Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 160

Huffington Post/Daily Mirror
What are the feelings about using the Daily Mirror and the Huffington Post as sources for claiming a death is "unusual", as was done in this edit to List of unusual deaths?
 * Daily Mirror link: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/woman-having-sex-railway-tracks-2323644
 * Huffington Post link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/30/train-tracks-sex-run-over-ukraine-_n_4017485.html

&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:01, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The Dailly Mirror is a screaming healine tabloid whose bread and butter is sensationalizing content. They are not a reliable source for much of anything.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  21:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The Huffington Post passes as a WP:Reliable source, and is generally accepted on Wikipedia as one, but all WP:Reliable sources have their limit. Whether or not the Daily Mirror is a WP:Reliable source, it generally is not accepted on Wikipedia by very experienced Wikipedia editors; it seems that it's tabloid journalism, not simply a newspaper employing tabloid (newspaper format). Flyer22 (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * In any case neither article uses the word "unusual" or any synonym or near synonym, so they are not evidence for the statement. That they are in a section entitled "weird news" is not sufficient to make the claim.  DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm actually of the opinion that any column used to collect "weird news" is inherently unreliable for classifying things as unusual, even if it uses a synonym in the text. There's too much of a motivation to classify things that way simply to fill column inches.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * More important, I am less willing than I used to be to trust the HP as a RS in all cases: consider the similarity of their article to that in the Mirror.  DGG ( talk ) 01:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * while parts of the Huff Post are generally reliable, look at the other headings along with the "Weird News" section under the "Huff Post Live" banner: Dumb Crime, UFO, Conspiracy Theories, World Records, Paranormal, Ghosts editorial snark, "Ghosts" aren't  "Paranormal"?, Anatomical Wonders, Zombie Apocalypse.
 * This is definitely their "Tabloid" pull out section and not the work for which they get Journalism awards. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Huffington Post used to be under community restriction for use in sourcing facts. That has been slowly changing as editors are able to demonstrate that some material from HP is original (not repeated from another source) and was written by a journalist accredited in their field and is a straight forward news story and not a blog or opinion piece. The reason why Huffington Post gets a lot of editors in an uproar is that we did have restrictions on them when they were more purely a blog site. That has changed greatly and discussions on this board have covered that and consensus seems to recognize that HP can be used as RS in some cases. The Daily Mirror is a tabloid publication in the sense that it is generally seen as gossip, sensationalistic and little editorial over site allowing for outlandish claims.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: On October 29th, an IP changed The Huffington Post Wikipedia article to partly state that the newspaper is a tabloid; I changed it back to "blog" earlier this hour. Flyer22 (talk) 03:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

AllMusic/AMG as a source for biographical info
I can't seem to find a clear consensus for AMG as a source for biographical info. (The specific article is Perri "Pebbles" Reid.)

It is obviously widely used on Wikipedia, not that that means much. More telling, IMO is that AMG is used by the New York Times. Thoughts? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The metadata looks like it is in part user-submitted. I would not trust the metadata.  The biographies and reviews are all licensed from Rovi, and neither All Media Guide nor Rovi seem to accept user submissions in this area, though they do seem to accept corrections.  The corrections are requested to have a citation, but it is not required.  Who knows what that means in terms of reliability.  I try to avoid using Rovi/AMG as a source, but the reviews and biographies seem to be the most reliable aspect of the site.  If you simply must use Rovi/AMG, I guess that's the part to use.  If you do a web search, you can see that the author of this bio, Greg Prato, is a veteran music journalist, and he's published several books.  I'd say that anything he says is fine. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Its reliability may not be the real issue anyway, since I've seen many reliable sources misreport ages, simply because often lie about how old they really are. This was an issue at Audrey Tautou for years until it was settled by Tautou herself just last month, but you can see how it was handled until then. Betty Logan (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Verifiability is the issue: Did the material come from a reliable source. As a result, this it the "Reliable sources noticeboard" not the "Is it correct noticeboard". - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if Allmovie is deemed "reliable" for her age, it doesn't get to trump other reliable sources in this regard. This book by a music historian states she was born in 1965, while another music writer states she was born in 1964. The magazine article posted on the talk page clearly contradicts the 1966 date too. While all three may meet the basic RS criteria (professionally published with editorial oversight) only one of them is correct in regards to her age, so it's basic common sense here to include either all the sourcable dates or none of them. Betty Logan (talk) 22:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The biographies and reviews are reliable sources - several of their writers are well established and respected music writers. The chart information (listed under 'Awards') is also reliable - taken from Billboard. The lists of genres are often pretty meaningless and shouldn't be trusted, not sure about dates of birth - most I've checked against other sources seem pretty good. --Michig (talk) 19:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

a policy proposal at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy) regarding  Lack_of_references_and_citations
Hi,

I have listed a policy proposal pertaining to dealing with_Lack_of_references_and_citations_through_Edit_filters at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy).Please do join in to give your valued openions.

Mahitgar (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Demos blog criticism in BLP
The issue is whether Demos (U.S. think tank) in a "Policy Shop" blog entry by Matt Bruenig in can be used to criticize Hans-Hermann Hoppe for "comparing LGBTQ people to pedophiles" - and any other purpose - in this article: "Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Libertarian Extraordinaire". (Note "discussion" section included to prevent unnecessary discussion in other two sections.) [Added later: Discussion at Talk:Hans-Hermann_Hoppe] User:Carolmooredc talk  17:36, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors

 * No, it is a BLP violation. I have removed it. The guy is not a member of the Demos staff, so this is obviously just as blog post. I see no statement on the site which says they retain editorial control over the blogs either. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong claims require strong sources, and that raises doubts about this one. I can understand the rationale that if HHH said these things we could cite him as a primary source about his own opinions, but that is not what we are doing as I understand it? Any chance that supporters of this material can find it in a better source?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Involved editors
Originating editor writes: As regular readers of this board know, editors have to keep bringing examples of poorly sourced critical material in Austrian economics BLPs and other articles here to get community comments one at a time, time after time. At what point do community sanctions on Austrian economics kick in? Very frustrating. User:Carolmooredc talk  17:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Demos (U.S. think tank) does not indicate that its blog is edited, so this may well be self-published. Matt Bruenig is not listed as part of the staff, board, fellows, or experts at Demos; a Huffington Post article describes him as a college student. His webpage states he has written for a few publications but lists no academic or other evidence of expertise. Bruenig obviously is first and foremost an advocacy opinion piece writer.
 * When I added Hoppe's quote at this diff (starting with "Hoppe had written"), it became clear that Hoppe listed a lot of different types of people he didn't like, both were on the list, and Hoppe made no one on one comparison. This is just Bruenig's highly POV opinion writing not journalism trying to be accurate.
 * User Steeletrap removed a verify credibility tag at this diff falsely claiming there was no ongoing discussion and MilesMoney reverted deletion of the section on BLP grounds saying there was not a BLP issue -- even though four out of six editors discussing Bruenig in this section were opposed to using him for criticism in a BLP.
 * FYI, another use of Bruenig in the article is as a secondary source to point out what Hoppe said on free speech, which also is quoted. But I'd rather see a primary source used than let in a nonRS secondary source which before long will inevitably be used for critical purposes, against WP:BLP.


 * For the record, I do not think it is a good idea to split discussion into two sections based on whether an editor is previously involved or not. Regarding the Bruenig bit, I am in favor of keeping him for his uncontroversial affirmation of free speech not being allowed in Hoppe's vision of covenant communities (as described clearly in Hoppe's book), but I am not in favor of giving Bruenig voice in the controversial bit about pedophiles and gays. Bruenig is not significant enough for controversial opinions of his to be quoted prominently. Binksternet (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * @Binksternet. Indeed such delineations are not good ideas. I've become fed up of trying to understand and discourage this and other idiosyncracies deployed by the various combatants (for that is what they are). Much more of this sort of thing, which extends the "them" and "us" mentality, & I'll be proposing that all who are presently involved are topic banned: the disruption ins tiresome and ridiculous. Then we'll all get some peace. - Sitush (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Given that people tend to ignore the rules anyway, I'd a agree. User:Carolmooredc Face-surprise.svg  02:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion
Question for OP. Trying to follow your rationale for excluding this source. How is Demos different than the Mises Institute (other than the many women working at Demos?) They both seem to be research and policy advocacy organizations. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk  18:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Mises blogs are written by academics and experts and I haven't seen the Troika of Mises critics coming down on any of them. Did I forget something? Do you have any example? I know I objected to the use of a LewRockwell.com blog entry that Steeletrap and MilesMoney supported the use of, but I fixed the OR problem, so now it's just and irrelevance problem. (And there are far bigger POV issues on Rothbard hit piece article anyway.) User:Carolmooredc Face-surprise.svg  18:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Jeffrey Tucker is one of the most prolific contributor to Mises.org. Is he an academic? His only editorial experience appears to have been with the Ron Paul Newsletters (though admittedly this is only alleged). Steeletrap (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I see it as a POV issue rather than rs. What degree of expertise does Bruenig have?  To what extent has he influenced mainstream views of libertarianism?  How often are his works cited in political science textbooks?  I would say that his article does not meet the grade for inclusion.  TFD (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that this and the previous RS posting were weight/pov issues rather than RS issues. However to your other points -- Hoppe is to my knowledge not discussed by any mainstream political theorists or economists, either in textbooks or elsewhere. Therefore it would not be surprising that a journalist or other investigator would have done the best, most thorough, and neutral research on HHHH.  SPECIFICO  talk  19:29, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Blogs that lack editorial control are not reliable except for comments made by the author about the author. Blog entries that relate to living people need to meet a higher standard than other such entries. This is a blog entry about a living person, written by someone who seems neither to represent Demos nor to have been subject to editorial oversight and, as such, should not be used. If Hoppe is not discussed by mainstream political theorists or economists then we have nothing to say, period, because we cannot give more weight to the fringe than to the mainstream. It might be an indication that the entire issue is not notable. - Sitush (talk) 19:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The topic is worth mentioning since his exposition is a rather insensitive and inaccurate way of describing a libertarian principle which WP:RS have commented upon. However, it only deserves a paragraph. Instead it's been blown way out of proportion as a WP:Coatrack. But I'll say no more :-) User:Carolmooredc Face-surprise.svg  02:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

It was never a BLP issue because Bruenig referred directly to HHH's own words, which were indeed summarized accurately. If I were to say that neither French people nor child molesters were allowed in my restaurant, I would be grouping the two categories together as if they were somehow equivalent. HHH does this with homosexuals and child molesters. In short, there can be no defamation because the claims are true: HHH really did say this stuff.

As for Bruenig, the technical term for his occupation is "journalist". He's as reliable a source as the equivalent from the institute-whose-name-I-cannot-speak. MilesMoney (talk) 05:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * SPECIFICO, instead of taking the view that readers are unintelligent people and our role is to steer them away from evil, think of social scientists, police officers, psychiatrists or political strategists who have come to this article because they have come across the name.  They do not need guidance in order to steer them away from wrong decisions, but need facts in order to make rational decisions.  TFD (talk) 07:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Miles, how do we know that he accurately summarised what Hoppe said and meant? Your analogy seems to be drawing a conclusion that is not said - it is an opinion. If you think that journalists are inherently reliable then you've got a lot to learn. And if he *is* a journalist then why doesn't he publish this in a mainstream news media outlet? TFD, if social scientists etc come to Wikipedia as an authoritative source then they're in the wrong job. We don't even have the confidence cite ourselves, and rightly so. - Sitush (talk) 09:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * They do not come to it as an authoritative source. However, if someone doing research comes across the name in passing, this article is probably the only source that assembles biographical detail, and the first Google hit.  In fact the other sources on the first page of Google hits (other than wikiquotes) are all sourced to him or the LvMI.  Anyone reading this article would think that his major significance to people who read his books is a libertarian justification for the exclusion of LGBT people from society.  Of course researchers are aware that many if not most Wikipedia articles about political topics are misleading or biased.  But that does not justify their being so.  TFD (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You are correct, TFD. If only one could get more of a response at BLP about these heavily biased articles. However, in the past on other articles, I've had admins come in and take out a lot of WP:UNDUE negative, advocacy-sourced material and a few weeks later POV editors who put similar material in a number of articles put it right back in again. So it's a very frustrating failing of Wikipedia trying to get sanctions for editors who continually abuse BLPs. At least this board usually will remove non-WP:RS material and support RS material falsely claimed to be non-WP:RS. User:Carolmooredc Face-surprise.svg  04:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * @TFD -- I don't think the article says anything about who reads 4H's books or who those people might be. However his most prominent notability in the public eye today (and perhaps in histories written 50 years hence) is that he's the guy who said all that LGBT stuff. That stuff was in the national news, whereas very very very few folks know or care about his libertarian principles or his PFS.  SPECIFICO  talk  04:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * When LGBT-advocating editors are busy dumping poorly sourced, POV, WP:UNDUE material in there requiring hours and hours of discussion on talk pages as they defend it with questionable arguments, necessitating multiple visits to noticeboards, etc., other editors can become too burned out to even look for other evidence of notability. And even if it [later note:his professorial comments defended by the ACLU] is the most notable (newspaper wise) fact about him, it's ([later note: 7 paragaph long section]) still way too much material and totally WP:UNDUE. User:Carolmooredc Face-surprise.svg  04:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You still have to establish the weight that your sources have. How many other writers for example have cited Bruenig's opinion?  TFD (talk) 05:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

NSNBC International
What the heck is NSNBC International? It's apparently a domain from Montenegro. I have discovered it is used four times at Wikipedia as a source, but am unfamiliar with it. It's confusingly close to MSNBC. I can't find an article here: NSNBC International or NSNBC. Is this a RS, or is it a copycat fringe website? -- Brangifer (talk) 06:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You can take a look at their about page here. Seems like a new news publishing operation (Feb 2013). I don't see any support for RS in the form of mention in other RS, notable editorial board members etc. The editorial policy is vague and seems more a political statement than anything else. For each use I would suggest checking the author, other RS mention etc. My basic impression is not RS. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree. I was just doing some research for a speech I'll be giving on "The Vaccine Controversy" (which doesn't even exist within science and medicine), but which is kept alive in fringe circles, and I ran across an extremely unreliable and deceptive article on NSNBC. There, at the bottom of the page, was this description of NSNBC:


 * "In March 2013, nsnbc ínternational was started as a daily, independent, international on-line newspaper to provide high quality news, analysis and opinion from contributors throughout the world. nsnbc has a number of high profile contributors, and has a partnership with a number of other independent media, to guaranty you the best possible coverage. nsnbc is in a permanent mode of expansion to break, what we perceive as corporate and government controlled misinformation of peoples´world wide. Starting from a personal blog in 2011, it developed into a daily newspaper in 2013, and during 2014 - 16 we plan to have independent contributors in, and cover most countries. nsnbc is free to read and basic subscriptions are free of charge, but we appreciate donations. We also offer you to become an nsnbc insider by signing up for special, paid subscriptions, which offer you additional services, and access to an informed community." (Source)


 * The author first published this trash in fringe publications, so it's secondary BS, which doesn't increase its accuracy. I think we should be extremely cautious about using this source. - Brangifer (talk) 08:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about the topic, but I'm not sure how fair you're being to the author; a cursory glance at the piece suggests he seems to be relying on other sources, and some of the sources look worth following up. Podiaebba (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The Contributors list has some notable names, like F. William Engdahl and Michel Chossudovsky. Its editor-in-chief is Christof Lehmann, who isn't, and doesn't have any journalistic background or publishing pedigree etc that I can see. In addition, nsnbc shares 50% of its ad revenue with contributors. In short, nsnbc is similar to something like globalresearch.ca - any judgement of reliability is based entirely on the author attached to the piece (like a self-published blog), with the publication adding nothing to it. Podiaebba (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with the comment immediately preceding. As for being fair to the author of the specific articles. If his work is published only in non notable places that have no standing as RS, what is the author's standing as an expert or as a journalist? A well sourced article in a non RS publication (like say WP) is not a reliable source for WP content. Regarding it being secondary, the same author publishing the same (or essentially the same) material in three different places does not make it secondary. A secondary source would be someone else commenting on or citing this material in a separate work (like if an article appeared in a newspaper about Samuel's claims). - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Correct. He seems to be the only source for this conspiracy theory/accusation. No RS report it. Unfortunately Gates, being a public person, can't sue for libel and have any chance of success, at least in the USA. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * He seems to be the only source for this conspiracy theory/accusation. - well yes and no. The excess NPFAFP in India analysis clearly comes from here. I can't see a source for the Gates Foundation funding OPV (oral polio vaccine), but have the impression OPV is the standard used in India and the Foundation funds the programme. One point worth making is that the headline is misleading - it refers to "paralysis death" rather than "paralysis and death", as appears to have been the author's intention originally (look at the URL of the original story, and note the misleading removal of "and" doesn't appear in the body text). Podiaebba (talk) 11:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Connections to folk like Egdahl and Chossudovsky can only increase concerns that this source has inherent problems with neutrality and accuracy. bobrayner (talk) 11:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Mark Regnerus used as a source in sexuality articles
Back in August of this year, concern was expressed that Mark Regnerus is a questionable source to use for sourcing sexuality material, especially with regard to adolescents; see Talk:Hookup culture/Archive 2, where NorthBySouthBaranof explained removing sexual material because "the text expressed a negative POV with regards to sexual behavior and it was heavily reliant (in some cases, basically completely reliant) on the questionable work of Mark Regnerus, whose studies involving same-sex parents have been entirely discredited." Other editors have followed in this regard, Meteor sandwich yum at the Adolescent sexuality in the United States article and Saltybone at various articles (for Saltybone, so far November 13 regular time or Wikipedia time, and November 14 in Wikipedia time); see Saltybone's contributions. Saltybone has even been removing Regnerus from situations that provide WP:INTEXT attribution to Regnerus.

In the discussion about Regnerus at the Adolescent sexuality in the United States article, Student7 stated, "It doesn't seem to me that Regnerus has been proven non-WP:RS. Rather the reverse. See Witherspoon_Institute. This subsection contains pointed criticism of the author, but defense, as well. The criticism seems to be mostly directed at his SSM parenting and not his other research. But even there, many sociologists/psychologists support him. Erasing Regnerus instead of offering an 'answer' to his research denotes WP:BIAS if he is WP:RS, which I believe he is. If we erased all citations where the author held an strong opinion, we would be mostly unable to conduct citation in Wikipedia. Gone would be the NY Times, The Washington Post, CBSNBC, and most of the media, and many think tanks, as well. For the record, teenaged births have reached a record high. Sure, birth control. Right. Anyway, these children of teens are most likely to be 'in trouble' with the law later on and to have 'diminished careers.' Right now, it is a national blight, and thwarts all efforts to conduct a War on Poverty or improvements in outcomes with education."

