Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Maryland Online Encyclopedia

Is the Maryland Online Encyclopedia a reliable source? It claims to be a "a joint project of the Maryland Historical Society, the Maryland Humanities Council, the Enoch Pratt Free Library, and the Maryland State Department of Education." If you look at a page such as their article on Ethel Waters, there's a list of sources, and the name of the person who wrote the article. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be an excellent source, supported by several trustworthy organizations. From what I can tell it appears to be reliable. ←Spidern→ 13:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Great. It looked like it to me, just wanted a second opinion. Thanks. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Historical Facts Regarding Principality of Pagania

Hello! Point taken, a more concise version presented here:

Wikipedia (English Site) Article: Pagania (other articles that link or related, for example Towns in that region, Islands & other historical articles)

Source Referenced Information: De Administrator Imperio

Unreliable source is being used as historical facts on Wikipedia. It concerns the article on the Dalmatian Principality of Pagania in today's modern Croatia.

The article is using only one reference point that states that the peoples of the former Medieval State of Pagania are of Serbian descent by using the "De Administrator Imperio" written by Roman Emperor Constantine VII Progenitors (Byzantine Empire). From a scholarly perspective the "De Administrator Imperio" cannot be used as a source for factual information for Dalmatia (Croatia) as it is an unreliable source. It has contradictions within its own paragraphs and uses myths as fact. It also contradicts the ethnic demographics of that region (The writers have not bothered to explain why this is the case!). There have been studies conducted on the "De Administrator Imperio" from an unbiased perspective. Noted historian J.B Bury has expressed problems with certain paragraphs of "De Administrator Imperio" (reference: The early history of the Slavonic settlements in Dalmatia, Croatia, & Serbia-Preface Section, fourth paragraph).

There are other studies, which are available on the Internet (reference: www.economicexpert.com/a/De:Administrando:Imperio.html).

The “www.britannica.com Dalmatia Region Croatia” web site do not mention “De Administrator Imperio Chronicles” as an historical reference for the Dalmatian/Croatian Region (reference: www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/150229/Dalmatia). This omission is obviously due to the fact that this reference is considered problematic.

Could Wikipedia’s Editors please investigate this?

Sincerely

123.2.59.195 (talk) 11:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussed more fully in previous thread... summary: De Administrator Imperio is considered to be a reliable primary source, although like most historical sources it has its limitations and problems. Other sources may disagree with it, but that does not make it unreliable (such disagreements are common in scholarship). The solution is to mention what all the sources say per WP:NPOV. Blueboar (talk) 13:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Reliable Sources/Noticeboard! I would like to focus my concerns even further. The unreliable sources I find a problem are in Chapters 30, 31 and 32 from De Administrator Imperio. For the issues that I have brought up previously these chapters should be examined closely. In my opinion chapters 30, 31 and 32 are unreliable sources for facts. They should not be used in a direct or indirect fashion when referring to the ethnic demography of the region of Southern Dalmatia. Sir Floyd (talk) 08:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC) (formally know as 123.2.59.195)

DAI is considered to be one of the main historical sources for the early history of the South Slavs. However it also appeared to be very controversial one. It's not some homogenous writing, it's a compilation of the other Byzantine sources, put together by the Byzantine Emperor Constantine Porhirogenitus (end of the 10th century) meant to be a sort of political guide to his direct descendent. According to some analysis its pieces were written by up to 17 different writers or rewriters (by style) in different ages.

Controversy of the chapters mentioned by User:123.2.59.195 is very well known, it's a part about alleged Serbian settlements in Dalmatia. Per some analysis this chapter was added during 12th century and reflected political situation of that age (Serbian political expansion - not ethnic!) and not age described in the writing (7th or 8th century)- Serbs were Byzantine vasals and people who were supposed to spread Orthodox religion to the west in the name of the Byzantine Empire. According to DAI the Serbs settled a large part of Dalmatia during the Early Medieval, this piece has become the main evidence used by the Serbs, unfortunatelly blindly taken without any criticism and upgraded with a lot of Serb published literacy where everything is interpreted by a few sentences in DAI. However it's been proved that "Dalmatia" as mentioned there (DAI) should be understood as a territory of ex-Roman province Dalmatia which was much larger than modern Dalmatia - but Serbian historians use it as it's modern! It went so far that any mention od Red Croatia (although recorded by several other historical sources) is completely discreditted here in en.Wiki as well as in Serbian historian circles (it seems that Serb wikipedians are much more active here than Croatian).

In reality there is no any material or linguistic evidence of any Serbian presence there in history, quite contrary, it's all about Croatian ethnical and cultural heritage.

All earlier attempts of the Croatian users to balance these articles failed up to now, there's always some edit war there. One of the Cro users who was very active 3 yrs ago was so disappointed that he left en.wiki and erased all his discussions and sources presented on this matter. Because of how Cro history is treated here, people in Croatia use name "Serbopedia" for en.wiki and the Western Balkan related historical articles in en.wiki are used for a joke by proffessional Croatian historians.

For example how it goes when Serbian quazi-science (motivated by their continual expansionistic politics in the Balkan) comes into the scene, just take a look at the Montenegro related articles. At the moment the Montenegrins are not allowed to call their language Montenegrin, or their ethnicity Montenegrin. Serbs appropriate Montenegrin culture and ethnogenesis as well as Croatian in Dalmatia - Montenegro was annexed by Serbia 100 yrs ago (many Serbs settled it) and got indenpendent just recently. All in all - sad. Zenanarh (talk) 12:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Main idea of my comment is: DAI is not all unreliable, pieces are, or better to say interpretation of it. Zenanarh (talk) 12:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Make that a 20 foot pole... All we here at this noticeboard can and should do is affirm that DAI is considered reliable. The fact that other reliable sources may disagree with it does not make it unreliable. Such disagreements are quite normal in scholarship. We handle such disagreements by discussing what all the sources say, giving each proper weight, per WP:NPOV. Blueboar (talk) 13:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

This is about the article Pagania, which currently features the following prominent quotation:

"From the river Orontius begins Pagania and stretches along as far as the river Zentina; it has three 'zhupanates', Rhastotza and Mokros and that of Dalen. Two of these 'zhupanates', viz., Rhastotza and that of Mokros, lie on the sea, and possess galleys; but that of Dalenos lies distant from the sea, and they live by agriculture.

Neighbour to them are four islands, Meleta, Kourkoura, Bratza and Pharos, most fair and fertile, with deserted cities upon them and many olive-yards; on these they dwell and keep their flocks, from which they live.

[...] these same Serbs decided to depart to their own homes, and the emperor sent them off. [...] And since what is now Serbia and Pagania and the so-called country of the Zachlumoi and Terbounia and the country of the Kanalites were under the dominion of the emperor of the Romans, [...] therefore the emperor settled these same Serbs in these countries."|20px|20px|Roman Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus|De Administrando Imperio}}

Pagania bordered Croatia (Dalmatia) to the west...

In other words the article does seem to use the DAI - which is a primary source - to assert that Pagania is "Serb" and that "Croatia" is separate, even though Pagania is in the modern Republic of Croatia. Paul B (talk) 13:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree... the quote is clearly attributed to Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus and De Administrando Imperio. So it should be read in a historical context... it is mearly saying that, in the 9th century, Pagania was regarded as being Serb and that Croatia was seperate. Was, not is. Blueboar (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Balkans 925 AD

Balkans 950 AD

Problem with this chapter is that it was probably added to DAI at the end of 12th century and reflected political situation of that moment - Serbian political expansion on southern Dalmatian principalities (in fact they were attacking southern Dalmatian cities, not settled it - there are no any evidence of the Serbian culture or ethnos there ever!). But DAI (supposed to be written at the end of 10th century) gives it as an information about Serbian settlement there during the migration period (~7th century), so retrogradly, while during 10th century these principalities were still attached to the Croatian Kingdom. It was the Emperor's political view - he tried to "steal" these regions from the church authority of the Roman Pope, whose subjects were the Croats. But it was never succesful. It doesn't have anything to do with modern situation. Slavic archaeological sites there (Pagania) are Old-Croatian ones. There's no doubt who settled it. Zenanarh (talk) 06:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Per some opinions this particular "story" presented by DAI was reflection of political (not ethnical!) change that had occured in the 2nd half of 10th century, seen on these 2 maps. In wikipedia it's presented as an evidence of Serbian settlement there 300 years earlier in the ages when the Slavic speakers had come to the western Balkans (according to out-of-date massive Slavic migration theory)!!! Zenanarh (talk) 09:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello there Wikipedia Reliable Sources/Noticeboard! I agree Chapters 30, 31 and 32 from De Administrator Imperio should be placed in their correct historical context. Referencing them as a reliable source for historical fact in any article will end up sounding contradictory. The writings in these chapters don’t match the historic and ethnic demographics of that region thus making them contradictory and controversial. The information that the chapters contain is fictional and not factual. The evidence that supports this is overwhelming and only a biased scholar would argue otherwise.

To put it differently, if so many reliable sources prove that one source is unreliable for facts then according to wikipedia that, that one source is accepted for fiction (this may be semantics?). I ask then why are such controversial writings used as a reference point in so many of wikipedic’s articles? If Wikipedia Reliable Sources/Noticeboard thinks that from their perspective there’s no issue with this, can they please point me, in a professional manner, in the right direction to allow me to voice my concerns regarding these matters.Sir Floyd (talk) 13:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC) (formally know as 123.2.59.195)

Usage of Quackwatch as RS in medical quackery

• NOTE: Source material is added below this comments section.

I was told at a different noticeboard that we should only use Quackwatch as a "source of opinion" until it was validated in WP:RSN (which I find to be preposterous, but here we are).

Barrett (the guy that created quackwatch.org) is a knowledgeable/notable source on health and nutrition issues, on medical quackery and on medicine. From his own bio:

a scientific advisor to the American Council on Science and Health, a CSICOP's Fellow, FDA Commissioner's Special Citation Award for Public Service in fighting nutrition quackery in 1984. Honorary membership in the American Dietetic Association in 1986. Two years teaching health education at The Pennsylvania State University. 2001 Distinguished Service to Health Education Award from the American Association for Health Education. (...) medical editor of Prometheus Books; and has been a peer-review panelist for several top medical journals. He has written more than 2,000 articles and delivered more than 300 talks at colleges, universities, medical schools, and professional meetings. His 50 books include (...) 'Dubious Cancer Treatment', published by the Florida Division of the American Cancer Society; 'Health Schemes, Scams, and Frauds', published by Consumer Reports Books; (...) and 'Reader's Guide to "Alternative" Health Methods', published by the American Medical Association [One book he edited] won the American Medical Writers Association award for best book of 1983 for the general public and became a special publication of Consumer Reports Books (...) His media appearances include Dateline, the Today Show, Good Morning America, ABC Prime Time, Donahue, CNN, National Public Radio, and more than 200 radio and television talk show interviews." Barret's bio(not a literal quote)

WP:SPS allows for this sort of sources "when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.": This guy meets this with flying colors for the field of medicine and of quackery in medicine.

I suggest that, if someone still claims that quackwatch.org is not a RS in medical quackery even after reading the above, then that person is plainly wikilawyering around WP:RS and having a severe case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This question has been brought to this noticeboard before at least once, and IIRC the consensus was in general yes, it is a RS about things such as medical fraud, quackery and such (it's not named HealWatch, after all), but that the attribution needs to be explicit. That seems like a reasonable position to me, as the main issues I would have with the site is that its tone is sometimes overly polemic, and that it's definition of quackery is IMO overly broad to include anything without explicit and sound medical evidence of its efficacy. So when it says something is quackery, it may not mean what I would take that to mean, which is that the practice was fraudulently promoted as effective in a particular case, i.e., charlatanism.

While I do not have a particular beef with Barrett, I would not bet the farm on the exact details of his self-published bio. Lots of truth grains to be sure, but it as it reads is not without puffery. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There was a relevant discussion at WT:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal#Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal. The result was that Arbcom amended an earlier decision that had been (mis?)construed by many as a content ruling saying that Quackwatch is not a reliable source. Obviously, the arbitrators did not rule about whether it is a reliable source, but it seems to me that they agreed:

(1) Quackwatch is a reliable source.

(2) Quackwatch is a partisan source.

(3) The earlier ruling against an editor for using Quackwatch in a specific way did not need changing (other than removing an inappropriate word from the header).

This is in no way binding; it is not even a decision. But I think regarding (1) and (2) it is exactly the right conclusion. (I have not looked closely at (3) and it doesn't seem to be very relevant here). The arguments presented that make Quackwatch more reliable than a random website are somewhat weak. (The websites of some scientific organisations presenting it as such. Websites of scientific organisations are not necessarily maintained to scientific standards. Also acceptance of Quackwatch as an expert source by the popular press.) They make Quackwatch a reliable source, but not of the same quality as a scholarly publication or a scientific organisation.

The partisan nature of Quackwatch becomes apparent in its occasional insistence that CAM practices such as acupuncture that are being seriously examined by the scientific community can be rejected without such examination. This makes Quackwatch unsuitable as a reliable source for certain purposes, and this must be discussed on a case-by-case basis. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree that this needs to be discussed on a case by case basis. In general, I am reluctant to call any website of the "__X__watch" variety reliable... the appendage of "watch" to the name tends to indicate a strong POV approach to the subject. The vast majority of such websites are nothing more than personal websites authored by an individual with an axe to grind. Quackwatch seems to be no exception.

However, the author might qualify as an expert. If so, then Quackwatch might qualify under the "expert exception" to the "personal webpages and blogs are generally not reliable" rule. It might be usable as a source for a statement as to the author's opinion. Blueboar (talk) 15:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the respondents thus far in that Quackwatch should be judged on a case-by-case basis and that Barrett's self-styled bio should be taken with a large grain of salt The case we are looking at now deals with the article: List of topics characterized as pseudoscience‎. I believe that here Quackwatch is a reliable source. This is an article which merely looks for notable sources which have made a characterization of some topic as a pseudoscience. Quackwatch is notable and has made such a characerization. However, if the article was "List of pseudosciences" (which it is not), then Quackwatch would not be a reliable source because - per WP:PSCI - in order for Wikipedia to declare something a pseudoscience, we must show that the scientific community generally considers it so. As a non-peer-reviewed, partisan website which ignores contradictory evidence, Quackwatch certain does not qualify as being representational of the scientific community. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 15:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Quackwatch is generally a RS about alternative medicine, and like all sources each use should be judged on merit. I disagree with Levine's hypothetical and interpretation of PSCI, but that is well documented and the hypothetical is not relevant here. Verbal chat 15:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

When JAMA, Lancet, and NEJM all consider it to be a RS (see Quackwatch#References for cites), we must accept that it meets a very high standard. The decision that it is explicitly not NPOV is unsurprising. It makes no attempt to present fallacies, frauds, and quackeries as equal to evidence based medicine. Levine2112's allegation that Quackwatch (and implicitly Barrett) ignores contradictory evidence is a serious one that should either be backed up or retracted.LeadSongDog come howl 18:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

From the Village Voice: Barrett depends heavily on negative research and case studies in which alternative therapies do not work, but he says that most case studies that show positive results of alternative therapies are unreliable. Former adviser to the National Institutes of Health's Office of Alternative Medicine Peter Barry Chowka states that: He seems to be putting down trying to be objective... Quackwatch.com is consistently provocative and entertaining and occasionally informative... But I personally think he's running against the tide of history. But that's his problem, not ours. In a critical website review of Quackwatch, Joel M. Kauffman evaluated eight Quackwatch articles and concluded that the articles were "contaminated with incomplete data, obsolete data, technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo..." and "...it is very probable that many of the 2,300,000 visitors to the website have been misled by the trappings of scientific objectivity. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

As (I think) has been agreed above, this should probably be judged on a case-by-case basis rather than by universal binary fiat. Parity of sources is a useful guideline here. For a topic like acupuncture or chiropractic, there is actually a substantial body of scholarship and peer-reviewed medical literature upon which to draw, so Quackwatch pales in comparison and is less useful as a source. On the other hand, for low-profile, obscure alternative approaches or out-and-out health fraud which are below the horizon of the medical literature, Quackwatch can be a useful source - sometimes, the only useful source. MastCell ^Talk 18:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If you have problems with a self-published bio, then you can look at independient third party sources narrating his exploits. Time magazine made a profile on Barret, saying:

"His site (...) is widely cited by doctors and medical writers (...) His findings [in mail-order health stuff] spurred legislation that authorizes the Federal Government to levy penalties of $25,000 a day on repeat mail-order offenders. (...) his debunking report was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association and picked up by the national press. 'It left the hair-analysis industry with egg on its face,' says Barrett. 'Half the labs shut down.' (...) Hearing of Emily's project, Barrett helped edit a report, got it published and was rewarded with worldwide press coverage. (...) 'Twenty years ago, I had trouble getting my ideas through to the media,' he says. 'Today I am the media'."[2]

Also, if you go to Stephen Barrett and search for the sentence "Some sources that mention Stephen Barrett's Quackwatch as a useful source for consumer information", you will find a quite fat list of RS mentioning his website and articles in medical journals using material from it or recommending it. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• Is there any point to this discussion? It's already been established that QW should be used on a case-by-case basis, ideally when better sources are not available. And it should never go further than that, because that's the policy on all sources. When no academic sources are available, sure, it's fine. But first of all, it looks and sounds biased, which reduces its credibility and leads to contentious disputes. Further, it is biased, and may exclude or misinterpret sources which don't support its position. Over at NPOV, I brought up the Feingold diet article and mentioned ref 6, which Barret cites as "some researchers have reported little or no adverse effect during challenge experiments [6-7]". When one looks at 6, one finds that 8 children were subjected to a double-blind study]. Of those 8, 2 (25%) were identified as reactors. Further, studies demonstrating relationships between hyperactivity and food additives have now been replicated several times, as our ADHD article shows. Another example: QW's article on laetrile makes much ado about its toxicity. Yet laetrile is not considered toxic when administered intravenously. That fact is not mentioned. Further, the most recent Cochrane review of laetrile called for another clinical trial based on more recent research and suggestions that the previous trials by Moertel were flawed. It will be interesting to see how, or if, QW is updated as research which doesn't support its central thesis is published (eg the recent Cochrane review on St. John's Wort). Anyway, at this point there's not much that hasn't been covered in more reliable publications, but if there is something which QW uniquely covers, or if those publications are difficult to access, using QW is a decent start. II | (t - c) 01:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Why wiki continues to use quackwatch, with its "incomplete data, obsolete data, technical errors, unsupported opinions, and/or innuendo" (Kaufmann) is beyond me. How could any such website could be a reliable source for anything but their own opinion? 70.71.22.45 (talk) 05:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

That is indeed Kaufmann's opinion, but it's not a very notable or properly documented opinion from a pusher of fringe POV who has found his odd beliefs criticized by QW. Lots of other similar criticisms are made by other believers in various quackeries and pseudosciences, and they too are the fringe opinions of disgruntled believers whose beliefs have been skewered by Quackwatch and other scientific and skeptical sources. So what? The mainstream doesn't hold those opinions of Quackwatch. If one is to search for imperfections, one will indeed find them in any source, and if they are shown to be significant without the generous use of editorial OR and synth violations, then in those precise instances QW should not be used. The same applies to any other source, including the NEJM, JAMA, Lancet, etc., which can also include errors. Just use common sense.

