Archive 100

←

Archive 103

Archive 104

Archive 105

Archive 106

Archive 107

→

Archive 110

• Article: East Azerbaijan Province, Ardabil Province, ‎Hamadan, West Azerbaijan Province etc. ( [1])
• Source: http://www.azeri.dk/en/articles/summay_of_azerbaijan_history.pdf
• This is a paper without sources. I think this paper was prepared for the purpose of realizing Azerbaijani nationalist propaganda.

-- Takabeg (talk) 15:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The paper is not a reliable source, it is clearly selfpublished and have comparable authority to a blog post.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

• The paper appears unreliable. --Odie5533 (talk) 09:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a dispute at the dispute resolution noticeboard about the Haven (TV series) article, in particular the references to the works of Steven King that are found in it. At the moment syfy.com is being used to source many of these claims. For instance, "http://www.syfy.com/haven/stephenking"[2], "Derry and the titular Haven are both fictional cities in Maine previously used in the author's stories"[3], and "one of the main characters receives a copy of a novel written by a character from King's novel, Misery".[4] The videos on these pages are being used to back up the claims. From our article on Syfy, it seems that Syfy.com is more notable for publishing original science fiction than for journalism, although I think the fact that Syfy also runs Sci Fi Magazine is a good sign that they have an editorial board which checks facts. I can't find anything about the editorial process at their website though. I would be very grateful for other editors' input on this. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 10:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Syfy produces Haven (TV series), so they're clearly an authoritative source on it. --GRuban (talk) 11:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• I found [5] to back up the claim about Haven and [6] by Brian J. Robb which backs up the claim about the prison. You should probably include both references to these reliable sources and references to the videos. I would try to find references to back up their little videos. I couldn't find a single author on the website anywhere which does not bode well for the site's reliability. --Odie5533 (talk) 11:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Syfy is acting as a WP:PRIMARY source here (as they are publishing material on their own show) so the requirements for secondary sources do not apply (editorial factchecking etc) but the limitations within Wikipedia on the use of primary sources are what should be considered. Siawase (talk) 12:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Aha, I missed the fact that they were the producers of the series. That's what comes of not reading the article properly before posting here - thanks for pointing it out. In that case I agree we can use it with the restrictions in WP:PRIMARY. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 12:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Two traditional german online music magazines: whiskey-soda [7] and laut.de [8] a reliable source for Tarja Turunen: "This deeper "rock"-sounding voice on Once—as well as on the song "In the Picture" of the album Into the Light—was welcomed by critics as a refreshing change."? --Pass3456 (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Any help in explaining self-pub problems on Talk:Marian_apparition#Our_Lady_of_Good_Success will be appreciated. I am getting tired of reading policy pages to newbies. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 08:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Is an article from Change.org considered to be a reliable source? The specific article in question is [9]. Angryapathy (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Change.org's posts appear to be primarily of the opinion type - and, at best, citable as the opinion of the author. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Is anthonyflood.com a reliable source for this content:

Conservative, libertarian and neoliberal arguments against property redistribution consider the term a euphemism for theft, and argue that redistribution of legitimately obtained property cannot ever be just.[10]

Somedifferentstuff (talk) 20:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Probably not, as it seems to be a personal site. On that specific claim there are dozens of published books making similar claims, many available on google books. Protonk (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Is the Oxford University Press's Academic Insights for the Thinking World blog acceptable as a reliable source? In particular, content from this contribution which is being discussed at Talk:Teribus ye teri odin. 91.5.39.201 (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

As ever - it apears all etymlogies are is opinion, and sourced and attributed opinions seem fair game. No living person involved, to be sure <g>. Collect (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Political Research Associates (Website)seems to be a WP:SPS by Chip Berlet. While his work may be WP:RS when published by a third party, his site is another story. I am somewhat dubious about his reliability when one of the pages labels an individual as a "Fascist Demagogue." Usually highly derogatory labels like that indicate unreliable opinionated websites with agendas. That being said... Looking through the archives here at RSN, there seems be some Wikipedia politics here as well. It seems Mr. Berlett was a Wikipedian at one point and previous discussions in 2007 [10][11] either included him or a certain banned user. Needless to say Berlett found his site reliable and the banned user found it dubious.

Neither discussion seemed conclusive on the Political Research Associates and mentioned them tangentially rather than specifically. Since 2007, We have tightened many policies involving living person and both editors have left thus the topic seem relevant to raise again. I have ask ya'll is it reliable for our purposes in general and specifically BLPs? The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 01:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

This source is certainly questionable but I don't like blanket bans based on ideology rather than editorial standards. In the archive discussion Berlet claimed he has editorial supervision. Is there a specific quote under consideration? Brmull (talk) 02:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, ideological stance does not invalidate a source. I merely noted the "Fascist Demagogue" comment as unusual for a WP:RS. I am unfamiliar with the organization or their editorial polices and am seeking guidance. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 02:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You missed one.

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_11#EIR_vs_PRA

In those discussions, note that user:Niels Gade, user:Marvin Diode, and user:Terrawatt were all later blocked as socks of the same banned user. In regard to the discussion here, Chip Berlet has said here, and the website supports him, that he is an employee of the organization, not its founder or head. It is not an SPS. Of course, questions about reliable sources may depend on the details and context. What assertion is being cited from which publication, written by whom?   Will Beback  talk  06:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

As for "fascist demagogue", the subject in question is called "fascist" by many who study him. Here's a book which seems to endorse Berlet and Bellman's analysis: On the edge: political cults right and left. It's a fairly mainstream view. "Demagogue" is rarer, but I see this this book uses the entire term: Socialist feminism, the first decade, 1966-76.   Will Beback  talk  06:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Someone please remind the editors of The Dating Guy about WP:SPS and claims about third parties. Elizium23 (talk) 04:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Someone please tell Elizium to cut it out and get over his WP:OWN issues with this article. He doesn't bother debating on the talkpage and all he does is run around revert-warring and making claims that everyone is a "meatpuppet" while he goes against consensus. WP:IAR, WP:SPS, we've been through all this on the article talkpage, Elizium is just not willing to man up when he's wrong.

Elyzium is now stalking me.

Elyzium is now revert warring over on the LICD page as well.

Drama aside, there is dispute about the definition of "third party" as it is used in WP:V policy. Anyone? Elizium23 (talk) 05:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Eliziun23, your behavior has been unacceptable and a complaint has now been filed against you at WP:ANI for violations of WP:BITE, WP:BEAR, WP:CANVAS, deliberately filing false allegations of vandalism at WP:AIV, tendentious editing, and inappropriate refusal to behave in a collegial manner in talkpage discussions. HAND.

The drama continues on Talk:Least I Could Do where we are still debating the same self-published sources and whether they are proper reliable sources for a plagiarism allegation. More eyes would be appreciated. Elizium23 (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Sources being proposed are this forum post and this Kickstarter page. Elizium23 (talk) 20:48, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• I've been asked to point out that it's not actually allegations of plagiarism - rather, it's allegations of misappropriation of intellectual property, a subtle distinction. Anyway, the point is not whether or not to consider the allegations as valid, but whether or not to mention that they were made. Sohmer has explicitly stated, officially, that his rationale for doing the Kickstarter project was his dissatisfaction with his former corporate partner. A corporate representative has disputed Sohmer's allegations; Sohmer then posted a rebuttal -- and then admitted that "commenting on pending litigation isn't the smartest thing to do". Which I guess means that neither party will be willing to provide further details. Anyway, when X posts -- as "X Webforums Administrator" on the official X webforums -- a statement to the effect that "I performed Action Y for Reason Z", I think that's a reliable source for X's motivations. Where it becomes more complicated is statements along the lines of "I performed Action Y because Z is a cheating thieving bastard who stole from me". DS (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Plagiarism is defined in dictionaries as the "wrongful appropriation," "close imitation," or "purloining and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions," and the representation of them as one's own original work - if this isn't to be called plagiarism then what is the word for it? Elizium23 (talk) 22:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I have been pointed to this resource, which seems informative. I'm frankly not too interested in this particular drama, but fairness and accuracy are important. DS (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

For My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, the key maintainers of the show's largest fan blog/news site Equestria Daily secured two exclusive interviews with the show's director and associate director. As an SPS, I would normally consider the site unreliable in regards to news posts even though they are accurate (I tried to find collaborating info from more reliable, non-fan sites), but here is material that likely is not going to be found elsewhere (we're talking about a cable show normally for kids that has found a strange internet following, not something on broadcast prime time) and would be useful for expanding the show's development. The interviews as given by the site do have some facts that we know to collaborate with other sites (for example, the interview with creative director Lauren Faust has her tell of how she got involved with the show, which matches 100% in accuracy from a similar statement she made to another, more reliable interviewer/news source several months ago. There is no reason to doubt the ED folks themselves (eg: I don't think they faked the interview, as they have been trustworthy of info in the past, marking rumors/speculation as such, but that's it for their history of fact checking). --MASEM (t) 11:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds fine to use the interview. Most news sites won't use factual information from less trustworthy sites, but they make an exception for interviews since unless the site is really low and faked it, the interview is the similar to SPS from the person that was interviewed. Also, My Little Pony? Really? --Odie5533 (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It *is* a surprisingly good cartoon (the creative people behind it are veterans of cross-generational animated shows like Powerpuff Girls and Foster's Home..., and it shows in this cartoon. This has, as you'll noted in the WP article, created a massive following of adults that love this show; ergo, it is getting some mainstream attention, but detailed interviews like this would normally go the wayside...) --MASEM (t) 17:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

What makes an interview (assuming it's not a hoax) be "reliable" is really the person being interviewed. (What makes it an indication of notability, on the other hand, is the journalist doing the interview: Half an hour with a fan is zero out of ten points; half an hour with Barbara Walters is a perfect ten.)

Look at {{Cite interview}} to see a typical way of citing interviews. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Equestria Daily has come up here several times before (look in the archives.) If I recall correctly previous consensus was basically that given the history of the creators of the show giving exclusives to Equestria Daily (and Equestria Daily being cited by news outlets) the material the site gets directly from the creators can be taken at face value (there is no reason to believe Equestria Daily is misrepresenting it) and used as WP:PRIMARY material. Siawase (talk) 23:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

In this edit 86.135.240.243 has restored a section which shows conversions between the Hebrew calendar and Exigian calendar (whatever that is). There is no citation showing that the Exigian exists, or if it exists, that it is sufficiently widely used to preferred over the Gregorian calendar as a target for conversion. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

See WP:DISPUTE. This board is to determine the reliability of sources. It looks like User:Elockid is handling it. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• The article name; Tamil Tigress

I want to add content to the above article. I am asking advice on Source A and Source B. Note that both sources cover the same article by the same person, but they are given as two sources because it is published in two different media. Source A is an online forum subject to editor control and discretion. It offers scope for interaction through editor moderated comments and verifiability and fact checking through links and citations. Source B is a mainstream leading newspaper without the extra scope offered by the online source.

• A Full citation of source A;

Michael Roberts (31 August 2011)"Forbidden Fruits: Niromi de Soyza’s “Tamil Tigress”, Noumi Kouri and Helen Demidenko?", Groundviews

• The Link;

Forbidden Fruits: Niromi de Soyza’s “Tamil Tigress”, Noumi Kouri and Helen Demidenko?

• Full citation of source B;

Michael Roberts (September 2011) "Forbidden Fruits? Niromi de Soyza, Noumi Kouri and Helen Demidenko?", The Island.

• The Link

Island Part 1 Island Part 2

Source A and B cite and quote two primary sources, Title at Allen and Unwin and, With Niromi de Soyza Thursday 21 July2011 and I have used those quotes too(with inline citations) in order to clearly summarize the relevant arguements contained in Sources A and B.

• The most relevant parts contained in Sources A and B that support the statements in the article. (The sources A, B in entirety and overview also support these statements. But I am including these most relevant and specific parts for convenience because the source article is very long)

Market Pitch, Fundamental Error

The dramatic beginning via “The Ambush” is geared to the book’s market pitch. Both the back cover and the cyber-world notices advertising the book tell us that “two days before Christmas 1987, at the age of 17, Niromi de Soyza found herself in an ambush as part of a small platoon of militant Tamil Tigers fighting the government forces that was to engulf Sri Lanka for decades (emphasis mine).”[x] The appeal here highlights the pathos of her journey in life by underlining her youthfulness and placing the encounter just prior to the natal day of Jesus Christ.

But within this little tale within a biographical tale lies a fundamental error. Once the uneasy relationship of ‘alliance’ between the LTTE and the Indian government (the LTTE’s ‘mentor’) unravelled in September-October 1987, the Tigers were engaged in a guerrilla war with the Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) in the northern and eastern parts of the island. As the details below reveal, the armed services of the Sri Lankan state (GoSL) were not directly engaged in this war and did not have joint operations with the Indians on the ground. In brief, the December skirmish could NOT have been against Sri Lankan soldiers.

It is not an Allen & Unwin mistake. When de Soyza was interviewed by Margaret Throsby, she remarks “when I joined, the Indian forces had arrived and the Tigers had chosen to fight the Indian forces as well as the Sri Lankan forces.”[xi] Such profound ignorance suggests that she was not in Sri Lanka then and that her tale is a fabrication fashioned without adequate homework.

Dramatic Shifts in the Year 1987

...

Implications

The setting that I have traced above is pertinent to the embellishments in Tamil Tigress, notably the use of Thileepan’s photograph with Muralie beside him – both prominently highlighted in the book as the Tiger officers who enlisted Niromi (Tigress, 66-69), while Muralie was the platoon leader during her first experience of battle. These touches in turn provide a possible explanation for the reasons that induced de Soyza to obscure the fact that this fire-fight was against the IPKF. The alleged autobiography was finalized in 2010/11 in a context where the Western media has targeted Sri Lanka as an Ogre guilty of war crimes. To place Indian troops behind the guns that threatened her platoon would tarnish her goals. These goals include an explicit desire to show Australians that the boat people who had begun to arrive off the coast of their continent were not economic refugees, but worthy asylum seekers fleeing persecution. She told Throsby that her tale was in line with the revelations provided by the Channel Four documentary Killing Fields and the Moon Panel of Experts. “I knew that when the Tamil Tigers were caught by the soldiers those things would happen they would be shot in the head, raped, tortured all of those things …It was nothing new.”[xxii] To complicate this propaganda pitch by placing the IPKF in the first chapter would spoil her intent.

Trivial Errors? Ethnographic Howlers of Profound Import?

While it was the foundational error in describing the context of her first battle experience that raised questions in my mind about the authenticity of de Soyza’s autobiography, there are other tell-tale signs that added to these doubts – as I have remarked in my initial essay on this topic.[xxix] These were minutiae. Again, a range of minute points of error are listed by Arun Ambalavanar when he recently made the suggestion that Tamil Tigress was a “farce.”[xxx] ...

Some of the questions from Ambalavanar which the publishers may regard as trivial objections have the character of “ethnographic queries” in an anthropological sense.

• The exact statements in the article the sources are supporting;

Then another Sri lankan born Australian academic further questioned the appropriateness of classifying Tamil Tigress as Autobiography

The book's classification as Memoir is challenged on ethnographic grounds as well as on the grounds of a foundational error.The foundational error consists of the author's apparent ignorance, persisting to date,of the identity of her adversaries in Combat during the fighting tenure(late 1987 to 1988) attributed to herself in Tamil Tigress. From late July 1987 to early 1990, the signing of the Indo-Sri Lanka Accord and the consequent arrival of the IPKF ensured the withdrawal of the Sri Lankan troops from the Battlefield.

That the Sri Lankan forces stayed clear of direct combat with the LTTE during this period, apart from the limited operations undertaken at sea by the Sri Lankan Navy,is a basic fact, that would have been known to contemporary Tiger fighters of all ranks.

In contrast the blurb of Tamil Tigress announces, “Two days before Christmas in 1987, at the age of 17, Niromi de Soyza found herself in an ambush as part of a small platoon of militant Tamil Tigers fighting government forces in the bloody civil war that was to engulf Sri Lanka for decades…”

In her Margaret Throsby Interview(between 18.45 and 19.02)Niromi says; “…when I joined, the Indian forces had arrived and the tigers had chosen to fight the Indian forces as well as the Sri Lankan forces”

In the same interview(between 35.56 and 36.23),she responds to a question regarding a film, which claims to be a documentary covering the atrocities committed by the Sri Lankan Government Forces during the final stages of the Elam War ;

“Were you able to watch the four corners documentary? “

“I watched it. I forced myself to watch it… It distressed the whole time….I couldn’t sleep that night… but at the same time it wasn’t new. This was something that I knew had happened. I mean I had witnessed much of it and I knew when… the Tamil tigers were caught by the soldiers those things would happen …they would be shot in the head, raped, tortured all of those things. It was nothing new.”

There is thus an attempted projection of Sri Lankan Forces into her fighting experiences, from which they should in reality have been absent. A possible motive for creating this imagined context is given by by Niromi in her Throsby interview(between 35.21 and 35.54);

“…in 2009 when the war …had ended in Sri Lanka and Tamil refugees were still arriving in Australian Shores by the boat and there was a complete misunderstanding , everyone labeling them as economic refugees because, the war had ended. But I knew different… So I thought somebody has to say something… At that time… the UN panel report wasn’t there…, the four corners documentary hadn’t been shown so I thought I needed to put this story out …despite the fact I didn’t want to...I’d felt there was a need….”

• Links to relevant talk page discussion.

my reverted revision diff from current

I hope this is enough information or that it's not too much. Gettingthere (talk) 08:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

These are not reliable sources, but there are already servicable sources in the article that are not being utilised. The Sri Lanka Guardian article has details that can be used to make many of these points about inaccuracies in the book. Paul B (talk) 12:45, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. In terms of forum though I tend to rate The Island and Groundviews higher than SLG also in terms of source Author expertise MR'd rate higher than AA. But the point is AA/SLG challenges on ethnographic(subjective) grounds while MR/GV/Island challenges on foundational error grounds(objective). So one can't really substitute MR/GV/Island source with the AA/SLG.Gettingthere (talk) 13:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You can make a case for Michael Roberts under WP:SPS, but you have to provide independent evidence that he is an expert on the topic in question. However there is the caveat that this cannot apply to BLPs. This article is actually on a book, not a person, so its uncertain whether BLP rules apply, especially as the author is nothing more than a name, not an identifiable individual. But that's a question for the BLP noticeboard. Paul B (talk) 16:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Paul B But I no longer want to make a case for Michael Roberts under WP:SPS. Because the self published source which was challenged Roberts Michael, 21August2011, Another Demidenko? Niromi de Soyza as a Tiger Fighter, Thuppahi's Blog has now been rendered unnecessary as that article is now available as a reliable source, in Roberts Michael, 27August2011, A Captivating Fiction with a Political Slant? Niromi de Soyza as Tiger Fighter, Sri Lanka Guardian. It is at present available in Tamil Tigress as a reference. Perhaps as an embellishment I will use Roberts Michael, 21August2011, Another Demidenko? Niromi de Soyza as a Tiger Fighter, Thuppahi's Blog as an external link.

But my querry was not about that. To develop Tamil Tigress further , adding a Controversy section, I claim the following as reliable secondary sources, which analyses the statements contained in the Throsby interview and Tamil Tigress blurb, contrasts them with the actual circumstances prevailing in Sri Lanka due to the Indo Lanka Accord and and forms conclusions i.e.;Market pitch/Fundamental Error, profound ignorance suggestive of non-residence in SL during the relevant period, a fabrication fashioned without adequate homework.

• A- Michael Roberts (September 2011) Forbidden Fruits? Niromi de Soyza, Noumi Kouri and Helen Demidenko? The Island Part 1, Part 2 .

• B- Michael Roberts (31 August 2011) Forbidden Fruits: Niromi de Soyza’s “Tamil Tigress”, Noumi Kouri and Helen Demidenko?, Groundviews

The word "source" in Wikipedia has three meanings: the work itself (a document, article, paper, or book), the creator of the work (for example, the writer), and the publisher of the work (for example, The New York Times). All three can affect reliability.

Policy WP:SOURCES

The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (for example The New York Times, Cambridge University Press, etc.). All three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both.