I brought this matter here to this noticeboard because this clearly needs to be significantly discussed among the wider Wikipedia community. It is important to remind editors of WP:NOTADVOCATE; do read the Advocacy essay. While I understand the reaction to exclude Regnerus from matters concerning LGBT topics because of his LGBT research, there is nothing that gives us the right to remove him from Wikipedia entirely. In some cases, Regnerus is reporting what many or the vast majority of sources report (and I'm not talking about his LGBT research). And like I also often state, WP:Neutral is not about giving equal validity to matters. The WP:Due weight aspect of WP:Neutral makes clear (when scrolling down to the Balancing aspects and Giving "equal validity" subsections), there should not be an attempt to give "equal validity" to things that are not on equal footing with regard to coverage among sources.

Other editors involved in, or related to, this Regnerus matter are Illuminato, Maunus, NinjaRobotPirate, AndyTheGrump, Jaytwist, EBY3221, NatGertler, Zad68, IPs noted at the end of the Talk:Hookup culture discussion, and mostly recently...Dmol (seen reverting Saltybone here; Saltybone's reply is here). Flyer22 (talk) 00:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll quote what I already stated, I saw news reports questioning this researchers methods and the more of his uses on Wikipedia I saw - the more suspicious I became. I've seen now two articles that entirely hinge on his studies. Doesn't that seem odd? Doesn't that go against having a neutral point of view? That one questionable researcher's study from 5-6 years ago is the basis for at least two full articles? I hope to be proven wrong but it doesn't seem likely.


 * At least for the two articles (Pornography and adolescents, and Sexual behavior of American adolescents) that solely rely on this researcher I think Wikipedia should be careful of being his mouthpiece, or whatever is being promoted.Saltybone (talk) 01:02, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Saltybone; there seems a concerted effort to create and rewrite human sexuality articles with a highly biased, reactionary viewpoint, and I think it's veering into WP:PROFRINGE territory. I've essentially given up on editing sexuality articles, as my interest in the topic is simply not matched by my toleration for drama, but I find this trend troubling.  I don't know about Regnerus citations being purged from articles without discussion, but I believe that Regnerus could be considered WP:FRINGE.  Google News results claim Regnerus and his research to be "discredited", "debunked", and "infamous", among other negative descriptions.  Granted, some of these results come from advocacy sites, but this is not what I'd expect to find from a reliable source.  At best, discretion and care should be used in citing him and his work.  Obviously, biased sources are allowed; it's explicitly stated in WP:BIASED.  However, Regnerus' reputation for controversial, non-mainstream opinions and poor scholarship may be too strong to allow him to be used on anything but trivial statements of opinion and non-controversial statements of fact (as determined by consensus on the appropriate talk page).  If Regnerus is reporting mainstream opinion, then it should be easy to source such statements to a more reliable source.  I would discourage the use of Regnerus as a reliable source, but much of the problem is actually WP:NPOV violations and thus more appropriate to that noticeboard.  I have no problem with articles being purged of citations to Regnerus, but I think we should probably discuss it here first and determine consensus on this matter. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As someone very familiar with Wikipedia human sexuality articles (as many at this site know), I have not seen a "concerted effort to create and rewrite human sexuality articles with a highly biased, reactionary viewpoint," unless of course referring to Illuminato; Illuminato, for example and as you know, heavily cited Regnerus in a few articles (including "Pornography and adolescents" and "Sexual behavior of American adolescents," two articles he or she created) -- all about adolescent sexual behavior in the United States. Regnerus was already used in several human sexuality articles, but without much emphasis, as partly shown by Saltybone's aforementioned recent edit history. Flyer22 (talk) 08:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd rather not get into that whole discussion here, as it's off-topic and everyone involved has already had their say multiple times, across several article talk pages, RfCs, and deletion discussions. I shouldn't have even mentioned anything.  In fact, I think it would be best if I just struck it out and we all just ignore that bit. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * On a side note: I usually don't consider advocacy sites with regard to Wikipedia content, per the Wikipedia policy and essay I cited above. Many advocacy sites disagree with what researchers state, including advocacy sites with regard to what mainstream research states. Nothing new there. Like Saltybone, I also edit LGBT topics...as also seen by my participation at WP:LGBT. But I never let the fact that I disagree with how the mainstream is in some respects with regard to LGBT topics get in the way of my editing Wikipedia neutrally. I don't go around trying to give "equal validity" to LGBT matters; this would be against policy anyway, as pointed out above. I accept the mainstream on Wikipedia because that is what we are supposed to do, per WP:Due weight. And for a LGBT editor to go around removing Regnerus from any and every Wikipedia article, that can certainly be considered as having a biased opinion of/advocate reaction to that source. Flyer22 (talk) 08:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, you want opinions on whether works by Mark Regnerus are reliable sources in Wikipedia? Well, for a start, any study that has been condemned by the American Sociological Association is fringe social science. Not reliable for fact, and probably not worth mentioning as opinion either. Most definitely not good as a main or exclusive source for an article. Having said that, Regnerus is still a practising academic. Any studies he has had published in peer-reviewed journals, and that have not received the opprobrium of the academic community, may be reliable, but we will decide on a case-by-case basis. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Studies in respected peer-reviewed publications are generally credible. In creating encyclopedic articles, such studies should be viewed in the context of the general research conducted on the given topic and weighed appropriately. Certain POV-pushing editors have a tendency to selectively choose research that supports their POV and omit research that conflicts with it. This should not be taken as indicative of the validity of the research, but rather as indicative of a particular editor's attitudes.Jaytwist (talk) 17:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

St Peter's College, Auckland
The book Rick Maxwell, St Peter's College, Auckland, Simerlocy Press, Auckland, 2008 is being used in multiple BLPs. uses of book. The author (the editor who has inserted all uses of the book self identifies as the same name) does not appear to be recognised as an expert. The publisher Simerlocy Press, is not an established or well known publisher. I am of the opinion that this is not a reliable source. Before I remove all uses of it I'd like a second opinion. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see any sign that this "press" has ever published anything but this single book. It's not utterly clear that the publisher or the book even exists, given that every reference I can see traces back here. Mangoe (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

When can the work of amateurs and volunteers be considered reliable sources? What about the User:Geo Swan/boatnerd site?
Can the work of amateurs and volunteers ever be considered reliable sources? Well, Benjamin Franklin, for instance, is recognized as a serious scientist, even though he never heald a teaching post. Amateur astronmoer David Levy was a respected colleague of the Shoemakers, as acknowledged by his sharing credit for the discovery of Comet Shoemaker-Levy.

When I worked on the BLP of an individual who was a prominent bird-watcher, it seemed to me bird-watching was a serious field of study, where all the RS were drafted by amateurs and volunteers.

Well, it seems to me that the information maintained by the boatnerd organization, is reliable. Boatnerd tracks the vessels that traverse the Great Lakes and the St Lawrence Seaway. It provides a fairly extensive profile of every active lake freighter, an extensive collection of vessels that formerly traversed the Great Lakes, aswellas significant non freighters, lie the USCG Mackinaw

A 2008 profile of the organization by the Toronto Globe and Mail reported that the site had 20 million visitors a month (in 2008). The article quoted one of the volunteers over how professional mariners monitored their site:
 * {| class="wikitable"


 * The boat nerds are fully aware that some will scoff at this level of obsession. "Most of the professional mariners, they all make fun of us," says Mr. Wobser. "But I guarantee you they read (Boatnerd.com) every damn day. I know because any time we get something wrong they're on our ass correcting us right away. The Coast Guard, especially, they watch us like hawks."
 * The boat nerds are fully aware that some will scoff at this level of obsession. "Most of the professional mariners, they all make fun of us," says Mr. Wobser. "But I guarantee you they read (Boatnerd.com) every damn day. I know because any time we get something wrong they're on our ass correcting us right away. The Coast Guard, especially, they watch us like hawks."

The reason I am asking is that another contributor has nominated an article I started for deletion, implying the boatnerd site I referenced was not a reliable source.
 * }

I'd like to add that there seem to be fields where there are no controversies. Great Lakes Maritime Commerce seems to be one of those. There are no warring factions, with warring POV we had to balance. Geo Swan (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * What's the question? The boatnerd website's reliability should be gauged per reference, not validated or damned across the board.
 * It kind of looks like you want to know whether the Boatnerd article can be written without getting deleted. At your sandbox, it looks like there is not enough dedicated coverage of the group. You can't write an article without showing more notability. Binksternet (talk) 20:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe that the original question relates to the discussion at Articles for deletion/Saginaw (ship, 1953). Stuartyeates (talk) 21:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that Boatnerd may well be reliable on many points, but contributes little to notability if Boatnerd is explicitly trying to profile every ship.
 * The White Pages would be a reliable source for people's phone numbers, but that doesn't mean every person in the phonebook is notable. bobrayner (talk) 11:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I would agree that the simple availability of a complete listing of a certain class, however reliable, does not confer notability on everything listed. Mangoe (talk) 14:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * While I too agree that the availability of an RS with a list with a list entry for every ship of a certain class would not justify creating stubs about each vessel in that list. I will point out that the boatnerd profiles are far more extensive than a list entry.  They include all the specifications, beam, draft, length, tonnage, manufacturer of the powerplant, and its power rating.  They include the shipyard where the vessels were built, where they were retrofitted or repaired.  They describe the vessel's name was chosen.  They describe incidents in the vessel career, including those that were not spectacular.  So, they are completely different from a telephone listing.  Geo Swan (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Bobrayner, I am interested in replying to your comment on the notability of multi-million dollar vessels, like the Saginaw, that carry something like a bllion dollars worth of cargo over their lifetimes. But Wikipedia talk:Notability or Talk:Saginaw (ship, 1953), or some other fora would be the place for that.
 * You wrote you recognize "Boatnerd may well be reliable on many points". Does this mean you have specific concerns there are points where boatnerd will not be reliable -- or were you just being cautious?  Geo Swan (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Mostly cautious :-) We can't really give sources carte blanche. RS/N focuses on "Is source X reliable for content Y?".
 * It's the indiscriminate nature of a listing that undermines notability. How can inclusion in list mean that something is notable, if the list strives to include all the things? bobrayner (talk) 19:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In some areas we have accepted specific, well-regarded amateur (i.e., non-credentialled) sources. US lighthouse articles almost without exception rely on sources which could, at some level or another, be regarded as amateurs, because there is a complete dearth of genuine pros (the USCG articles are in fact all written by volunteers). We have referred to Kraig Anderson's LighthouseFriends site because we can see that he's doing good research, even though it's technically a personal site. That said, I wouldn't use this as justification to write an article about his site. Mangoe (talk) 14:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd say boatnerd.com is top-notch, so I'll interpret your comment as an endorsement of the continued use of its information as reliable source references in other articles. Geo Swan (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for the shipping project, and I would defer to them within reason. I'm simply stating that we have precedents for widely acknowledged not-really-pro sites as reliable sources. Again speaking to the lighthouse example, for US lights we generally go by the USCG site in establishing notability, not any external site, acknowleding that the official site has some faults in that wise. Mangoe (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me say a discouraging word: Here's the standard: "third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" per SOURCES and "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." per SPS, both part of V. Amateur sites do not ordinarily satisfy the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" part and are then damned by SPS. They can be redeemed by showing that they have been relied upon by — not "20 million visitors a month" (Google gets far more than that, but is not a RS just because something shows up in a search result) - by sources which are, in fact, RS and which themselves have such a reputation. It is in this manner that they gain such a reputation. Does Boatnerd (or LighthouseFriends) have that reputation? I don't know. What's the evidence that it does? (They can also be redeemed by the "established expert" path, but in my experience that's a much tougher route to follow though on first blush it appears easier.) The fact that amateur sites have been used elsewhere is in no way a "precedent" except for the fact that their use is possible, they may (or may not) have been misused in those other places; see OTHERSTUFF. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think we're really disagreeing. My "precedent" was to establish your "possible", not to imply that there was some support inherited from one case to the other. In the case of LHF there's no controversy that I know of concerning its actual reliability (as opposed to our formal standards), and I gather that this isn't the case for boatnerd.com. Such doubt would be, it seems to me, fatal. Mangoe (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool . Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 19:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Murray Rothbard article
Article: "'Rothbard endorsed the 1991 gubernatorial candidacy of white nationalist and former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke.'"

The source is James Kirchick, "The Ron Paul Institute: Be Afraid, Very Afraid", The Daily Beast, 25 April 2013. Kirchick wrote that Murray Rothbard "published a separate newsletter with Rockwell that, among other Lost Causes, supported the gubernatorial candidacy of former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke." He provided no sources.

I assume Kirchick is referring to The Rothbard-Rockwell Report, published April 1990 to November 1998, as I can find no evidence that they published another newsletter together at that time. Here is a link to the newsletter. However there is no mention of an endorsement of Duke, although his campaign is discussed in the January 1992 issue in Rothbard's article, "Right-Wing Populism: A Strategy for the Paleo Movement." That article, which was written after Duke ran for governor, is already extensively discussed in the Wikipedia article.

While I disagree that Kirchick's article is an opinion piece rather than a news article, and therefore would not be reliable for facts, per the "Statements of opinion" section of the Reliable Sources policy, I would generally not use a news article for something that had occured over twenty years before the article was written and that only mentions Rothbard in passing.

The main issue is that the secondary source incorrectly reflects the primary source it is reporting. I would welcome comments on whether Kirchick's article should be used.

TFD (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Not reliable, for the reasons you give. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * TFD and Judith, could you each elaborate on the reasons for "I would generally not use a news article for something that had occured over twenty years before the article was written and that only mentions Rothbard in passing." ? Thanks.  SPECIFICO  talk  00:52, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Not reliable. Find a decent academic or similar source that has made the point in the intervening 20 years. That's a long time to pass before some journo decides to make a passing remark - if it is of any significance then I'd expect it to have been referred to more recently. - Sitush (talk) 01:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


 * SPECIFICO, the standards for fact-checking in journalism are not as high as for peer-reviewed academic writing, partly because journalism operates under tighter deadlines, and also because journalists and their fact-checkers typically do not have the same expertise as people who have PhDs in the subjects they are writing about. Also, the less relevance of the topic of a source to the topic of a Wikipedia article, the less likely it is to be correct.  For example a book called The Biography of George Washington is likely a better source for what his teeth were made of than a newspaper article called "Demonstrators gather outside Washington Monument" that mentions his "wooden teeth" in passing.  Your user page says you have " published peer-reviewed articles in academic journals."  Would you normally see those two sources as equivalent?  TFD (talk) 01:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Not reliable. Kirchick clearly gets his facts wrong, as can be seen in the primary source. As intelligent Wikipedia editors we have the choice to ignore faulty sources. This is a case in which that decision should be exercised. Binksternet (talk) 02:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So you're saying we have a reliable source, but we should ignore it because it conflicts with your own interpretation? MilesMoney (talk) 07:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We have two reliable sources for what the newsletter said, the newsletter itself and a secondary source that reports what is in it, and must choose between them. TFD (talk) 07:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We have the primary source for the words and we have a secondary source to interpret them. I don't see how Carol's personal interpretation should be treated as more reliable than that of our reliable secondary source. If that source really is wrong, why can't she find another secondary source to impeach it? This is the very worst sort of original research, where an editor just disregards sources. MilesMoney (talk) 01:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Two points: I think Kirchick's Daily Beast article is an opinion hit peice, not a news story, because it reports only on the most negative things possible about all the individuals he mentions in order to scare people out of giving an organization any credibility. I recognized the smear tactics against the people I was familiar with and have to assume there's a good degree of exaggeration about the others who I don't know, though I'm not going to go fact checking it.
 * The reason Kirchick is inaccurate is it says Rothbard "supported the gubernatorial candidacy of...Duke". However, anyone who verifies by reading the article sees Rothbard's talking about Duke's anti-government "populist" platform, that he also mentions a couple other "populists" who did well in elections, that he says that reformed Klansman like Robert Byrd aren't all that different than reformed Weathermen (wasn't a reformed one]], Bill Ayers in fact a major influence on our current president?), and points out the platform/campaign has issues "paleo" conservatives/libertarians agree with. (A wikipedia editor goes even further than Kirchick to turn the dubious "supported" candidacy into an OR interpretation, writing "endorsed endorsed the 1991 gubernatorial candidacy." User:Carolmooredc Face-surprise.svg  15:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

If you're uncomfortable with "endorsed" and want to stick to the actual word used by our source -- "supported" -- then I wouldn't object strongly. But you can't just remove the whole thing just because some people would be bothered by it. MilesMoney (talk) 01:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What's your non-Kirchick source for "supported"? Binksternet (talk) 03:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * To MilesMoney: I wrote: The reason Kirchick is inaccurate is it says Rothbard "supported the gubernatorial candidacy of...Duke" He's already wrong. Note that several higher quality sources that discuss the article, which I mentioned on the talk page, write only in terms of Rothbard agreeing with the "populist" platform. See NY Times, Slate and Reason; they do not mention Rothbard endorsing or supporting the campaign per se. And the platform already is discussed in the same paragraph, so it's both inaccurate and redundant. User:Carolmooredc Face-surprise.svg  03:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In terms of policy, I believe the community consensus has been that it is not a violation of WP:RS to decide to NOT to use something in a source based upon common sense editor rationales, such as that an isolated source contains an error or is not consistent with other sources. Indeed WP:RS never tells us we have to use any source, only which ones we can use. Sources commonly contain minor errors or points where they disagree with other sources, and such real world complexity needs to be taken into account when interpreting WP policy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the eminently sensible comment from an uninvolved editor. User:Carolmooredc Face-surprise.svg  18:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Shoebat is reliable source for citing a sacrifice?
http://shoebat.com/2013/03/07/the-promotion-of-human-sacrifice-and-cannibalism-in-egypt/

That source would be reliable? It's from Walid Shoebat, containing different sourced information. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:56, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Not rs, because he is not an expert. Also, the sources he uses are mostly primary and probably could not be used either, unless their interpretation is supported by secondary sources.  TFD (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * No - judging by his article he can't be considered a reliable source even for his own background. Podiaebba (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Hedy Lamarr - over emphasis on spread spectrum invention due to poor sourcing.
This is primarily about Hedy_Lamarr and the invention of Spread Spectrum - a claim that has been extended to include it's use in technologies including by not limited to CDMA, Bluetooth, WiFi and others.

I've done a lot of research into the claim that Lamarr created (along with George Antheil) a form of spread spectrum.


 * What is not in doubt is that a patent (1941) exists and that Lamarr is credited as being one of the inventors.
 * What is in serious doubt is the claim that this patent, in any way, formed a crucial part in the development of advanced signalling. A factor that forms a large section of the Lamarr page and implies that this single development gave us the above.

Prior to Lamarr/Antheil's patent (which made it impossible for enemies to jam control signals to remotely steered torpedoes) the technology had been invented and patented as early as 1903 Frequency-hopping_spread_spectrum although this reference neglects the earliest attempts and the only reason we even know that this patent exists is because it was discovered during a routine prior art search - and Lamarr sued. Yet, even from Wikipedia's own sources, it's pretty clear that neither Lamarr (nor Antheil) had any claim to this technology. That hasn't stopped the PR machine from making a fair attempt at changing history. I should remind the casual reader that discovering/inventing something is not what counts, what counts is who invented it first. Had the military not classified the claim it's likely that a due-diliganace search would have shone light on this decades ago.

