Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 46

Archive 40

←

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

→

Archive 50

Sources for special meaning of the word "outlaw"

Resolved

 – no discernible RS question

From the article Outlaw motorcycle club:

The word outlaw carries a specific meaning within this subculture that is different from the mainstream use of the word. It does not imply criminal intent, but rather means the club is not sanctioned by the American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) and does not adhere to the AMA's rules, but instead, generally, the club enforces a set of bylaws on its members that derive from the values of the outlaw biker culture.

Are two sources given sufficient citation for the special use of the word "outlaw" by those who call themselves "outlaw motorcycle clubs"? On the talk page the objection was raised that Dulaney and Drew have a "personal stake" in the issue. As far as I know, their only stake is that they write on motorcycling topics, which is to be expected of anyone who could possibly be a reliable source on this.

If not, what would be a reliable source to explain what "outlaw motorcycle club" means? --Dbratland (talk) 00:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll post here to try to keep this all in one place. A.J. Drew is a pagan author and rider/self-proclaimed member of a one-percenter club (that he never actually names). If we assume good faith, then his book is actually hard to claim has able to really truly say what the word "outlaw" implies to people not of the Outlaw MC subculture. Dulaney is a noted professor and great author who readilly admits his self interest in the subject, and this would still be fine, but the noted reference doesn't say what it is being purported to say. The jump of logic that is used to utilize his writing as a reference with this statement constitutes OR. It should be noted that the user wishing to keep this in has a history of contributions of a pro-"one percenter/outlaw biker" stance and anti-"99 percenter" stance, as can be seen via his contributions. I do not mean to imply anything via this statement, just that the user may not be able to look at this particular issue from the proper perspective. Hooper (talk) 00:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a problem of sourcing, but of misleading writing. In normal usage, the word "outlaw" doesn't imply criminal intent, but rather it refers to the status of being shunned or exiled, and often nowadays with a glamorous overtone.

For instance. Shorter Oxford:

One put outside the law and deprived of its benefits and protection; one under sentence of outlawry. b. More vaguely, An exile, a fugitive.

Merriam-Webster's online dictionary has a similar definition.

The outlaw motorcyclists need not fear being mistaken for bank robbers or muggers. Being an "Outlaw" doesn't mean you're up to no good. --TS 00:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree to a bit, and tried this diff version as a better wording and to lose the information that really isn't needed. Thoughts? Hooper (talk) 00:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello. A.J. Drew is unreliable because he isn't a Christian? Is that the issue? And what is the source for the accusation that he is in an outlaw (or criminal club)? He was a member of the Harley Owners Group, according to his bio on his book. Where are you getting your information?

I've added three more sources saying "outlaw" is intended to mean disassociation from the AMA. I have no objection to improving the wording of the article to make clear that these clubs use "outlaw" to mean one thing while the normal sense of the word is different. --Dbratland (talk) 01:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

With regard to Hooper's passing comment, I am unaware of any formal "One Percenter" motorcycle club. One percenter is a term within North American motorcycle culture that arose several decades ago from an AMA statement that 99% of motorcyclists are upstanding citizens. In reaction, various individuals started adding "1%" patches to their jackets and "one percenter" became a catchall designation for a certain type of rider. Durova³²² 18:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

That version of the one percenter story is apocryphal, as the article explains. The term was actually a garbled retelling of these letters to Life magazine in response to this photo. The AMA spokesman quoted does admit that it doesn't matter that the AMA never said that -- everyone thinks they did and the story reveals a certain amount of truth about both bikers and the AMA. All of which I consider a lot more encyclopedic (and interesting) than these articles we currently have which merely report every time a biker is arrested anywhere, as if Wikipedia were nothing but a lot of crime news. --Dbratland (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, the Hollister incident and its aftermath is at the root of the thing. You may be right about the element of misattribution in the term's original genesis, but the point is that I'm unaware of any formal club that uses the term in its name. Durova³²² 20:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance of motorcycle culture and jargon, but I believe that in general usage "outlaw motorcycle club" is synonymous with "outlaw motorcycle gang". Saying that these clubs are not sanctioned by the American Motorcycle Association seems to ignore the worldwide nature of outlaw motorcycle clubs (and gangs). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delicious carbuncle (talk • contribs) 19:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed! The central point is that when these groups call themselves outlaws they are not intentionally admitting to being criminals. That's all that's being said here. While non-bikers, the media, and law enforcement authorities have their opinions -- which are well represented in the article -- the bikers themselves define the word in a special way. It is not meant to argue one way or there other for the truth of what they are or are not. The point is just to enlighten readers that within this subculture's own jargon, the word has a particular definition. The article has lots of negative information about outlaw bikers, but it should not be turned into an attack page, and if multiple sources (I've given five so far, and will be happy to add more) state the jargon means a certain thing, then telling readers what the jargon means is encyclopedic. --Dbratland (talk) 19:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that if the general public sees "outlaw motorcycle club" as synonymous with "outlaw motorcycle gang", then the article should reflect that. That wouldn't make it an "attack page", just an accurate one. The fact that within the community the term may be used differently should be noted, but right now the article uses a lot of words in the introduction to distinguish these theoretically non-criminal "outlaw" clubs from the more common understanding of outlaw clubs. It is only much later in the page that there is a section describing "outlaw motorcycle gangs". This section misrepresents the nomenclature used by law enforcement. I think you will agree that the news media generally uses "outlaw motorcycle club" to mean the same as "outlaw motorcycle gang". Wouldn't you? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Ideally, a neutrally-written article should tell the reader both what the general public thinks, and what the subject has to say for themselves. Now, if you have sources that show the actual criminal "outlaw motorcycle clubs/gangs" outnumber the non-criminal ones, please cite them. I'd be thrilled to include that kind of data in the article. The sources I've read seems to lean the other way: there are more "wanna-bes" and poesurs who join so-called "outlaw" clubs, wear the outfits and act tough, but only very few of these clubs are real criminal gangs like the Bandidos or Pagans. Best guess is that there are around 4,000 Hells Angels worldwide [1] while attendance at the Sturgis rally alone, where the "outlaw" image is the norm, exceeds 100 times that number [2]. But seriously, if you have good data on this question, be bold! Edit it into the article. All help is most welcome.

Note that yesterday I added this charity events section to try to bring in further balance. There's plenty more that needs to be done. --Dbratland (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The charity events section only serves to further cloud the issue by presenting these mythical non-criminal outlaw clubs as distinct from the "outlaw gangs", something which is done throughout the article and is also beginning to stray into related articles. The very definition of the word "outlaw", as shown above, involves a rejection of the law. The apparently mistaken origin of the 1%er term comes from the percentage of bikers who are not "law-abiding citizens". Ideally, a neutrally-written article doesn't get co-opted by those who want to distort public perception, but it can happen if people let it. There's a place for your minority viewpoint in the article, but it should be noted that it is a minority viewpoint. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The media calls Brother Speed an "outlaw" club [3], and they accept this title -- by the definition I've cited. Yet there is not a shred of evidence that Brother Speed is a criminal organization. Brother Speed is perhaps the poster child for guilt by association.

Almost from the moment of my first edit on these motorcycle gang/club articles, I've been under constant criticism from both pro- and anti- outlaw motorcycle partisans, each saying my edits are biased in favor of the other side, each assuming I must be either a cop or a gang member. So I think I must be doing something right.--Dbratland (talk) 21:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Your statements are simply untrue. The article you linked says of Brother Speed: "Most of the victims belonged to the Brother Speed motorcycle club, officials said. The Oregonian reported that the group is identified by the state's Department of Justice as an outlaw biker gang". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes? And? If you have any evidence that Brother Speed is a criminal organization, please post it at Talk:Brother Speed or add it to the article. It's probably my fault this has gotten so far off topic. I really only want a clear answer my original WP:RS question.--Dbratland (talk) 22:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I just gave you a quote from a reliable source which states that Oregon's Department of Justice considers Brother Speed to be an outlaw biker gang. Note that it says "outlaw biker gang" not, as you misrepresented above, "outlaw club". You inserted a paragraph about a general term which most readers would interpret as pertaining to Brother Speed - in essence, you were negating the perception that they are deemed to be a criminal organisation. Why you did this is unclear since references already present in the article clearly identify Brother Speed as an "outlaw motorcycle gang". Why do think I need to bring this for discussion in the article's talk page? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not interested in supporting a wikicrusade to present outlaw MCs in any light, whether favorable or inflammatory. Let us just have NPOV articles on them. These additions and arguments are stretching and grasping and arguably OR and overly-pro on the subject. Hooper (talk) 23:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

From The Oregonian "Police define outlaw motorcycle clubs as gangs that band together, often with bylaws enforced by violence, and periodically commit crimes". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing of band genres

A discussion is going on at Talk:Nightwish#Genres.2C_part_2 about what would be an appropriate way to source the genre of a band. Is a single review enough? As this is potentially a wider issue than just at this article, I'm interested in getting the opinions of a wider audience. —Ruud 10:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the number of sources necessary to make a specific statement seems to be a question beyond the scope of this noticeboard. Gabbe (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The discussion I linked to is one specific instance of a more general problem which repeatedly appears at a large number of articles, so I don't think "specific statement" really applies. I'm also looking more for a qualitative than a quantitative answer. —Ruud 16:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that this is beyond the scope of this noticeboard.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

If only one source mentions the genre of the band, then examine the quality of that source, and perhaps wonder why other sources don't mention it. If other sources give a different genre, then you should either report both sides or go with what the majority of reliable sources say. Refer closely to WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

If one source mentions a genre, that's OK. If their choice is a little different that what you'd consider the genre of the band, then attribute. "Source X described band B as style G". Where articles run into problems is when they get five different sources each describing a band as a different but overlapping genre. That leads to edit conflicts. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the main problem here is in infoboxes which list the genre(s) of bands, musicians or the particular work which is the topic of the article: these genre classifications are sometimes cited but often not, and in many articles they are frequently changed. If every genre label ever applied to a particular artist is listed in the infobox it can get a bit silly sometimes. Allmusic.com is generally accepted as a reliable source for most Wikipedia purposes, but their artist pages have the headings "Genre" which appears to list almost everything as "Pop/Rock" and "Styles" which can include several subgenres. In the article prose it may be appropriate to mention and attribute differing views where applicable, but we can't (or shouldn't) write whole paragraphs in the infoboxes. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 03:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Campaign Materials

OK, here's a question for the Reliable Source Gurus. I'm working on keeping Gerald Ford as a FA, and need a call on a source. The source is thus:

• "A Lifetime of Achievement". 4President.org. Retrieved 2009-09-29.

And purports to be a copy of Ford's 1976 campaign flyer. It includes, among other items, a brief biography that fleshes out some details about Ford's youth and family. Since this is essentially the candidate making statements about himself, how authoritative is it? Is it reliable enough about the claims it makes? Or should it be taken entirely with a grain of salt, since its purpose is to influence? Any insight is appreciated. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

4president.org doesn't have an about section. It isn't an archival repository. Given the passage of time (20 years) the incidents have lapsed into history. SELF's reasonable citations have lapsed into PRIMARY sources. In this context, cite from a secondary source, preferably an academic work (though in this case, a book from a commentator outside the academic system but within the professional system of US politics would be fine). Then illustrate (ie: not verify, but expand or illuminate) the citation using the primary source. Sadly, 4president.org is not a reliable provider of primary sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The site gets 35 gbooks hits from books written by well known scholars and authors. So its reliability does not seem so bad. It seems good enough as a source for Ford's old campaign materials, which of course fall under self-publication or primary sources and should be used as we usually use them. If it says something extraordinary, attribute, if something humdrum that clarifies secondarily sourced material, maybe not.John Z (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with John Z more than Fifelfoo. I disagree with the whole presumption on Wikipedia that secondary sources are so great and primary sources are terrible and shouldnt be used. We need to change our idea on that and put each in their place. Primary sources are MORE reliable generally than secondary as they are closer in time and knowledge regarding the event/people in question; secondary sources are sometimes written by idiots who pretend to know what they are talking about in order to sell books and push their agenda. Use primary sources to VERIFY that a secondary source is truly using the information it presents without pushing an agenda. Use secondary sources to put primary source information into context. Since Wikipedia has regulations regarding synth and OR we cant use primary sources and draw conclusions, even though YES THAT IS WHAT REAL ENCYCLOPEDIAS DO, they are written by professionals and therefore can do that, we cant because we have some editors who cant be trusted. We rely on secondary sources to draw conclusions and have commentary we can use, that is all they sould be used for, primary sources should be used for the actual facts. Primary source-facts; secondary source- commentary, conclusions drawn from, and synth of, primary sources.Camelbinky (talk) 00:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Its not good enough to cite Ford's materials off there because there's no provenance of the materials, and because they're unconfirmed typescripts, rather than scans. There's no way to verify that the materials are actually the campaign materials. If well known scholars and authors have bad practice in citing primary materials, then they oughtn't to really be as well known as they are. Regarding Camelbinky's thoughts on verification strategies, the place to take that forward is at the policy and procedure pages, to change those. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I dont need to, all I have to do is convince enough people at this and other noticeboards that the way I put forth is the way we should have our consensus' come out in favor of. I dont have to change policy in order to change policy because consensus rules the day. Oh, and just about every single author out there has a "bad practice in citing primary materials" because they all have an agenda or theory they are promoting and cherry picking how they present their information, which they often dont present the primary sources correctly. I've written plenty of published articles with the various professors I've had the honor of working under as a grad student, so yea, I know what goes on in the "peer-reviewed" journals that Wikipedia holds in such high esteem. The publishing world doesnt give a crap about truth, please stop making it seem like if it is published by a reputable publisher/journal/whatever then it is "all-good". That is naive.Camelbinky (talk) 02:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a primary source and secondary sources are better. Note that there are a lot of secondary sources about Ford, so there is no reason to rely on this. It may be of value to someone writing about his 1976 campaign, but has no place here. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it can be considered safely reliable for facts about Gerald Ford, if that is your question. Even if it's a genuine archive of material, it is only useful as a primary source for materials on that election campaign. I may be stepping out on a wiki limb here, but I think campaign literature tends to have bias issues, even in apparent "facts". VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The main purpose of this board is to ascertain reliability. Primary, secondary or self-publication is tangential, and whether and how campaign materials should be used is a question for individual talk pages. The opinions above are not so far apart; primary, self-published sources are often perfectly OK for facts. It is true that it is hard to see who is behind this particular site, but I argue that it does count as a genuine archive for campaign materials, as a reliable source, according to the reliable source guideline, in particular Wikipedia:RS#Usage_by_other_sources. That well-known scholars and authors use it provides very good evidence for the authenticity of the materials therein. It does not mean that they are engaging in a "bad practice in citing primary materials" but that they are doing exactly what experts do, confirming and verifying that the site accurately presents these campaign materials. They are the subject matter experts, and on wikipedia we have no alternative to relying on their expertise.John Z (talk) 02:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Well known scholars are known to engage in all sorts of bad behaviour, like citing documents with no provenance, from a "repository" that an Archivist hasn't put their name to. Thankfully, Well known scholars aren't wikipedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said, this is not bad behavior, but ordinary academic practice. If a political scientist or author is familiar with campaign literature, and sees a website which is a good freely available source of it, why should the author not cite it? Why should we not use their knowledge and source vetting to improve wikipedia, as allowed for in the RS guideline? It is a lot easier to make up a phony "about us" page than it is to construct a site that passes the inspection of many independent experts well enough for them to cite it.John Z (talk) 06:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Ordinary academic practice, according to your statement, has fallen into a pit of horror in political science. Thankfully, Wikipedia isn't a Political scientist. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

As one who has a degree in political science and is almost done with his masters in poli sci as well...I'm a bit disappointed in Fifelfoo, but I understand he was probably just joking. As I've mentioned about journals, newspapers, and book publishers- they dont fact check!!!!!!! Wikipedia needs to stop thinking that these reliable sources out there are double checking like Santa Claus on Christmas Eve ("yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus" as one NY newspaper once said to a little girl who wrote in). Historians, political scientists, authors, and journalists arent perfect, get sloppy sometimes, and take things at peoples and websites words without always doing the legwork they should do; and of course being human they have their own biases and POVs they are pushing in their work even subconsciously. We need to lighten up here in Wikipedia about this type of thing or it will get to where nothing is allowed. Perhaps Wikipedians need to learn how "the sausage is made", it aint pretty but in the end the product tastes yummy.Camelbinky (talk) 02:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad our disappointment is mutual. I like to know the name of my butcher, the address of his store, and to be able to post his name in libel bills if I get food poisoning. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a number of sites online that archive primary sources, such as political documents, FOIA-obtained documents, and the like. We should check to make sure that the repository has a good reputation for hosting documents. One way to achieve reputation is to see that it is cited by other reliable sources. The book citations that John Z found satisfy this. So, 4president may be cited. If people continue to debate this, it could be attributed as "4president, a repository cite quoted by X and Y", or we create an article about the website to wikilink to. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the feedback! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Is a university's faculty/bio page an acceptable source?

A musician performs in a recital at Carnegie Hall. No notice or review appears in the press, and the venue's own database that could confirm her appearance isn't a published resource. The University where she later becomes a professor mentions the performance in its official "faculty bio" page about her, however. In the absence of other sources, can the musician's Carnegie performance be admitted into an article about her, based on the University's official bio page alone? If so, can other information from that bio page be likewise admitted when there's no traditional media source available? Here's the context, for those who are interested. Thanks, - Ohiostandard (talk) 11:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, no. There's a problem. University webpages are usually supplied by staff, often separately to CVs. Unipage says, "and most recently a solo debut at Carnegie Hall;" , Talkpage on article says, "I resorted to checking by phone with Carnegie Hall. I was told by an archives department employee that she had performed in a "dual recital" (ie with one other musician) in Carnegie Hall's Weill Recital Hall, on 24 Feb 2000" (User:Ohiostandard). Uh oh. That kind of discrepancy means that I am disinclined to trust the University webpage. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually that talk page comment is totally irrelevant original research. It doesn't matter what some editor claims was said in a phone call. Dlabtot (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Just so, Dlabtot. I acknowledged this in my 3 Oct 2009 posts (see below) previous to this your 4 Oct 2009 post, which you placed above, out of temporal sequence. Not really "top posting" in such a case, since you were responding to Fifelfoo, but I did want to reiterate that I do understand the WP:OR concern, and that I had commented on this previously. Thanks for your comment, Ohiostandard (talk) 14:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This is one area of WP:V and WP:RS that I don't get. If a primary source can't be used, then what's the point in allowing primary sources in the first place? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

One could focus on what is confirmed by Carnegie Hall, that she did debut there, without the word "solo". The university webpage would be OK for this, they are generally accepted for such claims, and could be used carefully as usual, for other claims. Using the email from Carnegie Hall would be considered OR to put information in an article, but there is nothing wrong with using it to leave something out of an article - the word "solo". The lack of performance date in the Washington Post mention referred to on the talk page (which says "solo debut" btw) does not make it fail WP:V. There is no doubt that she performed there; whether "solo" should be used or not is a matter of fine judgment. That Carnegie Hall says they're "still in the labor-intensive process of building their internal database" casts a little doubt on their minor doubt-casting. She might have performed a dual recital in 2000 and a solo one later, before 2005.John Z (talk) 00:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

A clarification about the word "solo" as it's applied in music might be called for here, especially since the source pertains to a living person. It's my impression that in the context of music, "solo" doesn't at all imply "alone onstage". A Carnegie Hall press release about another musician illustrates this: "Violinist Glenn Dicterow made his solo debut at age 11 with the Los Angeles Philharmonic ..." Also, the Oxford Dictionary takes note of the unusual usage in musicology, viz. "Of musical instruments, or the players of these: Playing or taking the solo part." This is quite different from the way the word is used in most other contexts, e.g. in aviation. I can't remember whether I noticed the apparent discrepancy when I first heard the term from the archives staffer, but subsequent investigation into the terms leads me to the conclusion that "dual recital" probably doesn't conflict with "solo debut" at all. I do remember, btw, that I assumed the other performer had played some complementary instrument, e.g. a piano to the subject's flute. I'm not certain whether it'll help or hurt at this point to say so, but I made that assumption after the archives staffer commented that although the subject's performance was listed as a "dual recital" in their database, he could find no database entry to identify the other performer in the recital.