As to the existence of bias (bias isn't identical with prejudice), deprecating sources that show bias would eliminate most of our sources, and we would thus fail to fulfill the mission of Wikipedia, which is to document the real world, facts, opinions, and all, using V & RS. WP:NPOV: "All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view) — what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article." Wikipedia is interesting precisely because it presents biased opinions in an NPOV manner, and NPOV requires that all significant opinions, bias and all, be presented. That editors who are believers in fringe POV are attempting to deprecate QW is understandable. They would like their fringe POV presented without the notable opinions and criticisms which QW, and often other sources, provide in the real world. They want a censored version of their pet belief presented unchallenged, IOW a sales brochure. This runs contrary to many of our policies and such editors need to be watched carefully. A cardinal sign of an editor who has motives that are destructive to the way Wikipedia presents fringe theories and beliefs is when they attack QW. That's a big red flag. They are attacking the canary in the mine, when it comes to alternative medicine and other fringe theories. That's whitewashing. QW happens to be that significant of a source in the real world. ALL believers in quackery and pseudoscience hate it, and that speaks very well for using QW as a source. What better recommendation can it come with? That's an even better recommendation than all the notable and very reliable mainstream sources that quote it and recommend it. It serves the mainstream position well. -- Fyslee (talk) 06:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I say that Barrett is shown above to be a recognized expert by the mainstream, with Time magazine saying that he is "widely cited by doctors and medical writers". As Fyslee says, there can be specific cases when he is mistaken, but these mistakes should be demonstrated without heavy OR. It's tiring to see how people keep trying to show a given source X as unreliable using their own OR, without giving any non-fringe RS that explicitely calls source X unreliable, and while not taking into account all the notable mainstream RS saying that source X is recommended/used/respected/influencial/notable/taken-as-a-reliable-source-of-facts in maintream. (yeah, II, I'm talking about your comment above, and there is also 70.71.x, who is actually using a source, but a fringe one: Kauffman 2007 at the Journal of Scientific Exploration, which is for topics "outside the established disciplines of mainstream science")

(By the way, you will find plenty of fringe "RS" criticizing him as unreliable, quoth from Time magazine: "[Quackwatch] has also made Barret a lightning rod for herbalists, homeopaths and assorted true believers, who regularly vilify him as dishonest, incompetent, a bully and a Nazi."[3], this being said right after the "widely cited" quote, so I advice to take any claim of "RS criticism of Quackwatch" with a huge grain of salt. Let's please take into account the lack of criticism towards Barret from mainstream RS before ledding credence to fringe criticism :P ) --Enric Naval (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

We've had this conversation multiple times and in multiple places, and Quackwatch is always met and well exceeded all necessary criteria for being a reliable source. Claims to the contrary usually come from clear POV-pushing editors. We do not need to discuss this over and over, it's clear. DreamGuy (talk) 14:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I saw a mention of Chowka in a comment above, and I was slightly amused to find that Chowka's statement of "[Quackwatch is] running against the tide of history" was made 10 years ago, in 1999 [4]. That tide of history is sure taking its time to put Quackwatch in its proper place. Ok, ok, no POINTy comments, sorry, just make your own conclusions or something. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of parity, this is the fringe POV pusher Kaufmann, here is his (fascinating) review of Quackwatch.

And this is the source of the Chowka quote. Unomi (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the Kauffman paper. Fascinating indeed. I have verified that several of the web pages criticised by Kauffman still exist on the Quackwatch site. The first three, although changed, were apparently not changed in response to the review. The criticism generally sounds plausible, and it appears that Barrett (and Green, one of his authors) occasionally give misleading or even dangerous advice.

Some things that need checking before I can trust Kauffman: Other publications by Kauffman. Why was this published in the Journal of Scientific Exploration? Some claims by Kauffman sound like allusions to (plausible, but still) conspiracies. Check in some cases whether he is right about the scientific details. E.g. the advice to reduce fat intake to lower cholesterol levels is also given in a brochure I got from the NHS (after a nurse spectacularly failed to measure my blood pressure correctly). Kauffman contradicts this and after reading cholesterol I would say that's very plausible; but this may be merely a case of Barrett presenting a majority opinion and suppressing the reasonable doubts of a minority of experts. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

About Kauffman being a proponent of fringe viewpoints and thus not representing mainstream opinion at all. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

lol, the editor of Kauffman's latest book "Malignant medical myths" is Infinity publishing, a self-publishing house. Described in Amazon as "A fearless exposé of mainstream medicine’s most revered dogma (...)"[5], he debunks mainstream myths, and defends that water fluoridation is not safe, which, mind you totally contradicts our article Water_fluoridation#Evidence_basis, quote from Kauffman: "Proponents of fluoridation have censored most mass media, ignored intelligent discussion of fluoridation, slandered most opponents of fluoridation, and overturned legal judgments against fluoridation in a manner that demonstrates their political power. Many published studies that had conclusions favoring fluoridation were later found unsupported by their raw data. ... Such studies are still quoted regardless." IMHO, this screams "fringe proponent complaining that his fringe ides are being ignored by mainstream", no wonder he is bitter against Barret, and also... oh well, just read this review by some guy and make up your own mind, he actually has some reasonable opinions in some of the "myths". And, mind you, at least this book is reviewed in the Journal of American Physicians & Surgeons --Enric Naval (talk) 05:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Correct link to the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, which is even more fringe than the Journal of Scientific Exploration. -- Fyslee (talk) 07:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I just found Barrett's diatribe against certification of organic products. Well worth reading if anyone other than the usual suspects really believes Barrett is not an extremist and tries to be impartial: "Many 'organic' proponents suggest that their foods are safer because they have lower levels of pesticide residues. However, the pesticide levels in our food supply are not high. In some situations, pesticides even reduce health risks by preventing the growth of harmful organisms, including molds that produce toxic substances [12]." Well, in German supermarkets the authorities regularly find peppers, tomatoes, salad and grapes with extreme pesticide levels, far beyond the legal thresholds. And he even finds an argument against free-range eggs ("one manager said that free-ranging probably detracts from taste because it decreases the quality of the bird's food intake"). --Hans Adler (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Mainstream agrees with Quackwatch in that organic food is not safer/better and that it doesn't taste better --Enric Naval (talk) 05:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Quackwatch is representing the mainstream view in organic food, see "The costly fraud that is organic food. Its main contribution will be to sustain poverty and malnutrition", The Guardian, 2004, also in the NYT "“People believe it must be better for you if it’s organic,” (...) But eating “organic” offers no guarantee of any of that."Eating Food That’s Better for You, Organic or Not, New York Times, 2009. The BBC has two features on the topic: "The Food Standards Agency (FSA) takes the position that there is not enough scientific evidence to claim that organic food is safer or more nutritious than conventionally produced food. Government ministers have followed suit by describing buying organic food as a 'lifestyle' choice. " Organic food at BBC "What's meant to be good about it? Some say organic foods are better than processed foods because (...) Eaters of organic food think that it tastes better. (...)" Organic food at BBC From FOX "‘’It’s a total con,” said Avery, a plant scientist by training. "There is not a shred of science" to back up claims that organic is safer or more nutritious, he said. (...) Organic food is more likely to carry pathogenic bacteria, such as salmonella and E. coli, because of the type of fertilizer that organic farmers use, Avery said. He also said that some of the natural pesticides used in organic farming are quite toxic. For example, organic farmers are allowed to treat fungal diseases with copper solutions and remain within guidelines. Copper, which is toxic, is the 18th most used pesticide in the U.S. and stays in the soil forever, unlike modern biodegradable pesticides."Organic Food Offers Little More Than Peace of Mind, Critics Say, Fox News, 2008. Consumer Reports actually recommends to buy organic food because of the pesticide levels. Only problem I found was that his advice was prefaced with this: "Critics argue that we’re wasting our money because there’s no proof that conventially produced foods pose significant health risks"[6] well, doh.... Food Standards Agency has a page on it "Is organic food safer than other food? Both organic and conventional food have to meet the same legal food safety requirements (...) Isn't there evidence that organic food is safer and more nutritious? It is true that some scientific papers reach this conclusion. However, others find no difference. As in any field of science, to reach a robust conclusion it is necessary to evaluate the weight of evidence across a range of published papers. Care should be taken over reliance on single papers." Organic food] at Food Standards Agency (Not to mention that embarrasing moment back in 2007 when suposedly safe organic spinach poisoned 200 people in the UK and killed three :P Turns out that they had been replacing pesticides with "organic" methods that were less safe for the final consumer [7], which probably helped to have its market share go down in 2008 for the first time, if I'm not mistaken) --Enric Naval (talk) 05:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think that people already have enough material to make up their own minds. This section is becoming of a silly length, and I'm not going to be here all day analyzing arguments brought forward by editors just to discover again and again that, yes, Quackwatchy is reliable, just like indicated by the danged mainstream secondary third-party independient RS that I provided a dozen comments ago, so why is people still making OR and trying to proof all those secondary sources wrong?. I'm shutting up now. :P --Enric Naval (talk) 05:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not want to suggest that Quackwatch is not often reliable, but it can make errors. I know of a specific example, which is that he used to list the BMJ on his list of 'non-recommended periodicals', because it published some articles like the ABC of Homeopathy which he didn't like, and because of an article in the Student BMJ, a separate publication. The BMJ is a very respected medical journal, and he's changed his rating of the BMJ since last year after I asked him to change it.

As for Enric's view that a skeptical opinion on organic food and health is mainstream - well, the jury is out on that one. I wasn't surprised to see Dick Taverne as the writer of a critical Guardian article as he's pro-biotech, and the Fox News report quotes a neoconservative think-tank with biotech funding... I can cherry-pick too, e.g. this article showing reduced organophosphate exposure in children eating organic food: [8]. Or this article in SciAM by Marion Nestle: [9]. Or work from Carlo Leifert's group in Newcastle, like this:[10]. Fences and windows (talk) 22:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

W/o necessarily agreeing with the details (since I haven't examined them), you make a good point, which illustrates why we should follow WP:MEDRS and favor the scientific literature for scientific nitty gritty. Quackwatch will sometimes criticize a practice, not because it doesn't have any good evidence or legitimacy, but because it is so widely misused by quacks. Sometimes readers of a QW article might not be aware of that, or not notice that it is the false promotion (which consitutes quackery) that is being criticized, and not the practice itself. (Readers of QW should notify Barrett about confusing messages in its articles.) That's why we should do with QW what we do with all sources, deal with them on a case-by-case basis. It is especially the quackery, healthfraud, and pseudoscientific angles of a subject, that are Quackwatch's strong side, and where it represents a very notable and widely cited example of scientific skeptical thinking and opinion. It just needs to be used properly, and thus there is no reason for any special ruling about how to use it. Our policies and guidelines do a good job. Editors just need to teach the newbies and true believers (who come here to attack QW and push there favorite fringe idea) how to apply our sourcing policies and NPOV policy. While it should be used carefully and properly, its proper use should be guarded (protected), since they are attacking the canary in the mine, when it comes to alternative medicine and other fringe theories. We don't allow whitewashing here. -- Fyslee (talk) 01:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems as though there is a consensus forming here: Quackwatch is neither always a reliable source nor always an unreliable source. It is a partisan source with disputed information that needs to be judged on a case-by-case basis by editors. Per WP:MEDRS, higher quality, peer-reviewed research is always preferred over the provacative and self-published articles of Quackwatch - so when they are available, citations to notable scientific journals make a better source for Wikipedia articles. We must stay mindful when using Quackwatch and similar partisan sites as sources, paying special attention when they are overused by true believers of Quackwatch. ;-) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

That's an interestingly twisted and not-so-subtle way of deprecating the source, which is unsurprising considering the source.[11][12][13] That's not the consensus that's forming here. QW is nearly always a RS for mainstream opinion, and is basically always more reliable than its fringe critics and the sources it criticizes, who are believers in fringe, undocumented, disproven, and often illegal practices. Otherwise WP:MEDRS still applies, just as with all other sources, which needs to be done on a case-by-case basis. There is no need for an uncalled for deprecation of QW, which has a relatively uncontroversial mainstream POV, and isn't afraid to say it. (Now THAT might be controversial in this age of political correctness, IOW just sweep the truth under the carpet!) It is only controversial with its critics, who will naturally object to being criticized, since they are incapable of recognizing their own pseudoscientific mindset, and who will defend their practices and various quack products and scams. The extremely few (it's hard to find them) criticisms from mainstream sources are relatively mild and superficial. -- Fyslee (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason to use personal attacks just because there is no consensus to call your friend's website anything other than what it is: A partisan source that generally makes no effort to be impartial. This entire discussion has been suffering from people saying either "it is a reliable source" or "it is a partisan source" as if these two facts were somehow contradictory. I think it should be aborted now and restarted if and when we have a concrete use of this source to discuss. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I have refactored to soften the wording, but have left links to the evidence for the truth of the statement. -- Fyslee (talk) 04:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

RS/N is best used for getting feedback on a particular source used in a particular instance and not for broadly ruling on whether something is "always reliable" or worthy of use. II | (t - c) 16:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It is refreshing to see some real discussion about the RS status of S Barrett and QuackWatch. An appeals court decision in which they were deemed not reliable should be considered in any such discussion. In my opinion, neither QuackWatch nor its leader, S. Barrett meet Wikipedia's criteria as a reliable source. They are certainly not NPOV. See the Appeals Court's comments as Footnote 11 (page 22 of the Slip Opinion at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/B156585.DOC) in the case of NCAHF v. King Bio, 107 Cal.App.4th 1336, 2003 which hold this source to be generally "biased, and unworthy of credibility." Ralph.fucetola (talk) 11:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The criteria for what constitutes a "reliable source" (RS) in the sense of Wikipedia are relatively lax. While Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are of course reminiscent of laws, you should not make the mistake to read them too literally or take the analogy too far. Our rules are supposed to express community consensus, and when it becomes clear that one of our rules does not accurately represent consensus, the rule is changed. The mechanism for this is the policy WP:IAR: Every rule can be broken when necessary, and rules that need to be broken too often will eventually be corrected.

Quackwatch is not a reliable source under a literal reading of WP:RS, but I believe there is a consensus that it is a RS according to the spirit of WP:RS, which for our purposes has precisely the same effect. I would be very impressed if you could change this consensus.

But a generally reliable source need not be reliable for every purpose. This is particularly true for an obviously partisan source such as Quackwatch. I believe this is an easier line of attack.

You should also be aware of the special status of WP:BLP. This policy was originally written by the Wikimedia Foundation, not by the community, and its special status might give you a second line of attack.

In the past there have been attempts to elevate Quackwatch to the same high status as scholarly sources or even statements by scientific organisations. These were of course not successful. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hans, there is no need to apply WP:IAR. Our current sourcing policies, as now written, are perfectly acceptable and allow QW as a reliable source. It is only the enemies of such mainstream sources that dispute this. QW is definitely not, and never has been, considered on a par with scientific organizations or scientific literature. RS include many other types of sources, and QW is one of them. There is no justification for the continued attempts to deprecate QW. Just understand and apply policies correctly. It's really that simple. Those who don't understand them may object, but their opinions don't count for much here. -- Fyslee (talk) 01:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I did not say one needs to apply WP:IAR to regard QW as a RS. I said it is not a RS when you read WP:RS literally, but that reading policies literally is not what we do here. This was prompted by a lawyer claiming that QW is not a RS by Wikipedia's criteria. Since lawyers are trained in reading laws very literally, I wanted to clear up what seems to be the underlying misunderstanding. How often do you want me to say that by Wikipedia standards, QW is a RS? But as for any other RS, this doesn't imply that it can be used for each and every purpose. --Hans Adler (talk) 02:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I apparently misunderstood you. Sorry about that. I thought you were arguing that by using WP:IAR, QW would be considered a RS, when that is not the case. If one properly understands the true nature of QW (not the caricature painted by its enemies), and really understands our RS policy, it is considered a RS by that policy. As to this particular lawyer's interpretation, it's rather twisted and I wouldn't trust him or his interpretations very far. A lawyer should be able to parse our policies, but he is arguing his one-sided agenda, not interpreting in a proper manner, plus he's not very wikisavvy. So I wouldn't trust his word for it. His mission is to protect his clients, and his tactics are typical lawyer's tactics, and we know their reputation is even lower than used car salesmen and chiropractors (which is the lowest in the healthcare system), but you know all that. That's pretty common knowledge and public opinion about lawyers. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Taking our policies literally is not at all "twisted"; it's what a lot of WP editors erroneously do, and it's also what I expect any decent lawyer with no WP experience to do initially. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I see that Fucetola is now acting as a meatpuppet of the indef banned libeler TB = 75.107.23.242. Besides the fact that court cases (and especially this one) rarely have any relevance to Wikipedia policies, the judge's statement about Barrett's (not Quackwatch's) credibility as a witness only in that particular lawsuit, not in general, has been misused by TB and those who believe him (yourself), as well as others who know about the case. It has gotten far more mileage than warranted, and goes counter to the vast number of very official and notable sources that quote Barrett and Quackwatch in a favorable manner.