As to the reliability of sources surrounding this claim. Except for the patent that we know exists anything else is largely hear-say and based on flimsy evidence from two sources which have spread across the web over the years. Comparing any number of articles that make the claim or some reference to it, the same book or award pops up.

Hedy's Folly by Richard Rhodes and the 1997 EFF award for innovation spearheaded by David Hughes. Having spoken to Mr Hughes, he appears to be the single source of this claim since he was interviewed by Rhodes for that book. I haven't read it, but I'm assured that it contains a lot about George Antheil and comparatively little about Lamarr. And just for the record, he's damn nice chap. It's also worth mentioning that neither the EFF nor David had access to the information I have available to me today; and that's the difference.

As to those sources: I have been unable to find a single piece of corroborating evidence that cannot be traced back to misreadings or slavish copying of the Lamarr memoirs, Hedy's Folly or the EFF award.

Take a reference (13 as of this writing): http://www.insidegnss.com/node/303 - this states that "Today, [Patent] No. 2,292,387 is considered the foundational patent for spread spectrum technologies."

Says who (I'll get to that)? The author of this piece, from the grandiose sounding "Gibbons Media & Research LLC" is non other than Eliza Schmidkunz who is co-owner of Gibbons Media and Research LLC. That is, as people are so fond of telling me, original research.

Perhaps Ms. Schmidkunz considers it so - I can't find anything else to back that claim up and it's central to the idea that Lamarr's patent gave us those technologies. The only expert in patents I can find is rather cynical about the whole thing, where he notes "Call me skeptical, but I suspect George Anthiel had other motivations for including Hedy as a co-inventor.

Now reference (14) http://people.seas.harvard.edu/~jones/cscie129/nu_lectures/lecture7/hedy/lemarr.htm (no citations) but the paper compares well with the facts distributed by David Hughes and expanded by Richard Rhodes in 2011.

Again we come back to David Hughes EFF nomination (and Lamarr's win) as the press release states: "Actress Hedy Lamarr and composer George Antheil are being honored by the EFF this year with a special award for their trail-blazing development of a technology that has become a key component of wireless data systems. In 1942 Lamarr, once named the "most beautiful woman in the world" and Antheil, dubbed "the bad boy of music" patented the concept of "frequency-hopping" that is now the basis for the spread spectrum radio systems used in the products of over 40 companies manufacturing items ranging from cell phones to wireless networking systems."

Yet we know, from earlier patents that the pair DIDN'T invent frequency hopping. The EFF award - and subsequent book - are based on flawed evidence (even if it was the best at the time).

A technique of frequency shifting is described in US Patent 1869659 filed in 1929 and granted in 1932 ; and there are others. It's a matter for others to decide why this prior art wasn't spotted by the examiner - my guess would be that the world was at war and folks had other things on their mind. But this IS prior art and the EFF Award, which is questionable at best, sets the precedent for everything that came after.

(Physics professor) Tony Rothman's 2003 book "Everything's Relative and Other Fables in Science and Technology" devotes a chapter to this myth - including SIGSALY and other mentions of using frequency switching - with citations to the material. Smidoid (talk) 03:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

inter-disciplinary.net
I found this on google scholar posted on inter-disciplinary.net by Jacquelyn Bent, Theresa Porter, and Helen Gavin. Is it a reliably published source for use on their discussion of the cartoon character Elmyra Duff? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  02:44, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Just looking at the basics of RS, it doesn't look like inter-disciplinary.net (IDnet) has any editorial oversight or peer review (can anyone just post their OR without any review?), I don't see IDnet cited or discussed in other RS. I didn't find any other published work by the three authors elsewhere (any journal or magazine articles or book chapters in the field?) or citations of them by other RS authors nor did I find bio's of the authors giving credentials in the field. I have not yet checked the literary criticism databases so I may just not have found it yet. I don't mean to be hostile in any way just giving my 2 cents as a part of this noticeboard. My impression is this is non published OR by authors who are not experts in the field. If you have anything to show otherwise please post here for consideration, likewise if you have a reason why this source is important to the particular subject. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thats what I thought, but it came up in the google scholar search and I wasnt certain what criteria the scholar search used. Thanks! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a non-traditional publishing model where professionals and amateurs work together with no distinction in status, and writers' credentials are not presented. I do not think the model meets Wikipedia rs requirements.  However, we can assess each paper on its merits.  In this case, two of the authors, Gavin and Porter are psychology professors who collaborated on a book published by Wiley-Blackwell.  Hence the paper meets WP:SPS:  "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."  In this case they are writing about the psychology of a cartoon character.  TFD (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I think TFD has a point. Evidence of publication of two of the authors lends credibility to the claim of established expertise in relevant field. I am not sure how established or how expert, are they full professors? Where? Is a single book enough to establish them as experts?
 * I am also not clear exactly how relevant the field is. I think we are talking literary criticism here not psychology. The field of expertise is clearly human psychology and the subject matter is definitely fiction. I think literary analysis is a clearly defined independent field with it's own publications and experts, how exactly do the authors qualify as experts in the relevant field for the discussion of a cartoon character? - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You can read about Gavin's background here. The article provides psychological profiling of evil cartoon girls, which is within the competence of a forensic psychologist.  In fact, Cleckley and other psychologists have analyzed fictional characters - Cleckley wrote about Iago and Edmond in Shakespeare for example.


 * Looking at Gavin's page, I found the paper in question has been published
 * Reflist


 * I think that qualifies as RS. The listing of publications on Gavin's page do establish her as published on the subject of how women are portrayed. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

imdb as a source for credits
I recently discovered an imdb help page that is similar to Wikipedia's help desk. I found something encouraging. While a lot of the information on imdb is not reliable, I saw someone on that help page advise that before a certain person could be added to the credits, a person working for imdb would need to be shown a screen shot of that person's name in the credits. I should have saved a link to that information, and when I get to another computer where I feel safe going to imdb, I will do that.— Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 21:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't usually need a source for credits; the work itself is a primary source. I use the IMDb to refresh my memory when I can't remember character names or other trivial details, but I prefer to use primary sources (poster, the credits sequence in the film, etc) for credits.  When the IMDb credits are listed as certified by a union, that's pretty authoritative; however, once in a while there are discrepancies in minor areas, such as a producer listed as an executive producer (or vice versa).  I don't have a problem with people referring to the IMDb when they're filling in an infobox, but they should at least use common sense as a sanity check and have the good sense to defer an editor with a more reliable source; Variety, for example, is a good secondary source.  The IMDb is on my personal blacklist, and I usually remove any citation to imdb.com that I find, as it's either redundant (citation for credits) or notoriously unreliable (trivia, biography). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:22, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Here, here. Agree with NinjaRobotPirate. I'll interview actors, and they will have no idea why they're listed on IMDb as being in certain movies &mdash; particularly upcoming ones, but also extant films. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:57, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I tend to take a more blunt approach and don't see IMDB as reliable for sourcing facts. If it is listed on IMDB as a fact, it should be found in a reliable source acceptable to our standards.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've used imdb many times for credits. If you know of a better place, I'd like to hear it. It may not be anywhere else. Looking for the actual credits is kind of a problem. Unless you have the DVD in your possession or something.— Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 21:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, as was stated the best source for credits is the primary source, not a site that allows anyone to edit any piece of inaccurate information.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't usually put imdb in a footnote. Most of the time it's just a filmography or something and they don't tend to have sources. I know of one time when imdb was the only way I could find when a certain actor first appeared on a show.— Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 19:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the link I was given. I don't guess it proves anything, but it does establish that they go to a lot of trouble, most of the time, to make sure credits are accurate.— Vchimpanzee  ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 19:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Using patents as reliable sources
The public (and from what I can see) Wikipedia seems to think that a patent is Reliable Source in the context of who did what and when. This is not the case - and I think we should be wary of using them. A patent grants rights to the inventor(s) to exclusively use their invention for gain for a set period. Many (most?) inventors assign their patents to other people/companies - often because they don't have the resources to exploit them. Some points worthy of note:


 * 1) The person(s) named on a patent is not, necessarily the inventor. (I have personal experience of this.)
 * 2) When, as is commonplace, more than one person is named as inventor, there is no way to be sure from that document who made what contribution.
 * 3) Patent offices do not check to see if the invention works or is practical: just to see if something like it has already been "invented" (prior art).

I believe that these three points of patent law which are not well understood outside the field of inventors, are confusing enough to consider them unreliable witness for a Reliable Source.Smidoid (talk) 12:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)Smidoid


 * Patents, in themselves, are "primary sources." That noted, they are reliable for the date of issuance (and, in some cases, of application), and for the wording of the claim made therein.  Edison held many patents for which the credit should have belonged to his employees, but you are correct about how "work for hire" goes to the employer's credit -- just as it does for copyright, and awards for books.  And Wikipedia accedes to the normal practice of crediting such authors and inventors as listed on the patent or authorship notice. Collect (talk) 13:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Collect except on the last sentence. If there's significant controversy about where the credit should go, Wikipedia would report the controversy using secondary sources, and would not rely on a primary source (such as a patent) on that issue.
 * But this board discusses specific cases. Is there a specific case to discuss? Andrew Dalby 13:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The issue here is how important Hedy Lamarr's frequency hopping patents are and whether they actually contributed to current use of the technology. Mangoe (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Mangoe is correct (I'm sure there will be other examples but this one has entered the public consciousness). Lamarr didn't invent frequency hopping; she won an award from the EFF and everything has snowballed from that. The original source material came from David Hughes who proposed Lamarr and Antheil for it. The confusion arises because of a bit of arcane patent law which we might see as a citation. Lamarr's "discovery" of frequency hopping was preceded by several others and at least one example in an early text book. IF Lamarr should be credited with anything, it's the technology designed to proven the jamming of WWII radio controlled torpedoes; and that's it. While we could argue about the level of her contribution until the sun dies and never get any further. The references to CDMA came from a patent prior art search which cites their patent long after it had expired. But the spread spectrum part of CDMA was invented separately and clean room - if it should cite anything, it should be siting the older patents - as far back as 1903. What appears to add to the confusion is that Lamarr sued - even though the patent had long expired; and was in the public domain.Smidoid (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Need of inline Refimprove template
Hello,

Seasons greetings.

To express need of additional citations for verification english wikipedia has got multiple formats of Template:Refimprove, but all of them are box templates to be used for whole section or whole article.But I did not find any inline template simmiler to citation needed to fullfill need of inline template asking for additional citation for cross verification.Please let me know if there is one, or if some one can help in generating one would be a welcome step.

Mahitgar (talk) 05:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * How about Better source or Verify credibility? There are more in Category:Inline citation and verifiability dispute templates. bobrayner (talk) 00:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Source for a translation of Voltaire
Any French speakers around? This question also possibly involves other policies than WP:RS, but to start somewhere...

Article: Teleological argument. Text: a translation of Voltaire's: L'univers m'embarrasse, et je ne puis songer Que cette horloge existe, et n'ait point d'horloger The following alternatives were then offered by third party User:Myrvin: I believe all the 21st century ones look preferable to the 1908 dictionary of quotes? However, these were however rejected by the person who found the original translation on the grounds of accuracy (if I understand correctly) and they have suggested: Personally I believe WP:RS does not need to dominate knowledge of French here, but I also think WP:RS and a knowledge of French would probably agree on the 2008 translation, but in any case neither the current one nor the last one proposed (they both just seem wrong to me, although I see how using a dictionary could lead to them)? (Keep in mind that the article we are writing is not about poetry, so it needs the real meaning of the sentence.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Currently in article, and being defended with reverts (bold added): I'm puzzled by the world; I cannot dream The timepiece real, its maker but a dream. Source:
 * My translation as a Wikipedia editor (given that I found the above not good): The universe troubles me, and I can not imagine that this watch exists, and it has no watchmaker at all
 * The universe perplexes me, and for me it is unthinkable  That this watch exists, yet without a watchmaker.. Christianity Unveiled, Paul Henri Thiry Holbach, Hodgson Press, 2008, p. 285
 * I canot believe that this watch can exist and have no watchmaker. A Pocket Philosophical Dictionary, Oxford University Press, 11 Aug 2011, p. 271
 * this watch could be and watchmaker have none. Voltaire and his times. Authorized transl (Google eBook), Laurence Louis Félix Bungener, 1854, p. 462
 * The Universe troubles me, and much less can I think  That this clock exists and should have no clockmaker., From Aristotle to Darwin and Back Again: A Journey in Final Causality, Species, and Evolution, Etienne Gilson, Ignatius Press, 2009, p. 126
 * The universe embarrasses me, and I cannot think That this watch exists and has no watch-maker. Man and God: a physiological meditation, tr. from the French By Jean Marie A. Perot 1881 ISBN-13: 9781279158883.
 * I'm happy with the 2008 one too. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Any other comments about either the French or the strength of sourcing?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Andrew, are suggesting that Jean-Marie Perrot used a French dictionary or an English one to translate the 1881 source? The fact that your hubris allows you to suppose that you can provide a more accurate translation than a French scholar is astounding. Let's just use my suggestion and cite multiple sources. You yourself have not stated which source you prefer, you've stated that you like your own translation better. I've said the 1908 (which was what was there before you deleted it) is fine, I also offered a second cited source, the 1881 Perot. Exactly what is the problem here?Tstrobaugh (talk)


 * apparently Perot, Jean Marie Albert, 1814 wrote in French, the name of the translator is not available, but the author was involved in the translation.Tstrobaugh (talk)
 * Let's not worry too much about how the translation was done in 1881. We can discuss translations two ways (which are not mutually exclusive), under WP:RS as a sourcing issue, which is what this board is mainly for, and as a translation as such, just like any wording decision when editing (because actually we are not obliged to use published translations, especially if we only have weak ones). This board is of course also often helpful concerning wording, because nearly every sourcing question involves wording choice to some extent. This is my rationale at least: In terms of both RS and French, the two versions you want to use are very poor. I hope we can get broader feedback because this really shouldn't be so difficult.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Is anyone interested to be a third party in this discussion on the article talk page? It feels like a case that is stuck for silly reasons. It is in any case not a major crisis or complex issue, so should not take much time.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Update. The one third party opinion we got above has not led to closure. In summary:
 * The 2008 translation proposed above is argued to be a poor source compared to the 1908 quotes dictionary or the 1881 translation which contains the clear mistake of translating m'embarrasse as "embarrasses me", because (a) it looks like Hodgson Press are self-publishers? and (b) the translation is claimed to be a 1761 source from Baron d'Holbach?
 * The 2009 translation is also proposed to be a worse source because (to quote) "John Lyon is an Associate Professor of American and Comparative Literature, Lakeland College, Sheboygan, Wisconsin. So no I don't think "John Lyon" is an appropriate source for this citation." (I do not really get the point here, so I just quote.) It was also stated that this can not be considered a scholarly source because it is not peer reviewed.
 * A new proposal has been made "In God's Defense: Writings on Atheism [Kindle Edition] Voltaire (Author), Kirk Watson (Translator). To quote the proposal: "NB This is a self published Kindle only edition but thought more versions might help pinpoint our issues." The translation is The universe contains me: there's no way, This watch exists without a watchmaker.
 * I think there might be issues of policy understanding, but anyone seeing the discussion will appreciate that my policy advice is not being treated as neutral given that I was the one who questioned the translation originally. A third party opinion is really needed.
 * If there is a good forum for translation discussion, can someone please advise us? (But note that the discussion has so far been based on reliability claims.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * We, as Wikipedia editors, can translate this text. We don't need a source. It's only French, for goodness' sake. Lots of people on WP speak it fluently. We even have people who are true bilinguals. So we can do better than Google, and better than the older translators too, because we write modern idiomatic English, and use modern translation conventions. Thank you, Andrew, for taking the time to help us get this right. Translating quotations does not count as original research. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Beyond translations of words or phrases it is Original Research. Translating literary passages is not something that should be done by random Wikipedia editors. It's not true to say that an editor's translation of a literary or philosophical text would have to be better because "we write modern idiomatic English". It's not a good idea to re-cast historical quotes in the vernacular of any editor that is convinced they wouldn't miss nuances and context of that quote. An important translation should be reliably sourced, not manufactured from scratch. __ E L A Q U E A T E  08:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * "Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians". NONENG People can argue over which translation published by a reliable source captures the essence, but shouldn't reject multiple existing reliable sources in order to create something from scratch. Also, a newer translation is not necessarily better than an older translation, just because it's recent. And the fact that this quote has been interpreted different ways by scholarly translators should make it clear that translating it isn't trivially easy or non-subjective. __ E L A Q U E A T E  09:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The last two posts are not relevant to the case involved where both original and published (but more modern) translations were being rejected in favor of very old and clearly quirky ones (which disagreed with other translations). But for the record, you should read the rest of WP:NOENG, which is considerably more refined.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:10, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the points aren't relevant. I read the rest of wp:NOENG but it didn't say anything more on this subject of how to choose a translation, other than to prefer published over original when available; what did you mean "more refined"? It goes on to say that when it's original that the editor is not cited, but that isn't saying anything about preference of source. And it's simply true that a translation being more recent doesn't make it better or worse on that quality alone (see things like Beowulf in old and new translations in various degrees of quality). For what it's worth, I'm sure, when compared, your original translation "disagreed" with other translations as well as each other. It sounds like you decided what the quote meant and pushed for a translation that matched your interpretation, which is fine, but don't make it more than that. You decided one was quirky. Other people have similar or different opinions and we discuss. __ E L A Q U E A T E  21:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think your FWIW is a correct assessment. I did not want to "make it more than that", but more was made of it and so I came here for the "we discuss". I have recently inserted a more recent, but also clearly higher status translation, and it seems resolved at least for now. I agree that the age of a source is not always a simple black/white criterium to use, but we are talking about odd 19th century translations versus a scholarly 21st century translation here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Bukharan Jews, lost tribes, etc.
-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 16:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Is the sentence "Some ancient Jewish texts claim that during the reign of King David, in the 10th century B.C., Jews were already travelling to Central Asia as traders." of the source see p.75 of an associate professor at Columbia reliable for the following statement?"According to some ancient texts, there were Israelites that began traveling to Central Asia to work as traders during the reign of King David of Jerusalem as far back as the 10th century B.C.E."I had revised the above sentence in the to more accurately reflect the sentence in the source so as to read"According to some ancient Jewish texts, there were already Jews travelling to Central Asia as traders as far back as the 10th century B.C.E."
 * 2) Is the sentence"The Jews of Bukhara, in today’s Uzbekistan, have been speculated as hailing from the tribe of Issachar because the name Issachcaroff is common among them. " of the source see p.84 by Amotz Asa-El  reliable for the following statement?"Among Bukharan Jews, there are two ancient theories of how Jewish people settled in Central Asia. Many Bukharan Jews trace their ancestry to the Tribe of Napthali and to the Tribe of Issachar of theLost Tribes of Israel[4] who may have been exiled during the Assyrian captivity of Israel in 7th century BCE."
 * At first sight your edit of the first sentence seems an improvement. Concerning the second sentence obviously other sources must be involved, and you are not pointing to any particular point of potential dispute, so harder to comment.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding the second sentence, the only other reference is this webpage. I'm assuming that the webpage itself is unreliable to begin with, but there is no mention of "Napthali", for example, only an unsourced claim that "the Bukharan Jews themselves trace their heritage (to the 7th century BC when the Jews were exiled by the Assyrians(II Kings 17:6)". The webpage does cite a passage from the bible in relation to the exile by the Assyrians.
 * There are two academic sources, one a book by Parfitt and another by Benite. Parfitt's index has no listing for Bukhara or Central Asia, and it's been some time since I read it so I don't recall if there was any mention at all. This link is to a search of "Bukhara" in the book by Benite, and it can be seen to be mentioned almost exclusively with respect to a 19th century German Jew that converted to Christianity and became British named Joseph Wolff e.g., pp. 213-4-214.
 * So basically, the only other source cited doesn't appear to be reliable, and even that doesn't support all of the claims being made. In that respect the sentence in the article would appear to be WP:OR based on personal experience. The IP editor has basically identified himself as a Jew from Bukhara that has immigrated to the USA (Who is IP search), and he has rejected statements from another reliable source on the basis of his personal conjecture (see his comment on my Talk page and edit summaries, for example), basically. I filed this post after first filing a report at AN/I here.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 11:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Or it might be based on sources that someone had read but forgot to note. This does happen, and often it is a good idea to do a quick search for sourcing yourself before assuming the worst.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I've done a bit of checking, and there is the context of the claims of descent from lost tribes. There would appear to be only two academically published books by scholars in that field, as I mentioned. I have one and the other is available for preview on google books, as per the link above. I've done a fair amount of work to the Ten Lost Tribes and related articles, and there are few reliable sources on this topic because the lost tribes theories have been refuted by scholarship and genetics.
 * I did track down some pages on the Wayback Machine by the author of the text cited on the abovementioned webpage, but she is not a reliable source, and the text includes not references. This is a link to the relevant page, archived from 1998. The content is informative, but it only makes recourse to heresay regarding a supposed oral tradition that no scholars mention. And here webpages are cited as a source by this website also unreliable, I presume.
 * FYI, here is a Guardian article from a few years back, in which it is claimed that there are only about 300 Jews left in Bukhrara. Here is another article, from the Jerusalem Post stating"The Jews of Bukhara are an ethnic and linguistic group in Central Asia, claiming descent from 5th-century exiles from Persia."
 * If that is a reliable source, then I would think that the claim of "5th-century exiles from Persia" should suffice.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 11:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That reasoning appears correct to me.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to go through some of this material. Since you've done so, please don't hesitate to contribute to the article after its unprotected. There would seem to be some gaps in the available information in the sources. For example, if that old synagogue is the only synagogue in Bukhara, then what about the purported population of Jewish immigrants from Russia? A google search returns almost no other results. This webpage has some scant information, but is of questionable reliability. It mentions two synagogues in Samarkand, but none in Bukhara.
 * There is a long history related to the topic of the article, but I arrived there checking advocacy of fringe theories related to claims of descent from "lost tribes", of which there is a significant amount at various articles. I've ordered the Benite book, incidentally, but it won't even be shipped to me for another couple of weeks. There may be something in that relevant to the article at issue.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 17:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I probably should register that I do not claim to have looked through these sources in detail in this case. My approach in this case has been to comment on the rationales and sourcing given, which all seems reasonable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Non-open wiki
Can the Ohio History Central wiki be reliable for topics within its purview? See its Lazarus Bonham article and how I'm using it at Hunting Lodge Farm. I'm guessing that it's reliable because: Against all of these things, I need to stack the fact that it's still a wiki. Can wikis ever be reliable sources? Nyttend (talk) 02:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) The main website, ohiohistorycentral.org, is the official website of the Ohio Historical Society, which is scholarly and definitely reliable
 * 2) It's a closed wiki; see this page's history and look at what happens when you try to edit the page
 * 3) Check the about page; it's written by history professionals
 * A wiki is just a tool, like Microsoft Word. In this particular article, the content was put in by a user called "Admin", so it would appear no less reliable than anything published by the Society on a normal webpage. If there were multiple users and all were professional historians given permission to edit by the Society, that would be something like a collaboratively-written book where every contribution is traceable to a particular person - which arguably ought to give more confidence in the result. Podiaebba (talk) 10:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. The authoritative authorship made me guess that it was acceptable, but I've never before seen a closed wiki that was written by scholars that I wanted to use as a reference, so I didn't know but that we rejected wikis as RS 100% of the time.  Nyttend (talk) 14:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm supposing it would be necessary to link to a specific version of a page, as otherwise you'd be pointing at dynamic content. Alexbrn talk 14:27, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you explain more in detail why you say that? Any page is dynamic in a sense, but as I included the date of publication and the date of access, anyone can use the page history to discover which revision was current when I viewed and cited it.  Nyttend (talk) 17:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * If the reference includes accessdate and an archive of the page at or close to that date it should suffice. Linking to a specific version of the page is also appropriate. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

