Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 72

need clarification
I need a clarification regarding reliable source. My question is also similar to a section above. Generally when a new book is released by a reputed publisher ( already widely and heavily cited in Wikipedia ) is it necessary to wait for some reviews to appear to judge it as a reliable source? From what I know, reviews appear only several months to years after the publication. Regards, --Themrin 2 (talk) 03:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What is the title, author, and publisher of the source in question? In which article is the source being used? What is the exact statement in the article that the source is supporting? Where is the relevant talk page discussion, if any? Dlabtot (talk) 03:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)I was not clear above( my alt account for public networks ). The publisher in question in Motilal Banarsidass (usage on wiki). The book in question is recently published ( 2 weeks back or so ) Interpreting Ramakrishna authored by Tyagananda, a Chaplain at Harvard University and has also been a panel member for American Academy of Religion discussion. The section in question is here. --TheMandarin (talk) 04:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC) It may sound ridiculous, the book is already being used a WP:RS in atleast 3 other articles, but User:Goethean edit wars and removes it for one particular article--Ramakrishna. --TheMandarin (talk) 04:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It clearly is a reliable source as the term is used on Wikipedia. Whether it should be mentioned is a separate question. I see the article has a 'Notes' section for inline references, as well as a 'References' section, and a 'Further reading' section. I'm not sure what the 'References' section is supposed to be about. What is it for?  Is the book Interpreting Ramakrishna actually used to support any text in the article?  If so, what text?  If not, perhaps it could be added to the 'Further reading' section and then you folks could edit-war about that. Same goes for the other sources in the 'References' section.  Why are they there and not in the 'Further reading section? Dlabtot (talk) 04:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments, Yes the book is used to support text in the article related to psychoanalysis per WP:NPOV--The author being academically respected. I agree that the layout is messed up ( The References and further reading probably needs to be merged into single Biblio and needs to be worked upon ). --TheMandarin (talk) 04:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The text in question is not really about the subject of the article, rather, it is about the book which is about the subject of the article. As such this particular text pretty clearly has no place in the article, per multiple Wikipedia policies and guidelines.  It would be hard to imagine an argument against it being a reliable source, however, and I note that no one has actually claimed it isn't.  This case is emblematic of many of the disputes that arrive here - and illustrates why the answers to the questions I pose above are so important when editors ask questions at this noticeboard: quite often the alleged question is not really a question about identifying reliable sources but is merely forum-shopping. Which just wastes everyone's time. Dlabtot (talk) 05:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, I gracefully disagree with you, the text is about the subject and directly relevant to the Psychoanalysis section in question and required per WP:NPOV. I wanted to take the opinion of other editors instead of edit warring and I don't think asking it here or discussing with WikiProject members is "fourm-shopping". Anyway, Thanks. --TheMandarin (talk) 05:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you have a point, I see it now, after the diff --TheMandarin (talk) 05:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to accuse you of wrong-doing or bad faith. I just don't see an RS question and I don't see that anyone has challenged it as an RS in Talk or in edit summaries.  As an aside, before posting, did you read the section at the top of this page starting "Before posting a question regarding the reliability of a source" - again, not meaning to imply wrong-doing by the question, I am just trying to gauge the effectiveness of our instructions. Dlabtot (talk) 05:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I see your point now, the text should support material directly, not describe the book. Anyway this was the question that prompted me here. Thanks. --TheMandarin (talk) 05:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Historical Jesus: 90% of sources are Christian theologians and/or Christian Presses
WP:RS: "Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view."

Historicity of Jesus
 * The article says "essentially all scholars in the relevant fields agree that the mere historical existence of Jesus can be established using documentary and other evidence" The source is a book by a Christian theologian; not peer-reviewed. Many attempts to attribute it (i.e. treat it as opinion rather than fact) reverted.
 * Factual statements in article: "The scholarly mainstream not only rejects the myth thesis,[105] but identifies serious methodological deficiencies in the approach.[106] For this reason, many scholars consider engaging proponents of the myth theory a waste of time,[107] comparing it to a professional astronomer having to debate whether the moon is made of cheese.[108] As such, the New Testament scholar James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a "thoroughly dead thesis".[109]
 * 105 contains three sources. The first publisher self-describes: "...proudly publishes first-class scholarly works in religion for the academic community...and essential resources for ministry and the life of faith.". The author's Web page says: "As we share our faith stories and listen to the faith stories of others... We come to understand our own experience of God better, and we come to recognize new possibilities for the life of faith". The 2nd publisher is "Trinity Press" (figure it out) and the third is... "Eerdmans publishes a variety of books suitable for all aspects of ministry. Pastors, church education leaders, worship leaders, church librarians... will find a wealth of resources here.".
 * Source 106 is 76 years old, so there's little information. It does contain a chapter called "The Guiding Hand of God in History". It is out of date.
 * 107. Published by Eerdman's (see above). Author is a theologian, founder of the Institute for World Christianity
 * Source 108 is the Bishop of Durham in the Church of England, cited in a book called An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Incarnation of the Son of God. Figure it out.
 * 108 is a theologian: James_Dunn_(theologian). Publisher is Eerdman's, Christian press, etc. Not peer-reviewed.

That's a complete summary of the coverage in this article. The reader is told as fact that the non-historicity of Jesus is a fringe theory. Every single source for that claim is a theologian, and one is a bishop; 6/8 sources are from Christian presses. Obviously, no peer review. My attempt to remove the material was reverted.

Jesus Article asserts: "Biblical scholars have used the historical method to develop probable reconstructions of Jesus' life.[111][112][113] Over the past two hundred years, these scholars have constructed a Jesus very different from the common image[vague] found in the gospels.[114]"
 * 111 is "Francis August Schaeffer (30 January 1912 – 15 May 1984)[1] was an American Evangelical Christian theologian, philosopher, and Presbyterian pastor. ... Opposed to theological modernism, Schaeffer promoted a more fundamentalist Protestant faith and a presuppositional approach to Christian apologetics, which he believed would answer the questions of the age. A number of scholars credit Schaeffer's ideas with helping spark the rise of the Christian Right in the United States.....Schaeffer popularized, in the modern context, a conservative Puritan and Reformed perspective."
 * 112 is D. G.Dunn, Jesus Remembered, Volume 1 of Christianity in the Making, Eerdmans Publishing: ""Eerdmans publishes a variety of books suitable for all aspects of ministry. Pastors, church education leaders, worship leaders, church librarians... will find a wealth of resources here." . Dunn is a theologian.
 * 113 is William Edward Arnal, Whose historical Jesus? Volume 7, Studies in Christianity and Judaism, Wilfrid Laurier Univ. Press. This is by far the highest quality source here. However, it's not clear that it supports the text. For example, Arnal writes: "...scholarship on the historical Jesus uses the figure of Jesus to project contemporary cultural debates". (p. 5) That doesn't sound like a clear assertion that it's all about the historical method.
 * 114 is Borg, Marcus J. and N. T. Wright. The Meaning of Jesus: Two visions. New York: HarperCollins. 2007. Marcus Borg says: "God is real. The Christian life is about a relationship with God as known in Jesus Christ. It can and will change your life.". NT Wright is a bishop in the Church of England.

Article says: "The principal sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four Gospels. Including the Gospels, there are no surviving historical accounts of Jesus written during his life or within three decades of his death.[119] A great majority of biblical scholars accept the historical existence of Jesus.[119][120][121][122][123]" (emphasis added)


 * 118 is just a Web site called "http://www.rationalchristianity.net" It is non-neutral, and also not reliable. There doesn't even seem to be an author for the page.
 * 119 is "Dr Robert E. Van Voorst a Professor of New Testament Studies at Western Theological Seminary, ... received his B.A. in Religion from Hope College ... his M.Div. from Western Theological Seminary ... his Ph.D. in New Testament from Union Theological Seminary "
 * 120 is published by Trinity Press (sounds secular, huh), and the author is a theologian
 * 121 is something called Christianity in the Making: Jesus Remembered, published by eerdmans.com an exclusively religious publisher
 * 122 is a book called An Evangelical Christology: Ecumenic and Historic, by a publisher that self-describes as "seeking to educate, nurture, and equip men and women to live and work as Christians"
 * 123 is Marcus Borg & NT Wright, same as 114 above

Christ myth theory
 * "The theory remains essentially without support among biblical scholars and classical historians.[2].” The footnote contains four sources. The first is a theologian, not peer-reviewed. The second is a theologian, James H. Charlesworth; the publisher is Eerdmans...."Eerdmans publishes a variety of books suitable for all aspects of ministry. Pastors, church education leaders, worship leaders, church librarians... will find a wealth of resources here." . The third is interesting, just because the expert self-describes as recently agnostic--after a life of evangelism. Unfortunately, the original publisher is Fortean Times, a popular magazine focused on science fiction and the paranormal.. The 4th source is George Albert Wells; he doesn't support the historical Jesus theory, and so is misrepresented as considering its opposition a fringe theory.
 * "The Christ myth theory has never achieved mainstream academic acceptance.[85]” The source is Craig A. Evans. The publisher is "Theological Studies: A Jesuit-sponsored journal of theology"

This pattern of sourcing violates neutrality, definitions of reliable sourcing, and principles of systemic and cultural bias. Noloop (talk) 17:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please consider WP:TLDR amd Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Whether you are right or not mainstream view has it that a historical Christ existed, and indeed Wikipedia, as is Western mainstream is biased by Christianity. You may even be defending the WP:truth but that is not going to help you. My suggestion would be to let it rest, this is a battle you cannot win. Arnoutf (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would advise Noloop to expand articles like Radical Criticism and to write biographical articles about the red links there. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. Please discuss the topic, not me. 2. Please document that this is defensible "Wikipedia ... is biased by Christianity". It is true; it is not proper. 3. If it is "mainstream" then why are 90% of the sources Christian theologians? Noloop (talk) 17:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Mainstream view among current historians is probably that the issue cannot be decided. They have lost interest in the issue. So the only academics publishing about this nowadays are conservative Christian theologians. And they will "win" on wikipedia by volume (also called "consensus"). /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree with your initial assessment, and it reminded me of an article I came across today by a conservative Christian. Check out this article. In short, it is accusing recent library acquisitions of selection bias against the recent Evangelical publishings, in favor of the non-Evangelical/nontraditional ones. I'm not sure I agree with Ingolfsland's methodologies or premises, but it is still interesting to note, giving you think the only ones publishing about this nowadays are conservative Christian theologians. Sorry if this is off topic, but I wanted to share :) -Andrew c [talk] 17:43, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec)First of all... 90%? Stop making up numbers. I could ask "why are 90% of African American studies professor's African American?" or "why are 90% of queer theory academics gay?" or "why are 90% of feminist scholars women?" or "why are 90% of biologists Darwinists?" Can you start citing me what part of WP:RS you feel is being violated by citing these scholars? -Andrew c [talk] 17:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not discussing you, but giving suggestions how to better use your time. And indeed the bias is there, both in the people publishing on the topic, as well as in Wikipedia editors. Fair: No. Can it be helped: No. Arnoutf (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Good sources don't exist, but these meet the letter of Wikipedia's guidelines, and there's plenty of people to revert changes, so there isn't anything to be done. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

In The God Delusion, which is about as non Christian Theologian as you can get, Dawkins says that you could build a case that Jesus never existed but that it isn't 'widely supported' and that 'Jesus probably existed'. - MrOllie (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, its statements like that that we're arguing about on the talk page. That seems like a pretty typical representation of secular history, that there isn't enough evidence to say for sure, but there is some. Nobody (with the possible exception of Noloop, arguably on the same 'side' as myself and several others) takes the position of claiming Jesus never existed in the article, but that statements sourced to Christian Theologians that the view he existed is 'universally held' and a certainty should be identified in the article as statements from, well, Christian Theologians (along the lines of 'Dr. Whoever, a Christian Theologian, states that the view is universally held.') -- ۩ M ask  20:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's the exact quote from The God Delusion: "It is even possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never lived at all...." If it were up to me, I would use Dawkins as the source, and say something like "The argument that a 'historical Jesus' never existed isn't widely supported".  This would be a less strong statement than the current "essentially all scholars in the relevant fields agree", but it would also be harder to challenge (I think).  I would have preferred to see stronger evidence, particularly for an issue that obviously hits an emotional bone on both sides, but the circumstantial evidence is pretty robust.  --RSL xii  20:07, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I would love to use that. I would probably modify it slightly, to include more of the information in the quote, something like 'While there is evidence available to propose a serious theory that Jesus did not exist, the view is not widely held'. I dare say though that there is a branch of editors in the dispute who would argue he does not qualify because he is not a biblical scholar. -- ۩ M ask  20:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That sounds good to me, although it probably won't fly with enough editors to stop its use. I think that Dawkins would be a good source, not for stuff about Jesus, but for what other religious scholars think. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "The view is not widely held" does not mean much. Dawkins is not discussing evidence, only the view. In a majority Christian society any views negating Jesus will not be widely held. The view of historians/archaelogists (theologians deliberately not mentioned as these tend to take holy books as evidence) of first century Palestine, and of those only these with a neutral view are scientifically relevant. Good luck finding those. Arnoutf (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have made a proposal on the articles talkpage to gauge editor consensus on using the quote. Since we are quoting him for the current consensus, and he was the Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science, I feel we can use him as a reliable source for explaining current thinking of those in the field, it's exactly his area. -- ۩ M ask  20:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My feeling is you are slightly overinterpreting him in this case, and Dawins is frequently complaining that his opponents quote him out of context.
 * Note the "not widely held" can also mean that the people who care whether Jesus existed are convinced he did, while the others really don't care much. There were a lot of Jewish mystics around 0 AD and Jesus may, or may not have been one of those, or may have been compiled from several stories. In any case interesting to see how the editors respond to the suggestion to name Dawkins a reliable source on religious issues ;-) (Note that Dawkins is biologist by training, neither historian nor archaeologist, or even theologian). Arnoutf (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Noloop, thank you for doing the research on all of these sources. The claim "essentially all scholars in the relevant fields agree that the mere historical existence of Jesus can be established using documentary and other evidence" clearly is not properly sourced. The fact that there are a number of scholars (such as in the Christ Myth Theory article) who question the historical existence of Jesus proves that this claim is simply false. As I have noted previously, out of the 72 people that were quoted in the old CMT FAQ, 66 of them (i.e. 92%) are (a) faculty of Christian or theological institutions, and/or (b) Christian clergy, and/or (c) were schooled in theological or religious institutions, and/or (d) avowed Christians. Anyone who thinks religious indoctrination has no impact on one's ability to objectively assess evidence with respect to that religion's truth claims is naive or delusional. That being said, I have tended recently to resign myself to the same conclusion that Peregrine Fisher has made. My sanity is more important than the integrity of a couple of Wikipedia articles. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There are far more scientist out there that disagree with Anthropogenic Global Warming then there are historians who that Jesus didn't exist, yet you don't see us stating that the Global Warming position is just a "widely held theory". This whole argument is just ridiculous considering there isn't one scientific organization that would state that they don't believe Jesus existed, not even one Atheist historical group would tarnish their reputation by making such an absurd statement. It would be better to just reference other people stating that Jesus exists and that everybody believes it rather to pretend like the Jesus Myth theory is an acceptable theory in the scientific community.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Who said Jesus didn't exist? I don't believe or say that; I'm agnostic on it. The issue is whether skepticism is a fringe theory. Certain editors are trying to exclude scholarly skeptics from Jesus-related articles on the grounds that skepticism about historical Jesus is pseudoscience. They compare questioning the existence of Jesus to questioning the Holocaust or moon-landings. See: Talk:Historical_Jesus and Talk:Historical_Jesus It turns out that when certain editors (and the articles they control) say there is consensus that Jesus existed, what they mean is there is a consensus in Christendom The vast majority of their sources are theologians. The reader should know that. The reality of the articles should not be constrained by what is believed in Christendom
 * The scientific, encyclopedic fact is that there is plenty of evidence of a "Jesus movement” and teachings attributed to Christ. But, that’s true of Dionysus and Orpheus too. Elaine Pagels did not get all her degrees at Bible college:
 * "The problem I have with all these versions of the so called "historical Jesus" is that they each choose certain early sources as their central evidence, and each presents a part of the picture. My own problem with this, as a historian, is that none of the historical evidence actually goes back as far as Jesus—so these various speculations are that, and nothing more. But what we can investigate historically is how the "Jesus movement" began. What the new research shows is that we have a wide range of teaching attributed to Jesus." --Elaine Pagels Professor of Religion, Princeton University. (MacArthur Fellowship, National Book Critics Circle Award, Guggenheim Fellowship, Rockefeller Fellowship)


 * Hey, you almost have enough people to start your own List of historians opposing the mainstream historic assessment of the historical Jesus Christ article. You can design it around this.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 04:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

People this is not helping. To established a mainstream view you have to establish expertise. As far as I know the evidence for the existence of Jesus is more or less as follows: Theologians - vast majority support historical jesus. Historians - Mixed view, problematic is the lack of contemporary sources which makes any claim lacking first hand evidence. Archaeology - No evidence of the specific person Jesus. Simply put, if you exclude theologians from the the balance the mainstream is not as clear cut. Noloop argues that theologians are not qualified experts for historical facts (and he has some kind of a point, as we also do not take the opinion of theologians on the life of Cicero or Cleopatra as leading). Arnoutf (talk) 13:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What about muslim scholers whats their view?Slatersteven (talk) 13:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point, but since the Islam recognises Christ as one of its prophets maybe not the best choice. Are there any Hindu/Buddhist scholars who studies existence of Jesus? I am afraid there may not be as this may not be overly interesting to them. Arnoutf (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My point is drop the Christian Vs non Chriatian sources. That is a red herring as he is not only a holy figure of the Chritian relgion. The debate should be about faith Vs non-Faith sourfesd (and by the way do we actualy kow what percentage of Non-faith historians say christ did not exsist?).Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Jesus was a religious figure. He was part of the milieu of 1st century Judaism. Theologians rarely study Cicero or Cleopatra because they were not religious figures. I don't agree with a historian/theologian dichotomy when it comes to Jesus, because it is pointless to strip out the religious aspects when studying a religious leader. That is not to say there exists different methodologies when studying Jesus. But if we are talking about the historical Jesus, and the authors are thus using the historical method, then does it really matter if the author has a divinity degree or a PhD (or both). There is overlap, and I don't think we can reduce the approaches in such a simplistic matter. I'd agree strongly with the notion we should only be using historical, not "theological" methods when discussing the historical Jesus, but that does not discount the use of people whom you may consider "theologians". But that is because such "theological" methods are off topic when discussing the historical Jesus. It is not because they are less reliable in terms of WP:RS, and their use would be useful in the Christology article or the Christian views of Jesus article.-Andrew c [talk] 23:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If research is based on the historical method, without theology, it is found in non-theological, peer-reviewed, history journals. Noloop (talk) 01:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you say so *rolls eyes* Seriously, name some prominent scholars of the historical Jesus that you believe are reliable sources per Wikipedia guidelines. Name some journals you think are adequate. Humor me.-Andrew c [talk] 03:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

(od) I suspect there are no historians who research Jesus. Likewise, there is no serious research on the life of the historical Priam, even though it's perfectly plausible that the historic Troy had an historic king. There's just not much that can be known in a scientific sense. As Elaine Pagels said: "The problem I have with all these versions of the so called "historical Jesus" is that they each choose certain early sources as their central evidence, and each presents a part of the picture. My own problem with this, as a historian, is that none of the historical evidence actually goes back as far as Jesus—so these various speculations are that, and nothing more." Pagels isn't saying there was no Jesus, here; she's saying that if he existed, there's not much that can be known. Noloop (talk) 06:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well Ms Pagels must have researc hed him to come to her conclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 12:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

(remove indent) This now marks the fifth time (that I know of) that something along this issue has come up:


 * Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_8
 * Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_11
 * Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_15
 * No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_7

The problem is not so much that the Christ Myth theory is fringe (that is pretty much a given) but just exactly what it is and where the break is with the equally fringe minimalist position is. Adding to the problems is that the phrases "Christ Myth" is used for other things than "Jesus never existed as as physical person" Talk:Christ_myth_theory goes over the various definitions and later list the editors that feel as I do that the very definition of "Christ myth theory" as it currently stands is confusing and not supported by all the reliable sources.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is the way sources are described. Stating 'relevant fields' leaves this open-ended, yet at the same time those not considered falling within relevant fields are excluded.  So, an eminent philosopher like Bertrand Russell is excluded because he was an athiest philosopher, not a theologian, bible scholar, of religious historian.  By specifying that those who hold the 'universal' view are what they are (theologians, bible scholars, religious historians) you avoid this problem; you could then qualify this to say what secular historians think about the issue, and what secular scientists & philosophers, etc., say.  Which may be that there is not enough evidence to say, or that few waste their time on the issue (but some don't believe it, or feel a case could be made against it, but such a view is held by only a few).  That would be accurate, and satisfies NPOV. Given the article is dominated by the belief that there was this figure in some way or another, and theories about what he was like, and this would be brief, it does not seem undue. -  Mish Mich  -  Talk  - 22:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, Bertrand Russell was kept out for the same goofy reason Joseph Campbell was: he was not a Christ Myth theorist. But as I have shown exactly who a Christ Myth theorist even is varies depending on what criteria the particular author you cite is using.  The majority say that it mean Jesus never existed as a person and is totally mythical but then you have other authors like Walsh, Michael Grant, Dunn, Pike, Doherty, and Holding defining it so differently as to include Historicity of Jesus as part of the the definition they are using, and then you have Boyd-Eddy saying that it included the idea there is not enough evidence to show Jesus even existed rather than saying he never existed.


