Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 4

Reliable Sources
I have had trouble keeping the WorldVentures site edited. I chose sources such as Better Business Bureau, Success Magazine and Direct Selling News...and was informed that these were not suitable sources. These are, however, far more reliable and current that the sources that appear in the brief description that exists. WikiLaurent suggested me to seek help with sources - so rather than get into a pointless clicking war I truly seek so create a neutral yet fair encyclopedic entry. Crossfiregk (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)CrossFireGK

Help needed
I have submitted a problem here. Is it possible to get a bit more attention to the problem? It really needs a consensus. Aditya (talk • contribs) 18:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You had three uninvolved responses supporting you. I agree with them too, so that makes four. You won't get any better than that. Adding nonsense from such an unreliable source amounts to little more than vandalism. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Cornwallgb.com is the subject of two different threads. I count 6 editors who've voiced opinions. That's more than a lot of other questions get. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Now I've voiced an opinion too. Jayjg (talk) 03:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Itsmejudith: You shouldn't say "Adding nonsense from such an unreliable source amounts to little more than vandalism." less someone take that literally. Good faith efforts to improve an article - no matter how bad - shouldn't be called vandalism. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * And that is the only reason why I add to this thread. People apply this term ("vandalism") much too often when it isn't justified. That is a consistent problem on Wikipedia. __meco (talk) 13:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes it is. Also, cornwallgb.com is not a reliable source. Herostratus (talk) 00:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Should we create a FAQ? - Part II
A few months ago, we discussed creating a RSN FAQ. See the archived discussion here. I started creating the FAQ in my user-space: Reliable sources noticeboard FAQ. Feedback, comments, suggestions, etc. are welcome. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's a nice start, well done! --Nuujinn (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Its a great format, could include some sections on general topics like primary vs. secondary, blog content, BLP, etc.Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Sorry that I haven't had much time to work on this lately, but I'm planning to move it to project space unless anyone has any objections.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Blog "respected" by industry leader as WP:RS
Hi .. I have a question on putting some sort of sensitive information in an article ?

It relates to security vulnerability in a commercial internet product. There is an article about the issue on blog "metasploit.com" and there is a US-CERT ticket that confirms ... but this is likely to create anger from vendor of product if a "Vulnerabilities" section is added so obviously I am proceding with some caution.

Is a US-CERT ticket considered WP:RS and if so is a blog that is supported **explicitly** by such a ticket then also WP:RS ? For that matter is metasploit considered WP:RS as it seems to be "respected" by US-CERT reciprocally? 66.97.214.17 (talk) 10:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you provide links to the relevant sites? In general, I would say that CERT is reliable, but a primary source, and thus should only be used with caution. http://www.metasploit.com/ seems to me to not be a reliable source in the WP sense. Also, if the exploit has not received coverage in secondary sources, it may not be appropriate in an article about the vulnerable software. Also, exploits are very common, I'm not sure that it's worth mentioning one unless it's unusual even if it has received some coverage. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Because posting the links in WP space could be the same as "outing" the vendor/product at issue I have provided the link to an admin from the WP:OTRS team via IRC. In this way the information can pre-screened for any high risk legal issues and if they feel it is not high risk they can post the links for further discussion. I am in many ways treating this as equal to BLP since a company's reputation is somewhat at risk.
 * I am puzzled why you would identify CERT as a primary source since it functions as a report clearing house and portal for security review teams from many organizations ... and such reports in turn come from many other sources. In fact in this case it is metasploit who would be the true primary source since they are the ones who reported the issue to US-CERT.
 * I am similarly puzzled why secondary sources are needed for including of a subsection within an article. That sounds like a notability concern and AFAIK notability is only an issue with whole articles, not each item within an article. Am I misunderstanding?
 * As for the exploit, it is quite unusual in that it has been known for a number of YEARS prior to the CERT issue (I still need to find additional WP:RS cites for that assertion). The vendor has apparently not corrected the issue even though they continue to sell their product to major corporations and even some military clientele. 66.97.214.17 (talk) 05:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Interviews and book reviews
I've been searching Reliable sources Noticeboard to find out about the reliability of interviews and book reviews based on book/author and I would be interested in others editors views. How should one judge the reliability of sources based on self-published book or on a non expert interview? Blackash  have a chat 13:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In general they are no more reliable than their source. But see SELFPUB for the obvious exception. Biographies of living persons as some words of wisdom that might be generally applied in cases such as the ones that you suggest. --Bejnar (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't quite get the question since you are talking about at least different things: interviews, book review, self published material. For self published material you have the quoted links above and you are essetially stuck with the individual reputation of the author. Interviews and book reviews however are usually not self published sources, but published by a 3rd party. So in addition to the reputation of interviewed and interviewer or the the reviewer, you can consider the reputation of the publisher as well. In any case is the context probably decisive, i.e. the content that is supposed to be sourced.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I second the comments made above by Kmhkmh. Your question is unclear and overlaps several issues. If you could be more specific and provide a sample source and suggested and/or current text that would result in better feedback for you I think.-- — Keithbob • Talk  • 16:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, This is sort of what I thought I've been working a large group of references some of which center around two self published books by an non expert. Some of the refs are book reviews and some are interviews with the author because he had just published one of his books. I mainly wanted a general feeling. As I get to the refs based on the books I'll post on the main page about the ref and what it is citeding. To get each refence sorted out. Blackash   have a chat 13:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites
Please commment at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Template to tell people to use better source?
Is there a template to put on a user's talk page stating that the edit was removed because there was no source or the source wasn't reliable? Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 19:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is uw-unsourced1 uw-unsourced2 etc, but I actually went looking yesterday and I couldn't find any that specifically explains that the source that the editor used was unreliable and what that means. Siawase (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think those will do the job. Thanks. The person was reverted with the edit summary "Fake source reference". I didn't personally check it out. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 19:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A couple of other options, this one Verify credibility, you can use on a specific source. This one, Unreliable sources, you can put at the top of the article if the article is based on unreliable sources.  GB fan (talk) 20:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Spam blacklist and archieving
Someone pointed out that several threads are missing from the page archive. This is caused by spam blacklisting of the discussed sites: MiszaBot II fails. In most cases this is also an indication of the misuse of blacklisting to enforce a POV.

The reliability on Kavkaz Center was discussed recently. This prompted some over eager Meta administrator to blacklist the site. MiszaBot daily run failed for March 5 and the thread in now missing. Could someone please restore the thread. I may ask for delisting later. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Involved parties
I enjoy helping out at RSN, and have noticed in the past that some queries don't get any response -- which I hate to have happen. I typically scan the list to see if there are unanswered posts, and I suspect that others do the same. But in skipping over the posts that appear to have responses, sometimes I think that we ignore posts in which the only responses have been involved parties. This is unfortunate, since ideally this noticeboard would help resolve such situations. Would it make sense to add a guideline at the top asking that involved parties identify themselves when responding? TimidGuy (talk) 10:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a bad idea, except it's not always easy to tell. In one of the current discussions I'm involved in that suffers from this problem, some of what I would call "involved parties" are not actually involved in the edit in discussion, but "involved" in related disputes on related articles. They'd undoubtedly claim to be uninvolved when in reality they're directly defending their POV on an issue/source for involved reasons. --Icerat (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point. I wish there were some way we could keep editors from simply carrying on their dispute here rather than stepping back and giving uninvolved editors a chance to give feedback. TimidGuy (talk) 11:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * One problems is that Editor A starts a thread, but gives an incomplete or biased account of the dispute. So Editor B posts what she says is a more complete or less biased account, but which is perhaps also incomplete or biased. However Editor A disagrees, so he makes a response. Etc. As Icerat suggests, the situation can get worse when Editor C, who has previously agreed with Editor A, joins the thread to further clarify or confuse the situation. For some RfC
 * Speaking of involved parties, the fact that parties don't reveal their involvement with sources themselves is a problem. For example, if I was a friend and colleague of an author and I really wanted to use a borderline source written by that author then failing to indicate that level of involvement makes honest discussions difficult. Even worse if a group of friends and colleagues presses for a borderline source, all without disclosing their involvement. How do we solve that problem?   Will Beback    talk    19:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In my experience here, it sort of defeats the purpose of the noticeboard when several bickering editors show up and proceed to create drama. It should be possible to evaluate a source without regard to who knows whom, or what the relationship of the editors is to a topic. I was suggesting self-identifying as an involved party simply so that those of us here who want to help are able to tell when a posting has been responded to by an uninvolved party. TimidGuy (talk) 10:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's say I'm a retired college professor and I write a website about a topic related to my fields of interest. Then, using a pseudonymous username, I add my website as a source, and argue for its appropriateness. If I think many would find that inappropriate, and if it was discovered it would be embarrassing. See Wikiscanner and Mary Rosh for examples. Pushing a source or POV is advocacy. Doing it without disclosure is deceit.
 * I agree that it'd also be helpful to know who has already participated in the talk page discussion prior to the noticeboard posting.   Will Beback    talk    11:35, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