RS issues at Genieo
There has been a slow-motion edit war at this page over whether this software company issues malware. One IP in particular has been insistent on deleting any reference to it as such. Other users have restored the changes but sometimes supported these statements with unreliable sources, like Apple forums. There are many others in the article that look more reliable, but I lack the expertise to make a definitive call. Please help me determine which of the following sources, if any, constitutes "reliable". Some are already cited on the page, and some are potential sources to cite.

-- Jprg1966  (talk)  19:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * http://www.intego.com/mac-security-blog/another-problematic-softonic-installer-brings-adware/ (cited)
 * http://www.thesafemac.com/malicious-genieo-installers-persist/ (cited)
 * http://www.thesafemac.com/arg-genieo/ (cited)
 * https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/d0e6dde42506f5d2f7e926de20e88c8f75a430d23e4f079d3f3bbd1919230e83/analysis/ (cited)
 * http://malwaretips.com/blogs/genieo-search-removal/
 * http://www.anvisoft.com/resources/how-to-remove-search-genieo-com-browser-hijacker-removal-guide/
 * http://www.pcinfected.com/search-genieo-com-virus-removal/

I don't consider the opinions of experienced volunteer helpers on Apple forums to be 'clearly not reliable' as you do. Why do you value your own volunteer efforts, & that of those whose opinions you seek here, over those at Apple?, when some of the helpers there very clearly have considerable experience & knowledge. That you in contrast to those references - even suggest sites like malwaretips, where the 'removal' instructions for Apple are almost non-existent & unlikely to have any useful effect, is disheartening as regards the quality of wikipedia. 146.90.240.199 (talk) 12:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The point here is not to find a good how-to guide for uninstalling malware. That's not what Wikipedia is. I'm trying to find a reliable, third-party source that can identify Genieo as malware (or not). The whole point of me bringing the list of possible sites is to get outside feedback on their usability. If people here say they're not reliable, I won't use them. Simple as that. -- Jprg1966  (talk)  19:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

& the point in discussing that 'how to remove' site - first suggested by you, is that it's not reliable. Why is the opinion of anyone who can set up a blog or website necessarily to be valued over that of experienced volunteers, just as you seem to be ?.146.90.240.199 (talk) 12:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Another two potential sources for consideration here 146.90.240.199 (talk) 12:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * http://www.intego.com/mac-security-blog/another-sketchy-genieo-installer-discovered/
 * http://www.thesafemac.com/malicious-download-installs-genieo-and-gophoto-it-adware/

shows a malware/malicious rating from 7 sources, only one of which is common to both this and the other virustotal link suggested by Jprg1966 above. Also noted here, since the article is currently locked - a suggested source for the claim that Genieo includes targeted advertising. 87.114.254.100 (talk) 08:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * https://www.virustotal.com/en/url/f00c717bff2b7b1734f36bf8498686fcc56f46c7dda948938e737f83b4bfb9be/analysis/
 * http://www.genieo.com/advertorials/

another potential source : 146.90.251.97 (talk) 20:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * http://www.protectmac.com/news/index_files/77a450d61e46497cf6d456c2ae50c708-77.html

United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine: Trahelliven and Ykantor: Ruth Lapidoth and Moshe Hirsch

 * 1 Source

'Memorandum on the Future of Jerusalem submitted to the U.N. General Assembly by the Delegation of Israel to the U.N., 15 November 1949: pages 51 and 52, paragraph 10 (part): The Jewish Question and it Resolution: Selected Documents: Edited by Ruth Lapidoth and Moshe Hirsch: Document 15, pages 49-73: published by Martinus Nijhoff]
 * An edited version of the source is as follows:-
 * "10...The (Partition) Plan was overthrown by Arab violence on the field of battle, accompanied by unanimous and concerted Arab opposition in the General Assembly and the Trusteeship Council. In April 1948 (in fact 16 February 1948), the United Nations Palestine Commission, reporting its inability to carry out any part of the Plan, including the Jerusalem Statute, without large international forces, wrote:
 * "Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.".... "Armed Arab bands from neighboring Arab States..., together with local Arab forces, are defeating the purposes of the Resolution by acts of violence.”
 * The Arab onslaught described by a United Nations Commission in these terms began in the City of Jerusalem itself. The Arab world had taken up arms, not only against the establishment of a Jewish State, but also with equal fervor and greater success against the establishment of an international regime in Jerusalem. In the Trusteeship Council the Representative of Iraq said:


 * "It is my duty to show that the Plan for the City of Jerusalem is illegal... the people of Jerusalem who are not sacred should not incur political punishment because their City is holy. Neither the Iraqi Government nor other Arab States arc prepared to enter into the details or to participate in the discussion of the Plan."

A reference for the first half of the embedded quote has been added. I could not find a reference for the second half nor for the second embedded quote.
 * 2 Article

United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine


 * 3 Content

The Arabs were against the establishment of an international regime in Jerusalem too.: Quotation added 15:01, 31 August 2013


 * Is a contemporary Memorandum written by Israeli government officials a reliable source on the attitudes and actions of Arab leaders or government? Trahelliven (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

FOR EARLIER DISCUSSION SEE [Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard] Trahelliven (talk) 09:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Primary source. This important history article should be written up from secondary sources, and mainly from histories of the UN. NB I have edited the article concerned. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Would people call these reliable sources?


 How they are being used can be seen here I would argue that neither of these organizations have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and thus would say no. This user feels otherwise. Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Disclaimer: I am an editor of medical articles along with Doc James and follow many of the topics he, and WP:MED, follows.
 * I find nothing on any of the subpages of http://soars.org.uk that gives any indication of any of our usual measures of reliability, and this page is worrisome. I'm not sure this website meets WP:RS, much less WP:MEDRS.
 * Likewise, http://crouchfoundation.org/about-us.html appears to be an advocacy organization, and I find nothing on the page that indicates reliability by any of our usual measures.
 * Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It is often very relevant to see what edits are being discussed. As a first step, I do not see anything especially medical about the edits I can see. These appear to be the two texts being sourced in our article...
 * [Suicide] ...increasingly became the targey of satirical comment, such as the spoof advertisement in the 1839 Bentley’s Miscellany for a London Suicide Company or the Gilbert and Sullivan musical The Mikado that satirised the idea of executing someone who had already killed himself.
 * Thomas More the English humanist, wrote in Utopia (1516) that a person afflicted with disease can “free himself from this bitter life…since by death he will put an end not to enjoyment but to torture...it will be a pious and holy action”. Other thinkers with similar views were John Donne, and Montesquieu.
 * My first impression is that in any case because these are relatively un-interpreted quotations of "primary" materials, which are well-known historical writers, it should in any case be easy to check if these quotes are verifiable. The more "secondary" non-obvious interpretation, the more important it becomes to have a strong secondary source.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I would like to see better sourcing for the history of suicide. There are umpteen sociology textbooks that present Durkheim's work, and those would be reliable, especially those aimed at postgraduates. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Memory of water issues
I have been interested in the memory of water debate from the start, having heard a lecture by Jacques Benveniste on his research even before the publication of his paper in Nature. As a theoretical physicist, I have been interested in the way fallacious arguments are frequently used in an attempt to prove that the claims are impossible. In an invited lecture in a meeting organised by the Foundation of German Business (SDW), I addressed a number of these arguments, demonstrating why they are incorrect. I think it would be good if some balance were given to the memory of water article by including a link to the lecture, which has been archived on our university's media server (the section dealing with memory of water begins at 6:55).

Re the reliability of this as a source, I note first my own credentials, e.g. as having a Cambridge Ph.D. in physics, being a Fellow of the Royal Society (UK), and having published in notable physics journals such as Physical Review Letters. On the verifiability issue, my discussion of flaws in the usual arguments is very straightforward, and comprehensible to anyone with a basic understanding of the issues involved (for example, I cite the difference between ice and water, a matter of common knowledge, to argue that one does not have to add molecules to water to change its properties significantly).

This reference would support a statement along the lines of "According to Josephson, many of the arguments used to dismiss memory of water out of hand are unsound.". --Brian Josephson (talk) 16:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't think this is an RS question, since Josephson is presumably a reliable source for Josephson's view. The questions here would be around weight and neutrality, starting - I suppose - with a question about whether this view has been discussed (or otherwise expressed) in reliable, secondary, published sources. Alexbrn talk 16:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I cannot see how a short report of a lecture (oddly, in German) can be deemed a reliable source. Assuming that you are Josephson, you should be able to place your talk on a personal blog or website which would be identifiably yours, then it would be a matter of the notability of the view articulated, as Alexbrn says. Paul B (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments. That is just what I have done -- look for the link to it in the last sentence of my first paragraph ('link to the lecture').  As regards notability, I see that there is remarkably little discussion in the article as it is at present on the question of whether memory of water is theoretically possible or not, only the red herring relating to networks that really should not be there.  But I can say at least that the first point re water memory in my talk, that you don't need extra molecules for there to be an effect, is very well known to people in the field and there must be many references to it.  The point is so obvious (except to the sceptics who keep bringing up the false argument) that I would not expect much note to be taken of my reiteration of the same point.
 * Again, I would guess that another false argument, the last one mentioned in this part of my talk, that if water had a memory it would remember everything it had come into contact with, must have been addressed in the literature, even if not with the precision that an experienced theoretician can bring to bear on such issues.
 * Even though the meeting was held in Cambridge UK, the audience consisted exclusively of native German speakers, so it is not that surprising that the summary of the meeting was published in German by the German sponsoring organisation. --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry, I clicked on the wrong link. I'm listening to the recorded version of the lecture now. Paul B (talk) 17:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but for me this falls into the category of "expert outside his field of expertise". With regards to weight: the fact that some fallacious arguments are used by one side in a debate is not, per se, remarkable - I'd expect this for both sides in any discussion that involves more than a very small group indeed. I'd only include this if there is evidence that the criticism has been picked up as significant by some outside sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Outside my area of expertise? You are clearly the person speaking outside his area of expertise and I demand a retraction. --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * What we have here is (I suspect) a case of an editor who (for reasons I will not speculate on here) latches on to the fact that my comment suggests that I'm not that familiar with the literature on homeopathy (not my area of expertise), and wrongly infers from this that I am not expert in the particular technical issues that I am addressing in my comments. This kind of superficial analysis by editors is what gives wikipedia a bad name. --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You suspect wrong. You are an expert in physics. Water memory, on the other hand, is a pseudo-science - it may appear to use the apparatus of science, but it's not science. Dealing with this is a special skill different from physics, or indeed science in general. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, if you say that is not your reasoning. But the 'reasoning' you give above is a textbook case of 'proof by declaration', which is no proof at all. --Brian Josephson (talk) 12:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Let the people here judge whether or not the memory of water work is scientific. A lecture given by Benveniste at the Cavendish colloquium is available on the web. In what way is that kind of activity pseudoscience?  Does Schulz consider that the mere investigation of a phenomenon that most scientists dismiss is pseudoscience as such? --12:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As Alexbrn notes, the chief issue here isn't really one of "reliability" of the sources with respect to the attribution of the opinion or any quotes&mdash;there's not really any question that Josephson said what he says he said, when and where he said it. The question is whether or not Josephson's personal opinion on this topic is sufficiently noteworthy to warrant special mention in water memory.  It would stretch WP:WEIGHT past breaking to juxtapose Josephson's personal opinion (commentary made at a – presumably un-vetted, non-peer-reviewed – speech to the UK chapter of the Foundation of German Businesses) and proper, published, high-quality, peer-reviewed scientific articles.  As an aside, it also strikes me as disingenuous to wax eloquent about fallacious arguments and the narrowmindedness of the mainstream scientific community while ignoring completely the fact that the American Physical Society offered to fund and carry out (another) double-blinded test of water memory in response to a challenge by Josephson himself. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:27, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There is nothing sinister (as Randi and others try to make out) about the fact that the proposed test involving the APS never took place (by the way, you can't do 'double blind tests' on a system such as a sample in a test tube that doesn't know what is going on; 'blind test' is what you mean). Considerable negotiation about a possible test took place between Benveniste, and Park acting on behalf of the APS. The difficulty was that it was not enough just to 'do an experiment'; the experiment had to be such that if it gave a positive result sceptics would agree that the result was positive (and sceptics are very good at finding reasons for not accepting a positive result).  Some proposals by the physicists were just not practical.  Various possibilities were discussed and in the end Benveniste, who thought it of more value to investigate the phenomena further than to satisfy sceptics, announced that he did not want to proceed further. --Brian Josephson (talk) 15:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * ...And I'm sure that that perceived lack of value or practicality had nothing to do with the fact that other properly-blinded trials attempting to reproduce his previous work were negative in their outcomes. But seriously, you're attempting to turn an article on a scientific non-phenomenon into a soapbox for your personal opinions on the nuances of scientific debate, and that just isn't what we're here for.  Stephan Schulz hits the nail on the head up above.  The fact that a few of the arguments made against 'water memory' as a plausible physical phenomenon might be specious – or might be interpreted in such a way that they become specious – is pretty much irrelevant to the topic. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with TenOfAllTrades comment of 23:27 19 November, this is a weight issue. Where is there any substantial discussion of the material from the suggested source? - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Just another vote for the "pseduo-science doesn't belong here" - as more than one comedian has noted if water had a memory, what about all the poo that's been in it? Does it forget about that?Smidoid (talk) 14:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The question is whether Brian Josephson is an expert in "water memory", as it's clear that the sources he wants to use are not reliable in themselves. This is very difficult to determine, as there is no agreement that there is a field there, at all.  He has not established his expert credentials in the relevant areas of physics or chemistry, although he has established himself as an expert in some relevant aspects of physics.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Songkick.com
Is songkick.com a reliable source for concert dates, locations, and their opening acts? --Jpcase (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I will hazard a guess and say no going by what they say here: "Songkick was founded in 2007 by Ian Hogarth, Pete Smith, and Michelle You: three friends who thought it was way too hard to find out when their favorite bands were coming to town." It seems to be self-published by three friends, meaning there is no separate editorial oversight. Looks like a useful site but doesn't meet Wikipedia's RS criteria. Betty Logan (talk) 01:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I'd be hesitant to discredit the site just on the basis that it was founded by three friends; any professional organization could start up that way. But I'm still on-the-fence enough about using it, that I'll refrain from doing so unless any one offers up a different opinion. Would anyone happen to know of another website that specializes in providing this kind of information and meets the RS criteria?


