Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 1

Reliability or Verifiability?
Why was this noticeboard moved from WP:RS to WP:V?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Would whoever keeps moving this please stop? It is a subpage of the policy, and the policy is Verifiability. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 07:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Slim, you have been reverted by multiple editors, so clearly there is no consensus to move. Your next step is to take it to WP:RM. Meanwhile, I'll clean up the mess left behind by all the moves by fixing the redirects and navboxes, and tagging the rest with db. --Edokter (Talk) 09:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, as I have suggested in my edit summary. I have asked Slim few weeks ago why she moved it and was ignored, there was also no meaningful reply at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability, where I have also explained why RS title is better than V.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 10:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Policy vs. guideline
Please note that WP:RS is NOT A POLICY... it is a guideline. WP:RS is designed to support and clarify what is said in the WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV - which ARE policies - but WP:RS is not policy itself. Blueboar 12:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * True, although honestly I think this is mostly semantic difference lost on 99% of content creators who frequent this board :)--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely! :>) ... WP:RS is somewhat unique... while it is "only" a guideline, it is usually talked about as if it were a policy. This is because the requirement to cite to reliable sources is a matter of Policy (repeated in WP:V and WP:NOR), while the determination as to what constitutes a reliable source (discussed in WP:RS) is not.  I often wish we had picked a different name for this guideline... something like "Determining source reliability" (WP:DSR) which might have kept the constent attempts at "rules" making at V and NOR, where they belong, and foucused the guideline on giving advice.  Oh well. Blueboar 14:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to admit I don't fully grasp why WP:RS is not a policy: could you elaborate on that? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I think there are probably several reasons... some good and some not so good. The most important is that it clearly does not enjoy enough consensus to be promoted. This is both one of the most quoted and one of the most contentious guidelines in Wikipedia.  Everyone agrees with the idea of requireling reliable sources, but few people agree on what constitutes a "reliable source".  The guideline has been written and re-written multiple times (I have participated in at least three complete revisions) ... and each version generates heated opposition.
 * Some people want the guideline to reflect the idea that reliability is not alwasy clear cut, that some sources are more reliable and others are less reliable, and that the acceptability of the source often depends on context. (which is unsatifying as it does not help solve content disputes). Others want it to be a clear cut, black and white list... "this source is reliable" ... "that source isn't reliable" (which inevitabley ends up making the guideline an unmanagable list of POV examples and counter examples).
 * Then there is a vocal group of long time editors who feel it should not even be a guidline, much less a policy. There is probably some institutional annimosity involved in this... WP:RS started as a POV fork of the WP:V policy, and there have been those who think it never should have been created in the first place... and that it should be demoted or subsumed back into WP:V.
 * I suspect that any attempt to promote it would end up being shot down quickly. Blueboar 17:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, as far as I am concerned, we should try to concentrate on the bottom line: content creators need a definition of what reliable is, or otherwise we can delete the entire guideline, and maybe even WP:V along with it. I like recent changes, related to WP:ATT, which clarified some aspects of reliability (blogs, newspapers, usenet), and I like the examples page and this noticeboard which help with some specific cases. As a (primarily) content creator I had been involved in enough discussions about what is reliable and what is not to know that we need as clear definitions as possible (and yes, of course, there will always be murky borders and exceptions, but we need to strive to reduce them as much as possible).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem as I see it is even University of Chicago Press puts out what appear to be vanity books (The Gold Leaf Lady and Other Parapsychological Investigations for example). Now if a university press the platinum of V does this then there are going to be problems with any source.  Especially when you have publishing companies so big that different divisions have different quality issues.  Just because the For Dummies books are printed through a branch of Wiley doesn't mean they are scholarly.
 * Another issue is the possibility of COI on the part of the source. For example look at Cambridge and Oxford University Presses who have the rights to publish the Authorized King James Bible that is held under perpetual Crown copyright.  Now the Queen (or King) is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.  Clearly because they would likely continue to have the prestige and money their monopoly give them (Cambridge having gained control of the Queen's Printer in 1990) neither is going to challenge Church of England belief and risk losing that contract.  It would be like expecting the Pontificia Università Lateranense press to challenge the Pope on a key Roman Catholic belief(like abortion); it just isn't going to happen.
 * With all these problems is it any wonder the isn't a hard a fast rule on what is reliable?--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree in concept... I just don't know if you will ever be able to get a stable page (Policy or guideline) on this... I don't think the Wikipedia community has a consensus for what is reliable. What they do have are several competing, overlaping but ultimately vague concepts of reliability... all wrapped up in a general agreement that they want sources to be reliable.  I am beginning to think that each project/subject area needs its own quideline to define what is reliable for articles within that project/subject.  Blueboar 00:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I definetly agree that increasingly going into details is needed (I just love the 'Generally acceptable sources' and 'Generally unacceptable sources' sections originally developed for ATT/FAQ); that said I haven't seen much contradictory ideas. Controversy may lie in some wordings, particularly related to exceptions, generalizations and such, but I think everyone agrees with the general principles that modern academic sources are the most reliable, and the father you get away from both of those adjectives, the less reliable a source is.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well... feel free to edit. But don't be surprised by the reaction. Blueboar 15:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well... I am content with the current look of WP:RS. Of course, it can be improved, but I want to see if the current version will prove more or less stable.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Automatic archiving?
What makes more sense here, 7 or 30 days? ←BenB4 18:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * For now, 30 should be enough. I guess the same for WP:FTN, too.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ &larr;BenB4 19:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Tnx.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Debate over RS issues
On the talk page of the Barbara Schwarz article there is a discussion over the Abusive Hosts Blocking List as a reliable source. It says about itself: “This page is a collection of resources and opinions others  have  posted on the web about Barbara Schwarz, as well as information she provided  herself either via newspapers, court documents, or Usenet. As such, each item is up to the reader to decide how accurate it is, and draw  their own conclusions.” To me, that sounds like it is saying itself that it does not try to be a reliable source. (p.s. Sorry if this is not the right place to bring this up.) Steve Dufour 05:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It has a declared and very evident bias against her, referring to her as a "kook". Deserved though it may be, I do not see how it can be used as a direct source. If it links to court filings and postings, they can be used as justified in the ordinary way. It's not as if there were insufficients RSs for an article without this. DGG (talk) 09:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed template change
I'm proposing an additional category in the Template:Editabuselinks to reduce the number of posts at WP:AN and WP:AN/I, please feel free to comment here User:Mbisanz/TemplateSandbox.  MBisanz  talk 13:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

`Reliable' source(s)
208.102.152.142 (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Dear article editor/author, I am new to wikipedia discussion (not usage of articles) and perhaps this information is posted elsewhere on the site, but I have questions regarding `reliable' sources. I ask my questions because I may be interested in the editorial process of articles. 1. Who is an ultimate, unimpeachable, `reliable' source ? Is there a list ? 2. Is the President of the United States of America (or his immediate administration) considered an ultimate, unimpeachable, `reliable' source ? 3. Who affiliated with wikipedia has the ultimate authority to decide the questions above ? 4. Why does wikipedia allow posts of potential influence on articles to be anonymous ? 5. Do the editors (and/or authors) have the same priveledge of anonymity ? Thanks for your time, Greg Kramer 3116 Libra Lane Cincinnati, Ohio 45251 USA
 * Dear Greg. You can find out more at the verifiability policy and the reliable sources guideline. To answer your question 1, no there is no list. The appropriate sources differ depending on whether the article is about history, science, popular culture etc. 2, depends on what the article is about. If the article is about the US government then official US documents are a good source but not the only good source. For example, a book by an unaffiliated expert in political science from another country might be a better source for some details. If the article is about solar power then the President of the USA is not an appropriate source - nor is the President of France - we are looking for books and papers by scientists and technologists. We don't use a principle of ultimate authority but try to get consensus. Did you have a particular concern? If so we would be interested to hear it. If there is something you would like to improve in the encyclopedia, please go ahead. It is very easy to edit. Also, you can easily set up an account, either anonymously or not as you choose. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Problem
There has been a big problem with this page, starting which this edit here which deleted a lot of posts. Haemo tried to fix it but did not restore all the post for some reason. I have tried again but have been reverted. I will begin again, but patience and/help gratefully received!! --Slp1 (talk) 01:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I have fixed things, but would welcome anybody who cares to check!! --Slp1 (talk) 02:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

This place is getting cluttered.
People keep posting multiple threads for the same articles, which is a waste of space and a waste of people's time.

Therefore, I propose that the lead contain the following:

I could create a template to make this easier:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenwhat (talk • contribs) 27 January 2008
 * This page is up to 533 K, even *after* User:Relata refero's emergency archiving job. For a noticeboard, 533K is gigantic. (60K is considered large for an article). I reduced the bot archiving timeout from 28 days down to 14 days. This is still quit a long timeout. Compare:
 * ANI: 1 day
 * AN:  2  days
 * AE:   3 days
 * COIN: 10 days
 * BON: 14 days
 * BLP: 15 days
 * FTN: 30 days
 * If you disagree with a 14 day timeout (each thread will be archived 14 days after the last signed comment) then please comment here. EdJohnston (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ed, your change will make things worse. The problem is not that the page is too large. The problem is that people keep re-posting new threads for the SAME topics and the SAME articles. There's at least half a dozen sections on Islam-related articles. This makes it ridiculous to have to pick through. Your proposal just makes WP:RSN smaller which doesn't solve the problem, since people are still going to keep doing the same thing they're doing, which means that the good stuff on WP:RSN is going to be buried under the same unnecessary threads about the same topics. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Has any thought been given to using the resolved template more widely? On today's noticeboard I see that only 7 out of 74 issues are marked 'resolved,' and none of those templates give a reason for resolving or the name of the person resolving. Use of the resolved template, though it may sometimes be contested, does make people pay attention to whether any progress has been made.
 * I was a participant in the transcripts thread, that went on way too long. It might have been closed earlier if anyone had felt confident enough to do so. Does anyone want to volunteer as an RSN patroller and serve as Mr. Heavy for closing things that are inappropriate?  Naturally this takes consensus, but even having someone who would *attempt* to close threads would be useful. Some issues could be pushed onto individual users' talk pages if they go on too long. EdJohnston (talk) 23:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to, Ed. I didn't know there was such a thing as an "RS patroller." WP:FTN seems to be in similar shape.

I had an idea: Somebody should create a "daily digest" of the stuff posted here and on WP:FTN that is then syndicated across Wikipedia on userpages of people who want to keep track of it -- the kinds of people that care about Wikipedia accuracy (in other words, not these people). My first thought was to create a script to automatically cut and paste thread titles, but seeing how as people keep re-posting the same crap, I had another idea: We make a "FRINGE\BAD SOURCES signpost" which is edited manually, daily.

That would streamline things a lot better around here, instead of having so many people bring content disputes here and so poorly frame debates to the point that it's practically pointless to even read half the comments that are post here, since you have to inevitably read the full talkpage of the article they're describing anyway. One or two good editors picking through it daily could save a lot of people a lot of time, and allow us to more effectively fight the fringe. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are willing to leave the 14-day timeout in place, that may clear out about half the contents of the noticeboard in the next bot archiving run. After we take a look at what items are left, we might be able to make a plan to keep threads from growing excessively in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 01:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ed, you're shrinking the noticeboard, which I find to be absurd. The problem isn't that it's too large. Again, please stop doing this without seeking some kind of consensus. The problem is that people keep re-posting the same stuff. It's GREAT that stuff stays up for 28 days, because then it gives people more of an opportunity to look at a broad array for WP:RS problems. I know that a lot of folks think WP:RS should be ignored, downgraded, or merged into WP:V. If you're one of those, I please ask that you cut it out. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC) See note below. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 15:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Zen, you must have fallen behind on recent events. I didn't remove anything from the noticeboard, and you reverted my reduction of the timeout. Inactive threads are still going to be kept, preserved in amber, for 28 days. Some other people also expressed the view that 500K was too large for the noticeboard, and they did some manual archiving. EdJohnston (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, sorry. Being a dick. I saw how WP:RSN was still so small and falsely assumed somebody restored the 14d thing.

Yes, and you're right. I guess it is too large, since WP:ANI is only about half the size that WP:RSN was.