Guideline WP:IRS

According to the above policy and guideline, A and B count as two sources, because even though it's the same article by the same author two different publishers are involved.

There is some confusion about these sources. Roscelese and Loonymonkey have accused me of original research and synthesis, of using personal analysis of interviews with author to prove she is lying. I think they only went through Roberts Michael, 21August2011, Another Demidenko? Niromi de Soyza as a Tiger Fighter, Thuppahi's Blog, saw no interview excerpts or analysis there and assumed OR.

Since, "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both", let me estasblish Michael Roberts as an authority or expert on the subject. Specially as in accordance with "When taking information from opinion pieces, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint. If the statement is not authoritative, attribute the opinion to the author in the text of the article and do not represent it as fact."-WP:NEWSORG guideline, I want to present his arguements as authoritative statements, not merely as intext attributions.

Michael Roberts^[1][2] was educated at St. Aloysius College, Galle and his B.A degree with honours in History at the University of Ceylon at Peradeniya. He received a Rhodes Scholarship to Oxford and attended Merton College while completing his D.Phil in History.^[2] He taught at the Department of History at Peradeniya in 1961-62 and from 1966-75. He was Director Dogsbody of the Ceylon Studies Seminar during its halcyon days and one part of the engine room for Modern Ceylon Studies in its early years.^[1] He secured an Alexander von Humboldt Fellowship to Germany in 1975^[1] and subsequently joined the Department of Anthropology at the University of Adelaide in 1977, where he is now an Adjunct Associate Professor. He was the founding Editor of Social Analysis in 1979. His Major works include Elites, Nationalisms and the Nationalist Movement in British Ceylon(Colombo: Department of National Archives, 1977);^[2] Caste Conflict and Elite Formation: The Rise of a Karava Elite in Sri Lanka, 1500-1931(Cambridge University Press, 1982);^[3][4] People Inbetween: The Burghers and the Middle Class in the Transformations within Sri Lanka, 1790s-1980s, Vol 1 (Colombo:Sarvodaya Press, 1989);^[5] Exploring Confrontation. Sri Lanka: Politics, Culture and History(Reading:Harwood Academic Publishers, 1994);^[6] Crosscurrents: Sri Lanka and Australia at Cricket, (Sydney: Walla Walla Press, 1998)^[7]…

-Taken from the book jacket of Sinhala consciousness in the Kandyan period, 1590s to 1815^[8][9] with inline citations added by me where appropriate.

While Roberts can be described as a historical anthropologist, the fact remains that all his work engages the political relations of power and that he straddles the disciplines of Politics, Sociology, Anthropology and History.^[10]He is a prolific writer and contemporary political commentator on a wide range of subjects.

• The burden of history: Obstacles to power sharing in Sri Lanka Michael Roberts, Contributions to Indian Sociology, 2000
• Roberts, Michael, and International Centre for Ethnic Studies. Firstness, history, place & legitimate claim to place-as-homeland in comparative focus/ Michael Roberts, International Centre for Ethnic Studies, Colombo: 2005
• Michael Roberts Language and national identity: the Sinhalese and others over the centuries, Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, Volume 9, Issue 2, 2003
• Roberts, Michael, and Pieris, Jeronis, Facets of modern Ceylon history through the letters of Jeronis Pieris/Michael Roberts, Hansa Publishers, Colombo : 1975
• Roberts, Michael, and Ceylon National Congress. and Sri Lanka. Jatika Lekhanaraksaka Departamentuva. Documents of the Ceylon National Congress and nationalist politics in Ceylon, 1929-1950 / edited by Michael Roberts, Dept of National Archives, Colombo : 1977
• Roberts, Michael, Collective identities, nationalisms, and protest in modern Sri Lanka/ edited by Michael Roberts, Marga Institute, Colombo : 1979
• Michael Roberts, Of traditions, memories and ideological blockages Asian Studies Review Volume 18, Issue 2, 1994
• Michael Roberts, The cultured gentleman: The appropriation of manners by the middle class in British Ceylon Anthropological Forum, Volume 7, Issue 1, 1994
• Michael Roberts, Studying Collective Consciousness over Time in Sri Lanka: Questions for Post-Orientalism, Part I, lines magazine, May 2006 /August 2006
• Michael Roberts, Apocalypse or accommodation? Two contrasting views of Sinhala‐Tamil relations in Sri Lanka South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies Volume 12, Issue 1, 1989
• Michael Roberts (1978). Ethnic Conflict in Sri Lanka and Sinhalese Perspectives: Barriers to Accommodation. Modern Asian Studies, 12, pp 353-376 doi:10.1017/S0026749X00006193
• Michael Roberts, ESSAY Narrating Tamil Nationalism: Subjectivities and Issues, South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies, n.s. Vol.XXVII, no.1, April 2004
• Roberts, Michael, and Marga Institute. Sri Lanka : collective identities revisited/ edited by Michael Roberts, Marga Institute, (Colombo) : 1997

• Michael Roberts Modernist theory : trimming the printed word : the instance of pre-modern Sinhala society Colombo : International Centre for Ethnic Studies, 2002
• Roberts, Michael. and Brown, Kenneth. Using oral sources : Vansina and beyond / edited by Kenneth Brown & Michael Roberts Dept. of Anthropology, University of Adelaide, Adelaide : 1980
• Michael Roberts, A tale of resistance: The story of the arrival of the Portuguese in Sri Lanka Ethnos, Volume 54, Issue 1-2, 1989
• Michael Roberts Potency Power & People in Groups Marga Institute, ISBN 9789555821292, 2011

• Roberts, Michael, Essaying cricket : Sri Lanka and beyond/ Michael Roberts Vijitha Yapa Publishers, Colombo : 2006
• Michael Roberts, John Howard: Cricket Australia's misjudged power-play, The Drum Opinion Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 5 July 2010
• Michael Roberts, Landmarks and Threads in the Cricketing Universe of Sri Lanka, Sport in Society, Volume 10, Issue 1, 2007, Special Issue: Cricket, Race and the 2007 World Cup
• Michael Roberts, Wunderkidz in a Blunderland: tensions and tales from Sri Lankan cricket Sport in Society, Volume 12, Issue 4-5, 2009, Special Issue: Cricket: International and Interdisciplinary Approaches

• Roberts, Michael, Confrontations in Sri Lanka : Sinhalese, LTTE & others / Michael Roberts, Vijitha Yapa Publications, Colombo : 2009
• Michael Roberts, BLUNDERS IN TIGERLAND: PAPE’S MUDDLES ON “SUICIDE BOMBERS” IN SRI LANKA Heidelberg Papers in South Asian and Comparative Politics, Working Paper No. 32, November 2007
• Michael Roberts Understanding Zealots and Questions for Post- Orientalism IIAS Newsletter 7 International Institute for Asian Studies
• Michael Roberts Fire and Storm, Vijitha Yapa Publications ISBN 9789556651348, 2011

• Michael Roberts, Crude reasoning The Drum Opinion, Australian Broadcasting Corporation 17 Nov. 2009
• Michael Roberts Taken in by Tamil tall tales The Australian, November 04, 2009
• Michael Roberts, Realities of war, A response challenging the calls for ceasefire as a solution to the hard realities around the LTTE’s endgame. FRONTLINE, Volume 26 - Issue 10 :: May. 09-22, 2009
• Michael Roberts Some pillars for Lanka’s future FRONTLINE, Volume 26 - Issue 12 :: Jun. 06-19, 2009
• Michael Roberts A Verbal Joust between a Tamil Nationalist and a Thuppahi Mongrel 12 September 2011, Melbourne, Sri Lanka Guardian

...Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both

-Guideline WP:IRS

Accordingly I claim A-Michael Roberts (September 2011) Forbidden Fruits? Niromi de Soyza, Noumi Kouri and Helen Demidenko? The Island Part 1, Part 2 . as a source which is reliable on both counts(author+publication) and B-Michael Roberts (31 August 2011) Forbidden Fruits: Niromi de Soyza’s “Tamil Tigress”, Noumi Kouri and Helen Demidenko?, Groundviews as a source which assumes reliablity beacause of the author.

Roscelese has wrongly represented Groundviews as a source falling within WP:NOTRELIABLE

Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below. They are unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties.

Groundviews Funding and support

Groundviews was set up under the Voices of Reconciliation Project, conducted by the Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA) from 2005 – 2006 and funded by CIDA and AusAID. From February 2007 to late 2009, Groundviews did not receive any funding from local or international sources. From late 2010 to date, core operational costs are met by funding from Ford Foundation. The Centre for Policy Alternatives is the institutional anchor for Groundviews, since its inception.

Groundviews Awards

In December 2007, Groundviews was awarded an Award of Excellence in New Communications from the Society for New Communications Research. It is the first and to date only civil society and media web initiative in Sri Lanka to have won a competitive international award for excellence in journalism and media. “Groundviews exemplifies the mission of this awards program: the successful and innovative use of new communications solutions and social media practices to enhance communications and relationships” commented Mike Manuel, SNCR Best Practices committee chairman.

In 2009, Groundviews won the prestigious Manthan Award South Asia. The grand jury’s evaluation of the site noted, “What no media dares to report, Groundviews publicly exposes. It’s a new age media for a new Sri Lanka… Free media at it’s very best!” oops forgot to signGettingthere (talk) 07:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The prior discussion on this board about the Daily Dot can be found here.

I'm bringing this subject up again not to comment on the news site itself, which has blossomed since the prior section about it into a full news resource for online topics. No, I would like to instead revisit whether the author of certain articles, specifically ones on Encyclopedia Dramatica, can still be considered independent enough to be secondary and whether they might be slightly biased by fraternization. The author in question is Fruzsina Eordogh, who recently made a new article about ED.ch, which can be found here. One of Eordogh's IRC chats on ED.ch was recently unearthed (for full disclosure, by Eric Barbour on Wikipedia Review) and can be found here. Note: Eordogn is the user Zardoz in that IRC chat.

The issue I have with it is that one would expect some amount of professionalism from a reporter trying to write a news story. At some points in that IRC discussion (which appears to not have all comments from other parties in it) she does seem to have that respectability, but at many other points, she seems to be acting rather unprofessional and close to the subjects she's interviewing. It's one thing to be making a joke here and there while conducting an interview, which journalists do a lot of the time, but this seems to be a step beyond that.

What do the editors of RSN think? Silverseren^C 15:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You said you don't want comments on the site itself. The IRC user appears to be 14 years old. That is my comment. --Odie5533 (talk) 10:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you're watching the sausage being made. Reporters are people, with all people's quirks and foibles and flaws. They get to post stupid things on IRC without being automatically disqualified from being able to produce accurate unbiased content. --GRuban (talk) 13:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Does it change things if I note that it is that same IRC channel, and likely an extension of that conversation there, where she is conducting her interviews? It's not like this chat is a separate thing she's doing in her free time. This is how she's acting while she's doing her job. Silverseren^C 16:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

What is your point? --Odie5533 (talk) 17:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

If I'm right, Silver seren's point is that in that transcript she's acting like one of the Encyclopedia Dramatica crew: immature. That makes for two possibilities: 1) It's a clever put-on to make her fit in. In which case she's a brilliant reporter. 2) She actually is immature, and a kindred soul to the Encyclopedia Dramatica crew, and is instead faking it when she writes sober prose. In that case, maybe we could view her reporting with a bit of a grain of salt, but only a bit, and only for the most controversial issues. Reporting on the site going down for a while doesn't seem to be that controversial. Consider that most of the reporters reporting on presidential elections plan to vote in those same elections, and many will have quite strong opinions if you catch them in a bar with a few drinks. Separating your personal views from the subject you're reporting on in what you write is a part of being a good reporter. That doesn't extend to behaving as if you have no personal views in general. Unless you believe she is actually an important contributing member of Encyclopedia Dramatica, merely sympathizing with them doesn't disqualify her from reporting on them for an otherwise reliable source. --GRuban (talk) 17:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Is the idea here that user Silver seren believes articles written by Eordogh are not appropriate for use in Wikipedia articles? Silver seren has not properly stated his or her views or the possible outcomes of this discussion. --Odie5533 (talk) 20:39, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't comment on all of Eordogh's articles on the Daily Dot (or elsewhere, if she writes articles for other reliable sources), but at least in the instances of her articles on Encyclopedia Dramatica, it appears that she is not conducting herself or her interviews in a manner that one would consider them to be sufficiently reliable for use in our articles. The quotations, perhaps, but certainly not the information. And, as said below, the info in her ED articles is either stuff covered in other more reliable sources or is information that is not sufficiently important to ED's history and shouldn't be in the article anyways. Silverseren^C 00:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't say that the IRC chat inspires much confidence in the neutrality of the reporting, but let's look at the specific of the article in question. First, some context - User:Michaeldsuarez is an ED admin and is using this Daily Dot article to insert information about Daniel Brandt into Encyclopedia Dramatica despite Brandt's off-wiki requests that he not do so. The Daily Dot article states "Brandt had filed repeated false abuse reports with ED’s perspective[sic] hosts" and "ED community says they think Brandt may be behind this outage as well". The only source for these claims is Encyclopedia Dramtica's owners, who themselves say they are not sure Brandt had anything to do with it. The piece also says that Brandt "writes for" an anonymous blog whose focus appears to be the former owners of ED. Brandt has stated elsewhere that his only connection to that blog is having communicated with the anonymous author(s). Michaeldsuarez knows this. Ignoring all of that, the fact remains that Daily Dot piece is about a temporary site outage. There is no need to include any of this in Wikipedia. Reliability aside, the type of thing covered by the Daily Dot is generally too specific and too "of the moment" to be likely to be useful. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I think Brandt making a request for us to not include detail about him is fucking rich. But I'm inclined to agree that the content Michael wants to add is pretty marginal, irrespective of the reliability issue. I think we can wait for another source to corroborate the claim before adding it. Protonk (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't include any information about either outage in the article. I did include the line: "Moore reported difficulties in securing a host for the website," which is a reference to Moore's "We are blacklisted from most major hosts, because they know how shitty it is to host us" statement from the first article. I later add the second article as a reference as well, since Moore's "They just locked us out [without warning]" comment reinforces the "hosting difficulties" concept. Using my editorial judgment, I decided not to discuss each specific incident. I did not include the Daily Dot's "Brandt had filed repeated false abuse reports with ED’s perspective[sic] hosts" or their "ED community says they think Brandt may be behind this outage as well." Again, this is due to my editorial judgment. Delicious carbuncle, you're complaining about information I didn't add.

The statements included in the Wikipedia article about josephevers.blogspot.com and Daniel Brandt are verifiable beyond Eordogh's own observations. The bulk of this material is in the last paragraph of the "Reception" section. Adrien Chen noted the blog's existence in January 2011. The next sentence in the paragraph is how the blog's operator describes his blog in his own words. The third sentence is the anonymous blogger's claim that he helped those who are harmed by ED. I can verify this with secondary sources, but I do have primary sources: [12], [13]. There's also a comment by "Kevin Provance" in the second Daily Dot article's comments section (JavaScript is needed) that shows that josephevers.blogspot.com has been helping others. Although I used the word "claims" in the third sentence, it's more of a fact. The fourth sentence says that Moore considers josephevers.blogspot.com to be a "stalker blog". The first Daily Dot article includes a screenshot of the former "Wall of ED Administers" page once hosted by josephevers.blogspot.com, and that page included photos, locations, and birth dates.

The fifth and sixth sentences concern Brandt's role in the blog. In his own words that he submitted to Eordogh, Brandt denies being the operator, but he admits doing research for the blog's true operator. Brandt's own words shouldn't be considered unreliable. The seventh and eighth sentences concern the blog's role in shutting down the original ED. The "Wall of ED Administrators" screenshot shows the leverage the blogger had in pressuring ED. The ninth and tenth sentence can be verified by posts by Brandt on the Wikipedia Review (not linked to for privacy reasons). If you view the deletion log for the Daniel Brandt article on encyclopediadramatica.ch, you'll see that that article was indeed temporarily deleted. I only included creditable claims and statements in the Wikipedia article. The statements in the Daily Dot article that I merited inclusion in the Wikipedia are verifiable.

In addition, statements from both Daniel Brandt and josephevers.blogspot.com's anonymous operator are included in the first Daily Dot article (Brandt didn't comment for the second article). Unless there's a reason to believe that Brandt is lying, his statements in the article should be considered reliable for reference.

Delicious carbuncle suggested that I have a COI. My affiliation with ED isn't a secret. I edited at encyclopediadramatica.com under "Michaeldsuarez" from October 2009 to April 2010. I started to use a pseudonym in preparation to becoming a sysop in May. There's a message on my user page concerning my affiliation, and I've recently left a message at the top of Talk:Encyclopedia_Dramatica. I waited until reliable sources appeared and started a discussion before adding information on encyclopediadramatica.ch to the article. I was even in favor of blacklisting encyclopediadramatica.ch. I've told Delicious about my affiliation, yet he used "Fuller disclosure might be useful here" as an edit summary as if it were some major revelation he discovered. I have the feeling he used that line to grab the attention of watchers of this page.

I've been transparent, but how about you, Delicious carbuncle? You're a member of the Wikipedia Review, and members of that forum tend to idolize Brandt. You came to Talk:Encyclopedia_Dramatica several hours after Brandt began complaining about the Daily Dot and say "I don't want my name in Wikipedia." Delicious carbuncle was also one of the accused parties in the "Maniulation of BLPs" case. Perhaps someone else has a COI. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

You are an admin on ED - your conflict of interest here is obvious. Your suggestion that I have a conflict of interest because I post on a public forum, along with many other Wikipedia editors and admins, seems far-fetched at best. Yes, it was the discussion on Wikipedia Review that lead me to look at the article in the first place but that is only relevant in that I am aware of what both you and Brandt have said there. I think your little rant here does a pretty good job of demostrating that you have no objectivity when it comes to ED, so I won't bother to add anything. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

That may be best. This exchange between you two is basically a diversion. If you want to continue it, take it to your talk pages. Protonk (talk) 03:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

A diversion from what, exactly? Why do you think Silver seren started this thread? It is all about the ED article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

You and Michael arguing over who has the most lurid connection to some group outside wikipedia. That's the diversion. If you think the central issue at stake is Michael's admitted connection to ed, then go to the COI noticeboard and complain. I suspect you'll find precious little agreement. The issue here is the reliability of the source and more generally the value of the claim in our article. Protonk (talk) 16:20, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Silver seren: What sort of outcome are you looking for from this discussion? Are you requesting that articles written for Daily Dot by Fruzsina Eordogh are not reliable? --Odie5533 (talk) 04:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I suppose so, yes. Or, at least, they shouldn't be cited so extensively throughout the article. Silverseren^C 06:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I can make neither head nor tail of this discussion, and I find it astonishing that anyone can draw conclusions from the (apparently incomplete -- maybe Zardoz replied publicly to private messages?) IRC log. So I looked at the ED article and searched for the name Brandt. I was shocked to find the server name of a blog mentioned there that contains crass outing information which at least borders on the criminal. There seem to be no explicit rules for dealing with this situation, but IMO this is little better than a link to the blog. I am therefore going to remove it per the spirit of WP:BLP. Hans Adler 06:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

For the record, that edit removed five instances of the blog's url from a single paragraph. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I felt that it was best to use a concise name rather than wishywashily calling it "the blog". --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be many issues here, most outside the scope of this board. I don't see the IRC log as having much, if any, bearing here. Wikipedia editors digging into the primary sources used by secondary sources reeks of WP:OR. If a reporter acting chummy with the locals to get information is all that has been found, this newspaper would seem to be well within the boundaries of ethical behavior. It seems more that the problems here lies in how the source is used on Wikipedia rather than the source itself. The overly detailed coverage of events seems to fall under both WP:WEIGHT (the level of detail gives undue weight to one event within the article) and WP:NOT (the level of detail borders on WP:INDISCRIMINATE and the echoing of hearsay clashes with both WP:GOSSIP and WP:SOAP) as well as WP:BLP issues with hearsay and accusations against named individuals. Siawase (talk) 11:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

As I've said on Talk:Encyclopedia_Dramatica, where this discussion belongs, the information is hardly trivial. I replaced "harassing" with "calling". Brandt doesn't deny calling her workplace in his statement to the Daily Dot and he even gave the interviewer his motivation for making the call (this motivation is repeated in WR posts), and he admits to calling her workplace on the Wikipedia Review. Perhaps I should remove "Moore also accused" part of the sentence, since Brandt did in fact make a call. Garrett's fiancee is also on Brandt's Wikipedia hivemind page, along her private information. If Delicious carbuncle wishes to point out which information is trivial, he may do so on Talk:Encyclopedia_Dramatica, and then consensus will decide what stays or goes. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The only reason the article doesn't have both parties is because Daniel Brandt refused to get back to them in time for publishing. Daniel Brandt is blackmailing us, stalking us and even harassing our families. Everything written in the DailyDot article is 100% truth. Brandy spends his days stalking and digging private information on other people, but when someone mentions his name on the Internet suddenly it is a violation of privacy. What's good for the goose is not good for the gander. He uses sites like Hivemind, Josephevers.blogspot and others to publicly invade the privacy of others and has been doing so for years. I can be reached using the email user function if anyone wants to know more. The Daily Dot is a reputable source, they just use a more humorous approach at journalism that is appealing to the Internet generation, while keeping the facts straight. This whole discussion is because Brandt didn't like the facts that were written in the article, so he asked silversion or whatever his name is to dispute it. It's all on Wikipedia Revue (Or at least it was, I am sure it has been deleted by now, as that is Brandts MO). --Zaiger (talk) 03:17, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Review discussion in question is here, though the current conversation starts a little bit down the third page. Earlier stuff is about Ryan Cleary, though Brandt does jump in pretty quickly. Do note that ED.ch is also getting information on Brandt, "doxing" him, and are doing the same thing back, so it's not like this is all one-sided with Brandt attacking them.