No one has criticised the action, but it seems clear in retrospect that it was improper for me to have made any mention of that telephone call at all, let alone to have posted an initial summary of its outcome on the article's talk page. It has very naturally become a kind of "source" for comparison to published sources all on its own, and the fault for that lies only with my own disclosure of it. I think at this point I can best serve the cause by recusing myself from editing the article, not only for that reason, but also because I really don't know enough about music to contribute to the article at the level it requires. I imagine I'll probably have to leave some additional remarks or replies on the article's talk page, but I'll try to keep anything new there as concise as possible.

Thank you for your reply, Fifelfoo, and for recalling my attention to the phrase, "most recently", that occurs on the faculty bio page and that apparently refers to a year 2000 performance. I'd noticed that at one point, too, but had forgotten it. That error does tend to disqualify the source, even if it was a good-faith, unintentional result of a copy-and-paste from some outdated document or web page, as I assume it to be. Thanks, too, A_Quest for your comment, and John_Z for your well-considered and thoughtful reply. Ohiostandard (talk) 04:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for being such a good, source focused editor! It seems like you barely needed RS/N at all; but it was nice for you to drop by! Fifelfoo (talk) 04:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, thanks! You're too generous by half, though, to say so. I know it couldn't "show" from the above, but the process here has been very useful to me in itself, even apart from the valuable, explicitly-communicated information you (all) provided. That I had to review the matter in order to summarize it coherently was beneficial, and seeing what naturally happened because of my little WP:OR spree was still more so. To put it mildly, I have an immediate, much less-theoretical appreciation for the wisdom and importance of WP:SECONDARY than I had previously. Sorry to drag others through it with me, of course, but the process here is what allowed me to notice that I'd made a mistake at all, and then go on to evaluate it correctly as having considerable significance in its nature, if not (luckily) so much in its actual affects in this case. I probably wouldn't have "got" that anything like so well if someone had just told me I was wrong, and why. Ohiostandard (talk) 11:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, also: I didn't mean to shut the discussion down. Both more generally and also with respect to the particular article that occasioned it, the reliability of faculty bio pages is an important-enough question that anyone who has anything they'd like to contribute to this discussion should certainly do so. ( Provided the discussion hasn't been closed via the normal archiving process, of course! ) Ohiostandard (talk) 11:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• I should point out here that our bios on academics use their pages extensively to fill in details. Not sure if this is useful or proper in all cases but it is certainly very common. Protonk (talk) 22:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Self-published sources such as this are acceptable for uncontroversial factual details about their own authors; see WP:RS#Self-published sources and WP:SELFPUB. So, in the case in question, I would answer "yes": the information from the faculty bio can be included, as long as it does not form the basis of notability of the article and as long as there is no reason to doubt its veracity. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

ACLU?

We have an editor over at 2009 G-20 Pittsburgh summit who's saying that the ACLU does not meet the reliable sources guideline. More specifically, whether the ACLU of Pennsylvania can be cited to say it successfully sued to allow [some?] demonstrations near the convention.

Claiming it's non-RS doesn't ring true to me. There's ample precedent in the RSN archives for citing political advocacy groups such as the SPLC, NRA, MEMRI, etc, provided the citations use proper attribution. Besides, this goes further because this is citing the ACLU for a statement about the ACLU. I think the ACLU is reliable enough to report on its own activities. Any opinions? Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

More context would have been nice. Two removed ACLU PA sources are:

1. url=http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/g20case.htm |title=Code Pink vs US Secret Service |date=2009-09-11|author=ACLU-PA
2. name=ACLU-PA-G20> |url=http://blog.aclu.org/2009/09/24/fighting-for-free-speech-at-the-g20-in-pittsburgh/ |title=Fighting for Free Speech at the G20 in Pittsburgh |date=2009-09-24 |author=ACLU-PA

The first looks like a trivial data mirror of court records.

The second is an official blog. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Both sides are wrong here. There were two refs in question: one from ACLU legal, another is from ACLU-hosted blog by a Sara Mullen. While the first one is OK, the second is not, since we don't know Sara Mullen and she does not speak of herself. - Altenmann >t 00:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

To Fireflo: trivial or not, it is a verifiable statement of fact. - Altenmann >t 00:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Moreover, the original contribution also included the statement not evident from the sources cited: "After numerous denials of permits". - Altenmann >t 00:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

P.P.S. Still more, the statement "successfully sued" is also kinda colored too pink: ACLU didn't get all what it wanted. And I am pretty sure that the mentioned "numerous permits" were stated too broadly, and sure thing, the officials were only happy and possibly right to refuse them. We don't hear both sides here. - Altenmann >t 00:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

My conlcuding opinion: since the piece of text in question is a POV of the ACLU side in a 2-sided controversy, it must (1) strictly follow the sources, (2) always properly attribute the opinionated phrasing (such as "successfully"; BTW, this judgment is absent in the sources), and (3) of the two sources only the first one is IMO admissible, but I may be convinced otherwise regarding #3. - Altenmann >t 00:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at the blog's window title. "Blog of Rights: Official blog of the American Civil Liberties Union." Mullen is speaking as an authorised agents of the ACLU when writing that blog, she wrote it over the ACLU's signature. So you could quote that blog post for the ACLU's opinion. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Official or not, it is still a blog. I don't understand the phrase "she wrote it over the ACLU's signature". And I still don't know who is she. There are plenty of angry radicals around, not all of them have an ability to stick strictly to facts. For example, Mullen writes "to intimidate members ... minor traffic violations". OK, may be. But... You have rights to protest by sitting in the middle of the street, but don't whine when you are jailed: you were probably looking towards this, to make more noise. While ACLU will call this episode "intimidation", other will call it "drama queen", regardless the cause is noble. In other words, ACLU members are not a neutral party to report its activities and any way they want. While they may present basic facts correctly, the opinions are heavily biased and better be seconded by independent sources. If the event was notable, I am sure the sources will be abound.- Altenmann >t 00:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

She is "Sara Mullen" who you just made reference to. Official statements of organisations are owned by the organisation. The fact that Sara Mullen has a by-line is nice, but the ACLU purports the blog to be an official blog: an utterance of the organisation's opinions. "Writing over a signature" is an office metaphor, often senior staff (those who voice for the organisation) will sign blank letterhead, allowing other staff to write letters or opinions on the page, effective "over" in hierarchical space ordering, the signature; the metaphor is used to describe delegations of speaking authority. The content of the blog doesn't go to its reliability. The opinions are generally best sourced from the primary source, "The ACLU believes,"..."". As you rightly point out, statements regarding fact are in wikipedia best sourced from non-self-published sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see it was an official statement of the organization. It was an opinion of a Sara Mullen. I.e., "Sara Mullen believes, "..."", rather than "The ACLU believes,"..."". Sounds less impressive, eh? Please don't tell me that ACLU allows its members to blog only views endorsed by the ACLU. - Altenmann >t 23:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The title is unambiguous, ""Blog of Rights: Official blog of the American Civil Liberties Union."" Fifelfoo (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

And...? - Altenmann >t 00:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Its a clear an unambiguous statement of corporate authorship. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Not clear. Also not clear what you mean under the term "corporate authorship". All posts are authored by named individuals. Unless you prove otherwise I assume that "official" merely means that only members may blog, unlike various blog-hosting websites. - Altenmann >t 00:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Given that two disinterested editors can disagree over if official blog (without clarification from the publisher) means official statements of the organisation to the outside world, or the only authorised blog for members to blog in relation to the organisation, I think we can fall over towards the case with lesser burden of demonstration. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No, just two random editors disagreeing on something, no wider consensus. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Use as source for opinion of named author. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Both are RS. One is a press release from a chapter of the ACLU, which is a valid primary source about a particular protest march during the G-20. The attached court documents are also valid primary sources for G-20; the ACLU is reliable enough to serve as a repository for public documents. The second source is a staff blog of the national ACLU; While I prefer the first source be used, I doubt that any ACLU member could post to that blog. This is just like the staff "blog" of a newspaper, which is generally an RS if the newspaper is an RS. In this case, it would be the staff blog of a political advocacy group, and political sources can still be reliable secondary sources. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

What Squid says. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No evidence it is staff blog. You still not answered what is Sara Mullen and what's her weight. If she is a notable person, the character of the blog is irrelevant. Political sources cannot be 100% RS: there is such thing as propaganda. So one has to carefully judge whether to use them and how, rather than indiscriminately throw links in. - Altenmann >t 15:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you want, a notarized affidavit? Are you familiar with the ACLU at all? It's huge. Of course it's a staff blog, it's not for the thousands and thousands of members to post on. And yes, the author is the assistant director of the Pittsburgh chapter and the head of community organizing.[4] And I suppose you're unaware that newspapers and academics publish biased stories and "spin" all the time. I'd rather quote from political sources, at least then you know what the point of view is. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from mockery towards colleague wikipedians. Yes, I want a notarized affidavit, which is called "reliable source" in wikipedia. A Wikipedian's word ("of course it is staff's blog"- why?) is not. No I am not unaware that ..., and I see no disagreement here. Anyway, thank you for clarifying the personality. This should have been done at the very head of this thread to avoid the waste of time.. From my point of view the issue is closed: info from an ACLU chapter assistant director is reasonably reliable, if stripped from anti-establishment spin. - Altenmann >t 19:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

[5] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

#Voice of America. - Altenmann >t 23:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources not available in English

I know I have read something about this somewhere, but I can't find it. Where is there information about how to find and use sources that are not available in English? Bielle (talk) 03:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:VUE, perhaps? Gabbe (talk) 07:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! That's exactly what I wanted. Thanks so much. Bielle (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Input welcome

We have an issue over at WT:Record charts#Request for more input from other editors where WP:RS is a component. Most of the background can be found at WT:Record charts#Latvian Airplay Top. The WP:RS issue centers around whether the sources found referencing a chart which is apparently maintained as a private hobby are sufficient to categorize it as a reliable source. Comments are welcome.—Kww(talk) 21:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Eliseo Soriano

In the Awards and recognition section of this article, the awards listed are cited as coming from www.eliseosoriano.com. My understanding of policy is that lacking reliable third party sources, this should not be included. Am I correct in this? - 4twenty42o (talk) 05:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Guardian Comment is Free commentary and collaborative blog

In Talk:Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad there is a dispute over whether the Guardian Comment is Free commentary and collaborative blog is a reliable source (relating to this entry by Meir Javedanfar). The Guardian itself would obviously be considered a reliable source. Comment is Free articles are commentary on news, not the news, and they do not go through the editorial process that news articles in The Guardian do. As there is no editorial control and no oversight, commentary and blogging posted there should not be considered as a reliable source for facts, right?

According to Comment is free: About us We carry the main comment articles and editorials from both newspapers and also host a collective group web-only blog.

From WP:RS:

“ Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person... Note that otherwise reliable news sources--for example, the website of a major news organization--that happens to publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be considered to be equally reliable as if it were published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format of a classic news story. However, the distinction between "opinion pieces" and news should be considered carefully... News reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. An opinion piece is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact, and should be attributed in-text. In articles about living persons, only material from high-quality news organizations may be used. ”

This suggests that the Guardian Comment is Free blog/commentary should only be considered a reliable source for personal views (rather than factual) of Meir Javedanfar on the (still alive) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Josh Keen (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

"Comment is free" is one of the websites that falls into the category of "major news organisation that happens to publish in a blog style format". It is one of the articles that The Guardian uses to start off debate by readers. It should be treated as you say, like a signed opinion piece in the newspaper. It is reliable for the existence of this point of view, held by Mr Javendafar, possibly by others. You will have to decide whether this is a view that is notable enough to cover in the article. Please note that the reader comments following this signed piece are unlikely to be usable as a source at all. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Reliable. Not only reliable, but it's probably the most prominent source for a counterclaim to this recent controversy. Newpapers all over the world are quoting this Guardian article at the moment, go do a Google News search and see for yourself. It definitely belongs in the biography. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Troubles with the Ahmadinejad biography

Something is very odd about that biography. There is no mention of the recent controversy about his background which has been all over the news. There's a big hubbub on the talk page, with people taking straw polls and debating whether sources of the stature of the Guardian and the Telegraph are RS. The earlier query about WorldNet Daily was very odd. Nobody on that talk page was seriously proposing WND as a source. It also wasn't necessary for all the talk page editors to come up here and do most of the talking; this is a low-volume forum and the regulars here have a lot of experience with straightening out RS problems. I'd like to remind everybody that even if this story turns out to be nonsense, it's still notable nonsense, and describing how it was treated in the media is an important part of the biography.

I would recommend at least three particular articles be included in the biography of Ahmadinejad. One is the Telegraph article,[6] which popularized the idea that Sabourjian was a Jewish name. The second is the Guardian article[7], which based on expert interviews and sources says that the name Sabourjian simply means "thread colorer" or "carpet weaver". The third was an article published by the U.S. government-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in January [8], which was the first secondary source that suggested Sabourjian could be a Jewish name.

I believe that these three sources ( the third quoted with attribution that it is a US-funded source ) should be the core of any article section about the debate. If people want to add other sources that analyze these further, or if they want to add primary soruces such as the Khazali blog which RFERL quotes or the Iran state list of Jewish names that the UPI version of the story refers to,[9] that's fine, but those three seconary sources which everything else quotes should be included. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the advice from this board was clear about the status of the Guardian and Telegraph. I was a bit worried about recentism, and on that basis one user relegated the story to a footnote, but since the story is now in wide discussion that concern fades. The only area where there is some room for ambiguity is in the news/opinion distinction. We all agree that a signed Comment is Free piece is equivalent to a piece in the printed version of the Guardian. I was treating it as op-ed, but I agree that this particular piece presents sourced factual information. Perhaps we need to revisit this distinction in the policy and guidelines. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

These are relevant paras in WP:RS that I was bearing in mind. Are they adequate to deal with a case like this?

"Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers. When discussing what is said in such sources, it is important to directly attribute the material to its author, and to do so in the main text of the Wikipedia article so readers know that we are discussing someone's opinion."

"Note that otherwise reliable news sources--for example, the website of a major news organization--that happens to publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be considered to be equally reliable as if it were published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format of a classic news story. However, the distinction between "opinion pieces" and news should be considered carefully."

Itsmejudith (talk) 09:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, a debate about whether the Guardian article is an op-ed and what it can be cited for is part of the problem on that page. Here's what I see:

• The way I read that part of RS is that some op-eds and staff blogs are only reliable for opinion, but not necessarily all of them. An op-ed about the antics of "birthers" in The Nation is only good for opinion. A staff blog of the Monitoring Times magazine that gives the technical details behind a story is good for fact.
• I wouldn't really consider the Guardian piece an op-ed. It's an interview and an overview of other sources. The opinion would be that of the interviewees, not the columnist.
• I'm also not aware of any blanket ban on citing op-eds in BLPs or of citing facts from staff columns. Like many other areas of WP, this should be taken on a case-by-case basis.
• Technically, if the Guardian interview is cited for a fact about the name Sabourjian, not the person, we only need RS, not the extra caveats for BLP.
• In a broader sense, all three pieces I suggested, the Guardian, the Telegraph, and Radio Liberty, are, if not the opinions of their authors, ideas and should be cited with attribution. Something like "The Guardian ran an article, citing various experts, that Sabourjian simply means 'thread dyer' or carpet weaver and is not necessarily a Jewish name" would work.
• Keep in mind these aren't obscure stories. This was more of an "opinion leader" situation where the information being published became news in itself and was covered in thousands of outlets. While WP is NOTNEWS, if I walk into a bookstore ten years from now and buy a biography of Ahmadinejad, I would expect it to explain this issue. Our biography should too.
• There was another question about whether the Guardian article could be cited for details about his family where he grew up, the debate based on whether it was an opinion piece. I don't think there's anything wrong with using the article for that, but we may be able to find a book about him that has the same information. I would tag with "refimprove" rather than deleting sourced content.

Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Is Daily Mail UK RS?

Hello. Is Daily Mail UK a RS? Daily mail gives Rachel Zoe's birthday as 1 September 1968. Zoe tweeted her birthday being 1 september; many fasion mags reporting on her parties also reported birthday as being 1 september it. Thus many editors have added 1 sept 68 as her birthday, but one editor keeps reverting/deleting it out; but then doesnt add a source. 70.108.85.109 (talk) 05:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried asking the reverting editor directly about their sources?

I do not consider the Daily Mail a reliable source: however if it's the only third-party source of information which happens to be true then I suppose it's better than no source at all. I had a similar problem with Vitas' date of birth: apparently his real D.O.B. (19 Feb 1979) is common knowledge among Russian fans, but trying to find Reliable Sources is another matter entirely. Sources agree he was born 19 Feb but disagree about the year. Most sources about Vitas which are not Wikipedia mirrors or blogs etc. are foreign and unfamiliar to me so I have no idea of their comparative reliability. I vented my frustrations on the talk page. If a celebrity chooses not to publicise their real age you could spend a great deal of time and effort trying to verify it. Or you could run away, fast. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 07:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

By reading the edit summaries the sources given dont meet their standards, yet they dont add a source. The NYT also says her age/dob : http://themoment.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/04/chic-in-review-how-old-is-rachel-zoe/?pagemode=print . 70.108.85.109 (talk) 07:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, the Daily Mail would be a reasonably reliable source for information of this kind. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Life University

The sources used at the article, and the discussion on the talk page, all need attention. The major editor, User:Abotnick, doesn't seem to get the point. User:Risker as tried to remove improperly sourced material. Would some editors please take a few of the refs being used and explain to Abotnick why they don't meet our standards here, and why his reasoning is faulty? Personal letters and unverifiable information aren't legitimate as sources here, even if the truth thus can't be told here.

He's actually right about what he writes. There is a cover-up, but if we can't find V & RS to document it, we can't really write about it. I have tried, but he needs to hear from others why other sources need to be used to tell the story. It should be possible to tell part of the story using V & RS. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for recognizing the severity of the problem Brangifer. The nature of a cover up is to hide information. Barring a news publication on it in the future I don't see indirect sources forthcoming so the article will remain a shill for the diploma mill.Abotnick (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The "severity of the problem" at the moment is that the article included many sources that don't qualify for use here. While I agree that there is a cover-up, and that the school and Big Sid are far from clean, Wikipedia has some rules that must be followed. I don't think that the article has to "remain a shill" (and it isn't a diploma mill, even if the DC degree is considered bogus by many). It should be possible to tell at least part of this story using acceptable sources. Start digging for them and propose them on the talk page. Don't give up. Learn to do things properly here and it may well work out better than anyone could expect. Use the talk page rather than make dubious edits. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

TeleSUR

An editor on 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis has questioned the use of TeleSUR as a source in the article. I'm aware of its orgins and history and don't feel they disqualify it from use as a source. What do others think? Rsheptak (talk) 22:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Cite it with attribution. "The Venezuelan-backed TeleSUR reported X, Y, Z". In journalism intended for people who really need to know what's going on throughout the world (i.e. people working in politically risky countries ), such as reports from Control Risks and Stratfor, they typically use that style of attribution. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

memory-alpha.org

Is Memory Alpha, a fan wiki, suitable for use as a source when citing in an article? Alastairward (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Not generally, no. Protonk (talk) 19:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
• It's an open wiki, and most open wikis are not considered reliable sources (just like Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source). See WP:SPS. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • There's a big discussion on it somewhere. It's related to a Stargate FAC, so it shouldn't be too hard to find. They do interviews and articles, and I can't remember what the reliability was decided on those. Any wiki part would not be reliable, of course. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Menachem Mendel Schneerson

I am involved in a discussion about two sources I brought. Another editor disagrees with me. Please see Talk:Menachem_Mendel_Schneerson#mentalblog.com_as_a_reliable_source and comment there. Debresser (talk) 04:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I just now saw that there is a section above, opened by my opponent without giving notification on the talkpage. Debresser (talk) 04:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Can the NYTimes be used in the Global warming article?

