Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 69

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 65←Archive 67Archive 68Archive 69Archive 70Archive 71→Archive 75


Rasmussen Reports

Please see Talk:Rasmussen_Reports#RfC:_Blog_sources_in_the_Reputation_section

A number of editors are battling to keep a version of the article that relies heavily on self-published group blogs to make a claim about the political partisanship of the subject. Are group blogs like Daily Kos and MyDD reliable sources in this instance? WP:RS and WP:V seem to say very clearly that they are not, but it appears there are a number of people who don't see it that way. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 15:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful if, one at a time, you told us: What is the exact url of the source in question? In which article is the source being used? What is the exact statement in the article that the source is supporting? Where is the relevant talk page discussion, if any? Dlabtot (talk) 15:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
The relevant talk page is here. The section is relying almost entirely on blog sources to make a political statement, causing significant undue weight issues anyway. All the points can be made using reliable, non-blog sources. The section of the article that keeps being restored with the bad sources is here, with the inline references in place to ThinkProgress, Daily Kos, MyDD, Media Matters, HotAir.com, and Right Wing News.com, none of which are appropriate. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
The most important thing, if you want to have a constructive discussion of this, would be to point to one specific citation for us to discuss. After we reach consensus about the first citation, we can move onto the second, and so on. If you don't want to discuss specifics, you're just wasting your time and everyone else's. Dlabtot (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
It's all the blog citations. It's not simply one - are you saying that some self-published blogs are okay? I have pointed you to where they are and who they are, the policy appears clear in this instance. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Since you aren't willing to discuss any specific citation, I'm marking this as resolved. Feel free to re-open the discussion if you wish to discuss anything specific. Dlabtot (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm unresolving it since you somehow think this is about one source. It's not. Did you look at the article and discussion in question? If you're unwilling to do so, leave it to someone who is. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 18:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
This noticeboard is for asking questions about sources and citations. It isn't for general discussion of the sourcing guideline or the verifiability policy. It isn't for making blanket pronouncements about the reliability of any one source or category of sources. And it definitely isn't for rallying support for your 'side' in a dispute. But if you have questions about the applicability of a specific source for a specific citation, this is the place. Dlabtot (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
It's the specific use of Daily Kos, MyDD, Hot Air, et al. Are you actually patrolling this board to help out, or what? I am asking you questions about those sources, and you seem to be stonewalling me in terms of responding. It's a yes or no. If you can't answer, tell me so I can find someone who can. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I can't attempt to answer a question that hasn't been asked. Do you have any specific question about any specific source or citation?
What is the url of the source in question?
What is the exact statement in the article that the source is supporting?
Dlabtot (talk) 22:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
There are 9 of them. I'll go to RfC instead, clearly this is not a place that can help the situation out. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, some self-published blogs are okay. Now can you please provide specific examples as requested? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I've linked the section already. Please take a look. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 21:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Unless you have a specific concern you want to address here in the manner Dlabtot has repeatedly tried to solicit from you (which I think shows an admirable level of politeness and restraint), coming to a board and making general assertions of wrongdoing then asking editors to come join you at the board in question could be perceived as canvassing. This is true whether you're at this board, RfC, or anywhere else.
While canvassing is not inherently "wrong" per se, it doesn't often improve quality of discussion unless the editors you're trying to canvass have useful, specialized knowledge of the topic in question. By asking editors to go into a discussion such as you've described above blind, you've almost negated that possibility.
And if I may speak bluntly? Trying to fight consensus, whether you consider it to be fair or unfair, is almost always a losing battle that few people would charge into without strong motivation. Unless you have the experience and knowledge for how to show diffs that give people reason to believe you, I personally believe you would be far better off letting this go, no matter who's "Right" or "Wrong".
There are plenty of useful, low-stress tasks you can work on, like adding information for a favorite hobby or contributing to a reference desk where you have specialized knowledge or... well, just look around. Fighting a battle you're not equipped for will usually only end in frustration and stress to the point of grief, followed by abandoning the project. That doesn't do anyone any good. 76.22.25.102 (talk) 23:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Funny, I did exactly what I'm supposed to do. It's fine, I've moved along to a dispute resolution process that might resolve the issue one way or the other, since no one here is willing to do so. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 23:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: I would request at this time that this thread remain open for additional commentary and discussion. Problems with using RR and other related sources keep coming up, and we should attempt to reach a resolution that everyone finds satisfactory. Viriditas (talk) 00:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Addendum: On second thought, this does seem to exceed the criteria for this board and is a good candidate for an RFC. I'll second the move to close in that case. Viriditas (talk) 03:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Self-published sources

WP policy on self-published sources (WP:SELFPUBLISH) seems vague as to what qualifies as a self-published source and what does not. Apart from academic papers, books by established publishers, magazines, and newspapers, please give several examples of what is and what isn't self-published. I am particularly interested in the work product of organizations and websites which don't clearly qualify as news organizations. Drrll (talk) 19:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You might want to start by searching for "self-published" in the archives of this page. Then, if you still have questions, feel free to come back. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I looked at "self-published" entries in the archive, but that didn't help. Does the self-published designation only apply to self-published books, press releases, and personal websites, or can it also apply to non-news organizations? Examples I had in mind were The Heritage Foundation, the Center for American Progress, the Media Research Center, and Media Matters for America. Drrll (talk) 21:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Odd that you couldn't find this discussion of your question in the archives, considering that you precipitated it and participated in it. Dlabtot (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Of course I found that. The question of whether that one specific source was self-published was not decisively determined. Drrll (talk) 04:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
The simple answer is that material that we do not regard as properly published, i.e. it has gone through no process of peer review or fact checking, can in general be regarded as self-published. If that isn't clear in the policy and guideline you might want to suggest an improved wording. "Non-news organisations" is such a broad category that we wouldn't be able to make a general ruling on them. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
If a single individual produces and has control over all content, without other editorial oversight, then it's self-published. Jayjg (talk) 03:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that it may not always be clear. For example, Take my comments on a quote by Charlesworth regarding the Christ Myth theory (Talk:Christ_myth_theory/Archive_18#What_does_Wells_really_say_in_Jesus_Myth.3F): "So we have an "expert" who we don't even know what his degrees are even in making a claim about fields he may not even have more than basic knowledge of in a book he himself edited showing that he doesn't seem to know the difference between the Canaanite and Sidonian cultures published by a publisher who has strong religions leanings and we are supposed to take this as a valid source?!" [...] "Furthermore why would a "reputable academic publisher" allow picture of a bichrome Canaanite decanter be used in Klassen’s article on Sidonian Greek-inscribed glass? Last I checked reputable academic publishers didn't allow that type of insanity." Yet despite these facts the reference remains in the article.
Similarly look at the insanity of Talk:Pyramid_scheme/Archive_1 and Talk:Multi-level_marketing/Archive_3 where works by such peer reviewed journals and reliable publishers as Western Journal of Communication, Juta Academic, Journal of Business Ethics, American Board of Sport Psychology, Organizational Communication Division of the National Communications Association conference, Wiley, Sage, and Greenwood Press was repeatedly ignored in favor of badly worded sites put out by governmental agencies or self published drivel by MLM gurus including one who admitted to using his cat as a contract dodge.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Opinion of climatologist Judith Curry re a pop-science climate book

Recently, I posted the following information at The Hockey Stick Illusion, a popular-science book, at the "Reception" section (diff):

Climatologist Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, wrote: "I recommend that you read the “Hockey Stick Illusion” by Andrew Montford. ... The book is well documented, it obviously has a certain spin to it, but it is a very good book." Source: Who Started this Ruckus, Anyway?, posted by Keith Kloor, June 18, 2010. [edited since it's not quite clear what the format is, Pete Tillman (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)]

The quote is taken from an interview of exchange between Curry and another scientist at a discussion hosted by Keith Kloor, a well-known environmental journalist and former editor at Audubon Magazine. His resume is here, and he would easily qualify as an "expert journalist," I believe.

Editor Kim D. Petersen removed the quote, commenting "While i am 99% convinced that this is Curry - WP:BLP states categorically that we cannot use this as a reference, since the medium isn't reliable for this." Discussion at Talk:The_Hockey_Stick_Illusion#rm_Curry seems unlikely to reach a conclusion. On advice of another editor, I'm moving the discussiion of whether to use this source and quote here.

While a strict interpretation of WP:RS and WP:BLP might disallow the source, this would appear to be a gray area, "best treated with common sense" per the regs. I'd be happy to contact Curry and confirm that Kloor did indeed convey her remarks accurately. I think we would be unnecessarily depriving readers of (so far) the only published climatologist's opinion of an interesting book. --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Leaving aside for the moment the sps questions, which I agree are in the gray area, your quote seems entirely inappropriate, the ellipsis removes necessary context, and the reader is left with an impression quite different from what Curry meant to convey, imho. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlabtot (talk • contribs)
Collide-a-scape.com appears [1] to be a personal blog by Keith Kloor. As such, I think its use would collide (apologies for the pun) with WP:BLP#Avoid self-published sources, which seems quite definitive on that topic: "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, or tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below)." This blog is clearly not written or published by the subject. There appears to be no exemption for blogs by "expert journalists". The only exemption is for "online columns" hosted by news organizations, which clearly doesn't cover personal blogs, "so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control", which again clearly isn't the case with a personal blog. I can't see any wriggle room in BLPSPS that would allow the use of this blog. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
If everybody agrees that the source is actually Curry and the only resistance is due to policy, just invoke WP:IAR. That being said, I agree with Dlabtots sentiment that you are misquoting him. Curry was recommending the book to Bart Verheggen specifically, not making a general statement people should read the book. Yoenit (talk) 19:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, it seems to me that the problem with using a personal blog - which is the reason why BLPSPS exists in the first place - is that you have no editorial oversight. The basic principle of reliable sourcing is that whatever we cite must have gone through an editorial process. That guarantees that at least one other person has seen, hopefully reviewed and approved the material. A personal blog lacks the editorial oversight that reliable sourcing requires. Particularly when it comes to material about living persons, you need that oversight to be in place. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

There is no doubt that it is Dr Judith Curry The above comments from her were a follow on from an interview with her on Kloors site mark nutley (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Mark, it is not an interview. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I did not say it was an interview mark nutley (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The context is that Curry (who is a she, if it is indeed her) is recommending the book to understand the climate sceptic view (specifically the one surrounding climateaudit.org), she also points out that the book has been completely ignored by mainstream scientists. It is not an interview - but rather a cut/paste from another comment thread[2]. Elevating this to a reliable source is to my eyes rather problematic. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
If Curry's comments are notable, then you should be able to find them reported in a reliable source. TFD (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out, Kim - it changes the situation substantially. WP:BLPSPS and WP:NEWSBLOG both state: "Posts left by readers are never acceptable as sources." That seems pretty conclusive to me. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Good points from Dlabtot and Yoenit. As for ChrisO's point about citing a blog, we need not cite the blog. Instead, we can cite Curry herself.[3] In this case, it falls under WP:SPS: she's an established expert who has been published in the relevant field. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
See the comment right above, how do you justify citing a blog-comment - which isn't allowable by policy (with no exceptions given). As i read policy, it is specifically to ensure that people aren't taking things out of context that you can't cite commentary - and that is ignoring that we have no verification that this is Curry. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
(ec) We are never allowed to cite comments to a blog post, as stated above. Besides, there is no proof that Curry made that post She doesn't appear to have an account, so anybody could have posted using her name. Yoenit (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
You're looking at this the wrong way. We're not citing a post made by a reader per se. Instead we're citing Curry herself as an SPS. Posting a comment to a blog is simply the way she choose to publish herself. (Sorry to use bold face, but this is the key point I am trying to make and don't want anyone to miss it.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Yoenit it is her, she has been interviewed by Kloor on the site [4] mark nutley (talk) 19:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Policy is quite clear on this, it is not allowed. Posting a comment on a blog is not a way to publish yourself as a respectable climate scientist. I have no doubt it was her, but there is no way to prove it. Anybody could have made that post under her name (in fact I just posted as Judith Curry on the site). Why do you think this sort of stuff is not allowed? Yoenit (talk) 19:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not her blog, so not exactly a SPS, and if she wants her views presented for publication she has plenty of other options for publishing them. Also, she's not a subject expert on the topic of the book, which is not about hurricanes, and has professed ignorance about the claims in the book. . dave souza, talk 20:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)"Posting a comment on a blog is not a way to publish yourself as a respectable climate scientist." Perhaps, but this has no basis in policy. It's not up to us as Wikipedia editors to say how scientists should behave. OTOH, I am sympathetic to the argument that we should verify that this indeed was Curry. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
It is explicitly set in policy that we cannot use such commentary - so your "its not up to us.." statement is rather far-fetched. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Why don't we cut the Gordian knot, ask Dr. Curry for a quotable opinion on the book & a free CC license, archive it under the OTRS files, and cite that? Would that satisfy the objectors? Or should I just do it, & see what happens? I've corresponded with Dr. Curry in the past & found her pleasant & cooperative. Thoughts? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
A perfect solution, and one i did not know existed, well done pete mark nutley (talk) 19:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
The reason we don't conduct original research of the type you are proposing is that it is as against our bedrock policies. Dlabtot (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Please read the "Citing an email" section on this noticeboard for a similar case and some reasons why it is not allowed Yoenit (talk) 20:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
[e/c]Well, I don't think that's OR -- but what if we just ask her to confirm she wrote the bit at Kloor's, & that it's OK to use it here? Pete Tillman (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
No. We have to base our editorial decisions on material that is verifiable to reliable sources. Not on original research we conduct (for example, our own personal correspondence.) Dlabtot (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I've seen this issue ("can I use my own personal correspondence as a reliable source?") before, and the consensus has always been that it should not be used. I suggest taking a look at the archives of this page. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
No one said anything about citing an e-mail as a source for article content. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
That is effectively what is being proposed, albeit at one remove: using a personal email to convert a unreliable source into a reliable one. But since the personal email is itself an unreliable source, that can't be done. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
It's original research no matter how it's used. Dlabtot (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
ChrisO, so when Hipocrite sent a personal e-mail to Newsweek, was he wrong? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
That is definitely and obviously conducting original research. I'm not sure what you mean by 'wrong' or why you keep bringing this up. Dlabtot (talk) 20:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I assume you're referring to the discussion above at #Newsweek's "The gaggle" blog. He gained some useful though uncitable information that way, but we had a reliable third party source (the New York Observer) describing Newsweek's editorial arrangements and confirming that the blog is under senior editorial supervision. Hipocrite's email was not needed to confirm that and it would not have sufficed by itself if we had not had that reliable third party source. But that case was fundamentally different - it concerned a piece written by a journalist working for a major news magazine and published on its website under editorial supervision. The presumption was always in favour of "The Gaggle" being a reliable source. None of those circumstances apply in this case. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Dlabtot: I bring it up because a Newsweek blog is being cited by our Climategate article even though Newsweek makes no claim that the blog falls under their full editorial. So Hipocrite e-mailed Newsweek who said that it does and cited that e-mail as evidence that the blog falls under their full editorial. If it is original research for us to e-mail Curry, then it is original research for us to e-mail Newsweek.
Yes, that is original research which was unnecessary anyway because the blog obviously is an official blog under their editorial control, spurious and disruptive claims to the contrary notwithstanding. Dlabtot (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
ChrisO: Can you please tell us where in the New York Observer article where it says that this blog falls under their full editorial control? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Since you apparently haven't checked what I wrote in the earlier discussion, let me repeat it: "The New York Observer article clearly states that (1) "The Gaggle" was established by Newsweek's editorial staff; (2) it is written by the weekly's reporters; and (3) it is edited by the senior editors". Hipocrite's email merely confirms that. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
No one's disputing the fact that the blog is written by Newsweek's staff. The question is whether it falls under their full editorial control. Can you please tell us where in the New York Observer article where it says that this blog falls under their full editorial control? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Please keep the newsweek discussion in the newsweek section and keep this for the comment Curry made. Yoenit (talk) 21:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Time to reboot the discussion, I think.

First, Yoenit remarks above, "in fact I just posted as Judith Curry" (19:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)), at Keith Kloor's site here (last comment). He was apparently unaware that this is a moderated forum. His imposture was promptly detected and removed. Yoenits' concern that "anybody could have posted using her name" (19:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)) has been answered: "EDITOR: Removed test comment by imposter.//KK"

Second, from the discussion so far, it's clear that we need a publicly verifiable confirmation that Dr. Curry indeed wrote what (we almost all agree) she wrote. She has been an invited guest at the Kloor forum; for instance, Kloor interviews her here. My proposal is to contact Kloor and ask him to verify Curry's contribution regarding the Montford book (perhaps for him to emaill Curry to confirm this), then add a public editorial note to that discussion.

Assuming Kloor is willing to do this, would this satisfy the objections to using Curry's comments on the book? --putting aside (for the moment) what exactly should be quoted. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Clearly, NO. Dlabtot (talk) 04:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Would you care to say why? --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
You mean, repeat what I and many others said in the discussion above? No, there is no need, just as there was no need to 'reboot' the discussion. Dlabtot (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Dlabot, you appear to be a regular here and I'm trying to work with you (and other such editors) to see if there's a way to make Curry's remarks verifiable, and thus usable here. I've proposed asking Kloor, the moderator, to publish an editorial statement at his blog saying "Curry wrote this stuff". Public & verifiable. Now tell me what's wrong, please. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
You can't 'make' something verifiable; it's either verifiable by way of being previously published in a reliable source, or not. Dlabtot (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Tillman: Because you're using a third-party blog to verify that that the blog is reliable. A better approach might be to contact Curry herself to see if she would post something on her site verifying the account is hers. I think SPS will be satisfied then. However, given the 'imposter experiment', now might not be the best time. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Which would be irrelevant to the question of whether http://www.collide-a-scape.com/ is a reliable source in this instance, which is the actual question we have before us. Dlabtot (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Dlabtot, I agree that the blog is not a reliable source for this content. However, I'm suggesting a new source.[5] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
To be honest, I think this source is fairly iffy. As someone else said above, if prestigious scientists like Curry are starting to talk about this book, then it won't be long before their opinions are mentioned in more reliable sources. One thing her statement does do in the meantime, however, is bely the comments by a couple of editors that this book is being ignored by non-skeptics. Cla68 (talk) 05:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Curry is the only "prestigious scientist" who has talked about the book, pro or con. Otherwise it has been completely ignored by the scientific community. That's hardly surprising given that it's not a "popular science" book (as misleadingly described above) but a collage of already-falsified claims written by a fringe non-scientist for a section of the public that is hostile to climate science. It's merely one of dozens of similar works of politically driven pseudoscience. There's nothing I know of that makes it stand out from the rest. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Is it fair to conclude from your statement that you personally don't appreciate Montford's book, the conclusions that he draws, or the fact that Curry thought the book was worthy of recommendation? Cla68 (talk) 07:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm simply pointing out the obvious flaw in your statement that "prestigious scientists like Curry are starting to talk about this book". They're not "starting to talk about this book". Curry is the only "prestigious scientist" to have done so, and your statement merely speculates about what other scientists might do in the future. There is certainly no indication that they will take any greater notice of the book. It has been out for, I think, about six months. In that time it has received zero reviews from scientists (including Curry, who didn't review it). It is not cited anywhere that I can find and has been ignored in print by all but a handful of right-wing columnists who have generally only mentioned it in passing. So Curry's comments certainly can't be taken as indicative of any trend in opinion. But I think we are in danger of straying off-topic here - getting back to the issue at hand, it's clear from this discussion that there's a fairly strong consensus that Curry's comments are not a reliable source and the policy prohibition on citing posts left by readers is clear. Unless anyone has any new points to make, I suggest closing this discussion as resolved. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I have one last remark, about my posting as Judith Curry: the comment in question was "testing whether it is possible to post under a false identity" + a link to the current discussion, so it is no surprise that my comment was detected and removed by a moderator. However, what if my comment had been a serious reply to other comments? Would the moderator have known I was not Judith Curry? Yoenit (talk) 11:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

[outdent] Dr. Curry herself noticed your impersonation, and posted a warning at Kloor's blog that any posts allegedly by her at other blogs would be imposters.

