Archive 85

←

Archive 89

Archive 90

Archive 91

Archive 92

Archive 93

→

Archive 95

See discussion: Talk:BDORT#Journal of the Science of Healing Outcomes (JSHO)

Comments invited please:

http://www.thejsho.com/ Richard Malter, James Woessner, Alan Loader, Helen Tyrrell 'Complete Reversal of Stage IV Squamous Cell Carcinoma' Vol. 3 No.10, Jan. 2011

" A clinical application of the BDORT that achieved 100% remission of an advanced stage cancer that is generally considered incurable and fatal by mainstream medicine has been independently published by an international peer-reviewed medical-scientific journal. The clinical result was confirmed by pre and post treatment PET and CT scans. http://thejsho.com/default.aspx http://www.richardmalter.net/26thICAETweb.pdf " http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BDORT&oldid=416316304

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:BDORT#Journal_of_the_Science_of_Healing_Outcomes_.28JSHO.29 , to the bottom of the talk page. 202.63.58.223 (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Its status as a medical journal appears to be a bit questionable, but wouldn't we need a review in order to comply with WP:MEDRS anyway? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I have added a relevant link to the discussion above. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

What is meant by a "a review"? Also please see

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BDORT&diff=416688723&oldid=416668038 202.63.58.223 (talk) 05:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

We must not use primary research as sources for such spectacular claims. We must use systematic reviews. A review is an analysis of the results of multiple primary research projects on the same subject. That you don't know what "review" means is worrying. Typically no single piece of scientific research can stand alone. It must be duplicated and confirmed by other independent scientists who have no vested interest. (You happen to have a vested interest in this matter.) Without such duplication one cannot trust the results of the first study, especially if it makes unusual claims, as your single study does. In science "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence", and that also applies to WP:MEDRS. Your study of one patient is a primary study. At best(!) it's what one calls a case study, which is the very bottom of the scientific research process. It has its place, but isn't sufficient as the basis of making any claims, much less as justification for treating real patients.

This is life and death stuff! Care must be exercised. Your study isn't allowable as a source here, and in your private practice you shouldn't allow it to have any sway in your beliefs. It has no clear scientific validity and the very fact it was published shows that the journal isn't worth the paper it's printed on. This isn't the only journal of its type, and your appeal to authority is a logical fallacy that won't work here. Scientific peer review is a sham in such a case.

There are a thousand and one other confounding variables that are possible explanations for the outcome that have nothing to do with BDORT. You are practicing medicine without a license, a practice which is illegal and unethical, and patients are going to die in your care if you persist. In my capacity as a medical professional, I implore you to find some other occupation. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this source isn't acceptable. But some of the statements above could use qualification. WP:MEDRS doesn't specify that we must use systematic reviews. It also allows for narrative reviews. And it doesn't completely disallow the use of individual studies. It does explicitly disallow case studies, which this is. Also, it's not clear what standard is being cited in the statement that a finding must be duplicated by independent scientists who have no vested interest. I believe that's a higher standard than of the FDA. I've read that when a drug comes to market, all of the the research and all of the reviews of that research have been conducted by the pharmaceutical company that developed the drug. After the drug is available, the pharmaceutical company funds 65% of the cost of further reviews. In general, though, the comments above are well stated and to the point. TimidGuy (talk) 12:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

TimidGuy, you are of course quite correct. My comments paint an ideal picture, and we know that this isn't always the case. In this case the proposed study doesn't even begin to lay a finger on the toe of scientific credibility. Even as a case study it is woefully lacking and suspect, which led me to go a bit beyond merely explaining Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and expressing my professional concern about Malter's treatment of patients.

Strangely, even though he is banned by ArbCom itself from editing the BDORT article and talk page, and is obviously using yet another IP to evade his ban, an SPI I filed has been treated with very oddly nonsensical and evasive responses and failure to block him even more severely. He really deserves a ban from Wikipedia for block evasion, not just a topic ban from the article. This IP should have been blocked promptly. Any admins reading this are welcome to block the IP and extend his ArbCom ban to a general ban of all of Wikipedia. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with the above comments that this particular source is a primary source and a case study specifically disallowed by WP:MEDRS. I would not matter what publication the source was contained in. I would go further. Notwithstanding the claims of the publishers that they engage in not merely peer review but what they call "super peer review" (that claim alone raises a red flag for me!), JSHO is not a "reputable medical journal". Peer review alone does not establish that a journal is reputable; is necessary, but not sufficient. JSHO is a new publication only a couple of years old, and as near as I can tell, not a single article has ever been cited by another scholarly publication. The lack of citation is an objective indication that it is not (as of now) accepted in the medical or scientific community as a reputable source. It may or may not gain that acceptance at some point in the future, but as of now, I would not accept any article from JSHO as a source for a medically-related Wikipedia article. Fladrif (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Excellent analysis. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Fladrif's analysis is compelling. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

This page on a website has been used to cite a huge number of claims on Friendly fire, see [1]. Same editor has also used this source for a number of edits.

Not sure if this is an over enthusiastic newbie but the editor has repeatedly ignored reverts of inappropriate use of supporting cites. Outside opinions on these sources would be welcome. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

It appears to be a self published or user-generated site and therefore not reliable. It also tried to launch a program on my computer, which is definitely not cool. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

My browser also gives me a warning when I click on the first link, telling me that the site contains malware that could harm my computer. The second source you mention clearly falls under the constraint of WP:SPS. There's no indication that the author of this web page meets the exception to SPS: that the author has previously been published in the relevant field by reliable third party sources. This web page does list the books that the info is from, so the WP editor would ideally use those sources instead. TimidGuy (talk) 11:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Clearly not WP:RS, per above. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

We seem to have a good deal of citations to the news site DigitalJournal.com. DigitalJournal.com is a citizen journalism site like NowPublic or OhmyNews where "regular Joes and Janes" can contribute stories. The site is slightly different, however, in that it claims to employ "quality-control mechanisms" and all writers have to be approved by the editorial board before they can start publishing stories. It is not clear, however, what these "quality-control mechanisms" are, or if there is any actual editorial oversight for individual stories. I'm asking here since there are potential BLP issues and it needs to be established whether this is a reliable source or not. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Kaldari (talk) 01:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe that in general, we don't give blanket approval to any news source. It depends on what it says, what the context is, how it's being used in Wikipedia. Because of the rise of community news sites such as Patch.com (owned by AOL) in the wake of the decline of print newspapers, it seems like we'll increasingly need to rely on citizen journalism. I would be inclined, though, to think that such sites are mostly appropriate for local information. It seems like citizen journalism sites that cover national and international news should be used with caution, given that there are many well established organs that cover this news. This site claims to have quality control, and I wouldn't rule it out as a source. But I'd recommend in most cases finding more well established sources. TimidGuy (talk) 11:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

NOT a reliable source. Here is the site's description of its "digital journalists": "You might be professional journalist, an experienced blogger, an amateur author or even just a regular Joe or Jane who wants to be part of the news gathering process — whoever you are, you’re welcome on DigitalJournal.com." I don't see any sign of actual supervision. See WP:NOTRS: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight." Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Does not appear to meet the requirements of WP:RS, per Jonathanwallace's analysis. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a long discussion at Dosa about whether cook books can be used as a reference about the history of the food. Would a cook book be considered as a reliable secondary source about the history of a food by an expert in the field? See Talk:Dosa#Origin of Masala Dosa? from 4th feb 2009 onwards in the talk page seems to be about related matters and the article has references being added and subtracted every so often all this time. Dmcq (talk) 10:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I see no reason why a cook book couldn't be used as a reference - many include substantial text on the dishes and cuisine that they deal with. That doesn't mean that any given cook book is 100% accurate, however, as is the case with any other type of book.--Michig (talk) 10:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I am very sorry but I see now from searching that practically this exact question was raised six months ago in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_74#Dosa. I think the answer then was cook books were okay but it wasn't stated in black and white like that, anyway it isn't a reason to straightforwardly remove citations on its own that I can see. Dmcq (talk) 10:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a clear wikipedia problem that people without much knowledge and much time to dig into real issue will tend to support anything that has references. somehow, the quality of the references and the context with which it reconciles or doesnt reconcile with other existing references dont matter? I am not discrediting cook books entirely. my argument is as follows. Dosa orginated in Udupi is equivalent to claiming Pizza originated in a random but a specific city, e.g. Naples. History of Pizza doesnt point to a specific city or village where Pizza originated. It only cites archaeological and litereary evidences that give a rough idea as to where Pizza may have originated. I would be happily surprised if we have solid evidence that proves the first person who ever made Pizza.

This references and few others mention that Dosa was first mentioned in Sangam literature which is quite old. This reference to Dosa in Sangam literature points to occurence of Dosa in Tamil speaking areas at that time. If it had originated in Udupi, a Kannada speaking region, it should have happened before Sangam literature was written. How is it possible that anyone knows for certain that something as old as Dosa specifically originated in a specific city. nobody even knows if that city existed at that time. Passing mention by writers in cook books might have been picked up from local newspaper articles written by ignorant Dosa enthusiasts. --CarTick (talk) 13:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be worded to make it clear its an opinion. Also are cooks historians of food?Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

We're not in the business of original research. We are supposed to summarize what reliable sources say. You did discrdit cook books entirely by saying they are not reliable sources. What you are talking about here is weight rather than reliable sources. I think this may be similar to the problem in WP:V#What if a significant number of secondary sources are wrong?. Dmcq (talk) 13:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with CarTick - it is often very much a case of whispers becoming "hard facts". But it can be resolved with phrasing, eg: "There appears to be a consensus among modern food writers that ..." (and cite a couple of respected ppl to prove it). Would that not do the trick, assuming that there is a decent consensus among the writers. - Sitush (talk) 13:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there such a consensus? I thinhbk it would be better worded as "Ii has been said by some food writers". unless consensus can be shown.Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

for non Indian editors, it might be helpful to know that All four South Indian states would like to claim Dosa originated in our state. We all were born with the belief it all started in our neighborhood and our beliefs were often strengthened by vernacular writings. we also believe that our moms make the best Dosa in the world. :) --CarTick (talk) 13:45, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

What you believe and what is verifiable are different things. Are vernacular sources usually reliable sources? I doubt it, for precisely the whisper/fact reasons I give above. - Sitush (talk) 13:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

the larger point i was making was that people grown with such beliefs edit this article. i wouldnt consider them reliable. --CarTick (talk) 13:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

As the article stands right now, it looks pretty ok to me - it discusses various origins etc, with refs that on the face of it (I'm neither a great cook nor an Indian) appear sound enough, and leaves the matter open. Stick a note in the page saying "don't alter this any more without reliable sources etc"; if the warring continues then go to semi-protection etc. This seems to be a common trait with all sorts of Indian articles - there seems to be a very high sense of regional pride etc and it gets in the way. An example would be recent warring on the Patna article. - Sitush (talk) 14:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

as i pointed out, i find it silly to even write that Dosa "originated" in some place. is it just me? i guess i should remove "Their works do not mention the reference to Dosa in Tamil Sangam literature" from the second bullet. That was added by me as part of a consensus long time ago. i dont think it is needed though. --CarTick (talk) 14:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep, take that out. Also take out the word "eminent", which is POV. Furthermore, if a writer does not have a decent WP article then you need to assume that they are not in fact notable enough to be quoted as a source of an opinion. But the basic structure right now is fine. - Sitush (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The current wording seems to make clear the status of the hypothesis. I would just quibble with the wording of the last post. Many academic writers do not meet WP:PROF and thus have no article on WP but they are usable as reliable sources; the same can apply to journalists and other authors. Perhaps we can eat our dosas together with hummus (Palestinian? Israeli? Lebanese?), and followed by pavlova (Australian? New Zealand?). National/regional pride in foodstuffs often spills over into Wikipedia conflicts.

An ongoing bone of contention for your attention here. The article was [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mario Parga sent to AfD] where it was kept as no consensus--puzzling, in my mind, and I wasn't the only one who was surprised--and after that, the creator saw fit to remove the "unsourced BLP tag". I reinstated the tag, and then another editor removed it.

This is also a BLP issue, of course, but I'm here specifically because the last editor stated "removed unreferenced template - references have been added." It is my contention that not a single one of the sources counts even remotely as a reliable source. The AfD might be revisited soon, but in the meantime I'd like to know how reliable you all think those sources are, especially given that they are supposed to verify BLP information. Please note that the actual biographies on many of them are copy and past jobs, no doubt supplied by the same editor who claims to have permission from Parga's management. Here they are:

1. an interview
2. a download link
3. some personal site
4. MusicMight--user submitted
5. something on a student radio show website
6. this
7. a record company page
8. a fansite for shred guitar
9. a metalzine
10. a personal site
11. another webzine
12. another personal site
13. a review that mentions Parga on a personal website

Thanks in advance. Drmies (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention - I didn't give this article a close enough look when I removed the {{unreferenced}} tag. Technically it is referenced, but these references are not reliable sources for our purposes, so I've added the {{reliablesources}} template instead. (I'll add that I'm not seeing very impressive claims of notability here; this should probably have been deleted at AFD, and if better sources aren't found, I'd recommend sending it back there sooner or later.) Robofish (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything about him in LexisNexis academic edition or in Google News Archives. In Google Books a search on "Mario Parga guitar" turns up one search result[2] which is a book published by HarperColins that includes him in a list of "absolute masters of the guitar." Not much out there about him. TimidGuy (talk) 12:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Is the website feldgrau.com considered a reliable source? I've just encountered an ip user which insists on replacing info based on book sources (published by the UK government) with info from feldgrau.com pages (specifically www.feldgrau.com/stats.html and www.feldgrau.com/norwegian.html) over at Norwegian Campaign. Are these considered reliable? Manxruler (talk) 22:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I would not say that it qualifies as a reliable source since it is self published without any editorial oversight, and because the web master, Jason Pipes, does not seem to have been published in the field, or at least not published enough to establish him as an expert. While I don't doubt that he is certainly knowledgeable on the subject, if his views are in contradiction to print sources published by the U.K. government then preference should be given to the print sources. His site though looks perfectly adequate as an external link for relevant articles.AerobicFox (talk) 05:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with this assessment. TimidGuy (talk) 12:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

That's what I thought. My impression of the way feldgrau has been used on Wikipedia, however, is as a cited source for specific info, rather than as external links. That is perhaps a bit problematic. Manxruler (talk) 12:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

At first glance this looks like a private website/portal. Even if it turns out as informative and mostly reliable upon close inspection it is not acceptable that editors replace regularly published book resources by this site in citations. That's a clear no go. The site however might suited for being listed under external links.--Kmhkmh (talk) 13:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Can I get a view please, on the reliability of the sites Browse Biography and Incredible People. They both[3][4] have a biography of Golding Bird which I would like to use, but I see no source information. The fact that both sites are carrying word-for-word identical articles leads me to suspect that the material has been lifted from some RS, but I can't work out what it is. SpinningSpark 12:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Since anyone may submit a biography to BrowseBiography,[5] it is not rs. Incredible people does not say who writes their biographies or what fact-checking is done, and therefore there is no way of knowing if they are rs. In any case it would be a tertiary source and therefore should be avoided. TFD (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Incredible people appears to be a WP mirror for biographies. No way is it close to RS! (I checked its "Scott Brown" bio to confirm this). Collect (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone has been messing with the imformation. There is no poopington elementary school in Crofton. The elementary school that is missing is The Crofton Elementary School. It would be nice if it could be corrected. Thank-you

It was vandalism, which has been fixed. First Light (talk) 05:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I have searched through the archives and found a couple of examples where Google Snippets was discussed. Several have focused on Google snippets, where their reliability has been discussed but in those cases editors did in fact have the source to hand. The consensus that I have seen thus far is that provided an editor has the source available then use of Google snippets is perfectly acceptable to illustrate a proposed edit. I've done so myself.

However, when Google snippets is the sole source used to support an edit and the editor does not possess the source, I do not believe this is a reliable or accurate way to source edits. Unless you have the ability to see the source and to discuss it in the whole I do not believe this is a reliable way to source an edit.

As an example:

This was given as justification of an edit to support a claim the British controlled Gibraltar in the period 1704-1713.

"And, most important in the early days, there was the succession of British Governors who recognised that their position as dictators of Gibraltar gave them unprecedented opportunities for plunder." (Proud fortress; the fighting story of Gibraltar, Allen Andrews, p 55

The editor who made this claim searched for the name of the Governor who was appointed in 1707, Shrimpton. This is the Google snippet they used [6].

Unfortunately, the editor wasn't in posession of the source, that part of the book is dealing with the period 1713-1727 after Utrecht when Gibraltar was ceded to Britain.

My second concern is that of the potential for confirmation bias. Rather than reading sources and composing a neutral point of view edit, the editor decides the content they wish to write, then looks for sources to justify the text and can all too easily mislead themselves that they've reliably sourced an edit. As shown above, it is far from reliable.

My question for this board, is are Google Snippets, alone suitable for sourcing edits? Wee Curry Monster talk 21:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I would say not. Google Snippets give just a sentence or two of material and , as in the example you described, are too easily misunderstood or taken out of context. Jonathanwallace (talk) 13:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

We all use snippet view from time to time. It's good for identifying texts that may be of interest, and sometimes you can use it to rule out a source as irrelevant (if you find no mention of the search string at all). In theory, you should read the whole of a work before citing it at all, so that you are certain not to cherry-pick or pull items out of context. But for non-contentious material, the Google Books preview may be sufficient, or if using a paper book copy, it may be OK to read only the introduction, conclusion and one chapter. Some people will have a stricter view than that. You can always ask another editor if he/she has read the whole text, rather than making an assumption. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

To clarify. First of all we are talking google snippets here, where at most you can see a few sentences and that is all. Sometimes less. I have no problem with using Google Books preview at all. Secondly, I am not making a presumption, the editor in question has stated he has not read the source and is using snippets only. This is what I consider is an unreliable method for sourcing. Finally, we are not talking about non-contentious material, rather material relevant to particular national narratives. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

In that case, the best thing to do is to delay discussion until editors have been able to access the source. And it is only worth everyone accessing the source if it appears to be relevant and high quality. That can usually be judged by the title, date of publication, author, publisher, but snippet searches can also yield some information. If another editor told me he had the whole text, and I only had snippet view, then I might take it on trust that he was using the book properly, but if no-one editing has access to the whole text, then the book shouldn't be used at all. It can go into Further reading if it seems to be relevant and of quality. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Things like Google snippets and Google Books are a great tools for finding potential sources... but they should never be used as a source themselves. We always need to read the actual source material and cite that. We need to make sure that we are not taking a snipped material out of context. Blueboar (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Blueboar, just to avoid misunderstanding coming from your connecting of Google Books more generally into this discussion, in these days of e-books I take it that if someone reads a book properly online that is like reading in any other media. I presume you are referring to cases of people not reading properly?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

An e-book or scanned copy of a book hosted on a reliable website is fine... as long as the reader can view the entire book in question. My concern with Google books is that it sometimes limits the number of pages that can be viewed. Thus, we can not always be sure that we have been presented with enough material to fully understand the context in which a searched for term or phrase appears. The concern is certainly a lot less than it is with Google snippets, but it is there never the less. Blueboar (talk) 14:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, where sources are in the public domain and there is a complete copy available, it is no different to going down the library. To be precise, where snippets is the only material available it runs the risk of misleading and is unreliable as a source. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I can see both points here. In the case of the Weston Price article there was the claim that he had been called "Charles Darwin of Nutrition"; a search of google books produced this snippet [7] which was enough to show the actually statement was that he might as well be caused that and it was an option piece. That was enough to clarify a mammoth mistatment that at over 5,000 hits was all over the internet.