Wikipedia's opinion about the relation of our sourcing policies to Barrett and Quackwatch is based on myriad reliable sources, not on a courtcase, and much less on your opinion. The judge's comment had nothing to do with Quackwatch, only about Barrett in that specific situation. Those who understand the situation realize that the comment was very specific and only applied there, not here or anywhere outside that courtroom. Barrett was enlisted to testify by a lawyer who had problems, and he didn't do a good job of preparing Barrett for the case. Barrett was also naive in that situation. That's about as far as the case can legitimately be stretched. Outside of that particular case, setting, and time, Barrett and Quackwatch are considered reliable sources for matters related to quackery, healthfraud, and pseudoscience, which are subjects that apply to some of your clients, since you are a notorious defender of quackery. Neither you nor the indef banned TB are considered RS here. -- Fyslee (talk) 00:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

If you look at this user's contributions, you will see who he is acting for. Your accusation seems to be either unfounded or outing of a banned user. In either case it's not OK. --Hans Adler (talk) 02:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm unsure of whom you are addressing, or what you mean. Is this a matter for email? Possibly so, as comments here can be used as evidence. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Fyslee=BullRangifer, I was of course referring to you, and I have no idea why you have problems comprehending what I said. You said that X is acting for Y. I said, look at X's contribution history and you will see that X is apparently acting for Z and nobody else. So either you made a mistake, or you are claiming that Y=Z. In both cases it's improper. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Source material: make comments above this section

To aid editors here who would like to see the references for themselves, I'll copy the relevant portions from the Stephen Barrett and Quackwatch articles. One thing to keep in mind is that Quackwatch is far more than Barrett:

Source material from Stephen Barrett and Quackwatch articles.

From Quackwatch#Notability: Quackwatch has been mentioned in the media, reviews and various journals, as well as receiving several awards and honors. In 1998, Quackwatch was recognized by the Journal of the American Medical Association as one of nine "select sites that provide reliable health information and resources." It was also listed as one of three medical sites of U.S. News & World Report's "Best of the Web" in 1999: A web site review by Forbes magazine stated: "Dr. Stephen Barrett, a psychiatrist, seeks to expose unproven medical treatments and possible unsafe practices through his homegrown but well-organized site. Mostly attacking alternative medicines, homeopathy and chiropractors, the tone here can be rather harsh. However, the lists of sources of health advice to avoid, including books, specific doctors and organizations, are great for the uninformed. Barrett received an FDA Commissioner's Special Citation Award for fighting nutrition quackery in 1984. BEST: Frequently updated, but also archives of relevant articles that date back at least four years. WORST: Lists some specific doctors and organizations without explaining the reason for their selection." Quackwatch has also been cited or mentioned by journalists in reports on therapeutic touch, Vitamin O, Almon Glenn Braswell's baldness treatments, dietary supplements, Robert Barefoot's coral calcium claims, William C. Rader's "stem cell" therapy, noni juice, shark cartilage, and infomercials. The site's opinion on a US government report on complementary medicine was mentioned in a news report in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Sources that mention Quackwatch.org as a resource for consumer information include the United States Department of Agriculture, the American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, The Lancet, the Journal of Marketing Education, the Medical Journal of Australia, the Journal of the American Dietetic Association, the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, the U.S. National Institutes of Health, the Skeptic’s Dictionary, and the Diet Channel. Websites of libraries across the United States of America, include links to Quackwatch as a source for consumer information. In addition, several nutrition associations link to Quackwatch. An article in PC World listed it as one of three websites for finding the truth about Internet rumours, and WebMD listed it as one of eight organizations to contact with questions about a product. In a Washington Post review of alternative medicine websites, the introduction rated Quackwatch as offering "better truth-squadding than the Food and Drug Administration or the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine." The American Cancer Society lists Quackwatch as one of ten reputable sources of information about Alternative and Complementary Therapies in their book Cancer Medicine, and lists it as one of four sources for information about Alternative & Complementary Therapies in an article about on-line cancer information and support. In a long series of articles on various alternative medicine methods, it uses Quackwatch as a reference and includes criticisms of the methods. In a 2007 feasibility study on a method for identifying web pages that make unproven claims, the authors wrote: "Our gold standard relied on selected unproven cancer treatments identified by experts at http://www.quackwatch.org. The website is maintained by a 36 year old nonprofit organization whose mission is to “combat health related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct.” The group employs a 152 person scientific and technical advisory board composed of academic and private physicians, dentists, mental health advisors, registered dietitians, podiatrists, veterinarians, and other experts whom review health related claims. By using unproven treatments identified by an oversight organization, we capitalized on an existing high quality review." The Health On the Net Foundation, which confers the HONcode "Code of Conduct" certification to reliable sources of health information in cyberspace, directly recommends Quackwatch, and has stated about Quackwatch: "On the positive side, “four web sites stand out” from the rest for the exemplary quality of their information and treatments: quackwatch.org, ebandolier.com, cis.nci.nih.gov and rosenthal.hs.columbia.edu. Three sites, quackwatch.org, rosenthal.hs.columbia.edu/ and cis.nci.nih.gov are HONcode certified by the Health On the Net Foundation." Their website also uses Quackwatch extensively as a recommended source on various health-related topics. It also advises internet users to alert Quackwatch: "If you come across a healthcare Web site that you believe is either possibly or blatantly fraudulent and does NOT display the HONcode, please alert Quackwatch. Of course, if such a site DOES display the HONcode, alert us immediately." From Quackwatch#Site_reviews: The Good Web Guide of the United Kingdom described Quackwatch as "firmly anti-holistic" and "an important and useful information resource [which] injects a healthy dose of scepticism into reviewing popular health information." Cunningham and Marcason in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association described Quackwatch as "useful", while Wallace and Kimball, in the Medical Journal of Australia, described the site as "objective". Waltraud Ernst, Professor in the History of Medicine at Oxford Brookes University, has some personal objections to the work of those who criticize alternative medicine, but she still commends "Barrett's concern for unsubstantiated promotion and hype," and states that "Barrett's concern for fraudulent and potentially dangerous medical practices is important." A review paper in the Annals of Oncology identified Quackwatch as an outstanding complementary medicine information source for cancer patients. Sociologist Joel Best wrote that critiques in Quackwatch and similar sites should be examined critically rather than being accepted at face value. In a The Consultant Pharmacist review, pharmacist Bao-Anh Nguyen-Khoa characterized Quackwatch as "relevant for both consumers and professionals". However, she also notes that for all the praise the site has won from reputable reviewers and rating services, the presence of so many articles from one author (Dr. Barrett) leaves one sensing a lack of fair balance in his condemnation of many dubious health therapies. A number of practitioners and supporters of alternative medicine criticize Barrett and Quackwatch for its criticism of alternative medicine. Donna Ladd, a journalist with the alternative weekly Village Voice, says Barrett depends heavily on negative research and case studies in which alternative therapies do not work, and says most positive case studies are unreliable. "It's easy to look at something like chiropractic, see what they're doing, and describe what they're doing wrong," Barrett says, adding that he does not criticize conventional medicine because "that's way outside my scope." She further wrote that Barrett says most alternative therapies simply should be disregarded without further research. "A lot of things don't need to be tested [because] they simply don't make any sense," he says, pointing to homeopathy, chiropractic, and acupuncture. Peter Barry Chowka, an investigative journalist and former adviser to the NIH's Office of Alternative Medicine, said that Barrett "seems to be putting down trying to be objective ... Quackwatch.com is consistently provocative and entertaining and occasionally informative. But I personally think he's running against the tide of history. But that's his problem, not ours." The former U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Science Panel on Interactive Communication and Health named Quackwatch as a credible source for exposing fraudulent online health information in 1999. Dr. Thomas R. Eng, the director of the panel's study, later stated, "The government doesn't endorse Web sites." Still, he said, "[Quackwatch] is the only site I know of right now looking at issues of fraud and health on the Internet." From Stephen_Barrett#Consumer_information: The Quackwatch website is Barrett's main platform for describing and exposing what he and other contributors consider to be quackery and health fraud. The website is part of Quackwatch, Inc., a nonprofit corporation that aims to "combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct." Barrett's writing is supplemented with contributions from 150 scientific, technical, and lay volunteers and includes numerous references to published research articles. Barrett defines quackery as "anything involving overpromotion in the field of health," and reserves the word fraud "only for situations in which deliberate deception is involved." Barrett has become a "lightning rod" for controversy as a result of his criticisms of alternative medicine theories and practitioners. Barrett says he does not criticize conventional medicine because that would be "way outside [his] scope.". He states he does not give equal time to some subjects, and has written on his web site that "Quackery and fraud don't involve legitimate controversy and are not balanced subjects. I don't believe it is helpful to publish 'balanced' articles about unbalanced subjects." Barrett is a strong supporter of the HONcode and has made efforts to improve compliance with its rules and to expose those who abuse it. In a whole "Special to the Washington Post", extensive coverage of his views on the subject were provided, including his criticisms of many named abusers. A number of practitioners and supporters of alternative medicine criticize Barrett and Quackwatch for its criticism of alternative medicine. Donna Ladd, a journalist with The Village Voice, says Barrett relies mostly on negative research to criticize alternative medicine, rejecting most positive case studies as unreliable. She further writes that Barrett insists that most alternative therapies simply should be disregarded without further research. "A lot of things don't need to be tested [because] they simply don't make any sense," he says, pointing to homeopathy, chiropractic, and acupuncture. Some sources that mention Stephen Barrett's Quackwatch as a useful source for consumer information include website reviews, government agencies, various journals including The Lancet peer-reviewed medical journal and some libraries. References

Use of personal attack from professor’s blog

IMHO Professor As'ad AbuKhalil’s blog http://angryarab.blogspot.com/ would be OK for personal opinion on topics he’s an expert on. However, per Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_sources it would seem quoting at length from this short personal attack that provides no evidence for the insult hurled really does go against WP:RS for BLP. I am even wondering if any mention of his blog post belongs in the article at all. (And yes it’s Gilad Atzmon again.) Thoughts? CarolMooreDC (talk)

From WP:BLP#Sources, "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material." - I'd say that's a clear statement that the blog post doesn't belong at all. --Onorem♠Dil 15:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree... while we can sometimes make an exception to the general "no blogs" rule when the author is considered an expert... that exception does not apply to BLPs. Blueboar (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The quote is included as evidence not of any material fact regarding Atzmon himself, but rather of the opinion of AbuKhalil, in a section of the article titled "Allegations of antisemitism and responses". As'ad AbuKhalil is a respected academic, who has published several books on Middle East politics, and who has a solid recotd of pro-Palestinian activism. His views, which are presented as such, and not as established fact, are qlearly relevant in this context. RolandR (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

They are relevant if a reliable source has mentioned them. Pulling random quotes from his blog isn't appropriate for a blp. --Onorem♠Dil 15:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not a "random quote". It is a posting by AbuKhalil on why, in his opinion, there should be no place for Atzmon in the Palestine solidarity movement. He is an accepted authority on Arab politics, the Angry Arab News Service is very well known and indeed quoted elsewhere on Wikipedia. This is not an anonymous comment on an irrelevant blog by a professional slanederer, but a considered statement by a professor of politics on his personal website. How can this not be a reliable source for AbuKhalil's own views? RolandR (talk) 15:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I still don't see why this would be an exception to the clear statement in WP:BLP#Sources. If his opinion on the matter is notable, it should have been covered by a reliable source somewhere. --Onorem♠Dil 16:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't dispute that it's a reliable source for his own views. I dispute that his views are automatically relevant and that his blog is a reliable source for adding contentious material into the biography of a living person. --Onorem♠Dil 16:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I dispute that, in this context, it is contentious. The section is "Allegations of antisemitism and responses", so quite clearly there will be such allegations there. AbuKhalil is one of the more prominent supporters of the Palestinians to make this allegation, and there is no dispute that this is indeed his view. The argument against this citation seems to me an attempt to remove an unwelcome opinion -- which cannot easily be dismissed as Israeli/Zionist propaganda -- from the article.RolandR (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there no other source that could be used for the statement? No reliable source felt the need to print the opinion of one of the more prominent supporters of the Palestinians to make this allegation? Also, for the record, I don't care either way about the politics here. I don't see the opinion as welcome or unwelcome. I'm just trying to look at this from a policy standpoint. --Onorem♠Dil 16:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Roland, don't you think you should mention here your WP:COI of belonging to Jews aganst Zionism, and writing an email or something that not only attacked Atzmon for his views but spearheaded the incident described in the article of trying to get at least one group to cancel a speaking engagement and/or concert? And of course you have written your opinions about him elsewhere. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Motivation shouldn't be a factor in deciding whether or not a source is reliable. If you have COI concerns, please take them to RolandR's talk page or the appropriate noticeboard. There's no reason to send this discussion off topic. --Onorem♠Dil 16:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this discussion doesn't belong here. There can be no doubt that for the opinions of As'ad AbuKhalil the blog of As'ad AbuKhalil is a reliable source. You don't need to make a detailed analysis of wikipedia policy to come to that conclusion. Whether his opinions belong in the Gilad Atzmon article is a different question, but reliability has nothing to do with it. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Without a doubt, Professor AbuKhalil is an important, note-worthy commentator on Middle Eastern politics and news. He frequently writes articles in Al Akhbar and other periodicals and is regularly featured on Democracy Now and on Al-Jazeera English and Arabic. His opinion is quite salient to the discussion of Palestinian political parties and their membership. Since his blog is an acceptable source for WP to cite for his own background views (see his bio page), his blog is a rather uncontroversial place to find his analysis of Atzmon. --Behemoth101 (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Behemoth101

I don't see the problem, its a paragraph about "Allegations of antisemitism" the source is considered reliable for statements per Wikipedia:RS#Statements_of_opinion which means Mr abu khalil own blog is a reliable source for "the author's opinion, but not for statements of fact" (as the policy states). I don't think we need the whole quote (as in the previous version) but i'll add a few words to clarify mr abu khalil's opinion. --Histolo2 (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

<Backdent>Reminder on policy - WP:BLP#Sources: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material (see below). "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Carol's comment is key... Yes, there is a good argument for calling Professor AbuKhalil an expert on the general topic of Middle Eastern politics. Yes, if someone is an expert then his opinions are notable, and a self-published source can be considered reliable for statements as to those opinions.

HOWEVER... WP:BLP carves out an important exception to using self-published sources for statements of opinion. We may not use such sources to discuss the author's opinions about living people.

This means that we can use Prof. AbuKhalil's blog for statements about his opinions concerning Middle Eastern politics in general... but not for statements about his opinion concerning Gilad Atzmon (or any other living person.) Blueboar (talk) 14:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think this is important enough to merit adding a caveat to WP:RS to clarify things. (see my recent addition here, to be discussed at WT:RS#Incorporating WP:BLP into WP:RS#Statements of opinion) Blueboar (talk) 14:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for not bringing this to WP:BLPN in first place, cause it can get confusing. Thanks for adding that to WP:RS - would have kept me from bringing the issue here. Everything done to clarify these issues appreciated! CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar's caveat leaves open the question, what counts as "material about a living person"? The quote -- in a section headed Allegations of antisemitism and responses" -- was clearly presented as AbuKhalil's own opinion, not as a statement of fact about Atzmon. Is it really the case that we have a section on allegations, in which it is illegitimate to quote such allegations? RolandR (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Correct... if an allegation is made against a living person in a self-published source, we most definitely should not quote it. For us to include such an allegation, it must be discussed by a reliable third party source. This is one of the key components to WP:BLP. Blueboar (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer (from WP:SPS). Jayen466 15:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

But the quote was not being used as a third-party source on Atzmon; it was being used as a fiesr-party source for the views of AbuKhalil. How else is it possible to include his relevant views in the article? RolandR (talk) 17:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

This is very simple... You may not cite a self-published source to talk about the subject of a BLP.... even for a statement as to the author's opinion of the subject. The only exception to this is when the SPS is authored by the subject of the article. Essentially... just about the only self-published source that can be used in the Gilad Atzmon article would be one authored by Atzom. Blueboar (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The angry arab is not a reliable source in this instance (i would think the bar for possible BLP-violating quotes would be very high.) Also, i haven't looked at this with care, but it's basically assad's claims about whether or not some other politically involved guy is or is not fit for inclusion in a movement with which he is closely politically aligned? This is clearly one of those points where he's acting in an involved capacity as a political activist, not as a scholar.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Jonah Goldberg

The above man is a far-right (in the American political context) opinion columnist who works for the conservative National Review. His most famous work is a book called "Liberal Fascism" in which he basically argues (among other things) that the leaders of the Democratic party are fascists. He also doesn't like MOslems very much, and isn't an Arabic speaker. So, it's my contention that opinion columnists of this extremely partisan nature are not reliable sources for assertions of fact. Particularly, Mr. Goldberg is an unreliable source for the rather extreme assertion (gere [14]) that one of the most important Moslem preachers in Egypt recently said jews are "descendants of apes and pigs."Bali ultimate (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree. --hippo43 (talk) 11:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - authors aren't judged as reliable sources based on their POV. Rather, they are judged by their credentials and expertise. Therefore, Goldberg seems like a generally reliable source for non-controversial statements as a credible member of the press. As for the particular controversial statement, it clearly states "according to Jonah Goldberg and MEMRI, ..." so I can see no problem. 'According to ...' may be used even for less reliable sources, based on due weight (prominence of the source, instead of reliability). I assume that you spelled 'jews' without a capital by accident. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Reading the article itself, Goldberg is quoting Memri, not making the statement himself. He writes "According to a chilling report from the indispensable folks at MEMRI, ..." For me, the statement should be atrributed to Memri, not Goldberg. --hippo43 (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per ynhockey.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 15:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes -- it's clear that what needs to be established is the reliability of memri or not in this instance. The columnist having parroted the Memri info is neither here nor there -- Memri is either reliable or it isn't, irrespective of the columnist (Moshe: There is no vote or straw poll here. Your comments are just cluttering up the page).Bali ultimate (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay... so is it the case that you are withdrawing your objection to Goldberg, and are focusing solely on MEMRI? If so, feel free to mark this thread as "resolved." IronDuke 22:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Uhm -- no, Goldberg parroting memri pretty clearly isn't a reliable source for anything. If Memri is considered reliable, than we source to them (no reason for the goldberg backdoor). And if it's deemed unreliable, it doesn't become reliable because it's comments are transmitted via another biased and unreliable sources.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You appear confused as to the purpose of this board. If you think Goldberg himself is not an RS, fine: let's discuss. His quoting MEMRI has nothing whatever to do with his reliabilty (or vanishingly little, at any rate), and this is not the place to discuss it. And your comments to Moshe, by the way, are unhelpful and uncivil. If you want to know more about what he thinks, just ask him. I've done the same when poeple have left brief messages or !votes on forums such as this one. IronDuke 22:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No, you seem confused. Goldberg may be reliable or otherwise useable for some things, but not others. In this specific case, i'm looking for opinions on whether he, who does not speak arabic, can be treated as a reliable source for the claim that Tantawi said something that has not been reported in any newspaper of record. As you can see above, i think this non-arabic speaker with a pretty clear political agenda is not a reliable source for determining what tantawi said (at an event that Goldberg did not attend). What's your opinion on the matter?Bali ultimate (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Goldberg has notable opinions. He does not have to be an Arabic language expert to have them, as long as they are published in reliable sources. A quick Google check revealed a review by historian Benny Morrishere making the same point about Tantawi and his "Jews as apes" stuff. And as for Goldberg's not speaking Arabic, that's a complete non-starter. Many commentators on, for example, Israel, do not speak Hebrew. That doesn't mean their opinions on, say, a speech to the Knesset by Ariel Sharon aren't notable. IronDuke 00:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Leaving all the uncivility aside, Goldberg is obviously not a source for this statement having been made. He clearly attributes it to Memri, and makes no claim to have translated it himself. --hippo43 (talk) 23:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, he just seems to be adding his own imprimatur. The question becomes, is his opinion relevant? I don't see why it wouldn't be. But maybe we don't need the Goldberg piece with other sources. Then again, I don't see why we wouldn't have it. IronDuke 00:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