Impersonating someone is a pretty drastic way of making a point -- it gets you banned here, and isn't appreciated anywhere. In RL, it's known as "fraud". I urge you not to undertake more of such "tests". --Pete Tillman (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Link? Did she confirm that the comment we're discussing is hers or that the account we're discussing is hers? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
wow, it is actually true [6]. It was never my intention to seriously impersonate her, but it seems it would have been discovered anyway. Yoenit (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh dear, what should we do? Should we send her a polite note explaining that Yoenit intended no harm? Should we contact an admin or Jimbo on how to proceed? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
You have to do nothing. I did it, so it is my responsibility. I assume a mail from me to her will be enough to deal with the issue. I strongly suggest that you do not attempt to contact Jimbo. If you want to report me for it, do so at ANI. I have no idea which policy might be relevant here though. Yoenit (talk) 20:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure Yoenit meant no harm, and he has apologized, so that should end the matter. I think his impersonation was a bad idea, though. Pete Tillman (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I've decided to notify Jimbo of the situation. This may reflect poorly on the project itself and think that Jimbo's diplomatic skills may prove useful. I suggest we wait until we get some feedback. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


Court Documents

Can we use court documents as a source to determine a legal outcome? I ask this because there is a dispute over at Prem Rawat in which court documentation seems to be the only source to determine if Mr. Rawat was emancipated by a Colorado court. Essentially we are not looking to gather facts from the documents, just the judge's ruling. However there is an editor who insists that this source would need a secondary source to prove its validity. Thus the matter is "Are court documents reliable sources for determination of a judicial ruling." As ridiculous as it is, this argument actually exists. Ronk01 talk, 02:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

How could a random Wikipedia reader verify that the court document actually says what the article says it does? As long as that's possible, and there truly is no interpretation involved, it would be usable as a primary source, I think. Dlabtot (talk) 02:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Here in the US all court docs are avalible after a certian period of time, an editor with time on their hands could find them. Ronk01 talk, 02:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

If that flippant response is meant to be an answer to my question about how could a reader verify it?, then no, such a document would not be usable on Wikipedia. Dlabtot (talk) 02:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Court documents need to be verifiable. If the documents aren't available yet, then they are not verifiable. Also, caution should be used when using primary sources. If the information is worth including, a secondary reliable source will most likely have reported the information. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

No. Per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Misuse of primary sources:

Do not use trial transcripts, other court records, or other public documents to support assertions about a living person, unless a reliable secondary source has published the material.

Please find a secondary source. Jayjg (talk) 03:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

There is in fact a secondary source available that we are currently using in deference to the court documents, but the same editor who opposes the court documentation is opposing the secondary source which seems to be rather reliable. Ronk01 talk, 12:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to differentiate exactly what is meant by "court document" here. A judge's final verdict/decision is a reliable primary source of fact as to the outcome of the trial. A complaint or indictment is a reliable primary source for the fact that wrongdoing has been alleged, but it is NOT a reliable source for the fact that any wrongdoing actually occurred (and, as others have noted, extreme caution is needed here - especially in a BLP). A trial transcript is not a reliable source for fact... it might be an acceptable primary source for a quoted statement of opinion in limited situations.
But Jayjg has it right... if something from a trial is worth mentioning in an article, it is likely that a more reliable, secondary source will have noted it... and, if so, we can and should cite that secondary source instead. Blueboar (talk) 12:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, all court documents are primary sources and should be used with extreme caution. Note that it is not true that all court documents become public after a period of time; in many states lowest-level court records are often destroyed, except for information as to the outcome. I know juvenile court documents are destroyed in many cases after a period of time, as an attorney.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I am the editor who put forward the "ridiculous" argument. Actually all I did was copy from WP:PRIMARY which Ronk01 described as "simply not true". Above Ronk01 says "There is in fact a secondary source available that we are currently using in deference to the court documents, but the same editor who opposes the court documentation is opposing the secondary source which seems to be rather reliable". In fact, there is no secondary source cited for Rawat's "emancipation". Despite this discussion and numerous requests asking him to provide sources he inserted this unsourced material in the lead.[7] Thanks for upholding Wiki policies and guidelines.Momento (talk) 03:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually Momento, I have provided you with sources, I contradicted your argument for application of WP:Primary, since we are not interpreting, and the above seems to prove you wrong, as long as we use the outcome files a fact sources only, we are fine. I oppose much of this secondary source obsession anyway, secondarys are just as flawed as primarys. Ronk01 talk, 15:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Since it's not verifiable, it's not reliable. Dlabtot (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Nothing is more verifiable than government documentation, which are cross refferneced hundreds of times, unless of course we are willing to say that all government documentation is non-verifiable, which would damage many, many articles which rely on facts from government documents that don;t get that much press or academic coverage. (I am thinking of CIA, Patriot Act, and any number of articles that rely on government documentation. Ronk01 talk, 17:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

If you could explain how a random Wikipedia reader could verify it, it would be verifiable. Since you can't, it's not. Dlabtot (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Contrary to Ronk01's claim that he has provided sources for his edit, he has not. One source he provided is cited in the article but contradicts his edit. The other is cited in the article numerous times but not for the edit he made. I am going to remove his edit and would appreciate it if any of the people in this discussion could come to the Prem Rawat article to ensure that Ronk01 abides by Wiki policies and guidelines as he ignores me when I point them out. Thanks.Momento (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
So far as I'm aware, this discussion is hypothetical since no one has found the court documents that are only assumed to exist. Until these documents are found this discussion doesn't seem likely to lead to a conclusion. I suggest we drop this thread until we can discuss actual sources.   Will Beback  talk  03:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Just so we don't have this headache again in the future use Case citation when possible.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Youtube

Can somebody confirm to me whether the use of youtube as a source is acceptable? The source in question is not from an official channel, and is copyrighted. I've have been warned for reverting the addition of this source, and would like confirmation on whether this is an accepted source. As an aside, the article in question is a BLP. Thanks, ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 03:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You Tube has been used to prove TV content in the past IIRC. Copyright issues don't even come into it under those circumstances. In this case it has been used to prove a wrestler's billing (where they come from) which appears to be the subject of the dispute. Under these circumstances I would consider it reliable enough to disprove the accuracy of the previous source. Podgy Stuffn (talk) 04:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Can you provide a link to any of these previous circumstances please? In addition, what happens if the video gets removed? WWE regularly has videos of their television shows taken down from youtube. What happens then? ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 04:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Why not post the link, the article, the diffs, the talk page dispute, etc? That would sure make it a lot easier for editors to discuss the issue. Dlabtot (talk) 04:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I thought the general question would have explained enough, but of course.
The first thing about youtube is that a lot of their content are copy vios, and we have a rule against linking to copy vios. Some stuff is published there by the copyright holder, and it's reliability will depend on whether the publisher is reliable outside of youtube. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, it's just a regular uploader. This is the uploader of the video in question. It's not one of the official WWE channels. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 04:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I actually recently proposed this based off of the numerous related guidelines and policies Wikipedia:Video links.Cptnono (talk) 04:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
This particular instance is certainly contributory copyright infringement since the uploader put it up without permission. It looks like some of his other videos have been pulled based on doing that. You are tottaly correct to remove it.Cptnono (talk) 04:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your help and opinions everyone. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 07:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
We cannot broadly state that YouTube is or is not a reliable source. In most cases, YouTube is not the source, it is a host. For example, a US government video could certainly be public domain, but the government agency would be the publisher. Many organizations and companies have channels on YouTube and could be considered reliable— although primary —sources. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 02:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Just as we can generally state that most of the time content in New York Times will qualify as a reliable source, we can also generally state that most of the stuff on you-tube does not qualify as a reliable source. "Official" sites are quite few, the quantity of materials posted on the official sites is quite limited as a percentage of overall material on the site and an overwhelming majority of attempts by editors to use you-tube are not from that limited quantity of material on the site that might be acceptable. Active Banana (talk) 03:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The vast majority of content on Youtube does not qualify as reliable; when it's not copyright infringing material copied from movies and television programs, it's typically user generated content, with no editorial oversight, and typically no way of reliably confirming even the identity of the uploader/content generator. Jayjg (talk) 04:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Very true and links may go bad even if you take great care at making sure the video in question does not violate copyright (as I did per Talk:Land_of_Confusion#Disturbed_Video_information,Talk:Land_of_Confusion#Disturbed_Video_information, and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_24#Using_a_posting_to_Youtube.com_by_the_copyright_holder). Youtube has had problems with false and overly aggressive copyright DMCA flagging (see CONJOPI is fileing False DMCA on good youtubers. How can we stop it for the latest example) so someone getting a violation notice doesn't mean much (JamesRandiFoundation channel got caught in one of these for example). As I pointed out in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_58#Youtube_links_used_as_reference if used properly Youtube is a reasonable source--the problem is most people don't take the care I do to make sure what they reference fits all the criteria.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
A copyright violation notice is a good indicator, even if they're not always correct. In this case, it was a video of professional wrestling, and it's pretty easy to see that was a copy vio. Due diligence is alyways good, of course. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Purported Hepatitis C Virus Image

This posting is about an image and whether the editor who posted it can be considered a reliable source.

This image can be found both here and here, and also here, all from the same source, a former Wikipedia editor who's parting remark to readers is "Goodbye forever."

That's it. No other source is indicated anywhere.

The question, then, is How do we know this is the Hepatitis C virus? The answer, without some kind of reliable documentation, is We don't know that this is Hepatitis C virus. Conclusion: the image should either be deleted or its caption modified to reflect its uncertain source.

Discussion of this issue can be found here. In the course of that discussion I changed the caption of the image, as indicated here. That edit was immediately reverted, here.

To me it's perfectly obvious that the image has no reliable source. Assumed good faith is no reason to accept it. Looking for consensus on this. BruceSwanson (talk) 05:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

uhm, your rationale seems to be: user submitted => not reliable source => delete/modifier of uncertainty. We might as well close down wikicommons if we start doing that, as any picture can be faked. I have to admit I don't know much about about the policies surrounding pictures on wikicommons, but my gut feeling says leave it as it is. The only case where this is not HCV is if the editor was acting with the intention to deceive everyone and I see nothing to support that in his contributions. What is the reason you doubt this picture is HCV? Yoenit (talk) 10:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the reason I doubt this pictures is HCV? Its lack of a verifiable source, that's what. Your personal gut feeling is no substitute. As for the fact that "all pictures can be faked", that would seem to be a cause for greater vigilance, not a total lack of it -- and by that I mean that you seem to oppose inserting the word purported into the caption. Or don't you? BruceSwanson (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I could try to explain it again, but several other editor have already tried to do so. You are wrong, they are right. Yoenit (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
That image is far too ambiguous to determine a viral identity, though it looks like a hepatitis virus in my professional opinion (can't tell if it's C though). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronk01 (talk • contribs) 08:23, July 6, 2010

So I take it you support my position in favor of removal. BruceSwanson (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

This again? This was, I believe, dealt with weeks if not months ago at Talk:Hepatitis C virus#HCV picture (and here and here) to everyone's satisfaction but BS'. The threshold for the use of images is fair use or copyleft, and whether it looks like what it is supposed to, not reliability, which governs sources. This looks very much like forum shopping when numerous editors have already commented on the inappropriateness of the edits. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the comments by WLU immediately above, I urge readers to follow the three links (particularly the last one) he provided and judge for themselves whether the issue was dealt with "to everyone's satisfaction" except mine, thus warranting a charge of "forum shopping". BruceSwanson (talk) 19:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ronk01's comment seems very much in line with Graham Colm's comment here, clarified here as stating we can't be sure that it's a hep C virus, but is acceptable since that's reasonably what a hep C virus is expected to look like. I don't believe Ronk01 is endorsing a removal, just like WhatamIdoing didn't either here; nor did TimVickers, or Scientizzle ever remove the image, or revert to BS' preferred version. The only person who thinks this image is problematic is BS, and the policies and guidelines he has used to support his advocacy for removal on this page and others look more like a mis-application than an interpretation in line with the community norms. So far, Bruce, the image is acceptable to everyone else and people seem to agree that WP:RS does not apply for images - WP:IMAGE does. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Images don't require a reliable source. If you think the image isn't what it purports to be then you need to gain to consensus on that issue. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any exception in WP:V for images. It says, pretty clearly and plainly, " All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research." Dlabtot (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
That discounts pretty much any pictures taken by any editor, the molecular diagrams of proteins, medicines and chemicals, and how could an image be original research? The account uploading the image has left, but there is no evidence it was ever used to upload false information. Also, the next line is "This is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, sections of articles, and captions" - which doeesn't mention images, and images have their own policy at WP:IUP that doesn't mention reliability as a criteria. There was never consensus for the removal of the image, and BS has a history of idiosyncratic interpretations of the P&G and pointy edits against consensus, mostly in relation to his belief that HIV does not cause AIDS. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I thought that there's a policy or guideline that images generated by editors are preferred because they avoid copyright issues. I'm not sure where I remember reading it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
WP:IMAGE talks about the copyright issues. However, it doesn't negate the verifiability policy. Dlabtot (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I've posted a Request for Comments on the issue at WT:V. Dlabtot (talk)
The image is consistent with hepatitis C virus. At this point, we pretty much have to decide whether to trust that the original uploader acted in good faith. And, perhaps, whether Bruce is acting in good faith. MastCell Talk 23:52, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

How does MastCell know what a Hep C virus looks like? Has he seen one, or another image of one? Has anyone? If so, where? As for good faith, the "original uploader" was one PhD_Dre. Look, admire, and assume good faith. And come to think of it, isn't PhD_Dre telling us not to assume good faith? He is, isn't he?

Here's something pertinent. Says nothing about good faith. It does say of images that:


BruceSwanson (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Advanced Media Network RS?

Is Advanced Media Network RS? 211.30.103.37 (talk) 05:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

not inherently unreliable, but I would say it depends on what you are using it for. Article? statement it supports? Yoenit (talk) 08:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I think of using it for reviews and interviews for WP:ANIME. 211.30.103.37 (talk) 09:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I would say it is a reliable source for that. Yoenit (talk) 11:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I seriously question that. While they appear to have some editorial oversight, it's minimal. If that were that's the standard for a mainstream news coverage site then standards have really fallen as there is no indication the site nor anyone on it meets WP:SPS. Over at WikiProject Anime and Manga we are not sure about its reliablity and I've removed it from our list until it can get a more thorough review.陣内Jinnai 05:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Their sister site Kombo.com seems to be accepted by some other media outlets.[8] Similar with jeuxfrance.[9] More research is needed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's take a look at the review for Glass Mark for example:

  • It lists the review equipment used --> similar to Mania.com reviews
  • Reviews are done by staff
  • Attributes used images to its sources --> All images have AMN logo on it, preventing people from distributing their pictures around as a unaltered screenshot of the anime
  • Most importantly: it has a clear judgment of the anime at the end of the page with a summary of it in a tabulated format. 211.30.103.37 (talk) 23:52, 8 Jul0y 2010 (UTC) as Extremepro (talk · contribs)
  • Mania.com which was formerly animeondvd.com is also one of the premeire review sites on the web which is known for editorial overisight and factchecking. That hasn't been shown here and looking at the AMN's staffing page I could say the same for almost any review website out there that is just above a blog.
  • Finally style can easily be mimiced and is not a sign of reliability and watermarking images is done by many sites not deemed RSes.陣内Jinnai 23:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
  • If they have editors, their writers are paid (fast but not hard rule), and they've had other RSs mention their findings, then they're reliable without evidence to the contrary. Without that kind of judgement, it's just our opinions (imagine Israel/Palestine, pseudoscience, etc.). I've only seen them pass the first test that I mention, but they may be able to pass the other two. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I won't oppose this one but don't give too much weight compared to ANN or Mania.com . Reviews are pieces of PoV that why you must have good reasons to mention them in a Wikipedia article and have to find a good balance between the different opinion based on the expertise of the reviewer and/or the reach and impact of the review website within the targeted audience and beyond. I find ironical to tag pieces of PoV as Reliable. Getting paid for reviews in the Anime/Manga field is uncommon, many RS reviewers don't make a living out of it, even more got only freebies like reviews copy and press accreditation for anime/manga convention. --KrebMarkt 06:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

  • Very difficult as much as i remember i only found once a such evidence with an official forum post looking reviewers for hire mentioning that they do pay reviewers but not much. --KrebMarkt 19:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
  • From their recruitment page:

Any staffer of appropriate age will also receive several press convention passes (depending on age restrictions of attending event), Anime press events and conventions, video gaming events, and plentiful anime material to review (DVDs, Manga, Visual Novels, etc. [if applying, and approved for, a review position)

Cited by Wired (magazine) - 3 (A national magazine is RS yeah?)
Therefore cited by RSes. 211.30.103.37 (talk) 22:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC) as Extremepro (talk · contribs)
Don't see the latter on wired and merely citing ins't generally enough otherwise tons of sites would be viable RSes.

Per WP:SPS (bolding my emphasis):

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

陣内Jinnai 14:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

www.buddhistchannel.tv

Would an article on www.buddhistchannel.tv be considered a reliable source for controversial material about a BLP? ie this article [10] for [11]? Per this disclaimer page it appears that anybody can submit an article to Buddhistchannel, though it does appear that there may be some moderation and editing articles before they are published.[12]. Personally, I find the article polemic in tone, and likely a partisan posting as part of an off-wiki dispute concerning the man which has spread onto Wikipedia,( See [13]) and it is not clear that Buddhistchannel has the kind of editorial oversight required per WP:RS. Given the seriousness of the allegations, the highest quality sources are clearly in order, which I don't believe www.buddhistchannel.tv to be, though I would like to get the opinions of other editors about this. FYI, there is a similar posting at BLPN, but no response to date, so I thought I would try here. --Slp1 (talk) 23:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Given that that they have a disclaimer absolving them of all responsibility of the content they publish, "While the greatest care is taken in the information contained here but no responsibility is assumed for any errors or omissions and no liability attaches to the Managing Editor, Lim Kooi Fong and or any person and/or company appointed by him for the development of this site and its content therein for any loss or damage caused, or alleged to have been caused, directly or indirectly by or from the information or ideas contained, suggested, or referenced in this site. No liability is assumed for any third party content on this site."[14], I would say no, it's not a reliable source. I doubt if any legitimate news source such as the New York Times or BBC News has a similar disclaimer. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
The article in question is not making claims for veracity of allegations, only that allegations exist, where, and by whom. Article is clear about subject's denials. What we are looking for here is simply a tertiary source to validate the existence of allegations beyond outdated print publications, and in particular an unprecedented letter sent by 8 senior American Zen teachers calling for action against another. This was in 1995, but only revealed more recently, so it is not in dated print pubs. Our standard shouldn't be the New York Times. We need verification of existence of allegations only - the evidence is overwhelming, and I would argue that perhaps certain editors involved in entry have particular axe to grind, clouding perspective.Tao2911 (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Um, I think our standard probably should be the New York Times. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Um, then most of Wikipedia would go poof in an instant. Here is the Buddhist Channel editor page - while they publish a disclaimer for content (a legal necessity), they clearly also have clear, high editorial standards for fairness, balance, and egalitarian coverage of Buddhism. This source is of considerably higher quality than many others cited on nearly every page in Wikipedia. "Using the latest web technologies on content publication, the BC remains the world's only dedicated Buddhist news servcies, providing daily updates and in-depth coverage...To augment the BC's premier position as a Buddhist news site, five prominent Buddhist individuals were appointed as members of the "International Advisory Panel (IAP)". Each of the panelists - coming from different countries and with expertise in various disciplines - is expected to play a critical role in establishing the Buddhist Channel as a truly global, web based media platform...The BC will remain loyal to the 'non-sectarian' emphasis of the news coverage. It shows in its logo, a three petal lotus of different colors, each shade representing the mainstream schools of Buddhism."Tao2911 (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

That is a gross mischaracterization of their quite standard legal disclaimer - they repost articles from other news sources. Of course they have to have a disclaimer for content they didn't generate - however, their statements clearly show that they have an editorial policy that promotes fairness and balance, and that they are selective about content. It's not just a chat room or news dump. Come on - review the site, people. Furthermore, I would like to say that one has to look beyond the simple "brand" of the source - the New York Times prints retractions every day - and review the actual content being reported. Is it accurate? Is it fair? A sort of willful ignorance is being displayed when sources are being discounted just because they are not a major daily newspaper. In this case, validity is gained in part precisely by the source being of special interest in the field of Buddhism as a whole.Tao2911 (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

  • NYT's disclaimer: "Neither NYT nor NYTimes.com represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement, or other information displayed, uploaded, or distributed through the Service by any user, information provider or any other person or entity. You acknowledge that any reliance upon any such opinion, advice, statement, memorandum, or information shall be at your sole risk. THE SERVICE AND ALL DOWNLOADABLE SOFTWARE ARE DISTRIBUTED ON AN "AS IS" BASIS WITHOUT WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, WARRANTIES OF TITLE OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. YOU HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT USE OF THE SERVICE IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK."[15]. It's a standard legal nicety that has nothing to do with whether a source is reliable. Fences&Windows 15:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I had a feeling there was one of those. Nice work.Tao2911 (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