Still, Ed, what do you think about having WP:RSN and WP:FTN clerks, which keep this place tidy? I mean based on what I said above: If users keep re-posting threads over and over on the same topics, a clerk could just move them all into one sections... If stuff is resolved, they could note that, etc.. &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 15:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The term 'clerk' may inspire resistance, and refactoring is controversial. I'm just suggesting that any random volunteers could join threads that appear to meander and try to get the participants to focus on getting a result. Adding 'resolved' may sometimes do the trick. EdJohnston (talk) 15:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ed, is it OK with you to add the sentence in quotes above, to the lead? &#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Archiving needed?
The noticeboard has grown again. From a reasonable size of 105 kb on 28 January it has mushroomed up to 419 kb today. Either the same kind souls as before might do some manual archiving, or we can consider reducing the bot timeout (still at 28 days, but it should perhaps be 21, or even 14 days). EdJohnston (talk) 06:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Lets see where 21 days takes us.  MBisanz  talk 06:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I changed the archiving timeout to 21 days, since there were no objections. EdJohnston (talk) 14:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * MiszaBot made a run last night, and copied nine items into Archive_4, but for some reason didn't delete them from the Noticeboard. I manually deleted them. Also, the archive counter wasn't set right (my duh!) so I had to move the newly archived stuff from Archive_4 into Archive_7. Let's see if it goes better tonight. Noticeboard got reduced by 70K bytes (yay!) EdJohnston (talk) 14:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Magic Box?
A slight issue has been raised at Featured article candidates/Super Smash Bros. Melee about whether the Magic Box is a reliable source for giving information on video game sales. The video game wikiproject deemed it reliable here, but we thought it would be safer if there was external confirmation of its reliability, or unreliability if it turns out that way. So, any thoughts? Thanks. Ashnard Talk  Contribs  18:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 *  Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia as a Source
Is it allowed if an article cites Wikipedia as a source? -- Zachary crimsonwolf  05:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Only in articles about Wikipedia. Blueboar (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Even in an article about Wikipedia, there should probably almost never be a citation to a Wikipedia article. Or, Blueboar, were you only referring to things like Wikimedia foundation press releases? Someguy1221 (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I was referring to a bit more than just foundation press releases. If you take a look at how the article Wikipedia cites certain specific wikipedia pages (not articles) you will see what I mean.  That said, I think we are essentially saying the same thing.  One should not cite one Wikipedia article in another Wikipedia article. Blueboar (talk) 14:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Amen. Any site that "ANYONE can edit" is going to have some reliability issues [[image:face-wink.svg|25px]] -- Avi (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Can I ask here a slightly more specific question? An article about a loaction (town/city/village) makes a claim about a person in terms of where they were born or where they have lived. This is questioned, and the reply comes back that since that person's name is linked to the wikipedia article about that person, and in that article the fact is referenced, there is no need to include the reference in the article about the town/city/village. I consider that one should routinely include a reference to the fact in the town/vity/village article as well on a few grounds that can be summed up with the phrase "a wikipedia article cannot be used as a reference for a fact in another wikipedia article." Am I right? Now, is there any difference if the fact is not one about a person, but about something else? I consider there isn't. I think I may be correct here, but I'd like some comments in case I am not. Is there anything explicitly in any guidelines about this as I have seen an increasing number of similar issues crop up over the past few months. Thanks. DDStretch   (talk)  00:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If I understand your question, then yes, you are correct and a Wikipedia article should never be used as a reference in another Wikipedia article. If someone is claiming they got a statement from another article that is referenced, then that reference should be confirmed then included with the statement in the second article. Wikipedia articles are never considered a reliable source for Wikipedia articles (the irony does amuse). AnmaFinotera (talk) 12:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * And yet I've been told not to put something in because it is in an article with a Wikipedia link. So maybe we shouldn't link? :-)Doug Weller (talk) 13:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Make a chart or list of previously discussed sources as part of this article?
In visiting here before I noticed discussion of a couple of sources I've wondered about - and have a feeling there are a bunch more if one looks at the archive. To avoid duplication (which has happened anyway, as one entry notes) - or unanswered questions when people don't feel like a rehash - why not create a separate page here called [/index] or something that looks like this. (Listing only actual debateable sources, not general discussions or truly nutty stuff.):

(Instructions: Add mediation issue and status to the table by copying the bottom template.) - 22:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}


 * We need something like that. The Skeptics Dictionary is another one which keeps coming up.Doug Weller (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

UPDATED FORMAT: What do you think? (Note: This from Archive #1) (Also note that this has been discussed more at [[Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Make_an_index.2C_chart_or_list_of_previously_discussed_sources_as_part_of_this_article.3F| Talk reliable sources.) - -


 * ALPHABETICAL LIST OF PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED SOURCES AND ISSUES
 * (Instructions: Once discussions have been archived, add new source and status to the table in the same format, in alphabetical order.)

- SPECIFIC SOURCES and LINK(S) TO DISCUSSIONS


 * Al-Jazeera Video: #1


 * FAIRLDS.org: #1


 * Mikhail Meltyukhov: #1


 * Salon as source controversial BLP: #1


 * Tommy2.net: #1


 * University Teachers for Human Rights: #1

-

GENERAL ISSUES and LINK(S) TO DISCUSSIONS
 * Academic works untranslated to English: #1
 * Forums and other user-edited sources: #1


 * Mirrors of Reliable Sources: #1


 * Heavy reliance on web sources: #1


 * Published appellate court opinion in articles not about that legal case: #1


 * Published conference proceedings: #1


 * Reliable sources reproduced on personal blogs: #1

- - Carol Moore 15:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
 * WP:RS vs. Other WP policies: #1

Time to archive again
I would do so myself... but I am not very good at achiving... would someone please attend to this. Blueboar (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments if possible?
I've had a query about the state of referencing in Miss Universe 2008 on here since June 2, that as yet has gone unanswered. Could anyone spare some time to look into it and offer an opinion? Thanks. PageantUpdater talk • contribs  12:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Archival time
This noticeboard has gotten really long... Perhaps, as mentioned above, a decrease of the archival time from 21 days to 14 days would not be a bad idea. I'm thinking that even 7 days would not be inappropriate, but definitely advocate for a shorter time span.

Thoughts? --Izno (talk) 07:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Important query, getting no response
I left a query here and is getting no response. These sources are being used in a FA candidate and the process is getting sluggish. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 08:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Added question. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 02:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

"user submitted" source / site
EDIT: I moved my question onto the main page Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Resolved tag instructions
The RSN header instructions read:


 * "Editors can post questions here about whether given sources are reliable, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer. Please post new topics in a new section. If you are satisfied with a response, please tag your thread at the top with ."

I posted an RSN question, I was satisfied with the response, and I posted a tag. Another editor removed my tag.

Do I have a right to express my satisfaction by following the instructions? What should I or someone else do about this? Milo 21:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't worry about it - it's not worth escalating tensions by insisting on the resolved tag. Most editors don't even bother adding the tag - it's a convenience to responders, but it's not a formal "close" to a discussion like with an AfD. Since that section already has a note stating it's been moved to the article talk page, it's not likely there will be new comments added there unless the question is re-opened with a specific new request.  --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should simply remove the instruction to tag resolved issues... most people don't bother, and we don't want people to think that a "resolved" tag means that there was some sort of "official" ruling. Blueboar (talk) 16:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea. This noticeboard does not make formal rulings so there should be no implication that has occurred. I've removed the sentence from the intro. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

About.com
No action needed here, I just wanted to share this link in which User:Tvoz saved everyone a trip to this noticeboard by doing a thorough and excellent job of debunking a specific about.com article that was suggested as a possible source on Barack Obama. I do not have a feel for how often about.com appears on WP:RSN, and whether or not it is automatically regarded as generally non-reliable (which would be my personal instinct) as it appears to be user submitted content with little or no oversight. Anyway, thanks for reading and I hope that Tvoz's work helps this noticeboard is some way. cheers, --guyzero | talk 22:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've found about.com to be completely unreliable. Dlabtot (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Coming in late, it depends upon the author. The archaeology bit is great and accurate. I'd say though it would depend upon the reputation of the author, if they are a recognised expert, they could probably be used. As a general source, I agree it isn't automatically RS. Dougweller (talk) 08:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Commercial Airline Crash Article Subject to Naive and Deliberately Misleading Editing
Hi - For the past year and a half, I have infrequently updated information on the crash of OG269 in Phuket, Thailand. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-Two-GO_Airlines_Flight_269. I am an engineer and have a background in aviation.

I can't claim to be objective, as my brother was killed. I can claim to be a relative expert in the material, as I am responsible for making widely available almost all of the factual information publicly available on the crash, including for examples, the black box information and proof of excessive flight hours by the pilots. An Australian news crew proved the Thai Civil Aviation Authority knew of falsified flight hour information given to crash investigators, including the NTSB.

My frustration is that the article on OG269 is regularly edited by people attempting to spin the information to give the appearance that the crash was caused by wind shear or some other act of God. (It wasn't.) Some of the edits appear to be done by the airline's owner Udom Tantiprasongchai, others by people with an interest in promoting Thailand for one reason or another. I'm sure some of the edits are made by people who want to have a hand in editing an article, yet apparently don't know enough about aviation or aviation systems. For example, one recent editor re-applied wind shear to the information claiming "wind shear *was* a factor, even if only indirectly". Yes, 2 seconds before hitting the embankment, with no throttles and after 15 seconds without anyone piloting the aircraft, the MD-82 encountered wind shear. It also probably stuck a few bugs. Hopefully, you see my point. Wind shear has no business being in the summary of the crash, except possibly to note that the Thai Civil Aviation Authority, the DCA, tried to blame wind shear well after they had access to the black box information.

As the primary source for encyclopedic information, I am asking Wikipedia's assistance in maintaining a high standard on this serious and significant subject.

Thank you in advance for your assistance. Bonnie Rind http://www.InvestigateUdom.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by InvestigateUdom (talk • contribs) 20:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This page is intended for discussion of the the reliable sources noticeboard. If you have a question about a source, it should be posted there. (BTW, http://www.InvestigateUdom.com is definitely not a WP:RS) But perhaps what you are really looking for is dispute resolution. Dlabtot (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The conflict of interest issue should be posted on the conflict of interest noticeboard. Dlabtot (talk) 20:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Foreign sources
If you can't read a website and it looks unreliable, but John Doe ,who can read it, says it's reliable, what should we ask Mr. Doe to provide to show that it is reliable? You could AGF, but a lot wikipedians aren't really clear on what's reliable or not. Asking in regard to this question, but also in general. I haven't seen a good essay or guideline that talks to this issue. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would start by asking the same questions we would ask about an iffy website in English... who is the author of the website? What are his/her qualifications?  In other words, why should we consider the website reliable?  If you can not simply assume good faith, and accept a user's word for it, then ask for a second opinion. Start by asking here at RSN. Then try asking at the Help Desk, asking at the Village Pump or filing an RfC. It may take a little bit of time, but you will probably get an answer eventually.  Unless the website is in a very obscure language, chances are someone in Wikipedia can read it.  Blueboar (talk) 12:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Honestly, my opinion is that we should try to avoid non-English web sites as much as reasonably possible. Even if the site is reliable, if other editors can't read the language, there's no way for them to know for sure what it's actually saying.  There's also the issue that if readers follow the cite, there's a good chance they won't be able to read it either.  Finally, what I always say is that if you're having trouble finding a source in English, that's usually a good sign that it's something that shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think the fact that if "readers follow the cite, there's a good chance they won't be able to read it" is a valid issue... as long as someone can read it, it is Verifiable. We do not require instant verification by every reader.  Just as reader might have to travel to a distant library to verify something written in a relatively rare book, they might have to find someone to translate a source that is written in a foreign language.  The point is that the information can by verified, and the reliability of the source evaluated... eventually. Blueboar (talk) 13:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * A Quest FOR Knowledge wrote "Finally, what I always say is that if you're having trouble finding a source in English, that's usually a good sign that it's something that shouldn't be included in Wikipedia." True, but if the topic of the article is a person, place, or thing in a non-English-speaking country, it's quite possible that the best sources will be in a foreign language, and we should be citing the best sources we can. Of course, if a good English source is available, we could cite that too. --Jc3s5h (talk) 13:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I think the policy of allowing foreign sources is being abused to promote fringe theories. I direct your attention to our article on Yukihisa Fujita.  Almost the entire article is about his alleged support of 9/11 conspiracy theories.  There's virtually nothing regarding his legislative accomplishments, family and personal life, political positions, etc..  Since all the cited references are in Japanese, there's no way for me to verify the information is even correct.  Since Fujita is a living person, there are possible WP:BIO issues, but there's no way for me to check.  If it wasn't for his alleged relationship 9/11 conspiracy theories, I doubt this article would even exist. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like a good candidate for deletion. As to the broader questions, there is this. Dlabtot (talk) 01:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Most media have a tendency to follow the respective national mainstream, or government guidance, of their respective countries. This is also true for English media. Here is an example from C-SPAN. English sources are preferable to foreign language sources, if they are equally reliable and if they are pertinent with regard to the information that is being presented. --Cs32en (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Spirit of Metal or Metal Archives.
Any chance of getting, and/or added as a citable source? We really need a definitive decision on metal music and I find that these 2 sites best document the genre. It gets out of hand when people have to quote a source from "Allmusicguide" when often their view concerning metal music is appalling. So it would be nice to have a proper Metal website to quote sources from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThePerfectVirus (talk • contribs) 20:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look good. Can you find an about page that lists their employees (like editors, hopefully) and what they do?  Also, check google news and books to see if reliable sources use them for information. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We seem to be getting a lot of questions as to what constitutes reliable sources for this topic (metal music)... It may be something that needs to be ironed out at the Project level (ie by those who know the sources and their reputations). Blueboar (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We base our judgements about sources on whether or not they meet WP:RS. If you can only find the citations you are looking for in sources that don't, then those citations don't belong on WP. It makes sense that a fan website would cover a lot of stuff that never makes it into published reliable sources. Dlabtot (talk) 18:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above editor that this should perhaps be taken to a project level, but ultimately the bottom line is WP:RS. The difference between Allmusic and MusicMight is that their content has been commercially published by third-party sources, whereas Metal Archives and Spirit of Metal have not, irrespective of whether they are more "accurate" (in the eyes of any given editor). Neither of the latter sites have a professional editorial staff, unlike the former (although recent changes to the MusicMight submissions policy need to be looked into). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 07:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Can't find the archive
I can't find the archive containing: Perhaps I've only missed it. Can someone point me to the right archive?
 * this section

--Pjacobi (talk) 09:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It's here. Extremepro (talk) 09:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Gallipoli
Two sources state that the calvary sent to the Byzantine Empire was made up of Cumans.

