradition fostered by Greek pederastic love". It is very clear that Maynard is promoting that Wilde is a pederast while not having any background in Wilde or having any legitimate way to claim such. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
What does "pederast" mean anyway? I mean today, to recent writers such as Maynard and to contributors to this encyclopedia? Surely it's widely agreed that Wilde was romantically/sexually attracted to men (alongside being married of course). After all, he was convicted of homosexual activity in a British court. But there is no suggestion - in Maynard or anywhere else that I know of - that he was attracted to boys, the other sense of the term coming down to us from Ancient Greece. The current sentence in the article attributed to Maynard seems fine. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
At least 50% of the critical biographies I have read state that the "attracted to men" was, at best, homoerotic and not homosexual and is based on a misunderstanding of what "Socratic/Platonic" love means (i.e. love of friends that try to help each other attain spiritual completeness). His conviction does not prove he was homosexual, nor is there any way to claim such. There are many arguments that say he was convicted of being homosexual merely because he was an Irishman who had strong Catholic sympathies, and the laws against Catholics were toned down enough so they accused a man with two kids of being gay merely to persecute him. Pederasty has nothing to do with being a normal gay man. It has everything to do with a man who has sex with males under the age of 18. That is the use of pederasty by Maynard and the use of pederasty by most critics who use the term. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Trust me. I don't treat anything that can trace its lineage to Lacan as a collection of facts. Protonk (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I didn't think you would, Protonk.
Ottava Rima, your latest post clarifies your position for me. It does seem to revolve around the multiple meanings of "pederasty". This word has had a long and very chequered history, as I'm sure you know. In Ancient Greece it had a whole series of meanings that our article pederasty in Ancient Greece starts to unpick. Then by the 1890s it had another usage (= homosexual). To complicate things, Oscar Wilde, as a literary person, was well acquainted with the Ancient Greek concept as it was understood in his day - he didn't have the opportunity to read Foucault (pity). Finally, there are the meanings the word may have today.
You take it as given that it is identical to "paedophile". I wouldn't say so. I agree that today we distinguish rigorously between "normal" gay sexuality and paedophilia (which may be heterosexual or homosexual). Therefore most people writing today if they mean "paedophilia" that's what they say. They don't say "pederasty" because it is no longer a term in regular everyday use, let alone in academic use, let alone in use by academics defending a social constructionist viewpoint. So when Maynard says that Wilde identified with the Greek tradition of pederasty, that is precisely what he means. He knows - and expects his readers to know - that Wilde understood that the relationships that the ancient Greeks celebrated were meant to be a meeting of minds. There is no way that I can construe his text to mean "Wilde was a paedophile", no way at all. And I don't think that many people who are used to reading literary criticism will accept that reading either. Having said that ... Wikipedia is not just meant for people used to reading literary criticism. It is read by many, including those who think that "pederast" is a synonym for "paedophile". Therefore, I don't think it is appropriate to mention anything from Maynard about "pederasty", because it could be misconstrued. That leaves the question of whether the article should say that Wilde was gay or bisexual. You say that 50% of biographies say he wasn't. Presumably then 50% say he was. The standard solution is to give a sourced summary of both views. The irony is that Maynard, currently the source for Wilde being gay or bisexual, is specifically arguing against the application of such categories. Whatever, IMO Maynard is RS for this article, which was the point originally brought here. Whether and how his text is used is a question for the talk page, or for RfC if you can't agree. Hope this helps (!) Itsmejudith (talk) 22:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
"your latest post clarifies your position for me. It does seem to revolve around the multiple meanings of "pederasty"." This quote right there verifies that you do not understand the Pederasty Critical Analysis movement within Queer Theory Criticism. As such, the rest of your statement is meaningless. Pedophiles are not pederasts. Pedophilia deals with little children. Pederasty deals with pubescent boys. Your claims about what Maynard is saying is not even close to what Maynard claims nor is it pertinent at all. Maynard in his work is very specific that he is talking about Wilde wanting to have sex with young teen boys. It is impossible to state otherwise. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