So what do you suggest we include in the article? 'According to Jonah Goldberg, MEMRI claimed that Tantawi said ...' This seems strange to me. If we reported Goldberg's opinion on something, that would seem relevant, but Goldberg isn't expressing an opinion in this quote, he is just reporting MEMRI's claims about Tantawi. Why would Goldberg reporting what MEMRI claimed be notable enough to include? --hippo43 (talk) 00:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's clear he's quoting them approvingly, no? So, wouldn't it be sensible to have something like, "Goldberg and MEMRI have noted..." (or words to that effect. And who knows, maybe throw Benny Morris in there, too, along with the book he's reviewing. I think there's room for flexibility here. IronDuke 15:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Goldberg may be usable for some things in some places. But how on earth could you argue that his mention of someone elses translation as fact when he's not capable of assessing it as fact then establishes the bona fides of the original as a source? Goldberg used Memri's translation -- which is contested. If Memri is found to be unreliable for this, Goldberg certainly isn't reliable. After all, no one contests that Yigal Carmon and his colleagues speak arabic; there is a more subtle issue there over which i acknowledge intelligent people might disagree. But I find it shocking that i can't find a clear consensus for "Johan Goldberg, who does not speak arabic and who is an opinion columnist, is not a reliable source for arabic translation -- particularly so for comments allegedly made at an event he did not attend."Bali ultimate (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

IronDuke, Goldberg only noted what MEMRI claimed, not the supposed statement itself. It would be appropriate to write 'Goldberg has noted that MEMRI claimed...'. For me, this is not notable and only confirms that MEMRI made the claim. The fact that MEMRI made this claim is not contested, so I don't see any value in including the fact that Goldberg reported it. --hippo43 (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Family Pdf

I have come across a pdf that appears to be very useful for the Frederick Birks article. However, I am not certain about its reliability. I asked another user before what they thought of it, but I'm still not 100% on this. The pdf is here. I'm sure it can be used for the uncontroversial things, such as his siblings, but I'm not so sure about the accuracy of the rest of it. Any help would be appreciated. ∗ \ / (⁂) 06:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope, it is definitely not a reliable source (even for uncontroversial things). The PDFed bio has no indication of who wrote it, or where they got their information from. Furthermore it is hosted on a self-published organizational website, which itself is not considered reliable. Sorry. Blueboar (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Does this affect the reliability? ∗ \ / (⁂) 22:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't affect reliability: the BBC have not checked or endorsed it.Martinlc (talk) 07:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, but given that it is published by the family, surely information such as his siblings would be accurate? ∗ \ / (⁂) 08:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The issue is verifiability, not truth: there is a document which says it is written by the family, but there isn't any external evidence to that effect, apart from the BBC who may have taken in on trust. Self-published sources may contain accurate information, but there is no way of distinguishing between those that do and those that don't, and so they shouldn't be counted as reliable sources.Martinlc (talk) 09:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The BBC statement that it was written by his family seems to me to be quite reliable external evidence that it was written by his family, and so it does seem to me to be OK for uncontroversial statements, like who his siblings were, etc, and maybe more. We should usually not try to be more skeptical than highly reliable sources are. The PDF does have some (theoretically) checkable quotations / citations, to archives, letters and official records. Parts of WP:V and WP:RS are devoted to ways of distinguishing how and which self-published sources may be usable or reliable. The main body of the PDF under the title Family Research is duplicated at the BBC memoryshare site and is what is referred to in the BBC article, so that is more reliable / useable than the PDF intro, much of which however just repeats some of the info in the body. It appears to be posted at Memoryshare by "Wales Memoryshare Host" on behalf of Janet Tildesley, who thus seems to be the author.John Z (talk) 10:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The BBC local history article is certainly reliable and can be cited. The memoryshare page is self-published by an idividual who is relying on her memory (which may be flawed). At best, it can be used for an attributed statement as to what Ms. Tildesley believed to be fact. The PDF is not reliable at all, as it does not indicate who the author is. Blueboar (talk) 12:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The PDF and the memoryshare page are mostly the same, and it is easy enough to corroborate that Mrs. Tildesley is a family member from other reliable sources. The "BBC Wales Memoryshare Host on behalf of Janet Tildesley's memory of" locution seems to just be a phrase used by Memoryshare to introduce their articles, not a statement that this is direct recollection, which is not even really possible here. As I said, there is some sourcing in the memoryshare/PDF, and finally, the BBC statement "the family of Fred Birks have contributed a full account of his actions in our site" does go toward the reliability of the memoryshare document, not just its usability for Mrs. Tildesley's beliefs. I don't think there should be any trouble if the rules of WP:SPS are noted, not necessarily using inline attribution when it would sound silly, like "according to blah blah, his mother was .." Again, we shouldn't be more skeptical than reliable sources are. This is better than just a random SPS.John Z (talk) 22:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Is hmv.com a reliable source for album release dates?

I was wondering if it was acceptable to use this link as a reliable source to the release date in the UK of the album Relapse. I generally try to avoid usage of these sites as RS, however HMV is one of the biggest retail music store in the world which sells material both online and in stores. Opinions? Thanks, Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 07:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Not WP:RS, in fact does not even meet the guidelines for WP:EL. --Nvineeth (talk) 08:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain why doesn't meet RS? And I don't see what EL has to do with this, as that guideline strictly applies only for external links that are not intended to be used as citations of articles. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 08:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That is a commercial site and not a news organization. Did you know that you could find reliable references with google news? Ex: Album Relapse release search results. --Nvineeth (talk) 08:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I just don't see how because the source comes from a commercial site, it is automatically a non-reliable one. Most news organizations are commercial in the first place. And of course I am aware of the presence of Google News. Mainly thanks to that, we've been able to find release dates for Italy, Germany, France, Japan and more. It's just that there are contradicting sources about the UK release date. Some indicate May 18 (e.g. BBC), while others mention May 19 (the Independent). When I look at the hmv source and our RS guideline, it leaves with a bit of a dilemma. Can hmv be "regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand", the release of an album? Perhaps yes, who else would best know such information other than the people that are releasing or selling the album themselves? In this case, the media would have to get their information either from the record label releasing the album, or the retail stores selling the album. This almost looks like a case of a primary source, so I was wondering if I could get a more specific input for this case. Thanks. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 18:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with using a commercial site for a release date. If there is any controversy, you can attribute it (as in "According to the music retail giant HMV, the album is due to be released on May 3rd <cite to HMV>") Blueboar (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, if there are better sources -- and there invariable are for such things -- then those should be used instead. Otherwise we have a big loophole for stealthy (or not so stealthy) spamming. I'd say no, never, but for reasons beyond just RS concerns. DreamGuy (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

High Times

Is High Times a reliable source for strains of marijuana? Nableezy (talk) 22:48, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That's probably one of the few things they are a reliable source for. You should probably ask your question with a greater degree of specificity.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

specifically, could I use it as a source on potency of particular strands and theories as to when those strands first were created/cloned/grown and where. Nableezy (talk) 22:55, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

What's the specific High Times article you want to use and as a source for what Wikipedia article?Bali ultimate (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Uhh, I have a stack of magazine going back a few years, was going to use them for sources on the Kush (cannabis), Northern Lights (cannabis) article and any others that might be notable enough for their own article. Also High Times has a few stories on G-13 and its mythology, was planning on using that as well. sorry for the lack of specifics, but was more planning ahead and checking if this would be ok rather than jumping in and finding out later it was a waste. Nableezy (talk) 23:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a reasonable person could disagree. There might be some dispute about using a High Times article on the medical benefits of herb or stuff like that, but they are pretty much the experts on the development of strains, cultivation, and so on.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

High Times is fine for that type of info. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

aceshowbiz.com

http://www.aceshowbiz dot com/site/about.php. They have articles and interviews with celebrities. They're on the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. I've asked for their removal here. Their reliability appears to influence their inclusion on the list, so that's why I'd like some opinions. I think their interviews are reliable, and quite possibly their articles. They're frequently cited by other news orgs. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 20:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Frequently quoted by other sources of dubious reliability, I'll buy. Perez Hilton? CelebrityCafe? YourTango indirectly quoting Perez Hilton? I'm not familiar with eparsa.fr (who seems to essentially mirror them), but McAfee SiteAdvisor tells me not to go there. Looks to me like the normal business practice of blogs grouping together and promoting each other by running teasers for the other sites.—Kww(talk) 20:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

What's your opinion on interviews vs. articles? Also, these sites are (mostly) reliable [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

In general, I'm even more dubious of interviews than articles. Most of these "interviews" are basically repackaged press releases. That said, your sites quoting this guy are much better than I got from the Google news search. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that we considered this site to be just as reliable as Perez Hilton. How reliable is that? I tend to remove links to that site when I find them, and I don't think I'm alone in that.—Kww(talk) 00:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Clearly unreliable and looks like some kind of celebrity spam farm to boot. The unreliability problem sticks to interviews as well (i.e. did these interviews really happen?)Bali ultimate (talk) 13:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

You're rational for saying that? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Reality? I think Kww hit the nail on the head.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm asking for reasoning. KWW said the sources who referenced them weren't reliable, so I provided reliable ones. Thanks for the quick replies. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Which are the "reliable" sources (and if you were really certain they're reliable you wouldn't be here)? There's like 10 numbered links up above. I'm now confused as to what you want assessed.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Those links are to reliable sources that think highly enough of aceshowbiz.com to reprint information from the site. The first one is part of the The Philadelphia Inquirer news org, for instance. That's one way assess sources: what do other RSs think of them. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Globalfirepower.com

Hey, I've seen other users use this site before, and I'm not really sure if it's reliable. [24]. It tries to rank the most powerful military countries. The problem I have with it is that the author doesn't say how he determines this, author is not revealed, and it's not part of some think tank, but rather one guy who decided to do this. Is this a reliable source. Deavenger (talk) 00:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't see how that could possible be a reliable source for pretty much anything. DreamGuy (talk) 21:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Dreamguy is right. That's a useless site with methodology on the order of "my country can beat up your country." No outside review, no expertise demonstrated, no reputation for fact checking and accuracy, etc...Bali ultimate (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Skeptic's publications

When exploring skeptic's views, published material written by them would seem to be the most reliable source of their views. In this context, where the views of the group are being explored, are these considered to be reliable sources? [25][26] [27] Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 19:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The last link (Skeptic's Dictionary) is definitely reliable as a source for skeptical viewpoints. The first two, however, go to SkepticReport, which I am not familiar with... Looks like WP:SELFPUB would apply to that unless there are some sources showing its author has proven expertise or is acknowledged by other reliable sources as knowledgeable.DreamGuy (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

There is an ongoing issue with this, as the link [28] to the Skeptic's Dictionary is not being allowed. Would you care to take a look at Talk:Ian Stevenson#Unbalanced tag and make a comment there please? Thanks. Johnfos (talk) 01:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

deletion of reliable sources

I have added numerous reliable sources to the Georgia (country) article, see [29]. These are being deleted because it seems somebody doesn't like them. I'd appreciate your judgement about the validity of the sources. Thanks. Greater Syria (talk) 07:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

First, adding a long list of sources to try to "prove your point" is frowned on. Pick the the most reliable one and go with that. That said, it is clear that the real issue isn't whether the sources are reliable or not (I didn't bother to check them all... but saw no problems with the ones I did check), the issue is that different reliable sources describe Georgia's location in different ways. Whether one description is more common than the others. Hence this is a content dispute... more of a NPOV issue than an RS issue. This is a dispute that needs to be resolved through discussion on the article talk page, not here (and not through edit warring at the article either). Blueboar (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore ... some of the websites that were added, such as Nationmaster, Nations Online, Embassyhomepage.com, are content aggregators with iffy reliability; Economicexpert.org mirrors a wikipedia article; while others, such as UN.org don't support the edit they accompany. Instead of mass-dumping sources (some with questionable reliability) on the page, discuss the issue on the article talkpage, decide on what authoritative sources say, and then represent the views accurately in the article. Abecedare (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou for your advice here. Izzedine (talk) 01:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Blogs in articles about cars

I know that blogs are overall discouraged (and I don't use them), but I see a lot of them in car articles and I don't know whether to remove those. (For example should Autoblog be accepted as a source?) Squash Racket (talk) 06:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I would say yes, they probably should be removed. There are essentially two situations where consensus allows blogs... if the blog is attached to the website of a major media outlet (in this case, something like Car and Driver magazine) ... and if the blog is authored by a noted (and published) auto expert... and even then, such blogs should only be used as Self-published sources for statements as to their author's opinion. Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget a third situation; when a news outlet calls itself a "blog" to sound trendy. Autoblog appears to have staff writers and editors.[30] And its reports appear to be used sensibly in our articles about cars. For example, in Porsche Cayman, this article[31] is used for the statement "A motorsport-tuned model, the Cayman RS, is rumored to have been tested at the Nürburgring that same year." So I say cites to this particular "blog" should stay. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point... in such cases we do need to double check the source, to ensure that we are only using material that was written by a member of the "blog's" staff, and not written in a reply made by someone else (a member of the general public). Also, there is often a fine line between a legitimate "news outlet" with a paid staff and a self published "fan site" with articles written by fellow enthusiasts (one way to determine this is to see if the website is mentioned in other sources.). We are slowly moving away from a blanket "No blogs" rule... while the majority of blogs are clearly not reliable, you really need to check each individual blog, to determine it's reputation and whether it should be considered a "blog" or is really a reliable news source that is simply in blog format. Not always easy. Blueboar (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

We need to decide which blogs to accept. I don't think this would be a very long list at this point. (If Autoblog has staff writers and editors, it automatically becomes a reliable source?) Squash Racket (talk) 10:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we need any such list. These are decisions best left to the editors of individual articles and projects... as they are more likely to know which sites are rune by experts and are legitimate news outlets in the relevant field than we are. Policy should not get into specifics, but should convey the principle involved, leaving the specifics to local consensus. Blueboar (talk) 11:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The best remedy would be to fill out the full cite, not just a web cite, when using a blog that is not really a personal blog. Fill out publisher, city, ISBN/ISSN/OCLC if one is assigned, publication date. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Nationmaster.com

I've run across some data from nationmaster which was being used to justify a high crime rate assertion in Dominica. I've looked at the other data on this specific page and it all looks really funny with New Zealand, Denmark and Finland being the places to avoid; Jamaica and Columbia being the places for tourists looking for safety! The site generally looks like they are trying to be objective. But they seem to have singularly failed on this page. I've emailed them about Dominica specifically but no answer yet.

Any ideas? Student7 (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Nationmaster derives most of it's content from Wikipedia, so it can never be used as a source for a Wikipedia article. In this case, it probably picked up a vandalized page.—Kww(talk) 22:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The ultimate source appears to be http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/Seventh-United-Nations-Survey-on-Crime-Trends-and-the-Operations-of-Criminal-Justice-Systems.html But it certainly doesn't have the data ranked by how much crime per country. Don't know whether this was a WP article at one point or whether NM got it right from the UN. But even the NM page says that "crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence." I say leave this statistic out. A better source for whether a country is a safe or dangerous place would be something like Control Risks Group, which ranks countries by level of political, security, terrorism, and travel risk. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

ZSpace

Is a "ZSpace" post a self-published/unreliable source? It is written by someone using a yahoo.com email address to identify her; Internet search reveals she claims to be a librarian. By signing up, ZSpace blogs seems to open for anyone. The post itself seems to be an advertisement for a solidarity network.

The editor Zd12 (talk · contribs) was blocked twice (48 hours and 14 days) for pushing this source in the article Censorship in Cuba and other disruptive editing. He returned and continues adding it.

I would like to have a third opinion that this is indeed a self-published source. Luis Napoles Luis Napoles (talk) 07:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Me being banned had nothing to do with adding this source. This article isn't posted on ZSpace, it's posted on ZNet. It is true that ZSPACE and ZBLOGS are open to anyone who registers, which we can see by checking out the benefits page and ZSpace page, but this is irrelevant because it was not posted in either of these blogging sections but on the ZNet articles section, and you keep trying to obscure this fact. You seem to think that just because this site has a blog component, any article are also blogs.Zd12 (talk) 09:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

While Zd12 is correct that this post is found on Znet and not on ZSpace, I would agree with Lois that it should be treated as a self-published source (and possibly not even that). I find no indication of editorial oversight, and nothing to indicate that the author should be considered reliable on the subject of Censorship in Cuba. Blueboar (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Can we get an admin opinion? I don't exactly see how you've come to the conclusion that it is self-published if we recognized that it is not posted in the place where articles by just any random person that registers are posted, as Luis claims.Zd12 (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Why do you need an admin opinion? Because you didn't like the answer? Blueboar just gave you a very reasonable response. Anyways, I agree that this is not a reliable source. Tom (talk) 03:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I've been on many RSN debates. Z Magazine seems to be a bona fide published source, though one with an obvious progressive point of view. The Znet section, with its thousands of "sustainers" ( as opposed to Zmag's writers ), seems to be something intermediate between a personal blog and a traditional published source. A look through Google Books shows some scholarly books that cite articles written by sustainers; the URL contains both "zmag" and "sustainers".

However it is unclear what the selection process is for a article written on Znet to appear on the Zmag website's "newest content" section. There must be some sort of selection, because the articles at least seem to be on topic.