Vasary, Istvan, Cumans and Tatars, Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Bartusis, Mark C., The Late Byzantine Army, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1997. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I have found a neutral source clearly stating "SERBIAN" cavalry. Its in english. Here you go.

http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/pdfs/oikonomides.pdf -- anon ip

Which source or sources should be used? --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that the link is a reliable source. Who published that paper?  Anyway, if two reliable sources contradict, you say something like, "Vasary, in The Late Byzantine Army, states that the calvary was Cuman.  Oikonomides, however, in his published paper, says that they were Serbians." Cla68 (talk) 23:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure who published the paper. It was linked by an Anon IP. I'm curious as to how much weight to give such a source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nicolas Oikonomides (1934-2000) was formerly Professor in the Department of History, University of Athens, Greece. Oikonomides' main areas of interest were the Byzantine Church and State, the Balkans, and the Slavs. Meowy 15:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say that the author can be considered an expert... but the PDF seems to be part of a larger work and for a proper citation we would need to know that. Assuming we can find this information, I think Cla68 has the right approach. Blueboar (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * From the source website, and Amazon, it's from "The Ottoman Emirate, 1300-1389: Halcyon days in Crete I: a symposium held in Rethymnon, 11-13 January 1991", Crete University Press, 1993. Meowy 18:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good find... it certainly seems reliable.  Blueboar (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

How can we encourage editors to provide context?
I enjoy investigating and discussing sourcing issues, but it can be like pulling teeth to find out what source, used in what citation in what article. Editors seem to want to phrase their questions in the broadest and most hypothetical terms, but we have to deal with specific citations in context, and usually can't provide the all-encompassing answers they are looking for. How can we encourage better questions? I added this awhile back, but it doesn't seem to have had any effect. Comments, suggestions? Dlabtot (talk) 00:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * How about reformatting Dlabtot's change so that the three whats are in bullet points or in numbered list? That may draw more attention to them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * For example:
 * Editors can post questions here about whether given sources are reliable, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer. The reliability of sourcing is heavily dependent upon context, so please include the following:
 * The source in question
 * The article in which it is being cited
 * Links to any relevant talk page discussions or article diffs.
 * A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, we could start with requiring an IQ test to every editor and all who score below 120 are blocked. That would probably be the only way to stop every stupid question here. There's also electroshock therapy, but that would be harder to set up with every user's computer. Throw a "I am illiterate" template on the user page of any user who cant read instructions and follow them? I know they are all silly solutions (except the first one, oh there have been MANY times I've really wished that was how wikipedia worked), but really if editors come here, and dont bother to read the instructions on what this noticeboard is for and how it is best to get help and how to frame a question there is nothing more you can do than what you already posted. Unless perhaps we all agree any "overly broad" question is ignored except to inform the user: "Please restate your question with specifics on the three whats- what source, what citation, and what article; we can only help in specific actual cases and do not delve into the hypothetical." Unless we stick to our guns and refuse help on hypotheticals they'll keep coming.Camelbinky (talk) 02:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The last suggestion sounds good, requiring the 3 whats.
 * Remember that lots of text at the top of the page is an invitation for people's eyes to glaze over, so if there are key things to note, they should be highlighted in a brief form in some way at the top (e.g. big font or red frame). --Chriswaterguy talk 07:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If we all agree that the 3 whats are absolutely required in most cases, then we could simply have a template saying something like "Your question cannot be discussed properly because you have forgotten to mention one or more of the following details which are necessary to provide context: ... Please note that you are unlikely to get high-quality answers from experienced editors before these details are provided." Seeing that every second section has this standard text, editors will soon devise strategies for avoiding it. The easiest strategy is to give the details. Hans Adler 17:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait, are the 3 W's really correct? It seems to me that what's most important is the source and the claim.  Maybe we need 4 Ws? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Restoring noticeboard
I came here to ask a question and noticed that the noticeboard was messed up. I looked at the history and it happened in one of Qp10qp's edits. Maybe his or her browser is glitching?

I restored it to the last clean version and then manually restored each comment since it got messed up. If anyone knows of a better way to fix it in the future, please let me know. Thanks. JCDenton2052 (talk) 15:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

MusicMight
I've moved this question to Reliable_sources/Noticeboard where it's more likely to get a better response. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Material pasted in from ANI
What should we do about the long discussion pasted in from the administrator's noticeboard about TMZ's reporting on Michael Jackson? Here's the edit in question:. Should we push all of that discussion into a window or italicize it? Or, since I don't think anybody on RSN responded to it, maybe we should just remove it entirely. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am thinking that we should shrink/hide it with a note as to the topic and a comment that it was posted as an FYI copy of a very long discussion at ANI. That way people can read it if they want, but it does not take up a lot of space for those who don't. Blueboar (talk) 23:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like it got swept into the archive a few days ago. I just hope people don't start pointing to it as an RSN discussion.  Some on the deletionist side essentially wanted to ban TMZ unless IAR was invoked.  Which I think is ridiculous; despite TMZ's silly TV show they've often been the first to report news out of Hollywood, and get it right.  I agree with Bugs in that the proposed exclusion of TMZ was simply a "lazy way" to keep trivia out of articles. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

When does a section become long enough that we can move it someplace else?
This is directed at the MLM discussion above. WT:RSN is a low-volume talk page. Is there someplace more appropriate for that long debate about self-published experts? In general even the MLM discussions on the main RSN page should probably be taken to an RFC or third opinion noticeboard. The regulars of RSN aren't able to respond to or follow all of these. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What's needed is some 3rd parties to contribute to the conversation here and help resolve the issue! At present it's pretty much still just the parties involved in the dispute. To try and get the issue resolved I broke out 2 specific examples to hopefully get some 3rd party comment and there's been zero response at all. The issues seems resoundingly simple to me, so I'm unsure why nobody is helping out (though I do have a theory ...)?--Insider201283 (talk) 14:06, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * But you guys have been going back and forth all day and the section is already pages long. RSN just doesn't work that fast, and the talk page much less so.  Debates here generally take about a week. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll endeavour not to respond to them anymore :) In the meantime, how about you have a look at the case and see if you can contribute? :) --Insider201283 (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Using References in Google News as Proof of Reputation
I want to make a *minor* point apart from any current discussions. I've seen editors use the number of hits in Google News as one of the ways in which we determine something is reliable. While there may be some value in that, it should be noted that Google News doesn't use our WP:RS and they include sites and articles that are not generally considered WP:RS on Wikipedia (OpEdNews.com and worldnetdaily.com for example). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite so. More appropriate would be to use google news to find instances where other, established third-party reliable sources cite the source. That is an indication of a reputation for reliability. Dlabtot (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The number of hits on google news might indicate that something is notable (or at least has notariety, which I think is a slightly different thing), but I don't think they anything to do with whether it is reliable. You have to look at what the sources on the hits actually say to determine that. Blueboar (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've seen many editors using "hit counts" to bolster their "arguments" not just from google news, but also from Google Books and a Google search itself (or Yahoo!, Ask.com, etc.). I find this ridiculous as many times there are duplicate hits on these lists and they often include dummy sites (we all are aware of the multiple mirror sites of Wikipedia content that show up in a google search). Unless the filter on a Google books search is put on to only "Full view" there will be hits that you can not then confirm WHAT in the hit actually refers to the words you put in the search. Any argument that starts with "its notable because I got 200 hits on Google" should be taken with a grain of salt and most certainly should be looked at.Camelbinky (talk) 00:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well... I agree that we can not use search engine hits to establish notability... but they are one indication of notability. They can be often be helpful to discuss on talk pages and at AFD etc.  I would say they should not be the determining factor in a dispute, but they can be a factor, along with others (that really depends on the situation... what is being searched, etc.).  But none of this relates to the purpose of this notice board.  I can not think of a situation in which a google search would be deemed reliable.
 * It is WP's indicating the use of search engine results are admissible in arguments for/against notability that engender this sort of problem. Google searches are like the lab where you determine the result you want, then construct the search which provides it. Search results should not be allowed to be used as some sort of "objective" "votes". PetersV     TALK 02:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I know some editors are against using anectodal evidence to make a point, but I would like to mention a real event I was a party to, in order to shine light on how using thinks like hit counts from Google is not a good argument. There was an argument on an article talk page about whether a particular institution was in one community or a neighboring one. Someone did a Google Books search of "x-institution" and "y-neighborhood" and then the search with "x-institution" and "z-neighborhood" and then claimed that the institution must be in y neighborhood because it got more hits. I showed that many of those hits were duplicates and many were not in full view and therefore we couldnt see the context of the sentence (it very well could've said "x-institution is NOT in y-neighborhood" for all we know), and some of the books showing up were published years BEFORE x-institution was ever established thereby making me think something was screwy, but since they werent in the full-view mode I couldnt not check the context, and therefore a hit count was meaningless. There counter-argument (and I still dont understand it) was that Google books search and its hit counts was valid because anyone can now go to a library and look at those books, therefore it was "verifiable".Camelbinky (talk) 05:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Camelbinky is misrepresenting a very lame and lengthy discussion. The argument for 'Institution S' being in 'Community L' was that reliable sources, including the institution itself, explicitly said that it was. Google books results were a small part of the discussion, and were used to (fairly accurately, IMO) show that there was an almost total absence of reliable sources supporting Camelbinky's view. If you have a few spare hours, Talk:Siena College is where it's at. --hippo43 (talk) 05:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The number of hits returned by a particular search string in Google is indicative of the number of hits returned by a particular search string in Google and not much more. see WP:GOOGLE. Dlabtot (talk) 07:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Editors are using either 1) being indexed by Google News as an indication of reliability or 2) number of hits resulting from being indexed by Google News as an indication of reliability in at least 2 threads on the current noticeboard board. My intent in the OP was simply to point out that some of these hits are to sites that wouldn't qualify as WP:RS, however it appears from the discussion above that other editors are even more skeptical than I was.  In fairness to those two threads, this was just one of several indications of reliability. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I think we are talking about different things here. A google search is not itself a reliable source (ie we should not use a Google search as a citation).  But in a discussion as to whether something else is reliable, a google search might give us an indication that it could be.  It is but one factor amoung many that can be discussed in making such determinations.  I agree that there are limitations to using a google search to argue reliability... but I see no harm in posting the results of a google search as part of talk page discussions.  Let me give an example of where such a search might be helpful... Suppose an article includes a statement that is cited to a personal webpage.  Normally, we would not consider this a reliable source... but, if it can be determined that the author is an acknowleged expert on the topic, this webpage can be considered reliable.  A google search on the author's name might help in determining this... we can see if he has published on the topic and if other sources exist that talk about him.  Yes, we would need to look deaper (to see, for example, what these other sources actually say about him) but the google search is valuable part of the process. Blueboar (talk) 14:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with Blueboar as I have been using Google extensively to try to find good sources for some of the articles and found that you have to take extreme care on what you get out of it. As I noted over at Talk:Multi-level marketing one should be aware of the limitations of google:
 * 1) It only lists things for which there is an internet presence and not everything is.
 * 2) Google searches use text so if the information is in a format like a pdf composed of photoscans, or archived away in some compressed format (like .zip) Google will not directly see the contents.
 * 3) Many times Google searches will display the most recent version of a page so if the page is updated then odds are Google will find that version and NOT the one for several years ago. For example I used the Internet Archive of the 2002 Economic Crime Summit Conference and found two programs for the Wednesday, May 8 2002 agenda ("Impact of Advances in Computer Technology in Evidence Processing" and "Impact of Advances in Computer Technology in Evidence Processing") and then tried to google them.  Google couldn't find them!  This is because Economic Crime Summit Conference site regularly replaces its content for each new year so goggle updates its search to match the new content.  There are dozens of sites like this.
 * 4)Different parts of google will find different things. As I demonstrated with Cruz "Five causal and defining characteristics of product-based pyramid schemes" a normal google search will not find it but a google scholar search will.  I should point the "scholar" in google scholar is the biggest joke over at google.  You are as likely to get self published garbage as scholarly papers through google scholar.
 * These four facts relate to the biggest problem and misuse of Google I have seen in my time as an editor at Wikipedia--people claiming if google doesn't list it it doesn't exist. WRONG, people, very very WRONG but even an administrator has used it as justification that someone is not notable.  That is how deep this misconception has gone.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with the point about using Google News searches to try and demonstrate RS. Classic example at WT:EURO at the moment. Also, with regards to extablish notability, Google can be a useful tool, but time after time I have seen AfD discussions where editors have claimed that Google produces nothing and I have found enough references in ten minutes to improve the article and rescue it.  Google searches require a level of care and skill that unfortunately many editors don't bother to acquire. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What is really sad is I had exactly this type of experience with an administrator editor--he said he couldn't find any second part references to a person and I found 10 in less than 5 minutes. There are times when I wonder just how people are using google when they miss some of this stuff.  Google is a poweful tool but I think people look at it as the end rather than the means--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