On the flip side snippets produce a lot of garbage mishits and unless you can see their context they are worse then useless.

Snippets are like any tool--they can be used or abused. --BruceGrubb (talk) 12:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

There should be no hard-and-fast rule. A snippet may contain enough context to unambiguously establish or support a particular point in an article - or it may not. If it does, it should not be excluded from use merely because it was viewed in snippet form. I do not agree with any notion that an editor must have access to an entire book before it can be used as a source. Thparkth (talk) 13:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually I'd disagree with you there. It can appear to establish or support a particular point but unless you have the source you cannot know that for certain and therein lies the problem. Its like looking at a source through a straw, you see fragments of text, you cannot establish for certain you're reflecting the original intent of the author. As a means of research it is contrary to wikipedia's way of working, you start with the edit and look for sources to confirm it, it is therefore vulnerable to confirmation bias and will not reflect the weight of views in the literature. As an example, there is a famous literary review of Lawrence Olivier in the London Standard, which stated "Not one of Olivier's best performances". This was reported on the poster at the theatre as "...one of Olivier's best performances". You see the danger? Wee Curry Monster talk 13:33, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Thparkth; snippets may contain enough context or may not. If an editor thinks the material is mis-quoted/misinterpreted, he/she will have to produce compelling evidence as to why, rather than just saying "you saw it in a snippet, so it's out of context". Jayjg ^(talk) 19:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this should not be a hard-and-fast rule. Snippets are OK when the content is perfectly clear, and not OK when it isn't. I guess we should be able to evaluate which is the case and, when it is disputed we can reach an agreement. For example, a snippet that states that "In modern medicine, antibiotics are the primary weapon for fighting bacterial infection. Penicillin was first discovered in 1928 by British physician Alexander Fleming."[8] clearly can be used to say that this source supports the idea that "Alexander Fleming was the first discoverer of penicillin", with no "buts" or "ifs", wouldn't it? -- Imalbornoz (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem is you present text as clear and unambiguous even when it is not. The classic example being presented from Andrews above, when you, Imalbornoz, repeatedly claimed this supported your argument (at least 10 times). This was despite the fact that it was pointed out you were wrong, that this referred to a later period and having it shown to you where in the book Andrews dealt with the events of 1704. You didn't even have the book to verify the claim, you were working on a very flawed presumption that if it mentioned Shrimpton it must be about his governorship. And this is not an isolated example, you did the same with Hills and Jackson, both of whom directly contradict the claim you made and you continued to press the same claim when more than ample evidence from those sources were presented to refute them.

And the examples you have chosen are not clear and unambiguous, the text is cut off immediately before (leading to my example from the London Standard), or immediately after. Finally, you're not talking about events which are not contentious (like Fleming), you're taking quotes and applying them to a contentious area, ignoring the fact that there is a range of opinions and that the view among historians is that the debate is not yet closed. On the one hand you demand extraordinary levels of proof from other editors but you source your edits on some very flimsy pretexts.

So when is clear, unambiguous and there is no controversy, google snippets can be adequate to be used as part of a cite. But even there I'd disagree that it is a suitable argument they form a reliable source. There are plenty of examples where the full cite is available, so the use of google snippets in those cases is an arbitrary and capricious.

And the example given is in no way even remotely related to what you're doing. You start with a premise and use google snippets to find a cite to support the premise. NPOV requires we report what the balance of views in the mainstream literature are. Use of google snippets as the sole research tool can never do that, seeing as the results are predicated on the initial premise you started with. All it does is reinforces your initial presumption through confirmation bias. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

"If an editor thinks the material is mis-quoted/misinterpreted, he/she will have to produce compelling evidence as to why Isn't that rather reversing the burden of proof, if a snippets isn't enough to be clear and unambiguous then it is up to the original editor to provide proof to a text that is challenged by further reference to the source? Again this illustrates why snippets are inherently unreliable and to be used sparingly and largely when the original source is available. Wee Curry Monster talk 13:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

You can actually get a lot of text out of Google Snippet View through a combination of searching the book and searching the database. It's just tedious. I see no problem with assuming they're as reliable as any other book citation; contested citations can be dealt with on an individual basis. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it is the wrong question - the reliablity of a source does not depend on whether or not it can be retrieved on-line. However editors should not present sources unless they are able to read them, or at least enough of the source so that the context is clear. If an editor has only seen a snippet view then they should not use that book as a source. TFD (talk) 14:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

there's an interesting special case where the google summary linked to a snippet will contain information not present in the actual snippet, but rather from the surrounding text which is not available. I have avoided using these as references when I cannot access the full text. Nonetheless, when I do access the full text, I have so far consistently found that the summary is accurate. This is a difficult question: can a computer-based summary of an article be sufficiently reliable to be use as a proxy for the article? I'm not proposing we use them as authorities, but I am by no means sure that they will not do a better job of neutrally extracting the pertinent information than we are likely to do ourselves. DGG ( talk ) 18:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The example used by Imalbornoz to illustrate why snippets can be valid actually helps show why they are not. Imalbornoz said the snippet "Penicillin was first discovered in 1928 by British physician Alexander Fleming."^[9] "clearly can be used to say that this source supports the idea that "Alexander Fleming was the first discoverer of penicillin", with no "buts"" - yet the very next sentence in the book is a "But..."!

OK, that specific fact might stand. But what if the snippet had chopped out something else, for example Penicillin was first discovered in 1928 by British physician Alexander Fleming. Or so it was believed, until new evidence was found...?  Chzz  ►  18:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The use of google snippets should be discouraged as a rule. We expect that when people add references to entries they have fully verified the contents of the sources. This simply cannot be done from a snippet view because the full context is not there. It is much better to have a citation needed tag in the entry than to have a possibly erroneous citation coming from someone's google snippet view of a book. At least then we know that it hasn't yet been fully verified. There is another bad side-effect of snippet view entry writing. During content disputes and AfDs editors who are hoping to find their view supported in the available literature, or hoping to prove that something is notable often search google books and quickly return with out of context quotes. These quotes might be quite misleading and might not actually support the claims being made, but that can only be determined in full context. We should never allow such out of context quotes to be satisfactory. Allowing snippet views in some contexts would be a slippery slope into the wrong end of that scenario. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem with that topic is, that it is somewhat outside our control. Since the reference that should be cited is of course not the link to the google snippet but a proper the proper citation of the books or journal the snippet belongs to. The snippet merely might be offered as a convenience link. Now when looking at a proper citation, there is no way to tell whether the editor has read the whole book, a few pages of it, whether he read it at home or in a library, via a digitized copy or maybe just a snippet. We can of course explicitly recommend that an editor should know more than 2 lines of the source he's referencing, but on the other hand imho that follows from common sense alone. The fact that occasionally editors will do nonsensical things, is something we have to live with anyhow and it is not a good idea to formulate guidelines against various conceivable nonsensical things (see WP:CREEP).--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Also Google snippets may provide enough context, or they may not -it depends on what they say, and how they're used. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Google snippet view is NOT enough for verification. To see why, read through the sordid details at Talk:Soviet_War_Memorial_(Treptower_Park) where snippet view was being used by editors to insert contentious epitaphs into an article on a Soviet war memorial. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 11:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

An editor has added this source to the article Sex and psychology to suggest that Stereotype threat may be controversial. I believe that the scientific consensus is that stereotype threat is an established phenomenon and there isn't any scientific controversy on its existence (see sources such as:^{[1][2][3][4][5]}). I'm not aware of any scientific criticism and a quick Google Scholar search shows how much research already exists on it. The critical article above is by law professor Amy Wax and published in a law journal, so I think it's particularly inappropriate in an article about psychological research. According to her bio^[6], she doesn't have any expertise or experience evaluating psychological studies, so I think she is a completely unreliable source for this topic and does not represent notable scientific criticism of stereotype threat. Per wp:undue, I think it should only be mentioned briefly in the article that's actually about Stereotype threat (Amy Wax is already mentioned there), or possibly not included in Wikipedia as a source at all. Please let me know if I'm mistaken in my position on this source. Thanks. --Aronoel (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any indication that this is a major paper. It seems to be a student law journal? We had a discussion about those a while ago, and it seems that practice in law studies is quite different from the social sciences, in that the student law journals can be of high status. But even if that is unequivocally the case, it would only apply to law topics. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

This is odd -- a research review in a law journal. The standard for credibility in science is peer review. This article hasn't met that standard: review by experts in this field. It shouldn't be used to counter books from academic presses or research reviews that establish this phenomenon based on a review of the literature. TimidGuy (talk) 11:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

All law reviews initiating from law schools are run by the students with faculty supervision, and many are quite prestigious publications. The signed articles such as this one are written by law professors or recognized authorities in the field. Law review articles are in fact peer reviewed by faculty. If an article contains assertions pertaining to fields other than law, it would be common sense to reach out to faculty in other areas of the university to have a look, though I can't say for sure this is always done. Law professors had crossed an interdisciplinary line by the time I went to law school in 1976 and were already engaging in studies of sociological, economic, game theory aspects of law, etc. Amy Wax's credentials are unusual and impressive, as she is one of those rare people who is both a doctor and a lawyer, with a 1981 MD from Harvard and a 1986 JD from Columbia. She practiced as a neurologist. Her official bio says, "Current work in progress includes articles on law and evolutionary psychology, the political psychology of Social Security reform, and economic models of the family-friendly workplace." My opinion is that her article is a reliable source worthy of mention in the "Stereotype threat" article. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course it was peer reviewed. But I would think that an article reviewing research by scientists should be peer reviewed by scientists. We don't know that that's the case here, and because it's a law journal, I don't know that we can assume that it was peer reviewed by specialists in that field of science. It seems like this should be a consideration, especially if the scientific consensus is, as the original poster claimed, that the stereotype threat is an established phenomenon. It would be very interesting to check with the journal's editor to see if they routinely send such an article to specialists in the particular field. TimidGuy (talk) 16:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

As Jonathanwallace has said, Amy Wax has an impressive biography and is a well established and respected academic figure. "the scientific consensus is, as the original poster claimed, that the stereotype threat is an established phenomenon." In the Wax article, there is no disagreement with the peer reviewed articles. Stereotype threat is a real phenomenon and Amy wax discusses that. She agrees that it is real. The statement I add also makes clear that is what she said. The point of the wax article is that it discusses the overall impact of stereotype threat, which is not being discussed in the other two articles currently provided. She is saying that while it exists, it is likely that it has a small overall impact. This is an important consideration that is worth addressing in the wiki article. If there were conflict between these sources I would agree with you, but in fact they are not in disagreement. The wax article is peer reviewed, written by an established academic, and adds relevant and useful information that can be used to understand stereotype threat.Phoenixlanding (talk) 02:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and sent an email to professor wax asking her for more details regarding her article. If you give me some time I am sure I will be able to provide her imput on the quality of her work. I also asked her to detail the peer review process.Phoenixlanding (talk) 02:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Wax responded very quickly to my email. It seems she does not appreciate the accusations that her work is not valid. She said:

The notion that I am not credentialed and the article is not “peer reviewed” is ludicrous. Anyone with scientific and mathematical training can read these pieces and point out their flaws and faults. I am not doing original research, but rather critiquing research that has been done – and that does not require expertise beyond a brain and an ability to read a research paper.

I notice that people like Malcolm Gladwell and David Brooks, who have no scientific training, spout on about IQ, human capital, and cognitive neuroscience. Because what they say is politically correct, everyone loves it. There is clearly a double standard.

If it helps, I have an article on stereotype threat that makes the same points with more elaboration in a volume entitled “The Science on Women in Science” published by American Enterprise Institute. It is from a conference they held on women in science.

As you can see there are reasons to think this article is being singled out for political reasons. Please check Aronoel's user page and consider her political identifications.PhoenisMeanis (talk) 04:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC) (apparently some company uses phoenixlanding and they asked me to change my name)

This article is definitely reliable. A school like that would not publish this without having it peer reviewed by experts in the area, and the author is qualified to write on the subject.AerobicFox (talk) 02:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Could people comment on the email from Amy Wax? "Anyone with scientific and mathematical training can read these pieces and point out their flaws and faults." Does that mean that it wasn't peer reviewed by scientists before publication? --Aronoel (talk) 05:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Her email does explicitly state:

"The notion that ... the article is not “peer reviewed” is ludicrous."

Works are frequently used in our articles that are peer-reviewed by no one, not written experts, and aren't published by legitimate academic publications. At the very least we know that the professors and other members of their editorial staff either peer reviewed it themselves because they viewed it within their capabilities, or that they sought outside reviewers for aide. In either case we should be assured that this publication's quality control ensure the legitimacy of this content.AerobicFox (talk) 06:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It is doubtful that a law journal would be able to properly peer-review the scientific merits of a psychology review article. The author, while having impressive personal achievements, does not appear to be a practicing physician or psychologist, nor a published author on the subject in the medical literature (her bio page on UPenn website did not show any medical papers, and a quick PubMed search did not show any publications that I can find; I should note that neurology and psychology are very different fields and training in one a quarter century ago doesn't make one an expert in the other). Certainly an article in a law journal would be a reliable source for the legal side of issues, but I would be hard pressed to say it would be reliable for information of the status of medical facts, especially if contradicted by peer reviewed secondary sources in medical journals (which I have not gone into detail to confirm is the case). Yobol (talk) 06:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

She does not contradict any facts, and is writing about the statistical and scientific techniques for handling data in various ST experiments. This paper seeks to propose additional guidelines for how to more accurately and precisely gauge the extent that stereotype threat plays on the achievement gap by reviewing previous studies, their advantages and shortcomings, and proposing techniques to better handle the data and maintain internal consistently within the current researh on stereotype threat. The accusation that this is some type of fringe article that dismisses the existence of stereotype threat is misleading and incorrect.AerobicFox (talk) 08:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

What you are describing is someone trying to advance scientific arguments in a law article. Why was it published in a law journal? Red flags are thrown up for me when articles are published outside their sub-specialty in medicine (say, an ENT article published in a dermatology journal); an article published completely outside the discipline (psychology) and by an author who is by all accounts not a published expert/researcher in that discipline (psychology) throws up about 100 red flags. Bottom line: law journals are reliable for law related material; medical/scientific journals for medical/scientific material. This does not appear to be reliable as material for medical claims on Wikipedia. Yobol (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Dr. Wax is very qualified to read, understand, and evaluate scientific literature. She has significant experience in medical fields and is qualified to evaluate scientific papers in medicine. Attacking her credentials is ridiculous.Penn state is also one of the oldest and most prestigious schools in the country. It also makes little sense to attack the scholarly excellence of work that appears there. This paper is available from the social science research network. Here is the description of that site:

Social Science Research Network (SSRN) is a world wide collaborative of over 800 leading scholars that is devoted to the rapid worldwide dissemination of social science research. It is composed of a number of specialized research networks in each of the social sciences. Each of SSRN's networks encourages the early distribution of research results by reviewing and distributing submitted abstracts and by soliciting abstracts of top quality research papers around the world. The Networks encourage readers to communicate directly with other subscribers concerning their own and other's research. Through our email abstracting eJournals we currently reach over 400,000 people in approximately 140 different countries.

Would a collaborative of over 800 leading scholars make this article available if it didn't make adequate standards? No they wouldn't. On this site it is also in the top 17% of most downloaded papers. If it was bad, scholars wouldn't want to read it. Like she said, people with absolutely no scientific background are often listened to on this subject so long as what they said was deemed politically correct, which is at the heart of the problem and why Aronoel is singling out this article vs. other less credible sources in this article (the Gilligan book is terrible, but we will start on that later). It is not politically correct to question anything about stereotype threat because of feminist pressure. I can't help but notice at no point has any of the critics here bothered to address the work directly. Instead of attacking Dr. Wax's credentials, which are unique and impressive, or making the ridiculous assertion that Penn Law does not have excellent scholarship, why don't you read through the article, it is fully available online, and explain to us what about the article does not meet scientific standards.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1123499 PhoenisMeanis (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The bottom line is that this paper is not published in a peer-reviewed form (the SSRN appears to be a clearinghouse for already published research papers, they do not appear to vet or peer-review them individually) where the peer-review is from qualified experts in the field. Whether others are "listened to" or not is not relevant, as other non-peer reviewed sources would likewise not be reliable to be used as sources for medical information. Framing this discussion as an "attack" on Wax or the University of Pennsylvania (not Penn State) is frankly unhelpful and bordering on disruptive. Saying she is not an expert or a published researcher in the field is not an attack, it is a statement of fact. Yobol (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec)She published this in a law journal because she is currently working at said law school. She has also published a similar article in another volume that was on women and science. You state that this is not peer reviewed, but I see no evidence to support that. Penn State does review all of the material they publish. The claim that anything they have published is not peer reviewed had better have very good evidence to support it. If they felt they were unable to review it they would have got outside opinions. If you feel that they are incapable of reviewing it, but they feel that they are capable of reviewing it, then I am afraid your view is not going to be given much weight compared with the editorial staff of a prestigious publication which is much more qualified to make such a judgment call.AerobicFox (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

She has not been peer-reviewed by experts in the area she is publishing about (in this case psychologist), or at least as far as I can tell. Feel free to correct me by showing me which research psychologists are on the editorial staff of the law journal or which "outside opinions" they got. That you personally assume (as far as I can tell without any evidence) that this publication got adequate scientific peer review does not inspire any confidence. Yobol (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The SSRN link is just a convenience link. The actual citation appear to be Wax, Amy L., Stereotype Threat: A Case of Overclaim Syndrome?. THE SCIENCE ON WOMEN AND SCIENCE, Christina Hoff Sommers, ed., American Enterprise Institute, 2009; U of Penn Law School, Public Law Research Paper No. 08-14 We all assumed that it came from U. Penn law review but it appears to be from a book published by American Enterprise and possibly also issued separately as a research paper by the law school. My .02c: she clearly is reliable for an assertion along the lines "Law professor and neurologist Amy Wax states...." The people trying to exclude this are attempting to hold it to an impossibly high standard. Even if we treated it as falling under WP:SPS, she has been previously published by reliable third parties on issues at the intersection of law, psychology and sociology. So if this were an opinionated blog post, we would let it in but people are arguing for the exclusion of a research paper? Doesn't make sense. Jonathanwallace (talk) 21:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting. While of course I agree that she's a reliable source on her own opinions, I think because of the scientific consensus on this issue, using her source to introduce controversy about stereotype threat in an article besides Stereotype threat is undue weight. --Aronoel (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Aronoel, you are not qualified to make the judgment that her views are controversial and have not pointed out any sources which have even suggested that her opinion is not reliable or well informed. As far as I am seeing she is suggesting nothing in direct contradiction with "scientific consensus", and the portrayal of her argument as being that stereotype threat doesn't exist, and that she is drumming up controversy with scientific consensus, seems an inaccurate and highly misleading representation of her views. If editors are using her article to support such a view then that needs to be changed; however at present times if quoted accurately she is perfectly reliable to comment on the body of research that she has studied concerning stereotype threat.AerobicFox (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) I think we can all agree she is a reliable source for her own opinions - but of course, she's not an expert in the field of psychology, so playing the SPS card doesn't mean much. I guess I'm an old-fashioned type of guy, but I don't think expecting scientific/medical claims to be sourced to peer-reviewed scientific/medical literature is an "impossibly high standard" - that's just the usual academic standard in the medical field! If she is such a well considered researcher in the medical field as some are saying, where are the secondary review in the medical literature which have analyzed her work, or her published work in psychology journals? Yobol (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm just trying to do my best as a Wikipedia editor and to contribute positively, I hope people will focus on the content of my comments and not how they feel about my personal character or qualifications. The sentence that has been added based on the Wax source is "However, in a review of stereotype threat studies, law professor Amy Wax argues that while literature supports the existence of stereotype threat during study conditions, the literature also suggests the impact of stereotype threat in tests is small in magnitude. In addition she criticizes most of the studies for having improper controls, small sample sizes, and suggests that stereotype threat is unsatisfactory in explaining the over-representation of males in the top 99th percentile." I feel that this contradicts what is in the sources I linked to in my original post. --Aronoel (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if anything I said came across as personal. I suggest we close this discussion out. I think the consensus is the source is reliable for her opinion. Any further discussion goes to WP:WEIGHT and is not for this noticeboard. Its probably a good time to move this discussion to the article talk page.Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

From their website

Penn Law professors are leaders in cross-disciplinary scholarship and practice. Seventy percent of our standing faculty hold advanced degrees beyond the JD, with nearly half having PhDs or the equivalent.