 * Topping it all off are authors like Price, Dunn, Richard Carrier, Doherty and Boyd-Eddy, continuing to put Well into the Christ Myth theorist category long after he accepted that there was a historical person behind Q. Even though he has challenged this classification you have to ask are these authors all using the same definition or different definitions.


 * For the record here is Joseph Campbell's quote: "It is clear that, whether accurate or not as to biographical detail, the moving legend of the Crucified and Risen Christ was fit to bring a new warmth, immediacy, and humanity, to the old motifs of the beloved Tammuz, Adonis, and Osiris cycles."--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I live here and have never read so much ill informed rubbish in my life
I live in a quiet estate, walk through Queens Crescent every day and to be honest have not noticed any drug dealing gangs or the deprivation noted within the article. This article (given that there are no citations regarding gangs, deprivation or drug dealing) can only be a matter of opinion and as such has no place on wikipedia.
 * This will be our Gospel Oak article. Sadly, there are sources for this including the Brown walk . Anyone can add these, including you. This is actually the wrong noticeboard, as here we discuss actual sources and whether they are reliable, not the lack of sources. Dougweller (talk) 11:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hagelstein's cold fusion review in Naturwissenschaften
The peer reviewed interdisciplinary science journal Naturwissenschaften has published a number of articles on cold fusion over the past five years, some of which are used in that article. However, Hagelstein, P.L. (2010) "Constraints on energetic particles in the Fleischmann–Pons experiment" Naturwissenschaften 97(4):345-52 is the first review they have published on the subject, being based on a search "through more than a thousand papers in the published and unpublished literature on the Fleischmann–Pons experiment to find results we could use to develop estimates for upper limits of particle emission per unit energy" (p. 346; PDF p. 2.)

Is that review a reliable secondary source in the context of the cold fusion article for the following claims, which appear verbatim earlier on the same page:


 * 1) "4He has been observed in the gas phase in amounts in proportion with the energy produced"; and
 * 2) "Such a large amount of excess energy produced with commensurate 4He as a product can be interpreted as indicative of a new physical process"?

Thank you for considering this question. Ura Ursa (talk) 03:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not a review article, and it does not support cold fusion. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 01:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Care to elaborate? Why does it say "REVIEW" across the top of the first page? Ura Ursa (talk) 06:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It does not have the style and format of a review article. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't a general topical review, but it is a wide-ranging review of particular data which it summarizes. Does that make it any less authoritative as a reliable source for the article? More importantly, why would or wouldn't it count as a secondary source for the two claims excerpted above? Ura Ursa (talk) 08:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is not a review of helium production in such experiments, and it does not evaluate those two claims. But you seem more interested in wikilawyering than in science. Bye. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems like a decent source, but it's not a review article even if the journal decided to paste "REVIEW" at the top. It's more like a commentary. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. They went through 1000+ sources tabulating data for summarization. In the process they noted helium correlations, which they reported along with a summarization of their results in a graph. How is that like a commentary? Ura Ursa (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Whether a source is reliable or not is one thing, but when have editors ever before contradicted a respected, peer-reviewed journal as to whether a paper is a review or not? This whole topic has been the bizarro-world stinking armpit of wikipedia for years. 208.54.14.57 (talk) 04:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I "second" that question. Naturwissenschaften was previously argued-about by anti-CF editors here, that it could not be a Reliable Source journal, just because it dared to publish a cold fusion article or three, among all the other types of articles it publishes.  The anti-CF editors lost that particular debate (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cryptic_C62/Cold_fusion#Use_of_Naturwissenschaften_article ), so they have since focussed on whether or not particular articles can qualify as sources for used on the main Cold fusion page.  I suspect in this particular case, the anti-CF crowd might have to admit that this new article is a Review, which theoretically means that earlier Naturwissenschaften articles might now be allowed to be mentioned in the main CF page, --but that the anti-CF group will also be able to prevent referring to this new article there, because it itself has not been mentioned by other authors in other articles.  And, obviously, if this article can't yet be referenced, then the other articles still can't be referenced!  My new Question is, then, how may "layers" of reviews of reviews must the rest of the Wikipedia editors wait for, before any of those primary-reliable-source articles can be referenced???? V (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm, good point. So let me add another question here:
 * 3. Whether or not it is a review, is it a secondary source for the purposes of including the primary sources it discusses in the cold fusion article? Ura Ursa (talk) 05:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a secondary source published by a reliable publishing house (Springer Verlag). It's not necessary to clarify whether the article is a review or not. In addition, any original thought in this paper may be used as an expert opinion, but this is a different matter that should be discussed separately from the question of whether the source can be used to present the papers and positions it is presenting. Cs32en   Talk to me  16:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ??? What could be the problem? If it is a secondary source that references various primary Reliable Sources, then what in Wikipedia's rules could possibly prevent those primary sources from being referenced in the cold fusion article? V (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Akins coat of arms
Recently in the process of editing the article for the surname Akins, I added an image of the Akins coat of Arms from the Wikimedia commons image http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Akins_coat_of_arms_complete.jpg along with the caption "Akins coat of arms, an early example of which can be found on the gravestone of Thomas Akins (1758-1785), a Scots-Irish settler of colonial Charlotte, North Carolina". The source I cited for this was the book The History of Steele Creek Presbyterian Church 1745-1978 by The Historical Comittee of 1976, Craftsman Publishing, Charlotte, 1978, which contains an identified image of the coat of arms along with details of the location of Thomas Akins' grave, his dates of birth and death from the tombstone inscription, etc.

The image was shortly thereafter taken down by a group of other editors: HelloAnnyong, Brianann MacAmhlaidh, Dougweller who seemed to be of the opinion that the source I provided was "unreliable" and that the coat of arms was "dubious" (even though it has been used by the Akins family for more than 200 years) See: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSln=Akins&GSfn=Thomas&GSbyrel=in&GSdy=1785&GSdyrel=in&GSob=n&GRid=5677664&df=all&. The other editors argued that the coat of arms was "dubious" because they could find no reference to it being registered outside of the United States. Since the Akins family is Scottish they expected the coat of arms to be recorded in the Lord Lyon's New Register of All Arms and Bearings of Scotland - a register that was not established until 1672, several decades after the Akins family (to whom the coat of arms belongs) had emigrated from Scotland to the Ulster Plantation, and then to America by the 1660's. Earlier examples of the Akins coat of arms can be found on other family gravestones, the earliest being that of Alexander Akins who died in 1669 and is buried in Harford Co., Maryland. Images of this and other gravestones bearing the same Akins coat of arms can be found at: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSln=Akins&GSbyrel=in&GSdyrel=in&GSst=22&GScntry=4&GSob=n&GRid=25978854&df=all& and at: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSln=Akins&GSbyrel=in&GSdyrel=in&GSst=22&GScntry=4&GSob=n&GRid=5677681&df=all& however the editors who objected to the inclusion of the image of the Akins coat of arms in the Akins surname article felt that the aforementioned references were "unreliable" because they were submitted to the Find a Grave website by users.

I feel that there is a double-standard in all of this, as there are numerous other articles dealing with family surnames which include images of coats of arms, crest badges and other images of a similar nature. The fact that the Akins coat of arms has been in use by the Akins family for well over two hundred years, irrespective of what country it was used in, gives a great deal of credence to its legitimacy, and I feel warrants its inclusion in the Wikipedia Akins surname article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyvren (talk • contribs) 15:38, 1 August 2010


 * I'll give what the five of us (two other editors, Czar Brodie and MarmadukePercy, were in agreement with us) who opposed the inclusion thought. Like Wyvren said, the coat of arms isn't registered in Scotland, so there's no way to tell if it was the actual coat of arms of the family, or if it was just someone who came up with the coat of arms on their own. MarmadukePercy actually pointed us to another page that spotlights how most of the tombstones in Steele Creek are considered to be forgeries, so for all we know, the coat of arms was just invented at some point.
 * In full disclosure - and one that Wyvren has admitted to - is that he is Steven Akins, who is the focus of the text on the previous link. And he's also mentioned on one of those findagrave links as the original creator, whatever that means in the site's context. This is a family thing we're talking about, and one that's based on a lot of research that he did on his own.
 * Overall, though, I think that we all just thought that there was a great deal of OR being done here, cobbling together images from (dubious?) tombstones and adding a bunch of colors and embellishments to the arms. And we found that the sources - the tombstones, and the book based on the tombstones - were not reliable. Hopefully some of the other editors can expound on my poor explanation. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

(I won't change my original post although it duplicates most or all of the above)
 * Details of the discussion are at Talk:Akins, the last section but also some of the edits above that. There are at least 5 editors objecting to the use of the coat of arms and none other than Wyvern supporting it. There's a huge COI issue here also, as well as original research. Then there is this ":::::A number of heraldic sources have pointed out that the Bigham family of gravestone carvers, responsible for most of the stones at Steele Creek, often borrowed from heraldic textbooks to create stones which had nothing to do with those interred under them. "...analysis of other armorial gravestones in Steele Creek Cemetery on the newsgroup rec.heraldry indicated that the arms on the memorials are generally either assumed or the imaginative work of the Bigham family of headstone carvers." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 14:56, August 1, 2010


 * Some of the points that HelloAnnyong has brought up are not true - the Bighams did not "forge" tombstones, they were a family in the tombstone making business in the 1700's - 1800's; to suggest that they "forged" the tombstones in Steele Creek cemetery is misleading to say the least.


 * Yes, I am Steven Akins, and yes I did file a petition with the court of Lord Lyon some ten odd years ago to have the Akins coat of arms confirmed as "ancient arms" (meaning that they would be recognised by Lord Lyon as having existed before the establishment of Lyon Register in 1672). Lord Lyon found that because I could not proove use of the arms in Scotland itself (they were in use in the Colony of Maryland at the time) that he could not find in favor of having the coat of arms recognized as "ancient arms" in Scotland - and that is all that there is to that story despite whatever excessive embellishment others may have made up about it in order to sensationalize it.


 * HelloAnnyong complains that the arms are "just made up" - all coats of arms are "made up" by someone, somewhere, at some point in time. No coat of arms ever dropped down out of the sky made by some divine hand - they are all human inventions, their purpose being to identify an individual or a family by means of the distinctive symbols that the coat of arms consists of - the charges on the shield, the crest, the motto and the supporters. There is very little restriction on the style in which the coat of arms is drawn and there is leeway in the manner in which the generic elements (shape of the shield, shape of the scroll, helmet, etc.) are rendered according to the individual skill and/or taste of the artist, as long as the crucial elements (charges, crest, motto, supporters, etc.) comply with the blazon.


 * The Akins coat of arms has a verifiable history of use by the Akins family dating back for more than two centuries. It is a part of the history of the Akins family, and part of the history of heraldic tradition in America, which exists independant of its origins in Scotland and whatever laws or limitations may be associated with heraldry in other countries outside of the United States. --Wyvren (talk) 15:26, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Re: ":::::A number of heraldic sources have pointed out that the Bigham family of gravestone carvers, responsible for most of the stones at Steele Creek, often borrowed from heraldic textbooks to create stones which had nothing to do with those interred under them. "...analysis of other armorial gravestones in Steele Creek Cemetery on the newsgroup rec.heraldry indicated that the arms on the memorials are generally either assumed or the imaginative work of the Bigham family of headstone carvers." - This is speculation by members of an internet newsgroup, nothing more. Speculation by members of an internet newsgroup cannot in any way be considered reliable information. --Wyvren (talk) 15:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)'''


 * Just as full clarification, three of us had come to the conclusion that it was not reliable before even being notified of the newsgroup post. There are still the core issues of the coat of arms not being registered, your original research based on pictures of two tombstones, and a dubious book. Also, isn't there the slightest chance that you're repeatedly trying to downplay that link because it doesn't speak well of you? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 16:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You have yet to explain how the book The History of Steele Creek Presbyterian Church 1745-1978 is "dubious" - please explain how a book on the history of its church and the adjoining cemetery published by the church's Historical Committee is "dubious" Do you really think they are lying? The link you keep trying to bring up is a lovely example of internet gossip. I have no problem with my political views, if you have a problem with them, Wikipedia is not the place to air your grievances about them. And the Akins coat of arms is actually registed with a branch of the United States government through the U.S. Copyright office. I have held the copyright for the Akins coat of arms since 10 March, 1997, they are recorded with the Copyright Office under the title "The full heraldic achievement of the armorial bearings of Steven Lewis Akins of that Ilk, chief of the arms and name of the clan Akins" Registration Number: VAu000394816 --Wyvren (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Anyone familiar with American colonial-era graveyards has seen some carvings on headstones that purport to show a family's coat-of-arms. Some such carvings actually bear a grain of truth, and the arms were borne by the family in the Old World. But many times such carvings were simply a way for a talented stonecarver – and the Bigham family who carved the Akins stone at Steele Creek Presbyterian Church was certainly that – to show off their skills. It would be one thing to simply display a photograph of a well-carved stone and let it go at that. But if one were to judge from that particular cemetery, we have half of titled Scotland buried there! You have attached a fanciful stone etching to a purported lineage that you have, to judge from other sources on the web, created out of whole cloth. The link I posted – which you deleted – alleges a pattern of deception and obfuscation by you dating back years. MarmadukePercy (talk) 16:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no idea of what link you are talking about, I don't recall having deleted any, at least not on purpose. To my knowledge there is only one tombstone in the Steele Creek cemetery that displays a coat of arms belonging to a titled noble in Scotland, which is found on the gravestone of Robert Campbell and it displays the Campbell coat of arms as recorded in Lyon Register. As for anything being "made up out of whole cloth", Thomas Akins was the younger brother of my great-great-great-great grandfather William Akins Sr. (1756-1841), a Revolutionary War veteran (see pension application: http://www.southerncampaign.org/pen/w5600.pdf). You can find a record of his appointment as the executor of Thomas Akins' estate in the Court Minutes book of Mecklenburg Co., North Carolina, which reads as follows: "1785. September Session - Ordered that Letters of Administration on the Estate of Thomas Akins, Decd., issue to William Akins who produces Hugh Parks as Security, bound in £600, Administrators Sworn."--Wyvren (talk) 17:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem here may be one of definition. If my great granny painted a daisy over her door, and my granny did the same at her house, and my mum did the same at her house, and I do the same at my house, and my daughter does the same at her house, you could say that it is a tradition for the women of my family to mark their houses with a daisy. What I can't do is claim that it is an English coat of arms, because they have to be granted by the Queen. Wyvren may have sound evidence that his US ancestors used this set of symbols to identify themselves. What he can't demonstrate is that it is in any way connected to a Scots clan armorial bearing. The Charlotte source and the others should be good enough to show that the Akins family used these symbols, but it would have to be made very clear that it's NOT a Scots clan armorial bearing, not recognised by the Lord Lyon etc. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting take on it. Wyvren actually uploaded the relevant pages from the book - one, two. In your example you have a demonstrable line of usage; but in the book, the coat of arms only comes up once (as far as I know). So can it really be that one page in a book that mentions one person like that is sufficient to say, "this is the symbol used by the family from then until now"? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I have not stated anywhere in the Wikipedia Akins article that the Akins Coat of Arms pertains to Scotland. I have made it apparent that it pertains to the Akins family who are incidentally of Scottish origin (as indicated by the Scottish thistle carved on the back of Thomas Akins' tombstone below the epitaph). Even as Scots the Akinses are not bound by the laws, customs or traditions that are enforced or otherwise observed in Scotland (unless of course they live there); that was (after all) what the Revolutionary War was fought for, to establish independence from British rule and British laws, a cause that the Akins family supported here in America --Wyvren (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, I thought he had two incidents in the same cemetery, but the other is just a photograph uploaded to findagrave, which can't be considered a WP:RS. So the most he could say is "this is what Thomas Akins grave looks like." If he wants to illustrate the article, he can certainly use the photos of the two graves (I presume he took them). Taking photos is never WP:OR. He could also say that the current Akins (him) has registered a coat of arms in the US (which I believe means in US law that he holds the copyright of it, incidentally something that can never be done for a European coat of arms which is defined by the blazon. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I believe he could post a photograph of that single gravestone. (Although it appears that other photographs this individual has posted have been photoshopped.) Keep in mind that despite his protestations of American equality, he petitioned the Lord Lyon of Scotland for clanship status and was rejected. That hasn't prevented his featuring this photograph of himself on his website, showing "Steven Akins of that Ilk, Chief of the Clan Akins." While I recognize that this chiefdom business is all in his head, I think he's taken one gravestone, fancifully carved by a family known for 'borrowing sources,' and turned that piece of stone into a going clanship concern. MarmadukePercy (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I more or less agree with this. Aside from the obvious conflict of interest, it seems that Wyvren is using this article as a coatrack to validate himself and his family as a clan. I'd like to leave such grandstanding out of the article, though. Assuming that Wyvren originally took that picture of the gravestone and he is the copyright holder of the image, I'd be okay with him uploading it and putting a caption on it that says like, "Grave of (person)" or whatever. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I noted the "...of that Ilk" (which doesn't mean whatever he thinks it means). Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: "of that Ilk" see: [http://books.google.com/books?id=_U0Ii-Om3EwC&pg=PA401&lpg=PA401&dq=%22of+that+ilk%22++innes+of+learney&source=bl&ots=O3M3BWcdwc&sig=MYitgdPquDxzvwH0v-UFwQBoKck&hl=en&ei=S7VVTLK4FMG78galscX-Ag&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CDAQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=%22of%20that%20ilk%22%20innes%20of%20learney&f=false The Clans, Septs and Regiments of the Scottish Highlands, pgs. 401-402]User:Wyvren|Wyvren]] (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