What to do about disputes that involve multiple policies?
A current discussion at WP:RSN brings up a persistent problem I think. Our policies and guidelines say that they should not be interpreted in isolation from each other. Yet our noticeboards are single issue. If, for example, a content dispute involves 3 different policies (verifiability, biographies of living people, and neutral point of view) does it make sense to have 3 separate discussions on the appropriate 3 noticeboards? Or should the editors of the other noticeboards be invited to join the original discussion? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A content dispute should be resolved at the talk page of the article concerned. If there are multiple pages involved, it can be centralised via RFC.  I personally strongly oppose letting these disputes spill over into RSN.  Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If a content dispute can't be resolved at the article talk page, they can file an RfC or raise it to the appropriate noticeboard (or both). In any case, my question has to do with situations after the dispute has been brought to a noticeboard.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we need to understand what verifiability, biographies of living people, and neutral point of view actually deal with. verifiability is regarding the quality of a source while the other two deal with the content of an article.  If a source fails verifiability then the other two shouldn't matter and that is why I agree with Sergeant Cribb that content issues should NOT be part of the RSN boards discussion.  One problem I do have with WP:BLP is the way it is currently worded lends itself to being missused as a magical censorship hammer.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The noticeboards are specialized and that is a good thing. There's also WP:NPOVN and the content noticeboard which can deal with the effects of BLP and RS choices.  Lastly, if there's disagreement there can be an article RfC.  I don't think this is a common problem so much as a hard problem.  Some issues are complicated.  Noticeboard loosen the knot but are not designed not supposed to untie the whole thing.  That's what the article talk page is for and an RfC if necessary.  Ocaasi c 04:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * BruceGrubb: So, are you saying that there should be three separate discussions for each applicable noticeboard?
 * Ocaasi: I'm not sure you're understanding the scope of my question so let me address your second point first. I'm asking about situations where the question has already been asked at one of the noticeboards.  How are uninvolved editors who frequent noticeboards supposed to file an RfC on an article talk page regarding a disupte that they're unaware of?  I guess we can do it after the fact; is that what you're suggesting?  To your first point, are you saying that if a discussion involved more than one policy, we should move it to the WP:NPOVN or the content noticeboard?  What happens when one of the involved editors objects because they don't want to acknowledge other issues are involved? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In the first point you mention any of the involved editors could bring the RfC. They wouldn't have to agree on it.  More importantly, noticeboards can't force editors to participate anyway, so refusal to acknowledge an issue is a bigger problem and all the more reason for a noticeboards or an RfC to be used, since uninvolved opinions will often determine the outcome.  That said, it's rare that an involved editor will just ignore a noticeboard thread about their dispute, although that's a tactic that sometimes is cunningly employed.  The situations you're asking about really require either community override, or mediation.  There was a good recommendation recently for a Dispute Resolution noticeboard, which sounds like a fine idea to me.  Otherwise, consensus is always about getting more and more informed opinions, so as long as it's not forum-shopping.  In these very complicated issues, where RfC or mediation is not desirable, the article talk page should be used extensively, with multiple threads for separate issues, and with uninvolved editors being invited to comment informally. Ocaasi c 11:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * First, a quick nit-pick for Bruce... WP:Verifiability is also about the content of the article... WP:V is not about whether the source is verifiable... its about whether the information that we include in the article is verifiable (ie verified by the sources we cite).
 * As for what to do when there are issues involving multiple policies... the other comments have it right. You want to have a centralized discussion so all of the issues can be addressed at the same time.  So... the first step is to create a centralized RFC on the article talk page, then (as a second step) drop a brief note at the various noticeboards pointing people to the centralized discussion. Blueboar (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds right to me. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A proposal for a Dispute resolution noticeboard is currently at the Village Pump. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

A WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard has been created. Please add to your watchlist. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Search engiine summary issue
This was new information to me yesterday, and I suspect will be new to others: What Google displays as the snippet from a document doesn't always come from that document. As a result, editors checking WP:PAYWALLed sources in RSN discussions need to be particularly careful about their assumption that what Google says is in the source is actually there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You should post this at the Village Pump and at WP:V so more editors see this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Translating non-English Wikipedia articles without footnotes
I have found an interesting article on the Dutch Wikipedia that I think might be worth translating into English. However, not a single sentence is footnoted. There is a bibliography. (Lack of footnoting is very common on the Dutch version of Wikipedia. The constant pressure to use reliable sources is not part of the Dutch Wikipedia experience.) This is the article: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grote_ontginning

I know I'm not supposed to use another Wikipedia article as a source. Apart from that, however, there would be no references. Of course, I'm reluctant to translate something that will be immediately attacked as unreferenced. But I also find the article interesting and within the stated guideline of the groups looking to strengthen the coverage of Dutch history. So I'm curious about the "official" approach in this situation. Translate it or not? Schildewaert (talk) 13:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Translate it only if you have access to the sources (the bibliography) and have read them and seen that they do back what the article says. Half of them are online, so you should have access to those at least. Don't include the sources you haven't read. Leave out anything not backed by the sources you have. Inline citations are necessary for material likely to be challenged, which this doesn't seem to be (Dutch land development in the 10th-13th centuries, not the most heated of topics), so you don't need to cite individual sentences, but you do need to provide sources that back the article. --GRuban (talk) 13:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response GRuban. I suppose your answer raises the issue of the time available. Translation itself is very time consuming. I simply don't have the time to also verify these sentences by looking at the sources in the bibliography. Besides, if I did that, I might as well just write the article myself from scratch, taking weeks to do it. It's a balance between available time v. quality. Your answer dissuades me from translating the article at all.


 * I admit that I'm also struggling with the fact that the English Wikipedia is so obsessive about footnoting. Yes, I prefer articles to be well referenced, but I also want to read more about Dutch history. I find the English Wikipedia painfully inadequate when it comes to Dutch history.Schildewaert (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)