Here is some of the psychology qualifications of one of their faculty:

Stephen J. Morse

"educated in law and psychology at Harvard, Morse has written for law reviews, journals of psychology, psychiatry, and philosophy; and he has edited collections."

Psychology degrees = Ph.D. - Harvard - '73 Ed.M. - Harvard - '70

Positions he has served related to psychology

Penn State = Professor of Psychology and Law in Psychiatry (1991-);

USC = Professor of Psychiatry and the Behavioral Sciences (1979-88); Professor of Psychology (1982-88); Associate Professor of Psychiatry and the Behavioral Sciences (1977-79)

Trustee, Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, 1995-2004

Do you have any reason to assume that a prestigious academic journal would not just contact one of their professors of psychology and ask them to review something? All academic journals like this peer review what they publish, there is no reason to assume this work was not peer reviewed before being published by them; that would be highly unusual for a publication like them to do.AerobicFox (talk) 22:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Is this person on the editorial board of the journal in question and/or actively peer reviews for this journal? You are assuming that this journal properly peer-reviewed this article; I only point out that it would be highly unusual that a law journal could properly peer-review a psychology review article. You have placed the burden on people to show that it wasn't peer-reviewed properly, which is frankly backwards in this situation where it would not be expected that the usual peer-review for a journal could peer-review the article properly. Yobol (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

They have psychology experts as faculty at that school, if they needed them in order to review the work they would have given it to them to review. All academic publications like this one do this; I am not even sure why you would question that.AerobicFox (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, most scientific publications publish articles in their area of expertise. Everything else you assume about what might or might not have happened in peer-review is just that - an assumption. I fear we're going around in circles, and my point has been made. Cheers. Yobol (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Things published by academic publications are assumed to have been adequately peer reviewed by the publications, assuming otherwise about a well established and prestigious publication doesn't provide them the trust they have earned.AerobicFox (talk) 04:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

We are debating a non-issue, as the assertion in question begins, "Law professor Amy Fox says...." An assertion "X is true" needs to be peer reviewed, an assertion "Amy Fox believes X" does not. Jonathanwallace (talk) 23:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like to point out that far from being a fringe opinion there are a number of pyschologists who agree with Proffessor Wax's review. Including a prominent psychologist Paul Sackett. In racial issues he made criticisms of stereotype threat that are equally applicable to gender and are in complete agreement with what wax is saying. ^ Sackett PR, Hardison CM, Cullen MJ (January 2004). "On interpreting stereotype threat as accounting for African American-White differences on cognitive tests" (PDF). Am Psychol 59 (1): 7–13. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.59.1.7. PMID 14736315. http://www2.uni-jena.de/svw/igc/studies/ss03/sackitt_hardison_cullen_2004.pdf.PhoenisMeanis (talk) 01:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

SOMEONE PLEASE ADDRESS WHAT IS UNSCIENTIFIC ABOUT THIS ARTICLE, DO NOT IGNORE THIS. I am talking to you aronoel and Yobol. You have failed to address this very vital point and it should be at the heart of your argument. It is in fact the single most important aspect of whether or not to include the article. If you cannot provide a single reason or study to refute what she is saying then it is hard to imagine what the foundation of your argument is based on. Character attacks simply are not sufficient.PhoenisMeanis (talk) 02:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

People aren't trying to refute the article because our personal analysis isn't relevant to the discussion of whether or not it qualifies as a reliable source on Wikipedia. I'm just replying because you asked me specifically to comment, but I'm fine with Jonathanwallace's suggestion to close this discussion. It appears that you've found a better source for critical views of stereotype threat anyway. --Aronoel (talk) 02:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Stating that your "personal analysis isn't relevant to the discussion" seems to suggest that you have a reliable source that has said Wax's review is controversial. Do you have a reliable source stating her review is controversial, or is that your own analysis?AerobicFox (talk) 04:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I have one question:

1. How come there is no mentioning of optimus primes City Commander Upgrade Armor Set and G3 Trailer that was made by fansproject and the Mobile Command Center by BTS Toys on the profile of "Transformers Classics" & "Optimus Prime (Transformers)". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.30.150 (talk • contribs)

Maybe because you haven't added it. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Go ahead and add it. If someone removes it, then go to the discussion page and say why you think it should be in the articles. TimidGuy (talk) 11:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Am i posting in the right place? Anyway, a book i am trying to cite has "in associaction with London's Transport Museum". Is there a field in {{citebook}} which would allow me to add this to the reference? Simply south...... 10:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope, not the right place. Template talk:Cite book would probably be a good start, along with the book's isbn. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I am bringing up this issue again because there are now more quality and quantity of sources as evidence:

There has been a raging debate on the fractional reserve banking page on the issue of whether or not the reserve requirement places an upper limit on the money supply in practice. The *textbooks* state that the reserve requirements *does* place a limit on the money supply but it appears that in the world of peer-reviewed-journal-papers the consensus is that the money supply does *not* place a limit on the money supply. For example “Understanding the Remarkable Survival of Multiplier Models of Money Stock Determination” by Raymond E. Lombra. and “Money, Reserves, and the Transmission of Monetary Policy: Does the Money Multiplier Exist?” by by Seth B. Carpenter and Selva Demiralp. One of the papers is even published on the Fed's own website.

As supporting evidence (not taken from a peer reviewed paper) Prof. Steve Keen said "Basil [Moore] is the venerable father of the proposition that the money supply is endogenously determined, rather than set exogenously by the Central Bank, as is still taught (in wild conflict with both the empirical data and actual Central Bank knowledge and practice) in almost all macroeconomics courses"

As I understand it, wikipedia policy is that peer-reviewed-journal papers trump textbooks and so unless someone can find a peer reviewed paper that defends the money-multiplier-as-limit theory, then I suggest that the wikipedia page on fractional reserve banking should state that the money-multiplier-is-NOT-a-limit is now the currently accepted mainstream view.

I have been begging the editors of the page to find a peer-reviewed-paper defending the money-multiplier-as-limit theory for many months now and they appear not to be able to find a single one. I have even offered a $250 reward if they can find one - still nothing. I even posted on a variety of popular economics forums that I was offering the prize, several hundred people have read the postings - and still nothing.

In conclusion - if there are several unchallenged peer-reviewed journal papers suggesting that money-multiplier-is-NOT-a-limit then that is what wikipedia should report as the current expert view.

Links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_reserve_banking#Alternative_views http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fractional-reserve_banking#Money_multiplier_second_break Reissgo (talk) 04:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see here for the so called 'raging' debate at the Fractional-reserve banking talk page. It is mainly a bunch of different editors telling Ressigo that he has no reliable sources to back up his conspiracy theory. Note that this same issue has been posted on this noticeboard before. See here and here. LK (talk) 06:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll avoid judging whether it is the case or not, but in principle yes, I believe that peer reviewed articles which appear to be unchallenged are higher in rank than text books. Text books are handy sometimes in some fields, but they are not the best sources. Peer reviewed articles can be questioned if they are clearly one off articles. Ideal would be to find a peer reviewed literature review article. I believe these exist in economics.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

LK's characterization of the situation is extremely disingenuous. The "bunch of different editors" consists almost exclusively of "BigK Hex" and LK, whilst I have had enthusiastic support from several editors. I should point out the BigK Hex and LK put up huge resistance over a long period to my efforts to modify the full reserve banking page so that it was made clear that loans could be made by banks in such a system. They eventually had to concede that I had been right all along (see "This would allow banks to continue to act as an intermediary between investors and borrowers" in the intro). If I had not been so patient and tenacious then the full reserve banking page would have remained inaccurate to this day. Reissgo (talk) 11:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why both views can't be accommodated, per WP:NPOV. Perhaps characterize one as the consensus textbook view, and the other as a view articulated in journals such as x and x, giving the dates. TimidGuy (talk) 11:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection to both views being on the page either. The question is which one is presented as the "current thinking amongst experts" and which is presented as the "alternative view". Currently the treatment is that the "textbook" view is the established expert view and the "journal" view is supported by a tiny group of weirdos. Reissgo (talk) 11:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Avoid those labels. Just say that one is the textbook view and one has been articulated in specific journals, and give the dates. If the dates are recent, then the reader may infer that there's an established view that is being challenged by more recent articles. Let the reader himself decide which is the current thinking among experts. It's not the role of Wikipedia to designate which is the expert view. Of course, if there are sources discrediting one view and identifying why a particular view is the consensus view, then that would give more weight to that view. And those sources could be cited. TimidGuy (talk) 11:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Currently the section describing the textbook process is listed first under the titles "Example of deposit multiplication"&"Money multiplier" and contains about 1,200 words, two pictures and one table. The journal view is listed later under the title "Alternative views" and contains 87 words and just to emphasize the alternative-ness of the views the wording also points out that the views are "outside of the mainstream". Do you think this treatment represents NPOV? Reissgo (talk) 11:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to. And "outside the mainstream" sounds like a violation of WP:NOR. Of course, all of this depends on the quality of the venues where these articles were published. TimidGuy (talk) 12:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

TimidGuy's approach sounds like a good one.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions so far. With regard to "all of this depends on the quality of the venues where these articles were published" - the Carpenter paper is from "Finance and Economics Discussion Series, Divisions of Research & Statistics and Monetary Affairs, Federal Reserve Board, Washington, D.C." May 2010 and the Lombra paper comes from the "Eastern Economic Journal (Summer 1992), pp. 305-314." - please could someone other than me comment on the quality of these two sources. Reissgo (talk) 12:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I have a suggestion as to how to proceed which I think is in the spirit of what TimidGuy suggests and Andrew Lancaster concurred with. First of all there could be a paragraph that appears before the presentation of either of the two rival theories clearly explaining that the theory described in the textbooks appears to be at odds with those published in academic journals. Then say something like "for the sake of neutrality we shall present both views". Then have the textbook view (which should be labelled as such) and then have the academic journal view. The journal view should have a proper authoritative title which is not demeaning. I suggest "the view from academic journals" or some such. The journal view could also be considerably expanded so that it is given something approaching equal weight. Finally the use of terms like "alternative" and "outside of the mainstream" should be removed when referring to the two papers listed here. Reissgo (talk) 16:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you please post links here to the (Carpenter & Demiralp) and Lombra papers? CRETOG8(t/c) 16:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

(Seth B. Carpenter and Selva Demiralp) http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2010/201041/index.html

(Lombra) http://college.holycross.edu/RePEc/eej/Archive/Volume18/V18N3P305_314.pdf

(I just noticed I had the papers and their authors swapped in the intro - now fixed)

Reissgo (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I haven't been following the article discussion, and don't claim particular expertise on the matter, I'm just looking at the sources:

• The Lombra paper was published in 1992 in a fairly minor economics journal, and seems to have had 3 citations since according to Google scholar. So, yes, it's a peer-reviewed article, which according to WP rules is a reliable source, but I can't see it as a good source for anything which contradicts major recent textbooks. Remember that many of these textbooks are written by major scholars and policy makers, so the authors aren't outsiders unaware of the state of research and policy. For instance, I have a 2001 intermediate macroeconomics text by Andrew Abel and Ben Bernanke, both of whom were researchers and had ties to the Fed at the time. That's more recent than the Lombra paper, and appears much more authoritative. If the two disagreed, I'd go with the Abel & Bernanke textbook. (Checking out other source now...) CRETOG8(t/c) 17:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• The Carpenter and Demiralp paper is recent, and may be high-quality (I haven't read it), but it's a discussion paper, not yet really complete, peer-reviewed, or formally published. It also explicitly says it doesn't represent the views of the Fed. So, as it stands, it's not a reliable source CRETOG8(t/c) 17:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

While peer-reviewed articles are reliable sources, the issue is actually one of notability. If the opinions presented in a paper have not received widespread attention, then they are safely ignored in articles. TFD (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Reissgo seems to think that RS is the only criterion for material. Many of his sources have had RS problems, but more overiddingly, it has also been suggested to Reissgo on multiple occasions by multiple editors that his proposed material has a severe POV problem, specifically, that he has introduced evidence himself that the views are WP:FRINGE. BigK HeX (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It appears that Carpenter & Demiralp wrote a related paper in 2009 "Money and the Transmission of Monetary Policy" which has 5 citations according to google scholar. http://www.ku.edu.tr/ku/images/EAF/eaf_wp0906.pdf Reissgo (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

There are a number of versions of that paper online. The 2009 one you linked above, like the others I saw, is a working paper, not a published paper. CRETOG8(t/c) 00:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

There is also "A simple approach to modelling endogenous money" by Steve Keen. Reissgo (talk) 08:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

...and if you want to argue that text from certain books can compete with papers then I'll put forward that in Moore (1979, p.539) he quotes a Fed economist who said "in the real world banks extend credit, creating deposits in the process, and look for reserves later". Reissgo (talk) 09:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

...and in the book "Towards True Monetarism" by Geoffrey Gardiner it states on page 4: "conventional textbook theory needs a slight clarification. Popular textbooks even modern ones seem to imply that there can be shortages of funds in which the Bank of England can supply only by creating new money. There authors may have somewhat misinterpreted the practicalities of the situation through incomplete mastery of the principles of double entry book keeping. They failed to see that all money is debt and that if debt has been created by a bank the money for a balancing deposit has inevitably been created too. Any funds needed to eliminate a shortage must already be on there way to the bank of England because any surplus must show up in the books once the systems brief time-lag has been overcome a permanent creation of new money should therefore never be necessary judging by their private statements bank treasurers well understand this principle[1]" then he gives as the reference: "In a lecture the head of treasury operations of a large clearing bank was most emphatic: 'If we are short of funds we know they have to be around somewhere: it is just a question of finding where they are and then paying the price to get them'". Reissgo (talk) 09:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for finding these additional sources. Since you're still in the process of discovering sources, I might suggest that you identify what you feel are the most reliable sources, then you and the other parties discuss this further based on these additional sources and the feedback you've received here. Then if this can't be resolved, bring additional issues regarding reliable sources here, and subsequently issues regarding undue weight to WP:NPOVN. TimidGuy (talk) 11:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

A couple of comments:

• Economics textbooks are a subject in themselves. Economics took off as a very popular undergraduate course in recent decades and the textbook business did also. Concerns that these textbooks often differ from what can be found in peer reviewed journals are frequently discussed as anyone with an economics background would know. So this is a discipline where textbooks are not highly respected for reliability on fine points. I believe the point being discussed here about monetary policy is itself one that is frequently discussed.
• In my experience, teachers of undergraduate economics tend to claim that the traditional presentations of subjects are just the best way to lead students to the more realistic models. In Wikipedia we have no such excuse, because we are not leading people through a curriculum.
• I think a few people have exaggerated a little above by seeming to imply that the most popularly published things are the most notable and most important for Wikipedia, while peer reviewed sources, if not often discussed, can be called fringe positions. That is not really how Wikipedia works. Popularity of an idea does not make it the leading idea, because Wikipedia's policy are not that simplistic. "Not well known" is not the same as "fringe".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Andrew for your very interesting and useful comments. I shall take your advice. Indeed I have just discovered a swathe of new sources (Prof. Lombra just emailed me with four new papers to consider). So I shall end my comments on this noticeboard - select the papers I deem most reliable and then reconvene on WP:NPOVN at a later time. Reissgo (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that there have been at least three discussion pertain to this site. But I'm more leaning towards the idea that this site is unreliable due to the case of their announcement of the series Dragon Ball Z Kai finale in Japan. They state that their source was the fansite Kanzentai as seen here. Sarujo (talk) 15:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm increasingly getting the impression that WP policies are more tailored to mainstream topics, and that areas such as cartoons and gaming don't have the library of sources (mainstream media, scholarly articles, books) to support their content in Wikipedia. And that major web portals fill the gap. We seem to be more tolerant of such portals for these sorts of topics. That said, this site does seem to rely on user-contributed content, and there's no clear statement of editorial oversight. I'd hate to give a blanket ruling, though, for the aforementioned reason. If there's some information that's doubtful, then in that instance I'd advise against this source. TimidGuy (talk) 12:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I question the use of this website for its sources for Benedictum. A disclaimer on the website states that anything posted there is not checked for accuracy. Is this source usable?

I would say no, it's definitely not a reliable source.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 07:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• It doesn't say that at all, as far as I can see. Can you provide a link to this disclaimer? All I can see is a statement that Blabbermouth.net is independent of Roadrunner Records, who host the site, and that Roadrunner Records do not confirm or guarantee the accuracy of information on the site. Thats' a world away from Blabbermouth.net stating that they don't check anything for accuracy. Blabbermouth.net is in my view a reliable source with the caveat that some of their news items are (pretty obviously) based on press releases, but then that's true of many newspapers and other websites.--Michig (talk) 07:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I checked a couple of the refs using the Roadrunner Records website and that site actually pipes through to Blabbermouth for the stories, eg: [here. I cannot understand what Roadrunner mean by their disclaimer given that they seem clearly to be connected to Blabbermouth. I agree however that the disclaimer does not say what the OP suggested it does. - Sitush (talk) 08:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The website http://palestineremembered.com/ does not indicate who runs or edits it, or what level/type of oversight it has. The "Contact Us" page leads to a Post Office Box, and the website itself apparently hasn't been updated since mid-2007. It's an advocacy site, and obviously has a very strong POV. As far as I can tell, though it has many "members", it is run by one individual, Salah Mansour. Does it qualify as a reliable source? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

You just named every read flag of what is not a RS The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 02:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

LMFAO! Excellent example and worthy of being showcased as an instructional example, with each fault specified as Jayjg has done very nicely. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviously not a reliable source.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you'll find that it is run by an editor banned for anti-semitic behaviour on wikipedia. I would imagine you'd remember the individual Jayjg, it doesn't take the skills of Hercule Poirot. Clearly not a WP:RS per WP:SPS. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Although I agree that palestineremembered should not be used as a source itself, what about it's use as a depository? I bring this up because in several articles on depopulated Palestinian villages we have used Sami Hadawi's 1945 population and land statistics (a clear RS) for the Arab and Jewish settlements in British Palestine as a source. The last census before this was in 1931 so obviously his census is very useful especially since we're talking about villages depopulated roughly 3-4 years after the collection of those stats. Although Walid Khalidi uses these stats in his book All That Remains, palestineremembered has provided photo copies of Hadawi's book. This has never been a problem (maybe because not many people paid attention or cared that the link leads to the palestineremembered website), but it has become a sticking point in the article on Dayr al-Shaykh which is currently being nominated for DYK. See Talk:Dayr al-Shaykh#Dispute. Basically, I want to know whether or not we could allow linkage to palestineremembered because they provide the physical (actually virtual) copies of the particular pages of Hadawi's book. It might be easier to understand if any of you take a look at Dayr al-Shaykh where the only places that link to palestineremembered are the following: p.57 and p.102. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The question about whether or not http://palestineremembered.com should be used as a source is really moot. It has not been used as a WP:RS for years; only some old references which were added years ago remain. And those old references are steadily being removed and changed to WP:RS sources.