See also: [http://books.google.com/books?id=_U0Ii-Om3EwC&pg=PA404&dq=%22not+have+it+both+ways%22+clans,+septs+regiments&hl=en&ei=rrxVTKeULsH88Abg6-SpAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false The Clans, Septs and Regiments of the Scottish Highlands pg. 404]
 * Re 'of that Ilk'. Don't you come from Montgomery, Alabama? Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not from Montgomery.
 * You've no idea what it means, do you. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Whilst the heads of Highland tribes and clans were, briefly, or simply known at home as "Maclachlan," "Mackintosh," etc., the chiefs of Lowland families took their surnames from their lands, e.g., "Sir Andrew de Leslie", or "Lord Leslie," but were subsequently designated "of" the same, hence titles such as "Udny of that Ilk," whilst cadets were designated, e.g. "Dundas of Duddingston," or "Udny of Auchterellon".....Therefore, in order to make their status clear at Court and amongst the Lowland lairds "of that Ilk"- a style which had come to be recognised as an "honorific title indicating that the man is the head of his family," and which "might or might not imply ownership of the land," many Highland chiefs adopted the same style ("MacLachlan of that Ilk" in 1573 is probably the earliest), were, like "M'Corquodale of that Ilk," so recorded in Lyon Register - and were alike in Crown charters and Acts of Parliament referred to as "The Laird of Mackintosh," or "The Laird of Macfarlane," although no such place existed." - ''Clans, Septs, Regiments


 * So, yes, I have a very clear idea of what the term means - it implies "of the same" and can be used either when the name of one's estate is the same as one's surname,, or in instances where the estate is not a geographical piece of property but is the clan itself as a community.
 * --Wyvren (talk) 13:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

from before the outdent:
 * In the United States a coat of arms can be registered with the U.S. Copyright Office as both a work of visual art as well as a literary work (in respect to the blazon which is the written descripton). BTW MarmadukePercy, I only petitioned Lord Lyon for confirmation of the Akins coat of Arms as "ancient arms" Lord Lyon has no jurisdiction over clan chiefships, this is a legally recognized fact that the area of clan chiefships and the determination of clan chiefs is outside of Lord Lyons legal jurisdiction, as proven in the case of MacLean of Ardgour vs. MacLean:


 * Lord Wark, in Maclean of Ardgour v. Maclean 1941 S.C. at p. 657:


 * "I agree with your Lordships that Lyon has no jurisdiction to entertain a substantive declarator of chiefship of a Highland clan, or of chieftainship of a branch of a clan....The question of chiefship of a Highland clan, or chieftainship of a branch of a clan, is not in itself, in my opinion, a matter which involves any interest which the law can recognise. At most, it is a question of social dignity or precedence. In so far as it involves social dignity it is a dignity which, in my opinion, is unknown to the law."


 * Maclean of Ardgour v. Maclean 1941 S.C. 613:


 * "From an allowance of proof the Court excluded all questions relating to the chieftainship and the relative positions of the parties within the clan, holding that neither chiefship of a whole clan nor chieftainship of a branch of a clan was a legal status justiciable in a court of law, but had the character of a social dignity only, and, accordingly, that the Lord Lyon had no jurisdiction to decide the disputed question of who had right to the chieftainship either directly or incidentally"--Wyvren (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Re: "Clans"


 * Evidence in the case of MacLean of Ardgour vs. MacLean:


 * P.220) (Q.) "In your view, what does the word "clan" mean? (A.) It has a general meaning of family, ordinary meaning of family, but there is a peculiar sense in which it is used for this quasi-feudal organisation in the Highlands, or you might say feudal organisation. (Q.) But its primary meaning, I think, is family? (A.) Yes. (Q.)In your view, did the clans in fact consist either of persons linked by blood or persons linked by reason of place of dwelling in a territory? (A.) That is the defination of the Act of Parliament. (Reference Acts 1587 & Act of 11 Sept, 1593 A.P.S., IV, p. 40) (Q.) Do you see a reference there to the pretence of blood or place of dwelling? (A.)Yes. (Q.)Are those familiar terms? (A.) Quite familiar. Pretence means claim....(Q.) So that in your view do you get this dual element entering into the composition of the clan, blood-relation and place of dwelling? (A.) Oh, yes, you have both.


 * Evidence of the Very Rev. Lachlan Maclean Watt, LL.D., Bard of the Clan MacLean Association: (P. 517) (Q.) (Referred to Mackenzie's "Works," II, 574, 618: (Q.)Do you deduce that Sir G. Mackenzie considered that from a heraldic point of view the "head of the clan" the "chief of the clan" or the "representer of the family" all meant the same thing? (A.) I respectfully suggest that it is a matter of "Head of a Family" and "Head of a Clan." He was a Highlander and he knew that clan means a family. Clan and family mean exactly the same thing."--Wyvren (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

So following this conversation, Wyvren added a picture of the tombstone with the caption "Early heraldic gravestone of Thomas Akins (1758-1785) a Scots-Irish settler of colonial Charlotte, North Carolina." and listed the book as a reference. Aside from the fact that the book doesn't actually say "heraldic", is it appropriate to use that term in the caption? Seems to me that it isn't, since appending 'heraldic' seems to be giving it more credibility than is due. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it would depend on how the source describes the stone. I just wonder how many other surname articles have pictures of 18th century tombstones in them.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Odd how the images Wyvren posts bear little or no resemblance to other photographs of the same gravestone. Here are two taken by different folks and posted to Find-A-Grave for the Thomas Akins headstone. MarmadukePercy (talk) 06:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It appears that whoever took that picture rubbed it with shaving cream, which is a common technique to bring out the detail on old gravestones. No matter how I adjust the contrast on the other images, I can't bring out the detail. Someone needs to take a black-and-white picture with the sun low in the sky; most straight-on pictures of old gravestones are useless. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That was indeed the case, as the details of the carving on the tombstone are difficult to make out in photographs where the carving itself has not been highlighted as the carvings have weathered along with the rest of the stone and it is all a dull grey color.--Wyvren (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Wyvren's image (File:Akins coat of arms complete.jpg) is not supported by the booklet, as has been noted (and buried) several times on Talk:Akins. I think it is as simple as that. Any American can change their forename, or surname to "xxx of that Ilk"; it means nothing when someone does it themselves, and has no bearing on the status of that person in Scotland or America. Any American can copyright a drawing of a coat of arms (especially if they just made it up). The assumed-name, the copyrighted image, and Wyvren's beef with the heraldic authority in Scotland, has nothing to do with what he is appealing here - that the consensus on Talk:Akins is that the source does not support the image. Also, it should be made clear that Wyvren's scanned pages do not show that the Steele Creek engraving was the 'symbol of a family' for the last two hundred years. The pages only show a simple sketch, and the man's birth/death dates. That's it.

Outside of the Wikisphere, numerous webpages/newgroup-threads show that Wyvren (aka Steven L. Akins) is considered to have forged a will, and is suspected of faking tombstone photos ; he is reported to have attempted to plant a faked tombstone ; and he is said to have fudged genealogical records on the web. The findagrave photo that he linked above, of what he claims is a 17th century tombstone, has clearly been manipulated in some way. I think that this case is an example of why original images, all by themselves, are not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia; and why, in some cases, conflicts of interest are a danger to the integrity of an article. The Wikipedia articles on Scottish clans are made up of content from numerous independent sources. The clans themselves, and their lines of chiefs, are specifically dealt with in numerous independent sources. Not so with "Clan Akins", all we get are: Wyvren/Steven's various webpages; 'bucket shop'-type websites that he submits his info to; user submitted documents and photos; and roundabout arguments concerning the validity of Scottish heraldic practice and Americans. The clan articles rely on more than the authority of disgruntled Wikipedians who have spent thousands of dollars on: failed attempts at petitioning heraldic authorities for coats of arms; on name changes; and on registering copyrights for drawings. That's why this editor's COI, and questions of his reliability, are an issue in regards to his edits to this article.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The only RS is a book saying that there is a grave with that coat of arms. And it seems that the coat doesn't appear at the places that this type of coats is expected to appear. Given this, and given the doubts raised, including a picture of the gravestone is giving it undue weight. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you've hit on the consensus: that including any images with the coat of arms is putting undue weight on it, if only because it's implicitly validating the coat of arms. Certainly the majority of people involved in this discussion agree that it doesn't belong, with only Wyvren being the odd man out. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 11:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Not to disparage his particular research, but my experience with genealogical research some time ago convinced me that most American family research going back before 1820 or so is inaccurate. Perhaps (and hopefully) the standards have changed in the intervening 20 years, but a lot of it is based on wishful thinking and hearsay. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It does tend to help a great deal in doing genealogical research when one's ancestors applied for military service pensions, the applications for which required the applicant to reveal their place and date of birth, information on their places of residence and associated dates, etc. It helps even more when their widows likewise applied for widows' pensions and revealed similar information, such as can be found here: Revolutionary War pension application of William Akins see also: Summary of William Akins' pension records. However, the real clincher is this entry in the Minutes Book of the Court of Mecklenburg County, North Carolina: 1785 September Session - "Ordered that Letters of Administration on the Estate of Thomas Akins, Decd., issue to William Akins who produces Hugh Parks as Security, bound in £600, Administrators Sworn."-- --Wyvren (talk) 13:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

All of which is no doubt very interesting, but this is the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I don't see the reliability of any source being discussed here, just a continuation of an argument which properly belongs at Talk:Akins. Groomtech (talk) 06:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Book shop section of a Dutch popular science magazine
There is a disagreement at The Hockey Stick Illusion article over the use of this source in the "Reception" section of the article. The source is from the Dutch popular science magazine Natuurwetenschap en Techniek (Dutch Wikipedia entry). Those advocating its removal point out that the post is from the book shop section of the magazine's website, not from its print edition and appears to be simply trying to sell the book, not formally reviewing it. The contrary opinion is that the person who wrote the post is identifying himself by name and is one of the magazine's editors, thus giving the book a neutral review under the name of the magazine. Opinions on the quality of the source, especially from uninvolved editors, are welcome. Cla68 (talk) 00:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This strikes me as being very much like the Amazon.com "editorial reviews" that have been discussed on this page on a number of occasions. Does anyone know what the current thinking is on the use of such reviews as reliable sources? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Please Chris, let the participants here give their opinion without an AGW regular trying to influence it. I believe I presented a fair and balanced portrayal of the nature of the dispute. Please let this board take it from there. Cla68 (talk) 00:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm a regular on this board too, and I don't appreciate (a) the assumption of bad faith and (b) the attempt to segregate my comments. Neither is helpful. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Chris, you're a regular, to say the least, in the AGW area. Please back off and let uninvolved editors here give an opinion. Cla68 (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You're not a regular on this board other than disputes that you're involved in, and even then, you're still involved in this dispute. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Folks, please stop edit warring on this page. It's quite unsightly and not conducive to solving problems here. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:AN/I. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note...I started the "involved" and "uninvolved" sections per a suggestion at ANI after ChrisO complained there about the bickering that was taking place above. I am an involved editor, which is why I'm not giving my opinion on the source here, because I was looking for outside, uninvolved opinions.  As the regulars here have probably noticed before, questions about sources related to the the AGW articles often degenerate into bickering by involved editors which I think gets in the way of gaining opinions from uninvolved editors, which is what is being sought when a question is brought here.  Thus, I plan to continue using this format in the future with regards to any AGW-related sourcing questions. Cla68 (talk) 04:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, thank you in advance for the uninvolved editors who have given opinions, it is much appreciated. Cla68 (talk) 04:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by involved editors
The section header doesn't state the issue very precisely, as we are talking about a web only feature, not the magazine proper. I can't read Dutch, and only reading the entire publication, in context in its original language, can provide one with a proper perspective on whether this is usable. See comment by a Dutch speaker at the article talk page, here and note also previous discussion here. ScottyBerg (talk) 03:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The review in question was written by the magazines editor so it is not really a promotional blurb, it strikes me as a real review. mark nutley (talk) 07:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved editors
These subheadings are unnecessary and misleading since the originator of the question appears to be involved him/herself. How about if there is going to be so much drama the involved editors agree not to comment anymore and we leave it at that? From what I gathered here and on the talk page where this is being discussed the source appears not to be reliable. At best, this sounds akin to solicited reviews that might not ever appear in any publications but end up on a book dust jacket in order to promote the book. It would be nice to get some more Dutch language readers to verify the story here, but unless we've been fed false information this is just marketing material. It is clearly not akin to anything else actually published in the magazine, since it was not actually published in the magazine. If the editors opinion is notable enough as an individual opinion, then it would be possible to attribute it to him only, but not to the magazine as such.Griswaldo (talk) 03:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't like this subheading. We don't break down RSN questions like that, but I guess I'll leave it there.  Anyways, according to the person who can read dutch, it's a promotional sounding blurb.  That doesn't mean it isn't reliable, at least for the opinion of the author, but it raises bias issues.  I would say something like "In a promotional blurb in the books for sale section of the Science magazine website, Science mag editor said "....".  If you really want to keep it that bad, that is. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Advertisements and other promotional materials lack the independence required to qualify as reliable sources, imho. Dlabtot (talk) 04:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I was the one who made the suggestion about the subheads, because the alternative was conflict about who was involved and who counted as fresh eyes. It might be the best way to deal with requests when there's a very contentious background. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 04:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The subheads should be used on all or none, and at this stage should not be imposed unilaterally by someone seeking an opinion. I don't care; I placed my input in the "involved" section, even though I've posted only in the article talk page and have not edited the article. That should not be construed as endorsing the way this was done. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I just don't like to start weird precedents here without discussion. In this case, what if an involved editor had a question for an uninvolved editor.  Where do they post?  It's weird. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's pretty common in active disputes, for example in RfCs, to follow this format. Since the purpose of Noticeboards and RfCs is to garner outside input. It's also suggested as a possible norm at this Noticeboard in an active discussion on the talk page.  Perhaps you'd like to weigh in there. Dlabtot (talk) 04:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see it. Can you give me a section link? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * AQFK talks about it in this section . Dlabtot (talk) 05:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Is CNN a reliable source?
In This article a dispute is taking place over weather or not CNN is a valid and reliable source. Source: CNN Article: Charles County, Maryland Qoute: "It later became the largest residential arson in the history of the state of Maryland." Talk page: Talk:Charles County, Maryland

Thanks. --Phoon (talk) 06:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, CNN is a reliable source for citing that this was the largest residential arson in the history of the state of Maryland. Dlabtot (talk) 06:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's reliable. You can tell TEDickey: "Verifiability, not truth." Fences  &amp;  Windows  02:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

European Universities Debating Championship and it's sources.
Can some one have some opinion on the following University debate related sources please:


 * globaldebateblog.blogspot.com
 * flynn.debating.net
 * www.debating.ie
 * eudc.wikidot.com

They are all used in the European Universities Debating Championship article and all (with the exception of the eudc.wikidot.com) appear to be websites or blogs of Colm Flynn. The eudc.wikidot.com appears to be relatively new and it is unclear where they are sourcing there information from given the request for information on the main page. I have asked before about these sources before (see Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 56) without a clear consensus.

I have looked for more sources for results on European Universities Debating Championship for example here but with out any luck.

Any comments please Codf1977 (talk) 10:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Looking at the content of the blogs, they appear to be open to contributions. For example, the second item on http://flynn.debating.net/ at the moment is "On behalf of the Hart House Debates Committee, it is my pleasure to formally invite you to the Hart House IV...". I don't think this kind of blog can be accepted as a reliable source for our purposes. Blogs of course can be reliable but they need to have standards of fact-checking and accuracy. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else ? Codf1977 (talk) 06:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Source.
Hey guys. Wouldthis paper be considered a reliable source? It was used here. Thanks!-- Gordonrox24 &#124; Talk 18:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It only seems to support the link to Griet Reyniers I can find no reference to the others, though I might have missed them. This si also SPS, so not I would say its not RS.Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Is TMZ a reliable source?
I checked on American Idol and have reports about Kara DioGuardi's firing from the show, only TMZ confirms it. One user leaked for no words about Fox.

Talk:American Idol

ApprenticeFan work 00:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that given TMZ's tendency towards rumor and sensationalism, it should be avoided, and if used, used with inline attribution.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You know, I thought this would be a good opportunity to take a cheap shot at the celebrity culture, but a bit of researching indicates that their standards are pretty high, given what they report.
 * For example, they posted this at 11:07 pm 12272009, and posted this update less than 12 hours later. I’ve seen newspapers drag their feet longer (not to mention TV networks; see above) and even refuse to correct a story because they say it’s “too minor”.
 * So I’d say they’re pretty reliable for what they report on. Whether Wikipedia should be acting as a breathless RSS feed for celebrity junkies is another question. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would agree that TMZ has enough of a reputation that it could be used, but only with attribution. EG "According to TMZ..." and that it would not be sufficeint to add negative information about a person.  This is pretty much how mainstream uses TMZ, "According to TMZ..."--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 04:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a sufficient source for establishing notability of a topic, nor for adding negative biographic information to an article. 69.251.180.224 (talk) 03:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What's the hurry? Afaik TMZ tends to be very accurate, but I don't see why we would need to rush to publish the latest celebrity news. This is an encyclopedia. Dlabtot (talk) 05:19, 4 August 2010 (