 * By the way, it's nice to run into you again Betty Logan. You may not remember, but you really helped me out a lot when I was working on Hoodwinked! and still learning the ropes of how to write an article.--Jpcase (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Institute profiles/bios for views
These are two bio stubs I just started beefing up and it seems views described by Institute sites are useful for providing a context for the article as well as a focus for further research. Thanks Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In Joseph R. Stromberg article at this diff removal of with special interests including United States foreign policy, and the "War on Terrorism". He has been a fellow for the Intercollegiate Studies Institute from The Independent Institute profile/bio here. Edit summary reads in part "Remove undue and non-RS content. "
 * In Ralph Raico article at this diff removal of he writes about the history of liberty and the connection between war and the state. from Ludwig von Mises Institute bio here. Edit summary reads "Remove primary source description of vMI publications"
 * For consideration, seeing as you 'just started beefing up' these articles, are these the only sources that make these claims or have you found more? AnonNep (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not clear what you are asking for on this noticeboard. Per the instructions above, "This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context." But the two talk pages have developed very little/no discussion on the edits. I suggest the question be re-stated as a BRD on the two article talk pages. In any event, the straightforward institution descriptions of Stromberg & Raico should be considered RS in context. – S. Rich (talk) 23:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As SRich knows so well the editor(s) in question are highly biased against the sources in question, and the subjects of the biographies, so given there are two similar incidents, it's a waste of time to hear the same biased arguments I've heard a thousand times from them on two different talk pages. And it would be against BRD for me to revert their edits.
 * To User:AnonNep: Really just starting and obviously better additional sources needed. I like to get a listing of all sources before I start adding more, so I start with easiest overviews like those. Unfortunately, the editor (and his close collaborators) keeps me and a couple other editors busy dealing with their activities on a number of bios of individuals they distain, i.e., deletions of NPOV material, threats of AfDs, adding of loads of questionable, often poorly sourced material that requires repeat visits to WP:RSN and WP:BLPN, etc. So it's a process of putting out the worst fire every day. With all the disruptions it's hard to get enough done given I'm just a volunteer with just a couple hours a day to spare.
 * Anyone know any way to get them to hold off for a while as we actually get some constructive addition of material done? Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 23:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I was a bit nonplussed when I saw this. Stick with the processes and (how many more times?) skip the sniping, please, If people are being disruptive then get some admins involved. The sources s/b ok for basics such qualifications unless they are contradicted by other sources. I don't see any particular problem with using them for the quotes that you give but it probably would be better if you could find other sources because someone, somewhere might say that it is just publishers' spiel etc, the sort of stuff you see on the back cover of a book. - Sitush (talk) 00:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Striking whining. Thanks for advice. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest you review the rest of your edits for the past week or so and strike the rest of your PA and other off-topic remarks. You have able collaborators here and your fellow editors are here to strengthen WP -- even when you disagree with, or do not understand, their thinking. SPECIFICO  talk  01:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Stepping away from the nonproductive personal sniping, what is the supposed problem with the sources here? In both cases it appears that the sources in question were previously used in each article and continue to be used after the reverts. , since you mentioned "non-RS content" in one of your edit summaries, can you explain what the concern is? Superficially the claims don't seem particularly controversial, and for non-controversial content an organizational bio seems acceptably reliable. If they were making claims of stature, like "widely renowned" or "recognized expert", then I would think differently, but that's not happening in these edits. --RL0919 (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing us back on topic. My original posting gives the edit summaries but the editor or deleted the material has not chosen to defend them here. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello . I think the primary-sourced bio text about special interests in whatever is gratuitous.  These bios frequently contain promotional or boilerplate items. Presumably if Mr. Stromberg specializes in these areas we can find publications to add to his pubs list and secondary independent RS discussion of his contributions in these areas.  Thanks for the question.   SPECIFICO  talk  04:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * That doesn't sound like a concern about the reliability of the sources. I would think an institutional bio page should be reliable as to what types of topics the subject works on. Whether the mention of that is gratuitous or promotional is a legitimate question for discussion, but it isn't a matter of source reliability. My two-fold suggestion is 1) for User:SPECIFICO, don't say "non-RS" in edit summaries when the concern is really POV/due weight, because it confuses the issue; and 2) for User:Carolmooredc, do try to use the article talk pages, because discussion there would have refined what the dispute was, so that even if it didn't resolve it, you could have escalated to a more appropriate forum. --RL0919 (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. My understanding of RS is that it relates to our confidence in the truth of what the source states. I have found in general that primary sources which describe various institutions, their affiliated individuals, or their programs may stretch the truth or state subjective views and evaluations as if they were fact.  If the site stated that an associated writer is 6 feet tall or that he was born in Detroit, or some other verifiable/falsifiable fact that seems easy to accept.  When the site states here are his interests or here's what he's noted for or some other subjective statement, even when its not intrinsically extreme or controversial, those statements seem problematic.  I wouldn't have a POV/weight problem with stating his specialty if I were sure that independent sources considered it to be as identified. I agree with you, RL, that there was no reason to jump the gun and post this RSN to sort out a straightforward issue about a simple statement.  Should we agree to close this and move back to the article talk page?    SPECIFICO  talk  20:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think the claims in this case are particularly subjective (as I stated above, I would have a different position if the wording was evaluative/promotional), but I agree that this should go to the article talk pages. --RL0919 (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Because this is similar edits related to two articles and because SPECIFICO, the editor who removed the material, even objected to almost a dozen WP:RS for one factoid in this bio brought to WP:RSN, it seemed like a waste of time to discuss it on the talk page since the discussion was predictable. No one has made a substantive comment on the talk pages since I posted notice of this. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 15:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if you don't expect great results, it is still best to start with article talk. If there is problematic behavior by one or more editors, shortcutting isn't likely to resolve it. --RL0919 (talk) 16:58, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Good point. Thanks. Left a note on both threads couple days ago that, given no objections, I soon will revert back material, so we'll see if there are any. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:02, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Is this reliable?
The source for the genre is from this link,, in which I think is a not reliable because the whole book is not about The Simpsons, nor if I think the book is completely fiction. The source is referencing this content: "The Simpsons is an American adult animated sitcom created by Matt Groening for the Fox Broadcasting Company." As of that sentence is the first from the article is which is supporting the reference. The user who added it claimed that the source is reliable, in which I'm opposing to the statement that it isn't.  Blurred   Lines   23:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't waste time over this. It's common knowledge that The Simpsons is appreciated by both children and adults. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly, so does that mean the reference is not reliable?  Blurred   Lines   20:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, by saying No in the edit summary, you were probably trying to say that it's not.  Blurred   Lines   20:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The book was published 1994 and it's categorised in Amazon as Crafts and Hobbies. Not reliable. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought, thanks for responding!  Blurred   Lines   20:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The non-fiction book: Fashion & Merchandising Fads (Haworth Popular Culture) by Frank Hoffmann and Beulah B Ramirez (Aug 11, 1994) is a reliable source and supports the information except for the "Adult" portion. I would say to exclude that or source it better to a specific citation. It has a reliable publisher (Routledge (August 11, 1994) ) and the authors appear to be notable for works on pop culture.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on that one, because I noticed that something was wrong when I was looking at the adult part.  Blurred   Lines   20:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

*Update: The user has taken 's suggestion to choose a different source, and this is what he choose,. Now is that source reliable, or it's just the same?  Blurred   Lines  22:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Editors here should be made aware that this just yet another contribution in user:Blurred Lines' attempt to create disruption here at Wikipedia. I have just informed administrator User talk:EdJohnston (as shown here and here ) of the matters revolving around this edit because he recently blocked BlurredLines for 48 hours for edit warring and disruption with regards to this edit as shown here  and here . As noted by the blocking admin, this recent block was Blurred Line's third since October 1, 2013. As I just noted to EdJohnston as he is familiar with BlurredLines' troublesome editing habits, I was never even made aware that this discussion was even in progress until Blurred Lines used Mike Miller's statement above to revert the edit at The Simpsons article and close discussion at that article's talk page. Mind you, this is over an edit that he's been edit warring with multiple users over now (as shown here,  , , , ). I should also note that I had originally only stepped in as a liaison and offered my opinion that user: Grapesoda and user: WikiAnthony were correct in their perception of the edit as being an adult cartoon because of the barrage of warnings the user had flooded their article talk pages up with (as shown here , here , here , and here , and here )


 * As I noted to Ed Johntson, I should inform you here as well that User: Blurred Line never informs editors he's in contention with of these discussions he starts up outside of the article's talk page. He has made previous attempts to get his way on this edit in a similar fashion, only at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (as shown here ). User:EarwigBot had to inform me of that discussion at my talk page because Blurred Lines tried to seek a consensus on that noticeboard without first informing the three users in contention with him (as shown here ). Once I informed by the other editor, I responded in that very discussion. Blurred Lines was then promptly dismissed because he hadn't even made much of an attempt to discuss the matter at The Simpsons article talk page (the dismissal for that reason as shown here ).


 * With that, I was under the impression that he was going to make an actual effort to constructively discuss at the article talk page, but instead he just headed to this noticeboard and without informing any of the editors in contention with him. Blurred Lines only decided to inform of this discussion upon making the revert and after only a mere two editors in this discussion offered opinions on the matter. I should also note that Blurred Lines has also attempted to get his way on this matter by reporting editors at ANI, in which he was also dismissed and sniped at the admins for it (all as shown here Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive820 and here )


 * As far as Blurred Lines poor communications at The Simpsons" article talk page. You'll note (as shown here ) that he first opens up a discussion on the 25th of the month, I respond on the 25th of the month, he then responds... but will announce "wikibreaks" (as shown here  as he's done before here  and a few hours later here ), which always leads me to believe that the edit is no longer in contention. Upon returning from his very short-lived "wikibreak," the user made the dismissed report on me at ANI, took it upon himself to have this discussion without informing anyone, then used Mark Miller's comment above to support his position that "I had not used a reliable source", reverting the edit and subsequently closing The Simpsons'' talk page discussion (as shown here  and here ), preventing anyone from having a say on the matter.


 * Also, only 2 editors have actually responded at the Reliable Source Noticeboard before BlurredLines made his determination to close and revert this edit first made by User:WikiAnthony and User:Grapesoda. One of those 2 editors at the Reliable Source Noticeboard did not even support Blurred Lines position which is that "my source was unreliable and therefor cannot be used to support anything." User:Mark Miller contended with Blurred Lines that my source was in fact reliable but simply didn't feel that the source stated the show as being an adult cartoon, as shown here . I felt the source pretty much did state this because it reads: "The Simpsons, a leading proponent of the adult cartoon wave." Anyways Blurred Lines thought that comment made by user Mark Miller and one other one gave him free reign to jump in and make a revert, then close the discussion on the articles talk page.


 * Although Mike Miller is one mere editor and one who it seems hardly agreed with Blurred Lines, BL would later use his comment to support his reversion and close the discussion at the article's talk page. I have tried to be the bigger man and provide a source that more explicitly states the show as being an adult cartoon, reading "The Simpsons (adult cartoon series)," but as you can see the editor is intent upon being a disruption no matter what. AmericanDad86 (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the reliable sources noticeboard. If you want to discuss a user, please use the appropriate forum. --Onorem (talk) 00:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * That's why I marked his message not focused on the source, as I used the hat template on it, but he and a random IP address kept reverting my edits (see history page).  Blurred   Lines   00:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Criticism section in the Steven Hassan article
Steven Hassan is a cult specialist, who has been criticised by another specialist, Rick_Ross_(consultant).

the section therefore read:


 * Hassan became involved in a dispute with fellow cult critic Rick Ross when Ross posted a disclaimer on his Web site after receiving what he stated    were “serious complaints” regarding Hassan’s fees for his services. Hassan responded that the charges were “inappropriate and completely inaccurate,” stating that Ross had misstated Hassan's current fees. Ross's response was that Hassan's fees "were $500.00 per hour and/or $5,000 per day" but that after "Hassan publicly posted his fee schedule, which was reduced to $250.00 per hour and/or $2,500.00 per day...the RI disclaimer was taken down."  Hassan stated that "my current fees are not $500 as Ross claims. I charge half that for an hour of counseling and have done so for quite some time."

These are primary sources, however I believe they are in line with WP:BLP and WP:RS in context: there is nothing here beyond what Rick Ross has written in his website_ it is verifiable, neutral, and contains no original research.

Furthermore, included is Hassan's response to Ross's criticisms

The sources clearly support the content, are in line with WP:BIO, and in context are reliable sources, since they *directly support the information* in the article.

Zambelo (talk) 16:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem here is that this entire passage is only sourced to primary sources. There's no independent secondary source to establish that any of this is worth documenting in an encyclopedia.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 16:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * OK... we have two separate issues here... The first is a matter of WP:Due weight: Ross has an opinion about Hassan... and we need to determine how much WEIGHT to give that opinion. To answer that, we need to have at least one secondary source comment on the fact that Ross has an opinion about Hassan.  If no secondary sources note this, then we should not give Ross's opinion much weight at all (if any).  If on the other hand, lots of secondary sources note that Ross has an opinion, then we can give his opinion a lot of weight.  Once the Due Weight issue is settled, then we can move onto the second (WP:RS) issue... Is Ross's website a reliable source for Ross's opinion. The answer to that is: Yes... it is an appropriate use of a primary source. Blueboar (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Zambelo has tried to insert primary source criticisms from self published sites onto the Steven Hassan page several times now, , . I keep directing them to WP:RS and WP:BLP , , , , , ,  including on two occasions the exact text which states that a self published source is NEVER allowed on a BLP unless it is written by the subject of the article.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Although the sources are primary, the importance the two men hold in the field lends weight: a noted cult specialist has criticised another. There is perhaps too much weight placed here, admittedly, but it certainly deserves inclusion, IMO. Added to this is the fact that Steven Hassan has responded to Ross's criticism, lending verifiability and weight.

Coffeepusher, perhaps it would be more productive to give your arguments why the content doesn't belong in the article? I wasn't aware of BLP when I first added the content, but I subsequently defended the inclusion of the material in the talk page. Zambelo (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * that's easy,WP:RS which states "Self-published information should never be used as a source about a living person, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer." The biography of living persons policy goes further stating "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject."  I don't see a lot of flexibility with the word's never and never when it comes to self published sources being used in biographies of living persons.  Cheers! Coffeepusher (talk) 18:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

This would be true if I was trying to establish the criticism as fact "Steven Hassan charges $1000 a session" (ref: Rick Ross). This isn't what is happening here. The context is that I am including Rick Ross's opinion. This isn't material about a living person; this is another person of import's opinion about this person, and it is being presented as such. Zambelo (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * please read WP:BLP to clarify what context and types of articles WP:BLP policy applies to. Do you need me to extract the exact passages again, or can you do it yourself?Coffeepusher (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I've read it, thanks. Zambelo (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Is this link reliable?
Source:.

Article: The Simpsons

Content:

Due by too many unconcerned content made by AmericanDad86 that had nothing to do with the source whatsoever, I have made a newer discussion.  Blurred   Lines  00:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The source is reliable, but not in this context. A book dealing with issues of psychology is not the best choice for determining the particular genre of a television series.  There has been plenty written about The Simpsons so it should be an easy matter to find such a citation in a book about the show itself, or a work of media studies.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 06:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Gamaliel, per WP:SOURCE, that the subject matter of the entire book doesn't focus solely on The Simpsons or animation isn't a breach of Wikipedia's policy for reliable sources. Scholarly sources can range from mainstream newspapers, magazines, tertiary sources sources, etc., which do not focus completely on one particular subject matter but rather a multitude of subject matters. If sources had to focus completely on the subject matter, tertiary sources, newspapers, and magazines would not be considered reliable. Although this technically does indeed qualify as a reliable source for the edit in question, I can understand your desire to have a bit of a stronger focus on the subject from a subjective standpoint. So per Gamaliel's comment, I have gone ahead and sourced the edit with books directly related to The Simpsons and animation.


