Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25

Anson Shupe and sources with known inaccuracies

Discussions relevant to this post can be found in various locations, but most recently on the BLP/N. User:Cirt is contending that Anson Shupe is not a reliable source for information on the Jason Scott case. The basis of this claim seems to be that one specific piece of information in a book of Shupe's, regarding the case, is inaccurate. It is unclear if Cirt thinks the particular book is an entirely unreliable source for anything or if s/he thinks Anson is an entirely unreliable source for any information on Rick Ross (consultant) or the Jason Scott case specifically. The relevant book is listed below:

Shupe, Anson D. (2006). Agents of Discord. Transaction Publishers. ISBN 0765803232. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

It has been suggested both on the BLP/N and on the various talk pages that Cirt has cross-posted his (un)reliability claim on [1], [2], [3] that he take the issue here. It has been my assertion that one inaccuracy does not make an otherwise reliable source unreliable, but clearly Cirt disagrees. A copy of Cirt's argument can be found here: Talk:Rick_Ross_(consultant)#Shupe_source_should_not_be_used. Any suggestions? I'm interested not only in this particular case but the precedent that following Cirt's logic would set more generally. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing Dispute by involved editors

If we went by this, then in this case we'd have practically no sources left to use. There were two trials, one of criminal charges, the other, a civil suit.

Now, for the criminal trial and the basic matters of fact of the case:

  • This source says Scott was held in a rented "expensive beach house".
  • This source says Scott was held "in an Ocean Shores motel room for several days against his will" and that "Mark Workman and Charles Simpson, pleaded guilty yesterday to lesser charges of coercion".
  • This source says he was held in a Grays Harbor house and that two of the hired abductors, Mark Workman and Charles Simpson, were sentenced to 30 days in jail.
  • This source quotes the prosecutor saying that "Mark Workman and Charles Rotroff pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of coercion". (The prosecutor did not know who the defendants were?)
  • This source says "criminal charges were brought against Ross and the three men and that all four were acquitted in 1994."
  • This source says "The prosecutor said Scott was driven to an Ocean Shores motel where the deprogramming attempt took place over several days", that three men including Ross were charged, and that the fourth was not charged. As the defendants in the criminal case, it names Ross, Mark Workman and Charles Simpson.
  • This source says the fourth man, Rotroff, was not charged, as he turned state's evidence, it also quotes Scott's mother as saying, "I knew I had to take him to a real secure place ... I paid $1,200 a week for the beach house. It was beautiful. It was an elite beach house."

Moving now from the criminal to the civil case:

  • This source says Scott was taken to a "beach house" and that in the civil case "a civil-court jury in Seattle found that Ross, his three accomplices and the Cult Awareness Network had violated Scott's civil rights."
  • This source makes it clear that the fourth man, Rotroff, agreed to testify against the others in the civil suit and settled with Scott out of court.
  • This source, the actual verdict form from the civil suit, makes it clear that Ross and two, not three, accomplices (Workman and Simpson) ended up being defendants in that case.
  • This source, again an actual court record, says Rotroff settled before the trial, and that only the remaining defendants were found guilty by the jury.

That does not mean the "Phoenix New Times" and the "Seattle Times" are out as sources, because they got some facts wrong along the way. The proper method for dealing with such things is triangulation, and where a source is flatly contradicted by another,

  • making a judgment call, if it is a clear error, or if the source is contradicted by a more authoritative source, such as the actual court record, or
  • giving several sources' versions. Jayen466 00:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

As the editor mentioned repeatedly in this post by PelleSmith (talk · contribs), I wish that I would have been informed at my talk page about this. Anson Shupe has repeatedly consulted with Church of Scientology lead attorney Kendrick Moxon, and he was a paid consultant during the Jason Scott case. This financial conflict of interest source should be avoided.

Jayen466 (talk · contribs) used the Anson Shupe source to write that the criminal trial of Rick Ross (consultant) in the Jason Scott case resulted in a "hung jury" [4], [5]. This is a false statement. See this source (cited by Jayen466 himself for other info in the article and yet neglected in this instance) where it states: "On January 18, 1994, after just two hours of deliberations, a Greys Harbor jury acquitted Rick Ross of unlawful detainment."

The factual inaccuracy in the Anson Shupe source is much more significant - it is the main judgment in the criminal case involving Rick Ross (consultant), arguably one of the most important pieces of information in that entire section of the book - not simply a fact about whether someone was taken to a hotel or a beach-house. When this factual inaccuracy about such a crucial piece of information is taken into account - the most important piece of information in the case - coupled with the financial conflict of interest - we should really take care not to use this source, especially when we should have stricter standards about using sources in biographies of living persons. Cirt (talk) 02:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Am I missing something? Regardless of the tone of the Shupe book, there seem to be plenty of definitely reliable sources that establish the following facts:

  1. Ross was acquitted on the criminal charge of kidnapping.
  2. This was on technical grounds, rather than because any doubt existed that he was involved in the incident
  3. He lost the civil suit filed against him, and Jason Scott was awarded $2.5m damages against him
  4. The Civil trail judge commented that Ross showed no remorse, or acknowledgement of the gravity of his actions

Is there any doubt about the factual accuracy of these statements? If not, is there any doubt about the relevance of these facts to the article in question? DaveApter (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

COI/N thread

See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Rick_Ross_.28consultant.29. Jayen466 16:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

article on kali, and possible copyright infringement / copy paste evident

Kali#Origin -- please see the "origin" section for the kali article, I am uncertain how to sort this whole mess out. --Kuzetsa (talk) 16:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Picture of a memorial raised by the Slovak government about a controversial issue as a source

150px‎
Should this picture be accepted without a confirming third party source? I never heard of "tens of thousands of Slovak children deported to Hungary for denationalization". Very controversial claim and this memorial raised by a government often linked to anti-Hungarian views is the only reference for this right now. Squash Racket (talk) 06:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The photo is an adequate source, IMO, for the existence of the memorial and for the existence of the claim if makes. However plaques and memorials are poor sources for facts. They are typically erected by partisans and cannot be corrected easily if there is an error. Further, the text is not attributed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Should it remain without a neutral reference confirming it or should it be removed? We are talking about tens of thousands of allegedly deported children. Squash Racket (talk) 04:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
My instinct is that the view of a national government is notable and worth mentioning. But there should be no implication that the events actually happened. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
What article does this concern? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for weighing in. Squash Racket (talk) 06:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

To my mind, images should not be included in an article unless they illustrate something discussed in the article. So, the question is... Is this memorial discussed in the article? If so, then it is appropriate to have a picture of it. If not, it is inappropriate. Simple. Blueboar (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Looks like what most people would call a "Reliable Source". It comes from a national government and unless we have really credible evidence that the story was invented, we should accept it at face value. Why invent one incident in what was likely quite a determined, brutal and well remembered campaign? Do we have any reason to suppose that Slovakians wilfully defame Hungary, or might have done so in 1998? Certainly let's avoid implying that this incident is a well known atrocity (we're still short on detail) but avoid implying there is any deceit. "Town X recalls an act of Hungarianisation" or similar. The most suspicious part of what we can see here is the fact that it's bi-lingual with English. If I'm wrong, and there really is a problem, then I'm quite sure we'll discover about it soon enough. PRtalk 16:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Is the New York Times Reliable?

DCEETA [6] "The US government position on the nature and classification of the site may have some merit, however the use of the source to articulate speculation was fairly explicit original research. The NYTs opinion on what the russians may or may not know is merely their opinion, using it to bolster the OR in the rest of the section is specious, to say the least. " so says user:ALR-------Dogue (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this an editorial being used to state fact? In any newspaper that's not an ideal source. Actually, it's not clear from your diff what the NYT is being used for. Can you be more specific? --Moni3 (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
The question seems to be about this edit. The NYT was cited for part of it; the same article is cited for other stuff. It looks fine to me, but was taken out by User:ALR in this edit; not clear why it's taken out; seems more like an ordinary content dispute than an RS issue. Dicklyon (talk) 18:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
The section was previously removed here, essentially the section was an aimless collection of stuff with no clear purpose other than yet another iteration that the site exists. The issue is not the reliability of the source, but the use to which it was being put. My concern is more to do with the use that a redacted FOI release is being misused quite significantly and that the NYT article is being associated with that misuse in an attempt to justify volume of content rather than contribution.
This is not an RS issue, although it's worth noting that Dogue is wandering about the governance boards trying to find someone prepared to sanction me in some way. yawn
ALR (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Doesnt sound like there is any valid reason to remove it on the grounds of it not being reliable. --neon white talk 21:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I didn't remove it on the basis of it not being reliable. Is that not clear from my comment above?ALR (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
sorry to entangle y'all in an edit war, however, i was confused when ALR said the NYTimes was 'speculating' and deleted a quotation, even after i quoted WP:V in the talk. i'm looking for validation of that. oh and this is a feature article, dealing with classified information, not an editorialDogue (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Self-published website claiming that soccer players are gypsies

In the article Romani people national football team, this website is used as a reference. The website claims that several living persons (soccer players) are gypsies. Is this source sufficient for Wikipedia to make such a claim, or does the source fail Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources? --Kjetil r (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


The answer is no - BLP claims and Self-published = NOPE. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

BrainyQuote / BrainyQuote.com as source

A number of biography pages have as a source and/or external link the (commercial) site BrainyQuote.com. The links generally take you to a page of quotes attributed to the person whose page had the link, but no citation information is given for the quotes. Is this a reliable source? Should it be present on all of the 200+ pages which currently link to it from special:search? (an example of it used as a reference: John Sexton (photographer))

Dialectric (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

Hi. I'm doing a GA review of Akshardham (Delhi), and a lot of the sources used are from travel agencies (like [7], [8], and [9], among others). Are these reliable? Thanks. Intothewoods29 (talk) 19:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I have some concerns about them. One, there is no cost to the travel agency if they are inaccurate on details. Two, the travel agency has a financial interest in marketing the site as a travel destination, and is therefore likely to exaggerate its importance. Some travel agencies will also happily advance fringe theories about the site they are selling. Three, they probably got the information from somewhere else, but have not provided references to the source of that information. It is possible they got that information from Wikipedia, making it a circular reference. Wronkiew (talk) 22:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Reliability of the source in question

I am trying to clean up the page of List of best-selling music artists by tossing away the artists with unreliable sources. The artists on this page directly depend on sources which prove they've sold as many records the brackets indicate which the artists are place in. My question is about this source which claims that Oasis have sold more than 50 million records. Could we treat this source as reliable.--Harout72 (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

  • I would like to thank you for trying to clean up that list, because many of the sources it uses appear to be of dubious reliability (a-ha sold more than Duran Duran? The Village People have outsold Bruce Springsteen?). In the case of this particular article about Oasis, I don't see anything there indicating who wrote the article or according to whom Oasis sold more than 50 million records. So I would tend to consider this source insufficiently reliable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Review sites

Are review sites reliable sources for Wikipedia? I had always wondered about that... Like Amazon and all the other ones. I figured no because they just publish others opinions and summary, but can anyone give me a definite answer? Lady★Galaxy 22:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Not all of them do that. None of the links that I posted did that. Schuym1 (talk) 22:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
You said you weren't going to argue with me anymore. I want a definite answer, I don't want the guy from the AfD telling me if it is reliable or not. I want an answer from someone else. Lady★Galaxy 22:35, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
  • that's a pretty broad question. Amazon isn't a "review site" per se. They include snippets of published and solicited (publisher) reviews with products, but they don't produce any content. Did you mean to ask if something like the Amazon review summary can be considered a reliable source? Protonk (talk) 22:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that's more of what I meant. Thanks for answering so quickly and helping me clear up my question. Lady★Galaxy 22:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok. You can read here for an archived discussion of the same thing. Basic idea is, Amazon takes snippets of reviews from reliable, independent sources (like newspapers) as well as from non-indendent sources (like the book publisher). Someone (probably the agent for the author) selects excerpts to show on the page. It's generally a bad idea to quote excerpts without knowing what the full text says, because the sentence could be taken out of context. However in some cases (like you just want to show that X newspaper reviewed Y book), you can probably use the excerpt to find the original news item. Long and short of it is: those reviews are only as reliable as their original publisher. Also, this doesn't apply to user reviews, which are not considered reliable sources per WP:SPS. Does that answer your question? Protonk (talk) 23:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. Lady★Galaxy 23:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Is Masigasig a reliable source for notability determination?

There is disagreement in an AfD discussion about whether the small business magazine Masigasig is a reliable source. In the case that we are looking at, it contains an in-depth article (pages 9–10) about a company, written by an freelance writer. It does not appear to be a reprint of a press release, although it does rely heavily on quotes from an employee. Any advice? Wronkiew (talk) 22:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

AccessMyLibrary.com and Web.archive.org

Is AccessMyLibrary.com an RS? And can Web.archive.org be used as a source when a source turns dead? Shahid • Talk2me 18:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The first question is really a category mistake. These aren't really sources, so they can't be reliable or unreliable. It's like asking if an ISP is a reliable source. It is always assumed that ISPs don't fiddle with the bits that they send you, and the same is assumed of accessmylibrary and the webarchive. For your second question, yes, it is good practice and encouraged to restore dead links using the wayback machine.John Z (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, thank you for the reply. It's great that I can use web.archive, but I found a good article on AccessMyLibrary.com. Can I use it then or not? Shahid • Talk2me 22:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
What is the article? Would you mind linking it? Protonk (talk) 05:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
But it requires registration. Shahid • Talk2me 15:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
If you post the link, I'll see if it is hosted on another database. Protonk (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Here ou have. The matter is not this particular link itself. I mean generally, it's an article by a famous newspaper which is now a dead page. I found the same article word for word on AML. Can it be used? Shahid • Talk2me 19:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok. If you don't actually have access to the full article, I would suggest that you not cite the excerpt that Accessmylibrary posts. If you have access to a service like Lexis or Proquest that will index the Hindu back issues (this article doesn't come up on Lexis for me), then you should look there. I wouldn't cite the article as is, because we can't tell if it is promotional (meaning the paper running a press release) or otherwise without seeing the content and context. Otherwise I agree with JohnZ that these two "sources" are not sources per se, but means to access the original source. Neither should be "cited" (meaning, when I get an article from Lexis-Nexis, I cite the original publication) in any traditional sense. I hope that helps. Protonk (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, but I'm still confused. Lexis and Proquest show zero results to me, the Hindu article is dead and the only source which has the article now is AML. Can I use it or not? Shahid • Talk2me 10:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you can use it, as AML is a similar service to Lexis/Proquest. You know, you can always register for AML by using your email address and use a US post code (say, such as 10018), and it will give you 7 days full access. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 10:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks friend. And do I have to mention AML or leave the original Hindu newspaper as the publisher? Shahid • Talk2me 21:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Don't mention AML. they are just a gateway. If you've got the article in hand, just cite the page # and date from the hindu. Protonk (talk) 07:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

PressTV.Com aka PressTv.Ir

Resolved

A news story from this publication is being used in biography of Gilad Atzmon. Two questions:

  • Is this a reliable source in general? It looks ok to me, but I have a feeling if they were saying bad things about Israel people would be yelling that they were not reliable :-)
  • The other question is, for BLP, is this sort of accusation overly vague and tenuous even from a reliable source?: Stolz has reportedly read a newspaper article to the court about the appearance of world renowned Israeli artist, Gilad Atzmon in Bochum. In a public statement, Atzmon is quoted as having said that the written history of the Second World War and the Holocaust are a "complete forgery, initiated by Americans and Zionists". Carol Moore 17:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc
Carol, could you rephrase your second question? It's not easy to see what you mean by "this sort of thing". Itsmejudith (talk) 23:32, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Weatherman (organization)

In this article, there has been a challenge as to whether testimony from a certain FBI informant is a reliable source. The informant, Larry Grathwohl, testified before the U.S. Senate in 1974, wrote a book in 1976, and appeared in a television documentary in 1982. I know of no one who has challenged his credibility. This seems like a slam dunk to me, but I would like to have additional opinions on the matter, as the facts have been clouded by politics. Informal mediation has gotten us no where in resolving the dispute. Thank you in advance for your help. Freedom Fan (talk) 22:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Leaving aside the fact that he was a paid informant, his testimony involved his impressions rather than cold hard facts. Furthermore, his testimony did not result in any indictments or convictions for the incidents you are trying to document in the article; therefore, they are not germane to the article in any case. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Testifying before the senate, writing a book or appearing on TV may well contribute to making the person notable. They do not, however, establish reliability. Has this book been reviewed? Is it generally considered to be reliable? Is it referenced in the academic literature? Unless there is serious support for his reliability, I would at best use him as an attributed source ("according to Larry Grathwoh's testimony..."). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Well SCJessey is one of the editors challenging this source, whereas I am hoping for more outside opinions on the subject, such as that provided by Stephan Schulz. I am not aware that anyone has had a reason to challenge this FBI informant's credibility, nor have they done so; the Senate thought enough of the source to call him as a witness in their investigation. And yes, the source indeed was attributed to Larry Grathwohl as you recommend. So this sounds like a keeper to me. Freedom Fan (talk) 04:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
This exact material has been the subject of an RfC, several AN/I reports, edit warring, and several blocks. There is no consensus for it, and it is not only an WP:RS and WP:NPOV problem but a WP:BLP violation. It has been brought up on a number of notice boards, so this is a repeat proposal ad nauseam. The specific edit is here.[10] There are many things objectionable about it, but at the core, the material repeats accusations made in various places by Larry Grathwohl, an FBI informant, that Bernadine Dohrn murdered a San Francisco police officer as part of a Weatherman operation in 1970. However, she was never arrested, charged, or tried, nor despite widespread suspicion and two investigations was her organization ever determined to have been involved. The sourcing problem is multi-tiered. Grathwohl's accusation is sourced to an autobiographical book he wrote (reliable that he made the accusation, unreliable as to the truth of the allegation), Congressional testimony (same), accounts from unnamed sources of what he told the police during a 1970 investigation (unreliable as to either), and an election year anti-Obama partisan attack book (unreliable as to either). The accusations themselves are not reliable as to the fact that Dohrn actually committed the murder because they are first-person accounts by an involved party - and FBI informants against radical organizations in that area are notoriously untruthful. Further, the accusations he makes are themselves based on unreliable sources. He does not claim to have actually witnessed or been close to the murder. He infers that she did it based on things he says other people in the organization said, and there are lots of holes in that. The editors on the page have decided that is not strong enough to include at all based on RS, and that is their prerogative. The BLP issue is much more serious and has a higher bar. Even if we can satisfy ourselves that we have reliable sources to say Grathwohl made the accusations and that they are notable to the organization, BLP would say we should not repeat them. Getting real for a minute, this is an unproven, untried murder accusation against a living person.Wikidemon (talk) 05:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
That's a good question. When I started I was attempting inclusion of material from a 1982 national broadcast documentary in the television series No Place To Hide. Now after reviewing the history of this article, it appears that certain users have sanitized away all mention of testimony by this individual, apparently because he was 'paid' by the FBI to infiltrate the organization and testify before the Senate. That sounds like a mighty flimsy objection and is not consistent with any Wikipedia policy I know. So let's start with examining the documentary as a reliable source. Here's the transcript Here's the video. Thanks. Freedom Fan (talk) 05:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok. Let's unpack this a little. First the paid testimony point. The objection being raised about testimony of paid informants is that they have--while undercover--a financial incentive to produce damning or inflammatory material and that incentive exists somewhat even after cover is broken. We would hardly expect his testimony before the senate to diverge significantly from what he told the FBI, even if it wasn't true. However, I'm prepared to say that the "paid" portion of it is a nuance that shouldn't be a complete roadblock. More important to me is that the senate testimony at least be weighed carefully. Remarks made before the senate in prepared testimony should (IMO) be attributed to the speaker specifically, not used for the presentation of "fact". Arguably, the same should be said for the PBS interview. The problem is if we treat his statements as facts in the article we make several assumptions: that he was right, that he was not lying, that the threats he describes were credible (And not on the same order as the Merry Pranksters' goal of realigning the entire world with LSD), among other things. If we treat the statements as "an FBI informant told the Senate, "blah"", we escape that whole business. More to the point we allow the article to be neutral in between the push-pull over the "weatherman" business. That's my recommendation. Protonk (talk) 06:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
While that is all true, it does not allow the proposed inclusion (backed by this dubious source) to escape the more stringent rules that form Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. In this case, we are talking about the informant's autobiography being used as a source for the suggestion that someone may have done something, despite the fact that the informant's testimony did not lead to any indictments or convictions. In otherwords, the source might be considered reliable for citing what the man said, but emphatically not reliable as a reference for unproven allegations towards a living person. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

archived 20-year-old "online tecnical forums" vs. online forums vs. blogs

In a recent AfD discussion, when I pointed out that an "online technical forum" is not the same as a blog, another editor immediately linked "online technical forum" to "online forum" and said it "absolutely is in the same - unacceptable - category as a blog. This is policy", and then he pointed me (paradoxically) directly to Verifiabilty SPS, where it specifically says "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." In this particular instance the tech forum (archive of paper magazines) being quoted was over 20 years old and ones that took place between established and published experts in the field being discussed. So I wish clarification on this issue. Are 20-year-old technical forums between field experts, ALL "blogs" as this other editor asserts, or do they sometimes fall within the "some circumstances" caveat of Verifiabilty SPS Thank you, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