However, as a depository, both for the photo-copied Hadawi-book, and for pictures users have uploaded, it is most useful. Besides own pictures, users often have uploaded pictures from the Mattson-collection to palestineremembered.com; these pictures can in turn be uploaded to wikipedia, as the copy-right has expired.

It also serves as a guest-book, where people associated with any special place (who today are often spread around the world) can get back into contact. For this reason alone, it is useful to have it linked under "External references". 109.67.119.30 (talk) 10:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure the people who use it feel they get some benefit from it, but since it's not a WP:RS, it cannot be trusted even for books it says it has photocopied. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Hadawi has written considerable about the conflict and was very much involved and doubtless an RS for certain things. However, I would question this book published by the PLO and is the one used as a reference in the Dayh al-Shayk article. The PLO, which the Jewish Virtual Library refers to as "one of the best known terrorist organizations in the world", and is sworn to the destruction of Israel ^{[7] [8] [9] [10] [11]} might be analogous to using reference material published by Al-Qaeda about the United States. If the JDL, found here, published reference material about the conflict, would we consider that neutral and reliable reference material? Also, I would say that material that can only be found on PalestineRemembered would perhaps be similar to using material that can only be found at the ZOA or CAMERA. At the very least, a LARGE grain of salt is in order. 172.190.40.223 (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe Israeli MFA is used as an RS, no? Yazan (talk) 00:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The official government ministry of a democratic, developed country is not comparable to the website of a single activist. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

First off, the JVL should be equated with PalestineRememebered, but for the opposite POV. Second, it was published by the PLO not written by the PLO (although per NPOV we shouldn't deem whatever sources are affiliated with the PLO as unreliable just like we don't for the Israeli government. Remember, the PLO is the government of the Palestinians). Third, I respect your firm treatment of POV sources, however, I think it's cynical to think the website tampered with the photocopies. I stress that these statistics provided by Hadawi are significant (and I don't believe anyone is arguing against that) and reliable and the fact that we have to eradicate any linkage with palestineremembered from wikipedia would disable us from using Hadawi's population stats which were the most up-to-date figures available until the villages were depopulated. --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Journal of Cosmology is a fringe/vanity journal which publishes weird/fringe ideas in several fields of science. Particularly on quantum consciousness, panspermia/origins of life, steady state theory, and on the colonization of Mars.

These articles use Journal of Cosmology as a references (based on the January 15 database dump). The claims should be checked against better sources, or simply removed from the article per WP:RS.

I've notified WP:AST, WP:BIOL and WP:PHYS. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I think a read of the Wikipedia entry says everything. Anyway, not only do some articles have statements that use JoC as a source but plenty more articles make reference to work "published" on the Journal of Cosmology site including Space colonization, Extraterrestrial life, Astrobiology etc. Given its fringe status/potentially unreliable nature I imagine this is giving these studies undue weight and should be reviewed too? ChiZeroOne (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd remove the references using this journal as a source. I wouldn't trust material published in it any more than papers in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. Definitely not reliable sources. Rkitko ^(talk) 00:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Its existence on the List of astronomy journals is fine, because it is after all a journal which covers astronomy (albeit unreliably). But it is not a reliable source, so claims sourced to it should be removed. Similar articles and theories also appear in the Open Astronomy Journal, so I wouldn't trust that either; fortunately the search tool doesn't show up any uses of that as a source. Modest Genius ^talk 01:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Note that the Journal of Cosmology article was written by the OP himself and is unfortunately not very neutral. It seems that at least the article by Richard B. Hoover is a WP:RS - it has been widely covered and discussed in mainstream and scientific media. Other articles published by the journal may well be rubbish, but as this example shows, a case-by-case investigation may be needed. Nanobear (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I created the article on this journal because the recent brouhaha (typical science by press conference) unfortunately puts the journal on the map. The article is neutral with regards to its status as seen by the scientific community. The article by Hoover is most certainly not a WP:RS, its coverage in mainstream/scientific media are trivial press releases of the "Someone has recently claimed that X, which would be interesting if true" kind, or a total destruction of its claims and vitriolic criticism of the authors and of the journal. The journal lacks DOIs, indexing in selective databases, not covered in Journal Citation Reports, etc... cHeadbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

There are certainly now plenty of references to the Hoover paper in reliable sources, so we can use those to discuss Hoover's claims. But I wouldn't rely upon that paper for any actual facts. Modest Genius ^talk 04:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

This source appears to fall under Wikipedia:RS#Questionable_sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Cite the article for a statement that the claims have been made where required by WP:PROMINENCE, but this journal should not by itself be used to back up bare statements of fact or the general state of the astrophysics community. The JPandS comparison above is apt. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Concur with others that this doesn't appear to be a reliable journal.[10][11] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Their reaction to the recent controversy on their own website [12] entitled "Have the terrorists won?" is all the confirmation we should need that they are indeed a fringe publication. We should avoid citing them in science articles in the future. Sailsbystars (talk) 23:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Is the "Institute of Near Eastern & African Studies" website (http://www.ineas.org/) a reliable source on the Near East and Africa? The website states it's

"an independent, tax-exempt, educational and cultural organization with the mission to educate the Arab, African, Middle Eastern and Muslim communities and offer them services, and to educate the American public and inform the media on issues related to Africa and Asia with a focus on the Arab and Islamic worlds and the non-Arab / non-Moslem Communities within the Arab world".

However, it appears to be mostly the work of Wafaa' Al-Natheema, and the people listed on the "About" page all have yahoo e-mail addresses. Her lengthy CV (linked from the website) lists a wide variety of accomplishments, including bachelor degrees in Civil Engineering and Political Science and a real estate license, along with an on-going interest in variety of Near Eastern and African topics, but doesn't seem to indicate any particular expertise in the latter. The Special Reports section provides a small number of brief descriptions of various vacations taken in different countries, mostly by Wafaa' herself. The Projects section lists an even smaller number of issues Wafaa' has been interested in (one of them, International Seed Day, is duplicated), and documentary she is working on, for which she solicits contributions. The Press section lists fairly brief descriptions of INEAS in three sources in 1998 and one in 2004. The Archives section lists 5 newsletters produced in 1997 and 1998, and 3 different performance pieces that have been done (and are still done?) for young people in classrooms, libraries, etc. The Events section lists "Tai Chi, Indian Martial Arts and Bollywood Dancing" classes INEAS gave on October 10, 2010. I could go on, but in summary everything I can find on the website tells me it's a part-time activity of one activist. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a good analysis and, as such, the site falls under the constraint of WP:SPS. TimidGuy (talk) 11:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

What is it being used for on Wikipedia?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

It was being used to support the claim that the articles written by FoxNews on the adoption of Ala'a Eddeen were propaganda and patronage. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It was also used as it to compared the Adoption of Ala'a Eddeen to the 2007 Zoé's Ark controversy. Passionless -Talk 21:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I think its clear case of self publishing source and thus could not be used as WP:RS.--Shrike (talk) 04:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Vahakn Dadrian's books are widely used as sources in articles about Armenian Genocide. But I doubt whether he is a reliable source. We can see it from the article about him, which says that he was criticised by many historians and researchers because of his willful mistranslations, biased use of only selective sources and selective quotations, and many historians say that he should not be considered as a reliable source. At the moment, he is working at the Zoryan Institute. This institute was founded by Dr. Libaridian, who took the position of Director of the Department of Research and Analysis of the Presidium of the Parliament of Armenian. And the last thing which makes me doubt seriously about the reliability of his work is that he was given a medal (the highest medal of the Ministry) by the Ministry of Diaspora of Armenia. [13] Why is that? Because he has made "immense contribution over more than fifty years to the scholarly study of the Armenian Genocide, at the same time raising awareness of it in international circles as a prime example of the “ultimate crime.” The Minister particularly emphasized the invaluable nature of Dadrian’s legal studies on the Armenian Genocide." We can easily see that the Armenian government thinks just in the same the way Dadrian thinks, and that he is biased and writes from an Armenian POV. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

About the Armenian Genocide as with the gassing of minorities in Europe under the Nazis, few of the scholars lack POV. The point of an encyclopedia editor is to sift through the mass, find the "generally agreed upon" facts, find the genuine controversies and report the multiple sides, and to leave out the speculation, the deliberate fabrications, and the unsubstantiated. If having a POV by scholars resulted in automatic exclusion as a possible source, we would have few sources left to cite. Recognize controversy, and cite Vahakn Dadrian as appropriate. --Bejnar (talk) 01:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. This helped a bit. Even though I still have serious doubts about it, and I will do a more detailed research about this issue, unless there is a very serious POV problem, I will follow your advice. --Seksen iki yüz kırk beş (talk) 13:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm having problems with an editor at two articles. In particular, at Pepi II Neferkare the editor insists on a section saying "It is thought that Ipuwer the sage served as a treasury official during the last years of Pepi II Neferkare's reign.[14][15]. Archaeological evidence from Syrian button seals supports this interpretation.[16] The Ipuwer Papyrus describes the collapse of the Old Kingdom and the beginning of the dark age known as the First Intermediate Period.[17]"

Source 14 is the Britannica which says 'perhaps'. Source 15 says " "Ipuwer had been understood by earlier scholars to be an attack by Ipuwer on a ruler, probably Pepi II. J. Spiegel reinterpreted this as an attack by a member of the ruling class at the end of the Old Kingdom on a supposed usurper who gained power after the revolution which toppled the Old Kingdom (Spiegel, 1950). This reconstruction failed to gain general support, but is still confidently maintained in an article Spiegel contributed to the most recent encyclopedia (Spiegel, 1975). " Source 16 is discussing opinions in the first part of the 20th century. The article "The Dark Ages in Ancient History. I. The First Dark Age in Egypt" says " Although van Seters (1964, JEA 50) presents arguments for assigning the work to the Second Intermediate Period, most Egyptologists consider it more probably belongs to the First." Van Seters is [[ John Van Seters. The IP also deleted from the Ipuwer Papyrus article a reputable and reliable source that calls the papyrus ""romanticised historical fiction" of theMiddle Kingdom.^[12]" [14], a view that isn't incorporated in the paragraph. Basically, the dating and purpose of this document are disputed and this seems to be a misuse and cherry-picking of sources. Dougweller (talk) 10:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Why not just qualify the statements and let the readers decide? Can't the text be altered to reflect the fact that the sources contain weasely terms such as "...is thought that...", "...had been understood by earlier scholars...", "...still confidently maintained in an article...", by adding to the article's content something like "...based upon .... it is possible that....due to poorly maintained manuscript..." "...J. Spiegel contends that..." etc.

Inclusion of the content might draw clarifying/corrective edits. Exclusion might keep the matter in the dark.

I can't comment on cherry picking without taking a weekend workshop. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I looked in JSTOR and there is a 1981 article by Williams that spells out pretty much that this idea that Ipuwer was directing the admonitions at Pepi II is an old idea.

Ipuwer had been understood by earlier scholars to be an attack by Ipuwer on a ruler, probably Pepi II. J. Spiegel reinterpreted this as an attack by a member of the ruling class at the end of the Old Kingdom on a supposed usurper who gained power after the revolution which toppled the Old Kingdom (Spiegel, 1950). This reconstruction failed to gain general support, but is still confidently maintained in an article Spiegel contributed to the most recent encyclopedia (Spiegel, 1975). A fresh and stimulating approach was made by E. Otto in a published lecture (Otto, 1951). He argued that the composition was not a denunciation of a human ruler, but a reproach directed at the creatorgod Atum for the lamentable state of the land. Otto was the first to see the relevance of the contemporary literature of the First Intermediate Period for an understanding of the work.

The Pepi connection looks to me like an old idea that is not generally accepted. There is more in the Williams article, and it seems that even by the 1980s the idea of the admonitions being a letter to Pepi was no longer seen as the correct interpretation. The Ipuwer document is dated to the 13th dynasty and the interpretation Williams mentions is one where The first part of the papyrus actually originally dates to the reign of King Khety, and the second part is a discussion Ipuwer has with a god (not a king). This is from The Sages of Ancient Egypt in the Light of Recent Scholarship, by R. J. Williams; Source: Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 101, No. 1, Oriental Wisdom (Jan. -Mar., 1981), pp. 1-19. --AnnekeBart (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. Dougweller (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

And apologies for the section heading, what was I thinking? I hate headings which don't give you a clue as to what it's about, and there I use one myself. Doh! Dougweller (talk) 10:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

hardcoregaming101.net - This site is used across many pages, but it doesn't seem very reliable. They get a lot of their information from babel-fish translated forums and other similar sources. A big problem is that they don't always say what their source is unless they are skeptical or are not sure how to interpret it. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

These gaming portals are tough to deal with. In the short time I've been involved at RSN, we've been a bit more lenient, given that topic isn't covered in the sort of traditional sources such as scholarly articles, books, and mainstream media. There doesn't seem to be a clear way to judge editorial quality. This site has an editor and contributing editors, making it somewhat more than a personal website. I'd be inclined to judge it on a case-by-case basis. In the instance where their info comes from translated forums, I'd say that that probably shouldn't be used as a source. Can you point to a specific article? TimidGuy (talk) 12:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I don`t have a personal view on the source but VP:VG considers it a situational source stating Only content by Hardcore Gaming 101 head editor and Gamasutra author Kurt Kalata is considered reliable. I don`t know the site remotely well enough to comment on that but I thought that should be pointed out. As I said I have no view on the source as a whole but I think at least it would be safe to remove any references to the site in question if the article being sourced is not written by Kurt Kalata.--76.66.189.59 (talk) 03:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, let's follow the consensus at WP:VG/RS, and restrict usage to this author. TimidGuy (talk) 11:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Philippi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Philippi, an article on an ancient Greek city, contains a substantial section relating as historical fact certain biblical accounts, in particular that a demon was exorcised from a woman there, that the exorcist (Paul) was taken to jail, and that an earthquake then split the jail open, prompting the jailer to convert to being one of the first Christians in Europe. None of these claims are cited to any source other than the biblical account. I have asked on the article's talk page whether there is any independent and contemporaneous evidence of these events, and the only reply I have received is that the biblical account must be true. Do we have any policy for determining how and when an otherwise uncorroborated account of a biblical story should be reported in the history of the place where it is said to have occurred? bd2412 T 18:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

No, the Bible is NOT a reliable source for historical assertions. (That was fun.) Jonathanwallace (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I reorganized the article to put the Bible stuff in its own (non-historical) section. Jonathanwallace (talk) 21:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

For some very old events we don't really have highly reliable sources and yet we certainly want to have articles on them, and so all the experts can do is study whatever tablets, myths, bibles, hieroglyphs, etc they can get. Do we do the same as the experts on WP? Maybe with clear attribution we can sometimes do it ("According to the Bible Cyrus was nice"), but better still is citing those experts, i.e. secondary sources, interpreting that old evidence for us.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

We should have it clearly stated as a policy that a scriptural account is not a reliable source upon which to base the assertion that an event reported only in that source actually occurred. No matter what an expert on the source text thinks of it, absent corroboration from sources unrelated to such a text, we should not be relying on accounts that, for example, a queen of Crete once had sex with a bull, became pregnant from it, and gave birth to a carnivorous half-man, half-bull. bd2412 T 17:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a step too far. I assume you are actually referring specifically to a scholar who states "Paul and Simon Magus contested in the marketplace" - all textual scholars do not have the same issues. I agree that "Paul and Simon Magus contested in the marketplace" should be "...referred to in Acts, where a contest between the apostle Paul and Simon Magus is described...." However, if a scholarly source on the text makes some relevant comments on it, that is potentially includable.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that is going too far. I see no problem with straightforward things in the Bible particularly if other people at the time could contest them, for example whether there as an earthquake. Probably it should be taken as a primary source with a very distinct lean. Dmcq (talk) 18:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bible, is at best, a primary source. I would not be surprised if there was not at least a book written on every single passage in the Bible. Just cite those if you want to mention the Biblical account of things. NW (Talk) 19:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Suppose I wish to edit Donkey to add the "fact" that some donkeys can talk, and in support of this I wish to cite Numbers 22, which features a talking donkey. Would it be your position then that, the Bible being a primary source, I can just provide a citation to a Bible scholar's discussion of this story to support the fact that some donkeys can talk, and that on the specific occasion referenced, a donkey did talk? bd2412 T 23:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

That's where WP:UNDUE comes into play. Keep in mind that reliability is heavily dependent upon context. A source that might be acceptable in one article would be completely unacceptable in another. In this case, it's acceptable to cite the Bible in the article about the Bible. So you could say, "According to the Bible, some donkeys can talk." Or better yet, cite a secondary source as NW suggests. Also, you want to try to cite the most reliable sources available for each topic. Glamour (magazine) and Cosmopolitan (magazine) might be good sources for articles on women's fashion, but you wouldn't cite them for articles on astronomy as much more reliable sources are available. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I recently had to finesse this, see here. I thought in an article on a Christian service, it would be pointless to throw in a bunch of "allegedly" and "supposedly"s.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Recently an IP editor added new content to the article International child abduction in Japan from the following website:

• http://awac.asn.au/Australians_With_Abducted_Children/About_Us.html

The source appears to be an advocacy group, so brings flags of WP:NPOV, but that is not what I am coming here for. My concern is that this source may fall under WP:SPS, but I would like to receive comments about the source first. If consensus finds that this is a reliable source the content will be reformatted as it has been added haphazardly, but if it fails, I will undo the change all together. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I just took a quick look at the website and can't find any content on that website. How can it be used as a source? (Am I missing something?) If it's being used to support a statement that such an organization has been created, is there an issue with that? TimidGuy (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

That appears to be the case. Would this source fall under WP:PRIMARYSOURCE, even if it falls under WP:SPS? And if so, would it be a sufficient reference to support the statement added in the edit linked in my initial posting? Or would that fall under WP:LINKSPAM? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes,it does seem like linkspam and not appropriate to the body of the article, especially since none of the other countries mention specific organizations. I support removal. If this organization becomes important to the issue, then it will be reported in the media, and its inclusion can be reconsidered at that time. Perhaps put in External Links? TimidGuy (talk) 11:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the content in question. Thank you. A link was not added due to the lack of useful content on that page. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I refer to the Wikipedia page Insite where another contributor has a number of times removed a paragraph of text [15] on the grounds that it is somehow in breach of Wikipedia:Third party sources, although he has not stated how it is in breach.

My source regarding criticism of the Vancouver Insite Supervised Injection Facility is the online 'Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice' [16] which is funded by the US Department of Justice. The importance of this journal article is that the Canadian Health Minister, Tony Clement, cites the article's critique of journal studies commissioned by Insite as a major impetus for their ongoing efforts to close the facility - thus the importance of the Mangham article, which has influenced government. This source verifies the Tony Clement's reliance on Mangham's critique, although it incorrectly states that the online journal is not peer-reviewed. I have posted in Talk a verbatim e-mailed reply directly from the editor of that journal where she confirms that it is indeed peer-reviewed.