 * English Wikipedia probably tends to be stricter about sourcing than some of the other Wikipedias, but it still has lots of articles, not all bad, with no sourcing clear yet. The aim is to make the sourcing clear eventually of course, but that job is never ending. Writing without yet putting in footnotes or other sourcing is often acceptable, but you should be willing and able to source if and when necessary. Do not write something into Wikipedia if you have no idea whether it can be sourced, but if you know it can be sourced, then why not start work? It is hard to generalize about when to edit if you do not put the sources in, but I think a good simple rule of thumb is to ask yourself if you are uncontroversially making an article better. Your edits never have to aim at perfection, but they should aim at improvement. If the citations are not good enough at first, that is not a reason to leave an article unimproved. You or someone else can set sourcing up later. But do not count on others checking your facts for you. Writing material that you are not confident about will lead to deletion eventually, so better to make sure you are confident that it can be sourced eventually. Be prepared for the fact that if you write something and people ask for a citation and know you can not give it, it will likely be deleted.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Another viable approach, if the original is well sourced, is to cite as per the original, but tag with . Editors who are able to read the cited sources in the original can remove the vn tags as they verify that they do support the statements. The article as a whole should be tagged with . LeadSongDog come howl!  04:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I had not seen this before I made my remarks below; that's a good suggestion and I'll try to add them to my little effort. I think many people face the tradeoff described by the OP Elinruby (talk) 05:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I ran into a similar situation with an article I picked off a list of Things Someone Should Do, and perhaps my experience may add weight to the OP's concerns and perhaps also (I hope?) suggest another tack. I also have had a question about my situation in the back of my mind for a while, and perhaps this is a good place to ask it. I have not run into any controversy over my article, but it concerns a French social movement of the 1790s and 1800s; as GRuban points out, some articles are not at the forefront of the English-speaking readership's attention. Basically, the English article was little more than a stub, but did contain a little content which was not on the considerably longer French-language article, so it was not a matter of simply translating. I did pull in a lot of material from the French-language page, most of it unsourced, and a made a comment on the discussion page of the situation, with the remark that much of this material might be considered common knowledge in France, since it concerned the transition from French Revolution to Napoleon, a period extensively covered in French high schools. I came back later and edited in a number of links to sources I found at archive.org, the French National Library, and the French WikiSource, and possibly other such places that escape me at the moment. This led me into the poorly documented thicket of interwiki links, but I got these working through trial and error. If you elect to do something of the kind you may want to go look at the syntax there. That's the suggestion. The concern I'd like to give weight to is the differing standard, and also, something the OP may not have run into yet, the varying syntax of the various projects in the different language namespaces. I'd have to go look at the article but I know this is something I ran into. My question has to do with a statement (which according to one comment I saw on a related page may be controversial) which is, on the French page, footnoted to a book I do not own with a plausible title put out by a publisher I know to be mainstream. Is it ok to trust such a reference? Also, I am assuming that it is ok to cite a work in French for a topic in French history. Should I not worry about it unless someone makes an issue of it? Anyway, those are my two cents; I hope some of my remarks help. I will put this page on my watchlist in case someone would like to attempt an answer to my question. The page in question, by the way, is Incroyables and Merveilleuses. I don't want to curate the page indefinitely, by the way, but it is about people who were important in their period, and moving it from stub to something that might interest someone seemed within my powers, so I did it. Elinruby (talk) 04:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * On the general issue, quote, "I am assuming that it is ok to cite a work in French for a topic in French history:" I believe this question has been raised quite often, and the conclusion has always been that while citations of English sources are preferred if available, reliable sources in other languages are perfectly acceptable. When getting into a certain level of detail on the history and culture of foreign countries, you'd naturally expect some of the necessary sources to be in the relevant local language. And rew D alby  12:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Elinruby, thanks to you and to the others for your comments on how to deal with this situation. I've not gotten around to this article yet but I'll implement these suggestions when I do. I'll probably end up supplementing the foreign article with references from books in my own library. By the way, Elinruby, the article you worked on is really fascinating. There must be many quirky, interesting historical aspects like this that most English speakers are not aware of. Schildewaert (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I missed this compliment at the time. Thank you very much ;) Someone had apparently started a similar article once, but it encountered an unsympathetic editor who said it was about a group of people and therefor non-notable ;) These people clearly had influence at the time. But the fact that they included one of the five people of the contemporary junta had not at that point actually surfaced on the English Wikipedia, I think. I am pretty sure I found it casually mentioned on a related French Wikipedia page.
 * I also found your project interesting. I think most English speakers are aware that feats of engineering hold back the sea in the Netherlands, but it had not occurred to me that medieval water systems might clash ;) Or at least that is what I gather from Google Translate. I'd actually encourage you to expand on what is in the Dutch article, if you can find the time.
 * The tradeoff of time vs sourcing is real and I do not know what the answer is. The possibly-controversial material I mentioned, by the way, is not, as you might think, the sexual escapades of the various parties. Apparently someone is quite upset by references to victim's balls. Perhaps I should go look this up on Google Scholar at some point, but meanwhile, one or two people may learn that there was more to this period of French history than a guy with his hand stuck between the buttons of his jacket, shrug. I guess we have to feel our way through these conflicting priorities as seems best to keep them in balance. Thanks again for your kind words. Elinruby (talk) 10:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion
Can we really get someone who isn't affiliated with the Anime & Manga wikiproject to comment on Animetric. This is becoming a reoccuring issue that now the debate is ongoing here after I posted it to get some opinions. As the source is uses many reviews, several which aren't heavily covered, this could have serious impact on notability and coverage of some topics. 陣 内 Jinnai 17:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Not all RS are online - cite needed!
Some of our editors believe that a reference without a URL, or which has a URL with limited access, is not a valid RS. Most of us know that this is rubbish and that Wikipedia can rely on refs from hard copy books and journals. But is there somewhere a clear statement to this effect, which one can quote in response to stuff like this? (The version with the ref complained about is here.) 85.211.13.188 (talk) 07:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:RS contains the sentence "It is useful but by no means necessary for the archived copy to be accessible via the Internet." It is certainly acceptable for a source to not be internet accessible. (Although, in this particular situation, a single source may not be adequate to demonstrate notability.)  I would suggest to keep discussion in the existing RSN thread, though. Kevin (talk) 08:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The standard shortcut is WP:PAYWALL or (equivalently) WP:SOURCEACCESS. There also is an essay at WP:OFFLINE. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Stephan, that's what I had in mind - cites to both a policy and an essay to use in future. Kevin, I raised this question here because it was a general one: I was not continuing that discussion on this page. 85.211.13.188 (talk) 13:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * See also WP:ROT. RacconishTk 19:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You also want the second item in the Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources/FAQ. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

opinion about reliable sources
I was just hoping for an opinion about whether webMD and kidshealth.org are reliable sources to include in an article. Any feedback would be appreciated. Thank you! Nll27 (talk) 19:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is in context of the discussion at Talk:Single_parent. Comments appreciated, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 19:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) You can go to the noticeboard ("project page" link above) and use the archives search box. That's what it's for. I used it to find this discussion about WebMD, which seemed to agree it's reliable and respected medical resource Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_67. I couldn't find kidshealth, but we do have an article about the Nemours Foundation which looks pretty good. All this is only speaking in general terms, of course, the answer may change based on what statement exactly you are trying to cite with a reference to one of those sites. --GRuban (talk) 19:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Aha - I went to Single parent and can't see kidshealth or webmd used in the article.... ah, I do when I edit. That would be my first comment if I were reviewing, you need to be more explicit with giving the source. Look at some Featured articles for examples. Looks like they're used to cite some very general comments about how to talk to kids about divorce - I can't imagine those would be controversial. I'd say they're acceptable sources. Again, were I a reviewer, I'd have qualms about the conversational tone, and addressing the reader as "you". Kidshealth and Webmd can assume their readers are parents looking for advice, but we shouldn't, we should just give the facts; if that makes us sound cold, well, we're an encyclopedia. But that's not a reliable source issue, I'd say those are reliable for their purpose. --GRuban (talk) 19:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, one more reliable sources issue - just being a non-profit and/or having a ".org" stuck on the end of the domain in the URL doesn't make a site more reliable. The New York Times makes money (well, tries to), while there are some non-profit organizations run by complete lunatics. --GRuban (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

thanks for your help! Nll27 (talk) 20:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Linking to WP:RSN results within (some) inline citations
It is useful and proper to link to RSN results within inline citations for sources which might be challenged? I'm suggesting adding a superscript tag which links to RSN somehow about that source. This will help new editors become familiar with RSN, by "advertising" it wherever sources don't seem reliable on their face, but have been assessed so at RSN. Example: a newspaper editorial which has been assessed as reliable in a restricted way: only for use of the well-known author's opinion. In the following examples, all the links work, and WebMD is only used for demo purposes here.
 * Implementation 1. Superscript a wikilink to a direct search of RSN. This would most easily be constructed as a template, I imagine, with the advantage of always updating whenever new discussions take place.
 * 1. Person, Some (January 1, 2000) "Example Article". WebMD.com.[rsn] (mouseover the superscript)
 * It would be better for this to be a wikilink, but I couldn't make that work, so it's an embedded link.
 * Implementation 2. Superscript a wikilink to a canonical or summarizing discussion at RSN.
 * 1. Person, Some (January 1, 2000) "Example Article". WebMD.com.[ rsn ] (mouseover the superscript)

Opinions on the question (first sentence) and implementation are welcome. Also, should this be moved to the Village Pump? Or should VP be invited to discuss here?--Lexein (talk) 03:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * While I think that sounding this idea at WT:RS/N and WT:RS is a good idea, this ought to go up to Village Pump after being knocked about by the community of highly interested reliable source editors. I believe this is a low priority improvement; which arguably adds insignificant visual clutter.  It would make sense as a "silent" or "hidden" element of a finally emphatic-adverb fixed generalised citation system. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is a good idea. For one thing, it tends to enshrine the opinion at one point in time as a binding decision, which is not how Wikipedia works.  For another, the goal can be adequately handled with a link on the talk page, or in a talk-page FAQ.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Implementation 1 links to a search, not a particular point in time (I just fixed the link). --Lexein (talk) 04:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Legolas2186 possibly falsifying references
After becoming suspicious of a source used by User:Legolas2186 in a recent GAN entry, I looked further and found some more suspicious references used by Legolas2186 to support other recent GA expansions that he has been undertaking. I have asked Legolas to respond but I have not been satisfied that the sources are not faked. Here are the cites I have a problem with:


 * Was used in Madonna: Like an Icon until I removed it:
 * Used in Keep It Together (Madonna song) and Oh Father:
 * Used in Saqib Saleem:
 * Used in Saqib Saleem:
 * Used in Saqib Saleem:

All of the above-listed cites were added by Legolas2186 as part of a drive to bring the article to GAN. If anybody here can help him by verifying one or more of the cites, please do so. Otherwise, it would appear that Legolas2186 has been fabricating references in order to create or expand articles and thereby gain credit for GA. Binksternet (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)A search of People magazine website does not show such an article, nor can I find "Christina Jansen" who is meant to be the author. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Considering that Legolas lives in India and the time now is ± 00:00, Binksternet hasn't waited to Legolas to reply him and immediately started to research in the articles he mentioned challenging offline sources (just because he can't access to them (Talk:Saqib Saleem/GA2)). I suggest Bink to wait until Legolas explanation before he starts to question the reliablility of an user (WP:AGF). Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  19:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * See also. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  19:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not newly discovered today, so it doesn't matter whether it is midnight somewhere. I signaled the serious nature of the unverifiable cite at Talk:Madonna: Like an Icon/GA1 on February 7, eight days ago. Legolas did not respond even though he edited other articles during that time. On February 10, I asked him about a problematic reference at Talk:Saqib_Saleem and he responded very quickly there on the talk page and also by offering to send me scans of the physical pages, but he has not yet sent me any scans. On February 10, I began looking at other articles he was involved with and found that he had used an unverifiable Becky Johnston article from June 1989 Rolling Stone so I corrected it to the same Becky Johnston in May 1989 writing for Interview under a different title. (This unverifiable source was added by Legolas in August 2011.) This appeared to be sloppy work, not necessarily bad faith, since the writer's name was correct and the quotes were correct. Yesterday and today, I looked for more recent sloppy work in articles that Legolas was involved with and I found the Paul Zollo cites that I cannot verify anywhere online. Legolas has not posted here for three days but I am not willing to wait for him to respond before I ask the community to try and help me find whether the cites listed above can be verified by other means. Binksternet (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It does matter that is midnight, as he is sleeping right now (see his contributions, he rarely edits at this time), and it matters as I told you that is seems like you can't wait until he answers. As you said he offered you the scans, but you never asked to him send them to you, the only thing that you did was start to check all his recent work to see if his offline sources are "falsified". This sounds more like a revenge of something rather than a concerned editor. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  20:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually I asked him for the scans soon after his offer. He continued editing for two more days but he did not respond yes or no about the scans. This thread is not about whether Legolas is sleeping right now, it is about whether he has been putting sloppy citations into articles since August 2011, or possibly putting knowingly wrong citations into articles more recently to attain GA credit. The first step is a plea to others in the community to see if the cites are verifiable. As such, it does not require Legolas to respond. Binksternet (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I regret to say that I can find no evidence of that People Weekly article in databases that catalog the magazine. That issue doesn't even seem to exist. -- Laser brain  (talk)  20:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It is not just the references listed above. - in that edit a vast amount of information was added, including the sentence With SongTalk magazine, Madonna explained that "isolated by fame and shaken by the failure of my marriage, I could only reach out to the stability of my family roots, and 'Keep It Together' is for that only." supposedly sourced by one of the references listed above and page 122 of the book Madonna: Like an Icon by Lucy O'Brien. The book is viewable on 'Look inside' option on Amazon.com, and there is nothing of the kind on page 122. Page 131 does however say There is the sense that Madonna, isolated by fame and shaken by the failure of her marriage, is reaching back to the stability of family roots. but that is written solely by the author, and not a quote from Madonna. I find the suggestion that an editor has fabricated references and a quote from a living person to be very troubling, and would suggest this is moved to another noticeboard. 86.186.68.76 (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. A People issue from Jaunary 2008 would one of the following:
 * Vol. 69 Issue 3 - 1/28/2008
 * Vol. 69 Issue 2 - 1/21/2008
 * Vol. 69 Issue 1 - 1/14/2008
 * not volume 581 issue 50 dated Jaunary 5th. A database search turned up no articles by that title or author. Major US magazines have different overseas versions, so this editor may be using the Indian version of People, if such a thing exists. But that would have a different ISSN, and the ISSN provided is for the US People.  Gamaliel (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * According to that book the edition was published in August 1989, several months after the alleged May 1989 publication date. From what I have been able to learn about SongTalk it was published quarterly with "Spring", "Summer", "Fall" and "Winter" names used not months. There is a full transcript of the interview from the summer 1989 edition, it does not contain the quote attributed to Madonna, so neither of the references added are real even if we accept by "May 1989" what was really meant was "Summer 1989". I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the transcript as it matches the excerpt in the book I linked to, I certainly believe it more than Legolas2186 at this point. 86.186.68.76 (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted the close of this discussion as quite clearly premature, not to say disruptive. There is no consensus for any of the assertions made in the closing statement, and discussion is clearly continuing. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have replied to you on WP:AN. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Two more in The Secret of the Nagas
Another suspicious article that needs to be checked is the following reference added by Legolas2186 in September 2011 to expand the article The Secret of the Nagas toward the GA goal (the edit summary was "Major expansion for GA of the article"):

I cannot find Rana Sachdeva among the contributors to The Times of India, and I cannot find the specified article. Here's a list of articles that appeared on 10 December 2010, the date indicated on the cite, but none of them are the cited article or a near miss.

The same "expansion for GA" brought a second suspicious cite:

The cite supports a supposed quote, "Though the story is fictional, its characters and historical descriptions are factual." This quote is not found anywhere online except Wikipedia and its mirrors. Same with the article title. The author, Preetika Mathew Sahay, appears to be an associate editor of the Indian edition of Harper's Bazaar, but I cannot find anything she wrote about The Secret of the Nagas or an article titled "Mythical Magic". Searching the main Harper's Bazaar website turned up nothing. Binksternet (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Two from "Express Yourself"
Here are two Legolas2186 cites that need to be investigated, taken from Express Yourself (Madonna song):

Alan Jones certainly composes chart information for Music Week, but I don't know if he wrote an article called "Bangles Ride to the Top" in 1989. The fact that is supported by the Jones cite is that BPI certified 200,000 units sold. However, in this 2008 article by Jones the sales figure reported was 194,102; slightly short of the 200k mark. I cannot find any trace online of a notional article called "Bangles Ride to the Top". Binksternet (talk) 01:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note Shipment is not a sale. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it!  See terms and conditions.  05:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Le Parisien's website allows the reader to search for past articles, but I was unable to find one with the proper title. Perhaps this is because the 1989 articles are not online. At any rate, I was not able to find, say, a book that cites the article. Moreover, I was not able to confirm the existence of any person named Charlotte Rowsdoom, a very unusual name that should immediately leap out from an online search. Binksternet (talk) 01:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Fabricating volumes and violation of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT
In the article Like a Prayer (song), Legolas2186 added a cite to 1989 Advertising Age to support a quote. The quote was about people viewing an advertisement with Madonna drinking Pepsi. The 1989 magazine is not online but the quote can be found online in a book: page 230 of Embodied Voices: Representing Female Vocality in Western Culture. The authors cite Advertising Age volume 76, just like Legolas added on July 4, 2011. I question the volume number, because by 2009 the magazine was in its 80th volume, with new volumes appearing annually. If annual volumes were used back to 1989, then the volume would have been 60, not 76. Anyway, Legolas changed the volume from 76 to 231 on August 13, 2011, completely making up a volume number and changing "76" from volume to page number. In the same edit, Legolas also added a fictional volume number for the Village Voice, volume 1309. If he had looked for the volume number as cited by other works, he might have found "Leslie Savan, "Desperately Selling Soda," Village Voice 34, no. 11, 14 Mar. 1989, 47", cited by Carla Freccero in "Our Lady of MTV: Madonna's 'Like A Prayer'". The Legolas volume of 1309 is ridiculously wrong. The same Savan cite is slightly wrong in Embodied Voices, the online source where Legolas probably saw it. The guideline at Citing sources says Legolas should have quoted the Embodied Voices book, not an old magazine issue that he was unable to access. He certainly should not have played around with volumes and page numbers. Binksternet (talk) 02:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Fake article from 2010 Rolling Stone
To expand the article The Monster Ball Tour "for GA", Legolas2186 added text and cites including a recent article from a modern magazine:

This article cannot be found on Rolling Stone's website but it should be plainly visible, being from 2010. Legolas used it to support a quote: "a Catholic school girl on the run to discover herself, and on the way she finds the Monster Ball." This quote is not found in any reliable sources. Binksternet (talk) 02:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Misuse of source in GA push - Vijender Singh

 * Vijender Singh is (somehow) a GA. Legolas2186 began the push for GA and in that very first edit added a citation for a previously unsourced statement regarding the subject's education. I have just removed it because the source appears to support nothing in that statement. I am also removing other cites/requesting cites in that article. At one point, Legolas2186 has used a pre-marriage interview as support for the guy actually getting married, and it is a bit closely paraphrased also. - Sitush (talk) 14:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * In the initial "GA push" edit, Legolas2186 adds, inter alia, that "In 1990, boxer Raj Kumar Sangwan got the Arjuna Award; a craze for boxing increased then. The sport became one of the main avenues to get a job in India." His source (after I fixed the url) says "After Raj Kumar Sangwan got the Arjuna Award for boxing (in the late 1990s), a craze for the sport increased. Coming from a poor family, it was one of the main avenues to get a job." This, remarkably, seems to be both a close paraphrase and an apparent misrepresentation of the source! I would appreciate a second opinion before I try to do something about it. - Sitush (talk) 15:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have listed this thread not to be archived. Regardless of whether the user logs in again, these issues with verifiability and unreliable sources need to be resolved. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Two FAs
So, Legolas hasn't logged in since Feb 12; that's alarming. I suggest that one way forward for him (that is to avoid being blocked), is that he tell us which FAs and GAs he falsified sources on, so those can be cleaned up or delisted. If he does that honestly, he could be granted a reprieve from an indefinite block (subject to mentorship perhaps by someone willing to monitor his work). If he doesn't do that-- or gives a response that is later found to be false-- he is blocked indef. Madonna needs to be checked by someone with access. I agree that an editor with a track record like this is likely to continue or to sock, which is why I suggest that we find a way forward involving him coming clean now and being allowed to edit with supervision. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Featured article candidates/4 Minutes (Madonna song)/archive3 was promoted before we had routine spotchecks on each nominator (and had a surprising number of supports from editors with colorful sigs not frequently seen at FAC).
 * Featured article candidates/Madonna (entertainer)/archive1 had a good level of support from knowledgeable and competent FA writers and reviewers, but there are two reasons it should be very carefully scrutinized:
 * It's a highly viewed BLP
 * I can't decipher why I didn't request a source spotcheck before promoting it-- sometimes that's because the editor's work was checked elsewhere but I can't locate that here.
 * I have started investigating Madonna (entertainer) and found an alarmingly high rate of misapplied sources, although none so far that are completely fabricated. See here. This is going to be a lot of work. -- Laser brain  (talk)  22:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Another wave of investigation for 4 Minutes (Madonna song) here.

"Witchhunt"

 * how sure are we that this is "falsification" and not something else like for xample "mistakes". Could we wait with the witchhunt and blockthreats untill bad faith is demonstrated?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Are we having yet another "witch hunt"? Funny how often that word gets thrown around in here regardless of the amount of evidence that is presented.  Oh well, pardon me for responding to a request to have a look in here.  One would think I'da learned by now. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sorry I did not mean to single you out (except for the blockthreat which is obviously not warranted by policy)- but to comment on the entire topic - I most certainly didnt mean to call you an asshole - and I am not completely sure why you would think that since we have never really interacted. What I mean is that recently we have lost several good contriutors due to problems with their edits and the way that it was framed as mortal sin instead of a part of a learning process. Are we really sure at this point that we ant to make Legolas into the bad guy - or do we just perhaps ant to ask him what h was doing and tell him that it would be great if he could not do it in the future but that we appreciat his contributions nonetheless. I think we should be carefull not to needlessly pushaway people ith the energy and interest to produce FA and GA articles. Also I dont see that much evidence - I see some refs that cannot be immediately verified online. You would find many of those if you look over my articles as well. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Maunus, did you even read this thread before you commented? "Refs that cannot be immediately verified online"? Several of us have already done library searches and spent significant time on attempting to verify these references, and failed. It's all documented above. I assure you that every effort has been made to contact the author and assume good faith. He has disappeared and failed to respond to all manner of communication. I am also experienced in dealing with editors who make mistakes and helping them fix them. Pardon our frustration, but every time we have an issue like this, someone comes out of the woodwork and impugns work we do to remove these problems from Wikipedia. Read the thread before you comment, because your comments are ignorant. -- Laser brain  (talk)  16:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And every time (lately) that knowledgeable and competent editors spend inordinate amounts of time cleaning up someone else's mess, doing their homework, weighing in responsibly based on factual evidence, an admin comes along and labels-- noticeably-- work done by women as a "witch hunt". Never mind that I was specifically discussing ways to keep Legolas on board, regardless of the significant evidence already presented.  I regret having weighed in here again only days after I stopped editing after Bishonen turned in her tools over the witches and bitches incident caused by admins.  Amazing. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sandy, it's not about you but about me. A witch hunt was performed by men against women, historically, so you are not implicated as a witch hunter. Furthermore, Legolas is a male. The first reference to my forcing a witch hunt on Legolas was from Tbhotch who said "You've started a witch-hunt with no reason.". Tbhotch's next edit was to move-protect the article Witch-hunt. So Sandy, it is me—a guy—that is being called the witch hunter. Binksternet (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well Binksternet, there's a bit of a history here. Virtually every time a problem like this crops up, someone drifts in and makes an ignorant comment that vilifies those of us who work to remove these problems from Wikipedia. It's an unfortunate side-effect of this work that the editors frequently disappear instead of helping clean up the mess. Sometimes they do stay and are receptive to coaching, which is the best outcome. (See here for example.) Some of us are a bit sensitive to continuously having our motives and methods questioned, when so few people are willing to step up and deal with these issues. -- Laser brain  (talk)  17:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the background, Binksternet; I'm not sure it's a good thing that it's not only aimed at women (since it's been aimed my way a lot lately), and I'm sorry to see that there is ongoing hostility towards those who end up cleaning up these situations. I hope Maunus will have a better day tomorrow, and regret this distraction from the significant amount of evidence and problem that needs to be dealt with.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * My first priority is to identify and remove false sources and text, to limit the damage done to Wikipedia. My second priority is to tell Legolas that this sort of practice cannot continue, but that an active and intelligent contributor such as himself is still useful to the project, as long as he resolves not to fabricate sources. Binksternet (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

2006 Icon magazine cite
At Get Together (Madonna song), Legolas2186 performed a "major expansion for GA" way back in July 2009. He added a link to an interview of Nathaniel Howe, a 3D animator and PR/branding artist. The link was to the "Drowned Madonna" fansite which is no longer working: http://www.drownedmadonna.com/modules.php?name=nathaniel_howe. The Wayback Machine has the interview here, archived from July 2007. Legolas misrepresented that Howe was interviewed by Madonna's official website Icon, but the link is to the fansite Drowned World, and the interviewer calls him- or herself "Drowned World", not Icon. Up to this point, the quote is accurate and the text from the website is accurately summarized, but the website is a weak source, arguably not reliable enough.