People here will tell you that TMZ isn't reliable, or that you should look for another source. I don't know of any policy/guideline based reason for this. TMZ comments on "trivial" matters, which I guess we know when we see. Other than that, they're are super reliable. Editors? Check. Paid writers? Check. Someone to sue if they get it wrong? Check. Used as a source by other reliable sources? Check (quadruple check, really). Cover an area that paper encyclopedia's don't cover? Check. Editors find them distasteful? Check. Hmmm. They're basically reliable, even concerning what they cover, which is BLPs. There isn't any policy based reason to discount them, as far as I know. On the other hand, and in general, if two editors will revert you, you can't get passed 3RR. So, maybe they're IAR unreliable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agreed with you, up until those final two sentences. Dlabtot (talk) 06:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I striked them. Too much hyperbole?  Check. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The big concern with TMZ is that they are out for the scoop, so while they do have a solid reputation, they are also liable to get things wrong---not necessarily because it is wrong, but rather because it is incomplete and that they do not have th rest of the story, which is why I would prefer to see attribution to them. The fact that other media outlets trust TMZ to run stories of their own is telling about their reliability, but so to is the fact that the other media outlets almost always attribut TMZ.  It's basically saying, "We trust you enough to run this, but if your wrong, we're not going to go down on our own."--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "liable to get things wrong---not necessarily because it is wrong" -- That is not a phrase that actually means anything, as far as I can tell. Can you point to instances where they actually did get things wrong? BTW, it is customary for news outlets to attribute stories to whoever reported them, whether TMZ, the LA Times or whoever. That attribution is not in any way an indication of unreliability. Dlabtot (talk) 16:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've seen cases where there are developing stories and that the version first reported by TMZ has to be modified---but that is the nature of a developing story. I can't think of specific examples, but they do crop up (just as they do with other media outlets.)--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There track record is very impressive as far as accuracy goes. But, It does seem like other media sources use attribution when using TMZ stuff.  I don't know if it's because TMZ was first, so they get the credit.  If they don't want to seem as "low brow" as TMZ, or if they are scared the info is incorrect and they're covering their butts.  If it's the first or second, then I'm not sure we always need to attribut.  If it's the third, well I'm not sure.  It may be something else entirely.  Anyways, using attribution is probably a good idea for now, even though they're reliable, and not really biased as far as I know. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Isn't that kind of an ad hoc judgement? If it qualifies as an RS according to policy, why would it need to be treated any differently than any other source? Media policy is to always attribute if your own reporters didn't get the story. "Cover your ass" is their default policy for every source, not just TMZ. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know. I almost always see them attributed, but it's probably just because they broke the story (is my latest thinking). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't see what the problem is with using TMZ as a source. They have a staff, an editorial process, and they certainly have a reputation for reporting.  Even though the tone of TMZ is different from the tone we use when writing an encyclopedia, that's no reason why we can't cite them for facts. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * TMZ should be used with caution for breaking news. They've got "news" wrong several times, e.g. . But they have their defenders and are increasingly seen as credible:. Fences  &amp;  Windows  03:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't even be publishing 'breaking' news. From any source. Dlabtot (talk) 03:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That was the reason for my caveat, 'Whether Wikipedia should be acting as a breathless RSS feed for celebrity junkies is another question,' but again, that's another question. And certainly when a notable person dies or some catastrophic event occurs, there's no reason to wait before noting the fact or creating a page. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that there really is not as bright a line as my comment may have implied. Imagine WP existed at the time, Princess Diana dies in an accident, of course the WP article should be updated to reflect that fact, but need not follow the day to day twists and turns of an ongoing investigation or the tabloid story arcs. But it seems to me that when a news organization is getting 'scoops' or otherwise breaking stories, they are in a way a primary source. When other sources report that organizations scoop - "TMZ.com reported that xyz" - they are reporting more like a secondary source which explains why on a given story broken by TMZ and subsequently reported on by other sources, we would tend to use those. Dlabtot (talk) 01:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Dlabdoes have a point there... my main concern with TMZ is when it is covering breaking news... the older articles are IMO fine, my main concern is when they rush to get the scoop.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 03:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * NOTNEWS doesn't say anything about imposing a waiting period on news, it just says that breaking news shouldn't be treated differently from other information. We should keep WP as up to date as possible. Squidfryerchef (talk) 10:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, that's not what WP:NOTNEWS say at all! I quote: "While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." Please don't make WP:VAGUEWAVEs like that, or you risk misrepresenting the meaning of our policies. Fences  &amp;  Windows  17:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

--K10wnsta (talk) 01:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a reliable source not sure we should use it often due to what it covers and I'm fine with an in-line "according to TMZ" but they have an editorial staff, real reporters, etc. Hobit (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Reliable As far as celebrity reporting goes, TMZ is on the ball. I wouldn't necessarily consider them reliable on breaking news involving a matter of politics in Great Britain, but when it comes to journalism relating to Hollywood/the entertainment industry, they rarely go public with something that isn't accurate (it certainly wouldn't be in their best interest to do so, either).  I know it's fashionable to look down on tabloid journalists, but when it comes to Hollywood-related matters, they are vastly superior to traditional news outlets.  Case-in-point:  the first O.J. Simpson trial, the tabloids (National Enquirer, Entertainment Tonight, etc) had the scoop on every little fact relating to that case before 'respectable journalists' could say 'not guilty'.  It was that trial, in fact, which pushed modern news outlets to a more sensational approach - they saw how well-connected and efficient the tabloids were in uncovering and presenting the facts and knew they had to emulate them if they wanted to thrive in the information age.

Is this a reliable source?
Dr Judith Curry in an interview with Keith Kloor on Kloor`s website? Kloor is a professional journalist About Kloor. In particular i want to use the following text in The Hockey Stick Illusion article.

"I am not so much defending this book as recommending that people read it. Climate scientists can learn a lot from Montford’s book. Not in terms of who is “right” or “correct” in terms of the science (that is still being debated), but how to avoid unnecessary conflict in the climate debate.  While the hockey stick is not of any particular scientific importance, Montford’s book explains why the hockeystick became a big deal, owing to the IPCC’s choice to make the hockey stick a visual icon for the IPCC in its marketing of the IPCC.  Therefore, in the public’s mind, challenges to the hockeystick metaphorically became challenges to the entire global warming argument.  And the Climategate emails, while not illuminating any actual scientific misconduct, provided a view into the underbelly of how the consensus was actually built: upon human judgment that was influenced by petty rivalries, a sense of self importance, a political agenda, and the brutal dismissal and even sabotage of competing viewpoints".

Thoughts? Also per the talk page here could those involved please put INV in front of their posts so uninvolved persons know what`s what, thanks mark nutley (talk) 10:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * A link to the actual source you want to use would be helpful. Ravensfire ( talk ) 14:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, is this significantly different from this request? Ravensfire ( talk ) 15:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes raven, massively different :) sorry i for got the link to the interview mark nutley (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This appears to be a brand new interview, published yesterday. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes it is, and it is an interview not comments lets get that straight right away :) mark nutley (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've got to question the need for this, MN. Over half the article and nearly 2/3rds of the references are in the reception section.  It's getting UNDUE, you know? Ravensfire ( talk ) 18:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * IIRC, the concensus of past discussions at WP:RSN is that interviews are acceptable primary sources so long as there is no reasonable doubt to its authenticity. Therefore, I would say this is a valid source for the Hockey Stick Illusion article.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You've missed the point I was making. This is probably an RS for what Curry said, but I haven't looked too deeply.  My point is that section really doesn't say too much about the overall reception of the book.  Are the reviews generally good?  Generally bad?  It looks like something you'd find on a publishers page, with line after line of quotes pulled from reviews, most of which essentially say the same thing.  At what point is adding another quote from another review just, well, puffery?  When does it stop being something encyclopediac and start being a marketing tool? Ravensfire ( talk ) 19:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ravensfire: No, I didn't miss your point.  I intentionally ignored it. :)  My kidding aside, the purpose of WP:RSN is to determine if a source is reliable.  While issues such as WP:WEIGHT and encyclopedic content are valid, they're beyond the scope of this noticeboard.  But they can be fixed by possibly removing some of the existing portions of the reception section or reworking each of these items so that they tell us something more unique beyond "I liked this book!".   The Synopsis section should also be expanded (assuming we can find sources to use) and the final two paragraphs look like WP:OR to me.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Not RS No, it is not a reliable source because there was no fact-checking. TFD (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * How do you know there was no fact-checking? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In questionable instances, it is required to show that they are reliable, not that they arent. Active Banana (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * How is this questionable? Keith Kloor is a professional journalist.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Raven i should like to use this particular piece as it is the first review from a person within that field. I see what you mean by undue and will drop one of the other reviews from the article in favour of this, there are two from booker in there at the moment for instance. mark nutley (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * AQFK, that is the nature of an interview. In this case the journalist posed questions in e-mails and Curry replied.  Nowhere does he say her responses were edited for accuracy or even grammar.  TFD (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * TFD: I don't think Marknutley is intending to use this as a source for a statement of fact, but merely for Curry's opinion of the book.  This might be one of those areas where filling out for the four numbered bullet points in the instructions at the top of this page might have been helpful.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Journalist or not, wouldn't collide-a-scape.com or Keith Kloor need to be notable for their independantly published work to be considered for anything other than claims about themselvesWP:SELFPUBLISH? EDIT to add: That is more specifically stated in WP:ELNO #11. But do we have less of a standard for sourcing than external links? Active Banana (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No, there is no requirement that the author be notable. Kloor is a published author. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * From the about page, he's been an editor at Nature and seems to write in this area often. But ... it's a blog post with an e-mail interview, sparked by reaction to another blog post that was a review of the book.  WP:SPS says it needs to be from an established expert in the field, and I don't think he meets that, but he does have work in the field published by reliable sources.  It's a bit iffy to me. That said, I think if Ms Curry was misquoted, she'd be able to point that out and it would be hailed on blogs as proof of deception.  Haven't seen that.  It's not the best source, but probably decent for what Ms Curry says.  The bad thing, though, is you do lose the context, that this is in response to a review of the book where things got a bit testy.  As written by MN, I would not include the material.  Ravensfire ( talk ) 21:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There is also an issue of notability, that of Curry. What is she notable for, other than defending the Hockey stick illusion?  If her opinions are notable, we should be able to find them in published articles and, more importantly, find support for her views in published articles.  TFD (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * TFD:WP:WEIGHT is beyond the scope of this noticeboard, but according to our article on Judith Curry, "Curry is the co-author of Thermodynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans (1999), and co-editor of Encyclopedia of Atmospheric Sciences (2002), as well as over 140 scientific papers." Curry's opinions have been published by Newsweek, The Times, Discovery Magazine and many others.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Kloor has published in notable locations such as Science and Nature. Although he has written in the news sections and not the papers sections, the latter of which carries far more weight in the academic world, these are still very well respected publications on par with major national newspapers. As he is also an adjunct professor of journalism, one can also reasonably assume that Kloor conducted the interview with Curry with high standards of ethics and professionalism. Therefore, in this case, reliability is not an issue, although weight might be. I'm not going to address that issue. NW ( Talk ) 00:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok so we can assume it is reliable, any arguments over weight can be carried out on the talk page of the article. mark nutley (talk) 09:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

L'immensità
For obscure reasons, the reference to this web page has been tagged as a dubious source. Can someone please verify its credibility. Thanks. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that it's non-english might be the issue. English sources are preferred for english language articles. What article is it being used in? --<span style="font-size: 10pt; text-decoration: underline; color:black; border: 1pt solid white; padding: 0pt 4pt; background-color: white;">neon white talk 13:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What exactly is the policy on Wikipedia coverage of minor non-English popular culture? I'm sure a couple of servers could be dedicated to one country alone, much less all the others. Tom Reedy (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * How credible is a source with porn ads on it? Rubikonchik (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about?! Show exactly where are the porn ads. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not everybody uses Adblock. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I forget that myself alot. Dlabtot (talk) 01:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If this source is NSFW, someone should append "NSFW" to the section header. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

As an Italian, I've had a look at the website. It looks like a neat and well researched, even if not strictly professional, database of information on Italian pop songs. It has editorial restriction (i.e. it's not a Wiki or user-made website) even if it acknowledges some contribution as coming from user's suggestion. and for the purposes for which it is used in the article I would say it is reliable enough. -- Cycl o pia talk  17:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Reliable enough"? Who are the editors of this website? Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 17:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The page provides a list of amateurs who simply personally contribute to the article without explanation of how their respective research was done nor their specific qualification or competencies...Rubikonchik (talk) 14:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC), basically something similar to Wikipedia...Rubikonchik (talk) 09:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Crises in the Twentieth Century used at List of wars between democracies reported by User:OpenFuture
Page:

Source: Brecher, Wilkenfeld, and Moser, Crises in the Twentieth Century, I, 122, 129, 209-10; discussed as an example where the states confronting each other are similar in government type, in economic status, but not in religion; since Brecher et al. lump common democracy in with other variables, and consider the greatest difference between pairs of states, not the least, there may be others.

Diff or proposed edit: Removal of the First Kashmir War from the list.

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:List_of_wars_between_democracies

Comments:

The source is being used to claim that the First Kashmir War was a war between democracies. The claim apparently goes like this: Is that an acceptable reasoning, that makes this a reliable source for the claim that The First Kashmir War was a war between democracies? --OpenFuture (talk) 07:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) . The source says "Accession to democratic India had no appeal to (the Maharajah)", hence the source claims India was democratic.
 * 2) . The source claims India and Pakistan had similar governments, hence Pakistan was democratic.
 * 3) . Hence the First Kashmir War was a war between democracies.
 * This source is a work of standard reference, widely cited, published by the very respectable Pergamon Press.
 * It is the print version of a database, produced by the International Conflict Behavior project, and rather like the POLICY IV database,  widely quoted here. Since the database has only 278 lines, one for each crisis, it is possible to publish it in a volume, with commentary, with only a little compression.
 * One of the database's classifications is into democracies, civilian autocracies, and military governments. (Since one point in one variable is whether all the regimes concerned are the same type, the detailed classification is abridged)
 * The quotes above show that the underlying classification of India in 1947-8 (and Pakistan, on similar evidence) is "democracy". The suggestoins of qualification above are special pleading. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that's the question, isn't it? Does the quotes really show that? Isn't it your interpretation that is special pleading? After all, you claim that since the Maharajah wasn't appealed by a democratic India, this means the book claims India was a democracy. That sounds doubtful. It might rather be a hint that the Maharajah wasn't particularly interested in democracy. And then, since the book gathers that the governments was similar, therefore Pakistan must have been a democracy as well. That if anything sounds like special pleading to me.
 * So please, I'd like some other opinions on that. Is this kind of logic acceptable as interpretations of a source, and can this be regarded as a reliable source for the claim that India and Pakistan were democracies in 1947? --OpenFuture (talk) 14:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * OK source one does not say India was a democracy, just that some one did not like the idea that India would become a democracy. Source two says that both countries had similar governments, it does not say that eitehr were dmocratic, nor what it means by similar governments. There is a definate element of synthasis here. I would susgest finding a better source for democracy in thses to coiuntires.Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it's actually the same source, so I don't know if it's synthesis or not. But that's not really important. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Question... I agree that the source is being used to form an improper synthesis... but I am not sure why this is an issue. Is someone claiming that either India or Pakistan was not a democracy at the time of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947? (AFAIK, both had achieved independence prior to the outbreak of the war, and both had democratic constitutions). Blueboar (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ZBs0HdpKuaQC&pg=PA125&dq=pakistan+democracy&hl=en&ei=eyJcTJ-9DcuFsAaW2sGZAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CEMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=pakistan%20democracy&f=false say that during the period of the war Pakistan was governed by the 1935 government of India act. It also says that Pakistan did not infact pass a consitution until 1956.Slatersteven (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * OpenFuture, when you ask for input on reliable sources, it would be helpful if you provided the name of the publisher, which in this case is Pergamon Press and considered to be reliable unless reasons can be provided why this book is not. Whether or not it can be used to back up the claims in the article is a different issue, and this is the wrong forum for that discussion.  TFD (talk) 15:12, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * TFD, you are the only one on all of Wikipedia that thinks that "reliable source" stands and falls with the publisher and the publisher only. :-) I don't see how it's the wrong forum, but you are welcome to suggest one that you think fit better. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:RS: " Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available....  For information about academic topics, it is better to rely on scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources."  The assumption is that the book is a reliable source and if you wish to challenge that you need to provide evidence that it is not reliable.  Have disciplinary actions been taken against the writer for falsification of facts?  Has Pergamum withdrawn the book and apologized for publishing it?  TFD (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I notice you did not suggest a better forum. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC) I assume your silence om the topic is because there is no better forum. In my opinion you have misunderstood both this forum and WP:RS, probably because you read it selectively. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the input. I think the consensus is clear, the source can not be used to support the statement. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should consult an opthalmologist, OF. The responses you got were as follows:

I recommend that under no circumstances should you attempt to represent the outcome as a consensus that the source cannot be used to support the statement. Go back to the talkpage - that is the correct forum for content disputes. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * PMAnderson - it's a reliable source
 * Slatersteven - thought it was two sources, due to you not formatting the request correctly
 * Blueboar - wondered why it was an issue, because they obviously were both democracies (he also thought it was two sources, following Slatersteven)
 * TFD - said that Pergamon Press was a reliable source, and this was the wrong venue for discussing whether the source supported the statement


 * Slatersteven and Blueboar clearly concluded that it did not support the statement. That Blueboar thinks that India and Pakistan are democracies at this time is irrelevant, the question is of *this* source supports it, which he agrees it does not. TFD did not offer an opinion on that question, and Pmanderson is the one making the unsupported claim in the first place, so he is not the outside input that was needed.
 * So of the two extra opinions I got here, both said the source did not support the statement.
 * (And your continued uncivility doesn't help your case. Please stop it.) --OpenFuture (talk) 23:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * My point was that a there is something going on here that looks like (and would be if more then one source was involved) synthesis. What is going on is OR, the source does not explicitly stated that Pakistan was a democracy. It a kind of synthesis (fact a is supported by sources, fact b is supported by source so I see fact C). Even if we accept this as anything other then OR (and I fail to see how we can) Fact A (that some one did not like the idea of India being a democracy) does not support the assertion that the source says India was in fact a democracy, and so cannot be used to claim that fact b (Pakistan had the same form of government) means that Pakistan was a democracy, the source does not make that claim for India. (Previous unsigned comment by User:Slatersteven)

Reliable source for employment statistics
Comments would be appreciated on this discussion regarding whether an Institute for Public Policy Research or an Office for National Statistics source is better for employment statistics on Somalis in the United Kingdom. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyone? I know the discussion is a bit long, but we could really do with outside input. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Without delving into the discussion, wouldn't it be fair to say that official sources such as the ONA are generally the most reliable for employment statistics? Figureofnine (talk) 00:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That was my point but another editor was saying they were skewed, despite using official definitions of the employment and unemployment rates. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Also agree that the official sources such as the ONS are generally the ones to use for employment statistics. Codf1977 (talk) 07:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks to the intervention of an editor not previous involved in editing the article, we are now using ONS figures. Thanks for your comments. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The ONS would generally be considered the most reliable source for employment statistics in the U.K. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 13:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Manolith.com
A reviewer at Featured article candidates/Titanic (1997 film)/archive2 questioned the reliability of Manolith.com. Judging by WP:Reliable sources, I thought it was. Does it pass? Flyer22 (talk) 18:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Absent some argument as to why it would be RS, I would say no. But all the facts in that article are sourced to Box Office Mojo, anyway. Dlabtot (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So it is reliable enough to use on Wikipedia? Just not the most reliable source? I was thinking of using this entry from that site about the film's ability to make men cry. A little about that is already in the Titanic (1997 film) article (in the Commercial analysis section), but I wanted to add a little more (from this piece). Flyer22 (talk) 21:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Er, no. It's just some blog. Titanic doesn't feature on a new poll by the BBC Magazine on this very topic: MSNBC beg to differ though: Seeing how reliable sources do discuss this, don't scrape the barrel with Manolith, just search more for decent sources.  Fences  &amp;  Windows  02:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

associatepublisher.com
Is this a reliable source. Editor User:Mike R has removed it twice claiming it is a wiki mirror, I see no evidence for that claim. Justin talk 21:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Never mind. Justin talk 21:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * In case anyone else is curious, this page of the same source (the list of ethnic slurs, in case it is deleted from here and the mirror) has mirrored a WP deletion tag. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * PMA is correct, that source is a mirror of WP and can`t be used mark nutley (talk) 22:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It clearly states at the bottom of the page that the content comes from wikipedia, it's not a reliable source in any form. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Edgar V. McKnight
Is this [] RS? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slatersteven (talk • contribs) 14:09, August 7, 2010
 * It's a book written by an author who's active in that realm (per the press page, he's a religion professor) and published by an actual publisher, so unless I'm missing something, yes. Why was it called into question? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * See [] As far as I can tell he has not been rejected persee, just mthat a requirment has been made to prove he's RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Iran Terror
Is http://www.iranterror.com/ a reliable source? This page is being used in an article for biographical details. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 02:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The website's director, Abolhassan Mojtahedzadeh, has not signed the page, and there is no author information. No sources are given, no footnotes. The text may be as accurate as far as Mojtahedzadeh can ascertain, but we do not know how Mojtahedzadeh learned of this, what source he had, or even if he wrote (or signed off on) this particular biographical page about Saeed Emami. Not reliable. Binksternet (talk) 03:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's an advocacy site, so probably not a good source unless used for opinions and facts about the organisation. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Source for Malcom X
I am ignorant on the topic Malcom X however this paragraph raised WP:REDFLAG for