 * As a last and final note, BlurredLines clearly needs to read over WP:SOURCE and WP:SCHOLARSHIP and educate himself on what and what does not qualify as a reliable source. He has contended many times now that these scholarly books I've been using to source material aren't at all scholarly. He clearly is unaware that books published by established publishing houses are considered reliable sources and needs some lessoning in this department as it is making his editing obnoxious to deal with. At the end of the day, all my sources used for this particular edit have been from reliable books unbeknownst to BlurredLines which has been quite irksome. And to make such an elaborate fuss over the reliable sources I've used for this edit that has nothing to do with a living person or medicine but over a television's genre is honestly quite disruptive. AmericanDad86 (talk) 11:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * This strikes me as a bit odd. Does this book really say (in straightforward words) that the Simpsons is classified as adult programming? Sure there is no non-obvious interpretation required there? Even then, in a case like this we have to be careful of using one single source for an obviously unusual claim.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * User:AmericanDad86, this comment isn't remotely helpful. It appears there is a lot of backstory here that I am unaware of but there is precious little discussion on Talk:The Simpsons and a lot of threats and borderline namecalling.  Unless you and User:Blurred Lines are willing to discuss this with each other instead of talking at each other, this matter will not be resolved, and if the edit warring continues without appropriate discussion, I'll lock the article until the editors on that talk page can sort this matter out.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 21:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is getting out of hand, however, Blurred lines has not been acting in the total right here. I also think that they (and perhaps all involved) need to review Identifying reliable sources. A source basically has 4 points that determine the strength and reliability. The publication itself (the book or article), the author, the publisher and the context. In this instance the context of the source is simply very weak. But that is the limit here as everything else seems to meet RS. The source does come out and call "the Simpsons" an adult cartoon, but I would rather a source that is written by an expert in media or television be used, but Andrew Lancaster is mistaken in that this is not an unusual claim. Calling the Simpsons an adult cartoon is not controversial or unusual as the series did begin as a segment of an adult entertainment series not meant for children. However, in media and entertainment the term "adult" has other meanings that many may object to. I suggest editors work this out on the talk page. Also, I really don't like admin threatening editors. Put your mop back in it's holster there Gamaliel. Your job is clean up, not proactive threats. Thanks.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Locking articles to encourage discussion is a pretty routine way of cleaning up disputes. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 02:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * After you properly warn the editors in the appropriate place and in the appropriate manner. This is not AN or AN/I and you are not the sheriff, but a janitor. Wait for the spill before you take the mop out. But please do not create a chill effect by making editors feel that they will have issues if they come here to ask about sources. Thanks.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There's already been a spill. If my comments have a chilling effect on combatants who want to bring their slapfight to this forum, I consider that a benefit and not a drawback.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 04:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Then take your mop where the spill is and stop making threats to editors on this noticeboard.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you missed the overflow above? If you want to concern yourself about chilling effects when editors seek assistance at noticeboards, then you should be concerned about responses like this one.  If it is inappropriate here to "threaten" editors with routine article locking, then surely it is inappropriate refer to their editing as "obnoxious" as well.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 06:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you shouldn't make assumptions because that just makes you look like an...well you get the point. It is inappropriate to threaten editors on this noticeboard. Page protection is a preventative action and threatening that action is punative.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You have a very broad definition of "threaten" here. If I was threatening an editor, then I would be threatening to do something to them, and since it is not their article that I would be locking, I have made no threat against them, only a warning about possible administrative action regarding the article.  Regardless, your point has been made, repeatedly.  If you're not willing to engage in discussion beyond that and just want to beat that dead horse over and over again, please take it to a different forum such as my personal talk page.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 16:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no further discussion. That was not a warning, but a threat of punative action, something that makes most editors uncomfortable when the are attempting to work within the guidelines and policies the community has set. This is where you made the statement and where the discussion belongs. If you feel the point has been made there is nothing further to discuss. Happy editing.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocking an editor is a punitive action. Locking an article is a preventative one.  For it to be punitive, it would require the article to belong to one of the parties involved in the editing dispute.  If it is in any sense punitive, it punishes the entire community because they are unable to edit.  But then edit warring and disputes between editors also have negative effects on the community.  Gamaliel  ( talk ) 22:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Editors- If this content dispute continues, please use Dispute resolution noticeboard or attempt compromise together. (We commonly refer cases from one noticeboard to another).--Mark Miller (talk) 03:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Is the "Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database" a WP:MEDRS source?
I was reading Boil and noticed that the section that claimed that Tea Tree Oil could be used as a treatment was sourced to. There's not much content here - just about everything is behind a paywall. It occurred to me that this source might not even be a legit source of pharmaceutical data. Could anybody with experience of this kind of thing weigh in? --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Is a book by a journalist and a photographer a reliable source for an analysis of religious relics?
An IP is insisting on including " On the other hand, the authors Górny and Rosikoń state that in case of some relics "the results of numerous time-consuming and comprehensive analyses, conducted using the most technologically advanced equipment available, seemed to coincide with assertions prevalent in Christian tradition." " in. The book is I think this one. "Grzegorz Górny is a reporter, essayist, and film and television producer. He is the founder and editor-in-chief of the quarterly Fronda, and from 1994 to 2001 he co-authored a program under the same title that aired on the Polish national television." "Janusz Rosikon is a photographer and a member of the Polish Journalists' Association and the Association of Polish Artistic Photographers. His photographs have been featured in Time, Newsweek, and Reader's Digest and various European publications." I can't see how it can be considered a reliable source (I think WP:UNDUE might also apply but it's RS issue that concerns me here - a journalist/producer and a photographer aren't good sources for studying analyses on relics and comparing them to historical writings). Dougweller (talk) 22:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm going to fall with not a reliable source on this one. Górny is the only author here, despite what the sentence says (there is another issue with how the claim is represented, but never mind).   I'm sure Górny is a great person, but this claim is specifically about the results of these comprehensive analyses with the "most technologically advanced equipment available".  What makes Górny an expert on these?  I don't see anything.  The publisher does not establish any reliability for the source either:  This publisher is almost entirely an apologetics outfit.  Jesus is a major historical research topic: There are many recent indubitably reliable sources which say that there is no physical evidence for Jesus (e.g., Bart Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, p. 45): If this book is saying otherwise, and it is taken seriously, why are there no academic reviews commenting on it? -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

It is RS. The book is not academic, but popular one, based on other sources, not always available in English, and does not need academic reviews (by whom? -Ehrman for example, has its own ideological bias, and is not an expert in relics whatsoever), besides it was released in English only a couple weeks ago. It has a positivie recommendation from Barrie Schwortz, former STURP member, see http://www.shroud.com/books.htm 83.4.156.158I don't see it is less RS than Nickell or Carroll-Cruz for example. (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 *  "the results of numerous time-consuming and comprehensive analyses, conducted using the most technologically advanced equipment available, seemed to coincide with assertions prevalent in Christian tradition." - for this statement to be taken seriously it needs to be properly explained. Whose analyses, using what technology, when? And what exactly is meant by "seemed to coincide with" - a phrasing that may be innocuous, or carefully chosen to obscure issues? Without further information, such comments, from a non-academic source, can only be used very carefully (with due explanation of the sourcing), and certainly not presented in the lead of an article as if the statement is definitive. Podiaebba (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Schwortz was a photographer for STURP, yes, but he is largely a fringe character. His whole work revolves around his claim that the Shroud of Turin is authentic, which is an archetypal fringe theory.  I don't think he has any credibility as a reviewer.   And what is telling you that that particular webpage was written by Schwortz? Because he runs the whole site?  There is a lot of material there which is not written by him. -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 01:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Read the book, fools! Here you have some excerpts:

http://en.rosikonpress.com/dzial_51/towar_karta_150/Swiadkowie_Tajemnicy.html http://shroudstory.com/2013/11/30/new-book-recommendation-on-steras-facebook-page/ http://shroudstory.com/2013/10/31/new-book-about-christs-relics-from-ignatius-press/ http://shroudstory.com/2013/11/06/of-similarities-the-tunic-of-argenteuil-and-the-shroud-of-turin/

The whole thing looks like you don't like the statement (because it is contrary to your ideological views) are just looking for an excuse to do not include the book.

83.29.181.170 (talk) 10:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * And your whole argument seems to be that since you like it, and since some random bloggers you found like it, we should consider it a reliable source. I stand with Podiaebba's statement, especially. The authors refer to technological analyses, but they are not themselves scientists, so they must be citing someone else's work. Whose work? Furthermore, the publisher of this work, Ignatius Press, is not an academic publisher - rather, Ignatius Press's mission is to "support the teachings of the Church". This is not the sort of book that should be used to write a neutral article. Someguy1221 (talk) 11:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you read that book? If not, your ignorant opinion is meaningless. Ignatius is a serious Catholic publisher, I don't know why books published by them should be excluded from Wikipedia -except someone's hostility to Catholicism. If we exclude Górny, then we should also exclude Carrol-Cruz -catholic writer as well, and Nickell, sceptical writer, who is much more biased (against any relics) than any Catholic source -so his book is not the sort of book that should be used to write a neutral article. The statement is an opinion cited, not a fact. Besides there is no such academic discipline as study of the relics yet -anyone can publish whatever wants. In the lead, we have two negative opinions, by Erasmus from 1500s, and by Thurston from 1913. So the lead is not neutral. To balance it, we have posititve Górny&Rosikoń opinion from 2013 -much more recent, after several researches on some relics (described in their book) have been published.

83.29.181.170 (talk) 13:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * IP is continuing to replace this material despite discussion here and having had 3 editors revert them, so clearly no consensus (but we do have some nice insults). I've reported to 3RR but as the IP changes I realise we will need semi-protection. Dougweller (talk) 15:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I see no constructive discussion here, only censorship. I am under impression that the statements from that book are simply inconvenient for someone's worldview. The trouble is, that Ignatius is catholic, not reliability of the book. Whoever has even read it? 83.29.181.170 (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Three comments:
 * First a question: Does Górny state his own conclusions about the relics, or does he merely report on the conclusions of others?
 * If the answer to that question is that Górny states his own conclusions, then we must ask whether he has the necessary professional expertise to draw whatever conclusions he makes. (I don't think he does).
 * If the answer to the question is that Górny reports on the conclusions of others, then his expertise is irrelevant (since he is not the one actually drawing the conclusions). Reliability would be based on the expertise of those others (note... and to determine that, we would need to know who those others are). Blueboar (talk) 16:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * 1. The quote is taken from the prologue of his book. You can read it here: The longer version:

"In accompanying their efforts, we conducted our travels rather more as investigative journalists than as pilgrims. We spent more time learning from scientists equipped with highly modernized technical apparatus than we did listening to the stories of religious preachers. And yet, it turned out that these two perspectives often found a common ground. The results of numerous time-consuming and comprehensive analyses, conducted using the most technologically advanced equipment available, seemed to coincide with assertions prevalent in Christian tradition. Science and religion, it would seem, need not contradict each other."


 * 2 Although he uses own words, he expresses the views of the others who investigated those relics. Remember, the opinion is vague, and not in case of all relics such examinations have been performed yet, but in some (Shroud of Turin, Sudarium of Oviedo, Holy Tunic of Argenteuil, Manoppello Image) have.


 * 3 See for example, some citations posted on Dan Porter's blog

The book can be considered RS, definetly.

83.29.181.170 (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * OK... if Górny is acting as a reliable journalist, and merely reporting the findings of experts, then he should tell us who those experts are. Does he? Blueboar (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Example from citations posted on Dan Porter's blog :

pp. 190:

In 1998 scientists at the Optics Institute in Orsay decided to compare the bloodstain patterns on the Tunic of Argenteuil and on the Turin Shroud

pp. 191:

Because of these results, interest in the tunic steadily grew throughout the scientific community. In 2004, the Institute of Genetic Molecular Anthropology in Paris commenced tests on the relic.

83.29.181.170 (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * How many tests of how many relics, how many of those tests did not confirm they are relevant to Jesus, who says they all had the latest technological equipment, what assertions? This is all extremely vague and made by someone with no qualifications in science or it seems the history of Christianity. The items identified by them as probably or identifiably genuine include the true cross and 2 at least holy nails. "Relics investigated, and photographed, for this glorious volume include: the Cross, nails, crown of thorns, pillar of scourging, Christ's tunic, the Veil of Manoppello, the Sudarium of Oviedo, the famous Shroud of Turin burial cloth ". And "In addition, some of the objects that were tested exhibit characteristics that completely challenge contemporary scholarship and research on the subject of relics. From a scientific point of view, it’s nigh on impossible to account for the way in which they came into being. Likewise unbelievable is the fact that, despite the technology we have available to us today, these relics cannot be copied". Dougweller (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

You make an unbelievable high criteria for inclusion of the opinion cited. Which simply states, that some of the relics have been examined, and are quite likely to be genuine. You dislike that idea -it doesn't matter. The book is about relics, anyway. So do we inlcude this (or similar) quotation in favor of some relics, or only negative opinions of Erasmus, Thurston, Nickell etc have the right to be included in Wikipedia? Because the current lead is definetly not neutral anyway.

PS: "In addition, some of the objects that were tested exhibit characteristics that completely challenge contemporary scholarship and research on the subject of relics. From a scientific point of view, it’s nigh on impossible to account for the way in which they came into being. Likewise unbelievable is the fact that, despite the technology we have available to us today, these relics cannot be copied"

This is a quote about Acheiropoieta.

PS2: The items identified by them as probably or identifiably genuine include the true cross and 2 at least holy nails. This is based on historical investigations of Michael Hesemann and Carsten Peter Thiede from around 2000.

83.29.181.170 (talk) 19:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Speaking as a rather serious Roman Catholic myself, I would have to say that per WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT, among others, there is no good reason to include any material cited from this source for this content. In general, we prefer academic sources for topics of an academic nature, and neither Ignatius Press nor the individual author(s), would I think reasonably be counted as an independent academic source. Also, in response to the clearly rhetorical question about who has a "right" to be included in wikipedia, we certainly could include any material from any source meeting minimum RS standards somewhere in wikipedia, but the material cited from such sources must meet weight requirements as per WP:WEIGHT, and I see nothing in the statements above which indicate to me that this source, or even necessarily this opinion regardless of source, necessarily meets such requirements. John Carter (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm going to restate a point I and several others made: these authors claim to be summarising scientific research. The standard for scientific research is publication in peer-reviewed academic journals - so where, if anywhere, was this research published? Y'know publication bias? Well "some scientists did some research and told me about it" bias is a lot worse. Podiaebba (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * European reliquaries claimed to hold so many pieces of the True Cross that, together, they would be enough to build a ship. We should not take these claims seriously, until we have very strong evidence. By the way, which head of John the Baptist is real? Or are they all real? (Scripture doesn't describe him as pentacephalous, but it's hard to argue with relics) bobrayner (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In response to the last point above, in a recent book on the Holy prepuce, the book indicated that there are several different classes of relics recognized, so that a nail which at some point might have been touched to one of the purported nails of the Crucifixion, or for that matter to any recognized relic, became itself a relic of the lower grades, although those who tried to hawk them tended to omit the exact "class" of relic any given item might be. The same probably applies to the apparently Hydra-like abilities of John the Baptist, which I don't remember having heard of before, and noting that specific superpower apparently failed at least once. John Carter (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Shut up idiots, contrary to me, you know NOTHING about the relics. Refusal to include the valid source and force resolutions are a serious abuses to the Wikipedia polices. Is Wikipedia censored? I Wikipedia a tool for anti-Christian/anti-Catholic propaganda? It seems so.

Dougweller -what you have done indicates YOU HAVE NO HONOR, AND YOU ARE NO ONE.

And for your info, since 1870 study of Rohault the Fleury, we know there is not enough for a QUARTER of the True Cross.

83.29.181.170 (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As a rather serious Protestant Christian, I concur with John Carter here; this just doesn't meet our standards. And abuse by an anonymous fanatic does not help your case, 83.29.-- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  21:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know -the Wikipedia is a tool for anti-catholic propaganda. This is the current standard for Wikipedia. Just see the article on the Shroud of Turin or Church of the Holy Sepulchre. I actually knew it before I even edited this article. How can I discuss with idiots who haven't even read the cited book.
 * 83.29.181.170 (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This abuse suggests that you've given up to trying to participate in a rational debate... but on the off-chance that you haven't, and as it appears you have access to the book, I'll restate my point even more clearly: tell us exactly what research the authors claim to be summarising. The quote you want to put in is simply no substitute for that information - if the scientific research is so wonderfully convincing, then Wikipedia readers should be told the details of it, not given a vague one-sentence summary. And once we know what the research is, we may not need to rely on this book at all (or at least not as much, if the research is published elsewhere). Podiaebba (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Because there is no rational debate on part of you and the buddies. Only harassment and arguments of force. To quickly summarize the book, the reasearch of the Shroud of Turin and Sudarium of Oviedo are quite widely known. The researches of the Acheiropoieta images (including Manoppello Image) can be found there . The research of the Tunic of Argenteuil is described in the book 'Le linceul de Turin et la tunique d'Argenteuil Presses de la Renaissance' by Andre Marion from the Optics Institute in Orsay and Gerard Lucotte from the Institute of Genetic Molecular Anthropology in France. And so on. The Titulus Crucis was paleographically dated to the 1st century by Israeli specialists on behalf of Hesemann, while the nails where compared by himself, to the one that belonged to Jehohanan. But for the biased ignorants this will never be enough -so the "unproper" facts cited by Górny must be removed.
 * 83.29.181.170 (talk) 22:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Noting that the IP editor has been blocked for 24 hours, I think it not unlikely that the discussion might start up again after that time has elapsed. Should the IP editor return, I strongly hope he acquaints himself with WP:RS, as such reliable sources are the topic of this noticeboard, and that he also realize that other considerations, specifically including matters like WP:WEIGHT, are also relevant to the content of our articles. Personally, there is no clear reason to believe that the sources are not reliable for use somewhere in wikipedia, possibly in an article on the book at the very least, but that is a completely different matter than the question of its reliability for the article in question. Also, yes, I haven't seen any particular reviews of the Gorny book in question yet produced, and if it is the case that the reviews from academic sources are less than flattering in some way, that would definitely impact the amount of attention that source gets in any article. Once again, should the IP return, I urge him/her in the strongest possible terms to familiarize himself or herself with the guideline pages linked to above, and refrain from further, really pointless, attacks on others such as he or she has engaged in to date. John Carter (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So far as I can tell, there is no academic review of the book. From Google searching, it looks like only 27 unique websites even mention it, almost all of them blogs and sales outlets. So I would say this work is basically ignored by every field, not just academic fields. To be fair, the book is only a month old, so maybe it's just not enough time for something published outside of academic circles to have received any attention. But in conclusion, I see no reason to use this as a reliable source. A journalist and a photographer publishing outside of their field, a book that has received precisely zero attention, through a publisher with stated ulterior motives, should not be cited on Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * the "unproper" facts cited - no facts are cited in the disputed quote: that is precisely the problem. You've begun to provide some of those facts about research done, and making sure that those facts are appropriately covered in Wikipedia (with the best possible sourcing for those facts) is worth a lot more of everyone's time than arguing about this quote. For myself, in the face of continued wanton abuse from you, I decline to aid you any further in this endeavour, on a topic I don't give a monkey's about. Podiaebba (talk) 01:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

German Acupuncture Trials, 2nd try
A lot of the discussion on the article's talk page centers around the question whether this source is permissible as a reliable, secondary source. IMO it is, but there are other views as well. --Mallexikon (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * .. This a review of the GERAC and several smaller acupuncture trials. There is a summary in English, on page 2.
 * German Acupuncture Trials
 * The source is supporting a description of the trials' set-up and results, e.g.: "In this trial, a total of 960 patients was randomized; immediately after randomization, however, 125 patients (almost all of them from the standard group) withdrew from the study. Primary outcome was defined as reduction in migraine days in week 21 to 25 after randomization. Treatment for the standard group consisted of medication according to the 2005 therapy guidelines issued by the German Neurological Association, usually comprising a beta-blocker. Regarding efficacy, no statistically significant difference between the groups was observed."

GERAC
1a) Three primary sources: 1b) One secondary source: 2.) German Acupuncture Trials 3.) These trials are notable because they led to acupuncture being reimbursable by the German statutory health insurances. The sources are being used throughout the article.
 * Endres, Heinz G.; Diener, Hans-Christoph; Maier, Christoph; Böwing, Gabriele; Trampisch, Hans-Joachim; Zenz, Michael (2007). "Akupunktur bei chronischen Kopfschmerzen". Deutsches Ärzteblatt 104 (3): C101–C108.
 * Endres, Heinz G.; Victor, Norbert; Haake, Michael; Witte, Steffen; Streitberger, Konrad; Zenz, Michael (2007). "Akupunktur bei chronischen Knie- und Rückenschmerzen". Deutsches Ärzteblatt 104 (3): C109–C116.
 * Scharf, Hanns-Peter; Mansmann, Ulrich; Streitberger, Konrad; Witte, Steffen; Krämer, Jürgen; Maier, Christoph; Trampisch, Hans-Joachim; Victor, Norbert (2006). "Acupuncture and Knee Osteoarthritis: A Three-Armed Randomized Trial". Annals of Internal Medicine 145 (1): 12–20.
 * Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss / Federal Joint Committee (Germany) (27 September 2007). "Zusammenfassender Bericht des Unterausschusses "Ärztliche Behandlung" des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses über die Bewertung gemäß §135 Abs.1 SGB V der Körperakupunktur mit Nadeln ohne elektrische Stimulation bei chronischen Kopfschmerzen, chronischen LWS-Schmerzen, chronischen Schmerzen bei Osteoarthritis" (in German). Retrieved 5 November 2013.
 * a) The primary sources are being challenged on the basis that according to MEDRS, primary sources should better not be used. As far as I know, that applies only to claims of medical efficiency or conclusions/results of trials. In this case, however, the primary sources are only used to describe the set-up and findings of the trials.
 * b) The secondary source has been challenged to be not reliable (no rationale for this assumption given yet).