The contributor also cites WP:UNDUE but that is another matter unrelated to this forum. Interested in views on this one.Minphie (talk) 01:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The author's guidelines clearly show that it's peer reviewed.[17]. The editorial board looks well credentialed. It seems like a reliable source. TimidGuy (talk) 12:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Here are a string of qoutes from third-party sources on the journal:

• "When asked to clarify what evidence Mr Clement was referring to, Mr Waddell confirmed it was a commentary published in January 2007 in a non-peer-reviewed journal called The Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice, which receives funding from the US Department of Justice." [18]
• "Efforts to undermine the science specific to HIV prevention for injection drug users are becoming increasingly sophisticated. One new and worrisome trend is the creation of internet sites posing as open-access, peer-reviewed scientific journals. One such example [is The Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice]." [19]
• "Even if a journal has a website, though, it doesn’t mean the publication is credible. Librarians say the website of a journal should list its editorial board, indicate if it is peer reviewed and contain instructions for authors. [...] By way of example, Ufholz points to the lack of submission instructions on the website for The Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice". [20]
• Additionally, the journal is not listed in MEDLINE. A search for "drug policy" in NLM Catalog [21] only returns The International Journal on Drug Policy, a different journal.

In the light of this, Minphie insists on censoring that sourced fact that the journal lack proper peer-review and choses to give equal validity to the findings it presents. Obviously breaking WP:3PARTY as well as WP:VALID/WP:UNDUE. Steinberger (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't look like a normal academic journal because it isn't published by one of the publishing houses that handle journals, e.g. Harvard journals, Oxford journals, Cambridge, Sage, Taylor & Francis, Brill .... It seems that the boundaries of the once clear category "peer-reviewed journal" are becoming blurred. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I obviously concur with the above speaker. I have a strong memory that Ulrich's Periodicals Directory lists it as lacking peer-review. Although I do not have access to that site. If someone else have, we could settle this decisively. Steinberger (talk) 17:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Quoting from above: "Librarians say the website of a journal should list its editorial board, indicate if it is peer reviewed and contain instructions for authors." As I linked above, this journal does this. It's funded by the US Department of Justice, has an impressive editorial board, and has articles authored by credentialed individuals. I don't see why this source couldn't be used in WP. It doesn't seem necessary that a journal be published by a major academic press. Weight is another matter, and an issue for WP:NPOVN. TimidGuy (talk) 11:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you are right. This is not so much a matter of if it can be cited, but as for what. But, I am wondering: Where at the page you linked at, are they saying what material they will consider? To me, their instruction page look considerably thin in comparison to say JAMA, The Lancet or IJDP. I really read it as a token to mislead the unsuspicious, then something that should be taken for real. Steinberger (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

A couple of editors believe that a banner for self-published material is appropriate for the article but I believe that the self-published articles referenced are the most authentic source for the subject's views. Is the article lacking in secondary sources? Lambanog (talk) 13:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd say the section of the article relating to her views needs to be rethought in line with WP:N as well as WP:RS. Her own writings could serve as sources for her views but don't show them to be notable. Reliably published analysis by others, favourable, unfavourable, or better still both, would show that. Andrew Dalby 20:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I consider the phrase though according to other sources the city name may stem from an ancient Hungarian first name which begins with "Ko" such as Kokos-Kakas, Kolumbán-Kálmán, or Kopov-Kopó. is supported by an unreliable source, namely an ordinaty website (WP:SPS). I think it should eliminated from the article,at least until a valid reference is provided, but User:Hobartimus keeps readding it. I see not clue that this would be a reliable source (Iaaasi (talk) 16:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC))

Looking around the site with the help of Google Translate, I found the About page, which seems to indicate that they're a charity site specifically designed to "support the versatility of the institutions to safeguard the identity of Hungarians in Slovakia, all in the native culture and education institutions." This site certainly doesn't have any academic editing, nor does it even indicate that the creators are experts in the field. Thus, it does not appear to meet WP:RS. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

A new editor WGR11 is working on an article Viral Decay Acceleration. I believe an earlier version may have been deleted. I had an exchange with the editor about sources, and offered to post to this board about some issues I could not answer. The editor identified the following potential sources:

1. See page 4 of Jan. 26, 2011 Wedbush Securities report found here: http://www.koronispharma.com/newsroom.html
2. http://venturebeat.com/2007/06/29/koronis-pharma-raises-20m-to-drive-hiv-extinct/
3. http://aumag.org/wordpress/?tag=viral-decay-acceleration
4. http://uscops.com/videos-viral-decay-acceleration-for-hiv-aids-%5B3FPuIMycqv4%5D.cfm
5. http://positivelyaware.com/2007/07_04/kp_1641.html
6. http://www.defused.com/hiv-cure/videos--SPhilbrickT 18:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)/cure-for-hiv-viral-decay-acceleration-/

My observation is that sources 1,4, and 6 have some issues with independence, but I wasn't familiar with:

• venturebeat.com
• aumag.org
• uscops.com
• positivelyaware.com

So I did not know whether they meet our requirement for a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". I searched for each of the four entries in the archives, and did not get a hit. Can I get some feedback from the experts here, either on the general sites themselves, or the specific links?

Hi Phil, here are my initial thoughts:

• Venture Beat appears to be a blog-style news site founded by a former San Jose Mercury News journalist.[23] It seems to have editorial oversight and is frequently cited by other reliable sources.[24] I would lean towards it being reliable, but it's more focused on business, not science.
• Aumag.org appears to have editorial oversight[25] and offers a print version,[26] although it publishes online via Wordpress. The article itself[27] is very short so I'm not sure how much content can be gleaned from it.
• UScop.com doesn't appear to have any sort of editorial oversight. I can find no reference to it in any reliable source. Also, it appears to be a defunct web site. The domain is currently up for sale[28] and is owned by a domain squatter named WhyPark. I would say it's not reliable. Upon closer inspection, the video shown on the web site is hosted by YouTube.[29] The video was uploaded by user jerathbun.[30] It's possibly a copyright violation. The original video was produced by Koronis Pharmaceuticals.[31] It's the second video on their main page. You can cite Koronis Pharmaceuticals as a primary source, but primary sources should be used with caution. See WP:ABOUTSELF for more information on citing Koronis.
• Positively Aware magazine claims to be "an internationally known and respected magazine devoted to HIV treatment, wellness, and optimum quality of life for those living with HIV, as well as those who care for them. Positively Aware has a circulation of 85,000, and is published bi-monthly by Test Positive Aware Network (TPAN) in Chicago."[32] If true, it would sounds like it would probably qualify as reliable according to our standards. I could hardly find any mention of this magazine in other reliable sources.[33]

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

In this edit this edit another contributor excised a reference to a page on http://www.globalsecurity.org. In their edit they called the reference an "unreliable primary source".

There are almost 10,000 references to this site on the project. It is my belief this wide use of globalsecurity reflects confidence in the reliability of the site, and that those responsible for the site exercise meaningful editorial control. This particular article seems to be a reprint of an article written by the American Forces Press Service. In general I believe that the American Forces Press Service is a reliable source. In this specific case those responsible for globalsecurity felt confident enough to reprint material from the AFPS, which I suggest would show this reference is reliable even if the AFPS was not trusted. Geo Swan (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Afghan Forces Inflict Losses, Detain Local Taliban Leader". American Forces Press Service. 2008-03-05.

If it's a reprint of primary source material, and is not secondary, it is a primary source, and is therefore not reliable. Reliable sources "report" on these documents, they do not act as an intermediary to overcome primary source objections when they link to the original primary source material. Thank you.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Are all pages on the www.nytimes.com server secondary reliable sources WP:RS because we have tens of thousand of links to that server? Of course not.

As per Yachtsman1, in our context this information is a copy and past of an unreliable primary source and because some website copy and paste it on their server neither makes the information secondary nor reliable WP:RS. IQinn (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems to have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking. It's been cited as a source by Factcheck.org[34] and Time magazine.[35] It was named as Forbes Best of the Web[36] and Space.com calls it "highly regarded"[37] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Geo Swan: The first link you give is not actually to the edit in question, which it would be useful to see. The question isn't really whether globalsecurity.org is a reliable source, but whether a press release from the American Forces Press Service is a reliable source, which it probably is except for where the information may be unduly self-serving. --FormerIP (talk) 01:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• You are absolutely correct -- I did supply the wrong url. I fixed that. The diff is here. My apologies everyone. Geo Swan (talk) 12:32, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I only use globalsecurity.org when no other sources are available. It often has outdated info, ripped off from various sources. Often, who exactly is the author and what is the level of his expertise, is unclear. For example, this article currently on their main page, is cutpasted from a blog which is definitely not an RS. It is much, much better to rely on real security and military journals and articles by established military analysts published in the news media. That Forbes has mentioned globalsecurity.or in some list of "best" websites (would be interesting to know how many sites do they have this "list"; if it's 10,000, then I won't be impressed) really says nothing about the site's reliability as a source on military and security issues. I think it would be definitely wrong to regard globalsecurity.org as a true RS (meaning that everything they publish can be used), but some of their articles can certainly be used when better sources are not available. It all comes down to the article author or original publisher and their level of expertise. Nanobear (talk) 01:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Personally I believe that globalsecurity.org makes a very good reliable source; as for AFPS, I am of an opinion that it is a reliable source. Although it is an organ of the Department of Defense, very often it isn't a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE as the organ itself is often not

...very close to an event, often accounts written by people who are directly involved, offering an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on.

— WP:PRIMARY

However, at the same time, they aren't exactly WP:SECONDARY due to their organizational relationship between certain units that maybe involved in the event, but that does not necessarily exclude them from being reliable sources. Furthermore, even primary sources, can be reliable sources per WP:PRIMARY, with the caveats included there. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

When I went to this site, it opened two browser windows with ads. When I tried to close one of them, it popped up an annoying message rather than closing. I have reservations about this site. Regarding the use of this press release, I'd say it depends on what it's being used for. (The army has been known to inflate casualty figures, for example.) As FormerIP noted, the link to the edit in question doesn't actually go to that edit, so it's not clear how the source is being used. TimidGuy (talk) 12:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, the correct diff is here. Sorry. Geo Swan (talk) 12:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Nanobear offered this ref as an example of offering an article from a blog site. FWIW, this particular url is not used in any wikipedia articles. Not everything called a "blog" is unreliable. There are dozens of things that are called blogs that I use that are so reliable they are routinely cited commentators in the mainstream press, and not vice versa. Scotusblog is a good example. I don't know the background of the blog the globalsecurity.org page Nanobear cites. Nanobear, do you know whether that blog is from the tiny percentage of things that call themselves blogs that are, nevertheless, quite reliable? Geo Swan (talk) 16:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• OK. I think that most contributors here are willing to regard most of those 10,000 references to www.globalsecurity.org remain -- depending on the context of how they are used. FWIW, any reference can be used improperly, if used in the wrong context.

  Some contributors here have repeated that primary sources are not prohibited, that they merely have to be used carefully, and in a way that complies with policy. I believe I had used the reference carefully, and that my use complied with policy. Sorry that I didn't supply the right diff in this discussion. I have fixed that. Geo Swan (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• I disagree - Your use of primary sources with which to denote notability, and which create articles that are, in fact, original research, has been raised here: [38]. "most" members of this community have expressed their views on your use of primary source materials in your articles, and you have cosen to ignore that advice. This thread is no different. The only person who has made a statement that these edits should remain is you. Two editors have stated that your use of primary sources is incorrect as a matter of policy, one has said it depends, and one says as a source it is reliable. Everyone has added caveats, except you, as to their use. The issue is not one of "reliability", the issue is WP: Primary. I am also quite certain that the DOD is a "reliable source" for primary materials as well, yet the use of this source in an article violates WP policy. The excised portion of the article is also illustrative. You placed into the article the fact he prepared a report, linked it, then provided a synopsis of what the report stated in summation fashion. This abaolutely violates polic which states quite clearly: " Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. [Emphasis added]" Therein lies your problem. You link the primary source from a reliable source, then provide an intepretation based on your own POV without the use of a secondary source to support your statement. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

My feeling is that if there's any question regarding whether this is the same Shabir, and whether a particular Shabir did these things, it might be good to find a better source than a military press release. Military reports are often self serving. And there are WP:BLP issues, too. It seems like if this were significant, the media would have reported it. TimidGuy (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I need more comments on commons file:[39], which was removed here by user:Zlqq [40] and commented by user:Benlisquare:here that VOA is American propaganda and thus it is not reliable source. Arilang ^talk 11:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Certainly VOA represents the view of the U.S. and is biased, but in that sense, all of the mainstream media in the U.S. have the same bias. Since it's been posted on the VOA Channel in YouTube, I believe we generally view such videos from mainstream media as being reliable sources. TimidGuy (talk) 11:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

But the question is whether inclusion of a video file on the Wikipedia project is encyclopedic. If you take a look at my original argument, my main concern was not POV or reliability, but rather the file's inclusion being pointless. If Fox News was public domain, would we have video clips of Fox News reports on every single politics-related page? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of this noticeboard is to discuss reliability of particular sources. I don't know that we can make any broad statement about the use of video news reports. That might be a discussion appropriate to the Talk page of WP:RS. TimidGuy (talk) 12:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for you comment, TimidGuy. Arilang ^talk 12:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Yesterday I raised the issue of the reliability of Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#www.globalsecurity.org. I raised that issue because another contributor removed a reference where www.globalsecurity.org had republished an article from the American Forces Press Service.

The two respondents in the discussion above who objected to the use of practically all references from the US Department of Defense or the US Department of Justice, characterizing them as primary sources, and routinely making the mistake of asserting that primary sources are not allowed, when policy does allow them to be used, so long as they are used with appropriate care. Geo Swan (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The DoD includes a number of colleges, universities, and other educational institutions. In addition to the service academies, the DoD runs the Navy Postgraduate School, the Navy War College, and other similar institutions. It also runs technical colleges, which teach skilled trades. If you counted them all up it wouldn't surprise me if there were over one hundred institutions where the staff and students were DoD employees.

Is there any reason to treat the journals published out of these institutions as any less reliable than any other academic journals? Do these journals have an inherent bias? Maybe. I don't know. I am not myself an expert in any of the fields these journals cover. It is my impression that the professors and instructors at these DoD institutions are proud of their qualifications and feel their scholarship, their reasoning, their arguments, can hold their own when compared with the work of civilian scholars.

Similarly, I think when a student or professor who is a DoD employee has a paper published in a civilian journal, or reasonable equivalent, it should, in general, be regarded as just as reliable as one published by a civilian.

Are there exceptions? I don't know. Maybe. But I don't believe there is any secret conspiracy to force all DoD employees to distort their work to comply with a secret agenda. Geo Swan (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I first raised the question on whether articles by reporters and journalists at the American Forces Press Service should be considered reliable in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#www.globalsecurity.org. Some respondents offered their opinions there. I've read and used many articles by AFPS reporters and journalists, some of whom have worked there for years. As above, I think they write to inform, or to entertain, as some of their articles are lighter, human interest type articles. As above I do not think there is any secret conspiracy to force all DoD employees to distort their work to comply with a secret agenda.

The key passage from the AFPS article that triggered my question at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#www.globalsecurity.org seems to have been: "In other news, Afghan and coalition forces have positively identified a Taliban leader detained during a Feb. 25 joint operation in Ghazni province as Mullah Shabir." The American Forces Press Service writer did what we would do -- they made clear who identified Shabir as a Taliban leader -- "Afghan and coalition forces". Sure, it is possible the individual was misidentified as a Taliban leader. And the American Forces Press Service writer used the same kind of careful wording as we would have used -- attributing the claim to "Afghan and coalition forces".

I do not believe there was a policy based reason to excise this reference as unreliable. Geo Swan (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• "Afghan Forces Inflict Losses, Detain Local Taliban Leader". American Forces Press Service. 2008-03-05.

In the discussions above I asked for input on whether we should regard articles written by reporters and journalists employed by the American Forces Press Service should be considered reliable.

A couple of the contributors who have weighed in there routinely object to the use of any material written by employees of the DoD. Well, when I first started contributing here I didn't realize how many journalists and reporters the DoD employs.

In this diff you can see three references excised with the edit summary "Eliminated primary sources and self promotion. Use secondary sources. Thank you."

The third reference excised was:

• Master Sergeant Cheryl L. Toner (2006-06-23). "Osan's vulnerability assessed" (PDF). The MIG Alley Flyer. p. 3. Retrieved 2011-03-07. Many people think the bomb used by the Oklahoma City bombers was much larger than the car bomb used by the Khobar Towers bombers. Not so, according to Navy Capt. John F. Murphy, team chief of the Joint Staff Integrated Vulnerability Assessment team that began their analysis of Osan this week.

I used this reference in an article about a USN Captain John F. Murphy (JAG). I used it to substantiate that, at one point in his career, he traveled as leader of a team that assessed the vulnerability of US bases to terrorist bomb threats. Master Sergeant Cheryl L. Toner, the author of the article, was not Murphy's subordinate. She had no reason to distort the truth in her coverage of Murphy. I don't see why her article should be considered any less reliable than if she was a civilian reporter.

Was Murphy's assessment of the Osan base's vulnerability reliable on some kind of deep level. I don't know. I don't care. As a wikipedia contributor who complies with WP:VER my opinion on the credibility of his team's assessment is irrelevant. And, in my use of this reference I am not concerned with the reliability of his team's conclusions -- only with the article's placement of Murphy on this team.

It turns out that lots of US bases, lots of US commands, have publications, generally published weekly, generally containing relatively light and uncontroversial material. Occasionally they will publish material that addresses a larger issue, that touches on that base, or command, and when those articles back up what is in the civilian media I think they can and should be regarded as just as reliable as civilian articles. Sometimes those occasional articles that address a broader issue covered in the civilian media will quote what is for them local officials, not quoted by the distant civilian media. And when they do so I think they should still generally be regarded as just as reliable as those by civilian reporters. Like any other reference information from them should be properly attributed to the source, not stated as a fact with no attribution. As with any other reference they could be misleading, if not used carefully. Well, when I use them, I will use them carefully.

I don't think they should be excised, as "primary sources", just because the writers work for the DoD. Geo Swan (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_84#Reliability_of_US_military_summary_reports
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Geo_Swan

- IQinn (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

THanks for important hint.

@Geo Swan: There is no blanket answer. In some contexts scholarly DoD-Publications can be considered relatively reliable, but in other they might not be. To the latter scenario belong in particular cases, where the DoD is an involved party in a current/ongoing event. If we are considering an ongoing case in which he DoD as an involved party, the reliability of DoD publication regarding it cannot be treated as realiable 3rd party sources, but they are in doubt not much different from lawyer statement regarding his client, a party spokesman regarding his party, etc.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Geo, for your sincere efforts to clarify this. I believe that the above comment is a good way to look at it. In one sense, you're right: a primary source shouldn't be deleted just because it's a primary source. But on the other hand, primary sources must be used with caution, and in this case especially so, since there have been instances in the past where press statements by the military have turned out to be self-serving fabrications. (As the saying goes, "Truth is always the first casualty in war.") And as the poster above says, in some cases scholarly publications by the military can be considered reliable. In the particular instance above, have you searched resources such as Lexis/Nexis and Google News Archive to see if other media picked up the report about Shabir? If they did, then I'd say this information could be added to Wikipedia. If they didn't, and if there's some question about the information, then because it's a primary source (per the strong consensus at the earlier RSN), one must be cautious about using it as a source. Hope that helps. TimidGuy (talk) 12:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, It has been an accepted behavior to pass off The Economist as a "reliable source of the highest order" from many sides as I have been reading. Though I would like to point out a few things, that seems to form a little pattern of bias against people of a particular religion viz. Hinduism.