User:KimDabelsteinPetersen reverted this edit, stating in the edit summary that "Evidence? Not sourceable to an article in regular media. Science gets sourced from journals not NY Times..." This is the first I've heard that the New York Times can't be used as a source in an article. The NYTimes article in question is here. Does policy back Kim up here? Cla68 (talk) 14:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Most certainly not. The NYT isn't opining on science, it's reporting the consensus of "most climate scientists". I've reverted with a note to that effect. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that scientific journals are more reliable than the NYT... especially for statements of scientific fact. However, that does not mean that the NYT is unreliable. In this case, it is not being used for a statement of scientific fact, but for a claim that "climate scientists generally agree" about something. For such a claim, the NYT is absolutely reliable.

That said... If there is any real debate about the claim (in other words if someone can reasonably argue that climate scientists don't generally agree on the issue) then the claim should be attributed... as in:

• According to a New York Times report, although evidence suggests that temperatures have been relatively stable since 1999, climate scientists generally agree that global temperatures are likely to continue to increase in the long-term. <ref>citation to NYT.</ref>

I don't think there is debate on this claim, so my personal opinion is that attribution is not needed. It is an option however. Blueboar (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry I have to disagree about the absolutely reliable comment. When anyone is giving a subjective opinion couched in statistical terms that does not make it a reliable source for data. You have to consider the context and semantics. --BozMo talk 14:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Sarek and Blueboar, thank you for the input and suggestions, helpful as always. Unfortunately, another editor, User:Tony Sidaway doesn't agree with you and has just reverted Sarek. Cla68 (talk) 14:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd no idea that Cla68 had referred the problem here. As this is a scientific matter for which there are many reliable scientific sources that discuss this issue directly, it seems perverse to me to quote a sidelong comment from New York Times in an article which is about the problems of communicating the science to the public. The consensus on the talk page is against inclusion, or at the very least not significantly for it. The problem is that undue attention is being given to short term events in the context of a multi-decadal climate shift. That is to say, undue weight to this source would give a misleading impression. --TS 16:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree - the statement "Although evidence suggests that temperatures have been relatively stable since 1999," is a scientific one. The reason that popular media aren't useful on science articles, is lack of scientific editorial oversight. In this particular case (as i stated on the Talk page) there is also a significant problem with WP:WEIGHT. Finally it doesn't seem to have occurred to anyone that this is written by a columnist (thus editorial oversight is even smaller). And even though Revkin is rather accurate on this particular subject - it still falls short of the mark. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It's reliable. How to use it is editorial discretion. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I've reworded and added a quote from a Met Office press release,[10] but I agree that there are problems with weight here. --TS 17:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thats an interesting absolute statement. Are you saying that columnists in the NYT are reliable on all topics? Or is it Revkin in particular? I had the (apparently wrong) assumption that reliability was based upon editorial oversight, and context. (both of which are a problem here). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Newspapers are notoriously unreliable. A wiki article on a scientific topic should therefore not cite newspapers. If you write about something that is covered in a newspaper and you can't find a better source for it, then you could give a citation to the newspaper temporarily until a better source is found. In case it is clear that the newspaper article is in conflict with results published in peer reviewed journals, then you can't include that in the wiki article at all.

Example: A large number of newspapers reported that Special Relativity had been violated in an experiment. All these newspapers reports were wrong. Count Iblis (talk) 17:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I would rather see scientific sources for scientific articles. Readers who want to know more about the subject would be better served by information sourced to scientific journals. What does it mean that the climate has been relatively stable or that scientists generally agree? What is a scientist? A scientific article would explain what these terms meant and how they reached their conclusions. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

What's useful about newspaper articles, and this particular NYTimes article is a good example, is that they can aggregate and summarize in one location the opinions expressed by scientists and scientific organizations. Anyway, WP policies currently allow this source to be used in this way, so until the policy is changed, I believe the editors who keep removing the content in question are in violation of WP policy. Cla68 (talk) 22:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You are confused. We don't have to include everything that is reliably sourced. Reliable sourcing is a necessary, not a sufficient condition. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I find spurious claims of unreliability such as this one to be extremely annoying. Dlabtot (talk) 01:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully, it won't happen again. Cla68 (talk) 02:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it will happen again, believe me. Dlabtot (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Another Gerald Ford Question

OK, here's another one. Gerald Ford, during his days in Congress, had a reputation as a "Congressman's Congressman". The source currently cited is an overview of President Ford's life from the University of Groningen which, while it may be reliable, is far from the high calibre source we need for the FA (Owing to being an unsourced html summary, not a scholarly work or relevant news article) Congress itself, in a resolution celebrating what would have been Ford's 96th birthday, noted this reputation as follows:

Whereas Gerald R. Ford's contributions to the Foreign Operations and Defense Subcommittees of the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives earned him a reputation as a 'Congressman's Congressman';

Since the reputation was held by congress and congressmen, and since the resolution naming the reputation also comes from congress, and since it's officially passed legislation, is it reliable to back the term "Congressman's Congressman"? Phrasing and context would be key, obviously. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The source is here, and is authentic, as it comes from the Library of Congress. I'm not seeing passage, though; just a referral to committee with 53 co-sponsors (!). So, hmm. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

If those co-sponsors didnt vote yes label them flip-floppers!Camelbinky (talk) 23:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The resolution appears to be a reliable source. Also, it is uncontroversial. There was a more collegial atmosphere in Congress then. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Great. Thanks! UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Non-English Review (With English Abstract)

The following issue surrounds the Acupuncture page.

I had cited 4 different reviews for a statement that reviews show the effectiveness of acupuncture in treating osteoarthritis symptoms under the evidence-based medicine section. Originally 3 sources were removed with the change summary: "don't need four references when there is one specific, detailed study" Later 2 were returned because another editor intervened commenting on how we should have lots of MEDRs for a controversial topic, but 2 were left out in the end because: "removed the less specific English one and the Hebrew language one for accessibility and specificity and combined it to one reference only since it is unnecessary and ugly to have four references after a statement."

Now, the Hebrew article has an english abstract as one can see in the link below. It stated: "The studies have shown that acupuncture serves as an effective complementary treatment to standard care, improves function and provides pain relief for people with osteoarthritis of the knee."

The article is published by Harefuah, which is published by the Israel Medical Association, which I believe makes it reliable enough and peer-reviewed. Harefuah provides their abstracts in English. Now, my question is: Are reviews that are in a Non-English language, but have an English abstract that summarizes its conclusion in a straight-forward manner not allowed on Wikipedia?

Here is the link to the review: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17674552 - 99.229.146.30 (talk) 04:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

An editor has expressed concern that this IP address (99.229.146.30) has been used by User:CorticoSpinal. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that would be possible since I am on an Rogers, an ISP that uses dynamic IPs, so I probably have an IP that was used in the past by someone else. I am not him though if that's what you're suggesting.99.229.146.30 (talk) 06:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

IP guy here. Does anyone have any feedback besides accusations of me being an IP sock?JohnCBE (talk) 03:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Race Intelligence, NYT and bloggers

Resolved

 – Captain Occam has acknowledged that the actual research studies are better to cite than blogs that speculate about their meaning.

19:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This is not RS question anymore. The NYT is RS, the blog is not. The NYT reporting on the blog does not make the blog reliable. End of story. The rest of the dispute belongs elsewhere - the talk page of the article or WP:NPOVN if you cannot solve it there.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

---

There is a current controversy at Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Analysis_by_bloggers concerning a particular source. Genetic databases of human populations are now publicly available. In 2007, a few bloggers started "stitching together highly speculative theories" about genes that may be linked to intelligence. The New York Times picked up on the speculation and wrote an article about the bloggers. The problem is that actual peer reviewed scientific studies have not published any confirmed link between genes and intelligence as was speculated by the bloggers. In fact, some recent studies appear to have refuted the speculations by the bloggers. One editor User:Captain Occam, is insisting on using the New York Times article that refers to the blogs and is deleting the latest peer reviewed publications that state otherwisediff. Under normal circumstances, blogs are not given the time of day on scientific articles. However there is the technicality that NYT wrote about the blog, and therefore some are insisting that NYT is always a reliable source. Wapondaponda (talk) 04:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Give both sides of the story, since you seem to have both sides. Use attribution for anything controversial (probably all of it). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it ought to be mentioned here that the New York Times article being cited is one that has received a Pulitzer, so there isn't much risk that it's just an example of unusually shoddy reporting. There are a few other points I've made on the article talk page about why I think this article is not an exception to the NYT being a reliable source, so anyone commenting about this is recommended to read my comments there first. --Captain Occam (talk) 05:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

If there are different sides of the story at the peer review level, then yes it is appropriate to give both sides of the story. However, an analysis done by unqualified bloggers is not reliable. The most reliable peer reviewed studies use use sophisticated statistical techniques to try and detect relationships between genes and traits. These techniques referred to as Genome-wide association studies are performed to rule out false positives and false correlations because correlation does not imply causation. The rudimentary analysis by bloggers do not do so, they do not have a standard methodology. What the bloggers use is mainly guesswork and speculation. Typically the general consensus is not to use blogs on scientific articles. The only catch, is that NYT wrote a story about the blogs. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing against a position that no one on this board is taking. The existence of an article on the folks doing the independent research doesn't justify that research or give its conclusions any weight. However, the NYT article is obviously a reliable source of reporting on the subject. Protonk (talk) 07:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The NYT is a good source on the discussion that is taking place. But it is only reporting "some bloggers claim", it does not take a stance on the claims itself. So I think the source is misused in the shown diff, despite the disclaimer. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, my arguments are a spill-over from the R/I talk page. I wouldn't call it "independent research" because that implies some serious research. I've looked at the blog and the "research" is a bit of a joke, when compared to actual scientific studies. With regards to the NYT being a reliable source, the policy at (Wikipedia:Rs#News_organizations)s states "For information about academic topics, such as physics or ancient history, scholarly sources are preferred over news stories. Newspapers tend to misrepresent results, leaving out crucial details and reporting discoveries out of context.". In general, for most of the scientific articles on wiki, the bulk of the sources are peer reviewed publications. News sources that report preliminary results can sometimes be used, but these are typically replaced by the actual studies once they are published. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

From the diff provided by Stephan Schulz it certainly looks like the source is misrepresented. There is no mention of who made the "research" or on what grounds, in fact it almost makes it look like it was the NYT itself which had done the research. The disclaimer is also problematic "the speculative nature of these results, because the relationship between these alleles and IQ is as-yet unconfirmed", suggests that this is serious research that only needs additional experiments to confirm it, not that it is most likely spurious research that will never be confirmed. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Ramdrake and I have edited the article to make this aspect of it clearer, so hopefully this isn’t a problem anymore. --Captain Occam (talk) 13:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think one can declare a problem resolved without input from the rest of the parties in the dispute. The NYT article is problematic in the way it is being used. There are a lot of peer reviewed publications that discuss the genes and intelligence, including some of the genes mentioned in the blogs discussed by the NYT article. For example the blogger cited stated that the gene Dysbindin is responsible for an 8 point drop in IQ. However at least 3 recent peer reviewed studies, some from 2009, have found no connection between Dysbindin and IQ. Occam is deleting references to these studies that found no connection between [[Dysbindin and IQ, and replacing them with the NYT article. Doesn't this qualify as POV pushing. Wapondaponda (talk) 13:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I already addressed this point on the article talk page. I reverted your edit because you had removed several sentences of properly sourced information, including a sentence cited from a paper in the peer-reviewed journal Behavioral and Brain Functions, not because I was specifically trying to prevent you from including whatever new information you were adding to replace the content you’d deleted.

These sorts of concerns really ought to go on the article talk page, since they have nothing to do with whether or not the New York Times is a reliable source, although I have already addressed them there. The topic that’s relevant to the RS noticeboard, which is how to properly cite the NYT article, has been resolved. --Captain Occam (talk) 14:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, another RS issue is whether the article demands that every source be a peer-reviewed journal, a kind of super-RS that some of the scientific and medical wikiprojects have been pushing. There shouldn't be anything wrong with mentioning that since the genetic databases have become available, bloggers have been doing their own research, and citing the NYT. A single sentence like that wouldn't be undue weight, and readers who are interested in the bloggers' opinions can click through to the NYT article. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, the NYT paper is used as if to support that evidence has been found linking some genes with IQ when reading the (NYT) paper itself, it is indubitably clear that the author of the paper finds the whole proposition dubious. To me, this borders on misrepresenting the source through selective quoting.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Use quotes, and make it clear it's the NYT talking about some bloggers and some research done by the bloggers. Make it clear it is non-scientific blogging. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The real issue isn't whether the NYTimes is a RS. It's that the NYTimes article itself is about how non-scientists have (or potentially will) misrepresent scientific studies to support racial discrimination. The blog post mentioned in the NYTimes article was there simply as an example of how this has already happened. The NYTimes article isn't actually about the blog post. It's about misuse of scientific data. In our article, the source was being used to support a statement about the blog post's analysis, instead of what the NYTimes article as a whole was about. Shouldn't that be avoided? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 16:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that this is the main topic of the article. The article can be found here.

To me, the main topic of the article seems to be the fear that prejudice will result from genetic research, even if the research is valid. It gives several examples of valid genetic research where people are still worried about this. Anyone commenting on this aspect of the issue should read the article for themselves before forming an opinion about it. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not too far from what I'm saying the article is about, so let me ask this: If that's what the article is about, how does that translate to a statement that the NYTimes is reporting on a blogger's analysis of a study? That's clearly not what the article is reporting on. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 16:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting article. "highly speculative" "the link between I.Q. and those particular bits of DNA was unconfirmed" are some things you may want to put in our article if we're going to talk about the blogger. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Both of those phrases were already in the Wikipedia article. Could you please look at this version of the article, and tell me whether you think the article supports what I’ve said about it there? The relevant part is at the bottom of the “Genetic hypothesis” section.

I’ll quote the part that covered this:

A 2005 literature review article on the links between race and intelligence in American Psychologist stated that no gene has been shown to be linked to intelligence, "so attempts to provide a compelling genetic link of race to intelligence are not feasible at this time". Another 2007 study in the journal Behavioral and Brain Functions found that a gene which influences risk for schizophrenia also appears to influence intelligence, depending on which allele of it a person carries. The New York Times has reported on an analysis of this study performed by a non-scientist blogger, which compared its results to an online database of allele frequencies in various ethnic groups, and claimed that the alleles of this gene which influence IQ are distributed unequally between races. The New York Times emphasized the speculative nature of these results, because the relationship between these alleles and IQ is unconfirmed.

Ramdrake and Nealparr are claiming that this is unsupported by the article being cited, but you need to tell me whether it is or not. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, if there's something about this paragraph that's not supported by the source material, I'd also like to know what specifically needs to be changed. I don't believe Ramdrake and NeilParr that removing this information entirely is the only option. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

And the reason it is unsupported is because the NYTimes article is not report[ing] on an analysis of this study performed by a non-scientist blogger. As you said above, and I've said, the NYTimes article is reporting about something entirely different. The above text divorces the blog mention from the context of what the article is actually about.

Removing the blog information is not the only option. The blog information can be put into context. Something like, "In an article reporting on X, the New York Times mentions an analysis in a blog..." But then, I'd have to wonder about the notability of the blog mention. Why not mention the comments posted to the blog as well? The NYTimes quotes comments from the blog. But, to the point, a mere mention in a NYTimes article, does not, in itself, give notability to the blog, or enough notability to require its mention in our article. The NYTimes, as reliable as it is, points out how unreliable the blog is, and just pointing this out doesn't automatically create notable information that needs to be included in our article.

If the article is about X, why not simply report in our article about what the NYTimes is actually reporting on, X. That's what's notable concerning this source. The blog mention is included in their article to simply illustrate a point, not to impart facts about the topic. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 17:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll quote here another excerpt from the article:

Nonscientists are already beginning to stitch together highly speculative conclusions about the historically charged subject of race and intelligence from the new biological data. Last month, a blogger in Manhattan described a recently published study that linked several snippets of DNA to high I.Q. An online genetic database used by medical researchers, he told readers, showed that two of the snippets were found more often in Europeans and Asians than in Africans. No matter that the link between I.Q. and those particular bits of DNA was unconfirmed, or that other high I.Q. snippets are more common in Africans, or that hundreds or thousands of others may also affect intelligence, or that their combined influence might be dwarfed by environmental factors. Just the existence of such genetic differences between races, proclaimed the author of the Half Sigma blog, a 40-year-old software developer, means “the egalitarian theory,” that all races are equal, “is proven false.”

To be compared with what was in the article (and has since been modified:

The New York Times has reported on an analysis of this study performed by a non-scientist blogger, which compared its results to an online database of allele frequencies in various ethnic groups, and claimed that the alleles of this gene which influence IQ are distributed unequally between races. The New York Times emphasized the speculative nature of these results, because the relationship between these alleles and IQ is unconfirmed.

Now is the edit above properly representing the source? I believe that's the real question.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to inundate this thread with some technical detail. The human genome is 3.1 billion DNA units long. About 10 million of these units, SNPs, are known to vary. It is the variation in these 10 million that is partly responsible for all the variation in physical appearance and psychological traits in humans, which could potentially include IQ. To determine if an SNP affects a trait like intelligence, one needs to perform a statistical analysis that compares IQ scores with many or all of these 10 million SNPs. This requires a super-computer, super-software and someone trained in advanced statistical techniques and to rule out false positives and interpret the results. For example, one might detect a gene that is frequent among Nobel Prize winners. It may be the such a gene just makes people live long enough that they are able to receive a Nobel Prize and has nothing to do with intelligence, ie correlation does not imply causation. The computational cost of detecting genes that are associated with IQ and ruling out such false positives is quite high. If it wasn't, then the riddles of the human genome would have been solved by now. The typical blogger doesn't have the computational resources or the training required to detect such a relationship. The actual blog post is here. I have proposed instead to use this study

Deary (2009). "Genetic foundations of human intelligence". doi:10.1007/s00439-009-0655-4. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

which is a compilation of all candidate genes that have been associated with IQ. I think it is more professional than referring to a blog. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The blog information can be put into context. Something like, "In an article reporting on X, the New York Times mentions an analysis in a blog..."

Most of the other details from the NYT article aren't relevant to the part of the Wikipedia article where they're being used. This paragraph of the article is about whether there's any direct genetic evidence for a genetic contribution to the IQ difference. And the answer is: nothing conclusive, but a few lines of data which have the potential to support this hypothesis if they're studied further. That's what this article is being cited for.

However, I suppose there's nothing wrong with describing the context of the article, so I've followed your suggestion about that. Does that satisfy you? --Captain Occam (talk) 17:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

No, because the way you have it written is an extremely clear breach of WP:UNDUE: you're giving half of a very large paragraph to something (a blog event) of little to no scientific notability in a science-based article.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Then how do you suggest I change this, without resorting to what the article currently does, which does not even mention what the blogger's conclusions are? The description of the blogger used to be just a single sentence, and the reason it's gradually grown is because you and other editors have continually demanded that I add more details about the uncertainty of this information. --Captain Occam (talk) 17:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Wapondaponda: I think you're overlooking something pretty significant here. It wasn't the blogger who determined that these alleles were associated with variances in IQ; that was the conclusion of the study in Behavioral and Brain Functions. All that the blogger did was compare this study's conclusion about alleles affecting IQ to an online database of allele frequencies in ethnic groups.