As the "other editor", I think it's important to point out that nowhere was the technical credibility or objectivity of the posters to the online forum being discussed established. It might as well be a chat room. As far as Technical online forums vs non-technical, it doesn't matter if they're discussing Paris Hilton or Illudium Pu-36 Explosive Space Modulators - an open forum is an open forum. As far as age of the posts, I see no rationale that age should be considered in their reliability. Toddst1 (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  • What, exactly, distinguishes an "online technical forum" from a usenet post or BBS? How do we ascertain the expertise of those who contributed to those forums? Why are they not considered self published sources? If they are, why is the caveat at WP:SPS not helpful? It seems to me that if the particpants were experts in the field, their commentary could be used. Protonk (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Please refer to where an earlier version of the article was tagged diff and here where the tags were removed diff. The article nomination included the explanation of "footnotes are completely unreliable as a blog and a personal web page of a fan." The sources called "unreliable as a blog" were not blogs, but references to individual copies of old print magazines now archived on the web, and the one source called "a fan page" was a single post by Nekochan, an established expert in the field, on his own website, sharing expert and non-contentious information already supported within the article, with an expertise that should make this ONE use qualify under the careful caveat at Verifiabilty SPS. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  • An area where I actually have specific knowledge, having operated forums for a company where some such technical forums were located. In the examples with which I am familiar, the forums had two sets of possible archives -- one of messages posted therein, generally with identifiable real participants, and one of files which were subject to approval by the forum administrator. Those files are "fact checked" in a sense fully as much as most current RSs, and far more than most current blogs. Their authors were generally identified, and there can be little question of anyone editing them. Remember, this was in the period before "screen names" became popular. I strongly suspect this is an example which was not thought of by WP admins in the past. Collect (talk) 21:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I believe that mailing lists and other technical forums that are mostly populated by experts can fall under the SPS exemption as a source. However, even though sometimes SPS'es can be used as sources, they do not establish notability; there should be at minimum one or two secondary sources in the article. Also watch out for copyright issues. If somebody reprints news articles on a personal site, we should -not- link to them (unless we're reasonably sure they have permission to republish), but instead cite the magazines as dead-tree format. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Wolfberry

I'm having a dispute over a source used in the articles Wolfberry and Boxthorn. The book is published by BookSurge, a self-publishing house. It is used to source a section on the nutrient content of the berry, and is also but in the general bibliography. This book fails WP:V in my opinion, but not in the opinion of two other editors (one editor of the article, and one who arrived through a requested third opinion). However, I see nothing in their answers that indicates that this book is indeed a reliable source, only philosphical replies and unsourced statements. The book is not reviewed anywhere, not used as a source in any other reliable book or paper. The author is recognised as an expert on strokes and brain capillaries, not on the nutritional content of berries. Could people here either clearly explain to me why this book is a reliable source anyway, or head over to Talk:Wolfberry and explain things better than I am obvisouly able to do?

Gross, Paul M.; Xiaoping Zhang; and Richard Zhang (2006). Wolfberry: Nature's Bounty of Nutrition & Health. Charleston, South Carolina, United States: BookSurge Publishing. ISBN 1419620487. ISBN 9781419620485. Google Scholar[11], Google Books[12], Google[13]

Thanks. Fram (talk) 15:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Not resolved yet. Editor now claims that using the above book in the article Wolfberry means that it fulfills the letter of WP:SELFPUB, whereas I understand SELPUB to mean that the book can be used in articles about the author or about the book itself, but not (under this rule) about the subject of the book.[14] Could someone not involved yet please either give me agood troutslap for not understanding something like WP:SELFPUB, or head over to the talk page of Wolfberry and explain with more patience than I have what the problems are and how the editor misinterprets our verifiability policy? Thanks... Fram (talk) 12:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
The verifiability policy has two sections, WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB, dealing with self-publication. The former deals with self-publication by recognized experts, and this case gets a good deal of latitude as long as it's not used for a biography. The second case is for selfpubs by non-experts, and that case is generally as primary sources in articles about themselves. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. It can be debated if the author in case is a recognized expert (he is a medical doctor specialized in brain capillaries, now retired, who publishes on wolfberries as health food: none of his work is peer reviewed or referenced by any medical or scientific publications, only used in health food industry journals). But the editor insisting on including the authro's work states that it is allowed under WP:SELFPUB, because "about themselves" means that a self-published book on wolfberries may be used in an article on wolfberries... I would appreciate if you or anyone could come over to the article talk page and explain this, as I'm unable to get this message understood, and I fear that any further posts by me will not help the situation anymore. Fram (talk) 08:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
No, "about themselves" means articles about the author or publisher, or at least topics closely related to them. To include the author's work on wolfberries you have to argue the "selfpub by expert" case. But my own opinion is that a respected M.D. or biologist should be quotable on the basic nutritional content of a berry, and being published on the subject of berries, whether in industry journals or scientific journals, means this is clearly allowed under SPS. The claims quoted aren't particularly controversial, just basic information on the fiber and protein content of the berry, and the claims are double-cited to other sources. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Reliable for one thing but not reliable for another

I have a question. Can certain sources that are considered reliable for one topic not be considered reliable for other topics. For instance, during the 2008 South Ossetian War, places such as CNN and NYT were going to say how Russia is returning as a superpower. But these are journalists, who have no formal education in the field of International relations. But then you look at the people who have an education and degree in International Relations, like Fareed Zakaria [15], Richard Haass [16] are just some examples, and both are well known in the field of International relations. So in this case, would the people who are considered experts in the field of International relations be considered reliable sources of what's considered a superpower over journalists, unless there was a specific article written by an expert in International Relations like this one [17], which is written by Parag Khanna, another expert in the field of International Relations? If the word of experts is to be considered over journalists, would this fall under the same for scientists like those with a degree in Physics saying what something like it the world won't get destroyed if they did a experiment, over journalists who would be saying that the world will get destroyed. Would we take the word of experts over the journalists instead? Thanks.Deavenger (talk) 23:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

  • This is just my opinion, but your question is not one that this noticeboard is likely to answer. The easy answer is that good, responsible journalism seeks to present the reader with a distillation of facts on the ground and opinion of experts on a subject and as such their reporting of those facts should be reliable in all cases. However, that doesn't describe the real world, where the set of experts that can be consulted is heterogeneous--NYT may consult an expert who feels one way while the community feels another way--and what a "fact" is isn't clear cut and predetermined. Even beyond those issues, the act of distillation produces some simplification that is benign in some cases (Where the simplification doesn't substantially alter the meaning of the idea) and problematic in others. The problem swings the other way as well. There is a power struggle in many of these fields--experts are gateways to knowledge in a complex world and that represents an asymmetric power relationship. when journalists get in the mix and present issues to people without using the gatekeepers, people get upset. you can see this in the constant complaining about court reporters by lawyers and judges. Reporters screw up legal issues like it is their job, yet reporting on the law is fundamental to the proper working of the judiciary. This includes distillation of issues, watchdog work and simple reporting on events.
  • For an encyclopedia, we need to exercise judgment rather than expect some bright line rule. In the Georgia issue, reporters say that Russia has become a regional power again and reached for the closest historical narrative at hand: the cold war. The statement about being a resurgent superpower was practically inevitable at that point. My guess would be that we should include the statement and then immediately counter it with the cold shower of some IR expert who would suggest that a government sitting on (at the time) high commodity prices that kicks around a local rival using what is left of one of the biggest armies in the world might not be more than a regional power. This doesn't mean that we say one is "reliable" and the other is not. This just means that we tease out our expectation of reliability (which demands only a reputation for fact checking, editorial control and responsibility for content) from a demand that the source always be "right". There is no dictum that we can write which will allow us to build a functioning encyclopedia reflecting mainstream views while effectively qualifying and disqualifying sources for specific issues.
  • That probably doesn't really answer your question but I hope it illustrates my point (that we aren't likely to answer it) well enough. Protonk (talk) 07:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Going back a step, CNN and NYT are excellent sources for news. NYT is also very well known for opinions. Their op-ed pieces are signed and you can check out the credentials of the authors. They are not necessarily just journalists: some will have an academic background. For the best evaluative judgements, academic sources are best. Whether Russia is returning as a "superpower" or not is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact, and we should report it as such. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies. As the wikiproject I'm a part of: Power in International Relations, the editors, including me have continually said that we want to use academic sources on this. As while places like CNN and BBC are great for other things, like reporting the nows, like Protonk said, it's not like experts who are educated in the field giving their opinions. Like the links I posted above, if it wasn't that the authors were considered experts in the field of IR, or Polisci, orGeopolitics, we wouldn't have used the links in the article. Thanks for your help noticeboard. Deavenger (talk) 22:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Judith: I think we can disagree that the statement "russia has become a superpower" or something along those lines is strictly opinion. Sure, it is not obviously a falsifiable statement like "that car weighs 2000 lbs" or "Russia has 14 SSBN's in service", but it isn't strictly a matter of opinion. My suspicion is that Dean's concern's relate to material in the news portion of the paper that misrepresents (as he and some academic sources feel) the nature of Russia's place in the world. My point is that while this is an important concern, it needs to be dealt with in a case by case fashion--the NYT does great news reporting most of the time but can make a statement in an article (like "Russia is becoming a resurgent superpower") without being fully aware of the gravity behind those words. So the question becomes, how do we treat that claim when it is not cordoned off in the op/ed pages but is above the fold on the front page? Protonk (talk) 05:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. The news sections of these papers are for news; they're necessarily produced in a hurry and sometimes there may be throwaway lines. Academic sources on international relations obviously carry more weight. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
WP:RS is a minimum standard that allows all kinds of sources, including some types of official and self-published material. Generally what happens with a topic of global scope is, after RS is met, there's usually a search to find the best source on each side of the issue. Some newspapers are more reputable or have a more global focus than others, and an analysis piece is better than a news piece or an opinion piece. As an aside, try Stratfor, which is a very serious news outlet and most of its writers have a background in international relations. The "resurgence" of Russia as a superpower has been a regular theme in its reports over the past few months. Its a paid site but most of the "Geopolitical Weekly" articles and most of the podcasts are free. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll be sure to check it out and see if we can use it in our articles. Deavenger (talk) 20:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

IO9?

Hello, I'd like to hear some thoughts on http://io9.com/ as a RS for a game review. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 12:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I would say yes. i09 is owned and published by Gawker Media, employs professional staff, and has editorial oversight from luminaries such as Annalee Newitz and Charlie Jane Anders. Their stature is indicated by the fact that they have original interviews with e.g. Neal Stephenson, William Gibson and Richard K. Morgan. Their reviews also tend to be comprehensive, detailed and well-researched. the skomorokh 12:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I would say that they have the same problem as Kotaku, which was discussed here earlier. It's a group blog and being owned by a company doesn't give it a reputation for fact checking and overwisght. Protonk (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Found that discussion. [18]. This has got the standard Gawker ToS. Do we take Gawker as a RS? Hobit (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Haha, looks like I was originally closer to your point than crossmr.  :) Given that it was me jawing about it last time I guess I'll wait for someone else to give some input here. Protonk (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else? Hobit (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Haworth Press

Anyone know if Haworth Press is a reliable publisher? Is their discontinued title Journal of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome reliable? The editorial board info page is empty though in previous volumes it appeared to be quite extensive. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 13:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking at it's About Us page, it seems to be a reliable publishing house. I don't know what sort of reputation it has, however. Blueboar (talk) 13:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Haworth Press publishes several journal titles, mostly in the so-called soft sciences. The specific fatigue journal you mention appears to be a labour of love by a closely-knit group of researchers: GoogleScholar indicates that many of the papers appearing in the journal were co-authored by the journal's editors or members of its editorial board, suggesting that the journal did not have a sufficiently favourable reputation in the wider research community to attract large numbers of high-quality publications. In addition, having editors as authors on many of a journal's articles is rarely conducive to the effective practise of peer review (although this journal could be an exception to the general rule). Also from GoogleScholar, the journal's articles are not often cited by other works; the few citations are mostly in this same journal or in other works by the respective paper's author(s), implying that the journal's findings didn't have a large impact on the wider scholarly world. Finally, I cannot find this journal on NCBI's PubMed, which includes most journals of quality. With so many unquestionably reliable and solidly peer-reviewed journals available, I would hesitate to use this title as the sole support for any particular assertion. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Reliable source question

Would this webposting [19] be considered a reliable source by Wikipedia? Thank you.--Slp1 (talk) 00:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Considering that this is a blog, the real question is "Who is Garret Luttrell and why is his viewpoint significant?" The site answers the first question: "Garret Luttrell, a paralegal and a young single father..." A paralegal isn't quite an "established expert" and so isn't reliable for much anything at all. Anyway, the source is about Stanley v. Illinois, a supreme court case. These tend to be notable, and as I suspected, there are plenty of books that mention it and father's rights. It probably wouldn't be too hard to find an actual reliable source in there. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the very, very swift response! Actually, the editor involved doesn't want to use it as a source for the case, but for the sentence "Members of the fathers' rights movement contrast gender feminists, who they describe as scary and who they compare to corrupt judges, with equity feminists, who they say support equality and who they compare to good and fair judges". Certainly, one fathers' rights blogger has stated something similar, but is this a reliable (or notable) enough source for this kind of statement, would you say? --Slp1 (talk) 00:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
No. There's no evidence that members of the fathers' rights movement systematically make such a distinction. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
It's really a concept beyond reliability or notability, but significance, as I mentioned earlier. Any blog is perfectly reliable for stating the opinion of some random blogger, but this policy basically says that you shouldn't put something in an article just because it's verifiable. That is, a Wikipedia article shouldn't mention what John Doe thinks unless John Doe's opinion is relevant. If John Doe isn't an expert on the subject, didn't publish his opinion reliably, and isn't mentioned by any secondary, reliable literature on the subject (or in any essential primary sources, such as relevant federal court rulings), then his opinion does not belong on Wikipedia. You can look at this as a way to even more strongly prevent people from pushing a point of view; finding some random blog that expresses that point of view doesn't make it OK to include. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
You guys are very fast! Thanks for the feedback. It's very helpful --Slp1 (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The author of the paraphrased information is not Garret Luttrell. The author of the paraphrased statement was Glenn Sacks, a notable leader of the fathers' rights movement. The statement can be included with proper attribution.Michael H 34 (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

I take back my assertion. I checked and I believe that Garret Lutrell is the author paraphrased statement. Michael H 34 (talk) 19:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

U-boat.net

I've been using [20] as a source for some of the articles I am working on, but in a peer review, someone posed a question about the site's reliability. I have found the site to be reliable myself, but can anyone else care to comment on the source? ThePointblank (talk) 03:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

In a perfect world it would be better to use the sources uboat.net uses. Why not quote Gröner, Kemp, Niestlé, et al directly? [Well, because these books are not that widely available and are expensive to buy.] On the other hand, most of the facts - where uboats were built, when, who captained them, what patrols they made, what the sank, why and when they were lost - not really controversial stuff. Yes, things keep changing as the various losses are checked and rechecked by naval historians, nothing unusual in that. So I wouldn't see a problem with using uboat.net for the bare facts in articles about specific uboats or convoys. Where I wouldn't use it would be in broader articles, such as on uboat designs or on the bigger picture of the campaigns. For the first it would be better to go direct to Gröner, Rössler, et al, and for the second to rely on broader studies. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

About.com

An editor has questioned the reliability of About.com as a reference in a peer review for list of awards and nominations received by Chris Brown. The sources that link to About.com are lists of award ceremonies, the nominations and winners. Would it be appropriate to keep About.com as a reliable source for this? DiverseMentality(Boo!) 03:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 16#Huffington Post, Gawker and About.com (read through to the end). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

So in this case, I'm assuming it's reliable, correct? DiverseMentality(Boo!) 21:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know; you haven't given us the about.com page you're using, or told us what makes the author an expert in the topic area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Did it for you.
  • Nero looks like a professional, who meets WP:SPS
  • Adaso looks more like a music fan with a computer.
  • Bryson is exactly the sort of thing about.com does that makes them suspect. A Psychology major mom and advocate does not an expert in music journalism make.
Your mileage may vary (giving readers here the links to the info they need to evaluate th source helps). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I would've added the links, but I was in class. Anywho, if the source only lists nominees and winners, and the writer doesn't put his/her two cents in, what's so unreliable about it? Aside from About.com, it's difficult to find reliable sources that list the nominees and winners (you should have seen the amount of time it took me to find a reliable source for the rest of them). DiverseMentality(Boo!) 02:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

http://www.ambedkar.org/Tirupati/Chap4.htm

The reliability of this reference was doubted at Vithoba FAC (closed). I had provided the following reasons why it is a RS, does this prove it is a RS?