And i'm not following what Brandt asked of "any Wikipedia editor", since he wants someone to remove his name from the article and, apparently, to get the article deleted. The article is clearly not going to be deleted and I don't care at all about his name being in the article. All I care about is the IRC discussion that he linked that showed what I consider to be unprofessionalism by Eordogh and a lack of reliability in her reporting.

Oh, and do note that Zaiger above is an Administrator on Encyclopedia Dramatica.ch, which he was meaning by saying us, if someone didn't catch that. I'm not calling you out, Zaiger, since I know you meant to reveal this anyways. I'm just making sure no one else gets confused. Silverseren^C 03:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how comfortable I am disqualifying a source because of some external communication. I don't think a parallel to JournoList is completely appropriate, but we ought to draw some lessons. Not all communication channels are created equal or imbued with the same sets of expectations. Protonk (talk) 04:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite clear on what you mean by an external conversation. I presume you aren't speaking in the Wiki meaning of it, since there isn't going to be an internal conversation Eordogh had. If you mean that her IRC chat was independent of her reporting, that would be incorrect, that exact chat was where she was conducting her interview for the second, new article she wrote. That right there IS her reporting. And the communication channel isn't the issue, it's the professionalism of a person while working as party for a news site. She appears to not have that while conducting her interviews, which brings into question her reliability in reporting information. Silverseren^C 16:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I mean the IRC conversation. I'm not advocating mypoia, but our scrutiny should focus on the work itself (that is to say the daily dot). Further, I'm going to go on a limb and suggest that the IRC logs were published on WR and hosted on wikipedia watch for a reason and we would be remiss if we didn't consider that. Are we inventing a new standard for reliable sources here? Does the author have to "act professional" at all times now? Can we (again, just picking an inflammatory example a la JournoList) dismiss a book as a reliable source because the author is revealed to be a dick in emails with sources? Walking a little further with that hypothetical, what if those emails are leaked by a source/subject who is treated critically in the book? Can we trust that those emails represent the preponderance of the authors correspondance? Should we be worried about rewarding tactical posting of ex parte communication? Protonk (talk) 16:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

When they are in the midst of conducting their interviews? Yes, I would expect a reporter to be professional. A better example would be if a reporter was writing a story on two opposing companies. And it was later revealed that the transcript of the interview with one of those companies indicated a sort of fraternization that raised the question of whether the articles said reporter had wrote were biased toward one of those companies. I feel that that's true for these articles in question as well. Silverseren^C 16:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Silver_seren, why haven't you objected to my participation in the Wikipedia article? Why am I meeting your standards, yet you're saying that Eordogh doesn't? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Were you a part of the interview she conducted? You editing the article doesn't mean you are referencing yourself for info. So I don't understand the comparison. Silverseren^C 16:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

No, she didn't interview me. I just concerned about a possible double standard. Why am I fit to edit the Wikipedia, yet you believe that Eordogh's articles are unfit for inclusion? What standards do you use to gauge the neutrality of my revisions? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

You're comparing an editor and a reference, which are two completely different things. We expect you to follow WP:COI and properly utilize sources without violating NPOV or putting in original research. However, the reliability of a reference is tied to several things, one of which is the neutrality of the author in terms of the subject the reference is about. If the author is not neutral, then that brings into question the reliability of the source for the reported information. Silverseren^C 19:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

http://www.dailydot.com/ethics-policy/ – The Daily Dot has similar expectations for its journalists (with the exception of original research, of course). Eordogh restrains herself the same way I restrain myself. Everyone has personal views and tastes, as expected of any human being. I'm not a neutral editor, but the content I add to Wikipedia follows NPOV. Can't the same be said of Eordogh? Is the content of her articles not neutral? Isn't the way information is presented in those articles more important than how the information was obtained? Right now, you're only arguing about some IRC discussions and not about the content of the Daily Dot articles. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify on Solver_seren's post: the discussion concerning the first Daily Dot article begins on the second page of the thread and continue into the third page (posts #24–#52). Posts concerning the second Daily Dot article begin on the third page and end on the fourth page (posts #60–#71). @Silver_seren: The Wikipedia article and the Daily Dot article already say that Moore posted Brandt's contact information on an IRC channel. Neither the Wikipedia article nor the first Daily Dot article (Brandt didn't wish to give a statement for the second Daily Dot article) is claiming that only one side is doing the doxing. If there's a perceived imbalance, then it's because Brandt refuses to open himself up to reporters; Brandt doesn't give reporters much material to work with. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to ensure that this is a reliable source. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is a tabloid with a reputation (deserved) for making crap up. Only reliable for the day of the week: [14]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

A slight exaggeration. As it says right at the top of this page, a source usually isn't either reliable or not (with the possible exception of the Weekly World News), it depends what it's being cited for. While it does have some reputation for making up sensational stories, it is a newspaper with real journalists working there. It should not be used unconfirmed for anything controversial, but if you want to use it for something not controversial or in dispute, such as the city someone was born, I don't see why that should be ruled out out of hand. What's the fact it's being used to cite, and what's the context? --GRuban (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a newspaper, therefore it's not reliable. See Andrew Marr, My Trade for examples of journalists making shit up on a regular basis.

ALR (talk) 19:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

All together now. ******This question has come up before.****** See the archives, or per GRuban give us some details. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I had checked, Itsmejudith - and it was rpetty much a macrocosm of what was presented here - people either disenchanted with news in its entirety or specific examples being reliable or not. The item in question appears to be a story about Karen Gillian wandering about naked in a NY hotel or some such. I am having trouble finding independent corroboration. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It is WP:RS. That said, I find almost so source which is always reliable when it comes to "celebrity gossip" etc. - even the New York Times is errant on such fluff. In fact, I think "sensational gossip' in toto whould be bareed from any BLP articles. Period. Collect (talk) 21:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

See also Evening Standard [15], and Daily Express [16] if this is the issue? I think they corroborate the Daily Mail bit, and the Daily Mail is likely the most respectable of the group. Collect (talk) 21:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It's time to look at how these newspapers get their news. Top story on the DM website right now is the miners' tragedy. Virtually identical to the BBC, not surprising, all comes from the police reports and/or the wires. Such stories account for about 25% of the DM content. Totally reliable but then there is no reason why not to source the same story to a broadsheet or broadcast. Next comes the stories that are 100% reliable, based on press releases or the wires, but more trivial and more prominent than they are in the broadsheets. That's the next 25%. Then the next 25% is stories that are reliable but are even more trivial gossip; some of them are clearly features or op-ed rather than news. Finally 25% that are junk celebrity tittle-tattle and per Andy may be actually invented. Basically, proper investigative journalism costs money, a lot of money. It costs very little to carry the main stories of the day in the same way as the other papers. It doesn't cost much to pick up minor stories and spin them. And it doesn't cost much to write up fluff as if it were important. DM never reliable for science or medicine. Evening Standard does carry some London-specific stories and can be excellent for arts reviews, brilliant for restaurant reviews, slightly less trivial than DM even as a freesheet. D Express is a joke. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I think there are two main issues. The first is that much of what appears in the newspapers is "single sources", essentially they're all regurgitating the same story from the same place. So whilst there are "multiple, independent sources" in practice they're neither.

The second issue is the evidence that journalists make stories up. I mentioned Marr above, he's talked about a number of instances where stories were fabricated, and given recent revelations about the conduct of journalists it's pretty clear that newspapers really can't be trusted.

ALR (talk) 22:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if your point is that all newspapers can't be trusted, it's not a very good one. We've decided to cover politics and current events and celebrities, and you'd be surprised how few peer-reviewed science magazines write about those. If you have an argument about the Daily Mail specifically, we'll be glad to hear it, but if your only argument is one that would serve to disqualify the Times and the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal in the same breath, it may be true, but won't really be useful for most of our topics. --GRuban (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you capture the issue in your final sentence. It may be true that newspapers can't be trusted, but we use them anyway.

The question then becomes, "are we interested in volume of sources or quality of sources"? Personally I'd be more interested in quality, and how they're used, than numbers. That said, there has never been the appetite in the segment that frequent this area of Wikipedia to actually address source assessment; Are we looking at a source that's corroborated, or are we looking at multiple instances of the same information. Worse, are we looking at multiple instances of the same press-release and treating it as a secondary assessment.

We have a very simplistic approach to sourcing, and as ou point out it provides the basis for many articles. I don't anticipate any appetite to actually treat sourcing as a tool when it's a perfectly "adequate" crutch.

ALR (talk) 08:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

As we say in Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources/FAQ, there is no source that is always unreliable. In addition to the fine example of use that Andy gives above, I add that The Daily Mail is a perfectly fine source if the question you are answering is something like, "What was the headline at the top of page 3 in The Daily Mail on such-and-such date?" Additionally, its masthead will be a reliable source of the names of at least some of the people who should be blamed for its content.

So that's three entirely separate uses for which that newspaper could be considered a reliable source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You should provide the specific context where you wish to use the paper. If a story is only covered in the Daily Mail, then it lacks notability. Editorials do not have the same standards as news articles. Opinions expressed by reporters in news articles should not be considered facts. Reliable sources may contain errors. Articles written decades ago may be too old to be used. Newspapers should not be used as sources for medical claims. TFD (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

That would be a notabiltiy issue, but as its been copverd by oterh sources its irrelevant. Anotehr source ^[1], lwts have a non-UK source^[2], so yes its notable, yes its accurate, yes (in this instance) the Mail is RS.Slatersteven (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to take a moment and ask you to look at this poll concerning the use of Equestria Daily as a legitmate source.

Thanks, Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 00:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Why? Polls are of no relevance when determining the reliability of a source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Rainbow has also posted this at WP:ANI. I can't figure out what he's trying to achieve. The "essay" feels more like a hoax than anything else.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The author in question is the late Russian-American journalist Paul Klebnikov who wrote a highly critical article in Forbes about the Jewish-Russian tycoon Boris Berezovsky entitled 'Godfather of the Kremlin?' with the kicker 'Power. Politics. Murder. Boris Berezovsky could teach the guys in Sicily a thing or two.' In response, Berezovsky sued Forbes in the UK. The case was settled after Forbes agreed to publish the following retraction: 'On 6 March 2003 the resolution of the case was announced in the High Court in London. FORBES stated in open court that (1) it was not the magazine's intention to state that Berezovsky was responsible for the murder of Listiev, only that he had been included in an inconclusive police investigation of the crime; (2) there is no evidence that Berezovsky was responsible for this or any other murder; (3) in light of the English court's ruling, it was wrong to characterize Berezovsky as a mafia boss.(http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2003/0331/022.html )

When Klebnikov was murdered in 2004 obituaries in the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2004/jul/16/guardianobituaries.pressandpublishing ) and Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/paul-klebnikov-550099.html ) noted a strain of anti-semitism in his reporting of prominent Jewish figures such as Berezovsky. Anna Isakova wrote in Haaretz: 'In Klebnikov's book, Berezovsky is depicted as a leech that depleted the homeland of all its riches. He represents absolute evil and is the primary enemy of the people... Klebnikov sees malicious damage in Berezovsky's every action. Although Klebnikov assiduously avoids the word "Jew," an aroma of old, almost religious, anti-Semitism emerges from each page in the book.'(http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-end/ogling-the-moguls-1.144261)

The question, which has been hotly debated in the talk page of the Berezovsky article and led to an edit war and the article being locked, is whether Klebnikov's writings can be considered to be a RS on Berezovsky.--Kolokol1 (talk) 16:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• The fact that someone is accused of antisemitism does not make it true, and even if it were it would somehow invalidate everything that person ever wrote. any number of scholars and journalists get accused of being anti x y and x. Isakova's argument seems to be that if you severely criticise someone who happens to be Jewish you must be doing it because they are Jewish. the issue is is credibility as a journalist, not this obfuscation. Paul B (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
• I'm a bit of a mixed mind. English libel law is notoriously problematic, so the fact that Forbes decided to settle the case with a (very) partial retraction is not particularly significant (on the other hand, that a Russian citizen sued a US Magazine in English court is at least suggestive). The Guardian article does not make allegations of anti-semitism, it reports that "some Moscow reviewers alleged an anti-semitic bias" without endorsing this opinion. The same is true for the Independent. And Klebnikov has been recognized with a number of honors. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

In a case like this we risk being non-neutral, and so our concerns about a source's bias can best be balanced by also reporting, as neutrally as possible, some of the context that might put the source in doubt. The aim is to let the readers know as much as we know (and can verify).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Koloko11, I suggest more caution regarding the labeling of someone as "anti-semitic," especially labeling a living person in that manner (though this individual is no longer living as I just found out). "Someone accused of antisemitism" would be preferable for many reasons, including the lessening of apparent bias in your view of this individual. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Accepted. I changed the tite--Kolokol1 (talk) 10:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Klebnikov as murdered in 2004, so WP:BLP concerns do not apply. I agree with the rest of the statement, though. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Doh. Yes of course, I'll amend.Griswaldo (talk) 17:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

comment: If the article was retracted, I would be very careful about citing significant content to it. It's not up to us to sift through the reasons for retraction and determine that such was done for illegitimate reasons. If the content in the article is worthy of inclusion, there should be other secondary sources which discuss it. Those should generally be used instead. If there are no such other sources, it may be possible to include the fact that such an article was written and retracted, with a one sentence description of what the content covered. aprock (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Apparently, only one claim of the article was retracted, the rest still stands. But I think this discussion is about Klebnikov in general, who also wrote at least two books, at least one of which seems to be germane. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

If Klebnikov is the only one writing about the topic, it raises issues of due weight. It would be much better to find multiple secondary sources on which to base the content. If the same content is discussed in the multiple sources, then citing it to them sounds fine, as long as the retracted stuff is not cited. aprock (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• A retracted article cannot be a reliable source - the article was retracted for a reason by the publisher. Basically wikimedia foundation would open themselves up to lawsuits by repeating material that had already been retracted by another publisher. The article can not that the article was published, followed by a lawsuit and the outcome of the lawsuit. But we cannot base characterizations of living persons on retracted articles.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I concur, and Boris Berezovsky is alive, so there is a BLP issue in regard to him--any material retracted by the publisher is out of bounds as a source. As for books by Klebnikov, they may be reliables sources, but if bias is established, care would need to be taken to distinguish facts from opinions and due weight observed for all of the material. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

In response to the matters raised:

• Klebnikov repeated the retracted allegations in a book (which came out before the case was settled). Berezovsky sued in regard to the article but not the book, so my question concerns not so much the article itself but the retracted content.
• No one else, except Klebnikov made these allegations, so they cannot be sourced elsewhere.
• IMO, It is not relevant whether or not Klebnikov was an ant-semite. What's important is that there is a notable record of concerns about that.

BTW, I should say that I am connected to Berezovsky and, since the libel issue is involved, at the request of a WP administrator I have declared that I have no intention of taking any legal actionAgainst WP or its editors over this matter, per WP:NLT#Perceived legal threats.--Kolokol1 (talk) 10:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• Im starting a discussion here to determine these article's reliability before i start using them in articles; as ive seen Popcrush being used a number or times recently. The intended use is in "What Baby Wants".

Matthew Wilkening

"He's previously written for the Cleveland Scene, AOL Radio Blog and Asylum.com. Before that, he worked most of his adult life at indie label What Are Records?" So he has established credits and Music knowledge.

Matt Wardlaw

"a music lifer with nearly 20 years of experience in the industry. His byline has appeared in the Riverfront Times (St. Louis), Popdose, Cleveland Scene" Again, good credentials and experience in the music scene itself.

Amy Sciarretto

"Amy Sciarretto has enjoyed 17 years of bylines in print and on the web for Kerrang! Spin, Revolver, Alternative Press, Noisecreep, Spinner, ARTISTdirect and Teen People, to name a few. Google her and you'll see she's an expert on rock, metal, pop, movies and cosmetics." Same as the two above.

Sara D. Anderson

Sara D. Anderson is a deputy editor residing in Manhattan. Previously, she was Editor-in-Chief for AOL Radio Blog and wrote for Fast Company.

Now i have brought this here because not every author on both websites list their credentials, the four above are reliable but I'm not sure if their credentials are enough to deem both websites reliable. They cross promote each other because one is a pop website and the other is rock. I also brought this here because they are self published, they have no backing like The New York Times as their publisher. So with all that said, please share your thoughts and lets get a consensus. (FYI these sources need to meet WP:GA standard if you agree with me that they are reliable.) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 07:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Is ChannelAPA.com a reliable source, particularly http://www.channelapa.com/2011/04/to-whom-it-may-concern-ka-shens-journey-nancy-kwan-documentary.html? Cunard (talk) 09:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

This looks like a reliable source for information about the film and biographical information related to Nancy Kwan. --FormerIP (talk) 19:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

My only qualms are that (1) there is no author listed and (2) ChannelAPA.com accepts press releases. Is this article a press release? Cunard (talk) 20:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

An RS doesn't have to have a byline, and all news organisations accept press releases. If there's particular content you feel needs a stronger source then that might raise a new issue, but I think this passes basic RS requirements. --FormerIP (talk) 20:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay. As the information there is uncontroversial, I'll use the source in an article about the documentary. Cunard (talk) 20:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• ChannelAPA.com has no indication that it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and does not appear to be a reliable source. From here, they appear to not staff any editors making them fall under self-published sources which can not be used for facts. Please do not use this site on any Wikipedia article for factual content. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that a lack of editorial oversight indicates that the source is unreliable. In that case, since it's a self-published, questionable source, I will have to remove it from my draft. Cunard (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

This source is given in the The Galloping Ghost (airplane) article, along with another one from the same website. I can find no reason why this website would be considered reliable, unless it's somehow a primary source for the Air Show, which I missed somehow? Silverseren^C 17:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

its an anonymous site. I can't find any information on it about who they are. At this time its a bit suspect. http://www.fantasyofflight.com/mustangs-and-mustangs/ its an aor show it would appear.Slatersteven (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Did the Galloping Ghost compete in the show though? It doesn't appear to be the same show as the Reno Air Show, so it wouldn't count as a primary source for the information. I still question it's reliability. The source for its information about the history of the Galloping Ghost since WWII is in question. Silverseren^C 19:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I suspect its RS only for information abvoutitslef.Slatersteven (talk) 19:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe that the "Mustangs and Mustangs" show has anything to do with MustangsMustangs.com. MustangsMustand.com belongs to Curtis Fowles, who may be the owner of C.F. Fowles Construction. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

...which I assume has absolutely nothing to do with an air show, so it's essentially like a hobby website? I think that would definitely disqualify it from being a RS. Silverseren^C 20:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

http://www.mustangsmustangs.com/p-51/contact.php – You could try contracting him for the straightest answer. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

If this were the case I would agree, It seems to be an SPS..Slatersteven (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• (link)

I think this site is nothing but unconfirmed speculation, and should not be used as it was used here.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The about page says:-

The site is run jointly by Everton and Martin:

EVERTON BLAIR

Everton is based in London and has worked in the internet and mobile space for over ten years now, and before that worked in corporate strategy and consulting. He has a degree in Economics from Cambridge University, and currently runs the Portal and online operations for one of the largest ISPs in the UK. He also writes for Windows 7 News, Connected Internet and One Tip A Day.

