Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 14

Japanese sources
In reference to this dispute. The following references are being disregarded, even by a admin!

First reference from "Japan Radio Television" which is the Nippon News Network.

Second reference from "Oricon", one of Japans leading sales ranking companies, that also provides its information to the general public, which is similar to "billboard" in the United States.

Third reference from "GOO", a well known major entertainment site owned by NTT, one of the worlds largest telecommunications companies.

All three companies are well known worldwide, and all three references mention that the musician Michiya Mihashi sold more than 100 million records in 1983. It is easily verified using a web-based translator. In addition two translations were provided and disregarded. The admin mentioned that the Nippon News Network, and Oricon are not reliable sources, and that GOO is perhaps a forum or blog!

How are these references not acceptable? This statement by the admin is even hypocritical "comparable with, for example the RIAA or a page similar to AllMusic"

I also provided an English source which has been disregarded. This article receives much vandalism from editors removing non-UK or US musicians, even those with reliable references written in English. It took a long fight last year to keep them there, and now this! There are many other musicians I was going to add but find it impossible. 220.253.192.72 (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Foriegn language sources are usually ok as long as the same informations isn't available in english. See WP:RSUE It's not usually a good thing to use a machine based translator as they often make mistakes, however, wikipedia guidelines do not forbid their use merely saying Where editors use a non-English source to support material that others might challenge, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors. So as long as it can be translated accurately and footnoted it should be ok. The best thing would probably be to get an expert for this topic in my opinion though on the face of it Oricon would seem to be as reliable a source for that info as there can be seen as they are the official body that deals with music sales stats in japan. So i dont think you can question the reliablity of them as a source. -- neon white user page talk 17:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think perhaps I did not explain good. Yes, I know foreign references are accepted, as I have added many myself regarding Japanese topics. It is not me who is questing their reliability (they are the most reliable sources for this topic) this editor [], and this admin refuse those references. The reference was confirmed that it indeed states that he sold more than 100 million records. The admin stated it is not acceptable, that is why another user "Katsuya" provided a web based translation, but that is not acceptable too. Katsuya then cited the sentences, and translated them into English. Only to be told its worthless. That is when more references where provided, and also disregarded. The admin claims it says something about 100 million, but that it can not be certain what it is referring to and therefore not acceptable, however if something understands the Japanese for "100 million" it surely can understand "record sales" which is half written in katakana, which is an adopted foreign word, and the easiest to read/translate since it sounds like the original language. So I question the admins responses. The most reliable reference is from JRT, Nippon News, and it was used as the reference. I was going to report this on a different board, but was directed here by the admin. Perhaps I have the wrong board? As I believe this to vandalism and prejudice, due to the utter disregard of the references. 220.253.192.72 (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Your explanation was clear enough, and I think Neon white understood you fine. I endorse Neon's statements, and I support your position. There is more than enough to support that he had sold more than 100,000,000 by 1983. Multiple users have offered translations, and the albeit crappy as usual machine translations ""100 million pieces" ..record sales first in the history of the songs field.. is exceeded in 1983." and "For the first time in 1983, the total record sales exceeding 100 million copies."  from  high-quality RS's seem clear enough, and you've provided an english source (albeit with undetermined reliability). Just don't use words like vandalism, prejudice, hypocritical, "destroy the wikipedia." etc. You should assume the objections are in good faith, and they should assume you and Katsuya  etc are acting in good faith too. Everyone clearly is.John Z (talk) 02:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

 * Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Proposed decision
 * Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy/Proposed decision -- Relata refero (disp.) 05:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Dissertations?
Hello, Are dissertations considered primary or secondary sources? Here is the dissertation in question:

Yogic transmission in Sahaj Marg of the Shri Ram Chandra mission: A religio-historical study, by Naidoo, Priyadarshini, M.A., University of South Africa (South Africa), 1995; AAT 0666936

Thank you! Renee (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It actually depends on the field of study... in the hard sciences, dissertations and other peer reviewed papers are considered Primary sources. In the humanities, on the other hand, they are considered Secondary sources. In your case (a paper in the area of religious history) I would say it should be classified as Secondary.
 * In either case, published dissertations are usually reliable (the hesitation is due to the fact that a dissertation may state something that has subsequently been dismissed by the bulk of the accademic establishment... if this is the case, it needs to be noted). Remember that primary sources can be reliable, you just have to use them with caution and care. Make sure you don't add your own interpretation of what the source says.  Direct attribution is best when talking about an opinion. Blueboar (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the quick response. Much appreciated and will be careful not to add any interpretations.  Right now we can't get the dissertation anyways as it appears it is not available for inter-library loan despite multiple editors trying.  I was just excited to see a true scholarly source on the topic.  Thanks again. Renee (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: The above seems to be a masters "thesis" as opposed to a doctoral "dissertation." At least in the US, we don't tend to call masters theses, "dissertations" precisely to make this distinction. In the fields I have experience within I would not suggest using a masters thesis to source a novel claim. I note, of course, that this thesis was written in South Africa and I have no knowledge of their university system.PelleSmith (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Non-US theses in general are major problem. Master's theses especially, since they are normally submitted in only one copy, which is why libraries really don't like lending them at all.  And I do not think theses at this level have in general the importance or the reliability of doctoral theses. I would not necessary assume that it will be worth the trouble--and in fact, as a librarian I usually haven't encouraged people to go to great lengths to obtain them.  Also, a thesis is not necessarily considered "published" if it is not actually made available. DGG (talk) 14:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The abstract says it is a dissertation (pasted below ver batim):

Abstract (Summary) ''In this dissertation the phenomenological method together with the hermeneutical concepts of experience, devotion, constant remembrance and transmission focus on yogic transmission in Sahaj Marg of the Shri Ram Chandra Mission. Sahaj Marg is an adaptation of Raja Yoga. Sahaj Marg emphasises the practical approach and calls for the aspirant to follow the teachings and methods of the spiritual Master. Yogic transmission is the unique feature of this system. Preceptors have been trained by the Master to aid in the spiritual evolution of humanity. Pranahuti is defined by he Master as a forceless force for the spiritual transformation of humanity. This system can be followed by all aspirants, the only qualification being a willingness to follow the practice. Sahaj Marg has been created for the present day aspirant to achieve liberation in the quickest time possible.''

Also, the library says it has four copies here: a microfiche copy, an archive copy, and two main open collection copies. I'm not sure of how the South African system works either but some universities call all doctoral and master's documents "theses" for library purposes. My university won't import dissertations through inter-library loan from Africa because of the cost.

If it's Master's thesis I agree that it is not very rigorous and probably not a reliable source; but if it's a doctoral thesis, then I think it probably is. I wonder how we can find out for sure? PelleSmith -- how did you come to the conclusion that it was a Master's thesis? (I was basing my judgment on the abstract.) DGG -- as a librarian did you import dissertations abroad through the inter-loan system? Maybe you would know. (And yes, I know, we may not be able to get it anyways given it's in RSA.) Thanks for the comments everyone. Renee (talk) 23:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If they have a microfiche, the thing to do then is to ask for a copy of the microfiche. That's usually very inexpensive. Based on their web pages, tho, they supply copies of their theses only within the country.  and .  I've never had occasion to ask for a thesis from S. Africa. From the UK we use the British Library service, & yes it is expensive. The trend now, fortunately, is to put this material online. Especially for the relatively out of the way places, it has obvious advantages.DGG (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The letters "M.A." in the citation ... maybe I'm misreading them, but at least here it is customary to write the degree in the citation, which I assumed was the case in the citation above, which looks like it lists a name and then a degree "M.A." I can't say for sure.  Does anyone know if in South Africa it is customary to call both M.A. theses and PhD dissertations by that phrase?PelleSmith (talk) 02:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I took those to mean her degree at time of writing it (before the Ph.D. was awarded). But, I just looked up my dissertation (done last century in the dark ages) and you're right, it has Ph.D. behind the name even though I only had a MA at the time of writing it. Renee (talk) 11:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Tea
Are the sources cited for this content reliable?

'''Tea cultivation in India has somewhat ambiguous origins. Though the extent of the popularity of tea in Ancient India is unknown, it is known that the tea plant was a wild plant in India that was indeed brewed by local inhabitants of different regions. '''

The source of this is http://www.coffee-tea-etc.com/, a commercial website.

'''Indian legends credit the creation of tea as known in the modern sense to Bodhidharma (ca. 460-534), a monk born near Madras, India, and the founder of the Ch'an (or Zen) sect of Buddhism. '''

The sources of this are the commercial websites http://www.twiningsusa.com/ and http://www.askandyaboutclothes.com/, "The World's Most Popular Website Devoted to Men's Clothing Advice!"

'''Interestingly, ancient Japanese tales credit the origin of tea to Bodhidharma as well. '''

The sources of this are http://www.twiningsusa.com/ and http://www.lcy.net/, a commercial and personal website, respectively.

'''The first recorded reference to tea in India was in the ancient epic of the Ramayana, when Hanuman was sent to the Himalayas to bring the Sanjeevani tea plant for medicinal use. '''

The sources of this are http://www.finjaan.com/indian-tea.html, http://www.gmvnl.com/newgmvn/districts/chamoli/valley_of_flowers.aspx, and the Ralph T. H. Griffith translation of the Ramayana.

http://www.finjaan.com/indian-tea.html is a commercial website.

There is no mention of tea at http://www.gmvnl.com/newgmvn/districts/chamoli/valley_of_flowers.aspx.

The Ralph T. H. Griffith translation of the Ramayana can be found online, but there is no mention of tea in the sourced Book VI, Canto CII, which can be found at http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rama/ry476.htm.

In an 1877 pamphlet written by Samuel Baildon, and published by W.Newman and Co. of Calcutta, he writes, "...various merchants in Calcutta were discussing the chance of imported China seeds thriving in Assam, when a native from the province present, seeing some tea said, "We have the plant growing wild in our jungles." It is then documented that the Assamese nobleman, Maniram Dutta Barua, (also known as Maniram Dewan) showed British surveyors existing fields used for tea cultivation and wild tea plants growing in the Assamese jungle. 

The source of this is http://www.geocities.com/dipalsarvesh/, a personal webpage. 12.15.120.169 (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Most of this is unreliable, and the identification of the sanjeevani with tea is pure madness. These general points are well known: that tea is indigenous to Assam has been known since the early 1800s - when it caused quite a sensation - and that Maniram Dewan, a major figure in 19th c Assamese history, was, together with Dwarkanath Tagore, one of the founding directors of the original subsidiary of the EICo developed for exploitation of that resource, the Assam Company. The use of tea by the Assamese prior to the commercial development of the gardens is also induced from various texts, but IIRC not directly known. -- Relata refero (disp.) 20:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

CO-ED Magazine
added this link to each of the twenty "sexy wives" listed. Should it be reverted?-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 22:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep. Entertaining, but hardly a necessary EL.Kww (talk) 22:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Marital Arts sources
I have a question regarding information given to me by my sensei. I'm noticing that the kyudo entry has "This article doesn't cite its sources" warnings on it... a good deal of us learned techniques from senseis who learned the techniques from their senseis... and so on. This means that the information we are citing is verbal, not physical. Some martial arts, such as Karate have a great wealth of knowledge printed in the general media, some, like Kyudo (Which I am a practicioner), only has a handful of books, and, as you might imagine, the rules sometimes conflict as they are from differing schools. How does one cite a Martial Arts Sensei as their source. We practice martial arts for a long time, and the knowledge is handed down this way. If we can't cite sources, will the article simply remain with the warning? Or will it ultimately be removed? Aabh (talk) 22:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think you can cite what a sensei says, just as we can't cite what a teacher says during a lecture. It would be better to cite professional journals, books, or published recordings.  -- SEWilco (talk) 18:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand the reasoning behind that, however, when writing about an obscure martial art, such as Kyudo, there may be books available, but they are scarce, and sometimes the information in the book is not the same as the path of teaching people have followed (I.E. From a different school). Does this mean that even though my school has a different technique (Which branched from the main technique 200 years ago), we can only write about the school that made a book?  The problem I have is that Martial Arts is very much a "Don't read it, DO it!" sort of thing... and books are often written only to assist the art... What about stories told by Bushmen in Africa or Australia? If you happened to be someone who was transcribing the data from those bushmen... how would you enter those into the encyclopedia? (I'm not trying to be a pain, I'm just trying to expand this argument beyond the simple "What about Martial Arts?" and widen it to include any spoken knowledge.)  Aabh (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Meanwhile, can anyone point me at a good source for "marital arts"? My wife might be interested... -- Rodhull andemu  15:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I assume you are a good source. Your wife will judge whether you're a reliable source.  -- SEWilco (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Forum post citing sources and summarizing information
This has to do with the UltimateBet cheating scandal - more on the talk page there. I need to know whether the included link: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthread.php?t=208114 can be considered a reliable source. Ordinarily self-publishing does not qualify, but if you'll look at the information included I believe this is an exception. Useful notes on the talk page there on whether the information on the cheating scandal should be included would also be appreciated. Adam (talk) 14:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Forum posts are not reliable sources for good reason, and this link is no exception. Yes, it cites sources, and summarises information, but &mdash; as with all forum posts &mdash; there is no way to be sure that the use of sources is valid or indeed correct. In contrast, if it were published in the mainstream media, then one can be confident that it would have received thorough editorial review (indeed, given the accusations of legal misconduct made in this example, it is likely that a newspaper would have sought advice from their legal advisers, too). In general, if a forum post cites sources that are themselves reliable, then those sources can be incorporated into the article, but this does not seem to be the case here. This is a self-published source and should not be cited. Jakew (talk) 15:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Respected publishing houses
V says that: "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers.(emphasis added)"

I added emphasis since I only would like to discuss "respected publishing houses[']" status as one of the most reliable sources. I would like to know whether the following qualify as such:
 * Brill Publishers
 * It claims to be "an established scholarly publisher with a reputation for publishing books of excellent quality and academic distinction"
 * Routledge
 * It claims to be "a global publisher of academic books, journals and online resources in the humanities and social sciences."

As regards to both I would like to know if they are reliable sources in the field of Religion and philosophy, and perhaps history of religion as well. For example, Brill has published a voluminous Encyclopedia of Islam, while Routledge has printed the the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Encyclopedia of Ethics.

I know that of course the author and publication itself affect the reliability, but can the above publishers be considered "respected" in a similar way as university presses or academic journals are? Bless sins (talk) 22:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Both are certainly "respected publishing houses." There is no way that a book published by either one could be considered not reliable based upon the publisher.  That said, I'm not sure what books you wish to use and/or what the contentions are, but you can safely say that Brill and Routledge are "respected publishing houses," per V.PelleSmith (talk) 02:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Mailing lists as external links & source in David Rohl article
Among the external links on this article are [] and [], both of which are evidently 'authorise' by Rohl. Are these acceptable as external links? Secondly, Rohl himself added a paragraph using one of these lists as a reference to something said by Kenneth Kitchen at a conference which I removed - was my action correct in doing this? Given Kitchen's known opposition to Rohl, I feel something more is required than just a link to a mailing list, verbatim copy of a video recording or not (and you can't read the list unless you are a member). Thanks.--Doug Weller (talk) 06:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree wholeheartedly that the Yahoo! Group shouldn't be used as a source, i.e. for footnotes and citations, but as an external link I think it is a justifiable exception to WP:LINKSTOAVOID. Is there a place to discuss proper or improper external links?  Or would this page be the acceptable forum.  I think that since the Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum (JACF) is now a defunct journal, the Yahoo! Groups are the place to turn to pursue further, external information about the New Chronology.
 * TuckerResearch (talk) 18:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Is Reporters without borders a good source for stating that Xinhua is the "the world's biggest propaganda agency"?
The following content was removed because Reporters without borders is considered by that editor WP:UNDUE for stating about Xinhua News Agency that is "the world's biggest propaganda agency".

There is RfC here Talk:Xinhua_News_Agency, which is not commented yet by neutral editors, so please give us your thoughts. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 09:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Answered at the RfC. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see wikipedia policy WP:NOT. My point here is that RWB is a highly controversial organization which has been accused of having ties with the CIA. I do not know which country you are talking about other than Europe/US respect this organization or how there is a global consensus about the reliability of this organization. I have plenty of sources to prove this organization is simply a propaganda machinery of the western liberal democracies. The organization also receives fund by the National Endowment for Democracy which itself is a controversial organization.


 * Reporters Without Borders Financed by CIA
 * Reporters without Borders Keeps silence about journalist tortured in Guantánamo
 * RSF claims to be neutral, objective and solely interested in press freedoms. But this claim does not hold up to scrutiny. ... the association directed by Robert Ménard since 1985 defends a very specific interest and political agenda

RWB is hardly an unbiased organization. We cannot reference this article from biased, politically motivated and controversial organization.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 17:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Please keep the discussion in one place. I suggest you strike your comment here - in this case feel free to strike this comment as well. I will answer at the RfC on Talk:Xinhua News Agency. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: All discussion is going on in Talk:Xinhua News Agency.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

www.newenergytimes.com
I think I know the answer to this one, but I'm in the process of the WP:GAN review of Cold fusion and I've been challenged on this point, so here I am. I was told to point you guys to the following page, which says nice things about the reliability of this website: http://www.newenergytimes.com/contact/contact.htm#quotes. I have explained that websites by themselves are almost never considered reliable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia. This website is an important external link for the article, because it's helpful for getting proponents up to speed, but it's an unapologetic proponent's site that admits a financial connection to its subject matter. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You ask a great question. How should we categorize think tanks -- are they partisan (therefore only good for sourcing their own opinions, not facts) or are they reliable, third-party sources (and therefore good to source all types of facts)? This comes from their website's "About" page:


 * "New Energy Times is a project of New Energy Institute, a 501(c)(3) organization whose mission is to investigate, analyze, educate and report on the progress of new, sustainable and environmentally friendly energy sources and research. Its primary focus is the subject of low energy nuclear reactions, part of the field of condensed matter nuclear science historically known as 'cold fusion.' New Energy Institute seeks to advance the development and application of clean energy, accessible and affordable for everyone. In order to remain a neutral, unbiased and impartial source of news and analysis, New Energy Timestm and New Energy Institute Inc. do not conduct their own scientific research, do not invest in or maintain ownership in any of the companies or technologies they report on, and do not try to acquire any intellectual property rights in the field."


 * I'm inclined to treat them as only good for sourcing opinions they themselves espouse. The sentence I highlighted in bold was what made me arrive at that conclusion. Yes, of course, they say they're neutral in their investigations, but how are we supposed to know that for sure? An alternative approach would be to run several database search engine checks (e.g., Google News, Google Books, LexisNexis, Factiva) against the facts that you would like to cross-reference and verify. If you cannot find multiple independent, reliable third-party sources that corroborate their website's purported facts, I would hesitate to use them. On the other hand, if you're just citing their opinions, that's a different matter. Just be sure to make the reader aware they they are opinions (see WP:ATT). Hope that helps a little bit, J Readings (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Dan, incidentally, I checked Factiva, LexisNexis and JSTOR just to be sure. These high-powered search engines make no mention of "New Energy Institute", or "New Energy Times," or "Steven B. Krivit" (its founder). On top of everything else, that's not really a good sign. While those databases are only a sample of many databases, it begins to show that the media and academia haven't taken much notice of them yet. FWIW, J Readings (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your work on that. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I just hope that was helpful enough. J Readings (talk) 20:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi folks. I appreciate the work you do. Not only do I respect your process, but I generally agree with what has been said above. I concur that those searches were accurate. I think we are too new to show up there. Last year, I and my team's work was cited or referenced, off the top of my head, in Chemical & Engineering News, Nature News, Wired, maybe some others. My work was published earlier this year in Current Science, I have a book coming out this fall sponsored by the American Chemical Society, published by Oxford University press and an article in J. Sci. Exploration. I hope these will help.


 * You should know that I appreciate your caution, perhaps more than you know. There's a lot of junk out there in cyberspace. I founded NET and NEI with a focus on "cold fusion." But our interests are broader, and in time this will evolve.


 * The reason why I like your caution is because when I decided to tackle the subject of "cold fusion" I realized that with a reputation that it had 8 years ago, and still largely today, if we don't do a tight and careful job with our journalism, we're gonna be dumped in the same category as the free energy crackpots. So your judiciousness works in our favor, it sorts out the wheat from the chaff, which naturally, I hope we are regarded more as the former than the latter.


 * I thought that even though I was venturing in the Web space for science reporting that it could be done with equal journalistic integrity that is found in print media. I studied the code of ethics of the New York Times. I studied that of the SPJ and formed the ethos of our organization along those lines. I will admit, we do not adhere as tightly and as strictly to the guidelines of the Times, but we run pretty tight with those of the SPJ.