Therefore, your comment about how a blogger couldn't have determined this accurately isn't relevant. He didn't attempt to determine the relationship between these alleles and IQ; he just used someone else's conclusion. --Captain Occam (talk) 17:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen this post, the information is not published anywhere else

Then use the study he used, after discussion, and don't use the blog. Verbal chat 17:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

As I've mentioned several times, none of the actual studies about genes and intelligence address the topic of race. Only the blog post and the NYT article do that. --Captain Occam (talk) 17:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

If you're sourcing the NYT, and it doesn't mention what the blogger's conclusions were, then you can't mention what these conclusions were. Otherwise, you're quoting the blog, and you're actually (as I pointed out) misrepresenting the intent of the NYT article, which isn't to report that "someone claims to have found a relationship between racially-distributed genes and intelligence", but how the science of genetics has the potential to be misused (which is precisely what the blogger did with his OR).--Ramdrake (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we can use the source that the blog used, rather than the analysis by the blogger. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

@Captain Occam No, unfortunately that doesn't satisfy me. I've been thinking about it. Look, this is just bad information, the information from the blog. The NYTimes clearly points that out. Now you're saying that our paragraph is about (in part) whether there's direct genetic evidence, and that's what the article is being cited for, presumably to show that there is. All I see being cited from the article is the blog mention. If the blog information is being used as as a source for "direct genetic evidence", there's got to be higher reliability standards we're applying, if our source itself (the NYTimes) is saying their source is unreliable. The blog information is not, in any way, reliable information. On it's own, it would be considered WP:SELFPUB and excluded immediately. Being mentioned by NYTimes doesn't make it reliable and circumvent the spirit of WP:SELFPUB, when NYTimes is, in fact, mentioning the blog just to illustrate how unreliable the info is once it's reached the social sphere and left the scientific sphere. It would be very strange to include the info in the article. I think we should exclude it completely. If we use the source, it should be about what the source is talking about. It shouldn't be to sneak unreliable information into the article. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Nealparr's analysis.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Ramdrake: if you read the article, you’ll see that it does say what the blogger’s conclusions are.

NealParr: This may be part the cause of our disagreement. The way I’m reading this article is to mean not that the information in this blog is inherently meaningless, but that the blogger is inferring too much from it. That is, what the blogger ought to be saying is “this is a promising line of research”, rather than “the environmental hypothesis is proven false”. The NYT is definitely pointing out the problem with the blogger’s far-reaching inferences from this data, but I don’t think they’re pointing out a problem with the data itself.

I stand by what I said before: that they’re reporting this as a line of data which might mean something, but means a lot less than what the blogger claims that it does. The rest of the article is consistent with that general viewpoint: lines such as "It doesn't exist for IQ yet, but I can see it coming", and the interview with Jason Malloy about how society should react if the hereditarian hypothesis turns out to be true. So that’s the way I think our article should portray this data. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This is what it says of the blogger's conclusion: proclaimed the author of the Half Sigma blog, a 40-year-old software developer, means “the egalitarian theory,” that all races are equal, “is proven false.” nothing else. It says nothing about “this is a promising line of research” and unfortunately, you can't make it say that, as the NYT article doesn't say that either. You're overinterpreting, unfortunately.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep I suggest we use the more recent studies, such as

Deary (2009). "Genetic foundations of human intelligence". doi:10.1007/s00439-009-0655-4. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help),

if it is even necessary to go into detail. The genetic information from the NYT article is now obsolete and has been superseded by more recent publications. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Actually, the article does point out that the blog information is meaningless. The single thing the blog author offers is a mashup of two data sets to reach a unique (self-published and original) conclusion. That synthesis, analysis, conclusion, whatever you'd like to call it, is not data. It's commentary. The article clearly says that the author's conclusion is, in fact, meaningless because it doesn't take all the actual data into account. The information concerning the blog is inherently meaningless, per the source, to the topic of evidence. The only meaning the article gives the blog information is that of social commentary, not data or evidence. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I also Agree with Nealparr's analysis. Aprock (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

We're getting into matters of opinion here. Nealparr, the article doesn't say it's meaningless; that's the conclusion you've drawn based on what it says about not taking all of the information into account. All that the article says is that it's "highly speculative". "Highly speculative" != meaningless.

I'm going to try and find a way to describe this article in an NPOV manner. I agree that the way it was described previously may have been biased towards the assumption that this data is meaningful. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

"Highly speculative" != "meaningful" either, and I'd argue if the goal is to include "direct genetic evidence" in the article, then "highly speculative" == "meaningless". But if you'd like to try other wordings, I'll try to remain open minded. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Nealparr, the NYT article is only useful for social commentary. When we apply our standards for inclusion, the actual data presented is "meaningless". We should now be looking beyond the NYT article for other more recent and reliable discussions. There was a series of discussions and publications on Nature earlier this year in which various scientists argued for or against searching for IQ genes as part of the race/IQ debate. One article is

Rose (2009). "Darwin 200: Should scientists study race and IQ? NO: Science and society do not benefit". doi:10.1038/457786a. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

I’ve edited the article again with these newest suggestions in mind, also trying to give less space to the NYT article and more space to peer-reviewed literature. Ramdrake, I know you advised against doing this before the discussion on the RS noticeboard is resolved, but I think it’s necessary for me to be WP:BOLD about this. I suspect that the only way this article will be improved is if users actually work on editing it, rather than doing nothing while waiting for this discussion to be finished.

I think the NYT article is notable enough to be described, because as far as I know, it is the only discussion anywhere of anyone who has tried to identify variance between races in the distribution of specific genes which influence IQ. As other parts of the article state, more professional attempts at this present the best chance at resolving the question of whether the IQ difference is genetic of environmental, so it’s significant that someone is attempting to do this already. My recent edit emphasizes the importance of this analysis for that reason; not because of the data itself necessarily being meaningful.

For anyone who has a problem with how I’ve described this, I would appreciate them changing only the things that they think need to be improved, rather than simply reverting it. This especially goes for anyone other than me who’s near or past their limit of reverts for today. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I have less of a problem with this version (starting to give the proper caveats), but it is still in heavy violation of WP:UNDUE. For the record, I still wouldn't let it stand, though.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Rather that just reverting it, can you tell me what specific things you think need to be changed? As I stated before, the fact that such an analysis has been performed at all makes this notable enough to be mentioned, but I'm not aware of any way to shorten the description of it without leaving out necessary details. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Basically, stick to what the NYT is saying, summarize and you can't give any of the conclusions from the blog or his methodology, since it's not mentioned in the NYT.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

When I said I'd be open-minded to other wording suggestions, I mean on the talk page. [This] is inappropriate. The WP:3RR is a rule all editors are expected to abide by. I'd revert myself, but at two reverts I don't want to press my luck with a third. Four, five, or six reverts is entirely inappropriate and changes should be discussed on the talk page. Not conforming to the 3RR creates an environment no one wants to participate in. You can't WP:OWN the article, especially by default since others (like myself) are trying to respect the 3RR. A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) "Basically, stick to what the NYT is saying, summarize and you can't give any of the conclusions from the blog."

Why is it a problem to give the blogger's conclusion, along with the NYT's criticism of that conclusion? That seems like one of the most basic things to include if I'm going to talk about this. When readers see that a blogger analyzed this (limited) data to examine whether or not it appeared to support an unequal distribution of genes that influence IQ, the first thing they're going to wonder is whether the answer was yes or no. It seems like a very odd omission to say that a blogger researched the answer to this question, and not mention what answer they arrived at. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Because then you stop quoting the NYT (reliable) and start quoting the blog (unreliable).--Ramdrake (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

A reader will likely wonder why we're quoting science from a non-science blog in the first place before they start wondering what the blogger's conclusions were. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

"Because then you stop quoting the NYT (reliable) and start quoting the blog (unreliable)."

How so? The NYT states what the blogger’s conclusions are, even though they take issue with them. (As was pointed out in my most recent revision to this paragraph.)

Both of you: the blogger’s conclusions are mentioned in the NYT article. The NYT is critical of them, so we can mention that criticism, but that isn’t the same as saying it doesn’t mention this at all. Referring to the conclusions doesn't necessarily mean we endorse them; we can just describe them in an NPOV manner. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This is what is mentioned in the article: verbatim: Just the existence of such genetic differences between races, proclaimed the author of the Half Sigma blog, a 40-year-old software developer, means “the egalitarian theory,” that all races are equal, “is proven false.”. There is nowhere the conclusion that "a gene influencing IQ is distributed unevenly racially". There's a huge difference, and I hope you appreciate it now that it's been pointed out to you. Now, please, move on.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The relevant part of the article is in the previous paragraph. “An online genetic database used by medical researchers, he told readers, showed that two of the snippets were found more often in Europeans and Asians than in Africans.”

That’s all I wanted to include in Wikipedia’s summary of the article. We don’t have to endorse it; I just want to mention that the NYT reported this. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I don't know how else to say it. The blog information is unreliable. NYTimes doesn't make it reliable. We don't include it. There is nothing remotely reliable about information that purports to be science, but appears in a political blog filled with all sorts of social commentary nonsense. NYTimes doesn't change that. End of story. If you want to keep hammering that somehow it meets the reliability requirements, fine. We can simply move on to Notability. It's not notable. NYTimes doesn't make it so. Pick which reason it's not appropriate to Wikipedia and go with that. What you need to do is find a reliable source that makes the blogger's info notable or move on. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, I explained this multiple times on the article talk page. Do I really need to explain it again?

We aren’t reporting that the blogger’s conclusions are correct. All we’re reporting is that they exist, the same way that the New York Times does, while offering the same criticism that the New York Times offers about them. You’re still looking at this as though by talking about this conclusion, we’d actually be presenting it as something that’s likely to be correct, when in fact the Wikipedia article would be describing the conclusion in terms that make it sound like it probably isn’t.

Why is it so difficult to understand the distinction between reporting that a conclusion exists while criticizing it, and actually endorsing it?

I already addressed the notability issue also. This is notable because it’s the first time anyone has ever performed a comparison between races of the distribution of specific genes which might influence IQ. The article already mentions that this type of comparison is likely to be what will resolve the question of what causes the IQ difference, so the fact that this is happening for the first time is significant.

I think I understand what’s going on here. I’ve read the WP:TAG_TEAM page, and although I’ve never seen one in action before, there doesn’t seem to be another explanation for this. Every one of the points you’re making here is one that I’ve addressed before, and eventually other people (Such as Slrubenstein, and the first few people who commented here) agreed with what I had to say in response. But that doesn’t even seem to matter here. You’re making it clear that regardless of whether what you're saying has already been refuted, you can still prevent any edits that you don’t like from being made to the article, because there are several of you and only one of me. Is that the way this works? --Captain Occam (talk) 20:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to read WP:TE instead and see if that fits your actions.

If you just want to mention that some nobody blogger made a comparison, it would have to read, again, like: A New York times article reported that commentators in the social blogosphere have taken data from these studies and made highly speculative statements that DNA snippets links to high IQ. For example a 40 year old software developer who runs a political blog offered his own personal social commentary that said that an online genetic database proved “the egalitarian theory” “false” despite links between IQ and the DNA being unconfirmed, other high IQ snippets appearing common in Africans, the existence of hundreds or thousands of other snippets of DNA that may also be linked to IQ, or that all of these taken together may have a sliver of significance when compared to environmental factors.

Is that what you're looking for? Because that's what they reported. It is in no way reliable or notable. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, while we're at it, might as well include the other personal comments made to the no account blog, also quoted in the NYTimes, since if the blog itself is notable because it's mentioned in the NYTimes, I guess random comments made by anonymous people to the blog is now made notable too, since they were mentioned in the NYTimes. It's just a completely bizarre argument you're making. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I agree with you in principle that something of that sort would be appropriate. However, I wouldn't describe it in those exact terms, since that seems heavily biased towards the viewpoint that the analysis is not significant. We need to be NPOV about this.

Since I'm probably over my limit for reverts, I'm not going to try to edit the article again right away, but I'd like to at least make sure we're at least on the same page now as far as what's appropriate is concerned. Will you consider it acceptable if I make an edit along the lines of what you suggested here? --Captain Occam (talk) 20:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you missed my point. Even if it said the above, which is what was reported, it would not be notable. That was the point. The NYTimes article itself points out why the blog is not reliable, and not notable beyond an example of how the science can be misrepresented. It's was used as an example of how the studies can be misused once they reach the social sphere. I'd also like to reiterate that we are NPOV by unbiasedly citing the source. The source itself is clearly POV against that blog's interpretation of the data. It would be unneutral of us to misrepresent their position against the blog by watering down their criticism of the blogger's position.

No, it's not acceptible to make more than 3 revisions overwriting what others have written, even if I said it was. You've reverted multiple editors today. My saying it's OK doesn't matter. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Then let's discuss notability. This is the first time enough data about allele distributions in ethnic groups has been available for such a comparison to even be possible, even if this particular one wasn't especially accurate. Subsequent analyses will probably be performed in the future by more qualified experts, and according to the current article, these are the most likely way for the question about the cause of the IQ difference to be resolved. This analysis by a blogger marks the beginning of something which our article already states will be a very important development. That's why I consider it notable; if you disagree, can you present your counter-argument? --Captain Occam (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) As I've stated, I believe the NYTimes included the analysis as an example of how bad things can get when science gets botched by social commentators. If the analysis is just an example of bad commentary, used by NYTimes, then it's not notable. If it is notable because it's important, other reliable sources should have picked up the story and credited the blog author as making some important discovery with his analysis. It's not unreasonable to ask you to demonstrate the importance of it through other reliable sources, I'm sure you'll agree. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

All right, here's one other reliable source that talks about this. This article was published in the professional journal Medical Hypothesis. It's not available without paying, but the same article can also be found online at the author's blog. The information about Half Sigma's blog post is a little less than halfway down the page, and is in approximately the same place in the Medical Hypothesis version of this article.

Another good thing about this source (as opposed to the New York Times article) is that its author doesn't describe the DTNBP1 analysis with nearly as much skepticism as the NYT article does. This article's author seems to view these results in a neutral, if not slightly positive way.

I hadn't even considered citing the Medical Hypothesis article instead of the NYT one here, but perhaps I could have saved myself a lot of time if I'd suggested that originally. Would that be preferable, in your opinion? --Captain Occam (talk) 21:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Muntuwandi, the only thing being discussed here is whether or to include the NYT article and (if so) how much detail to go into about it. You've just removed two citations from peer-reviewed journals; please either justify this or put them back. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the table in Deary et al. 2009, you will see the two genes that are reported by the two peer reviewed studies. In short Deary et al. Discusses both CHRM2 and DTNPB1 including up to 20 other genes associated with IQ. In fact the only peer reviewed publications concerning race in the gene/IQ debate concern Microcephalin and ASPM. The others have yet to mention race in peer reviewed publications AFAIK. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This is beside the point. What I’m saying is that by including Deary et al’s conclusions but omitting Janneke et al’s and Dick at al’s, you’re deciding for the readers that Deary is definitely right and the authors of the other two papers are definitely wrong. That’s an NPOV violation. You need to present both perspectives about whether or not these genes influence IQ, regardless of which of the two you agree with, and also regardless of if you think one is factually right and the other is factually wrong. Just the fact that both have been published in peer-reviewed literature means the article shouldn’t take a viewpoint in favor of one or the other. This is a very basic part of Wikipedia’s policy. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this a science article? If so, since when do we care about what non-scientists (i.e. the bloggers) think? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

That's actually part of the problem. Currently, it has scientific sections, but it also has non-scientific sections. None of the non-scientific sections seem to be a good home for the NYT article information, and the scientific sections certainly are not. Aprock (talk) 21:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe there can be a section on "social perceptions" or "social commentary" or something, including polls on what the general population thinks. A section like that would be a good place to include the NYTimes info. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

See my suggestion above. The information I've been wanting to cite from The New York Times was also published in the professional journal Medical Hypothesis. I think this might be a good solution; I wish I'd thought of it before. --Captain Occam (talk) 21:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

No more blog referenced by NYTimes, correct? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd be very cautious about the Medical Hypotheses. It has been critiqued for its publication of pseudoscientific material [11][12] and has a rather odd version of peer review.[13]; check out our own article on the subject. I'd be quite dubious of accepting this as a source without some more discussion.--Slp1 (talk) 22:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Man, I was really hoping to put this to rest, but I found another problem with the source. It's a circular reference. That is, the author of the article, who writes for the Gene Expression blog, mentions that Gene Expression blogger "p-ter" is the originator of this idea that you can use the online database to demonstrate higher IQ in Europeans than Africans. That original blog post on Gene Expression is the source for the idea the Half Sigma post is using. So now we have Gene Expression quoting Half Sigma which is quoting Gene Expression. It's circular. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Slp1: You need to keep in mind that the only thing that matters here is WP:RS. Someone’s opinions about Medical Hypothesis’s peer-review process being “odd” probably wouldn’t be enough to exclude it from Wikipedia's criteria for a reliable source. (Especially since the only source you've cited about this issue is, itself, a blog.

Nealparr: does it matter where the DTNBP1 idea originally came from, as long as it’s being reported by a professional journal that's considered a reliable source? We already discussed something similar to this with The New York Times: that even though a blog isn’t a reliable source on its own, the New York Times is one, so we can use it as a source even if it’s reporting something that wouldn’t have been a reliable source on its own. I think the same principle applies here also. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Captain Occam. Yes, indeed. This is the page for determining what is a reliable source. And I am seriously questioning whether the journal Medical Hypotheses is a reliable source for facts per our definition, given that they do not have a scholarly peer-review process, and have indeed published articles about the very fringe issues that have been discounted by the mainstream medical communinity (e.g. causes of autism and AIDS). This is precisely the kind of unreliable source that we do not use here on WP because it it does not have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".--Slp1 (talk) 02:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The reliability issues of Medical Hypothesis aside, we've moved on to notability. A circular reference does not make the concept notable. You have a Gene Expression blogger saying "Try my trick with this online database", Gene Expression readers trying it, and Gene Expression readers writing about the results on their own blog. That doesn't really make for notability. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree. This is the board for discussing reliable sources. If you want to discuss notability, the discussion is likely best held elsewhere. And the reliability of this journal is, in fact, highly pertinent.--Slp1 (talk) 02:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with creating a section called "Social commentary" or something similar and tossing it in there, by the way. I think it's notable enough to fall under the WP:FRINGE guidelines. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you’re going against the standard that you already established about this. This is what you said previously:

“If it is notable because it's important, other reliable sources should have picked up the story and credited the blog author as making some important discovery with his analysis.”

Well, that’s the case. Another reliable source did pick it up; the journal Medical Hypothesis. That was the criteria you gave for determining whether this analysis was notable, and it’s been met. It’s kind of disingenuous if you’re going to start introducing additional requirements for notability now, in response to seeing that this meets the requirements you came up with previously.

Also, my intention was to put this in the “genetic hypothesis” section, in place of the NYT coverage that’s been removed. But something as minor as where in the article it should go can be discussed on the article talk page, after the citation to Medical Hypothesis has been added to the article. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It's your material. The responsibility for providing reliable sources solely rests on you. I asked you to provide reliable sources demonstrating the notability and you pointed to a journal that self-describes as falling short of mainstream science [14] (third paragraph) and an article that complains that the mainstream media and mainstream scientific community has dumped on this idea [15]. By your sources, it has WP:FRINGE all over it. That's not my fault. It's your sources. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

As I pointed out in response to Nealparr, WP:NOTABILITY only concerns whether a topic deserves its own article. Since nobody is considering giving this topic its own article, that isn't relevant here.