It is totally wrong to take a passing mention of a person in an article that is not about him and use it as a source. I come across that sort of thing all the time. Someone wants to put information into an article then does a google search to find support. I can understand why Ottava Rima is upset. If you want to learn about Wilde, read a book or article about him and, if it is an RS use it as a source. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
This comment mrerely displays a misunderstanding of the source and an uncritical acceptance of OR's tendentious version of events. It is not a passing mention in an irrelevant article. It is a summary of accepted opinion in an article on attitudes to sexuality in the period. A specialist on this spubject is entirely appropriate as a source and nothing he says is controversial or fringe. Paul B (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Either cite the sources Maynard uses on Wilde to make the claim or strike the above as a complete fabrication. I have looked through the article four times and there are no sources and no possible way for you to claim the above. You do realize that directly fabricating information is a violation of WP:CIVIL, right? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Are you completely irrational? The author does not need to use footnotes to make his claims. His authority and the authority of the publication is the source of the information as far asWP is concerned. Paul B (talk) 08:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes it's very important that our biographical articles should mainly be written up from biographies specifically about those authors. And I do recognise the phenomenon of people scrabbling around for a source for some point they want to push. What we may have come across here is the limitations of this noticeboard. Here, you will be able to find people who understand what a scholarly source is in general. Only with a lot of luck will you find that combined with a detailed knowledge of a subfield within a subfield. So you probably need to take the content dispute back to the article talk page, for now. Or an RfC, or ask for advice within a project. More than one project - I don't think in this case it would count as forum shopping. I don't think anything I have said was disruptive. With all the anger around, it seems to have needed a fool stepping in where angels feared to tread to arrive at this point, where we have a much clearer spelling out of the objections to the use of Maynard's text. For info, I am taking out a user RfC on Ottava Rima, after a heated discussion on the Wikiquette alerts board and multiple threats of bans and blocks. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Admittedly I haven't had coffee yet this morning, but I find it difficult to figure out who is saying what and why. Can we graph it out on the article talk page (i.e. text from source and quote on page?) and then vote on it? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

This was the removed diff. This is where it came from. The diff is making the claim that Oscar Wilde was a pederast, which hundreds of biographies argue over if he is gay and -none- of them claim that he had a desire to have sex with young boys let alone acted on it. The source of the statement is not from a biographer on Wilde nor, as you can see from above, is there a source from a biographer on Wilde, to verify such claims. The guy has no experience in Wilde studies. To "vote" on it would be to go against multiple policies. I have already submitted evidence to you and to ArbCom that at least part of this is being furthered by people simply intent on disrupting. It is obvious that this is a non-issue being pushed for a reason that is not for the betterment of the encyclopedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Paul B, I don't need to read a lot about this to form an opinion. You are trying to insert a comment on an article about Victorian poetry into the article about Oscar Wilde. If the comment is true then it would appear in biographical material. Wilde was hardly an obscure person and there are countless sources you can draw from. On the other hand if your source is in error there is no way of knowing because it does not cite its source. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Four Deuces, you are merely displaying your unfamiliarity with this topic. Firstly, I am not trying to insert anything. Ottava Rima is trying to remove a source weitten by this person. My activity is confined to comments on this board. Secondly, the article is not essentially about "victorian poetry", though why it should be a problem if it were, I do not know. Wilde is a Victorian poet. It is about sexuality in the period, on which this author is leading expert. Thirdly, a reliable source does not need to cite its source. That's nonsensical. It is the source. The scholar does the synthesis, having looked at the evidence. Every sentence in an academic publication does not have to be cited to another academic publication. We'd get into infinite regress if we adopted that point of view. Many reliable sources such as encylopedias do not use footnotes at all. Others use them sparingly. I am currently correcting an article I have written for the Cambridge Companion to the Pre-Raphaelites. The editor has specifically asked me to minimise the number of footnotes. This is entirely normal. Paul B (talk) 08:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