 * Among other things, I'm trying to demonstrate that the Web has the potential to support rigorous news reporting for those who chose to be meticulous, in among all the other things that exist in the Web. In a way, it's not much different from what you're trying to do with Wiki - to demonstrate that the Web can be just as a reliable, authoritative source as, let's say, Britannica.


 * I welcome your scrutiny, critique and interest. I encourage other news organizations to strive for what we are striving for and to demonstrate the full capabilities and power of the Internet. I think it has far more capabilities than we have seen so far.


 * Dan asked me about how clean our sources of funding are. Since we don't do advertising, this is a very fair question, to which I have several answers.


 * First of all, if we were funded by a particular researcher or research group and we exhibited any bias towards them, I can assure you that their competitors would skin us alive! If you know anything about science, you know how competitive these folks can get.


 * We are funded, so far, by a handful of private individual philanthropists. You can see the article that ran in Nature News that mentioned us and one of our anonymous sponsors, whose identity is obviously known to Katharine Sanderson. (http://newenergytimes.com/Inthenews/2007/Q2/NATURE-MillionairesPetProjects.pdf


 * Occasionally we receive donations from anonymous sources, but so far, this has been the minority of our income. If any of you really want to know the identity of our donors, and you give me sufficient means to confirm your ID so I can be sure you're intent is honorable, I have no problem to share this information.


 * Best regards,
 * Steven B. Krivit
 * Editor, New Energy Times
 * Executive Director, New Energy Institute Inc.
 * (310)470-8189
 * web1@newenergytimes.com
 * StevenBKrivit (talk) 06:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

U.S. doctoral dissertations and medical dictionaries
Whittaker, J. Wilson (2007). "A comparison of neurocognitive functioning in pedophilic child molesters, nonpedophilic child molesters and normal adult males." Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Utah, United States -- Utah. Retrieved May 25, 2008, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. (Publication No. AAT 3255199).

The above dissertation is currently used in Pedophilia to support its definition as "a sexual preference of an adult for prepubescent children." In all, 5 peer-reviewed studies are cited for this definition. If necessary, I can easy find more, given it's the predominant definition in scientific souces.

PetraSchelm believes that dissertations are iffy as reliable sources. Petra and Jack-A-Roe would prefer to cite American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary, which defines paedophilia as "the act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or children." IMO, sources that specialize in a particular subject, in this case paedophilia, are likely to be more precise and reliable as sources. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 23:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It strikes me as odd that the definition used by "5 peer reviewed studies," should be listed prior to the DSM IV. That said, if there are 5 studies then why does anyone care about one dissertation?  Do those other studies use the same language?  Of course as an observation I would think the DSM IV would be used as authoritative here, even if you had 20 peer reviewed studies.PelleSmith (talk) 00:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The dissertation isn't crucial. I just included "yet another source" since one editor doubted the assertion that paedophilia was a preference.
 * I was mistaken in saying that there's "5 peer-reviewed studies;" there's only four. The other source is the World Health Organization's ICD-10, which is as authoritative as the DSM. The ICD provides a clear definition. The DSM, on the other hand, doesn't define paedophilia, but rather lists indicators that can be used to diagnosis its presence. Sexual activity with children over a long period, for example, clearly isn't itself a mental condition. The DSM lists it as a criterion for the diagnosis of paedophilia because sustained sexual activity with children may be a translation of preferential attraction to them. Its inclusion doesn't mean that "sustained sexual activity with children" is itself paedophilia. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 01:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The ICD-10 doesn't have its own defintion of pedophilia, it relies entirely on the DSM. Since 1987, the DSM has excluded exclusive preference from the diagnostic criteria, and yet we define pedophilia as preferential anyway, in our Wiki article (and go on later in the article to clarify the definition better). The dissertation is being used to push a minority point of view about an unrelated topic--the mental health of pedophiles. This editor, AnotherSolipsist, likes to shoehorn in references that support his pov but are irrelevant to whatever text they are supporting, IMHO. -PetraSchelm (talk) 01:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The DSM looks for intense and recurring features. The ICD's focus on preference would appear to contradict this. Whatever - most sources (dictionaries, professional definitions, etc) tend to emphasize preference where such is emphasized for other sexual inclinations, and tend to ignore preference where such is ignored for other sexual inclinations. It is pretty obvious that to be defined by an attraction to something, someone must hold that thing in high, or preferential regard. Otherwise, all men who have a little girl fetish would be pedophiles, and all bisexuals would be hets and homos at the same time. J-Lambton T/C 06:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of the doctoral dissertation, which is the purpose of this query. (And it's flatly incorrect re the ICD-10, which does not have its own definition; it relies on the DSM).-PetraSchelm (talk) 06:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes this is getting completely off topic for this board which deals with the reliability of sources. My apologies for ever making that foolish "observation."  Doctoral dissertations in the United States are considered reliable sources, but they should be used with caution when making contentious or novel claims.  I don't think there is anything really to resolve on this board, and inclusion of the source is something to decide at the entry.PelleSmith (talk) 11:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow all the discussion here, but I don't see any reason why a Doctoral dissertation would NOT be reliable. DigitalC (talk) 06:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

When original research is the most thorough and reliable
There is currently an editing war over at Tokwiro Enterprises between user 2005 and members of various online gambling forums who have conducted and continue to conduct a great deal of original research regarding an online poker cheating scandal on UltimateBet. Tokwiro Enterprises owns and operates UltimateBet as well as Absolute Poker which had its own cheating scandal last year. An incredible amount of time, investigation, and collaboration have gone into exposing the truth, which is summed up extensively in this post on the Two Plus Two forums. User 2005 believes, seemingly rightfully, that supplying that post (and by default association, the subsequent replies by other users) as a source goes against Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources because it is original research and its writers have an obvious agenda. He argues that linking to this published article, which barely scratches the surface of the scandal and omits most of the damning details, is one way to source the information while still adhering to the guidelines.

Even ignoring the obvious urgency after which these details are being sought, I have two major problems with waiting for the relevant information to be published before being able to cite it. For one thing, this is verified, substantial, and significant research which simply has not been picked up by a website or magazine. The difference between this documentation and other citable sources is simply that no managers have had an interest in being the first to tie his name or the name of his publication to it. Secondly, and most importantly in this particular instance, the publications which we are relying on to get the story out are heavily influenced by the ad money supplied by the same company which is under fire in this investigation. Further, I don't understand how the publication of this research makes it any more reliable in this case. All of the numbers, facts, statistics, screenshots, correspondence, and other proof are there on the message board and as verifiable as they would be if a news source picked up the full story. In other words, the very people who have compiled the facts and broken open the scandal have become some of the major players in this story and therefore are more reliable than anyone who gets their information second-hand just to turn around and publish it.

Basically, I was hoping for some discussion about citing original research as a source when it is obvious that it is more thorough and reliable than anything that has been published about the subject. I didn't post this on the No original research notice board because nobody refutes the claim that it is original research, but its reliability is still debatable. Are there any exceptions or precedences that would allow us to cite the original messageboard post? Albedoa (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If it isn't published, the information isn't verifiable. And if it isn't verifiable, it isn't reliable.  Wikipedia has a clear policy against adding Original Research.  Blueboar (talk) 19:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have read those links. My problem is with the definition of "published". The supplied forum post fits every definition of the word that I have read. The reliable sources guidelines say, "As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." The forum post was compiled and continues to be researched with diligence and scrutiny. There will likely never be a more reliable source, no matter whose name is attached to it, and the difference between the article as it stands and your definition of a "published" article is that there is no publication name currently attached to it. That does not mean, by any dictionary I have referenced, that the article isn't published. Does Wikipedia define the word anywhere? Albedoa (talk) 12:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I missed the part about self-published sources, which seems to cover my question. I also somehow missed a similar discussion on this very page. Thanks. Albedoa (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * To add to what Blueboar said: There should rarely if ever be a reason for Wikipedia to rush to publish something, especially an investigation that has not been vetted by reliable secondary sources. If there is a pressing need for the story to be made public, that is the mission for a news organization.  Wikipedia's mission is different.  The investigation may be highly meritorious but it does not qualify for use by Wikipedia at this point. alanyst /talk/ 20:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Blogs and pov websites
Is this a reliable source. I have removed this several times, but the user adds back that too in introduction of Mahaakaal (talk) 10:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That website is quite clearly NOT a reliable source.PelleSmith (talk) 10:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that is not a reliable source. Xomba is a site where one can blog, or write articles without any editorial or peer review. DigitalC (talk) 06:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No! This is NOT a reliable source. --Singh6 (talk) 14:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source
There is a disagreement going on at the Feng Shui article between myself and another editor. The issue is over whether the web site link http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/geomag/nmp/daily_mvt_nmp_e.php from the Canadian government is a reliable source. --Sedonafengshui (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's a reliable source. However, it should probably be in the article Luopan, which goes into more detail about the Chinese compass and which could use more information on how it handles the difference between magentic south and true south.  The Feng shui article should simply mention that there is a school of thought that uses the compass and what the significance of the compass directions is in Feng Shui. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A simple answer is that yes, it is a reliable source. However, it doesn't mention anything about Feng Shui. What information from it are you wanting to use, and in what context? DigitalC (talk) 06:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Free newspaper as reliable source?
We just had an addition to Robot, and I reverted (without prejudice...I left nice notes asking for help with this one), based on a little skepticism and on the source, a website that links to a free newspaper: http://www.freetimes.com/stories/13/35/robot-dreams-the-strange-tale-of-a-mans-quest-to-rebuild-his-mechanical-childhood-friend. David Gerard, who has been around for a while and knows a lot, reverted me. Can I get a general ruling on free newspapers, and/or this particular source? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 12:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, you may cite free newsweeklies. However, they're more typically used to provide background on topics of local interest, local bands, etc. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What an intersting article. I think this would be a fine source for Robot, although additional sources about Elektro would be good. DigitalC (talk) 06:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

DVD Release Dates
I have a question on two sources. I am trying to source the DVD release dates for Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 1). Two sources I have found are TvShowsonDVD.com and Amazon. Would these two sources be considered reliable for DVD release dates? — Parent5446 ☯ ([ message] email) 12:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless there is a significant controversy, I would consider the release date of a DVD as something quite unexceptional, and an Amazon listing should be sufficient as a source. If there are different opinions, a better source might be needed. Please be careful about editions, though. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks a lot. — Parent5446 ☯ ([ message] email) 00:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

NFL.com for starting quarterbacks
I just discovered this part of wikipedia a few days ago and I wanted to post a question about using NFL.com for determining a starting quarterback and getting a definition of a starter in the NFL. A few months ago I questioned whether Trent Green was ever a starter for the St. Louis Rams. I was using the 2007 St. Louis Rams Media Guide as a reference and it did not list Green as being a starter for the franchise during the 2000 season. Others pointed out that Green is listed as starting games for the Rams in 2000 as shown on NFL.com.

I have a problem with using the NFL to determine a starter. First of all the franchise determines whom is a starter and whom is not, not the league. Thus, the media guides and/or franchise web pages would be a better source of information. Secondly, the NFL.com just shows who lined up during the first snap of the ball during a game. I have always thought that a starter was someone who was listed as a first string player, not who lined up at the start of a game. Sometimes a starter (i.e. first string player) will not take the first snap due to injury, but they are still considered the starter. --Pinkkeith (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Electionworld.org, used by Nationmaster.com
The Nationmaster stats page on Government Statistics > Status (most recent) by country cites the source of its reported data as electionworld.org. The Electionworld.org home page says, "Electionworld is transferring its content to the Politics section of Wikipedia ..." and then redirects visitors to the User:Electionworld/Electionworld page on Wikipedia.

WP:V says: "Articles and posts on Wikipedia may not be used as sources." This has been discussed to some extent at Talk:Conscription.

Question: may the Nationmaster Government Statistics > Status (most recent) by country web page be cited as a supporting source? -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Is Youtube a reliable source from this point of view
There is a edit war and its causes problems, being new i dont know how to report it well the main argument is, Is Youtube reliable here. First allow me to explian the situation, on a game article fans are discussing the heros love interest and its getting viscious, however somone put up a compromise he deleted all the love edits and added this in their place 'Many Fans think that she and (Heros name here) are in love this has not been decided (Youtube as source and video example)' he put this on both characters they were arguing about as it was true and fair their argument was proof it was true along with the youtube sources. However a few of the arguers werent content with this so they erased it and continued the war say 'Its agaisnt wikipedia to use Youtube as a source' however the guildlines say that infact there is NO blanket ban on this they however also say 'You can use Youtube to tell facts about the game, you must use the official site.' The one who put this down says 'the official site cant speak for fans however videos on youtube can as it is fans who made them.' Anyway question is: Is Youtube a reliable source in this case.
 * Well, it depends what's on Youtube. If it's just fan Y saying "I think X", then it's not a reliable source for saying "Many fans think X"; at most it's a primary source for the opinions of fan Y (who probably isn't important enough to have his views showcased).  What you want to look for is some media (probably gaming) saying either X or "many fans think X".  --Haemo (talk) 02:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but YouTube is never a reliable source. Not in this case or any other. Kafka Liz (talk) 02:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not true. It isn't a reliable source in this case, but there are organisations such as the BBC and Tate gallery now uploading material, which is a very different category.  Ty  03:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it? Is material on YouTube which is attributed there to the BBC verifiably sourced from the BBC? -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Only when it is uploaded by the accredited BBC accounts, namely BBC, BBC News and BBC Worldwide. The BBC have a contract with Youtube. Obviously a lot of BBC material is uploaded by other users and then it's not acceptable for wiki purposes, as it's a copyvio for a start (although see the BBC's tolerant view of this). There are a lot of accredited businesses with accounts uploading legitimate material. It's just a question of discerning which ones are legit and which are not.  Ty  02:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

New York Post
has been repeatedly citing a report from the New York Post, which miscontrues a comment in an interview with John Hurt in The Times to make it appear he has dismissed the film. I've appealed numerous times to this editor and consensus has been reached on the talk page, but he/she is not listening. Alientraveller (talk) 13:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In general, a paper as large and well-known as the New York Post should be considered a reliable source (at least if it is prefaced by "The New York Post reported"), but sometimes I have my doubts. Since the quote in question is approx. "The NY Post said that the Times said ...," why not just quote the Times directly??  There is also an issue of the proper use of quotation marks, which is especially confusing in the double quote.  Please check with WP:style but I think the proper usage is:
 * The NY Post said "The Times said 'xyz'."
 * but why bother with that nonsense - just quote the Time directly. Smallbones (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Is skepdic.com a reliable source?
Another editor has objected to my deletion of skepdic.com as a source on a WP page on a controverial topic. The WP page has primary references (peer reviewed articles in mainstream science journals) claiming one thing, and skepdic.com makes the opposite claim, but with no references to the scientific literature. When I deleted skepdic.com as a source, the other editor said, "That book and the companion website dismantle many of the arguments put forth by proponents of PPG." Am I off base? Any input would be appreciated. —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 16:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * For reference, the Skeptic's Dictionary has previously been discussed on this board several times, including here and here. MastCell Talk 17:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent; thank you. For the future, how can I learn how to search archives before I end up repeatin old questions again? —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know of an easy way; I did it by hand. If you have some facility with Google, that may be the easiest way to do it. MastCell Talk 18:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm beginning to think we should write up a FAQ based on previous responses. For the obvious repeat cases, like FPM, CAMERA, GSE, SkepDic etc. (Not to mention the eternal questions about conference papers and PhD dissertations.) -- Relata refero (disp.) 00:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Excellent idea, Relata. Lets start a Reliable sources/FAQ ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It would certainly be helpful to new folks.—MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be a very useful addition, particularly as the archives grow in number and it becomes harder to find the relevant discussions.PelleSmith (talk) 01:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ghetto benches
Author of this article based it to a large degree on the text whose author and his references are unknown, coming from unverified webpage. This is the source, it is in Polish and I have doubts if it fulfills the WP:VERIFY as well as WP:FRINGE. Thank you. Tymek (talk) 18:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, there's an English version of the site the site including that particular page, and there's info on an editorial board, so it looks OK at first glance.John Z (talk) 20:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So it is now clear, thank you for help. Greetings. Tymek (talk) 13:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Rat Bastard Protective Association
About 80% of the article Rat Bastard Protective Association is based on material from a personal website, http://lgwilliams.com/. I have tried to remove the questionable material, however this has been resisted by the editor who is probably also the author of the source material. Although there are likely COI issues here as well, one needs to start somewhere and rather than spamming both COI and RS noticeboards this is where I ended up. This has not gone to Third Opinion as there are some civility issues involved. I'm pretty confident that in this instance a personal website violates RS, so I'm mainly interested in having another editor stick his/her head in as a circuit breaker. Thanks! Debate (talk) 11:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Resolved, thanks Ty . Debate (talk) 12:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC) (P.S. my 500th edit. w00t!) ;-)

The Village Voice as a WP:RS on Wikipedia
I would like to get some input here from editors as to whether the publication The Village Voice can be used as a WP:RS source on Wikipedia. The Village Voice has been recognized with numerous awards, including (3) Pulitzer Prize awards 2007, 2000, and 1981, the National Press Foundation Award 2001, the George Polk Award 1960, and many other prestigious awards. However, The Village Voice has also received awards in the "tabloid" genre.

My question is this: does the single word "tabloid" negate the other awards such as the (3) Pulitzer Prizes and the George Polk Award? Can we use The Village Voice as a source on Wikipedia? Or should it not be used as a source simply because of the taboo word "tabloid"? Some input would be appreciated. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 08:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Without knowing the context in which one might want to use The Village Voice as a source, I would say that it is generally a reliable source. Earlier on this page, there was a discussion RSN which pertained to the use of an alternative newsweekly as a reliable source (which was found acceptable). The Village Voice is pretty much the prototypical alternative newsweekly and so the same principles would apply. I would find use of the VV acceptable as a reliable source generally, subject to the possibility that there may be some content therein which would not qualify. (For example, I don't want anyone to use this comment as license to treat the characters in the editorial cartoons as reliable sources.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There's nothing wrong with being a tabloid, the Times (the London one) is a tabloid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)
 * Thank you for this feedback, it is most appreciated. Cirt (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

<< Given the controversies related to that publication, caution needs to be exercised when using it as a source. The reliability of the specific material that wants to be used, need to be assessed in the context of the claim made. If not overly contentious, and if not challenged by other sources, or if this is the only source for a claim, etc. are the questions needed to be asked. Blanket statements about a source being reliable or not as an absolute, do not work. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Anonymous Article in a Newsletter?
An editor wants to include some scientific claims made by an anonymous author in a newsletter. I don't believe that this meets the criteria of WP:Reliable_Sources. The newsletter is not peer-reviewed, there is no reputation about fact-checking (either positive or negative), it is not a mainstreatm media outlet, and there is no way to verify the reputation of the anonymous author.

The claims are in the newsletter of the GLBT Division of the American Psychological Association (APA), but the newsletter is not part of APA's peer reviewed journal program. Specifically, the other editor wants to use the article on page 3 of this as a source.

The other editor believes that being a newsletter of an otherwise legit organization is sufficient.

Any input would be appreciated. —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * MarionTheLibrarian's account contains several errors. It is not a letter, but an article solicited by the editor, Dr. Becky Liddle. Further, the article is not anonymous, but a pen name under which the author Madeline H. Wyndzen has published on this topic in other academic publications as well. See Wyndzen MH (2008). A social psychology of a history of a snippet in the psychology of transgenderism. Arch Sex Behav. 2008 Jun;37(3):498-502.


 * MarionTheLibrarian (MTL) is a new account and has set a very rigid standard of reliability (peer review), when the relevant issue is in fact verifiability. This standard appears to be applied in order to remove articles critical of MTL's POV on this matter. I would argue that both an academic publication (a peer reviewed journal) and a published newsletter of the relevant professional academic organization both constitute reliable sources. The "reputation" of Dr. Wyndzen was not called into question when her article was chosen for publication in Archives of Sexual Behavior or in the official publication of APA Division 44. Jokestress (talk) 21:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If the claim is being disputed, I would argue in favor or MarionTheLibrarian. If there were no argument, I would say the source is perfectly acceptable.  However, as it appears to be controversial, the citation being sourced needs to have undergone at least a minimal level of scrutiny by a reliable third party.  --Sirwells (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It did undergo scrutiny by a third party: the publication editor, Dr. Becky Liddle, currently of University of Toronto, who requested an expanded article. The other citation underwent scrutiny by the editorial board of ASB. Jokestress (talk) 06:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Miss Universe 2008
I didn't even know this noticeboard existed... what a shame!!! There's ongoing problems at over the standard of referencing. I've taken a hardline approach (much stricter than I usually do) because I've heard people outside Wikipedia openly criticizing the accuracy of the article. Since I feel that it is possible to make this article as accurate as possible, I have taken the position that each delegate should be referenced and those that cannot be referenced excluded until such time as the information can be verified. There is currently debate over what exactly constitutes a reliable source in this context. I have put a hidden comment stating commonly added sources that I feel do not satisfy WP:RS and WP:SPS: specifically sites like Global Beauties (which is essentially a secondary sourced fan site that has been inaccurate in the past) and blogs like. There has also been a debate over whether an Icelandic source can be used in lieu of an appropriate English-language source. Without getting into the other issues that have developed from the referencing problem, can someone take a look at the article, at the article's history, and give an opinion as to whether what is currently going on is appropriate or too harsh, and whether the statement I have included on what does not constitute a reliable source is accurate or should be removed? Thank you. PageantUpdater talk • contribs  03:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Primal Therapy
Hello. There is a dispute on the Primal Therapy article regarding no original research. Specifically, one of the edit warriors there has created a self-published website in which he makes anonymous serious claims about 3rd parties. He then inserted quotations from himself of his opinions into the text of the wikipedia article itself.