A FAQ?
Wouldn't it be a good idea to create a FAQ for this page? That way, a person could look in the FAQ before posting a question that might have already been answered. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The idea has been floated before... and it has some merit... however, one problem that I see with a FAQ is that it can be misleading... few sources are seldom "always reliable" or "always unreliable"... reliability often depends on the context of how a given source is being used in the specific article in question. We could have three questions in a row about the same source, and determine that it is unreliable in response to two of these questions, but call it reliable in response to the third.  Blueboar (talk) 13:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also just because a source is reliable doens't mean it is useable. Horace Miner's Body Ritual among the Nacirema is a tongue in cheek scholorly paper that makes fun of the way anthropologists viewed "primitive" cultures belief in magic but as such you can't really take statements like "The holy waters are secured from the Water Temple of the community, where the priests conduct elaborate ceremonies to make the liquid ritually pure." at face value.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

When does an person become enough of an expert that we can used his self-published material?
Over at MLM page the issue of using information on self published material that was used in scholarly papers (many of them peer reviewed): Jon Taylor and Robert L FitzPatrick.

Here are the sources that use either one or both of them as reference material:

Carl, Walter J. (2002) "Organizational Legitimacy As Discursive Accomplishment in Multilevel Marketing Discourse" Organizational Communication Division of the National Communications Association conference Nov 21-24, 2002. (uses FitzPatrick's book False Profits as a reference)

Carl, Walter J. (2004) "The Interactional Business of Doing Business: Managing Legitimacy and Co-constructing Entrepreneurial Identities in E-Commerce Multilevel Marketing Discourse" Western Journal of Communication, Vol. 68.

Cruz, Joan Paola; Camilo Olaya (2008) "A System Dynamics Model for Studying the Structure of Network Marketing Organizations" Requirements of System Dynamics conference papers for the 2007 conference papers were as follows: "Papers may be submitted from January 2, 2007 to March 26, 2007 and must be in sufficient detail for the referees to judge their meaning and value. Submissions must be in English and should be 5 - 30 pages in length (there is also a maximum 2 MB electronic file size). Abstracts will not be accepted. Submission of models and other supporting materials to enable replication and aid the review process is encouraged in all cases (maximum file size 2 MB in addition to the paper). [...] All works submitted will be assigned for double blind peer review. The results, with the oversight of the program chairs, will determine whether a work will be accepted, and the presentation format for the work."

Higgs, Philip and Jane Smith (2007) Rethinking Our World Juta Academic uses MLM Watch website as well as Fitzpatrick as references. "Juta is respected as South Africa's pre-eminent academic and law publisher".

Koehn, Daryl (2001) "Ethical Issues Connected with Multi-Level Marketing Schemes" Journal of Business Ethics 29:153-160.

Pareja, Sergio, (2008) "Sales Gone Wild: Will the FTC's Business Opportunity Rule Put an End to Pyramid Marketing Schemes?" McGeorge Law Review, Vol. 39, No. 83. ("student-run, scholarly journal published on a quarterly basis" by University of the Pacific)

Terry Sandbek, Ph.D. Brain Typing: The Pseudoscience of Cold Reading American Board of Sport Psychology uses both Taylor and FitzPatrick

Woker, TA (2003) "If It Sounds Too Good to Be True It Probably Is: Pyramid Schemes and Other Related Frauds" South African Mercantile Law Journal 15: 237

Wong, Michelle. A. (2002) "China's Direct Marketing Ban: A Case Study of China's Response to Capital-Based Social Networks" Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal

Despite all this some editors will not allow me to refer to the papers referenced in these publications directly simply because they are at self-published websites run by the authors.

So I have two general questions. Can the self-published version of a peer reviewed paper reference be used directly? How much is needed to meet the "established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" criteria of Self-published sources?--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * In answer to your first question, I can't imagine why one would ever want to use a self-published version of a peer-reviewed paper. It's always better to cite the most reliable source, so assuming that the text of both the SPS and the RS make the same point, why not cite the RS?  And if an RS cannot be found to make a point, then it's questionable.  Note that even if there is no doubt that the author is an "established expert", that doesn't mean that SPS can automatically be included.  In fact, they "may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution..."  So the question that needs to be asked is, why is it so essential to cite an SPS?  Can an RS not be cited instead?  If there is a point that can only be supported with reference to an SPS, then does it need to be made at all?  How well does making the point sit with WP:UNDUE?
 * In answer to your second question, the sentence contains several criteria which must be met. First, an author must have published in reliable (non-SPS) sources, and these must be in the relevant field.  Second, the author must be an established expert on the topic of the article.  How do you judge whether someone is an established expert?  I don't think there's a single answer to that question.  Personally, I favour a source-based approach: a person is an expert if reliable sources have described him/her as such and if no reliable sources dispute it.  But there may be other approaches &mdash; some may favour a consensus among WP editors.  But in both cases, if there's any reasonable doubt about whether an author qualifies as an expert, don't include the SPS. Jakew (talk) 09:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem here is in some of the papers on the self-published websites are used directly. Sandbek who is actually in the Journal of the American Board of Sport Psychology and is a peer reviewed uses MLM Watch, VanDufff's website, MLM Survivor.com, and http://www.pyramidschemealert.org generally and his final conclusion based on them is "By its very nature, MLM is completely devoid of any scientific foundations." and this is in a peer reviewed paper!  Several other papers use urls but don't used accessed on references so you are stuck with the current version of the referenced work rather than the version that existed when the peer reviewed paper was written.
 * As for the WP:Undue the counter presented by one of the same editors that challenging these references presented authors of very questionable credentials--including one who claims his cat is his business partner!--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I'm not sure if I understand your argument. Our policies and guidelines apply to Wikipedia articles, but not (in general) to our sources.  So while we can specify the kinds of sources that we require, we cannot &mdash; and should not &mdash; dictate the kinds of sources used in turn by our sources.  We should not assume that a source is reliable solely because it is cited by a reliable source.  If you need to view URLs as they once were, you might find the Internet Archive is of some use.
 * I don't think this is really the place to explore WP:UNDUE issues in depth, but if you have concerns about appropriate weighting I would suggest raising them at WP:NPOVN. Jakew (talk) 11:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with this line of thought is that is results in the absurd situation that something that on its own is not reliable "magically" becomes reliable when used in a scholarly or peer reviewed source. There is just something wrong with that picture.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not really absurd, when you remember that reliability (in the WP sense) is largely about an expectation of quality. For example, peer-reviewed sources are considered reliable because of the review process &mdash; we expect that this review process will catch most major mistakes.  If I write a paper, that paper is not initially a reliable source.  But once it has gone through a review process, and has been published in a peer-reviewed journal, it becomes reliable.  That reliability comes not from the content of the text (it may well be exactly the same paper), but from the expectation of quality that is a product of the review process. Jakew (talk) 15:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you are misunderstanding my line of reasoning here. Let me phrase it this way: The problem with this line of thought is that is results in the absurd situation that something used to back up claim or support arguments in a scholarly or peer reviewed source "magically" becomes unreliable when directly used.  Ie the referenced material went through the peer review process in being accepted as a valid reference in support of a point in the paper and yet despite that it is some how unreliable if used directly.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand the nature of the peer-review process. Generally the purpose of this is to verify that the paper being reviewed is sane, rational, and contains sensible arguments.  The reviewers might check (in doubtful cases) that the references support the claims attributed to them, but in general the purpose of the review process is not to assess the references.
 * It's important to remember that sources in Wikipedia are somewhat different to those elsewhere. Because of Wikipedia's WP:NOR policy, we rely very heavily on the reliability of sources, and we cannot criticise them (ourselves; we can of course cite criticism in other RS).  In a typical academic paper, sources are analysed, synthesised, discussed, subjected to praise or criticism, etc.  Furthermore, the author of an RS (who we can presume to be competent in the field) can select the parts that are worth mentioning, and ignore (if necessary) the parts that aren't.  And in an extreme case, the author of an academic paper might say, for example, "So-and-so presents an interesting theory[here a website is cited] about subatomic aliens.  While endearing, this theory is erroneous, because..."  From Wikipedia's point of view, this last example is valuable, but it certainly doesn't imply that the website is a reliable source.  Instead, the value here comes from the reliable source acting as a secondary source, commenting on the (unreliable) primary source. Jakew (talk) 08:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Jakew, I think you better come over to the Talk:Christ myth theory and look at some of the antics of Akhilleus who is an administrator on the English Wikipedia because he appears to have has done exactly what you say we can't do cannot: criticize reliable sources. Pay close attention to his efforts to keep Fischer, Roland (1994) "On The Story-Telling Imperative That We Have In Mind" Anthropology of Consciousness. Dec 1994, Vol. 5, No. 4: 16 and try to explain in the light of a translations of "Christian consciousness" or "Christian municipality consciousness" depending on the translation of Die Christusmythe you use how keeping it out makes any sense especially given the quality of the some the stuff he wanted to keep in (like Grant).--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I would say that that given all the references, Jon Taylor and Robert L FitzPatrick are experts in their field. Also, if the papers on their self-publsished websites are not considered reputable then it would call into question many of the sources used throughout wikipedia, particularly on the MLM article. I would consider it far more reliable than any company released information, for example. --TheEditor22 (talk) 11:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, I have noticed one editor in particular only criticizing the use and reliability of sources when they relate to a negative aspect of MLM. IE they totally ignore blatant POV sources where the source has something positive to say about MLM. It calls into question an editors motive when they don't have a consistent approach to the wiki rules...--TheEditor22 (talk) 12:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I noticed that too and it was driving me up the walls but I am sticking to just trying to get the peer reviewed stuff in.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Bruce, that's the problem. You are NOT trying to use just peer-reviewed sources. You're trying to use self-published websites promoting a Fringe Theory and backing it up by their mention in a couple of rather weak papers. The Sandbek paper for example mentions the Taylor site purely as part of a review of websites critical of MLM! Furthermore, that paper is so badly fact-checked it claims "Multilevel Marketing (sometimes called network marketing) began in the 1980s as a new and innovative method for making money." Given Amway is currently celebrating 50 years in business you can see there's a few problems with this paper! While Taylor and FitzPatrick have managed to make their way on to FoxNews and a couple of ostensibly peer-reviewed papers, their theories have been rejected by courts across the world and have been comprehensively ignored in the mass of RS/V literature on the subject (see a growing list here). Furthermore the sites have clearly and easily proven false and misleading information on them, designed to push one POV. Given there is a large body of potential quality sources to use there is simply no justification at all for using these sites. --Insider201283 (talk) 12:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Insider, you claimed Cruz was not peer reviewed despite the fact I had already stated it was and have given a bunch of OR garbage regarding Sandbek who is also peer reviewed. Claiming WP:fringe every time someone presents peer reviewed material that shoots holes in MLMs down in a ball of flames gives the appearance of POV pushing.  Nevermind that one of the "experts" that in desperation you put forth was Kiyosaki who admits to using his cat as a business partner; if cats running businesses is not fringe I don't know what is.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Bruce, I don't believe I claimed Cruz was not peer reviewed after you did the research to show that it was, that's not true. Regarding Kiyosaki, all I did was list his book on NWM as one potential source to look it. We'd have to see what sources he uses in the book to see if it's any worth or not. I've no idea what you're babbling about with regard his cat, but clearly someone is lacking a sense of humour. Regarding Sandbek, are you seriously claiming you believe it is "garbage" when I say Sandbek is wrong that MLM began in the 1980s??????? Seriously? Finally, can you please provide me with a single article by either FitzPatrick of Taylor that has appeared in a quality peer reviewed journal? Heck, even a bad quality one will do. Again, we have an abundance of clearly legitimate sources to use, there is simply no reason for pushing for a POV self-published website. --Insider201283 (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Insider but I said "If Fitzpatrick or Taylor are unreliable on their own then they certainly don't magically become readability if they are used to support an argument (as Cruez does) in a peer reviewed report" BEFORE you said "Just a note, the Cruez article is not peer-reviewed." I responded with "Clearly you didn't bother reading up on the requirements of System Dynamics conference papers (something I did)."  Your response to that was "For someone to cite it, based only on a webpage, and have that accepted in peer review? A tragic example of poor standards."--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You are clearly distorting the context of the paper in order to present it as being inaccurate. The author was writing how the term MLM became popular during the 1980s. Before this period I believe it was known as a combination of franchise and direct marketing. That paper is factually correct. I think there is consensus that the papers on FitzPatrick & Taylor self-published website are reliable sources. I feel as if this discussion will go on indefinitely until Insider gets his way. --TheEditor22 (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you and Bruce agreeing does not make "consensus". I gave a direct quote from the article - "Multilevel Marketing (sometimes called network marketing) began in the 1980s as a new and innovative method for making money.". This is absolutely not factually correct. Furthermore, the article, an apaprent hitpiece on some sport psychology psuedoscience in a sport psychology journal (nothing to do with business) only uses the site as a series of examples of websites critical of MLM in a section critical of a specific person. The journal itself has no connection the field of business and marketing and all it does is refer to the opinions of folk like FitzPatrick with a link to nothing but the website itself (FitzPatrick, R., Taylor, J., & Perkins, S. (2000). Pyramid Scheme Alert. Available: http://www.pyramidschemealert.org.), not even a particular article. Anyone who believes that means anything found on the website is suddenly a great source for Wikipedia is frankly deluding themselves. Again I ask, we have heaps of sources to use to improve the article, why the obsession with trying to get an WP:SPS, WP:FRINGE website in?--Insider201283 (talk) 14:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Insider, I would appreciate your point about the "heaps of sources" if only you would apply the same rigorous source requirements to other areas of the article which are clearly POV, in favour of MLM. Aside from which, BruceGrubb has included peer-reviewed sources. That is more credible than a lot of the sources that you use on the MLM article. For example, I can't see how you can include the source of Kiyosaki, somebody who's business partner is a cat, and then criticize a well respected author who has references in several peer reviewed papers. You don't show consistency to your approach with regards to source criteria on wikipedia and I think that brings into question your motive for editing here. --TheEditor22 (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? You're apparently confusing me with someone else. I've done I think 2 edits on the article in the last 3 months, none of them added new facts or sources, and I've never once put anything in using Kiyosaki as a source. So what are you talking about? All I've been trying to do in recent weeks is to establish a body of quality sources, then study the sources to see what the say so we can have a well written, balanced article. If you bother to read the articles yourself, you'll find a number of the articles I've included in the sources include criticism of MLM. I'm not sure who you are talking about with regards "a well respected author who has references in several peer reviewed papers"??? Taylor? "respected" by who? If I search the most recent major work on MLM/NWM, The Rise of the New Professionals by Professor Charles King and James W Robinson - the name Taylor isn't mentioned once. This is a book written by two authors who are independent of the NWM industry, and neither Taylor nor FitzPatrick are mentioned. I've collated dozens and dozens of scholarly articles on NWM and outside of the one or two (?) articles Bruce has provided, neither Taylor nor FitzPatrick are mentioned. I'm unable to find any peer-reviewed publications by either Taylor or FitzPatrick. If there so well respected in the field, why does pretty much nobody cite them? --Insider201283 (talk) 15:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Insider has shown really poor research skills in this regard, He presents MonaVie and I quickly find Newsweek article that states that only 0.1 a percent of the distributors made commissions of more than $100 a week.  Then the laughable attempt to use Google to claim something had no validity simply because it could not be found really doesn't help his credibility any.  I have already demonstrated just how limited Google's search engine is--sometimes stuff appears on one part and not the the others.  I should mention this is by Three Rivers Press (part of Crown Publishing Group, a division of Random House) whose academic credentials we don't know.  Crown Publishing Group's own webpage is not helpful as it is unclear if you are moving between different publishing arms as you click around.  Finding things like Get the Sugar Out, The Orgasmic Diet, 99 Bible Promises for Tough Times, and dozens of others is not a good sign. Also Kiyosaki is in The Rise of the New Professionals and shows another limitation of google searches--the snippet view so we don't know how it is used. Insider fails to mention the fact this version of the book came out in 1998 and the earliest references to Taylor I have found are to a book he did with Fitzpatrick TWO YEARS AFTER THIS BOOK WAS PUBLISHED!!!  The key paper refrence was at the earliest was in 2002 some two years later.  So of course you aren't going to find him; this like looking for President Grant's memoirs in books published in 1884.  The total insanity of doing something like this just boggles the mind.