My take is that Znet articles may be similar to, say, letters to the editor, master's theses, or citizen journalism sites, in that there is a very light editorial policy as compared with, say a rigorous academic journal. I've argued before that such sources may meet a minimum interpretation of what consitutes a secondary ( i.e. published ) source, but not all editors share those views. I've suggested that they may be usable for either providing additional and noncontroversial information on facts that are already well-sourced, or for noncontroversial analysis or synthesis where the basic facts are backed up by other sources. I wouldnt use it in the lead section of the article.

But the larger issue is that Censorship in Cuba and Telecommunications in Cuba need some serious work. I belive in late 2008 many restrictions on computer and cellular telephone ownership were lifted, so much of those articles is no longer true. It's possible that those differences, as well as definitions of what constitutes the "Internet", were behind some of the edit warring. I recommend tabling Znet for now until the existing problems with our articles on Cuba are worked out. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Chemtrail News Broadcast

Would the following link be considered a reliable source for the Chemtrail conspiracy theory?

• Contrail Controversy, A news clip by fox12idaho (KTRV-TV)

Thanks.Smallman12q (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Blogs as sources, WP:BLOGS

Since I still keep coming across issues where people falsely say "blogs can't be sources"--an out and out incorrect statement--I've whipped up Wikipedia:Blogs as sources/WP:BLOGS as a quick reference distilled from RS & BLP policy pages to give a quick clue on how blogs are allowed to be used from certain websites, and how on what articles. Any feedback on the talk is appreciated there. rootology (C)(T) 03:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Shogakukan/Kodansha Manga Award

Wondering if these two sources are reliable:

• http://www.hahnlibrary.net/comics/awards/kodansha.php
• http://comics.shogakukan.co.jp/mangasho/rist.html

Extremepro (talk) 12:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been posted to WT:ANIME. Extremepro (talk) 06:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Bentham Science Publishers / The Open Chemical Physics Journal

There is an ongoing and highly controversial discussion going on about whether the journals published by Bentham Science Publishers, and The Open Chemical Physics Journal in particular, are reliable sources or not.

An important point of disagreement is whether the journal is peer-reviewed or should be considered a "vanity publication", similar to self-published material.

The discussion on Bentham Science Publishers takes place in the context of general disagreements on the content of 9/11-related articles. This is an environment which is clearly not conducive to reach a consensus if only users directly involved in the editing process of these articles are involved.

The Open Chemical Physics Journal has already been discussed on this page earlier, but the discussion was brief and inconclusive. --Cs32en (talk) 10:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Palestine Think Tank

This year old web site has three editors listed here and does accept admissions mentioned here. It has been assumed the editors don't edit each other. Gilad Atzmon is one of the editors. Three related questions:

• One editor wants to use an article where Atzmon presents a claim one or more individuals are racist and the article’s title mentions one person by name. I assume that nothing from that article can be used.
• However, this editor insists on using just one sentence from that article, which out of the context of Atzon charging others with racism looks worse than it does in context. Which seems to me cherry picking a primary source to an extreme POV. (Long talk page discussion here.)
• It should be noted that this editor has been sanctioned once and warned on this article[32][33], including for insulting other editors.
  

I brought this to WP:BLPN and only one neutral person replied and he was ambivalent. Any more definitive answers? CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The website is clearly not a reliable source as to matters of fact. No editorial controls, clearly has a very strong POV on the issues it writes about. It's an advocacy group. Atzmon's opinions about others may be notable sometimes (always must be attributed as such) depending on his prominence and connection to the issue he's opining on. He's some kind of anti-zionist israeli, right? I agree with you carrol that if Atzmon is used at all and there is a context in which he's describing a whole bunch of people as racists, that context should be included.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

He starts by accusing two people of racism, with one rather compelling quote as evidence, and then makes one of his typically overly broad generalizations, but one which grows only out of context of the larger article. I'm against using any thing from article as being vs. BLP myself. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Government Chemtrail Petition response

I found an interesting canadian government response at http://www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/response-en.html but am unsure if it is real. I also found a related link [34] in which a petition regarding high altitude spraying is presented. "Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition on behalf of Mr. Brian Holmes of Ontario regarding aerial spraying. Mr. Holmes has collected signatures from across the country from concerned Canadians who believe that chemicals used in aerial sprayings are adversely affecting the health of Canadians.

The petitioners call upon Parliament to stop this type of high altitude spraying. The petition has been duly certified by the clerk and I present it at this time.

I can't seem to find a response, perhaps someone can find it. I am mainly looking to see if the canadian government response provided at http://www.holmestead.ca/chemtrails/response-en.html is real. Thanks!Smallman12q (talk) 20:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Journal of Scientific Exploration

For future reference, an article in this journal was discussed on the RSN here in Nov/Dec 2012. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

This journal is often cited in WP articles about Reincarnation research and Reincarnation. Is it a reliable source? Johnfos (talk) 01:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict w/QG) Absolutely not. It is not indexed (a form of "diplomatic" recognition) by scientific search engines like Web of Science and it has sub-standard peer review mechanisms. JSE articles should never be used as citations for fact, only for the opinions of the respective authors iff they are notable. Skinwalker (talk) 02:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Here are some examples that show JSE does not pass the rigors of WP:BLP or WP:RS policy. Editing is based on Wikipedia policy.

1. JSE is a fringe science journal because they attempt to rationalize UFOs while a true skeptic journal publication is critical and/skpetical of UFOs. The journal attempts to rationalize the evidence for the existance of UFOs. Moreover, JSE describes itself as a fringle journal because they assert on their website it is a "critical forum of rationality and observational evidence for the often strange claims at the fringes of science." Saying JSE is a skeptic's journal would entirely be original research. So what is the point? The journal is a "forum" for "rationality" of "the often strange claims at the fringes of science" which would make it a 'fringe science' journal. If any Wikipedian thinks the journal is not a fringe science journal, what kind of journal is it then? The current consensus for the JSE article is for it to remain in the fringe science category. Robert Todd Carroll of the Skeptic's Dictionary[35] stated in part: "In fact, the so-called Association for Skeptical Investigation is a group of pseudo-skeptical paranormal investigators and supporters who do not appreciate criticism of paranormal studies by truly genuine skeptics and critical thinkers. The only skepticism this group promotes is skepticism of critics and criticisms of paranormal studies." He also stated in part: "However, Gary Schwartz, in a published paper, refers to several of the deceased—including William James!—as “departed hypothesized co-investigators,” so perhaps the group considers the spirits of Keen and Truzzi as active investigators.[36] The Society for Scientific Exploration was founded by Marcello Truzzi. The only conclusion demonstrated by the examples is a fringe science journal.
2. If anyone believes the journal is not a fringe science journal, then what type of journal do you believe it is. Moreover, if you believe the journal is not a fringe journal then what is a fringe science journal (A definition of a fringe journal is requested). Please provide specific examples and descriptions of the differences of a fringe science journal versus JSE.
3. If anyone believes JSE is a skeptic organization then please provide examples of JSE being the same as other skeptic organizations.
4. Kauffman is a person and therefore not formally peer-reviewed. We cannot use his asseration on it own face value. Moreover, his notability (or more precisely, lack of notability) is a straw-man argument. Is there even an article on Wikipedia on Kauffman? Per BLP policy, we insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability. Kauffman is not a third-party published source. If you disagree, please explain. When you cannot explain how Kauffman satisfies BLP policy, you (yes, I mean you) have conceded Kauffman is not a reliable third-party published source. This isn't my rule, this is Wikipedia's rule as required by BLP policy. Again, how in the world is Kauffman independant of a third-party published source satsifying to BLP policy. The answer is obvious. He does not satisfy BLP policy. BLP policy drives editing on Wikipedia articles on notable individuals. A couple of editors have asserted in the past but are actually refusing to explain how Kauffman meets BLP policy. You must properly show and not assert based on Wikipedia policy. Again, how does Kauffman specifically meet BLP policy. Please explain by citing BLP policy. Do you agree to abide by BLP policy anyhow.
5. The journal describes itself as a fringe journal on their website. The journal studies fringes which would make it a "fringe science" journal. For example, the journal studies for the rational evidence of UFOs, reincarnation, and crop circles.[37][38][39][40]
6. Moreover, the journal describes themselves as rationalizing "strange claims at the fringes of science." The point is that they "rationalize" the "fringes of science." Thats exactly what a fringe journal does. Please contact them directly. In fact, the journal is proud of being a fringe science journal. See what they will tell you about themselves. What is scientific about crop circles? Hmmm. The journal studies the so-called science of crop circles made by UFOs. Everything the journal does is obviously on the "fringes of science." Therefore, it is clearly a fringe science journal when they are a forum to "rationalize" the "fringes of science." For example, it is a group inclined toward belief in paranormal phenomena.[41] The fringe journal clearly fails the rigors of WP:BLP because it is not a third-party source. While Barrett criticizes various forms of alternative medicine topics, JSE attempts to rationalize alternative medical practices.[42]
7. This is an example of how the term peer-reviewed can easily be misused or misunderstood. The JSE is reviewed by a minority group of fringe supporters. This minority group who share the same fringe ideology, without any review from dissent, falls into the category of reviewed by true believers of the so-called rationale fringe of true believers and their self-serving bias. They are fringe supporters because they attempt to rationalize such things as UFOs. For further information about how JSE portrays themselves, please visit the website.
8. See: Journal of Scientific Exploration. JSE is subject to review "at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief." If the paper is accepted "but there remain points of disagreement between authors and referee(s), the reviewer(s) may be given the option of having their opinion(s) published..." The journal clearly is subject to the discretion of a single person which is the Editor-in-Chief. Therefore, the journal clearly publishes opinions without always having editorial review. Furthmore, the journal is reviewed by a small group of fringe supporters who attempt to rationalize such things as UFOs at "the fringes of science."
9. The journal represents unconventional views. For example: In established disciplines, concordance with accepted disciplinary paradigms is the chief guide in evaluating material for scholarly publication. On the matters of interest to the Society for Scientific Exploration, however, consensus does not prevail. Therefore the Journal of Scientific Exploration necessarily publishes claimed observations and proffered explanations that will seem more speculative or less plausible than in some mainstream disciplinary journals. See Refereeing at the JSE article. The Scope of research is at the fringes of science. When reviweing the Journal of Scientific Exploration page, this journal is in the fringe science journal category.
10. Per WEIGHT: We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well. If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. Views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all.

QuackGuru (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that Proof by verbosity. I think an apt summary of your argument might be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The fact that the word 'skeptic' has been usurped and perverted by the Church of the pseudoskeptic is no reason to launch such an incoherent attack on JSE. There are a great many journals that are not in the Web Of Science, and there has been research published that show it suffers from publication bias. I would imagine that CSICOP is not in the web of science either. I have no idea why you invoke Barrett and Kaufmann here. Their editorial review process is hardly worse than that of Quackwatch. In any case, I think that inline attribution is always the best way to go, doesn't matter if it is quackwatch, JSE, JAMA or Aristotle; 'It is the mark of an educated mind to entertain a thought without accepting it'. As for what comprises a 'true skeptic' (even if no true scotsman):

"What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the will to find out, which is the exact opposite."

- Bertrand Russell (from "Skeptical Essays", 1928) Unomi (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

As an aside but intriguingly:

"We must be content, then, in speaking of such subjects and with such premises to indicate the truth roughly and in outline, and in speaking about things which are only for the most part true and with premises of the same kind to reach conclusions that are not better. In the same spirit, therefore, should each type of statement be received; for it is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits; it is evidently equally foolish to accept probable reasoning from a mathematician and to demand from a rhetorician scientific proofs. (pg. 340 Great Books of the Western World N. 9 Aristotle II Robert Translated by W.D. Ross Maynard Hutchins, Ed. in Chief, 1952)

Which I suppose speaks to WP:PARITY Unomi (talk) 02:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

An example from the reincarnation research page: Stevenson's research into birthmarks and congenital defects has particular importance, since it furnishes graphic evidence suggestive of reincarnation, superior to the (often fragmentary) memories and reports of the children and adults questioned, which even if verified afterwards probably cannot be assigned the same value in scientific terms. Note how the statement implies that birthmark evidence actually has "value in scientific terms". The question is whether the JSE is reliable enough for these kinds of objective assessments. Vesal (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

For the purposes of being a source of information - yes the JSE is a reliable source. For being a reliable source for scientific statement - no - it's considered to be a fringe journal. FWIW Quackguru provided a detailed list of why it doesn't meet WPs policy in the context of scientific literature. Shot info (talk) 02:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not, except for opinions of authors as noted above. - Eldereft (cont.) 05:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Portland, OR blogger a Reliable source about minimally-covered Portland news?

Got a question about whether a blog source is an appropriate reference given its particular subject.

Background: I recently created and greatly expanded an article about Tom Peterson, a once-prominent retailer and TV pitchman in Portland, Oregon. Within the past few weeks, the final Tom Peterson's store has closed.

Sources: The best coverage of this comes from Another Portland Blog[43] by a Portland writer named Brandon Hartley. (As a point of full disclosure, the author is also a friend of mine, which is another reason I'm seeking comment.) This report was subsequently linked by the Willamette Week's news blog[44]. The closure had been previously reported by another blogger d/b/a The Zehnkatzen Times[45], whose photos I had previously obtained permission to use in the article and who has posted images of the store with a "for lease" sign outside.

My thinking: Willamette Week is the most obvious RS, but the reporting came from the two blogs. It seems to me that Mr. Hartley should satisfy WP:SPS, as "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" because Mr. Hartley had previously written for Willamette Week about Portland news and culture (see: [46], [47], [48], [49], [50]).

Should Mr. Hartley's blog post count, or perhaps should one of the others? Looking for a second opinion. Cheers, WWB (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, never mind in the specific: over the weekend, the closing was in fact reported by The Oregonian, Portland's daily newspaper. That said, I still wonder in the general, whether Another Portland Blog might be considered an RS when it reports on Portland news, given the author's previous writings for the Willamette Week. Cheers, WWB (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I would say he can be considered an expert, although it's not a slam dunk. Just don't use him for anything controversial. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Peregrine -- it would depend a lot (entirely?) on the specific facts being cited.

A few notes -- ZehnKatzen Times blog is in fact published by a Wikipedian and member of WP:ORE, if anybody wants to get in touch with him he's pretty accessible. Not too active on WP these days I think. And, in the example outlined, I believe the fact that WW republished the facts originally reported on the blog would satisfy WP:RS; WW effectively "vetted" him as a RS by whatever its editorial/fact-checking process is.

Personally, I HATE that WW is the example being used for this, as they are about the least reliable of Portland media...but for the most part, WW still qualifies as WP:RS.

Finally, and most importantly...thanks WWB for working on that article, and for bringing up good questions here! -Pete (talk) 20:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Self published book as source

I found a book called Erwin Ay, Rettende Ufer: Von Ostpreußen nach Dänemark, BoD – Books on Demand, 2005

Books on Demand Gmbh is a a German print-on-demand publisher.To the extent of my knowledge they don't do any editorial reviews at all. Am I correct that this would classify as self-published and thus unreliable ? Neither of the two authors shows up as expert on the subject in my searches, in fact they are almonst unknown besides the book--Molobo (talk) 08:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

If what you say is true, then it is not reliable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Suitable for Reference?

is this website considered a notable and reliable reference for Wikipedia? It looks like a blog, so I am not sure. Thanks!--gordonrox24 (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a terminology issue here, the question is not if the website is notable, the question is, is it considered reliable for the purpose of sourcing a different article. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 10:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

True. I am changing the title to better represent the question asked.--gordonrox24 (talk) 13:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a guideline proposal on blogs as WP:RS at WP:BLOGS. It also includes some text from establishes WP policy project pages. --Cs32en (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the page in question, it certainly seems to be someone's personal (ie self-published) blog. As such, I don't see anything that would make it reliable... but if the author is a recognized expert on what he is writing about, then an exception might be made. Please see WP:SPS for more guidance on how self-published sources (such as blogs) should and should not be used. Blueboar (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Bluboar. That just re-reinforces what I thought.--gordonrox24 (talk) 21:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Italians-R-Us.com

General question: Is this a reliable source? And if not (or even if it is reliable, I'd still like to know this next part), does a site's unreliability extend to all content - even an interview with the subject, for example?

More specifically: In Robin Arcuri, an editor is using this new interview as a source, but I'm very skeptical of how reliable it can be viewed as.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 19:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Not reliable at all. DreamGuy (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Bump to get this to the top of my contributions list.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 18:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

www.spirit-of-metal.com

or Metal Archives. Any chance of getting Spirit of Metal, and/or http://www.metal-archives.com/ added as a citable source? We really need a definitive decision on metal music and I find that these 2 sites best document the genre. It gets out of hand when people have to quote a source from "Allmusicguide" when often their view concerning metal music is appalling. So it would be nice to have a proper Metal website to quote sources from. ThePerfectVirus (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

• Both of these websites are user-edited. Websites edited by fans are not reliable. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 11:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC))
• Agree with Ibaranoff... neither is reliable. Blueboar (talk) 12:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
• Agreed, these sites do not pass muster with WP:RS. As far as sources go, I understand many folks like web based sources as one may peruse them with little effort but print sources should never be overlooked. There are quite a few books (music crit., media studies, social psych., etc.) devoted to the metal genre readily available at your local library, book, or record store. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Also very reliable industry sources in print... such as Rolling Stone magazine. Blueboar (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Youtube

Can youtube videos be used as references? I don't think so, but just for re-assurance.--gordonrox24 (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No. Not WP:RS.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

If it contains WP:RS references to support its content, it may be reliable, and the original sources should be referenced as well. Watch out for forged or manipulated stuff. --Cs32en (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Only if the article is about a particularly notable video.Smallman12q (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It should generally be avoided (especially copyrighted content). The only excpetions that I can see is that the article itself is about the video, or the video is truly authentic and reliable (such as a presidential candidate's or congressman's channel).Smallman12q (talk) 23:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Most Youtube videos are not reliable ... but occasional exceptions have been made. Blueboar (talk) 00:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

This has come up before and my understanding is that YouTube videos are never considered a reliable source with one exception. [51] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

If the video is uploaded by a reliable source. i.e. the reliable source's site claims authorship of and links to the video. Otherwise, it would have to be either a primary source in an article or section discussing the video, or self-published by an expert. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

How do you know that it's a valid primary source? Anyone can create a YouTube account that claims to be someone else. I could easily create an account named "Stephen Hawking" and then upload videos about how Big Bang is a bunch of BS and that Young Earth Creationism has scientific validity. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You have to research it. For a "Stephen Hawking" account, you should probably go to SHs official site (if he has one) and see if he links to an official youtube channel, or whatever. Although by percentage youtube has very little RSs, in total they have tons. A lot of very reputable news orgs have channels, for instance. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

That was my point. If a reliable source's site fails to claim authorship of and link to the video, it doesn't automatically become a primary source or self-published by an expert. You still have to verify it's authenticity. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Very well said, Peregrine. I agree completely. (i.e., the question shouldn't be "is it on Youtube" -- immaterial, YouTube is not a "publisher" in the traditional sense -- instead, the question should be "who published it." If the New York Times publishes a video on YouTube, it should carry the same RS validity that a NY Times print article would. No more, no less. (And I'm not sure what Smallman's getting at about copyright.) -Pete (talk) 04:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's how I think the copyright issue works. If a random user posts a clip from NBC news, for example (assuming NBC news isn't on YouTube in an official way, I don't know), you can still use it as a reference, but you must attribute it to NBC news, and you cannot link to the youtube clip, becuase the clip is a copyright violation. Basically, I wouldn't tell someone not go to youtube because it has copyright violations (that's up to them), but I would say don't link to one on wikipedia (per our rules). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Peregrine, I've heard people make that argument around here before, and I think it's silly. Wikipedia chooses to be very strict about fair use in its own content, which is fine and totally justified. But fair use has been around for a long time. My understanding (and I of course concede that IANAL) is that by and large, a "copyvio" that is not the subject of a takedown letter or a court order is pretty darn tough to distinguish from an instance of fair use. For the most part, a link to a copyvio is dealt with by a takedown letter. What does Wikipedia do if it's served with a takedown letter? Remove the link! (And what would accompany that letter? Probably a letter to the YouTube account holder, too!) This, as far as I can tell, is a far cry from "intellectual property apocalypse 2009."