I removed that quotation (although I didn't remove the reference to the self-published website), and I added something to the discussion in which I pointed out that the quotation violates no original research and WP:verifiability.

My change was reverted, the quotation was re-added to the page, and it was pointed out (in the discussion) that the author was an "eyewitness" so it's supposedly legitimate. I pointed out that no original research specifically forbids "eyewitness" testimony from anonymous, self-published websites; and I removed the quotation again. This time, I provided a detailed explanation on the discussion page of which policies the quotation violates and why (here, at the bottom of the section).

My change was reverted again, and the quotation was re-added, this time without discussion.

I do not wish to revert any further because I would run afoul of the 3RR rule. Furthermore, I don't wish to participate in the ferocious edit war raging there. The user in question (PsychMajor902) has made 12 consecutive reversions to various primal therapy-related pages over the last several days, and it seems probable that he will revert my changes once again. (Note that sometimes he reverts by not using the 'undo' button but by manually reverting the text).

Please note that most of the page editors are "interested parties", including myself--I underwent primal therapy many years ago and did not witness the events claimed on the author's self-published website. However what I witnessed (or didn't witness) is not really relevant; wikipedia is not the place for personal observation or opinion. I just wanted to offer a full disclosure here.

I don't believe there's any possibility of consensus, since I have pointed out (repeatedly and in great detail) the relevant wikipedia policies, but the the editors in question revert relentlessly anyway without any meaningful discussion or explanation.

I would like the page to be protected with the quotation removed, and for the relevant editor (PsychMajor902) to be limited to one reversion. Thanks.

Note that I first added this post to the no original research noticeboard but they told me to put it here. Thanks.Twerges (talk) 00:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * A few thoughts. First of all, it would be helpful to know which website needs to be evaluated. The page history for primal therapy is pretty convoluted; however I think this is an example of what you mean. Am I correct? The second problem is that at least one of the links in that diff do not work. Specifically this one results in a 404 error page. As far as I can tell, the website doesn't seem to be a reliable source, but I haven't checked every page. Finally -- and while this may not directly address the issue, it may provide the best solution -- could an alternative source be found? Briefly checking PubMed, there seem to be number of peer-reviewed published critiques of the therapy, any of which would likely be appropriate. Jakew (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, you are correct; this is the disputed link. Sorry I didn't make that clear in my post.


 * As far as I can tell, the website doesn't seem to be a reliable source, but I haven't checked every page.


 * Even though some pages on the source may be better than others, the entire website is self-published, which seems not to qualify it as a reliable source. Also, the entire website is anonymous, and much of the website makes highly contentious claims against 3rd parties (see, also pages on personal attacks in therapy, intellectual abuse, your stories (all anonymous), etc). The policy on WP:verifiability mentions anonymous claims, contentious claims, and claims against 3rd parties.


 * ...I haven't checked every page.


 * I don't dispute all the pages from the source, and I don't dispute inclusion of a reference to the source. I only dispute the inclusion of a quotation saying "in my [the editor's] observation, its less effective than placebo" (ie, harmful).


 * Finally -- and while this may not directly address the issue, it may provide the best solution -- could an alternative source be found? Briefly checking PubMed, there seem to be number of peer-reviewed published critiques of the therapy, any of which would likely be appropriate.


 * Good point. I certainly don't object to any citation from the actual literature. I only object to the insertion of an edit warrior's personal observations into the page. I would absolutely favor the deletion of the quotation and its replacement by something from a reliable source.


 * However I doubt anything further can be found. Essentially every critical citation of primal therapy is already included on the page. If any further critical citations from reliable sources can be found, we should add them; but I doubt much more will be found.


 * Furthermore, I doubt the opinion from the editor's quotation could be supported by the literature. The quotation claims that, in the editor's opinion, primal therapy is less effective than placebo (ie, harmful). Since there has been extremely little experimental research about primal therapy one way or the other, I doubt the claim could be substantiated.


 * Thanks for your attention.Twerges (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree with this thread. I have read most of that site and it appears to be a rliable source with some verifying evidence.  The observation was stated as a judgement, and there is other literature suggesting primal therapy could have iatrogenic effects (Insane Therapy, Ayella, Psychobabble, Rosen) and that cathartic ventilation therapies have had iatrogenic effects. Its a reliable source because it is written by someone with the experience of the therapy and the therapist training program, and someone who is no longer stuck in the cult-mind set, and someone who has no financial interest in psychotherapy - this is a rare combination and a valuable source.  There is absolutely no evidence that any of the editors who wish for this liknk or quote to remain are the author(s) of the material in question.Aussiewikilady (talk) 06:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see any evidence that it's a reliable source. Keep in mind that being a reliable source isn't merely a matter of looking good or citing sources; a reliable source must be a reliable source, as defined at that page. A reliable source must have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This usually involves being written and maintained by more than one person who exercise peer or editorial review. And the source should be mentioned or cited by sources whose reliability is not in question, as anyone can set up a website and then claim to be reliable. Now, none of this is meant to be an accusation against the website in question; it is merely an explanation of why we don't trust any randon website, even it it cites sources and all that jazz...Someguy1221 (talk) 06:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Fails Verifiability Policy's sections on "Reliable Sources" and "Self-published material".--Hu12 (talk) 14:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Primal Therapy is a WP:FRINGE theory, therefore, per WP:PARITY top-notch critic sources are not required. Therefore disputed website is (IMHO) perfectly linkable.

Please read WP:FRINGE:


 * In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer reviewed journal. Randroide (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Countercurrents
Is Countercurrents.org RS?  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 10:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That particular article is an archive of this one from the Independent, which is certainly RS. -- Relata refero (disp.) 15:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the "Independent" article is fine, but www.countercurrents.org is not. This is a political advocacy internet site created by several people to promote certain position.Biophys (talk) 00:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Countercurrents should be treated as an SPS, and we should follow the CounterPunch/FPM method of looking at the author's expertise for guidance. -- Relata refero (disp.) 06:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Are the writings of Rupert Sheldrake a WP:RS, beyond the minimal standard of WP:V?
Rupert Sheldrake's training is in biochemistry, but is prominent for his writings on, and claims about, parapsychology and (undetectable) morphic fields. These claims have been dismissed and branded pseudoscience (quite apart from the fact that parapsychology is itself widely considered to be a fringe science). Does he have value as a WP:RS, beyond the minimal standard of WP:V, and the strict restrictions that this section of WP:V imposes? Particularly, is he a reliable source for claims he makes tangential to his parapsychology/morphic fields claims (particularly tenuous claims that he is somehow following in Charles Darwin's footsteps), or would this be giving WP:UNDUE weight to an unreliable source? Further, is he a reliable source for presenting these claims as fact, as the article on him frequently does? HrafnTalkStalk 16:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As further background to this question, please review the Sheldrake talk page, at least Section 1 and Section 2. Many thanks. --EPadmirateur (talk) 02:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read the sections, but from my past experience, I guess that a good answer would be that 1) yes, you need to attribute the opinions to Sheldrake, not just present them as fact. But 2) you don't need to continually attribute, but if it is clear you are describing Sheldrake's opinions, continual attribution is not necessary. Sheldrake is not a good RS for other articles, or bald claims of fact, any more than any controversial source would be. Just report in a neutaral tone what he says, what his critics say, etc.

If you are editing the article with the attitude that these things are to be described as "undetectable" instead of unproven to the scientific community as a whole, then you'll have problems with getting the tone right. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 21:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * They were described by at least one source as "non-material". They are not regarded by the scientific community as "unproven" so much as 'unprovable' and "balderdash". HrafnTalkStalk 07:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Is Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum a reliable source?
This journal is discussed in the article on its current editor, Giuseppe Sermonti. HrafnTalkStalk 06:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

A web forum would not be an RS. Is that what you mean? —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 21:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi: it is better to be silent and thought to be ignorant than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt. You have clearly not read the article on Giuseppe Sermonti, and have no idea what Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum is. HrafnTalkStalk 07:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The answer seems pre-Sermonit, yes, now, no, surely? Doug Weller (talk) 07:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is certainly my impression, I was attempting to see if a consensus agreed with me. HrafnTalkStalk 09:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Doug. It has become a place where cranks get published, and this fact has been documented.  Guettarda (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Rivista di Biologia is a reliable source by WP standards. It is a refereed journal publishing articles in "the fields of theoretical biology, in its broadest sense." It has published articles by "many prestigious Italian and international authors (such as E. Giglio-Tos, D. Rosa, J. Eccles, B. Goodwin, G. Webster, R. Thom, F. Varela, A. Lima-de-Faria)." There are over 1100 scholarly articles and 100 review articles from this journal indexed in PubMed, about half of which are "post-Sermonti". Articles from "post-Sermonti" Rivista have dozens of citations from other peer-reviewed journals, for example M Conrad, The Geometry of Evolution (87 citations), M Barbieri, The Organic Codes (54 citations), N Ceyhan, A Ugur, Investigation of in vitro Antimicrobial Activity of Honey (16 citations), etc.. --EPadmirateur (talk) 13:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, it's a reliable source in that there's no reason to doubt that these are the opinions expressed by its authors. But in as much as it publishes nutty stuff, we can't use it as a reliable scientific source.  Experts can look at what's published in it and decided what they want to trust or not trust.  We can't take that chance.  Guettarda (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Shorter EPadmirateur: 'Rivista di Biologia is a reliable source because its publisher says so, and publishers never exaggerate, mislead or misrepresent about the publications they're promoting, do they?' These quotes have zero probative value. A raw Google-Scholar feed doesn't amount to "dozens of citations from other peer-reviewed journals" -- as Google Scholar includes numerous non-peer-reviewed sources and also turns up a fair number of false positives. Even beyond that, we have no idea as to whether they're being cited positively (but I suppose if you're that low on the food-chain any mention at all is a good thing). HrafnTalkStalk 15:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Your reasoning steps over the line into editorializing. It doesn't matter if a citation is positive. Even so, for example, C Teuscher, et al., cite Barbieri's Rivista paper positively in BioSystems (2003). We don't need to enumerate dozens of other examples to establish the point. Rivista papers are cited in numerous peer-reviewed journals. It itself is a peer-reviewed journal. Therefore it is a reliable source for WP purposes. --EPadmirateur (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "Reliable source for Wikipedia purposes" is a base minimum. Reliable source for what?  For the opinions of the authors?  Sure, why not.  Reliable scientific source?  Not always.  Doug made the point that there's a difference between pre-Sermonti and now.  Does that mean that everything in it is crap?  Not at all.  But some of it is.  So...how do we tell?  The only way we can tell is when we have a secondary (or is it tertiary?) source.  Given its history for printing fringe stuff, the only safe thing to do is to treat it as a scientifically unreliable source unless proven otherwise.  Guettarda (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Is Journal of the Society for Psychical Research a reliable source?
The article on Society for Psychical Research seems to claim that it is, but its references for its statement (one of which is to the SPR itself, the other of which is to a brief mention in a list of organisations) that "The SPR publishes three peer-reviewed scientific journals" do not appear to verify this claim. HrafnTalkStalk 06:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What claim? that it publishes 3 peer reviewed journals? One at least of those mentioned is peer reviewed, and at the very least is reliable as a source for parapsychological opinion.  You would want to attribute.  All you have to do is go to the journal's websites.  Here you go  for one. —— Martinphi     ☎ Ψ Φ —— 21:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The claim that "The SPR publishes three peer-reviewed scientific journals". I would think that there would be serious questions over both the "peer-reviewed" & the "scientific" parts, that would not be allayed by simply taking the SPR's own word for it. All sorts of fringe science and pseudoscience claim 'peer review' without the credible processes to back it up. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District involved at least one claim of 'peer review' by a 'peer' who later turned out had never even read the book in question, merely discussed it over the phone with its (then potential) publisher. HrafnTalkStalk 06:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The two times that this journal's reliability has been discussed previously, it has been viewed fairly negatively: HrafnTalkStalk 15:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Archive 13
 * Wikipedia talk:Notability (science)/Archive 4

Neutral opinion needed for a website source
Hiya. I have an article up at FAC at the moment and have encountered an unexpected setback: navweaps.com, a site I use because I feel it to be reliable, has been called questionable by a participant in the FAC. I asked on the coordinator page for the MILHIST project, and my and one other coordinator are of the opinion that the website is a reliable source becuase of the sources section sited on the individual weapon pages used in the inline citations, such as this one on the main guns of the Iowa and Montana class of battleships (scroll all the way to the bottom and you will see what I mean). I bear the editor (Wackymacs, I believe, is his screen name) no malice for his repeated questioning of the sources, but I need an honest, outside opinion on the website's suitability as a source from a group that is independent of the entire review, and from where I stand that would be this venue since no one here has (to my knowledge) commented on the FAC, nor do I believe anyone here has any plans to. That makes this the most neutral place I can ask this question. All I need to know for sure is whether the site qualifies as reliable by Wikipedia standards, or whether I need to go deeper into the sourcing. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's start with asking you why you think it is reliable. It's a personal web page, and normally those aren't considered reliable for a purpose like this. There are of course exceptions. A web page on cosmology by Stephen Hawking would be considered reliable, but if he wrote a web page on naval weapons we'd probably call in unreliable in Wikipedia terms. Reliability is not the default. Doug Weller (talk) 06:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Two big reasons: one, it agrees with everything I have heard from a volenteer crewman working with the Battleship Missouri Memorial, and two because Tony has cited his sources on all of the pages. For me, that makes the source reliable, but I admit to being bias insofar as having the site ruled reliable works in favor, which is why I have come here for an outside opinion rather then judge for myself or asking MILHIST.


 * My opinion isn't very weighty, but I believe it to be neutral in relation to this particular case and I'm happy to offer it.


 * WP:RS says early on that reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. I see that your source describes its publication process here and the process described looks to be to be a careful one with the author/publisher of your source being knowledgeable, experienced, and concerned with fact-checking and accuracy. He lists his on-hand reference sources for vetting new material here. He doesn't seem to be very heavily cited in WP (the query "site:en.wikipedia.org navweaps.com" produces 95 hits with google, 226 with yahoo), but perhaps that is because of the specialized subject matter. Removing the site: qualifier boosts those numbers to 11,100 and 1,010 respectively.


 * It is a self-published source, however. WP:SPS says that 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. The example item from that source provides cites of "data from" sources as supporting sources for the material in that item. Your source is owned and operated by Tony DiGiulian, and I see him cited as an expert in books published in the relevant field here and here


 * Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with your source. I wouldn't remove a cite and wouldn't hesitate to cite it myself. One of the Featured article criteria requires that FACs must be "factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations". That doesn't impose any additional criteria beyond what is expected of all WP, articles &mdash; it just says that FACs must meet WP's V and RS criteria. FWIW, my opinion is that this source meets WP's V and RS criteria. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 07:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Boracay Bill's analysis. Additional support is lent by other high quality book citations to the site: Australian Cruiser: Perth 1939-1942, Exploitation of a Ship's Magnetic Field Signatures, Vietnam Ironclads: A Pictorial History of U. S. Navy River Assault Craft and The History Highway: A 21st Century Guide to Internet Resources. John Z (talk) 09:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I also agree, it is clear that although this is a personal website it meets the qualifications required for a source. (sorry, forgot to sign) Doug Weller (talk) 16:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the help. I apreciate it. From here I should be able to handle the rest of the issues with the article's FAC on mine own. Keep up the good work, and thank you for the timely response. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Alterinfo
Alterinfo is an Italian group who's website is hosted on Geocities since 1999 and contains large excerpts from books and articles. With a few exceptions (letters to the webmaster, etc), everything on that website was already published "on paper". I am wondering if it is safe to use those sources. Most of the pages are in a different language (Italian) but it does contain few english pages.
 * Looks like probable copyvio link material to me. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Now the best course of action is to remove any and all information tied to this source? Ncwfl (talk) 14:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

What of Bishop letters and other things posted on the website? Are they citable even though they are on a Geocities page? The letters are all in italian, being of italian origin i understand them perfectly, but other users that are not might have issues with verifying the information.Ncwfl (talk) 03:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Italian Bishops normally do not publish official English translations of their pastoral letters. Help us translating, if you can.


 * By "removing links" User:Ncwfl means "deletion of entire well-documented sections". Citing sources is not a copyright violation. The article Neocatechumenal Way cites many documents (books and articles and Bishops letters), and excerpts by some of them are available on that Alterinfo website (other websites do contain same sources, but may not be fully relevant to the article). User:Ncwfl (incidentally member of Neocatechumenal Way) is fighting his own battle to "normalize" the article to official Neocatechumenal propaganda (you may have a look at his contribution history). User:Ncwfl is trying to game the system to achieve the goal. -- Rpgon2 (talk) 08:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it wrong of me to ask for a third party opinion on a source? As a base Geocities pages are not allowed, but i overlooked this for a moment and seeked assistance in determining the document's reliability. This is not gaming the system, asking for help from a neutral user that is not involved in the discourse is a perfectly normal way to ensure neutrality and reliability.--Ncwfl (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Gaming the system is surely wrong.
 * Erasing "any and all" material that is at least remotely related to Alterinfo, is not that fair.
 * Alleging "copyright violation" on simple citations, even when they are "rather large", is not that fair.
 * An user whose contribution history shows 21 months work only on strictly NCW-related articles and talks (and only to wipe out criticisms and sources), sounds more like a "propaganda watchdog" than a common Wikipedia contributor.
 * We all understand that it is not always easy to hide the truth. All sorts of tricks have to be tried. First, call it "blatant, false, misleading" and erase "any and all", hoping no one will notice the WP:3RR. Then, call it "inaccurate" because of its hosting, hoping no one will find that it was an exception that proves the rule. Then, argue that the author of that book died 12 years ago and thus his book should be considered non-relevant, hoping that everyone will believe in you. Then, name those articles "copyviol", and flood talk pages and admin pages, hoping that no one will verify. What trick will appear next time? -- Rpgon2 (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Gaming the system? or follow the rules? I attempted to ask third party views on a source, third party mediation is a tool wikipedia offers to avoid revert wars, which you seem so fond of. Now, i never claimed its irrelevant because the author died, that was another user. Now, if there is no copyright violation then a third party review will prove just that, and I will have no room to act upon.--Ncwfl (talk) 02:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are gaming the system. Your latest trick was starting a MedCab case.
 * It seems that your personal war against Alterinfo has not yet come to an end. -- Rpgon2 (talk) 05:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * My friend, its called dispute resolution.--Ncwfl (talk) 11:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Swedish history articles - case study: Ingrid Ylva
Before I proceed any further, I would like to have a second opinion (and perhaps a third and fourth one) on Ingrid Ylva. Please note my comments on the talk page. Not a single reputable academic source has been used in this article. The problems that plague this page are similar to those for many other articles on mediaeval and early modern Swedish history.