(outside opinion) It does seem to me that if Maynard is merely summarizing accepted opinion it should be easy to find several sources that make the same claim. If no such reliable sources are available then any claim by Maynard about what tradition Wilde thought he came from is a 'singular opinion', which is less than a minority opinion and would be undue in this article.--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it's not hard to find sources that see Wilde's sexuality as pederastic. One such is Michael S. Foldy, The Trials of Oscar Wilde: Deviance, Morality, and Late-Victorian Society, Yale University Press 1997. I quote at length from p. 119: "It is apparent from the trial testimony that Wilde preferred having sex, not with men his own age, but with young men who were usually somewhere between the ages of seventeen to twenty-two. Technically then, Wilde could, and perhaps should, be viewed as a pederast. Defined very broadly, pederasty signals the love of an older man for a younger man. It is important to note, however, that by late-Victorian standards, a young man of sixteen or seventeen years old, especially one of the working classes, would have been considered a fully emancipated adult. I believe that Wilde's behavior with Charles Parker, Wood, and the other young men can be best understood if his sexuality is discussed within the aesthetic context of the ancient Athenian discourse on male homosocial desire and in terms of his personal 'ontological aesthetic of dissent.' As a prize-winning classicist at Trinity and Oxford, Wilde had been weaned academically on the culture of ancient Greece and Rome, and was thoroughly steeped in its virtues." (Foldy goes on to summarize David Halperin on ancient Greek pederasty, and claims that it was a model for Wilde's behavior.) You can find this text at Google Books: "oscar wilde" pederasty&ots=PwzDr_nZNZ&sig=66cWrhOoZNEDi6at2rrJoMDGSek#v=onepage&q= pederasty&f=false. Notice that Foldy does not bluntly label Wilde a pederast, but rather is interested in the cultural background of Wilde's sexuality (including the influence of Wilde's classical education). --Akhilleus (talk) 03:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
That source has been dismissed as wrong when it was pointed out by many critics that Wilde said that he had a Platonic belief, which meant that there could be no sexual interpretation. The excerpt of the trial on the biography page makes that very clear. There is no admittance to having sex so an author cannot claim that the trial testimony claims that he preferred to have sex with anyone. The previous page, 118, states "he wanted to keep the homosexual aspects of his life private and hidden" and that Wilde was "lying in the witness box". As such, that directly contradicts what he claims in the next page. Self contradictory sources that are fringe are not reliable. He also claims that Wilde cites the Symposium's discussion of Pederasty when the actual reference is to Diotima's speech, which the author later verifies by admitting that it is actually talking about "Platonic love". He blatantly conflates the two in order to push his argument. The logical holes and outright falsehoods in the source only verify that it is not a reliable source.
Don't take my word for it. From reviews - Deborah Wiggins in ["Having no evidnece with which to continue this thread, Foldy proceeds to fabricate a convoluted tale of blackmail, influence, and murder. This is fantastic, indeed." Law and History Review] "Having no evidnece with which to continue this thread, Foldy proceeds to fabricate a convoluted tale of blackmail, influence, and murder. This is fantastic, indeed."
Martha M. Ertman Law & Social Inquiry, "At its strongest, the book is a compelling expose of government blackmail and a detailed portrait of how a private tragedy became a catalyst in the social construction of sexuality. At its weakest, it represents what Joyce Carol Oats has called pathography, or the spurious portrait of a person through ones despised character traits." and "If, as I suggest, Wilde's significance for many contemporary readers lies, at least in part, in the way his story resonates with post-identity understanding of sexual orientation... then the extent to which Foldy's approach coheres with queer theory is an appropriate measure of the effectiveness of the volume. In this light, Foldy's work falters when he abandons post-identity social construction analysis, instead reverting to an interpretation of same-sex sexuality as a sickness when he ambitiously tries to reconstruct how Wilde himself viewed his deviance. Just as the statute criminalizing gross indecency focused on sexual conduct, Foldy constructs an elaborate speculation about Wilde's view of his own deviance, assuming with little or no evidence that Wilde engaged in anal penetration to express what Foldy dubs his 'ontological aesthetic of dissent'... He also describes Wilde as a 'pervert'"
William A. Cohen Victorian Studies "Foldy presents evidence for the gradual emergency of 'the homosexual' from earlier formations of sodomy without reconciling the apparent contradictions between this argument and the one that Wilde's case produced the transformation... Foldy's study is caught between the Scylla of an anachronistic 'homophobia' and the Charybdis of a superannuated 'sodomy'... he himself appropriates Wilde to the contemporary 'homophobia' model. At the same time, a number of imprecisions mar the historical clarity Foldy seeks to bring to the matter, beginning with the text's second sentence, which states that 'the alleged crime' of which Wilde was accused was 'sodomy'"