You can read all of Everton’s posts here.

MARTIN BRINKMANN

Martin Brinkmann is an Online Journalist from Germany who discovered his love for technology in high school. He is currently working as a freelancer for several publications and runs his own Internet website Ghacks

You can read all of Martin’s posts here.

So it is a two man show. But two man shows can be RS sometimes. I think you need to check whether they have any reputation for fact checking and reliability. Does anyone cite them?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Much of their writing is speculative, especially given their "screenshots of Windows 8."Jasper Deng (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Is the speculation notable speculation that other sources can be shown to follow?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

No - it's obviously not notable to be synthesizing fake screenshots of a non-existant software (Windows 8 is nowhere near usability by the general public).Jasper Deng (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I would think that this qualifies as an WP:SPS (with all the usual caveats), but this might be one of those situations where Wikipedia's rules are out of step with the rest of the world. Most of the best information on current technology is now found on blogs. I'm not sure where the impression that these are fake screenshots or this is non-existant software is coming from. Windows 8 was released to the public 4 days after the last post and I'm now running it on two of my PCs at home. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

An editor has deleted the information that I added from these sources, saying they are all "self published".

• Walsh, Froma (2009). "Human-Animal Bonds II: The Role of Pets in Family Systems and Family Therapy". Family Process (Family Process Institute) 48 (4): 462–480. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2009.01296.x.

Walsh, Froma Family Process:

• Greenebaum, Jessica B (2010). "Training Dogs and Training Humans: Symbolic Interaction and Dog Training". Anthrozoos (International Society for Anthrozoology (ISAZ)) 23 (2): 129–141. ISSN 0892-7936.

Jessica Greenebaum Anthrozoos

• Jackson-Schebetta, Lisa (2009). "Mythologies and Commodifications of Dominion in The Dog Whisperer with Cesar Millan". Journal for Critical Animal Studies (Institute for Critical Animal Studies (ICAS)) 7 (1): 107-130. ISSN 1948-352X.

Jackson-Schebetta, LisaJournal for Critical Animal Studies

• Herron, Meghan E.; Shofer, Frances S. , Reisner, Ilana R. (2009). "Survey of the use and outcome of confrontational and non-confrontational training methods in client-owned dogs showing undesired behaviours". Applied Animal Behaviour Science (International Society for Applied Ethology (ISAE)) (117): 47–54. ISSN 0168-1591.

Meghan HerronApplied Animal Behaviour Science

Can I please get another opinion on whether they are reliable sources? Thanks Marj (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

These do not appear to be self-published sources. The editor that has told you that research papers come under WP:SPS is not correct. I can see from the talkpage that there may be other issues, such as whether the papers actually mention the Dog Whisperer show, which is another matter. But the material passes RS. --FormerIP (talk) 21:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. The papers do all specifically mention the Dog Whisperer. The material cited is accurate and contains no original research Marj (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, my statement that the sources were under SPS may have been in error, however, sources that 'guess' about the respondent's statements is the real issue. Dreadstar ☥ 06:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The report that said that while only one respondent named the Dog Whisperer, the authors assumed all people reporting on using the "schhhtt" sound were referring to it. This is not contentious - Millan is closely associated with this technique, and even releases it as a ring tone. In any case I edited the entry to report only the one definite connection before it was deleted. This was one of four articles referenced, all of which were deleted.Marj (talk) 19:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

As was said above, these papers aren't self-published and should qualify as reliable. The fact that the authors made an assumption on one detail would (a priori) have been noted, and accepted as reasonable, by the editors and reviewers of the journals before they passed the papers for publication. We would normally rely on their judgment, at least to the extent of citing the papers and noting that the assumption was made. So I can't see the justification for deleting this material from our article. Andrew Dalby 19:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's been agreed that the source isn't SPS, but instead a primary source, so the discussion has moved on to how or if we need to use the source in the article; it isn't "one" detail, it is 'the detail' in how the subject of the article is referenced. A major "detail". The discussion has moved on. Dreadstar ☥ 22:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Except, of course a journal article is not a Primary Source. The researcher uses primary sources, which is quite a different matter. Marj (talk) 23:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course it's a primary source. It's a research paper that asks questions and gathers data, it is not a secondary reliable analysis of that data. Dreadstar ☥ 23:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• This looks like a job for Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Involved editor: In fact the content was moved to the talk page pending discussion which is ongoing. There were several concerns with the content and the best way to deal with that seems to be to take each source separately and check it. (olive (talk) 22:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC))

Hi, Based on a recent change of the year when Prof. Feigenbaum received his Ph.D in the article on Edward Feigenbaum, I found some conflicting references. So I send an email to the Mathematics Genealogy Project how they came to their year 1960, although different other good references mentioned 1959. I received a confirmation from their source that "Prof. Feigenbaum received his degree in 1960 although he completed and likely defended his thesis in 1959", based on checking the two copies the Hunt library has of the Ph.D dissertation of Prof. Feigenbaum.

Dougweller (talk) suggested to check here if the used sources are ok. Mitch Keller from the Mathematics Genealogy Project was mentioning in his email the primary sources ProQuest Dissertations and Theses and the Carnegie Mellon University Library Catalog. Both are telling 1960 as the year for Feigenbaum's Ph.D. Are this considered reliable sources for Wikipedia? If yes, has somebody of you access to the ProQuest database to provide me the full reference details? I have no access :( So I can update the article. -- SchreyP ^(messages) 18:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses shows a publication year of 1960 for his dissertation/thesis. That seems sufficient to me unless this is a contentious issue. If it is contentious, simply state that some sources state 1959 and others 1960. It doesn't seem very likely to me that someone would be awarded a degree prior to the acceptance of their final thesis or dissertation but I don't know how the publication date is established and if it differs from the date on which the document was accepted by the university. If other authors have looked into that and established 1959 as the year in which he was awarded his degree then that seems more reliable than going by the date of publication because of the assumptions involved. ElKevbo (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is a contentious issue. The email I received from Mathematics Genealogy Project mentions also:

"We have two copies of his dissertation at the Hunt Library both dated October 9th, 1959. However, one of the copies includes an additional page that includes signatures of acceptance and approval by the thesis supervisor as well as the dean of the school dated September 9th, 1960 and January 26th, 1960 respectively. The first copy was published in 1959 and the second in 1960. It is safe to say that Prof. Feigenbaum received his degree in 1960 although he completed and likely defended his thesis in 1959. ... Sincerely, Hunt Reference."

Based on this, the Mathematics Genealogy Project keeps the Ph.D year on 1960. Is this considered contentious?

Next could you provide a referenceID for his dissertation/thesis in ProQuest Dissertations and Theses that I can use as reference? Thanks, SchreyP ^(messages) 18:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The ProQuest Document ID is 301899261 and the Document URL is http://ezproxy.lib.indiana.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/301899261?accountid=11620Oops - didn't see that the URL requires a login. Sorry! ElKevbo (talk) 19:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing unusual in this. There is usually a gap of some months between submission, assessment, acceptance and then the final award of the degree - preferably all dressed up at the award ceremony. Paul B (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all, I have updated the article with available references and I have put an extract of this discussion on its talk page. -- SchreyP ^(messages) 20:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Is Galili, Shooky (July 4, 2007). "Falafel fact sheet". Ynet News. Retrieved February 6, 2011 considered to be a reliable source to support and conclude the statement, “Israeli entrepreneurs brought falafel to Europe and the United States sometime in the 1970s”, found in the article Falafel? The source itself does not cite any studies, scholarly consensus, or historical fact. Moreover, the writer of the article has no expertise in the field of the expansion of cuisine into other counties. From Galili, Shooky‘s own bio, he is rather a Content Specialist & SEO Consultant with a background in IT and a BA, Bsc, in Political Science & Computer Science. This concerns a discussion to strike the sentence from the article as argued in the discussion page Talk:Falafel - Subheading "Dispute over statement, "Israeli entrepreneurs brought falafel to Europe and the United States sometime in the 1970s.[7]" and citation". Please weigh in. Thanks. Veritycheck (talk) 12:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

It does seem to be an artciel published in a news orgnaisation. The source however does not say 'entrepreneurs', so that is a mis-representation.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

If it was up to me, I'd modify WP:RS to exclude history appearing in newspapers unless the article is written by a historian or quotes a historian. I've seen far too many newspaper claims about history that are wrong, and also these days journalists tend to look up Wikipedia for history instead of doing real research. Unfortunately (or fortunately, if you prefer), it isn't up to me and this one counts as a reliable source according to the rules. However, (1) Slatersteven is correct that introduction of "entrepreneurs" is original research, (2) since people seem to have found evidence contrary to this newspaper article, it would be safer to cite it as an opinion of the author. Zero^talk 14:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

What Veritycheck failed to mention about the author, Shooky Galili (whose name he reversed), is that he was a culture reporter for Yedioth Ahronoth, one of Israel's largest newspapers and the publisher of Ynet. He wasn't writing as a computer consultant. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

This is the sort of journalistic overview on history of a foodstuff that would normally constitute a good source for a food article. However, the national identity of some foods in the Middle East has become grossly overpoliticised. This author actually refers to obliquely to that, and he's clearly at pains to be quite even handed. It's still not ideal, not because of any bias or bad faith by the author, but because it is rapid, unsourced, and could recycle errors. I would like to see better sources found, i.e. works by historians. Historians of food is perhaps too much to ask for? Itsmejudith (talk) 21:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I've made a comment on the talk page. I agree with Zero above, newspapers are normally unreliable when they do history -- it's not their job -- and a good encyclopedia will eventually recognise the fact :)

This is an extreme case, because we're relying on a newspaper that's on one side of a political divide, and we're relying on it for history that any journalist might find it hard to research properly (the history of the food trade in two other continents 40 years ago). If our rules tell us that such a source is reliable, our rules are our weak point here. Andrew Dalby 09:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The question is always "reliable for what". Food historians or anthropologists would be better sources, and a newspaper article should have little weight by comparison. I'm not familiar with Israeli newspapers, but the culture sections of most US newspapers are very weak in terms of quality of reporting. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I know, IMDB is sometimes reliable and sometimes not. So, specifically, an editor wants to use this IMDB entry to add info to the Dustin Diamond article to verify that he released a sex tape. My feeling is that this particular IMDB entry is so sloppy and incomplete it's not good enough, especially given that this is a BLP. The editor provided other sources, but the rest all seem to be blogs and wikis; you can see them in this diff. For me, none of those sources rise to the level needed to include negative info in a BLP. But I invite other eyes. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree about the IMDB article being insufficient. But this can be sourced, see the Dirty Sanchez article for somewhat more reliable sources. That being said, it's gossip, and I'm not sure it is worth mentioning in the article, and if it is, brevity would seem to be well-advised. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi folks. I'm working on an article for the new library in Surrey, British Columbia and I came across an article on the above site that has a lot of good info. Was hoping to get some input on "ArchDaily" before I used it, perhaps someone is familiar. Article: [17] About page: [18] Thanks, The Interior (Talk) 22:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not a frequent reader but so far found to be reliable. Is however always a good idea to cross-check the facts with other sources you can find, and see if there are any inconsistencies. --Elekhh (talk) 05:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• I'd say no. I don't really see other reliable sources referencing ArchDaily despite the website's enormous amount of content. Give how much content they have and the fact that no one else is drawing on them as a reliable source, I don't think Wikipedia should use them as a reliable source either. They also don't include a proper byline in the article you link to: "Amber P." --Odie5533 (talk) 08:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The byline did worry me a bit. But there is some claim of editorial control on the about page. The Interior (Talk) 09:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The article is essentially the same as a press release issued by the architects http://surreycitycentrelibrary.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/bing-thom-press-release-const-begins-070610.pdf but unless there's anything really contentious here, I think that release would be okay as a self-published source speaking of itself, per WP:SPS. Barnabypage (talk) 14:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer the primary source, depending on what is being discussed. But if the primary source says something like "this is the best library in the world", I would prefer a secondary source for something like that. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Har har, I'll try to avoid using phrasing like that:) Thanks for finding the original, Barnaby. While we're all here, I've found an article at fastcodesign.com, which is apparently a offshoot of Fast Company (magazine), which I'd like to use to cite Bing Thom's social media effort during the design phase. The layout is a bit bloggish, but at least we have an identified author. Article: [19] The Interior (Talk) 16:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Fast Company is certainly a RS so I would think fastcodesign.com is fine, per WP:NEWSBLOG if not WP:NEWSORG itself. Barnabypage (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

One editor claimed to me that VentureBeat, though it describes itself as a blog, qualifies more as a "news blog". Specifically, the question is whether it is okay as a reliable source for reviewing the quality of another website (see this edit, where I self-reverted my removal of the source). I found a discussion in the RSN archives from March 2011 that indicated that it may be reliable in some cases. Any opinions? Qwyrxian (talk) 03:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it is ok because the site has an editorial board and the author is a journalist. Zero^talk 08:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I just restored an edit of a critisim section regarding a California Jewish day school. The section sources to the series of articles on the blog of a rabbi in that community. As a prominent community leader I think that Fisher's statements regarding the school are notable but I'm unsure of the use of his blog as the source. What are thoughts here? Joe407 (talk) 04:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I just removed it - you shouldn't add it and then come here, first get clarification for the addition/blog external as reliable - the content was removed with the edit summary of - "Removed defamatory criticism, which did not maintain a "neutral, unbiased POV" - the content this query is about is below. I note that the D. S. Wyman institute have Dov Fischer as on their "academic council", one of fifty three names on that list, not as in the desired addition, the Assistant director.Off2riorob (talk) 10:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Howdy, I have no beef with the school at hand. The section has been there for a while and the account that removed it looked like an account associated with the school (same name, single edit). As such, I first restored the edit (what had been the consensus) and then considered if the section should be removed under RS grounds. The subject of an article removing critical statements is a common problem and that's why it caught my eye. If the conclusion is that Fischer's statements should not be included, that's fine, but I think the section should remain in place until a better reason for removal than the institution saying "We don't like it" is found. A question that someone familiar with the community in question might be able to answer is who is Fischer and how prominent a persona is he? Joe407 (talk) 13:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

In July 2010 Rabbi Dov Fischer, in his role as Assistant Director of the David Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies , published an extensive analysis criticizing the school's academic program. In his analysis, Fischer continued expressing the deep dismay he published in 2008 regarding the school's "institutional failure to achieve the results charted at leaner, more modestly funded Jewish Day Schools operated throughout America under Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox auspices." Fischer's critique criticized the school's ongoing track record, claiming that it does not meet its mission as a community Jewish Day School because of failures in inculcating grade-appropriate Hebrew reading-and-writing skills, meaningful student acquaintance with the Jewish prayer book, and a foundational knowledge in Chumash and Bible studies.

• - http://www.rabbidov.com
• - http://rabbidov.com/TVTfailure.htm/TVT%20-%20Tarbut%20v'Torah%20and%20the%20Crisis%20of%20Failure.htm
• - http://ravfischer.blogspot.com/2008/09/when-i-was-ordained-in-march-1981-with.html

This is self-published and not a reliable source for information about the quality of education offered by the school. --FormerIP (talk) 11:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

But if it's the author's blog then it's certainly a reliable source for his opinion. ElKevbo (talk) 15:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Only if he were "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", per WP:SPS. --FormerIP (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

But "self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves." When it comes to personal opinions and judgments, "reliability" is a pretty low bar. (Note that I distinguish "personal opinions and judgments" from "professional judgments and opinions" for which the bar is higher for obvious reasons.) The real issue, as Arxiloxos gets at below, is whether the opinion is notable. If the opinion isn't notable or expert then it doesn't matter if it's reliable. ElKevbo (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Well it isn't notable, but it also isn't reliable. "Information about themselves" does not include their opinions about educational establishments (i.e. per the guideline "it does not involve claims about third parties"). Either way, it seems like we have our answer. --FormerIP (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

How is "I think that..." a claim about a third party? And how can you assert with a straight face that an individual's blog is not a reliable source for that person's opinion? Barring weird circumstances - hacking, mental illness, compulsive lying, etc. - a personal blog is a de facto reliable source for a person's opinion. ElKevbo (talk) 19:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

• I can't find any evidence that Fischer's critique of the school has been covered by third party media such as The Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles or by news organizations in Orange County. As such, either based on WP:RS or on WP:WEIGHT, it doesn't seem to me that it merits inclusion in the article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Unless a blog is formally linked to one's employ, it's generally polemical in nature; and there are instances where "personal" blogs are actually written by teams of employed pundits. That said, if the blog is the only instance of mention of something by someone and there's no wider press coverage of what that someone said, then WP:WEIGHT probably applies, not to mention claims regarding third parties which have not undergone formal review. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there some reason why, after asking an initial question or starting a discussion on this board, some editors just disappear, and follow-up questions don't get answered before the discussion is shuffled off to the archives? Can someone please respond to my question from September 7 above? The discussion is not closed, and it's been two weeks. Nightscream (talk) 13:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

You actually did get an answer, but I don't think you understood it. I'll answer above. --GRuban (talk) 13:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Going by Wikipedia:NEWSBLOG, blogs can be varying in their reliability. How should this apply to New York Times blogs? It's coming up for me now with Paul Krugman's blog. Certainly, most of his blog posts should be considered opinion pieces, and referenced as such if they're used at all. But, are they under the editorial control of the NYT, or does the NYT just provide the platform that Krugman uses? I don't see an easy way to identify that on the blog page itself. CRETOG8(t/c) 20:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

All NYT blogs have the same fact checking and editorial control as the regular newspaper. They are RS, but as always opinion should never be stated as fact in Wikipedia. Brmull (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know where NYT states this explicitly but I verified it personally through correspondence with Times reporter/blogger David M. Herszenhorn. Brmull (talk) 20:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Unless I get a disagreement, I'll have to go with that. Thanks. (Still kinda hard to believe, though. The blogs can be so bloggy.) CRETOG8(t/c) 22:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

An editor who joined a talk page discussion through a request for a third opinion has suggested that the reliable sourcing guidelines for medical articles is appropriate for Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence (see talk page discussion here: [20]). In particular, the editor is suggesting that WP:RSMED#Use_up-to-date_evidence is applicable. That guideline states: "Here are some rules of thumb for keeping an article up-to-date, while maintaining the more-important goal of reliability. These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or few reviews are being published." The subject area of Jewish IQ is generally a sparsely studied one with significant papers on the topic being published at a rate of 1-3 per decade.