The next change that Legolas made to the cite is a more serious infraction. In November 2010 he deleted the dead link to Drowned World and instead asserted that the cite came from a print copy of Icon magazine, volume 23, number 11. Icon magazine was not published in volumes but in issues, according to this eBay guide to back issues. The eBay guide implies that the August 2006 issue of Icon would have been issue #45, not 23 or 11. I seriously doubt that the clunky and amateurish Drowned World interview was carried by the glossy print magazine Icon. Binksternet (talk) 18:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Subpage time?
Shall we move all this to a subpage (to avoid archiving)? We need to structure and go through in a methodical way. A bit like copyvios but in reverse in an ironic sort of way. Legolas I hope you read this, if you come and help we can try to clean this up as quickly yet as thoroughly as possible. I have seen good work as well, so let's try to move forward. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been "tending the garden" at RS/N recently, and I want to keep this on the main page to attract "fixer" attention. I've set it to no-archive (until 2022). Fifelfoo (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But this page is currently taking an age to load. Do we really want to prolong the agony here? There are a lot of active threads but I am unsure whether the solution is to cut the archiving time or subpage. I am not great on metrics. Would a solution be to collapse (or whatever) this thread, move it elsewhere and leave the no-archive setting? That way, people coming here can still see that there is an issue of some sort, but they move elsewhere for the detail? It would be great if Legolasxxxx got involved, but even if they did it seems already to be apparent that this thing has the potential to grow and grow. - Sitush (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a trivial problem to move all of this material to another space such as User talk:Legolas2186/Fixing citation problems. The problems need to be identified, seen by a variety of editors—hopefully some with access to the cited sources—and fixed as appropriate. A remote corner is not so good for attracting interested editors. Binksternet (talk) 01:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Chief page load problems are due to a number of long items up-page that are actively being commented on (and one I'm attempting to close), I'm loathe to close discussions that have active commentary and are unproblematic. Hiding them won't affect page load times.  I've changed the archive period to 7 days, which may clear some content.  I'll look at manually archiving and "rebooting" some of the longer threads depending on the issues.  RS/N has many more eyes than RS/N/Legolas2186 or UT:Legolas2186.  Fifelfoo (talk) 01:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay - all I care is that as many eyes on it are possible to check and fix. Am happy either way with whereever it sits in the short term. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The bot that archives this is down. Despite archiving on a 7 day basis, I only saved us 120kb.  Page size is half a meg.  Fifelfoo (talk) 03:14, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This thread attracted some good activity in the past nine days, so if nobody objects I will archive it tomorrow and also copy it to User talk:Legolas2186/Fixing citation problems. I expect that two FARs and a handful of GARs may also result from this thread, as people dig in and examine sources relative to article text. The FARs and GARs that are relevant to editing problems traced to Legolas will be linked to the central discussion page. Binksternet (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Valid/invalid discussion close
There is currently a dispute over whether an editor should have closed this discussion, whether a second editor should have reverted, and whether a third editor should have re-reverted.. Uninvolved editors are encouraged to weigh in on this dipsute. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I strongly encourage editors to review the material they first read after loading RS/N: Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Header; in particular, "Editors can post questions here about whether particular sources are reliable, in context, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer. For general or hypothetical questions concerning a source, please use the talk page." Fifelfoo (talk) 04:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

My question posted was specific to one source. The discussion at points became general, but that is not what was posted. I'm surprise you didn't see that if you had read before you closed.(olive (talk) 05:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC))

I am very much involved: Please Note


 * The discussion has been open only a day and a half.


 * A ruling was made on two sources that were not under discussion.


 * Comments the closer used came from comments made by the other highly involved editor and were and are open to discussion, which is why this is at a NB in the first place.


 * Whether the source is RS per MEDRS is not clear per the discussion


 * Discussion was calm reasonable and included almost all uninvolved editors. (olive (talk) 05:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC))


 * I have taken this to AN/I as an incident as a user was upset with my closure. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Question about "Reliable Sources"
When the popular press slaps a label on an event (by the author or the editor) that isn't substantiated in the article, is that still considered a "Reliable Source"? Specifically, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:ATF_gunwalking_scandal, the press frequently calls ATF's Fast & Furious operation a "sting", although it doesn't fit the definition of a sting, nor is it called a sting by any of the primary sources nor the authoritative secondary sources (Congressional Reports). So, should we, as editors, be parroting the press?

Computer Guy 2 (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * How much would you weight a popular press report that lacks a basic understanding of policing procedures? See WP:WEIGHT. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Question about closing RS/NB discussions
An editor has in good faith been closing NB discussions. I have no doubt that there are occasions where this could be considered helpful. However, I have these concerns about this procedure on a Notice Board:


 * Should an editor be making the unilateral decision to close a discussion
 * Should an editor be making decisions on the sources under discussion
 * Should such an editor publicly criticize the behavior of editors posting in good faith and who were not in any way being disruptive adding reminders in the manner of an arbitration.

Thanks.(olive (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC))


 * You know what's really helpful? Single purpose civil POV pushers keeping at it even after they are roundly rejected. I think we should have more of that. Hipocrite (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This amounts to board disruption. Stop.  This is your warning regarding IDHT disruption. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Presumably there's a history here, but it seems to me that olive asks a good question. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I thought Fifelefoo was referring to Hipocrite's cmt here and only today realized he was actually warning me off for asking a question here, and is threatening me as well. Or do I have that wrong? My question is legitimate and is a general question about NB posts based on my recent experience the like which I have never seen before and which I had hoped to have further insights into both for myself and others. I'll assume no one cares about this issue or has been scared off. If no one cares about this I'm fine with letting this issue go. I guess nothing should surprise me about this situation. (olive (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC))


 * Olive, it is indeed longstanding practice to WP:CLOSE a discussion once further progress seems unlikely. This is usually done by an WP:ADMIN, but non-admin closings are considered appropriate in many contexts.
 * The decision is theoretically not unilateral, but done by consensus. However, I'm not sure what the recourse might be if you disagree that consensus exists in this case.  The guideline at WP:CLOSE has a section entitled "Challenging a closing" that consists entirely of a link to WP:DELREV, but the latter appears to apply specifically to closing of article-deletion discussions and the like.
 * Fiflefoo's response to you on this thread does seem a bit WP:BITEy to me, but still I suggest you give a good faith look at Fiflefoo's closing summary and see whether he might in fact have had a point in closing the discussion. For example, did several established denizens of this NB come to something like a consensus on the original question?  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see there's a lot more to this. I'd like to particularly endorse this comment, and indeed all the comments from User:Betty Logan and User:Manning Bartlett on that thread.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for the information. The NB was closed after a day and a half. Two statements came in after the closure from DGG, Short Brigade, both respected, uninvolved editors.  So I consider the close to be too early. Whether they support the sources or not is not the issue. The issue was the close which stopped everything in mid stride, and based on misassumption. I have seen some NBs where things were outrageous and can see that that kind of thing could be stopped. That wasn't the case here. I'm sure Fifelfoo meant well . I have to believe that, but the statements he made about the discussion were mistakes. He based much of the discussion on the fact that an involved editor was commenting too much. In fact, the editor he noted was an uninvolved editor. There were other errors as well. I'm happy to leave this alone. It was nasty and I haven no desire to spend time on Wikipedia any more than I have to with this kind of environment and with misassumptions about myself or other editors. I'm posted here because I don't want this to happen again to me or to anyone else, and I want to make sure the protocol was appropriate. I assume this was not the norm, so hope this kind of thing won't happen again. Thanks again.(olive (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC))
 * I take it from Olive's post from earlier today that she simply will not accept the consensus of uninvolved editor comment at RSN if it conflicts with her own positions. Is there any other fair reading of this gratuitous posturing: There is a standard for WP:MEDRS compliant sources on Wikipedia. There is not a separate standard for TM articles. A NB is usually a fair way to get editor input, but editor input does not trump WP:MEDRS Fladrif (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually Faldrif the link you provide has nothing to do with this NB incident and a lot to do with your attempts to remove sources with out agreement and while applying standards that are more stringent and more personal than WP:MEDRS. If you want to discuss this take it back to where it belongs and where it was posted. It has nothing to do with this NB incident. Policy cannot be overridden by consensus as perhaps you know and that is also what I referring to. (olive (talk) 22:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC))
 * On what plausible basis can you assert that your post "has nothing to do with this NB incident" when it goes on to specifically complain about this NB incident? Fladrif (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's not correct to say that "policy cannot be overridden by consensus." WP:BUREAUCRACY --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 22:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Moonlet. I'm referring pretty specifically to my own experience with some editors and I can tell you that if I ever tried to override WP:MEDRS for any reason per consensus I 'd be drawn, quartered and hung with out a trial. Fladrif knows that. I'm not particularly familiar with 'What Wikipedia Is Not', so its good information, and I should become more familiar with it. I've heard many times that consensus cannot override a policy. I thought it was in a policy or guideline but not sure about that, I might have been remembering editor comments.