 * I should mention since one of peer reviewed Carl, Walter J. (2004) mentioned cult citing (Butterfield, 1985) which would fall under the field of Psychology. Sandbek states "Such is the case with Brain Typing. Mr. Niednagel is quick to claim a scientific basis for his product but is unable to offer any solid evidence that it is based on any scientific principles. This is not surprising when we look at the types of businesses that he has promoted in the last few decades. None of them have any direct link to applied science or scientific research. Multilevel Marketing and Positive Thinking, his two previous ventures, have no connection to findings within the scientific community."--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If someone could interpret that rant for me, it would be appreciated. I'll do my best to respond anyway. The publisher is merely one aspect of determining whether a work is reliable or not. Clearly one should also look at it's authors. The New Professionals is published by a major publishing house and it's authors are a University of Chicago Professor of Marketing and a well-credentialled author in the field of business. It's forward is written by Richard Poe, a well known journalist and author. Mr Grubb would criticise this as a source while at the same time requesting we allow self-published web sources from authors that have ZERO publications by recognized publishing houses or journals.
 * Now, I never claimed that any particular paper should or should not be mentioned, my point was regard credibility. FitzPatrick and Taylor have been active anti-MLM critics for many years - certainly well before 2000. They are not mentioned once in the work. They are also not mentioned in any of the dozens of other papers I have listed as potential sources. WP:RS clearly states - Self-published sources are largely not acceptable, though may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution, 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. I have not found any work by FitzPatrick or Taylor that has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. By contrast, both King and Robinson have numerous publications in the arena of Business and Marketing by reliable third-party publications. Yet Mr Grubb would disallow King and Robinson's book by a major publisher, yet allow Fitzpatrick and Taylor's pdfs and websites. --Insider201283 (talk) 16:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that The informant by the NW3C is not a reliable third-party publication? Taylor says he was in the Nov 2001 and Feb 2002 issues.  While we are at it, his vita states that he is a court-certified expert in federal and state courts.  It also lists him as an expert witness consultant in the Renaissance--The Tax people case.  The version I found is out of date (listing the Quixtar vs woodward case as pending) but it shows Taylor as a little more than the one lone nut Insider201283 want to portray him as.  I should mention the court-certified expert it what Insider want to used Clements despite his stuff being self published; can you say double standard?--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Bruce, now you are outright lying. I explictly stated Clements website SHOULD NOT be used. With a published cited book in the field, Clements claim to "expert" status is stronger than Taylor and FitzPatrick, but his website shouldn't be used either. Which part of "self-published sources should be avoided" don't you understand? As fot Taylor's CV ... if it's the case I believe it is, the court refused him as an expert witness in quixtar v woodward. His website is rife with ommissions like that, and that's exactly the reason why self-published sources should be avoided --Insider201283 (talk) 08:52, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Congragulation you just broke WP:Civil. You said and I quote "Please review Len Clement's Anti-MLM Zealots article] for a review of just some of the problems"  That was the first piece of Clements you provided and to date we still haven't seen anything that has been shown not to be self publised.  Arthur Rubin understood fully my issue: "not all imprints of Random House and Wiley avoid pseudo-factual books, and some may actually seek out such books" and "not all imprints from reputable publishers are reliable". I would not hold Astrology For Dummies to the same standards as Bad Astronomy: Misconceptions and Misuses Revealed, from Astrology to the Moon Landing "Hoax" simply because they both come out of Wiley which is what you are doing.  As I said we need to know the what quality of the different divisions are--not just the publisher as a whole.  I accepted that Wiley InterScience is "The leading resource for quality research" but NONE of the Wiley books are under that division.  Fire Your Therapist: Why Therapy Might Not Be Working for You and What You Can Do about It , Reconnecting: A Self-Coaching Solution to Revive Your Love Life, and Learn More Now: 10 Simple Steps to Learning Better, Smarter, and Faster are also under the Wiley imprint but how reliable are those books?--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Bruce, the lie was that you claimed I wanted to use Clement's website as a source, when on June 28 I explicitly stated -I don't think his website should be used as a source. you replied to that comment, so I know you read it. I have never once suggested using Clement's website as a source for the article. You simply are not telling the truth. The fact you do so in the middle of arguing that a self-published website should be allowed, but books from a major publisher need to be treated with caution .... well, it just goes to show your inability to maintain a sense of balance on this topic. I again state - we don't need ANY self-published websites, as there is a multitude of quality sources --Insider201283 (talk) 23:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=%22Robert+L+FitzPatrick%22&btnG=Search http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=%22Jon+M+Taylor%22+&btnG=Search http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/bizopppra2/540316-00002.pdf

You are absolutely clutching at straws here Insider. You are wrong, and you're just going to have to accept it. They are credible, notable and peer reviewed authors, and their self-published material complies with the wiki rules. --TheEditor22 (talk) 16:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You guys need to get your story straight. Bruce above rubbishes using the rather sophisticated google books internal search, and here are you claiming plain old google search proves something! But I'll humour you anyway.
 * 1. Your first search returns FitzPatrick's vanity press book, his self-published PDF on his website and .. one apparent cite from a South African law journal and a chapter in a book by a publisher so well established it's website is titled "COMPANY NAME", and whose areas of coverage are "Egyptology, New Age, Paranormal, Religion/Other, Spirituality" I can't wait to hear Bruce's opinions on that! It gives, as I stated, ZERO articles by Mr FitzPatrick published by reliable third-party publications.
 * 2. Your Taylor search gives a couple of articles by a Jon M Taylor (which doesn't appear to tbe same person) on Prison Reform, nothing on MLM, once cite in a Chinese journal, one cite in a student journal ... his self-published PDF on his website. It gives, as I stated, ZERO articles by Jon Taylor published by reliable third-party publications.
 * 3. Your third "example" is so absurd it does little more than confirm your lack of credibility here. The FTC requested comments for a proposed change to it's Business Opportunity Rule. Every single comment received was published, as required by law, including Taylor's and FitzPatricks voluminous input. I will give you one thing - it is indeed something published by a reliable party! A pity you seem ignorant of the fact the FTC rejected all of FitzPatrick's and Taylor's protestations about MLM.
 * So, I give you ONE publications from a reliable source - a letter Jon Taylor wrote to the FTC, which they were required to publish by law, and the contents of which they dismissed. Excuse my lack of self control ... but ... ROFLMAO!--Insider201283 (talk) 17:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Google book search is different from Google Scholar search, certainly in terms of credibility. Perhaps if you think they are not credible you should have google remove them from the google scholar search results. Good luck with that.--TheEditor22 (talk) 17:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * yes, google book search actually shows you what's in the book Unless you're accusing google of falsifying the content of books, I've no idea what your point is here. Are you also seriously claiming that because something shows up in "google scholar" that means it should be considered reliable?? --Insider201283 (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Google Books is of limited value with snippet views. FitzPatrick and Kiyosaki are findable in "The Rise of the New Professionals" but since we can't see the context they are in it does us little good. Furthermore if you look at all the references that use Taylor both questionable and scholarly you will notice 2002, 2004 and the occasional 2008 but nothing before 2002.  Network marketing game (1997) seems to be totally off the radar screen and even Taylor himself states he didn't start really researching MLMs in general until May of 1999.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I consider google scholar to be a joke in more ways I can count--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way: http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?cites=6926834957908545118&hl=en

Those are the articles that cite FitzPatrick.

and the following are the articles that cite Jon Taylor: http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?cites=2548238073899457325&hl=en

This is irrefutable evidence that these authors are notable. Give it up... --TheEditor22 (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ahh, no it's not. Please read WP:RS. As I outlined above, the standard here is whether they have any articles published by reputable sources, and so far they do not. WP:SPS is extremely clear that such sources should be avoided. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You are going a clever bait and switch here as there are two related but separate issues here.