Thanks, --Mallexikon (talk) 04:47, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Assessment from involved editor. The primary medical sources can't be used for health related content per WP:MEDRS. The German Federal Committee are a reliable source for information about themselves, but not for health-related content. If they are to be used for information about what they've done, a secondary source discussing their actions should exist to establish weight. Alexbrn talk 07:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:MEDRS doesn't ban primary medical sources, it just makes a big deal out of trying to make sure that they're not mis-used. I don't see how the use of these sources in GERAC presents a reliability issue. Podiaebba (talk) 11:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Using a primary study from six years ago to state (e.g.) "this implied both real and sham acupuncture being significantly more effective than standard therapy" is about a clear a misuse of a primary medical source as it is possible to get; even if this was a secondary source it would be getting to old for this per WP:MEDDATE. Alexbrn talk 11:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In what way is that a misuse of the source, which states " Low Back Pain Improved After Acupuncture Treatment For At Least 6 Months. Effectiveness Of Acupuncture, Either Verum Or Sham, Was Almost Twice That Of Conventional Therapy."?? WP:MEDDATE is also not relevant since the article is about these specific trials - you can hardly apply the same standard of "recent publications preferred" as you would to the main acupuncture article. At most you could argue that the out-datedness is an argument for deleting or merging the article. Podiaebba (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem. The primary sources in this case are simply background information for the main point, which is that the German committee approved acupuncture for reimbursement. TimidGuy (talk) 12:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * MEDRS: "it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge"? This article takes the majority of its space relaying the findings of out-of-date primary sources which have subsequently been questioned by reliable secondaries. Alexbrn talk 12:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This is an argument for deleting or merging the article, not for complaining about reliability of the sourcing as it stands. Podiaebba (talk) 14:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have nominated it for deletion. This thread was started by an editor wishing to defend the sourcing (and keep the article as-is). Alexbrn talk 14:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Using a source to describe itself is WP:OR / WP:DUE. We need sources independent of the subject matter. I share Alexbrn's concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Using a source to describe itself is WP:OR - no it isn't, and it's absurd to say so. It's a line of thinking which basically asserts not merely that primary sourcing needs to be used very carefully (and avoided if possible) but that it's banned completely. It's a tenable position I suppose, but not one supported by WP policy at all. Podiaebba (talk) 14:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In terms of normal Wikijargon I think Podiaebba is right. This is a case of a primary source, and not what we would normally call an OR or DUE problem. Primary sources are not forbidden but we use them carefully.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The sources seem to support that there were trials in Germany that lead to approval of reimbursement. There doesn't seem to be an RS issue with that. It seems a due and notability issue. What source supports that this is notable? The claim of notability is a WP editor's statement, "These trials are notable because they led to acupuncture being reimbursable by the German statutory health insurances." that is an editor's opinion/OR. What source supports the statement that the trials are notable? Where is the due weight argument to support an article on such a narrow topic that is supported by outdated and disputed studies? This seems like it might warrant two sentences in the existing acupuncture article. Summary: Marginally RS for content no RS support for weight or notability. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:50, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Notability is not really a subject for this forum, but I would say notability is not normally a case of finding a source which directly says something is notable. Often it necessarily involves "common sense" discussion between editors, because notability is relative to what an article is about. If there is an article about government attitudes to acupuncture, then...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Section break
See GERAC. Using a source to describe itself is obviously a gross WP:WEIGHT violation. We must use sources independent on the subject matter. The GERAC trial itself is being used in the article. Using a primary study from six years ago is obviously a gross WP:MEDRS violation. Editors think it is okay to use any source they like and continue to ignore policy. The primary sources in this case are being misused to describe in extreme detail about the trial itself, among other low level details. The article is littered with too many primary sources. For example, The Joint Fed. Committee is a primary source because they were part of the event. Even if the The Joint Fed. Committee was a WP:SECONDARY source there are now newer sources on the topic. That means The Joint Fed. Committee fails MEDRS and SECONDARY. The article should be mainly about how the results of the trial influenced policy in Germany. The trial itself in not what this article is supposed to be about. The details about the trials itself is not notable and not the direction of an encyclopedia entry. Editors have turned the article into their own personal WP:COATHOOK article. Here is the current discussion on the talk page. An editor thinks identifying a primary source is pointy. The editor's explanation on the talk page makes no sense. The source is indeed a primary source. QuackGuru (talk) 03:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Using sources to describe themselves is very common and accepted on Wikipedia. That does not mean there is no other problem here, for example perhaps the lack of MORE sources in addition to that. A very common warning made about using primary sources is not to ONLY use primary sources for any specific article. Is that closer to what you want to argue? OTOH, if there are now newer sources, the best thing to do normally would be to add them, rather than subtract something else. It is not necessarily a good idea to delete sources' own primary comments about themselves.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Using primary sources to describe unimportant low level details is inappropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia. The primary sources are used to discuss low levels details that are not about how a clinical trial impacted society and politics in Germany. The entire article is mess. See Articles for deletion/German Acupuncture Trials to read comments made by other editors about the many problems. There are now newer sources, but the newer sources do not verify the low levels details that do not belong in the article. QuackGuru (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Unreliable sources are being dumped inside the reference section. QuackGuru (talk) 01:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I made this change. The low level details remain in the article for no valid reason. I propose we delete the entire section. See WP:WEIGHT. QuackGuru (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No. It's reliably sourced material, and I don't see a WP:WEIGHT issue here. The article is about the GERAC. Check the title. --Mallexikon (talk) 02:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You did not address the concerns made by other editors. See Articles for deletion/German Acupuncture Trials.  QuackGuru  ( talk ) 02:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * What concerns? And why debate them here? --Mallexikon (talk) 03:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The concerns now are about the coatrack information that have been restored again.  QuackGuru  ( talk ) 02:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Federal Joint Committee source
QuackGuru and Alexbrn would like to throw this source out. Their rationale is that it constitutes a primary source regarding the GERAC, since based on their own report the Federal Joint Committee (Germany) decided to include acupuncture to the list of services that have to be reimbursed by the German statutory health insurances. Could I get some feedback whether the FJC source is permissible (as a reliable secondary source) to describe the background and set-up of the GERAC? --Mallexikon (talk) 03:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * .. This a review of the GERAC and several smaller acupuncture trials. There is a summary in English, on page 2.
 * Please don't misrepresent what I have said. Given that the consensus is that this article should be about the event at hand (the granting of insurance eligibility to acupuncture in Germany in 2007), what I wrote about this source was this: "It's not independent of the events and so far from ideal except maybe for the most mundane facts, or things which are otherwise validated by good secondary sources; for anything in the biomedical space (details of the trials e.g.) it fails WP:MEDRS and cannot be used." The key concern here is about biomedical information; you are trying to use this source as a loophole in WP:MEDRS to admit health information boosting acupuncture into Wikipedia with is both outdated (per WP:MEDDATE) and explicitly refuted by subsequent high-quality secondary medical sources. As MEDRS states in its opening paragraph: "it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge". Alexbrn talk 08:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No, you are misrepresenting the consensus. The article of course still is about the GERAC; it's just notable for the "event" you talk about and the article should take that into account (in regard to its content)... This source is not outdated (since it's not used in regard to its assessment about acupuncture in general, but only as a source to describe GERAC itself), and it clearly is an independent, third-party review. If the article's name was "The Federal Joint Committe's decision of 2007" - yes, you might have a point about this source being primary and not independent. But it's not. --Mallexikon (talk) 08:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The key point is it's not RS for the kind of dubious health information you want Wikipedia to include such as (in Wikipedia's voice) "This amounts to significant superiority of acupuncture and sham acupuncture over standard treatment, but no statistical significant efficacy difference between real and sham acupuncture". Even it is was a WP:MEDRS-compliant source (and it isn't) such statements would be inadmissible as they are out-dated and discredited. It's pure coat-racking. Alexbrn talk 08:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You took this quote from the Knee osteoarthritis trial subsection - it's clearly not meant as a generalized assessment of acupuncture. I'm going to be more than willing to make sure this article doesn't dole out dubious health information. And I'd like to quote an editor from the AfD discussion: "I'll just point out that if I didn't like acupuncture, I might very well want the page to remain. The results suggest that the effectiveness of acupuncture is basically no more than sham acupuncture..." . You are misinterpreting my intentions here. --Mallexikon (talk) 09:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter whether the information is "pro-acupuncture" or "anti-acupuncture": we don't include dubious health information (such as that I quoted from the article) on Wikipedia through using unreliable sources for it, period. That means removing all the discredited primary biomedical material that has been laundered via this non-WP:MEDRS source. As far as I can see your intention is to keep this material in by having a loving detailed exposition (including tabular data!) from all these discredited sources. It would be a little bit like having a detailed explanation of the research behind supposed links between vaccination and autism in the Andrew Wakefield article (which of course we don't do). It's troubling. Alexbrn talk 09:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The bigger problem is this source and other sources are being used to discuss low level details. On Wikipedia we summarise the sources. The article is about the event. It is not an article about the trials itself. The medical information about the trials itself is coathook information. QuackGuru (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course it's an article about the trials... That's why its title is "German Acupuncture Trials". Can we get some feedback from uninvolved editors here please? --Mallexikon (talk) 04:54, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Your using the same disputed primary sources again.  QuackGuru  ( talk ) 05:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, it's clearly a secondary source... --Mallexikon (talk) 05:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it is clearly a primary source.  QuackGuru  ( talk ) 06:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Can we get some feedback from uninvolved editors here please? --Mallexikon (talk) 07:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Alright, never mind. Let's close this thread and start afresh further down below. --Mallexikon (talk) 02:17, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The new thread you started did not explain there are many concerns about the coat rack information. You did not explain to other editors that it is an article about the event according to comments made by uninvolved editors at the AFD.  QuackGuru  ( talk ) 04:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Source deleted?
I have a specific instance here, but generally speaking what happens when (so far as I can tell) the only source of very specific claim - cited in an article - vanishes from the web? Smidoid (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * See Link rot. Someguy1221 (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

25thframe.co.uk

 * The source in question: 25thframe.co.uk
 * The article: List of highest-grossing films in the United Kingdom

The above website is used to source the first chart in the article. I have reservations about this source because i) there seems to be a couple of corrections in our chart attributed to other sources and ii) I can find scant information about who runs this site, and the level of editorial oversight. I've been overhauling the list with an eye on FL promotion but I have concerns that the source in use would not withstand an FL review. So in a nutshell does this source pass muster or should I look for an alternative? Betty Logan (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see any identification of who is responsible for the website, how they get their numbers, what editorial board or oversight there is. This alone makes me think this is indistinguishable from any other self published OR. Are there examples of RS's using this site for numbers? Any discussion of the site or its numbers in RS? What gives the site reliability specifically for that matter credibility? Without answers to these questions I'd suggest looking for another source. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for replying. I agree with your points. It doesn't look wrong—it looks like an SPS site that simply duplicates the charts. However, the the lack of insight into its publication process doesn't really enable us to ensure that it is correct either. Betty Logan (talk) 23:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Paul dundas is reliable source?
Paul Dundas is a reliable source for citing about religions other than Jainism? His reliability has been questioned here at Talk:Jainism and Hinduism, due to the original research and false interpretation. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Bladesmulti's main reason for asking this appears to be his statement "Dundas is a pro-jain source, certainly lacking the account for writing about other religions." Writing about Jains doesn't make one anti-Hindu. And of course that he (Bladesmulti) disagrees with Dundas's view. He's reliably published academic and the only objection seems to be a disagree with his views (and a claim that he is fringe, which doesn't seem to have any basis). Dougweller (talk) 07:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Dougweller, I didn't called his claim to be Fringe, only questioned that if he's presenting wrong information about Vedas, it should be accepted? Like other user had pointed too. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Then attribute it. If other academics disagree, show their views also, attributed. Dougweller (talk) 08:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In subjects where there are differences of opinion amongst experts, the best solution is normally to find MORE sources, showing the other arguments, not to try to delete the sources we have on the basis that they have a POV. In such cases, trying to argue that one source is more POV than another is often a never ending discussion, so not very practical.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Dundas is an established academic, working on Indian religions generally. Reliable for such topics Itsmejudith (talk) 23:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Dundas in many people's opinion may be a reliable academic but I find his knowlwdge of Hinduism shallow or he has not gone into depth of Hindu philosphy -

For example in article Jainism and Hinduism Dundas is cited as saying:-

''The scriptures known as Vedas are the foundations of Hinduism. As per Hinduism, these scriptures do not have any author and are present since the beginning of the universe This position was countered by Jains who said that saying vedas as authorless was equivalent to saying that anonymous poems are written by nobody. Jain scriptures, on the contrary, were believed by them to be of human origin and hence had greater worth'' (citation given :Dundas, p. 234.)

The above line in article seems to be original research, as Vedas In Hindu tradition are the creation of Brahma. See search link -  --- going by that can Dundas be accepted as a reliable source ??? I think Dundas did not research well before writing or his academic credentials are not worthy. Jethwarp (talk) 07:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If Dundas wrote anything like that, I'm a Dutchman. (And I'm not, as it happens.) Based on your citation from our article, I think the first question is: what did Dundas really say? Can anyone verify? Andrew Dalby 10:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * @ :Andrew Dalby - I do not have resources to verify that as I do not have the book. But I had raised this same question at Talk:Jainism and Hinduism earlier and the editor, who is also creator of article said he has quoted same from the Dundas book which is available with him. That is why I raised the question that perhaps Dundas knowledge of Hinduism is shallow or poor. Jethwarp (talk) 13:47, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Also some of the claimed information from the book of Dundas certainly can't be verified either. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I have provided the full citation in the page Jainism and Hinduism. I am providing it here again:
 * That's very useful, thanks ... and, yes, it is difficult material to summarise or paraphrase. Dundas is not saying directly what Hindu views are. He claims to report the opinion of "the Jains" about the views of "the brahman class" and also about the origin of the Jain scriptures. I was, to be frank, most uncomfortable with the phrases "as per Hinduism" and "are present since the beginning of the universe": well, in fact, they are not in the source anyway, which reassures me :) So, I'd say, this sentence could serve us as a source for Jain opinions, including Jain opinions about Hindu arguments, but not directly for Hindu opinions. Andrew Dalby 12:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Andrew Dalby, so you indirectly said that Dundas is only good for the topics that are 100% jain, and if it involves Hinduism, he should be avoided? Bladesmulti (talk) 06:25, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that's not exactly what I mean, Bladesmulti. I'm commenting on this sentence -- which is far from being an easy read :) -- and pointing out that it does not claim to say what is Hinduism: it claims to say what Jain thinkers considered to be Hinduism. That's how I read it, anyway. Let's remember that the book is about The Jains, after all.
 * This board deals in specifics, but in general, I would certainly say (like Judith, I think, above) that Dundas should be regarded as reliable on Indian religions. Andrew Dalby 12:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This board deals in specifics, but in general, I would certainly say (like Judith, I think, above) that Dundas should be regarded as reliable on Indian religions. Andrew Dalby 12:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * @Andrew Dalby, So it means that Dundas is not making any comparison between Hinduism and Jainism, per say. He is only expressing opinion of what Jains thought of Vedas or Hindu scriptures. He himself, therefore, is not drawing any opinion, is what you feel ? Also he is not going into depth weather what Jains thought of Hindu scriptures is correct as per Hindu philosophy. Correct!!! Further, he also has not bothered to go into detail, which Jain philosopher said that (Vedas) were....anonymous poems were not written by anybody. Am I right ? Jethwarp (talk) 08:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Up to your last sentence, I agree with you 100%. As to that last sentence ... it really is difficult material to summarise ... He says that Jain philosophers argued as follows: the Hindu claim of "no authorship" (of the Vedas) is as illogical as a claim that "anonymous poems" (in general) "are not written by anybody". This is not a statement that any Jain philosopher said that Vedas or anonymous poems "are not written by anybody": it is the exact opposite, in fact. It is a statement that Jain philosophers would have regarded such an opinion as nonsense. Andrew Dalby 10:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your views. It means that Dundas is not comparing Jainism and Hinduism and even if he is he is doing it into superficial basis. Which means he is saying what Jains thought about some Hindu scripts but is not saying What Hindus thought of Jain scripts or views. And therefore, as said earlier and also agreed by you that Dundas not going into depth weather what Jains thought of Hindu scriptures is correct as per Hindu philosophy. Now, that exactly was the point of argument - Whether Dundas can be cited as a reliable source - when we are comparing two religions of Indian sub-continent like Jainism & Hinduism or Hinduism & Buddhism or Budhhism and Jainism. In my opinion and also of  Bladesmulti - he is not a Reliable source when comparing two Indian religions.  Jethwarp (talk) 14:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Non sequitur argument. --Rahul (talk) 14:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * He lacks the knowledge about Vedas, when compared to the scholary sources that are listed all over in the pages such as hinduism, vedas, etc. So it should be noted already, that he can't be used as a source when it's about comparing Jainism with other theory. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that opinion isn't justified by the quotation and discussion above. Andrew Dalby 17:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Masonic Lodge question

 * ''Note: The following is clearly a separate query, hence I have moved it into this new section. That's all I know :=) Andrew Dalby 17:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Why does this article state that the masonic lodge is and ENGLISH entity when the "Mother Lodge " and NO 0 Kilwinning is Scotland please see


 * The Mother Lodge of Scotland is situated in the Ayrshire town of Kilwinning. This old and ancient Lodge of Freemasons dates back to the building of Kilwinning Abbey around 1140 and has a unique history second to none in the Masonic world.

Before the forming of Grand Lodge in 1736 Mother Kilwinning was a Grand Lodge in her own right issuing charters and warrants to Lodges wishing to enjoy the privileges of Freemasonry

www.grandlodgescotland.com/.../masonic.../lodge.../172-lodge-mother-k... I though everyone knew that the Masonic order was started as a union to protect the stone masons who were building Kilwinning Abbey against the influx of itinerant workers from Ireland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.120.66.254 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 3 December 2013

Doc Halo page
Sources: John Lynn (2013-03-28). “HIPAA Compliant, Secure Texting Doc Halo App Lands Key Contract with Premier Healthcare Network” (http://www.emrandehrnews.com/tag/doc-halo/). EMR, EHR & HIT News. Retrieved 2013-11-05.

Joanne Maly(2013-09-27). "Doc Halo Reports That Omnibus Implementation has Healthcare Organizations Scrambling for 100% HIPAA Compliance for Secure Messaging" (http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/9/prweb11164305.htm). PR Web Retrieved 2013-11-05.


 * These sources and the majority of the content were deleted from the Doc Halo page by an editor. But I believe them to be reliable, legitimate references and informative content.

Article: Doc Halo

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doc_Halo&diff=582291368&oldid=582289527

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doc_Halo&diff=582289527&oldid=582288153

25.35 (talk) 14:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Looking at the sources, EMR, EHR & HIT News: "EMR, EHR and Healthcare IT news is an extension to the EMR and HIPAA network of blogs.""The genesis of this EMR, EHR and healthcare IT news site is that I get a couple emails every day with EMR related news. This website is an outlet for me to post the various EMR news that I receive." A reposting of emails recieved by a blogger. NOT RS.
 * PR Web is a promotional site, for a fee they will publish a "press release" or for a larger fee they will write one for you. NOT RS. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I understand now, thank you for your help! I have added a few more sources that are not press releases or blogs- changes listed below. How many sources are necessary before I can remove the "notability" flag??