 * Fladrif. My comment on the TMR talk page while I point to the RS NB incident is not about that per se. Its about actions which are impacting an article. You removed three apparent RS  with out discussion which per the TM arbitration is not appropriate. If you do not agree they are RS they should have been discussed not removed. I moved them back into place pending discussion. You posted on the MEDRS talk page where it was suggested by LeadSongDog the discussion be brought to RSNB  which I then did. Yet you accused me of forum shopping . Fiflefoo closed the RSNB based on several points one was that I had "moved over another discussion". You know I didn't do that.  Fifelfoo also closed the NB  based in large part on comments he said were the comments of an involved editor.  You know Grantenaple was not part of the discussion on this source, and has never been seen on a TM article. Fiflefoo made the assumption then that there was tag team going on since in his mind Graneteple was involved. When that NB was closed you within a very short time reverted  a source saying "conclusively resolved",  but you had to know unless you didn't read the closing statement that Fifelfoo's information was incorrect. Yet you reverted anyway. My post on the TMR page was to stand as notice that I don't think that is the way sources should be dealt with. There are other issues as well,  but these points might explain to editors here my and your comments.  While I believe Fifelfoo was acting in good faith, I can't understand your actions as being neutral or fair.(olive (talk) 02:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC))


 * Now my post here is not about sources per se, its about closing a discussion in a way that I disagree with and how that may impact other editors. If no one else has concerns about this neither do I, for now. That's all. This has become an over blown mess and If I've helped to create that I apologize. Wikiepdia doesn't need any more drama than it has.(olive (talk) 02:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC))
 * RS/N; and AN/I did not intervene in your interest. If editors wish to turn RS/N into a playground for battleground, then it is going to face resistance from existing policy, consensus and community interest.  Fifelfoo (talk) 10:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Introduction
I would like to make some points here about the process on the RSN, especially in relation to the discussion of the self-published books of Kevin Shepherd. Since July 2006, I have been an occasional editor in the subject area where Shepherd's books have been cited (New Religious Movements - NRMs). I became involved in the discussion on the RSN, but without reading the guidelines at the top of the page. As a consequence, some of my comments were not directly relevant to consideration of the issue, as I didn't realise that this Talk Page was used as a separate venue for discussion. Having said that, I am still unhappy with the process, and so I have decided to open the discussion here. Now that I am acquainted with the guidelines, I will make my case as clearly as possible, starting with general points and then focussing on specifics.

To begin with, it seems to me that the parameters of this discussion are:


 * Verifiability policy (Self-published sources)
 * Identifying reliable sources guideline (Statements of opinion)

But it also seems to me that both of these are subject to the advisory comment at the top of the RSN page to "keep in mind that reliability is often dependent upon context (that is, on exactly how you are using the source)". It also advises that a "faster and more useful response" may be achieved by posting certain information about how the source is being used.

Background Information
1. My first point relates to the advisory comment, and the bearing it has on whether Kevin Shepherd's self-published books should have been listed here at all. The "context" is the relatively obscure area of NRMs, where Shepherd has published for over twenty years (11 books to date, some of them unique works on relatively unknown figures, including Upasni Maharaj, and the only full biography of Hazrat Babajan that is not written by a devotee). It is also relevant that Shepherd's books have been cited in a handful of Wikipedia articles for many years, but this is the first time that his reliability has been questioned on the RSN. The editor who posted the question (SmartSE) only provided links to three of Shepherd's books that have been used in one article (Meher Baba's critics), which was created on 16 December 2011 by Stephen Castro. SmartSE did not provide any "exact statement in the article that the source is supporting" as per the advisory comment. Although there is no obligation to provide this, it might usefully have shortened the process.

2. In the first response to SmartSE's question, AndyTheGrump pointed out that the reliability of Shepherd as a source has been questioned before, even if not here. I pointed out that this is true, although if this fact was going to enter into consideration then some context was necessary. The bare fact doesn't necessarily tell us much, so here is the context. In a book published in 2005, Shepherd had commented critically on the controversial Indian guru, Sathya Sai Baba (SSB). Not surprisingly, the Wikipedia article on SSB was a hotbed of dispute and Shepherd's book became the target for editor SSS108, a former devotee of SSB who was subsequently banned from editing due to his extremely belligerent behaviour. This, then, is the context for the original query about Shepherd's reliability. I was not involved in it myself. It also spilled over into off-wiki attacks on Shepherd by the banned editor, of which I became aware later. According to Shepherd's later account of this episode, published online, he was not even aware of it, since he had never been a Wikipedia editor and in 2006 didn't have a computer. Later, I was also subject to off-wiki harassment by this former editor, just because I defended Shepherd as an author.

3. The book that offended supporters of SSB is called Investigating the Sai Baba Movement, and it includes updates on three figures that Shepherd had published books about before: Sai Baba of Shirdi, Upasni Maharaj and Meher Baba. The latter is the best known of these, since he has a considerable following in the West. Shepherd is not critical of Meher Baba, but he is critical of some of the authority figures who have assumed prominence since his death, since he claims that they have become a sect. This would not make Shepherd a friend of some of the Wikipedia editors who work on the Meher Baba article. It is also worth pointing out that Shepherd was involved in the English Meher Baba group for some time in the 1960s, and the extensive bibliography for his original 1988 publication (Meher Baba: An Iranian Liberal) indicates that he possesses unpublished primary-source materials from key figures associated with Meher Baba, including the latter's younger brother.

4. It is, perhaps, not surprising that Shepherd's book on Meher Baba was not well received by the loose-knit group of organizations that have evolved since his death, and which could be described as the Meher Baba Movement.

5. On 4 January 2010 I placed a link to a Web article by Shepherd in the External Links section of the Sai Baba of Shirdi article. This article (Shirdi Sai Baba and the Sai Baba Movement) covers in condensed form some of the material in the 2005 book, but it also refers to the Wikipedia issue and the banned editor. On 7 February 2010 a new editor account was created under the name of WikiUserTalk. On the same day he made his first edit (on the Sai Baba article), and on 8 February he posted a new topic on the Talk Page, questioning Shepherd's reliability as a source. Initially he only wanted the link taken out, but he soon pushed to have all references to Shepherd removed. Editor DGG became involved in this, agreed that the link could not be used, but at the same time defended Shepherd's published books as sources, giving the first nuanced interpretation of this issue. He pointed out that "most sources in this general subject, with the exception of a few widely regarded works, are less than satisfactory", and that sometimes "all we can do is achieve the balance of opposing unsatisfactory sources. Actually, quite a bit of the world is this way. Sources are not reliable vs. unreliable - they are of varying degrees of reliability. We use the best of what we can get. The above is I think either generally accepted at Wikipedia, or in my opinion ought to be." When WikiUserTalk wouldn't accept this, DGG repeated that "his [Shepherd's] published books are in an intermediate zone, considerably more acceptable than many of the other sources in the article ... It is very common in Wikipedia to try to dismiss a view one does not like by finding some reason to reject the sources supporting it. I have frequently seen sometimes successful attempts to call certain sources inadmissible, when they are in such an intermediate zone." WikiUserTalk responded by instigating a sockpuppet investigation against me, which had no grounds and was unsuccessful. He stopped editing (at least under that name) around the time of this verdict, on 13 March 2010, a little over one month after the account had been created.

6. Some will ask what all of this has to do with the question about the reliability of Shepherd as a self-published source. I agree that it has no direct relevance to that question, but it was AndyTheGrump who raised the issue of previous disputes, and I think it is important for readers to understand the context. It was also the context in which DGG made his judgment.

7. As for DGG's verdict, I think it is important to dwell on it here. It is entirely compatible with the advisory statement referred to above, that "reliability is often dependent upon context". It also happens to be an accurate description of the situation in the NRM articles. As I pointed out in the RSN discussion, many of the references in these articles are to sources written by devotees, and published by organizations connected with the figureheads who are the subjects of the articles. If Wikipedia policy and guidelines are stringently applied to Shepherd, then what of these other sources? I am not arguing for such a course, however, since I believe that Wikipedia is a better encyclopedia for having such articles and "all we can do is achieve the balance of opposing unsatisfactory sources" (DGG).