What is one to do? Delete? Shorten articles to contain only what can be verified in reputable academic publications? Or does "verifiability, not truth" mean that anything any amateur or popular author has ever written has an equal claim to inclusion as stuff written by specialists? Olaus (talk) 10:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1 opinion - There are no reputable sources given in the article that I can read (but I can't read Swedish!) The genological websites are definitely NOT reliable.  In-line citations would help.  The "white witch" thing should go unless it is specifically referenced. Nevertheless "academic sources" are not required, only "reliable sources" which might include newspaper articles, popular histories (if cited as such), .... I would personally suggest working this out in the Swedish Wikipedia and then following that example here (but this is not based on Wikipedia policy, which I believe says the 2 versions are independent). Smallbones (talk) 12:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem with either newspapers (to whatever extent they would cover a subject such as this) or popular authors, is that they either get their stuff from good academic sources, which should then be used, or they get them wrong. There are too much outdated nonsense, spurious genealogical claims and that kind of thing that circulate on amateur websites or get printed in popular books by notoriously unreliable authors such as Åke Ohlmarks. (Ohlmarks is dead, so I'm not taking any risks here with the BLP thing...) Olaus (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like a candidate for WP:AfD. I've removed 3 of the links to personal genealogy sites, there doesn't seem to be a reliable source for the rest. Doug Weller (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I added a longish comment to the talk page of the article last night. Olaus (talk) 05:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Sollog and Philadelphia City Paper
There is a disagreement going on at the Sollog article between myself and other editors. The issue is over whether Philadelphia City Paper is a reliable source for a BLP. My view is that it is not an acceptable source because the newspaper is a tabloid and is not a high quality source that is required for a BLP. Some of the information from this tabloid is highly defamatory in my opinion.Arnold1 (talk) 00:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Funny how no one will give their views on this. Recently I tried to remove the Philadelphia City News articles from the Sollog biography but user:Gamaliel reverted my attempts. The news articles contain negative, contentious information about the subject of the biography. The news articles are not from a high quality news source. Are they a reliable source for a Biography of a Living Person?Arnold1 (talk) 12:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would take this to WP:BLPN. Which statement is it that you find defamatory? DigitalC (talk) 04:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Editors have asked several times which statements he finds contentious, and explained that 'tabloid' refers to size (eg the Times of London is a tabloid). He has replied with ad hominem and not answered the question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)
 * Sorry, I really need to hit Preview every time, not just occasionally. (Sinebot doesn't seem to work very well recently, if it ever did) Doug Weller (talk) 13:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A google search for "Philadelphia City Paper" site:en.wikipedia.org turns up about 169 hits. if Philadelphia City Paper is not a reliable source, 160+ other WP articles may have WP:RS problems with it. I haven't looked at the paper's website in detail, but it does have an Alt-Weekly Awards&mdash;Awards: Philadelphia City Paper page.  At a glance, the Philadelphia City Paper doesn't seem to be a tabloid in the same sense as the National Inquirer.  I glanced around the Sollog article, and it seems to have numerous other problems. Among these are eleven(!!) bare-url externallinks without corresponding endmatter citations (these should probably be converted to fleshed-out cites). These include a number of links to Google Groups discussion forum postings.


 * One assertion in the Sollog article supported by a cited Philadelphia City Paper article says, "According to the alternative news weekly, Philadelphia City Paper, Sollog once worked at a family-owned pornographic establishment in Arizona." This seems to run counter to BLP's advice: "Ask yourself whether [...]; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject" -- Boracay Bill (talk) 07:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. I suggested to Arnold1 that it could be removed, I'm not sure why he didn't do it. I'll do that now. Doug Weller (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed that libelous content that Doug Weller is referring to several times last week but was reverted by Doug Weller and Gamaliel.


 * Most of the 160+ WP articles mentioned by Boracay Bill are not biographies of a living person (BLPs) so there should be no problem with having Philadelphia City Paper as a source for them. Policy is not so strict when the wiki article is not a BLP. The few WP articles I've seen on that list that are BLPs, have only very positive information sourced about them. In the Sollog article the opposite is true. The Philadelphia City Paper articles contain a lot of negative information about Sollog that has caused arguments for years on wikipedia. Some of the content is libellous too. WP:RS states, "When adding contentious biographical material about living persons that relies upon news organizations, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used." WP:RS gives examples of what a high-quality news organization is, it says The Washington Post, The Times of London, and The Associated Press are high-quality sources. Philadelphia City Paper may not be a supermarket tabloid like The National Enquirer, but it is still only a local weekly newspaper. Consequently, it could hardly be classed as a high-quality source, so would not be a reliable source for a BLP. The contentious info from Philadelphia City Paper has not been verified by high-quality news sources either.


 * There is also a COI issue. The author of the Philadelphia City Paper articles about Sollog wrote in one of the articles that SOLLOG "was, after all, the guy I reported to the FBI for making bomb threats against me." Sollog in turn has publicly threatened to sue the author of those articles for libel.Arnold1 (talk) 04:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There has been no evidence provided that anything was actually libel (and there was no lawsuit although one was threatened). Editors tried to get Arnold1 to be specific about what was contentious but he would only comment on other editors and the City Paper. This discussion is now moot as the article has been deleted after AfD. Doug Weller (talk) 09:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

University of Kansas department of molecular genetics a reliable source?
User:J Readings persists in removing a source from Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate), claiming that it is a self-published source. The source is An Introduction to Intelligent Design which is part of Molecular Biosciences program at The University of Kansas-Lawrence Evolution Homepage. The source is, in fact, used as a source in the program syllabus at the university. I don't see SPS as an issue at all, so I'm reverting the user's edit. If someone here feels otherwise, please feel free to correct me. Thanks, siℓℓy rabbit  (  talk  ) 23:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Most recently this source was being used to support an assertion that Wells joined the Discovery Institute. This claim is also cited to another source, and on the face of it does not sound like a contentious claim to make about someone whose qualifier is (intelligent design advocate). Is it claimed that the UKansas site defames other living persons, or is this just another case of non-collaborative editing getting out of hand?
 * More to the point, WP:SPS is written for blogs and personal opinion websites, and becomes less applicable the more expertise is put into review of the material. A professor at a major research university presumably qualifies as a relevant expert, and if the department vets him I see no problem with citing them. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 16:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to be a reliable source for the fact that he joined discovery institute, although perhaps the discovery institute could be used to reference the claim instead? The editor of the ku.edu site does NOT seem to be an expert in the field of ID, in fact he publishes in the field of RNA (processing, splicing, precursors). DigitalC (talk) 05:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I originally removed a contentiously negative edit regarding Wells' post-doc. Since the source was not Wells himself, I wanted to make sure that it was an independent reliable source for the negative claims made about the biography of a living person. I quickly discovered it comes from a website run (as far as I can tell) solely by Peter Gegenheimer. In the "About this Site" section, Gegenheimer acknowledges that his website is a one-man operation (he continues to write in the first person singular only) as well as making no indication that the website has any form of editorial review or fact-checking. I inquired into Silly Rabbit's claim that this source is used in class curriculum and where that is acknowledged on the page, but he did not reply. I suspect that his claim is either conjecture or original research. Either way, site operator Gegenheimer acknowledges that there may be factual inaccuracies on his website. Where did Gegenheimer get his information for the post-doc allegation? Based on the link on Gegenheimer's website, it appears to come from a partisan think tank/lobbyist organization called Kansas Citizens for Science. The piece is entitled "Jonathan Wells: Who is He? What is He Doing, and Why?" Since a partisan group is really not an ideal source to cite negative and contentious facts about a living person, but probably alright to cite their own opinions about issues, I ultimately removed it. Then, after carefully scrutinizing the Gegenheimer website, I started to scrutinize the other citations.


 * In terms of citing facts, ultimately, I agree with DigitalC that directly citing the relevant source for non-contentious facts would be preferable considering that the Gegenheimer website does not appear to be a neutral third-party source with peer-review and a reputation for fact-checking. In short, it's always better to be safe than sorry. J Readings (talk) 06:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Citing an e-mail posted on a personal site to disprove academic sources
Could someone please evaluate reliability of this source which is repeatedly inserted in article Holodomor denial by a group of users? This e-mail type source was used to "disprove" academic books published by notable historians in Harvard University Press and other similar places. Some relevant discussion can be found here. Thank you for consideration.Biophys (talk) 22:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That is thin gruel indeed. In no way should a quote from an email message from a scholar at WVU be tacked onto any article which makes use of Conquest's massively praised books. At most, it may be relevant in Conquest's biography or any articles on his books. - Merzbow (talk) 00:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Merzbow, if you had any idea about how things work in academia in general, you would know that the easiest way to make a completely erroneous assumption about the scholar's credibility is to base the assumption on the scholar's place of employment. Where s/he publishes matters much more in establishing the credibility. So, your WVU-remark is completely off-base. If you want to find, what journals publish Tauger, check the archives of JSTOR. Also, you are about 20 years late to call Conquest's book "massively praised". Nowadays, it is most accurately describe as, at least, outdated. See, archives were opened since Conquest wrote his stuff. And younger historians, including Tauger, rushed to do what historians do, research archives (the bread and butter of any serious scholar.) While there were doing the historian's job, Conquest, for whatever reasons stuck to his earlier theses and did not make a single trip to the archival locations. If you need more info, please research the archives of talk:Holodomor where Vecrumba had a long conversation with user:Fkriuk. You can find more pointers from that page. --Irpen 02:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Tauger's one of the greatest living experts on historical famine. -- Relata refero (disp.) 08:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Is an email being used to override peer-reviewed literature? Good God! Sarvagnya 01:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * !! -- Relata refero (disp.) 09:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a post to H-net Russia, copied on the author's university website. The author is an academic expert in the field.  The post is mostly brief bibliographical commentary mainly on the published, peer reviewed papers he has on his site.  It basically saying 'read this paper' & 'this is what it says'.  What he says about Conquest is reasonably citable to him as his, Tauger's expert opinion which is expressed more fully in the papers and exchanges. People seem to enjoy arguing rather than reading the papers there that he, Mark Tauger, has kindly provided for the edification of us Wikipedians who are unable to ever move from their computer.  He even offers to email anyone a pdf of papers he has not provided for download.  With all this together, I think even this brief H-net post qualifies as a reasonably good source for us, the terminally lazy. Of course someone should look at the papers and use them, but surely it is a reasonable guide for now.  It's similar to  the introductory remarks of an author to a book of his own collected peer-reviewed works, surely a reliable source.  Does anyone waste time peer-reviewing such remarks?  Is there a problem with using such remarks for explaining one side of an academic controversy? (As long as, of course, we make clear it is one side and not a consensus). John Z (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Is the H-net list or whatever it is peer-reviewed or archived after review (I believe the latter is what qualified the Talk Origins list as reliable on another issue, maybe an ID editor can clarify)? If not, then it's completely self-published, and certainly not suitable for debunking Conquest's books on random articles (published by major university presses, Oxford last time I looked). This entire issue can be side-stepped if you would just cite to his published papers. - Merzbow (talk) 05:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That was the out that I claimed to try and end the T:O brouhaha. FWIW, I wouldn't use this on a BLP.-- Relata refero (disp.) 08:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, we do not use the talk.origins newsgroup as a source, but the TalkOrigins Archive website, which has significant editorial review and selectively archives the newsgroup, quite often in the form of significantly reworked articles. Mere archiving is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for making an online forum into a citable source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * He's characterizing mainly his own work, encapsulating his own published criticism, in a way which doesn't really need peer review, and which would most likely not have much if any if it were published in a book.  And as an academic expert, self-publishing can be OK.  There is no doubt that he is accurately summarizing his own views, perhaps more accurately than an anonymous wikipedia editor might. I'm not making any statement of whether it is appropriately used in the article, just that in context, to me common sense dictates that taking it as a source for Tauger's (published, peer-reviewed) views is not unreasonable, and will result in a more neutral article than one without it, just as common sense dictates that an even better article could probably be written using the papers. It should say Mark Tauger has criticized Conquest's book etc. citing the post and the papers perhaps, not leaving it at anonymous scholars allegations.  I only saw this here and have never been involved in the article.  It sounded so outrageous I looked a little more into it, and was, like you, suggesting that the editors on both sides there take a look at the papers and think about improving the article instead of obsessing about rules and violations.  If people do and as is 99.9999% likely they agree Tauger on Tauger is accurate, what could be the harm, where is the rule-breaking of quoting this, along with the papers, then?John Z (talk) 08:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, John. That was exactly the point I made on the talkpage.
 * That article is probably the worst article on Wikipedia - worse even than israeli apartheid, new anti-semitism and state terrorism - and among its flaws is an overdependence on harvest of sorrow and interpretive claims based on that book not supported elsewhere; also all the crucial references are sourced to expatriate community newsletters - even the references that claim that this phenomenon exists as a well-defined phenomenon at all. More eyes that are attached to people not trying to right historical wrongs would certainly be appreciated.
 * Incidentally, whatever Conquest's other virtues, HoS is generally not considered the best example of his work, and nor is it necessarily close to the mainstream view on collectivization. It would take a brave man, or one completely ignorant of one of the past half-century's harshest internecine struggles in academia, to ignore the fact that many people in his field thought Conquest was as irremediably biased as the New Historians of the 1950s. -- Relata refero (disp.) 09:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not an e-mail, but a posting by a qualified scholar on a well known academic discussion list, and it is based upon that individuals published work in peer reviewed sources. Thus it fulfills the exemptions under which such sources can be sued--the material has whatever  authority Prof. Tauger may have.   True, the posting  certainly does appear a little dubious, especially its reference to "a complex of natural disasters that (with one small exception) no previous scholars have ever discussed or even mentioned" -- the accustomed wording of those relying upon  fringe sources.  But the actual sources are not the posting but his academic articles --the posting just reports upon them & summarizes--if a reference is used it should go to them.   I deliberately wrote this without looking above at other comments,  and I see that John Z cqme to the same conclusion. I furthermore agree with R.r. that Conquist's work in general is not considered uncontroversial. Edit carefully & find a consensus wording that explains the disagreements.  DGG (talk) 04:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * DGG, if someone wants to challenge published academic research, this should be done using other published academic research, not an email cited on personal site.Biophys (talk)
 * Not in this case, which is a major researcher's own choice of the best possible summary of his published academic research. -- Relata refero (disp.) 14:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The email refers to published sources. One can find relevant page of those publications and use those instead of the email itself. --Be happy!! (talk) 10:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is exactly the point that no one did that. Is someone did, this would not be an issue.Biophys (talk) 14:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, you don't seem to have read either the source or the discussion above. Tauger is summarising the published research, especially his own. -- Relata refero (disp.) 14:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Fwiw, because this email is hosted on the expert's own site and not on a discussion list, it is reliable to the extent that we can atleast be sure that the views in the email are the professor's own. However, if published peer-reviewed sources can be found for the claims made in the email/posting, we dont need this source.  If published peer-reviewed sources cannot be found for the claims made, then we shouldnt be using this source, atleast not to counter other published/peer-reviewed sources. Sarvagnya 21:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Read the link. He's summarising and quoting his own work. Nothing in it isn't elsewhere, we're just too lazy to dig it out - and personally, I'd rather use his summary than my own. -- Relata refero (disp.) 07:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah. I didn't notice that it was hosted on expert's own website. I think therefore it can be considered reliable for what it says (i.e. the view of the scholar). --Be happy!! (talk) 10:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, no. It this example, an opinion posted on a site of an academic was used specifically to defame another academic. I would suggest not to use any information from personal sites (because there is no editorial oversight whatsoever!) except in the articles about the source itself.Biophys (talk) 13:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * See below, you're quite wrong. Also, "used specifically to defame"? Please. I presume you did not read any of the thoughtful discussion above?
 * This is obviously a self-published source. Please see WP:Verifiability. It tells: "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer". This source was used to discredit research by another person (without providing any proof by the way).Biophys (talk) 13:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * We've gone though this about Talk:Origins, and this, comment on work, is considered acceptable. Check the archives, the consensus was that it wasn't a BLP issue. Note that I was arguing against that use, but was out-shouted. -- Relata refero (disp.) 14:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with DGG and Relata refero. Tauger could have easily put this summary in his book; no publisher would have raised a fuss about it. He's not criticizing Conquest, he's disagreeing Conquest's work. However, we should change WP:V if we're going to take the position that this is acceptable, should we not? Should I put up a section at WP:V about it and link to this discussion at Talk.Origins? ImpIn | (t - c) 00:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you read through Tauger's non-academic commentaries and correspondences, he gets pretty nasty in some of his denouncements. Emails and blog posts are not held to the same standard as peer-reviewed and academically-reviewed works, hence they are not a reliable source. It's just like WP... we can use hyperbole on an article's talk page, but not in the article itself. Tauger is human, he's no different. (And, frankly, I think he's a bit full of himself, but a completely different topic.) —PētersV (talk) 02:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Vecrumba, it is a pity that you did not post anything during a massive influx of articles about "unknown" to mainstream historians events of the middle of twentieth century all sourced to... newspaper articles written by journalists with no academic standing whatsoever. Those "massacres" still beautify the Wikipedia to this day. I agree that ideally, we should have all sources "doubly certified", that is their written by scholars with established credentials and published by scholarly sources. However, we are not there yet and, as of now, at least one of the two conditions usually suffice. That is, if the unknown scholar passes the academic peer-review scrutiny and publishes in a scholarly journal, it is acceptable even if this is just a graduate student's work. Also, if a scholar, whose reputation is unquestionably established in academia through peer-reviewed publications, chooses to publish a piece devoted to summarizing his own work, that is acceptable as well. For more details on this fascinating debate, check Talk:Przyszowice_massacre. --Irpen 03:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Using "published by a notable organization" as the sole criteria for measuring the source's credibility
Many editors have insisted that, because a certain organization is notable and authoritative, everything they publish should be considered as a reliable source. For example, an internet pamphlet, showing up on the National Academy of Sciences website, is called a reliable source because the NAS wrote it and they are considered highly notable and authoritative.

However, what if such pamphlet does not meet any of the other criteria used by wikipedians to consider a source as credible? For example, what if such a pamphlet:


 * Does not appear in a journal, book, magazine, etc.
 * Has not been peer-reviewed.
 * Has not been published by a reliable third party.
 * Does not directly support the information being cited with any evidence.
 * Has not been scrutinized by anyone for fact-checking, evidence verification, etc.

It seems to me that using the 'came from an authoritative organization' as the only test of a source's crebility is equavilent to placing absolute infallibility on the organization. This seems extreme to me an needs to be looked at. Does anyone else agree with this?--Sirwells (talk) 01:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you entirely. That's the same problem I describe in the entry just above this one.  The characteristic that makes a source reliable is fact-checking, such as through a peer review or other process.  When organizations produce other documents, such as pamphlets or newsletters, the key ingredient to reliability has been removed.
 * —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 01:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a pretty key issue to the assessment of sources and their utility in aggregating information in Wikipedia. I would tend to represent it as the current policy has to be simplistic enough to be usable by the self selecting and otherwise un-vetted corps of contributors.  Unfortunately that simplicity also fails to support any qualitative assessment of source reliability which an information professional would utilise in presenting conclusions.  Reliability is not the binary state which this policy seeks to suggest it is, but should be assessed on a case by case basis and described accordingly.
 * This one point is one that I disagree with quite strongly, but the majority of opinion is in support of it. Publication labels should not imply an automagical reliability, but they do tend to support a track record, which a contributor should seek to caveat or independently corroborate.
 * It's likely that the suggestion of peer review anointment will be trotted out, but having had exposure to that process, and seen enough assessments and reports undermined after publication I don't think it offers any real assurance of reliability either.
 * However it's not worth fighting the received opinion.
 * ALR (talk) 10:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

National Academies of Science, be they of England (The Royal Society) or of the United States (The National Academy of Science), are a special case. They usually do publish a peer reviewed scientific journal, but they also exist to create reliable reports about various scientific questions. If something is authored by a reliable National Academy, that means that is has been reviewed by several experts (peer review is usually only two experts and an editor or two; the expert review by a national academy would be expected to be more experts than that) and is being published by the Academy itself. Image if a newspaper's Opinion page had facts that the entire organization stood behind instead opinions that the Editorial board stood behind. That's the situation with publications (pamphlets, books, online guides, whatever) of National Academies. - Enuja (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I would argue that there are levels of reliability; some sources being more reliable than others. In this case, a peer reviewed paper published by reputable organization X, is more reliable than a web page published by the same organization. Providing that the context in which the latter source is used, is not overly contentious, I see no reason why it cannot be used to support a claim in an article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * In this case, the criterion is not "published by a notable organization", but "published by a notable organization with a long track record of excellent fact checking and outstanding reliability speaking on an area in their core competence". There is a difference between Proctor & Gamble publishing a marketing pamphlet on cotton swabs, and a major national academy of science publishing on a topic of scientific understanding. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Information sourced to a National Academy will have undergone significant review and analysis by in-house experts. As such, it satisfies the fact-checking criterion as well. Typically, such releases represent the state of knowledge in a field, and as such are also widely quoted in reliable sources, satisfying the Zeroth Law of reliable sources, as well. The only case in which WP need concern itself with reliability of such is if they are directly contradicted by formally peer-reviewed mainstream sources. -- Relata refero (disp.) 10:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This is sounding (to me) to be a reiteration of the WP policy: The more people who fact-check, the better the source. The peer-reviewed journals of course are on top, and the U.S. National Academies of Sciences also has a formal process for peer-reviews their formal reports (see ).  Pamphlets that are produced by whole committees of experts would also seem to quality, although for an encyclopedia I (personally) would go back to the primary sources.  So, although an academy can have different processes for fact-checking different types of pubs they produce, I am not personally comfortable with a blanket "If it comes from Society X, it's good."
 * —MarionTheLibrarian (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As long as no formally peer-reviewed sources contradict a statement made in a pamphlet or website created by a credible scientific academy, then would you have a problem counting such a statement as a reliable source? While I agree there is a problem with an "If it comes from Society X, it's good" attitude, if, after a fair amount of time, a statement from Society X goes uncontested by other reliable sources, I don't see a problem with using it a source. Jason Patton (talk) 07:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Fansites
Could we get some additional input on fansites. Since the policy doesn't explicitly mention them, even though they're clearly self-published material and not usable as citation. Discussion is here Talk:Neurotically_Yours.--137.186.84.54 (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * From what I've seen, the fan community site is only used for further reading on obvious information about which character is which. I'd say, keep the citations.  Remember the goal here is to provide the best information possible on the topic, not to get caught up in policy, and one could argue that the community site is an "expert" on the cartoon. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There's a recent slew of AfDs related to UK pirate radio in the early '80s.