  • It is an ebook version of the book "Tirupati Balaji was a Buddhist Shrine" [21]
  • The author has B.A. degree of Nagpur University in Ancient Indian History, Culture and Archeology. Got elected as an non teaching expert member of Board of studies in History in Nagpur University for two terms of three years each. Biography of "Tirupati Balaji was a Buddhist Shrine" author
  • The book is present at the Library of Congress as asserted in the the biography above. Library website
  • The book states "it's sources" Bibliography with inline citations. (All of which are RS) "Third-party publications from reliable sources that support the site as a self-published source(if it is) or that the author is a noted expert in their field" is fulfilled.
  • The book is used as a reference (44) here, Henry Martyn Centre, Westminster College, Cambridge CB3 0AA, UK. Used as reference (3) here Non-English [22] and Columbia University site - non-English article [23], that is, other people have considered it reliable.

--Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Robert de Brus, 1st Lord of Annandale

Wikipedia's collective ethos requires decent editors to spend time on this talk page to discuss how dated peerage sources compare with modern professional academic publications. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

IMDb

I'm getting a little tired of this one. We have a whole slew of templates for citing IMDb, and IMDb is cited, probably over a million times, in Wikipedia. Yet I keep running into people asserting (twice with regard to Rudolf Wanderone, for example, once on its talk page, once on its 2nd peer review page) that IMDb isn't a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes. This really needs to get settled. Maybe have a referendum on this issue (WP:RFC?), or whatever it takes, and either declare it a non-reliable source categorically or clarify the guideline that sites like this can be reliable for some things (titles, release dates, other basic information) and non-reliable for others (movie trivia, mostly contributed by readers). If it is deemed wholly unreliable, then we need to immediately TfD the IMDb templates and set up bots to remove (or, as with deleted images, comment out) IMDb citations that use them. This hemming and hawing on the issue, and ensuing general confusion, is making the WP:PR, WP:GA and WP:FA/WP:FL processes much more painful than is necessary. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

  • I think an RFC is a good route to take. I think that there are some serious issues with sourcing imbd. We have a general consensus here on the noticeboards that the bare facts of a movie (but not an actor) can be sourced to imdb most of the time, but that anything beyond that is usually user-driven and so not acceptable. This consensus here doesn't at all translate to general practice which has been (probably not a million times, but thousands of times) to cite imdb for the details it provides on everything except trivia, quotes, errors and obvious fan generated stuff. I don't have a strong enough opinion to force the issue (mass TfD is probably not the right route), but it should be discussed. At the very least if there is some wide community consensus on the issue I can make an FAQ for this page listing past links to it. Maybe I should do that anyways. Protonk (talk) 03:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
According to IMDB itself, some guy named Sundar Chakravarthy managed to insert into Julianne Moore's IMDB biography that she was married to him from 1983-1985... AnonMoos (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm a regular at WP:BLP/N and would say that I don't think there is any dispute that IMDb isn't a suitable source when it comes to LP. I would go further and say it isn't suitable for anything about people period. Beyond that I can't say Nil Einne (talk) 18:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
There's no way IMDb should be used as a source, other than using ratings to give an impression of a film/show's popularity. Their content is notoriously unreliable and mostly trivial--MartinUK (talk) 10:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't it be better to hash out which portions of IMDB are user-submitted and which are not? I don't want to throw out a good reference material because somebody somewhere saw a mistake in IMDB. For the record, I've seen the site and dont remember seeing any tab to change content except in the "comments" section. Also, is all of this really about people using it to cite trivia, and this is an affort to remove trivia from articles by "disqualifying" a source? You use WP:TRIVIA to remove trivia, not WP:RSN. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • For some previous discussions see [24], [25], [26], [27], [28] and [29]. IMDB is a tertiary source - WP:RS says "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion." Where people cite IMDB and it isn't challenged, it is because the facts are simple and not in dispute (lead actor, director etc.) But this doesn't mean it's right; for many things IMDB is no more than a glorified Wikipedia, they take anonymous submitted content, add it to their pages with little or no fact checking, and don't state their sources. WP:RS says "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Can anyone actually show that IMDB has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy? I believe the evidence is against them. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 10:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I have dug through IMDB a bit lately. It provides some facts useful for further research of sources. But use to an editor doing research does not make it a reliable source for citation in an article. -- davidz (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

FactCheck.org

I'm GA-reviewing Flip-flop (politics) and am not sure whether FactCheck.org's Bush Ad Twists Kerry's Words on Iraq is a WP:RS. Can anyone help? -- Philcha (talk) 10:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Factcheck.org is an Annenberg project at the University of Pennsylvania. It is kinda sorta like any student publication in some ways, but is generally accepted as pretty much unbiassed. It can overreach at times as its main purpose appears to be exposing misstatements, so it may try to find them. I would not use it as a source on Bush; misquoting Kerry, but it might be a source on Kerry's words, in other words. Collect (talk) 12:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Since the rather tabloid headline to the article on FactCheck.org's article Bush Ad Twists Kerry's Words on Iraq is POV and the very statement that Collect says he would not use that article as a source for i.e. as a source on Bush misquoting Kerry, then it seems like it is not a RS in this case. The headline of FactCheck.org's article, overwhelm's whatever the article content is. The context in which the statement is placed counts, if it is being used in this case as a source for Kerry's words. —Mattisse (Talk) 13:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Quackwatch etc

Are Quackwatch and Skeptic Report articles considered suitable sources for articles on pseudosciences? Fainites barley 23:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably not, although they are likely to provide links to good sources. If you could provide more context it would help. Itsmejudith (talk) 01:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
The article is Attachment therapy - a pseudoscientific therapy for children which claims (wrongly) to be based on attachment theory. Skeptic Report is cited once in the history section to the effect that the roots of the underlying theoretical principles lie in ideas like primal therapy/primal scream and the transformational nature of age regression. Quackwatch is cited a few times in the cases section only as a source of some details about individual criminal cases in which attachment therapy has been implicated. The article can live quite happily without them though they are useful on those minor points.Fainites barley 07:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Quackwatch and Skeptic Report are useful in some circumstances: one appropriate use would be in situations involving undue weight. Articles on pseudoscientific topics often cite marginally reliable or (unfortunately) completely unreliable sources, and proponents of these theories argue, often correctly, that mainstream medical or scientific sources have not directly addressed their validity. Of course, this is usually because most doctors and scientists consider these theories transparently false and their discussion a colossal waste of time. Sources like Quackwatch can provide balance in such cases. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
In this particular topic mainstream scientists descended from their ivory tower, probably because there was a growing number of dead children. I have therefore been able to cite almost all of the article very respectably. However, the SkepticReport article in particular (written by a LCSW) provides some interesting historical details about this therapy, where its done and some of its theoretical roots. A reviewer is concerned about the use of any source that is not mainstream professional on what is a psychological topic, albeit a pseudoscientific one. I can remove the stuff without killing the article. Its just it seems a pity as its usually not the posh commentators who have done the down and dirty investigative work. Fainites barley 22:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
It does seem like a shame; are there sources in the article supporting the pseudoscience position? If so, I would argue for keeping SkepticWatch for balance. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
There isn't really anything thats pro-attachment therapy. Attachment therapists did some "research" but very little was published in peer reviewed journals and that which was has been much criticised. All the mainstream stuff is against attachment therapy so Skeptic Report isn't needed to balance the pseudoscience. It was just a few nice historical details from someone who'd done a bit of digging. I mean - attachment therapists tend to be LCSW's themselves. Very few are actual psychologists. But as I say - the article will survive without out - just lack a little bit of the colour. Fainites barley 21:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

escapeartist.com

Would this be a reliable source for an article I am working on?

I'd say it would be usable for articles about expatriation, tax havens, privacy, etc; which subject did you want to use it for? From a brief search on the Google News archives, [30], the site and its founder, Roger Gallo, have been quoted in multiple articles by the New York Times, CNN, The Guardian, etc. P.S. You didn't sign your question. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

http://www.Dvaita.org

The reliability of this ref was doubted at Vithoba FAC. I gave the following reasons. Does it prove it is a RS?

  • It gives it's sources, fulfilling ""you can show that the website gives its sources and methods" criteria. Bibliography (All of which are RS) is quoted at http://www.dvaita.org/haridasa/index.html "Third-party publications from reliable sources that support the site as a self-published source(if it is)" applies. In addition to links about Bibloliography, Documentation of Dvaita is given here.
  • Apart from being referenced 70 times on wikipedia [31], Dvaita.org is mentioned at Intute, a free online service providing you with a database of hand selected Web resources for education and research. [32]
  • Experiencing the World’s Religions, 4th Edition, publisher: Mcgraw hill(an established publisher) provides Dvaita,org in it's World Religion Links[33]
  • Atleast 6 books from 2004 onwards refer to this website [34], Tulu Tales: A Soota Chronicle by G. Kameshwar (University of Michigan) - 2004 [35] calls it "an invaluable web resource about Udupi Sri Krishna and doctrine of Sri Madhvacharya".
  • For Vaishnavism, "Dvaita.org offers a general FAQ on Vaishnavism". [36] "FindingDulcinea presents only credible, high-quality and trustworthy Web sites, saving time for the novice and the experienced user alike."
  • The Hoot [37] received a letter about plagalarism of the site by The Times of India. The thing to read in this article is the aims of dvaita.org as said by the webmaster: "Though generally the site has a religious bent, as it is meant to inform about the dualistic Vedanta of the 13-century saint Madhva, we have tried to give it an academic focus suitable for non-religious types; students and professors of Indology find out site a useful resource, more so as it is perhaps the only one of its kind. We have published several ancient, out-of-print works on Vedanta by making them available for download on the Net."

--Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Extensive citations to vanity publications by the International Biographical Centre and American Biographical Institute

These organisations sponsor numerous awards and publications - Top 100 Writers, 2000 Outstanding Intellectuals of the 21st Century, International Man/Woman of the Year etc etc. According to the relevant wikipedia articles, and plenty of sources on the web, the publications by these organisations are (depending on your viewpoint) either scams or vanity publications (they also appear to be part owned by a rather dubious character). They seem, in short, entirely unreliable sources. However there are several dozen wikipedia articles which cite these "awards" see - [38] or [39]

Before I go through and systematically delete these citations, I wanted to check that others agree they are inappropriate! LeContexte (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely. Entirely unreliable. Doug Weller (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I'll second that. Similar sources I've seen require payment from the "awardees" before publication. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not that sure; deletion of such info makes a favor to those who don't deserve it. A scam "award" speaks as well as the real thing, but produces an opposite result. Consider this:
  1. A is a poet who wrote for Basingstoke Monthly last year.
  2. A is a leading British poet hailed as "The Genius of the Week" by a local vanity mill
See the difference? As long as the character fits Wikipedia:Notability, the public has the right to know the patrons of the vanity press. The guy has branded themselves for life, don't hide this precious little moment of his career. NVO (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
This is a good point. The only factor that makes me hold off on that is that most of the "beneficiaries" of these awards cited in wikipedia seem to be non-English speakers and/or citizens of developing nations. I'm not sure we can be certain that they knew the nature of these publications - they may have assumed that all biographical publications worked the same way. So, in the interests of fairness, I wonder if it's better to delete the references in most or all cases. What do you think? LeContexte (talk) 08:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Cites relating to a South Park article

Thought I'd throw these in here for good measure. With regards using the below to cite "cultural references" in the article on South Park episode The China Probrem;

  • The first scene where Indiana Jones is raped is based on the rape scene in Boys Don't Cry.[1]
  • The daydream of the lawyer consulted by the kids (featuring him playing a Willow arcade game) shows George Lucas raping Indiana Jones on a Howard the Duck pinball machine at a bar with Steven Spielberg cheering him on. This is in reference to the movie The Accused.[2][3]
  • The scene where Indiana is forced to squeal like a pig while he is raped is a direct reference to Deliverance where Ned Beatty's character, Bobby, is forced to strip in front of two hillbillies.[2][4][5]

My thoughts were;

Southparkstuff is a fan site, Southparkstudios is the actual producers site for the show. Only the latter is the word of the creators, the former is fan opinion.

A blog, no quotes from the creators of the show.

Just another blog, even if it is featured in a newspaper website. No reference to having spoken to the creators of the show.

Southpark wikia is just another wiki, citing it is as good as citing another unreferenced wikipedia article. Copy their references by all means (if they have any), but remember they're subject to the rules about verifiability here too.

Alastairward (talk) 23:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Citing the episode is no good for claims like that, as they are fundamentally interpretive. Citing the LA times blog is fine (see WP:SPS for the exception to "blogs" run by newspapers and such). It is a misconception that only the creators can be referenced for allusions. There is some debate on the subject, but we probably shouldn't only be allowing creators to dictate meaning and interpretation. But if some source exists where a producer/writer/etc for the show says "these were allusions to blah", then that's cool. What is your question, exactly? Protonk (talk) 23:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
A question would be a good idea to include too, I was receiving a lot of grief from a small band of editors who felt that discussing the cites before including them on the main article page. I just wondered what anyone else thought of using those cites to back up the claims made by the editors and what they thought of my objections. Alastairward (talk) 23:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
We believe to have reached a compromise on the matter, refer to Talk:The China Probrem under "Final Compromise" for information. Anthony cargile (talk) 02:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
That section of the talk page has nothing to do with this, we're asking about the reliability of these sources for the purpose they've been used for. Alastairward (talk) 13:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Death of Justice Tawai Modibo Ocran

Justice Tawai Modibo Ocran died on October 27,2008 and not March 27, 2008 as reported on your website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.30.81.2 (talk • contribs)

Labor theory of value

Could people here please look at Labor theory of value, and in particular at its external links section? Robert Vienneau's LTV FAQ and so forth seem like "some guys with websites" to me. —the Ghost of Adrian Mineha! hold seance at 09:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

One of the "guys with a website" keeps restoring the links when they are removed.[40][41] After the second time, he gave an argument on the talk page, mostly that he thinks that the websites are good work and the article lacks things that they have. —the Ghost of Adrian Mineha! hold seance at 08:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we have more yes here, please? —the Ghost of Adrian Mineha! hold seance at 05:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Marjoe Gortner in Oui

  • Background

Marjoe Gortner was a prominent child preacher known for his revival meetings and broadcasts. When he became an adult, and was in the process of leaving the field, he was the subject of an Oscar-winning, behind-the-scenes documentary. A couple of years later, 13-year-old Prem Rawat came to the United States and became known as the "boy guru". Meanwhile, to compete with Penthouse, Playboy launched Oui, which Time magazine described as having a "rambunctious editorial slant with uninhibited nudes pictured in the Penthouse mood." In 1973 Oui hired Marjoe to cover Millennium '73, a festival held at the Astrodome by Prem Rawat's mission, and which was promoted as the "most significant event in human history". Presumably the editors at Oui thought it would be clever to have a former boy preacher write about a contemporary boy guru.

A notable former follower later wrote a memoir in which she contrasted the two figures, "it is easy to assume that Maharaj Ji is just another Marjoe, bullied into preaching by his parents." Marjoe was enough of a celebrity that three journalists reported he was covering the event for Oui, and one of them interviewed him briefly. Those four sources directly establish the significance of Marjoe's viewpoint.

  • Question

Millennium '73 uses two citations from Marjoe's article in Oui. One reference is to estimate the size of the crowd. There are a dozen source for the attendance but he alone estimates the change in audience from the first to the second day. As someone who had supported himself by organizing and addressing religious meetings, Gortner was used to estimating crowd sizes. The second use is for an attributed view. Four journalists expressed similar views, but he makes a unique point. Although it's just his point of view, his assessment of the audience's behavior was based on a lifetime of being in front of crowds of frenzied worshipers. Both of these citations were deleted by an editor, with the note "Not RS".[42] Is an article written by Gortner for Oui a reliable source for Gortner's views? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Barring a repudiation by Gortner elsewhere, it would seem bizarre to reject it as a statement of his views. —SlamDiego←T 05:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with this comment by SlamDiego (talk · contribs). This is a rationale and well-thought out explanation above by Will Beback (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, folks, but look at the context:

  • Oui is a men's hardcore pornographic magazine (see Oui_(magazine);
  • The article carried the title: Who Was Maharaj Ji? The world's most overweight midget. Forget him.
  • The article is related to a biography of a living person, which asks for the best and most reputable sources

Basically there are other reputable sources on the event attendance, and the article will not suffer from not having this source being mentioned. One of the quotes from this author, used in the article, was a mention of an announcement made at that event: You will sit in your assigned places, please What is the use of that stupid comment in an encyclopedic article? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, please stop deleting the content while this is being discussed. The other opinions here are that Oui is a reliable source for the views of Marjoe. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Oui is a reliable source for the views of Marjoe. But any view Marjoe has of GMJ needs to be qualified to the point of irrelevance. I'm sure he said something about Billy Graham but is Marjoe a source for the Billy Graham article? Any comment of his would only be relevant if he made a direct comparison of his situation and Rawat's,Momento (talk) 07:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The use that of Gortner about which we've been asked concerns his estimation of crowd size. If you'd reject an estimation of crowd size by Billy Graham, then you may be perfectly consistent here. But we've not been asked about the use of Gortner for more problematic purpose. —SlamDiego←T 08:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, Jossi, but let's pay better attention to the context:
  • While Oui slid into being a hardcore porno magazine after Playboy sold it, that's not what it was at the time of that article.
  • We're not being asked here to embrace Gortner's views of the Maharaj Ji. We're being asked whether those views are accurately represented by the article in Oui. And we're more narrowly being asked about whether his estimate of crowd size was accurately represented.
  • The horse's mouth, in this case, would be amongst the most reliable sources. Now, if you want to argue that Gortner himself is not reliable w.r.t. to the Maharaj Ji, even when it comes just to crowd size, then you need to do so without this strained and unreasonable argument about Oui. —SlamDiego←T 08:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

First a correction: it turns out the Marjoe article is used for four assertions in the article. Here is a list of each citation, as they'd been in the article last week. I've bolded the parts that are cited to Marjoe (I could fill in the cites but they can also be checked at the actual article.):

  • At the highest level was the guru's throne, backed by flame-shaped blue Plexiglas that observers said resembled either a natural gas company logo or a surfboard.[6][7]
  • "You will sit in your assigned places, please" [6] (One of several notices flashed on a huge electronic billboard.)
  • Reports of total attendance vary from 10,000 to 35,000,[8][9] with 20,000 a frequent estimate.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16] Two reports say that only 7,000 people attended the first day,[17][18] while a third says that there were 10,000 the first night and 15,000 the second.[6]
  • Marjoe Gortner, a former child preacher, wrote that the spectacle of thousands of young people chanting with arms raised reminded him of Sieg Heil,[6] while four journalists compared it to scenes at the Nuremberg stadium,[18][19][20][21]