Need I continue? I have many more debunking that horrible source. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh, blah. I can find favorable reviews of Foldy's work (just start at the book's webpage on the Yale U. Press site). I could also point out that some of the reviews you just quoted accept that the trial record tells us that Wilde engaged in sexual conduct, such as Cohen's: "Although Wilde's trials were the most widely reported vehicle to date for disseminating information about sex between men,..." And really, the idea that a "Platonic belief" means "that there could be no sexual interpretation" beggars belief--as indeed, I'm sure many scholars who study Wilde, Victorian sexuality, or Plato would tell you. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Please note that there is a difference between trial records and Wilde's own testimony. Other people testified that there was homosexual conduct. I would recommend you read Diotima's speech in the symposium for the lack of sexual contact. The wiki page is incomplete but shows the emphasis on the intellectual over the physical. Now, I have only given excerpts from the first three reviews on Jstor. They all point out the intellectual dishonesty in his process and method, where he gets things wrong, and where he promotes a homophobic agenda during discussions of sexuality, which suggest an inappropriate bias. Now, for reviews that could be seen as positive to the work:
Melissa Knox, in Journal of the History of Sexuality does provide a positive review but does not go into the work. Instead, she merely says that the book is a welcome addition to scholarship.
Judith Fingard, The American Journal of Legal History: Says the "book is a valuable addition ... as we approach the one hundredth anniversary of his death and as the gay rights movement embraces him as the first modern victim of homophobia" and "The resulting moral panic remained the prevalent public response until the decriminalization of homosexuality in the 1860s" Suggest a biased view. However, even this author glosses over the claims of pederasty by saying "The author then explores Wilde's decadent aesthetic, his debt to the classics for his class-based sexual exploitation of young men", but not Pederasty. Notice that in even an article that is favored towards the writer that the term is ignored.
Frank Moliterno Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies]: For the events of the trial, "It is a tantalizing theory, but Foldy admits that it is based on circumstantial evidence. No documentation exists". The article points out how it is applying of theory to speculate a claim.
All of these works point out that there is little evidence backing up his claims about Wilde as being "factual" instead of "speculative", and half of them point out that he was making claims he had no grounds to make. While they appreciate his advancement of -theory-, this is not about speculation and the theory of homosexuality in a 21st century perspective. Instead, this is a biography that deals with the factual history of his life. Queer Theory is a minority within academia, and a minority within biographies on Wilde. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for providing links to all these reviews. Surely one thing these reviews demonstrate is that Foldy's book has not been ignored. Also, I think that you are misinterpreting some of these reviews. For instance, Moliterno's review, which is generally positive, does say "It is a tantalizing theory, but Foldy admits that it is based on circumstantial evidence. No documentation exists"--but Moliterno is talking about Foldy's conjecture that the death of Lord Alfred Douglas's brother, Francis_Douglas,_Viscount_Drumlanrig was a suicide, spurred on by the impending revleation of his relationship with the Prime Minister Lord Rosebery. Moliterno doesn't say that Foldy's entire work is speculative, but only a particular aspect of it; in fact, he begins the last paragraph of his review by saying "Foldy's book is a valuable resource for historians of the Wilde era." That's hardly a debunking, a demonstration that Foldy is a "horrible source", or an accusation of intellectual dishonesty.
You're quite right to point out that these reviewers don't use the term pederasty. My guess is that most who write about Wilde will talk about homosexuality, sodomy, same-sex desire, and so forth. However, the reason I quoted Foldy in this thread is to demonstrate that Maynard is not alone in connecting pederasty to Wilde. Perhaps more importantly, let's return to the disputed text from Oscar Wilde: "Wilde himself felt he belonged to a culture of male love inspired by the Greek paederastic tradition"--I don't really like the way this is worded, but it indicates that ancient Greek thinking about male love was important to Wilde's own sexuality, and this is something that Maynard and Foldy both discuss, and something that other scholars discuss as well, for instance, Linda Dowling's Hellenism and Homosexuality in Victorian Oxford.