 * The first is since they used in reliable sources can the referenced material be used directly.


 * The second is given they are used in reliable sources do they quality under the established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications clause. ie does referencing of their papers in support of idea in the papers quality as publishing.


 * To be fair I would not really depend on google scholar to determine notability of an author or his work--it is just too iffy for that.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Since I've recently found some incredibly fringe self-published work on Google Scholar, I strongly agree. Dougweller (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've stated posting the specific cites on the noticeboard for discussion. As I understand it, the case for "inclusion" is that they're acknowledged experts because a handful of sources have referenced them is some way, and you (BruceGrubb and Editor22) consider this means they've been "published", correct?--Insider201283 (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually no, as pointed out before you can have a lot of citations that are against the points raised in the paper. The issue comes up if they are used as support or justification for claims or conclusions in the paper.  Take Cruz using Taylor "It is considered that 99% of NMOs’ distributors lose profits because the costs associated with building the business exceed the returns." citing "Five causal and defining characteristics of product-based pyramid schemes or recruiting MLM’s" and noting it was used at the 2002 Economic Crime Summit Conference and was revised March 2006. Sadly in terms of finding information regarding the Economic Crime Summit Conference paper requirements (if any) I have not had much luck thanks due to the way the site is set up and goggle does its searches.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood me. The limited situation in which WP:SPS allows for self-published sources is if they author has had their work published in reliable 3rd party publications. So far the only even potential source given is the one 2002 Economic Crime Summit Conference, and it's doubtful. One doubtful paper does not make for an "established" expert. I thought you were trying to claim that because someone cited one of the self-published works, this meant the self-published paper work could be considered reliable. --Insider201283 (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is coming from someone who said Clements was a RS because he was a court-certified expert and yet earlier said that Taylor's claim as "recognized as a court expert" (failing to mention he is also a court-certified expert according to his vita) had no merit because of the OR statement "many courts have also refused him as an expert" and suggest we read Len Clement's Anti-MLM Zealots which when you really get down to it doesn't say much. Clement's ramble fails to mention Taylor's "questionable research" being used at the 2002 Economic Crime Summit Conference  (Taylor states it was also used in the 2004 Economic Crime Summit Conference in Dallas as well).  Every page of the three page rambling touts Clement's court-certified expert in Network Marketing at the bottom but fails to mention Taylor being used as an expert in court cases.   While Clements is limited to 2005 and earlier I should mention that Taylor claims presentation participation in 2007 ASBE Conference in "Myth or Reality--Is Multilevel marketing Really entrepreneurship" and something is really wierd about that one.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I certainly never said that everything google scholar brings up is reputable. But it's certainly more reputable than Google Books because anybody can publish a book about anything. Google scholar shows what papers have been cited, and by whom. Taylors work is cited here http://www.kolumbus.fi/petteri.haipola/verkostomarkkinointi/taylor/viisi.pdf

FitzPatrick is also cited here: The interactional business of doing business: Managing legitimacy and co-constructing entrepreneurial identities in e-commerce multilevel marketing discourse Walter J. Carl Western Journal of Communication, 1745-1027, Volume 68, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 92 – 119

If that isn't a reputable source then I don't know what is. --TheEditor22 (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Also found this book that cites FitzPatrick:

If It Sounds Too Good to Be True It Probably Is: Pyramid Schemes and Other Related Frauds

TA Woker - S. Afr. Mercantile LJ, 2003 - HeinOnline

--TheEditor22 (talk) 20:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is truly hilarious!!! Now you're providing translations of Taylor's papers and quoting them as citing Taylor's work! ROLFMAO!!! --Insider201283 (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Ahh you got me lol. But, the FitzPatrick source is credible.--TheEditor22 (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The Woker article MAY be credible. I've been unable to source a copy and Mr Grubb refuses to send me one. Could you? In any case it doesn't matter as it doesn't address the issue with regards SPS. To establish FitzPatrick and/or Taylor as experts, you need their work published in reliable 3rd party publications. That article is assumably the workd of TA Woker --Insider201283 (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

TA Woker is 3rd Party. I also found a dissertation that cited FizPatrick. And....you forgot Walter J. Carl Western Journal of Communication, 1745-1027, Volume 68, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 92 – 119

That's a pretty solid reference... --TheEditor22 (talk) 22:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Also...I'm sure you're aware of the Fox News video that features FitzPatrick. Fox News is without question a credible source.--TheEditor22 (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well THAT made me burst out loud laughing!! I have the Carl article, he just cites FitzPatrick & Reynold's self published book saying MLM has been described as ... pyramid schemes. The FP&Reynolds book is a self-published work and there are plenty of other quality sources to say MLM has been described as a pyramid scheme. In any case you're still missing the point - what's needed to consider someone "expert" enough to overcome SPS objections is their work published by 3rd party reputable sources. You keep giving other people's work.--Insider201283 (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

FitzPatrick was cited, and that's all that the wiki rules asks for. Whether or not the point has been made by other authors is irrelevant. It's a reliable source, it cited FitzPatrick...that is ALL that is necessary per wiki rules. He is an expert in his field. Also, I have mentioned two other sources. And if you dont have the article to disprove it's credibility then that's your problem. ---TheEditor22 (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * TE22, you have misunderstood WP policies and guidelines. What they clearly state is that self-published sources should be avoided. In the limited situation they can be used, it's when the author themselves have been published in reliable 3rd party sources - not that they've been cited by other sources. If there was a large body of the later then it may pose some merit, but we clearly don't have that here. --Insider201283 (talk) 09:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This is coming from someone who is claiming Berkowitz, Bill (Jan 28, 2009). "Republican Benefactor Launches Comeback". Inter press service. self-published despite that Inter press service is the “largest and most credible of all ‘alternatives’ in the world of news agencies” (Boyd-Barrett, Oliver and Rantanen, Terhi; eds. (1998) The Globalization of News. London: Sage Publication)) Sage Publication is the EXACT SAME PUBLISHER as for Grayson, Kent (1996), “Examining the Embedded Markets of Network Marketing Organizations,” Networks in Marketing (Dawn Iacobucci, ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 325 - 341 one of the references Insider201283 provided and ironicly one of the few I felt was high enough quality to allow. Inter press service "has been hailed as a viable alternative to the Big four (Associated Press, United Press International, Peuters, and Agence France Press)" Nordenstreng, Kaarle Beyond National Sovereignty: International Communications in the 1990s (Communication and Information Science) Ablex Publishing pg 237.


 * It is almost like Insider201283 has this knee jerk reaction of claiming anything he doesn't like is not a relaible source by saying is isn't peer reviewed--even if it is (as with Cruz) or that it is self published--even if it is through a news service very highly regarded (as with Berkowitz). The original quote was in Merchant of Deception and that was a self-published e-book by Scheibeler and I went looking for something that didn't have that kind of problem and thought I found it with Berkowitz.  Now Insider201283 is trying to use that as grounds that based on the merge request at Talk:Network marketing and he even provides a badly formated link so you can't even see the talk page he is refering to.  My WP:COMPETENCE regarding Insider201283 is getting stretched pretty thin here especially as User_talk:Insider201283/Archive_2 shows that editors Will Beback and DonIncognito had some WP:COI concerns with this same editor.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

 * Comment The mess above is WP:TLDR. If you can't find a paper using any of the available archives or a library then don't have the statement in the article.  It is a simple as that.  If you can supply a convenience link for material that you have verified is available in a subscription only source then you could supply that as a convenience, but the original paper should be cited.  Unpublished papers are just that - unpublished. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have NO idea what this has to do with anything--if the paper wasn't published we wouldn't be able to quote from or reference it now would we? Even self-published works are publised.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Jezhotwells. The issue is simple. Bruce wants to use a self-published POV website as a source, despite the fact there is a multitude of quality published sources to use. Well, not "wants" to, he's doing it. I've refrained from editing while it's "under discussion". There is zero reason to use the website accept to push a particular POV. It's a clear situation and I don't think Bruce is getting the nuances of what you're trying to say to him.--Insider201283 (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, the issue is simple. Insider201283 seems to be so eager go keep anything negative about MLMs out of this article that he makes knee jerk claims that defy either facts or logic. His latest piece is "Looks like I was right about it being a reposted opinion piece (which is pretty obvious reading it).  Here's the original artice on religiousdispatches.org" is a prime example.  One BIG problem, the Religion Dispatches article was February 11, 2009 while the ISP piece was Jan 28, 2009 or about two weeks AFTER the ISP piece.  So claiming it as "the original artice" (sic) makes no sense as clearly the Religion Dispatches piece is an opinionated reworking of the original ISP article and therefore has no relevance on the quality of the ISP piece.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OI! SHUT UP THE PAIR OF YOU!! This is a place to ask questions, not carry on squabbles from article talk pages.  Now you've probably been answered somewhere in the mess above.  If you are not happy got to WP:DR and choose what path to talk.  Thank you and goodbye. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * :-) Bruce, I take it from the above, and you continued addition of such sources to the article, that you are rejecting Jezhotwells advice that occasional citations do not make someone an expert re WP:SPS? --Insider201283 (talk) 09:53, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Jezhotwells is being very simplistic here. The 2002 Economic Crime Summit Conference paper DOES exist and WAS published by being read at said conference (and supposedly again at the 2004 on3 and updated in 2008) and is referenced in at least one PEER REVIEWED paper (Cruz); and an updated version of the paper is available at the original author/speakers' web site.  More importantly it is presented as a fact in the Cruz paper--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:56, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If the paper has been "updated" then it's not the same paper and we have no idea of being able to check what has been changed. It failes WP:V on that point to. Anyway, you're clearly not going to budge on this, no matter what anyone else says, so I suggest we close the discussion here and escalate to the next level.--Insider201283 (talk) 11:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Fine tuning reliable source defintion
In trying to create a table ranking of reliable sources I was struck by how we have reliable mixed in with relevant (really an WP:OR issue) in the definition. I recommended that the lead in be tweeked to the following:

This is a guideline discussing the reliability of particular types of sources. It does not deal with a source being relevant. For issues of relevancy see Verifiability and No original research, and the additional restrictions in biographies of living people.

I feel that we really need to separate reliable from relevant as a source can be reliable all the way down the line but not relevant. For example peer-reviewed anthropological journals can and have gone into interpretation regarding psychology of various peoples but depending on the journal that may be outside its field of expertise. The anthropological journal would be reliable regardless but it my not be relevant as a reference for psychology.

Anyone think this is a good idea?--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree ... relevancy is an important issue to consider when determining whether a given source is reliable for a specific statement. This is especially important when it comes to determining whether a source that, in most situations, would be considered unreliable is, in fact, reliable in a specific situation.  For example, an extremist neo-nazi rant website would not be reliable in 99.99% of the time... but is reliable for statements as to the views of neo-nazi groups. Blueboar (talk) 00:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see this. Anything so obscure you would have to go to the horse's mouth to find anything on them would have WP:NN issues.  In the example you have provided the three neo-nazi websites that met WP:NN requirements all have reliable third party references regarding their views.  The Podblanc article uses Southern Poverty Law Center, Redwatch article uses such sources as the BBC, Guardian, and several others, and Stormfront uses sources from Cambridge University Press, Rutgers University Press, Fox News, and USA Today, many others.  The only time these articles use the sites they are on is regarding a direct statements from an owner (covered by WP:BLP).  Nevermind Michigan State University Libraries provides more than enough to work with without resorting to using anything directly from the neo-nazi groups.  I know what you are trying to show but your example just shows why we need to decouple reliable from relevant because far too often it becomes a cover for the tag team of Sloppy and Lazy and often creates WP:OR issues in the process.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What about self published sources on articles about that source? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Already addressed in the chart above under self published sources and explained at WP:SPS: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable. 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. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."
 * As I have shown with both neo-nazi groups and the Taj Mahal anything important enough or around long enough is going to have something meeting one of the higher categories on it. This fits into WP:SPS's "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."  If a questionable self published source is the only source for a piece of information an editor should be asking why he is putting it in the article (WP:NN taken to the level of sources).  Now a self published source favorable referenced in a reliable third party publication is another issue.
 * Part of the reason things are a mess is WP:RS is trying to deal with the really unrelated issues of reliable and relevant. Sure they are connected but as it is now one is far too often confused for the other.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The table above only talks about SPS when they are not talking about themselves. I'm not talking about controversial neo-nazi stuff, but basic facts.  Say a company's website that lists there headquarters address in Manhattan, for instance.  Then they would be very reliable for saying "Company X is based on New York". - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually the table links you to WP:SPS for additional requirements and while it does say such sources can be used for information on themselves it does warn "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." Any company so new, small, or obsure enough that the only place you can find where the headquarters is their own website you are likely having WP:NN issues regarding it anyhow.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Reliability and relevance are entwined I think - one is useless without the other. Our goal, the sum of all human knowledge, sounds immense, but really it will come down to articles, containing facts shared between more than one or two articles. For this reason, it makes sense to me that when dispute is brought to this page, that it records the results. That result may change over time, but it makes no sense to continuously have the same debates about which source for which claim is ok or not. A long list would be fine - built slowly as requests come in and are resolved and flexible enough to allow modification as developments arise. It would be very useful for the project if indexed well. Bruce I think your table above is a pretty good starting point as a rough guide. --Joopercoopers (talk) 03:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that in the social sciences reliability and relevance are not entwined. For example, take the list of publications over at Anthrosource.  The majority if not all of those publications is reliable but depending on what the article you want to use one in they have different relevance.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how social sciences fail to intertwine the two. Would you elaborate? I take the point though that to produce NPOV articles, RS is only part of the equation - WP:WEIGHT is clearly a key consideration in terms of what material to include. I'd have thought it was obvious that sources must be relevant as well as reliable?