That disclaimer appears to be about the Member Center section of the web site. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
There's no equivalence at all. It's not a disclaimer for NY Times-produced content, and it's nothing remotely like the www.buddhistchannel.tv discliamer, which says: "no responsibility is assumed for any errors or omissions". Dlabtot (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
No, you're not reading it right. It is a disclaimer for all content on the site (there is a separate section for user-generated content), and it says in brief that the NYT does not endorse the reliability of any information placed on the site by any person or entity. This is a standard legal disclaimer. It basically means that if you rely on the information and it causes you harm or loss, that's your problem. Fences&Windows 16:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
p.s. "The Service" is defined as "The New York Times on the Web ("NYTimes.com"), an Internet service of The New York Times Company ("NYT") (the "Service")." Fences&Windows 16:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand how a CYA disavowal of liability can be immediately translated into an inherent lack of reliability. As pointed out above, even The Grey Lady has this kind of standard, boilerplate legal disclaimer regarding its content. The reliability of a source is determined by its enacted practices, not by the espoused-but-largely-ignored principles forced upon it by risk averse lawyers. ElKevbo (talk) 17:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The critical difference between the two disclaimers is that the NY Times disclaimer simply says that it will not be "liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions in any such Content, or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof, or for any damages arising therefrom" whereas the www.buddhistchannel.tv disclaimer says "no responsibility is assumed for any errors or omissions". A disavowal of legal liability for damages and a disavowal of responsibility for errors are two entirely different things. Dlabtot (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry but I'm just not seeing that distinction. ElKevbo (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
But I don't think it's talking about the New York Times as a whole, just the Member Center section. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I think the URL is deceiving. The same Terms of Service is linked to in their standard footer from all over their website. (What a neat example of how confusing and misleading URLs can be for external users! Usability folks have warned against that for years but it's an oft-forgotten lesson.) ElKevbo (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
ElKevbo: OK, you don't see it. That doesn't mean it's not there. AQFK: Section 2 of the user agreement covers NY Times content; Section 3 covers user generated content. Dlabtot (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh geez, this is becoming too messy. I'm talking about material in section 5 and you're misquoting material from section 2 (the statement you quoted above appears to apply to material from wire services).
Regardless of the specifics of the NYT and their confusing Terms of Service (thank you lawyers!), my original point still stands: interpreting standard legal boilerplate disavowing liability as making a source unreliable is an untenable position. ElKevbo (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with your assertion that it is 'legal boilerplate disavowing liability'. The NY Times disclaimer fits that description. The www.buddhistchannel.tv disclaimer does not. That is the distinction. Dlabtot (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
You and I completely disagree and I don't think we're going to change each other's mind. Can other editors please weigh in? ElKevbo (talk) 18:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
"AQFK: Section 2 of the user agreement covers NY Times content; Section 3 covers user generated content." Dlabtot, OK, thanks. I see that now. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

My view is that the decision about reliability should not be decided based solely on the legal disclaimer issue. I'm personally more concerned with whether buddhistchannel.tv has the kind of editorial oversight required to show that it has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" per RS. Based on the various about us -type pages, this is a news service: it publishes or republishes content submitted by the public, rather than write original content. Their choice of material is wide. Buddhistchannel.tv appeare to republish what are likely copyright infringements of mainstream news sources, such as this Reuters article and also thoroughly unreliable sources such as this republished wordpress blog. The article in question has been posted anonymously, and I am not clear that the owner and the four staff who "also edit and moderate articles" part of the time, constitute enough of a reputation for and interest in fact-checking to make it a reliable source for a controversial material about a living person. --Slp1 (talk) 18:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly! That is the kind of analysis and discussion that should take place to determine reliability. If the above statements are accurate (no judgment of you, Slp1; I simply haven't taken the time to independently verify them) then the source is not reliable in a broad sense. Of course, specific instances may be judged different depending on the context. ElKevbo (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you :-). However, if you could find the time to check my statements and the evidence and then pronounce on this website, that would be great. The more voices the better in my view. --Slp1 (talk) 22:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"Errors or omissions" is a legal term of art. Individuals commenting here might want to review Professional indemnity insurance for why someone might disclaim "Errors or omissions." I don't see how a legal disclaimer means that a site lacks a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Does this site have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy - is it used by other, obviously reliable sources? Hipocrite (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Back to the article in question - byline states it was written by/for this site. it meets standards of journalistic English and NPOV. It is simply reporting on the prevalence of allegations of abuse against a religious leader, using among references a website that contains photocopied archives of evidence for said allegations of abuse. Issue here is simply reporting of ALLEGATIONS, for which we also have numbers of print pub. sources not in dispute. BC.TV site however provides crucial later info not in earlier print pub texts.Tao2911 (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
That site is fine for non controversial simple statements but has not the journalistic authority and editorial checking of a wikipedia reliable source and should in no way be used to attempt to verify opinionated and POV comments that are supported by the organization that is publishing them. Off2riorob (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

You're completely missing the point. What we are using the source for is the FACT of there being ALLEGATIONS, ONGOING CONTROVERSY, and especially the existence (including transcription and pdf of original) of a letter from 8 zen masters calling for Shimano to be disciplined. There is NO POV being expressed; only facts! These facts quite clearly include that Shimano denies all wrongdoing. If source is ok for your "non-controversial Facts" it should be fine for existence of facts that there simply is controversy - which is not in dispute here. We have other sources. This one is helpful.Tao2911 (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The print publications are far better sources than the website, which is questionable, at best. Hipocrite (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Pure conjecture. Your argument has no consistency or coherence. If the web article proves the print source to be inaccurate or incomplete or simply dated, clearly one form is not inherently better than the other. This is wiki's strength. Duh.Tao2911 (talk) 19:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
There is no debate about there being allegations of abuse. The wish is provide up to date, more accurate info about said allegations, so that limited and hence inaccurate earlier sources can be corrected. Don't lose the thread for all the hypotheticals. We are talking here about one added line and a few word diffs.Tao2911 (talk) 19:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
It's pretty simple: the above discussion shows that some good-standing editors have doubts about the reliability of the source, and the source is wanted to introduce pretty inflamatory material into a BLP. Conclusion: no way! To add serious allegations to a BLP, you need very reliable sources (plural), not a single source which, as the above shows, is not known for reliability in the Wikipedia sense. If a serious allegation is worth adding to an encyclopedic article, there should be several sources for the allegation (because otherwise the material is of very dubious encyclopedic value). Johnuniq (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
There is no evidence that this site has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Such a reputation needs third-party support, not their own claims. I couldn't find any true reliable sources that have cited or used information from buddhistchannel.tv, which would be required to show it has such a reputation (see WP:RS#Usage by other sources). First Light (talk) 04:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

No one is addressing the actual particulars of this case. The facts in question in this article contain their own proofs in the article - the whole letter in question is quoted, with source. This letter is acknowledged all over the place online. You don't have to be willfully obtuse here - you can verify that a source is indeed accurate. Wiki guidelines suggest this, folks. We are not hogtied by some perfect measure and rule.

This is not a "serious allegation" we need proof for. We have undisputed sources for allegations of abuse. What this article provides is proof of significant letter confirming allegations by peers years after last printed source. This is being widely discussed in Zen field, and has been for years. Again, allegations are NOT IN DISPUTE. This article is a helpful adjunct, to bring info up to more recent past and make issues more comprehensible. I wish someone would actually carefully review the material and context, instead of this "angels on needle heads" debate.Tao2911 (talk) 04:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Editors please review Shimano talk here for particulars.Tao2911 (talk) 14:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
"We are not hogtied by some perfect measure and rule." - WP:BLP is pretty DAMN clear that we are indeed "hogtied" to the use of sources of the highest quality regarding contentious claims about living people. Active Banana (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course! But that is NOT the only measure here - is article fair? Yes. Is it balanced? Yes. Is it reasonable? Yes. Does it meet standards for NPOV and content? yes. Is it the only source of controversial info? NO, its not even one of the primary THREE. Is their any reason to suspect subject matter to be forged, falsified? Clearly not - no one is arguing so. Look at the actual material - don't just wade in with more template blasting and hypotheticals, of which we have pages now.Tao2911 (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Addressing the particulars of this case, then: buddhistchannel.tv (a non-reliable source by WP standards), used to support an allegation that several "American Zen teachers wrote a letter...recommending (subject of a WP:BLP) be disciplined or asked to resign" (a controversial allegation) = "no way" should this source be used in violation of WP:BLP. ("Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." First Light (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
www.buddhistchannel.tv has no particular reputation for accuracy or editorial oversight, and publicly disavows responsibility for its contents. It therefore does not qualify as a reliable source, and in particular may not be used as a source for any claim whatsoever in WP:BLP articles. Jayjg (talk) 06:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The New Catholic Encyclopedia

Does wikipedia consider the New Catholic Encyclopedia a valid source?LoveMonkey (talk) 16:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

As always, it depends on what statement it is supporting. No source is 100% reliable. Give an example of a statement and a citation from NCE, so that others can show you how to evaluate. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Pg 191 article about John Cassian.

"He was also a leading exponent of Semi-pelagianism and is considered its founder. Revered as a saint in the Eastern Church, he was never canonized in the West, although his feast is kept in southern France, particularly in Marseilles on July 23." [16]LoveMonkey (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


Also the Merriam-Webster's encyclopedia of world religions By Wendy Doniger appears to validate this statement as well.[17]. And also page 984 "From that point on, semi-Pelagianism was recognized as a HERESY in the Roman Catholic church."LoveMonkey (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Presumably someone is disputing that this is a reliable source ... I don't care to speculate on what basis. Could you take a look at the instructions for posting a question at the top of the page and include the missing details? (diff of the disputed edit(s), talk page discussion, etc.) tia Dlabtot (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok.LoveMonkey (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Here goes.

And also that I think that Cassian's status as a saint in the Roman Catholic church is ambiguous and it should be clarified that Cassian is not really considered a saint in the church. I was going to get to that after this disagreement.

  • Article talkpage diffs.[20]

Thanks LoveMonkey (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC) Sorry addendum the statement should be to the effect of :"that the Roman Catholic church condemns the Semi-pelagian teachings of John Cassian as heresy." Thanks Again LoveMonkey (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I've just spent twenty minutes looking at it and I still could not find the dispute about this source. Could you please provide a specific diff where someone objects to the use of the The New Catholic Encyclopedia? You can find an explanation of what I mean by a 'diff' here: WP:DIFF Dlabtot (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, I've found the relevant section of talk page, but I'm still not sure who - if anyone - is saying that The New Catholic Encyclopedia is not a reliable source as Wikipedia defines the term. Trying to read that discussion is like trying to swim in cotton candy. Dlabtot (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
OK at least the cotton candy is candy and tastes good. Uh I haven't added it yet because the "Old Catholic Encyclopedia" is now not considered a valid source. What is states is not valid according to the talkpage and an earlier entry here. So I was looking for approval in advance so to try and not have a 3 page argument on the article talkpage in order to use the source on the talkpage let alone even at this point adding it to the article. Since the Roman Catholic editors on the article talkpage say that what any source other then their sources and the Pope can not speak for any Roman Catholic position (yes thats the position they -Esoglou and Richard are now taking on the talkpage for the Catholic - Orthodox theological differences article).LoveMonkey (talk) 20:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Historical sources can still be 'reliable sources' for particular citations. 'Reliable sources' is a term of art that has a specific meaning on Wikipedia, as described in WP:RS. However, in general, sources can only speak for themselves. Therefore when in doubt, use attribution. Dlabtot (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me for that last statement being lost on me. What is meant by "Therefore when in doubt, use attribution".LoveMonkey (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Attribute the material to whoever you are citing. In other words, without attribution: "only blue widgets are genuine widgets", with attribution "according to the Widget Encyclopedia, only blue widgets are genuine widgets". Dlabtot (talk) 00:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This is good advice thanks Dlabtot.

Commator (talk · contribs) has been adding to this, and other metalworking articles, a number of links to their commercial web site. These have been added as ELs, and as references. The linked site is "relevant", in that its topic area is related to the subject under discussion, however it has almost no content on it. It's way short of the WP:EL standard. I don't even see it as adequate for a reference: not merely not being WP:RS, but not even enough for a reference in passing. I'm happy to accept (in the spirit of WP:AGF) that they could be knowledgeable in the field and have knowledge that could usefully be added to this article, however the content accessible on the linked site is nowhere near enough.

Their discussion since is welcomed, however the style of these two threads could be seen as needlessly personal and combative:

This went to RfC a week ago, links to metal-art.com.ua |Talk:Forging but the editor still sticks to their position and continues to regard unanimous comments by a number of other editors as merely a vendetta against their site. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

http://www.metal-art.com.ua does not look to be RS. Commentary about other editors is not appropriate for this noticeboard and is counterproductive. Dlabtot (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

My intension is to undo Wizard191's action, which removed my contribution. My goal is to contribute to the article section "History" the text:

"Since the advance of the PC era the manufacturing of complicated and unique forged items is usually accompanied by realistic 3D computer simulation. This accurate and relatively fast technology allows accumulate all needful knowledges, equipment and intermediates for the future forged items before the starting of manufacturing[i][ii]. Computer 3D modeling is now not scarcity even for small companies[iii]."

i Forging Process Modeling. This footnote supports reality of using 3D computer simulation in forging.

ii On CAD/CAM hardware and software usable in forging. This footnote tells which tools are usable.

iii 3D modeling in forge. This footnote supports reality of using 3D modelling in small forging companies. --Commator (talk) 01:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I have just commented at the RFC that it seems clear that the site is not helpful for Wikipedia. For this kind of issue, I would post at WP:ELN, or at WT:WikiProject Spam if very persistent. I do not support the edit proposed above by Commator because the useful content that would be added to the article is not significant, and we do not add links to commercial sites merely to illustrate their availability. Johnuniq (talk) 02:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I understand that there may be people with imagination of spam and useless changes everywhere in Wikipedia. Johnuniq from these ones and has clearly declared this on own page: <<... most of my time is taken resisting the erosion of articles by unhelpful changes or linkspam additions ...>> --Commator (talk) 04:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Johnuniq. Your website is not close to being a reliable source, by Wikipedia standards, nor does it meet the standards laid out at WP:EL. You are specifically violating WP:EL#ADV. Continued addition of links would be spamming. First Light (talk) 04:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Has opened your own article Asclepias cordifolia and found this your link: "Asclepias cordifolia (Heartleaf Milkweed)". Plantaxa. Retrieved 2008-12-21.. It was only first opened one from many your articles. --Commator (talk) 05:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for finding a dead/expired link in that article. I've replaced it with a valid reference to the same Barrett and Gifford (1933) book, this time from the USDA website. If you find any more like that, feel free to let me know. First Light (talk) 05:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Instead of making assessment of not related with your profile links, it would be better for all if you continue your own contributions and permanently check your own array of links from Wikipedia. --Commator (talk) 06:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
No, instead it would be appropriate for you to respond the way I did when you pointed out my missing link, which was to fix the problem. In your case, that would be to find a truly reliable source—and additionally, to learn WP policies about what is a Reliable Source, Conflict of Interest, and adding external links to your own site. First Light (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I try to do what I can for a <<... world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge ...>>. It would be better for all if you'll try to do so too. --Commator (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

In view of the discussion above and at Talk:Forging, I have removed the link from a number of pages because checking showed that where used as a reference, the text in the article was not particularly helpful, and the statements were not verified by the reference. This LinkSearch currently shows links only here and at Talk:Forging. Johnuniq (talk) 11:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Commator is now trying to add links to his metal-art.com.ua site to 3D modeling. As apparently with his prior attempts, the links don't match up with the text he's inserting, which poorly duplicates content already in the article. He's also under the mistaken idea that Johnuniq put me up to opposing him. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
From the Revision history of 3D modeling
18:57, 12 July 2010 TheRealFennShysa (Undid revision 373125337 by Commator (talk) rv poorly written (and unnecessary) addition based on poor and/or advertising links.) (undo)
18:53, 12 July 2010 Commator (Undid revision 373081101 by TheRealFennShysa Two weeks TheRealFennShysa said nothing until Johnuniq not invent this "claims are not supported by the refs") (undo)
13:52, 12 July 2010 TheRealFennShysa (rv - claims are not supported by the refs) (undo)
07:12, 12 July 2010 Commator (Undid revision 372613341 by TheRealFennShysa His action has obviously the Johnuniq's influence. It may be even Johnuniq has encouraged him to do so.) (undo)
17:34, 9 July 2010 TheRealFennShysa (Undid revision 372609268 by Commator (talk) rv to prior version for similar reasons as Johnuniq offered) (undo)
17:03, 9 July 2010 Commator (Undid revision 372566601 by Johnuniq (talk) The article readers and authors not criticise the contribution.) (undo)
11:43, 9 July 2010 Johnuniq (rv edits by Commator: some of text is obviously true, but the claims are not supported by the refs; link is unhelpful; see Talk:Forging#Rfc: Commator's links to metal-art.com.ua) (undo)
09:34, 5 July 2010 Commator (→Models) (undo)
02:42, 4 July 2010 Commator (→Models) (undo)
10:04, 2 July 2010 Commator (→Models) (undo)
07:08, 2 July 2010 Commator (Undid revision 370969106 by JamesBWatson. His contrib. seems to be a bad shaded act of personal vendetta and national dislike) (undo)
09:19, 30 June 2010 JamesBWatson (Revert edits which (1) introduced an inappropriate link (see WP:ELNO) and (2) was not in clear English (e.g. "lets prepare all needful knowledges").) (undo)
06:04, 30 June 2010 Commator (→Models) (undo)
04:40, 30 June 2010 Commator (→Models: Added reference to material "Forging Process Modeling") (undo)
09:35, 27 June 2010 Commator (→Models) (undo) --Commator (talk) 23:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
From the en.wikipedia.org, by Edits (reverse), with Page = 3D_modeling
Edits___User_____________first edit_______last edit
11(10/1)TheRealFennShysa 2009-12-14 20:37 2010-07-12 18:57
10(6/4) Commator 2010-06-27 09:35 2010-07-12 18:53
1 (1/0) JamesBWatson 2010-06-30 09:19 2010-06-30 09:19
1 (1/0) Johnuniq 2010-07-09 11:43 2010-07-09 11:43 --Commator (talk) 00:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
From the Revision history of 3D modeling
18:28, 20 May 2010 TheRealFennShysa Reverted 2 edits by 78.150.159.60
16:29, 18 May 2010 TheRealFennShysa Undid revision 362809339 by Enanko
19:10, 12 May 2010 TheRealFennShysa Undid revision 361710890 by Skhedkar
15:23, 26 March 2010 TheRealFennShysa Reverted 1 edit by 178.92.88.150
06:18, 22 March 2010 TheRealFennShysa Reverted 3 edits by 210.193.14.11
22:38, 21 February 2010 TheRealFennShysa Undid revision 345381763 by Baiutti
17:32, 10 February 2010 TheRealFennShysa Undid revision 343182985 by Parametric66
20:37, 14 December 2009 TheRealFennShysa Reverted 2 edits by 78.149.94.189 --Commator (talk) 00:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


Transcript of a lecture hosted on a student organization's page

I'm pretty sure this isn't a reliable source, but since the user is persistent I'm bringing it up here. At dispute is a citation in an article where the subject made a talk at a student organization. A transcript of the talk (the only one apparently) was put on a freeweb style site student organization's page. The student organization apparently had consent to make the transcript, but that is all that has been said about it. I've tried to explain that that consent doesn't mean anything since it's hosted on some site where anyone could upload anything and claim anything. the only thing I've found in the archives here is someone mentioning that a lecture or talk would only be a reliable source if a transcript existed and while he didn't specify, I'm sure that the intended meaning was that that transcript existed on a reliable source.--Crossmr (talk) 23:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Persistent user here. I must add that the "freeweb style site" in question is owned by the student organization. _dk (talk) 00:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Are they an organization that has a reputation for editorial oversight and fact checking like say the New York Times? Exactly what kind of student organization is it [21]? It doesn't seem to be one that uses real names. When you say student organization, are you basically just saying "an interest club" at a university? Even owning the domain doesn't make it a reliable source, except for anything about them. Not for claims made about others.--Crossmr (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
If you had the mind to bring the issue over there, then I assume you would allow others to do the talking in your stead? When the page in question [22] is a transcript of the lecture, made with the consent of the person who gave the lecture, is the club stating any claims? I believe the answer is no, and I await the opinions of the denizens on this board. _dk (talk) 00:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
It's a discussion, anyone can contribute. Who approved it is irrelevant. It is where it is published that is the problem. It is a self-published source and as such cannot be used as a citation on wikipedia unless the source is created by the subject of the article which it is not. Can you deny any of those things? The club is making claims. The club is claiming that that transcript is accurate and happened. Per wikipedias guidelines and policies we simply cannot take them at their word because they don't meet our threshold for a reliable source.--Crossmr (talk) 06:26, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Please post this question at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. This page is for discussion of policy, not of specific sources. LK (talk) 03:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Please tell us what article is involved, and give some information about the student organization. And which country would help as well. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
The article is Imperishable Night, a game. The student organization is "La Bomba: General Amusement Research Circle" of Hitotsubashi University. The country is Japan. The point of contention here is if a transcript that is approved by the speaker posted on the host's website is reliable. I had wanted to use that source to cite a statement that is now appended by a cn tag in the article. Hence I want clarification if the view "Who approved it is irrelevant" presented by Crossmr, denying any case-by-case analysis, is one that is endorsed by Wikipedian consensus and not of one single user speaking improperly on behalf of Wikipedia. _dk (talk) 09:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes because we're speaking of where it is published, not who approved it or who said what or even what is contained on the page. Self-published sources refers to where the content is hosted. Random wikipedia editors need to be able to trust that the source is reliable and that what is said there is true, random student club website isn't it. Where is the evidence that the subject has unequivocally stated that what is contained on that page is 100% authentic and will always be 100% authentic?--Crossmr (talk) 09:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
You need not repeat yourself, I already know exactly what you are trying to convey. Will you give other people a chance to form their own thoughts? If you worry about them changing the content, there are technology like webarchives that makes it readily apparent if a page has been changed or not. To summarize my points: I believe the student organization, being the host of the lecture, is an authoritative source for the lecture that had been given on their grounds. Considering, also, that the transcript was made with the approval of the speaker (maker of the game), the transcript is therefore reliable as a faithful representation of the lecture. _dk (talk) 10:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Not reliable. We do sometimes use convenience links. This is an informal student group and the information is trivial anyway. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree with IMJ, not reliable. Verbal chat 12:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
In order for them to be authoritative they'd have to be published and recognized experts in the field. That is the only situation under which a self-published source by someone who is not the subject should be used. Authorization has no bearing on whether or not wikipedia considers it reliable. Wikipedia is concerned with the place in which it's kept. Anything that is self-published has a very narrow set of terms under which it can be used.--Crossmr (talk) 13:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes....you've repeated yourself for the fifth time now. But now that your assessment has been supported by two other individuals I am satisfied and will drop the issue. Though I wonder, if the information is trivial anyways, why had it been challenged to begin with. _dk (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Because I'd already removed an obviously bad source from the same piece of information. You replaced it with another bad source.--Crossmr (talk) 22:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
There's a few other ways for something to be citable as a source. For instance, material published by advocacy organizations is usually allowed if the organization's opinion is influential on the topic, and this is an ambiguous area between primary, secondary, and self-published sources. See if you can establish a reputation for this web page you want to cite. Are we sure this page belongs to the student organization? Who links to it; does the school's web site link to it? Do they have a reputation for accurate transcriptions of guest lecturers? Is it cited by other works? Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

AllAfrica Global Media

This website - http://allafrica.com/ - isn't used on any article I have edited. 'All Africa' mirrors African newspaper websites as well as digitising National newspapers from different African countries. I was wondering whether, considering the stability of the website, it could be used when the site/web page that it mirrors isn't available online. Would there be an issue with this? Thanks. Ukabia...tark 13:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It could be used as a Convenience link, but the actual source being cited would be the original newspaper. Dlabtot (talk) 20:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
All right, thanks. Ukabia - talk 21:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources for the number of Chveneburi

Hello, are the following sources reliable for the numbers of Chveneburi?