Only the last one is a real point of view, and if he were the only one saying it then it'd be different. But we have five independent sources making essentially the same assertion. As I wrote above, Gortner was accustomed to being in front of large audiences filled with frenzied worshipers and so he was capable of assessing the mood of the audience. Gortner does make some general observations about Prem Rawat. Those might be more suitable in the article on that person. I don't see any need to include the title of the Marjoe article, "Who Was Maharaj Ji? The world's most overweight midget", when it's cited. We don't do that for any other source, and it's well-known that editors, not writers, compose headlines. It appears to have been added to impeach the source. Like all citations, the article name is easily accessible in the reference section. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Also: I don't see any BLP component here. None of these four assertions (appearance of a stage, a notice on the signboard, the size of the crowd, and the actions of the crowd) concern any identifiable living person. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the comparison with a Nazi rally should be included in its present form, notwithstanding that multiple parties made it. Multiple people have compared to a Nazi-something for almost any value of , and when it's done it's almost always done to summon-forth a value-judgment. In this case, someone seeking a different value judgment or no value judgment almost surely would have make a comparison to, say, a rock concert. To the extent that this comparison should be reported, it should be made very plain that it was an attack, rather than as a simple expression of brute fact. —SlamDiego←T 11:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Calling it an "attack" would be original research. Rock concerts and Nuremburg Rallies are very different things. Rock concerts don't typically involve adorational chanting with arms raised, which is where the comparison comes from. IIRC, at least one source does compare the event to a rock festival. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Rock concerts don't typically involve adorational chanting with arms raised(lol!) When was the last time you attended a rock concert? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
This isn't about me. How many rock festivals are compared to the Nuremburg rallies? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I've read such comparisons multiple times. But the important point here is not how often it is done, but whether the same behaviors could be described without reference to Nazis. I'm sorry, but there is a trong appearance that your sense of objectivity here is severely eroded. —SlamDiego←T 05:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
No. The “original research” guidelines do not block the immediately obvious. However, the fact is that the comparison could be omitted from the article altogether, rather than having this attack presented as a simple statement of brute fact or presented for what it is. —SlamDiego←T 05:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
It isn't presented as a "brute fact" but as a viewpoint shared by four journalists plus Marjoe. Are you suggesting that all of the sources are not reliable? Why would we omit the sourced, neutrally presented information from the article? If we remove it we'd need to remove other, positive descriptions of the audience in order to keep things neutral. That seems like a step back. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
The whole issue of reliability would be irrelevant if these reports weren't being presented as brute fact. And, indeed, I am suggesting that none of the sources are reliable on this score, that this isn't even approximately neutral. If one of us, or a group of us here started comparing other editors to Nazis, they'd be duly censured, because it's plainly an attack to make such comparisons (outside of those circles in which Naziism is embraced). As to removal of positive evaluations, that might in some cases be appropriate, but the thing to do here is to stop baying at the moon. The article can present both the praise and the attacks, but make sure that neither is presented as neutral. —SlamDiego←T 08:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree that no source should be presented as neutral, but I don't think that any sources are presented that way. The article already deals at length with the attitude of the journalists, who are described by scholars as angry and alienated. But even angry reporters have a significant point of view, especially when they write articles that define the movement in the public mind. The rejection of the DLM by prominent counterculture journalists like Greenfield had a major impact on the movement. Reporters (and scholars) certainly made negative comments, and the descriptions of the followers are one aspect of that. But reporters, sometimes even the same ones, also talked about positive aspects of the followers' behavior. I think we should keep all of their views, good and bad, because that's the NPOV way. But, as a compromise to move forward, here's a suggestion. Removing all of the mentions of the "Sieg Heil" and Nuremburg Rallies, along with the proximate description of the followers as "cheerleaders". But leave the other, non-contentious assertions by Gortner. Would that be acceptable to everyone? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me, Will. Jayen466 22:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
It's better to have no report of PoV reactions than reports that are in some way one-sided (hence your proposal is an improvement and tolerable), but I think that it's best to have the reports, making very clear that a PoV is being reported. —SlamDiego←T 07:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I guess I don't understand. The existing/former text attributes the POVs to Gortner and four journalists:
Can you suggest the phrasing you think would be best? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Phrasing that explicitly labels critics as critics (and cheerleaders as supporters or as defenders) would be sufficient. In the case of that quoted item, perhaps
  • Critics compared the event to a Nazi rally. Marjoe Gortner, a former child preacher, wrote that the spectacle of thousands of young people chanting with arms raised reminded him of Sieg Heil,[6] and others [sic!] likened it to scenes at the Nuremberg stadium,[18][25][26][27]
—SlamDiego←T 10:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
But they aren't "critics". I mean, it's obvious to any reader that this is a criticism. But these are just comments from writers. The writer who said they reminded him of cheerleaders also makes critical remarks, and the writers who make these critical remarks also more more positive statements too. I don't think we can put any of them in categories like "critics" and "supporters". Elsewhere in the article it makes clear that the press as a whole took a generally negative view of the event. How about something like
  • Several writers criticized the event as being like a Nuremburg rally, and Marjoe Gortner, a former child preacher, wrote that the spectacle of thousands of young people chanting with arms raised reminded him of Sieg Heil.
Would that be closer to the mark? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
That last suggestion is fine with me. The important point here is that, since Wikipedia can and does unreservedly say that some things are wrong, and cite experts in support of such contentions, it must distinguish PoV criticisms from brute fact identifications of wrongness.
I can understand and share your concern that the reader should not be inadvertently led to presume that, because a party has criticized some aspects of something, that party may be taken to criticize that something more generally. —SlamDiego←T 04:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Will BeBack says: But we have five independent sources making essentially the same assertion. If that is the case, why to use this source when there are clearly much better sources? Per WP:BLP: We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references.. My view is that this source can be dropped without detriment to the article's content and quality. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
What is the BLP connection to this material? Are you saying that the audience members are living persons? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The article is about a biographical aspect of a living person. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
But the assertion about the audience is not about Prem Rawat. IIRC, Jossi and other pro-Prem Rawat editors have asserted that Rolling Stone magazine, the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, and An Encyclopedia of Claims, Frauds, and Hoaxes of the Occult and Supernatural are not reliable sources either.[43][44][45] The track record is that sources with information that isn't favorable to Prem Rawat are challenged. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
You are listing these without context, in a silly attempt to poison the well in this discussion. Please address the concerns prsented here rather than dismiss them by ad-hominem attacks, if you just could. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm providing the context for this discussion. That context includes numerous efforts to declare sources as unreliable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Poisoning the well indeed. I would not do the same to you Will BeBack, even if I am tempted. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think citing an opinion expressed in a porn magazine is ideal in an FA candidate. Jayen466 16:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Why not? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm aware that some quite reputable writers have written for Playboy, Penthouse etc. (I'm not sure if that's so for Oui.) But I still doubt any other encyclopedia would cite them, unless the author had been very notable indeed, and the article had somehow proved particularly influential. You may have some wiggle room, but I still think an FA should do without such a reference. The Sieg Heil comparison is inflammatory anyway; and the Nuremberg comparison can be cited without relying on that source, if editors are otherwise agreed that it should be kept in. Jayen466 21:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
This encyclopedia cites Playboy, repeatedly. The author is indeed very notable, especially in this context. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The man was notable in his own right, and people commented on him being there. But I don't see that he is notable as a commentator on Maharaj Ji, in the sense of his comments being widely cited by others. [46] If I'm wrong there, then you may have a point. Jayen466 21:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Is there a requirement that every source be a notable commentator on the article's subject? If so there would be very few usable sources for any article. The direct issues is this, does Marjoe have a significant viewpoint on this event? It appears to me that he does. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
My point was that if we are quoting a second-rate porn magazine in an FA, it had better be worth it. Jayen466 22:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
We aren't quoting a second-rate porn magazine (arguably, it was first rate, but that's beside the point.) We're quoting a prominent "boy preacher" who supported his family by conducting religious events on the topic of a religious event held by the family of a prominent "boy guru". WP:NPOV requires that we include all significant viewpoints, and Marjoe's viewpoint about this subject is significant. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • It should be noted that the parent magazine, Playboy, is used as a source in numerous articles, including biographies of living people. Assertions that magazines become unreliable simply because they feature naked women are not based on any guideline or policy. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
You are not addressing the concerns presented above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
There are two issues: first, does Marjoe Gortner have a significant point of view regarding this festival. I've presented evidence that he does. Sophia Collier compares Marjoe to Rawat, three journalists found his attendance at the event to be worth reporting, and one even interviewed him. I haven't seen anyone arguing that he doesn't have a significant point if view. Second, is Oui a reliable source for Marjoe's views. Since Marjoe wrote the article, the presumption is that it reflects his views accurately. I haven't seen anyone arguing that the article was edited to distort Marjoe's views. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
This is not an article about Marjoe, so I do not understand where you are going with that argument. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
This is an article about Millennium '73. Marjoe had a significant point of view about that festival. WP:NPOV requires that we include all significant points of view. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Center

Resolved

This may already be asked and answered. If so, please provide a link. In the meantime, is the Southern Poverty Law Center a reliable source for labeling groups as "hate" groups? Yes, the definition of "hate" is an issue, but set that aside for now. For example, some wiki pages about certain organizations say the groups are "hate" groups and cite to the SPLC for a reliable source. Is this concordant with Wikipedia policy?

As to the definition of a "hate" group, is that defined by the SPLC? Is the SPLC's definition actually used on Wikipedia?

Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

With watchdog groups, it's often best to do the cite as an opinion, i.e. "the SPLC says that group X is a hate group". If it's something like the KKK that's pretty much famous for being a hate group, you could probably write it as "Group X is widely considered a hate group", with footnotes to, say, five different sources. I'd also like to add that "hate group" is an inflammatory term, and it's better to work in understatement and use precise terms like "white separatist", "black nationalist", "anti-gay", "far-right", etc. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
The term “far-right” should really be avoided, as it gets used for anything that is not on the political left or center — authoritarian populism, Buckleyesque conservatism, or Libertarianism — and for some things that are arguably actually on the left, but now with poor reputation. —SlamDiego←T 07:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with the term "far-right", the idea of left-right politics goes all the way back to the French Revolution. The only issues are that it is a one-dimensional scale, so it doesn't always fit politics that are very statist or very individualistic. The other issue is while the term is common in the US, other countries may not use the left-right model or may include nationalist groups in a third category. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I think it is OK to use "far-right" (or "far-left"), but I think it is one of those things where you need to clearly attribute the statement and not apply your own judgement. It is important for the reader to know who is applying the label to the person or group in question. Blueboar (talk) 01:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Quotations are permitted to contain anything, including gibberish, so long as the quotation is indeed relevant and attributed. But that's not really use; that's mention. —SlamDiego←T 04:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
The idea of left-right politics indeed goes all the way back to the French Revolution, and in its beginning, the farthest left that one could go was extreme classical liberalism (now “libertarianism”), and the farthest right was monarchism, and socialists simply weren't counted — which just goes to show how poor the whole scheme has been. As to it not fitting when the party is very statist, well, that's when it's most often applied. Since, unfortunately, it is still frequently applied to other beliefs, it's an utterly unscientific, unscholarly, unencyclopedic designation. —SlamDiego←T 04:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's a little like saying we shouldn't use the terms "East" and "West", because some things in the world are north and south, or up and down. While we should use the most precise term that's supported by the references, I can see the use of the less-specific "far-right" in the intro section of a page when there's incomplete or conflicting information in the cited sources. For example, if there's a disagreement whether an obviously conservative cause is "reactionary", "fundamentalist", "populist", and so on. Or, if it's something that is very conservative but doesn't trend either way on the statist/individualist axis. Another example of a good use of the term is when modifying another term.... "far-right libertarian" implies different values than "far-left libertarian" Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Since you are still talking about it after I marked it resolved, let me ask this. Is there any problem with this: "In March 2008, the Southern Poverty Law Center, a non-profit organization that tracks what it describes as "hate groups," listed MassResistance as an anti-gay 'Active U.S. Hate Group' on its website.[18]" See talk on this if you want. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
For my part, I see no problem with this wording. The designation is not endorsed by the wording, and we have a fairly clear idea of what SPLC is claiming. —SlamDiego←T 18:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I would say, no, that's straying from NPOV and getting into "undue weight" on one group's opinion. I would expect that SPLC, as a watchdog group, would have a much wider idea of what constitutes a "hate group" than other sources, and we should use undersatement and simply say that "SPLC lists X as an anti-gay group" Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
No, because “east” and “west” are reasonably well defined, while (political) “left” and “right” are not. If people used “glorp” sometimes to mean “south”, sometimes “east”, sometimes “north”, and occasionally the ugly parts of the west, then I'd say that we shouldn't use that term either. We couldn't get any agreement over a term such as “far-right libertarian” or “far-left libertarian”, so I don't know why you offer them as if they are useful. Indeed, if we return to your analogy of the points of a compass, and if it held better, then we would be trying to talk about the far-east far-north and far-west far-north. —SlamDiego←T 18:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Your opinions are at odds with much of the political language used in the United States. It's pretty well-understood that "far-right libertarian" would include survivalist and antitax groups, while "far-left libertarian" would include, well, hippies. We can move this debate over to "Village Pump", its straying very far from debating SPLC as a source. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Nope. Outside of parts of what is now called the political left, the term “libertarian” is only used for classical liberal extremists. The more typical individual sees this liberalism not as far-right, but as a strange fusion of left and right. Those who are more well versed will instead conceptualize things with something like the Nolan Chart, and see these liberals as neither left nor right nor a fusion thereof. Terms like “left-wing libertarian” began to be used by part of the left in an attempt to soak-up a bit of the “cred” that had been acquired by philosophers such as Nozick and by the Libertarian Party. (There is an old French term that could plausibly be translated as “libertarian socialism”, but that's different fromt eh English term “libertarian socialism” having had any currency.) Mercifully, such terms haven't really caught-on outside of the left. —SlamDiego←T 04:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Considered Reliable?

Hi, I was here a little while ago, [47]

Anyway. I've been working on the Potential Superpower pages. There, we're trying to get reliable sources for the page, (though, it's really hard when lots of IPs are trying to push their view and argue with us using news article when it discusses very little on the subject, and wikipedia policy states to use academic sources on topics like this).

Recently, I got two books that might help, [48] and [49]. But the problem is, Potential Superpower falls under the subject of International Relations/Political Science/Geopolitics. The authors of these two books from what I can tell are journalists, and don't have a degree in International Relations/Political Science/Geopolitics.Deavenger (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I think journalistic sources are just fine. BTW, have you had any luck with George Friedman of Stratfor, who is both an academic and a journalist who has written widely on the balance of power? Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I'm looking at the articles. George Friedman I would consider reliable in the first place as he has degrees in Political Science. Stratfor seems like a very good source. But so much of it is off limits to me, which is really frustrating as the many of the articles are written by people who have degrees in the subject, and would be very very helpful. However, most journalists and news sources, I wouldn't trust for subjects that aren't news. Deavenger (talk) 04:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I think you may be overemphasizing academic credentials. Lots of people have a PhD, but not all of them have decades of business experience using that PhD. For Stratfor, you would want the free geopolitical essays as discussed above. He has also written several books that your library may have; a couple of them may cover emerging superpowers. As far as journalists, some journalists are very good. But what you want from them is a book or an "analysis" piece, not a breaking news article or a partisan opinion piece. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. I know that my wikiproject says that we should avoid media sources, as many of them tend to overestimate something, or not go into detail. For instance, Many news sources said Russia is a superpower, without going into detail why, except saying it invaded Georgia, it's the return of the cold war. In fact, there's lots of IPs who are trying to post links saying Russia is a superpower, but don't go into detail, then accuse us of pushing for US and saying no to every other country.
Anyway, The books I posted above I was going to use, as other users on my wikiproject have said it's basically an academic source. I also hope I can get some books from the people on Stratfor. As when I was looking at some of the articles, I was really amazed as they basically had geopolitcs for ________ and all that stuff. I'm going to try finding some of the writers books, though it's a shame that I can't access the full site. Deavenger (talk) 23:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Newspaper article not available on the web

Is a newspaper article, published by the Herald Sun in 2004 considered to be a verifiable source, even if copies of the article are not available for free on the web, but must be obtained via electronic newspaper archives such as Factiva or a trip to the library? --Slp1 (talk) 00:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Being available online is convenient, but has no effect on reliability. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much.--Slp1 (talk) 12:12, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Not only does the content not have to be freely available on the Web; it doesn't have to be on the Web at all, though it's obviously a real advantage if it is. The alternative policy would reduce Wikipedia to a sort of summary of the “reliable” part of the Web, and it couldn't realize its more fundamental aspirations in that case. —SlamDiego←T 13:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
However, if it is used to document something controversial, and especially if perhaps something controversial in BLP, it is reasonable to ask for an exact quotation of the relevant portion, either in the text or a footnote; context can matter. It helps in asking questions here generally here to give the Wikipedia issue involved, because what is considered RS varies depending of the use--almost nothing is absolutely (or never) a RS. In this case, apparently the article in question is Fathers' rights movement and the edit [50]. The source is being used to support allegations of criminal behavior. I would like to see the exact quotation, at least in the talk page, because he question is whether the actual article supports that it is the activities of the group itself, rather than that of individuals. If it merely says people associated with the group, the WP article must be worded that way, and it might be questioned whether using it in an article about the group is fair--it might or it might not be. I notice also that it is apparently being used to support a general statement about the group from one specific case--that might not be a legitimate use of references. DGG (talk) 23:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I would totally agree that asking for the exact quotation is the appropriate and reasonable first step if one doubts verifiability, not deleting the citation out of hand. I'll actually put the exact quote here, to keep things together: "Blackshirts leader John Abbott has vowed to mend his protesting ways after being spared jail for stalking. The outspoken fathers' rights campaigner, who was sentenced by a County Court judge to a suspended term of four months, said he had learned his lesson[...] Abbott, 58, was convicted early this week of one count of stalking a divorced mother when he staged two demonstrations outside her East Doncaster home in September 2001. The jury was told Abbott led a group of three or four men wearing black uniforms and masks to her house, where he used a loud speaker and distributed inflammatory leaflets to neighbours." These activities of the Blackshirts have been fiscussed and linked to the larger issue of FR around the world, including this NYT article [51], this BBC article [52], this The Scotsman article [53], and this Telegraph article [54] (and there are more). So it seems quite appropriate that our article include the information too.--Slp1 (talk) 04:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Ben10toys.com as a source for Alien X

Express Milwaukee

Is Express Milwaukee [55] considered a reliable source, specifically for classifying a band's genre, and also when the exact author of the article in question is unknown? Prophaniti (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a standard local paper. OK for uncontroversial info but disregard it if there are better sources available. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Express Milwaukee is the web face of the Shepherd Express, an alternative weekly published in milwaukee. They are so so as far as reliability goes. They police their content and hire real journalists, but anything political is likely to be printed on the basis of its slant rather than strictly factual content. Protonk (talk) 01:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Ta for the info so far. The reason I'm suspicious is because it's a "Tonight at X club" article. Those sort don't seem generally that reliable as it is, because they're more like advertisements or "What's going on locally?" things than articles focused on the music/bands. In addition, in this case, it simply says "By Shepard Express Staff", which means the actual authorship is highly ambiguous. Prophaniti (talk) 18:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Their advertising department offers calendar listings for free, but those are typically less than 100 words and come in a list. Content that is more than a few paragraphs is done in house and isn't an advertisement. It is probably much easier to see the difference with a copy of the physical paper in hand. :) Protonk (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Advertisement might not have been the best word, all I meant is it doesn't seem quite the same as a full review/biography of the band. Plus, as I say, we don't know who actually wrote it. Prophaniti (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

So general view would be that they can be used, but are iffy? Even taking into account that this particular article is anonymous? Prophaniti (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Ulster Special Constabulary

Resolved

I would like to know if this is considered to be a reliable source, as it is being used on a controversial article. Likewise, this book is also being used The B-Specials: A History of the Ulster Special Constabulary (1972) Sir Arthur Hazlett ISBN 0854682724. The reason I ask is according to the Telegraph The article states "Hezlet was commissioned to write a history of the Northern Irish police. However The "B" Specials, a History of the Ulster Special Constabulary (1972) was later dismissed as merely a defence of policing in the province." The commission was from the "B" Specials commanding officer. Thanks for the help, and advice, --Domer48'fenian' 17:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Generally, orgainizational websites are considered "self-published" sources. That means they are reliable for some types of statements but not for others (see WP:SELFPUB). As for the book, even if it is "merely a defence of policing in the province", it seems to be reliably published. I don't see any basis for challenging it. If there is any question as to the accuracy of a statement cited to it, just add counter-statements cited to other books. Blueboar (talk) 20:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that, very helpful indeed. --Domer48'fenian' 20:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia content hosted on Answers.com and Highbeam (encyclopedia.com)

Answers.com includes content from 3rd-party publications, including various encyclopedias. Here are two examples.