So I really don't understand why we should run in fear if somebody links to a 5 minute news clip that's uploaded by an end user. In the event that the news organization fails to get the clip removed from YouTube, and requests that Wikipedia remove the link, we should be congenial and responsive; but in the absence of that kind of scenario, I think a ban on "potentially copyvio" YouTube clips even being linked from Wikipedia reflects an overly nervous view of what it is we're doing here -- which is providing information, and often easy access to the sources of that information, to our readers. -Pete (talk) 05:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree, and apparently Wikipedia:External links/YouTube failed. But, Wikipedia:External links#Restrictions on linking has some of the strongest wording against it I've seen in a guideline. Basically, I'm not making my statements per my opinion, but per my experience with "The rules^TM". Flying Spaghetti Monster grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

:) -Pete (talk)

I completely agree. I think we have to start getting over this near-stereotype that floats often on wikipedia that Youtube by default is not RS. We already have plenty of news organizations like the Association Press, BBC World News, CBS News, CNN... Much of the traditional publishers and news organizations are increasingly focusing on their on-line networks, while many are moving their entire publishing system on-line. This is a trend that will continue and growth, so YouTube is inevitably continue to be more relevant and important publishing tool. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 05:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

There is, of cource, another reason why it is not RS. By its nature, Youtube is not archived, as many websites are, so that what is used as a source today may be altered, amended, changed, edited or deleted at any time, without any archive to refer to. It is, at best, an ephemeral source. Books, newspapers and the like are "fixed in time", and even websites can be waybacked generally. Many videos, as a point of fact, are edited heavily -- making use as a source quite problematic at step one. Many are deleted as copyright violations. Many simply do not reflect actual events except as seen through the eyes of their uploader and editor. Collect (talk) 10:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking, most Youtube videos are not reliable; but there are exceptions when you get to specific videos posted by otherwise very reliable sources. I would agree that the specifics of who posted the video is a key factor in this... if a reliable source such as the BBC posted a news clip on Youtube, we can probably consider it reliable (the hesitation being that we would need to verify that it was in fact posted by the BBC.) If, however, Joe Blow recorded the same BBC news clip, and posted it to Youtube, it would not be reliable. We have no guarentee that Joe Blow did not manipulate or edit the clip prior to posting.

Also, chances are, if someone like the BBC posted a clip to Youtube, the clip would also be available on the BBC website, and that would be a better link to use. Blueboar (talk) 12:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not something we can decide formulaically. WP:RS says explicitly: "How reliable a source is depends on context."

In discussions like this one, I think some people tend to gravitate toward the most extreme examples. It's important to account for the extremes, but for the vast majority of facts documented on Wikipedia, it's preposterous to think that somebody would go to the extent of falsifying a video in order to deceive the public.

For instance, suppose a dam was demolished, and the only reliable source that can be readily found is a news clip from a local network affiliate, with video footage of the demolition, and brief interview clips from the CEO of the power company and local environmental leaders. The video clip was uploaded by an unknown party. Other sources refer to the dam being there one year, and not being there the next, but none has been found that explicitly says that the dam was blown up.

Barring other factors, that video clip would be a fine source to support the fact that the dam was blown up. Is it possible that somebody could falsify an entire TV report to deceive the public? Yes. But is it plausible in this example? No.

There are cases where it might be plausible -- if there was some advocacy group, for instance, that was making the case that the government or some other party was trying to fool the public about the destruction of the dam. In that case, we would need a more solid source.

Also, this source would not be acceptable to support a more significant claim -- say, if the reporter in the news report said "the dam's output, which was enough to power 200 homes, will be replaced by 1000 windmills on a new wind farm" Two reasons: first, a local TV reporter might not be considered expert enough on such matters. But second, it is plausible that somebody might falsify a small section of a video clip, to make a politically-motivated claim to mislead the public.

The point I'm trying to make in this example is that every use of every source requires editorial judgment, and a formulaic approach does not serve purpose of writing a high-quality encyclopedia. Should the use of YouTube videos that are uploaded by unknown parties be discouraged in most cases? Possibly. But should they be banned outright as failing WP:RS? Absolutely not. -Pete (talk) 16:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I am looking for references for an article about an online game. Would a video uploaded by the developers of the game showing features of the game be suitable, or would that be considered promotional and or not third party?--gordonrox24 (talk)

My thought is "most likely not," especially if there is a need to establish notability. But if you'd like a more considered opinion, feel free to share the article and video, and I'll take a closer look. -Pete (talk) 00:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd say a Youtube video posted by the publisher would be a primary source. You can certainly cite it (just as you can their homepage) but it adds nothing to notability concerns. But doing so might well help the article and shouldn't be avoided just because it's YouTube (rather than hosted on the publisher's own site). Hobit (talk) 03:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Notability is not something I've studied too closely, but as far as video games go, there are several published, third-party magazines which can be found on any news stand regarding this topic. GamePro, Game Informer, Computer and Video Games and PC Gamer come to mind. Unless this is some obscure game, these magazines would have covered the game and they and can be used to establish notability. The problem with a video uploaded by the developers is that would be considered promotional. It might be acceptable as an external link, I'm not sure. If you're looking for a video for the game, I would think a video made by G4TV would be acceptable and you can link directly to their site and bypass YouTube completely. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, there's the WP:RS guideline, but there are also considerations that are specific to coverage of video games. If you haven't already, you might want to check in with the good folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games to see what their thoughts are. -Pete (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok thanks guys!--gordonrox24 (talk) 10:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Human needs and gravity strength or earths status itself

Humans have a lot of needs, obviously. When we need something, we go out and get it. It can be one individuals needs, or even a whole demographics of a nation. Needs, like to help us maintain ourselves. To be decent in lifestyle. To acquire the various needs of humans, and other species that serve humans, we need a cycle. A habit, to maintain ourselves.

One mass production of human needs is the technology. The way we acquire base metals, and precious jewelery for our bodies. We invent enormous machines that weigh over tons, and relocate enormous amounts of weight to get to the element that we are interested in. Thus, the webpage that explains the gravity, proves to itself that humans are indeed, creating a change on the surface of the earth, because we are changing the flow of gravity, via depleting oil reserves, mining out the precious elements that once were underground; which ultimately changes the weather as we know it, making it even more intense, faster and stronger.

Assuming the thickness of the earth crust and the 'humans' scratching the surface is not important, because of the whole density and weight, and layer makeup, is very dangerous in my opinion. Even the smallest change can have an enormous outcome in difference. Any feedback is welcomed, as I think we need to work together to get the big picture correctly in our mindset.

I think you want the Help desk. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Haha. That was mean! ;) Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 11:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Referencing template data

What is the correct way to reference data in a navigation template? Say, a bottom bpx listing the holders of a world record in X must, I suppose, provide source for numbers and names (they are debatable), but where ? talkpage ? NVO (talk) 10:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Given that it's a navigation template to related articles, I think the source should be present at the related article in question. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 11:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it same as citing wikipedia? Related articles aren't written by a single person and are not frozen in time, so their references may contradict each other and their common template. NVO (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm pretty sure most navigation templates have "centralized article" where all sources are collected and used. In the case you were describing, there is the World record progression 100 metres men. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 10:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

One day, when the crisis or something worse will idle me down for a couple years I might just tackle the "centralized article", but today it just does not exist. In some cases, i.e. {{Nikon DSLR cameras}} centralized articles won't exist in the foreseeable future (btw, here's an example of referenced but not sourced template and a lot of relevant discussion on talk page). I was really looking for a policy-based, general reasoning. NVO (talk) 12:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

In this case, I would suggest that you not put citations and references in the navigation template, but instead make sure that the information presented in the template is discussed and referenced in each of the seperate articles for the various Nikon camera models listed. Blueboar (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Since neither navigation templates nor categories provide an obvious means for adding references, the common sense principle to allow would be to include only content that is (1) obvious from reading the linked article(s), and (2) is either sourced there or is indisputable. Of course, if one or two sources suffice for referencing all the content in a template; those sources can be added as footnotes in the template, just as we sometimes do for infoboxes. Abecedare (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Referencing a non instaneously available US Government documents as neutral outside source

I was approached by customers to add references to our wiki page. The page is Mount Pleasant Winery. I was approached on listing label references for bottles of wine that were produced by our company and a previous company that used the name Mount Pleasant Winery. Since I am an interested party of one of the companies, I needed to find a reference from a neutral, outside source.

All wine labels, bottle silk screenings or verbage put on a wine bottle for sale must have the approval of the US government. An application is made and the government approves the label or it rejects it. These filings then become public record. If approved, the government issues a Certificate of Label Approval (COLA). I wished to cite COLAs as references. The current agency that approves these applications and authorizes the use of the label is the Trade and Tariffs Bureau (commonly the TTB), United States Department of Treasury. It was previously the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and refered to as the ATF. It assigns it a TTB ID number from its form TTB F 5100.31. The filings are not readily available over the internet but can be attained through containing the TTB by anyone. Does refering to this filing as proof of the label verbage constitute a verifiable source? Is the TTB a reliable source? Is the TTB considered a third party reference? Please give reasons why or why not.

If so, how should the reference be listed, or how should it appear? If not, what reference could satisify the basic verifability and reliability of what verbage is on the bottles?

We have had someone edit the page which deleted the listing of the labels explaining that "source cited does not reference this." After contacted said editor, said editor claimed that s/he contact a family member who works for the TTB within eleven minutes of the posting of the references and claimed that they were unable to verify the references. After discussing with said editor, it appears that the reasoning for the edit is

"It is a very common occurrence that material of questionable or insanely hard to verify sources are quite often beyond the scope of what is appropriate for an encyclopedia. We see this often in WP:BLPs where someone wants to insert some very personal information from court documents."

Examining the first part of the argument, it is not a three minute reference check. It took me days to get the COLAs of the previous company. Since the references are not instaneously available, it could be successfully argued that the TTB reference is not easily verifiable until the TTB gets this information into an on line form. However, this argument could preclude enormous amounts of material for thousands of references across the internet. It does ask an interesting question of how long of wait determines "insanely hard" to verify sources, which I do not have an answer.

Examining the second argument, a court document, such as a witness on the stand that says "Sam stole from Bob" cannot be used a reference for saying that "Sam stole from Bob." However, a decisive action such as court ruling where Sam was found guilty of stealing from Bob could be a reference for saying that "Sam stole from Bob." I think that using this template shows that a decisive action, such as the Government issuing the COLA can be then used to state that the verbage does appear on the bottle.

The editor then goes onto to try to discount the entire reason for the reference itself stating that the content of the article was not proper, but this does not constitute the question that is being asked, nor is it a listed reason for the original edit. I ask that we contain this topic solely to reference question and the question of whether listcruft is for another topic of discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mowineguy (talk • contribs) 01:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Informational note: The article in question is Mount Pleasant Winery and the source that was questioned is "United States Department of the Treasury: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms filing 8808; Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms Certificate of Label Approval filing 00011880154,9725800000218,01211000000040,02192000000102; Tariffs and Trade Bureau Certificate of Label Approval 03132000000171,04054000000101,05062000000160,06258000000063,07248000000065,08018000000075". --Orlady (talk) 02:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

US government documents typically are reliable sources, but Without seeing this source, it is difficult to comment on what it could be a reliable source for. Also note that this is a primary source. Primary sources must be used with care, if they are used at all. Regardless, I think the question of the reliability of the source is moot, as the year-by-year list of Mount Pleasant's novelty/commemorative wine labels seems like a collection of trivia -- not content that belongs in an encyclopedia. --Orlady (talk) 02:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a few other issues. The article had been tagged for not citing references. An article must have at least a couple references from secondary sources, meaning books, magazines, etc to show notability, otherwise editors might nominate it for deletion. Something like the COLA record would be a primary source. It may show that the winery exists, and might be usable for information about the artwork on the bottle, but you need secondary soruces to show notability on Wikipedia. Written into the article it says it was reviewed very well in Wine Enthusiast and was used in at least two World Series celebrations, which must have been mentioned in at least some newspapers. Look those up, and you'll have some secondary-source cites. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Now as far as whether a COLA meets WP:V, our policy for verifiability, I'm not sure. The fact that there's an ID number helps. Not sure which citation template best fits this situation, but that's a number that could be used where an ISBN or OCLC would normally go. But if this is something that requires a lot of letter writing to get, a FOIA request, or visits to a goverment agency, I don't know if that meets WP:V. If it's available in libraries ( some college libraries are designated as "repositories" for government documents, and if the BATF publishes some bulletin of recently granted COLAs ) that's one way to establish verifiablity. Another way would be if the agency itself made the records themselves online. A third would be if a credible organization obtained the records and made them available in print or online. There might also exist specialized paid databases of COLAs that are used in the wine business, but if theyre difficult enough to get access to they might not meet WP:V. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

As for the issue of whether primary sources can be used at all, I think theyre great when theyre used properly. Wikipedia isn't just something for grade-school kids to use for book reports about dinosaurs. When I need information on something, I want a Wikipedia that digs deep. There's a wealth of information sitting there in patent filings, obscure academic journals, etc that could be used to strengthen our articles. The argument about "obscure public information" has come up before, but in the context of people, for example it is improper to publish addresses of movie stars from public records. But that doesn't apply here. The bigger issue is what editors here call "undue weight". Magazines that have reviewed the wine which haven't been cited yet, why should the first citation be on a highly technical matter? I'd say hold off on the COLA and look into other cites. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If the only issue was what is written on the wine-bottle labels, one could look at the bottles themselves and write that in the article. That would likely comply with verifiability (especially since the wine bottles seem to be more accessible than the COLA filings), but would be considered undue unless some secondary source has thought the information noteworthy enough to report; I don't see how the TTB document gets over the undue problem.

Currently the article lacks any evidence of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" as required by wikipedia guidelines. The only reference is a trivial mention in a Boston Globe article ("This is like an alternate reality," said Sox owner John W. Henry, soaked in champagne (Mount Pleasant, 2003 Brut Imperial). All of our fans waited their entire lives for this." [52]). So I second Squifryerchef in recommended that editors' efforts would be better spent looking for secondary sources that establish notability; else the article is unlikely to survive an AFD nomination. Abecedare (talk) 03:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No, the TTB document is the undue problem. If there was a debate over the wine label itself then it would be important to cite the COLA. I think the Globe article is OK, though the reviews in wine magazines are more important. It may be a brief mention, but a Major League ball club can choose any wine to celebrate winning the World Series with. That they chose this particular wine says something. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Robert K. Crane discovery of cotransport leading directly to ORT

The primary editor of this article made the claim that Crane's discovery led directly to the development of ORT. I personally think this is an overstatement (and have some evidence to support my view, please see the talk page for the article). This claim was supported by current references 6 & 7. ref 6 is an article where Crane himself is stating how central his role was in the development of ORT. I don't feel this is reliable because he has a clear bias and a self-referencing reference is a bit dubious (this is a live-person bio, after all). The NEJM article cited in ref 7 is a scientific medical article that is explaining the role, if any, of bismuth for diarrhea. The opening sentence of the article directly supports this claim, however I feel this is a situation where the author of the NEJM article is not an expert in the point being discussed. The NEJM author is not an expert in the history of ORT, but an expert in the science being presented. For this reason, I feel the source is not reliable as the author is in error making an unverified claim. The reference that the NEJM article presents to support the first line only deals with the impact of ORT (which is not in question), and not the history of ORT, further weakening the claim. I am asking for independent opinions on this issue. Thanks! Chaldor (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

IRMEP

Is the Institute for Research Middle Eastern Policy(IRMEP)[53],[54] a reliable source for accusations of terrorism ? See : Charities accused of ties to terrorism. In fact, could it be considered a RS for anything related to the middle east and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Tundrabuggy (talk) 22:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

World of Greyhawk

I am developing a rewrite of the article on the World of Greyhawk Dungeons and Dragons campaign setting. The creator of Greyhawk, Gary Gygax, was invited by the D&D website ENWorld (http://enworld.org) to answer user's questions about his life and work in an open-ended forum. This ongoing forum, in which Gygax used the handle "Col Pladoh", lasted until Gygax's death in March 2008. The hundreds of pages of Q&A have been archived at http://www.enworld.org/forum/archive-threads/. These archives are a valuable source of information about the earliest days of Greyhawk and how it evolved, and contain much information that does not appear in either published interviews with Gygax or in any of his written work. Given that it was ENWorld that invited Gygax to the forum, granted him forum admin status, the forum lasted for 6 years, and has been archived, can this could be considered a reliable on-line resource? We are currently discussing this question at WikiProject: Dungeons & Dragons, where I have set out the above arguments in more detail.Guinness323 (talk) 22:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm familiar with this as I followed his posts on enworld. I don't think there is any doubt it was him making the posts and I'd treat this just as we'd treat a blog or authors' notes by any famous writer. We can rely on them, but they are of no use for notability purposes. But I'm "involved" and would welcome other opinions. Hobit (talk) 12:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

If it is verifiable (by reference in a reliable third party source) that Gygax was "Col Pladoh", then I would say his comments from the forum can be used. If not, no. Blueboar (talk) 13:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Found it: An Gygax interview with KCGeek in 2003 where Gygax said: "I hit EN World as Col_Pladoh. I also post a lot on the www.lejendary.com boards, and on the MSN Lejendary Adventure Community, and www.dragonsfoot.org ones about once a week." (edited transcript at http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2008/03/04/dungeons-dragons-cre.html, complete interview archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20031204163509/www.kcgeek.com/archives/interviews/mordenkainens_fantastic_interview/031302.html)

Very iffy... you are essentially using one type of unreliable source (KCGeek's blog) to verify another (a "anonimous" forum posting). The problem is (obviously) that these are in all likelihood the best sources you will be able to get. I would say that you can go ahead and cite Col Pladoh's comments on the enworld forum, and if someone objects, I would say this situation calls for a judicious invocation of WP:IAR. Blueboar (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm an involved party as well, but it's clear to me that it really was Gygax. I would say use it per WP:SPS. Basically no controversial BLP info, which I don't think is a problem in this case. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Are the following sources reliable?