 * Perhaps a look at an example might be illuminating - see Ancient Egyptian race controversy. For background, the article has a 165kb talk page and is the subject of Arbcom enforced editing restrictions. (I've only just seen it as it was linked on an Arb's talk page). Clearly the article has been the subject of massive disagreement at WP. On face value, the question is simple and interesting "Were the ancient Egyptians, black skinned like their southern neighbours? Or olive skinned like their middle eastern/southern european neighbours? One would hope that scientific academia had researched the empirical evidence. (surely DNA analysis of modern populations or the melanin analysis of mummies could put this to bed? Origins_of_the_Egyptians looks interesting reading), or historiography or art academia might provide clues (Egyptian wives are apparently depicted as black, but pharoahs as pink - is this a stylistic device? or possibly embedded with other meaning? or a simple description of skin colour? etc.etc.) However, the controversy article is and should be about the controversy, not the empirical data, and that appears to fracture along Afrocentric and Eurocentric lines. So as we are not engaged in reporting truth, but in reporting other people's ideas of what truth might be, we are left with the editorial decision of how much weight to give to an argument. (Cue massive WP ill feeling.....)


 * When we come to look at how such an article is presented, we have a really thorny problem. Unless someone has written a peer-reviewed analysis of the controversy, we are left having to make judgements, from a smorgasbord of sources of varying reliability and relevance. To achieve a decent balanced article there must be some action of 'synthesis' on the part of the editors, to decide what is or is not relevant to the report of the controversy. WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT are less useful guides in this than in an article which confined itself to the accuracy of the central question - what colour were the Ancient Egyptians? --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm with Jooperscoopers here. The question wants to be focused: not simply reliable source, but reliable source of fact. Can one simply identify a source as reliable, and then accept any statement from that source? Even the Pope needs to identify when he speaks infallibly. A source might be higher on the reliability scale IN GENERAL, but I agree with Joopers: in effect the editor(s) must exercise judgement item by item.


 * I am also concerned that this discussion seems to be considering the easy items. Is a peer-reviewed journal (in general) a reliable source (for its subject)? Hmmm...that's a toughy.


 * What about non-academic subjects? What about Cooking? What about Yoga? Where are THOSE peer-reviewed journals and academic books?


 * Or non-academic experts. History: Bruce Catton, Shelby Foote, William Shier, Theodore White, William Manchester, Arthur Schlesinger, etc. There is little or no doubt as to the reliablity of these authors, whose works are generally available.


 * I bring up some of this discussion's Obvious Gaps in subject areas where I have a little dangerous knowledge.


 * Also I am concerned that there is an over-abundance of confidence being assumed in the editorial process of journals, university presses and academic publishers. I have been an editor for AAAS (Science Magazine), for Duke University Press, especially for its (at that time) 7 scholarly journals, and for the college textbook division of Science Research Associates, among other jobs. I've also had two books about India published by St Martins.


 * So I've seen several different editorial and review processes at work in multiple environments. The processes are NOT fail-safe. Often the processes are not even that careful. Believe me -- if you saw how the sausage was made (as I have), you'd make sure it was well-cooked before you ate it. --Nemonoman (talk) 13:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Just for clarity - I'm not saying that it's a desirable thing, that editors must synthesise, just that the way the present system is set up, that is the inevitable consequence - and the source of a great deal of conflict where one editor believes his synthesis is better than another's - I'd like to find a better way of dealing with it. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As to more general cases Nem, I think it would be nice to just start with getting a good understanding of the 'easier' problem of academic sourcing. Sure the peer-review process must have it's flaws, everything does, but I don't see a better alternative at the moment, so it makes sense to list them as a better source than those which have had less stringent editorial input. My point about academic works ultimately being judged by the wider academic community stands though - a peer review is only really the first stage of a process of evaluation. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I still think decoupling reliable and relevance would help to some degree. Going back to the Anthrosource list say you find three sources on the Olmecs--one in Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology, one in American Anthropologist and the third in Anthropology of Consciousness.  All three are reliable but depending on what information about the Olmecs you want they are not of equal relevance.  American Anthropologist is good for general information but Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology is likely to be more relevant because it is the more specialized journal but if the point is regarding how the Olmec might have thought and it if was part of some cultural consciousness then Anthropology of Consciousness would be more relevant than the other two.
 * Another example is Dunnel and Binford who debated in American Antiquity about style having a function with the periodic side track by Dunnel in Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory and Journal of Anthropological Research--all reliable sources. For something regarding a past culture American Antiquity would be the most relevant while Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory would be relevant if were contesting the methodology while Journal of Anthropological Research would be more relevant to a point regarding the idea as a research tool.
 * The three pillars of Wikipedia are Verifiability, No original research, and WP:NPOV but why do we effectively handle Verifiability and No original research and WP:NPOV as if they are one pillar in WP:RS? It makes no sense especially as Verifiability makes NO MENTION OF RELEVANCE as that is an No original research and/or WP:NPOV issue.   Why needlessly complicate WP:RS with stuff that really belongs to the other pillars?--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)I'm still not totally clear about this Bruce. Are you saying that someone who's written a paper about Olmec manic depression might forget about the existence of Anthropology of Consciousness and instead approach American Anthropologist? Or worse, having been turned down for publication in the former, then seek publication in the later, where the rigour of peer review is perhaps less stringent for his particular subject? That would be a problem. --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I take your second point about conflation. But really from first principles, all an editor wants to know if someone's challenged his source, is "is it ok?". Perhaps this should be the Verification notice board rather than RS, you're right. But discussion of RS in isolation of relevance seems futile to me. --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your issue with the first point is a prime example of why reliable and relevance need to be decoupled. As an anthropologist myself I can tell you right now consciousness in anthropology has a totally differently meaning than in psychology or psychiatry; in anthropology it is more along the line of Campbell's The Hero with a Thousand Faces than what is in essence would be a mental diagnosis.  Then you have what part of the Emic and etic paradigm that the article in question addresses to contend with.
 * This gets into the real issue regarding reliable and relevance; you can easily show something is reliable by documenting peer reviewing and reputable publisher/university/society regardless of your level of expertise in that field. Relevance however generally does require some degree of expertise because these journal articles are written by experts in the field for other experts in that field; they are not written for general public consumption and tend to use specialist terms that at times only other experts can understand.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Bruce... everything you say seems to be an argument for keeping reliability and relevance linked. Sure, the average Joe might cite to something that seems reliable, but is not actually relevant, but a better informed editor can question that citation, explaining on the talk page how it is not relevant... and thus not actually reliable for the given topic or statement.  Blueboar (talk) 13:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. There is tons of stuff out there that it relevant to one article or another but isn't reliable (blog, self published with no evidence of expertise in the field, etc).  If anything that problem is far more common at Wikipedia then the other.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's because relevance is but one of several considerations when determining reliability (there are others). I am not saying they are the same thing... I am saying that relevance is a part of reliability.  When you discuss the issue of a source's relevance to a topic, what you are questioning is whether the source is reliabile within a that topic.  You say that something can be relevant but not reliable... but can you think of anything that would be irrelevant but reliable?  The two concepts are linked. Blueboar (talk) 16:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) New York Times as a reliable source. --Nemonoman (talk) 16:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you have a point? Blueboar (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

As an adjunct to the reliablity and relevance question, this story seemed to me a good example. I've replaced it in the thread: it doesn't deserve its own heading. Would the NYT have been a reliable source for "rockets in a vacuum" information? Do you think they didn't have themselves a reasonable source or sources that suggested this error? I worked in the news office of Science Magazine, where reporters tried to drum up science news. Science Magazine, at the time, the primary journal of reasearch in the world. Every reasearch report and major article was peer-reviewed. So that would be good reliable source, yes? Except that in the NEWS office, the reporters could run with a single-source story, there was a grammar but not a content review of news stories under deadline, and it was up to the reporter to his/her best to assure the integrity of the reporting. Reporters would therefore add weasel words to stories. "A source confirmed that..." I doubt sincerely that the weasel words would be a matter of concern to a WP editor quoting "Science Magazine, the weekly journal of research of the American Association for the Advancement of Science." RELEVANCE is an item of concern, as it affects the reliability of individual facts. The overall reliablity of a source is practically useless information. --Nemonoman (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This remind me of the merits of the publisher problem (and I admit I have likely been guilty of it as well in the other direction) we have seen over at Christ myth theory and MLM simply because the publisher is popular or large (I go for stuff that came out of universities or by established experts). As I said before I would not put the For Dummies book in the same class as academia books simply because the two in question are published by Wiley.  The University of Chigago had engaged in vanity books, Wiley can be shown to have a vanity book division, and Random House is all over the freaking WP:RS map and yet we are asked to accept these regardless of what division it comes out of.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Archive
Could someone archive this stuff. It's got posts that are two years old. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Archive created... I have moved everything prior to this year. Blueboar (talk) 17:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * (after ec) I have set-up auto-archiving so that threads that are not edited for 60 days are archived (feel free to tweak). Abecedare (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think that will cause a problem... for example, we don't want a bot to archive the note at the top (the one that points people with specific RS issues to the noticeboard project page. Also, discussion on this page usually moves at a much slower pace than on the main noticeboard.  I am going to deactivat the auto-archiveing. Blueboar (talk) 17:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually the bot is designed not to archive the top level note. Also it will always leave at least 5 thread unarchived + the 60 day period can be made arbitrarily long + there is a searchbox to search the archived threads. However, if you still feel that automatic archiving is inadvisable, I am not going to insist either ways. Abecedare (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: This edit did not undo the auto-archiving. It only prevented the archive box from automatically detecting what archives exists and listing them. If you still wish to undo auto-archiving (which is pretty standard procedure) you should delete:

from the top of the page. You can alternatively tweak the archiving period (by changing the number 60 in "algo = old(60d)" line) or the minimum number of threads that are retained (by changing the "minthreadsleft = 5" line). I'll leave the decision upto you. Abecedare (talk) 17:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Some thoughts: Reliablity Scale and the Old Fashioned Notion of Self-Publishing.
I found this noticeboard after being sucked into this discussion.

The initiator of that discussion User:RSuser clearly wanted a finding that a "One topic publishing house" was a "Self-Published Source". What he got in response was a lot of rules, exceptions, equivocation, and in the case of my comments, sarcasm and one-liners.

Despite the mess and turbulence of the discussion RSuser politely and consistently begged for a finding that a one-topic publishing house was an SPS, specifically the one that he had in mind. His inability to receive a clear finding clearly disturbed him, and I certainly didn't help by throwing gasoline on the flames. I believed, and still believe, that his agenda was not about the reliability of the source per se, but rather about the facts being cited from that source, which facts he found objectionable.

Now I've got here, however, I have read lots of noticeboard entries, and I have some observations. I'm new here, so please don't bite the newbie. I think I want to pitch in on these important guidelines, and this is how I'm starting.

Overall, I saw in that discussion that the notion of a Self-Published Source is sort of outmoded. "Self-Publication" has become a viable and popular outlet for works whose subject matter (typically obscure, ultra-technical, or 'fringey') would make them hard for their authors publish commercially. In the comments I saw many exceptions being added to the "Self-published" definitions, so many exceptions that I no longer believe that "Self-published" is not a reasonable concern.

Despite that, RELIABILITY IS STILL A REASONABLE CONCERN. In my opinion, a clear hierarchy of Reliability began to emerge. Some factors seem to assure confidence, others increased worry.