Do any editors have any experience with the reliability of this hosted content? In other words, can we rely on Answers.com to quote the exact content of the encyclopedias concerned? The encyclopedias themselves are undoubtedly reliable sources. But verifying that what Answers.com hosts is exactly the same as the source given, without additions or deletions, is often a bit tricky. Some of these encyclopedias cost several hundred dollars to buy or are currently unavailable, plus Answers.com does not always make it clear which edition of the encyclopedia it is quoting. Any thoughts? Jayen466 16:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I just discovered this: Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-10-24/Answers.com_partnership. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Given that many of the articles on Answers.com are based heavily on Wikipedia, if not outright copies of it, I would say no... it is not reliable for our purposes. Blueboar (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree as far as answers.com content based on Wikipedia is concerned; that is obviously off limits. But that was not what my question was about. I was asking about content that answers.com specifically marks as taken from encyclopedias published by reputable publishing houses, like the Columbia Encyclopedia (published by Columbia University Press). How should we handle these cases? To see examples, click here and select one of the entries in the Columbia Encyclopedia table of contents page that is displayed. Jayen466 21:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
        • That is normal; an answers.com page lists entries from all affiliated encyclopedias that have an entry on the topic. But each entry listed on the page has a heading that indicates the source the entry is taken from. On this page, one of these, indeed, is Wikipedia. The others on the page in question are the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia, and the Columbia Encyclopedia, whose print or electronic versions would easily qualify as WP:RS. The question is, should we accept these texts reproduced from them as WP:RS, or should we insist that editors consult the print, amazon preview or google books versions? Jayen466 23:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, the fact that some encyclopedias are both on highbeam AND answers.com allows some crosschecking to be done.
  • Comparing the two versions of the article, they appear to be word-identical. However, encyclopedia.com has a couple of bibliographies (under the "French wine" and "American wine" sections) that answers.com has failed to include, and encyclopedia.com gives the Columbia Encyclopedia edition and publication year, which answers.com does not.
I would say that sources like Answers.com are a good place to do initial background research, but are not reliable for citation on Wikipedia. Blueboar (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • So, for a preliminary summing-up of input so far, could we say that Highbeam pages quoting a licensed reliable source seem to be fine, as they don't mix it with other content, but that reference citations and links to answers.com should be avoided, as their pages tend to present a mix of reliable and unreliable sources? Jayen466 14:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    I think with the spirit of the Reliable Sources guidelines, both websites are decent for initial research, but they should not be used as citations within Wikipedia articles. ThePointblank (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Given that some of the books hosted there cost several hundred dollars and may only be available in larger libraries, I think that would go too far, based on a cost-benefit argument. I would agree though that WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT applies. Jayen466 20:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • If you do need to cite content from another encyclopedia and it's hosted on Answers.com, how about using two citations in the footnote? A "cite encyclopedia" for the original source, then "via" or "as reprinted on" and then a "cite web" for Answers.com. I've often cited anthologies this way, so the original journal article and the book both appear in the notes. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Taipei Times

A newspaper from Taiwan has recently had it's reliability questioned based on an allegation (so far not backed up with any evidence) that the newspaper is partially funded by one of the political parties. The editor making the allegation has stated that according to Wikipedia rules, it is up to the person including a statement to "prove that the relevant sources are reliable and unbiased".

Is this true, that the person wishing to include the statement must "prove" the reliability and neutrality of the source?

If such proof is required, what is the standard of proof? And how does one go about proving such a thing? The article on Reliable sources provides the Washington Post as an example of a source whose input is welcome, yet plenty of people, including myself, dispute the "unbiased" nature of the Washington Post (I believe the post is pretty reliable on facts, but is not unbiased). Readin (talk) 02:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Newspapers have political slants, sources have biases. So long as it is made clear that the Taipei Times is the source of the information, whatever it is, that's generally going to be sufficient. But significant news-type material should generally be reported by more than one newspaper and Taiwan has three main English-language papers to choose from, each with its own political position. If they give differing accounts, that should be made clear in the article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 03:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add that, I am the editor who opposes the source being used. In this case, Readin extracted some statements from an article of a pro-independence leaning newspaper, reporting opinions of some pro-independence leaning experts "condemning" Taiwan's new pro-unification government of "serious violation of the rule of law and human rights abuse". As Taiwan is commonly considered to be democratic, I would consider these opinions as exceptional claims and the quality of the sources isn't high enough to justify these claims. No other newspapers in my knowledge have reported on these opinions.--pyl (talk) 07:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You can tell you're living in a free society when newspapers are able to report, whether accurately or not, a "serious violation of the rule of law and human rights abuse". As I said, if there are two sides to the story, tell them both. All three Taiwanese English-language papers have well-known political leanings. You can't ignore their reporting because of that. Having read the report, I don't see this as cherry-picking. The allegations and the endorsements are the story. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:26, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe I am trying to ignore the report just because of the "political leaning" of Taipei Times. I wouldn't just describe the connection between the DPP and Taipei Times as just "political leaning" as Taipei Times is partly owned by the DPP as well as DPP politicians, always reporting from the DPP's POV. As I pointed out above, there are no two sides to the story, there is only one side. I will reply the rest of your comments together with Readin's below.
This is what was added in a new subsection titled "Rule of Law and Human Rights":

In February 2008 experts on Taiwan from the US, Canada and Australia issued a joint statement condemning a wave of detentions of present and former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) officials by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), calling them a serious violation of the rule of law and human rights. 

<ref>{{cite news 
  | last = Snyder
  | first = Charles
  | title = Experts on Taiwan slam recent detentions
  | publisher = Taipei Times
  | date = 06 November 2008
  | url = http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2008/11/06/2003427868
  | accessdate = 06 November 2008}}
</ref>
The names of the experts are available at the source Experts on Taiwan slam recent detentions. Very basic information about what qualifies them as experts is also available.
Pyl, when you first deleted the information, you said that your complaint was that the Taipei Times fails reliable source rules. That is a serious charge. If the entire newspaper fails as a reliable source, we can't use it for much of anything. If instead your contention is that this particular statement represents an overemphasis on a minor incident, that is a different matter entirely, and we can take the issue back to the main article. However, if your intention is to discredit newspapers that may present information that supports a POV you disagree with, then we need to be clear on what is a reliable source and what is not. Readin (talk) 07:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in the rules says "if the entire newspaper fails as a reliable source, we can't use it for much of anything". The reliability of sources are decided on a case by case basis. Also, whether I agree with the POV of this report is beside the point. I have issues with this particular source being in this particular context because it fails Wikipedia's requirements. I will quote the relevant section of the rules so we can just focus on it. Under WP:REDFLAG, it says:-

Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:
  • surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;
  • ....
  • claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them.
Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included.

As I pointed out above, as Taiwan is generally considered to be democratic, having an article taken from a newspaper reporting on a couple of experts "condemning" the government and calling the government's action "a serious violation of the rule of law and human rights" will be an exceptional claim according to my highlight section of the rules. To make the material available on Wikipedia, it will thus require high quality sources. As we have all agreed Taipei Times is a biased source against the government: It is a partly opposition owned newspaper, always reporting the opposition's POV. Some of these "experts" are biased if you check the credentials.

Further, this report is exaggerated. If you read the original text of the joint statement, it says "serious concerns", not "condemn". The statement never called the government's actions "a serious violation of the rule of law and human rights". Instead it says, "the procedures followed by the prosecutor’s offices are severely flawed", "This is a severe contravention of the writ of habeas corpus and a basic violation of due process, justice and the rule of law". In respect of human rights, it says "[w]e do firmly believe that any alleged wrongdoings must be dealt with in a fair and open manner in an impartial court. Justice through the rule of law is essential to Taiwan’s efforts to consolidate democracy and protect fundamental human rights". These "experts" never directly or indirectly described the government's actions as a serious violation of human rights. This fails Wikipedia's NPOV requirement as well as WP:SOURCES. The report does not "substantiate material within articles".

WP:SOURCES also says:-

All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view.

This is a single POV taken in a biased newspaper reporting the opinions of a couple of biased people in an exaggerated manner. There are no opposing POVs being reported.

I am not saying that this story cannot be used for Wikipedia at all. That's another issue. But in this case on the reliable sources board, we are concerned with whether the sources cited are reliable. In this case, I am saying this source violates the Wikipedia rules which I cited above.

WP:BURDEN also says:-

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.

Readin should be the person who establishes the sources are reliable. I shouldn't be the person who bears the onus of proof. The starting position should be, now the reliability is challenged, Readin should prove with evidence and show that the sources are reliable. At this stage, I do not see any evidence being shown.--pyl (talk) 01:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

  • As I understand it, we're talking about the article Ma Ying-jeou, which states that 20 Taiwan experts from other countries condemned Ma's KMT government for detaining seven officials from the DPP. The problem, as I see it, is that these detentions are sourced only to the article about the condemnation letter. Wasn't there any news coverage of the underlying events, namely, the detentions or alleged detentions, before the foreign experts condemned them? And how did Ma's administration respond to the charges? Did they say "We didn't detain those people", or "We did detain those people, but only with due process of law", or what? To discuss this, there ought to be sources reporting both sides, which may include both pro-DPP and pro-KMT newspapers. Media from other countries which have no ax to grind in favor of either party should be consulted as well. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with your viewpoint. If appropriate, Wikipedia can of course state the concerns of various parties for the apparent lack of due process in this matter. But at present no evidence was provided for a more balanced POV. The information we have at hand is from a single article published by a biased newspaper reporting in an exaggerated manner on the opinions of a couple of biased "experts". Taipei Times is not a high-quality source as required by Wikipedia's rules.--pyl (talk) 07:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"It is a partly opposition owned newspaper". This is plausible, but I still would like to see some evidence for this claim. Readin (talk) 15:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"condemning" the government and calling the government's action "a serious violation of the rule of law and human rights". Even before checking this page I recognized that the wording needed some fixing for NPOV concerns, and the statement in the article on Ma Ying-jeou has been modified.


"The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." This is actually my biggest concern. What standard of evidence is to be used?

User:Metropolitan90 has valid concerns about the NPOV of the statement due to lack of response from the government/KMT. As I said earlier, we should address those on the talk:Ma Ying-jeou page. Readin (talk) 15:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Would you like to start by establishing that Taipei Times in this case is a "high quality" source as required by the rules? As User:Metropolitan90 puts it, "[t]he problem, as I see it, is that these detentions are sourced only to the article about the condemnation letter". The article has a one-sided POV.
The ownership of the newspaper is common knowledge in Taiwan. I don't have the time to look for it at the moment. If you have some free time, you might like to start first. If you cannot find it, then I will help you with that by looking at the Chinese version. As I am going to be unavailable for a couple of weeks soon, I might not be able to help you with that right away. Besides the ownership issue, I don't think it is disputed that Taipei Times is a biased newspaper against the government.
NPOV is another issue besides the reliability of sources issue. I would like to sort them out separately. If the sources are not reliable, then the materials cannot be made available according to the rules I cited above: we don't need to proceed to fine-tune the wording of materials in Ma Ying-jeou.--pyl (talk) 15:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to dispute te bias because I have have found that nearly all newspapers are biased, including ones that Wikipedia lists as good examples of reliable sources like the Washington Post.
As for establishing the "high quality", I ask again how one establishes that. That is very subjective criteria.
I haven't been able to find ownership information for Taipei Times other than that its parent company is "Liberty Times Group", which I have not found ownership information for. Such information seems hard to find as I haven't found ownership information for other major Taiwan English-language news sources. You'll need to provide that evidence if you want to use that argument. Readin (talk) 16:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand why I am put in the position where I have to provide evidence. The rule clearly states that you do. At this stage, you have not provided any evidence that the source in this situation is reliable, not to mention satisfying the "high quality" standard.--pyl (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
You don't have to provide evidence about ownership so long as you're not going to make that claim. In a criminal trial, the burden of proof is on the prosecution, but if the dependent is going to make an exonerating claim like "despite the fingerprints, DNA, and witnesses, I couldn't have possibly committed the crime because I was 10,000 miles away in Hawaii", then the dependent is expected to back up that claim somehow. If you're going to make a claim, then you should have some back up. Otherwise when considering any evidence I produce (and I still don't see how this is to be done), we won't consider your claim about Taipei Times ownership. Readin (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The burden of proof that you cite is referring for the need for reliable sources. It says that the editor adding the data has the burden of providing a reliable source. It doesn't directly say that the editor has the burden of proving the source is reliable. I believe that in trying to apply that you are engaging in wp:wikilawyering, specifically

  1. Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its principles;
  2. Asserting that the technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the principles they express;
  3. Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions.

I'll ask at the wp:burden discussion page how to apply the "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation" statement." Although the footnote given at that page, "When content in Wikipedia requires direct substantiation, the established convention is to provide an inline citation to the supporting references. The rationale is that this provides the most direct means to verify whether the content is consistent with the references. Alternative conventions exist, and are acceptable if they provide clear and precise attribution for the article's assertions, but inline citations are considered 'best practice' under this rationale. For more details, please consult Wikipedia:Citing_sources#How to cite sources." seems to reinforce the idea that the burden is met by providing the citation, not that the editor has to also prove the source is reliable. Readin (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you are misrepresenting the facts here. This is not a criminal trial. The reason why the burden of the proof lies on the editor who adds or restores material is because the materials don't have to be added at the first place. If any editor can add materials without the need to back up the reliability of the sources, then the quality of Wikipedia will invariably suffer. That's essentially the case here, as you have not shown any proof. You are essentially trying to argue the way out of having to show anything.
I don't believe I am engaging in wp:wikilawyering here as I was just quoting the rule from the wp:burden and show that you have not provided any proof that the source is reliable, not to mention the standard required for high quality proof. You quoted wp:wikilawyering without explaining how I am violating the rules, specifically:-
  1. what principles am I violating?
  2. am I asserting a technical interpretation? The rule says "burden of the proof lies on the editor who adds or restores material". The language is plain and simple.
  3. what inappropriate actions are you alleging that I am trying to do?
there is a board that deals with wp:wikilawyering, you are welcome to consult them or the administrators about the rules.
I don't believe that it is fair for an editor to assert materials (without showing any evidence of the reliability of the source) then accuse another editor of wp:wikilawyering because this other editor challenges the reliability of the source.
As I said, I will be unavailable for a couple of weeks soon so I don't have the time to find the ownership. I did a quick search on ownership on the net but I don't think it is available. Ownership of the newspaper is common knowledge in Taiwan, but since I don't have the time to look for it, I can easily show that it is biased against the government, which is sufficient in this case. Just do a Google Search on "Liberty Times" "Pro-independence", then you will get plenty of related results. For example, this one [57] is one of the results. It is common knowledge in Taiwan that Taipei Times/Liberty Times is pro-independence and biased against the government. You might have already realised that when you see it doing an exaggerated report in this case.

Now I have shown that Liberty Times/Taipei Times is biased. Please let us know why Taipei Times is a reliable source? Why is Taipei Times a high quality source?--pyl (talk) 00:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

  • I would like to make sure nobody misunderstands the point I was making above. I am not saying, "Don't use the Taipei Times, it's biased and unreliable." I am saying, "If you use the Taipei Times, also use a pro-KMT paper for balance. And if you use the Taipei Times, use the original articles that reported on the detentions, not just a later article about foreign reaction." Right now the Ma Ying-jeou article is using the wrong articles from the Taipei Times to cover these detentions. If the KMT administration was detaining DPP members, I would expect a pro-DPP newspaper to report on that as soon as they could. I don't think the newspaper would have waited until foreigners spoke out before they ran such an article. But from Ma Ying-jeou, that's the impression I get now. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

globaldomination.se

Another quick question: could this [58] be used as a RS on Avenged Sevenfold's genre? My inclination would be towards no. It does have writers staff, but there's nothing to indicate whether the writer (in this case certainly) is any kind of expert, qualified or otherwise, and the very tone of the site (as seen here [59] outlining what they look for in their writers) doesn't exactly sound encouraging. But what do others say? Prophaniti (talk) 19:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

well they do say the reviewer is a cock smoker, I'm not sure if that's a putdown, a qualification or a complement. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. That tone, combined with the anonymity of the author in this case, is what leads me to think it shouldn't be used as a source on band genres. Prophaniti (talk) 12:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources for porn star articles

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography#Reliable sources over the reliability of commonly used sources in porn star articles, such as AInews.com, XBiz.com, Rogreviews.com and XFanz.com. The WikiProject really needs some outside views on this. Thanks. Epbr123 (talk) 00:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

From a quick glance, I don't see how most of these could be considered reliable sources. With the exception of Rogreviews, they seem to be just republishing press releases and the like from others, without any indication at all that there is any fact-checking. --Ronz (talk) 22:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Is a writer reliable if he is cited by reliable sources?