Whether this journal can be considered a reliable source is being discussed below. --Captain Occam (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) A relevant policy here is WP:NPOV, which authorizes, even encourages, the reporting of facts about opinions, but instructs that the way to do so is to cite a prominent representative of a particular school of thought. That some bloggers come a particular conclusion is generally not a fact worth reporting. So, when Captain Occam asks, "Why is it a problem to give the blogger's conclusion...?", the answer is that an encyclopedia can't report everyone's opinion on every subject. Opinions on disputed subjects are generally worth including if the person being quoted has some expertise (readers might want to know the opinion because this speaker's endorsement gives reason to believe it's true) or some prominence (readers might want to know the opinion because this speaker's position makes his or her endorsement noteworthy). To clarify the latter point, Mitch McConnell has no scientific credentials, but if the top-ranking Republican in the U.S. Senate endorsed this view, the facts about his opinion could be considered for inclusion.

Captain Occam argues, "This is the first time enough data about allele distributions in ethnic groups has been available for such a comparison to even be possible, even if this particular one wasn't especially accurate." It's not clear to me whether the Times reference to the decoding of the human genome supports the first part of that sentence. If the Times article or other reliable sources state that the work already done now allows such comparisons in general (as opposed to special cases such as screening Jews for particular diseases), then that fact could be considered for inclusion in the article, if it's deemed an important development. Even if it is, however, the act of some nonscientists in putting their own spin on the data is not notable, even if they (not needing to adhere to the constraints of peer review or even the lesser constraint of not looking like fools before professional colleagues) beat everyone else into print with an "analysis". If NASA were to release some suggestive data from the SETI project, a scientific judgment that the data might reflect intelligent communication would be worth reporting, but a blogger's conclusion that the data showed the truth of the Koran or the Bible or whatever would not be worth reporting, and would not become worth reporting merely because it was the first. I don't see anything in the Times article that shows this to be notable enough even for "fringe" status. JamesMLane t c 22:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

At this point, I've more or less given up on citing the NYT article for this. The coverage of the same topic in Medical Hypothesis is considerably better in virtually all respects. --Captain Occam (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I've also took the time to check who Jason Malloy is (the author of the "Medical Hypothesis" piece). It turns out that the piece (and the author) are basically reprised from the GNXP blog. Still not a reliable source.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Why does it matter whether it originally came from a blog? WP:RS does not make any exceptions for material that was previously published somewhere that wasn't a reliable source, as long as the place to which it's currently being cited is reliable.

Didn't we already go over this for how news articles are reliable even if they're based on sources that wouldn't be reliable on their own, such as eyewitness testimony? It's the same principle. According to your logic, if someone publishes a book that previously existed as an unpublished manuscript, that book cannot be a reliable source, because it's a "reprised" version of something that wouldn't have been reliable. But that obviously doesn't make any sense, because it would exclude most books. The only thing that matters here is that it exists as a reliable source in the form where it's currently being cited, and this principle applies to Jason Malloy's Medical Hypothesis article also. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well you must admit that the author of the article being a blogger with no academic credentials makes it fail WP:NOTABILITY for a science article. Especially with the concerns leveled at the publication about its review system (i.e. it seems to be arbitrary). Please, please stop pulling at straws and give it up. What you're running against isn't a tag team: you're simply refusing to accept consensus.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This isn't consensus anymore. At this point, you seem to be the only person who's still actively arguing against the information from Medical Hypothesis being admissible. And more importantly, neither you nor anyone else has any remaining valid arguments about why this isn’t admissible. I already addressed the notability argument in response to NealParr.

I admit that my desire to cite the NYT article for this was probably doomed from the beginning, but at this point what you seem to be demonstrating is just that you don’t want this information in the article, regardless of whether it’s cited to a reliable source or not. Think about how many separate alleged violations Wikipedia's policies you came up with for the NYT article, and how many times you brought up a new unrelated issue with it after I explained why your preceding objection wasn’t valid. For as long as you've been doing this, you haven't raised policy objections about any other parts of the article (even though they probably exist), just this. Endlessly searching for any possible policy violation about a single citation does not demonstrate a desire to just enforce Wikipedia’s policies; what it demonstrates is that for whatever reason, you’re looking for any justification to keep this particular information out of the article. I don’t expect you to give up on this, but at this point you no longer have any arguments for this that haven’t been explicitly refuted. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's just let the others chime in about whether they accept your arguments. I will of course bend without hesitation to consensus.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Considering this is the reliable sources noticeboard, I encourage users uninvolved in this dispute to express their opinions about whether or not the journal Medical Hypothesis can be considered a reliable source. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I would also like them to express their view about the author of this article being a blogger with no academic standing. How does that influence reliability, if it does?--Ramdrake (talk) 23:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'd like to quote something from the notability policy page you linked to: "Within Wikipedia, notability determines whether a topic merits its own article." Since nobody is attempting to create an article devoted to this particular analysis, whether it meets the standards of notability listed on that page is not relevant. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, try WP:SOURCES then, especially the paragraphs about reliable and questionable sources. Also, I strongly suggest you read up WP:TE.--Ramdrake (talk) 23:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

A compromise that I think deserves consideration would be to cite the information to Medical Hypothesis, but to be clear about the speculative nature of articles there, the same way that it's necessary to do when citing an opinion article. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

There are two separate issues here. First, is the publication Medical Hypotheses (note the correct title) a reliable source? We normally feel confident in citing publications like The New York Times because, even though there's no peer review as in scientific journals, there's a careful vetting of those allowed to write for the publication, plus a fact-checking of each particular story. By contrast, our article about Medical Hypotheses states: "Submitted papers ... are chosen ... by the journal's editor-in-chief based on whether or not he considers the submitted work to be interesting and important. The journal's stated policy is that the authors, rather than peer reviewers or the editor, hold responsibility for the integrity, precision and accuracy of their work." That suggests to me that there is no vetting of authors and no fact-checking. This is essentially a source for self-published works except that someone other than the author must find it "interesting and important". That's not enough of an assurance of reliability.

The second issue is whether the particular assertion supported by the source (assuming arguendo that the source is deemed reliable) should be included in the article. The source supports only the same sort of assertion as the Times story: Some blogger(s) with no discernible scientific credentials have made assertions about some data. Per the discussion above, Medical Hypotheses isn't even standing behind the statement that any blogger has really made such assertions, but assuming the statement about assertions in blogs to be true, there's no reason to include it in our article. It doesn't advance the Wikipedia reader's knowledge of the subject of race and intelligence. JamesMLane t c 00:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this is getting to the level of spamming, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT may apply. A self published blog, whether sourced directly or indirectly is a bad source for scientific information. Mainstream peer-reviewed scholarly articles are generally good sources of information. If Occam finds some mainstream scholarly articles that have conclusively and uncontroversially found a relationship between specific genes and general intelligence, we can discuss including them in the article. I have a feeling that Occam can't find such sources, and instead has decided to look in the blogosphere, because anyone can say anything on a blog. This would then be a case of creative POV-pushing, which may warrant administrative action. Wapondaponda (talk) 00:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The standard wouldn't be "uncontroversially". If there's a good-faith controversy, we'll report the facts about all the notable opinions. Of course, I agree with your implication that bloggers' opinions don't merit inclusion. JamesMLane t c 02:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

TL;DR, but I liked the summary above, although that user was proffering it to make a point that the NYT article is unusable. Also, the thing is notable because of the NYT article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This is an unreliable source. On Wikipedia we don't even consider newspapers reliable when they report on peer reviewed science, so I really don't see how the NYT can be reliable reporting on "science" conducted by non-scientists and published on a blog.

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles)-"The popular press is generally not a reliable source for science and medicine information in articles."
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources- "information about academic topics, such as physics or ancient history, scholarly sources are preferred over news stories. Newspapers tend to misrepresent results, leaving out crucial details and reporting discoveries out of context"
• Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches- "the most reliable sources in medicine and biology are peer-reviewed publications in scientific journals."

I'm amazed this discussion has gone on for so long, it's open and shut by any objective measure. In fact I had been hoping that Captain Occam would just accept the evidence of his own eyes with regards to WP:RS guidelines, but clearly I was assuming too much good faith. Alun (talk) 06:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Alun, an administrator (user:Dbachmann) has requested that you stop participating in these articles, in light of your recent personal attacks on Wikipedia editors on other talk pages. I know that you've seen his request, since you replied to it. I know you don't approve of his decision, so you're entitled to appeal it, but until it's overturned you should follow it. --Captain Occam (talk) 15:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Medical Hypotheses

Would this journal be considered a reliable source for WP? It is published by Elsevier, which is a good sign. However, it has no traditional peer-review process, and the journal has been critiqued in The Guardian and elsewhere for its articles and lack of review.[16][17][18]. According to the article "20 academics and others have now written to Medline, requesting that Medical Hypotheses should be removed from their index."--Slp1 (talk) 02:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The standard of publication in Medicine is peer review. Medical Hypotheses stated policy is that the authors, rather than peer reviewers or the editor, hold responsibility for the integrity, precision and accuracy of their work. Medical Hypotheses is not a reliable source as it is publishing outside of the meaning of medicine as a discipline. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source. This topic is covered in Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) #Biomedical journals, which talks about verious kinds of journals and says "Still others, such as Medical Hypotheses, publish speculative proposals that are not reliable sources for biomedical topics." Eubulides (talk) 08:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The only thing I would use it for would be in a biographical wikipedia article where the subject had published a paper in this journal -- it would be reliable that they had indeed published such-and-such a hypothesis. The barrier for the hypotheses being accepted in the journal is very low so treat it as self-published. Colin°^Talk 11:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

By its very nature this is not a WP:RS, and doubly not a WP:MEDRS. Exceptions would be few and require justification. Verbal chat 11:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

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

www.trekplace.com/

I checked before as to whether a fan site claiming to hold interviews or other correspondence with experts in a field can be used to cite an article. WP:RS seems to be against their use, may I have this confirmed with the site above? The FAQ for the site doesn't seem to imply any sort of editorial process etc. Alastairward (talk) 15:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Interviews may be reliable for statements of the interviewee, if they're an expert. I don't think we've come up with a great way to say if a site is good enough to believe their interviews. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

What if it exists as the only source for this statement? Is there any way to verify that interviews or correspondence listed on fan sites are the actual text verbatim? Alastairward (talk) 08:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Allmusic

Is allmusic a reliable source if the album overview being cited is written by Stephen Thomas Erlewine? 98.66.145.167 (talk) 18:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think allmusic has shown up on this board before. Check the archives (see that little search box at the top of the page). I'll check back later and see what I can find. Protonk (talk) 19:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Allmusic is used a ton for something. Not sure what. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the All Music Guide a published book? Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the IP is talking about allmusic.com, which I consult frequently, although I've never used it as a source here. I personally would consider them reliable for facts like song listings, etc., not however for establishing notability, as they do attempt to catalog ALL MUSIC. Dlabtot (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

That seems to be the basic read from the archived discussions. Protonk (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe allmusic.com comes from the book. If the online version of the guide is still relatively the same breadth ( unlike, say, last.fm which seems to have something about every artist ) I would be OK for notability of bands. And in either case I'd be OK for notability of a genre. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The website does indeed cover just about every artist. Not sure what book you are talking about. Dlabtot (talk) 19:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a bound "All Music Guide" that I've seen. Our article on Allmusic explains. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

mentalblog.com

Information in the Menachem Mendel Schneerson article is being sourced to http://mentalblog.com , a blog that was apparently closed in January 2009. As I understand those who argue for its inclusion, they say that the material in question is found on a pdf scan of a document signed by Schneerson (see http://mentalblog.com/filedepot/PDF/RAMASHwills.pdf ), and is therefore reliable, regardless of the fact that the scan is found on a blog. Does this, in fact, make the source reliable? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Mentalblog is not an archive, and is not reliable for the storage and retrieval of documents with controlled authorship and provenance. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

However, the scan appears to show that the will is housed in the Harvard College Library, Widener Library. Surely someone could be dispatched to verify it there. I'm not sure what it is going to be used for, but as a primary source it's a document that needs to be used with great care. --Slp1 (talk) 02:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it is Lipkin's book which is found in the Harvard library (which I have checked online is indeed the case). Debresser (talk) 04:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

In a related discussion, is Heshbono shel olam by Binyamin Lipkin a reliable source? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Consider giving us a place of publication, publisher, year of publication, type of work (Journal article, chapter in edited collection, monograph, pamphlet) and what you're intending on using it as a reliable source for? Fifelfoo (talk) 04:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea. User:Debresser added it as a source in this edit, then steadfastly refused to even provide a page number from it, much less explain why it was reliable. He insisted asking for page numbers from book citations was "preposterous and outside of accepted Wikipedia norms". Jayjg ^(talk) 04:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Works without publication provenance are inherently unreliable. For the requirement for page numbers (which I do expect as an element of reliability), specific claims would require specific citation. A pamphlet work under 10 pages may not require a page reference. A pamphlet work under 10 pages is highly unlikely to be a reliable source. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Another option is to use this book [19] which would be a better, secondary source for the information cited.--Slp1 (talk) 02:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Good find. I attempted to use it as a source, but was almost immediately reverted. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Both the book Lipkin, Binyamin (2000). Heshbono shel olam. Lod, Israel: Mekhon ha-sefer. and the website "PDF of Schneerson's will" (PDF). 27 February 2005. Archived from the original (PDF) on 11 November 2006. bring a copy of the will. So it is not their reliability at question at all, unless we want to accuse them of falsification. Debresser (talk) 04:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain how the blog, PDF, or Lipkin's book qualify as reliable sources? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The book is a reliable source because the author has studied the subject of the last years of the Lubavitcher Rebbe extensively and brings numerous external sources. I want to point out that the website only brings a pfd copy from a few pages of the book, which are themselves only a copy of the original documents. So we are not questioning any conclusions drawn by the author of either website or book. So ultimately, unless we want to accuse people of falisification, there is no sources issue here. Debresser (talk) 04:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC) (copied from talkpage)

Sorry, could you please respond in a way that is relevant to WP:V and WP:RS? Preferably with sources? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to, if you could specify what it is you think should be provided. Plain English would be preferred to the above abbreviations. Debresser (talk) 05:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, for example, WP:SPS says "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable." Now, can you explain what makes the mentalblog.com blog an exception to this rule? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the book citation, Google ""Mekhon ha-sefer"" as a phrase shows five search results, the first is wikipedia, the remaining four are poor quality specialist book indexes. Does the publisher normally go by their Hebrew orthography? If so, could you supply that. This makes me concerned that the publisher is Vanity implying the book is Self-published and unreliable for wikipedia purposes. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. So what if mentalblog is not an archive? The document stands on its own. The signature is clearly visible, and instantly recognisable to everyone who is familiar with it. And the use to which it is being put in the article is simply to cite what it says. No interpretation at all, so no secondary source required. -- Zsero (talk) 05:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

So that's your justification for this edit? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is. What is your problem with that? So long as the will itself appears on its face to be genuine, and there is no reason to doubt it, it makes not the slightest difference where the scan is hosted; for all I care it could be at World Weekly News or some such site. -- Zsero (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is entirely wrongheaded. The source is the will. RS is about sources, not about publishers. A primary source (such as a will) is appropriate in various cases—I am not opining on whether this is such an instance. However, any issue here should be about whether the copy provided is authentic, not about whether the sources is reliable. A primary source (if authentic) is reliable on topics that are permitted under the primary sourcing policy. ^Bongo_matic 05:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think the PDF found on the blog is an accurate representation of the will? Why would this blog PDF be preferred to a reliable secondary source, written by a professor of Jewish studies, who is already cited 10 times in the article? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The real question is what makes you suspect that it is not? The signature is instantly recognisable, and the document shows no sign of alteration. The will is a primary source, and therefore by definition a better source for what it says than any book by some professor in China, who has no personal knowledge of the subject. -- Zsero (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Nothing makes me think that at all—did I say otherwise? I said that the will is a primary source and is appropriate for verifying noncontroversial material if the authenticity is not in dispute. As such, this is not the appropriate forum for discussing whether the putative copy of it hosted on a particular web site should be cited. It would be helpful if commentators would read and try to comprehend before a knee-jerk reaction. Again: this is not a question about the reliability of a source, but the authenticity of a document. You raise another question here too—also one that is not fitting for this forum—as to whether the information that this primary source is used to support is better off being cited to a secondary source instead. I have no opinion in this particular case, but generally I find primary sources to be better for demonstrating facts than secondary ones (such as awards, which are frequently unintentionally bungled by secondary sources). ^Bongo_matic 05:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see the comments below, which explain exactly why this material is not considered reliable. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion essentially takes place on the talkpage, so I'd advise all to go there. Debresser (talk) 06:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

There does not seem to be much on the talk page that is not already here. Two sources have been questioned: Lipkin's book and a PDF of a will. Fifelfoo has given standard answers in each case. The book is not reliable unless you can show that it is from a mainstream publisher and not self-published. The PDF of the will is a primary source. Are there any other aspects that editors on this page need to consider? Itsmejudith (talk) 11:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

And I (above) have provided a third, a secondary source, published by a publisher of amongst other things) academic works. [20] We should always use the best sources. I am a loss to see why this hasn't been snapped up as the obvious solution to the double issue of the questionable primary source. --Slp1 (talk) 12:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Slp1's book is published by a commercial book publisher. The publisher describes themselves as, "Today, KTAV is famous for its teaching devices, its scholarly publications and its educational texts." and from their webpage and offerings appears to be. The book Slp1 recommends, Ehrlich, The Messiah of Brooklyn, is available in English, and for sale, and is partly google accessable. I'd suggest strongly that you go with the secondary source specifically on topic, that's a RS, towards the higher grades of RS. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what I did, with this edit. I was reverted two minutes later. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

There can be no source more reliable than the document itself. The notion that KTAV has fact checkers who verified Ehrlich's claims, let alone that they're so thorough that their checking would have gone beyond looking at this scan or one like it, is ludicrous. The entire premise of the whole "RS" schema fails in a case like this. -- Zsero (talk) 16:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Your thesis depends on your confidence that the document is genuine, and in the ability and desirability of WP editors determining that the documents have not been tampered with. I don't personally doubt that the document under discussion is the genuine article, but I am not qualified to make such a determination. Example: Anyone could easily take a copy of a will, photoshop in a copy of Schneerson's signature, post it on a website, and voila, I would be very easily fooled into believing in its authenticity. Perhaps you would too? Given that there is a controversy here and even a second "unsigned" will in this case, such a deception is even a possibility, no? What happens if you say it is genuine and I say it isn't? These issues are why WP cannot and does not permit its editors to make this kind of evaluation of authenticy. In contrast, we do have more confidence that books published by mainstream publishing houses have authors and editors that do have the requisite qualifications. --Slp1 (talk) 18:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

What "requisite qualifications"? Do you seriously believe, and expect us to believe, that the highly qualified editors at KTAV would have insisted on seeing the original will rather than relying on a scan like this one? Do you seriously believe, and expect us to believe, that they did any detailed fact-checking on Ehrlich's book before publishing it? That is not how they work. They wouldn't even know whom to ask. And that is doubly true of any academic journal or publisher. -- Zsero (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I believe they have more qualifications and resources to do this job than you and me and the rest of WP editors. Obviously you disagree. What you are disagreeing with, however, challenges a very fundamental tenet of verifiability and reliable sources. If you want to continue this challenge, I suggest you do it on the talkpages of those articles, and try to change the guidelines/policies themselves.--Slp1 (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, a few observations. An image of a will hosted at a third-party blog is not RS, unless other RS's cite or link and vouch for the image hosted at the blog. However, it may be allowable as an EL if it's non-controversial. Another suggestion for an auxilary reference: if the will is housed in Harvard's libraries, they've probably assigned an OCLC number to it, and a cite to Worldcat would be usable to show that the will exists ( and would also be an aid to researchers ). As far as books, we generally assume books are RS unless they are shown to be fringe or self-published. I don't believe that's the case, so the book should go in as a reference. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Quite obviously not a reliable source. Dlabtot (talk) 17:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems pretty straightforward that in most cases nothing hosted on a blog ought to be used as a reliable source for any claim. There are narrow exceptions, particularly if the blog is published by a recognized expert in the field for which it is cited, but those don't seem to apply here. We have no capacity to judge whether the PDF is authentic or not; such a determination must be made by experts, publishing in reliable sources in the real world, not by Wikipedia editors who think the authenticity of the signature should be obvious to everyone. Even I can fake a will and add an authentic-looking signature. To address the book: if information about the reliability of the publisher can't be found, then the book should be assumed to be self-published and its reliability suspected as a result. Nathan ^T 19:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Is reference from a company or organisation reliable to describe a controversy about itself?