It seems to me that this is not an appropriate use of WP:RSMED. Do others agree? aprock (talk) 21:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

As the 3O respondent, can I encourage editors who wish to comment to do so at the article talk page rather than here. MEDRS has been talked about there (Aprock and I disagree about its application) but it is not really a material issue in terms of any content dispute. Additional contributors to discussions about the article would be welcome, though. --FormerIP (talk) 23:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

This is the perfect place for getting outside feedback on the scope of WP:RSMED, especially since the general answer affects many articles besides just this one. Likewise, since this matter is very tangentially related to the actual content of the article, having the discussion on the appropriate noticeboard makes sense. aprock (talk) 00:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, it's a fair point that it is tangential to the article talk page. But, since there is no real content issue, maybe posting at WP:RFC/POLICY would be a better bet than here if you really want the issue to be discussed. --FormerIP (talk) 14:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems perfectly applicable, especially the part about "need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made". If I may be so bold, I suggest writing something like "modern science doesn't study ethnic intelligence differences that much any more, since that smacks of racism, but here is what people wrote in the bad old days". I suspect a reliable source or twelve may be found for that. --GRuban (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you clarify this please. When you say "this is what people wrote in the old days", how should we apply this to the issue of sourcing? In particular, how do we determine what the "old days" are? aprock (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was speaking colloquially and imprecisely. The answer to your original question is just my first sentence: yes, WP:RSMED does seem to apply, and even have a specific exception for this case. The rest was an encouragement to find sources that would say that the study of the correlation of intelligence to ethnicity should be viewed as historical, rather than an active area of modern study, then write what those sources say. --GRuban (talk) 14:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm still not really sure what you're suggesting here. Are you saying that any source older than 5 years be considered historic (per WP:RSMED#Use_up-to-date_evidence)? If that's the case, then I take that you're suggesting that the usual sourcing guidelines at WP:RS apply for those sources, not the WP:RSMED up to date guidelines. aprock (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I cannot see the logic of applying WP:RSMED here in any case. How exactly is the claimed linkage between IQ and ethnicity a medical issue? If the link is genuine (a big 'if'), then possibly there is a genetic element to it - but 'genetic' doesn't equate to 'medical'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion is that the article be written from a historical point of view, rather than one of current study. The correlation of race and ethnicity to intelligence was studied much more enthusiastically in the 1920s than today, and focusing on just studies of the last 5 years is inappropriate to the subject. --GRuban (talk) 20:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Writing it from a historical context implies that WP:MEDSCI doesn't apply. Likewise, it appears that you agree that WP:RS is more appropriate than WP:RSMED sourcing guidelines. Is that correct? aprock (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

This book, is written by David Dean Shulman who is an academic and the book is published by an academic press. But it is written as a first person memoir, not an academic work with citations and footnotes, and is not in Shulman's academic area of expertise. Can it be used unattributed for statements of fact? The relevant article is Ezra Nawi. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 08:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The issue is not if this is a RS (it is) but that even RS can be wrong. If someone presents another RS that has different factual information then both should be included, unless it can be demonstrated through primary sources that one of the RS is wrong. If this is the sole source for factual information that is disputed, then it should be attributed. Brmull (talk) 09:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

'Can it be used for statements of fact?'

The contested text reads:

According to Shulman, Palestinians at Um al-Kheir, which lies a few meters from rows of red-roofed settler villas at Carmel, require building permits for any house construction or extensions to their tents or shacks. Such permits are almost impossible to obtain since on average, in the West Bank area administered by Israel, Area C, only one is released per month by the Israeli Civil Administration for the hundreds of thousands of Palestinian residents there.

One per month = 12. The author is writing in 2007. This is what Amnesty International reported a year later.Israeli NGO, Bimkom, calculated in 2008 that only 13 building permits were issued to Palestinians in the West Bank per year.Nishidani (talk) 09:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Given that Shulman uses 'on average', the official datum from Israeli government statistics cited by the Israeli NGO corresponds with the figure cited by Shulman. Therefore, Shulman's figure is a fact, and I don't even know why 'According to Shulman', which I've conceded, should be there.Nishidani (talk) 09:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

But the plaintiff has phrased the issue more broadly, asking if anything that is factual in Shulman can be cited as factual because he is writing a' memoir'. I'll recapulate the 'facts' of Shulman's reliability as an expert source for the area.

In short, we can use articles from Haaretz, Ynet and theNew York Times, written by journalists, to document a page on an activist most of them meet once or twice for an interview, if ever, whereas if we have a 'memoir', actually pages from his diary (an important distinction, since memoirs may suffer from the fragility of memory: diaries are written day by day immediately in the aftermath of events, dealing with Ezra Nawi, stretching over several years, meticulously dated, and written by (a) a scholar with over a dozen major publications to his name (b) a world-ranking expert on Indian and, 'above all, in the relevant Middle Eastern languages (he graduated in Farsi, is fluent in Hebrew and Arabic) unlike most journalists covering the Middle East, (c) who has published studies on Islam (Tamil Islam), witness his article, 'Muslim Popular Literature in Tamil: The Tamimaṉcāri Mālai,' in ed. Y. Friedmann (ed) Islam in Asia, , vol. 1 (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1984); (d) who has a thorough grounding in, and espouses, Gandhian pacificism, and (e) a decade of work, anthropological and activist, among the Bedouin people of the South Hebron Hills (f) whose memoir, here contested as a RS, was published by the peer-reviewing University of Chicago Press, to acclaim, with Emily Bazelon evaluating it as one of the best books of the year (2007), A. B. Yehoshua and Avishai Margalit, world-class Israeli intellectuals appraising it in glowing terms, cannot be used to document what the book is specifically written about!!!!!!

Why because, technically, it is a 'memoir'. What's that mean? It means that Shulman presents, exactly as the many journalists we use on the article whose RS status is not under challenge, a book of his direct, first-hand experiences as activist and witness to the events desribed.

The implication here is, that the taxonomic classification of a book as 'memoir', which lacks footnotes, downgrades a first-class documentary testament by a world-ranking academic with direct knowledge and academic background in what he describes, beneath the level of newspaper pieces written by journalists who have had a visit or two to the area, often lack knowledge of the relevant languages being spoken by the participants, and who never 'footnote' their articles.

This ia a no-brainer. And the question should never have been raised here, where borderline issues of reliable sourcing from websites, blogs or selfpublished books are mostly evaluated.Nishidani (talk) 09:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Nishidani seems correct based on the information presented above. Seems to have covered all angles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The source is used in 5 different places in the article. But my question is broader. Does the fact this book is written by an academic make it automatically a reliable source for statements of fact? It is obviously not an academic work. Shulman is not a journalist. The fact he is writing as an activist is not under dispute. So are books written by activists who happen to be academics reliable sources for things other than their opinion? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

As I said on the talk page. If Shulman says 'the earth is flat', I'll give it attribution. If he says it is round, or makes a comment that is factual, banal, obvious, that any (Israeli) newspaper (right or left) reader knows, because these things are frequently reported as facts on the ground, then one shouldn't supply attribution. Academics, particularly of his stature, don't make a career or get a MacArthur fellowship or a prestigious academic chair, by playing fast and loose with the facts. He's not an activist, by the way, but a pacifist, i.e., he volunteers to get beaten up and arrested to shield hardscrabble farmers as they try to get their sparse subsistence crops in, and none of his writing shows enmity or resentment for the 'fact'. When one is arrested, or harassed or beaten up, and drily describes the incident, where several other eminent Israelis and police etc., are present, it is not an 'opinion'. If he did that the camera work, or the police reports, readily available to contrary minded journalists, would have the deception unmasked. The incident he quotes is referred to by three different sources, and they all say the same thing. You're labouring the point. Nishidani (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Does the fact that the book is written by an academic make it automatically a reliable source for statements of fact? If Shulman were not an academic, just a crazy activist, the book would still be a RS for statements of fact because of the publisher's reputation. Historians will consider the author's biases in deciding how much weight to give his account, but we can only assume that it is true unless it is contradicted by other RS/PS, or disputed as uncorroborated (in which case inline attribution is appropriate). Brmull (talk) 22:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Some points that haven't been mentioned yet, but would seem to be relevant. This is a BLP, so sourcing should be impeccable. We aren't really looking for academic sources in a BLP, though. Independent sources are the best, and some are essential to establish notability, even though sources closely linked to the subject are fine for non-controversial information. The source mentioned appears to be reportage, and reportage of the highest quality, because it is published by an academic publisher, where peer review, or at the least fact-checking, is in place. I don't think we spell out clearly enough the status of reportage. We say that news sources are of high quality, although we know that much of the news comes through the news agencies. We require op-eds to be attributed. Reportage, in many cases, is better than news. To cut a long story short, this source is fine for a BLP. Be careful not to coat-rack, i.e. stick to the facts of what the subject has done or thinks, and keep down to a minimum description of what is going on in Israel-Palestine, even though it is the backdrop to the subject's activities. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I used over 40 sources other than Shulman. Ethan Bronner' article in the New York Times, certainly neither Bronner nor the NYTs shares Shulman's values or 'activism'-say exactly what Shulman says, and I have used Bronner as much as Shulman. They all report the same incidents. There is no coat-racking, the only racking is the attempt to undercut the use of the best source we have. The person's biography is only about what he does, in Palestine. I know it is taboo in some quarters to report the facts, but not on wikipedia. Why Shulman is held hostage to 'concerns' is a mystery, but for the fact that he deals in facts in an area that gets mst people, not me, nervous.Nishidani (talk) 06:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

User MehranVB and user In_fact, have been trying to add questionable and self-published sources to Mohammad Ala entry, which is also nominated for deletion. Please remind them that websites such as persiangulfstudies.com and www.stiltij.nl are not reliable sources. One is a shady "martial arts" / "meditation" site and the other is a questionable, self-published site. Thanks. -- Marmoulak (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

See WP:DISPUTE. That being said, I see no reason to believe that either is a reliable source and until they can be determined to be reliable, neither should be used anywhere on Wikipedia (not in refs or external links). --Odie5533 (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I am seeking clarification re: a BLP. A google search of "Skip Hollandsworth" resulted in 8,940 results, one of which is this result: http://www.elliscountyobserver.com/2011/08/22/texas-monthly-editor-skip-hollandsworth-pleads-guilty-to-dwi-receives-probation/

The editor of the Ellis County Observer (above) states that "this was actually Brandon P. Reed and The Daily Phalanx‘ story originally."

The article above provides this link http://www.dallascounty.org/criminalBackgroundSearch/ which when the name Hollandsworth is entered leads to a public record providing details about this person's DWI-2nd guility plea.

The individual co-wrote the upcoming Jack Black, Matt McConahay (sp?) film "Bernie," and won the National Magazine Award, the most prestigious award in magazine journalism in 2010.

Having established that he is a national celebrity, I verified the information about the DWI-2nd, not in an effort to do original research, but to verify the public information pubished in the Ellis County Observer.

Is this a violation of BLP? If so, my apologies. My opinion is that if the information is published elsewhere and then verified by an editor, then this is not a violation of the BLP policy. But I am not as knowledgeable about the issues.

Thank you.

Remember to sign your comments on discussion pages!! It is original research to go look it up yourself. Remember, Wikipedia deals with verifiability, not truth. Only use information from reliable secondary sources as references for articles, not the primary background searches you've performed yourself. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The article List of avant-garde films of the 1990s uses the website http://www.allrovi.com/ as its only source. Is this site considered reliable for determining film genres? In particular, is it a reliable enough source to justify calling Delicatessen a "surrealist film"? Is it a reliable source for defining what is and is not an avant-garde film? ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 16:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Rovi appears to have taken over the All Media Guide, which included AllMovie and AllMusic. I'm not sure about AllMovie, but AllMusic has been considered RS for music articles. The Interior (Talk) 02:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

This discussion suggests that the Film Project considers it RS for details like release dates, runtimes, etc. In regards to genres, I'm not sure. I've actually never seen "Delicatessen", you think Rovi is way off base here? The Interior (Talk) 02:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I think AllRovi, like AllMovie before it, is way off base when it comes to genres for a lot of films. I will take this up with the folks at the Film Project. Thanks! ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 16:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a source cited that puts the percentage of Christians in Egypt at 18%, which contradicts numerous other sources which puts it at a maximum of 10%.

From the Egypt article:

There is a significant Christian minority in Egypt, who make up between 5% and 18%[110][111] of the population.

The source cited: David B. Barret, ed. World Christian Encyclopedia: A Comparative Study of Churches and Religions in the Modern World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982), p. 2740.

I tried to search for it, but all i could find is that apparently the World Christian Encyclopedia does not even contain 2740 pages.

Can anyone help?

If numerous updated sources contradict the 30 year old number, then just exclude it. Jesanj (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd say people want to know the ~10% number, (with maybe a slight dose of the variablity given) but not the dramatic (fringe) range we could cherry-pick. Jesanj (talk) 21:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.Darkjudah (talk) 23:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I would agree to exclude it because the source is 30 years old, you were unable to verify it, and also because encyclopedias (as tertiary sources) should be avoided in the first place, whenever possible. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with all of that. I notice that our page on the World Christian Encyclopedia says (with a citation) that it "consistently gave a higher estimate for percent Christian in comparison to other cross-national data sets". Andrew Dalby 13:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion on the Nazism talk page in were I am being told the following sources are A - No good. Or B - I am quoting out of context. Are the following sources reliable? And am I correct in my quotes?

• The rise of the Nazis Manchester University Press (2002) By Conan Fischer pp54 says "This form of socialism could appeal across class barriers with far greater ease than marxist socialism" I am told that I am incorrect in saying this means the Nazi`s practiced a form of socialism.
• Legal symbolism: on law, time and European identity Ashgate (2007) By Jiří Přibáň pp154 says "The regimes shared many common attributes such as an extreme form of socialist ideology" and apparently this source is of no use as it is about law and not politics. The Last Angry Man (talk) 11:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

They are both solid academic publishers and the two authors are both affiliated with very reputable universities, so although I haven't actually looked at the books, on the surface of it I'd say they are absolutely RS.

On the Fischer quote: assuming the phrase "this form of socialism" refers back to a mention of Nazism in an earlier sentence then, yes, it seems to me to follow that your atatement is correct.

On the Priban quote, yes, the author is a professor of law and the title of the book suggests it is about law rather than politics. I personally think a professor of law would have a pretty good grasp of political history in his chosen period of legal history too. But you're never going to win that argument with some editors who believe that academic disciplines exist in absolutely distinct silos, I'm afraid. Barnabypage (talk)

"I haven't actually looked at the books": then you cannot possibly claim that a quotation isn't taken out of context. And what you "personally think" about what a professor of law's understanding of political history is beside the point. On a subject like this, there is quite enough evidence from reputable mainstream historians on the question, and a couple of cherry-picked quotes to the contrary are of little relevance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, I don't have (and didn't express) a view on whether the quotes are taken out of their context or not. The question posed was whether the sources meet our reliable-source standards, and it seems to me that they do by virtue of both authorship and publishers.

Obviously, sources that are reliable can still be misused, and although the original questioner's proposed statement does seem to follow logically on from his quote from Fischer, if the quote is being taken out of context or misleadingly edited or something like that, certainly the editors working on the article are right to question its use.

On what I "personally think" - actually, I'd argue it's not beside the point at all; judging source reliability is not an exact science and it involves an element of judgement. However, having said that, I've looked at the two authors a little more and it seems to me that while Fischer has written extensively on this very subject, it's perhaps tangential to Priban's research interests.

For clarity, I'm not arguing that Priban is necessarily wrong (or right), just that Fischer is the better source on this particular topic. So perhaps focus the discussion on him and on whether or not that passage really means what the questioner says it does? Barnabypage (talk) 13:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Until you've read Fisher's book, you are in no position to say anything about the context, or what the passage 'really means'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Which is why I didn't comment on the context, having no access to it (other than to acknowledge that phrases can be taken out of context), and certainly didn't comment on what it 'really means' (on which I have no view, not having read the book). Barnabypage (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've not got the book either, but Google books found the relevant passage easily enough:

"The adjective 'socialist' within the NSDAP's title was meant sincerely, but only in tandem with the adjective 'national'... It was the socialism of a thwarted ruling people (Herrenvolk) rather than that of the chronically underprivileged and oppressed seeking justice and equal rights... Hitler, as the charismatic leader of Germany, aimed to effect the salvation of his people not just from its external enemies, but also at their expense. This form of socialism could appeal across class barriers with far greater ease than could Marxist socialism, which posed uncomfortable dilemmas for middle-class citizens..."

The quote from Fisher isn't even a full sentence, and the passage makes it quite clear that he doesn't understand the Nazis 'socialism' as being in any way that of socialists - it only exists "in tandem" with nationalism, and has elements which are totally in contradiction to socialist ideology. So yes, it is taken out of context, and no, it cannot be cited to suggest that Fisher considered the Nazis to be socialists - he doesn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I found the same passage somewhere shortly before you posted. We're moving beyond the RS question here, but the crux of the matter seems to be the ambiguity of the word "form", capable of meaning anything from a very close relationship ("a terrier is a form of dog") to a rather distant one ("a doghouse is a form of stable"). It would seem to me to be fairer to say that Fischer describes Nazism as "having some elements related to socialism" or some similar phrase.

So, to summarise for the original questioner: yes, Fischer is a reliable source on the subject of Nazism, but you need to be careful that you are accurately describing the nuances of his argument - looking at it another way, you need to regard the whole passage, chapter or even book as the source for his views, not a single word or phrase. Barnabypage (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

While both these books are reliable sources, Fischer's comments have been taken out of context and Přibáň's opinions should be excluded per WP:WEIGHT. It is very easy with Google books to type in keywords and find statements that support or appear to support a particular viewpoint. In order to assess weight, we need sources that explain the weight given to different theories, and we do this by reading the most relevant literature. If for example I wanted to know (rather than to prove) whether nazism was a form of fascism, I would look at a recent book about fascism and look for a discussion of whether scholars consider it to be a form of fascism. I would not accept an isolated reference to nazism as a form of fascism or use a text about another subject entirely. TFD (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

@LastAngry: you seem surprised that others are seeing this as an issue of due weight, but I think the scene was set when you only asked whether two works were RS in a generic way. Please remember that nearly any source is reliable for something and there is no context-free reliable source. Context is everything. Concerning this particular question getting careful wording is going to be very important, and that will be a job for the article talk page. Nazism was a type of socialism in the sense of being an answer to socialism. In other words it was intended to replace socialism, and was an anti-socialism. OTOH it took over some really socialist things, including the name of course. So it maybe should be mentioned, but in a careful way. It is a bit like whether e-books should be called a kind of book. It is quite healthy that there is some caution about sourcing, wording, weighting etc on a subject like this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment re Andy the Grumps views on Fischier, this article [21] quite clearly says that the Nazis practiced a form of socialism The Last Angry Man (talk) 18:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's obviously not good practice to take the views expressed in a book from a review of the book. What the review says is: "Unlike some historians who brush aside several aspects of Nazism simply as opportunistic, Fischer takes the Nazis’ use of ‘socialism’ very seriously, albeit only when linked to the adjective ‘national'". Wouldn't that seem to suggest that it would by OR for us to attribute views to him about "socialism" decoupled from "national"? --FormerIP (talk) 19:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes - that is precisely the sort of meaningless cherry-picking we should avoid. The 'article' The Last Angry Man links to seems to be nothing more than a review (written by whom?) of Fischer's book, containing the quotation already cited by the OP - and the reviewer clearly doesn't see the Nazis as unambiguously 'socialist' any more than Fischer does. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

And the communists in 1921 practiced a form of capitalism, as do the Chinese Communists, and there are atheists who are theologians (Altizer) etc. Never let words obscure the concepts.

If the endeavour is to equate, by reverse logic, socialism with Nazism, the POV-tinkering is obvious. The word 'socialist' in Nazi rhetoric functioned to draw the support of the working class from their proper representatives, the socialists, and acknowledged how powerful the promise of socialism was in European political communities. It cannibalized the word only to mock its history. Bismarck passed 'socialist' reforms in order to stymie the socialists.