By the way, I know Diotima's speech quite well. And yes, "the love that dare not speak its name" is supposed to be a pure, spiritual affection. You can take that at face value if you wish, but not everyone does! --Akhilleus (talk) 04:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
None of the reviews discuss where the source claims that Wilde was a pederast. What the reviews do is discuss his -method-. This is key. As I have pointed out, even the positive ones show that his method is to promote Queer Theory, is mostly theory based, and filled with conjecture on items that he cannot know. This is not a biography or a history book. This is a philosophy book. There is enough in both positive and negative reviews to establish that this individual does not have a basis to make such claims about sexuality. Also, your statement that "You can take that at face value" is exactly the problem - people are assuming one way or another on things that lack information. That is not scientific or appropriate. That is where a work transitions from fact into opinion. "it indicates that ancient Greek thinking about male love" - there is no proof of such. There is only conjecture. As I have shown in the references, this can never be known. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of rumors that are held in the minority of scholarship. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

How to deal with scientific papers from the 1800s?

This has come up at Boiling frog; basically, contemporary scientists say frogs behave one way, while some papers from the late 1800s/early 1900s say another. There is one contemporary newspaper source commenting on studies from the 1800s[45] but an editor now questions on the talk page why this is used instead of the original Nature article from 1873. Any advice? Siawase (talk) 05:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be cool to discuss what old science sources said, and then what new ones say about them. A history section, and it should prevent any OR problems. There may be some rules I don't know about, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
The modern papers do not replicate the old experiments, because they boil the frogs over 9X as quickly. This was mentioned in the article before somebody removed it, calling this calculation original research. The Atlantic article used an 1873 news article that cited an 1869 paper in which frogs jumped when they are heated to disprove the boiling frog story in general (which is not what the 1873 article intended to do), but ignored or missed other research from that era that supports the story. But my comment was more general annoyance with the practice of citing the popular press instead of journals when they are appropriate and freely available.Rsheridan6 (talk) 06:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I love this: "German physiologist Friedrich Goltz demonstrated in 1869 that a frog will indeed remain in slowly heated water, but only if its brain is removed." I wonder who funded that groundbreaking study. Seriously, I would suggest that material is presented chronologically. It would also be interesting to know if the early studies created the story, or if the story predated them. The Victorian experiments are interesting for their historical significance, but it is very difficult to say whether they can still be taken at face value. Unfortunately there is no clear answer to the question of time limits on RSs. I think the sensible solution is present this as an unfolding history of ideas rather than a conflict between sources. The text as it now stands is barely intelligable. Paul B (talk) 11:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
When using historic sources modern reinterpretation is needed because the context and language changes. However the 1800s is not far enough back that this necsarily is an issue. If using old scientific papers, then we should refer modern sources as well in order to document current scientific consensus. Taemyr (talk) 11:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
The argument here is that modern experiments do not discredit the earlier ones, since the methods differed significantly. The context of the brain removal, is of course the creation of convusive movement in dead frogs following Galvini's experiments. I suggest that context is what is needed. Paul B (talk) 11:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, the context is the topic of the article - an anecdotal urban legend type story, which in simple terms lay out an everyday scenario of one frog thrown in a boiling pot and another frog in a pot with the heat on low. It does not describe a controlled laboratory environment where a meticulously designed scientific experiment is performed. Rsheridan6 appers to want to use the 19th century science papers to verify the anecdotal story as "true", ie this edit summary "Another source stating that the story is true"[46] which to me seems very problematic as they are completely different beasts. Siawase (talk) 14:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I want to use the papers to show that the story is true because the papers show that the story is true, or at least verifiable. It's not just an urban legend, it's the result of scientific research which was forgetten, and then called an urban legend by people with poor literature searching skills who couldn't find the reference. The papers I cited did not precisely describe a controlled laboratory environment because they are review papers. If that's the standard we need, none of the sources quoted in the veracity section, pro or con, meet it, and they should all be deleted. The original experiment where the normal frog allowed itself to be heated to death is here [47], behind a pay wall and in German, if anyone wants to clear this up some more. Rsheridan6 (talk) 14:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