Although the AfDs are cited for "notability", the issue is actually about the verifiability of the sources cited - around half-a-dozen separate, independent, non self-published "fansites".
 * Articles for deletion/Radio Jackie North
 * Articles for deletion/Merseyland Alternative Radio

The problem is that '80s pirate radio pre-dated the web, so doesn't leave many traces there, and took place in the "floating world" of record shops, clubs and transient popular culture. Although there are 'zines that describe them too (I've a shelf-full), they don't exactly carry ISBNs and a catalogue ref at the British Library. WP:COPYRIGHT prevents the sort of bulk scanning that would be necessary to demonstrate otherwise.

The claims of these sites are far from exceptional (the station existed, it broadcast, here are streamable recordings) and non-controversial. Although "reputable" sources are obviously to be preferred where possible, it seems appropriate to accept them in this context. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Allmusic not a reliable source on heavy metal music
If this has been placed in the wrong section I apologise, and if so anyone should feel free to move it/inform me.

I argue that allmusic cannot be considered a reliable source specifically regarding heavy metal music. My reasoning is thus: They are an authority on mainstream music, something heavy metal generally is not. Ultimately, what actually qualifies them as a reliable source? The fact that they have critics? So what, that doesn't have any bearing on heavy metal music.

Let me give an analogy with regards to the mainstream point: I'm just about to finish a university history course. My tutors, who have doctorates in history, would of course seem greater authorities than me, and in most cases this would be correct. However, I know that to pass a history course you do not need general knowledge of all history, but rather detailed knowledge of a few specific areas. Hence, my tutor in early modern England would of course be the greater authority in that area, but as I have done several years study of Martin Luther King Jr. it is quite possible that I would be a more reliable source on that particular area. My point is that having authority in one area doesn't equal all areas. Having done a lot of work on mainstream music doesn't qualify you to talk about heavy metal music.

I browsed allmusic for half an hour a while back, and here is a list of ridiculous genre points according to the site, ones that are plainly incorrect and discredit it as a source: Death and black metal are one and the same. There is no such genre as groove metal, but there are genres "British metal" and "Scandinavian metal" Alestorm are "rock", not metal Annihilator are "progressive metal" Benedictum are "goth metal" Bullet For My Valentine are "punk metal" Chimaira are "punk revival" Draconian are "goth rock" Epica are "progressive metal" Evile are "death/black metal" Godflesh are "grindcore" Helloween are "thrash metal" Kamelot are "death/black metal" Killswitch Engage are "power metal", "thrash metal" and "progressive metal" Lamb of God are "death/black metal" Marilyn Manson is several genres of metal, but none rock Meshuggah are "death/black metal" and "Scandinavian metal" Nevermore are "alternative metal" Nightwish are "symphonic black metal" Nocturnal Breed aren't thrash metal Persuader are thrash metal, not power metal Powerman 5000 are "heavy metal" Razor are "hard rock & heavy metal" but not thrash metal Reverend Bizarre are "death/black metal" Strapping Young Lad are "punk metal" All these points are clearly originating from a source with little real knowledge of the genre, and I can see no good reason whatsoever to consider them a reliable source on that subject area. Prophaniti (talk) 19:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you disagree with Allmusic's assessment, then find a reliable source disputing it; don't just offer your opinion. Since the beginning of (music) time, metalheads have sat together in smoky basements are argued about whether a particular band is "metal", and what particular variety of "metal" they happen to be.  Also since the beginning of time, these arguments have never come to a conclusion, and thus there are a wide variety of classifications and opinions about different kinds of metal.  That's why we rely on reliable sources for this classification, because Wikipedia really, really doesn't want to become yet another basement to argue about whether a band is black metal, death metal, doom metal, or blackened death metal. --Haemo (talk) 02:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to have missed, or ignored, my argument completely. This isn't just purely "my opinion", it's reasoned argument backed up with a series of examples of how that site cannot be considered a reliable source. Those classifications it has given are plainly absurd. That's not opinion, it's fact. No one can make a logical argument for them. What I'm putting forward is that allmusic is not a reliable source on the subject matter. If you cannot refute my actual points, don't bother contributing. Ultimately, just because we might not have a perfect reliable source, doesn't mean it's acceptable to use something that clearly isn't one. It's not good enough to say "Your arguments, no matter how logical, count for nothing if you can't find someone who's been published saying the same thing". Prophaniti (talk) 10:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you miss the main point of Haemo. You offer a number of examples where you claim the site is wrong, and you forward this as a reason why the site is unreliable. So far this is a coherent argument. But in order for it to have weight, you must show that your premisses are right, i.e. that the classification of allmusic is wrong. We cannot take your word for it (unless you are an independently published and recognized expert). Your claims (that allmusic is wrong) may be obvious to you - they are not so to me (Judas Priest and Metallica is about how far I stray from Clapton and Beethoven). And unless you suggest that the allmusic authors have some nefarious hidden agenda, it's also not obvious to them. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand where you're coming from, but the whole point is these classifications are so false that it doesn't need an expert to recognise them. I'm not suggesting allmusic has some kind of agenda, rather that they simply do not well understand the music they are talking about. Ask anyone who listens to those bands and they will agree that those classifications are wrong. Anyone. This is not just my opinion, it's simple fact. Not one single person who listens to those bands will back up those genres. If you want, I'll go with wikipedia's consensus policy, and put something on the discussion page of each of those bands suggesting they be changed to those genres. The point is a source is only a reliable source if it's statements can be backed up with logic. Many holocaust deniers were considered reliable historians, but their arguments were utilising manipulated and distorted sources, and hence they were disregarded as historians. Prophaniti (talk) 12:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually it does take an expert - the bands and the genres you listed are meaningless to the average person. To pick one at random, you said Nightwish are "symphonic black metal". Since you listed it here, I assume that there's a problem with part of that statement.  But what?  I have to go to the Nightwish article, which calls them a "symphonic power metal" (no supporting reference, and the Musical_style section actually does not appear to support the lead).  Of course, Wikipedia isn't a reliable source.  But assuming that the article is correct, you are saying that anyone should be able to tell the difference between black metal (a fairly comprehensive article, but one that it totally lacking references for the Characteristics section) and power metal (this time, not only does the Musical_characteristics section lack references, it's blighted with templates proclaiming that fact and accusing it of including OR).
 * It's simple - find some references, document the fact that Allmusic is unreliable for heavy metal, and then try to make a case. Or better yet, find a reliable source that says so.  But don't expect that the average editor has any clue what you're talking about.  Guettarda (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, your argument in a sense supports exactly what I'm saying: the average editor may not be able to tell the difference, and that's just what Allmusic is guilty of: not being able to tell the difference. There is nothing to actually say they know any more about heavy metal music than any one editor on wikipedia.
 * But, coming back to the bulk of your point: It does take knowing -something- about the genre, but there are many points in between "Someone who knows nothing about it" and "Expert". It doesn't take an expert.
 * Also, in case it wasn't clear (I'm not sure whether it was or not): All the statements made up there are made from Allmusic. They are what Allmusic says, not me. Allmusic, for example, claims Nightwish are Symphonic black metal, not me (or anyone else for that matter). All those statements are effctively quotes from Allmusic.
 * Ultimately, I do not need a specific source to indicate how absurd those are. How about this for a source: the music. A reliable source can outweigh unsourced argument, and I admit my points would carry more weight with sources. But you don't need a source for every single little thing, and the point here is it isn't a matter of contention: no one would ever argue that those genre classifications are correct. Therefore, no one could reasonably argue that Allmusic can accurately classify heavy metal music. My case stands. Prophaniti (talk) 17:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sticking with the Nightwish example, I suspect that it's fairly easy for someone to listen to the music and make the distinction. But we can't, as editors, use our own judgment (ie, listening to the music) and deciding on the reliability of a source.  Now, it's a different thing if you are working on an article and decide that Allmusic is a bad source for metal, and you explain why to your coauthors.  But if one of your coauthors disagrees with you, then you need to find a source to support your point.  I realise it's a bit of a game, and it's kinda pointless.  That's really why we have policies like Ignore all Rules - if the rules don't make sense in some particular set of circumstances, don't let them get in the way of creating a high-quality encyclopaedia.  To make a generalisation about the quality of Allmusic on metal, we need a source.  To ignore it on any individual article, you just need to convince your fellow editors that it's a problem.  Am I making sense to you?  Guettarda (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)#
 * Yes, you're making sense, and while I still feel there's an over-reliance here on sourcing something, I'll play with it. I have a question, something I've asked before but not actually gotten an answer to: What exactly makes Allmusic.com a "reliable source" on heavy metal genres? I'm not asking that fecitiously, but honestly, what specifically deems it a reliable source? Prophaniti (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with using "the music" as a source is that that's presumably what the Allmusic editors did. So the question comes down to why we should believe you and not another editor who hears the same thing that the Allmusic editors did (and who, for all we know, actually is one of the Allmusic editors).  And the answer to that is reliable sources.  If the editors of Allmusic are as blatantly wrong as you say they are (and they may well be, but I don't know enough about metal to judge that), then it should be easy to find a reliable source that gets it right.  As Guettarda said, it's a bit of a game, but that's how we get decent quality content into wikipedia given that we have no way of judging how reliable an individual editor is.  I, knowing nothing about heavy metal subgenres, could start editing articles about metal bands and inserting all sorts of misinformation.  What keeps me from doing that (aside from ethical considerations, of course) is that, when challenged, I wouldn't be able to come up with the reliable sources required for verifiability.  Without the silly reliable sources game, wikipedia would be full of whatever misinformation the most persistent people wanted to include, and the rest of us would be long gone. Klausness (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In answer to the question "Why believe you and not the Allmusic editors?" I would suggest not just believing me, but anyone. If I went onto the pages of all those bands and proposed the changes, I can guarantee I would get a host of denials from everyone replying. In short, I would ask (as I've asked Guettarda above) what precisely is it that makes Allmusic.com a reliable source regarding heavy metal genres? And more to the point here, what would make it such a reliable source that it could outweigh any number of others who would disagree with it? Prophaniti (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think Allmusic has any kind of special status -- it's just one reliable source among many. And, as you've found, it can be wrong sometimes.  It's often (perhaps too often) used as a source for music issues just because it has broad coverage and is easily accessible.  Like any such source that tries to cover a bit too much ground, the quality can vary a bit.  In general, it's fine to edit articles based on what you know to be true.  Sources mainly come into it when there's a factual dispute of some sort and you have to come up with a reliable source that supports your edits.  Yes, reliable sources can sometimes be wrong, but you can usually find many more sources that are right than that are wrong.  That's why people are suggesting to you that you find other reliable sources with better information, so that you can refer to those should the need arise to counter misinformation from another source (whether it be Allmusic or something else).  A reference to Allmusic doesn't in any way outweigh references to other reliable sources -- it just outweighs unreferenced claims, so you need to get some references that show where Allmusic is wrong. Klausness (talk) 21:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, when I said "others who would disagree with it", I meant individuals rather than other sources. Sorry, bad phrasing on my part. Specifically I was referring to whether sufficient mass opinion (e.g. by votes) could outweigh what it said as a source. Also, I'm still curious as to what -precisely- makes it a reliable source? What, for example, makes it a reliable source while other websites may not be? (again, I'm asking genuinely) Prophaniti (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * (unindent) I must confess, I've often secretly wished AllMusic was banned as a RS on WP! I find it eccentric in its coverage of the areas I edit in (though ironically, I'd picked up a perception somewhere that it was quite good on niche metal genres). In practice, it's easy to argue case by case against an assertion sourced to AllMusic that is beyond the pale using reliable sources (and where they are within the pale, it's not a problem) but none-the-less it is fatiguing, and depressing that it often seems the go-to site for editors sourcing popular music articles. I wonder if there is a copycat effect that leads to it being used as a sole or authoritative source again and again. I would love to see it depreciated, and used only to cite one opinion, or to back up other sources. 86.44.28.52 (talk) 03:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Allmusics unreliability goes well beyond metal.Inhumer (talk) 23:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

FWIW I think bands themselves are usually HORRIBLE judges of what genre they are. But if you think about the purpose of genre, it's mostly so people who AREN'T fanatically involved can find, or avoid, whole classes of music just based on what they sound like. If you wanted music in a particular genre, especially one that's looked down on, like emo, or if you wanted to avoid a whole genre without giving individual bands a chance, do you think the band would admit to being in that genre? It's not in the interest of many bands to admit to being in a genre with anyone but their clique. Even nominally identical bands can have epic battles of denying they're influenced by each other.

So who WOULD you trust to tell you what music is similar? What would a good source of genre information look like? Remember that being GOOD is a different criteria than genre. It is the nature of genre as a concept to group good, well-intentioned but failed, bad, and crass imitation music of a style together, and of course practitioners of that style will object. What I would expect of genre is, if I get an album I like, find out what genre it is, and go buy some more in that same genre, that they will sound similar enough that I can get involved with how good the music is and not have to learn the conventions of a new style of music first. I do NOT expect to come back with all, or even mostly, good music - in ANY genre, including "great hits".Bren Flibig (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Fortean Times and Ley Hunters Journal - reliable sources?
On Talk:Megaliths a user is arguing that these are reliable sources. In what circumstances would these be considered reliable sources for this and similar articles? Thanks.--Doug Weller (talk) 12:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * They may possibly be considered as reliable source for their field of pseudo-science, but they should not be used for anything substantial - that would be undue weight. They are certainly not reliable sources on science, history, or archeology. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Fortean was an excellent source until around 1990, when it went "mainstream". Its original goals were close to those of Wikipedia, to report bizarre reports as accurately as possible, with absolute NPOV, good traceability and without subsequent editing. However it has slid in recent years. The "Shark jump" was probably when a forged photo of UFOs in a hangar on an Italian air force base was reproduced, but without indication that the Fortean already knew it to be a fake. I'd use it, but you have to be careful - in particular as to which section of the magazine it's from. There are distinct sections of "cited news highlights", "editorial" and "features" where the verifiability standards vary between them. Features in particular may be an interesting read, but are often quite far-out in their grasp on reality. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Source validation
There was a major controversy over at The Mickey Mouse Club several months ago as to whether Zachary Jaydon was really a member or not. Recently, the editor that kept inserting him popped up with  Zachary Jaydon (Seasons 1-7)   , quite a surprising and complete revelation for someone that couldn't be sourced at all, even by avid Mickey Mouse Club fans. The timing was pretty good, too: every editor that edits the article seems to be on summer vacation. I live on a Dutch speaking island in South America, so I can't pop into a library and look at one of these things. Is there any place on Wikipedia that you can ask for people with access to physical libraries to validate a source? Kww (talk) 11:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

RE:FPM
A wikipedian is insisting here that FrontPage magazine is acceptable as a source. He/she is using it to determine the opinion of a living person (Stephen Schwartz). What do other wikipedians say?

Can we use FrontPage as an acceptable source? Or not?Bless sins (talk)


 * For a definition of what is considered "Islamophobia", I would think there are several hundred more reliable sources. It isn't a BLP problem here, though, as Schwartz has control over his own words, I presume. Start here. Or try . Or . -- Relata refero (disp.) 08:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I notice Uri Avnery is quoted on this article as well via a Counterpunch reference. Either we allow reasonably notable commentators in either publication to be represented in this article, or neither... - Merzbow (talk) 08:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * By and large correct, with some caveats. One general: there are some differences between CP and FPM/WND that were explored the last time this was up. The others specific: I don't know how Avnery is being used, but there is a difference between using a random opinion piece as a source of opinion and as a source of a definition; and I am not in the least certain that this Schultz person is as notable as Uri Avnery. -- Relata refero (disp.) 10:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Relata. There is no BLP issue, and while FPM is in no way to be used as a source for facts of any kind, this is one person's opinion.  Though I do not understand what is gained from using his opinion on "Islamophobia" which isn't noteworthy and by the very fact of where it is published, clearly polemical.  Of course the decision is one for the talk page in question, but it bares making clear here because it relates to the nature of the source being used.PelleSmith (talk) 12:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * FPM should be utilized to quote perspectives if attributed to the scholar who said them. I am unaware of any misquotes by them. So in this case it is reliable. YahelGuhan  ( talk ) 03:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Scholar" is a dubious phrase in relation to anyone published by that magazine.PelleSmith (talk) 03:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Judging from the above responses, I'm assuming we can't use the FPM to accuse Bat Ye'or of Islamophobia, either. Right?Bless sins (talk) 04:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * FPM is not reliable for facts, but self published opinions of people are another matter. Do we consider their transcript of an interview or a conversation as reliably recorded?  I think that is the main issue in the case you bring up.  One of the interlocutors in this conversation calls her utterances "Islamophobic."  I don't think that we should be accusing her of Islamophobia regardless, but is it ok to attribute this accusation to Khaleel Mohammed and source it to that FPM article?  I would try not to use FPM for anything honestly, but I'm not sure about the case of a symposium transcript.  Definately stay away from their "newspieces" or using factually presented information from their opinion pieces.PelleSmith (talk)
 * One of the commentators, Assistant Professor at the Department of Religious Studies at San Diego State University, is calling Ye'or's issuances as "Islamophobic". He defends his choice of word by arguing that her conclusions are "hateful".Bless sins (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Cahokia
I'm having a 'discussion' about whether a book published by the University of Illinois Press on Cahokia is a reliable source (well, the other editor is arguing it isn't verifiable). See discussions here, and here:. After several reverts, he has now edited the page to say that 'Young claimed' although Fowler, the 'dean of Cahokia archaeology', is co-author so his edit is factually incorrect. (The whole book is available online at . Young is a professional author and not the sole author of the book, and he is claiming that Young has introduced a fringe claim about human sacrifice into the book and that the claim cannot be verified in professional journals.  He thinks I don't understand verifiability and that what has to be verified is the statement in the book, that is, that scholarly journals have to agree with a particular statement in the book. We both think the other has the wrong end of the stick vis-a-vis verifiability. It would be really nice if someone could set one of us straight on this. (I can find two favorable reviews in scholarly journals, one in American Antiquity, the other in The American Historical Review).Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * University of Illinois Press therefore RS. One of the coauthors is an expert in the field, the other's role was to help with the written style. No problem whatever about using this source; usual caveats about weight, relevance and reflecting both sides of scholarly arguments apply. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Unreliable fringe material because the "buried alive" statement does not reference any factual source and is the speculation of the author. See wp:reliable. Marburg72 (talk) 16:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello Marburg. You can usually expect people who respond here to be familiar with policy. Scholars writing scholarly texts are permitted to express their judgements. We as WP editors do not call their judgements into question. If other scholars disagree then the usual course is to include both opinions. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sources that are considered to be "Scholarly sources" cite the supporting information through sources that they have used to develop their judgement. In this case, there are no such sources to support the judgement of buried alive. Considering the racial bias against the entire Native American culture, any opinion that claims such things should be subject to verificaion through multiple resources. In Fowlers Book on Mound 72, no such mention was made. This opinion was developed by Young that the Vertical finger bones were evidence of "Buried Alive". It is not only that the culturally sensitive subject of Native American burials is regarded as an area that can be wildly speculated on and then added to an encyclopedia as "fact" but also because there are no other materials in the field of Native American study that support this claim. Marburg72 (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I've told Marburg all of this before, but he seems insistent on removing "racist views" from the Cahokia page. I guess I've never asked pointblank before, do you have a sources that says what you argue above? You may be right in your convictions, but your opinion without sources can't be included in the article. If you find a source then both sides can be presented and the reader can make his/her own judgement! Grey Wanderer | Talk 21:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again, Yes, I have a source that specifically discusses the burials in Mound 72! It is referenced on the website as follows: Melvin L. Fowler, Jerome Rose, Barbara Vander Leest, Steven R. Ahler. "The Mound 72 Area: Dedicated and Sacred Space in Early Cahokia." (1999).