Andrew Lancaster has, I believe, put his finger on the problem. The 'socialism' the Nazis practiced essentially destroyed the key doctrine of socialism as classically understood and practiced, since it excluded whole sectors of the community, homosexuals, the crippled, the foreigner, the internal communities of Jew and gypsy. 'Socialism' embraced differences where Nazism repudiated them on behalf of a corporativist race. By this logic, since Roosevelt's New Deal, as indeed Hoover charged, would bes fascist (interchangeable with Nazist later on). These fine distinctions are widely discussed in the historical literature, and to ignore contexts and tamper with language is to risk seeding a variety of American right-wing anti-state rhetoric (liberalism=socialism= communism= nazism=totalitarianism) and the dull thud of its concocted verbal drumbeat into articles.Nishidani (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Use of Business Insider has been questioned before, reinforcing these concerns Marco.org (blog) indicates that Business Insider commonly recycles blogs while giving the impression that these are staff articles: obviously unreliable and something to watch out for. Of course the original linked blogs themselves might be usable if they're by a recognised expert, subject to the usual restrictions on using blogs, but citations to Business Insider should evidently be treated with caution. An AP blog comments on its recycling of other stories. . dave souza, talk 17:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that any citation to Business Insider should be viewed very skeptically. In one article, I reverted three assertions, all cited to BI. And there, BI clearly said what its source was, and the actual source was unreliable.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Editors are removing reliably sourced information from the Boris Berezovsky article, and on the talk page seem to indicate that it is a WP:BLP violation. Can uninvolved editors take a look at Talk:Boris_Berezovsky_(businessman)#Use_of_libel_tourism.2Fterrorism and opine over there. There appears to be gaming going on to keep relevant information out of an article. Appreciate any input on the talk page. Thanks, Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 20:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The issue appears to be one related to whether material not directly related to the person should be in his BLP - "Libel tourism" might be a separate article at some point, and the material is clearly relevant to such an article. The issue, moreover, is not one of "reliable sources" but whether an article saying that a libel suit (won by the person) should be deprecated as being won due to something somehow improper in choosing a venue. The clear consensus of editors at the page, moreover, runs contrary to Russavia's assertions, now made on a great many noticeboards. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

In this discussion, accomplished real life historian User:Rjensen makes the assertion that because American Heritage magazine isn't a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, and because one author asserting a point within is a journalist and novelist (not a professional historian like himself), the source is "dubious." I'd like opinions on the subject. I certainly agree the journal isn't as scholarly as it used to be under Bruce Catton, but can't see it as a dubious source unworthy of use on Wikipedia. BusterD (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

In that discussion, one of the lines in WP:RS is being quoted out of context. The bit about "Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable" does not apply to newspapers or magazines. It's intended to address situations where a source claims to a peer reviewed, academic journal but isn't. For example, the Creation Research Society claims that their CRS Quarterly is "peer-reviewed by degreed scientists" and features "scholarly articles representing the major scientific disciplines"[22] but it's not actually taken seriously by the academic community. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe that writers for the American Heritage Magazine are reliable. However, I am for Wikipedia editor consensus on how much weight a particular article writer has at American Heritage Magazine and in the general academic community. If Wikipedia editors, not one editor, are not in consensus over a source from American Heritage Magazine, then I agree that the source, even if reliable, could be excluded from a Wikipedia article. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

American Heritage Magazine is a reliable source. If there is controversy about a specific fact then that should be addressed on a case-by-case basis. If you can find a more scholarly (peer reviewed) source than American Heritage then by all means use it. No source is accurate 100% of the time; to be considered reliable, they should have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Peer review is not required but is great to have when available. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree. As a long-published popular history journal, AH has every reason to ensure they're providing accurate and reviewed content. I suspect (but can't prove) they have a battery of well-known popular historians who review and doublecheck everything they publish; they'd look foolish and lose credibility right away if they were known to employ shoddy editing. Perhaps that's what Forbes allowed to happen. BusterD (talk) 00:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

When used as a secondary source for reporting (as opposed to opinion pieces), American Heritage Magazine is generally reliable. aprock (talk) 01:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Generally, AHM is reliable, but as with any magazine or news article, it must bow to scholarly sources if there is a disputed fact. Binksternet (talk) 01:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

American Heritage is a valuable resource for historical mainstream articles. If there is a question on an authors "peer review" credibility, then I believe that author's credibility can be discussed in the talk page for Wikipedia editor consensus. Cmguy777 (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

[23]

from this section of the article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Masonic_conspiracy_theory#Extension_to_Zionism_and_Noahidism

currently source #26

it looks like a webpage that someone knocked up in their bedroom. Vexorg (talk) 02:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what's going on with this article, but sweetliberty is most definitely a blog and not a RS. It appears to be based on a bad translation of the spanish article and gone downhill from there. I see you are in a slow edit war with someone(s) who either doesn't understand the rules or is pretending not to. I'm inclined not to request deletion since it exists on spanish WP, but if it's not possible to work together on this then deletion may be the way to go. Anyone else have thoughts? Brmull (talk) 05:50, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Just as an FYI, this was removed twice without explanation, and when it was brought up on the talk page, an entire revision of the page was provided, not a diff. Don't accuse me of edit-warring and not understanding rules when the information necessary to justify the deletion as anything besides vandalism was not provided when and where asked for. We are not at liberty to simply delete things that we do not agree with here on WP. If you go look at the talk page of the article and the article history, you will see that no rationale was provided for the deletion until it was brought here, and I was not the only to revert the removal. I also do not consider it to be civil on your part to assume my (or anyone else's) motivations or understanding without having asked first.

As for the topic matter, go look at CNN or any other news site that allows posting - almost anything dealing with Israel's foreign policies has something to say in its comments about "Zionist bankers", "Jew bankers", "Freemason Jews", etc., which all ties right back into this very topic. Therefore, the conspiracy theory is alive and well. Not that the idea here is "verifiability", not "truth" - there is no truth to it, but it clearly informs behavior. MSJapan (talk) 06:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The page cited is a reliable source that some people think this rubbish.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The article needs to be rewritten using reliable secondary sources, i.e. sources about the conspiracy theory, not sources that repeat the conspiracy theory. Peter Knight's book, already cited, seems good; it's called an encyclopedia but is nevertheless probably to be regarded as secondary rather than tertiary. I agree that this conspiracy theory has existed in the past and is still current in some circles today, but we need to show that from authors who investigate conspiracy theories. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a difficult and distasteful area. Very few sane people want to spend their time reading up about anti-semitism.

There is also a filter or relevance paradox at work here. Imagine someone researches the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy and its history

• If they correctly conclude that it is nonsense - you will accept their books and articles as reliable sources. You may even bend the rules on reliable sources a little to accommodate them them as reliable sources.
• If they come to opposite conclusion - there is a danger that you will say that they are just repeating the conspiracy theory.

--Toddy1 (talk) 11:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

So what? This is just how Wikipedia and the real world work, and it's OK as it is. Hans Adler 11:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a primary source. Although relatively unknown fringe can be mentioned in contexts where it is particularly relevant, we tend to require secondary or tertiary sources to establish noteworthiness. Hans Adler 11:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

SweetLiberty is self-published and is therefore only useful as the unedited opinions of one Jackie Patru and should not be used for factual information. If the opinions of Patru are required on a page, it should be established that Patru's opinions are notable for inclusion and not just the opinions of a random person with a blog. If Patru has written a few well-respected books on the subject which others have cited and also given talks at universities around the world, I could definitely see including her opinions. But I doubt that is the case. --Odie5533 (talk) 11:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Patru is or was a fairly obscure radio commentator in the USA.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

What is the policy regarding sport commentators as reliable sources? The case in question involves the match commentators for the Canberra Roller Derby League who did the 24 September match between the Brindabelters, and the Black and Blue Belles. They did the stadium commentary, and their commentary is what will be used when the match is replayed on local television. They provided information about team records, when they came into existence, new skaters, etc. Would the match commentators be reliable sources about the league, the teams, the players and the referees? --LauraHale (talk) 11:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

How does this differ from a live event? Unless the commentary is published in a reliable form - transcripts or DVDs - then it is not verifiable, and so not a reliable source.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Television episodes are considered reliable sources aren't they? There is a template for episodes. Hence the question and I didn't see this covered on Wikipedia:Reliable sources, nor did I know if because the event will be televised, if the act of it being televised made it more reliable. :) Honest mistake if it isn't and I haven't cited it yet. Wanted to be sure before doing that. --LauraHale (talk) 12:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Television episodes that will be repeated years into the future and sold on VHS/DVDs/ITunes are verifiable.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Note also strong copyright claims made by almost every sports league that the commentary is provided "solely for the entertainment of viewers only and may not be redistributed in any way" or the like. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair use would still allow for a quote though, I'd imagine. I'd agree with the above comment that we'd need to be able to verify the info though, i.e. via transcript. Tarc (talk) 12:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :No such commentary appears on on televised rebroadcast of matches on ChannelVision and no such claims were made in person. There were no statements regarding things being copyrighted and people were encouraged to take a lot of pictures. No such claim appears in the program guides. Given both, does that impact the reliable source issues as it pertains to my specific situation of wanting to use match official match commentary, which will be rebroadcast in full on television and in part on ChannelVision's website, as a source on the Canberra Roller Derby League article? --LauraHale (talk) 12:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

If you can cite ChannelVision's website may be a reliable source, assuming that it can be watched/read at any time and is therefore verifiable.

Taking photos has got nothing to do with the commentary.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Toddy mostly; this is a verifiability issue rather than an RS issue. Sport commentary may be a reliable source in some instances, but it has to be publicly accessible in some form to be citable in an article. That said, I work on the snooker articles a lot and I would never use stats by commentators since half the time they get them wrong; generally if the stat is important it will be available somewhere. Betty Logan (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Is this source "Boldur-Lăţescu, Gheorghe (2005) The communist genocide in Romania Nova Science Publishers ISBN 978-1594542510" reliable for this content inclusion?

The Piteşti Experiment has been described as a crime against humanity.

The editor who has removed it has not used the talk page although I have started a section for this [24] The Last Angry Man (talk) 12:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Boldur-Lăţescu is an expert in cybernetics, and has no formal training in humanities, only in engineering. At best, the book can be considered a memoir, thus it can only be used to source attributed opinions (uninformed opinions, for that matter). Nova Science Publishers is a rather dubious publisher (see also our WP article before being whitewashed [25]).Anonimu (talk) 12:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. However a formal training is not necessarily needed, more important would reviews of the book itself (by trained historians). If there are any that is.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't able to find any review in the usual places.Anonimu (talk) 13:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

At first glance I can see no reason to exclude it. The book is published with an academic publisher (not the best though) in English and of course in Romanian as well. The author seems to be a normal well qualified academic (see [26], [27]) The Pitești-Experiment has an extensive well sourced article in the German wikipedia, that looks reasonably sourced with a number of differend sources (de:Pitești-Experiment). If somebody wants to exclude the book as source, he needs to bring a convincing specific argument. If some somebody wants to get a feel for the books itself, some parts are available at Google as preview ([28]).--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:51, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The Romanian publishers can't be considered academic, as it published mostly belletristic, and occasionally some pop science books. Also, I have serious doubts about the reliability of the German article. Besides Boldur, a major source used by the article is published by "Soldiers of the Cross, Englewood", a white supremacist organization associated with Christian Identity and written by a "poet and publicist" condemned for membership in the anti-semitic fascist Iron Guard (and assumed as an Iron Guard supporter by the people claiming the legacy of the movement nowadays, see [29] [30]).Anonimu (talk) 13:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Guilt by association is pointless, this is not the german wiki, the publisher is from the academic press and you need to put forth an argument as to why it may not be used as suggested. The Last Angry Man (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

It was just a side note so that uninformed editors don't start translating indiscriminately from the German article. As I said, Boldur has no expertise in this topic, we have no reason to present his partial opinion as fact.Anonimu (talk)

Actually the German article uses a large variety of sources, many of them definitely ok. But it is true some of the sources for inline citations are questionable indeed.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:RS does not say "only approved correct articles are reliable" that I can find. Academic press = reliable source. Nor does WP:RS state "books printed in the wrong country are not reliable" either. Rather than exclude the source, those who dispute its words should find other reliable sources per WP:NPOV. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you please comment on my arguments instead of attacking a straw man? Nova Publisher is far from being the standard reliable academic (i.e. like T&F, Brill or major university presses). RS says "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." Is a book written by an engineer a reliable source for making a political and legal judgement? I doubt so.Anonimu (talk) 15:09, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

1. WP:AGF 2. Wikipedia does not say "some academic publishers are more equal than others" - in fact, Wikipedia does not require all sources to be from academic publishers in the first place. 3. Yes - an "engineer" can absolutely write about other topics. And be published by a reliable source. And be cited in Wikipedia articles. 4. The proper mode is to add reliable sources with other points of view - not to remove a point of view because IDONTLIKEIT. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

You replied to arguments that nobody here supported, there's nothing to AGF. Read again the quote from RS: context matters. We're not in the Renaissance anymore, homo universalis can't exist nowadays. The fact that someone is an expert on a certain topic does not make him a reliable source on everything. An engineer writing about legal topics is about as reliable as a rocket scientist writing about brain surgery. per WP:FRINGE: "A fringe theory can be considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory". Boldur claim is unique, his book was not reviewed in any major publication 6 years after its publication, and Boldur, as the only author putting up the claim, is not independent of the theory. Also, per WP:UNDUE, "Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all". One guy, even if he is an expert in cybernetics, qualifies as a tiny minority regarding the legal views presented in the article.Anonimu (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

What you need to do is find reliable sources saying there was nothing legally wrong. That is how WP:NPOV works. We use the cards we are dealt, we do not discard a Jack because we only accept Aces in our hand. And assertions that a view is "fringe" is frequently a matter of "IDONTLIKEHISVIEWS and not a matter of finding people who disagree with him, as is required by WP:NPOV. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

As Boldur opinion is unique, and he has no expertise whatsoever in the field, we don't need a source to explicitly say he is wrong. Serious scholars don't go writing books just to reject claims made by some obscure non-specialist. We have WP:DUE to deal with such cases. And Boldur is such a case.Anonimu (talk) 09:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually depending on the context WP might very say (indirectly) that one academic publisher might be better than another (similarly for authors, journals), essentially that's what reputation is about. Anonimu has made a fairly reasoned point, why we should not rely on Boldur as a primary source for the article. That doesn't mean he can't be used at all (nor did Anominu claim that), but more reputable sources are preferable and Boldur should essentially be treated as a journalistic source (not more not less).--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

[31] seems fairly clear - comparing the acts to executions. [32] does not view it favourably either. [33] etc .... I find not a single cite which could conceivably be used to attach any "nice" adjectives to the experiment. But heck -- the NYT is generally accepted as RS [34]. The final report is long and occasionally lurid. One chapter recounts the chilling Pitesti experiment, in which young political prisoners were systematically tortured and subjected to brainwashing techniques by other prisoners in order to destroy their sense of self and replace it with loyalty to the state. The report charges the Communist authorities with crimes against humanity and puts responsibility for the misdeeds primarily on the party and its secret service, the Securitate. Seems that would be a nice item to insert in the article, no? Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the Piteşti Experiment as such is in question. This discussion here is merely about suitability of Boldur as a source and what has to be considered there.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:36, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. It's about a book written by a guy with no expertise in the matter that makes some extraordinary claims, which no scholar cares enough about to confirm or reject. Nobody here wants to present the Pitesti "experiment" as a nice summer camp, but this doesn't mean we must take a legal judgement by an expert in cybernetics at its face value. If making legal decisions was so simple, people wouldn't spend years in law schools.Anonimu (talk) 09:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Let me point your attention at the fact that the Crime against humanity, like genocide is a legal term, therefore, we can speak about some misdeed as about this type of crime only if some court will make such a decision. This is a difference between this term and, for instance, the term "atrocity", or "torture". Therefore, the statement we discuss is incomplete. It is supposed to contain a name of some concrete court that come to such a conclusion. In other words, the statement should look like this:

"The Piteşti Experiment has been recognized as a crime against humanity by (the name of the court)."

In connection to that, does the source we discuss contain the reference to any court decision? --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Balderdash. Where an official government commission in a report termed the "experiment" as a crime against humanity, that is sufficient. There is no need for an official "court decision" where an official government report makes the statement, and is a reliable source thereon. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Please, be polite. "Official court decision" or "official government report", whatever. If such a document is available, then we can speak about anything. However, I doubt if a scholar, whatever reputable he is, is in position to give such a characteristic to any event (unless he uses this term just as an allegory).--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you have to see it that way. Correct is that we should not mix the legal term with a more general meaning but as long as the article is not mixing them and makes painstakingly clear what it is referring to, it doesn't have to be exclusively about the legal term here. Moreover even the legal term is not simply confined to actual court decisions, but it can also refer to the opinions/assessments of reputable of (legal) scholars about incidents or cases that have never seen any court (due to whatever reasons). However one way (and maybe) to avoid confusion and any mixing of legal and non legal meanings is of course to simply use different terms if possible.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I think, we have here the same problem as we have had with the term "genocide". There are loose and strict definitions of genocide. The latter (a legal definition) can be applied (by courts or other judical bodies) to just certain types of mass murders and other examples of brutal treatment of population. However, the attempts (of some authors) to arbitrary apply this term (broadly defined) to the wider range of events makes this term to be too common to be useless. In that case it would become just an allegory, an another synonym of brutal treatment of peoples.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

There appear to be problems with this publisher and I have asked User:DGG, who is familiar with them, to comment. This source is not an academic book and the opinions expressed have no notability. TFD (talk) 03:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• On the question of the reliability of Nova Science Publishers, a recent paper by Arno Tausch "On the Global Impact of Selected Social-Policy Publishers in More Than 100 Countries" published in Journal of Scholarly Publishing, Volume 42, Number 4, July 2011, pp. 476-502, ranks it as one of the top 20 social-science publishers in the world. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 05:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  • You have taken that from the Nova Publishers article, and neither you nor I have read the article so we cannot know what it actually says. TFD (talk) 14:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
    • You should refactor your baseless accusation, I have a copy of Arno Tausch paper "On the Global Impact of Selected Social-Policy Publishers in More Than 100 Countries" published in Journal of Scholarly Publishing in front of me. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
      • Well, that puts the publisher reliability issue and related WP:RS issue to rest, then. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Arno Tausch is not necessarily a fully reliable source for anything, but the judgement is this case matches the reality--Novas is a medium grade academic publisher in the social sciences, although of low quality in some of the sciences It's good enough for the purpose of ordinary referencing However, I see from Worldcat that the book in question is held in only 98 Worldcat libraries which is not that great, indicating lack of general scholarly interest in it. But all publishers have better books and not all that good books; I'm a little more concerned at the possible bias of the author , who has published on only thisgeneral. But it's usable, but not for extraordinary claimsd. what is it being used to source? If we're quibbling over the wording "crime against humanity", that;s a very flexible term, and I 'd look for multiple sourcing for that. Any one author can call it anything that in hyperbola. To me this is ordinary this is ordinary Socviet-era political repression, and while ordinary political repression in one sense is a crime against humanity, nothing presented is actually extraordinary for the period. There is no point in hyperbola. It's especially important to have at least one english language reference in the article & if there's nothing else, I'd use it. I would not use it in preference to one of the truly first rate publishers, but if there aren't any on the subject , it will do. DGG ( talk ) 16:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• Just to inform other editors regarding Nova, the survey which I do have access to and read actually attempted to determine "the market penetration of publishers in influencing policy level bureaucrats" for which Nova Publishers ranked 17/21. The bibliometric analysis conducted did not go to scholarly quality. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Is there a list of possible unreliable sources available for editors to use so they can be aware of website citations they may want to double check for credibility? I've created http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Flagged_sources as a sample of what an idea like this might start out as. Eventually, there would be a browser gadget, like "Proveit", or added onto "Proveit" to notify an editor when they are citing a site which may not be reliable or credible. This gives the editor a hint to check it over before submitting it. We will never keep up with all the self-published SEO content sites, but we may be able to make editor's lives easier if we can catch some of the larger ones.