We have organisations involved in a controversy that was covered widely in the mainstream press (eg all the world's major newspapers and technology magazines reported on the controversy). For interest's sake, the controversy surrounds Microsoft and the International Standards Organisation, which passed Microsoft's Open Office XML document format as a standard. Microsoft and the ISO say the format and process was "free and open", Vs some national governments that say it was not "free" or "open". I'm not asking you to take a side on that claim. But when a fact is disputed and controversial, shouldn't we be able to demand independent references from major media organisations? I'm wary of references that come directly from the organisations involved in the controversy, which tend to describe themselves and their formats in glowing terms. For an issue so widely covered, isn't it reasonable (and essential) to ask for independent references from the mainstream media? Or, are references directly from Microsoft and the ISO reliable to describe a famous controversy about themselves? -Lester 04:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources direct from the horses' mouths are best used to further illustrate or provide direct quotes for points made by secondary sources, if they are used at all. And this is because while secondary sources don't always cover a controversy (or anything, for that matter) in the greatest detail possible, third-party, reliable, secondary sources are the major determinant for what is significant with regard to any given topic. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you please cite the source, and name the article and section, people are disputing? Fifelfoo (talk) 04:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

TO 'Someguy1221': Your advice sounds good... that reliable secondary sources are a good gauge of what is significant, compared to what is trivia or undue.

To 'Fifelfoo': Yes, I can give examples. Article is Office Open XML, in the lede. This reference from the ISO was recently inserted against article text that said it's "a free format" (free can mean anything), though I notice the article text has just been changed to "a freely available format". It's not how the mainstream media describes it, as extended delays in publishing format revisions have resulted in complaints from nations that it is not available on equal terms to all, even though it is free-of-cost. I feel that controversial subjects should be described from independent sources.--Lester 05:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a preferred orthography which isn't all caps, you can reference it by looking at my username in my sigs. The article said when I checked near 08:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC) "available to anyone for download free-of-charge" and referenced against this link which seems like a trivial and obvious claim. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the caps. Yes, the text changed again. Some are determined to get the words "free" or "open" into the article. I guess that using secondary (newspaper) references, it helps not only with accuracy, but also creates a barrier to putting trivia (or undue weight) in there. Thanks, Lester 10:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Are we still beating this dead horse? I'm aware there some controversy about whether this format is truly "open" or not, but independent secondary sources, citations from advocacy groups (with attribution), notable opinions from the governments involved, and statements from MS or ISO themselves ( primary sources in an article about themselves ) are all RS. This really isn't an RS issue. Sounds more like an NPOV or undue weight issue, and probably belongs at a different noticeboard. Just attribute everything as "X said Y" and try to avoid giving too much weight to overinterpretations of the word "free".

That said, if OOXML is covered by a patent, even if the owner grants a free license to use, then that's still a "free as in beer" situation and we should use the compromise wording "freely available" in the lead. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Squidfryerchef. I guess attribution is the key, as you say. --Lester 19:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hotlinkfiles

Is material uploaded to www.hotlinkfiles a reliable source? This issue has arisen in connection with the BLP of Natascha Engel; see Talk:Natascha Engel#RFC: Copyediting of Expenses section. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you please cite the document being linked to? Fifelfoo (talk) 11:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

In the present version of the article, the following links are used: [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The linked files are a number of .doc files and one .pdf. hotlinkfiles.com is not a publisher. This makes them "Any old files uploaded to the web." Ie: SELF published. Additionally, the article in question is full of a number of dubious SELF publications which look like advertspam by the Living Person in question and her family. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Removing the self-publications was one of the things I tried to do in a recent copyedit although I was reverted. You may wish to contribute to the RFC. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Are these files referred to or linked to by any reliable sources? Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Schrandit and Soulforce (organization)

I're-removed this dubiously sourced content from Soulforce (organization) but Schrandit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems intent on re-adding it.

Controversy

Christian group Focus on the Family has described Soulforce as "wolves in sheep's clothing," and has stated that the purpose of their actions is not "dialogue and greater understanding -- it's to tempt [others] to embrace a false doctrine, which will keep many from the gospel message of hope and transformation for those who are trapped in homosexuality."(http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=54626&terms=soulforce). Soulforce has responded to accusations from Focus on the Family through organixed direct action events,(http://www.soulforce.org/article/130) and by producing an article in response to statements made by Dr James Dobson (http://www.soulforce.org/article/false-focus-family).

I feel it's a textbook case of WP:Soapboxing and seems utterly non-notable. Of course Focus on the Family doesn't like a LGBT Christian advocacy group. They don't seem to like LGBT anything. This is unsurprising and sourced to www.onenewsnow.com which seems like it would utterly fail WP:RS. Is my assessment on this seem accurate? Schrandit has been edit-warring to re-insert this despite my requests that they get an opinion here first. -- Banjeboi 18:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not create this content but it is well sourced, it is neutrally worded and it only states Focus on the Family's opinion and does not treat it as fact. The previous uses has been edit warring to remove it for reasons I can only guess at. - Schrandit (talk) 18:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

If you edit-war to re-add content, especially contested content you're considered the author. The reason I, and others removed it were given at the time but let's see what uninvolved editors who specialize in sourcing have to say. -- Banjeboi 18:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

While I'm neither a) an unbiased editor on this issue [says the man with a page named after gay porn fetish slang] nor b) someone with much experience in source debates, it seems pretty clear to me that Focus on the Family's opinion would be notable if it was referred to by a reliable secondary source (such as National Review or Christianity Today or some other sympathetic site). But here is a case where all we have are what are essentially press releases from the group (going through an obscure website). I tend to think that it's not relevant to anything. I also have a clear aversion to 'Criticism' sections in the first place, since they seem to be edit war magnets.

I hope that helps. The Squicks (talk) 21:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

www.onenewsnow.com is edited by journalists, but its mission statement is to produce "the day's news from a biblical perspective". This is a non-standard view of journalism in the west, and puts the website in the same category as other politically or religiously motivated publications. The size of the organisation is also a worry. The onenewsnow source seems to be reliable in reporting the opinions of Focus on the Family. These opinions aren't necessarily encyclopedically significant to an article on Soul Force. Take it to UNDUE. Soulforce, as an activist organisation, is not reliable for reporting on its own actions. The link to the pamphlet is also miscited. Either cite the pamphlet properly as a publication, or don't include it. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The website just does not seem like an acceptable source to me. Of course, I could be wrong. But I would greatly prefer to see 2nd and 3rd party material on this and I would prefer to hold back on including criticism until then. The Squicks (talk) 21:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Are student-run college newspapers considered reliable sources?

Many US colleges and universities have student-run newspapers. Examples include the Harvard Crimson and The Cornell Daily Sun. Are such newspapers considered reliable sources? I think that the answer is Yes, but can't find confirmation elsewhere. This issue has arisen in the context of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EphBlog. David.Kane (talk) 14:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this isn't something that we can make a blanket statement on... It really depends on the reputation of the specific student-run newspaper in question. Some have high editorial standards and are quite reliable, others are not reliable at all. Blueboar (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with this take. Some are highly respected and should be considered reliable, others less so. — e. ripley\^talk 15:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The specific newspaper I am interested in is the | Williams Record, but, obviously, I would not expect anyone to have an opinion on it specifically. Would it be fair to say that there is no presumption for or against a specific college newspaper and that it would depend on the topic of the article? David.Kane (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a bit of a presumption for student newspapers. They do have editors. I would say that particular one is reliable (it's 120 years old), although the particular statement and source can of course effect that. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I would say no, very loudly, except for student sports results (something difficult to get wrong). They have editors, but these are people barely out of their teens whose next newspaper job is typically making tea for proper journalists. Some may be brilliantly honest journos in the making, but we have no way of distinguishing them from the rest.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

So, you would recommend that all the citations in Wikipedia to the Harvard Crimson, say, be deleted since the Crimson is not a reliable source? David.Kane (talk) 15:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said, there are some things like sports results where they can be RS. But RS requires a reputation for fact checking, and universities tend not to sue the student newspapers (and students don't have the funds or energy to sue), so the pressure's a bit off the fact checking. My own experience of Cherwell is that student newspapers are rather like tabloids - most things are true, but...if it's anything controversial, the newspapers are simply not under the same pressure as real papers like NYT, The Times etc to get things right. They're rather like news blogs that just don't quite make it to RS.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as reliability goes, the key question is: What is the reputation of the Williams Record?... has it won awards or been recognized for its journalism. My inclination is to call it reliable (Williams College is highly respected and I would expect them to have a high quality newspaper) but I don't really know enough to make a judgement.

That said... looking at the AfD, the reliability of the paper is not the real issue... the issue is the localness of the paper (and the other sources that are cited). The key question is whether there is any coverage of the subject (EphBlog) from beyond the local area of Williams College. That is a question for WT:NOTE and not one for this noticeboard. Blueboar (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I agree that whether or not the Williams Record is a reliable source is largely orthogonal to the issue of whether or not EphBlog should be deleted. I just want to figure out, in that dispute, whether or not it is fair for me to claim that EphBlog has been mentioned in 3 reliable sources or just 2. I also find the issue of college newspapers interesting. David.Kane (talk) 15:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• I see two separate issues here. First, are college newspapers good sources for establishing notability? Second, are they reliable as to their accuracy? As regards notability, I don't think they are good sources for establishing the notability of people and things related to their own college. College newspapers cover some topics that are only of interest on their own campuses. If the Harvard Crimson printed an article about an a cappella group at Harvard, that wouldn't impress me much as to the group's notability. On the other hand, if the Harvard Crimson printed an article about an a cappella group from UCLA, that would tend to help establish notability for the group because that would mean that the group was receiving attention outside their own college community. The fact that a Williams College newspaper mentions a blog about Williams College does not necessarily indicate that the blog is notable outside the college (the blog could be notable, but it would need some attention from outside the college community as well). Then, as regards accuracy, college newspapers are not only subject to all the possible sources for error that professional newspapers are, but additional sources of error as well -- they are mostly written by amateur reporters and supervised by amateur editors, all of whom have to fit their reporting in their spare time around their classwork. The more contentious a statement, the less willing I would be to source it to a college newspaper. However, it looks like this is not a particular concern in the EphBlog article; the main reason that article cites the Williams Record is to establish that the Record has mentioned the blog, and obviously the Record is reliable as to whether they are mentioning the blog, whether or not their statements about the blog are accurate. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

As an example, no. On Dit, is from an old university, and once had gratuitous photos of students engaging in nude mud wrestling and other junk. The editors also once bragged in their column that they used the funds to buy porn and marijuana. Not RS at all. More like a troll-blog. Includes doctored images of politicians they don't like (typically right winger ones) in scandalous poses and so forth. I've seen other ones that are similar to this, YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

See Yellow journalism and United States journalism scandals. The Chicago Tribune under Colonel McCormick said that Franklin Roosevelt was as commnistic as Stalin. In the 1960's the Tribune published a photo of nailheads in a door and claimed they were bullet holes where black militants had fired at police before being shot to death. The New York Times had reporters who simply made up stories, which is true of numerous other major news sources, such as CBS News and the bogus memos about Bush's National Guard service. College papers can be reliable sources. Edison (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

College newspapers can be RS. They have an editorial board, and some of the writing in college newspapers is better than what I've seen in conventional newspapers. I definitely wouldnt characterize them as training grounds so they can "make tea for proper journalists". Their next stop might be writing penetrating analyses at a business consulting firm or at the U.S. State Dept. As far as establishing notability, I would treat them like a local hometown newspaper. A mention in a student newspaper wouldn't count towards notability for things that happen at the same college, just as a mention of the local Little League team in a small town newspaper doesn't establish notability. But, like Metropolitan90 says, if the newspaper at another college runs an article about something, then yes that does count towards notability. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The criticisms expressed above about college newspapers might as easily apply to commercial newspapers in towns of comparable size to the college (or to big city newspapers in many well documented cases). The editors of "real" newspapers often get things wrong, often play favorites and promote issues they favor, or write flattering puff pieces about family members or favorite causes of major advertisers, and engage in boosterism. A small town paper may hire reporters of less intellectual ability and no more honesty and diligence than staffers at a college paper.

BNP

Is the BNP a reliable source for A: thier opinions B: thier statements C: Thier ppolicies ?Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I assume you refer to British National Party? Depends on the context, I'd say. What specific source are you looking for? Speeches, Official Website, Press Releases...? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeo thats the lads. As to context. As an example [[28]] (the source is ironicly not from the BNP (so does beg the question did the person who removed it even check it)) but clearly states tyhat the BNP could not considerd a source for this claim. So the context is. Are statemtns issued by the BNP either as press releases or on thier web sire RS for thier views or opinions?Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It depends. The BNP has been accused of hiding its true agenda, so care must be taken in reporting their statements at face value. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Very true, but it is an accusation (made maiinly by those who have a publicly stated anti-BNP agenda. Also all that is, mbeing asked is are they RS for their statments, not that we take them at face value, but that we can qoute and say "the BNP say this"?Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• I looked at the edit cited by Slatersteven above. The first link discusses a quote from a New Year's message by Nick Griffin. However, it is cited to Heretical.com, which appears to be another white nationalist site and thus a fringe source that should be avoided as a source. Since the statement was being included in the article just to establish that Griffin made the statement (not necessarily that the statement was true), it should have been cited to the BNP web site at [29] instead. The second link is a claim that the British government is denying information to the MEPs from the BNP, which is cited to the BNP web site. That should not be cited to the BNP web site, because they are an opposition party to the government and thus are biased with regard to this issue. On the other hand, the Guardian has discussed this issue and this information could be cited to there. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Is the BNP RS for their response to this? Also on a wider popint is the BNP RS for what they say? This point has still not be answerdSlatersteven (talk) 13:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The fact that a statement of the BNP appears on the BNP web site is reliable evidence that the statement was actually made. But the BNP is considered a fringe source, and as The Four Deuces says, they have been accused of trying to clean up their image with their public statements but not necessarily sincerely. So the fact that the BNP has made a statement is not necessarily good evidence that they believe the statement, much less that the statement is true. Their status as a reliable source is, for most purposes, not very reliable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

So if they say they did not beleive something we cannot use them as a source for the fact they say they do not beleive it? Or as a source for their denile of an accusation (as long as the accusation if in the article)?Slatersteven (talk) 12:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You may want to provide details as to exactly what source you want to use and what you want to use it to support. That would enable us to give you a more specific response. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I was asking for a general rule of thumb. I fail to see why it is so hard to say if the BNP are RS for thier claims, not RS for those claims being true but RS for the fact they have made those claims. In a way I aqm asking are they RS for thier opinions, not for teh veracity of those opinions.Slatersteven (talk) 13:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Voice of America

An editor in comments on the talk page of 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis has questioned the use of VOA news stories as sources for facts in the article. Other opinions.? Rsheptak (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Answer to this and the above thread- in any instance in which a media outlets independence, motives, leanings, or neutrality is questioned you can always use it as a source as long as you make sure in the article you attribute it to being what that media says, instead of wording it as fact and using a citation to that media. Example- "FOX News reported Obama is a terrorist and wasnt born in the United States" is, regrettably OK; whereas saying "Obama is a terrorist and wasnt born in the United States" with a footnote sourcing it as fact to FOX News is not OK.Camelbinky (talk) 23:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, "Voice of America is the official external radio and television broadcasting service of the United States federal government. [...] Various sources consider Voice of America an instrument of the United States' propaganda campaigns." -- Rico 03:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of Air America, which is like FOX. VoA does do propaganda. Not sure what that means for RSness. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

One of the three sources cited to substantiate the statement that, "Various sources consider Voice of America an instrument of the United States' propaganda campaigns,"[30] is:
Shulman, Holly Cowan. The Voice of America: Propaganda and Democracy, 1941-1945. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press, 1990. -- Rico 04:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Even if VoA still does propoganda, so what? So does FOX. And yes Fox is proganda. As I said- use attribution regarding the statement and it is ok. I dont know what else there is to discuss. If you are going to keep the statement in the article the attribute it to being the opinion or statement of VoA or whereever. It's that easy. Any other use of a statement from that source is not RS, but being attributed it is being used as RS. What else do we need to discuss? I think we've pretty much got it covered with that.Camelbinky (talk) 06:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Works for me. Rsheptak (talk) 16:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Cite it with attribution. "The U.S.-funded Voice of America says..." There's nothing wrong with using goverment-funded sources. It would be impossible to cover some parts of the world without them. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why using Fox News or VOA or RFE, or any other sources that is either government funded, or leans right is seen as negative. However, that being said that doesn't mean that the references cannot be backed up with additional references from sources that are seen as neutral such as Reuters, AP, or AFP. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Daily Mail

In reference to a current dispute on Anti-Christian sentiment in the United Kingdom. Can I ask what others opinions are to the use of the Daily Mail (UK) as a source? I have previously tagged some statements which use the Mail as needing a better source. However, User:The Squicks is adamant that the Mail is a reliable source. For what it is worth, as someone who actually lives in the UK, I am of the opinion that the Mail is almost NEVER a reliable source for these types of story. Its the type of story the paper thrives on and the story rarely turns out to be even partly accurate. A tagged a request for alternatives as the problem is that these types of story, when the truth is told are invariably a non-story, so actually digging out alternatives can be quite difficult. Pit-yacker (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

We have frequently discussed the Daily Mail here (search for it in the archive), and the most recent consensus seems to be that it is so-so or semi-reliable. In this case, I think that there is more to worry about than the reliability of the DM. That is: does the DM even claim that these stories indicate anti-Christian sentiment? Or does it cover the cases to illustrate its long-standing bee-in-the-bonnet of political correctness. I think we can assume that the stories are, in themselves, accurate as reported. But putting them all together to tell a story about anti-Christian feeling in the UK might amount to original synthesis. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Islamofascism

Is Jihad and Jew-Hatred: Islamism, Nazism and the Roots of 9/11 (2007) by Matthias Kuntzel, (Telos Press Publishing), ISBN 10: 0914386360 a reliable source for Nazism in the Middle East? The book argues that the Nazis had greater influence and organization in the Middle East than previously believed and that "Islamofascism" grew directly from Nazism. Nasser, Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Gadafi are all shown to have based their beliefs on Nazi ideology. Although the book has been favorably reviewed by some conservative publications the theories do not appear to have received any peer review. The author is an academic but also writes opinion pieces, mostly for the Weekly Standard. The WP article is based almost entirely upon this book. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Given the review of Telos's publication history and its involvement with the European new right here I would strongly suggest you find positive reviews of the book in question in scholarly journals (other than Telos, obviously), before making use of it. Even then, given the functioning of humanities, attribute all claims to the author. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

linkedin

Would Linkedin count as a reliable source when referencing a list entry? The specific case is as follows:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Filipino_Americans&action=historysubmit&diff=319571092&oldid=319522349 List of Filipino Americans. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

User submitted content, could be anyone. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

lawyers.com

Lawyers.com is operated by LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell, a well-known legal company, but the website seems like a directory. The profile on David Huebner, a BLP, contains some useful information that I'm unable to find elsewhere. Does the site violate our BLP policy? APK say that you love me 23:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It's SELFPUB - lawyers send their content/information to lawyers.com for publication. It is not really an independent source. That said, it is probably fine for non-controversial biographical info. kind regards, --guyzero | talk 23:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The info is non-controversial. (years he passed the various bar exams) Thanks for the feedback. Cheers. APK say that you love me 06:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Self-Published Translation of Mein Kampf

This is preventive action (I hope). Back in June one Historyprof101 added a batch of material praising a translation of Mein Kampf by Michael Ford. Today, Historyprof101 returned and reinserted it. He then started going around Wikipedia removing references to my books and articles (I'm a fairly well published scholar in the field of Nazi propaganda). One of the difficulties of using one's real name on Wikipedia is exactly this kind of thing.