Full discussion here, short summary: a person's works (a book) is cited by several reliable scholars. It is however hard to find out any information about the person itself - we can't find out if he has any academic credentials, or any significant facts from his bio. Can this person (his works/books) be considered reliable? One one side he is, after all, cited by reliable scholars who presumably did their research. On the other - other than him being an author of some books and articles, and a website, we know nothing about him. Is he reliable? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

If his book is cited by scholars, then I would call it reliable, even though the author is not an academic (perhaps it could be looked at as being a primary source, with the cautions and limitations thereof?). The only exception that I can think of would be if scholars all cite him in order to refute what he says. Blueboar (talk) 13:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I have doubts about Pefina Press - while I see that it appears in Google Scholar as being cited by Marek Jan Chodakiewicz and Peter Stachura, the publisher is listed as being based in Toronto, Chicago, and New York - but no website, phone number, or other info is otherwise available. A Worldcat search shows a single library holding a book from this press. This is not in compliance with one clause of the guideline: "published in reputable peer-reviewed sources and/or by well-regarded academic presses." Cited by these authors, yes, but not originally published by a peer-reviewed or academic press. Novickas (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

User submitted source question

I have noticed that "Jam Base" is getting used a lot for citations here on Wikipedia in order to either show "Significant Coverage" or to verify facts. At first glance it seems ok but per Wikipedia policy on Self-published sources it seems to fall under open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources that are largely not acceptable. It is a combination of a social networking site and a fanzine/blog where fans of Jam Music can create an account and post stories either in a "article" form or in a "journal" form. From the sites "About Us" page it says, in part, "Established in 1998, JamBase has grown into a community of passionate live music fans over half a million strong." and "JamBase works closely with leading concert promoters and record labels like Live Nation, AEG-Live, Warner Brothers Records and Universal Records. Equally important is working closely with the best independent promoters, venues and labels worldwide." The FAQ section has information that points toward the "open wiki" scenario with answers such as "Since JamBase relies on user-generated content, no one person has control of artist pages. All of our users can submit content as long as they have a My JamBase account". This seems along the lines of the Wikipedia:Ownership of articles Policy. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. In terms of reliability, their article guideline suggests editorial review, at least now: "All submissions now work on at "pitch basis," meaning you must send an email pitch to the appropriate editor before covering an event, reviewing a CD or writing a feature. Only pieces pitched in advance will be considered for publication." I can't tell from that the degree to which "newswire tips" are vetted, but their reviews & articles may be okay. Newswire tips may cite to reliable sources, though they may not be themselves. The forum and "my jambase journal" would clearly be SPS. (I'm not sure what you mean with respect to WP:OWN, though.) Do you know anything about the general reputation of this website? Is it respected in the industry? Cited by respectable journalists? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
In respect to Wikipedia Policy it states "You cannot stop everyone in the world from editing "your" stuff, once you have posted it to Wikipedia." And on Jambase it says ""Since JamBase relies on user-generated content, no one person has control of artist pages. All of our users can submit content as long as they have a My JamBase account" In basic terms anyone can create an artist page on Wikipedia and the exact same goes for Jambase. The "editorial review" is akin to what Wikipedia does with it's guidlines but to a lesser degree. An editor could not write a "review" as an article on Wikipedia but we could for JamBase and all that needs to be done is to verify that a show actually happened. Beyond that is not much different than posting the same review on a blog except a blog can not be used as a "Significant source", Jambase currently is being used. Soundvisions1 (talk) 18:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Citation for "common usage"

I am sorry, I cannot see how the book Roman Catholicism: The Basics, by Michael Walsh can be considered a reliable source for the statement in the article Roman Catholic Church: "In common usage 'catholic' refers to the body also known as Roman Catholic Church". On page 18, that book says: "'Catholic' is regularly also used in opposition to 'Protestant', and it is used also in opposition to the term 'Orthodox' ... In common usage, however, the matter is not quite so straightforward. ..." To me the book seems to disagree with the statement in support of which it is cited. But User:NancyHeise affirms that the citation is valid support for the statement, and that a consensus declares it to be so. Am I indeed wrong? Note that I am not questioning the statement, but only the use of this source as support for it. It may well be that I am putting this question in the wrong place. If I am, please forgive me, and let me know where I should post it. Soidi (talk) 21:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC) Reasoning dialogue, rather than mere declarations that the matter is already settled, has begun. The problem is solved. Soidi (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Use of a commissioned but still unpublished paper

Please see [60] - this paper has not yet been published although I expect it will be published. My point is that it might be changed before publication, and we should not use pre-publication papers. (This article is extremely hard to edit if you are not a fan of the subject, by the way). Comments? Thanks. dougweller (talk) 06:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. Wait until the paper is actually published. Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily

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

Resolved

A brief question, should WorldNetDaily be used as RS? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

For Verbal Diarrhoea? Sorry, that would be used as an example, not a source. It depends as a RS for what I guess. Got an example? --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 12:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Can [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51474 this] be used as RS in the article Hindu Taliban? --Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I would say it depends as to whether World Evangelical Alliance Religious Liberty Commission is regarded as a reliable source on Christianity affairs in India, as this is who they source most of their material for this material from it seems. Is there anything to indicate that the WEA is a RS? On sensitive topics such as this, that would need to be established first. On a sidenote though, as a neologism, wouldn't this be best described as part of Christianity_in_India#Hindu-Christian_conflict? There would be more than enough material available in that a split of the Hindu-Christian conflict could be made, and all of this information provided; it would be my opinion it is probably best served in that regard so that it is possible to put all subject matter into context. What do you think about that? --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 13:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I think I should avoid partisan source which is why I am not using WorldNetDaily. In American Taliban also no partisan source is used. I will use mainstream newspaper sources and scholarly sources. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Marilyn Manson#Church of Satan

Hi, is this a reliable source? If not can anyone suggest an alternative? ϢereSpielChequers 07:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't think it could be considered a reliable source. It appears to be a message board post, which in turn is quoting from a web site, which in turn appears to be quoting from several different interviews in several different sources. The underlying interviews themselves are identified only as to publication, but not as to date, etc. If the underlying interviews could be located and cited, those might be reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 Done Thanks Metropolitan, ϢereSpielChequers 17:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Linux.com

How reliable is Linux.com? See usage in the OpenOffice.org Writer article. --Joshua Issac (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Same situation in PhpGedView. Is it a reliable source? They actively solicit article submissions, but I'm unclear on how much reviewing, editing, and fact-checking they do. --Ronz (talk) 17:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

There's some confusion about linux.com. Basically, they have a professional core editorial team, and they accept two types of submissions:

The latter can be considered quite reliable, as they are subject to a normal editorial process, and are not significantly different from other sites that publish articles from freelance writers/journalists, e.g. IBM developerworks, although the latter doesn't always pay a fee.

I have no idea about the Php site. VG ☎ 01:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. --Joshua Issac (talk) 22:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

John Wilkes Booth escape theory

There is a section near the bottom of the article on John Wilkes Booth called Booth Escaped Theories that has citations that do not meet wikipedias guidlines on verifiability. Although there are citations, the authors are very suspect and caution should be used in adding this particular theory as it does not meet wikipedias policies on Fringe theories nor weight as well. I have been attempting to add a refimprove tag to the section, but one editor has removed the tag twice. Of the three citations that support the theory, the oldest, The Escape and Suicide of John Wilkes Booth, is based on a death bed confession that only the author heard. The author heard the confession, then toured the country making money off of displaying the mummified remains. He only wrote the book, to support his claim. The next citation, The Lincoln Conspiracy was written by a movie producer who wanted to promote a movie he was making in the 70's. This same producer has also produced movies called The Search for Heaven, Encounters with the Unexplained, The Incredible Discovery of Noah's Ark, and Uncovering the Truth About Jesus. The third citation by a man named Theodore Nottingham, claiming to be a decendant of Booth and is based on information his grandfather told him. And not much more.

These authors hardly have a reputation for fact finding. With the verifiability problem, added to the problems of WP:Weight and WP:Fringe, this entire section needs to go, but I can't handle a stubborn editor who refuses to let me even add the refimprove tag. What do I do.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Other inline citations used as reliable sources, not mentioned by Jojhutton, are The New York Times, The Baltimore Sun, University of Baltimore Law Forum published by University of Baltimore School of Law, and the Maryland Historical Society's magazine. (Disclosure: I am an involved editor)  JGHowes  talk 16:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
The theory does seem to be notable enough that it meets the inclusion requirements set out by WP:FRINGE (there is more than passing reference to it in multiple mainstream sources), so some mention of it should be included in the article. The question then becomes how to mention it and how much space to give it. I agree that the current section is over the top... it really does not deserve more than a brief mention (per WP:UNDUE). A brief statement that the theory exists and is discounted by serious historians is all that is needed. Blueboar (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
The citations mentioned by JGHowes are not the problem citations. If the other citations are removed, then the ones mentioned by JGHowes are not needed.
When the problem with weight was brought up on the talk page, some editors responded by actually making the section longer. Again, I have attempted to place a tag on the section, but an editor somehow keeps taking it down. I want to add the tag, so that other editors and readers will know that a discussion is ongoing on the talk page.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
This is not the place to discuss content, just the reliability of cited sources. When Jojhutton originally complained at Talk:John Wilkes Booth that there were no reliable sources discussing the escape stories, these inline citations were added per WP:FRINGE for verifiability that the stories, however implausible, have in fact been the subject of widely-read books and a movie (having their own en-wiki articles), and lengthy commentary in mainstream newspapers and, hence, meet WP:N for inclusion in the article. Now he complains that by adding such sources for verifiability, the section was "made longer". It should be evident that his claim of lack of reliable sources is utterly baseless and the real objection is to content, as shown by his statement that if the fringe theory content is removed, then the unchallenged citations "are not needed".  JGHowes  talk 02:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
How then are those three citations worthy of verifiability? What reason would you give to keep those citations in the article? Using WP:verifiability, do the citations meet the criteria?--Jojhutton (talk) 02:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I believe you have a very basic misunderstanding of our verifiability policy, Jojhutton. As has been pointed out to you, the verifiability tags you keep insisting be there cannot accomlish what you want them to. WP:V refers to the ability to prove that the source cited did indeed state what is being used and cited. You are using the v-tag to attempt to challenge the verifiability of the sources themselves (ie, the verifiability of the claims the authors make in their books). As editors, we don't do that. We are not suitable or notable enough to act as counterweight to a cited source.
I think yo have realized this, and have since switched tactics, aiming to have the information removed as per WP:FRINGE. I am not really sure how that is going to be any more successful, as the sources and the theories predate the Kennedy Assassination conssipracies by almost 100 years. Books were written then as now, and there have been documentary films made on the subject.
Clearly, you don't want the info in the article but, like the good Professor Mick said, "Yu can't always get what you want." You might have to suffer the indignity of the Booth Escaped theories 'staining' the Booth article. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Is Chechenpress a reliable source?

An article by Alexander Litvinenko published by Chechenpress is being used in the Litvinenko article to engage in speculation by Litvinenko that Putin is a paedophile. I have removed the comments from the article, due to reasons which I have explained here and here. As I have explained in detail who Chechenpress is and who is behind it, it needs to be ascertained whether they can be regarded as a reliable source for purposes of WP, particularly when it involves a real, BLP issue. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 07:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Chechenpress is the website of a government in exile, just like for example the Tibetan government in exile. It seems reliable to me, also because Litvinenko was close to one of the key leaders of this government in exile.[61] Grey Fox-9589 (talk) 13:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
reliable means it has a history of fact-checking. I don't believe it does. The Daily Mail called the claims "sensational and unsubstantiated". Others have called many of Litvinenko's claims "wild". Opinions from uninvolved editors is requested. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 14:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Realiable in this case means that Litvinenko actually wrote said article, which he did. If his claims are true or not is completely unrelated, because his claims aren't presented as fact, but as "litvinenko accused putin of..." and are only presented on litvinenko's biography. Grey Fox-9589 (talk) 14:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, this is a perfectly reliable source of articles written by Litvinenko. According to many other sources, including books, Litvinenko collaborated with Chechen government in exile and published numerous materials in their press.Biophys (talk) 15:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
This is yet another case where we need to make the distinction between a source being reliable for a statement of opinion vs a source being reliable for a statement of fact. Chechenpress is a reliable source for the attributed statement: "According to Alexander Livinenko, Putin is a Paedophile" or "Alexander Livinenko has accused Putin of being a paedophile". But Chechenpress is not a reliable source for the blunt statement: "Putin is a paedophile". Blueboar (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Agree.Biophys (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I concur with Blueboar's comment also. This type of use requires attribution, but the source is reliable for reporting that Alexander Livinenko stated the allegation. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Precisely. It is only a "reliable source" to demonstrate the existence of the claim/article. It is not a reliable source for information contained in the article, as it does not have a demonstrated history or reputation of fact-checking, which is one of the key components of WP:V and WP:RS.
Everyone agreed that this is a reliable source per WP:RS. No one disputed their fact checking policy. Everyone also agreed that proper attribution to the source and author of the publication is required, as always.Biophys (talk) 01:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, no, you have misunderstood what has been said. It can be used as a reference to his claim actually existing, but it most certainly can not be used as a WP:RS as to the veracity of the claims therein. For if it was a RS for the claims, we would be writing "Putin is a paedophile" as a matter of fact, rather than reverting back to WP:BLP in order to ensure that nothing that can be regarded as libel against a living person is present in the article. Therein lies the difference. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 01:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ronn Torossian/5W Public Relations

Mosmof as a user and a few others are intent on destroying the bio of Ronn Torossian, a living person, and his firm 5W Public Relations. They abritarily say blogs arent reliable (when it comes to Sundance major celebrity events) and the richest man in Europe who 5WPR represents. When it comes to obscure Jewish issues, they cite bloggers endlessly. Pls. help and intervene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.103.203.218 (talk • contribs) 22:43, November 9, 2008

My position is that Jeffrey Goldberg's blog on the Atlantic Monthly's website is a perfectly reliable source for opinions held by Jeffrey Goldberg, who formerly wrote for The New Yorker and now writes for Atlantic.--Mosmof (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Source doesn't actually look much like a blog comment, more like a signed essay by a leading contributor, but I'm finding the Atlantic's website difficult to get a handle on. Is it perhaps a signed piece that is meant to generate comments by readers, like The Guardian's Comment is free? In this case it is probably RS, but do take especial care with a BLP. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
It's a common setup in major US publications (not sure about papers in UK) - an op-ed columnist writes weekly columns that appear both in print and online, and would also post shorter, more frequent blog entries. Paul Krugman of the New York Times, for example, has his regular column and a blog. Both are subject to NY Times' editorial policies. I think the problem here is we don't always mean the same thing when we say "blog" - technically, it's just a publishing platform, and there isn't a great divide between bloggers and serious writers. It's just that the majority of bloggers are not notable and under editorial oversight, so as a shorthand, we say "blogs shouldn't be used as a source", but we mean bloggers who are self-published and of questionable notability. Mosmof (talk) 23:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
For about a year now, those of us who regularly answer questions on this noticeboard have recognized that there is a difference between an opinion piece that happens to be written in blog format, and is published under the editorial control of a major newspaper... and a self published Blog. We have also recognized that some self published Blogs are reliable (specifically those that have won major journalism awards). I think it may finally be time to amend the guideline, and spell out that certain (very limited) kinds of blogs that are acceptable.Blueboar (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Listen, Administrator, editors who have not yet touched this page, please, take a look rationally. See passed the "credible sources" and the solid references. Understand that just because a reference is valid doesn't make the placement on Wikipedia right or acceptable. Mosmof says she or he is just being a good Wikipedian, but likes to put in "valid references" that show the downside and other bad issues. This user has become as obsessed with Torossian as the single article IP addresses users seem to be. Maybe the best course here is to take the page down. Maybe there is no need for Torossian to have a page. It is not unbiased, it is awful, and the editors seems to take great pains to make "valid" edits that show a history of bad, while the fact that the company and the CEO have clients, have staff, are well regarded by the hundreds of clients who use them should be worth something, yet the editors who destroy this page and the 5W page seem to think that 5 years of history is summed up by Jeff Goldberg and FailedMessiah - footnotes, not features. Footnotes my friends, not features. TLVEWR (talk) 03:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Mosmof is the same person who on 5W page removed consistent sourcing from blogs, including that of the largest newspaper in the Ukraine, and E Entertainment. What is not inconsistent in that matter ? Goldberg is a political pundit, very far on the extreme left vis a vis Israel and wasnt under Atlantic Monthly's auspicies. That said, would one publish what Artutz 7 (a right leaning Israeli blog) publishes re Ronn ? -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.103.203.218 (talk

I was asked for a comment here. The Goldberg material is usable. He's not a blogger, but a columnist. As Blueboar said, many columns now appear in the format of blogs. /The miscellaneous reader write-in comments are generally unacceptable for BLP, and count only as old-fashioned letters to the editor-- unless that material is known to be edited under the responsibility of the publication and comes from an authority of some sort, but the opinion of a notable columnist are considered as if they were published as part of his print column in the magazine in the old-fashioned way. A great many news sources now call themselves blogs, but the actual news items at their head are news--the same goes for opinion. If it could be used if printed, it can be used here also, even for negative blp, if it appears under the byline of a noted columnist. Goldberg's piece in the Atlantic is therefore usable as opinion. But I don't see the point of using it just to source a general negative opinion, when there are specific things he said that would be more informative. He is a source, for example, that RT's clients typically represent RT's poliitical point of view. DGG (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I realize that the complaint is less about whether Goldberg's blog on Atlantic is a valid source for Goldberg's opinion, but more about my edits in general. And if the complaint is that I removed blog-sourced content from 5W Public Relations, probably this edit, and I'm somehow being inconsistent, then that complaint is misguided.
Sourcing was one of the problems, but not the only or the biggest. Certainly, the first three sources cited were an online video (what is the policy on using video, btw?), a forum, and a self-published blog. Those, I thought, were non-starters. The other two were Fox News and an E! blog, which wouldn't be inappropriate per se, but there was some serious WP:SYNTH going on - mentions of the agency's party at Sundance Festival were being used to support a claim that it had "top notch celebrity relationships" or some such. So we're comparing apples and oranges here.
And whatever inconsistency or injustice there might be doesn't excuse the sockpuppetry and constant whitewashing of negative opinion and unpleasant news from these articles. --Mosmof (talk) 14:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

guardian.co.uk/blog

guardian.co.uk is a reliable source. Are posts on guardian.co.uk blog by Tom Service (home) such as this one also reliable? It is a blog, but published by a reliable source. Is it a usable source?--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 23:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It would depend largely on whether or not the blog posts were subject to editoral oversight, and whether the posts were fact-oriented or opinion-oriented. I know there's a guideline that addresses newspaper-hosted blogs somewhere, but I can't seem to find it at the moment. the skomorokh 23:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
That's correct, it's addressed in WP:Verifiability, differentiating newspaper-published blogs from "personal and group blogs.", as follows:

Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g., "Jane Smith has suggested ..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources.

That text is in footnote 5 of the policy page as of the current time-stamp. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you a lot for your great answer! One question more: The author is Tom Service. BBC says about him:

Tom Service was born in 1976 in Glasgow. He studied music at the University of York, took a Masters at the University of Southampton, and completed a doctorate there on the music of John Zorn. He writes about music for the Guardian, and is a regular contributor to the BBC Music Magazine, Opera, and Tempo. His articles have appeared in books and music dictionaries, and in journals in France and Germany. He teaches at Trinity College of Music, and has given pre-concert talks and written programme notes for many of the festivals, orchestras, and opera companies in the UK. He began broadcasting on Radio 3 on Hear and Now in 2001, becoming one of the show's regular presenters, and has presented Music Matters since the autumn of 2003.