I would like to point this our with hard facts. As it is, uncivilized barbaric events are difficult to describe in civil forms. Let me start by saying plainly therefore that ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Pandits out of Kashmir region, J&K state, India, was a barbarian torturous "act" for all the Hindus. Same goes for burning of Hindu pilgrims of Godhra region in Gujarat state, India. These two are inhuman events of the lowest order, considering how ethnic natives residing in Kashmir since time immemorial have been brutalized and made to flee or how women and children pilgrims were burnt alive. These are rare 'acts' in deed, as no region ever tortures pilgrims and indulges in ethnic cleansing of whole set of religious hardworking people.

The Economist has hardly any words reserved, from its "reliable sources of the highest order", for these "acts". The Kashmiri Pandits living as refugees in their own countries, or those pilgrims who were burnt alive, can hardly stand up and get counted against this unfair treatment by silence of "the reliable source of the highest order".

On the other hand, the Economist has passed off troubles in Kashmir as a result of mistreatment and a little by Pakistani militants, without exhaustive consideration of all sides viz. Indian State, Kashmiri Pandits, all other minorities in J&K state like Budhdhists, Sikhs other than Hindus, and so on. Same goes for demeaning elected Govt. in Gujarat state of India.

My point is therefore simple, do what you want to but don't call the Economist as a "reliable source of the highest order" as far as anything related to Hinduism is considered. The question here is of balanced views, though an indication may come from its funding from people who have no interest in upholding human rights of Hindus, as per Universal declaration of Human Rights by U.N.

I would like to ask, if I should as a Hindu, if is it not inhuman to ignore human rights of Hindus.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.89.52.245 (talk • contribs)

I know of no reason to believe that The Economist has any bias against Hindus. If there is specific disputed text on a specifiic article please say what it is. Otherwise this is just pointless "venting". Paul B (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Is silence over ethnic cleansing and massacre of pilgrims any good for "a reliable source of the highest order"? I don't think so. "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse, and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality." — Desmond Tutu Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.89.52.245 (talk • contribs)

Can you just say what this is about? Is there an article in The Economist that has been quoted somewhere on Wikipedia? You keep repeating this phrase "a reliable source of the highest order". Did someone say that to you? If so where? About what? There is no point is criticising The Economist for being silent on a topic, since it couldn't be used as a source for something it did not say. So what is it that this journal says that you are objecting to? Paul B (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see this related to this exchange User_talk:Eraserhead1#Changes_reverted_in_article_on_Narendra_Modi regarding the article Narendra Modi. Paul B (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

This link may help. http://www.economist.com/node/16213932. Though, questioning silence of those who should not be silent, is not too contradictory is it? http://www.superiorclipping.com/canons.html

The source should be the book itself, not the Economist's review. And the book clearly has a point of view (a memoir of someone directly involved in events). Because it's from a major publisher, it's a reliable source for that point of view. I agree that just because something is in the Economist doesn't mean it's sacrosanct; we always take various factors into account. In this case, it seems like information from this book, if expressing a strong point of view, should be attributed. If you feel that the information from this source is skewing the point of view of an article, you can take that to WP:NPOVN. TimidGuy (talk) 12:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that the strong point of view is from a source and link to WP:NPOVN.

A previous discussion about Vigile.net declared that it was not to be used as a source of archived newspaper articles. In a contemporaneous AfD, one editor also said "I stand firm on my opinion concerning the use of Vigile.net and await an argument as to why a biased third-party, apparently unlawfully archiving the writings of others, should be considered an appropriate reference source". French-language writings on Vigile.net, which are not copied from newspaper sites, are being used by a small group of editors on articles relating to the Canadian province of Quebec. My specific concern relates to the use of pseudonymous writings used to support statements in Vladimir De Thézier. Should Vigile.net be considered a reliable source? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Vigile.net may have been hastily judged not to be notable enough to have a Wikipedia article but it's a French-Canadian political news and opinion website similar to the Huffington Post (which has been indirectly criticized as the “professional left” by a White House press secretary) that was made more than notable when it was mentioned by Jean Charest, the current Premier of Quebec during a parliamentary session of the National Assembly of Quebec, which caused a controversy discussed in some editorials in mainstream Quebec newspapers, such as La Presse, and in mainstream Canadian TV news outlets, such as Radio-Canada. Several political figures and organizations publicly declared their support for Vigile.net when it faced criticism.
2. Several prominent Quebec politicians, intellectuals and activists have published articles on Vigile.net, which indicates that it isn't a fringe website regardless of whether or not it is “biased”.
3. I would therefore argue that Vigile.net is an appropriate reference source for brief statements of minor facts that are neither controversial nor disputed in the article in question.

--Loremaster (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I am hoping to hear comments from other editors, but it seems only fair to point out that sentences like "In March 2010, De Thézier began advocating for the convergence of the Quebec sovereignty movement with bright green environmentalism into a “sovereign green movement” dedicated to the creation of a “green republic of Quebec”, a constitutional republican state organized according to the principles of deliberative democracy, green politics and co-operative economics" is not a "minor fact". That particular statement is sourced to a blog post from a free small-market news weekly and four French-language articles from Vigile.net all written by the same single-named pseudonymous author (it seems unlikely that this is in each of them). Unless Vigile.net is a reliable source and, in particular, a source which is qualified to recognize De Thezier as an important thinker on such matters, what he advocates is no more relevant here than what he eats for breakfast. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

1. By “minor fact”, I meant to say that we are not using this source to support a claim about a major fact of history in an article about an event (such the identity of the perpertrators of the 9/11 atttacks). It is simply being used to support a claim about a minor fact of history in an article about a living person (such as a retired hockey player joining the Green Party of Canada and working for the inclusion of an innovative proposal in the party's platform).
2. The issue of whether or not he is an important thinker is irrelevant since no one claimed he was an important thinker on such matters and we aren't debating on this noticeboard whether or not he should be mentioned in the Green politics article as an important thinker on the subject. Ultimately, according to a growing consensus, the notability of this individual as an activist has been established for him to deserve a Wikipedia article. The fact that he has received some press for his advocacy of an original idea should be mentioned in any biographical article about him for the sake of comprehensiveness. It therefore makes no sense to oppose the inclusion of this information.

--Loremaster (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I won't get into a debate here, but the source is not being used to confirm facts (such as birthplace), but to justify the inclusion of De Thezier's opinions. If De Thezier isn't an important thinker in this area, there is no reason to include their opinions in an encyclopedia. This is why I am asking for input on this use of the source. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Your argument doesn't make sense since the goal of a Wikipedia biographical article of a notable person is reporting significant facts in his or her life and career. If he has gotten press because of his advocacy of an opinion, it is a fact that should be mentioned in any biographical article about him. Reporting this fact doesn't mean that the Wikipedia article on him is claiming that he is an important thinker on the matter unless a sentence in the article explicitly stated that he was, which it doesn't. That being said, whether or not Vigile.net is judged to be a reliable source, the Vigile.net articles are being used as secondary sources to 1) support the primary reliable source, which is an article published in the printed version of Voir (as well as on one of its blogs), and 2) expand our understanding of the concept discussed in the primary source. --Loremaster (talk) 23:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Loremaster where you write "a fact that should be mentioned" I would tweak that we do not need to mention every notable and verifiable "fact". So should->could? Whether a fact should be included on WP is normally something there should be a certain level of consensus on, although WP editing policy is clearly written with a bias against deletion of anything properly sourced and notable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello Andrew. You are correct that we do not need to mention every notable and verifiable fact. However, I would argue that this particular notable and verifiable fact deserves to be mentioned in this article because it seems to indicate a decisive change in this notable person's worldview and career. --Loremaster (talk) 21:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The following was recently added to Misogyny:

Critics claim Islam as a misogynistic religion where women are captives, "honor killing" exists for even rape^[13] and women are considered inferior in every way: physically, intellectually and morally.^[14].

Those refs need to be filled out, of course, but I'm not sure that they actually are reliable. Both are reprints hosted by the "Council for Secular Humanism" website. The first, by Judith Hayes, originally appears in the Secular Humanist Bulletin. As the internal newsletter for an explicitly POV organization, this seems to definitely fail WP:RS to me for claims of facts about a religion. The second, by Ibn Warraq, originally appeared in Free Inquiry, which is also a publication of the Council for Secular Humanism, although apparently in a more academic format. Our article on Warraq describes him as a "an anti-Islam polemicist of Pakistani origin who founded the Institute for the Secularisation of Islamic Society (ISIS). He is a senior research fellow at the Center for Inquiry." This seems a little more reliable than the first, but I'm still a bit skeptical. My personal inclination is to remove the first citation entirely, and to keep the second but attribute it more explicitly to Warraq with a shortened description of who he is. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. TimidGuy (talk) 12:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, agree, that seems sensible. While you're at it, the phrase "Critics claim Islam as a..." doesn't seem quite the correct English. --FormerIP (talk) 21:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree also, that's a reasonable approach. That said, I would imagine there are various reliable books or scholarly sources that discuss the subject. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The source is the single one that supports the Cuman origin. To compare, for the Vlach (Romanian) origin there are many sources. Leaving aside the fact that it may be a fringe theory, the source itself is questionable. I don't see anything about its authors (Iaaasi (talk) 09:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC))

Yes, I think your list of sources should be preferred over this website. TimidGuy (talk) 12:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

My sources support the theory of the Vlach (Romanian) origin. The (fringe?)theory of the Cuman origin is an alternative theory supported by a single questionable source. I was asking if the respective source is valid. (Iaaasi (talk) 13:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC))

This appears to be an online version of a published work. I remember, Iaaasi, that you suggested (somewhere above) removing the other source that was cited for this scrap of information about John Hunyadi. I'm surprised that you've forgotten to mention that fact!

I agreed with you there; I don't agree here. The reader may as well know that this theory of John Hunyadi's origin exists, and this is a useful source for it. Andrew Dalby 14:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Oops. My comment above didn't take into account the particular article that this information was being used in. Agree with Andrew. TimidGuy (talk) 12:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been the main editor working on keeping the 2011 Iranian protests page updated. There was a large protest on March 8 to commemorate International Women's Day, but the amount of information that has been reported on by news media has been extremely thin because of the journalist crackdown that the Iranian government has implemented. While searching for information in reliable sources, I found this, which is an opinion piece about what happened in terms of the protests on March 8, published by PBS' Tehran Bureau, having been written by a staff writer of said group. While it is stated to be an opinion piece, since it is written by a reliable reporter, can I use it for information about what happened on March 8? Silverseren^C 20:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I would say yes. Apart from the "opinion" disclaimer, everything about it looks like serious reportage, including the "Tehran" byline. It definitely needs to be attributed. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

If nothing better is available imho you can use it with caution but you need to attribute it explicitly ("according to ...").--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Can be used with attribution. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Siberiankiss1989 has been adding more than a few reviews to music article infoboxes. The site linked to is DEAD PRESS. User also tried to create a page for DEAD PRESS, but was A7'ed. I'd like to remove these reviews as non-notable/unreliable, but will wait for a second opinion before doing so. Cheers, The Interior (Talk) 20:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Google Chrome gives me the following warning: "Warning: Visiting this site may harm your computer! The website at www.deadpress.co.uk contains elements from the site adarchitect.net, which appears to host malware – software that can hurt your computer or otherwise operate without your consent." I don't know if we have a policy about linking to web sites which contain malware, but on the basis alone, I would say to remove these links. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Yikes! Sorry to expose you! Firefox didn't do me the courtesy of a warning. I'm going to start yanking these. The Interior (Talk) 21:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I think its just the banner ads. Chrome isn't giving me a warning though. I guess it must not care as much about me as it does you, AQFK. I don't think it is an RS for reviews, though, unless someone can demonstrate that it has some sort of standing in the field - the fact that it was A7ed suggests probably not. --FormerIP (talk) 21:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

For me, it redirects to another site which gives me a fake JavaScript dialog claiming, "AVG has found suspicious activity on your pc and will perform some action on your pc." It then loads up a realistic looking but fake Windows XP Explorer-style screen which performs a fake scan of your system. When the 'scan' is complete, it displays a fake Windows Security Alert which claims to have found numerous viruses. Clicking anywhere on the page gives you a download dialog for "setup.exe". That's about as far as I went. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's a list of all the articles where it's being used.[41] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Sweet Jesus, there are more than I thought. Most look to be the work of the account above. I've started, but many hands make for light work hint hint. The Interior (Talk) 21:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I have removed these links to DEAD PRESS. It very much appears to be a spamming effort on behalf of an amateur music site. If other editors feel strongly that this site is RS, I will take responsibility for rolling these removals back. Thanks AQFK for the list, much more efficient than my approach. I have notified Siberiankiss1989 of this discussion. The Interior (Talk) 00:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Clearly fails WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: I have redacted the link in my original post because of bad juju issues at the DEAD PRESS site, see Google warning here: [42] The Interior (Talk) 02:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

On Views of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche movement, I have added a citation from an essay by Matthew Feldman.[43] He is a professor of 20th century history, and the editor of the academic journal Political religions.

The text added to the article reads:

In 1978, LaRouche's newspaper the Campaigner carried the editorial Zionism is not Judaism:^[15][16]

"The impassioned sophistry which the Zionist demagogue offers to all foolish enough to be impressed with such hoaxes is the “holocaust” thesis: that the culmination of the persecution of the Jews in the Nazi holocaust proves that Zionism is so essential to ‘Jewish survival’ that any sort of criminal activity is justified against anti-Zionists in memory of the ‘six million.’ This is worse than sophistry. It is a lie. True, about a million and a half Jews did die as a result of the Nazi policy of labor-intensive “appropriate technology” for the employment of “inferior races”, a small fraction of the tens of millions of others, especially Slavs, who were murdered in the same way that Jewish refugee Felix Rohatyn and others of his ilk propose to revive today.^[17]

Matthew Feldman said that LaRouche was portraying the accepted account of the holocaust as a hoax:^[18][19]

These may not seem, at first glance, to be egregiously anti-Semitic remarks, but they are part of a consistent – if systematically veiled – pattern of anti-Semitic conspiricism espoused by the LaRouche Organization. It is frequently mixed with a coded form of Holocaust denial, which is itself a microcosm of the sanitized language which is deliberately employed across the gamut of LaRouche publications[...] LaRouche also claims that traditional understandings of the Holocaust are ‘hoaxes’.

Feldman also said that the notes which Jeremiah Duggan made at a 2003 Schiller Institute conference were evidence of the LaRouche movement's antisemitism.^[20]

There is a pernicious group—the evil oligarchs (the Jews)—who are attempting to impose fascist imperialism and world domination through nuclear war.

This evil group is fomenting nuclear world war and bringing the world to the brink of destruction.

Below this, Jeremiah’s chart features Leo Strauss in the centre of a circle and an arrow with the words ‘Jewish’ pointing to Strauss’ name. It is annotated: ‘Jewish leads to Fascism—leads to Cheney, Bush and Rumsfeld’.

The essay can be found here[44]. It's presence in the article was objected to by a user who was later found to be the sockpuppet of a banned editor.[45]

I was hoping other editors could offer there thoughts as to whether the above text is acceptable. BillMasen (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Only a partially relevant comment but isn't holocaustresearchproject.net blacklisted ? I remember tripping a filter just a few weeks ago when I tried to link to an essay on their site and being completely baffled as to why. I found a discussion but I forget where...hmmm. Sean.hoyland - talk 15:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, there might be an issue with the website that hosts the essay, but the author and the essay itself seem reliable. Was it ever published in another venue? Blueboar (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Aha...discussed here although that still left me somewhat baffled. I recall I was looking at something by Matthew Feldman too. Seemed perfectly fine to me as a source but I couldn't find it elsewhere. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The site is no longer on the blacklist. I understand it was added back in 2006, because some accounts were spamming it (NB this was before the essay concerned was written or published, and the disputes had nothing to do with LaRouche). [Edit] Yes, I have also been unable to find this essay anywhere else. If anyone does find it I have no problem with citing it at some other location.BillMasen (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting and potentially good news. I tripped the filter on Feb 5th just over a month ago at Talk:Chetniks with this link. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

No filter tripped this time. Marvelous. Sean.hoyland - talk 17:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but my doubts about this site remain. It may not be blacklisted anymore, but that does not mean it can be used: So far, it seems that the site is nothing more than a blog and thus the article itself remains selfpublished under WP:SPS. If evidence is presented that the site provides any kind of editorial oversight, I'd gladly revise my doubts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.210.206.223 (talk • contribs)

The claim is not being made by the site, but by Feldman. Surely it is him who should be considered the source. BillMasen (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

According to SPS Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Feldman has previously published articles in academic journals about LaRouche. BillMasen (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I've sent an email to the "Holocaust Education & Archive Research Team" asking about their editorial practices.

As i still have grave doubts about the merits,reliability and publishing practice of this source, i would love to hear their response. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with BillMasen that Feldman would qualify as an expert, however we can't use the self-published sources of experts for comments about living people. WP:BLPSPS. If it turns out to be self-published, then we could use it as a source for the movement, but not for LaRouche himself, if I understand correctly.  Will Beback  talk  23:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with that. Blueboar (talk) 01:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

That's right, thanks Will. Feldman cites the Campaigner, and I've verified the quote; it is accurate. If there are other sources from within the movement writing about the Holocaust that accept the generally agreed figure of 6 million, then that might affect my views on how to handle this, but as it stands, Feldman's criticism seems fair to me. --JN466 01:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

JN, the "Views" article had, as a quick review of its history from 2005-2010 proves,always some paragraphs about different assessments of the Holocaust and featured LaRouches condemnation of Antisemitism. Those different views were deleted in 2010. 81.210.206.223 (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

• The one thing that worries me about the text that has been introduced is that Feldman is reported as saying, "Matthew Feldman said that LaRouche was portraying the accepted account of the holocaust as a hoax." That's a subtle misquote of Feldman, and a misrepresentation of what the Campaigner argues. The Campaigner doesn't argue that the Holocaust didn't happen. What the Campaigner describes as a hoax is the notion that Zionism is a justified and necessary response to the Holocaust. It argues, essentially, that Zionists have used the holocaust to their own nefarious ends. I would delete the reference to "Holocaust denial" from the section's heading, drop the sentence ""Matthew Feldman said that LaRouche was portraying the accepted account of the holocaust as a hoax," and instead just use the actual quote of what Feldman said (including, if you will, his reference to a "coded form of holocaust denial"). Just stick close to the source. --JN466 07:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

But the campaigner quote does say that only 1.5 million Jews did die, through 'labour policies' which weren't directed at them. This is very common holocaust denial, and Feldman calls it so. See [46] Holocaust deniers contend that the death toll of European Jews during World War II was well below 6 million. Deniers float numbers anywhere between 300,000 and 1.5 million, as a general rule." Mathis, Andrew E. Holocaust Denial, a Definition,

I have no objection to your suggestion of using a direct quote from Feldman. Thanks! BillMasen (talk) 11:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I have now changed it BillMasen (talk) 16:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. The 1.5 million figure does not work in the Campaigner's favour. Other LaRouche publications are more mainstream, however; here is one clearly referring to "the murder of 6 million Jews", and here is an essay by LaRouche in which he says, "Yes, Hitler killed millions of Jews", extols Mendelssohn as the saviour of German classical music (of which he is definitely a fan) and argues that Jewish contributions made German culture and science what it is. I think it's possible that his beef is with Zionists and certain Jewish financiers rather than with Jews. --JN466 04:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• FYI, I sent an email to the webmaster asking about their editorial practices and received an automatic reply saying they're too busy to answer emails.   Will Beback  talk  14:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear reactor accidents in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nuclear power accidents by country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These articles make heavy use of the following source:

Sovacool, Benjamin K. 'A Critical Evaluation of Nuclear Power and Renewable Electricity in Asia', Journal of Contemporary Asia, 40:3, 369 - 400

Available at: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a923050767

This is published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal. Nevertheless, i question its reliability and would like to hear a broader opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:|User:]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs)

The article is a high quality reliable source. The author is employed as an expert at a world University (Energy Governance Program, Centre on Asia and Globalisation, Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, Singapore). The journal is refereed. The article is recent, and contained in the refereed section of the journal. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Per Fifelfoo, it appears to meet all the requirements of WP:RS. Do you have any reason to think it doesn't? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

http://bleacherreport.com/ From what I understand it is user submitted articles which makes me think it it inappropriate. However it does have some attachment with CBS Sports. There are around 750+ links on Wikipedia with it.