1) [23]

2) [24]

3) [25]

4) [26]

Please see also this dif for the original edit [27] Yoenit (talk) 13:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

(numbered sources for ease of discussion) 1) unsure if publisher is generally reliable, but possibly 2) greenwood is general publishing firm of academic works so unless there is specific reason to doubt, this is reliable source 3) if as according to wikipedia article, joshua project keeps population figures "with Christian progress status indicators" it is a site with a particular POV and unless there is evidence that other reliable sources use them for data, I would think not. 4) Tore Kjeilen does not meet the criteria for a self published site and it is unclear how much editorial oversite and fact checking is present. So - 1 out of 4? Active Banana (talk) 04:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. You state you are unsure if the publisher of link number 1, Multilingual matters, is generally reliable. Looking around on their website I don't see anything which would point the contrary, so I am gonna assume it is reliable as well. Yoenit (talk) 10:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Ancestry.com as a reference?

I was looking at some biographies today and noticed generic links to ancestry.com used as references for birth dates. (See references in Pat Brown). I thought, "hey, that's cool, someone linked some genealogical information." Then I noticed these links were not to specific entries for the individuals at ancestry.com. The links were to the front page. That struck me as surreptitious advertising for ancestry.com since a) the link is to the front page of the site, and b) the site requires paid membership to access their data. It also occurs to me that information in ancestry.com is not authoritative since it can be entered by anyone and isn't subject to editorial review. So, is a link to ancestry.com a valid reference? Vantelimus (talk) 23:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd vote no, especially when the link is just to the front page. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree. The proper place for questions of this nature is at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 02:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I agree too. You occasionally see links to the front page of other sites too—I doubt it's generally intended as promotional, but it's bad form nevertheless. (I wonder; is a specifc user or IP range adding links to ancestry.com all over the place? That would be problematic and indicative of surreptitious advertising.) TheFeds 03:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
There are over 800 links, almost 200 to the home page.[28] ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 11:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Moved from Wikipedia talk:Citing sources
For the situation you just described, no, it is not a reliable source. (There some articles which are written by the Ancestry Magazine staff writers which might be reliable.) For past discussions, see:Question about Ancestry.com and Ancestry.com A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I'll also add that if the people involved are living, then the BLP policy kicks in, which says that the dates of birth should only be included where they have been "widely published by reliable sources". If the information is only available behind a paywall, then it can hardly be considered widely published.--Slp1 (talk) 16:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

For the most part, Ancestry.com contains user generated material without editorial oversight, and thus fails WP:RS. Jayjg (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

PMAnderson and Democracies vs electoral states.

On List of wars between democracies User:Pmanderson contantly re-adds Dean V. Babst's article "Elective Governments — A Force For Peace." The Wisconsin Sociologist 3 (1, 1964): 9-14;" as a source. However, that article does not talk about democracies, but about elective governments, ie goverments that have elections. That is not generally accepted as being a democracy, for example South Africa under Apartheid was an elective government, but not a democracy. IMO it's WP:SYN to use it as a source for wasr between democracies, when it only talks about wars between elective governments. Am I wrong?

The first time I took this up was here: Talk:List_of_wars_between_democracies#The_Boer_wars. It was re-added recently: [29] --OpenFuture (talk) 19:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a verbal quibble: that the founder of democratic peace theory, writing a paper about "elective governments", did not mean democracies, when he wrote about the peace between states which elect their legislature and administration, with secret ballot and civil liberties.
Since this good soul seems to like R. J. Rummel, I present a link to Rummel's summary of Babst's paper, which uses the string democracy repeatedly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I think you are wrong, or at least you're being overly pedantic. Fences&Windows 19:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
How is it pedantic? The article was once called "exceptions to democratic peace theory", and Babst list certainly fits there. But the article was renamed, and as a result of that renaming, everything that's not actually a war between democracies has been removed. PManderson tried to revert those changes, but finally gave in that only those conflicts who in fact have WP:RS that calls them wars between democracies should be included. Despite this PManderson uses sources that does *not* call the conflict wars between democracies, in an apparent attempt to slowly revert the article back into it's pre-rename state. He refers to that Rummel calls Babst definition of electoral governments "democracies", but that would then be WP:SYN or at least he should use Rummel as a source, and not Babst. An electoral government is *not* a democracy in normal usage. As an example, Apartheid South Africa would fit Babst definition. *Nobody* would call it a democracy. Now if the article was renamed back or to something else, that would be another questions, but Titles should match the article content. Then we can't add conflicts that isn't wars between democracies, and then our sources must claim that the conflicts was between democracies. That clearlyand obviously means Babst source is not useful as it claims no such thing. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
  • The Politics of South Africa: Democracy and Racial Diversity was published in 1977; that would appear to answer the loudest claim here.
  • It is quite true that South Africa under apartheid was only a democracy for some people, and that is what was wrong with it; but it was a democracy for them. This effort to adopt a single view of democracy as the only one is the problem here; Rummel also denies that Israel was a free state under Golda Meir - but that is not the consensus view. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Democracy for some people is not democracy at all. And if you had bothered to double check the book title you used, you'd know that the book isn't a description of South Africas politics, but a *prescription*. Apparently also a "vapid" prescription written by a supporter of apartheid. [30]. Obviously somebody that supports the system will call it a democracy, that goes for every regime. Even Cuba, USSR etc has been called a democracy by it's supporters, even though it's blatantly obvious that this is not the case. That's why we can't use one source that says "it's a democracy" and another one that says "it's a war" to say "It's a war between democracies". That would be WP:SYN and every single conflict in the 20th century would have to be listed, as every single state has been called a democracy by it's supporters. And that is why we must restrict ourselves to using sources that claim the conflict is a war between democracies. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Democracy for some people is not democracy at all. That's your opinion; however virtuous it may be, it is not consensus of the sources. Please stop blanking Wikipedia to install your opinions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 12:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
The claim that the right to vote isn't a part of the modern concept of democracy is patently absurd. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Somalia - Transparency International and Somali news sites

Hi there, I'm unfortunately involved in a fairly frustrating discussion on the Somalia talk page. In it, an editor (who I believe is biased towards painting a rosier picture of Somalia than is entirely neutral) has stated that Transparency International's Corruption Index ranking for Somalia (180/180) should not be mentioned, because he claims it is not a reliable source. Pressed on why, he says it's because he believes one source of the ranking, a Matt Bryden, is not reliable. Here a second reliable source question comes up. To support his allegation that Bryden (a UN Monitoring Group's chief coordinator) is unreliable, he provides a bunch of, in my view, amateurish looking news reports (1, 2, 3, 4) and asserts that those are reliable (I do not agree). My opinion is that the Transparency Index has its detractors, but it is still a widely used metric of perceived corruption. But while many Wikipedia articles use the index, on the Somalia page, there is no mention of corruption at all, despite it placing dead last and several high profile corruption allegations over the past year or so (namely misdirection of UN food aid and government collusion with pirates). I believe Transparency International is a reliable source on its own ranking, and that its ranking, being the most commonly cited metric of perceived government corruption, is notable enough for inclusion. I was hoping someone with more experience on reliable sources could weigh in on this issue. Thanks a lot, TastyCakes (talk) 20:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

As has already been repeatedly explained to the editor above, the fact that Transparency International's corruption index is used on other articles on Wikipedia does not in itself mean that it is a reliable source, and specifically with regard to Somalia. This is because Transparency International bases its corruption index on a small group of specialists on each given country and also because "there is evidence that perceptions of corruption are influenced by the disclosure of major scandals" (c.f. 1). Transparency International's corruption index is thus by definition not a one-size-fits-all metric; it necessarily varies in reliability from country to country depending on the sources used for those specific countries. Unlike most other countries, Somalia is also plagued by disinformation in the media, which is precisely why there's an entire article devoted to Propaganda in the War in Somalia. And as it so happens, Transparency International itself admits that its idea of corruption in Somalia is based on a recent "UN monitoring group report [regarding] assertions about corrupt diversion of food aid". The report in question has drawn controversy for not one, but two key reasons: 1) it was prepared by one Matt Bryden, who is an unreliable, biased contributor with direct ties to advocacy groups (here is a photo of him at a rally for his cause) and a long history of publishing dubious material on the region (1, 2, 3, 4), and 2) the actual sources Bryden relies on for his corruption charges are unsubstantiated anecdotes featured in completely unverifiable Somali-language articles and blog posts published on low-key websites (namely, the following: 1, 2, 3). That is fact. What is also fact is that those sources fail not only WP:VER, but also WP:QS and WP:REDFLAG. Since the corruption charges in question involve specific individuals, those unreliable sources likewise fail WP:BLP. That's pretty much it. The editor above, however, insists on arguing that Transparency International's corruption index vis-a-vis Somalia is still somehow reliable despite the country's well-documented problems with disinformation in the media, the dubious sources the report it was based on uses to obtain its corruption allegations -- sources which have been expressly identified in this way -- and the unreliability of the author of that paper himself as a neutral contributor. Let's put it this way, if Transparency International's corruption ranking for Spain were primarily based on a report by someone with a long history of direct involvement in and advocacy for the Basque separatist movement, and that report in turn obtained its actual corruption allegations from unverifiable Basque-language sources -- sources that have been expressly identified in this way -- no one would question the unreliability of said sources. The present situation is no different. Middayexpress (talk) 00:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
One non-involved editor's opinion: Transparency International's Corruption Index is most clearly notable, and used by countless reliable sources specifically regarding Somalia.[31][32][33] There's no question that any of those reliable sources could be used to support inclusion in the Somalia article. If you have a problem with Transparency International's particular rating of Somalia, then you could also include a neutral, third-party reliable source that raises the issues you bring up. In my opinion, www.wardheernews.com wouldn't qualify as that reliable or neutral source, so you should find something more mainstream and neutral. First Light (talk) 04:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Again, it is not Transparency International's corruption index that is the question here; it is specifically its ranking for Somalia. As I've already explained above, citing a lot more than that Wardheernews article (which, by the way, is indeed a reliable source that even the Huffington Post deems trustworthy enough to republish material from (e.g.), including editorials (1)), Transparency International bases its corruption index on a small group of specialists on each given country, and "there is evidence that perceptions of corruption are influenced by the disclosure of major scandals" (see this). The "expert" that Transparency International readily admits its idea of corruption in Somalia is based on is a recent "UN monitoring group report [regarding] assertions about corrupt diversion of food aid"; that is the "scandal" in question. This report, however, was prepared by a gentleman with a long history of open advocacy and publishing dubious materials on the region, as many sources have repeatedly highlighted (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). And as I've also pointed out, the actual sources the author of that report relies on for his corruption charges are unsubstantiated anecdotes featured in completely unverifiable Somali-language articles and blog posts published on low-key websites (namely: 1, 2, 3). So it's both the author himself and his sources that are the problem. There are also not just many journalists that describe Bryden's latest report as unreliable, but three governments (Somali federal government, Puntland regional government and Eritrea) and one international organization (the UN) as well. None of the above can be said for any of the other countries ranked in Transparency International's corruption index; none of those other countries rankings were based on reports from such openly biased parties and dubious sources, parties and sources that have been expressly identified in this way. And if they had been, no one would have trouble understanding why this is unacceptable, especially given Wikipedia's rules on reliable sourcing (see my Basque/Spain analogy above). Middayexpress (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
The fact that multiple mainstream and extremely reliable sources (Forbes, BBC, etc.) feature the Corruption Index's rating of Somalia can't simply be removed from the article. If those other sources you mention really are deemed reliable by Wikipedia standards (which is different from Huffington Post standards), then they could also be included in the article. Since most/all of the mainstream sources give credibility to the rating, there is still no legitimate reason for excluding that information. First Light (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Most/all mainstream news sites do not at all give credibility to the rating. Some merely mention it, as they do with news on murder allegations, lawsuits, Enron, etc.. That's not an endorsement, much less an appraisal of the reliability of the corruption allegations' sources; that's reporting. The articles I have cited above, on the other hand, expressly identify the very sources of those corruption allegations as unreliable, not to mention the person behind them. Further, WP:RS is clear that the actual source of the corruption charges (i.e. the creator of the work) "can affect reliability". And the actual source of the corruption charges is not Transparency International itself. TI, again, bases its rankings on a few so-called "experts" on the country in question (see this), which it itself admits in this case is that dubious UN report by Bryden. That is the point. Similarly, WP:QS also specifies that questionable sources:

"include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited."

Bryden's paper fits that description to a T, as not only does it completely rely on innuendo for its corruption allegations (unsubstantiated claims drawn from articles and blog posts published on low-key, foreign language websites, and which are thus unverifiable), it is also promotional in nature (1). So actually, it's not that there are no legitimate reasons to not include the ranking; it's that the ranking clearly belongs on the Propaganda in the War in Somalia article since it is directly based on a questionable source citing contentious claims about third parties. Middayexpress (talk) 02:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I still hold that repeated and widespread reporting of the Corruption Index rating on Somalia in mainstream reliable sources, by itself, merits its inclusion in the Somalia article. Your sources and argument haven't convinced me otherwise, and I'll leave it at that. First Light (talk) 05:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
You have not appealed to Wikipedia policy to substantiate your argument; you've just shared your opinion. The consensus process, however, is unfortunately not determined by popular vote. You must attempt to prove your argument citing actual policy, something which has yet to happen. Middayexpress (talk) 02:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I believe the exchange above demonstrates my frustration at the Somalia talk page in a nutshell: the obvious is pointed out, and Middayexpress repeats the same convoluted argument to use unreliable sources to dispute something that everywhere else on Wikipedia is accepted as a notable, reliable source worth mentioning in country articles. TastyCakes (talk) 06:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

You were certainly right to bring it here, and I hope other non-involved editors aren't discouraged from getting involved in this discussion by the wall of words. First Light (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It's reliable and worth noting. Lot's of coverage in the highest quality sources. The sources generally attribute to TI, so we should as well, "According to TI Somalia is the most corrupt country." or something. - 14:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
TastyCakes: If proper sourcing were what really concerned you, then you would have first and foremost taken exception to Bryden's use of anecdotal evidence to obtain his corruption allegations, material that was drawn from completely unverifiable foreign language articles published on low-key websites and blogs as I've explained above (references that have also been expressly identified as unreliable by third party sources). Instead, you've attempted to question the very sources that simply point out how unreliable Bryden's foreign language references (not to mention himself) are to begin with. Your line of argument that since Transparency International's corruption index is used elsewhere on Wikipedia, it is thus reliable for Somalia as well, is likewise completely invalid since Transparency International bases its rankings on the work of specialists on each country it ranks, and its rankings therefore necessarily vary in quality from country to country. Those other countries' rankings are also not largely based on a controversial report that was prepared by someone openly involved in advocacy, with a long history of publishing such dubious reports to boot. And yes, TI's actual sources most certainly do matter:

"We find that there are many limitations to corruption indicators due to the methodologies used in aggregating or averaging, the reliability of the sources on which they are based, and the varying definitions of corruption utilized."

Moreover, TI's corruption index doesn't even use the same number of surveys per country; in Somalia's case, it bases its ranking on only 3 surveys (viz.), almost 3 times fewer data sources than some other countries and the absolute minimum required to be included at all in the index. This too directly affects the reliability of its rating:

"The CPI relies heavily on “expert assessments” of corruption, representing the views of a small number of people.16 For the most part, these expert assessments are carried out by expatriates of the countries involved. The longer these expatriates are living outside their country of origin, the less likely they are to have an accurate understanding of the current situation in the country. Absolute objectivity is difficult to achieve, and most people naturally will be biased toward either a government or its opposition. To the extent that the expatriates making the assessments of corruption are members of particular economic or social groups, expert assessments of corruption may be biased."

The corruption index also does not even measure the extent of corruption among the population as a whole -- just in the public sector:

"As the website of TI pointedly notes while the Index identifies Somalia at the very bottom of the ladder in 2008, that does not mean that Somalia is the ‘world’s most corrupt country’ or that Somalians are the ‘most corrupt people’. All it takes for a country to be very corrupt is a few powerful politicians and officials perpetrating corruption on the rest of the population... All sources measure the overall extent of corruption (frequency and/or size of bribes) in the public and political sectors."

Lastly (and this is key), Transparency International's CPI does not take into account changes in corruption regulation that might have taken place in the considerable lag-time that's inherent in its metric:

"Since corruption is the result of entrenched dysfunctional institutions in a country, changes at the country-level will be slow to appear. It will take some time for anti-corruption reforms to take effect after they are introduced, and even longer for people to notice the effects of the reforms so that perceptions to change. Since the CPI uses up to three years of data, then even if there are reductions in corruption according to the most recent figures, those advances will be tempered by the inclusion of previous years data. The 1998 CPI Press Release even states, “It needs to be emphasized, though, that it can take some time for these actions [anti-corruption reform] to influence international perceptions, and be consequently reflected in the CPI."

WP:RS itself indicates that "some scholarly material may be outdated". And as another editor already explained to you on the Somalia talk page, many such major anti-corruption measures have recently been implemented that the CPI simply has not factored in yet or weighted properly. This includes Somalia's central government's recent hiring of Pricewaterhousecoopers to monitor development federal funding and improve transparency, as well as the resumption of its relationship with the African Development Bank, something which only became possible due to what the AfDB itself describes as "the formulation of a national plan and the establishment of a functional Central Bank and effective anti-corruption commission". Similarly, the new Puntland regional administration's (term started in 2009) has also implemented numerous reforms such as the expansion and improvement of its security and judicial systems, and the establishment of a transparent, budget-based public finance system (1). This only serves to make the CPI's ranking of Somalia an even more unreliable measure of corruption in the country. Middayexpress (talk) 02:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok, it seems we have 4 opinions for and Middayexpress against, can I safely put this into the article now? TastyCakes (talk) 04:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Not that it even matters, but that's actually 2 opinions vs. 4 (see the Somalia talk page again). The consensus process is also unfortunately not popular vote:

Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary but not exclusive method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, and are no more binding than any other consensus decision. Elections and votes are only endorsed for things that take place outside Wikipedia proper, such as when electing the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee.