Like the pornography definition of OW Holmes, I think, the editors seem to say: "I can't define reliable sources, but I know one when I see it." Some that inspire confidence:
 * If a source has been cited in lots of place, that seems to give it a high patina of reliability.
 * If source is published by some group that has published lots of other reliable sources (as per above), that gives the source a patina of reliability.
 * If source is written by an author who has published lots of other reliable sources (as per above), that gives the source a patina of reliability.

The above suggest why Melton and Jaenen would have a patina of reliability

If the subject is not lucky enough to have a lot of sources with the patina of reliability above, editors need to exercise more judgment. This can be dangerous as editors tend to differ:

Worrisome indications:
 * If a source is published by a publisher whose works suggest a clear agenda of some sort.
 * If a source is published by a publisher who has published nothing other than this single item, or works by the same author only.
 * If a source is published by a for-hire publisher, or published via on-demand, or web-only, etc.

Some of these worries can be reduced but not eliminated
 * If the publisher clearly makes available information about personnel, goals, publishing policies, etc.
 * Conversely, if the publisher is mysterious, that adds to the worries.

Given worrisome indications, a content review is required. Content credibility is affected by these items, or lack of these items:
 * References and citations in the work
 * Academic or other credentials of the author, and respected persons introducing, commenting, etc., in the work
 * Point of view consistent with (or notably at odds) with other works on the subject
 * Arguing for or promoting a point of view instead of presenting facts in an objective way

At a certain point a source is worrisome enough that it should be treated as if radioactive. But sadly there's a lot of gray area, as some of the comments pointed out. Nevertheless, at some point --, not well defined -- the source becomes more dark than light.

In many cases, however, I believe the guidelines found here WP:SELFPUB apply reasonably well to many worrisome sources. Material from worrisome sources could be included if:
 * 1) the material is not unduly self-serving;
 * 2) it does not involve claims about third parties;
 * 3) it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
 * 4) there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
 * 5) the article is not based primarily on such sources. --Nemonoman (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This makes a lot of sense and we also need to deal with what I call "based on the merit of the publisher". The University of Chicago Press has dabbled in vanity book publishing and really huge publishing firms have different divisions that have different criteria and reviewing methods. No source should get a free ride just because it has University of Chicago Press, Wiley, Random House, or whoever as the ultimate publisher.  Otherwise you get the ridiculous situation where a For Dummies book is presented a reliable source simply on the merit it is ultimately printed by Wiley even if it is Astrology for Dummies.


 * I would say we still need to have the recognized expert requirement.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to take exception to your saying that Wiley's "For Dummies" books are not reliable... Yes, they are written with a general audience in mind, and some are simplistic in their presentation of information, but that is not the same as saying that the information presented is unreliable. Many of them are written by respected published experts in their field of study. (And the same goes for the "Idiot's Guide" series).
 * That said... What we are trying to say in the policy isn't that all sources published by large publishing houses have universal reliability... we are trying to say that self-published sources have limited reliability. I think we all agree that a source should not be given a free ride simply because it is published by a large publishing house.  There are a host of other criteria that go into a determination of reliability.... such as the reputation of the author, and the critical reception of the source.  Blueboar (talk) 13:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Blueboar, I think we crossed a wire here as we are saying the same thing. Please note that the For Dummies book I used as an example is on a subject that would quality as WP:FRINGE.
 * I have seen experts presented as experts simply on the merits that they belong to a accredited college with no proof they even have a degree in the required subject. Take James H. Charlesworth over at Christ myth theory for example, who is a professor in Language and Literature editing a book on Archaeology using a publisher who normally doesn't do anthropology or archaeology books and whose fact checking on the books in their field can be shown to be sloppy, and who in said book is doing the Middle East equivalent of using a picture of a Sioux war chief in an article about the Navajo.  This is held to be an "expert" while a peer reviewed journal article in Anthropology of Consciousness published by the American Anthropological Association is kept out on the grounds it is "not relevant" despite the fact that Drews says "The Gospels are no historical sources in the ordinary sense of the word, but writings of believers, edifying books, literary sources of the communty’s Christian consciousness."
 * Blueboar, if you have a way to explain this level of insanity we would love to hear it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Making the WP:RS guildlines an actual guide
(remove indent)True WP:RS is a guideline but it is derived on the policy of Verifiability with a little of No original research and WP:NPOV thrown in. The problem is as a guide of telling you how to apply these three polices regarding sources WP:RS does a major fail.

Thinking over things a bit I of rewriting the lead in to the following: This is a guideline discussing the reliability of particular types of sources. Source reliability depends on all three policies of Verifiability, No original research and WP:NPOV working together.

Then we would go into each policy as it applies to source reliability. Verifiability would cover what is now Scholarship, News organizations, Self-published sources, and Extremist and fringe sources (kept in that order). No original research and WP:NPOV would apply to the rest and at the end some examples of combining all three would follow.

How does this idea sound?--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Bruce: sounds very much like the Right Track to me. You da man. --Nemonoman (talk) 12:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I understand what you mean when you say that "source reliability depends on V, OR and NPOV working together". How does NPOV or OR impact source reliability? If anything I would put it the other way around: in order for V, OR and NPOV to work together, articles must be based on RS.  Blueboar (talk) 13:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The 'Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources' section at WP:RS already references to No original research so that is a given. 'Quotations' and 'Statements of opinion' would seem to fall under No original research while 'Academic consensus' and 'Usage by other sources' seems to full under WP:NPOV. "A common type of dispute occurs when an editor asserts that a fact is both verifiable and cited, and should therefore be included.  In these types of disputes, it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutrality: it does not override it." WP:NPOV.  We might want to throw in WP:UNDUE in there as well.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:NPOV also states "Information in an article must be verifiable in the references cited. Article statements generally should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages, nor on passing comments. Passages open to interpretation should be precisely cited or avoided. A summary of extensive discussion should reflect the conclusions of the source's author(s)." Now we had this problem with a "quote" of Michael Grant we had in the Christ myth theory article; turned out the quote was in reality mostly him quoting Otto Betz's 1968 What do We Know about Jesus? (SCM-"Religious Book Publishers") and Roderic Dunkerley's 1957 Beyond the Gospel (Pelican book).  If this wasn't bad enough it was through Weidenfeld and Nicolson who academic quality we still don't know.  So what you had was a "quote" standing on the reputation of historian Michael Grant published by a publisher you didn't know anything about that was mostly him quoting two other people we didn't know from Adam by publishers that wouldn't have passed a giggle test regarding reliable.  Regarding the passage the quote came from editor Phyesalis had this to say: "Grant doesn't provide any concrete arguments or proofs - merely rhetoric. The scholars should be quoted directly and the prose should be free of weasel words."  Yet it was in there for months despite a consensus it was a bad quote because an administrator kept saying that because it was from Michael Grant it was reliable.  In terms of WP:NPOV the whole Michael Grant quote was a full fledged disaster.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that RS is an important part of each of these policies... and that all of these policies have to work together. What confuses me is that you seem to be turning the relationship inside out... Instead of saying that the polices depend on RS, your proposed language seem to be saying that the determination of RS depends on the policies.  Are you, for example, saying that in order for a source to be reliable it must be neutral or not contain OR? Blueboar (talk) 14:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The phrase quoted relates to the way citations are included in the article, and suggests how their inclusion can be POV, and then further suggests remedies. There is no practical way to determine the neutrality of a source. There are reasonably practical ways to determine the reliablity of a source. Further, many if not most reliable sources have some sort of agenda, some laudable, some not. The passion associated with a subject is what drives research into the subject, and passion is rarely neutral. In most sources, however, the reasonable editor can distinguish between facts presented and opinions being drawn. It is at that point the editor must strive to keep the article NPOV when citations are incorporated. --Nemonoman (talk) 15:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that neutrality in a source itself is an impossible task. An editor might see what he regards as possible red flags but then again he might just be putting a subconscious POV on things.  Now how a source is used is another thing.  The one thing that turns me into Frothing Mouth Lad faster than anything else is partial quotes ie one to three word quotes of an source.  Why not quote it to the first piece of punctuation or if that is too long summarize the thing?  This IMHO creates WP:UNDUE problems and those are ultimately WP:NPOV problems.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * BruceGrubb's Michael Grant problem is typical of several I've run into as well. Arguably, a quote from a reliable source. At some point however, its inclusion in the article requires editorial involvement that is NOT black and white: NPOV and Notability. To simply suggest that RELIABLE SOURCE == INCLUSION would be very wrong: yet many editors can draw this conclusion unless the RS guidelines clarify sufficiently.


 * I've been enjoying re-reading WP:NPOV, where the policy is presented in very clear and directive language, including conversational FAQs, and I wonder if a similar approach wouldn't help in this case. -Nemonoman (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree WP:NPOV is a far easier to read and understand then the way WP:RS is set up now. There is no real guide to the WP:RS guideline.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * James H. Charlesworth is another example at Christ myth theory of the problems we have with WP:RS. "No reputable scholar today questions that a Jew named Jesus son of Joseph lived; most readily admit that we now know a considerable amount about his actions and basic teachings ..." Charlesworth, James H. (ed.) (2006). Jesus and Archaeology Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
 * This source has several problems. First by his own faculty page Charlesworth is an professor in New Testament Language and Literature ie NOT Archaeology.
 * Second, Eerdmans presents themselves as "Publisher of religious books, from academic works in theology, biblical studies, religious history and reference to popular titles in spirituality, social and cultural criticism, and literature" Please note neither Archaeology or Anthropology or anything directly related them is in that list.
 * Third, it can be demonstrated by that Eerdmans' fact checking in what it does cover is not that good. For example, in Jesus Now and Then By Richard A. Burridge, Graham Gould Eerdmans Publishing easily proven false statement of "Jesus is also mentioned in the writings of the three main Roman historical writers from the end of the first century CE — Pliny, Tacitus, and Suetonus." (pg 37) to be made.  Pliny and Suetonus do NOT use the name "Jesus" and there is a lot of debate who Seutonus is actually talking about.
 * Finally, Jonathan Reed from University of La Verne in Review of Biblical Literature 10/2007: "One minor criticism must be raised: scattered throughout the book are numerous illustrations, mostly from Charlesworth’s collection, which, although at times helpful, at other times seem misplaced or could be replaced with something more appropriate. So we see, for example, a bichrome Canaanite decanter in Klassen’s article on Sidonian Greek-inscribed glass, or the excavations at Cana in Kloppenborg’s article, but none at all of the Theodotos inscription whose letters are analyzed in a way that is hard to visualize without a picture. Of course by using his own photos, Charlesworth was able to keep the cost down, so that at $50.00 for over seven hundred pages, we should be thankful." (to put this in context the Canaanites and Sidonian Greeks lived about 2000 years and several hundred miles apart from each other.)
 * So what at the end of the day you have is a expert who field appears NOT to be archaeology, editing a book on Archaeology using a publisher who normally doesn't do anthropology or archaeology books and whose fact checking on books in their field leaves much to be desired, and isn't above doing the Middle East equivalent of using a picture of a Sioux war chief in an article about the Navajo. And this is supposed to be a reliable source?!?  SAY WHAT?!?--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not include the full quote from Jonathan Reed? including:"...so that at $50.00 for over seven hundred pages, we should be thankful. This is a book suitable for upper division undergraduate courses, graduate courses, and is recommended reading for New Testament scholars interested in the ways in which archaeology is brought to bear on Jesus research." 172.169.174.154 (talk) 06:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I get the 'it's better than nothing' feel from his review. Strangely despite him being involved and even heading some digs in the Middle East he is not a professor in Archaeology but rather in Religion.  Even stranger is that in his own book Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus (by Trinity Press not exactly known as a publisher of scholarly books) he said that "...interpreting nonverbal material and symbols apart from literary text was suspect, reckoned akin to a Rorscahch test." Now given that Charlton addressed part of this issue in terms of general archaeology in his 1981 paper "Archaeology, Ethnohistory, and Ethnology: Interpretive Interfaces" Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 4 pgs 129-176 and said "The information derived from the historical site then acts as a relevant empirical data against which to test basic archaeological interpretive generalizations" this comes off as a somewhat reckless statement for an "expert" in archaeology to make.
 * This brings me to another issue--only certain people call him an "expert" in archaeology. The [Westar Institute page] says he is "A specialist in early Christianity and the sayings gospel Q..." while Harper Collins calls him a "leading authority on the archaeology of early Christianity" in one place but elsewhere says he "an expert in biblical archaeology".  So which of these three is giving us the most accurate view of his expertise especially when his other statements seem to fly in the face of earlier more general scholarly work?--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know where to put a guideline on snippetting a quote: "This movie is a monumental bore" becomes "Monumental!" etc. Verifiability, probably. There should be a sort of complete "How to do it" page...maybe I've missed it.--Nemonoman (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually that is a WP:NPOV issue per 'Neutrality and verifiability' subsection cited selectively. Verifiability is more about the quality of the source itself rather than misuse of the source.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)