This is an evidence for his professionality. But how do I find out whether the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control?--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 18:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think I got it: guardian.co.uk Terms of service:
Disclaimer of liability

To the extent permitted at law, we do not accept any responsibility for any statement in the material. You must not rely on any statement we have published on guardian.co.uk without first taking specialist professional advice. Nothing in the material is provided for any specific purpose or at the request of any particular person

Is this the answer?--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 19:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
My take is that these signed pieces that spark off comments by readers are exactly as reliable as feature articles in the newspaper. They are virtually always opinion rather than fact. Another way to approach this particular case is that Tom Service is an academic who presumably publishes in a variety of peer-reviewed outlets, and that this counts as academic-writing-in-blog. It seems to be a review of a concert, he is as suitable a person to review concerts as any, and so long as opinion and fact aren't confused, then this counts as RS. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
The paper has to take responsibility for these pieces as publisher since they commission the writer to do them, as opposed to the subsequent reader responses, where they could presumably claim merely to be the "carrier", not the publisher. They commission people who they consider are suitably qualified to pronounce on the relevant subject, and there are not likely to be gross factual errors. I would see the pieces to be fairly sound as sources. Ty 04:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
That's my understanding as well. In the early days of blogs, they were all personal, so the blog as a format was considered an inherently unreliable source. But now the blog format is just one more way that information is presented by both reliable and unreliable sources. So to determine if a particular blog is reliable or not as a source, the publisher along with their editorial policy and reputation are the key. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Flags of the World website

Would the Flags of the World website be considered a reliable source? They list an editorial staff, display an ISSN identifier here, and feature an extensive bibliography section. I have used this website in an article that is currently a featured article candidate and the reliability of the source has been questioned. Thanks in advance. — Bellhalla (talk) 02:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Although a web site written and edited by amateur hobbyists, as FOTW seems to be, would not usually be considered a reliable source, I think FOTW should qualify at least as a somewhat reliable source. In particular, it (or its editors) have been cited in mainstream media and other reliable sources, such as The Economic Times, Voice of America News, and a book published by Wesleyan University Press. Furthermore, the site has been in existence for 14 years and attributes its articles to their authors. Finally, the site does cite references as to where it got its information, and those sources are generally reliable. In the case of the featured article candidacy, it appears that the information being cited currently to FOTW was derived by FOTW from National Geographic Magazine, so that information should be confirmed by looking at the magazine itself. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Use of self-published sources in Rick Ross (consultant)#Branch Davidians

I would appreciate wider community input on the permissibility of using self-published sources in the Rick Ross (consultant) article, specificially the section covering Mr Ross's involvement as a BATF and FBI consultant in the Waco Branch Davidian standoff. The self-published sources concerned are (1) a letter Mr Ross states he wrote as a rebuttal of assertions in a Department of Justice report, and (2) a critique by Mr Ross of various websites and scholars that have published criticism about him.

I provide some background below, for those editors who are not familiar with the history.

The history below is far too detailed for someone not familiar with the subject matter to sift through. Could you please summarize what you think the problem is. Blueboar (talk) 15:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Short version: The old wording used to state that according to a Department of Justice report, Mr Ross was only interviewed by the FBI at his own request, and that his offers of assistance were politely declined. Some months later, a government-commissioned expert, who is critical of Mr Ross, suggested in her report that Mr Ross's role appears to have been somewhat more significant. The present wording no longer discusses the issue of how intensely Mr Ross was involved (partly because so far I haven't found any secondary sources discussing the question). Mr Ross has said on the article's talk page he liked the old wording much better. The old wording cited two self-published documents by Mr Ross:
(1) a letter by Mr Ross saying that the Department of Justice report was wrong (the main assertions of Mr Ross's letter were reproduced in the old wording, some without explicit citation);
(2) a self-published web page that suggested that the government-commissioned expert and various other scholars critical of Mr Ross were cult apologists and/or envious of the access he had to the press.
The question is, is it legitimate to use Mr Ross's self-published sources in this section, given WP:SPS and WP:SELFQUEST? Each source has a section to itself below, with link. Cheers, Jayen466 19:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Jayen466 failed to mention an edit he did. The original text read "Nancy Ammerman insisted the FBI relied too much on Ross, a view which is not shared by the other three experts reporting to the Justice department." Out of 4 experts reporting to the Justice Department only Ammerman mentioned me as an issue. The others did not. She stood alone, 1 out of 4 experts, in her opinions about my role at Waco. None of the other 4 experts thought my involvement was noteworthy enough to even mention. Jayen466 knows this and he cut it out. This is an example of the way he has contrived to project his POV through editing.

Ammerman had her own political agenda regarding the issue of "cults," which she prefers to call "new religious movmentts." She and a relatively small group of academics attempted to use Waco as a means of discrediting those that disagreed with their opinions about cults and the potential dangers they often pose for society. These few academics tried to spin Waco to their ideological and professional advantage. But the facts about David Koresh and the Waco Davidians, as they were disclosed historically through two congressional investigations (one Republican and one by Democrats), the independent Danforth investigation, criminal trials, civil trials and the work of mental health professionals with Davidian children and others, discredited this group of academics. Ammerman and the other academics Jayen466 chose to quote would seemingly have us believe (1) David Koresh was not "a dangerous cult leader" (2) the Waco Davidians did not fit "the generalized pattern of a destructive cult." These are neither credible conclusions or reliable opinions given the facts established repeatedly and objectively about Waco historically.Rick A. Ross (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Background

A 1993 Department of Justice report to the US Attorney General stated the following concerning Mr Ross's involvement in the Waco standoff:

The FBI did not solicit advice from any "cult experts" or "cult deprogrammers." The FBI did receive a number of unsolicited offers of assistance from former Branch Davidian member Marc Breault (who has since published a paperback book about Koresh and the Branch Davidians). The FBI also received input from two self-described cult experts, Rick Ross (who moved to a hotel in Dallas, and later to Waco, during the standoff and appeared on local television programs, as well as the CNN broadcast of March 10 that upset Dr. Dietz) ... Ross contacted the FBI on March 4, 1993 and requested that he be interviewed regarding his knowledge of cults in general and the Branch Davidians in particular. Ross said that he had been familiar with the Branch Davidians for several years, and had known several former Davidians. Ross provided information about Koresh to the Waco Tribune Herald for its series about the Branch Davidians. Ross also had been in contact with Steve Schneider's sister, who had asked him to help devise a strategy to "deprogram" Schneider. The ATF also contacted Ross in January 1993 for information about Koresh. Ross also telephoned the FBI on March 27 and March 28, offering advice about negotiation strategies. Ross suggested that the FBI attempt to embarrass Koresh by informing other members of the compound about Koresh's faults and failures in life, in order to convince them that Koresh was not the prophet they had been led to believe. The FBI did not "rely" on Ross for advice whatsoever during the standoff. The FBI interviewed Ross only at Ross' request, and politely declined his unsolicited offers of assistance throughout the standoff. The FBI treated the information Ross supplied as it would any other unsolicited information received from the public: it evaluated the credibility of the information and treated it accordingly.

Following the Waco tragedy, the US government commissioned reports from four scholars tasked with writing critical appraisals of law enforcement actions in the Waco siege. All four of these scholars criticised the authorities for failing to consult religious experts familiar with the belief system of the Branch Davidians. Nancy Ammerman, a professor of sociology of religion at Boston University, discussed Mr Ross's involvement specifically in her September 1993 report to the Treasury and Justice Departments:

Mr. Rick Ross, who often works in conjunction with the Cult Awareness Network (CAN), has been quoted as saying that he was "consulted" by the BATF. My suspicion is that he was merely one among many the BATF interviewed in its background checks on the group and on Koresh. However, it is unclear how information gained from him was evaluated. The Network and Mr. Ross have a direct ideological (and financial) interest in arousing suspicion and antagonism against what they call "cults". These same persons seem to have been major sources for the series of stories run by the Waco newspaper, beginning February 27. It seems clear that people within the "anti-cult" community had targeted the Branch Davidians for attention. Although these people often call themselves "cult experts," they are certainly not recognized as such by the academic community. The activities of the CAN are seen by the National Council of Churches (among others) as a danger to religious liberty, and deprogramming tactics have been increasingly found to fall outside the law. At the very least, Mr. Ross and any ex-members he was associated with should have been seen as questionable sources of information. Having no access to information from the larger social science community, however, BATF had no way to put in perspective what they may have heard from angry ex-members and eager deprogrammers.
[A week later, having received additional documentation, Ammerman provided an addendum in which she corrected some of the above suppositions:] The interview transcripts document that Mr. Rick Ross was, in fact, closely involved with both the ATF and the FBI. He supplied ATF with "all information he had regarding the Branch Davidian cult," including the name of an ex-member he believed would have important strategic information. He also supplied information to the Waco newspaper and talked with the FBI both in early March and in late March. He clearly had the most extensive access to both agencies of any person on the "cult expert" list, and he was apparently listened to more attentively. The ATF interviewed the persons he directed them to and evidently used information from those interviews in planning their February 28 raid. In late March, Ross recommended that agents attempt to publicly humiliate Koresh, hoping to drive a wedge between him and his followers. While Ross's suggestions may not have been followed to the letter, such embarrassment tactics were indeed tried.
The FBI interview report includes the note that Ross "has a personal hatred for all religious cults" and would willingly aid law enforcement in an attempt to "destroy a cult." The FBI report does not include any mention of the numerous legal challenges to the tactics employed by Mr. Ross in extricating members from the groups he hates.
Both the seriousness with which agents treated Ross and the lack of seriousness with which they treated various theologians demonstrate again the inability of agents on the scene to make informed judgements about the information to which they had access and their inability to seek out better information. It also demonstrates the preference given to anti-cult psychological tactics over strategies that would meet the group on grounds that took faith seriously.

As can be seen, Ammerman attributes a more significant role to Mr Ross than the official Department of Justice report to the Attorney General. To that extent, she is in agreement with Mr Ross, who claims in his letter that the FBI approached him for advice.

I have over the past few weeks significantly revised the Rick Ross (consultant) article. While the disputed question concerning the extent of Mr Ross's involvement was discussed in previous versions of this article section, the present version does not raise this issue. Here are the old and new versions, for comparison:

  • This is the status of the relevant section of the article as it was a month ago; it included a description of Mr Ross as a "spurious self-styled expert[s]", sourced to an unpublished paper by Professor Catherine Wessinger, marked "Do not reproduce or quote without the consent of the author." I considered this to fail the requirements for a BLP and replaced this content with properly published equivalents. This old version of the section also contained a number of unsourced statements, including content evidently taken from the self-published documents with which we are here concerned.
  • This is the current status of the section, following extensive revision. It includes new material sourced to University Press-published scholars. It also does without some of the more colourful ad-hominems ("has a hatred for cults", as well as Wessinger's "spurious self-styled expert").

Mr Ross has posted on the talk page of the article, expressing disappointment with the changes, and has several times sought a return to the version of a month ago, including the statements from his self-published sources. In order to accommodate his wish to have content from these self-published sources reinstated, we have to look at whether their use would be in line with our policies and guidelines, which is where I would appreciate editors' input.

The self-published sources are located on Mr Ross's website, rickross.com. They are the following:

  1. Davidian Tragedy - Letters Re: Attorney General
  2. "Flaming Web Sites"

Given their status as self-published sources, their eligibility for use falls under WP:SPS and WP:SELFQUEST. WP:SPS and WP:SELFQUEST state, among other things:

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; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:
1. the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject being discussed;
2. it is not contentious;
3. it is not unduly self-serving;
4. it does not involve claims about third parties;
5. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
6. there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it;
7. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Editors may well wish to assess each of the two sources differently. I suggest therefore that editors comment in the two separate Comments subsections available at the very end of this post, outlining their thoughts on each.

Source 1: Letter to the Attorney General

The first of these sources is a letter by Mr Ross to the Attorney General and various cc recipients. No one to date has asserted that it has been published by a third-party source, and as far as I know, it is only available on rickross.com. It asserts, among other things, that the FBI did contact Ross for advice.

The question is, if we reintroduce the issue of the extent of Mr Ross's involvement (which would add considerably to the length of the section), should we incorporate this letter as an encyclopedic source, and if so, should we quote from it, or describe its content, or should we just include a mention that it exists, with a link in the reference?

Initially, my feeling was that this self-published source should not be used, as we don't usually cite personal correspondence unless published by a RS. In the interest of fairness, given that the facts as presented in the Department of Justice report are contradicted by both Mr Ross and Ammerman, I removed both the FBI assertions as to Mr Ross's more marginal role, i.e. having offered only unsolicited advice, and the rebuttal asserting a more substantial involvement sourced to this letter by Mr Ross. However, I would be interested in other editors' views, in particular the applicability of WP:SPS and WP:SELFQUEST to the use of this letter.

Source 2: Flaming Web Sites

The "Flaming Web Sites" page (it also has a section on Wikipedia) has in the past been used to source the following content in the article, included after Wessinger's characterisation of Mr Ross as a "spurious self-styled expert[s]":

This rather long-winded "scholarly" review regarding media coverage of the Waco Davidian Standoff was written by cult apologist Catherine Wessinger. [...]. Ms. Wessinger snipes about "spurious self-styled experts" [...] getting too much media attention. The professor then stuffs her footnotes with what looks like a Scientologist's historical guide concerning my past. Could it be that she is angry that the press doesn't quote her more?

As I said, the reference to Wessinger's paper has been deleted (although a brief mention of a published book by her is still included), making this quote somewhat superfluous. However, apart from calling Catherine Wessinger a cult apologist, the Flaming Web Sites page also applies this label to the above-cited Nancy Ammerman, who was one of the government-appointed experts, as well as to Eileen Barker, James T. Richardson, Jeffrey K. Hadden, Gordon J. Melton, Anson Shupe, Massimo Introvigne, David Bromley and Dick Anthony. (For anyone not familiar with these names, they are some of the world's most prominent scholars in this field, with a long string of publications in peer-reviewed journals and books published by top university presses and academic publishers.)

In my estimation, the use of this self-published source to cast aspersions against these scholars is inappropriate as per WP:SPS ("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; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources"), and inappropriate as per WP:SELFQUEST, specifically points 2 (contentious), 3 (unduly self-serving), 4 (involving claims about third parties), and possibly 5 (claims about events not directly related to the subject). It also fails WP:TONE.

  • WP:COIN
  • AfD
  • Talk:Rick Ross (consultant) – Rick A. Ross (talk · contribs) has various times alleged on the talk page that I edit in bad faith, and accused me of conflicts of interest on several talk pages. Editors may wish to verify the accusation of bad-faith editing for themselves. The current version of the article is here. The version of a month ago, prior to my edits, is here. I have removed the most strident criticisms (in fact I deleted the entire criticism section, much of which was poorly sourced and an ungainly to and fro of name-calling); I have included praise of Mr Ross where I found it; and I have cooperated with him on the talk page to address concerns he had, and looked for sources making his point where he was unable to provide such sources. However, he is a notable and controversial person, and such significant criticism as there has been of his work by notable scholars is represented in the article as it stands.

Jayen has a conflict of interest as follows; (1) He is a devotee of a notorious guru, often called a "cult leader," by the name of Osho/Rajneesh. (2) Despite this bias he has become a primary editor at Wikipedia's Osho entry. His edits can be seen as essentially promoting the guru and subsequently the entry reads at times like an infomercial. (3) The Ross Institute Internet Archives, which is a nonprofit educational effort and an institutional member of the New Jersey Library Association, has an archive subsection about Osho/Rajaneesh that includes news reports from independent reliable media outlets that correctly reflects the guru's deeply troubled history. (4) Jayen466 has begun editing the entry about me in an apparent attempt to discredit online sources of critical information about Osho. If Jayen466 has in fact no association, personal interest or history with Osho/Rajneesh in any way, shape or form, perhaps he should make that clear right now, but that is my understanding. This represents a conflict of interest in my opinion.Rick A. Ross (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Waco Branch Davidian subsection my comments appear below. Also, regarding the Jason Scott case. Admittedly Jayen466 is at times clever in parsing words and playing with edits, he knows how to play the political game here at Wikipedia. On the other hand I am not a Wikipedian. I am here as an individual because a bio about me that I didn't initiate or request has seemingly become a place for people angry at me and/or the Ross Institute to grind their ax. I am not included in any paper and ink encyclopedia that I am aware of anywhere and have requested that my bio be deleted from Wikipedia. It is sad that Wikipedia can be used this way by almost anyone anonymously editing an entry for the purpose of revenge or retaliation. The open source model has the potential to be both good and bad. In the interest of maintaining a reliable source of information with objective historical facts and accuracy, someone should reign in people like Jayen466.Rick A. Ross (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions on use of source 1: Letter to the Attorney General

What do reliable independent sources say about it? If the content is written from primary sources - DoJ or Ross - then we may be violating multiple policies (V, BLP, UNDUE etc.) so I would step back and describe how the issue is presented in independent sources. Guy (Help!) 11:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess the same could be said to apply to Ammerman's report then, as it was also government-commissioned. Would it be best to cover this only to the extent its content is described in secondary literature? Jayen466 19:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes. That is precisely what is meant by WP:NOR - we should not synthesise material from primary sources. Guy (Help!) 23:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 Done -- reduced to the extent to which she is cited by Tabor. The citation reference to the online verison of her report is still there; should we keep it or drop it? Jayen466 00:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I have commented below regarding the bias and unreliable nature of the scholars Jayen466 has chosen to construct his POV in the Waco Davidian subsection, which isn't supported by the historical facts as gathered from multiple independent historical sources. Based upon the conflict of interest Jayen466 has as an editor concerning this entry he is not a reliable editor.Rick A. Ross (talk) 20:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