That means there won't be getting around the discussion process, especially what I have just posted that belies the claims of "corruption". If you think there is, bear in mind that there is always a higher authority one can appeal to that won't have any trouble seeing the situation or what it is -- an authority that actual understands and values Wikipedia's rules. Middayexpress (talk) 04:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I've commented at Talk:Somalia that there is unanimous consensus here among uninvolved editors for inclusion of the TI Corruption Index ranking in the Somalia article. First Light (talk) 04:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I've added the information to the article here. In it I cite the Transparency International ranking, the UN Monitoring Group's report, and a New York Times article saying the report is disputed by the Somali government and businessmen and the UN World Food Program. TastyCakes (talk) 04:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

As Midday pointed out concensus is not based on popular vote, indeed if i were to do a mass transparent canvassing campaign and suddenly the score was 40 against inclusion compared to 5 for inclusion, this doesn't equal concensus. No! concensus would be for either side to convince the other of their argument for inclusion/exclusion and then agreeing to a compromise, regardless in whose favour it is. This is something that hasn't occurred here, that so-called 'wall of text' has yet to be countered, and do tell us why a respected Somali news outlet like Wadheernews is not legimate enough to be featured on wikipedia? --Scoobycentric (talk) 12:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Scooby (and Midday for that matter), please read wp:rs and once you're done, if you still don't see why the UN, the New York Times and Transparency International are reliable sources on alleged Somali corruption and awdal news, Garowe Online, American Chronicle and Wardheernews.com aren't, come back and talk. TastyCakes (talk) 14:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I would not count American Chronicle as a reliable source for any Wikipedia article. I am not sure how their editorial policy (if any) works, but from what I've seen it is essentially no better than a blog. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Response to Scoobycentric: Midday was adamant about excluding any mention of TI's corruption ranking of Somalia, even though it is reported by countless mainstream reliable news organizations. That widespread mainstream sourcing is why every non-involved editor here will continue to say that 'of course it meets WP requirements for inclusion'. Midday never responded to that issue. Nor did he respond to my very first comment in this thread: "There's no question that any of those reliable sources could be used to support inclusion (of TI's ranking) in the Somalia article. If you have a problem with Transparency International's particular rating of Somalia, then you could also include a neutral, third-party reliable source that raises the issues you bring up." I think the only unanswered question is whether wardheernews.com, etc. meet WP:RS. I don't see that yet with wardheernews.com, but that's where you should be tying to make your case - proving that your sources meet the standards at WP:RS, including that they are "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." First Light (talk) 15:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Tastycakes, if you actually read Middayexpress's reply on 00:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC), you would have noticed his use of sources such as AllAfrica.com and NYTimes together with Somali news organisation such as Garowe Online and Wardheernews, the onus is on you to provide the exact reason why the latter two specifically are not reliable sources, just stating this as many times as possible doesn't make it fact.
Garowe Online and Wardheernews almost certainly fail the criteria for reliable source, particularly on political issues. The reasons (straight from wp:rs) are they are apparently self published, they have no reputation for fact checking or accuracy, and in some cases their material appears to be "unduly self-serving", they print as though they're the mouthpieces of local powers (which they almost certainly are, on some subjects). AllAfrica seems a more borderline case, but I certainly wouldn't characterize it as a strong source (it republishes Garowe online's material, after all). You are correct: I did not read Midday citing a New York Times article supporting his allegations against Matt Bryden, or any of his other complaints. Could you please provide that link again? TastyCakes (talk) 19:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Firstlight, as you have may have noticed i share Midday's stand on this issue, because i have perused the report this ranking is based on myself. The report quoted websites that are considered highly biased, and have very little credibility amongst analysts, or Somalist scholars (see Midday's replies for more detail) therefore it shouldn't come as a suprise that editors knowledgable about this report's flaws are 'adamant' that the index based on this report was not added. However it is now, with a detailed explanation about the criticism + reforms in governmental institutions accompanying it. As for Wardheernews, i feel this is simply a case of not being familiar with this highly respected newsoutlet reporting for the Somali world, because in no way should i have to defend Wardheernews's credibility, accuracy and fact checking, when multiple different politicians and important figures from different walks of life already have. --Scoobycentric (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia only reports what reliable sources are reporting. The news sources that constantly report on Somalia's ranking in the Corruption Index clearly qualify. What's not so clear is wardheernews.com as a reliable source, by Wikipedia standards. The article that you just linked makes it even more doubtful in my mind. That's my opinion - pretty simple and very straightforward. I'll let others add their two cents, because I don't really have anything more to say than that. Peripherally, I would add that the Somalia article and talk page are full of broader issues that will probably need some mediation sooner or later—issues that probably include incivility, name-calling, nationalistic editing, WP:OWN, and WP:UNDUE. First Light (talk) 20:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Combatant Status Review Board transcripts

This is not really a question of the reliability of the source, but more how to cite it. Both the NY Times and the Washington Post host a number of documents released by the US government about detainees at Guantanamo Bay. The NYTimes hosts the exact same material here that the Washington Post does here, with the NYTimes site including an additional page. On Al Fand training camp these two sources are treated as though they are not the same and that they were "published" by the NYTimes and the WPost. To me this is akin to linking to the same AP story multiple times on different sites and claiming they are published by each of the places it appears. The article is currently up for AFD, so it is understandable why somebody would seek to inflate the number of sources in the article to give an impression of greater notability than is really there. In my view the publisher of this work is the Combatant Status Review Tribunal and the two sources are the same. Another editor apparently feels differently. How should this be cited and should they be treated as two separate sources? Apologies if this is an improper venue, not sure where else to ask though. nableezy - 21:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I ran into this at WP:ORN#Your opinion please... concerning original images. The original images and duplicate sources issues are both perplexing. In general of course there should not be duplicates: if two reliable sources publish the same document, we should choose one of them as a reference. However for the Guantanamo issue I would be inclined to use both sources because the fact that two independent publishers have chosen to carry the material lends a useful degree of credibility to the very unusual documents. Also (in some cases I looked at, not sure about the article mentioned above), the duplicates are in different formats and each has its own useful characteristics. I don't know that Al Fand training camp warrants its own article, but the material should be included somewhere since it is important. Johnuniq (talk) 00:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

ComicAttack RS?

Is ComicAttack RS? It's about page: About - shows that it has staff. Though it mostly focuses on OEL comics, it does have manga and anime reviews.

Example review: here

They also release news articles for anime and manga: example

It has been mentioned by Melinda Beasi in her reviews. Beasi is RS in the anime and manga field due to writing for PopCultureShock. 211.30.103.37 (talk) 09:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC) as Extremepro (talk · contribs)

Simply having staff doesn't make one a reliable source. Having a reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight does. Have they been cited by other reliable sources as a source of information? "ComicAttack" doesn't appear in the google news archive at all, so the chances of that are pretty slim. I'd say no.--Crossmr (talk) 11:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Cited by PopShockCulture here and placed on the same level as Newsarama. 211.30.103.37 (talk) 23:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC) as Extremepro (talk · contribs)
No, it isn't cited. It's linked for an interview, they're not citing information. And who? PCS seem to be on par with comicattack. Their address is a gmail address for pete's sake. They seem to be nothing more than a group blog. Also attaching a username to your signed-out sig isn't allowed. We have no proof you're that user account. if you want to put your user account name on it, you need to sign in and sign it.--Crossmr (talk) 00:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Um, I don't see why he isn't allowed to do that? I've seen administrators doing it when working while logged out. I've done it myself as have other users. Can you point to something that shows it is against some policy? No view on whether either site is a reliable source. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with AnmaFinotera on the first point --KrebMarkt 09:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Has he claimed the IP with his user account? I don't see anything obvious noting that, and it's been a few days. The IP could claim any account. We have no idea that account belongs to that IP.--Crossmr (talk) 10:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Editing pattern & editing time (ANZAC time). Extremely difficult to impersonate another editor pattern especially on the interpersonal communication side with editors used to teamwork & interact with that person. --KrebMarkt 11:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Back to the issue i'm inclined to give weight to Manga Recon (PCS) due to the quality of its key contributors

Lawrence Solomon

There is (again) a battle raging over whether or not Lawrence Solomon is an Environmentalist [34]. Would the following canadian newspaper be a reliable source to finally put this issue to rest? The Metropolitain as it does describe as such mark nutley (talk) 10:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark, I wonder - why is there a problem including the alternate, sourced PoV that he's a "free market environmentalist." It appears that you're attempting to censor one PoV because it's not yours. Hipocrite (talk) 10:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Why did you change your question? Please comment on content not contributor please mark nutley (talk) 10:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Mark, I am commenting on the content. A PoV is being censored from the content. Why? Hipocrite (talk) 10:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
No you are commenting on me trying to censor a source. This section is to ask if the source i have presented is acceptable for use in the article, if you wish to discuss another source please do so on the article talk page or open another thread, thanks mark nutley (talk) 10:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard of this newspaper, even though I live in Quebec where it is published. I gather it is a freebie that one can pick up about town. From the "about us" page, it "is a journal of opinion, reflection and the arts", [35] and indeed the article in question is clearly framed as an opinion column (see the I, we statements) rather than journalism/news. It appears that The Metropolitain accepts unsolicited manuscripts, but it does have a editorial board full of names I recognize and with a background in journalism etc. So... the article would be a reliable source for the opinion of David Solway (described in our article as being known for his "polemical outspokeness") but nothing more. --Slp1 (talk) 12:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Does this source help resolve this dispute? FactCheck.org: "Canadian environmentalist Lawrence Solomon..." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
It's a "letter to the editor" and thus the personal opinion of one Jarrett Wampler. Not a suitable source in my view.--Slp1 (talk) 18:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct. That's what I get for trying to answer questions first thing in the morning when I'm just starting to wake up. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
:-) Yes, I totally understand. A strong cup of coffee is essential to get my brain cells firing in the morning too! Slp1 (talk) 23:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Information about small and remote communities.

One of the great things about Wikipedia is the drive to make sure that information is accurate and verifiable. This can present problems for information about small and remote communities. Often there are no published sources of up to date or detailed information. Should standards be lower for this kind of material or should we just accept that parts of the world that do not have newspapers should fall off the radar?

If you start making exceptions (we dont need to have reliable sources for Xtype of articles becuase they are hard to find), then it becomes then it becomes, well reliable sources are also hard to find for Ytype of articles too, so there should be an exception for them. And Ztype articles, AND QRSTUVtypes as well!
I do not see any reason that the community would decide to accept lower standards for any type of article. If there is not much in reliable sources for us to say about a particular topic, we just dont say much. Active Banana (talk) 15:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
No. Dlabtot (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Also if its not noticed its unlikely to be notable.Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
No, his specific example was keeping things up to date. Notability is not temporary. Fences&Windows 19:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
And detailed, so it mighyt be that in fact there is no notability.Slatersteven (talk) 19:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
There has to be some level of sourcing, whether it's secondary, primary, or self-published by an expert. Usable sources are probably out there; dig a little deeper. Try local newspapers, government statistics, and so forth. Though, if this part of a notablity debate, consider merging an article about an isolated village into an article about the region. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Census data serves to give a backbone for most communities in the United States. Actually any country should have similar basic information, even if it is not on-line or easily accessible. There is a great temptation if the editor is familiar, lives in, or has spent some time in a remote or tiny place to engage in some original research. Bois d'Arc, Texas is an example where both I and others who are familiar with the community have added material. I see very little harm done in such instances but strictly speaking, about half of the content of the article comes from two individuals who have visited the town, myself and 67.142.171.20. No strong objection could be raised to deleting most of the article, but doing so seems a waste of time and a dis-service to our readers.
Bottom line, I'm not sure time spent identifying and deleting such information is well spent. However, there is a problem if such information is wrong. And there is no way to check. Perhaps there are 2 houses in Bois d' Arc, after all it's been twenty five years since I was there. Fred Talk 18:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Fred Talk 18:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Is Townhall.com a reliable source for proving opposing opinions?

I wanted to include a sentence stating that there is mainstream right wing criticism of teh Southern Poverty Law Center. I wish to use an essay published in an opinon journal as evidence of this fact [36] The article is written by a mainstream conservative activist/personality (Matt Barber-- he has a mention in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia). The essay pretty much says the SPLC has drifted from its civil rights mission and now maligns mainstream right wing personalities.

My attempt to include this reference has been contested because townhall.com is not a reliable source. However, I am not using the article as a means to prove fact, I am using teh essay as evidence of criticism. I would also like to anticipate criticism that this is original research, but I am not sure if this is the venue. So here are my questions: can a mainstream opinion journal be used as evidence of criticism? Is it original research to include a statement acknowledging published criticism of an

I wish to include some form of the statement: The SPLC is seen with suspicion by many on the right wing because in many cases it has rephrased its mission from one of monitoring hate groups to one of monitoring and 'unmasking' the 'radical right'. [1] [2][3][4]

discussion of this point is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Southern_Poverty_Law_Center#Claim_of_controversial_sources.

revision history is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Southern_Poverty_Law_Center&action=history Mrdthree (talk) 17:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's make this simpler. We could construct a template saying that someone at Townhall has viewed the subject with suspicion; we could even have a variable for the poster. We would then be able to add this to almost all articles on American politics and foreign countries - including most of the posters at Townhall, of course.
Or we could leave the opinion-blogging where we find it. The second seems simpler. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I would have to say its RS for his opinions, then it just becomes a matter of determining if his opinions matter.Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
A better way of putting it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
It seems you are saying I should use it in a list of particular criticisms, revolving around the radical right notion. FOr instance: Some right-wing commentators, activists, and scholars, including Ken Silverstein[5], Matt Barber[6], and Carol Swain[7] have criticized the Southern Poverty Law Center for attacking mainstream right-wing individuals while 'unmasking' [2] and 'keeping an eye on the radical right' [3] Mrdthree (talk) 19:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


(edit conflict)x2 Then it both fails WP:RS and as a WP:PRIMARY source you are using it to introduce WP:OR and improper WP:SYNTH. So, no it should not beused, and not in this way. Verbal chat 17:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Exactly right. Why is Matt Barber's opinion significant -- especially to be included in the lede? Who has appointed him as the spokesperson that represents the "mainstream right"? Who even says he is part of the "mainstream right" rather than the "radical right"? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I think Townhall.com is mainstream. It has a reasonably big readership, publishes AP, has a biweekly print journal and a mainstream publisher Salem Communications. Matt Barber is a regular columnist there [[37]]. That said, I think your hit the main issue on the head-- mainstream and radical are vague labels and it is important to have multiple opinions when using them in wikipedia.Mrdthree (talk) 18:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Can I summarize this as a decision that it is a reliable source for the statement? Mrdthree (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
No -- Matt Barber is NOT a reliable source for the statement that you have proposed which is The SPLC is seen with suspicion by many on the right wing because in many cases it has rephrased its mission from one of monitoring hate groups to one of monitoring and 'unmasking' the 'radical right'. It would be a reliable source for The SPLC is seen with suspicion by Matt Barber because he believes it has rephrased its mission from one of monitoring hate groups to one of monitoring and 'unmasking' the 'radical right'. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

If you want to say there is mainstream criticism, you'd have to find a mainstream source to support that statement. Isn't that rather obvious? So the answer is no. Dlabtot (talk) 19:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I've just given Mrdthree a 3RR warning. One problem is that be believes, to quote him, that "Consensus is not a Necessary feature of wikipedia policy. Truth is.". Dougweller (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
And that Townhall is a mainstream source. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I have made mistakes. Very true. I correct them when people point them out. In any case, please offer an opinion on the topic when you post here. thanks. Mrdthree (talk) 20:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is one of original synthesis. You cannot take two or three essays, even if the source is reliable and the opinion is notable, and generalize it to say there has been much criticism or many critics. You'd really need an analysis piece to support that wording. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The alternate wording, Some right-wing commentators, activists..., X, Y, Z is better, though it belongs in a Criticism section, not in the lead. I also wouldn't consider Dr. Swain to be right-wing. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It is better, but the actual sources are people fingered by the subject organization, saying that they're not racists, really they aren't. Whether or not they are, this is scarcely notable, unless independent sources note it.
Prof. Swain is (according to our article) a member of Princeton's little right-wing groupie, the so-called James Madison Society, the friends of Robert George; doubtless there are little earthquakes around Montpellier in Virginia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

One further point, why doesn't that article have "praise" and "criticism" sections? That's pretty unusual for an advocacy group. The whole article has an almost promotional tone. It shouldn't be too hard to find material for either a praise or criticism section. But for criticism especially, you'd want to use generalist sources before citing specialty conservative publications. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I would not encourage praise and criticism sections; they collect edits like this. At the same time, any promotional tone should be removed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Criticisms will presumably be of specific operations (besides the section I see on financial questions), and should be so stated. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I dont mean to confuse things, I should have said townhall.com is mainstream right-wing, not mainstream. However, here I am interested in whether Townhall.com is a reliable source for statements such as (1) there is mainstream right wing criticism of the SPLC or (2) there is Matt Barber's criticism of the SPLC or (3) nothing. So when you weigh in, try and weigh in on one of these topics too. Mrdthree (talk) 04:55, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
It's reliable for number 2. Whether to include it is an editorial decsion. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Quite so.
I regret to see that Mrdthree has declared his activities a "mission". I've mentioned WP:TIGER; perhaps he'll think again. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Please don't use the noticeboard to comment about other editors. Dlabtot (talk) 03:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is my proposed summary: an opinion piece can be used as a reliable source to indicate that the author has criticized a specific organization and as a reliable source for the reason the author has criticized the organization. However it is a editorial decision as to whether the authors opinion is relevant to the article. Agree? Mrdthree (talk) 16:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus for that. In any event, this discussion is not about rewriting policy. It's about who is Matt Barber and is he a reliable source for adding this sentence to the SPLC article:
The SPLC is seen with suspicion by many on the right wing because in many cases it has rephrased its mission from one of monitoring hate groups to one of monitoring and 'unmasking' the 'radical right'.
Clearly he's not and Mrdthree's latest effort to refocus this discussion away from the ACTUAL LANGUAGE PROPOSED and the ACTUAL SOURCE suggests to me that he/she also realizes that. If the intent is for this discussion to carry over into the SPLC article discussion, then the actual NEW language should be discussed here. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
My understanding is that we are not debating content here. My understanding is that the purpose of this blog is to debate the application of WP:RS policy to a particular case. The case involves an edited, opinion magazine and an opinion. IT has been stated and I agree that a primary source opinion piece cannot be used to substantiate claims made in the opinion piece (assuming this is a primary source). However, it can be used to substantiate the claim of what someone said and who said it. Then the there are separate issues to be addressed in discussion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/noticeboard), not relevant here: OR, SYN, and relevance/significance. Mrdthree (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


AkibaBlog RS?