"Living in Harlem, he became involved in drug dealing, gambling, racketeering, robbery, and steering prostitutes.[35] According to biographer Bruce Perry, Little occasionally engaged in sex with other men, usually, though not always for money. In a Michigan boarding house, he raised rent money by sleeping with a gay transvestite.[36] Later, in New York, Little and some friends raised funds by being fellated by men at the YMCA where he lived.[36] In Boston a man paid Little to undress him, sprinkle him with talcum powder, and bring him to orgasm.[37] No other biographers have written about these sexual encounters.[38][39][40] >

This entire paragraph is cited only with Bruce Perry's book

Malcolm: The Life of a Man Who Changed Black America. The final sentence is: No other biographers have written about these sexual encounters.[38][39][40]

Which Raises REDFLAGS to me. I really dont care either way whether he was Bisexual or not but this smells funny, and I am not the first to note this. Weaponbb7 (talk) 04:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: I struck a portion of the preceding message which quoted the article twice. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Perry's biography is the most thoroughly researched book about Malcolm X that has been published. Perry interviewed more than 400 people who knew Malcolm X, and he's the first biographer who has questioned the veracity of the account of Malcolm X's life in The Autobiography of Malcolm X.
 * Perry's book is also controversial, for several reasons. First, Perry uncovered information at odds with Malcolm X's own account of his life. Second, Perry published stories, such as the ones at issue, that were not previously known. Finally, Perry's psychobiographic approach seems determined to infantilize Malcolm X and trace every one of his major adult actions to a childhood trauma.
 * Perry's sources for the same-sex sexual experiences are friends of Malcolm X, often men who took part alongside him. There has been considerable discussion on the article's Talk page (and in the archive) about whether and how to include this subject, and how to refer to the fact that no other biographers have mentioned it. (For what it's worth, no major biographies of Malcolm X have been published since Perry's.)
 * I think Perry's book can be accessed via Amazon. I can provide small excerpts as well. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * removed the stricken text thanx for pointing it out, I saw the discussion and it still bothered me so i brought it here. You make a very well articulated defense for the book. Weaponbb7 (talk) 05:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Notable Biographies / Encyclopedia of World Biographies
Is this a reliable source for biographies? ("Encyclopedia of World Biography"). Is this a wikipedia mirror? --Ragib (talk) 05:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it is not a Wikipedia mirror, for ex Michael Dell's bio is differnt from that of Wikipedia's ( even 2004 revision). However, the references in the encyclopedia look pretty out-dated: for ex: checking the dates of external links ("Web sites")and "For More Information" have older dates, in think the latest being ca.2004-2005 or so. So probably they have put the old encyclopedia online(?) --TheMandarin (talk) 09:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It's run by a company called Advameg, but I can't find much about them. They publish other "encyclopedia" websites: Wikipedia does cite some of them: (that's only those that say "Advameg"). I'd avoid it, we have no idea who they are. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

L'immensità revisited
There is trouble on the page with a youtube link used as reference and an editor keeping to remove the "unreliable source?" tag. I cannot find the policy that explicitly forbids youtube as a reference. Could someone point it out for me. Thanks. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There isn't one. WP:VIDEOLINK is an essay explaining our guidelines on this. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a rule against linking to copyright violations, however. See WP:LINKVIO. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:55, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Niburu collision - anyone in the mood for a clean-up?
Nibiru collision uses sources like Geocities, Zetatalk.com, and Badastronomy.com, documenting a popular delusion. I don't have an appetite to clean it up myself, and there are probably a few fine-tuning judgment calls to make, so I'll just mention it here if someone is interested. Wnt (talk) 02:19, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * For what its worth, badastronomy.com is run by Phil Plait, a recognised astronomer and skeptic. I'd personally class him as reliable, especially as he's written or co-written about 20 peer-reviewed papers on the subject of astronomy. Sceptre (talk) 14:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Issue of restricted/paid access to source
I seek your views of an issue I am discussing at User talk:Dyanega. The citation(s) in question are accessible at this site—but only to paid subscribers. I have the greatest respect for the editor(s) who have posted the sources, but there is a difficulty for ordinary Wikipedians (as acknowledged at WP:SOURCEACCESS) in obtaining the information alluded to. I see no reason to delete such sources. However, in the interests of transparency, I have expanded their description to convey that it is a waste of time clicking on the link. Is this situation covered more fully anywhere in our guidelines, or has anyone an alternative solution, please? Cheers Bjenks (talk) 03:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Tag the cites with verify source which I have done. Codf1977 (talk) 10:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Good one, thanks. However I see that, in the meantime, someone had substituted accessible links. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 12:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Citations should provide enough information to allow a member of the public who is reasonably knowledgeable about libraries and research to obtain access to the publication, possibly with the payment of a fee or traveling to the appropriate library or archive. A citation that leads to a website with nothing more than a demand for a userid and password is not an acceptable citation.
 * Also, verify source is, according to its documentation, intended for information that appears to be dubious or false. If the information is probably true, but you just want to make sure, some approach other than verify source should be used (or you should gain consensus on the verify source talk page to change the documentation to allow using it on information that is probably true. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Much obliged. For subjects of prime interest, I often purchase the ref books online. However, there's little point in subscribing for WP purposes to an info source that can't be shared with other users. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 02:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment about Chiropractic
There's a discussion you might be interested in about how to incorporate and how (or if) to attribute a medical source which concluded that "the risks of spinal manipulation to the neck by far outweigh the benefits". It is currently the final sentence of the article's introduction. Familiarity with WP:NPOV, WP:ASF, WP:MEDRS, and WP:MEDASSESS would be helpful. Thanks! Ocaasi (talk) 09:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Blogs used as sources
I've got an editor on Talk:Fashion_blog who doesn't seem to understand the restrictions on using blogs and other self published sites as sources, and they have personalized their issues with me enough that they don't seem inclined to listen to me any more. If anyone has time to drop by and offer their two cents, I would appreciate it. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 14:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I joined in and am watching. Johnuniq (talk) 23:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom charitable society
Hi some thoughts on if this site would be a reliable source for the St Nazaire Raid article. It the St. Nazaire society a registered charity in the United Kingdom. It was set up by the survivors of the raid and its patron is the Duke of Edinburgh. Obviously I would want to use the society as a reference for the article. Thanks --Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What is the specific statement that you wish to support with a cite from this site? Can't really help without specific examples. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes sorry it would be this page and teh awards page.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * But what is the information you want to include in the article? --FormerIP (talk) 10:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * From this page the numbers and types of awards given. That's it really other details have been found in published books. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Should be ok, you could double check each of the VC awards by searching on the National Archive website too. For example here is Commander S.H Beattie which backs up all the info. This is the page to browse  those awarded VCs, just need to enter name. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Here are the others.. Commander Ryder , Able seaman Savage  . Colonel Newman and Sergeant  Durrant have no individual register, but listed on the page of those who were awarded them but have no entry..  All accurate so no reason to doubt that charity as a reliable website. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. The charity appears to have an active committee and some of the website content seems to have been put together with the assitance of a historian, so it should be reliable for this information. --FormerIP (talk) 11:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the prompt reply --Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

linking to a fan translation patch of commerical item that doesn't include the work itself
I'm wanting to know for meeting WP:V can we link to unofficial/fan translation patches themselves if they don't include a copy of the work that would be translated as a last resort? 陣 内 Jinnai 01:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What is the exact url of the source in question? In which article is the source being used? What is the exact statement in the article that the source is supporting? Where is the relevant talk page discussion, if any? Dlabtot (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The source is a the file itself on a filehost server. The article it will be used for is under development at User:Jinnai/VN for List of Japanese visual novels translated into English. The patch is used to verify that the item has an English language version available. It will be used in one of the tables (likely the second group, unless the readme file has a release date on it). 陣 内 Jinnai 01:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Celebrity profiles on talktalk.co.uk
The current Simon Amstell article relies on this talktalk celeb page for an accurate date of birth, no other sources validate this information. I have tried looking at the site T&Cs but these do not appear to have any editorial policy for the website. Considering they have a significant database for popular celebrities but no named journalists or attribution for information, should be support or exclude this source under the WP:BLP guidelines? Fæ (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * IMDB say the same date although theres problems citing that too. Dunno if TalkTalk should be considered a reliable source, but its probably the accurate DOB. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

A Washington Post Article...
A high-level intelligence agent who had been referred to veteran journalist Christopher Ketchum by "a veteran D.C. correspondent who has close sources in the CIA and the FBI" stated that this washington post article was an FBI plant. How does this affect the reliability of this Post article?

Washington Post article http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20020307&slug=notspies07

Article where Washington Post Article is stated to have been an FBI plant http://dir.salon.com/news/feature/2002/05/07/students/print.html Preciseaccuracy (talk) 10:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that affects our understanding of the Post article at all, but a decision could be made to note the comment on it in our article. Unomi (talk) 11:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't make head or tails of this section. WTF are you talking about? Dlabtot (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The salon article stated that the post article was a plant so I'm questioning if the post article is still considered a reliable source.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 17:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Dlabtot, this is about the Art student scam. A DEA report said that reports of Israeli students selling art in the US in the early 2000s might be espionage, and the report was leaked to the press. A Washington Post story stated that the DEA agent who leaked it was disgruntled and the spying was an urban myth. Salon later reported the comments of a "Washington insider" that the Washington Post story was a plant by the security services to kill the story. I think we just have to state what the sources say. Both have a reputation for fact checking. Not all sources will agree in all cases, so it then becomes a matter of balancing their views. Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Unnamed government sources attempt to spin a story.... how shocking and unusual. Dlabtot (talk) 05:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree, both views should be noted.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 04:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been chewing this over. There really should be an article on this incident, but it should be refocused to something like DEA art student inquiry.  It's debatable whether this was something unusual or whether it was just some kids selling paintings at office buildings.  But the investigation into it and the media reaction, that's what's notable.  We have to adhere to NPOV and say what the sources say. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Not just dea, "Agents of the DEA, ATF, Air Force, Secret Service, FBI, and U.S. Marshals Service documented some 130 separate incidents of "art student" encounters" or maybe Allegations of Israel spying on the United States (1999-2001) Some other articles point to some other instances of alleged spying that don't involve just the art students. Preciseaccuracy (talk) 08:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * An article like that needs a focal point. Otherwise, since we don't have a set of articles like that for other countries, it could be construed as an original essay.  The DEA inquiry makes a good center for the article.  The news articles about alleged espionage during that time period will all mention the DEA angle at some point. Squidfryerchef (talk) 23:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Squidfryerchef, some of the spying allegations came before the release of the dea document. There are broader allegations that don't just include the art students. I suggest that you watch the 20 minute four part fox special on Israel spying on America with carl cameron on youtube to get a better idea.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 10:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

But if the article article is to focus on just the art student spying allegations, I agree that the 60 pg. Dea document would be a good focus. I do think that espionage or spying should be mentioned in the title. Inquiry is definitely a good description. How about DEA Israeli "art student" espionage Inquiry or maybe DEA "art student" Espionage Inquiry. What do you think?Preciseaccuracy (talk) 19:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The article needs to have a strong core that can survive an AFD. The DEA inquiry and the media attention should show notability (ten years after the fact, we're still discussing it).  The DEA inquiry wasn't just about espionage, either; they were concerned it had something to do with drug trafficking.  If there are related allegations, they can still be mentioned if published sources connect them to the DEA inquiry; the title doesn't have to be all-encompassing.  Actually, I'd leave Israel out of the title, that tends to attract too many POV edits.  As far as the report, my impression is that this whole thing is a lot less sexy than some of the media accounts imply (the fuss over it is what's notable).  I'd also avoid citing or linking the leaked report in our article.  I'm usually a big proponent of primary sources, but the media already picked out all the interesting parts, and what's left is mostly personal info about people who are not public figures.  Sorry about the delay, BTW. Squidfryerchef (talk) 11:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

wordpress
http://jerrygarrett.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/cougar-queen-the-jodie-fisher-film-festival User is claiming to be a reporter, or the reporter from the website, and that we have some content here from this wordpress and he wants it attributed to this wordpress? I recently came a cross it and removed the cite as not a WP RS and tagged the content as citation required, shall I replace the citation or remove the content?

In B. A. Baracus it is being used to support this content ... In the 2010 remake of The A-Team, the 1983 GMC Vandura van returned. Filming in Canada made it difficult to source the original vehicle and instead a modified 1994 Chevrolet G20 cargo van was used, but the red stripe is not the same as in the original van.

It was in a few more article which I removed it yesterday, I have no idea who originally added the content and the cite.Off2riorob (talk) 17:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If it wasn't published in an actual newspaper or magazine or something, then it's just a regular self published article and shouldn't be used. Right? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That was my thinking, unless he is a notable enough authority on the subjects he comments on to be attributed but I don't think he is Jerry Garrett - I have left the user involved User talk:Jg3arrow a note about this thread - Off2riorob (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if he is, the blog posts shouldn't be used for anything other than stuff about Jerry Garrett. SPS says "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer", so anything they write about, say, Jodie Foster shouldn't be used. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 17:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that is clearly the case. The users comment on my talkpage was..Since I am a reporter, and this is my original, published research that someone is quoting here, I would like to be credited. .. which is I suppose a fair enough statement, but in this case that means the removal of the content if is it is attributable to him. Also and I have asked him no to do it again but he recently in June has added a comment from himself and a link to his own site, here and to Carrie Fisher here .. So, basically the content should also be removed, as there is only single sentences anyways and he needs to stop adding his own website as I have already requested him. Off2riorob (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * He is also to be found around, here is some article from the Jerry Garrett - NYTIMES blog Anyways, that is another issue, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Gearslutz
I'm bringing this here in courtesy to try to help resolve a stalemate. I don't think I should weigh in myself because of how I found out about the dispute, but I can certainly ask you good people to do so. :)

The question concerns the reliability of the forum Gearslutz, which has recently been challenged in several articles. See and. Not one, but two threads have been opened at WikiProject album (the active one is here; the other was a later but failed attempt to get feedback here), but they haven't brought wider participation.

Opinions to help establish consensus and resolve the stalemate would be most welcome. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I also brought it up recently here. Dan56 (talk) 12:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * How do we know for sure that really is Russ Elevado? Forums are generally frowned on. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * So we're going based on the assumption that the user on that forum is actually the guy, right? Probably a silly question, but it would be very easy for someone to register a fake username and pretend to be someone. Anyway. WP:SPS says that "Self-published material may in some circumstances be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Elevado has done work in the relevant field, and he was there when this specific song was recorded, so he has a firsthand account.
 * In terms of citing the text on the actual pages: I personally am okay with the text on The Root. It's particular to the song and actually explains how the song was produced. What I don't agree with is its inclusion Voodoo (D'Angelo album), mostly because the text is mostly the same. There's no reason that the text needs to be replicated in both places; the song is notable enough on its own, so I'd think the text belongs there so as to give a whole explanation of the song. I'm curious to what other people think about this one. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 13:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * In regards to the Voodoo article, this edit shows another discussion with Elevado from Gearslutz. Dan56 (talk) 13:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I dont think that when they wrote "Self-published material may in some circumstances be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." they meant that its OK to include the writings of these so called experts found on many public forums to give reference or support to knowledge or events that took place, etc, and much less to discuss anecdotal *history* (whether interesting and relevant to an article or not) involving other living people. Matter of fact, if we are going to start using the opinions and stories found on millions of web forums and blogs we will be creating problems of verifiability and WP wont be regarded like an encyclopedia anymore. I believe when they wrote the exclusion "....published by reliable third-party publications" they meant it. Is Gearslutz reliable third party source now?? That's the question ya should ask. Mind you the key word is public forum not *personal blog or forum" which in this case is not. If Gearslutz is a reliable source then it would be most likely the result of notability and if so, then why its article was deleted?? My position is if we are gonna use the forum gearslutz as a reliable source now then let me bring back the Gearlutz article i wrote. Jrod2 (talk) 13:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No, this isn't rolling back the rule that forums aren't reliable. This is a judgment based on one specific set of circumstances. What applies here doesn't necessarily apply elsewhere. And again, what I wrote above was just one opinion, and I wouldn't go rolling back the edits on the article until some form of consensus has been formed here. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I know that. But you gotta ask yourself, why do we need info from public forums?? Like you said, anyone can open up an account and pretend to be somebody else, especially at Gearslutz, so why chance it?? This is the main reason why public forums aren't reliable sources. Bsides, if the info is a well known fact then we would find it on less controversial sources or on major reputable more reliable sites. Jrod2 (talk) 14:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I definitely agree with that. Everything I wrote, though, was predicated on the fact that the poster on the forums is the actual guy. If it's not him, and it's actually a hoax, then of course it shouldn't be included in the article. But if it is him, then the text may be acceptable - in this one particular instance. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 14:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yo, I actually believe is him, but what i think has nothing to do with it. I also get all that whats written on that link ya posted on your answer but its an essay not a guideline, much less a policy. So you gotta take it with a grain of salt. The principle Im referring to is if we are gonna be using public forums to add content and support all that stuff up, then we're gonna have a lot of problems with verifiability and more vandalism than ever. We wouldnt be even having this discussion if this was his personal blog and i wouldn't even have cared to have that content on WP. But, determining the id of the author on a public forum is at best an *assumption* and the rationale should be not allowing non-encyclopedic content to zip thru WP. Its also better for The Wikimedia Foundation in terms of preventing too many OTRS issues. Jrod2 (talk) 15:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The concept behind the "experts" exemption to WP:SPS is to allow citation to a blog or a personal webpage that is clearly authored by the expert in question. A posting on an open forum like Gearslutz does not qualify.  Blueboar (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fine; my opinion was predicated on the assumption that it really is him writing the forum post. But since it's not absolutely crystal clear that it's him, then it shouldn't be allowed. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Not RS, rather obviously. Dlabtot (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