Are these sources ok to use for factual citations? The Red Peacock (talk) 05:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• www.highbeam.com/
• www.thenation.com/
• www.huffingtonpost.com/

Short answer: Sometimes (and perhaps even "often"). Longer answer: These are all admittedly partisan political sources, and that does influences their reporting. However, they are also extremely notable political sources. Thus, while we should mention what they say (in accordance with NPOV), it is best to phrase any material taken from such sources as statement of opinion rather than fact, by direct in text attribution (as in: "According to the Huffington Post, blah blah blah <cite to huffingtonpost.com>"). Obviously, this would apply to similar sources on both sides of the political spectrum. Blueboar (talk) 13:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

What about highbeam.com? Is that reliable? The Red Peacock (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Highbeam is an archive of other sources, so it will depend on the particular article. Most of what they archive is reliable, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

There's a subtle point about using sources which contain political advocacy for matters other than opinion. For example, when an editor inserts a quote from a political journal "According to the Census Bureau..." "FBI statistics report..." -- that quote, stating a public fact, can be challenged by another editor if the purported cited fact cannot be found in the public records of the source's source. This doesn't imply deception on the part of anyone, it could be an unintentional and correctable error. patsw (talk) 02:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Carina Axelsson entry

Sorry, double post. PR (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Barrett v. Rosenthal

This article has been tagged with {{Primary sources}}; however, in my estimation, such a tag is unwarranted. The tag reads as such:

This article needs references that appear in reliable third-party publications. Primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Please add more appropriate citations from reliable sources.

While the article does cite some primary sources (the actual decisions from court cases which the article pertains to), the vast majority of the references are from reliable third-party sources such as newspapers, online media, and published legal references.

We are attempting to get this article elevated to GA status. Having that tag in place is definitely detrimental to this process. So, is the tag warranted or not? Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Assuming that the article does indeed have quality secondary sources (which it certainly appears to), that tag should if anything only be placed on sections which lack such. It is wrong, in my opinion, to place a blanket template at the top of an article unless the problem is very obvious to anyone familiar with Wikipedia practices, and this problem, if it exists at all, is far from obvious. PSWG1920 (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The tag doesn't belong there. A online court transcript on the court's official web site is about as reliable and verifiable as anything in the Wikipedia. I concur that the many secondary sources already cited are the backbone of the article: This article does not need (more) references that appear in reliable third-party publications. The editor who added it might have been under the impression that primary sources contaminate an article otherwise well-sourced. patsw (talk) 03:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Criteria to establish notability of a short story

There's no notability noticeboard that I know of, so I'm posting this here as it addresses sourcing issues. Some of you may wish to comment on a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (books)#Short story? about whether a new guideline is needed to address the notability of a short story. NJGW (talk) 23:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Bernama (Malaysian National News Agency)

Controversy has arisen in the Matthias Rath article as to whether Bernama, the Malaysian National News Agency, is a reliable source or not. In particular, a number of editors, including myself, feel that material from the first sentence in the news report at [55] could be used in the article’s intro, either right after, or just before the statement about The Sunday Times (Johannesburg), the text from which is taken from the sixteenth and seventeenth sentences of the piece at [56] I would therefore appreciate some expert advice re. this issue. Many thanks. Caseoccur (talk) 13:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's RS. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't regard Bernama as at all reliable on anything other than what the Malaysian government can be quoted as having said. As with all the Malaysian print media, it is controlled by the government and staffed by "journalists" who by any western standards are pretty incompetent. Having stayed awhile in Malaysia I know that most of their media just uncritically print any press release that comes into their hands. In the case in point, it looks as if Bernama has simply regurgitated a press release from the so-called "Society of Natural Health". If you cite this article, you might just as well cite the Society of Natural Health's own press release itself. Does this organisation have any scientific credibility? If they are giving the time of day to a charlatan like Rath, I would suspect not. You have to remember that south-east Asia never had the European enlightenment, so they tend to be rather fuzzy about concepts like empirical facts vs. superstitious claptrap. Alarics (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I would use state-media with caution; beyond that, though, in this instance, the operative principle is that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources". This most certainly is not a reliable source for verifying that he "made [a] scientific breakthrough connecting heart disease, cancer and many other chronic conditions to nutrient deficiencies" Dlabtot (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Den of Geek

Is the website Den of Geek a reliable source for information, reviews and commentary on science fiction movies, television, etc.? It might be considered a blog and hence a SPS, but it's owned and operated by Dennis Publishing (see here). What's the current consensus about professionally published pop-culture websites like this? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The same publisher that prints Maxim, Fortean Times, MacUser, etc. Shouldn't be any problem with this. Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Belated thanks for the reply. :) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Schools

Hey,

Is it acceptable to cite a school's website in its article? Computerjoe's talk 16:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

What school? If it's a normal public or private US school, then yes, but only for non-controversial information about the school. If it's John's School of Witchcraft, then probably not. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Well a private UK school. Guess state UK schools too. Computerjoe's talk 19:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I just raised the same question at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Schools. It seems to me they ought to be able to be cited as a reasonable source for hard factual information about the school as long as one avoids peacockery, advertising and POV, i.e. they might try to "big up" their sporting awards etc. but they are hardly like to tell barefaced lies about when their new building was put up, or what courses they offer. Alarics (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Carina Axelsson entry

Hello,

The "references" on this page are largely Weblogs, wordpress, and other zine style material. There is a fan named "Unionsoap" who continually puts these blogs back in and simply reverts them to the blog material.

I would like to move these:

^ http://books.google.com/books?q=Carina Axelsson&btnG=Search Books ^ http://www.workhousepr.com/underground/books/spring2004.php ^ http://royalandco.wordpress.com/2008/10/08/carina-axelsson-a-new-princess-for-sweden/ ^ http://www.nytimes.com/1993/03/21/magazine/fashion-the-waif-farers.html ^ The New York Times: The Waif Farers ^ http://danishroyalwatchers.blogspot.com/2006/11/danish-royal-roundup-11.html ^ http://royalandco.wordpress.com/2008/10/08/carina-axelsson-a-new-princess-for-sweden/ ^ http://royalandco.wordpress.com/2008/10/08/carina-axelsson-a-new-princess-for-sweden/

to "External Links" and take out them as references, with the exception of the NY Times. (I really don't even think this article should be in here at all.)

Are these links above considered to be "reliable" sources?

Thanks, PR (talk) 16:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The blogs are easy to address. Blogs about living people should never be used (unless it's the individual's blog). They are not reliable sources. See the policy: WP:RS#Statements of opinion.

I don't know what the question is with the books.google.com entry, but so long as that is being used to show that there are books published by her, etc...then I'd consider that a reliable source. Any further claims or interpretations beyond that however are not supported. Chaldor (talk) 07:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

A couple of questions

Sorry if this has been asked before but I couldn't find the answer through the search engine. Too many common words, I suppose.

1. Are reliable sources always reliable? For instance, is every article ever published on the New York Times reliable?

2. If there are inaccuracies in an article from a reliable source, like say the New York Times, does the entire article becomes unreliable?

Thanks. --Anarchodin (talk) 11:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This comes under 'Verifiability not truth'. New York Times can be cited as saying something, even if other RS show that NYTimes is wrong. Martinlc (talk) 12:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

1: No. 2: No. There is so much junk on the Internet, that we require reliable sources just to consider including the information. We can still pick and choose among the reliable sources to include only the ones that appear to be correct on an issue, or if the issue is too complex or controversial to decide what is correct, major opposing views from reliable sources are presented. --Jc3s5h (talk) 13:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let me explain the situation. There's no edit war here or anything like that. This is just something I'm wondering about. I recently came across this article, originally written in 1998, on heavy metal music. The entire article is an exercise in poor journalism. Among other things, it coins several neologism ("trench metal", "new york squatter metal", "extreme ambient", "machine assisted metal", "turncoat metal") that does not exist, it mix up genres (sludge/stoner, black ambient/darkwave), misidentify bands (Pantera/Sepultura/Brutal Truth/Kreator as power metal), etc. This is really bad misinformation and I'm not saying that because of my personal viewpoints or anything like that. I mean, you can find numerous reliable sources that describe Brutal Truth as grindcore but this is the only source I've seen that describes them as power metal. It's one thing if you confuse two similar genres like grindcore and death metal but only an idiot (sorry) would confuse grindcore with power metal. I don't think there's any sources that say Brutal Truth is *not* power metal because that's just the sort of nonsense that nobody would think of in the first place, so why even refute it? It would be like asking for some source that says Elvis Presley is not chinese classical music. So what I'm wondering here is whether this sort of article that makes a lot of bizarre, strange statements can really be a reliable source. Can we at least say that there has to be additional sources to support any of the statements made in such an article? --Anarchodin (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

We are not in the business of making lists of bad articles that appear in otherwise reliable publications. If we were writing an article on categories of heavy metal music, and we could find 5 reasonable articles plus Ratiff's article, we could just ignore Ratiff. --Jc3s5h (talk) 14:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Both the NYT and Ben Ratliff are considered reliable sources. Can they make mistakes?... Of course. We do allow for editorial judgement. Blueboar (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Memri

The Middle East Media Research Institute is a highly partisan presss monitoring group run by Yigal Carmon, a retired Israeli colonel (who specialized in intelligence). The criticisms of this group's work -- largely by their ideological opponents, it must be said -- as a distorting propoganda operation are legion. Here's a post by Marc Lynch, a middle east expert at GW (his bio here [57] from a few years ago [58] that i think fairly captures the way academia feels about Memri's "translations." I can provide example after example of situations where their trnaslations have been contested, but it's fair to say that no one in academia views them as reliable (because it's assumed they distort translations for political ends.) So, while i'd hope that Memri would never be considered a reliable source for anything, I certainly don't think it's a reliable source for teh claim that one of the most important preachers in Egypt refered to jews as the descendants of "apes and pigs" per this inserted edit here. If a public figure said something that extreme, surely there's a reliable source that reported it?Bali ultimate (talk) 13:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

There are other RS's that support that, no? Or am I confused about what figure you are talking about? IronDuke 22:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree, Memri is highly partisan. If this is true, there should be independent sources which reported it. --hippo43 (talk) 10:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose—per 'According to ...' clause, which is duly used in the article. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not an "according to" followed by an opinion. It's an "according to" followed by a claimed statement of fact. That's a crucial distinction.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no such distinction. When a clearly notable but partisan (and/or unreliable) source makes a controversial claim (i.e. they claim it's a fact), you write 'According to [source], [claim]'. It should be clear to any reader what this means. That's how it works all over Wikipedia. Also, I'm again assuming that you spelled 'jews' without capital J by accident. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Since this is an allegation against a living person (assuming he is, and whatever the article in question is) BLP demands controversial statements/accusations of facts have impeccable sourcing. And the standard for the deceased is just about as high. It's certainly a statement that would be repeated elsewhere, if true. Also the implication of bigotry is unnecessarily WP:uncivil. Also see previous discussions on MEMRI #1, #2 CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This jew who doesn't care about Capitalization found that implication highly offensive and passive aggressive. But i'll get over it. Thanks for posting the past Memri discussions.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Glad you didn't take offense. My thinking on this is that Ynhockey made it clear that he was assuming good faith, and correcting a grammar error. Re: Memri. That fact that a given source is partisan is not grounds to dismiss it. The question has to do with reliability. If it were not so, we would dismiss Al-Jazeera, the BBC, Fox News, etc. etc Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I take extreme offense to that comment, and don't believe for one second his intent was to point out a grammatical issue of no relevance to anyone. He was passively aggressively attributing bigotry to me. That's offensive and he should have been ashamed of such a low tactic. Now, i'm a big boy and my day won't be ruined because Ynhockey behaved so appallingly. But it was indeed offensive. Just so we're clear.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I think if you simply spelled "Jew" properly, you would dispel his qualms. IronDuke 22:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per ynhockey.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 15:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

As to Memri - it has a reputation for innaccuracy and partisanship in its translations. That should diaqualify it as a reilable source for translations that are contentious. Says who? GW Middle East professor and fluent arabic speaker Marc Lynch [59] [60]. Umich Middle East professor and fluent arabic speaker Juan Cole [61]. Fluent Arabic speaker and Guardian Middle East editor Brian Whitaker [62]. Here's a Le Monde Diplomatique article describing memri as misleading and disinforming with some specific examples.[63]. Etc... Bali ultimate (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Cole's being a "fluent" Arab speaker makes him an expert? Hm. I'm a fluent English speaker. Do I get to be an expert in all things related to the English language? My qualifications appear to be analagous to Cole's. IronDuke 22:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This is the the most absurd reasoning I've ever heard. Yes your a fluent english speaker because it's your first language. The point he's making is that people who are fluent in arabic dispute MEMRIs translations. Try to address the issue instead of trying to divert attention away with nonsense like this and "oh he spelled jew wrong". Seriously are these the best arguments you can muster? annoynmous 02:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Really? The most absurd? That you've ever heard? You appear to travel in rarefied circles (i.e., not Wikipedia). So what if English is my first language. Let's say I'm fluent in French, too. How are my qualifications to weigh in on a French to English translation any poorer than Cole's? What if added that I'm a professor of Art History at Yale? My opinion still wouldn't be that notable. And I'm diverting nothing, merely noting that it makes some people uncomfortable (for good reason) when others spell Jew with a small "j." When you refer to reasonable concerns like this as "nonsense," it is you who divert attention. IronDuke 15:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes I think it is absurd that we shouldn't consider the word of people who speak the language fluently and instead trust a partisan advocacy group founded by a ex-IDF member. An yes If you were fluent in French than your opinion would be notable, but were talking about arabic not french. Again it would be nice if we actually addressed the arguments ahead instead of wasting time on diversions like this. annoynmous 16:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per above, this is getting silly. ALL sources are partisan to one degree or another and MEMRI, just like FOX, Christian Science Monitor, New York Times, and every other source, must be considered on a case-by-case basis. A partisan POV is no bar to being a reliable source. L0b0t (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree-The difference is that MEMRI is not a news organization, it is a partisan watchdog group. Also in this case the link MEMRI provides as evidence that he said this is dead. Outside of MEMRI I haven't been able to find a single reliable newspaper that quotes him as saying this. annoynmous 17:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. This makes no sense. It would amount to my saying that if I oppose (for instance) using the Heritage Foundation as a WP reliable source -- because I do not like their POV -- then it should not be allowed as a source; subverting the real intent of WP policy, which is to have a spectrum of views represented through sources. If that approach was taken, WP articles would not represent anything more than the views supported in a WP majority vote. That would transform WP from an encyclopedia into a gigantic blog. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Memri is indeed a partisan source... it is also a notable source. As such it is reliable as self-published source for statements as to Memri's opinion. However, WP:BLP limits using self-published sources in articles about living people... even for a statement as to the opinion of the source. Blueboar (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well the difference is that MEMRI doesn't produce any scholarship. You may disagree with it, but The Heritage Foundation produces scholarship. The only thing MEMRI does is watch Broadcasts from the arab world looking for anti-semtic comments. There an advocacy group, not a foundation or a think tank. annoynmous 19:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It should be said that Bali is referring to a specific example in the Islam and antisemitism article where theres a quote where Muhammad Sayyid Tantawy supposedly states "the enemies of Allah, descendants of apes and pigs". MEMRI is the only source for this and the link they provide at that there cite to prove this is dead. In this case and I feel in many others MEMRI is not a reliable source. annoynmous 19:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The quality of MEMRI's translations is widely acclaimed. As many of the articles from the Arab media and other statements from Arab public figures are highly embarrassing to hardline Arabists and Islamists, MEMRI's translations have been scrutinized with a fine-toothed comb time and again, in fevered attempts to find fault and thus impugn their credibility as a source. Such attempts have failed. Having withstood the "trial by fire" and having come out of the ordeal unscathed, MEMRI's translations are acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia articles.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you provide some diffs on the "wide acclaim" for the quality of its translations? Up thread i've provided links to a number of scholarly and journalistic sources that consider them unreliable. I can provide more if that would be helpful.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Why not start by reading the WP article on MEMRI? When you have lib-dems like Thomas A. Friedman and repubs like Jay Nordlinger both commending them, you know that MEMRI must be doing something right.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, as you may know Friedman (who can hail a cab or order kebab in arabic, but that's about it) is unabashedly pro-Israel and critical of Islam generally (most famously he often writes that no influential imam has even condemned terrorism by Moslems, when in fact there is a rather long list of such imams). As for Nordlinger -- doesn't speak a word of Arabic -- and likewise holds similiar views to Friedman in this area. At any rate, both men are opinion columnists. Do you have any citations to offer of Memri being praised for the quality of its translation by fluent arabic speakers or a newspaper/magazine of record on its news pages?Bali ultimate (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Norman Finkelstein - denied tenure by the university at which he was teaching - and an anglophone journalist writing for al-Guardian are hardly qualified to assess the quality of Arabic translations, and even less credible as neutral, objective and disinterested people. It is of course lethally dangerous for Arabs in the Arab world to praise MEMRI, so not surprising that there aren't many who do. However, there have been some expat Arabs who have praised MEMRI's translations. Sorry no photographic memory but one of them might have been Fouad Ajami. I have a life outside Wikipedia and have put as much time into this thread as I am going to. So guys, keep having fun with this, I'm out.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