Is AkibaBlog RS? Used as source by Anime News Network - 1, 2, 3 211.30.103.37 (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC) as Extremepro (talk · contribs)

It appears to be a standard self-published source, in this case written by a "Mr. Geek" (I assume that's not his real name). Therefore, it does not satisfy the requirements of WP:RS. Jayjg (talk) 00:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
The English version is backed by HimeyaSoft USA: [38]
From project discussion:

This may be one to take to the RS noticeboard for a review, mentioning that the site that comes closest to being the newspaper of record (ANN) uses it as a source. — User:Quasirandom 14:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

211.30.103.37 (talk) 02:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC) as Extremepro (talk · contribs)

Not sure how any of that is relevant to WP:RS. It's some guy's blog. Jayjg (talk) 01:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Can the book The Hockey Stick Illusion be used

Can the book The Hockey Stick Illusion be used as an WP:RS source for the following statement "The MBH99 reconstruction was prominently featured in the 2001 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report (TAR) and as a result has been widely published in the media."as done here specially and more generally as an WP:RS source for the Hockey stick controversy article and related areas? Nsaa (talk) 10:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Degenerating. Let's try starting from scratch? You are free to remove this colapse in totality. Hipocrite (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Essentially the same thing has been said by less partisan sources, so why not use those? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 11:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)This is not the question (I don't disagree with you, but it's not done - no other book is added: [39][40][41]). The question is if the book The Hockey Stick Illusion is in accordance with WP:RS and therefore WP:V. Nsaa (talk) 11:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Is that the question? Surely that is a subsection of the general question, in what areas is Montford accepted as a reliable source? Weakopedia (talk) 11:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
You may have persons that has published both non WP:RS material and WP:RS material so looking at Monthford in the wider area is maybe not the case to do here? Is the publisher Stacey International not fact checking their published books? Nsaa (talk) 11:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I dunno - their wikiarticle is sparse and I can't find much commentary about them on the internet. Do they? And if we can find even one factual error in The Hockeystick Illusion then does that make everything they ever published innacurate? Weakopedia (talk) 11:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes of course it can, the book meets all the criteria for wp as a reliable source. The book is not a partisan source, unless you have a source stating it is of course? mark nutley (talk) 11:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I love that guy! Seen all his movies. Problem is he is not a climatologist nor is he a news reporter - He has a degree in chemistry and a background in finance and IT. (from the sources used on his wikipage). As to the specific reference, is that really the only reference that can be found to say that the hockey stick was widely published? I am pretty confident there will be other references in what might be considered more reliable third party sources that say the same thing.
As to the general question, do you have references to show that Montford is considered a reliable source for scientific arguments or political commentary in this area? There are many areas he has commented on that he is certainly qualified to do, but I believe there are also some where he wasn't as well qualified to comment as we might expect for use as a third party, reliable source. I think the kind of blanket validation you are asking for may be impossible, and that each attribution needs to be checked on it's own merits. Weakopedia (talk) 11:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I've read the book and it's not pertaining to say anything about the science as far as I see. It presents the the hockey stick storyline and as far as I know this is one of the few book that contains all the arguments and discussion on this case. Nsaa (talk) 11:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but your question was is he reliable for articles in this area which covers a lot of science and politics - that's why I say this is a case by case solution, not a RS/N solution. Weakopedia (talk) 11:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Maybe it's not possible to handle the complete area, but my main question was to ask if it's reliable source to back ""The MBH99 reconstruction was prominently featured in the 2001 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report (TAR) and as a result has been widely published in the media."". No one seems to object on a sound ground on that (we can use other sources but that is not to do with this sources WP:RS ability). Nsaa (talk) 13:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  • As discussed extensively at Talk:Hockey stick controversy, the book is by Andrew Montford, a blogger attacking the scientific consensus on climate change who has no good reputation for fact checking and accuracy. Only five sources have been found giving any sort of notice or review of the book, these are by supporters of Montford's climate change "sceptical" position. One of the five, George Gilder, is an intelligent design creationist who has also praised Signature in the Cell.[42] The paragraph in question has been cited to one of the reliable sources already used in the article. The book is a reliable source only for the fringe opinions of its author, to the limited extent that they're shown to be notable by other sources. . dave souza, talk 11:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
    For the first there exist no scientific consensus (consensus is a political term, and has very little to do with science), but that's a sidestep comment. Your comment about Gilder has nothing to do with this book. If a person A says something about book B, and person A says something about subject area C (where C is unrelated to B) you can't dismiss book B because the subject A has said something fringe about subject area C... Basic logic. The four other comments, including the fine science journalist and editor Matt Ridley do not support your claim about that the book support and propagate a Fringe theory (have you even read the book?). Nsaa (talk) 14:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: MN is currently on parole that resticts him from introducing any new sources into articles. This was necessary due to his repeated failure to understand sources or our policy. His comments above should be evaluated in the light of this William M. Connolley (talk) 11:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Note also that WMC has been repeatedly sanctioned in the climate change probation because of problematic editing (see here), so his comments should be evaluated in light of this. ATren (talk) 12:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
William M. Connolley, ATren, please do not use this noticeboard to comment about other editors. Dlabtot (talk) 14:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


I dispute Dave Souza's characterization of the book's author as "fringe." As the Hockey stick controversy article shows, there has been a lot of well, controversy, around the hockey stick research, including hearings before the US Congress in which two independent investigations (Wegman and North) also presented serious concerns. So, Montford's opinion is far from "fringe." Contrary to what Souza claims, Montford does not attack the scientific "consensus" on global warming in the book, just the hockey stick research. I don't believe that Dave has a copy of the book which is probably why he is mispeaking. The Hockey Stick's team of authors runs a blog called RealClimate, of which William M. Connolley was one of its founders. That being said, this book also represents one of the only independently published sources on the controversy so far, as a quick persual of the article shows a lot of primary sources and blog posts being used as citations. I have not yet seen any sourced objections to this book, it has received only praise, including a blog post recommending the book from Judith Curry, a prominent climate scientist [43]. Cla68 (talk) 12:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
With regards to Judith Curry, that's actually not true. Apparently, a Wikipedian rather pointily impersonated Dr. Curry on that blog comment, and it was not made by her. See this above RSN thread for more. NW (Talk) 12:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I thought he had done that on Wikipedia. If true, he needs to go back and make that clear in the blog. Cla68 (talk) 22:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, I've been trying to stay out of this one, but let me clear up one misconception. The blog comment in question is by Curry. What happened was that a Wikipedian tried to impersonate Curry at another web site to see if he/she would get caught. So, these are two different blog comments. The first one is legit, and the second one is not. There's also a third where Curry (legit) says someone is impersonating her. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Was the one I linked to the correct post for Curry's recommendation of this book? Cla68 (talk) 23:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
This is getting a bit tangled, so let me write out the sequence of events:
  1. Curry posts a comment to the collide-a-scape.com blog.[44] We all agreed that it was legit.
  2. The owner of the collide-a-scape.com then posts an entry about Curry's comment.[45]
  3. A Wikipedia editor impersonated Curry at another web site.
  4. Curry finds out about the impersonation and then posts another comment at the collide-a-scape.com.
So, to answer your question, the one you referenced is #2 above. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Dave Souza's characterization of the book's author as "fringe." It is comparable to using James H. Fetzer's The Great Zapruder Film Hoax as a reliable source on who killed John F. Kennedy. A controversial topic apparently! Wikispan (talk) 16:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with dave souza, this book is not a RS for that statement in that article, and has general problems that precluded it from generally being considered a reliable source. Verbal chat 12:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

As far I see I don't see any founded arguments for why it's not WP:RS. More the opposite. Do you have any? Nsaa (talk) 14:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I think we can agree that it's a journalistic book. These vary in quality, so the verdict on the book given in reviews in mainstream sources is crucial. For the way that a controversy unfolded, a journalist's account could be an appropriate source. Can those who want to use this source pull out any reviews that praise it, especially if they say "thorough", "impartial"? Thanks.Itsmejudith (talk) 14:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
The Hockey Stick Illusion leaves no doubt about Mr. Montford’s reporting abilities Andrew's book, The Hockey Stick Illusion, charts in great detail Well there`s thourogh for you mark nutley (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
The first is a comment piece rather than a book review, and comes from the National Post's business section which they call the Financial Post. It shows clear factual inaccuracies, some of which presumably derive from the book. The second equally uncritical piece from the Dundee local paper The Courier gives an interview with Montford as a local resident. Montford says "The hockey stick is discredited and attempts to save it have been discredited. It's all down to the assumption that tree rings respond to temperature and it's not clear that they do." which itself is wrong, as the graph is generally supported in science, and the same graph appears when tree ring proxies are omitted and other proxies are used. The interviewer concludes "If anything, the evidence against man-made global warming is growing", a statement clearly at odds with mainstream science but heavily promoted as a fringe view. While both newspapers could be described as mainstream, albeit conservative mainstream, the articles are not good sources on science. The book has not been reviewed by credible sources. . . dave souza, talk 18:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
The book is not in any way "journalistic" - it's effectively an extended blog post, by a blogger with no previous publication history (I believe this is his debut book) and no qualifications of any sort in the topic area, or as far as I know in science in general. It presents a fringe perspective of the subject matter. It has been completely ignored by general book reviewers and has, as far as I know, only been the subject of coverage in a handful of opinion columns. It is not cited as a source by any other source that I know of. It is rather comparable to Bill Kaysing's We Never Went to the Moon: America's Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle and takes a similarly fringe editorial line - that the subject of the book is a gigantic hoax - though at least Kaysing had some relevant professional expertise (he was a rocket engineer). The people arguing here for the inclusion of The Hockey Stick Illusion are the direct equivalent of moon landing hoax theorists seeking to cite a moon landing hoax book in an article about the moon landings, or intelligent design creationists arguing for the use of an intelligent design book in an article about evolution.
However, this discussion is a bit pointless anyway because there's actually no need to cite this book. People are seeking to cite it to document things reported by uncontroversial reliable sources, so why not just cite those sources and save everyone the trouble? If the sole source for a claim is a controversial source, then sourcing should either be sought from indisputably reliable sources or the claim shouldn't be in the article in the first place. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Clarification on scientific qualifications – Montford went to the University of St Andrews about 25 years ago and graduated with a BSc degree in chemistry before making his career as a chartered accountant. . . dave souza, talk 18:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, thanks Dave. A chartered accountant-turned-blogger does not exactly seem like a qualified source... -- ChrisO (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
So far we have one uninvolved editor saying that the book appears to have journalistic merit. Cla68 (talk) 22:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Who? Please give name and time of comment in this section, or diff if it's somewhere else. Also note that you can't just disregard involved editors. See the instructions at the top of this page. . . dave souza, talk 23:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Here, and this editor is not involved and I appreciate his/her courage for stepping in and giving an honest opinion on the book. Dave, this noticeboard is to get uninvolved opinions. We involved editors can argue the source on the article talk page, but we bring it here for other opinions. So yes, uninvolved editor's opinions do carry more weight than mine or yours. Cla68 (talk) 23:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I fail to find the "merit" in Judith's comment. In fact, she specifically writes that "the verdict on the book given in reviews in mainstream sources is crucial". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Judith's reference to the book as "journalistic" suggests that she thought the author is a journalist. Clearly he's not - he's a blogger with little notability of his own and no publishing record in print to speak of, as this is apparently his first and only book. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I looked for any statement finding "merit" and Judith's comment does not match Cla's description or interpretation. "Journalistic" is a broad term, and there has been considerable discussion in relation to other issues about whether bloggers should be considered as journalists in terms of press freedom. However, in Wikipedia blogs have to meet specific requirements to be considered reliable. ChrisO's comment that Montford is not a professional journalist is valid, though even professional journalists have been known for successful stories such as Freddie Starr ate my hamster. "Journalistic merit" implies high quality journalism, and reliable mainstream sources are needed to support any such assertion about Montford, as Judith rightly says. . dave souza, talk 08:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I didn't really want to get involved in this, but the discussion seems to be heading in the wrong direction. First, let me stress that reliability is not a binary 0/1 switch. Reliability is heavily dependent upon context and a source can be reliable for one statement but not reliable for another. In this particular case, the source represents a minority, if not fringe view point. I don't think that it is not reliable for matters of science. However, this article is not about the Hockey Stick Chart, it's about the Hockey Stick Chart controversy. Within this context, it's reliable for the viewpoints of climate change skeptics. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, can the book be used for more uncontroversial facts, such as the general timeline of events in the controversy, such as when which paper was published and where? Cla68 (talk) 00:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't know. I'm undecided about that. I intentionally skirted the issue above because I wasn't sure. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Would it not be simpler to cite uncontroversial sources for established facts? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
ChrisO: Yes, I would tend to think so. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm glad we agree on something at last. ;-) I'm basically a pragmatist. I don't believe it's worth dying in the ditch over something if there's a different and easier way to achieve the same objective. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The book is fringe and should not be used as a source at all. TFD (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

What are the fringe arguments that is presents? Cla68 (talk) 00:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
TFD: That's not true at all. Even assuming that this source is fringe, it's still valid for the views of climate change skeptics. As I pointed out at visionsofjoy.com at Bates Method above, it's OK to cite 911Truth.org in an article about 9/11 Conspiracy theories. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
It's OK to cite 911Truth.org in an article about 9/11 Conspiracy theories as the fringe views of those proposing the conspiracy theories, but it would be inappropriate to cite it for the exact timing of the impact, for example, when the source is inherently questionable. Other sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy should be used for factual statements. . . dave souza, talk 10:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me repeat a point I made above: why do we need to cite this book in the first place if the information that people want to cite from it is contained in other uncontroversial sources? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. The book is a RS concerning Montfords views about the hockey stick controversy, and not much else. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
It saddens me to see people argue that this book is not an RS. It's reliably published and has had good reviews. From the dustjacket:
  • "For anyone wanting to understand the mind-boggling complexities of the debate over the "Hockey Stick" I've seen no single better reference than the engaging narrative by Andrew Montford."—Roger A. Pielke, Jr., professor of environmental studies, University of Colorado.
  • Although the science is not always straightforward, Andrew W. Montford manages to make the story both exciting and accessible to the reader. He uses the Hockey Stick as an example of how manipulation of data and publication routines can change the whole world's view of an important subject."—Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography, University of Stockholm.
  • "This is a thriller about codebreaking ... computer codes that generated a false signal to the world ... Like most codebreaking it was painfully slow but Montford keeps the drama pacy as the years pass, while he explains the intricacies in the plainest possible language."—Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist.
Part of the point of Wikipedia:Verifiability—which this noticeboard is supposed to apply—is to prevent editors from trying to exclude reliably published material just because they don't like the POV. Increasingly, editors who see themselves as "scientists," including a few who really are, are trying in effect to overthrow the policy by introducing their own ideas about what "reliable" means. If you want to do that, please go to the policy page and try to change it. Don't try to do it by stealth. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 15:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I'm missing something here, but dustjacket blurbs are not reviews. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
You miss the point made by SlimVirgin as far as I see. I think we all agree on that "dustjacket blurbs" is not technical a review. This is not the point. If you look at the article you will find at least five reviews that has stand it's time. The blurb citations just expand who has said something (positive) about the book. It's not used in the article (since it's "dustjacket blurbs"). It's just an indication that the book IS WP:RS. Nsaa (talk) 10:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Book used as a source in academic papers

I see a lot of "This book is ignored" and a lot of "Scholars have passed this book over" This book was cited in the Hartwell Paper [46] it was written by the following,

  • Professor Gwyn Prins, Mackinder Programme for the Study of Long Wave Events, London School of Economics & Political Science, England
  • Isabel Galiana, Department of Economics & GEC3, McGill University, Canada
  • Professor Christopher Green, Department of Economics, McGill University, Canada
  • Dr Reiner Grundmann, School of Languages & Social Sciences, Aston University, England
  • Professor Mike Hulme, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, England
  • Professor Atte Korhola, Department of Environmental Sciences/ Division of Environmental Change and *Policy, University of Helsinki, Finland
  • Professor Frank Laird, Josef Korbel School of International Studies, University of Denver, USA
  • Ted Nordhaus, The Breakthrough Institute, Oakland, California, USA
  • Professor Roger Pielke Jnr, Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Colorado, USA
  • Professor Steve Rayner, Institute for Science, Innovation and Society, University of Oxford, England
  • Professor Daniel Sarewitz, Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes, Arizona State University, USA
  • Michael Shellenberger, The Breakthrough Institute, Oakland, California, USA
  • Professor Nico Stehr, Karl Mannheim Chair for Cultural Studies, Zeppelin University, Germany
  • Hiroyuki Tezuka, General Manager, Climate Change Policy Group, JFE Steel Corporation (on behalf of Japan Iron and Steel Federation), Japan

So as it is being cited by this many eggheads, is it still to be called not reliable? mark nutley (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It is also i believe being cited in this Journal Journal of Environmental Law mark nutley (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Reliable sources often quote unreliable sources. However, it is expected that they would only quote information if they had checked its validity, and would not use information they knew to be false. This is frequently the case with historians, and Montford is used here as a source for historical information. But that does not represent an endorsement of his book. TFD (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
The only reason anyone would oppose this book as a reliable source is that they don't like the POV. It's a meticulously researched piece of work, written by someone who works in publishing and who has clearly immersed himself in the subject. It's published by a reliable publisher, and it has had a good reception from other reliable sources. There's no reason within policy to exclude it. If anyone tries to use it and is opposed, please give me a shout. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
No the reason not to use it is that it is not a reliable source. if you can find the same POV in a reliable source, then that would be acceptable. TFD (talk) 21:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
TFD apart from wp:idontlikeit can you actually give a reason within policy whic hsays this book is unreliable? mark nutley (talk) 21:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Oxford's The Journal of Environmental Law charges $32 to view that paper, which is a little beyond my price range. Does anyone have access to that journal to check if the book was used a source in it? I don't think that journal's articles are included in Infotrac, although I'll check. Anyway, this book has been used a source in at least one academic paper, which Mark linked to above, so I think it has been definitely established as meeting our RS guideline. Cla68 (talk) 23:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. All kind of crap is cited occasionally. Some crap is even cited explicitly because it is crap. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
The academic paper does not cite the source pejoratively. It uses the book as a credible source. Any further comments, hopefully constructive ones? Cla68 (talk) 00:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
mark nutley, the writer has no qualifications, there was no fact-checking, the book is a politically polemical work and advances fringe theories rejected by scientists. If you believe that there is a conspiracy by the mainstream media and, to use your terms, the "eggheads" and the "commies" to suppress the truth and that therefore we must turn to the fringe to find the truth, then you are entitled to believe that. But one of the principals of Wikipedia is "verifiablity" which means we ignore fringe sources. TFD (talk) 00:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
No Cla, they aren't using it as a credible source. They are using it to point out that there is a controversy on the emails, and that certain allegations have been made. We also, by now, know from the 3 inquiries that the speculation and allegations were wrong. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Not true. They make an assertion on the controversy in the article text and use this book as a source to back up their assertion. Cla68 (talk) 01:55, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Red flags indicating unreliability

Lots of red flags here indicate the source is unreliable for the purposes of an encyclopedia:

  1. Released by an independent publisher
  2. Authoritativeness and accuracy has not been demonstrated
  3. Questions persist about the credentials of the author and his expertise
  4. Indications that the book lacks appropriate editorial oversight and was written as a polemic against climate scientists
  5. Release was ignored by academic and scholarly sources, and experts in related fields
  6. Timeliness of the book is in question. It was published before the CRU reports were released exonerating the scientists and before major claims retracted by news organizations. As such, it repeats claims that are no longer plausible. Viriditas (talk) 02:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Which policy and/or guideline lists all of these qualifications? Please be specific (exact quotes, exact cites to exact policies and/or guidelines). Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Are you kidding? Viriditas (talk) 02:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
No, I am not. I am asking honest questions. Answers to these questions would be helpful. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Tell me how this source can be considered reliable based on the criteria I have described above. Feel free to use whatever policy or guideline you require. Viriditas (talk) 02:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry but there appears to be a failure to communicate. You were the one who added these qualifications to the discussion. I asked you to provide us with a list of policies and/or quidelines which supported these qualifications, and unfortunately, you have not done so. Can you please list which policies and/or guidelines that contain these qualifications? This is a simple question. Either you can, or you can not. If you cannot, that's fine, but I suggest that you not waste our time on qualifications that have no basis in Wikipedia. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not claiming the source is reliable, you are. Feel free to show me, based on the criteria I have outlined above, how it could be considered reliable according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Viriditas (talk) 02:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Are you withdrawing your arguments about "Red flags indicating unreliability"?[47] If so, please strike them out. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not withdrawing anything. You have the burden of proof to show that the source is reliable. I have shown that it is not. I am not required to prove a negative. Viriditas (talk) 02:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
See WP:Fringe: "Reliable sources on Wikipedia include peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers.... Usually, mainstream and minority views are treated in the main article.... Singular [fringe] views can be moved to a separate page and identified (disclaimed) as such, or in some cases omitted altogether."
There is a burden of proof to show that something is fringe. That hasn't been met here, not even close. Cla68 (talk) 07:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
No, you're inverting the burden of proof. You need to show that the source is reliable. Others do not need to show that the source is not reliable. As WP:BURDEN says, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." That would be you. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

(od)

  1. Stacey International is a very respected publishing house.
  2. All the sources say it is authoritative and a full recounting of the affair.
  3. What questions? We have a source saying he has done a great reporting job here
  4. No such indications exist, if they do please point them out
  5. Not any more, it is being cited by well respected scholars.
  6. The book make`s no claims regarding the e-mails. mark nutley (talk) 07:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
1) Says who? But I notice the publisher himself says that they ""maintain a resolute tradition of adaptive and imaginative publishing" - imaginative does not exactly jibe with reliable... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Says the guys who run the London Book Fair All Stacey books are oriented towards a defined readership and fulfil a specific usefulness. High editorial standards in textual and illustrative content are always maintained and careful attention is given to the quality of design and production. next please mark nutley (talk) 10:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Mark, that is the self-submitted advertising blurb of the publisher himself. Please try to think about where you get your opinions. If PepsiCo buys an ad on the BBC (assuming the BBC does ads), it's not the voice of the BBC that's telling you about the sugary delights. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
The publisher appears to be quite reputable. It publishes many reviewed books not on controversial topics, and where no suggestion of any impropriety has been made. See [48], [49] , [50] etc. Books include also many books on the middle East, travel (including Iceland etc.), and such books as most general publishers have. In short - there is no reason at all to disparage this particular publisher. As to the claim that a book must be prescient about later events - that is sufficiently absurd as to merit no notice. Books are reliable sources based on thier simple existence - else every book on any topic would cease to be usable on WP as soon an any later information became published! Collect (talk) 11:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
This is what you are calling reliable? The non-neutral-polemic-approaching-science-fiction-sounding-absurdity of it all blows the mind. The page even links back to Wikipedia! Is this some kind of a joke? There isn't a single reliable thing about this book. Not sure where you get the idea that "books are reliable sources based on their simple existence", but it's dead wrong. It's published by a small independent publishing house for a reason. The only thing it is missing is the "fiction" tag on the spine. Viriditas (talk) 12:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
So this fringe book is also a reliable source? Do note that these books are all printed in the "independent minds" shelf by the publisher ("Books that challenge the lazy orthodoxies relating to our most important issues."). Which seems to be their category for outside of mainstream material. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
2 for 2. How many other "reliable" sources does this publisher have on their site? I think we're done here; last one out, please turn off the lights? Viriditas (talk) 13:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What part of what you have linked to is absurd? And what`s wrong with a link from the publisher to wikipedia? mark nutley (talk) 12:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with the publisher driving traffic to Wikipedia? I'm not sure if there's anything wrong. I've just never seen this kind of close coordination before. You know, where you create an article on the book, and the publisher adds a link to their page. Viriditas (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
That`s probably because i told them about the article. I sought permission from them for the use of the cover. And i mentioned i was also doing an article on their company (which i really must expand on) mark nutley (talk) 12:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Viriditas: I did not ask you to prove a negative, I asked you to prove a positive.[51] Please state which policy or guideline lists these qualifications. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
A positive would be, "this is why I evaluate the source as reliable", and that's precisely your job. Please do your duty. Viriditas (talk) 12:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not (right now) referring to this source's reliability. I'm referring to your list of qualifications that apparently has no basis in policy or guideline. Is there at least a user essay which contains these qualifications? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you need to read the policies and guidelines a bit closer, starting with RS. Viriditas (talk) 13:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Please stop speaking in generalities and tell me something specific. You seems to have invented a list of requirements that have no basis in any Wikipedia policy or guideline, and perhaps even any user essay. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Wow, you really are confused. Have you even read RS? Every word is in it. You really need to look at it for the first time. Viriditas (talk) 13:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I've read WP:RS many times. Please just answer the question. Which part(s) support(s) your list of qualifications? Please be specific. If it's in WP:RS, it should be easy for you to substantiate your argument. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I'm starting to think you've never actually read it, because you are questioning why we should evaluate the reliability of a publisher, the authority and accuracy of the author and work, and the currency of the material. It's all there, Sherlock. Viriditas (talk) 13:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Cool, if it's that easy, it should only take you a few minutes. I await your response. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

{[ec}}:::::::::::::Please don't expect our guidelines to be as prescriptive as that. Reliability is not the default. Even books from reliable publishers may not be reliable sources. Articles in the New York Times may not be reliable sources. You need to demonstrate reliability. The bit about 'challenge the lazy orthodoxies' doesn't impress. What's the proof of it's being highly respected in the relevant field? Again, please stop harping on this 'list of requirements' and explain why you think it is a reliable source. Dougweller (talk) 13:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Evidence that the book promotes unreliable fringe views

From one of the few reviews in the article on The Hockey Stick Illusion, "It exposes in delicious detail, datum by datum, how a great scientific mistake of immense political weight was perpetrated, defended and camouflaged by a scientific establishment that should now be red with shame.", "Andrew Montford’s book [is] built around the long, lonely struggle of one man— Stephen McIntyre...", "As a long-time champion of science, I find the reaction of the scientific establishment more shocking than anything. The reaction was not even a shrug: it was shut-eyed denial."[52] So, it's one man's struggle against "the scientific establishment", by definition a fringe view.