This important source states nothing about the theory of buried alive or vertical finger bones. The attitude that the burials were alive is not reliable because it was suggested for the first time in Youngs book. The opinion of Young is not supported in Fowlers book. As such, it should be stated on the Cahokia Page that nothing related to buried alive theory was presented in Fowlers book specifically about Mound 72. Marburg72 (talk) 16:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Coptic speakers
User: Lanternix has been trying to use this source on the Egyptians and Coptic language pages to state that 300 people are native speakers of Coptic, with the statement "The number of people who speak Coptic reaches around 300, an no one is still in Egypt except the family of Titti Mouris." in particular being quoted. How reliable is this source?--Yolgnu (talk) 00:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The source is pretty reliable. But why didn't you mention the other sources that were put forward as well? --Lanternix (talk) 04:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't read the other sources you added, unfortunately. They're in Arabic.--Yolgnu (talk) 04:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I thought that -based on all those edits you're making- that you speak Arabic! --Lanternix (talk) 05:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't need to; they have a version of this on the English Wikipedia too.--Yolgnu (talk) 12:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

PhD theses
I have a difference of opinion with two users who maintain that a PhD thesis is not a reliable source. This seems strange to me, since such a thesis is always peer-reviewed, or rather reviewed by higher qualified scholars. They are easy to verify, too, and I see many references to PhD theses on Wikipedia. Since there is nothing on PhD theses on WP:RS, and the guideline is not exhaustive, I'd like to know how PhD theses are viewed by other users. (Note: I am not asking for a comment on this one specific case. The issue is likely to come up more often.) Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah. I just found that the question has been asked before. The response seems to be that a PhD thesis can indeed be a reliable source for the reasons I mentioned. Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi,
 * most of times. Yes. It is a wp:rs source.
 * But some care should be taken anyway.
 * It would be better if it had been published and if it would be quoted by other scholars.
 * And if there are many other scholars of higher level (eg University Prof) who developped the topic but concluded differently and if this PhD thesis claims something unusual and not widely accepted, high care should be taken.
 * I remind you that Galilee's thesis rejecting geocentrim would have been refused by wikipedia at the time because it was : WP:OR and not accepted by the majority of his peers. Ceedjee (talk) 10:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's not get confused. WP:OR applies to people creating work on Wikipedia; work created outside of WP is not OR. It's either published in a RS or not. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 00:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Am I correct that if parts of the thesis are previously published articles, that helps as well? Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Definitely, but in that case it may be easier to cite the articles.Itsmejudith (talk) 11:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It varies from field to field and from university to university. In economics, for example, dissertations are usually three papers; the first of these is carefully reviewed, and is the one on the strength of which the person goes on the job market. The two others are frequently, even at the best universities, little more than term papers which have not been extensively gone over by the thesis committee. In history, however, most chapters of a unitary dissertation will be considered reliable, if from a decent university. Sometimes problems creep in: the best known case of a problematic dissertation is that of Joel Hayward. Could you tell us the specific case we're discussing? -- Relata refero (disp.) 12:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * We're not discussing a specific case, as I am expecting to find a good number of theses relevant to the topics I'm interested in. The one that led to my question though is: P. Kooiman, "Some empirical models for markets in disequilibrium", PhD thesis, Erasmus University Rotterdam, 1986. It contains 6 chapters, 3 of which (2,4,6) had been published before. The chapter that caught my attention though was chapter 3. It was this chapter that sprang new research, as the method was applied to a model of the Dutch Central Planning Bureau. I want to refer to the method, and the method can only be found in the dissertation. Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It sounds a bit obscure for WP. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Disequilibrium analysis was really big in macro around the 1980s, so a reference for the original derivation of a method of aggregating submarkets is fine, especially if you can also cite the usage of the method elsewhere. -- Relata refero (disp.) 12:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The supervisor of the thesis appears to have been Teun Kloek, who is a pretty major figure. -- Relata refero (disp.) 12:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I gather further that the mathematics in ch3 provided the basis for the two-submarket empirical analysis subsequently published in the European Economic Review, so that's another plus. -- Relata refero (disp.) 12:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Chapter 3 showed that the assumption of a specific distribution over submarkets leads to a macro-economic relationship that looks like one that was always thought to exist, the 'UV-curve' (if unemployment rises, vacancies go down, and vice versa). There used to be a big divide between micro-economic theory and macro-economic models. A relatively small number of researchers closed that gap by proving the macro equations consistent with the micro theories, thereby opening up the field of disequilibrium analysis. Guido den Broeder (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would generally expect a PhD thesis to be a highly reliable source. To obtain a PhD, the author usually has to become the world's foremost expert in his subject, since by definition it has not been studied before. I owuld expect anyone objecting to a PhD thesis has rarely read one let alone tried to write one! As noted above, it has to be peer reviewed by the examining committee. Excepting mail order PhD scams, I would say that a PhD thesis should be a highly reliable source. DLH (talk) 02:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a difficult issue. The review of the literature in a PhD thesis should be reliable, however, the results of the research described may not be correct and might not be publishable. I'd be very wary of using these as sources for unusual claims, and they are no better (possibly worse) than conventional sources for standard claims. A good test is how they are regarded in other academic literature and in my field (biochemistry) it is very unusual to cite one in a paper. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Again it appears we've arrived at the age old question, "What is truth?" Well how perfect must a source be? A PhD dissertation in its final published form should be considered a good source. If not, then the credibility of the university should be in question. A dissertation is not just a standard research paper as is explained here. A dissertation has gone through more than a peer review, given the fact that PhD's have reviewed it, and the author is a PhD candidate. I think the important concern is not to include a draft, but the FINAL VERSION. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 14:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A PhD thesis from a reputable university should be a reliable source. However, in my experience the review for a PhD thesis is less confrontational and less thorough than for a published research paper. PhD reviewers/examiners are not anonymous, and usually picked from people at least sympathetic to the general approach of the PhD supervisor. This is somewhat less of a problem in the hard sciences, but still a reality. So I would accept a PhD thesis for unexceptional facts, but not for highly contentious topics - unless, of course, it has been positively acknowledged in the literature. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sensible. -- Relata refero (disp.) 00:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sullivan county
Is a reliable source for anything other than their own opinions? Although they seem to name their authors, they don't say too much about them. It's quite unclear what their credentials are. Bless sins (talk) 20:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like a personal website to me... as such, not a reliable source. Blueboar (talk) 12:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Darren M Jackson on Bromley page - Is a news letter a reliable source ?
user:Diamonddannyboy has been repeatedly adding Darren M Jackson to the notable people from Bromley page. Even though the source on the Darren M Jackson is unreliable and also for the following reasons.:


 * 1) The actual source on the Darren M Jackson page (first line lived in Bromley), seems to be unreliable as i can`t find this anywhere on the internet. **see below. As per WP:SPS
 * 2) I pointed out to the user that Darren M Jackson page doesn`t mention he came from Bromley, so he just added ``lived in the Borough of Bromley`` to the Darren M Jackson page as per edit
 * 3) When i pointed out the fact being from the Borough of Bromley is actually totally different from the Bromley page, he changed the statement on the Darren M Jackson page to ``Live in Bromley, Kent``, again without changing a source or amending a source. As per edit

In short the user has been repeatedly removing the citiation, (as per edits    ), from the Bromley page without a reliable source, And the name should be struck from the Bromley page. **Please also consider the source is unreliable as it appears the source (which i still can`t find) is some sort of news letter as per the following website, which is definatly unreilable http://website.lineone.net/~rtfhs/journal5.html --Rockybiggs (talk) 10:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Whilst that site doesn't contain sufficient content to verify, WP:RS doesn't require that sources are available on-line, and I would generally regard an article in a FHS journal as a reliable source. Mayalld (talk) 10:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Point taken, the main problem with FHS publications are their small circulation and that they do not tend to get deposited to copyright libraries, so it is difficult to use them to verify information. The whole area (Romany people) that DiamondDannyBoy is interested in has few formal publications in the traditional sense. Much of it is an oral history. DDB has a casual attitude to use of references - if s/he tightened up their use of references to support claims then it might be easier to satisfy other editors' concerns. From the history of these edits, I think DDB knows of Jackson personally and it can be infuriating when someone knows something to be true, but they cannot provide documentary evidence of such.
 * I'd be inclined to accept the source, if some other confirmatory information were available (triangulation - if a family history fact appears more than once, then the two/three pieces of data support each other). Kbthompson (talk) 11:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Quite so, on all counts (particularly DDB's free and easy attitude to sources). It was just the assumption that a FHS newsletter is automatically NOT a RS that was way off beam. FHS journals are, by and large pretty reliable, and peer reviewed. Mayalld (talk) 11:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I checked all 1001 entries in the British Library catalogue (for Romany), and Romany Routes is not a deposited item -> no ISBN -> no independent verification. It's probably available (on request?) in Kent public libraries. The general page link is too vague - the issue referred to seems to be Romany Routes - Volume 5 No 4 - Sep 2001. That with a specific page number would probably be an acceptable reference on it's own.
 * Rockybiggs is right, there appear to be no web mentions of Darren M. Jackson - although there are a lot of refs to bare-knuckle fighting in general. That implies that notability would always remain an issue - but its an illegal/quasi-legal activity, although traditional within the Romany community.
 * Some of the other references on Darren M Jackson violate WP:EL policy - require registration or are primarily sales sites. They've been added in good faith, but need to be cleaned up.
 * Any comments? I'd particularly like to be able to give DiamondDannyBoy specific advice on these kind of references - I feel that would smooth their path in engaging with other editors and remove a significant source of friction. Kbthompson (talk) 10:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I looked into the sources a while back, and wasn't able to determine beyond doubt whether or not Romany Routes was a reliable source. I was inclined, from memory, to say yes, as it seemed to be more of a journal than a newsletter, thus I haven't objected to it, but at the same time I'd be much happier if I could get a copy to check (which I tried to do, but I haven't been able to as of yet). In regard to the other references, I did manage to get copies or scans of a few of them - particularly the two Fighters Magazine references and The Gazette & Times Sittingbourne references, all of which proved to be ok in the end (not great refs, but they clearly discussed the subject or treated him as a non-trivial portion, and all were reliable as far as I could tell at the time). I should probably revisit it again when I get some time and do as you suggest - the refs do need some cleaning. :) - Bilby (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Who eras and justifing lies
This problem, right or wrong, could mean that the most authoritative source possible is false. Like the Gettier problem, it posits the existence of verifiable, believable and justified sources...which are also wrong. And this is just one I've come across; there must be an even better example out there. Is there any way to codify Wikipedia to deal with this? MartinSFSA (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not an RS problem. There clearly are senses in which the BBC's statement is or might be true. It's a problem of phrasing, of correctly reconciling sources. Although he did not play him on the TV series for 1987-1996, because it was shelved from 1989-1996, Sylvester McCoy may have indeed been the Doctor from 1989-1995.  (Do you know for a fact he didn't travel off-planet in his Tardis then?) More seriously, are the facts of his contract known? - He could have been receiving a nominal check from the BBC - he could have had responsibility for doing publicity, e.g. before the TV movie. There are plenty of things the BBC might know that aren't public.  I note his article says he played the Doctor on a 1993 charity special, this is enough to make the 87-89, 96 statement problematic too.  If the BBC 1987-1996 tenure is used, just add a comment that 1989-1995 saw no new episodes in the series.John Z (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If it wasn't supposed to be a problem with RS I wouldn't be posting here--my fault for using a fannish example to illustrate a point! To go further with the argument, the problem could be the BBC deliberately lied for three years that the series hadn't been canceled, and Wikipedia must deal with such authoritative falsehoods. To invoke Goodwin's Law, the Soviet prosecutors tried to blame the Nazis at Nuremburg for the murder of the Polish officers in the Katyn woods. Or for a more immediate and less charged example, until one year ago the Australian government denied the existence of climate change where they now recognize it through policy (though the preceding PM would still deny it in off the cuff statements). One of the beauties of interests is that effectively everything is up for dispute which limits the possibility of uncritical consumption, or at least widens the likelyhood of qualification of statements--"The BBC said"/"The Soviets claimed"/"The dirty lying PM lied like a lying liar..."--but at what stage does this merely become positioning the reader vs framing the claim in or out of Wikipedia's voice? Is it something which can be codified? Again, this is a comment on policy (hence the comparison with Gettier) rather than a call for comment on any of the examples. MartinSFSA (talk) 08:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not our job to determine if the BBC is lying. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is Verifiability, not Truth" (see WP:V).  The BBC is a reliable source.  You don't have to agree with the BBC's account of McCoys tenure as Dr. Who (and obviously you don't), but that does not change the reliability of their account.  If other reliable sources contradict the BBC, then both views need to be presented and discussed in the article (see WP:NPOV).  Blueboar (talk) 12:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You've misconstrued what I've said by commenting on the example. If I wanted this discussion then I'd be contributing to the existing discussion! Let's adopt a fictional example: the Department of Silly Walks are in fact mad, or lying, or simply wrong when they declare the number of silly walks they've funded in the last fiscal year. However, wrong as they are, they are both the official source for this figure and the only source. Verifiable but wrong. That's why I keep bringing up Gettier, a demonstration that despite a situation being a true verifiable belief it can still not fulfill the expectation we have of knowledge. If your answer is that truth is irrelevant than fine, that's the answer. But if reliable sources aren't then I think it's problematic. MartinSFSA (talk) 13:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How do you know the Department of Silly Walks (DSW) is "wrong"? Your example states that they are the only reliable source for the information. Thus there is nothing that contradicts their statistics. We may think they are wrong... but our personal opinions do not matter (See:WP:NOR). We must treat the information as being "correct".
 * But, let us assume that there is another reliable source that contradicts the DSW: Let us say that the opposition Serious Party has issued it's own set of statistics.  If this is the case, WP:NPOV tells us that we need to present both claims, without making a judgement as to which is "correct".
 * Now let us take a third situation: in addition to the DSW and SP sources, there are numerous academic studies on the number of funded silly walks. They indicate that the DSW statistics are flawed. In this case, we have more options... we still need to present the "official" numbers... but we can phrase things to show that both the SP statistics and accademic experts indicate that they are flawed. In otherwords we discuss the issue in full.  Blueboar (talk) 14:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The argument must remain within the frame of the thought experiment or it's not valid; all secondary sources (academic, political or Wiki) would simply be drawing from the Department's own incorrect figures as it has been stated to be the only source. Since the problem highlights an apparent flaw in Reliable Source policy it can't be solved with an appeal back to the same policy with secondary sources! And even if you knock down the specific example then it'd just be a bad example; the issue of unreliable Reliable Sources would remain. As it is this fourth example seems to be the charm so I'm going to use it elsewhere! The argument's a better one for your contribution, and I thank both of you.
 * Iff (if and only if) the Department is the only source, it seems to be a bit of an impasse; we the authors know this is false information but the inhabitants of the Department's universe don't. However if it is publicly known that this department consists of only one (very tall) man in a bowler then it may reflect upon it's validity, leading to a qualification of the information when quoted by academics, politicians and Wikis. This is the crux; do we have to depend on Wikipedians' contrary nature and common sense, or is it possible to write this up in Wiki Reliable Source policy? MartinSFSA (talk) 08:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It's neat seeing Getier raised here. :) Only I suspect that you may be doing so incorrectly. Getier posits the existence of justifiable, true beliefs, but where the justification is, to put it simply, incorrect. Hence the old thought experiment (which I have a huge urge to restate, but I shall resist). What you are describing is a situation where the justification is sound (a reliable source made the claim), it may (or may not) be a belief, but it certainly isn't true (which is counter to Getier). I can't see an out for the thought experiment as you described, as the only source of information is the Ministry, and that source is incorrect. Thus there is no means of determining the "truth" except through original research, which we're right to be nervous of. But I don't see a big problem with qualifiers, in this instance, in spite of your comments, as I suspect that the problem is sufficiently rare (given that it requires the most reliable sources to be incorrect and that the editors who are certain that this is the case) that the qualifiers won't hurt too much when they appear. So contrariness seems to be a viable option. :) - Bilby (talk) 11:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Adam, this is Martin. My use of Getier here is two fold; first as a useful demonstration of a situation which defies assumed definition albeit in truth rather than justification, second in anticipation that a solution to this problem will be to throw a bunch of adjectives at the criteria. I'm working in analytic philosophy of history, so it's all good for me! MartinSFSA (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My field's pretty much a nasty practical variation on epistemology these days, I'm afraid. :) That aside, I'd considered that you had intended it as a demo, in spite of the distinction between justification and truth in the two scenarios. Makes sense. From a purely pragmatic sense, is it reasonable to conclude that bad things will happen, as per your Ministry of Silly Walks, but the system as a whole will work, and we just need to hope that contrariness and qualifiers will fix the occasional mess? A bit like Ignore All Rules, which is a potentially handy escape if the system fails to work. We could even go so far as to say that Wikipedia is about warrant, rather than justification, but I'm not a big fan of Plantinga's epistemology I'm afraid, so I'm not sure that I would go that far. :) - Bilby (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice one, Centurian; warrant could well be the criteria I'm fumbling for here, and this may be significant if Wikipedia 2 requires a higher level of justification rather than mere expertise. Ultimately Wiki is what is says it is and isn't what it says it isn't until it noticeably breaks down, I'm hoping to anticipate this. MartinSFSA (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The Real News
IS The Real News a reliable source? Its an exclusively online news organization with no stated editorial policy. An interview published in The Real News betweenone of its correspondants and an academic is currentl being used 7 times in the 2008 Andean diplomatic crisis article. Milner Pilsner (talk) 14:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... on one hand they take their material from "voluteers", which I find a bit dodgy ... but, on the other hand they do have an editorial staff, so there is editorial oversight. Unless there is something we don't know, my inclination is to say that while it might not be the most reliable news source, it passes the smell test and should be considered reliable. Blueboar (talk) 21:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * They don't "take their material from voluteers", their videos are from professional journalist of high exerience. They are a reliable source with content of outstanding quality.--Sum (talk) 12:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * For reporting, I would say they are a reliable source -- they are a news business with a reputation to hold up. ImpIn | (t - c) 21:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Concur. After reviewing their website, list of people involved, mission statement, etc, they appear to be a reliable source.  If their reports at any time show inaccurate content, with specific examples their reliability could be reconsidered.  Until then, the site seems appropriate for use. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Mae-Wan Ho
Mae-Wan Ho has been used as a source in a few articles. I beleive there's no evidence Ho is accepted as an authority in any field, and shouldn't be relied on, particularly with respect to science. Ho's article is under AFD, because there are currently, no third party sources about her. I was hoping other editors could review mentions of Ho and her views in these articles, and see what, if any changes, are needed: --Rob (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Black people - I assume the fact (about DNA) is accurate, but probably a better source should be cited.
 * Meaning of life - I'm not sure on this.
 * Horizontal gene transfer - She is referred to as a "noted scientist", which gives undue credibility to her claims quoted in the article.
 * Holism in science - It lists her has one who's written influential books. But I don't see anybody (other than Ho) saying her books are influential.
 * I'd say she is a reliable source for what believers in alternative therapies believe. Beyond that, she heads an activist group "The Institute of Science in Society".. But she isn't a 'noted scientist' and I've deleted the stuff from her in Horizontal gene transfer which in any case wasn't from a peer-reviewed journal, etc. Doug Weller (talk) 21:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have checked the reference in Black people and changed the citation to Synthesis/Regeneration, 25, Gateway Green Alliance, which is the actual publication. Also in Meaning of life, the citation is to chapter 14 of her book which talks about the nature of consciousness, so I added the page numbers for chapter 14 to the citation. I added a better reference to Horizontal gene transfer. Regarding Holism in science, if you can allow third party references to be added to her article, I think her article will establish her notability and influence in this field. --EPadmirateur (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:TimVickers WAS 4.250 (talk) 04:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * See this Nature Biotechnology news article on the response of the scientific community to one of this author's publications. This person is not a noted scientist, and is not a reliable source for anything apart from opinions. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Is a Fonds Finding Aid a good source?
can anyone tell me how well this Technocracy Fonds Finding Aid would rate as a source, to me it looks to be good other than a small chunk that is referenced to an old article here, which im not going to use, it looks to be derived from reliable sources and created by a reliable organisation


 * I don't see any red flags. U of Alberta is reputable, and all this is is a guide to source materials that have been donated to them. -- Quartermaster (talk) 11:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Homeschooling list
I'm having a dispute about a list of homeschooled people in the homeschooling article. The only source for the list is another list:. That according to other sources, contains questionable entries. I would be thankful if someone is willing to look into this. Greetings, Species8473 (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Better sources than this are clearly available. It isn't too hard. For example, you can list Evan Thompson, professor of philosophy at the University of Toronto because there is a reliable a source of autobiographical information wherein he indicates that he was homeschooled: . The list you give is not reliable. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm removing the "resolved" template at this entry, as after ScienceApologist removed the source. It has been added again by one of the editors involved in the dispute. So more opinions on this are welcome. Even though to me it seems quite obvious. Species8473 (talk) 03:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that such lists are trivial... Wouldn't removing the content entirely solve this issue? The fact that they were homeschooled can be presented on their own articles, and any link between the two is indicated by special:whatlinkshere/homeschooling. Ie, I see no reason for the section, being a third party, and would advise it be removed. --Izno (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's have this discussion on Talk:Homeschooling where it belongs. I have responded there. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 00:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Who Online
Hi, all. Had a question regarding this article on the website Doctor Who Online. Would it be considered a reliable source?