My point is that the "urban legend" either predated the experiments of the 1860s or was created by them. This is the historical context that would be useful. I appreciate that editors are unlikely to know the answer to this question, but that would be the ideal solution. The article in The Atlantic strongly implies that the story originated as a result of Goltz's experiments ("he begat the familiar story of the slowly-boiled frog"). I am suggesting that the science should be integrated into the history of the story. Goltz was demonstrating that even a brainless frog will react to direct contact with hot water - that this bodily reaction does not need to be decided upon by the brain. There is nothing to suggest that the hot water in the experiment is "boiling". A frog dropped in boiling hot water would die before it could jump out. The way the story is presented in the current article just confuses matters. We can surely show how and in what context the story is "true" and when it is "false". It depends on the variant of the story that is told. Paul B (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, Nobody here has been able to find a reference to the story before those experiments circa 1870. As for the Atlantic, I'm saying that it's wrong - the origin of the story was not Goltz's experiment, but Heinzmann's 3 years later. Your point that there was never any boiling water used in the experiments is true (the frog would have died long before gradually heated water reached the boiling point), but, on the other hand, if you continued heating the water to boiling after the frog died, we can safely assume it wouldn't jump out. Rsheridan6 (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that The Atlantic is wrong, since Goltz's experiments started the debate on the issue. It's just that they don't have the full information. That's all the more reason to present events coherently. The quoted scientists who "debunk" the story by saying that dropping a from in boiling water will kill it are right. It's just that they are right about an exaggerated version of the story rather than the facts on which it is based. It's also worth noting that the current lede states "The premise of the story is not literally true", while the article content contradicts this assertion. Paul B (talk) 15:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Reverted the lead to re-add "According to contemporary biologists" as context for that sentence. Also, note the deliberate ambiguity of "an actual frog submerged and gradually heated will jump out" - it takes into account Melton's assertion that the frog will jump regardless of temperature: "it will jump before it gets hot — they don't sit still for you". I think clarifying the 19th century sources in the article itself will make it easier to summarize them to add those to the lead too. Siawase (talk) 00:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
One more thing about the truth of the story - I mentioned truth on the talk page, but in the actual article there's just a description of the experiment from which this story derives, and a quote from a scientist explaining why different experiments show different results, both cited from scholarly publications. I think it's satisfactory the way it is - the reader can make up his/her own mind. Even if it is true, the so-called debunking and James Fallows' jihad against it is part of the story. Rsheridan6 (talk) 15:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
The research was about figuring out which functions belong to the brain and which ones are spinal reflexes. Not really very silly if you ask me, and their actual results were not obvious if you look closely at them (a brainless frog moves if you put just its foot in the water, but not if you put its whole body in the water). As for whether they can be taken at face value, I don't see why not. They had thermometers back then, and clocks, water, and pots. That's really all you need to do this experiment. Nobody has attempted to properly replicate the experiment (see my earlier comment about how the modern debunker heated the water 9X as fast), so I don't see why they shouldn't be taken as the last word. It's not like these were medieval alchemists. Rsheridan6 (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
As you can see from the above, I am aware of the purpose of the research. My original comment was a joke. The point is that this is exactly the context that is needed, not a lot of fragments that present a pro and con "argument". In the current article Goltz is just thrown in absurdly and Heinzmann's name appears out of nowhere. Paul B (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Publications from before 1900 should, for the most part, be treated as primary sources - they are reliable only in claiming that they claim something. They should only be used as distinguishing opinion and not fact. If there is some uncontroversial information, then it would not be a problem. However, science based articles should only use them when discussing them in history or putting forth older opinions. They should not be held as fact but can help distinguish notability as long as they are independent from the topic (so, a paper by Newton is not a proof of Newton's notability). Ottava Rima (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Ottava Rima: I agree with you in principle, but in practice how do you copy-edit to reflect that? Add "such-and-such claimed" in front of every sentence? It would be great if you (or anyone else interested) would take a look at Boiling frog#Biological background as it appears now (Rsheridan6 just cleaned up and clarified the 19th century coverage greatly) and give input on how the 19th century sources are represented. Siawase (talk) 11:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
The current version of the article seems fine to me... it discusses the various claims and theories in chronological order, which places them in an historical context (which was essentially Ottava's point). Blueboar (talk) 12:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_44&oldid=1136438468"