While they have their weaknesses, publications, particularly peer reviewed publications, by acknowledged academics in an area of interest are generally considered some of the most reliable sources. Newspapers and self-published websites would be considered a deal removed from them. As I believe has been asked, if you have scholarly sources refuting Jayen466's sources, then please share them and they quite obviously should be given equal weight. --Insider201283 (talk) 20:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I have done this repeatedly, but essentially been dismissed and/or ignored. The scholarly sources are not objective or reliable. Please see my comments below under General Comments. There is a controversy within academia about these sources and their objectivity. The entry should reflect the historical facts not the POV as edited by someone with a conflict of interest.Rick A. Ross (talk) 20:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia aims to cover all significant views on the article topic (or any subtopic covered in an individual article section) published by reliable sources. Contrary to your assertion above, I have been unable to find a single dissenting scholarly view discussing events at Waco. If you have other scholarly sources commenting on this topic (i.e. your involvement in Waco) that express a different view, please present them here.
Looking through google books, I have found one source which discusses the alleged errors in the FBI report concerning your involvement, and has pertinent criticism of Ammermann that is directly related to the article topic. This is the book Snapping: America's Epidemic of Sudden Personality Change, by Conway and Siegelman. However, this too appears to be self-published, at least according to our article on it, so its status as a WP:RS is questionable. Jayen466 21:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Jayen466 your conflict of interest and POV will always be the same. You are not an objective editor. My disputes with your edits are detailed on this page and the Discussion page of my Wikipedia bio. The opinions of Ammerman and the others, which you have decided upon and tailored for the subsection about Waco don't reflect historical reality. It's not a matter of whose book was published by whom, but rather how does history objectively record David Koresh and the Waco Davidians. He wasn't "a dangerous cult leader"? The Davidians didn't fit "the generalized pattern of a destructive cult"? A few academics eager to spin their opinions don't change that and the Waco entry now reads like a fantasy not like objective serious content. I understand that it reads like you want to read, but it doesn't provide meaningful information as a reliable source to the public. Religious Studies professors are not the definitive perspective on Waco, but based upon the quotes you have used a fairly bizarre one. I don't think that Wikipedia wants to be seen as a source for fringe and/or conspiracy theories.Rick A. Ross (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) To the extent other sources discuss Mr. Ross, he is entitled to rebut them with his own self-published sources, particularly in an article on him. This is the essential purpose of WP:SELFQUEST, which is there to enlarge the universe of sources, to modify the two sections above it that restrict the usage of selfpublished or questionable sources. ( I note this section is being modified and actively discussed at WP:V and has changed from the version above. ). This is in the spirit of, indeed essentially enjoined by WP:BLP. A person is a notable, usable source on himself. The question of reliability is not even appropriate. Reliability of Ross as a source begins to come up when he starts making claims about other persons or things which are distinguishable from "they are wrong about what they said about me, about what I said, did, where I was born, etc. This is what (I say) really happened." Ross calling someone an apologist is arguably a fact about him, not the other person. But his reasoning and facts that he bases such statements on probably does fall under illegitimate self-publication / questionability / reliability prohibitions; for even if his SPS were deemed reliable, it would not be good enough for BLP (of these other people)..John Z (talk) 05:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Entitled to rebut them? Please provide quotes from the applicable policy. WP:SELFQUEST comes with seven conditions and two are directly applicable here: 2) it is not unduly self-serving; and 7) the source in question has been mentioned specifically in relation to the article's subject by an independent, reliable source. I'm not sure Mr. Ross' SPS meets those criteria. Also, it should be noted, that the disputed content regarding Waco, is not only about Mr. Ross. It is in fact more significantly about a very notable federal law enforcement agency and the extent to which this law enforcement agency relied on Mr. Ross' advice. Mr. Ross has no special rights, under WP:BLP or WP:SELFQUEST to refute reliable sources on this issue simply because it is in part about him. Lastly I would like to note that it is not in the spirit of any Wikipidia policy to allow individuals to write their own biographies here on Wikipedia, particularly when it comes to notable events in which said individuals were involved and which may in the end be less than flattering to them. Revisionism in these cases, by these individuals, is clearly "unduly self-serving".PelleSmith (talk) 00:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
The last condition, #7, is a very recent addition, and can only be understood by looking at the talk page, where the people discussing it note the grammar needs fixing. It can be interpreted to say something ridiculous, that only selfpub sources mentioned in an RS are usable. So a person's website telling us his date of birth is unusable unless the website has been mentioned in an RS. Absurd. The proper reading here is that Rick Ross has been mentioned in RS's in relation to the article's subject - Rick Ross, which is always satisfied by notable sources/individuals. The meaning of #7 is that it clarifies the expansion of usage of selfpub sources to other articles, not necessarily those about the person or entity itself.
I agree that I wrote ("entitled to rebut") in a manner more direct than usual. I should have written that selfpublished sources are usable when blah blah blah. But any person (in good standing) is entitled to edit a wikipedia article, even one about themselves. Ross has no special rights, but neither is he especially prohibited. The unduly self-serving part can be taken care of simply by having neutral editors neutralizing whatever self-published version presented by the subject which is different from that presented in RS's. Of course, Ross's SPS site should not be used for statements about something other than Rick Ross, but neither should RS's be used to say things about a "something other" in an article on Rick Ross.
I think it is worth noting again that WP:SPS and WP:Q are essentially prohibitions (with qualifications) while WP:SELFPUB is an expansion of usable sources, opposing the above two sections (and with a numbered list of qualifications which then amount to prohibitions). People sometimes write as if WP:SELFPUB is only a prohibition, which reverses things.
Here are a couple of things from WT:V that SlimVirgin wrote that explain it well IMHO  : "For example, someone has accused X of something bad, and it's widely accepted that X did it. X responds on his website saying he didn't do it, and offers a convoluted, unconvincing defense that no other source has bothered to publish. We might want to cite that defense, even though we know it's contentious." "As for unduly self-serving, I've always liked that qualification. It's there to stop self-published sources from adding a lot of vanity stuff to their websites then adding it to their WP bio. It means we can consider using it, but have a good reason to turn it down if it's over the top." Regards, John Z (talk) 04:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
So are saying that Mr. Ross' SPS can be used if attributed to him as his version/rebuttal/opinion? If that is the case I agree wholeheartedly. But we can't use his source unless we're explicitly asserting that "Rick Ross claims ..." Reliable third party sources, produced by respected scholars of religion from a variety of methodological backgrounds, exist here. The fact that Mr. Ross' exact version is not replicated by theirs is a strong indicator that his version is ... well simply his self serving version. It is notable that he maintains whatever he maintains, but it must remain explicitly simply what he maintains unless other reliable sources back him up.PelleSmith (talk) 05:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Then we are pretty much in agreement. Since there is a dispute, in-text attribution should be done anyway to produce understandable, non-self-contradictory text. The clause in WP:SELFPUB about not using sps's for contentious points was just removed - with general agreement, because we might want to use them in precisely such cases, like here. It might be a good idea to say something in WP:SELFPUB like "contentious material should be attributed in the text to the SPS" - a lot of policy is just explaining what a good writer would do without thinking. John Z (talk) 08:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
What about the part of WP:SELFQUEST concerning statements about third parties? Anyone can publish a website and smear his critics. Should we really consider that an encyclopedic source? Then WP will be just a mouthpiece, rather than a summary of significant views published in reliable sources. Jayen466 14:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Considering your own bias and agenda as a "cult" devotee (Osho/Rajneesh) are you not using WP as your "mouthpiece" to smear me?Rick A. Ross (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions on use of source 2: Flaming Web Sites

As above. Guy (Help!) 11:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It can probably be replaced with a scholarly reference, such as this:
in regards to Eileen Barker, James T. Richardson, Jeffrey K. Hadden, Gordon J. Melton, Anson Shupe, Massimo Introvigne, David Bromley and Dick Anthony. AndroidCat (talk) 11:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
None of whom are cited or mentioned within this section. Jayen466 14:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but you listed them above: "For anyone not familiar with these names, they are some of the world's most prominent scholars in this field, with a long string of publications in peer-reviewed journals and books published by top university presses and academic publishers." as seemingly unimpeachable sources, which seems not to be completely true. AndroidCat (talk) 03:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
The notion that these scholars are part of some financially beneficial conspiracy masterminded by influential NRMs to whitewash history and distort public perception of "dangerous cults" is absolute rubbish and a clear fringe position. I'm sorry but I am growing increasingly tired of this nonsense. We are talking about the experts in the study of new religious movements, or so says the academy. There are a handful of scholars, with real academic credentials and some recognition, who sit on the other side of the fence of the establishment. Even less of them have written articles like Beit-Hallahmi. It is an irrevocable fact that they are in the minority. To claim otherwise is simply false. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 04:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I'll ignore your conspiracy strawman, but: New CAN professional referrals Oh, and please cite that the American Academy of Religion considers these people to the undisputed experts on NRM and legalist topics, and the other people to be the fringe element. AndroidCat (talk) 05:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
"So says the academy," was not a reference to the AAR or any other formal institution. It certainly wasn't a claim that there exists a formal statement of any kind by any such institution. It was a turn of phrase denoting the fact that in academia, across methodological disciplines, this fact is established through the reputations of these scholars and their work. It can be gleaned very easily by even a quick survey of the field--who is publishing in peer-reviewed publications and academic presses, who is receiving accolades for their work, who's work is being cited by other scholars, and so on. In this regard you are citing one source that questions the ethics of the establishment--people who are acknowledged experts in the field, or so one can easily deduce by actually informing oneself of the state of scholarly research on NRMs and "cults".PelleSmith (talk) 15:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's still worth noting that Eugene V. Gallagher, one of those cited in the article who is being accused here of being a venal Scientology POV pusher, is on the board of the AAR. Syllabus materials on the AAR website cite Bromley, Tabor, Gallagher and Chryssides as Required Reading. Those are the authors that are cited in our article. (And yes, Barker and Melton are in the syllabus list as well.) Jayen466 20:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Read the entries on Barker, Beit-Hallahmi, Bromley and others here for example (link leads to Encyclopedia of Religion and Society). Jayen466 11:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
The arguments brought forward here are not unlike those of various other pseudoscience fans in Wikipedia claiming that the entire scientific establishment is involved in a great conspiracy to suppress the truth. I am sorry, there is a mainstream view and there is a minority view, and policy is clear on how to present them. Jayen466 12:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
The "Entire scientific establishment" (egads!) isn't the issue here. That some dozen people are the mainstream is easily open to dispute, nor are all of them involved in the three articles (Rick Ross, Jason Scott case, Cult Awareness Network) where you have recently added the same reference some 60 times, based on five pages of a book which, judging by its availability in Canadian public and university library systems, either wasn't taken very seriously or had a print-run in the high dozens, by an academic writing outside his specialty and who gets the outcome of the Ross criminal trial wildly wrong? (I realize that legal cases aren't Shupe's focus, but that's really hard to get wrong.) Let's return to the unclosed and too-soon archived WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive_22#Anson_Shupe_and_sources_with_known_inaccuracies. AndroidCat (talk) 08:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
You say the mainstream is "easily disputed" by a piece from an International Cultic Studies Association(ISCA) newsletter? The ISCA is the closest thing to an institution representing the minority perspective and their journal often publishes writers without academic credentials and/or expertise. Note that, "cultic studies" is not a field of study recognized by the AAR or the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion. In fact I don't know of any respected academic society focused on religion that would use the term "cultic studies". Some presenters at their meetings or writers publishing in various publications associated with these societies may use the term "cult" now and then, but not cultic studies. On top of this, scholars publishing on NRMs and/or "cults" in mainstream peer reviewed publications in the social sciences and/or the study of religion rarely include references to ISCA publications.PelleSmith (talk) 12:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
The "scholars" used by Jayen466 have been publicly exposed as apologists. Lewis was paid to go to Japan courtesy of Aum and he subsequently publicly pronounced the cult innocent of any wrongdoing, which discredits him and his "scholarship." Melton has been paid off by a number of "cults" to do "research," e.g. Children of God and Ramtha. Tabor was once associated both personally and professionally with the Worldwide Church of God, often called a "cult." And the list goes on.Rick A. Ross (talk) 17:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
No, I said your claims that these people are the mainstream, while others are the fringe, are easily disputed. There's a significant difference there. If you don't like the ICSA site then:
As you know, Introvigne also points out that the "critics of the anticult position still enjoy a comfortable majority in NRM studies (a fact both acknowledged and lamented by Zablocki and Beit-Hallahmi)." But even if we were to assume that both sides had equal strength, does this make University Press-published authors of the "other" side unreliable sources?
Imagine an article on a Democrat politician. If his or her views on a particular aspect of economic policy have been criticised by several notable, and highly respected (at least by their fellows) Republicans published in top-class sources, would anyone argue that the views of these Republicans should not be represented in the article because they are Republicans and therefore hostile and prejudiced towards Democrats? Or would anyone argue that each comment by such a notable Republican commentator should be flanked by a statement from the Democrat's self-published webpage that seeks to discredit their reputation, by alleging affiliations to, say, the tobacco industry, the arms industry, state-sponsored terrorism or some other issue not directly related to the issue at hand? No, you wikilink the critic, and if there is controversy surrounding him, it will be covered in their article, unless this particular controversy has been brought up in reliable sources in direct relation to his criticism of the Democrat's thoughts on economic policy.
I did as thorough a search as I could on this topic, and the views that are in the article are the only ones I found, and I did not cite the most outspoken criticism. And given a reliable source, I would be very pleased to include a dissenting opinion on this specific topic – but not one that talks about some scholar having attended a Unification Church-sponsored conference in 1998, and alleges that therefore his views on Waco should be discounted, along with those of his co-author, and all other scholars working in the same academic discipline. If the article or this section needs fixing, it wants reliable on-topic sources presenting other viewpoints on the issues discussed. Jayen466 06:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

General comments on the state of the article, and its use of reliable sources

The article now reflects the POV of editor Jayen466, who is a person devoted to a notorious guru often called a cult leader named Osho/Rajneesh. That same guru has a critical archive subsection composed of news articles within the Ross Institute Internet Archives. So this complete re-editing represents a conflict of interest and the personal agenda of Jayen466. Having said that, the Waco section is now dominated by one POV without meaningful balance. That is, a relatively small group of academics known to be sympathetic to groups called "cults," which prefer to call them "new religious movements" (NRMs). The Waco subsection is now largely disconnected from reality, as established through government investigations, independent reports, court trials and records, eye witnesses that testified before congress and in cour and mental health professionals that treated Waco Davidian children and evaluated the erratic behavior of David Koresh. Specifically, history has concluded that David Koresh was a deeply disturbed psychopath and cult leader, and that the Waco Davidans were a destructive cult comparable and often listed with other destructive cults such as Jim Jones and Jonestown, another group that ended in a mass murder/suicide ordered by its leader. The "scholars" critical of me quoted in the current Wikipedia version edited by Jayen466 raise the issue that I "acting as an informant for government agencies and media journalists, was instrumental in establishing a simplified image of Koresh as a dangerous cult leader, using the generalized pattern of a destructive cult, and that [my] activities, along with those of apostates, significantly shaped the viewpoints of government parties acting in the case." Also called into question by these supposedly knowledgeable men is my "statements may be evaluated in the context of the financial and ideological stakes anticult workers...have in 'cultbusting.'" This is entire line of criticism patently ridiculous and raises serious questions about the entry and its current bias (1) are these scholars seriously positing the theory that David Koresh was not "a dangerous cult leader"? (2)That the Branch Davidians did not fit the "generalized pattern of a destructive cult"? The general historical consensus based upon the objective facts is that Koresh was a dangerous cult leader and the group did fit the generalized pattern of a destructive cult. Then these critics engage in name calling attempting to label me an "informant," which I was not, and rudely calling former members that came forward with testimony about the gross abuses within the cult "apostates." None of this belongs in an supposedly objective encyclopedia entry. Moreover the opinions of Nancy Ammerman were NOT shared by the three other experts reporting to the Justice Department, which was noted in the entry before Jayen466 edited this fact out. Specifically, the other reporting experts didn't even mention my role, let alone that I was somehow relied upon too much by the FBI. Ammerman who has been lauded for her opinions by the Church of Scientology in its publication "Freedom Magazine" and the other academics quoted such as Tabor, Wright and Lewis have been repeatedly recommended as "resources" or "experts" by Scientology. This has garnered them a reputation as "cult apologists." Moreover James Lewis who is quoted in the Waco section, once stupidly claimed that Aum, the notorious cult that gassed the Tokyo subway system, was not guilty and falsely accused. Aum paid for all of Lewis' travel expenses to come to Japan. Other scholars in the same camp ideologically as Lewis have also received financial funding, expenses etc. from groups called "cults." This calls into question "the financial and ideological stakes" they have regarding this subject.Rick A. Ross (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The Jason Scott case entry has likewise been edited by Jayen466 to represent his POV. He uses edited comments from "jurors" that reportedly said, "prosecutors had not proved Ross participated in restraining Scott." In this way he hopes to minimize the "not guilty" verdict and narrow its scope, rather than admit that I was acquitted of all charges by a jury that only was out two hours. He wants readers to think I was escaped due a technicality, which is false and deliberately misleading. Jayen466 then goes on to attempt to present the POV that Jason Scott was subjected to "verbal abuse" in an effort to get him to "renounce his faith." This is based upon one-sided and very selective quoting of court testimony. Also, edited out significantly is the fact, which was previously included in the entry, that after Jason Scott settled the multi-million dollar judgment he had against me for only $5,000 and 200 hours of additional deprogramming time, the Scientology lawyer Jason fired (Kendrick Moxon) attempted to revoke the settlement on the grounds that Jason Scott was incompetent and unable to make decisions for himself. This is important because supposedly Moxon was fighting for Jason's right to make his own individual choices, which exposes the hypocrisy of the court case.Rick A. Ross (talk)

Given the amount time Jayen466 devotes at Wikipedia to editing in a relatively narrow area of interest, i.e. Osho/Rajneesh, cults, cult critics and related subjecte it seems fair to ask the following question; Does he work for or derive any benefits from a group that has ever been referred to as a "cult" and/or someone that at any time has been called a "guru," spiritual mentor of some sort and/or "cult leader"? Again, this goes to his direct conflict of interest and bias as an editor.Rick A. Ross (talk) 21:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

With respect, the person with an obvious and explicit conflict of interest in relation to this article is yourself. Jayen466 21:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  • To be fair, most of Mr Ross' contributions are to the talk page, where he has complained about the "partisan editing" by Jayen. Rick A. Ross has made exactly five edits to his own biography, by rectifying an important omission, in a manner totally consistent with WP:COI. I would add that I concur with the restoration made by Mr Ross. I believe it was subsequently removed by Jayen in the volley, and I once again restored it. Ohconfucius (talk) 11:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.southparkstuff.com/season_12/episode_1208/
  2. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference FinkeUpdate was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ http://www.thrfeed.com/2008/10/south-park-prem.html
  4. ^ http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/herocomplex/2008/10/south-park-whip.html
  5. ^ http://southpark.wikia.com/wiki/The_China_Probrem
  6. ^ a b c d e f Cite error: The named reference Gortner 1974 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ Cite error: The named reference Levine 1974 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ Baxter 1974
  9. ^ Cite error: The named reference Foss & Larkin was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ Cite error: The named reference Moritz 1974 p256 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  11. ^ Cite error: The named reference MacKaye 1973 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  12. ^ Larson 1982, p. 206
  13. ^ Rudin & Rudin 1980, p. 65
  14. ^ Geaves 2006
  15. ^ Collier 1978, p. 174
  16. ^ Cite error: The named reference Kilday 11/9/73 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  17. ^ Cite error: The named reference Gray 1973 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  18. ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference Kelley February 1974 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  19. ^ Van Ness 1973a
  20. ^ Greenfield 1975, p. 71
  21. ^ Steve Haines (1973), quoted in Kent 2001
  22. ^ Van Ness 1973a
  23. ^ Greenfield 1975, p. 71
  24. ^ Steve Haines (1973), quoted in Kent 2001
  25. ^ Van Ness 1973a
  26. ^ Greenfield 1975, p. 71
  27. ^ Steve Haines (1973), quoted in Kent 2001
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_22&oldid=1148681281"