If the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Flagged_sources page is not in the right place, please move it. Jjk (talk) 01:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a noticeboard to discuss the reliability of specific sources. I think you want Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources. --Odie5533 (talk) 10:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

[[35]] It is stated "Fatou K. Camara, such statics are misleading. In her papers "Secularity & Freedom of Religion in Senegal Between a Constitutional Rock and a Hard Reality" and "Moving from Teaching African Customary Laws to Teaching African Indigenous Law", she provides a different statics" Is this person in a position to be included in an article on stats when she is the only one completely re-representing stats? I think their is too much weight to be used. It is also a FRINGE sentiment unique to her.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 09:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I can not understand your question exactly. Perhaps take a step back and rephrase it. In regards to the link you have provided, it appears to be a slide show presentation possibly for use at colloquiums. These should not be used in articles on Wikipedia because they are self-published and are not peer-reviewed by the scientific community. --Odie5533 (talk) 10:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok been busy fighting proving the sky is blue. In an article on "Offical" statistics this source was used as proof that the official statistics were incorrect. the person is cited as a scholar and an authority on the subject See [36]--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:DISPUTE. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

In this article there is a section sourced exclusively to a blog. [37] I removed this section per WP:RS but it was reverted back in. Does the blog Pharyngula qualify as a reliable source. Note it is also used to support this statement about BLP`s "it isn't a real science journal at all, but is the ginned-up website of a small group of crank academics" It strikes me as a BLP violation to use a blog to call people cranks. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

And whilst here is this a reliable source? [38] Darkness Shines (talk) 20:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Without commenting on whether Cosmology itself is a RS, the blogs at scienceblogs.com such as Pharyngula are not RS's. Anyone can apply to have their blog included there, and there's no evidence of editorial oversight. Brmull (talk) 23:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thong Media seems like a web-2.0-ified press release agency focusing on television shows and particularly reality television shows. Their about page makes this clear. I'm a little concerned that thong seems to be being used on pages like The Apprentice New Zealand (season one) as the sole source of information. (a) Am I right in thinking that Thong neither third party for the purposes of notability? (b) Am I right in thinking that articles in other places with textual similarity (i.e. cut and paste) to Thong articles are also not third party for the purposes of notability? (c) Am I right in thinking that the other places carrying the articles with textual similarity don't count as third party for the purposes of notability, by virtue of carry the articles with textual similarity? Stuartyeates (talk) 23:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Is http://persianempire.info/ a reliable source to be used in Surena? Thanks. In fact ( contact ) 12:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

?! In fact ( contact ) 07:45, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Almost certainly not. Say what page you want to use, and how you want to use it, and the answer might be different. Andrew Dalby 12:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to use this page as a source to add the picture of the bronze statue of General Surena to his article. In fact ( contact ) 12:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. I see there's already an image of the statue on Commons, and it is already used on some other wikipedias (e.g. Spanish) on the Surena page. You could just use the image, saying "tentatively identified as Surena". However, if anyone objects, it would be better to be able to quote the identification from a published/peer-reviewed source. I see no evidence of whether that site is peer-reviewed or compiled by acknowledged experts, though the page you link to looks like a serious piece of work. My guess would be that they take the identification of the statue from the book they are advertising, because it's the front cover image of that book, isn't it? The book itself would be a much better source. It is on Google Books, but the caption for the illustration isn't visible there (to me). If you can get to see the book somehow, that would be your ideal source. Andrew Dalby 14:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Note that we actually have an article on this statue, based on good academic sources (Statue, National Museum of Iran 2401). The sources used for that article apparently contain no reference to Surena at all. This was repeatedly discussed both here on en-wiki and elsewhere. The fact that the same image is also used on other wikis is also due purely to the insistence of this one user, who has pushed its inclusion in several places ([39]), and other Wikipedias evidently then copied the claim uncritically from us. About the book you mention, I can see the description of the statue on its page 56. No mention of Surena. It just describes it as "bronze statue of a Parthian prince from the Iranian site Shami, usually dated either to the first century BCE or CE". There appears to be a single reference to Surena in this book, on page 12, but it is unrelated to the statue. As for the website, the fact that they are using our own image of the statue suggests that they themselves might have taken the claim from us (though it's of course no proof). Incidentally, the website is cobbled together from plagiarized material; the whole page containing this image is taken without attribution from George Rawlinson, The Seven Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World: Parthia and Sassania, from 1873 [40] (But that work of course doesn't deal with the statue either; the website has just slapped the image somewhere in the middle of the text as a decoration). – In general, I strongly oppose the suggestion that we could simply say "tentatively identified". A claim in an unreliable source doesn't translate into a "tentatively" on Wikipedia. We say "tentatively identified" if a reliable source proposes a tentative identification, not if an unreliable source suggests a certain one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Future Perfect, those are important points. (Incidentally, I am unable to see page 56 of the book: I suspected it would be the relevant image, so I'm very glad you can see it.) I withdraw the suggestion that the image might be used in this way without citing a reliable source for the identification. Andrew Dalby 18:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I am going to continue this discussion in the article's talk page. In fact ( contact ) 20:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Iranian.com has a blog section and a regular section with articles in it. Are the articles in its Op-Ed section[41] considered reliable sources? They divide things into "news" which just links to a different site with a summary of a news item, "blogs" which are personal blogs apparently anyone can post whatever they want in, and "articles" which I believe should count as reliable sources. Someone has to approve these, so it has editorial oversight, and the people chosen seem to have backgrounds in their field of expertise. Note, the other sections on the site aren't in English so I'm not bothering asking about them. Dream Focus 02:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

http://www.iranian.com/main/node - Of course its not a reliable source . copied for educational reasons only and not for republication - "Ahmadinejad has mastered the art of Persian bullshiting theatricals. He represents the very persona of many of us inside and outside of the country. He is real. Like many of us, he lies without hesitation and in most situations, he actually believes his own lies." - can I add this opinionated blogger crap to wikipedia? I can't see any clarification that the website as a whole has any assertion of editorial oversight. This location isn't reliable to support any contentions content. .. Off2riorob (talk) 03:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Off2--can you clarify whether you are quoting an article on the page or a blog on the page?--Epeefleche (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

In my understanding - it's an article http://www.iranian.com/main/2011/sep/iranian-art-lying - Off2riorob (talk) 16:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks--I just wanted to clarify that, for the other readers here. See below, as to my comments on what this publication terms "articles".--Epeefleche (talk) 16:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• http://www.iranian.com/main/faq "What is the difference between an article and a blog? Articles are well-thought out essays and features that can be submitted for prominent display on the front page or section pages. The Chief Editor will decide whether they will be published or not.Blogs are more immediate and personal. When you submit a blog, they will be published automatically." Dream Focus 10:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Dream -- their description of an article as a "well thought out essay" suggests to me that it is not an "article" as wp uses the term, but rather an opinion piece. For opinions, the applicable guidance is WP:RSOPINION.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Given that this is an example of an article, I think Epeefleche is correct, and I'd suggest that the site overall is probably not reliable. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, these links to supposed articles are pure crap. They give no confidence in anything else published at iranian.com. Zero value to Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 16:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• Alright. I removed the bit about him writing articles for them. [42] Any reason to doubt the award winning college professor when he claims on that site, that he has "taught in Iran, China, and the U.S.A." [43]? Dream Focus 18:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, the source looks like a personal bio and says "teaches", not "taught". In the US, professor is a position held, so if he's not a professor at an institution, he's not a professor. I think you've well sourced that he was on the faculty at Cal State LA, but I'm not sure we can say he's a professor without knowing where he serves on the faculty. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• http://web.mit.edu/isg/surveyadvisory.htm In fact ( contact ) 20:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The article on the English Defence League contains several references from the Searchlight Magazine I don't feel this is appropriate as the magazine on its own website that it is the magazine of Hope not Hate and that it also states on one of it articles "It’s time to act against the EDL" which I would say it is not a NPV C. 22468 (talk) 17:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality and reliability are two different things - and when dealing with an extremist organisation like the EDL, you'd be hard put to find an independent reliable source that wasn't opposed to their activities. In any case, we can only deal with questions about sourcing where specific cases are mentioned - what exactly is it that Searchlight is being cited for that gives you concern? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

While I agree with Andy it will be impossible to find a source that isn't hostile to the EDL, I don't think Searchlight qualifies as a reliable source. It's an activist group, and has no track-record for fact checking. Something like The Guardian also wouldn't be unbiased either, but at least it's generally regarded as a reliable source. Betty Logan (talk) 19:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I have in the past expressed concearn aobut using a source that is not just hostile, but avoidadly hostile to the far right in the UK. It is in no shape or form neutral on this subject (and neutraility is a concearn if it is form an advocacy group talking about what they advocate (for example) as searchlight is and does). It does however seem to be hightly regarded by the press in matters of the far rightSlatersteven (talk) 20:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I would say for Far-Right articles the best answer would be from the BBC, Using searchlight though is similar using The Watchtower to describe the Church of England, so more mainstream media outlets would be better C. 22468 (talk) 20:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Searchlight has come up before here. It carries out respected investigative journalism on the far right and is RS, in fact it's one of the best sources on the far right. The BBC and the Guardian are also reliable sources, but they often take information from Searchlight. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Searchlight has been discussed a lorra lorra times and always comes out as an RS. It has a reputation for fact-checking etc, which is the standard we apply. It is reliable for factual claims but it's opinions should not be presented as fact (as with any publication). --FormerIP (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Which was what I was going to say. The article seems to use it appropriately, mentioning Searchlight in the statements where it's used as a source. Dougweller (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Searchlight is an activist website/org as said, it's not just hostile its stated main purpose is activism against groups, and as such its not NPOV in its reporting and needs to be used as little as possible in articles against its opponents, and never if there is another more neutral reliable citation reporting the same thing, and never without attribution or in situations were they make conscientious claims that no other WP:RS make. Off2riorob (talk) 19:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::::::We get the point, you don't like it, no need to bold. A lot of sites we use are pov in their reporting, eg many newspapers have a political leaning. I presume you mean contentious claims, but I don't see why a contentious claim should rule them out just because no other source are making them, we'd need to take that case by case. Dougweller (talk) 20:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Its not that I don't like it - the thing I don't like is people that support them as a reliable source because they support their position - Searchlight are an activist organization actively attempting to present their opinions as if fact, and as is to be expected, portray their stated opponents in as poor a light as possible. Its currently used about only about eighty times in en wikipedia articles and only about five or six are in BLP articles (that fact alone is telling - and why should we not give groups the same care and protection from attack by their activist opponents) - but usage may require a closer look. They are definitely not reliable for their own contentious claims that no one else is reporting (case by case or not)- they are an activist organization. Off2riorob (talk) 20:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

For undoubted fact - maybe. Opinions (which dominate the article) are, however, only opinions, and should, as always, be clearly marked as such. O2rr is correct. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

• - I just removed this unverified (and for what its worth, unattributed) controversial claim from the activist org, even if you were to add, according to an activist organization opponant of the group, it still shouldn't be cited to them. - "The origin of "United People of Luton" lies in the Bedfordshire BNP and the tactic of distancing the EDL from the BNP was proposed by Alan Lake who provided funding for the EDL. Lake was also responsible for suggesting that Lennon use the name "Tommy Robinson" in the early days of the EDL.<ref>''Searchlight'', 1 March 2011, p. 7</ref> - Off2riorob (talk) 22:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
• note -User:FormerIP is claiming a consensus here as a reason to replace this disputed claim about living people. Off2riorob (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

What information is added by the epithet "activist"? This is a magazine that has an excellent reputation for investigative journalism, in an area where that is difficult to conduct. It is known for fact-checking and regularly applauded and cited by UK mainstream politicians and the quality press. Monitoring the activities of extremists is arguably "advocacy", but like some other kinds of advocacy it does not have an adverse bearing on reliability as to facts. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

None of which changes their goals and ambitions, they are the stated activist opponents of this group. By that simple fact they are not cit-able here only for simple un-contestable facts - the like of which are to be found in much much more neutral locations anyway. Off2riorob (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing the content that you're reverting, I'm not clear on what the problem is. Are you suggesting that Searchlight is not a reliable source for this? Given that it does not appear to be covering an opinion article, this seems like a dubious claim. Maybe a more complete ref plus an excerpt would help? aprock (talk) 23:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes - searchlight are not a reliable source for this contentious claim. an excerpt and a "more complete" ref, won't change anything. When I have a spare hour I will go through all the externals to their website and remove any that make contentious claims about anyone. Off2riorob (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Rob, no you won't, because the clear consensus is that the publication is a reliable source. As it has been many times at RSN. It has a clear political bias, but it also has a strong reputation for accuracy and not making things up. Agree with Aprock, though, that considering the wording in the source may be helpful. If they couch the claim in uncertainty or attribute it to someone else, then it may well be that we should not include it. --FormerIP (talk) 23:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The more complete ref and excerpt wouldn't be for your benefit. Rather it would help uninvolved editors to make an informed judgement. As the statement appears to be a straightforward statement of fact, it seems possible that the sourcing is good here. I'm not sure what the contentious issue you're referring to here is. Maybe you could address that point with details? aprock (talk) 23:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I have just been told that this source, Edwards, Lee (2000) The collapse of communism Hoover Institution Press (2000) ISBN 978-0817998127 ppXIII is not a reliable source for the statement that 100 million died under communism as the author did not provide a citation for this. "Communism, the dark tyranny that controlled more than forty nations and was responsible for the deaths of an estimated 100 million victims during the twentieth century" Does an obviously reliable source really need it`s own reliable source? The Last Angry Man (talk) 00:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

100 million is a nice round number, but it's reasonable to ask how the author arrived at it. He might have said 90 million yesterday and 110 million tomorrow. I'd look for a better-documented source. Andrew Dalby 12:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. While it is a round number, if the book is considered an RS, I don't think there is reason not to reflect the number simply because it is a round one. I don't believe we generally require an RS to in turn indicate an RS it uses as a source. In any event, that would be somewhat circular -- it would suggest that RSx could quote this RS as a source for the same information, and then everyone would be happy. BTW, while generally we don't require that the source of the statement be indicated, at times that may mollify those who are uncomfortable (e.g., say: "x wrote in y that z".--Epeefleche (talk) 16:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

We have statistics on all of these things. At a glance that figure is memory work running together a vague assortment of data dealing with the Soviet Union and China. In both those cases there are 20% differences in expert calculations. In any case, a good general point to start from is Matt White's Necrometrics webpage here- Nishidani (talk) 16:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Since the question seems to be related to the discussion at Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes, I think extreme caution is in order. The source seems reliable, but I'm not at all sure what that 100 million figure includes--deaths by mass killings only? Deaths by forced starvation such as in a concentration camp? Is simple famine which arguably might have occurred under any system of economics or government also included? Under communism in the PRC, there were large numbers ascribed to famine, but those numbers are not firm, and not far out of line with earlier famines in China. The question is not just whether a source is generally reliable, but for what is it specifically reliable. Also, while we do not require that an RS have its own reliable sources, it is also true that one measure we apply to gauge the reliability of an academic source is the quality of the material upon which the source is based, so a lack of references in a reliable source is indeed relevant, and I'm also troubled by the color of the prose, which does not suggest an impartial historian, but that a person with a definite point of view. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The principle should be, don't cite inferior sources that are vague when good precise statistically based analyses are readily available. Matthew White's book on the subject is coming out this fall. Just for curiosity's sake, the combined figure roughly overlaps with the total figure for deaths from consumption of legitimately commercialized but lethal tobacco in the 20th century. Nishidani (talk) 16:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a RS, but a RS that's supported by reliable primary sources generally trumps one that isn't. Especially when we're talking about casualty figures which are frequently politicized. If two or more equally credible sources conflict then it's best to give a range. Brmull (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

• I would suggest inline attribution (e.g., "Estimated death tolls vary. A 2007 publication from the Hoover Institution attributed 100 million victims to 20th-century communism.") There are several reasons - first of all, these estimates are notoriously variable and imprecise, as any thinking person will quickly grasp. It's one thing to attribute a death toll to a specific Communist government (although even that is controversial, for instance in the case of the Great Purge).

  It's quite another to ascribe a death toll to an ideology. How does one attribute a death to "communism"? Were the people killed in the Russian Civil War, or the Spanish, victims of "Communism" (as opposed to a struggle between Communism and other ideologies)? If one applied similar metrics, how many victims would be attributable to "free-market capitalism", or even "libertarianism"?

  It's an inherently arbitrary and politicized question - and the Hoover Institution is political. It's a retirement home for old Cold Warriors, with a strong and overarching conservative ideology. That certainly doesn't invalidate it as a reliable source, but it does argue in favor of in-text attribution. MastCell ^Talk 20:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with MastCell except for the fact that I don't see the reason for in-line attribution for this text. The figures, even for the Spanish civil war, on which side killed more innocents swing wildly in the best of sources, exactly as they do for Russia and China. The site I linked to gives a very ample range of first rate RS sources on each issue, and overall statistics. I suggest the editor use that as a reading guide and then produce a range, from low-medium to highest figures. One can find this all on White's pages.Nishidani (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure where attribution is required, but I think it would be best to document the range of figures and to use the most specific sources available. The Edwards source seems from this one quote to be well above the ground, so to speak, and I think the kinds of figures from the web site you presented are more appropriate. And it is best to not engage ourselves in tallying up figures and attributing them to a single cause, when events such as famines general result from multiple intersecting problems. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I essentially agree MastCell. Even if you consider the book formally as RS for most of its content, it should be obvious that there are better sources for such claims, that can and should be used instead. Hoover Institution Press hardly looks like anything you'd call a reputable publisher, instead use well known academic publishers such as Springer, Wiley, Kluwer etc. or some university press as far as books are concerned. Or use some peer reviewed academic journal articles that have dealt with this particular question in detail.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Edwards isn't an expert on mass population losses, and his statement appears in a foreword (pp XIII) not the body of the work where Edwards is making academic claims. Edwards is not a High Quality Reliable Source, nor is he a reliable source, for this statement, as his academic competence does not extend (in this work at least) to the history of mass population losses. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the use of fringe sources to debunk mainstream research. Correlation is the main point of concern. What do you folks think of its reliability and usability in terms of WP:UNDUE. --Daniel 20:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Daniel surely knows that he has not presented the situation appropriately (the talk-page discussion is here). He is referring to a situation where an independent and objective review of a statistical analysis was performed by a leading authority, considered eminently qualified to undertake the reappraisal: Hans Eysenck. The reappraisal highlighted significant flaws in the research, and condemned it for failing to adhere to appropriate standards. It is appropriate that these criticisms are reported because they are now part of the 'mainstream research'. They are substantiated by numerous references, and supported by the 2008 review by Vidmar Joseph, (past professor of psychology at McNeese State University). This was published in Correlation, which is regarded to be the premier journal of astrological research; its remit according with the standard academic requirements "that all submissions are peer-reviewed by suitably qualified experts in the fields of astrology, physics, and statistics". So this is not a case of using "fringe sources to debunk mainstream research", but an appropriate reference to directly relevant facts that demonstrate how an old experiment has undergone significant review and reappraisal, which has shown its original findings to be flawed and unreliable. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 22:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Correlation, the Journal of Scientific Exploration, and ISAR International Astrologer are not reliable sources for scientific claims. None are indexed in Web of Science, none are widely cited, and none show signs of being part of mainstream academic discourse. The fact that these references are being used to "debunk" a paper published in Nature (journal) is particularly troubling and is an unambiguous violation of WP:UNDUE. Skinwalker (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds to me like an appeal to authority, in itself an unscientific approach. The main journal of any discipline, especially if it meets the spirit of the reliable source guidelines, is a reliable source of that topic. It doesn't have to be part of what you call "mainstream science" to be reliable. If the articles in question demonstrate the scientific method in peer-reviewed journals, that's a reliable source. And by the way, Nature is not a reliable source on astrology due to having no editors versed in the subject. SLP (talk) 23:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm suspecting the deliberate use of evocative phrases like "fringe journals" being used "to debunk a paper published in Nature". This is not the "debunking" of a reputable paper recently published in Nature, but the reappraisal of a 26-year old experiment which has fallen apart due to criticsms that subsequently came to light. There is no doubt that Nature would not include that paper now, given the flaws that have subsequently been identified. And whether widely cited by scientists, or not, the paper published in The Journal of Scientific Exploration Appraisal of Shawn Carlson’s Renowned Astrology Tests was produced by Professor Emeritus Dr Ertel Suitbert. When there is a range of substantiating reference to these criticisms, produced by various highly respected authorities, in journals that adhere to peer-review standards, then it is clearly not a violation of WP:UNDUE, which states: " "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". -- Zac Δ ^talk! 22:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Skinwalker, and I'd go a bit further: Astrology#Research is a complete embarrassment to Wikipedia and to anyone who takes seriously this site's content policies or its goal of creating a serious reference work. I don't even know where to start with the above comment, except to reiterate that anyone who treats Nature and the Journal of Scientific Exploration as equally valid sources (because they both claim to practice "peer review") is probably unsuited to produce a serious, accurate representation of scientific thought on the topic. MastCell ^Talk 23:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's an embarrassing statement. Non-astrological journals such as Nature are not reliable sources on astrology because they lack subject matter expertise not just within their editorial board but including their wider contacts, too. Naturally, they are excellent sources on subjects which they regularly publish. SLP (talk) 23:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

No, you don't get to create exclusive in-universe definitions of the scientific literature to suit your purpose. Believe me, if there were convincing scientific support for astrology, Nature would publish it in a heartbeat. Heck, they published a paper supposedly proving the basis for homeopathy (and by the way, it's worth looking at that situation to see what it looks like when a Nature paper is actually invalidated by subsequent study). MastCell ^Talk 00:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

People, be aware of off-site recruitment regarding the astrology articles in general and the Carlson study in specific.[44] Since last spring there has been a steady influx of single-purpose editors. The article has slowly turned into a lengthy apology for Western astrology. Skinwalker (talk) 23:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

That blog post and its comments are very interesting reading. I especially liked the statement that knowledge is being "cannibalized by the gate keepers." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I've seen that link pointed out and explained a few times. It has no relevance to me and I don't see that it has any relevance to this discussion on reliable sources. It is of concern if editors seek to remove reliably sourced information for reasons apart from the reliability and verifiability of the information. A reliable source is not just a publication; it's the piece of work itself and the credibility of the author too (WP:RS). The credentials of the authors and the credibility of their work is not in question. This is a case of clearly substantiated facts being objectively reported which show both sides of the argument and demonstrate the current consensus of the experts who reappraised the experiment in response to history of criticisms. Given the multiple citations that support all the points covered, I see no reason to raise the matter here in the first place. If the point is to be discussed, it should be reviewed objectively, not sensationally.