His official website has the link to his Gearslutz account here at the links section, which leads to his discussions at Gearslutz. Hope that clarifies anything. Dan56 (talk) 23:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, a forum is not a reliable source for claims like this. We do not investigate which forum posts are made by which people, and choose those we believe are valid. Looking at the matter another way, if the issue is sufficiently interesting to record in an encyclopedic article, there will be a better source. Wikipedia should not be used to lavishly document every snippet of information relating to a topic – that's what personal websites are for. Johnuniq (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Wheter its "sufficiently interesting" is disputable. I mean, some interesting and notable info on the album's production was provided by Elevado's Gearslutz posts. That the producer decided to only post this information on a forum, and it was him (check his profile on Gearslutz and his website's link section), doesnt seem relevant to a piece of information's notability. Like User:HelloAnnyong said previously, "since it's not absolutely crystal clear that it's him, then it shouldn't be allowed", but the links at his website and the contact info at his profile on Gearslutz show that it is him. But if the issue goes further than just whether its him or not, then perhaps the source shouldnt be allowed. Dan56 (talk) 00:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I dont know why were are always discussing things like this. Logic comes into play here. A forum is never acceptable for use on Wikipedia because it is never going to be a WP:reliable source. Anyone can appear on the forum and post anything. Imitation is very much a possibility. I really don't see this a need for discussion. Forms are not reliable. Additionally forums have administrators that have the power to modify posts... To have a massive discussion about such a source just shows how contentious it is. If it came down to a vote mine would be a catagorical no based on the current evidence provided. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I will tell you why we are always discussing this: it's because discussion is often merited. I have used discussion boards, bulletin boards such as this, to back up certain specific facts in articles, always with an eye to accuracy. The author of the bulletin board entry must be reliable or else the entry is not usable. Some bulletin boards are very particular about members using their real names, or very particular about hosting serious discussions. One such bulletin board is the Live Audio Board, aka LAB, started by Dave Stevens in 1999, now hosted by ProSoundWeb. PSW also hosts R.E.P., a forum for professional recordists. I just counted 55 articles on Wikipedia that used PSW bulletin board entries somewhere in the article. Gearslutz is not used as often here, probably because its members hide behind their usernames. Some don't, though: famed Michael Jackson recording engineer Bruce Swedien wrote a few entries about MJ recordings on Gearslutz. I count these as reliable as magazine interviews.
 * Since Russ Elevado's homepage collection of links includes a link to gearslutz.com called "My Q&A section at gearslutz", I think we are clear to assume that Russ Elevado on gearslutz is Russ Elevado for sure. Anything he says on that forum can be used as an expert opinion. Binksternet (talk) 00:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This discussion needs to be focused on facts not a loose interpretation of guidelines and essays. What are we discussing here?? The inclusion by an editor of some anecdotal content, nothing more. Check. We assume it's a good faith edit. Check. What was some of the text about?? For one, R. Elevado recorded C. Hunter's guitars on D'Angelo's Voodo album and split the guitar's bass strings to be recorded in separate tracks (at least that's what i got). Check (harmless enuff IMO). The self-published source is Gearslutz, a public forum, yes but with a particular sub-forum that is reasonably verified and accepted as belonging to the author of the self-published material. Check. Here is the problem, Yo: the material relates to other living people. Wikipedia has a clear policy on "content" regarding "verifiability". One that says: "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer". I thought all of you already knew this, apparently not. When Elevado stated that Hunter used a special guitar for that song/album, he is talking 'bout a living person. What if Hunter doesn't want that information be known?? Thats the main reason why we need to avoid using the encyclopedia to write about non-encyclopedic content. Or to as one user put it, make it a "lavish" collection of loose short stories. Wikipedia is not a text book. Aight, in this example, if I am Hunter and dont wanna have that info known, I would write WMF or go to our OTRS asking that info be removed right away. You dont even know if hes aware of that info and approves of it. Some of you are only thinking about this one edit instance, not in the big picture. We need to keep the amount of OTRS issues down not up, my brothers. This type of editing also encourages nothing but more edit disputes and vandalism. And all for what?? Isn't it good enuff that info be known at gearslutz?? If it's a big deal we should find it on his site or a mag interview. (I bet there's one) But anyhoo, why do we need it here??. The problem is in our policies and guidelines as well. In this present state, the material R. Elevado wrote at Gearslutz fails our policy on content (WP:V) so it shouldnt be used at all. Anything similar to this case that is also referenced thru other public forums should be avoided and if some editors feel its appropriate, the existent content should be removed from the main space right away.


 * Solutions: One possible solution is to modify guidelines to exempt sites like Gearslutz, though i believe it would be a tough sell. Another is to bring back the article on this forum Gearslutz which was deleted for lack of notability. This way the site would be considered from now on as a reliable third party source. This wouldn't mean that anything said on that site could be used to verify truth (all criteria on verification would still apply) but at least it would be used to verify some exceptions like in the case of R. Elevado. Another solution is to remove the names of all living people so that only the description of the recording process remain, that way is up to the readers to look at the personnel's section of an article or at the reference source to figure it all out by themselves. One more solution is to simply keep the content but remove the forum's reference and tag the article for lack of verifiable citations. If none of these solutions can be used, then delete the content and keep the status quo. Thats it, I am done done here. Jrod2 (talk) 13:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Another is to bring back the article on this forum Gearslutz which was deleted for lack of notability. This way the site would be considered from now on as a reliable third party source.  Having an article on Wikipedia has no relation to whether something is a reliable. source. Dlabtot (talk) 14:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am aware of that, so thx. In this particular case I was talking 'bout giving extra support to the use of this site as a reliable source (to prevent more edit disputes). Although something notable isnt necessarily reliable, we have some clarifications when it comes to online businesses and for the most part *Notability* goes hand in hand with *verifiability*. See: "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." (WP:N). Think of these guidelines as the same rationale we use to include for example sites like NBC.com or Billboard.com (very notable and reliable). Another use is to include sites like Sweetwater Sound (not so notable but reliable and with great reputation). Jrod2 (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Gearslutz is not a reliable source and never will be no matter how creatively one reads our policies. Comparing it with NBC or Billboard is ludicrous to say the least. Dlabtot (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)^
 * Thats because its mainly a public forum and like user -OpenFuture said that we frown upon public forums. I never said Gearslutz was comparable to NBC.com or Billboard.com as music news channels, I used that to point out why we perceive notable sites as reliable sources, if they weren't notable we probably wouldn't use them as reliable sources. Never say never, we can always change the guidelines and policies with consensus. AFAIAC, the more clear the guidelines the less "creative" policy reading on talk pages. Jrod2 (talk) 16:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * By all means, attempt to change the guidelines and policies. Go to their pages and be WP:BOLD or go to their talk pages and attempt to make your point.  At least then you wouldn't be wasting everyone's time on this noticeboard with your excessive and repetitive verbiage. Dlabtot (talk) 17:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

This forum is not reliable for claims made about living people. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 17:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ...except when the living person is the author of the forum post, and the autobiographical claim is non-controversial. Binksternet (talk) 17:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * True, but apparently the postings are about more people than just the author of them. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The information than can be incorporated w/such a source should concern only the author then. Dan56 (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Overall, no. Public forums are not considered reliable sources. They are user generated content with no editorial oversight. In the case of R. Elevado and other engineers who volunteer their time to these blogs or public forums, information should only be used in a case by case basis (e.g. upon verification that their personal web sites link to their forums) but the content ya intended to use violates WP:BLP. Jrod2 (talk) 14:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * How do u know the content intended to use? In light of this discussion, the content will obviously be limited to Elevado and not his account of others. Dan56 (talk) 18:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Aight then...now that you've become an expert on what kinda content not to add with reference to those public forums, lets motion to close this discussion. Jrod2 (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Found other citations for third-party accounts, and since it seems reasonable to have the forum posts for only Elevado's own work/actions??, I left that only for that. Dan56 (talk) 21:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, gearslutz is definitely not usable for any purpose whatsoever. Dlabtot (talk) 22:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * How blunt. Dan56 (talk) 22:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Gearslutz is usable for the purpose of citing the author's claims to his individual actions, and noone elses. Dan56 (talk) 23:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The content supported by the Gearslutz citation, which was already removed by Jrod2 from The Root and Voodoo (D'Angelo album), is in accordance with Wikipedia's policy on using the subject as a self-published source. Dan56 (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Blueboar, Dlabtot, Johnuniq, Lil-unique1, Jayjg and me are not convinced that open public forums are WP:RS, that's our main issue. The other issue is that you wanted to add content that violated WP:BLP which ya now have found a video at Red Bull Music Academy as another reference source...but it still violates IMO WP:BLP...Regardless, ya still have a problem with the first issue anyways and FYI, I didn't delete content only the links to the forum. Jrod2 (talk) 00:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of those users posted comments before the authorship was cleared up. Second, if u have a problem with both sources, why werent they questioned during the articles assessments? And third, you started removing the sources and having a problem with Gearslutz. And FYI, thats what I said, "the Gearslutz citation"/link to forum. Dan56 (talk) 00:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Dan56, please stop beating on a dead horse. Many editors here have explained to you why the content you initially intended to add was not appropriate per WP:BLP and public forums are generally not WP:RS.That is Wikipedia policy. If you don't like it then please attempt to get consensus to change this policy.  You could start at Village pump (policy), which is one of our resources to have policies discussed.Jrod2 (talk) 01:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Postings to a forum are not 'Self-published' unless made by publisher of the forum. Dlabtot (talk) 01:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This forum is not reliable for claims made about living people.
 * ...except when the living person is the author of the forum post, and the autobiographical claim is non-controversial. Dan56 (talk) 01:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no such exception in WP:SPS, and continuing to falsely assert otherwise could be considered disruptive. It's not self-published. It's not a reliable source. It's not usable for citations on Wikipedia. Dlabtot (talk) 02:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is an exception concerning such material. It is self-published. Elevado put it into print himself on the posts to the forum. His forum posts are significant to Elevado discussing his work; Google his name and the posts are one of the first links, and his official website's Links section offers the Q&A Gearslutz link first. This may be trivial, but it shows that his posts contain his "expertise" and information on such topics as the articles Voodoo and The Root. Dan56 (talk) 03:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No there is no such exception to WP:SPS which I suppose is why in making this false claim you linked to a different policy. Please stop disrupting this noticeboard. Dlabtot (talk) 03:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I got that link from your link wise guy, where it says "see WP:BLP#Reliable sources" at your link "WP:SPS". Dan56 (talk) 03:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Mind you this discussion is geared towards finding out whether Gearslutz is RS or not, and it was requested by Moonriddengirl‎ not me. The opinions and conclusions from consensus override, as Dlabtot put it, any creative interpretation of our guidelines by you. Jrod2 (talk) 01:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, Moonriddengirl stated "The question concerns the reliability of the forum Gearslutz", not finding out whether Gearslutz is RS or not. If it was, it would be clearly against, a forum is not generally reliable. But its circumstantial in this case, as the main concern has been the post(s) by Elevado in regards to the Voodoo (D'Angelo album) and The Root articles. Otherwise, I wouldnt care, respectively. Dan56 (talk) 01:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Summarizing; more feedback welcome, since opinions seem divided
I'm hoping to get a handle on the consensus emerging from the conversation above.

Those who seem to feel the source is usable, at least in some circumstances, include User:HelloAnnyong (who opines that if the poster is an expert and the poster's identity can be verified, the content is usable (eta), but only in discussing the poster himself); User:Jayjg ( with the caveat that it cannot be used to support claims about living people eta only to support statements about the poster himself, if the poster can be verified);User:Binksternet (who notes specifically to this situation that Elevado's identity as the poster can be verified and agrees that it can be used to support information only about the living person who wrote it), and User:Jrod2 (who also notes that Elevado's identity is confirmed, but who also feels that nothing Elevado says that directly relates to other people can be used). User:Dan56, who originally used the material, seems at this point to agree that the source is usable for citing the author's claims to his individual actions (since his identity is verifiable), but nobody else's.

Those who seem to feel the source is not usable are User:Blueboar (who feels that the "experts" exemption was not meant for this situation); User:Dlabtot (who strongly believes it is unreliable under any circumstances); User:Johnuniq (who says if material is noteworthy, it will be published elsewhere as well); and User:Lil-unique1 (who fears both impersonation and modification of the material by administrators). (ETA) And User:Jrod2, whose opinion has altered in the course of this conversation.''')

Please let me know if I have misunderstood your perspective. (ETA: Every contributor mentioned here has been notified of this summary.)

At this point, we don't seem to have clear consensus, and that would be particularly valuable to get in this circumstance as User:Dan56 is quite a prolific and good content contributor, with many GAs under his belt. Making the consensus here clear to him will undoubtedly inform his future contributions...and accordingly Wikipedia's future album-related GAs. :) His confusion is understandable, I think, given that Voodoo (D'Angelo album) included this content at the point it passed its GA review in September 4, 2008. I trust that he will abide by clear consensus whatever it is, once it's been established. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * In retrospect, I read too much into the source. Since it's a BLP concern, if the source is accepted it should be used only to back up claims made about the guy himself - stuff he did, etc. Text about other people should not be sourced to the forum, I think. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thx Moonriddengirl for your usual excellent work, big up...this time arbitrating this content dispute. I don't believe and never did that using sites like Gearslutz (public forums) are good for WP, whether the self-published material by an expert relates to living people or not. We shouldn't encourage editors that like to read stuff up from forums to come here to re-post them. My main rationale is, if its relevant or important, we would find it on RS less controversial sites. My second rationale is that as a WP:CVU member, I believe that if we make it a clear policy (without any gray areas) to reject public forums per WP:RS, we'll avoid lots of bad faith edits, vandalism, sock-puppetry, peeps complaining at the WP:OTRS and the unnecessary use of this notice board. Jrod2 (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If I'm reading this correctly, this means that HelloAnnyong supports caveats against using the source for other living persons and Jrod2 no longer believes the source is usable under any circumstances, in order to avoid more widespread use of forums. Please let me know if I've misunderstood. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, ya got it Moon...the other issue is if per WP:SPS: "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer" can apply to public forums and other unreliable sources, why shouldn't it apply to videos whose authors are also unknown?? Jrod2 (talk) 18:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The video is hosted by the Red Bull Music Academy. I believe they're probably reliable. If you want to question that, it's probably better to open a separate section than to risk distracting from the specific point of this conversation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My statement is that it is a WP:SPS, and can only be used as such. Therefore, if the author of a post can be positively identified as the author of a post, that post can be used for non-controversial claims about the poster, nothing more. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 23:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you mean it's a WP:SPS? Self-published by Red Bull? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Both sides of this disagreement are hoping to improve the encyclopedia: one side wants to include up to date and interesting information sourced to what appears to be a confirmed identity posting in a forum; the other side wants a strict interpretation of WP:IRS so that forums are never considered a reliable source for information in articles. I am firmly in the latter group and repeat that it is not satisfactory for editors to investigate which forum posts are made by which people, then choose those which appear "genuine". I am concerned about the alarming precedent that would result from relying on some forum posts – those which an editor believes are genuine and useful. When posting in a forum, people often use shortcuts, or omit key words (writing "X is good" when what they meant was "X is not good"), or occasionally make provocative remarks that are not at all typical. So even if the author can be verified, and even if we are confident that a forum moderator has not edited the remarks, use of forum material could easily conflict with due weight. A key point of an encyclopedia is that information should be based on secondary sources where some calm analysis and reflection has occurred, as well as editorial correction. While it may be nice for our articles on cultural identities to include the most comprehensive collection of everything that the person believes or has done, that is not possible because most of the material would be unverifiable using the same degree of reliability that is required for general articles. Imagine articles on politicians if we started using material posted in blogs or forums. Johnuniq (talk) 01:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Elevado's account is a primary source though. Dan56 (talk) 02:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Returning to Bruce Swedien's gearslutz post about the recording of the song "Billie Jean", I see no problem at all with using his forum post as a source for information about Swedien's experiences. Swedien posted this text to his professional colleagues in a more formal manner than, say, a casual rejoinder. This is truly the best side of SPS: it comes from a notable person who expects the text to be a source of correction or further detail. It's not a throwaway remark with missing words creating 180-degree problems in comprehension. Swedien writes about the bass drum recording technique he used on the song, "I had a special kick drum cover made that covers the whole front of the kick drum. There's a slot with a zipper in it that the mike fits through. When the kick drum mike is in place, in the slot in my drum cover, I zip the opening tightly shut around the mike." Such a source could be used in the article about the song, about microphone practices, about kick drums, about the Thriller recording sessions, about Swedien himself, or about microphones and sound recording in general. This kind of stuff, about technical details, not living people, is perfectly fine for Wikipedia. Johnuniq's advocacy of a 100% ban on SPS goes too far when good sources like this are seen to be available from forums such as gearslutz. Binksternet (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't investigated very much all this about B. Swedien on that forum (why should anyone??) but his personal website (unlike Elevado) doesn't have a link to Gearslutz and that leaves the possibility that it may not be him. The point being is that there are better more WP:RS available on Swedien out there Jrod2 (talk) 00:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