Well, I don't really want to get into an edit war, so it might be good to have a few people weigh in on the merits of self-published books like Mr. Ford's translation and its failure to meet reliable sources criteria for him to read. Help, please? Bytwerk (talk) 23:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

At the top of the page we request a full citation of the work in question. This assists us in locating it. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

My apologies. It is Michael Ford, "Mein Kampf: The Ford Translation," Elite Minds, Inc., 2009. The author runs "Elite Minds," so the book is self-published,and has had no credible reviews. Bytwerk (talk) 00:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Questions: Is Michael Ford's translation republished somewhere else notable? Is his translation almost identical to other reliable translations? If the answer is no to both questions, and Michael Ford is not a German linguistic expert or certified Hitler's closest friend, then all we have here is some guy's opinion on what Hitler believes. Jim101 (talk) 01:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not published by somewhere notable, and it is not "almost identical" to other translations. In fact, he claims that his is the "correct" translation, and that others, by renowned translators like Ralph Manheim, are inferior to his. Bytwerk (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Then I would say this guy is high, borderline delusional. Definitely not a RS source. Jim101 (talk) 01:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

IdahoGangs.com

Is IdahoGangs.com reliable in the context of telling us how many members are in an international gang, or what crimes the gang is known to commit? It is cited in many articles such as Hells Angels [31] [32], Latin Kings (gang), Gypsy Joker Motorcycle Club, Mongols (motorcycle club), and Bandidos. IdahoGangs.com appears to be completely anonymous; there is no named person or organization responsible for its content, and it cites no sources. --Dbratland (talk) 21:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Unreliable No authorship, no indication of demographic or criminological credibility. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Reliable, at least for information relevant to Idaho. News reports indicate it is operated by the Idaho Department of Corrections. KBCI Boise: IDOC launches website to help identify Idaho gangs Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, so we trust the news reports that idahogangs.com is authored by the Idaho department of corrections. I'm still somewhat concerned at the way the web site doesn't mention a single person's name or provide any of the kind of background information that we normally associate with good sources, like attribution, dates, and other references. For example, if the site were wrong about something important, who exactly in Idaho would be held accountable? I'm just wondering if there is any further policy or guidelines that help with handling an odd-duck source like this, that at first glance seems to fail WPs criteria.--Dbratland (talk) 20:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It is published by the IDOC, according to multiple news reports. We don't usually apply the stringent criteria that you suggest to other sources. They have a contact page if you are concerned about specific information on the website. I suspect that they have deliberately avoided giving out too much information on the site's workers due to risks of harassment or other activities carried out by supporters of the organisations profiled. You should probably undo this edit and any others where you have removed them as a source. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Help - I'm willing to believe that the Idaho Department of Correction is behind idahogangs.com, but the site still raises red flags for me. I can understand why individuals might not sign their names to pages there, but the publisher's name is nowhere to be found either. Why? Why no explanation of where the data comes from, or how its vetted? Is there peer review of some kind? All I'm saying is, this web site does not look or act very much like what is normally considered a reliable source by WP, and a third or fourth opinion on how to handle citations from this source from an expert would be helpful to me. Thanks!--Dbratland (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The Origin of the Greeks, Ph.D. thesis

Please tell me whether this source can be included in Wikipedia articles: ( Poulianos, Aris N., 1961, The Origin of the Greeks, Ph.D. thesis, University of Moscow, supervised by Dr. F.G.Debets) Thank you for your help.--Monshuai (talk) 02:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Non RS. PhD theses are not published works. While they are assessed this differs from "peer review" in the sense of academic publications. There is an expectation that subsequent publication as a monograph can, but will not necessarily occur, and that publication process includes a review. Either its been published as a monograph, or it hasn't. And the work you've cited hasn't. Also ethnogenesis in Soviet historiography? alarm bells. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's your book, "The origin of the hellenes. An ethnogenetic inquiry. Aris N. Poulianos. 160 pp, 5 tables, 9 maps, 32 photographs. 1962. Morphosis Press, Athens. Originally published in 1960 by the Institute of Ethnography of the Academy of Sciences of the U. S. S. R., translated into Greek by the author with special assistance of Nikos Antonopoulos" here's your scholarly review of it, J. LAWRENCE ANGE American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Volume 22, Issue 3 (p 343-345) DOI:10.1002/ajpa.1330220326, "unsystematic" "but uses no twin data to estimate the genetic versus environmental limits" "he omits about half of the literature" "he tends to overvalue speculations based on small samples". Hmm. Unlike the PhD thesis its reliable, in that its published (if you can go read your popular modern Greek). Though I'd say that even though IEAS USSR and Morphosis have published, that you ought to strictly attribute any drawn conclusions to the Author due to the indicated review issues, the fact that its 50 years out of date, and the fact that its ethnogenesis published in 1961 in the USSR. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you think this work being published in the USSR makes it unreliable? This needs to be demonstrated. Offliner (talk) 03:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Klaus Mehrnert, Stalin Versus Marx: the Stalinist historical doctrine (Translation of Weltrevolution durch Weltgeschichte) Port Washington NY: Kennikat Press 1972 (1952) on the poor quality of studies of ethnogenesis in the Soviet Union due to non-methodologically justifiable ideological intervention by state elites in the work of historians and anthropologists. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I renamed the heading to something less verbose. Protonk (talk) 03:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed true that the USSR itself produced many great scientists and scientific works. There is something else worth mentioning about this particular academic study. Dr. Aris Poulianos (A Greek anthropologist and Founder of the Greek Anthropological Association) comes to conclusion that counters the official Soviet propaganda of the era. Indeed Poulianos for example concluded that modern Bulgarians are anthropologically similar to ancient Thracians, while the Soviet philosophy was to prove the opposite, which was that modern Bulgarians are Slavs (unrelated to ancient Balkan peoples). This official intent was to shape their socio-cultural identity and co-opt them into upholding the Pan-Slavic ideals whilst disassociating them with other ethnic populations and histories. This of course solidified the power base of the politburo, whose strategic intention was to expand and control the trans-national identity/idnetities in their sphere of influence with the end goal of unifying different peoples under the so-called Slavic umbrella. This itself lends credulity to the Poulianos study, as it comes to conclusions that are contrary to the official political agenda of the time. This may in part be due to the fact that neither Dr. Poulianos nor Dr. Debets were citizens of the Soviet Union. I want to thank Fifelfoo for pointing out that the source is a published academic and peer reviewed work. Also thank you to Offliner for making a good point. It is now clear that the article meets Wikipedia standards as per the rules and I will once again (as I did when I first referenced this source) "strictly attribute the drawn conclusions to the author." Again, thank you all for your help in this matter. Have a good day or night wherever you may be on our beautiful planet Earth.--Monshuai (talk) 06:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Well when we use a source that has been subject to extensive critisism we should also include that critisism. Taemyr (talk) 07:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I quite clearly rejected the source you cited, and indicated that you may wish to read in full a different source. I suggest you work out of Poulianos' modern writings, and, for that matter, look up modern anthropological review articles on the relevant ethnogeneses and assign weight out of those. If you claim that I support a PhD thesis being RS, I will be greatly offended, and make this known where I discover you doing so. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I was talking about the work being academic and peer reviewed, not whether or not you agree with its conclusions. I didn't think you're an anthropologist, thereby I was not incquiring nor commenting your views of this particular field. I would also like to make clear that I have read most if not all of Poulianos's published works in full. My first PhD was based partly on his work. Also, Poulianos is considered one of the foremost anthropologists in Greece and his conclusions about the Thracian anthropological type have not been disputed to date. If someone is suspicious about this, they are free to research it themselves. Good day.--Monshuai (talk) 07:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Its interesting you chose to cite his 1961 PhD thesis instead of... any other text. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome.--Monshuai (talk) 08:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I seem to have triggered this by making the initial removal of the sentence referencing the Poulianos study at Thracians. I'll just put on the record here that my removal was not even primarily motivated by my doubts over the RS status of that work – although I'm aware it's highly controversial and probably heavily outdated research. I removed it because the sentence as it stood in its context made no sense [33]. There is a previous sentence, sourced to a more modern source, stating that on modern genetic criteria Thracians were slightly more closely related to certain modern ethnic groups in the area other than Bulgarians. The contentious sentence then was added as if it provided a refutation or contradiction of this statement, but it in fact contained only a much weaker statement, namely that both Thracians and modern Bulgarians belong to the same overall anthropological type. Which may well be true – but then, so do the other modern ethnicities referred to in the previous sentence. Which means the two are in no way contradictory, and the first is certainly more informative and makes the second essentially superfluous. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concerns Future Perfect at Sunrise, but as the article is written now it is made to seem as though Bulgarians don't have a connection with Thracians. The reference doesn't contradict the other sources I included in the article years ago about the Thracian connection to Greeks and other ethnic groups. Yes, believe it or not I was the one who included the other anthropological studies detailing similarities between Greeks and Thracians. It's all in the history of the article. Furthermore, the Poulianos study simply emphasizes that modern Bulgarians are anthropologically less Slav and more Balkan/Thracian and belonging to the Aegeanan anthro type. This also connects some modern Bulgarians to some Greeks and people of other national backgrounds, which contrary to showcasing nationalistic divisions actually goes to show that various divided peoples have more in common then various sources of nationalistic propaganda would have them believe in the first place. This information can be placed in there in a way that fits perfectly with said other sources. Thank you for your comment in this discussion.--Monshuai (talk) 09:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

red-coral.net

A user is trying to use this as a source for various statements at Indigenous People's Day. To me it looks like it doesn't meet any of the points of WP:SPS - it's from some guy's personal website where he publishes his poetry and sells merchandise. The author is not an established expert and claims no advanced degrees or other qualifications.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Reliability is not an on/off switch. It depends on the specific piece of content, and what it is being used to support. In this case the author is a member of a task force that sponsored the now-infamous legislation to rename Columbus Day to Indigenous People's Day, and has been one of the organizers of the annual celebration ever since. The page in question is the announcement of their annual pow-wow, together with lots of supporting material about the issues, history, and so on. In response to the above-editor's requests I have found other more editorially-neutral sources for every proposition sourced, removed any content that in my quick search could be supported only by this source, and in all cases but two remove this source as a citation. The two that remain are: (1) sourcing a mention of the committee, which has other sources, on theory that this is an informational link that adds rather than detracts from the verifiability and information available via the encyclopedia on the committee; and (2) mentioning that there is a pow-wow every year, an uncontroversial statement for which this serves as a valid primary source (e.g. an announcement of an event by the sponsors serves to verify that the event occurred - but note that I have found other sources confirming this). There are many cases where we use an organizer's own statements about an organization to verify uncontroversial facts about the organization. RS is not a blanket ban on everything but the most sterling sources, it is a standard used to ensure verifiability. Here the information is verified, and the addition of a second source serves to fill out the supporting content available to interested readers should they care to follow the link. Wikidemon (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

If the material is found in reliable sources, this inferior source is rendered unnecessary. If the material is found only in in this inferior source, it doesn't need to be in an encyclopedia article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Slate magazine as a reliable source for the Taliban website

An IP editor has asked to this link to the "official" Taliban website to the Taliban article.

* Taliban's website (English)

He supplied this link to a Slate (online magazine) article as a source for the information. Another editor remarked that Slate is not a reliable source for information about the Middle East. The discussion is here. I looked at Slate and it has the appearance of a reliable news magazine, but I wanted to get some other opinions here. What do you think of this as a source for the official Taliban website? Celestra (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem with it. Slate is a reputable and well-established online magazine with a decent reputation for reporting. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

As an update, this same info is now being reported by Wired Magazine.[34] -- 209.6.238.201 (talk) 07:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Benjamin Walker's Hindu World as a source for articles on Indian history

Referenced in several Kamboja-related articles. Anyone know how is it regarded by recent historians? Itsmejudith (talk) 09:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

NO its an encyclopedia from 1968. It is not an acceptable source for history. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

To expand, even given FUTON bias against the subcontinent, the citations in Scholar since 1990 are not connected to disciplines and investigations that are considered credible in historical practice. "1968" publication by Praeger and the subcontinent should trigger serious warning bells if you're asking about historical veracity. Subcontinental history has changed dramatically since the 1970s. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Very useful, many thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The work was reviewed in Religious Studies, Vol. 5, No. 1 (Oct., 1969) and the review was positive overall, calling the books "a survey which will prove a most useful reference book, provided it is used critically, for anyone concerned with the Hindu tradition. Mr Walker is to be commended for his staggering achievement." The main "minor blemishes" that the review pointed out were that the encyclopedia relied mainly on secondary sources; should have had more maps and illustrations; the Romanization scheme was somewhat old fashioned; the treatment sometimes passed value-judgments; and the topic selection was sometimes idiosyncratic. These are not significant issues as far as our use is concerned.
So while I understand that this is a 40 year old one-person tertiary source, I think it is reasonable to use it as a source as long as it is is done "critically" i.e., don't use it for redflag claims, and keep in mind that things that were true in or upto the 1960s may no longer hold. And as usual, use a better, more recent source, whenever one is available. Abecedare (talk) 12:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Being old doesn't make it unreliable. But its use probably requires more care because of that. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Is divine revelation a reliable source?

I don't think so but am having a little run-in with a user who does seem to think so. I would be grateful if people who care about this policy could comment here:[35]. This is a very short description. The other editor suggests I consult other articles, which I think he wrote - and which seem to be based on "divine revelation" too. It might be a good idea of some people who participate in this page check out those linked articles. Just follow the link here, it will be obvious to you. This is not an edit conflict, no conflict over the article, yet - just a strange conversation about what is a good source for our articles. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It does look very problematic to only use Scripture or Saints' diaries as sources for articles, because those must be considered primary sources in this situation. The mainstay of an article should be based on citations from secondary sources, and primary sources should only be used as quotes or to illustrate how the subjects themselves perceived it. However, as theology is not really my field, it would be nice to have some more opinions from other editiors on this. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Latin Americans in the UK population estimates

Some time ago, I posted here asking about the suitability of a source which estimates the number of people from various Latin American countries living in the UK. The source itself uses the term "guesstimates" to describe these figures. It was agreed that it was OK to use the figures, providing that they were flagged as guesstimates. However, there are two current problems with the use of these statistics at present.

Firstly, a number of articles (such as Colombians in the United Kingdom) are using the figures to describe the Latin American population "regardless of birthplace", which I take to mean including UK-born descendents of immigrants from Latin America, despite the fact that the source does not make clear whether the estimates include these people or not.

Secondly, the Office for National Statistics has recently published population estimates for the largest 60 foreign-born groups in the UK (summarised at Foreign-born population of the United Kingdom) which are significantly lower than the "guesstimates". This source is surely more reliable (it includes 95 per cent confidence intervals, for instance) and only Brazilians feature in the top 60, with 56,000 Brazilian-born people as the central estimate, compared to a guesstimate of 200,000.

Any thoughts on this? I'm inclined to think that the guesstimates are now redundant. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed using the Office for National Statistics is a far more reliable and accurate. Official stats should always be given priority. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

So what about an article such as Colombians in the United Kingdom? There are no statistics from the ONS to quote, but the very fact that there aren't means that there are fewer Colombians in the UK than the guesstimates suggest. Do we remove the guesstimate from the article? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd say leave them out. The article already has plenty of detail of the official figures. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

What is the actual source that's being debated? Also, I wouldn't get too worked up over the term "guesstimate". Perhaps it's more common in the US than the UK, but describing it as an "estimate" is just fine. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The source is Sofia Buchuck. "Crossing borders: Latin American exiles in London". untoldLondon. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It's technically RS, though it's kind of an "off the cuff" figure. The article also says there are 800,000 salsa classes happening in the UK every night(!). You may be able to find other estimates, perhaps from where that article got its figures from. "These numbers are guesstimates from embassies, community centres and refugee groups" So you might see if the Brazilian embassy publishes a figure of their own that contradicts the UK figure. I'm not aware of all the issues involved. Does the UK not ask about ethnicity or nationality on its census? - "there has never been a precise census of Latin Americans in the UK" And are there many undocumented immigrants in the UK? Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The UK census does ask about ethnicity, but when published the data is categorised into what most of use would understand to be races, not ethnicities (white, black, Asian etc.), albeit with some differentiation (i.e. white British, white Irish, white other). There is no way to tell if anyone has Latin American ancestry from this question. The census also collects data on country of birth, but again this does not help with identifying people with Latin American ancestry. It's clearly the most reliable source for statistics on Latin American-born people though. I've tried to find the original statistics used in the article but to no avail. I guess the author just called up the embassies and community organisations and asked them to take a guess. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

As for the Office for National Statistics statistics quoted at Latin Americans in the United Kingdom, these just cover country of birth and nationality. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone else have a view on this? Cordless Larry (talk) 09:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

When good sources go bad

Resolved

 – The Washington Post is RS.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

please refrain from adding spurious comments or disccusions to this noticeboard

---

I understand from previous discussions here that it is possible for a source to be generally reliable, but unreliable in a specific instance. I believe that I have come across a case where a newspaper which is normally regarded as an iron-clad reliable source has made an error, and the error should not be used in the article LaRouche movement. It concerns a quoted passage from LaRouche's 1979 autobiography.

Here is the quote in context:

Only the individual who is totally committed to public life from a Neoplatonic humanist standpoint, and who has thus superseded the infantile self-image of individual sensuous, family-centered life as a primary moral reality, can locate his or her sense of personal identity in respect to universal acts which are concretely universal acts and consciously motivated as intended universal acts.

The "silver soul" is a person whose rule by scientific knowledge (in the sense of a specific system) awards his public life so governed a certain determined universality of importance and corresponding moral qualities. However, the dichotomy between public and personal life represents the lodestone of his infantile, family-centered personal self, apart from public life, attached to his public self in such a way that the sense of personal identity which bridges the two conditions must be agreeable to both conditions, and hence cannot be the sense of identity of a "golden soul."

This does not mean that the "golden souls" have no personal life, but rather that their personal lives are ordered as a sharing among persons of their dedication to a Neoplatonic-humanist ordering to public life. Personal life is exemplified by activity such as Beethoven's music, or other art of persons who were "golden souls" in the governing and internal features of their art. It means that there is no moral dichotomy between the standards and interests of public and personal life, that the Neoplatonic standards and interests of public life rule in personal life.

At the lowest level, below the "silver souls," are the "bronze" or "iron" souls, the poor donkeys, the poor sheep, whose consciousness is dominated by the infantile world-outlook of individual sensuous life.