Far from being a "great scientific mistake", Mann's "hockey stick" graph has been replicated – "Upwards of a dozen studies, using different statistical techniques or different combinations of proxy records, have produced reconstructions broadly similar to the original hockey stick. These reconstructions all have a hockey stick shaft and blade. While the shaft is not always as flat as Mann's version, it is present. Almost all support the main claim in the IPCC summary: that the 1990s was then probably the warmest decade for 1000 years. A decade on, Mann's original work emerges remarkably unscathed." "So far, it has survived the ultimate scientific test of repeated replication." The National Academy of Sciences has investigated the original graph, and "agreed that there were statistical failings of the kind highlighted by M&M [McIntyre & McKitrick], but like von Storch it found that they had little effect on the overall result."[53]

Note that "Although it was intended as an icon of global warming, the hockey stick has become something else – a symbol of the conflict between mainstream climate scientists and their critics. The contrarians have made it the focus of their attacks for a decade, hoping that by demolishing the hockey stick graph they can destroy the credibility of climate scientists."[54] . . dave souza, talk 08:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you not think about what you write? "Upwards of a dozen studies, using different statistical techniques or different combinations of proxy records, have produced reconstructions broadly similar to the original hockey stick" That actually means his work was never replicated. And it never has been has it. Anyway, this is not about the science, it is about the controversy. Are you saying there was no controversy over manns work? mark nutley (talk) 10:22, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
The whole "its not about the science it is about the controversy" misdirection is getting old. The entire controversy is centered around attacking the science, and manufacturing controversy to do it. Viriditas (talk) 12:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
You guys are just making it up as you go now. Please provide your source for the above statement mark nutley (talk) 12:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Climatic Research Unit email controversy? Viriditas (talk) 12:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
And ClimateGate has what to do with the hockey stick exactly? mark nutley (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Mark, science is not about replication - it is about independent verification. Replication isn't useful for anything... it doesn't expand our knowledge, nor does it catch methodological flaws or faulty assumptions. Independent verification does. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I recommend you read up on Scientific Method if no other researcher can replicate what has been claimed then the work has no value. To verify the claims made then the data, methodology and code must all be released to ensure it can be A Replicated and B that it has been done correctly. You cannot receive independent verification if no others can replicate your work. mark nutley (talk) 13:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Cutting to the chase

Look, the book is a reliable source for some things, and not for others. It's not reliable for scientific facts - it's from an individual who believes in the minority or fringe view that the entire body of science regarding Climate Change is wrong - but I don't see anyone proposing to use it for that. It's usable for the opinion of the author on controversies in the climate-change space, as a polemic. Further, it's probably reliable for dry historical fact (On June 23, 1934, John Smith shot his dog). In the context of this discussion, the proposed use was to source "MBH99 reconstruction was prominently featured in the 2001 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report (TAR) and as a result has been widely published in the media." No one doubts this to be true - in fact, we have other, obviously reliable facts that say it. We can all have beliefs about why some editors want to use this source - I share those beliefs. They are not relevent.

However, the second part of this request was "[and] more generally as an WP:RS source for the Hockey stick controversy article and related areas?" Possibly. It depends on what you'd like to use the source for. Typically, we do not use polemics as sources for disputed facts or for scientific statements. Hipocrite (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hipocrite: Your summation seems reasonable to me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

A reliable source is a term used on Wikipedia for a source that is used to verify material. Saying that a source is 'reliable' doesn't mean that we can rely on the material in it to be correct - it simply means that it meets our sourcing guideline. Our neutral point of view policy requires that on any topic, we present all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Common sense indicates that often, when significant viewpoints disagree, some of those viewpoints must be wrong. That doesn't mean the sources in which they were published are not reliable sources, as the term is used on Wikipedia. Dlabtot (talk) 14:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

As the linked guideline states, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors," and this book fails to meet that standard. WP:SOURCE policy sets the same standard. The book remains a reliable source for the views promoted by the book, as a polemic presenting a particular viewpoint which is a tiny minority (fringe) within science, and has a more significant minority status in the political debate. Since the book is apparently based on a blog essay which gives a distorted view of the timeline, I'd be concerned about using it for "dry historical fact" such as dates without independent verification. It's not independent in that it's closely tied to propagation of the minority viewpoint, so in text attribution is appropriate. So, to that limited extent, it can be used as a questionable source. . . dave souza, talk 18:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't get any more correct even if you repeat the fringe accusation over and over again. Again, what are you basing your claims on? All this is so far your personal non sourced own opinion: "polemic presenting a particular viewpoint which is a tiny minority (fringe) within science", "apparently based on a blog essay", "gives a distorted view of the timeline". Its just not true what you here states. I will strike it iff you can provide a reliable source that backs your horrendous claims about the book. It's even used in two papers as outlined here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Hockey_Stick_Illusion&oldid=373672006#Hartwell_Paper. Nsaa (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
By the way, Nsaa has confirmed the book was used as a source in the other academic paper that Mark found. Cla68 (talk) 00:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Oops. I didn't notice that Nsaa had already announced right above my post. I appreciate all who have commented so far and invite further comment from (especially) uninvolved editors. Cla68 (talk) 04:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
I thought it was decided long ago that Andrew Montford and Bishop Hill were not RS. That should be buried somewhere in the archives. Or do I disremember? I have a friend who, imho, has fringe ideas about nutrition. He has degrees and has written 2 or 3 books about what we should eat, but just because they were independently published and are selling fairly well at Amazon.com doesn't convince me they are sound science. So with Montford. --Yopienso (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Just heard about this discussion in the "Climategate" talk page. Assuming that Montford represents a fringe point of view, as has been suggested, then the book should not be used as a source for anything except his opinions. Easy call. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Just because it is suggested the book is fringe does not make it so. The book is being cited in academic papers. It has been described as a full accounting of the hockey stick controversy. This is about a book, not a blog mark nutley (talk) 20:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
This is what the Hartwell Paper of May, 2010, says on p. 6,
These emails, whose authenticity is not denied, suggested that scientists may have been acting outside publicly understood norms of science in their efforts to bolster their own views and to discredit the views of those with whom they disagreed.3
The pertinent part of the footnote:
3 The principal e-mails of concern are reproduced and discussed in A.W. Montford, The Hockey Stick Illusion, London: Stacey International, 2010, pp. 402–49. This work conveniently relates the topics back to a detailed narrative of the major disputes in climate science, and specifically paleoclimate studies, with which much of the Climatic Research Unit archive is concerned. Hitherto, none of thespecific critiques of this work by those auditing it have been adjudicated by reviews of the matter, and indeed were explicitly not investigated by the Oxburgh review (para. 9)
I'm not sure this gives notability or identifies the book as a RS. The Russell report seems to supercede and dismiss the allegations. --Yopienso (talk) 03:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
It`s not just the e-mails in the book they refer to. This work conveniently relates the topics back to a detailed narrative of the major disputes in climate science, and specifically paleoclimate studies This part is about the hockey stick controversy mark nutley (talk) 13:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Imho, the book would indeed be a RS for "a detailed narrative of the major disputes in climate science, and specifically paleoclimate studies," but since no one is deleting The MBH99 reconstruction was prominently featured in the 2001 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report (TAR) and as a result has been widely published in the media. and an indisputedly RS is referenced, why is this even a question? Why does the source have to be Montford instead of Pearce? --Yopienso (talk) 17:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Using a self-published article by an academic who is not a specialist in the field

Looking for Jonitus by C.J. Verduin], an article by Kees Verduin at the Unversity of Ledien, is being used as a source for our Sons of Noah article here [55]. My removal and addition of a cite tag has been reversed, with the claim " this is valid historiographic information". Dr Kees Verduin's home page says:

Field specific My interests lie in hypertext, databases, information management in general, graphics, and (statistics) computer applications in education and not necessarily in that order. Through my participation in the M & T education, I browse occasionally some time in the history of probability statistics and just recently with Christiaan Huygens busy. In addition, a collaboration with Iris' s Life of toemalige Safety Office of the University of Leiden a smallcommunication module to display works created

Not Field specific Besides the above interests I hold myself in my spare time also working with art-historical topics, the question of the identity of the figure GIIOHARGIIIVS an example. Other things I want to spend some attention to, are The image of Jonitus the Campanile of the Duomo in Florence.

I don't see how his self-published article can be a reliable source. I can't find it mentioned on Google Books or Google Scholar. Dougweller (talk) 12:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any justification for claiming this is a reliable source whatsoever. The "not field specific" interests of academics should absolutely be published by a reliable publisher if we want to treat them as reliable sources here.Griswaldo (talk) 12:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Everything he researched is correct and in the historiographic sources, and this is pertinent information to the subject that should not be suppressed on a pretext of his supposed credentials. Otherwise we might have to cite Jehiel ben Solomon Heilprin and all the other historiographic sources that have written about this subject individually... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
"Everything he researched is correct ..." See WP:TRUTH. Your argument has no bearing on reliability, which is what this noticeboard is about. The source is not a reliable one. Move on.Griswaldo (talk) 14:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Everything he researched is correct and in the historiographic sources. Then cite the sources. This is a reasonable guide to research (he's done what we do, but without the footnote), but not a source itself; look up Michael the Syrian and cite by page number so other people can find it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Obviously does not meet the requirements of WP:RS. Jayjg (talk) 00:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

moved to This section
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


R.J. Rummels "Death by Government"

There is a discussion on Mass killings under Communist regimes about various things. One thing that repeatedly pops up is claims that R.J. Rummels "Death by Government" isn't a reliable source, or that it is fringe. Could we get some guidance and recommendation here to determine if it's a reliable source or not, because the repeated claims of it being WP:FRINGE or similar takes up a significant part of the discussion, but isn't going anywhere. The two sides are at an impasse regarding Rummel, with no new arguments coming from either side, it's just repetition, and no consensus is in sight. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the same authority mentioned above, who is so Libertarian that he classifies the Israel of Golda Meir as "only partially free". He also manages to have an extreme position on Stalinism, difficult though that is to achieve, and several quotes on the talk page indicated say so. The book in question is published by a small press in New Jersey, the private project of a Rutgers professor, which has a line of ideological books. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
This small press in question is Transaction Publishers. I'm not sure the amount of employees is relevant, nor is the political opinions of Rummel relevant. As he has published a lot on the human rights violations of authoritarian regimes it's self-evident that he is disliked by anti-democrats, this is hardly a reason to declare his research unreliable or fringe. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Let's see. The views of the author are not relevant to whether he is fringe, nor is the amount of fact-checking - nor the partisanship - of his publisher.
And of course anybody who criticizes OpenFuture's favorite author must be EEEeevill.
I seem to have seen these arguments before; they weren't valid then either. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
WP:NPA please. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Which doesn't mean No Attacking my Post, which is what I have done. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

My claim is not that the author is fringe, but rather it is my contention is that WP:FRINGE instructs us to treat the source's contentious assertions as a view outside of academic mainstream, until proven otherwise. Specifically, we have guidance that, "If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance". The burden of proof to show this level of acceptance has NOT been met. BigK HeX (talk) 13:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The claim that Rummel is fringe is done repeatedly on the talk page. Don't misrepresent the discussion, please, it's not a constructive way forward. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
You know what's constructive? Not distracting from the issue any longer, and for you (or another editor) to finally post the requested citation that would meet the burden of proof, as directed in the quote from WP:FRINGE above. BigK HeX (talk) 13:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
From WP:RS: Material such as an article or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. ... The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. The 445 citations the book gets in Google scholar clearly confirms this book has entered mainstream academic discourse. [56] --OpenFuture (talk) 13:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Mein Kampf gets 19,700 cites on Google scholar.[57] Mein Kampf has entered mainstream academic discourse, but is not regarded as reliable. You need to look into what the sources citing the book are using it for. TFD (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Mein Kampf is a primary source and not a scholarly work. This objection is invalid. The proof stands. Death by Government is a reliable source. You need to look into what the sources citing the book are using it for. - I have. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Fringe While Rummel is a scholar, this book was published outside the academic mainstream, and was not peer-reviewed. The estimates he makes have been widely discredited and his theories about the causes of mass killings have gained no acceptance or even been published in the academic mainstream. TFD (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
You make a lot of assertions, and you never back them up. Could you do so now please? Otherwise I simply assert that everything you say above is incorrect, and your whole argument is rendered null and void. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 15:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
The onus is on you to establish the reliability of the source. If I am wrong, then it should be no problem to show that. TFD (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
You are right, it wasn't, see above. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Fringe per TFD, PMA and BigK. Not a reliable source. Verbal chat 14:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Most certainly a reliable source, fringe books or papers do not receive 445 citations. And the amount of dite`s kinda proves he is mainstream mark nutley (talk) 15:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Acceptable Is it cited by others? Yes. Do we have the ability to know that it is somehow wrong? Not that I have seen. Can it be balanced by sources with contrasting claims? That is, after all, how WP works - by including more sources, not by exclusing sources one does not like, or one "knows" are wrong. Collect (talk) 15:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Notable Fringe... even if it fits a technical definition of "Fringe", because it is cited by others, it merits mentioning (best phrased as an attributed statement of opinion and not as blunt fact). Blueboar (talk) 15:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Ehhh.... in what way does it fit a technical definition of fringe? And what does notable fringe mean in this case? We are not discussing notability, but if it's a reliable source. We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study. Rummels theories does not do that, instead, as the 445 citations show, he is a part of mainstream. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Let's please not mix up two things: whether this source is fringe and whether it is reliable. On this board, we consider whether a source is reliable for the purpose proposed. Please everyone re-read the guidelines for history articles. What this isn't is a book written by a historian and published by an academic press. It may or may not be fringe, doesn't matter. Academic history texts should be preferred. WikiProject Military History should be able to advise. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
It's not history, it's a book on political science written by a professor in political science. --OpenFuture (talk) 18:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, both parties of the dispute voluntarily decided to play a straw man game. The question is not in if "Death by government" is fringe. The number of citations is a strong argument that by no means this book is fringe. Rummel can be credited for drawing attention of scientific community to the problem of killing of people by their own governments, he was one of the first persons who started to talk about bloody nature of Mao's regime, Rummel was arguably the first scholar who applied advanced math apparatus to the field of genocide studies, and all of that is quite sufficient for his book to be widely recognised and extensively cited. However, does it mean that all Rummel's claims are widely accepted? No. As I already demonstrated previously, both his estimates (the data he used for his computations) and some his conclusions have been criticised by scholars. This criticism has not been refuted, therefore, it is valid. That means that the statement about the problems with Rummel's data and conclusions must accompany every notion about Rummel's theoretical findings in Wikipedia.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

No, one side (yours) have played this straw man game as a part of the filibustering you are doing now to prevent the removal of POV and SYN tags. Nobody ever claimed all Rummels claims are widely accepted. But there has been a constant repetition of the claim that Rummel is fringe and should be disregarded completely. Yes, this is a straw man, I agree. So is your argument here. If Rummel is used to support a statement then the opposing POV can be quoted as well. For example, should there be a Yugoslavia under Tito section, both Rummels and Dulićs estimates can be included. This I'm pretty sure you know this, and nobody has argued against it, so that is also a straw man argument. But, that said, I'm happy you admit that Rummel is a reliable source. And as such, he can be included. And so can opposing views. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Nobody ever claimed all Rummels [sic] claims are widely accepted. No, merely that they should be treated as though they were widely accepted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
No, merely that they should be treated as a reliable source. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Since I never claimed that Rummel is fringe, your notion is probably addressed to someone else. With regard to the SYN and POV tags, they are quite justified, because only part of views are presented in the articles, and those views that are presented are somtimes misinterpreted. However, it is another story.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Re misinterpretation. Your "For example, should there be a Yugoslavia under Tito section, both Rummels and Dulićs estimates can be included." is an example of it. Dulic's criticism concerns the Rummel's method in general.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
No it isn't. He claims that because the numbers in his opinion is wrong, this casts doubt on the methods. That's not the same thing. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
You obviously haven't read Dulic's articles in full.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment Sources being used on this entry seem to be brought here all the time. I'd suggest that the problem might run a bit deeper than individual sources when it becomes this difficult to write an entry based on unquestionably reliably ones.Griswaldo (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