It appears that, perhaps, the author is also a wikipedian, so I asked that user(they say the only stupid questions are those left unasked...but what do they know?).

Thanks for having a look at this.

Mael-Num (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * They've had a good strike rate barring the odd missing episode hoax (unless they were behind it? Oh, behave!), but is there any evidence they're not WP:V published? MartinSFSA (talk) 11:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Given that the definition is "Anyone" and DWO has a staff, doesn't that immediately preclude them?Self-publishing as a policy was meant to bar the use of vanity press pieces, blogs, web forum and usenet postings, etc. I don't see how this could be considered an unreliable source if sites like Gamespy or Gamespot (especially the latter) are.  Mael-Num (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Links to You Tube
Are links to a You Tube video allowed? John celona (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC) (moved new question to correct section)00:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In general, no... if the video has been aired elsewhere (ie published) a YouTube version might be considered a convenience link, but you should cite the original. Blueboar (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I also pointed the editor in the direction of WP:YOUTUBE. Ani  Mate  00:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of Soviet Lithuania
How reliable is this publication (from 1986)? Could anybody provide an academic, Western review of it? It is being used as a source at Polish minority in Lithuania and this has led to a slow revert war over the past weeks.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Per the extensive discussions about the Great Soviet Encyclopaedia, encyclopaedias published by the academies of the USSR are considered acceptable if attributed.
 * If I am correct, the argument is over the possibility of "polonized Lithunanians", in which case I would recommend discussing the controversy rather than stating unvarnished facts. Use -- Relata refero (disp.) 09:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What "extensive discussion" about GSE? Could you point me to it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Piotrus, you were involved in the discussion, so it shouldn't come as a surprise. -- Relata refero (disp.) 00:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If I understand correctly, "Encyclopedia of Soviet Lithuania" is not a part of Great Soviet Encyclopedia. One should ask to provide an ISBN number for this Encyclopedia. As about GSE, it has been an object of extensive censorship and promotion of "party line". All political articles from  the GSE can be used only as sources about Soviet propaganda. That was the case for all Soviet political/history publications. They were vetted by Glavlit for consistency with current version of "official history", including the Encyclopedia of Soviet Lithuania (published in 1986). I would strongly suggest using other sources, especially on controversial subjects.Biophys (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If attributed, it continues to be a reliable source. If its viewpoint can be demonstrated as marginal in a particular issue, that is a separate concern. I believe I have provided a superior source above for this particular dispute. -- Relata refero (disp.) 00:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to differ. I have the Concise Latvian SSR Encyclopedia. In some areas, it is reasonably correct and factual, in others, namely anything to do with history and geopolitics, it is full or outright lies. Any Baltic SSR Soviet Encyclopedia is not reliable where it come to historical and geopolitical matters. If used and attributed, it must be in a separate Soviet historiography section and not presented as mainstream scholarship, regardless of how heavily you footnote. —PētersV (talk) 17:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source stating as much? We certainly don't put alternative historical narratives in separate sections as a matter of course, nor do we privilege one above the other, except as much as one represents mainstream academic thinking. Please note that neither nationalist nor Soviet historiographies are mainstream, though mainstream thinking tends to incorporate and analyse strands of both. The point remains that it is reliable, if the product of a particular point of view, and should be treated as such: used with caution and attributed, not used for REDFLAG cases and so on. Absolutely nothing gives us any license to exclude it or to claim that separate sections are compulsory. -- Relata refero (disp.) 20:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please frame your answer, if any, in terms of the many points raised at the previous, linked discussion. -- Relata refero (disp.) 20:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Any official Soviet publications on political subjects, which were censored by Glavlit, can be only used as sources about communist propaganda views promoted by the CPSU (Glavlit was an organization subordinated to the CPSU).Biophys (talk) 22:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * [Facepalm] All subjects in the Soviet Union were political to a degree. We are not going to declare all Soviet sources off-limits. That does not mean that statements about the Soviet viewpoint on history will be unattributed when there are other, mainstream, modern, sources that do not agree with them. If possible, sources avoiding both Soviet and post-Soviet nationalistic ideological straitjackets should be used. This is not relevant to this board, as it is an NPOV issue.
 * Again: point remains that it is reliable, if the product of a particular point of view, and should be treated as such: used with caution and attributed, not used for REDFLAG cases and so on. Absolutely nothing gives us any license to exclude it or to claim that separate sections are compulsory. -- Relata refero (disp.) 00:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)




 * Would you use sources approved by Joseph Goebbels propaganda to prove the existence of world wide Jewish conspiracy? Same thing with Soviet publications on political subjects approved by Glavlit communist censorship agency. For example, one should not use article "United States" from GSE in WP article United States, but only in article Soviet propaganda. Biophys (talk) 02:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC) That is what Soviet sources tell about the United States, for example. Biophys (talk) 02:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think there is a kernel of truth in that poster, although you are right that it is borderline hyperbole. --Dragon695 (talk) 03:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand the purpose of quoting a source. Proof is not among them. Please re-read the above discussion, and the linked, previous discussion in which several editors commented. -- Relata refero (disp.) 02:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I read the "extensive discussion" on the GSE and did not see any consensus. I think that it is quite important that Wikipedia articles not include as sources what is generally thought to be propaganda. The operative phrase from WP:V is "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Ultimately, that definition depends on the judgement of the editors, which is why I think the RS noticeboard is needed. What happens when people's judgements differ? My judgement is that all Soviet sources regarding politics and Eastern European history are suspect, and probably not Reliable Sources. Why? Pre-1991, no mainstream Western publication would have considered them reliable. Orwell's Animal Farm and 1984, include propaganda as a major theme, and they are widely believed to have been aimed at the Soviet Union. Orwell didn't trust these sources (to put it mildly). I'll also repeat a very well known Russian joke, that I've heard many times from Russians. "There is no truth in Pravda, and no news in Izvestia." (Pravda = truth in Russian, Izvestia = "News.") This qualifies, in my judgement, as evidence for inaccuracy.

That said - in the 2 footnotes where I saw the Lith. Soviet Enc. cited, these numbers are probably the only data available. I'd think that an in-text notation that "According to Soviet sources" or something similar, would make the context clear. Smallbones (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * About your first line, I think I should have been clearer, and spoken of a consensus of uninvolved editors.
 * About propaganda in general: the degree to which all Soviet sources are propaganda is open to question. Its overly simplistic to claim that. -- Relata refero (disp.)
 * Mainstream western authorities would have held them reliable, because any number of scholarly articles (from western sources) HAVE used them. The academic writings in most authoritarian countries, from Pinochet's Chila and Franco's Spain, to Stalin's Russia and to Mao's China, are not explicitly "propaganda". In fact, in many cases, excellent scholarly resources have been written in the oddest of countries (China itself probably has, ironically enough, some of the best textbooks about historical Tibet out there; Iran has extensive medical journals about drug addiction therapy;Kim Jong Il's writings on film history and film criticism are actually fairly coherent). The knee jerk reflex that everything that ever came out of a country, by virtue of the leader or ruling class on top, is propaganda or trash is absurd. While there may, and probably are, overt and subtle forms of censorship in many of those works in order to ensure a semblance of adherence to the official line, this is something that can be combatted by proper framing and reference, not by reflexively banning their use. SiberioS (talk) 08:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The Encyclopedia of Soviet Lithuania is not a typical Soviet encyclopedia. It is not a thematic encyclopedia - only Lithuania-related topics are covered. The narrow focus of encyclopedia, the fact that it was published after start of Gorbachev's perestroika, reputable team of editors (highly respected scientists) ensures that this encyclopedia is a reliable source for most purposes. If somebody wants to dispute facts presented in this encyclopedia, they should find any source that contradicts this encyclopedia, instead of making associations with soviet propaganda. --Doopdoop (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Plural medicine, tradition and modernity
Is this a reliable source? It has been argued that it cannot be used due to WP:SPS, but it seems to be published by an acedemic publisher. DigitalC (talk) 00:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ernst, Waltraud (2002). Plural medicine, tradition and modernity, 1800-2000. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-23122-1
 * How is anyone considering that a self published source? Routledge is definitely an academic publisher of good standing and this particular scholar seems to be a known expert in the pertinent field of medical history.  This seems without question to be a reliable source in general.  What claim is it being used for?PelleSmith (talk) 01:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It has been argued that "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published" (from WP:SPS), and that "Books may not be so reliable per WP:SPS.". The claim it is being used for is "Waltraud Ernst states that Barret's Quackwatch generate a number of problems that merit further investigation, such as the dismissal of the mental, the cognitive elements, and the complex role psycho-cultural and spiritual forces that play a role in the healing process." DigitalC (talk) 02:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * But Barrett's Quackwatch doesn't do that now, does it. So right on the face of it it's not reliable in any sense. It's just an undocumented charge. If that source actually provides clear documentation that is beyond some common difference of opinion within the medical and psychiatric world (such disputes exist all the time), then it needs to be significantly different enough to be worth mentioning. -- Fyslee / talk 05:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that is not an issue for this noticeboard. The publisher is reliable, and the author seems to be a known expert in his field.  If there is a specific content dispute that is for the entry talk page, and it is up to you to provide other reliable sources to debunk it.PelleSmith (talk) 13:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please provide a diff or link so that we can see the full context. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 10:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Quackwatch. DigitalC (talk) 05:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Fyslee. How can you be so sure that Quackwatch doesn't do that? This author thinks he does; he published an academic book in which he claimed it. I think you're going to have difficulty finding a RS that contradicts that claim, and even if you did, each would have equal weight and would have to included together. I have to agree with PelleSmith: how is anyone claiming that this is SPS? Please try to avoid pursuing dead ends, as they waste people's time. This case is pretty cut and dry. ImpIn | (t - c)


 * It's far from cut and dried. You admit to being "imperfectly informed" and this may well be yet another example. Waltraud just makes a claim. Where is the documentation that it's at all accurate? Without that it's just his undocumented opinion, and there's lots of that all over the internet. Such criticisms have repeatedly been excluded from the Quackwatch and Barrett articles because they simply were untrue (and made his critics look pretty bad!). It is the one making the claim (Waltraud) who must provide the proof. Let's see it. I know Quackwatch pretty well and don't recall anything that comes close to evidence for such a charge, unless taken way out of context. -- Fyslee / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 05:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm. You make a separate point, but I'm sure we can agree that Routledge books are not SPS. No offense, but I'd like to know how DigitalC did not understand that. I know QuackGuru said it, but people need to use common sense. As for the veracity and robustness of the claim: Waltraud's claim is obviously an opinionish claim bordering on an endorsement of medical pseudoscience, and so it just seems obvious that Quackwatch attacks these things. Thing is, Waltraud thinks these things are important; Barrett does not. You'll have to talk to Jossi about the specific areas that he targets, but as the book is published by Routledge, an academic publisher similar to MIT Press or Oxford University Press, we can assume that he does in fact cite his facts and know a bit about what he's talking about. Further, I don't see much in the policies about making sure that RS has its facts cited appropriately -- it should probably be added. Maybe you can direct me to the spot? ImpIn | (t - c) 09:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no reliability question here, as the book is clearly an RS by wikipedia definitions. (Unless other RS's are generally understood to decisively refute it, or the claims withdrawn by the author - neither seems to be the case here.)   Aside from that this is a content issue which doesn't really belong here.  WP:V governs whether we are citing a source correctly - a quote making it clearer just what Waltraud is saying would be nice. Checking whether a source is citing its stuff correctly is something that has intermittently appeared in the rules, but nothing is more helpful than common sense. (Although cf the parts on context, direct support and appropriateness in the RS lead, and on opinions elsewhere in RS.)   If people come to a consensus by "OR" that something should not be used, that's fine by the rules.John Z (talk) 12:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly.PelleSmith (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't forget that Fyslee has a conflict of interest regarding the Quackwatch article. MaxPont (talk) 07:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope. Read it again, especially this caution. While there were spurious accusations raised by the banned editor, and echoed by her allies, no COI was ever established, but to avoid problems I do comment and use the talk page, and I don't engage in serious edit wars. Keep in mind that opposers often have a real financial COI. I just have a shared POV. "I don't like it" isn't a good reason for excluding a source. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 14:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This was supported by a majority. I get the impression that you were cautioned on regular articles, but banned from the ones referenced above. Fyslee is correct that the above proposed decision did not pass, as one would expect her to be. ImpIn | (t - c) 23:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This harassment by User:ImperfectlyInformed needs to stop. Once again you prove your user name is well chosen. You not only provide the wrong link (here's the right one), but you again reveal your lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works. ArbCom decisions are not made by majority votes. That "proposed decision" did not "pass". There were good and proper objections to it from wise and influential ArbCom members, as there were to some other proposed decisions against me that also did not "pass". That's it. I was indeed cautioned (that "passed") to continue to do what I had been doing (the caution's wording describes it). Keep in mind that my accusers were banned, and you seem to be siding with them. Your bringing this old matter up, scare quote formatting and all (I have refactored that), is a BLP violation (which also applies to editors here), a personal attack, and it's quite unpleasant to get old inaccuracies and false charges repeated here. You need to stop following me around and you need to get your facts straight. Next time you are tempted to do this type of thing again (since you seem determined to make editing at Wikipedia unpleasant for me), contact me by email and work things out directly with me. I'm not a bad acquaintance and would rather be friends). While an apology would be the proper thing to get from you, I don't expect it, but would be pleasantly surprised ;-) -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 01:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied at your Talk page: I do not mean to harass you, and I apologize for making the above mistake. ImpIn | (t - c) 02:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Apology accepted. Mistakes are easy to make and the detour into attacking me, instead of discussing the matter at hand, wasn't even started by you. Let's move forward. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 02:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Verifiable interview?
We can use interviews as sources, obviously, but as I have heard several times, "it must be verifiable." This brings to me the question of self-conducted interviews. If we conducted an interview with someone and then posted it on OTRS, would this meet verifiability standards and thus be allowed as a reliable source? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why OTRS would be interested in having interviews posted to them. It would be better if the interview were published in a reliable source such as a newspaper or magazine. That way, the newspaper or magazine would take responsibility for confirming that the interviewer really conducted an interview with the subject. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

allmusic.com
Is allmusic.com, for instance,, a reliable source? Be critical - this is for a featured article candidate. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 17:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * See the discussion above. Opinions are divided. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Their reviews are high-quality and are certainly reliable. I've seen no credible arguments that either their classifications or discographies are not reliable. They are owned by a major corporation and have a hired editorial staff. Since I got an FA through that used AllMusic as a source, I will protest quite vociferously if people object to it in yours. - Merzbow (talk) 01:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, certain aspects such as reviews and bios are written by editors and are reliable, they are also often quoted in other relaible publications. I believe it is fact checked. However there is no evidence of how the classifications are done so i'd say that is unverifiable.
 * If it's an opinion (reviews); certainly an RS. --Efe (talk) 11:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As said, this is already a topic under discussion. See here to continue: Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_14.

Jamestown Foundation
Discussion in progress at Talk:Russia Today TV. Perhaps an analogous issue to the late March discussion about The Nation and Daniel Pipes, though there are some differences.

The Jamestown Foundation is basically a neoconservative organization. They are generally pretty careful with their facts (I'd use them as a source for a particular fact, though I wouldn't necessarily expect them to give me a balanced picture), but in this case they are being cited as critics of the TV channel in question. I don't think that's the best choice. I'm not saying they are, in principle, uncitable here. I am saying that we would strengthen the article by citing, instead, similar criticism from international human rights groups (or media critics) with more of a history of even-handed criticism of propaganda and censorship. In short, they are not a bad source, but why not seek more clearly credible sources? -- Jmabel | Talk 18:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If this is an official site of an officially registered and well known organization, this is a reliable source, with proper attribution provided. It does not matter if this organization was described as "liberal", "conservative", or even "advocacy".Biophys (talk) 13:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Jmabel should consider the fact that Zbigniew Brzezinski is on the board there. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 14:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I have. And, as I say, I'm not doubting that they are citable, just that their criticism of a particular Russian TV channel probably doesn't carry as much weight as a less political, more rights-centered organization who would be just as likely (for example) to criticize media when they cozy up too much to the U.S. or Italian government. In other words, this is an OK source, but there would be better sources. - Jmabel | Talk 20:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Water Fluoridation Opposition Sources
There is much debate centered on what some of the more reliable sources of information on the opposition to water fluoridation are. Some of the most mainstream websites on the topic are being dismissed as WP:FRINGE. As an example, I would describe Fluoride Action Network as one of the better referenced websites out there that take a position against water fluoridation. Another editor disagrees and says that FAN is not a reliable source. Opinions from the gallery? If FAN is not a good source for Water Fluoridation Opposition, what is? Petergkeyes (talk) 04:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the FAN is not been used as a source for opposition to Water Flouridation but merely as a repository of information that is collected from media sources with little to no attribution. If these sources of information are correct and undoctored then they can be drawn directly from the actual source rather than via the filter of FAN. Shot info (talk) 04:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I am seeking input from other individuals. Shot info has indicated a strong opinion that I respectfully disagree with. Everything on FAN appears to be properly cited, referenced, and attributed. I have seen absolutely zero evidence that anything on FAN is incorrect, or doctored.

And Shot, you misspelled fluoridation. Petergkeyes (talk) 05:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Typos/spelling issues aren't the issue here. If Shot info is correct that FAN is a repository of (reliable) information, it would be better to reference the information directly. Peer reviewed journal articles are better references than websites that get their information from those articles. DigitalC (talk) 05:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Look at this essay on convenience links, and that talk page for previous discussions. If FAN is reliable, then we can trust it not to mess with these works. FAN is clearly not just a self-published website, it's an official organization devoted to an issue. It is analagous to Quackwatch, although with a larger staff, less editorializing, and a greater focus on news. I'm inclined to think it is reliable for accurate reproduction -- it is advised largely by PhDs with reputations. It has a lot to lose by corrupting these works and not that much to gain. It is an advocacy organization, but so is the EWG, which is certainly pretty reliable. The other concern is that these articles do not say "reprinted with permission"; you may want to contact them and find out what they say about potential copyright violations, and see if there's a statement on the website. If FAN is not reliable, you can certainly cite to the primary literature if you've verified it...which may be impossible to do in some cases. Also, I think pointing out typos vindictively reflects worse on pointer than the misspeller. ImpIn | (t - c) 06:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I meant no malice with the mention of the misspelling. But it is noteworthy that here in cyberspace, [fluoridation dot com] takes you to a radically different place than the misspelled flouridation dot com. Petergkeyes (talk) 06:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I not convinced by FAN's reliability at all - see here for more information. There is doubt, therefore we link to the original source.  Of course if the original source mysteriously only exists on FAN, but is not published by FAN, then again, this whole WP:V issue crops up.  Shot info (talk) 06:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Its not quite that simple. WHY do you doubt the reliability of FAN? Have you looked at their advisory board? Have you found incorrect information on their website? What is the contentious claim? DigitalC (talk) 07:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I just now took a quick look at FAN and agree with DigitalC and Shot info that the actual sources should be cited, and not their summaries on FAN. For example, this FAN summary of a January 2008 Scientific American article reprints selections from the anti-fluoride side of that article, which is hardly a fair summary or an accurate reproduction. (Also, the FAN summary is in clear violation of SciAm's copyright, and Wikipedia should not be linking to copyright violations.) If FAN is publishing its own work, that would be a different story, but the stuff I saw (admittedly a small sample) was all snippets from sources elsewhere. The original sources should be cited instead of FAN's copies. Eubulides (talk) 07:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The organization is clearly not reliable. I recommend removing every link made to that organization's website at Wikipedia except when sourcing a statement in an article made explicitly by them. They are obviously a group of fringe fanatics. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Eubulides raises the main concerns I have with it: posting selections, and copyright issues. I think we shouldn't be using it as a convenience link. However, they've recently initiated a professionals' statement against fluoridation signed by ~1700 professionals. That could be used in the article -- FAN is clearly (in my mind) less fringe and more reliable than Quackwatch, which was run by largely by single person (two now) and used a source in some articles. FAN is run by a group of people who are qualified in environmental science and health, rather than a single psychiatrist who couldn't pass his board exams. ImpIn | (t - c) 02:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

In the year 2000, a researcher named Eugene Albright sent a brief questionnaire to water officials in many countries, asking if they fluoridated the water, and the reasons if they did or did not. Many responses were received, and have been subsequently published on the internet, primarily on websites Fluoridation and Fluoride Action Network. This has formed the basis for what is currently the most global section of the water fluoridation page. Some editors are removing all references to any of the cited sources, leaving the impression that there is no reliable or verified source for the statements. I am concerned that if the citations keep getting removed, the statements will also soon be gone, and so will the burgeoning globalization of the page. Petergkeyes (talk) 07:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment In addition to FAN, we should determine if fluoridation.com is considered a reliable source or not. I've recently had to remove some cites to copies of letters on that site; it also appears to be a campaign site and a "convenience link". --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  07:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * IMHO, both FAN and fluoridation.com make good convenience links, because they sometimes provide the only free copies of published information.