The objective of my life is to contribute to bringing men and women out of the wretched condition of sensuous donkeys and incompletely human "silver souls," to contribute to making of our species a race of "golden souls." To this end, I, like all my city-builder predecessors, work to commit our race to Neoplatonic humanist policies of generalized scientific and technological progress, and to policies of education, culture, and opportunity for realizing contributions of the creative individual powers to the general benefit of humanity.

The war in which I am presently engaged against the forces of the Whore of Babylon, against the heirs of Aristotle, is not a war merely for some particular policy, but a battle for that Great Design under which sovereign nations dedicated to generalized scientific and technological progress form a powerful alliance to crush the remaining power of the oligarch-ist faction, to rid our planet of that faction. This is but a necessary precondition for securing the humanity of ourselves and our posterity. It is a necessary step which must prevail if man is to acquire that environment of policy and institutions he requires to rid himself of bestiality, to rise above donkeyness and the wretched arrogance of mere learning, to becoming truly human, a "golden soul."

(If editors want an even larger context, look at this site and do Ctrl F for the word "sheep." The site is not a reliable source, but I have no reason to believe that the archived transcription of the book in question is inaccurate.) Now, here is what a Washington Post article says about the quote, out of context. We have no link to the article, but the editor who added the material provided this excerpt:

"We represent the only efficient moral, intellectual and political force capable of saving human civilization." LaRouche echoes this notion in his 1979 autobiography, in which he describes his followers as the world's "golden souls," and the rest of humanity as "the poor donkeys, the poor sheep, whose consciousness is dominated by the infantile world-outlook of individual sensuous life." LaRouche continually describes the world as oozing with lasciviousness and sexual depravity.

This contemptuous view of non-members, and grandiose thinking about their own historical mission, is at the root of the criminal charges facing them, former members and law enforcement officials say. [Inside the Weird World of Lyndon LaRouche John Mintz. The Washington Post (pre-1997 Fulltext). Washington, D.C.: Sep 20, 1987. pg. c.01]

Here is what the Wikipedia article presently says:[36] I believe that the Post writer has taken a quote which discusses a philosophical concept taken from Plato's Republic and misrepresented it as a disparaging comment directed at all who are not members of his movement. I think that the misrepresentation is sufficiently obvious that that this article should not be taken as a reliable source on this particular subject. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

There is always the possibility that an otherwise reliable source will make an error. When this happens, you should raise the issue on the article talk page (as these are where you will find people who know the subject and can best assess whether an error has indeed occured.) Blueboar (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Well, in this case, there are only two regular editors, and we are embroiled in a dispute about how the WP:RS policy ought to apply to this instance. --Leatherstocking (talk) 16:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

There's also a larger issue here, in that there is a reason to suspect that reliable sources are "error prone" in regards to the article subject. Would you suggest that the best course of action is to still assume that a "paper of record" is reliable and only look into each source if there's a reason to suspect an inaccuracy, or would it be better to look at each source critically even if it's from a publisher with a good reputation? -- Atama頭 17:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Regarding that "larger issue", LaRouche has said that the entire U.S. news industry has conspired against him. IIRC, all the major newspapers, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Washington Times, the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, and the Wall Street Journal, are viewed as having vendettas against him, not to mention NBC, Murdoch, and all the British newspapers. Are we accepting that view of reality? So far, it isn't clear that the Washington Post has made any significant errors in what they've printed about LaRouche. It'd take more than a partisan assertion that they're biased to stop regarding them as a reliable source.   Will Beback  talk  22:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's each editor's choice what he or she wants to look into. What is of interest is if they find a discrepancy. Then we have to proceed on a case by case basis. In this case it does seem the Post went a little beyond LaRouche's text. People are reliable sources for their own words, so it must be taken seriously. He engages in soul classification, but doesn't describe his followers as "golden souls". The closest he comes in the ref cited seems to be "The objective of my life is to contribute to bringing men and women out of the wretched condition of sensuous donkeys and incompletely human 'silver souls,' to contribute to making of our species a race of 'golden souls'. " He says that he is a golden soul (see "innermost secrets of the apostles"), but he doesn't tell us whether he has ever been successful in his objective, whether he believes any of his followers is a golden soul. Our text should be changed a little to make it consistent with both the secondary WaPo and primary autobio sources, it seems pointless to me to highlight this minor discrepancy for the reader in the article. As the autobio does support the idea that most of us are sensuous donkeys, silver souls at best, nothing wrong with using the Post for that.John Z (talk) 18:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It should also be mentioned that this is not the only occasion in which LaRouche or his top aides have used the term "golden souls". It is used several other places in the book, and we have a primary source of a speech given by an aide the year before the book was published using the term. More can be found at Talk:LaRouche movement/Sources#"Golden souls". If this were a clear mistake about a simple fact then it'd be different. I don't think that this purported misinterpretation is clear enough to discount a highly reliable source. Otherwise we'd be in the business of interpreting primary texts, which we should avoid. The Washington Post view is reasonable, and in our Wikipedia article their interpreation of the quote is attributed to them. See LaRouche movement#Members.   Will Beback  talk  19:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of adding the next two paragraphs to the material Leatherstocking quoted. LaRouche says: The objective of my life is to contribute to bringing men and women out of the wretched condition of sensuous donkeys and incompletely human "silver souls," to contribute to making of our species a race of "golden souls." That makes it pretty clear that he believes most of humanity are "sensuous donkeys" and "silver souls", and that his objective is to elevate those who will listen to him.   Will Beback  talk  19:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Neither this source, nor any of the other sources you have assembled, is sufficient to justify the claim in the present version of LaRouche movement, that LaRouche is contemptuous of non-members. We should particularly avoid, under BLP, falsely attributing an opinion to the subject by the misrepresentation of the subject's published writings. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no question that the Washington Post has correctly quoted LaRouche. There is no question that we are correctly quoting the Washington Post. The only dispute here is about the Washington Post's interpretation of the LaRouche quotation. In the article, that interpretation is attributed to the Post. I've shown above that LaRouche says that those who aren't "golden souls" are in the "wretched condition sensuous donkeys and incompletely human 'silver souls'." There's no reaqson to delete this material, as you've done repeatedly. It is well-sourced and attributed, and the the assertion itself does not represent a red flag. Unless a majority of uninvoled editors here feel differently, the material hold be restored.   Will Beback  talk  19:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The father of an NCLC member, who was attempting to persuade his daughter to leave the organization, was greeted one morning by a hearse whose driver and attendant had been told "to pick up the body," an unmistakable threat.

— "U.S. LABOR PARTY: The Swarmy Life and Times of the NCLC" GREGORY F. ROSE. National Review March 30, 1979 P. 409-413

According to former members and incidents described in party publications, a frequently used tactic--particularly when members are selling the group's literature or distrupting meetings of other organizations--is to try to incite violence though insults. "Those guys are maniacs," said one former member. "I've seen them. If you don't buy a paper, you're a pig or smell bad or they call you a Nazi. They two inches from a person's face and cut them to pieces. They can get anybody to hit them in a second. They love it, getting bloddy. They talk about it all the time." When members do elicit a reaction, they file assault charges and include the incident in accounts of "assassination attempts."

— "U.S. Labor Party: Cult Surrounded by Controversy," Howard Blum and Paul Montgomery, New York Times, October 7, 1979

Two weeks ago in Rochester, N.H., a young woman from the University of New Hampshire was verbally abused by an angry LaRouche campaign worker after she asked the candidate critical questions and talked to a reporter at a rally. The LaRouche aide called her a "prostitute" and re¬fused to let her ride a bus back to the campus with the other students who had attended the rally.

— "LaRouche Trying to Lose Splinter Label" ELLEN HUME Los Angeles Times Feb 16, 1980; pg. A20

Ex-members said that the organization brands as traitors those who quit the group. Former members said they know of several dropouts who have received threatening phone calls from supporters. The LaRouche-tied New Solidarity newspaper in 1974 ran an obituary for three associates who it said had been murdered by federal agents. The three, who were still alive, had recently quit the group. The group's internal memos in the 1970s and early 1980s referred to individual dropouts variously as a liar, a thief, "psychotic," a KGB pawn, "a scummy dupe," "a witting agent," "a pathological liar," "a zombie" and "virtually paranoid." The organization has used a range of other unorthodox methods.

— "Critics of LaRouche Group Hassled, Ex-Associates Say" By John Mintz Washington Post Staff Writer January 14, 1985

However, a number of letters and telephone calls protesting harassment by the signature gatherers came in to the secretary of state's office, officials said. According to one complaint, a youth yelled at a Catholic priest in Camarillo, accusing him of being a homosexual, when the priest would not sign the petition. In Huntington Beach, a woman coming from a Post Office was accosted for her signature and when she refused to sign, the petition pusher yelled, "You are going to get AIDS!" according to her letter to the secretary.

— LaRouche is linked to petition , Initiative proposal would quarantine AIDS patients; [1,2,3,4,5,6 Edition] Don Davis. The San Diego Union. San Diego, Calif.: May 23, 1986. pg. A.3

Election officials, charging followers of extremist Lyndon LaRouche are bullying people into signing candidate petitions, Monday warned voters to scrutinize petitions before jotting down their names. [..]

The incidents, which took place at a downtown Rochester shopping mall and several other locations, ended with "abusive language" aimed at people who refuse to sign petitions, Toole said. "This is just one more harassment to the voter," Toole said. "It just discourages people from participating in the electoral process, including signing petitions and getting out to vote in primaries."

— "LAROUCHE BACKERS ACCUSED OF 'BULLYING'" AP, Albany Times Union (Albany, NY) July 8, 1986 pB11

Under questioning from Mr. Markham, [former security aide Charles] Tate said he quit the LaRouche organization four years ago because the movement had contempt for decent, ordinary humanity.

I had witnessed Mr. LaRouche lie to the membership again and again, Mr. Tate testified. I had seen revolting actions.

I had seen members of the organization insulted and humiliated, he said.

Mr. Tate told the jury Tuesday that Mr. LaRouche's chief fund raiser, William Wertz, had told the staff to try to have loans converted into contributions and, if unsuccessful, to not repay them unless there was a political downside or threatened lawsuit.

In his testimony today, Mr. Tate said the organization harassed political figures, from liberals to conservatives, and Mr. LaRouche's followers assumed false identities to gain information on their enemies.

— WITNESS IN TRIAL FAULTS LAROUCHE, AP, Nw York Times, Nov 24, 1988

A description of Lyndon LaRouche as a paranoid, lying drunkard who believed the American public was not morally fit to survive highlighted the first week of testimony in the government's mail fraud case against the political extremist and his followers. [..]

Money was a constant worry, with LaRouche regularly pressuring his fund- raisers to get tougher with the public, especially during the Democratic presidential primaries in 1984. Unless he raised enough money to get into the White House, he often reminded staff members, "there was no hope for mankind," Tate testified. [..]

It was LaRouche's responsibility, he often said, to act for mankind because the public lacked the moral fitness to survive such disasters as a KGB takeover or nuclear war, Tate testified over two days.

Tate also depicted his former boss as a paranoid schizophrenic who repeatedly lied, humiliated and insulted staff members and often made decisions while drunk.

Defense attorneys engaged in sometimes testy exchanges with Tate under cross-examination but did little to rebut his assertions about life at LaRouche residences on New York's upper East Side, in West Germany and his sprawling estate in Leesburg. [..]

Testimony from former LaRouche insiders disclosed a contempt toward would- be contributors. Higher-ups often yelled at telephone solicitors for being too soft on the public, for listening to their problems and for not pressuring them to give money.

"You have to have only one thing on your mind -- get the money," former fund-raiser Chris Curtis said he was told. "The minute you listen to their excuses, you're dead."

Curtis had the last word under questioning from the prosecution before the trial recessed for the Thanksgiving holiday. He said one of the defendants, fellow fund-raiser Michael Billington, referred to lenders as "pigs and swine" when they insisted they be repaid.

— LAROUCHE LIFESTYLE IS FOCUS OF TRIAL United Press International. Richmond Times - Dispatch. Richmond, Va.: Nov 27, 1988. pg. A-8

Susan is hardly the only protestor with an abrasive personality. Like most people, I first encountered followers of Lyndon LaRouche in an airport, when one shouted at me, "Even guys with beards can support nuclear power." In my case he was wrong. But I was strucke by how unconcerned he was with making a favorable impression on others. So sure of the scientific correctness of LaRouche's weird economic analyses, his followers were just waiting for their vindication. They displayed the arrogance of certainty in addition to the irritation of difficult personalities.

— The Art of Moral Protest: Culture, Biography, and Creativity in Social Movements By James M. Jasper University of Chicago Press, 1999 ISBN 0226394816, 9780226394817 p. 222

Trader Joe's wants Lyndon LaRouche's Political Action Committee enjoined from protesting outside its stores. The company claims LaRouche acolytes have harassed customers outside 60 of its California stores while protesting health-care reform, calling Trader Joe's patrons "Bitches" and "Hitler Lovers."

— Trader Joe's Wants LaRouche PAC Barred By ELIZABETH BANICKI Courthouse News Service [11] September 04, 2009

Neither LaRouche nor his movement are known for showing respect to outsiders, or even insiders. Above are reports spanning three decades indicating contempt or outright harassment of outsiders, and it's just a tiny portion of the evidence for that. In light of the overall world view of LaRouche, I don't think that the Washingtopn Post is misinterpreting his writings.   Will Beback  talk  20:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Government source for picture of massacre

There's a discussion[37] going on about this picture on the Ethnic cleansing of Georgians in South Ossetia article. The picture is sourced to the government of South Ossetia's website, and depicts "South Ossetian civilians killed by Georgian forces in May, 1992".

Some people are arguing that a government source is no good for a controversial picture like this, and that the picture might be from a different, unrelated incident. I say if a similar situation involved American, German or British government websites, no one would be making a fuss, and their arguments are fueled by their own personal opinions about the reliability of the South Ossetian government while trying to find technicalities to hide it. I would like some unbiased opinions please. LokiiT (talk) 05:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The website in question obviously cannot be considered a reliable source - it is the website of a government of one of the belligerents involved in the conflict. If there is independent confirmation from a reliable source that in fact the photo is what the website says it is then of course it's a different matter. But no such confirmation has been provided - rather assertions have been made that "any official state agency is a reliable source". Special care needs to be taken given the very graphic nature of this photo.radek (talk) 06:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: Radeksz is involved in the dispute and therefore has a conflict of interest. Precisely the reason I came here instead of continuing the argument on the talk page. LokiiT (talk) 06:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Involved in dispute yourself LokiiT. I'm just presenting the other side, as is my right to do.radek (talk) 06:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

He's being accused by Biophys of being a sockpuppet. I've been accused by Biophys of being a sockpuppet too, an accusation which was proven to be completely false. You and Biophys on the other hand, are part of the biggest ArbCom case to hit Wikipedia. Don't equate the two. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a WP:RS. Is there a reason to dispute the picture's authenticity? If you want to dispute it, you need to give a source which supports your view—your personal opinion is not enough. Offliner (talk) 06:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is a reason - it comes from the website of a government involved in the conflict. Provide a source which confirms the photo is what it is. Like, for example, has it ever been used by any independent (and no, Putinite sources don't count) outlet, with that or similar caption?radek (talk) 06:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Additionally (though this is a separate issue), in one of the articles that the photo is being used it's also UNDUE.radek (talk) 06:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:Verifiability, not truth. Materials from government websites are widely used as references all over Wikipedia—even in articles about wars the governments participated in. If the picture really is not genuine, then it should be easy for you to come up with sources (such as Georgian ones) which tell precisely that. Offliner (talk) 06:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, verifiability, not truth. So we need to verify if this photo comes from reliable sources or partisan government websites. In *some* cases - mostly where the info is non-controversial or can be independently verified - government websites are used to source ... view of government agencies. Sometimes to cite some statistics and the like. But there is no blanket rule that *any* government website is a reliable source. If the picture really is genuine, then it should be easy for you to come up with independent sources (such as non-Ossetian or non-Russian government ones) which verify (as in "verifiability") that the photo is what the website claims it is.radek (talk) 06:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you find a major (non-Ossetian, non-Russian government) news agency which used the photo for example? If so, I'll be happy to withdraw my objections.radek (talk) 06:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This is your opinion. Great, but not really, considering we already know your biases and conflicts of interest. Now can you please cite a wiki policy that backs your views up about government sources and the circumstances of when they're allowed and when they're not? Note that it's not our job to prove the reliability of a notable source. It's your job to disprove it. LokiiT (talk) 06:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

And you have your opinion, which we also know, given your biases and your conflict of interests. There's no wiki policy which says that any government site is a reliable source. And yes it is your job to prove a reliability of a source.radek (talk) 06:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)::::::And you have your opinion, which we also know, given your biases and your conflict of interests. There's no wiki policy which says that any government site is a reliable source. And yes it is your job to prove a reliability of a source.radek (talk) 06:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary. It's clearly a reliably published source. Whether it is true is a different matter; obviously it's been published for propaganda purposes, so it should be treated with some caution. It can legitimately be used to represent the S.O. government's viewpoint and should be cited as such. However, it should not be presented as an established fact. It is reliable only in so far as it is a statement of the government's POV. That POV is, clearly, a notable one, so it should be represented in the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

What makes you say that it is a reliably published source (published "somewhere" is not the same as reliably published)? Would info from the website of the Sudanese government be reliable in regard to say, Darfur? I can see it being presented as an opinion of the Ossetian government... if the picture wasn't so graphic and included in interest of obvious POV pushing.radek (talk) 06:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The same arguments made for deleting the picture, can be made for deleting the article. Yet I don't see you making those arguments Radek. Actually if you think about it, the article's even worse. It cites sources that think that ethnic cleansing is a form of genocide. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 06:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input ChrisO, I agree with what you're saying and it's consistent with wiki policy. Radekz: Yes, a picture from the Sudanese government would be reliable insofar as being a picture produced by the government of Sudan. I think the same logic would apply. LokiiT (talk) 07:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a reliable source. Considering the impact a picture can have though I question wether or not it's use falls within our guidelines on due weight. Also it's use needs to be attributed, if used it needs to be made clear that the source of the image could be biased. Taemyr (talk) 08:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

While this refers to article information, not pictures, I balieve this can shed some light on the issue. Questionable sources: "Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves. (See below.) Questionable sources are generally unsuitable as a basis for citing contentious claims about third parties." As long as the material (the picture) is being used to illustrate the section, without making a claim, I see no reason to not include it.

Fact is, if it is a legitimate government source, I see no policy that states that it cannot be used, no matter whether true or reliable. Remember, it is not our job to decide what is right or true, only to report the information. I would suggesting including the picture, with a note that is from a source involved in the conflict. Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I for one think it is a mistake to automatically lend credulity to governments where those same governments have reason to falsify or exaggerate evidence. We try to (as seen above) partition this into WEIGHT and RS and what-not, but I'm uncomfortable just declaring that "this is a reliable source for the gov't of Georgia's opinion of what this picture is" and carting people off to another noticeboard. Does the government of Georgia have a record for reliable presentation of facts on this issue? Is there evidence that they have falsified documents or manufactured controversies before? Is the information corroborated anywhere? I'm also really uncomfortable treating this as "illustration" rather than "support" for a claim. I feel that is a false distinction in general and is especially so with visual images. The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (documentary) offers a good example of (on both sides) the use of selective visual presentation in order to deceive and manipulate. We should do here what we do with any source, hold it to the standards demanded by RX and V. Protonk (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with ChrisO about this photo. There doesn't seem to be any particular controversy about it, and the facts expressed by the photo - the deaths of a number of civilians - are consistent with reliably sourced information, and apparently not disputed. It should be attributed and it is. Neutrality and undue weight are issues, but it doesn't seem unacceptable in that regard either. As always, let the reader form his or her own opinions.John Z (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)