Could I get a ruling? Crunk Cup (talk) 03:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't know too much about BR but our page on Bleacher Report says that "The purpose of the website was to provide a platform for bloggers and amateur sports writers to publish their work where visitors could find their articles easily". That doesn't seem to square with WP:RS, which says that sources should have "a reputation for fact-checking". After writing this I just realized I had linked to BR in an article a few months back. Down to 749 now. Qrsdogg (talk) 04:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Is Walter John Raymond's The Dictionary of Politics: Selected American and Foreign Political and Legal Terms a reliable source? It was published by Brunswick Publishing, a company apparently created by Raymond specifically to publish The Dictionary of Politics, which leads me to think no established publishers were interested in it. It's difficult to get any other information about Brunswick; Amazon carries no books by it, and it has no website (Google books has it as http://www.brunswickbooks.com/ , but that domain is for sale). Google books lists 8 books it published in the early 1990s, but the books have no other information about them, and appear to be short books of poetry, or short story collections. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

One-off publications like this are the hallmark of a self-published book. I'd say not RS. TimidGuy (talk) 11:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

One editor recently claimed that the sources used in Bryan Haczyk (which I wrote) are are not reliable sources. The four sources used in the article are USCHO.com:[47], The Star-Ledger:[48], Collegehockeynews.com:[49], and The Nutley (NJ) Sun:[50]. These all look to me like reliable sources, but I'd like to get some feedback on this issue. Thanks, Qrsdogg (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I see that it's been nominated for deletion. Newspapers can indeed be reliable sources, but the issue seems to be notability. Perhaps post here again if the article is retained. TimidGuy (talk) 11:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Part of the nominator's rationale in the AFD was that the sources used in the article were unreliable. I didn't mention that it was at AFD since I didn't want to come across as canvassing. I've used USCHO and Collegehockeynews.com on a few articles so I was curious whether I should remove them from others or not. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Those all appear to be reliable sources — recognized publications with editorial oversight. TimidGuy (talk) 11:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering whether this self-published website is a suitable reliable source for the article Line of succession to the British throne? The website was made by (the late) William Addams Reitwiesner, and is the primary source for the Wikipedia article, which attempts to list all living members of the British line of succession.

If you have noticed that Reitwiesner's list (which is over ten years old), differs from the Wikipedia article, that is because several Wikipedia editors have updated the list themselves, based on new births and deaths which come to their attention. The Wikipedia article also differs from Reitwiesner because he included Roman Catholics in his numbering, while the Wikipedia article does not. Mlm42 (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Not reliable. It might have been a reasonably well regarded effort when initially compiled but it has gone out of date. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If nothing else, given how out of date it is, it can't be considered reliable. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Is it a reliable representation of the succession on 1 January 2001? Yes I don’t see why not. Is it a reliable representation of the succession on 15 March 2011? No of course not. - dwc lr (talk) 02:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• We shouldn't be using a self-published source for material about living persons. As I understand it, it's being used to include details of illegitimate children, which would be a violation of the BLP policy. See WP:BLPSPS. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Can someone tell me what the final result was regarding whether rootsweb.ancestry.com is considered a reliable source? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

A search of the archives brings up five results, but I don't see that Rootsweb was discussed in any of those threads..[51] Ancestry.com has been discussed. In this thread from last fall[52], the response was that it fails to meet the standard because it contains user-generated content. This discussion is from last September is also helpful.[53]. TimidGuy (talk) 11:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks very much. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This web news service, "Zurf Military Aircraft," is cited as the only source for a claim in 2011 Libyan uprising that planes from a a "Free Libyan Air Force" working for the Libyan rebels attacked 2 Libyan Navy ships March 15. I found no sources at Google News about a "Free Libyan Air Force." (Revied to add: I did finally ifind some mention of the reports elsewhere, but I still am trying to find out information as to whether thes website counts as a reliable source) Yet Zurf is cited in a number of Wikipedia articles:[54]. Are they or are they not a sufficient source, by themselves, for a major development in the 2011 Libyan uprising, as compared to, say "Jane's Fighting Ships"? Edison (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I am a bit dubious. I have looked at the site and it looks SPS to me. No editorial team not by lines.Slatersteven (talk) 20:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I found where they said Al Jazeera had reported it, but I could not find it at the Al Jazeera site, though they might have said it. I found an AP wire service report that quoted the rebels as saying they had attacked the Libyan Navy, but that is a reliable source mirroring an unconfirmed claim by a partisan source. I could not find the name of the editor or reporter at "Zurf." Edits citing Zurf Military Aircraft in th 2011 Libyan uprising article were by User:AircraftZurf, who links to the website on his userpage, and who inserts references to Zurf Military Aircraft various articles: [55], [56], [57], [58], [59]. I have notified User:AircraftZurf of this discussion. Edison (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the modifications there are sometimes subtle changes in the articles. In [60] for example a line is added about commencing sea trials in 2011. and replacing Ka-31 will with Ka-31 may because China is also testing the Z-8 as an AEW aircraft as is shown with photographs (flying in the CAW-article and in Wuhan Naval Research Institute). We will only know which one is chosen when the aircraft carriers will appear at sea. --AircraftZurf (talk) 02:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

On March 9, concern was expressed on the talk page of 2011 Libyan uprising about whether this was a reliable source. See archive of that thread. I suggest that if User:AircraftZurf is the owner of the website he cites, then to avoid original research, he cites instead in his Wikipedia edits the original news sources he is getting the information from, and that those sources be cited rather than his website in the various additions if information to aviation related articles. If it is not his website, there is still a concern about whether it should be cited in Wikipedia, since links are not always provided to the source stories, just vague assertions that Reuters or Al Jazeera said something. Edison (talk) 22:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Zurf Military Aircraft I'm the editor of the article of Zurf Military Aircraft. The purpose of the article about the Libyan Uprising is to create an overview of all military aircraft related news in one article. In the timeline with the article its sources are listed. When the information is not confirmed it is mentioned in the article (On 15 March several sources (Al Jazeera and Reuters) reported ... Details and reliability of these reports are unknown.)

References are (which are present in the timeline):

• http://www.informationdissemination.net/2011/03/libyan-navy-attacked-by-fighter-jets.html for reuters/al jazeera and possibility of other countries Title: Libyan Navy Attacked by Fighter Jets - Updated
• http://www.libyafeb17.com/2011/03/march-15-updates/ al jazeera arabic news named Free Libyan Air Force Title:BREAKING: Ajdabiya is NOT in the hands of Gaddafi's forces
• http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/africa/libya-live-blog-march-15 Title:Libya Live Blog - March 15

Also some other snippets which weren't put in the timeline mentioned it. Original sources seem to be limited and originate mainly from the opposition website Libya al-Youm.

In the wikipedia-article Details and reliability of these reports are unknown were added because the reliability of the statements is doubted by us. It should be mentioned though, because the opposition has at least control over a Mi-24 helicopter (see bottom photograph of Mi-24 #854 and click to go to the source) and an attack by helicopters was mentioned in the articles above.

Zurf takes credibility and reliability seriously. To avoid confusion its probably better to list the references (similar to wikipedia) in the article on Zurf Military Aircraft?

I'm sure you do, I hope more do! However, given that this has had no play in any mainstream US or British medium, I would think we would do well to be cautious. I suggest inline attribution, and no "According to multiple sources", I say name them. I just have difficulty believing, given the tenor of the reporting which is (to put it mildly) bending over backwards to be fair to the rebels/insurgents, that if there was any credence to this, it would not have been trumpeted on CNN.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestions, but strange things are also happening there. I've also read reports that Egyptian soldiers are fighting with the rebels and I wouldn't be surprised if another country would even the odds a little without anybody knowing (by attacking beyond visual range) . The western media focus is now on Japan and Libya seems to be yesterdays story. --AircraftZurf (talk) 02:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Please do not cite yourself anymore in Wikipeia. That is original research and perhaps a conflict of interest. Just cite the original sources you have found when you wish to add the information to Wikipedia. I have no complaints about the information being accurate, but you cannot cite yourself as a reliable source, when the site is anonymous, and it has not been acknowledged as a reliable source by mainstream news media or book authors. Places where you have quoted your own website need to be converted to citations of the original sources. Edison (talk) 03:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

There is an RfC here about whether or not a study by The Barna Group is reliably sourced for the article on Atheism. Please comment there, not here. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

ICorrect.com is a website where individuals pay an annual membership fee of US $1,000 for individuals and US $5,000 for companies to publically challenge posts on the Internet. ICorrect's http://www.icorrect.com/about_us describes itself as,

"ICorrect is the website to set the record straight. So far, the likes of Wikipedia and Google searches consist entirely of hearsays. ICorrect uniquely provides “words from the horses mouth”."

As detailed in the March 14, 2011 Wikipedia Signpost article

• In the news: Paying US$1,000 to correct a Wikipedia error; brief news

User:Whitepaw corrected the article on Sir John Bond on March 10, 2011 after seeing a December 7, 2010 request at ICorrect.com. ICorrect.com has other requests to correct Wikipedia.[61] A. Is ICorrect.com as used by Whitepaw a reliable source? B. Is ICorrect.com a reliable source in general? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source because we can't tell who writes the entries. But it is quite useful, because it can indicate where there might be an error in a Wikipedia article, and we can then look up reliable sources and correct the error if necessary. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. In a case such as this, where several apparently useful factual statements are made (some of which might not be easy to source), I wonder whether it would be a good idea to include a link to the ICorrect page among the external links on our John Bond page, titled e.g. "corrections to an earlier version of this Wikipedia page". Would others agree or not? Andrew Dalby 10:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It appears information posted on iCorrect is not checked by the site. All they do (or claim to do) is verify that the author is who they say they are. As such it is no better or worse than the users blog - an authotitative source on the opinion of that person.85.133.32.70 (talk) 11:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLPSPS says:

Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if: 1.it is not unduly self-serving; 2.it does not involve claims about third parties; 3.it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; 4.there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; 5.the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Bond's correction of his birthdate, schooling etc. seem to be reliable under this section and a link to iCorrect would be appropriate. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

That all hinges on the belief that ICorrect's verification of identity is sufficiently rigorous that we can take these statements as being actualy from the people specified. I, for one, have some difficulty believing that Bianca Jagger, for instance, spends her time correcting minutia about her family. I would say that until we have some reasonable certainty that ICorrect's proffer of identity is factual, it cannot be a reliable source. Once we have sufficient assurances, then the statements can be used as statements by people about themselves in the manner quoted just above, but until then, they should be used as pointers to information that may need to be corrected through reliable third-party sources. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Their verification is probably through the credit card payment system. Paying $1000 just to post corrections is a pretty big deal, and the likelihood that someone would forge a credit card identity for Bianca Jagger for the purpose of paying money rather than stealing money seems slim. But you're correct, we'd have to know more about their verification methods. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the chances are that Bianca Jagger did nothing of the sort. If she did anything, she told an assistant or her PR person to do it -- that's just not the kind of thing that celebs generally do for themselves -- so I wouldn't assume that there's a credit card slip somewhere with Jagger's signature on it to make this all kosher (although there could be a written authorization from her - we just don't know).

That's my speculation, of course, but it's reasonable speculation based on the way the real world actually works. If ICorrect is serious about being a conduit for necessary corrections for living people that have had information about them misrepresented, then it's up to them to publish specifics about their verification regime before we begin to take them at their word. (Online, no one knows you're a dog, and we have no idea who's behind those claimed real world identities.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't really care if we accept or ban iCorrect as a source, but would note your objection--that Bianca Jagger may not have been much involved personally--would also apply to any self published web site of a celebrity, official facebook page or Twitter feed. Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

An IP editor (199.246.40.54 (talk · contribs)) yesterday added a link to a blog post as a reference for this article. I reverted, and today the IP editor reverted back, with edit summary saying Undid revision 419029356 by Looie496 (talk) This is not journal but a wiki article. blog is one of oldest sources to explain this effect through experiments. In my view this reference should not be used because (a) it violates WP's policy against using blogs, and (b) it actually is not very useful in understanding the phenomenon in any case. Although I see this as an open-and-shut case, I have a personal policy of never multi-reverting without support from other editors, so I am bringing the problem here in the hope that somebody else will take a look at it. I will notify the IP editor of this request. Looie496 (talk) 20:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I assume that you're referring to this edit[62] which is sourced to this blog.[63] This is the blogger's profile.[64] If so, I don't see how this meets Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. Anyone can create a web site or write a blog. That doesn't make them an expert. See WP:SPS for more information. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

hello,

please have a look at references 1 and 12. The first one is a blog, the second a standard website. Are they reliable? I red the about pages, but I see no issues to use them as a reliable source. However, it fails in the WP:FLC due to bad grammar in the lead, not much notability and possibly unreliable sourcing. Thank you.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 20:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Ref 1[65] (in German) is of the product "The Zattoo software", not a reliable source ; Ref 12[66] is a blog,( WP:SPS ) clearly not a reliable source. --TheMandarin (talk) 09:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
• Looking at the references, I feel that most of the sources are primary and this article needs significant secondary sources. --TheMandarin (talk) 09:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Just looking at the non blog commercial webpage being questioned here as primary, what is the practical concern with primary information in this source. For those who do not read German, I guess it is like asking whether the BBC website should not be used as a source concerning programmes made by the BBC, because primary. I do not deny secondary sources might be better here but are we really saying that primary sources are worthless in such a case?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Larry Sanger cited them specifically in one of his responses to Reporting of lolicon images on Wikimedia Commons. I'm wondering then, if its okay to use them in the article for their opinion because Sanger feels the need to pick them out in particular, specifically this article.陣内_Jinnai 21:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Well TechDirt is a blog, although it's a blog that has received "Best of the Web" awards from Business Week and Forbes according to their web site. If Sanger has gone out of his way to pick on TechDirt, and if that fact is newsworthy (and I'm not saying that it is), then I think it's appropriate to include what TechDirt has to say. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Read #3 - the article I cited above from techdirt is the one that says he didn't need to make it public. It is the only site called out in the entire article inspite there being a number of sites who posted negative comments about the report.陣内_Jinnai 03:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I think only insofar as it clarifies what Sanger was responding to, but probably not going beyond that. TimidGuy (talk) 11:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Both Neil Kinnock and Roy Hattersley have been the subject of "satire" which a reasonable person would find offensive but are well remembered in the UK from the 1980s. In Hattersley's case, I amended the article to show it was unfair but Jimbo Wales's edit .."unreferenced so per WP:BLP I am removing it for now", something I hadn't considered. In Kinnock's case, I've removed the uncited Private Eye reference to "Welsh windbag" on the same grounds. It might also now be deemed racist. Any thoughts or policy guidance appreciated. JRPG (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I remember the 'Spitting Image' satire well, and don't think that many saw it as that offensive. Kinnock and Hattersley were no more badly treated than Thatcher, and the way the vegetables cabinet were portrayed was if anything worse. Good honest knockabout comedy, in the tradition of political cartoons, or even of William Hogarth. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

These are notable portrayals of the politicians. We need to ensure that they are not given too much weight and that Wikipedia doesn't endorse the portrayals, and then the readers can make up their own minds what they think. There may be statements by the politicians themselves of how they considered these portrayals, and those should be included. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hattersley has regularly commented on his portrayal in Spitting Image, generally joking that he was the hero because his was the only image that actually spat. The expression "Welsh windbag" has a long pedigree predating Kinnock. Paul B (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm actually posting this, but here goes. Are Joshua Levy's The Agony of the Promised Land (self-published through iUniverse) and Joshua Bloomfield's Palestine (self-published novel through AuthorHouse) reliable sources? I argue that they are not, because these are pay-to-publish services that require only money - rather than expertise, factual accuracy, or research skill - to publish, and because one is moreover fictional. Epeefleche argues that they are, because the facts in them are supposedly contained in "other" reliable sources. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Ummm .. yep. Look what proposition they stand for. Look at the other sources. Take Levy, for starters, as you start with him. He says "A said X". Which he views as "Z". We also have a ref of A. Saying ... you guessed it ... "X". Levy is fine to quote for his opinion of that. (N.B. -- this is an outgrowth of a much larger issue, involving witiguette issues, tag-bombing, asserted wikihounding, etc., which are beyond the scope of this board).--Epeefleche (talk) 02:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Self-published sources are reliable for their own opinions, but Joshua Levy not being a notable person and his opinion not being reported on in any third-party source, there's no reason to include it. Including Bloomfield is simply inexcusable. Please keep your personal feud with me off RS Noticeboard, which is not the place for it. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:SPS is completely clear: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Books published by Authorhouse, iUniverse etc. are highly disfavored here (and I would think most people previously published by reliable third parties wouldn't need to resort to them). Both references should be removed from the article. Jonathanwallace (talk) 07:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

An example for discussion: I'm currently using an ancillary source that was published by iUniverse, but it is a niche topic, reliable enough to be in circulation as a definitive source in my library system, and recognized as reliable enough by history and wildlife experts to be cited in reliable sources. I think the part about reliable third parties using them is important, and it is important to note that when we use sources like this, they should be used to illustrate and expand upon the topic on points that are either already accepted and published widely in other sources and/or are uncontroversial and not found elsewhere. In other words, removing them would not change or alter the topic, but including them is more of a service to the reader. For example, the work, Max Schlemmer, Hawaii's King of Laysan Island (2003), is a self-published biography of a fascinating subject written by his grandson, Tom E. Unger. According to reliable sources like Mark Rauzon, "Biologists are most interested in Max Schlemmer's Laysan years and Unger provides details and photos not found elsewhere in print." Unger is carefully cited, again, as an ancillary source, by a journal article published in Waterbirds (The International Journal of Waterbird Biology).[67] It is my understanding that many or most of the corroborating sources that Unger uses can be found listed on a circa 2000 annotated bibliography hosted by the USGS website, which was put together "because this material is scattered over hundreds of professional journals and other periodicals". The use of the SPS in this particular instance, provides a central repository of related, uncontroversial information that is recommended by third-parties. In this particular instance, this source is added to articles as more of a note or further reading suggestion that supports previously documented information found in other reliable sources. My position is that when a SPS is used in this way, it is perfectly acceptable. Viriditas (talk) 03:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

In this case, the self-published source is not cited in reliable sources, and indeed the only review I could find says that it is not "a tool for serious academic study." And of course, the fictional self-published source is just that - fictional. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, in this case it isn't an issue as it doesn't apply to Levy, but in the past I've seen sources discounted because they were published through iUniverse, AuthorHouse or similar, when the case was they they were reprinted as self-published works after the initial print run with a traditional publisher expired. (It is getting to be a good alternative for some authors - when your work goes out of print, reclaim the rights and self-publish). Anyway, not, as mentioned, an issue here, but being printed by iUniverse isn't a guarantee that the work is self-published, only that the current edition is. - Bilby (talk) 05:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

(off-topic but interested) I suppose we'd have to check to make sure everything was the same, or at least that the fact it was cited for was also in the proper edition. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Response: There's a cited, but unattributed quote from NYT reporter Deborah Sontag in the lead. For some reason, it is followed by a cite to a novel by Jonathan Bloomfield. Sontag doesn't mention the novel,[68] and unless Epeefleche can show otherwise, it should be removed per Roscelese. Second, the statement, "The Associated Press ran the story with the headline 'Jewish toddler dies in West Bank"'" needs to be directly cited with the appropriate link. You've got the ref following Levy, and it doesn't belong there. Third, Levy's quote about the AP story is polemical, and as it appears self-published and without any indication of importance by third parties, it doesn't belong there. Epeefleche, in controversial articles, we don't get to debate whether self-published and fictional citations are relevant; we remove them immediately and debate about whether they should be restored. As far as I can tell, Roscelese has made a good case for removal, and I agree with her. You may have a case for including them in a further reading section, but you will need to demonstrate their importance. Viriditas (talk) 08:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Do we consider TMZ reliable for the purposes of citation? Why or why not? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Is that TMZ.com? Andrew Dalby 16:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep. After I posted this here, I checked the archives and it seems, so long as there is attribution to TMZ (so the reader can weigh the statement based on its source) that we can use them as a source. Is that a correct assessment? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

With caution and due care, I think the answer is a qualified yes. Can you provide a specific example of some statement you would like to attribute to TMZ? My thinking is that for non-controversial information they would be fine, but since their gig is sensationalism and reliance on paparazzi, one would need to take care with this source. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The article is Vanessa Hudgens, and [ "Sources connected to Vanessa tell TMZ the bit from TMZ] is about a more recent "discovery" of yet more instance when she apparently forgot to wear clothes while using a cam phone. The source, citing "sources close to Hudgens" (which could be anyone, really), talk about the origin of the images. Someone wants to note that all of the pictures come fromt he same batch. I don't see the source saying that, but that isn't why I came here. TMZ just seems like some gossip rag, a step above some of the London rags that aren't fit to line birdcages. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It's painful to look at that article and to see how gossip publications are being used as sources. I have reservations about TMZ, but I don't see how it's any different from the other gossip sources being used in that section. TimidGuy (talk) 11:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your distaste at the choice of sources. I think they should likely be banned from usage within BLPs, as they can cause real and lasting harm to the careers of celebrities. Not that Hudgens isn't doing that readily enough with her self-destructive behavior; we are an encyclopedia, and we should be fllowing the latest scoop by some celeb rag weekly.