No source is unquestionably reliable. You can always do what TFD and BigK does and say "I claim it's not reliable, now *you* prove that it is reliable" and then just repeat "You haven't proved it's reliable" forever despite evidence given. The dispute is not about if you can question Rummel. The debate is about if he is WP:RS or WP:FRINGE or neither.--OpenFuture (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Why does this stuff come up over and over for this entry? Its not just because "other people" are POV pushing. Outside observers with no horse in your race at this very noticeboard are constantly weighing in saying that these sources are questionable at the very least. There is clearly a bigger problem with this entry.Griswaldo (talk) 01:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Who does this and why? Where are the arguments, aside from "I don't like what he says"? --OpenFuture (talk) 06:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The work is most definitely not fringe. As an example it is frequently assigned in college course related to the subject (and not in the same way that Mein Kampf may be - which is why this is a wholly inappropriate false analogy which says more about the person making the analogy then about Rummel's work). However, per Paul's comment above, the work is pretty old and, unsurprisingly as usually happens in academia, it has been subject to some criticism and some of the results have been revised. The proper course of action in such a situation is to present the material from the source, attribute it explicitly to Rummel and, if reliable criticisms of this work can be found, include these in the article as well.radek (talk) 17:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, I'm having trouble understanding how a "professor emeritus of political science at" a top 30 US university can be considered "fringe". Outdated, maybe even incorrect, sure. But most definitely not fringe. "Fringe" does not mean "includes views I disagree with" which is what it looks like some people are basing their opinions on here.radek (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Is this a failure in American idiom? Rummel taught for a quarter of a century at the University of Hawaii and is now retired; that's all "professor emeritus" means in the United States. That the University of Hawaii is "top 30" in anything is news to me - and to their article; I should like a citation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Rummel taught for a quarter of a century at the University of Hawaii - yes exactly. As far as whether it's top 30 or top 50 or whatever (honestly it probably depends on the discipline) is immaterial. What matters is that it's a very well respected university[citation needed] and not some flight by night operation.radek (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
It has an excellent geology department, for a whole heap of reasons; it has access to a very nice telescope. Beyond that, it is an American state university. There are some 50 of them; it's not the best, probably not the worst, of a class which are in general not the best institutions of higher learning in the United States, let alone the world. Please stop making things up. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, simply put, editors such as OpenFuture have declined meeting a burden of proof as directed at WP:FRINGE. One would expect that a top professor shouldn't have much trouble getting the attention for his theories that would lead to "academic acceptance" being easy to source. The wikipedia article in question has a potentially huge problem with undue weight, and establishing the proper context of these works has become a necessity for progress. This isn't really one of the more important issues I would have tackled at the moment, but another editor presented it (apparently in preference to the more pressing issue). But, since the issue has been presented, I will point out that the buden of proof is unmet. BigK HeX (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
No, you are misunderstanding and misrepresenting WP:FRINGE here. And from this statement: One would expect that a top professor shouldn't have much trouble getting the attention or his theories that would lead to "academic acceptance" being easy to source I can only guess that your connection to academia is tenuous at best. Academics disagree with each other all the time and, outside of the hard sciences, it's very rare that anybody's work has any kind of "academic acceptance" (which is in fact as it should be). It's always pretty easy to find some academic who disagrees with another particular academic. That don't make anyone "fringe". Rather what would make somebody "fringe" in this context is general "academic rejection" (like say with creationists) - but that's not the case here at all.radek (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not misrepresenting anything. I've quoted WP:FRINGE verbatim. Very certainly it is not me who is conflicting with the directions given therein. As mentioned, I'm fairly ambivalent on this particular issue, but since it has been raised, I have been forced to point out the policy-related issues. The bottom-line here is simple -- WP:FRINGE is pretty clear on the burden of proof that should be acceptable, and -- failing that -- WP:FRINGE is also just as clear about how carefully we should use the assertions of the source. BigK HeX (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Certainly, it *is* you who are conflicting with these instructions: WP:RS. The burden of proof has been met. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
It is always wrong to ask whether a writer is fringe, we should only look at individual works. Rummel's book Statistics of democide: genocide and mass murder since 1900, [58] published by the University of Virginia's Center for National Security Law is a reliable source, Murder by government is not. Radeksz, a scholar may choose to write a book that is written in a way that would not be acceptable for an academic publishing house. Since the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada is a noted scholar on human rights do you think that something he posts on his party website about the Canadian Conservative Party should be given the same weight as books published by academic publishers? TFD (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Ok so at least we agree that Rummel himself is not fringe. The part of your post about the fact that not all works by a non-fringe author may be "reliable" (I would still not call them "fringe") is true enough as far as it goes, but it just doesn't apply here. DbG itself is non-fringe as exemplified by the fact that it is used in university courses, and is cited (in a scholarly manner, not in a "Mein Kempf" manner) by other scholars. But again, note my qualifiers above.radek (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
TFD, BigK: Did you not see the reply above? You asked for proof. I have given you proof. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:05, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment From my experience Rummel is extremely ideological in his works and tries to be as sensationalistic as possible, including usage of emotional language and terms. His methodology is dubious, I recall that for example he uses extreme cases of massacres or places where people were killed and then applies numbers from them to all events happening in that timeperiod coming to impossible rates of deaths. I would strongly advise against using him as a source and recommend using better ones when possible. His interesting aspect is that he tries to give deaths in historic events where information about death rates is very scarce, but his methods leave much to be desired in terms of reliability. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, MMa, the fact that he may be ideological is not a disqualifier and the concerns about his methodology are part your own interpretation, part part and parcel of the topic he is studying (i.e. these kinds of estimates are always going to be controversial in one direction or another). Other sources, especially available better ones, should of course be used. When possible.radek (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Well according to these guys [59] they say nothing of him using extreme cases, nor that his rates of death are impossible mark nutley (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
No, Wayman and Tago just call his figures astonishingly high (p.11), two to ten times those used by other investigators; the difference underwhelms me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
"Genocide Surveyed" by W. D. Rubinstein, The International Journal of Human Rights, Spring 2001, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 117-120

Rummel's statistics are derived from a comprehensive range of sources; he is one historian of this subject who is invariably fair, condemning right-wing and left-wing governments alike, as well as many regimes whose crimes normally receive little attention from either the media or scholars. Yet his methodology is often somewhat questionable. His statistics for genocide are not generally derived from original research in primary sources, but by taking the most probable figure after examining the range of estimates given by previous writers on the event. This procedure is not necessarily unreasonable, but can lead to the acceptance of figures for a particular act of genocide which are distorted by inaccurate and sometimes biased sources. (...) The Encyclopedia, using Rummel's figures, claims (p.29) that Stalin murdered 42,672,000 people between 1929 and 1953. Rummel's statistics are set out at length in his book Lethal Politics. Here, Rummel claims that Stalin murdered 20,889,000 persons between 1928 and the outbreak of the war in June 1941, including 4,345,000 during the zenith of the Great Terror in 1936-38. These figures (indeed, even higher ones) had previously been given widespread publicity and seeming credibility in the well-known works of Robert Conquest, Roy Medvedev, and others. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, a wealth of previously unavailable sources has become available which very recent historians have employed to revise these figures dramatically downwards. These researchers, such as Alex Nove, J. Arch Getty, Sheila FitzPatrick, and Stephen G. Wheatcroft, are scholars of international repute whose views on Stalinism are identical to those of any other person of goodwill; they have, however, the possibly quaint belief that historians are obliged to tell the truth, regardless of what that truth might be. Nove concluded that 10-11 million persons perished in the Soviet Union during the decade 1930-39, 'with peasants numerically the main victims'. It would appear that 'only' 786,098 persons were shot by Stalin for 'counter-revolutionary and state crimes' between 1931 and 1953, with 682,000 of these killed in 1937-38, the height of the Great Purges. Rather cleverly examining the dropout rates of random samples of individual telephone subscribers listed in the Moscow phone books of 1935-36 and 1937-38 Fitzpatrick concluded that the rate of disappearance was no more than 7 per cent, although the dropout rate among senior party officials was much higher, around 60 per cent/ In other words, Rummel (and many other historians) has vastly exaggerated the scale of Stalin's mass murders, whatever else might be said about Stalinism or the Soviet Union. Other examples of innaccurate data are mentioned. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

The question is not if he is wrong (which is not up to us to decide) nor if he is ideological. The question is: Is he a reliable source. As he fulfills the requirements he therefor is a reliable source. This really shouldn't been that difficult. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Again reliability refers to books and articles not people. If Rummel called one of his collegues a "f***ing idiot" during a party, could we add that to the person's article here as a reliably sourced fact? TFD (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
That you have to resort to this kind of argument conclusively shows that you haven't got a leg to stand on. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Summary

This is an attempt to avoid the tangents this discussion for some reason always ends up in, and focus the debate back.

  1. BigK is completely right in that a source should be assumed to be fringe unless proven otherwise.
  2. WP:RS outlines how to identify a reliable source.
  3. Death by Government fulfills the requirements, specifically "The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes."
  4. The answers are comparisons with "Mein Kampf" and questions if its' a reliable source if Rummel insults somebody at a party.

Conclusion: This debate is over. Death by Government is a reliable source, but the people that oppose his conclusions are too dogmatic to ever admit that. The end. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

By this logic, Claudius Ptolemy is a reliable source. Let's try a conclusion which may be less satisfying to our Wikilawyer.
Re: Conclusion User:OpenFuture again seems to be proposing an unhelpful "response." His "conclusion" above appears to blatantly conflate WP:FRINGE with WP:RS. The two policies address different issues.
OpenFuture quotes an important part of the RS page regarding citation counts. But, what he fails to recognize is a part of that SAME WP:RS page which states, "If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not represent unduly contentious or minority claims." Editors, such as OpenFuture have provided absolutely no evidence that the claims are anything other than minority (and there's much evidence that the claims are contentious).
If User:OpenFuture does not like the idea of Rummel's theories being treated as if they have not been accepted by the academic community, then he has a burden of proof to meet. It's just that simple. BigK HeX (talk) 02:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
It has been met, see point 3. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I would say, the conclusion is that Rummel is not fringe, but outdated, and somewhat superficial in his conclusions. The articles cannot rely heavily on his works as a source, and reasonable criticism should be added every time when Rummel is cited.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty nuanced, but since you're intent on going there - could you flesh out when and where Rummel is acceptable to use as a source and when he isn't? Why ever would you even quote a scholar who's "outdated" and "somewhat superficial in his conclusions"? Zloyvolsheb (talk) 21:12, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
He is acceptable as the source for:
  1. A concept of democide (death by government); since I failed to see any serious difference between democide and Valentino's mass killing, I think he is a good source for future "Mass killing" article;
  2. Connection between Communism and democide (historically; he proposed such an idea and he should be mentioned every time this idea is mentioned)
  3. Methodology (application of factor analysis to genocide studies);
He is not a reliable (or outdated) source for:
  1. Numbers (vastly exaggerated, especially for some Communist regimes);
  2. All conclusions that are bases primarily on these numbers.
However, since the initial question was if it is fringe, I believe this discussion is a deviation from the main thread.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
That does sound decent. Thanks for clarifying. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 21:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
On the connection between communism and mass killing (I say as little as possible of the neologism democide, for which Rummel does bear full responsibility), Paul Siebert may give insufficient credit to Malcolm Muggeridge. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I generally agree with Paul here, though I think it's fine to cite Rummel's numbers, though any critiques should be noted. AFAICR not all of the communist numbers he gives were exaggerated, or more precisely, overestimated. Some were. Some weren't. That's why it's important to note the critiques.radek (talk) 22:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Which numbers are correct?--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
To the extent one considers that there is always going to be some variance in these kinds of estimates, I believe there's good bit of support for his numbers for the victims of the Khmer Rouge and North Korea. I can't remember wrt to Vietnam. And it's very possible he underestimated Mao. Also, I assume there's little to no controversy over the numbers he calculated for victims of the Nazis which I think are pretty comparable to what other scholars estimated.radek (talk) 22:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, I thought you claimed some numbers on the USSR were correct. Since scholars generally agree about Campuchea, I don't think Rummel is too useful, because he never did independent archival studies, just worked with secondary sources. In addition, as I already pointed out, Campuchea is can hardly be an example of genuine Communist regime: it was condemned by the USSR (and supported by the US), this regime was overthrown by Connumist Vietnam (which eventually lead to Sino-Vietnam war). In the USSR Khmer Gouge were treated as fascist, ans some scholars independently came to the same conclusion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


For my part, I've never claimed a direct RS problem. IMO, the potential problems that could use investigation include:

  1. Rummel's assertions being relied upon extensively, and yet (though controversial as they are) they've been left unbalanced (and that editors continue to support this imbalance), and
  2. the heavy reliance on a source which has not been shown to be a reflection of broad consensus (which isn't normally a huge problem, but coupled with other problems in the article, the weight/potential fringe issue has been magnified), and
  3. a potential WP:SYN problem in the context of this wiki article ["Mass killings under Communist regimes"], as Rummel's theory seems more concerned about relating totalitarianism and "mass killings", not necessarily "Communist regimes" per se. BigK HeX (talk) 23:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Please do not restart the discussion done on the talk page of the article here. This is about one thing and one thing only: Is Death by Government a reliable source. Your attempt to restart the discussion could be interpreted as you trying to shift focus of the discussion as you are realizing that you are wrong. I don't think you want that. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Specific quotes

I'm sorry for not doing this at once, but I'm new at these source conflicts, and one learns from ones mistakes. :-) The discussion on the talk, page was always about Rummel himself (because people don't like his views), and he was claimed as fringe and not rs, etc. The above discussion has made it blatantly clear to me that such accusations and discussing such accusations is completely pointless. So now let's do it by the "book" (yes, I think a template at the top of the page would be good).

It also turns out, although the criticism when not directed at Rummel, is directed at the book in question. However, most of the times Rummel is used as a source, it's not the book but specific articles. So the claim that the book is not peer-reviewed etc is an utter red herring. My mistake for not double checking the claims of the people who critisized Rummel. Extremely stupid of me.

Anyway, I've added a section at the bottom, using the proposed template. Let's see if that works better. :) I propose that we archive this whole section, it was a waste of time. Sorry about that. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

John Prescott

John Prescott said: “I’ve always felt very proud of Wales and being Welsh. People are a bit surprised when I say I’m Welsh. I was born in Wales, went to school in Wales and my mother was Welsh. I’m Welsh. It’s my place of birth, my country.” here (WalesOnline) Please advise if you consider his statement to be self-identification of his nationality. If so, would it support the lead saying: "John Leslie Prescott, Baron Prescott[8] (born 31 May 1938) is a Welsh[9] former Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State of the United Kingdom." Talkpage discussion here. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It looks to be a reliable source for that statement. Dlabtot (talk) 14:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Daicaregos (talk) 22:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Editors on this page might wish to be aware of the lengthy discussion at Talk:John Prescott#British. There is no dispute on that page over what Prescott has said, or over the fact that it comes from a reliable source - [60]. The unresolved question is over appropriate balance and weight in the wording of the opening sentence of the article, together with the various meanings of the term "nationality", and the weight to be given to the essay at WP:UKNATIONALS. Those are not matters, in my view, for which this noticeboard should provide advice. Am I right? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Dlabtot (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. (Is everyone always this polite here?) Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Nevertheless, the statement is considered to be John Prescott's self-identification of his nationality. Daicaregos (talk) 10:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
It is a reliable source - agreed. He is Welsh, and has said he is Welsh - agreed. The opening sentence should reflect the fact that he is Welsh and only that, without reference to the fact that his nationality is also British - not agreed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
This is not the venue to discuss article content. However, it is disingenuous to suggest that I am intent on stating that John Prescott is Welsh and only that, without reference to the fact that his nationality is also British. Daicaregos (talk) 11:33, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Fair point - I withdraw that. But I was referring to the two (or three) wording options currently being discussed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Daicaregos (talk) 11:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Manchester United F.C. Kit Sources

I'd welcome everyone's thoughts on the following sources:

unitedkits.com historicalkits.co.uk prideofmanchester.com

Some people have raised concerns regarding the reliability of these sources because they are considered fansites. The first two in particular, however, are just the most comprehensive sources for Manchester United kit information on the internet.

Thanks, Tom (talk) 00:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Fansites are, by their very nature, not reliable as they are not authoritative. Relying on unreliable sources simply because they are comprehensive is not a good idea. Wikipedia needs a variety of sources to verify information anyway, so comprehensive sources shouldn't be given any more weight than any others in general. In addition, if reliable information can be found on a fan site, it can also be found in an actual reliable source, as fan sites just regurgitate information from elsewhere. --132 15:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

unitedkits.com is the personal website of two United fans. historicalkits.co.uk appears to be the personal website of "Dave". prideofmanchester.com is the commercial website of Neil Jones, "Jim" and "Rob". There is no indication that any of them satisfy the requirements of WP:RS. Jayjg (talk) 01:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

But unitedkits.com has photographic evidence to support all of it's kits. Lets say the author of one of these sites released a book using exactly the same information, would that be reliable? Tom (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Who would the publisher be? If it was self-published, then no. If it was published by a university press, then yes. It all depends on the editorial oversight. Jayjg (talk) 01:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
OK gotcha. Thanks for comments. Tom (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Death by Government used at Mass killings under Communist regimes reported by User:OpenFuture

Page: Mass killings under Communist regimes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Source: Death by Government, Google books, Link to chapter defining Democide

  • Diff or proposed edit: R. J. Rummel coined uses the term "democide", which includes genocide, politicide, and mass murder.

Comments:
Think that even if it is supported by the text (which I am not sure is clear), this falls foul of WP:SELFPUB with regards to the proposed wording (because, if he claimed a coinage, that would be self-serving even if true). We could say that he "used" the term, but not that he coined it. Also, if you have encountered objections to the use of the cite, I reckon they are probably on weight grounds rather than the reliability of the source per se.--FormerIP (talk) 11:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

We'd need an RS that says he coined that term in that book. Selfpub and primary/OR. Also, not an RS per discussion above. Verbal chat 11:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
FormerIP: Think that even if it is supported by the text (which I am not sure is clear) - From the box at the top of the page: "Democide: The murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder." It's obviously supported.
Verbal: You have a point, but if we change it from "coined" to "uses", would it be OK then? I'm sure it's easy to find a source to say he coined the term too, but that's hardly the point here. Who invented the term is irrelevant, IMO. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I meant it may not have been supported because it was not clear that the author was claiming to have coined the term. I hadn't seen the discussion above (thank you Verbal), though. Since the usability of this source seems to be heavily disputed, I would say it would be best to keep that discussion in one place. The modified statement passes RS, IMO, but it seems clear that the noteworthiness of the source in relation to the article is contested, so the edit shouldn't be made until that is resolved. --FormerIP (talk) 12:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
There has been no discussion about "the noteworthiness of the source in relation to the article", so it can hardly be contested. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Scotch mist? To be honest, OpenFuture, this seems a little like asking your dad when your mum has said no. --FormerIP (talk) 13:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
That's not about "the noteworthiness of the source in relation to the article". It's about if the book is a reliable source. You might want to read that discussion before you decide to insult people. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Why are we now arguing over who coined the term Democide? R. J. Rummel, a professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, has compiled statistics accounting for the number of people killed worldwide by “democide,” a term he coined to describe intentional killings by governments [61] mark nutley (talk) 14:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Apologies, OpenFuture, I didn't mean to be insulting.
I'm not sure what you are saying here. The book is the same thing as the source, I think. The discussion above does not seem to be restricted to whether it is a reliable source and I think it is pretty clear that it did not result in a consesus to use it in the article. --FormerIP (talk) 14:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Of course the book is a reliable source, and the well reasoned arguements above proved it. I believe there was a consensus for it`s use as those arguing against used wp:idontlikeit as the only reason for it to not be reliable mark nutley (talk) 14:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above does not seem to be restricted to whether it is a reliable source - No, but the discussion above *should* have been restricted to whether it was a reliable source, because that's what is relevant, and what this noticeboard is about. Why does the people who don't want Rummel to be used as a source always so intent on discussing everything else than the subject? Stop going off on tangents, it's disruptive. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the issue here?

There is no source that Rummel coined the silly word (still unknown to the OED); on the other hand, this is not the place to discuss whether this irrelevant sentence belongs in any article other than the one on Rummel, and the one on the word itself. That isn't a WP:RS issue; it's an WP:ONTOPIC issue.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean apart from the one i just posted above? mark nutley (talk) 14:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Which post? This one? You could have put that much more succinctly: "I like Rummel and I'm going to ignore all the documented problems with his methodology."
But none of that answers either question:
1. The coining issue is already over and done with. Read the rest of the discussion above.
2. Stop trying to change the subject. Why do you people always change the subject when you are cornered? What is it that is so painful with RJ Rummel being quoted once in a while? Honestly? --OpenFuture (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
That is, again, no answer; and a leap to a conclusion. Rummel should be cited on significant things on which he is reliable; I've cited him myself. But whether he uses an obscure and ill-formed neologism is on topic only when explaining his system. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
obscure and ill-formed neologism I think not [62] 934 hits on google scholar and 6,570 on books [63] mark nutley (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for proving my point. A word used primarily in Rummel's own works, and solely in discussing them, is indeed obscure; and we can discuss whether it is used often when it is listed by the OED (as it is not), or if it ever achieves, say, 1% of the uses of genocide. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Your wrong, the majority of books are not by rummel, how many books do you think he has written? The term is far from obscure mark nutley (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Sigh. I think this conversation has gone far enough; encounters by writing with somebody who has not understood what I have actually written and has not responded in English are unlikely to be productive. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Stop this off topic discussion, both of you. This is about whether he is a reliable source for the above statement and *nothing else*. If you feel that statement shouldn't be in the article, PMAnderson, then bring that up on the talk page of that article. Stop disrupting. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Your right and i am sorry, it is of course a reliable source for the edit in question mark nutley (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
No, it is a primary source for the edit in question; but like much use of primary sources, the question immediately arises: if it's not of interest to secondary sources, why should we, a tertiary source, say it at all? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Isn't a primary source exactly what's needed for the question of how somebody defines a concept? Please note: If he is the source of the word or not, is no longer an issue, as the word "coined" is stricken from the text in my proposed quote above. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Need help with this source

[64] does it fulfill the requirements for reliability?--Gniniv (talk) 08:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The context in which it was used was

...pointing to Shem's descendant Joktan as the direct ancestor of the East. reference: Origin of Sinitic Peoples from the Sons of Noah?


Comments:
It's a self-published, non-peer-reviews web page by a non-scholar on a scholarly subject. The author has no apparent notability and is not quoted by anyone as far as Google Scholar knows. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ Barber, Matt (March 2010). "Southern Poverty Law Center Officially Declared "Left-Wing Hate Group"". [65]. Retrieved 2010-07-11. {{cite news}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
  2. ^ a b "Hatewatch: unmasking the radical right".
  3. ^ a b "Hatewatch: Keeping an eye on the radical right".
  4. ^ http://web.archive.org/web/19981206135537/www.splcenter.org/klanwatch.html
  5. ^ Ken Silverstein. "The church of Morris Dees: How the Southern Poverty Law Center profits from intolerance". Retrieved 07-11-10. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  6. ^ Barber, Matt (March 2010). "Southern Poverty Law Center Officially Declared "Left-Wing Hate Group"". [66]. Retrieved 2010-07-11. {{cite news}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
  7. ^ Carol M Swain. "Guilt by Association: The Southern Poverty Law Center Hurls a Punch". Retrieved 07-11-10. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  8. ^ ist of Members of the House of Lords Uk Parliament
  9. ^ "WalesOnline - News - Wales News - John Prescott learns of incest among his Welsh ancestors". WalesOnline website. Media Wales Ltd. 2009-11-30. Retrieved 2009-12-01.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_69&oldid=1223146209"