New Communities, Inc., and the CMT movement
It is alleged in the 3rd paragraph of the BLP section Resignation of Shirley Sherrod that Shirley and Charles Sherrod were among early pioneers of the Community Land Trust movement in the US. The citation for this was originally The Yellow Springs News, a weekly local paper from the area where the University is located where Shirley Shirrod was awarded her masters for her research on such collective farms. Is the YSNews a reliable source? Note that a citation to an academic essay has since been added to the YSNews ref. Does this help? (See also New_Communities.) The applicable talkpage discussion is here. Any editors' input is appreciated.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I now see that the YSNews website's "about" page says, "In 2007, the News won first place, or the general excellence award, in its size category at the Ohio Newspaper Association annual contest for weekly papers. In 2008, the News won first place in editorial writing, feature writing and original columns, along with awards for in-depth reporting, special editions and advertising."--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This all seems well sourced, I see no reason to challenge any of it. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonably reliable, keeping in mind it is a weekly paper. Please note, though, that many, many of these kinds awards are handed out each year. These are awards from the Ohio Newspaper Association, so the competition is limited, and they're further segregated by "weekly papers" and "size category". On top of that, awards are handed out in multiple categories. As a result, I think it would be unusual for an Ohio newspaper not to win at least one of these awards in some category or other each year. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 22:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The OP is mischaracterizing the dispute. Nobody is disputing that Shirley and Charles Sherrod are land trust pioneers. The OP is attempting to use the local weekly as a reference to say that Shirley Sherrod was intimately involved in the land trust activity of the 1960's, which is not supported by a single reliable source.Jarhed (talk) 03:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Except for her co-founding of the New Communities trust, a fact with multiple reliable sources, and which was already in the article.Jarhed (talk) 03:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. Please note that the text Jarhed appears to hold in contention, to the contrary, does merely state that Mrs. Sherrod was a land trust pioneer that co-founded N.C. in '69. Here is the text currently disputed, in full:"In 1969, Sherrod and her husband helped pioneer the land trust movement in the U.S., co-founding New Communities, a collective farm in Southwest Georgia modeled on kibbutzim in Israel.<RuralDvlpmtOrg><CNN> According to scholarship by land trust activists Susan Witt and Robert Swann, New Communities' founding in 1969 by individuals such as the Sherrods connected to the Albany Movement<SmallTownPpr> served as a laboratory and model in a movement toward the development of Community Land Trusts throughout the U.S.: 'The perseverance and foresight of that team in Georgia, motivated by the right of African-American farmers to farm land securely and affordably, initiated the CLT movement in this country.'<AcademicPpr> Located in Lee County, Georgia, the 6,000-acre project was the largest tract of black-owned land in the U.S.<RuralDvlpmtOrg> The project soon encountered difficulties[...]."--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 03:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That is a much-edited version, but I am still waiting for an RS for the fact that Shirley Sharrod helped pioneer the land trust movement (whatever that is) in the US.Jarhed (talk) 03:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. Jarhed, I add the in-line cite for the "land trust pioneers" assertion, just now, with this edit. Peace?--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 04:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I request that we return this dispute to the talk page and stop bothering the editors on this noticeboard.Jarhed (talk) 04:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Above Jarhed states, quote, Nobody is disputing that Shirley and Charles Sherrod are land trust pioneers. Now that is exactly what he disputes. Whether this is more a personality conflict or more a conflict about RS guidelines, in either case, I ask for the noticeboard's third-party, reasoned input, as sort of an intervention, if possible, within the dispute(s?) between Jarhed and myself.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 04:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not disputing anything, I am asking you to provide a reliable source.Jarhed (talk) 05:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Shirley Sherrod was recently involved in a widely reported US political dispute. The OP is attempting to use The Yellow Springs News, a local weekly, to assert the following fact in Shirley Sherrod's BLP: In 1969, Sherrod and her husband helped pioneer the land trust movement in the U.S. This is a notable fact that would have been reported by the national press if it were true. On the talk page discussion, the OP refuses to remove this poorly cited controversial fact from the BLP, and he claims that he was told right here on this noticeboard that his citation was deemed ok. If anyone can help with this, I would be grateful.Jarhed (talk) 04:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, RSers: please. Indeed: the reliable source of Yellow Springs News uncontroversially credits Sherrod with the status of a land trust pioneer [as does her former fellow land trust activist Chuck Collins, who reminisced recently about Sherrod in a very nice profile in the HuffPo, which cite I could add...plus the primary source of Sherrod's keynote speech to the Nat'l Community Land Trust org's annual convention in 2009 in Albany, etc.]. This was certainly no case of relying on some haphazard fluff piece that made some unsupportable fringe assertion.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 05:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sherrod is *a* land trust pioneer, a fact that is not controversial by virtue of her co-founding with her husband of New Communities in 1969. Your edit, on the other hand, says that she helped pioneer the land trust movement in the U.S., a much more expansive and certainly controversial statement, one that needs not one but several reliable sources, *especially* for a BLP, and so far you have been unable to provide any. This is about the 10th time I have tried to explain this to you.Jarhed (talk) 05:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Now we are getting somewhere. Thanks for being specific in your contentions, Jarhed. I can fix that. Cheers.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 05:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, done (in this edit). Good suggestion, Jarhed. Thanks.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 05:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * That edit failed to provide a reliable source for the assertion. Once again, please provide a reliable source or revert.Jarhed (talk) 06:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yellow Springs News is the RS for the (as you said) non-controversial assertion: already attached.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 06:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Please provide a diff where I said that, in any case, there are numerous reliable sources for Sherrod as the co-founder of New Communities, any one of which are fine. In addition, please provide a reliable source for Sherrod being a pioneer of any kind. Otherwise, please revert as original research.Jarhed (talk) 07:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Geez! OK here's two: (1) This diff says you believe "Nobody is disputing that Shirley and Charles Sherrod are land trust pioneers."--and (2) this diff says you think "Sherrod is *a* land trust pioneer, a fact that is not controversial by virtue of her co-founding with her husband of New Communities in 1969." Which means the assertion in the assertion in this edit to Sherrod's biography section you believe not to be controversial, right?--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 18:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should clarify. I am generally ok with Yellow Springs News being used as a source for the characteristics of New Communities. It absolutely may not be used for anything regarding the Sherrods. There is a ton of recent RS data about them, and I don't think it is unreasonable to ask you to confine your BLP updates to these (in addition, this is BLP policy). While I don't think anybody will argue with you about the Sherrod's being civil rights "pioneers", that is a controversial statement, and I would appreciate it if you would confine your BLP updates to the facts contained in reliable sources. Find one and we are good to go.Jarhed (talk) 07:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I've changed oblique reference to the Community Land Trust group (that Albany was the pioneering prototype for) and put in its place reference to the Sherrods's being among generic "[civil rights and] land collective activists," adding 2 refs.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Since no noticeboard readers have chimed in after Jarhed's assertions made in this thread, I've gone ahead and tagged the Sherrod bio section with a tag.--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Wipipedia
There are a number of articles which cite, or rely completely on, Wipipedia, described as a "specialist BDSM wiki". Spanking bench is the example that I cam across, but there are others. I know that we don't normally accept open wikis per WP:SPS -- is this an exception? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Why do you think it might be an exception? --FormerIP (talk) 22:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That article doesn't use the site as a reference; it's listed in the external links. I'd say it shouldn't be used as a reference anywhere, but linking to it in the EL is marginally more acceptable. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 22:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No reason for an exception has been advanced. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 03:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear -- I'm not proposing that it should be an exception, I'm simply asking whether it already is, since there are articles such as Kajirus wth a banner "This article incorporates text from Wipipedia" and others for which it appears to be the only source/external link. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 06:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Then that's inappropriate. Seems to be light spamming for Wipipedia, if nothing else. In looking at it, I don't think that page meets notability criteria... —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 12:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Short answer... No, Wipipedia is not a reliable source. It might be acceptable to list it in the EL section. Blueboar (talk) 12:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me every article in Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from Wipipedia needs to be reviewed for sourcing and appropriately flagged. --jpgordon:==( o ) 14:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Robert K. G. Temple on Chinese and world history
I consider Robert K. G. Temple to be a fringe author and I propose to remove all references to him in articles related to Chinese and world history, particularly at Military history of China (pre-1911) and Economic history of China (pre-1911) where the main author, User:Teeninvestor, heavily relies on him. Why should he be removed? Temple, at least the way he is cited, makes a string of exaggerated and grandiose claims of Chinese excellence which aren't true and are so sweeping vis-a-vis Europe and the rest of the world that most cannot be verified in fact.

Temple is best known for his book The Sirius Mystery where he presents his idea that "the Dogon people preserve the tradition of contact with intelligent extraterrestrial beings from the Sirius star-system". Temple is considered a pseudo-scientist by bad archaeology (link). He is no historian, and even less a sinologist, but merely purports to summarize in his The Genius of China: 3,000 years of science, discovery and invention the work of the notable sinologist Joseph Needham (mostly without detailed references).

Since I happen to work in this field, I found him factually wrong on many accounts such as his claims that the Chinese invented segmental arch bridges (in fact, the Romans did half a millennium before, see here, here or here) or that the Chinese use of water-power preceded that of the west by many centuries (in fact, the oldest watermills were built by the Greeks and Romans). But the real problem remains Temple's propensity to make exceptional unproven and unprovable claims which have no basis in Needham actually.

'''In this context, Temple has been found by a majority of users to be not reliable here and particularly here by a majority of users. Consensus was that he needs to be removed or replaced by the scholar he purports to summarize, Needham;''' this should not be difficult given the wide availability of Needham's work.

I apologize to renew the debate and draw your attention from other matters, but Teeninvestor's inactivity since then suggests that he did not hear that. The users then participating are going to be notified by me per WP:Canvass. Please leave a vote so that this question can now be permanently settled.

Military history of China (pre-1911):
 * "According to Robert Temple, China's military technology was "unmatched for two millennia""

Comment: untrue, cast iron appeared in Europe since ca. 500 AD
 * "Cast iron was invented in China during the 4th century BCE, but was not adopted by the West for 1,700 years"
 * "Its strength allowed the Chinese to develop weapons superior in quality to the iron weapons used by other nations"

Comment: utterly impossible in pre-industrial times, such huge productivity gaps may only exist in extreme cases today, where machinery makes the difference Comment: very unlikely and in any case irrelevant: what counts on the battle-field is effective range Comment: certainly, we all have seen these b-movies Comment: untrue, Needham himself considers the earlier Byzantine flamethrower to be ejecting a continuous stream of fire Comment: in case magic was inconvenient
 * "These innovations in China's agriculture increased efficiency at least ten times, and possibly thirty times in comparison to its western counterparts"
 * "The range of large artillery crossbows was estimated at 1160 yards, while the range of handheld and cavalry crossbows is estimated at 500 yards and 330 yards respectively."
 * "Another innovation was the use of poisonous ammunition, which killed any soldier that it touched, even if he was simply scraped or touched by the bolt."
 * "the first true flamethrower capable of emitting a continuous stream of fire was introduced in China around 900 CE."
 * "Units in southern China were often equipped with an innovation, paper armour, which was much lighter and was said to be able to withstand firearms"
 * "The Chinese were the first to deploy poison gas in combat, having deployed gases as early as the 5th century BCE"

Economic history of China (pre-1911):
 * "Developments such as paper, cast iron, the seed drill, an efficient horse harness, steel and the Iron plow allowed China's wealth and economic efficiency to increase to levels unmatched by other civilizations"


 * "Agricultural and military advancements made China a technological world leader"


 * "Advanced drilling techniques that allowed drilling up to 4800 feet were developed, allowing Chinese to extract salt and even natural gas for use in fuel and lighting"

Comment: untrue, the lateen sails and pintle-and gudgeon rudders of the caravels were developed in the Med respectively the North Sea Comment: untrue, it has been established since over 30 years that the Roman harness was every bit as effectve as that of other ancient peoples (Roman traction systems)
 * "Economic growth was strong under the new liberal policies and China developed a number of innovations, such as improved masts, sails, and rudders, which laid the basis for China's later overseas trade with India, the Middle east and East Africa druing the Tang, Song and Ming Dynasties, as well as the later European voyages of discovery"
 * "By contrast, historian Robert Temple notes that contemporary Rome was unable even to transport grain from northern Italy to Rome and had to depend on ship-carried Egyptian grain, due to a lack of a good harness"

Temple = unreliable. Regards. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

My degree of involvement and depth of knowledge here has been limited to one particular dispute. In that case Temple made a claim which, as worded, was so far-reaching and absolute that it was impossible for it to be true as written. One editor wanted to keep it in on the basis of saying Temple is a RS. In that case Temple was certainly a very unreliable source and wrote in a careless / hyperbolic manner.

Gun Powder Ma has provided much seemingly factual and verifiable information which would clearly show him to also be a fringe writer. North8000 (talk) 10:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * GPM is completely wrong on this issue. There is overwhelming consensus to support Temple as a reliable source.Temple is not a "fringe author" (he is an academic at multiple universities). He is an academic who is professor at several universities and his book was prepared with assistance and materials from Joseph Needham, the leading sinologist of the 20th century. Temple's work is being used on several FA's, such as List of Chinese inventions. In addition, non-temple sources also give largely the same description of weaponry at GA's Technology of the Song Dynasty and Science and technology of the Han Dynasty (Temple's book is used there as well).Needham got temple to start the project, endorsed the book, provided the materials, wrote the foreward, helped Temple with the book and Temple's book has won numerous awards for accuracy.. There is overwhelming consensus that Temple is a reliable source. See 1 and 2 here and here.I also note the book has won several awards for accuracy 3. If Temple's source, summarizing mainstream sinology, winning multiple awards for its accuracy, and written by a renowned academic, is "fringe" then no source is not. Temple's work on Sirius or Dorgon or whatever is completely irrelevant to the issue, as in this case he's using mainstream sinology.


 * In addition, Gun Powder Ma has a history of POV pushing on wikipedia which has gotten him blocked several times, as can be seen here from his block record. He has no knowledge of Chinese history whatsoever, and the number of errors in his "summary" is so many I don't even want to discuss them. For example, his claim on "paper" doesn't realize that in Ancient times, paper was made of a much stronger wood material, and is much stronger than now. I request this editor be topic banned from Chinese military and economic history, as he has been demonstrated to be editing wikipedia topics in that area mainly to support his POV on a forum. ::::::see comments of "Tibet Libre" or GPM here
 * more This is not mentioning this is the 4th or 5th time he has brought up this topic, which constitutes disruptive forum shopping. I reported him here 1 Teeninvestor (talk) 13:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Temple is clearly Fringe, but Fringe does not always = Unreliable... Temple is RS for the fact that he makes certain claims (such as the fact that he claims that the Dogon people have contact with intelligent extraterrestrial beings from the Sirius star-system), but he is not reliable for general statements of fact concerning Chinese or world history. In most articles, mentioning his claims gives them Undue Weight (and when they are mentioned they should be directly attributed.) Blueboar (talk) 13:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Looking at the talk page discussions linked above... It seems that in the specific article under discussion, what is being cited is a summary the work of Joseph Needham (who definitely is RS) which was written by Temple... so I will slightly revise my opinion... due to his Dogon/Space Aliens fringe theories, I think anything written by Temple is tainted... even a summary of someone else's work. This seems to be the general consensus (or at least the majority opinion) on the talk page... and I agree with it. Cite directly to Needham, rather than using Temple's tainted summary. Blueboar (talk) 13:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * So we're going to ignore the fact that Needham got temple to start the project, endorsed the book, provided the materials, wrote the foreward, helped Temple with the book and the fact that Temple's book has won numerous awards for accuracy? This is beyond belief. Numerous editors, especially ones actually have knowledge of Chinese history (unlike GPM here), have all endorsed Temple's work as reliable, not to mention Needham and mainstream academia.Teeninvestor (talk) 13:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Stop attacking GPM. I don't really care about this, but attacking another editor undermines your arguments. Just an fyi. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 13:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

All right, I'll ask the stupid question: why are we using a summary of the work rather than the real deal? There is absolutely no reason we should not be citing Needham over Temple, regardless of the latter's reliability. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 13:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Why aren't we citing NASA records instead of just "Summaries" published in the press? Why do we just cite "summaries" of the battle of the bulge instead of the actual military reports? The same reason applies to why we do not cite Needham's 50,000 page work.Teeninvestor (talk) 13:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your examples hold no weight because you are talking about primary sources v. secondary sources. Not a big deal though, it seems as if Temple is unreliable. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable source given the Erik von Daineken space alien fantasies. There are lots of high-grade scholarly works available on both early chinese and early european history. Use them instead.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't use Temple. Temple's volume was I think first published in 1986, and he accessed Needham's unpublished work, much of which, before it is prepared for publication, awaits revision and checking. However Needham's projected 30 volume encyclopedia, and much of his unpublished drafting on which future volumes will draw, is still subject to review and refinement. Since Needham was the source for Temple (who is not versed in Sinology), and most major libraries have it, the sensible thing to do is to cite Needham chapter and verse, without relying on a provisory synthesis by Temple, whose use of secondary sources in his Sirus book left much to be desired. Needham provides exemplary indexes, and it is not hard to find anything, as soon as you figure out under which section it must be classified. For the record I have my private copy of 14 sections (the first 14 volumes), i.e.vols.1-6, and can check them therefore directly, if anyone requires that.Nishidani (talk) 15:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't use Temple He's tainted and unnecessary. And we need to stop these TeenInvestor/GPM exchanges. Dougweller (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Unreliable Source The claim that Temple is a reliable source seems seriously questionable, given the nature of his publications such as The Sphinx mystery and The Sirius Mystery.  The claim that he is a "professor at several universities" deserves serious qualification; his book's web page (a self-published source) states "He is Visiting Professor of the History and Philosophy of Science at Tsinghua University in Beijing, and previously held a similar position at an [unnamed] American university". A visiting professorship does not bear the weight of a full-time academic appointment.  He is certainly not of the stature of the late Joseph Needham, CH, FRS, FBA. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't use Temple Temple writes accessible, popular literature; in my opinion, however, whilst his overall views echo those of Joseph Needham, he is not as precise and careful an author as Needham and I think should be quoted with care. I've tried to find Needham quotes replicating Temples' quotes on some of the topics discussed here and failed (although they may exist - I don't have access to all of Needham's work). I strongly recommend we use Needham in this article. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Unreliable Source. I don't know that he is a visiting professor, although he might have been.  He's not on the Tsinghua University Department of Philosophy's faculty list, and a search for his name turns up nothing. In any event, they didn't hire him to teach sinology according to the press release. Believing that aliens visited earth and left us with their technology is about as WP:FRINGE as you get.  If Temple's claim to reliability comes from the fact that he summarizes Needham, then he is a tertiary source, while articles should be written using secondary sources. An unreliable tertiary source does not become reliable because it summarizes a reliable secondary source.  It is one thing to use a tertiary source that also makes crazy claims as a stopgap because you don't have Needham handy, but you then need to phase out the reliance on the tertiary source. Much of what is in Temple's book might be right insofar as he summarizes Needham, but our going through and extracting only the "right" bits circumvents our verifiability policies (we don't know what's "right," just what a source says and whether it is reliable).  RJC  TalkContribs 17:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Use at same level as primary source only. Temple as author is clearly problematic. The China book holds some value as summary of Needham, but should not be used for anything beyond the support of generally accepted facts (i.e. the same as would count for primary sources). Other use would be problematic because of the loss of nuance by Temples interpretations. In any case use neither Temple nor Needham for cross cultural comparison, as Needham was specialist on China, not on comparative history; and Needhams work is getting old especially regarding comparisons as historical science in many other cultures (a.o. early European) has rapidly progressed since Needhams death. Arnoutf (talk) 17:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I disagree. Needham was a great comparativist, and his work is full of lengthy surveys of Indian, Islamic, Greek and Roman science and thought, based on the finest sources available in several languages, and controlled in each instance by colleagues familiar with the respective area cultures under comparison. As to 'old', in distinction to the volumes that bear his name, which are still invaluable, he was old when he died in 1995, 15 years ago, but 'Needham' often refers to work individually drafted by authors on his team, or by specialist scholars, revising his manuscripts, completely up to date with recent research, as successive volumes were and are still being, printed. Nishidani (talk) 19:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have to disagree with your verdict. RJC has made a good argument above: Using Temple even for "the support of generally accepted facts" would mean that WP editors would have to know and extract only the "right" bits from Temple (that is those where Temple accurately summarizes Needham) which however would require them to act on a "right" and "wrong" basis, and not by the "verifiable" "non-verifiable" dichotomy as required by WP:reliable. Also, from a practical point of view, generally accepted facts can always be easily acquired from a multitude of sources elsewhere. So, in my view there is no reason to use Temple at all. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * One should not ask whether a person is a reliable source, but whether the source used is reliable. TFD (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And to determine that, you have to (among other things) look at the reputation of the author. Blueboar (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't use Temple The above editors have it correct. In short, he's certainly falls into WP:FRINGE, but beyond that he's unnecessary so it will do no harm dropping him. Swarm Talk 19:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The evidence seems to weigh in favor of using Needham over Temple although I am not generally in favor of "popularist" authors and would prefer the use of Chinese sources. June 29, 2024


 * Let me briefly summarize the debate. The following users argued for not using Temple/him being an unreliable source: North8000, Blueboar, Ed, Bali ultimate, Nishidani, Dougweller, SteveMcCluskey, Hchc2009, RJC, Swarm, Philg88 and Gun Powder Ma. Arnoutf argued for using Temple only for "generally accepted facts (i.e. the same as would count for primary sources)". Teeninvestor argued for using Temple as a reliable source. Clear consensus is thus that Temple is an unreliable source on Chinese and world history and that he needs to be removed or replaced by another author like, for example, Needham. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Procedural question
A merely procedural question since I am not familiar with the process: If there is a consensus that Temple should not be used, what next to do with him? Should the references be replaced by a tag like "citation needed" or should his assertions be removed altogether from the text? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding LENR-CANR.ORG
That site, which has permission to hold a lot of freely available (without subscribing to major science journals) copies of articles related to the general field sometimes called "cold fusion", has been blacklisted for some time. The major reason it was blacklisted was that the owner of the site has added some introductory material into a number of data files. However, the people who requested the blacklist appear to be exhibiting some hypocrisy. Here is some information about one particular file, known as the "ERAB report" (a.k.a. the 1989 US DOE report on cold fusion):
 * 1. The article chosen to be linked on the cold fusion page is this one: http://www.ncas.org/erab/
 * 2. The linked article also has some introductory material, not written by the authors of the ERAB report.
 * 3. This introduction is skeptical of CF, while the introduction to the file at the lenr-canr.org site is in favor of CF.
 * 4. Here is a modified version of the link to the ERAB report at the blacklisted site: http:// w .lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ERABreportofth.pdf (replace the missing "w"s)
 * 5. The funny thing is, the lenr-carn.org document has a link inside it to the ncas.org document! This means a reader has a chance of seeing commentary from both sides of the issue, and not just from one side, which is all the link in Wikipedia's cold fusion article offers.
 * QUESTION: Why should lenr-canr.org be blacklisted when it offers readers access to commentary from both sides of the issue, AND original data? V (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This isn't the forum to discuss blacklisting. That would be the spamlist talkpage, the village pump or ANI. Oh and is there any good reason why the original sources can't be used as a reference rather then a third party publisher? last I saw something on this the discussion concerned whether the site was hosting copyvio material but maybe that has been addressed? Spartaz Humbug! 18:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, some files (including, specifically, the original ERAB report) appear not to be available anywhere else on the Web (I spent some time today looking for it at the DOE.GOV site). LENR-CANR.ORG is at best, per Wikipedia nomenclature, a large collection of "convenience links".  Many of the journal articles it hosts are difficult for ordinary folks to access elsewhere.  And to the best of my knowledge, every single copyrighted file posted there has permission to be posted there.  That didn't stop anti-CF people from wanting to blacklist it (a.k.a. "burn that library to the ground"), and --possibly!-- telling lies to accomplish it.  Newsflash: I just received a message from the owner of the site saying, in essence, he doesn't mind the blacklisting, so I'll probably not put much effort into pursuing this further. V (talk) 19:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * While this isn't the venue for blacklisting/whitelisting, it would help if there was a positive outcome here at RSN. It's not all that easy to get a site off the blacklist, sometimes they want to whitelist each individual article you want.  If we can show that the site is considered reliable, that may go a long way to overturning whatever reason was given to put it on the blacklist. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

V kindly informed me that this discussion is underway.