 * I have not seen a consensus on the suitability of these websites as citations. I would advise editors to let these references stand, unless or until a consensus emerges, pronouncing them as unreliable. Certainly it is worthwhile to refer to primary sources whenever possible. But, in some demonstrable cases, these and other similar websites will provide accurate information in more detail than any other free or readily available resources.  Therefore, when all else fails, it is better to cite them than to pretend that they don't exist.  Petergkeyes (talk) 01:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, but therein lies the problem. How accurate and up-to-date is the information, and even presuming it is both, how are readers supposed to make that judgement? Both sites make no attempt to suggest they are anything but opposed to the use of fluoride in drinking water. Now, there is nothing wrong with taking a position on an issue, of course, but it does mean we have to qualify their reliability as a reference source. As non-neutral players, they are likely to only post documents that support their position. Given this, how is a casual reader supposed to determine if the letter posted by a particular official represents that official's current position on the issue? Is either site likely to post a letter from a government that states it has changed its mind and now supports the use of fluoride?
 * Yes, the sites may be convenient - but that does not mean they are the best choice, nor does it mean we should "leave them be" until something better comes along. This is a highly controversial issue, so if a government official has taken a public stand on it, it should be possible to find proof of that position from a direct source. By using indirect sources that have a stake in the issue to verify these statements, we leave a question in the mind of the reader. --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  02:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

UFO websites as valid sources for UFO evidence
Are UFO websites valid sources for UFO evidence? See Talk:Unidentified flying object. Clearly, UFO-enthusiast websites can be used to source the opinions of UFO enthusiasts (and that is of some interest to an encyclopedia article on UFOs) but I am firmly of the belief that they should not be used to source "evidence" for UFO encounters, UFO technology, UFO beliefs in the general public, scientific understanding of UFOs, etc. I removed a number of sources from the article that were trying to do just that. Was I justified? . ScienceApologist (talk) 00:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It depends on the site, but in general I agree. For one thing, most UFO-enthusiast websites would probably count as being "personal websites"... which are not considered reliable for anything other than the opinion of the site's creator.  Then we have to ask if that person's opinion is note worthy... is the person considered an acknowleged expert in the topic? Have they published anything on the topic?  Have others commented on this person's views? etc.  If not, then I think you were justified. Blueboar (talk) 12:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I went over this edit, and endorse the changes you made. Kww (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, one of the more "legitimate" UFO-enthusiast websites would be the National UFO Reporting Center. I'm a complete UFO skeptic myself, but I've known Peter Davenport for decades, and he does seem to approach this all more sanely than any other UFO enthusiast I've ever met or heard of. (This L.A. Times article seems to concur with my estimation.) And, while the "Center" is largely a one-man operation, it's not some theoretical would-be center located in a drawer of someone's desk. There really is a Center (relocated a year or two ago from Seattle to a former missile silo in Eastern Washington). - Jmabel | Talk 22:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliability of sources for World War II start date
Hello.

Over at Talk:World War II, some editors feel that various sources are not reliable. This debate is in relation to sources which utilize dates other then 1939 as potential start dates for World War II. I would appreciate it if I could get confirmation, one way or the other, if the following sources are reliable or not. I believe they are, as they seem to meet the criteria laid out by Wikipedia policies.

Any feedback, on the reliability/usability of these sources is welcomed. Oberiko (talk) 00:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see that any of them necessarily contradict each other. Clearly there are parallels in the East and West, subdued reaction to Japan's first incursions versus Chamberlain's "peace", both characterized by avoidances of conflict which could encourage further actions... there is a point where the multiple conflicts became truly global, but you can't say that's when WWII "started" since war had been already going on for some time. —PētersV (talk) 03:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think they do contradict, but many of us are arguing that WWII starting in 1939 is an opinion, albeit the dominant one, not a fact. Hence, differing opinions exist. Oberiko (talk) 09:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Taylor's analysis is revelatory; there is no consensus on the definition of the war and the mere date of inception must follow this. You can construct a similarly well sourced argument on lack of agreement about the end of the war too, strange as this may sound. Nicely put together, by the way. MartinSFSA (talk) 11:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Some are not seeing the wood for the trees. The key phrase is "World war" - conflict between China and Japan in Manchuria, etc., is not of "World war" status. Either you ignore conflicts with small numbers of participants or over geographically restricted areas, or you accept that WW2 is really just an extension of WW1. <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS, verdana, sans serif; color:#0088BB;">Meowy 20:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but that's not really what this is a discussion is about. It's determining if the sources provided are reliable or not, not on opinions of their opinions.  If you do not believe these sources are reliable, I would ask that you refute them according to the guidelines on reliability. Oberiko (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * They are most of them perfectly reliable. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the mainstream view is that the World War started in 1939, even if many reliable sources have argued that such dates are fungible. This is not a problem of reliability, but one of weightage. -- Relata refero (disp.) 23:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have some concerns about the notablity of these sources. Except Taylor, Wagner, Utley, Murray, Dower, Willmott, & the Times (& maybe Dallin), I've never heard of most of them. Trekphiler (talk) 01:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Surely the most obvious solution would be to say something like "WW2 is generally said to have started in 1939, although some have argued that it started in 1931, 1937 or 1941."? As WP:NPOV says, "where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly." Since there seems to be non-trivial disagreement on the start date of the war, that would be worth mentioning. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course I agree with Chris and RR. As for notability, I put in some links to our articles on some of the other authors.John Z (talk) 07:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * EVERY global history of World War Two gives the dates as 1939-45. See for instance:


 * A World in Flames (1990) by Martin Kitchen
 * World War II (1970) by C.L. Sulzberger
 * The Times Atlas of the Second World War (1989)
 * A World at Arms (1994) by Gerhard L. Weinberg.
 * The Second World War John Keegan
 * ''Blood, Tears and Folly: An Objective Look at World War II Len Deighton

There is NOT ONE global history of World War Two giving the dates 1937-45. All we have above are specialist studies on aspects of the war, often in books which do not have World War Two as the main subject matter. In the article the fringe view that the war started in 1937 is stated as normative and all attempts to put even the smallest sub-heading in the body of the article adverting to the significance of 1939 have been relentlessly deleted. Thus the overwhelming concensus of historians that 1939 was a significant date is not allowed to be mentioned in the article. I feel that it is seriously misleading to delete all reference to the normative, conscensus view of historians that the conflict was 1939-45. I repeat: in the article 1937 is represented as the normative concensus view - which it is not. Colin4C (talk) 11:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Bold accusations that no global histories (what ever that means) uses an alternate date when several exist right above you here. In any case, I won't argue your personal beliefs here.  Please use WP:RS guidelines to disprove their reliability if you take issue with the sources.  Your original research doesn't change anything. Oberiko (talk) 11:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It is important to understand the purpose of Oberiko listing these references here. What we have above are, for the most part, sources pulled from Google Books which are being use to support a position that some people say that WWII started at some time other than September 1939. Oberiko's has found these obscure references (including one in a book about Jurisprudence) in order to support the position within thwe WWII article that the conflict between China and Japan in 1937 was the start of WWII and not just a regional conflict that later merged into WWII after the Japanese aggression of 1941. This is very clearly a niche view and it can be proven that is is a niche view because despite repeated demands, and all the trawling through Google Books on Obeiriko's part he has singularly failed to find a global history of WWII which uses the 1937-1945 rather than 1939-1945. Further he has singularly failed to find a noted historian who supports this position. It should be noted that finding a "prominent adherent'" to support a minority view is one of the core principles WP:NPOV. It specifically says that if no prominent adherent can be found the the minority view does not belong in Wikipedia. Oberiko's accusation of OR here is rather galling here given that ColinC has merely listed a small selection of the many global histories of WWII that use the conventional dates all of which can be found in most libraries, whilst Oberiko has gone to a great deal of trouble to find the most obscure references that disagree. Jooler (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Obscure? You realize that several of the references are best-sellers?  You realize that many of the authors (and some of the sources) have Wikipedia articles?  You believe Taylor's "The Origins of the Second World War" is obscure (google it)?  You believe that the Library of Congress, New York Times and Institute of Pacific Relations are obscure?  You believe that Japanese official histories of World War II are obscure?
 * Labelling these as "obscure" is a pretty bold argument. Can I ask why you think they are obscure? Oberiko (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I hesitate to get into the content… but I will. Clearly, the consensus is to date the start of the war from the German invasion of Poland, and to say that (for example) the earlier conquests by Japan and Italy were part of the build-up to the war. And, equally clearly (pace Taylor) this consensus is a convention, not a simple fact. It would seem to me that the article should be clear that historians generally date the start of the war from the German invasion of Poland, but to word that in a way that makes it clear that this is a fact about historiography more than about history. - Jmabel | Talk 21:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * To Oberiko: They are for the most part obscure - as per user Trekphiler who said "I've never heard of most of them". There isn't a prominent historian of WWII listed here who specifically says WWII began in 1937, as opposed to saying China and Japan were fighting in 1937 what would become part of WWII in 1941. There is a subtle difference here. As for AJP Taylor (of whom I believe you [Oberiko] said on the WWII talk page that you were not aware of), his chosen date for WWII was 1941 and not 1937, and again it smacks of desperation when you have to use a book on Jurisprudence and not history to attempt to prove your point. You speak of "Japanese official histories" but present no evidence related to them. It should also be pointed out that you specifically defend the 1937 date and yet a large number of the references above use 1931. Jooler (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter who you personally have or haven't heard off. If you check, I have three sources crediting the Japanese official histories to having a start date of World War II in 1931. Also, I'm not arguing 1937, I'm arguing that at least a significant minority disagree with 1939. You are quite correct that I hadn't heard of Taylor before, but the sheer amount of material about him and his books made it quite easy to learn very quickly. Oberiko (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is more than a little disturbing that you are claiming expertise on history and WWII and hadn't even heard of one of the most significant historians of the 20th century (as you've now found out from Google!), but that's besides the point. You seemed to have misunderstood my point above. I was not saying I had heard or not heard the authors cited. I was quoting user Trekphiler he said he hadn't heard of most of them. Thus illustrating that they probably do not qualify as prominent experts in the field. You say you are not arguing for 1937, but you are specifically mentioning 1937 in the first paragraph of the article. So I think you are being slightly disingenuous here. What you call a significant minority is in fact an insignificant minority given that weighed against the 40 odd books above are thousands and thousands of other books which use 1939 as the start date. Jooler (talk) 22:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Leaked television episode
An article has been started on "The Invisible Hand of Fate", an unbroadcast episode of the television series The Venture Bros.. Judging by this thread on his talk page, the editor who added the plot summary, and most of the other content, is working from a copy of the episode that has been "leaked onto the internet". Is this an allowable way to source a television episode article? The policy on verifiability talks of dealing with published sources, so, as this episode is unpublished (in the sense of not yet being broadast), I'm wondering how tenable this practice is. --Sugarbutty 16:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * From sheer accuracy it's not published so we don't know how complete post production was. MartinSFSA (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The producers could also edit it up until the hour that it airs, so what appears in the "leaked" version might not even ever air at all. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 19:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm forming the impression, then, that this can't really be viewed as reliable. Any suggestions on what to do? I'd rather not get into an edit war over removing stuff. --Sugarbutty 19:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliability of Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, Storrs 2005 ISSN 1555-4775
Is this source considered as reliable:- Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, Storrs 2005 ISSN 1555-4775
 * It appears that the Natural Philosophy Alliance is dedicated to controversial ideas in the areas of physics and cosmology. Most likely its proceedings are a reliable source for the fact that the ideas therein are held by the people who express them, but it seems likely that those ideas are not considered mainstream in the world of physics. Thus, use of this publication as a source could run the risk of violating the WP:FRINGE guideline. This doesn't mean it's banned altogether, but this needs to be taken into account. (Disclaimer: I have not seen the Proceedings themselves.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The NPA is essentially Cranks United. The web site is running on a standard home page, and rants against all that inconvenient new devil physics, like relativity and quantum physics. Aether hurray, here we come, marching back into the comfortable age of spherical sheep of uniform density deterministically moving with respect to the absolute frame of reference. This is not a scientific organization and their publication are not a a reliable source except in the most narrow confines of WP:SPS. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The mainstream ideas have several paradoxes and other results, which cannot be understood by even the most intelligent scientists. It is desireable to view different ideas, so as to bring improvement by concensus. Censoring all 'fringe' type ideas will not improve the subject. So please discuss the different views.Daralam (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's the normal state of science that we do not fully understand an issue - if we did, we could stop doing science. But what I saw on the NPA website is so far out, it does not even enter the ring. This ranges from completely refuted to not even wrong. Also note that Wikipedia does not do original research, but summarizes what reliable sources have to say on a topic. No, bringing in unfiltered nonsense is not going to "bring improvement by concensus", but will rather drown out good and reliable information under mountains of garbage. --Stephan Schulz(talk)00:30,1 June 2008 (UTC)

You have formed some wrong impression of NPA. Natural Philosophy Alliance has the following website, consisting of large number of pages on various aspects: - http://www.worldnpa.org Modern physics uses extensive amount of mathematics, which because it can support imaginary terms, gives virtual solutions that cannot occur in real world. Several such solutions (paradoxes) in a virtual world occur in relativity, quantum physics, string-theory etc. Even the most intelligent scientists cannot logically understand such results, with their common sense. Effort is therefore made by NPA to discuss, theorize and understand and publish the fundamental basis of the natural phenomena in a rational manner.Daralam (talk) 07:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, they got a domain name and some slicker web design, but the content is still the same as on the original http://home.comcast.net/~Deneb/. These are people who attack the most successful theories of modern science for no other reasons than "I can't do the math" and "this makes me feel uncomfortable" and "scientists are all in a giant conspiracy". Their papers generally show a pre-college level of understanding of physics and a high crank factor. They are not considered part of the scientific literature, and they are not cited by reliable natural scientists. Just see "A Third Alternative to the Generation of Energy by Fission and Fusion " or "Electromagnetic Space –Time –Ether" or "Recent Discoveries in Physics that the Natural Philosophy Alliance (of the USA) Should Support ", all from . --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Many successful theories of modern science can not be logically understood by anybody. For example can you uderstand how measuring rods in moving systems shrink, or the clocks go slow? These results of Relativity theory are accepted without any logical reasoning, because they apparently describe strange irrational behavior of light. Th NPA tries to find different solutions and presents them to the scientists, to make them think of better alternatives. Ultimately that which is logical rational and clearly understood will be acceoted by all. The purpose is to present different alternatives and not to berate or pull down any body.Daralam (talk) 08:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, those theories can be understood logically without any trouble (well, you need the math). Internal consistency is the prime requirement of a theory, both in logic and in science. An intuitive understanding is hard for e.g. quantum theory or relativity, because these theories describe phenomena not usually encountered in normal life, and hence outside our experience. The theories are not paradox, they just disagree with your (or our) prejudices that come from living in a world of small macroscopic objects moving at slow speed and under the influence of weak forces. But this discussion moves to a level not really suitable for this board. The NPA is not a reliable source in the Wikipedia. It has no reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It represents fringe a view that we should not give undue weight. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The members of the Natural Philosophy Alliance are active in analyzing the fundamental basis of the theories of modern physics; and to the modification of those theories, which are illogical or unrealistic, by sounder ideas developed with full evidence, logic, and objectivity. Annual meetings are held, where the members discuss new papers and evaluate them by consensus. These articles are then published in the Proceedings of the NPA. These are the normal practices followed by members of reliable Physics organizations. Therefore Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance,may be accepted as reliable. Daralam (talk) 13:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It is noted above that in modern physics an intuitive understanding is hard for e.g. quantum theory or relativity, because these theories describe phenomena not usually encountered in normal life, and hence outside our experience. On the contrary to logically understand the experiments done in our labs on light, electronics, etc, one needs logical, and rational theories. Quantum theory and relativity, which have been actually setup to explain these very phenomena are totally irrational; and so search must go on to find theories which can logically explain these natural phenomena. Efforts made by NPA members should therefore be strongly supported. Daralam (talk) 12:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * While this may be somewhat monotonously: No. I'm all in favour of supporting research. But the NPA is not a reliable source. All of their publications I checked are either plain nonsense in the not even wrong category, or wrong at a 10th grade high-school level. You are free to strongly support them. But they are not a reliable source on any scientific topic. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia, this is a fringe source dedicated to fringe theories with little or no acceptance in mainstream science. Continually shouting and whining about that isn't going to change it. Per policy, that book is not a reliable source, you may not use it on mainstream articles, and must establish notability of the ideas before you can use it even on pages about the fringe concepts, and even then may not say them as true, or misrepresent their acceptance - they must be clearly labelled as fringe. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 23:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I hear a lot of shouting and whining to support the so called infalliblity of main stream science, without proper understanding of the logic behind theories like Relativity, which may be rationally termed as in the not even wrong category. For example as per Relativity theory, your measuring rod shrinks in the direction in which the earth is moving in space, but not at right angles to it where it remains unshrunk. Then when you hold down one end of this rod on a sheet of paper, and holding a pen on the other end rotate it around, should you see a circle or an ellipse? Discussing such paradoxes is not to be condemned as fringe science, but is essential to bring some order in the irrational and illogical parts of the main stream physics. Daralam (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not a paradox, it just displays a complete misunderstanding of relativistic length contraction. There is no inconsistency except with respect to your unspoken and wrong implicit assumptions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

So since the velocity of earth in space is expected to be very much less than C, the ellipse will look like circle due to minute difference in the two axes. But another member may say, if the velocity of earth were say 0.1C, then it would be seen as ellipse. Not so says a third member, as per relativity an observer will not find any contraction of measuring rod in his own system, irrespective of the value of his uniform velocity in space. It is when he is observing another system traveling at say 0.1C relative to him, then in that other system similar figure drawn, will look to him as a clear ellipse. But another observer traveling in that second system will see it only as a circle. Well now is it rationally a circle or an ellipse, this opens out as a paradox. But this is not the place to solve it. So let NPA members do all the work, and if they find some better solutions they can publish it. Let others have access to it in Wikipedia, instead of censoring all the so-called fringe ideas. Daralam (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Things look different depending on your movement and position with respect to them. That is not a paradox, its not even unusual. If Big Van Vader is standing next to me, he sure looks large. If he is at the horizon, he looks small. Anyways, I have neither the time nor the inclination to teach special relativity online. The NPA people are free to do research, and once they have a great new theory, they can publish it in a reliable source, just like every other scientist. Before publication it will undergo peer review and will be properly evaluated. The PNPA is an unreliable source not because it has no chance of publishing a good paper. It's an unreliable source because they publish a large percentage (putting it generously) of complete crap. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The apparent visual size reduction, as an object moves away from one, is not in anyway comparable to the shrinkage of rods prescribed in relativity. It is good of you not to be inclined to teach your ideas of relativity to others. However if you do feel inclined, you are free to tell them to others, and conversely permit others to state theirs, without insisting on any form of censorship.Daralam (talk) 18:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed I'm free to do so, and so is the NPA. They can start Crankopedia, or maybe produce a self-published journal (oh, wait...). Neither they nor I are free to do so on Wikipedia. The value of peer review in journals and on reliable sources on Wikipedia has a valuable purpose: It separates the crap from the stuff worth reading. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

To separate the crap from the stuff worth reading one must firstly have adequate expert knowledge of the subject. One’s ignorance of the latest knowledge of the subject can cause lot of problems for others.Daralam (talk) 07:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Glad to see that we agree. Although the problems you cause are not that bad, so far. I have enough expert knowledge to recognize the NPA publications as complete crap. But luckily, the world does not have to rely on me for paper evaluation in physics (I do it in a sub-area of computer science), but on real physicists. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

There may have been some quarrels and name calling in the distant past, but for the last two years, no real physicist has called a paper approved in the meeting and published by NPA, as crap. Computer science is a practical science clearly understood by mature commonsense, whereas theoretical physics is much more in mathematics, where imaginary terms give unreal solutions (paradoxes). Even experts find it difficult to separate the real from virtual results. Sometime back top experts enthusiastically expected String theory to give out real results, now it is failing to do so. In future some one may even classify it jokingly, as a twelve dimensional crap. Differences in opinion on technical matters are better settled by discussion and concensus. So please consult real physicists to re-evaluate your opinion. Daralam (talk) 02:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it is useful to continue this discussion. Our positions are sufficiently clear. I am right and you are not ;-). Anyways, anybody but you seems to agree that, whatever value and truth may be in the PNPA, they are not a reliable source for scientific articles. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)