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doc_Halo&diff=583233681&oldid=582291748 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doc_Halo&diff=583434900&oldid=583233681 25.35 (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Dispute at two related articles
The articles are Wool 100% and I Will Walk Like a Crazy Horse. I had stepped in as a bystander on a dispute where editor "TheOldJacobite" has been reverted by others. It was a dispute on surrealism and I noticed no sources were given so I quickly added a few whereby he reverted me and another editor since then. He doesn't like the sources. The info given is at the talk pages at Talk:Wool 100% and Talk:I Will Walk Like a Crazy Horse. In the context of surreal, could we have another editor or two take a look at the sources? I really don't want to keep reverting or taking it to a fuller Dispute Resolution Noticeboard if others here agree with him. The diffs I added are here and here. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Your sources look very weak to me. One is a library category used in Seattle. One is a self-published website called Film Threat.http://www.filmthreat.com/reviews/10279] Another is a self-published website called Horror Cult Films. A fourth is a self-published website called Cinemania.
 * Regarding whether the adjective "surreal" should be saved only for films from the Surrealist school, you should start an RfC at the film wikiproject. Make sure to include the separate question of categorization as a surrealist film. Binksternet (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Oral Citations (2)
I'd like to approach this noticeboard before actually adding any oral citations. There was a discussion in December about Achal Prabhala's WMF-funded project. The community here wasn't very perceptive of the idea, partly due to concerns about intellectual property (uploading files on Commons to back up article claims), partly due to a general resistance to the idea.
 * Background info
 * Related discussion from Dec 2012
 * detailed investigation
 * Wikimania 2013 slides
 * Request

My colleague Maja and I found several weaknesses in both the general approach of the en.wp editor community and in the particular roll-out by Achal. We pre-released a, and I gave at Wikimania Hong Kong, both with the aim to re-activate the discussion. Roughly, we claim that: and that
 * 1) Indigenous knowledge (IK) is knowledge
 * 2) Wikipedia wants to be the sum of all knowledge
 * 3) Wikipedia therefore should aim to include IK
 * 1) All knowledge is documented in reliable sources (RS) of some sort
 * 2) IK is documented almost exclusively in non-written form
 * 3) Therefore some non-written sources are reliable

I would be happy if some of you had the time to go through this argument and the supporting documents, and either prove us wrong or allow oral citations. If neither happens, which would somewhat be the expected result, :) we plan to put this to a test in 2014, taking a few topics for which no/little RS can be found, and develop content based on oral citations. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 09:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The question is too general for this board. Yes, there can be a tension between WP:V and our concern to avoid systemic bias. You should take this to the talk page of WP:V, because it goes to the heart of what Wikipedia is about. Either that or the village pump. Wherever you take it, giving some examples would be very helpful. Can you show that indigenous knowledge is not available in written (codified) form? Perhaps all knowledge is indigenous until it is codified? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Although I am sympathetic to the broadening of Wikipedia coverage, this proposal is problematic across numerous policies. In particular, oral sources are WP:PRIMARY, which means that the WP editor is effectively creating WP:NOR by selecting the source and content that is used.  Wikipdeia aspires to include all human knowledge, not 'everything anyone has ever said'.Martinlc (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In effect the aim of this proposal is to publish things for the first time, which is not the aim of this community, nor the way it is set up. It would require fundamentally different ways of working that would make the rest of Wikipedia difficult to continue. So the more obvious approach is to try to develop a new Wiki?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

@Itsmejudith: Indeed, the proposal is broad. I brought it here first because it was discussed here before. It touches WP:V --- the paper and the slide show referenced above argue that it is absolutely verifiable. A real-world example is difficult to give at this time because IK is just not available in writing. Template cite would also need adaptations. Hypothetical examples would be (Sorry, I have no idea how to restrict the Reflist template to just show the two relevant sources) :

The village of Ovitoto was founded in the 1860s by Herero Chief Tjamuaha.

The OvaMbanderu people use the fresh leafs of Securidaca longipedunculata to heal menstruation pain.

@Martinlc & Andrew Lancaster: Oral knowledge is published orally: A village elder delivers a narrative, other elders listen and correct him if necessary by telling their version of the narrative. It is not just something that happens to be said, it is a ritualised session of knowledge transfer, predictable both in time and content.

Generally, do you contest that Indigenous knowledge is knowledge? If not, do you contest that WP should be the sum of all knowledge? --Pgallert (talk) 10:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not the sum of all knowledge and never can be. See WP:NOT for some of the important things that we aren't. 99% of the important and useful knowledge that you and I have is tacit and uncodified, like how to get from my house to the greengrocers, or whether the light is bright enough for me to be typing at the moment. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:25, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You're preaching to the choir. But the matter of the fact is that there is real knowledge out there that is not available in writing, and that's what I'm talking about. Did you check the examples in the documentation linked at the top? --Pgallert (talk) 12:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the emphasis you have placed on verifiability is a distraction. To answer the question about Indigenous knowledge, my view is that it may be knowledge but it is difficult for it to be treated as encyclopedic knowledge since the criteria developed for the selection of sources and content based mainly on print culture cannot be readily replicated for oral sources.  However it would be straightforward for an expert in oral traditions to select and gather information from the bes evidence as encyclopedic as a shortcut.Martinlc (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Andrew Lancaster's point above that a Wiki could handle this kind of source, and could develop into an encyclopedia of oral knowledge, but it couldn't be this wiki. Both reliability and verifiability are at issue. Wikipedians need to be able to verify that the source is reliable and has been reliably reported: those questions arise frequently on this board, and in the two examples you give I don't see how they could be answered. Just for example, what was the speaker's name for Securidaca longipedunculata and is the identification valid? That's exactly the question that I would ask if I found such a report in a printed or online source, and I wouldn't add the information to the page Securidaca longipedunculata unless I could cite a source that (a) I considered reliable, but also (b) the next Wikipedian would be able to check, and, if necessary, dismiss as unreliable. Andrew Dalby 11:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * @Martinlc, Andrew Dalby: 'Encyclopedic knowledge' surely is what writers of an encyclopedia (=us) consider valuable. From 'IK is knowledge' and 'WP aims to present the sum of all knowledge' necessarily follows 'WP aims to present IK'. That's a syllogism; if you accept the premises you have to accept the conclusion.
 * As for your second argument, Wikipedians are not just the white-collar workers in developed countries. We have Wikipedians in Epukiro, in Donkerbos, in Otjinene, and for those it is not at all a simple thing to verify facts on WP. Assume they want to verify a fact referenced to the Library of Congress. They would have to learn English. They would have to travel to another country. They would have to learn how our knowledge is organised---Do you remember your first time with a library catalogue? Finding a book is by no means easy. And then they would have to convince the knowledge keeper (the librarian) to give them access. A San in traditional attire might have a hard time lending a book.
 * It is thus maybe not too surprising that for somebody not acquainted with an African rural IK setting, verifying an oral narrative is not easy. You would have to learn the language. You would have to travel to that country. You would have to learn how IK is organised, how it can be retrieved, and how it has to be understood. After gaining the trust of the local community, oral knowledge might be presented to you for verification.
 * I am slowly developing into an expert in oral knowledge, and I can already tell you that western scientists misunderstand so much that their representation of an elder's narrative is about the worst source of knowledge you can get. We miss the context, the non-verbal communication, the subtleties in translation, the reason for 'publishing' (orally), and so on. I am publishing in the field---do you want to treat my writing as a reliable source, denying the original author, who didn't get half as many things wrong, the same recognition? BTW, 'primary source' is a red herring in this case: As long as I do not attempt to abstract from an elder's narrative, my writing is still a primary source. --Pgallert (talk) 14:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The examples you give above are your "representation of an elder's narrative" ... right? So it's lucky you're different from all the other experts, or your material, also, would be "about the worst source of knowledge you can get". Forgive me if I've misunderstood something :) Andrew Dalby 20:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * :) The examples are entirely hypothetical, simply because I do not possess much IK. But no, of course not, thanks for asking. I don't speak the indigenous languages, and my representation would indeed not be better. It is supposed to come from a native speaker who is also fluent in English. We are currently busy developing them into Wikipedians, for now using written sources. I often challenge them by showing how poor certain articles are developed, and they tell me all the content. If I ask them where they know it from, it invariably is the parish priest, the chief, the traditional midwife. --Pgallert (talk) 10:50, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I get it now: I didn't understand fully.
 * Wikipedia developed quite a long way while still accepting material based on what Wikipedians know or have been told by people they trust. Some other-language Wikipedias still do, but here on en:wiki the drive towards reliable sourcing has been going for years: it is deep-rooted and still intensifying. Even the things that everybody knows have to be sourced (... if anyone asks ...) with a source that others can verify. En:wiki differs from academic writing precisely in that it is edgy about primary sources and won't accept "personal information from ...", "letter from ...". So, given this culture, can you get en:wiki to accept "information from an elder"? You have a fight on your hands! I'm telling you what you already know. Andrew Dalby 12:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So true :) But I want even more. I want en-Wikipedians to understand that the information from an elder in all likelihood is more reliable than the respective writeup from an anthropologist. And I want to convince an audience anchored in a culture of writing that oral knowledge transfer is alive in these days and times. It happens in institutionalised settings, and if someone voices a fringe opinion, then this opinion is attacked by the listeners. It is thus not quite the same as a "letter from ...". The best analogy I can offer so far is a museum guide. When asked about a certain item, or at certain rituals (e.g. guided tour) they will always come up with more or less the same explanation.
 * Of course we could go to the OtjiHerero incubator or to the Afrikaans Wikipedia, nobody is going to ask for sources there. But I think en.wp is missing out on some really exciting and important knowledge without IK. --Pgallert (talk) 19:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The knowledge contained in Wikipedia is whatever a Wikipedia editor inserts. If the knowledge is not published, there is no way to verify that the so-called knowledge is not a lie. Wikipedia can never contain oral knowledge because Wikipedia does not have a mouth. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The point is that the act of predictably and reliably narrating a piece of history, technology, or culture to an audience, is a way of publishing. Or, the other way round, that en.wp's definition of publishing deliberately excludes all oral knowledge, to the detriment of Wikipedia's vision and mission. --Pgallert (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This version of Wikipedia's vision is contrary to WP:TRUTH.  The disadvantages of the possibly-faulty transcription or summary are outweighed by the chance for editors to consider the Reliability of this secondary source, in my view.  Somebody can compile oral traditions into a fixed form, and that can be used by Wikipedia editors if they consider it reliable, so it is not true that WP excludes all oral knowledge, it only excludes that knowledge which falls outside the scope of Primary, RS, and Verifiability policies.   Martinlc (talk) 23:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given access to the sum of all human knowledge --- If that was contrary to WP:TRUTH then that would be no problem, WP:TRUTH is just an essay. But it isn't contrary. Oral knowledge is verifiable. Not easily verifiable, not without an effort, but it isn't hearsay. And if I have to convert oral knowledge into 'a fixed form' before I can use it, then oral knowledge is excluded. Or did I misunderstand something? --Pgallert (talk) 07:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In order for oral traditions to appear in Wikipedia they need to be fixed by someone. You are proposing that WP editors do this directly, and this proposal has been considered problematic as cutting across numerous policies.   I have suggested you do so indirectly (ie fix first then into WP), this would be unproblematic.Martinlc (talk) 11:09, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure I properly understand 'fix' in this context. If you mean recording the narrative and uploading it to Commons, that has been rejected by this very board in the past, for doubts on the ethical implications of indigenous communities' intellectual property. --Pgallert (talk) 08:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No I meant transform from its primary, oral, form, into a secondary, textual, form, either as a transcript, summary or analysis. Wikipedia is a text medium, so at some point somebody has to do that transformation.  If the text version exists outside of WP it can be used as a source.  Martinlc (talk) 12:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 'Summary' would be tricky. If I do it myself there is the risk of misunderstanding what is important. 'Transcript' would not make it a secondary source, because in order to get from a primary to a secondary source there needs to be a level of abstraction, and a transcript does not involve abstraction. The 'analysis' I shall leave to the scientists. Any of these would have to be published, right? Which would mean that only what alien visitors to an indigenous community find important, actually is important, and that only their take on how the narrative is to be understood, counts. That does not look like a good approach to me. --Pgallert (talk) 07:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I am at this stage pondering to which venue to next take the issue, as mentioned, I brought it to this noticeboard first because it was discussed here before. I recollect the following objections: The core objection in my view is that oral information is not 'published' as outlined in the WP:RS guideline. I would believe that this is core territory of this noticeboard, but maybe I should take that issue to the talk page of the content guideline. Again, nobody refuted my argument (for instance backed by the main space article Publication) that communities not rooted in a culture of writing can have an oral equivalent of publishing. I'll be grateful for additions and further commentary. --Pgallert (talk) 07:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Verifiability, even if no one actually refuted my argument ;)
 * WP:NOT as hearsay and incidental chit-chat,
 * WP:NOR and WP:PRIMARY

us-japandialogueonpows.org
Greetings! It has been a long time since I have posted here, but a new source has brought me here that I would like to bring up for evaluation for possible use on the GA article Jose Calugas. AusTerrapin notified me of a secondary source that identified a medal that was previously unidentified in published sources, the source is as follows: The source appears to have been written by the article subject's son, a retired U.S. Army sergeant first class, and the President of the Philippine Scouts Heritage Society. The question is, does the website (more specifically the linked page), even though appearing to have been written by the subject's son, a reliable source?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * http://www.us-japandialogueonpows.org/Calugas.htm


 * I've had a quick look at that page and at the article's Talk page. So what's the central issue here - identifying exactly which medal he received?
 * It surprises me if there's not an authoritative military-maintained list of recipients of medals, but that's by the by. Barnabypage (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Correct. The source linked above says that the medal in the image is a foreign award, the Philippines' Distinguished Conduct Star, with the image being referenced being this one:
 * http://navyphotos.togetherweserved.com/2093365_med.jpg
 * --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'd say it's not a fantastic source but it's not an obviously untrustworthy one either, and the author as president of the heritage society is presumably an expert on the subject to some degree. Unless there's anything really contentious about using the identification, it's okay at least until the day a better source turns up. Barnabypage (talk) 08:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Breed clubs as sources
This is the page for the breed club (not a breeding kennel) of the Olde English Bulldog. My issue is, is this a reliable source for the temperament/disposition of the breed? Obviously since this is a breed club their interests lie both in promoting a positive image of their breed and in presenting an accurate picture of it; my issue is that it says things like "...generally excellent with children and the OEB is no exception", which can be found in every dog resource about just about every breed that is not a livestock guardian dog. It is currently being used here extensively. I am aware that it is WP:PRIMARY but it is also one of the most well-developed sources on the breed. -- T K K ! bark with me if you're my dog! 00:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I would say it's fine for "objective" facts like breed size, typical colouration, etc., but less ideal for qualitative assessments of this kind. Having said that, I don't know how easy it will be to find a "warts and all" discussion of temperament from a RS (no doubt there are lots on blogs and in forums etc.). I have the print version of the Kennel Club breed guide (not available online, as far as I can see), which ought to be a pretty RS, and even though it doesn't exist to promote any one particular breed, it tends to steer very clear of phrasing anything negatively.
 * Perhaps you could just state it as an informed opinion rather than an outright fact. "The OEB is excellent with children, according to the Olde English Bulldog Kennel Club." Barnabypage (talk) 11:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I share Tikuko's concerns. Every breed club says positive things about their breed. Ditto for other sources that cover specific breeds, and of course our articles are often edited by people who are fond of that breed. Consequently, almost all our articles on dog breeds say that each breed is intelligent, loyal, good with children &c and none of our articles say that the breed is yappy, dimwitted, or destructive. Every dog is above average. bobrayner (talk) 12:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Antonio Veciana
At this article, a claim attributed to a BLP is being sourced to an OpEdNews piece allegedly by someone who is a researcher at the Assassination Archives and Research Center regarding the JFK assassination. The claim in the article is sourced to an op-ed allegedly by a director of that Center, and includes a partial scan of a letter. There's a dispute over this in part because OpEdNews is an entirely self-published operation meaning we cannot verify authorship or the legitimacy of the scanned piece, nor has the claim appeared anywhere else we would consider reliable. The closest I can find is this book review, but it's highly conspiratorial in nature and, again, deals with a BLP issue. I would love some extra input, especially as we do not use OpEdNews anywhere else on the site. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I love that you'd rather come to RSN than follow my request to pick up the phone to the AARC and ask them to republish an article by their co-founder, Jim Lesar. That would actually be useful, whereas this - joy - can produce nothing but hot air and the removal of information that cannot seriously be doubted. You really think someone's impersonating Lesar at OpEdNews (in 3 articles)? You really think Lesar (an attorney) is forging letters? Or perhaps the widow of Gaeton Fonzi is? And to reiterate: if you'd picked up the phone when I first asked you to, we'd probably have the AARC republishing the article by now (or at least agreeing to do so soon). Podiaebba (talk) 20:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As you see from the point here, it's actually a lot deeper than that. More eyes are always a good thing.  If the consensus is that I'm wrong, we can move on from it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * it's actually a lot deeper than that.  - what are you talking about? All I see is that you can't even give a straight answer about not being willing to pick up a phone and ask an author to republish an article on a different website. Instead of doing something to contribute to the sum of human knowledge that goes ever so slightly beyond the usual Wikipedia editing and endless talking, you want vindication that your removal of some information is technically correct according to WP rules. Podiaebba (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Podiaebba, while your comments might be 100% correct (I don't know), they're probably better suited for Thargor's user talk. Repeatedly criticizing his/her editing practices on this page discourages other editors from weighing in. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Additional: ex-Washington Post Jefferson Morley, who Lesar is acting for in a FOIA lawsuit, cites the OpEdNews article here. Podiaebba (talk) 16:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Dispute at two related articles
The articles are Wool 100% and I Will Walk Like a Crazy Horse. I had stepped in as a bystander on a dispute where editor "TheOldJacobite" has been reverted by others. It was a dispute on surrealism and I noticed no sources were given so I quickly added a few whereby he reverted me and another editor since then. He doesn't like the sources. The info given is at the talk pages at Talk:Wool 100% and Talk:I Will Walk Like a Crazy Horse. In the context of surreal, could we have another editor or two take a look at the sources? I really don't want to keep reverting or taking it to a fuller Dispute Resolution Noticeboard if others here agree with him. The diffs I added are here and here. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Your sources look very weak to me. One is a library category used in Seattle. One is a self-published website called Film Threat.http://www.filmthreat.com/reviews/10279] Another is a self-published website called Horror Cult Films. A fourth is a self-published website called Cinemania.
 * Regarding whether the adjective "surreal" should be saved only for films from the Surrealist school, you should start an RfC at the film wikiproject. Make sure to include the separate question of categorization as a surrealist film. Binksternet (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)