I think it is better for everyone that LENR-CANR.org be banned. I do not want to see LENR-CANR associated with Wikipedia, and the anti-cold fusion fanatics who are in charge of the article here do not want to see it either, so this arrangement suits both of us. However, perhaps I can be assistance addressing the questions that have arisen here. Let me clear up any confusion and set the record straight.

I do not recall whether I wrote an introduction to other articles and papers but there are over 1000, so I might have forgotten some.

The ERAB report was made available only on paper, which is why I copied the ncas.org version.

The introduction to the ERAB report is as clearly marked as possible. There is no chance anyone will confuse it with the document. It begins: "A copy of the ERAB report has been prepared by the National Capital Area Skeptics (NCAS) organization (www.ncas.org). It is available here in HTML format: http://www.ncas.org/erab/. It is converted to Acrobat format in this document, below. . . ." The title page of the document (p. 3) is clearly marked as such and it says “Internet Edition Prepared by National Capital Area Skeptics (NCAS) District of Columbia - Maryland - Virginia (USA)”

Anyone can compare my version to the ncas original and see that I have made no changes. As noted here, anyone can link from my version to the ncas version to read their Introduction.

Regarding the accusation made by the anti-cold fusion fanatics here that LENR-CANR includes copyright violations, I am sure that nothing I can say or do will dissuade them. I am not inclined to provide copies of dozens or hundreds of e-mail messages and other documents proving that I have permission to upload the papers, and the fanatics would only claim I forged such documents even if I did. However, anyone can confirm that LENR-CANR does not have copyright violations. The proof is simple, and the evidence can be assembled in a few minutes with Google. You do not need to take my word for it, and you do not need anything from me.

You need only look on the Internet for links to LENR-CANR, references within papers and books to it, and references to my name -- Jed Rothwell -- which is unique. You will find dozens of published papers and books that mention the website or include footnotes with the addresses from the web site. Take, for example, a paper featured on our main page: U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), “Technology Forecast: Worldwide Research on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Increasing and Gaining Acceptance” DIA-08-0911-003, 13 November 2009. This lists LENR-CANR in a reference; it describes many resources only available at LENR-CANR.org; and all of the authors of the paper (plus the other 90 people who contributed) are well represented in our library. Obviously, the people at the DIA know about LENR-CANR.org. They know I have uploaded this paper and many others by the DIA co-authors. Along the same lines, you will find papers at Naturwissenschaft, J. Fusion Energy, the ICCF conference proceedings and in dozens of other web sites with links to LENR-CANR. Some list my name in them as the editor or in the Acknowledgements section. The editors and authors at these sites are aware of the existence of LENR-CANR. They know me, personally. They must know that their papers are uploaded. If I had uploaded papers without their permission, they would ask me to remove them. Publishers did, in fact, ask me to remove a few papers. At the publisher’s request, there are also about a dozen papers that include only the abstract and a link to the publisher’s site. Obviously, I have full copies of the papers and I could upload them. I wouldn’t do that because the last thing I want to do is upset the publishers!

You can also confirm this by looking at the gaps in the collection. The bibliography lists 3,500 papers but there are only ~1,000 uploaded. There are several hundred important cold fusion papers well known to everyone familiar with the field which are not uploaded. There are prominent authors not represented in the collection. The reason is obvious: I asked for permission but they said no. The gaps are not there because I am biased against authors. I have uploaded papers by most of the prominent anti-cold fusion authors such as Morrison.

It stands to reason that I must be doing this openly, with the full knowledge and cooperation of the authors and publishers in the field.

- Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org

Let me add one other observation. The fact that the Wikipedia article does not list LENR-CANR.org as a source, and it does not allow any links to it, is prima facie proof that the fanatics in charge of this article are biased and that their objective is to prevent the readers from learning about this subject. Not to toot my own horn -- because I did not write all those 1000 papers, after all -- but an article about cold fusion that does not mention LENR-CANR.org is like an article on ornithology that does not list the Audubon Society.

I would to keep things this way so that any knowledgeable person who reads the Wikipedia article will see it is biased. The fanatics will not allow anyone to correct the errors and distortions in the article, or to replace their opinions with actual, peer-reviewed scientific facts. Since they insist the article be biased & awful, I prefer that it be manifestly awful, to warn off any serious reader. Hence, I do not want any improvements. - Jed Rothwell

besteveralbums.com
This site has listings of various "best albums" polls in magazines and newspapers. It appears to be a commercial, rather than personal, website. Do you think it is an RS for the statement that a certain record came at a certain position in a certain poll? --FormerIP (talk) 00:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks user submitted, so probably not. You might ask User:Kww, who knows a lot about this stuff. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)  Forgot link.[besteveralbums.com/howitworks.php] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't find anything on that site that claims any sort of reliability, and there's nothing elsewhere to suggest any. Seems like it's just a guy with a website, so I would say that it's not a reliable source. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 03:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm also not sure if it passes, but it would be useful it it did. It looks to me as if users are able to upload their personal charts, but the magazine polls are put up separately by "staff" (those are scare quotes, rather than an indication that this is what the site says). Based on WHOIS, it seems to be run by this company, probably to demonstrate/test their website skills. Or maybe they were just hired to set it up, I suppose. --FormerIP (talk) 10:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

official youtube?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMtZfW2z9dw

Is this an official youtube cite or is it schmoyoho's channel ? Off2riorob (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like it is a work of the Gregory Brothers, and schmoyoho is their official channel. Reliability depends on the context in which you want to use this. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 23:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, yes. It is in this BLP Antoine_Dodson and has been in and out a few times, so what would be the correct detail for the publisher in that case? Off2riorob (talk) 01:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have been working on an essay Video links. I never stopped to consider how the publisher field would be filled in. I would think that simply "YouTube" would be sufficient since that is the organization making it available/broadcasting it. I would assume that the user's hannel would be better as a "work" without italics. Not sure though.
 * Also, it is a derivative work so is it still contributory copyright infringement? Not sure of the legalities on this one.Cptnono (talk) 02:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The article Antoine Dodson has been deleted, so this one is moot. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 04:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Napster
Anyone know how Napster generates content like this. Is it RS? --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:07, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems that it was a pull from allmusic. If you're going to quote one, at least quote the original version. I guess the question then is, is AllMusic a reliable source? It's come up here multiple times before, though it doesn't really seem to have gone one way or the other. What's the text that's being sourced? —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 21:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I was involved with an article where someone claiming to be the artist and someone claiming to be the artists agent both stated that Allmusic had the birthcountry wrong, so I would say that Allmusic would fall into the category of IMDB where content about the artistic works may be acceptable, but claims about the person should generally avoid using it as a source. --  Active Banana  &#x007C;   bananaphone  21:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It's bio text on 1.8.7. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Tim Robbins's Birth Year and California Birth Index
In the Robbins article, there is some debate over whether he was born in 1958 or 1959. One editor has put in a source for the year 1958. I reverted that change because I don't think it's a reliable or usable source (it requires a paid subscription and searching to find the actual source). I also pointed to an earlier discussion about this website, which, in my view, seems to support my position. I posted a message on the editor's Talk page, and the editor disagrees with me and put back the source. I'm not going to war with the editor. Frankly, I don't know which year is right. I lean slightly in favor of keeping 1958 because that's what it's been, but I've been unable to find an authoritative source on the birth date. Indeed, there's another source in the article that questions which year it is. I'm not sure that source is particularly reliable, either.

At this point, all I want is some consensus on whether the so-called "California Birth Index" at ancestry.com can be used to source a birth date, not a definitive answer to which year Robbins was born, although that would be also helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Requiring a subscription doesn't have any impact on whether it is a reliable source or not, but I don't see how it can be used to source a date of birth without utilising some form of original research. For instance, if it comes up with a dob for Tim Robbins how do you know it's the correct Tim Robbins?  Unless it identifies him as Tim Robbins the film star I don't see how that is possible. Personally I don't think it's credible source in this context so should be removed. Betty Logan (talk) 13:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This might solve your problem for you: http://movies.nytimes.com/person/108437/Tim-Robbins/biography. I think most people would accept the NY Times as a reliable source, and it's consistent with the disputed source. Betty Logan (talk) 13:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the NYT source, but I'd love to have the broader question more definitively answered. I agree with your statements about connecting the ancestry.com document with Robbins himself, but there's also the barrier of how to search for him. You have to enter enough data to find the right Robbins in the first place as the source is just a search form. Also, because I don't have a subscription to ancestry.com, I can't see the final document that supposedly supports Robbins's date of birth, so I don't know what it is or how reliable it is.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:PAYWALL makes it clear that having to pay isn't a criteria for reliability. If there are no standing objections to the content from that site, and you are not willing to pay to access the site then you cannot challenge the source on the basis of its reliability.  As for verifiability, the reference is required to provide enough information to locate the information sourcing the claim, so it must either include a link to the actual web page on which the information can be found or clear directions as to how to find it, including relevant search terms if necessary.  If it provides enough information for you to track down the source then it fulfils its requirement to be verifiable, if not it doesn't.  If the source meets those two criteria then it is a verifiable and reliable source.  However, it is only a verifiable and reliable source for the information it contains, and it must not violate WP:NOR in tying the subject of the source to the subject of the article. Betty Logan (talk) 15:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link to the pay policy. If you look at the source as cited in the Robbins article, you'll see that it does not provide "clear directions" on how to find the information. Maybe there's a policy on this? :-) Otherwise, unless others chime in and form a consensus, I feel uncomfortable removing the source, and, in any event, absent something I can point to, the other editor is likely to simply put it right back in.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of things you can try before bringing in other people to settle it for you. His interest may be in just sourcing the content with a reliable source, rather than using that particular source.  You could try replacing the disputed source with the NY Times source and see what his reponse is - if he accepts it then all of this academic.  Add a link to this discussion in the edit summary so that other editors and he himself can see it is a constructive edit, and you are not "warring".  If he insists on using the disputed source, you can try requesting that he adds the search terms to the reference to ensure it is verifiable.  In the meantime you may get more responses, but if the guy is making a serious effort to source the content then he should be a fair chance to resolve this himself. Betty Logan (talk) 16:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Lots of constructive suggestions, thanks. I've replaced the source and pointed to this discussion in the edit summary. We'll see what happens.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * In the case of the California Birth Index, the individual entries also include the mother's maiden name. It's not just matching a name but also matching the maiden name. So for Tim Robbins the Timothy F Robbins born in Los Angeles Co. with a mother's maiden name of Bledsoe on October 16, 1958 would be the correct match. While there is a paywall, it is still accessible for free in most public libraries. In my case I cited the general California Birth Index URL because anyone can access it, and anyone can search it even if they can't see the details through the paywall. The specific birth record URL California Birth Index Timothy F Robbins can only be viewed through the paywall. All this is academic as the NYT source is fine with me, I just wanted to keep people from changing the birth year by providing a citation. GcSwRhIc (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for jumping in. I hope you understand that I didn't think of this as a battle with you. I just wanted to figure out how to go about this, which is why I sought guidance here. If I understand John properly, to cite the index, you'd have to include directions on how to search for Robbins (as you did here). I also agree with you that the date should remain 1958, and a citation helps keep it that way. As long as you're okay with the NYT source, then we're good.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Possible misuse of source
This http://books.google.com/books?id=ojgoAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA384&lpg=PA384&dq=petri+armenian+mitanni&source=bl&ots=R1TrJ8M-o0&sig=L8AuhGTkIelLQN2lpDyAwecAHd8&hl=en&ei=Hh63SdncCpnMsAPq_ryuDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result Prof. Petrie (19th century Egyptologist) "Mitannian (Armenian) origins"] <--Petrie_Museum_of_Egyptian_Archaeology|Petrie Museum in London was named after him, ranking after Cairo and British Museums]], William_Flinders_Petrie|Petrie was added as a source for the statement "The kingdom of Mitanni was a feudal state led by a warrior nobility of Indo-Aryan origin". It's currently footnote 4 in Mitanni. (The editor was later blocked for edit-warring and now has a 4 month topic ban under the Armenian-Azerbaijan sanctions). There was a discussion of it on the talk page, where another editor said "You seem to be referring to passages which quote Flinders Petrie, who seems to have claimed that Mitanni were in some sense "Armenian" ("It has been supposed by Prof. Petrie that Queen Tii, the mother of Akhunaten, was of Mitannian (Armenian) origin, and that she brought the Aten religion to Egypt from her native land, and taught it to her son."). Fine, explain Petrie's views and place them in historical context and point out their relation to modern scholarship. Do not conflate 100 year old speculation with medieval genealogies and a modern model of the IE family tree that is wholly inconsistent with them both." GIven the gloss in the reference, saying "Mitannian (Armenian) origins" and evidently trying to impress the reader about Petrie's importance (and he was important, but modern scholarship has overturned some of his ideas), I not only do not see (literally, all I can see is pictures of book covers when I click on the link) anything that should be used as a reliable source for this statement. For some reason I don't understand, the same link has added as an external link and there is a dispute on this (I don't think it should be there either, but that's another issue although obviously it shouldn't be in both places). I hope someone can make sense of this! Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting problem, I'm in the UK and all I see is pictures of book titles. Others see a book page. Is this a copyright issue with limits being imposed by Google for different countries? I've tried ID, Chrome and Firefox, none of them show me what others see. Dougweller (talk) 18:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * With out a page number I would be suspicious of this.Slatersteven (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no block of this in the UK. User:Paul_Barlow himself that commented about the source (here is the page number and highlighted, I fixed the previous link Doug provided), lives in the UK also. It must be something wrong with your system Dougweller I dont know. Also, if you notice in the Mitanni page, the seal has been there since 2006, mentioning of Armenian-Mitanni and the source is from 'Genesis of Armenian People'. Also, excuse my grammer, but my point about the other 19th century scholars used as sources was by admin Dbachmann, mentioned in the Proto-Armenian language page as an RS. The comments Paul made were incorrect regarding the Petrie source with 'modern' linguistic studies. The works of those 19th century linguists which I mentioned in Talk:Mitanni, are still used in the modern linguistics, and have not changed. The same sources and linguists are what Petrie and Henry Hall commented in the EL source I provided. Aryamahasattva (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I will only comment on the historical background: Armenian and Indo-Aryan (or Indo-Europeans) should not be confused, they are not even on the same logico-semantic level: The Armenians are one people and the Indo-Aryans are a family of peoples of which the Armenians are only one group. Mitanni was one of the first states in the Ancient Near East where the rising Indo-Europeans came to power, with the lower and much more populous strata composed of the older, autochthonous population (the neighbouring and rivalling Hittites constitute the first 'full' Indo-European state foundation). So, this equation was never true but for the sake of practicality we can discount it on grounds of being totally outdated alone. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The Armenian language and Indo-Iranian (Indo-Aryan included), are grouped together as Armeno-Aryan, this is a scholarly view which Dbachmann and Paul Barlow added the additions of this in Indo-European related pages in Wikipedia recently. There are the IE tree's and other IE charts/graphs that show the Armeno-Aryan subgrouping, which later Armenian and Indo-Iranian branch out to their seperate branches. Armeno-Aryan is the ancestor of both Armenian and Indo-Iranian (Indo-Aryan included). The Armenian language would also be included under the label Aryano-Greco-Armenic, splitting into proto-Greek/Phrygian and "Armeno-Aryan" (ancestor of Armenian and Indo-Iranian) Handbook of Formal Languages (1997) p. 6.Indo-European tree with Armeno-Aryan, exclusion of Greek In addition to this, the Mitanni pages in google mostly mention Indo-Iranian which is more near to Armeno-Aryan, than the later branched out Indo-Aryan group. The Petrie source I provided and the Mitanni seal I showed which says Armenian-Mitanni with the Genesis of Armenian People source back up what I'm saying about the 19th century linguists like Hubishmann, still used in the modern linguistics, such as the IE tree I provided here with the Armeno-Aryan grouping, which is based on the Mitanni IE names and language. Aryamahasattva (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I cannot see any highlighted page number, why not just tell us what the page number is?.Slatersteven (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine, I am not that much in the topic right now, but it needs to be made absolutely clear that the term Armeno-Aryan is a purely denotional one in that it only aims at denoting the whole group by using it most western and most eastern peoples of this language group, just like "Indo-European" does. One cannot derive any claim from this denotion that the Mitanni ruling class was Armenian. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The page number is 384, and another User:Paul_Barlow I mentioned also lives in the UK like Dougweller, and he is able to view it. Aryamahasattva (talk) 20:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Odd as the only text I can find in the book that mentions the Mitten is this
 * "It has been supposed by Prof. Petrie that Queen Tii, the mother of Akhunaten, was of Mitannian (Armenian) origin, and that she brought the Aten religion to Egypt from her native land, and taught it to her son.

Certainly it seems as though the new doctrine had made some headway before the death of Amenhetep III, but we have no reason to attribute it to Tii, or to suppose that she brought it with her from abroad. There is no proof whatever that she was not a native Egyptian, and the mummies of her parents, Iuaa and Tuaa, are purely Egyptian in facial type. It seems undoubted that the Aten cult was a development of pure Egyptian religious thought."
 * It seems to make no mention of Aryans or Indians or any combination of the same, but does talk about Petries area of expertise, Egypt.Slatersteven (talk) 20:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not just editors in the UK who can't see it, see WP:Help Desk. So we certainly shouldn't be using it as an EL, but again, that's not the issue here. And please don't talk for Paul Barlow, you don't know if this is a problem for him now or not. Dougweller (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The edds continues to try and use the source despite the fact it clarl is not talking about the Mittani kingdom or nobility about about the Aten culy of egypt. this is blatant falsification of sources.Slatersteven (talk) 22:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)