No links to offer to support your assertions? Got it (Finkelstein? Who mentioned him?)Bali ultimate (talk) 19:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of Finkelstein, MEMRI once realised a heavily edited video of an interview he did on Lebanon's New TV. Since he was speaking in English and the full video was available though, it proved a bit of an own goal. Wodge (talk) 20:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

IMO, MEMRI is a reliable source for claims made by MEMRI, not for statements of fact. In a case like this, and absent another (more NPOV) source, I would want to give the reader some context on what MEMRI is - for example "According to the pro-Israel advocacy group MEMRI..." or maybe "MEMRI has claimed that Tantawi said..." Pretending or implying that MEMRI is a neutral translation service is just not credible, and misleading to readers. --hippo43 (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Our reliable source policy in a nutshell, is that we use reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

MEMRI does have a reputation -- a poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Definitely not a reliable source for anything other than the opinion of MEMRI Dlabtot (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The translation of material created for Arab propaganda and audience and not intended to be read and discussed in the West is going to be inherently controversial. If a MEMRI translation is cited and there is a significantly different translation, then the two can be neutrally summarized by Wikipedia editors and both can be cited. No judgment about MEMRI's neutrality has to be made. patsw (talk) 03:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per discussion above. Memri is a reliable source. Even if one or two translation errors have been found (and there is no proof of that, just assertions by a few biased political writers) and even if it were (is) true that MEMRI has a bias, that does not make its reports unreliable. So far there is no real meat in the accusations of bad translations. It is obviously true that if there were, with all the Arabic speakers in the U.S. --there is no way it would still be being used by (so many) members of Congress as a reliable source! It may not be well liked by some, but it is reliable. Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Just to underscore the point, here are some WP:RS (with the possible exception of ---Mother Jones) using MEMRI as an authority most recently in the following links: (Boston Globe), (Mother Jones),---(New York Times), (Wall Street Journal). If it is good enough for these high-quality newspapers who do their own fact-checking, it should be sufficient for Wikipedia. Tundrabuggy (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I looked only at your first link. The author of the article quotes a comment by Yigal Carmon, president of MEMRI. It seems to be a mischaracterization to describe this quotation as 'using MEMRI as an authority'. Dlabtot (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not, however. When a noted newspaper goes to source for comment, it goes there because the source is noted as "expert," and the opinion as "valuable," thus implying "authority." Tundrabuggy (talk) 22:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Being quoted by a journalist does not convey authority and it is absurd to suggest so. Dlabtot (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Really? When was the last time you were interviewed by journalist(s) for the NYTimes, Wall St Journal or Boston Globe? The last time I was, some years back, it was because I had particular knowledge about the subject being written about. Oddly, they did not interview just anybody who happened along. Absurd, isn't it? Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Good grief. Are you seriously suggesting that the New York Times etc. are NPOV on Israel/Palestine? Alarics (talk) 21:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

No. In point of fact the New York Times is generally biased toward the Palestinian narrative. [64],[65],[66],[67],[68], etc etc. Nevertheless, it is still considered a WP:RS. Tundrabuggy (talk) 22:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ha ha ha! Every single one of the links you have there is from far-right and/or Zionist extremist organisations complaining about the New York Times. For those of us with no axe to grind one way or the other, by contrast, the NYT (and more or less all the mainstream US press) seems to be in the pocket of the Zionist lobby. Alarics (talk) 14:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you TB. Do you happen to know if MEMRI is run on a shoe string? They lack a page on their web site citing reviews of their work, something that is de rigueur nowadays.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is an interesting bit of information on Juan Cole and MEMRI. It suggests that Cole is less than reliable as a source on MEMRI. And as for Cole's expertise as a translator, surely that was shot when he tried desperately and ultimately unsuccessfully to spin and whitewash Ahmadinejad's "wipe Israel off the map" comments.

Most of the complaints about MEMRI are motivated by the fear of people finding out what public figures in the Middle East really say when addressing Arab audiences. The truth, however, cannot be suppressed. MEMRI's translations are good enough to be cited unless refuted by a reliable source.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 23:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

And thank you for the great link to that "Cole mine." It jogged my memory too. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Migraine Associated Vertigo

There is a discussion on Migraine Associated Vertigo about whether or not http://www.dizziness-and-balance.com/ is a reliable source. The site is published by Timothy C. Hain, a doctor who focuses on neurology and who teaches at Northwestern. A partial list of his publications appears on http://www.feinberg.northwestern.edu/nupthms/faculty/hain.html and shows that he has repeatedly published papers in this field. Per WP:SPS, is dizziness-and-balance.com an acceptable source? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

As above website is a patient info site of a doctors office and clearly commercial in nature, makes appointments etc., I prefer to have the article cited to Dr. Hain's peer reviewed publications including PMIDs, which should be no problem if everything is as claimed. A pubmed search doesn't yield many publications of his.

Should not enough such material arise from a pubmed search, I prefer to have the article sourced to high quality secondary sources, representing the mainstream contemporary medical opinion on the topic.

I think the standards are discussed well enough at WP:MEDMOS.

I don't want to read medical articles which are narrowly sourced to the multiple web sites of a practitioner. (even if he is god-knows what of a capacity, just take neutral peer reviewed publications)

From the article I had already to remove several misleading statements about the alleged dangerous side effects of main stream medications, and I want to prevent that fringe science opinion finds its place here.

70.137.153.83 (talk) 03:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The applicable guidelines are to be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources_(medicine-related_articles)

70.137.153.83 (talk) 04:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Migraine Associated Vertigo#Page blanking as well as on here. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with 70.137 here. The dizziness-and-balance.com site is a great place for information and links to authoritative sources, but I wouldn't use it as a reliable source for medical information. In the artice under question, the .com site is referenced extensively, but that page appears to be a compilation of facts from primary literature. If that's the case, there should be no problem backing up every claim with that found in the medical literature (assuming of course the claims are actually supported). Instead of citing the .com page, I would recommend looking up the articles cited in the dizziness-and-balance.com site and reference those based on the content found there. I wouldn't trust someone else's interpretation of the medical literature, particularly when there might be a commercial bias present. If the doctor in question is an expert, cite his peer-reviewed articles, not a website under his sole control (that is not under peer-review). Additionally, I could understand one reference to the site if it was all that necessary, but using it for seven references as it currently stands fails WP:SELFPUB. Let the medical, peer-reviewed literature stand for itself. Cite that, not the .com site. No one has to speak for the journal articles. Chaldor (talk) 10:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Fair enough. I wasn't the one who readded the refs the second time, so we should probably go through and ditch a bunch of them. Thanks for clearing this up. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• For some reason there was not notice of this discussion on the talk page of the article on question or the talk pages of the editors, either. Since I have just recently been made aware of this I shall go ahead and chime in. Professor Tim Hain is a fully tenured Professor of Physical Medicine, Neurology and Otolaryongology at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine. He is the medical director for the Chicago Dizziness and Hearing Center, which is a clinic affiliated with Northwestern University Hospital. His profile at the NWU website lists a very partial list of publications. A PubMed search reveals dozens more. Near all of his papers revolve around the area of migraine, dizziness and otology. He is a recognized and well published expert on neurology, otology, dizziness, hearing and migraine. He has been maintaining a website for several years which which includes loads of information regarding these medically related topics and also includes papers on the topics. I believe we can all agree to this. Right? Since we all recognize that he is an expert as to these topics then we can all agree that WP:SPS most certainly applies to him, per

  Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

  Professor Hain's publications most certainly have been in this area. As such there is nothing dishonest nor would a violation of policy occur by quoting this as-of-yet unpublished paper. As someone who is in the medical and research fields- and who will be specializing in neurology- I can vouch for the fact that some papers take a significant amount of time in getting published. It is highly likely that this paper has been submitted and is simply undergoing editorial review. That really does not matter, however. WP:SPS makes it very clear that there is absolutely nothing wrong in citing this extremely well written and highly relevant paper by a recognized expert in the field. If WP:SPS does not apply then how and when does it? Basket of Puppies 05:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but I must beg to differ. Citing an unpublished article is indeed a violation of the original research policy. Please see the first line of the policy: WP:OR (no unpublished facts). Even outside the wiki world, you don't cite unpublished articles in a professional setting. It's sidesteps the entire peer-review process. I know it takes a long time to get through the publication process, but there's a reason for that: that's how we know the paper is trustworthy. It's fine to discuss such things with friends/colleagues, etc (e.g. the talk page would be an appropriate place to keep tabs on this paper). But one does not get the seal of approval until it's accepted by the journal and you have a publication date. When dealing with science, you have to ensure that cited facts have been vetted, regardless of how authoritative the author might be. Chaldor (talk) 07:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Chaldor, I think you may be misunderstanding the issue. The paper is not unpublished but rather it is currently self-published. Taking into account Professor Hain's expertise and long list of already published papers on the topic, then WP:SPS absolutely applies. If you believe WP:SPS does not apply then how and when can it ever? Again: Recognized Expert with May Existing Publications->Current Self-Published Paper on Same Topic->WP:SPS states allowed to be used in article. Do you agree or disagree? Basket of Puppies 16:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• I'm now thoroughly confused here. In the message that I replied to, your comments about how long the publication process takes and words like as-of-yet unpublished paper made it seem to me like there was an article in the works here (i.e. one that had been written and submitted to a journal). If that is not the case, please clarify. I no longer know what is being questioned as a reliable source here. In the motion you have proposed, precisely what article (provide the direct link/reference) is being evaluated and how does it related to the dizziness-and-balance.com website site? Thanks! Chaldor (talk) 08:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

• I believe Puppies is referring to this paper. I think it's pretty clear that it's current self-published, and thus falls under WP:SPS. 140.247.28.157 (talk) 01:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, that is the paper I am referring to. Sorry that I forgot to link it. I do believe the paper is indeed self-published, and as such falls under WP:SPS Basket of Puppies 03:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines state clearly to give absolute preference to high quality peer reviewed secondary sources, as explained above. There is absolutely no reason to resort to SPS .com site, as long as the statements of the article can be sourced to such preferential sources. See explanation above. See also a link to a peer reviewed published review article on the talk page, which also contains many links to related sources. If there are so many pubmed hits of Dr. Hain, use these published articles with PMIDs. All as explained above. The patient site is not peer reviewed, but a rich source of links to peer reviewed materials supporting the statements. Use these. See above. 70.137.153.83 (talk) 05:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Dr. Hain appears to be an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Therefore, http://www.dizziness-and-balance.com/ COULD be used in some circumstances, as long as the specific citation meets all the requirements of WP:SPS. Indenpendent sources would be preferred. Dlabtot (talk) 18:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
  • So that's one vote for using it, and one against. Can someone else chime in? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

No its one against using it and one stating to use under some circumstances, but prefer independent sources. The latter also means not to source to it, where other sources can be used for the same statement. 70.137.153.83 (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Motion stating Professor Hain's self-published paper on MAV meets WP:SPS requirements

Support

1. Basket of Puppies 22:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose per reasons given above in first comment in thread. Additionally, this is a website, not a paper, let's please call it as such. WP:SPS states that caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. In the competitive medical world, particularly at academic universities, I can't imagine why something that has already been typed up like this hasn't been published in a journal. This is a real source concern for me. I can't trust new information presented here, let alone base so much of an article on this source. Use the sources this website has cited, but not the source itself. Chaldor (talk) 05:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Official sites for confirmation of existence and basic details

Do we accept official sites as references, in order to

1. Confirm basic non-controversial details?
2. Prove the existence of an item in a list if it is challenged?

This has come up in regards to List of gamelan ensembles in the United States recently. An editor is saying that we cannot use official sites as references, because it is somehow too close to spam. I have suggested that it is equivalent to sourcing specifications of aircraft or for software comparisons, and that we use official sites as references throughout Wikipedia. Further details at the AFD.

This was also discussed recently in regards to List of liqueurs, where it was agreed at WT:Reliable sources#List of liqueurs that "weak sources are better than zero sources, and the information (major ingredients, which the manufacturer of a product really ought to know) is strictly uncontroversial" and at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 31#List of liqueurs that "while commercial sites may not be the most reliable sources, they do pass the bar and are better than nothing."

Confirmation would be appreciated. (With acronym links to fend off the wikilawyers, if possible). Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Sources that don't meet our RS guidelines can't be used to verify contentious material or to establish notability. Material that is actually not in contention does not even need to be verified with a link that could be interpreted as WP:SPAM. Dlabtot (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

  We are not trying to verify contentious material or establish notability. Read my question again.

  Items in a list do not need to be notable. See the featured List of Caribbean membranophones. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

We don't publish lists of indiscriminate information. List of Caribbean membranophones is a list of notable, sourced information, therefore, it has nothing whatsoever in common with List of gamelan ensembles in the United States. Dlabtot (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Most of the individual membranophone types are not notable (or at least have no article links).

It is not indiscriminate. As I explained at the AFD (does anyone read these things?!) a gamelan is a large set of instruments that are played together. They are rare (as in, there are only a hundred or so in the US) and most of the existing ones have an ensemble associated with them, a few of which are notable. This is completely unlike a "list of woodwind ensembles" which would be indiscriminate and would extend to many thousands of items. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I just raised the same question at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Schools in relation to schools' own websites. It seems to me they ought to be able to be cited as a reasonable source for hard factual information about the school as long as one avoids peacockery, advertising and POV, i.e. they might try to "big up" their awards etc. but they are hardly like to tell barefaced lies about when their new building was put up, or what courses they offer. Alarics (talk) 21:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPS applies. Dlabtot (talk) 21:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. The only applicable sections of guidance I could find were: WP:NOR#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources: "Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." and WP:RS#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources: "While they can be reliable in many situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research." Certain editors aren't accepting this as sufficient. Is there anything clearer? Do we need to add clarifications somewhere? -- Quiddity (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, WP:SPS says "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so". But that simply is not the case with various details about schools (and I suspect this probably applies in a lot of other cases too). Especially this is true in countries other than USA and UK where sources in English, other than the school's website, are likely to be nonexistent. Alarics (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the policy. If the information hasn't been published elsewhere, it most likely does not belong in Wikipedia. Dlabtot (talk) 22:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

That part of the SPS is in reference to material self-published by third-party individuals. A school's publications would likely make the best citation for basic facts like what year was the school founded, how many students go there, and so forth. For the list of gamelan ensembles, while WP:N does not apply to line-items in an article, I would like to see at least a mention of each ensemble in some kind of source other than the band's website, whether it's a college's website or a newspaper. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This is most odd. Either I'm missing a whole page of policy, or the editors have backed themselves into a corner and refuse to admit to a fundamental mistake.

1) We use primary-source references and commercially-tainted references throughout Wikipedia to confirm non-controversial details and facts. This is acceptable, yes? This is the core dispute we need resolution/confirmation for.

See any recently featured culture or business article/list, for a slew of such: Scene7, List of Meerkat Manor meerkats, Yes Minister, List of QI episodes, Year Zero (album), Riven, etc. (and understand that none of the Meerkat Manor meerkats are individually notable.)

2) The list itself is mainly based on the directory that was maintained by Dartmouth University and the American Gamelan Institute, and the list that is given at the Embassy of Indonesia in Washington DC. These other links are to provide confirmation of the details, and as a source for more information (for the reader that is reading, and for the editor who is improving the list in the future).

To put it in wikiphilosophy terms: The immediatist/spamcop desire to eliminate external links is preventing articles like List of symphony orchestras from eventually becoming as good as List of Telecaster players or List of tallest buildings in Atlanta (a featured list entirely based upon 2 directories, I note) or List of number-one albums of 2008 (U.S.).

And now they're even doing it for the wrong reasons! How are links to The University of Pittsburgh Music Department and Arizona State University and The University of Chicago being classified as spam?? -- Quiddity (talk) 04:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The references verifying the location, type (i.e., Javanese or Balinese), date of establishment, Indonesian name, current director, etc. are essential and should not have been repeatedly, insistently, and aggressively blanked from the article. There is a finite number of gamelans in the United States and our article does a very fine job of listing them; the blanking editor seems to have found the article simply via WP:STALK, not through any particular interest or expertise in this subject. Badagnani (talk) 04:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Badagnani for documentation on how Badagnani has been in many disputes on this subject, and reacts with off-topic and disruptive comments exactly like the one above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronz (talk • contribs) 17:43, 22 April 2009

While I think this discussion is helpful, I think it is important to point out that these links were not added to be references, but to be links to official sites for entries in this article. Editors are now looking for ways to justify formatting these links as if they are references. I've created a list of the links on the article talk page here so it's easier to see what is being discussed. --Ronz (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not true. These links are being used as references: University of Arizona link confirms the style of play and origin of instrument, Fine Stream Gamelan link confirms (and adds details) about the style of play and origin of instrument and origin of group, etc, etc, etc. This editor (and others) are trying to find various ways to delete all "official links". First they were calling them spam, now they are claiming the links aren't "really" being used as references. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

"This is not true." Please do not misrepresent the situation. It was true when I made the comment. You have since verified two. They were not added as references. They now have been verified to reference some useful information. 48 other links remain. --Ronz (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a bit of misunderstanding on both sides here. Primary sources have their place, and they can be used appropriately. I don't see anything wrong with using a primary source to verify the existance of an ensemble. However, we need to do more than just verify existance. We also need to establish notability. And for that we need reliable secondary sources (see WP:NOTE). Blueboar (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. We don't list things on Wikipedia simply because they exist. Dlabtot (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar: It is not a standalone article though - it is a split-out/sublist with notability from it's parent articles Gamelan, American gamelan, and Gamelan outside Indonesia. Similarly to how these hundreds of lists exist: Category:Lists of fictional characters or (musical topics I can find in a few seconds searching) things like List of Mormon Tabernacle Choir organists, Malaysian choirs, List of music featured on Doctor Who, List of atheists (music). Plus surely there is implicit notability in an exceptionally rare type of musical instrumentation? - how many Church Pipe organs are there (in the world, in the US)? When there are only 100 or so left, we will probably have a list of them. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)