That said, I had just wanted to get some extra opinions on keeping TMZ as a source - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I have serious concerns about it. Why should we be using gossip websites for our sources? What value do we gain from including Hudgens' "forgetting to wear clothes" in an encyclopedia (like this thing)? In addition, WP:IRS states "being known as a mainstream news source does not automatically make said source reliable. Several news sources have reputations for—and have sometimes admitted to—either incomplete or biased coverage, a failure to do due research, and, in egregious cases, complete falsification of some stories. Even for reputable sources, there are various articles which may not be reliable....While the reporting of rumors has a limited news value, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should include information verified by reliable sources. Wikipedia is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors." NW (Talk) 20:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

TMZ has been brought up before and deemed reliable. They meet WP:NEWSORG, they have editorial staff, lawyers, etc, and I'm not aware of any problem with any of the stories they've printed. In fact, they seem to have a reputation for breaking stories and for providing access to primary sources. Now, some of what they publish is trivia, as is the case with many other news soruces, but the many guidelines we already have about trivia should be enough to deal with that. TMZ seems to me a usable source, particularly for augmenting stories that have appeared in other media. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought I'd post here to get further advice and guidance on the use of Governmental Tourist brochures on pages about towns and villages in Lebanon such as Kfar Qouq and Ehden.

The series of brochures in question can be found on a Ministry of Tourism website here [69]

An example of the one on Rashaya district is here [70]

They have been compiled by the Ministry of Tourism from the Mayors of the various towns and villages covered, along with the work of Anis Freiha [71] and an unidentifiable author I can't find called Tony Moufarrej.

The question that hangs in the balance is whether this source can be used or could be defined as promotional and therefore a questionable source.

I tend to argue for the use of information in these brochures on several grounds :

• a) Wikipedia's need to improve the balance of coverage about this culture-rammed, but little-covered country.
• b) I see these tourist brochures as more informational than promotional as they promote places, rather than businesses.
• c) The source is the Lebanese Government's Ministry of Tourism, information from which should be considered reliable, no matter the country's size and status.
• d) The information is available online and verifiable in PDF format and represents the most up to date available, whilst I quote Anis Freiha's work to backup the source, other sources seem unduly out of date and do not provide any in depth coverage.

I think Lebanon's an amazing place that's chocked full of undiscovered wonders. I really want to bring them to Wikipedia but thought I'd check here first for comments about my approach and use of correct sourcing. Look forward to your opinions. Thanks! Paul Bedson (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

As always, it would seem to depend on what they're being used for. If they're being used for simple facts, then fine. But promotional brochures can also exaggerate or skew information, so one would have to be cautious about making claims based on these sources. TimidGuy (talk) 11:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The website seems like a WP:SPS to me, and is being used to source "According to Scottish Friends of Israel in Egypt the murder of two boys was reported, "that the two boys were "Zionist Nazis put to death for crimes against humanity"; in Iran the killing was reported as "capture and execution of two terrorists"." in the article Stoning murder of Israeli teens. Passionless -Talk 22:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It really does not look as WP:SPS, and it is contact with Scottish Parliament.It does get independent news coverage: [72];[73];[74], and it is used as a source in at least one wikipedia article--Mbz1 (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Their notability isn't really the question here. If it's true that this is how the murder was reported in the Egyptian and Iranian media, why is a pro-Israel group the only source we have on it? Why don't we just go to the Egyptian/Iranian source? I would not consider this group a reliable source for this information. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree. The question here is not the notability of the organisation, but its reliability/reputation as a news source and definitely additional or better news reports should be used here.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the requester of this post claimed it to be WP:SPS,so I tried to show it is not. I do not believe we have a reason to doubt their reliability. I would have gladly gone to Egyptian/Iranian source, but the language is a problem.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

From their website, it seems that 'Scottish Friends of Israel' isn't a media organisation, but a campaigning group. On that basis, one would have to ask where they are getting their information from. If they state this, then we can check, and presumably use the source they did. If they don't give any source, one should probably discount them as a reliable source - not because we necessarily see them as biased, but because we have no explanation of how they are acquiring information. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Is Hans-Ake Lilja, and his site, Lilja's Library, a reliable source for material on Stephen King? The site identifies itself as a fan site, however, Lilja has written a book, Lilja's Library: The World of Stephen King, which was published by Cemetery Dance Publications, which is not indicated in the Cemetary Dance Wikipedia article to be a vanity press or self-publishing company. The publication info for that book on Amazon indicates that the book includes over 40 of Lilja's interviews with King. Can Lilja's website be used as a source for articles on King and his works? Nightscream (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a bit confusing. There must be a huge scholarly literature on Stephen King. What sorts of things is this website being used for? Wouldn't the scholarly literature be a better source? It's not clear that this book from a small press qualifies him as an expert. I think we need to know particulars here — how the website is being used. TimidGuy (talk) 12:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The website was used for the material supported by footnotes #4 and 5 in this version of the article on The Dark Tower: The Wind Through the Keyhole.

As for "scholarly literature", the problem with this is that editors don't necessarily the perfect source that you would prescribe on hand. They are often limited by the sources that are available to them, which is why online sources may be favored in some cases. Let's not make the perfect the enemy of the good. Nightscream (talk) 13:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Because there are WP:BLP implications here, I think we need to do better in this case. It's not an article on a videogame. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The user who relied upon that site and wishes to continue using it, Jmj713, has explained that most of the info on that site is derived from King's official site, stephenking.com, and that the reason he uses Lilja's Library is because the bulletins on stephenking.com are not placed in discrete posts with individualized or archived permalinks, but scroll off the page as it is gradually updated. This is also a problem with the Bulletins page of Asia Carrera's official site, which is also something I've been wanting to address, as Ms. Carrera or her webmaster have not responded to my email queries about whether her site has the bulletins archived, and some of the material in her article is supported by past bulletins. What do we do when material comes from a subject's official site, but it is removed when the page is updated? Nightscream (talk) 03:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

In the specific example you give, the information that was added to WP doesn't really seem encyclopedic. It makes the article itself sound like a fan site. I guess I agree with Jayjg that we can do better. We don't usually use fan sites as sources. Also, I question whether there should be an article on this book even before it's out. I'm' not sure how to deal with the issue of material disappearing from King's site, other than to suggest that we use third-party sources. Any book that comes out is going to get covered in the media, and eventually in the academic literature. Note that Google Books can give convenient access to some of the academic literature. TimidGuy (talk) 11:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Refer to the official site but note that the info is archived on the fan site. If you didn't see it on the official site yourself then refer to the fan site and note that it claims to quote the official site. Just so long as anyone wanting to check knows where the info came from.85.133.32.70 (talk) 11:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, 85. Yours seems like a valid compromise, at least until third party sources become available. Nightscream (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe another option would be to take a snap shot of the current page using a service like webcitation.org and then include that in the acrhiveurl portion of the citation template. Robman94 (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You mean a snap shot of King's page? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Is http://lowculture.co.uk/ a reliable source in the context it being used for reception/critical analysis? Lowculture has a wiki page. On there there are three refs provided, BFI - Independent and The Guardian three reputable sources mentioned it in good faith. Think there is more on the net. Like I said, in the context it's used in fictional character's reception info as a source.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 02:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

At Lowculture the site is listed under "external links" -- naturally enough. I gather you're not talking about that, but about some other page. Which page? Please provide a link. Andrew Dalby 12:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I just want to know if you would use Lowculture as a source anywhere on wikipedia.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 15:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It appears to be a blog and a forum: those are negative indications. But really we need a specific case to comment on. Andrew Dalby 10:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Using it as a source for reception in the article Steph Cunningham. The cited info is a author's opinion on a fictional character.RAIN*the*ONE ^BAM 01:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It's an interesting enough blog, but I see no indications it meets the requirements of WP:RS. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The site has some very good reception for ALL soap characetrs but in my opinion i dont think it is a blog. people can reply on it,yes but you can do that on Digtial Spy,Daily Mail,so on so on..... It's just a authors view on something. I think it should. MayhemMario (talk) 10:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There's an RfC on the talk page asking whether the first sentence should say in Wikipedia's voice that Lyndon LaRouche "is an American political activist" or "an American political activist and economist" (emphasis added). Both versions of the lead end the first paragraph with "[he] has written prolifically on economic, scientific, and political topics, as well as on history, philosophy, and psychoanalysis."

Uninvolved eyes would be appreciated as this has been raised several times over the last few years, so it would be good to get a clear consensus.

Arguments in favor: several reliable sources call him an economist, and he reportedly became known as one in South America. Arguments against: he has no qualifications in economics, has never been employed or independently published as one, and most reliable sources describe him in other terms.

The RfC is at Talk:Lyndon LaRouche#Should the lead say in WP's voice that Lyndon LaRouche is an economist?. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Correction; there is "Dialectical economics", published in '75 by Heath. The argument, that LaRouche never "independently published as [economist] is not valid.

http://www.amazon.com/Dialectical-economics-introduction-Marxist-political/dp/0669853089 81.210.206.223 (talk) 21:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

As I recall from my youth, LaRouche and his organization first made the claim that LaRouche is an economist. They also apply other labels to LaRouche, such as "statesman", "presidential candidate", and so forth. LaRouche does write (self-publish) prolifically on economic, scientific, political, historical, and philosophical topics, but he is free to write about anything he wants; doing so doesn't make him an economist, scientist, politician, historian, or philosopher, respectively.

I suspect those reliable sources (including the New York Times) who call him an economist do so because he and his organization advertise him heavily that way. I note that these sources give only a brief, trivial mention to that title. None of them, as far as I can tell, have actually given coverage of LaRouche as an economist. Are there any sources that go into detail about LaRouche's economic theories? Those would be the ones to use, not trivial mentions.

The question is whether a Wikipedia article should state the same thing in Wikipedia's voice. I'd say yes, provided a reliable source gives more than a trivial mention to the term. Surely, a reliable source can be found that discusses LaRouche's economic views, more than trivially mentioning the title "economist". Otherwise it isn't necessary to state that he is an economist. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

How's about "amateur economist?" Ian.thomson (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources? As I said earlier, if there are reliable sources out there that discuss LaRouche's status as an economist, or discuss his writings on economics, then it's fine for Wikipedia to label him that way. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• LaRouche's abovementioned work was published under his pen name at the time, Lyn Marcus. It was reviewed in the American Economic Review, by the American Economic Association. Here is a citation of some works of his, in a University of North Carolina Press book. There are more of those, but it's late here. --JN466 03:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Just clarifying here that that was an ad from the publisher, not a review. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to the overall question, but I don't think those links are convincing, JN. They show that he has published a book with a title that seems like the title of a book about economics, but that's all. Given the overall remit of The Party of Fear, I think we should wonder (Gbooks, for me at least, isn't giving access to the relevant page) whether he is being cited as an authority or as an example. Except in very rare cases - and I personally cannot think of anyone who it would apply to who did not die long ago - I think "economist" has to mean that the subject has been employed as an economist. --FormerIP (talk) 03:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right that The Party of Fear doesn't cite him as an economist; I was hasty there. Forget that one. :) But according to King, who's written a book-length (and fairly hostile) study of LaRouche, he became known in Latin America as "a serious economist and political strategist". That's repeated in a Department of Defense document (which cites King). He had meetings with multiple presidents in Latin America, advising them to take a course against the IMF, which they did to some extent. His writings had an influence on the Malaysian government in 1997/1998, according to the Wall Street Journal, and that government then also took a course against the IMF. If you end up influencing governments' economic policy, that makes you an economist, in my book.

I can only see snippets of the review in the American Economic Review, but it's a prestigious journal, so to be in there at all counts for something. The review begins:

"NEW Dialectical Economics: An Introduction to Marxist Political Economy Lyn Marcus, Chairman, National Caucus of Labor Committees March 1975 Cloth 544 pages An unprecedented approach to Marx's method and economic theory, this book explains, analyzes, and interprets Marxian economics through an interdisciplinary approach. ..." [75][76]

That doesn't sound like they're thrashing it as the work of a rank amateur. It's got a few reputable citations in Google Scholar. --JN466 04:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

We've already discussed those Google Scholar cites on the article talk page. All that glitters is not gold.   Will Beback  talk  05:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaken. We did not discuss the Lyn Marcus book, nor its citations, nor its having been reviewed in the American Economic Review. The American Economic Review is a general-interest economics journal. Established in 1911, the AER is among the nation's oldest and most respected scholarly journals in the economics profession and is currently celebrating 100 years of publishing. It's not just an academic source, it's a rather influential one. The whole premise of denying him the label "economist" was the assertion that no one in academia had ever taken any notice of him; that's not the case. --JN466 05:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Just writing that a book was reviewed in an economics journal does not make one an economist. For one thing, we don't even know if the review was positive or negative. For another, we don't know if they only review books from recognized economists. There's no question that people in academia have taken notice of him, but being noticed does not make one an economist.   Will Beback  talk  06:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, among the six citations in Google Scholar to his book, which no one here is proposing as a reliable source anyway, two of them go to his own magazine, The Campaigner.[77][78] The rest are apparently articles about Marxism. They might be used to suggest he's a noted writer about Marxism, but four independent citations are weak evidence for that assertion.   Will Beback  talk  06:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It's true that no one is asking for this board's opinion on citing these sources, but it wasn't me who brought this dicussion here, and to three (!) other noticeboards simultaneously, without any apparent notification of involved editors. Or did I miss one? I can't find one in Slim's contributions history. Now that we are here, let's note that sources that have described LaRouche as an economist include:

• The New York Times
• The Washington Post
• The Los Angeles Times
• The Milwaukee Journal
• Associated Press
• UPI
• CBS News[
• Dennis King, probably the most widely cited LaRouche expert, says he became known in Latin America as "a serious economist and political strategist", resulting in meetings with the Peruvian, Mexican and Argentinean presidents; Brazilian officials widely citing his "Operation Juarez", and Fidel Castro developing his own version of LaRouche's "Operation Juarez".
• The Wall Street Journal reported in 1997: "Mr. LaRouche has long been at odds with the U.S. political mainstream, which regards him as an extremist in his views about reforming the global financial system. But his theories receive a warmer reception in Malaysia, where the 60-page EIR report on Mr. Soros has been passed among Malaysian editors, intellectuals and politicians." (offline source, quoted by Will here)

Most people on this board would agree that these qualify as reliable sources. LaRouche taught "Elementary Marxist Economics" at the "Free University" in New York, he published a book based on his course through a reputable publisher, and his writings on the IMF were noted by, and affected the decision making of, at least a half dozen heads of government. --JN466 08:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

No, you aren't the editor who carried to the three (or so) noticeboards: you're just the editor to brought it to six user talk pages.m ;) How many pages in all does that add up to? If I add it to a few more we could get an even dozen. Let's just wrap this back to the article talk page to consolidate the threads. If you have a point, make it there.   Will Beback  talk  08:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference which your post does not acknowledge. I contacted editors already involved in the RfC to advise them of evidence added since their comment that they might want to consider. And I told you and everyone else on the article's talk page that I had done so. I did not solicit comments from uninvolved editors using a wording that misstates the facts, and without disclosing it to other interested parties. That said, I am happy to repair back to the article talk page. --JN466 10:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It's standard to post neutral notes about RfCs on noticeboards, then wait for people to arrive at the RfC to discuss. But you've started a forest fire on user talk pages, openly trying to persuade people, and even when they tell you they're not persuaded, continuing to post, e.g. this discussion. You also didn't let me know that you'd started a discussion about me here. It's not acceptable to start these forest fires, because it means people can't keep up, and it shouldn't happen just because someone tries to get fresh eyes on an RfC. Uninvolved eyes are badly needed on that page, and they have to be allowed to make up their own minds. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

There has been canvassing from both editors and it needs to stop. I'm personally perplexed about why a notice was made to the Fringe Theories noticeboard, as that seems unlikely to get neutral responses. Editors who already consider LaRouche to be fringe are not going to give him any leeway of credibility and, indeed, it is show from the recent oppose votes that they are ignoring any sources or reasoning given whatsoever. Silverseren^C 09:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

He's the very definition of a fringe thinker, so it's important to involve editors who have experience of dealing with that. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 16:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Whichever way, this isn't really an RSN matter. Let's move this back to the relevant talk page.   Will Beback  talk  10:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Note: User:Volunteer Marek has checked the AER issue in question; the snippets are from an advertisement in the back matter, rather than from a proper review. --JN466 22:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll jump in again. As I wrote earlier in this thread, trivial mentions in reliable sources don't carry weight. This isn't really an issue for RSN. This noticeboard is for discussing the reliability of sources, and there doesn't appear to be any argument about the reliability of the sources mentioned. Rather, this is a Wikipedia:Notability concern. LaRouche is notable, but is he notable as an economist? WP:SIGCOV is applicable here, and WP:SIGCOV excludes trivial mentions. That's why I suggested finding reliable sources that actually discuss LaRouche as an economist, or provide critical reviews of his theories of economics. Such sources likely do exist, and may be included in those mentioned above if they were accessible (such as AER). ~Amatulić (talk) 23:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)