MastCell, I am not sure if you are aware of this, but the published papers do not provide "convincing scientific support for astrology". Of course, if such a paper were available, Nature would publish it. The reappraisal only shows that the 26-year old Carlson study is no longer considered credible. This is of no particular interest to a journal like Nature, but it is of relevance to the coverage given in the article, where it discusses the famous criticisms made against astrology, what those criticisms comprise of, and the extent to which they are valid (or not). -- Zac Δ ^talk! 00:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

There's something to be said on both sides of this argument. First, that only experts are to be believed on any particular subject. To that extent, Zac is right. But Astrology is not part of science in that it hasn't, if I'm right, ruled out conventional causes for any statistical support it may have. And such statistical support would be the only claim it has to any legitimacy at all. This is all from memory of what little I've read. More important for Wikipedia, I don't think Astrology has any institutional claim to being a part of science. Thus Zac is wrong that we should take Astrology seriously. He says "This was published in Correlation, which is regarded to be the premier journal of astrological research; its remit according with the standard academic requirements "that all submissions are peer-reviewed by suitably qualified experts in the fields of astrology, physics, and statistics"." That's all well and good as far as specialized expertise goes, but Astrology is pseudoscience. We should be careful however to allow astrologers to speak for those things for which their publications are RS, such as the claims of Astrology. I'm not sure what MastCell thinks is wrong with the Research section of the article though. This is already probably more than I should say without doing further research. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 01:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

One problem with the "Research" section is that it does not clearly attribute what is claimed to the party claiming it. It's full of things like (paraphrasing) "errors were found in the Carlson study" rather than saying who claimed to have found the errors, i.e., proponents of astrology. (This is not the only problem; the whole thing should be gutted and rebuilt.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposal What is needed is clarity about what each section is about and what kinds of references are accepted. I can see three main kinds of content appearing under Astrology#Research: (a) pre-split research showing the state of research in times prior to the split between astrology and science, using only terminology, processes and references from that period OR modern references from main-stream history or main-stream historiography; (b) post-split astrology research using terminology, processes and references from main-stream astrology; (c) post-split astrology research using terminology, processes and references from main-stream science. These need to be separated. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the comments that offer constructive criticism. To be clear though, Becritical, I'm not proposing that anyone needs to take astrology seriously; nor that only the subject-expert opinions are valid (though relevant). My point is that a publication like Correlation has a reputation for fact-checking and ensuring that its content is properly reviewed by experts in the fields of physics and statistics as well as astrology; in addition to which the analysis of someone like Hans Eysenck carries weight. He is not an astrologer making a case for astrology. So I believe the suggestion that the errors be reported by 'proponents of astrology' would be incorrect, but this sort of thing could be looked at to make sure that any lapses or areas of confusion are clarified. It is very helpful to have suggestions of how certain things which could be seen as problematic in some eyes, are rephrased in a way that ensures proper neutrality and objectivity.

What is not helpful for Wikipedia, is the way the article has been vandalised tonight by a series of editors who, with no prior interest or concern for this article, have hacked out major chunks of reliably substantiated content, including the entire section which reported Gauquelin's research and all its accompanying references, without any attempt to discuss their reasons or enagage in evaluation of the content. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 01:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Please be aware that personal attacks, including specious accusations of vandalism, are cause for sanction. It would be helpful for all concerned if you could rephrase your comments so that they could not be construed as such. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll clarify that I found nothing unreasonable or innapropriate about the edit you made. The editor who preceded and followed you removed over 500 words of highly significant text, substantiated by 21 references, without any attempt to engage in discussion. I see that as the opposite of constructive editing. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 02:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You are being told, by a consensus of editors, that the sources that much of the article is based on are not reliable. This is the substance and result of the discussion. Skinwalker (talk) 02:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I undid the edit that took out a lot of text. I'm not familiar with the sources, but it seems to me that there's no reason not to use astrological sources to source what astrologers think. What's needed is good attribution and specificity, as Short Brigade Harvester Boris said above. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 04:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The main problem with the section your restored is the fact that it is OR and SYNTH that presents astrology as if it were an actual science: conducting "research", "methdology", "empirical", "experiments", etc. While the sources can indeed be used to source what astrologers believe, they cannot be used to source the contention that astrology operates like a true science. Feel free to rewrite the section to remove the veneer of science, and it can stay. I'm afraid the adjustments you've already made are not enough. Agree about the attribution; there should be no possibility of any reader assuming that the beliefs of astrologers are anything but fringe, or that the claims of astrologers are presented in the voice of WP. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

That would only need attribution "astrologers say they use the scientific methods of..." The veneer of science is part of what pseudoscience is. If it didn't have a veneer of science, it wouldn't be pseudoscience. We can't write that it's pseudoscience and then refuse to show how that name applies. I doubt that the astrological sources are insufficient for such a section, but if it's OR then that's different, and I don't have the time at the moment to do that much research. But at any rate I don't think mass deletion is always the way to deal with it, although I deleted a paragraph or so myself. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 06:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing in the article to suggest that astrology is an actual science. You are confusing the terminology applied to the subject, and the description made of it, with the terminology applied to the statistically analysis that has been made of it. The article reports those studies objectively, as it should, presenting the criticisms of both sides. The results are not persuasive one way or another. In your desire to ensure that the claims of astrologers are not given any coverage in this article about astrology, you removed the entire section relating to the studies of Gauquelin. Though these make no major claims in favour of astrology at the end of the day, the story and the details of Gauquelin's work, the controversy attached to it and the discussions that extend from it, are of pivotal interest to the modern history of astrology. Wikipedia would become a laughing stock to censure such highly relevant content as this.

And sorry, but nothing has been appropriately restored. In the space of a few hours, with this request for noticeboard clarification not yet half a day old, and with less than 300 words of discussion on the talk-page, Dominus Vobisdu and 3 other editors have removed almost 1000 words of highly significant content supported by 30 reliable references. Not discriminately or critically - just deleting whole passages with their accompanying references. This is content that has been developed cautiously by a wide-ranging team of editors, with great regard to the relevant WP policies. It is clearly marked on the talk page that the subject of the page is controversial and substantial changes should be undergo discussion and evaluation before being introduced on the main page. This is the policy that the contributing editors inherited and have been restrained by.

As I mentioned earlier, this is NOT constructive editing. I have recommended that the content be restored to what it was before these policy-breaking edits, so that any point that has been ruthlessly erased, is subject to the proper process that the policy of the page dictates. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 05:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

To respond to the initial question here, Correlation is not an academic journal, even if it tries to appear as one. It isn't reliable for any scientific claims. It might be reliable, if carefully attributed, for statements about what astrologers believe, or even about the history of astrology, although our main sources for history of astrology should be mainstream academic historians. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I am the current editor of Correlation, the journal of research in astrology that has been referred to as a fringe journal because, it is alleged, it is a journal of pseudo-science as defined by Wikipedia. Correlation is a journal of research in astrology and publishes material that has been peer reviewed by mainstream academics with a good understanding of astrology as applied to science and the humanities where the material submitted applies astrology to that particular academic’s specialist field of interest. The journal also publishes reports from researchers about ongoing projects. It publishes comments from readers on papers that have appeared within its pages and it has a Letters page for critical comment of any part of its published content and to encourage objective intellectual exchange. It has also published material of a philosophical nature in order to encourage scientific and sociological research, which includes statistical analysis, and new approaches in thinking to the ever-present challenge of designing good studies that are appropriate to the research question. The journal aims to inform its readers on research matters and to encourage its readers to express their opinions within the journal in order to promote balanced and informed thinking in any issue that relates to research in astrology. The peer review process seeks to ensure a high standard is maintained within the journal pages where these matters are concerned. That which is defined as pseudo is that which is false, counterfeit, pretended or spurious as in the case of scientific claims, for example. The journal, Correlation is, therefore, not a pseudoscientific journal.

Pat Harris, PhD, MSc., DFAstrolS., Editor, Correlation.

Who's on the editorial board? Where can we read about the peer review process? Has it got a website? Can we look at the tables of content for the past few years? Itsmejudith (talk) 12:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Harris's statement "...publishes material that has been peer reviewed by mainstream academics with a good understanding of astrology as applied to science and the humanities where the material submitted applies astrology to that particular academic’s specialist field of interest" could be understood to mean that the journal also publishes articles that are only about astrology and don't touch on "mainstream academics" and so are only reviewed by people who believe in astrology. This process reminds me of the Roman Catholic Church's practice of bringing in subject-matter experts when investigating miracles to decide if a candidate should be canonized. The use of such experts can't really be expected to convince skeptics that God, miracles, or saints actually exist. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Is Correlation indexed by any of the services that cover reputable journals, such as Thompson Web of Science or PubMed? Short Brigade Harvester Boris, PhD, MS (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Many respectable but minor journals aren't on WoS, and if they're not medical, they're not on PubMed. We're on a different planet here. Correlation isn't even on Google Scholar. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Correlation does not publish religious articles. Articles are sent to peer reviewers with an understanding of astrology in their specialist field of interest. Peer reviewers hold a neutral outlook with regard to the potential value of astrology in the sciences and the humanities. A list of consultant editors who contribute to the peer review process is published on the inside cover of every issue of the journal. Pat Harris, Editor, Correlation.

A real academic journal is proud to list its editorial board and peer review process publicly. Most journals are distributed by academic publishers like Sage, Elsevier or Taylor & Francis. I've never seen one before without a website, even in those marginal cases where nationalist views are promoted. By the way, in what year was your PhD awarded, because I see you give different dates on different websites? Who were your examiners? Is your thesis in Southampton university library? Itsmejudith (talk) 13:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

My PhD was awarded in 2006 but completed in 2005 and the ceremony took place at the University of Southampton in 2007. I was supervised within the Deparmtent of Social Statistics and my examiners were situated there and also in the Department of Social Work Studies. This is not relevant to the discussion, here, but I hope you find the information helpful. Correlation is available on line at the website of the Astrological Association which publishes the journal. You will find the list of the consultant editors within its pages. Perhas you would now like to provide some information about yourself? Pat Harris, Editor, Correlation.

Random example of respectable but minor journal. See how much more transparency? Itsmejudith (talk) 14:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

People are reverting the changes, and I can see where they would be disturbed by wholesale deletion. I would suggest that we focus more on attribution and less on deletion (I deleted things wholesale too, but maybe that isn't the right approach). I'm sure some things will get deleted, but I'm also not sure if some of the deleting editors were acknowledging that astrological sources are RS for astrological beliefs. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 14:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Belief in God has always been a question of faith. The "experts" referred to are not trying to prove the existence of God - they're trying to prove the existence of miracles. Shouldn't Jc3s5h refer to an expert's report before generalising that such reports have no influence on what people believe about miracles? As for saints, of course they exist. They're saints because they suffered unimaginable torment before they were martyred for their faith.

Mention of Gauquelin reminds me that since I read his book many years ago it has been the only research I have ever encountered which suggests that there might actually be something in astrology. There are two drawbacks, however.

(1) It cannot be duplicated, because births these days are induced so that they happen at times convenient for the hospital staff (Gauquelin found that this causes the correlation to disappear).

(2) It is a self - fulfilling prophecy - if people's star charts say they should be athletes or warriors because of the strong presence of Mars (or whatever) that is what they will train for, because they think they will have an aptitude for it. 86.167.131.152 (talk) 15:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Gauquelin's results have been replicated in at least 3 studies plus in the analysis of the data collected by sceptical groups in France, Belgium and the USA. And yes, astrology tests can be affected by self-fulfilling prophecies and such artifacts must always be taken into account and such issues make testing astrology very challenging.

It appears that the main concern in this thread is not so much about the sources but the results. The main issue is in connection with the Carlson test (Nature 1985), which has been the landmark test on which criticism of astrology has been based. By involving up to 28 astrologers and 100 subjects, it has been widely accepted among the scientific community that it was possible to refute the principal claims of astrology under scientific conditions.

Since 1985, six papers in peer reviewed journals have shown (or argued) that not only were Carlson’s conclusions wrong but in more recent studies that the data showed that astrologers were able to rate charts with psychological profiles in blind studies to a statistically significant level in one test and to a marginally statistically significant level in the second (Ertel 2009). Three of the papers were written by independent professors in related fields of psychology and statistics and only one of the six by an astrologer.

The original Carlson study was sponsored by CSICOP in response to the debacle of having replicated the Gauquelin studies and was, exceptionally, published in Nature at a time when the editor, John Maddox was a CSICOP fellow. There have been no astrology papers in Nature or any studies that support Carlson’s conclusions in the 26 years since then.

Editors of psychology journals will refer authors of studies involving astrology to astrological journals like Correlation or ISAR. Sometimes a paper involving astrology will be published in a journal that does not specialize in the field. This happens when the test relates more to the field of the journal like psychology or medicine or if the paper does not include the words astrology but terms like seasonal biology or cosmic meteorology. The journal Correlation publishes peer reviewed papers on astrology by sceptics, independent researchers and astrologers. Like ISAR, Correlation is the natural place for studies whether supportive or critical of astrology. It is a circular argument to insist that astrology provides evidence, but to suppress publications that provide the evidence from authoritative sources.

The claims from the most recent tests of Carlson’s paper are not that astrology is a science. It all comes down to the statistical data that anyone can check. It should be clear to any statistician that there were serious sampling errors in Carlson’s work where he merged two experiments with different sample sizes. No doubt there will be papers that attempt to refute Ertel’s calculations of the full dataset but for now Professor Ertel’s results (2009) have not been refuted even though they are well known to sceptics including Carlson.

Sceptical minded editors may not like evidence that appears to support astrology, but our job here is to faithfully report these results until refutation or criticism of this data comes along. So quibbling about the publication in this context seems to be more like an attempt to hide inconvenient facts than cleansing Wikipedia of pseudoscientific claims. No impartial editor should support this kind of cover-up. Robert Currey talk 15:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Basically you're right, it's not about what astrologers say, it's about other things such as attribution, and I think some skeptical editors didn't understand that it's okay to use astrological sources to say what astrologists believe. As long as we make it clear that this is considered pseudoscience, there should be no trouble rounding out the article with in-universe sources. As I said above, you can't call it pseudoscience and then refuse to show how it emulates science... because that's why it's pseudoscience rather than religion. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 16:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't think anyone - "skeptical" or otherwise - has a problem with citing these sources as evidence of what astrologers believe. The problem is that a small group of editors are presenting these astrological journals as carrying independent scientific weight, sufficient to "rebut" or "debunk" material published in Nature. These astrological journals are not part of mainstream scientific discourse, but the article misleadingly presents them as if they are, by juxtaposing them with (and even giving them preference over) actual scientific sources. MastCell ^Talk 17:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I made edits to that section. The Carlson study is old now and of course it could have been overturned. But we haven't had any evidence that it has been. Eysenck is a notable figure, but controversial for a variety of reasons, and here not writing in his main field. None of the other material presented was relevant to scholarly research. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Right, but juxtaposition would be fine if attributed would it? As would attributed rebuttal. It would be a matter of being careful with the text don't you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Becritical (talk • contribs)

Definitely not. Look back at WP:FRINGE. A few bits of writing in fringe sources can't be juxtaposed with an article in Nature. It's OK to use astrologers' sources to say what is belived in astrology. But a to-and-fro between astrology and mainstream science is way outside policy. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Attribution alone doesn't solve all problems. For example: "The National Institutes of Health believes that HIV causes AIDS. Peter Duesberg disagrees, arguing that that HIV is a harmless passenger virus and AIDS does not exist." That paragraph is fully attributed, but still grossly violates WP:WEIGHT by virtue of juxtaposing two views with very different levels of scholarly acceptance. MastCell ^Talk 17:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Everything has to be seen in the context. Shawn Carlson was a 19-year-old physics undergraduate at Berkeley when he started his experiment and lacked any experience of psychological measuring techniques which were integral to this test. Hans Eysenck was meanwhile Professor of Psychology at the Institute of Psychiatry, authored ~80 books and at the time of his death was the living psychologist most frequently cited in science journals (Haggbloom 2002). Since Carlson's publication (with the help of CSICOP) in Nature, the only and most appropriate place for professors, no matter how eminent, to publish papers on astrology is in journals that specialize in astrology. Robert Currey talk 19:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure some people would like to be silly about these things, but when you've got the whole article clearly stating that astrology is pseudoscience, why would there be any reason not to discuss what astrologers say relative to what scientists say, juxtaposition or otherwise? Once you're down the the sectional level and have stated there's no scientific support, you should be able to do anything you want. Then it would be

"The [scientific body] believes says that XXX. Astrologer [where it's clear that astrologer = pseudoscientist] so-and-so disagrees, arguing saying that YYY."

So what you have there is a situation where you've made clear that anything an astrologer says is pseudoscience and then you just go on to discuss anything notable. I would think the test of inclusion would be whether these ideas have broad relevance/notability in the astrological or scientific community. Of course there might be a problem if the astrologist was given the last word, which looks like the current case, but that's really not WP's problem but rather a problem with the texts. I wouldn't exclude something [45] because there hasn't been a mainstream response. Is that what you're saying we should do?

According to our article on Hans Eysenck, "At the time of his death, Eysenck was the living psychologist most frequently cited in science journals." If that's true, then I seriously do not understand the deletion above. Unless Eysenick was actually another pseudoscientist, it also looks like sometimes real scientists publish in the fringe journals? [46] B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 19:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It was another deletion that flounced WP policy. This should be clear enough to anyone who contributes to the discussion page (see Talk:Astrology#Achieving Neutrality).

The original request concerned the appropriateness of quoting from Correlation. The hoped for clarity on that point got waylaid by uncritical deletions which didn’t distinguish whether real problems existed, and if they did, whether they concerned neutrality, objectivity, undue weight, or the reliability of the sources. The point made in this notice board is that reliability is often dependent upon context. The editors that have contributed to the astrology article have been working to a plan (established in earlier discussions that have now rolled off the discussion page), to have the content critically reviewed. Though the article is not ready for that formal request, sceptical editors have had an involvement in the process of development, and even invited to comment when they have gone quiet, because there is an objective to resolve long term problems and develop the article to FA status. It’s not the case that a group of editors are trying to push a position, but if you consider how evocative this subject is, you might appreciate how much work has to go into getting the balance of the content right.

In response to the controversies this discussion triggered, I’ve initiated a procedure on the talk page to ensure that all of the passages that drew attention are systematically analysed and rewritten, if and where necessary, to achieve a robust consensus on neutrality. This will help to distinguish between criticisms based on what the content is saying and those which concern reliability of sources. I believe it is only the latter that is of direct relevance to this particular board, so it doesn't seem helpful to confuse various issues here. Therefore, I am recommending that this particular discussion is brought to a close, so attention can be focussed on the necessary analysis. If the criticism of any comment ultimately hinges on doubts concerning the reliability of its source – then that particular source should be brought for review here, so it can be specifically discussed, in context, without having to carry the weight of non-essential side-issues that range from the existence of angels to where and when the editor of Correlation received a PhD. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 22:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't really have anything to add but I do want to say I've noticed that sometimes people at WP don't realize that RS are largely a matter of context. B^e——C_{ritical__Talk} 03:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)