8. When I made this point, an editor who is closely involved in the articles where such sources are used (Hoverfish), perhaps alarmed at the implications, jumped in and pointed out that such references are "only to historical recorded facts", as opposed to interpretive opinions. (He also said that the references in the article under discussion are to Shepherd's "evaluations and opinions", and I will return to this point below.) There are two responses to this. First, the book that Hoverfish refers to (Kalchuri's Lord Meher) is full of factual errors. Some of these I have seen myself, but no less an authority than the editor of the 2nd edition actually admits it himself, blaming the shortcomings on the process of translation and re-translation, sometimes from one Indian language to another and then into English. Second, where Wikipedia guidelines make a distinction between use of self-published sources for fact as opposed to opinion, it is actually more in favour of the latter. The Statements of opinion guideline declares: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like '(Author) says...'". It would seem, therefore, that Shepherd's self-published books can be considered as reliable sources for his own interpretive opinions (as long as these are not about living persons). I recently used both Kalchuri and Shepherd in the Azar Kayvan article, where my footnote makes clear not only the shortcomings in Lord Meher, but also the importance of multiple sources and how Shepherd can be used as a reliable source for his own opinions. To be clear about the point here, if the SPS policy is applied to Shepherd, without regard for subtleties of context, then why not to other dubious sources in NRM articles, two of which actually have GA status (Meher Baba and Sai Baba of Shirdi)? Otherwise it looks like a double standard is being applied.

Analysis of the RSN Discussion
9.Turning to the substantive issue of SPS, I will attempt to summarise the discussion on the RSN. Fladrif first suggested that this was a straightforward case ("The answer is simple.") The policy lists self-published sources, along with other sources, under the heading of "Sources that are usually not reliable". The qualifying "usually" indicates that they might sometimes be reliable. One possibility is self-published "expert sources ... 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". Fladrif describes the process as two-pronged, and believes that Shepherd fails both: "(i) there is no reliable, third party source establishing recognition of his expertise in the field, and (ii) he has not been published by reputable third party publishers, only in vanity press publications. Thus, he meets neither prong of this two-prong test, and these books do not meet the requirements of SPS." For (i) Fladrif is relying on an earlier RfD in which it was claimed, through a process similar to the current one, that Shepherd was not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia.

10. In the course of this discussion, Fladrif referred to Shepherd's books as "vanity press publications". This is a damaging misnomer. Self-publishing is a broader category than vanity publishing. Shepherd has addressed this issue himself in his Publishing Retrospect (accessed 11 February 2012): "Vanity press is quite different to serious self-publishing, as is well known in the book trade and amongst academics. Both the principles and procedures involved are very distinct ... What are known as 'vanity publishers' gained the reputation of producing books for authors who pay the going rate. Many 'vanity' authors are one-off performers in general interest categories such as novels. They are usually forgotten. In contrast, the true self-publisher attends to all stages of the publishing process himself (or herself), though there have been different applications, e.g., novelism, history, or other subjects. The approach has differed substantially. The survival ability has also varied pronouncedly. Ten years in this sector is considered a long time."

11. Now it gets complicated, because although Shepherd hasn't "previously been published by reliable third-party publications", editor Dmcq admits that his books might be usable if "someone else has commented on them". But Dmcq concludes that "no evidence of that seems to be around". At this point I listed five references to Shepherd in other books, and editor Stephen Castro added a sixth. Now remember that this is not a major field of academic study, or even of popular interest. I would not expect to find very many academic books or articles on the subjects, and popular authors would not like Shepherd's books because they are too scholarly for popular tastes. I will return to this below when I look at WorldCat listings of library holdings.

12. Two of the sources referring to Shepherd's books do so in a substantial manner, and they were both written by academics (one of them published by a university press). I will list them here again for convenience: (1) Marianne Warren, PhD, in her 1999 Unravelling the Enigma: Shirdi Sai Baba in the Light of Sufism (multiple references); (2) Antonio Rigopoulos, The Life and Teachings of Sai Baba of Shirdi (multiple references - go to the Google Preview and search for "Shepherd").

13. Fladrif accepts Dmcq's suggestion as a possibility and examines the evidence. He says that two of the substantial sources "strike me as indictments of his scholarship, rather than endorsements" and he quotes Warren and Rigopoulos. These are the quotes he provides from Warren: "While most of his arguments concerning Sai Baba’s Sufi connections are strong, he provides very little corroboration from the Sai Baba literature itself. For example, there is no evidence that he read Dabholkar’s Sri Sai Saccarita nor that he knew Marathi or the Maharashtrian Bhakti tradition. In fact, no bibliography was given with his monograph" and "Shepherd is very opinionated in this book. For example he summarily dismisses Narasimhaswami as an opportunist, whose only interest was in elevating himself through writing the biographies of holy men". And this is the quote he provides from Rigopoulos: "[Shepherd] surprisingly seems to ignore the existence of the latter's major contribution ... which he never mentions". Fladrif then claims, contradicting Dmcq, that Shepherd must still satisfy the other prong of the SPS requirement, that he should have been previously published by independent, reliable third party publishers: "I am under the impression that he has not been published by a reliable, non-vanity press. If that is correct, SPS unequivocably bars use of these self-published books. That his self-published books are cited, or sold in academic bookstores, or on university library shelves, does not permit us to ignore the clear requirements of WP:SPS."

14. At this point, it is worth noting that Fladrif is not only contradicting Dmcq, but also calling into question the judgment of DGG. He believes that DGG's verdict doesn't count because Shepherd must first meet the SPS threshold test for inclusion. He has already said: "I have great respect for DGG's analysis, which I read thoroughly before posting, and, notwithstanding that it was something posted on his talkpage and not part of a discussion on RSN, largely agree with it. It is a well-reasoned, careful and nuanced analysis of how a SPS may be used, once a SPS has met the threshold test for inclusion." Later in the discussion he refers to DGG as a "neutral, disinterested, uninvolved editor with extensive experience at RSN". If this is an accurate description of DGG, then how could he have ignored what Fladrif calls the "threshold test for inclusion"? It seems that Fladrif places a priority on the letter of SPS policy, rather than DGG's "well-reasoned, careful and nuanced analysis of how a SPS may be used". DGG never referred to the policy as a "threshold test". On the contrary, DGG claimed that his view was "either generally accepted at Wikipedia, or in my opinion ought to be".

15. Returning to Fladrif's quotations from Warren and Rigopoulos, I pointed out that he was "cherry picking" from these sources. I will here provide the full range of opinion. First Warren:

A harsh critique of Narasimhaswami is found in Kevin Shepherd’s monograph entitled Gurus Rediscovered: Biographies of Sai Baba of Shirdi and Upasani Maharaj of Sakori, which introduces a new and thought-provoking perception of Sai Baba. His material was first drafted in 1967, but only updated and published privately in 1985. Prior to Shepherd, the perennial question was whether Sai Baba was Hindu or Muslim, with most of the secondary writers emphasizing the Hindu interpretation. Shepherd was the first author to question this Hindu bias and to redefine the broad ‘Muslim’ category, dividing it into the orthodox Islamic law or sharia and Sufi mysticism. By definition, an Islamic mystic is a Sufi, and as Sai Baba was a Muslim mystic, he was perforce a Sufi. Shepherd observes many links between Sai Baba and the strong Sufi tradition in the Deccan. He notes that since his death, the saint has been totally embraced by the Hindus and that in the process the Muslim minority in Shirdi has been eclipsed. He feels that Narasimhaswami was one of those responsible for perpetrating this process of Hinduization. While most of his arguments concerning Sai Baba’s Sufi connections are strong, he provides very little corroboration from the Sai Baba literature itself. For example, there is no evidence that he read Dabholkar’s Sri Sai Saccarita nor that he knew Marathi or the Maharashtrian Bhakti tradition. In fact, no bibliography was given with his monograph.

16. From this, Fladrif quotes only the last three sentences, where Warren expresses some reservations (to which I will return below). He leaves out the observations that Shepherd "introduces a new and thought-provoking perception of Sai Baba", and that he was "the first author to question this Hindu bias and to redefine the broad ‘Muslim’ category, dividing it into the orthodox Islamic law or sharia and Sufi mysticism". He also quotes a statement made by Warren in a note: "Shepherd is very opinionated in this book. For example he summarily dismisses Narasimhaswami as an opportunist, whose only interest was in elevating himself through writing the biographies of holy men."

17. Turning to Rigopoulos, Fladrif quotes only the unfavourable comment that Shepherd "surprisingly seems to ignore the existence of the latter's [i.e. Narasimhaswami's] major contribution ... which he never mentions". He neglects the context for this criticism, which is that Rigopoulos is listing in his Prologue the seven existing biographies of Sai Baba. Rigopoulos begins by noting: "With one or two exceptions, the biographies that have been written about Sai Baba have drawn from the Sri Sai Satcharita and Namasimhaswami's sources." The full entry for Shepherd is as follows: "Gurus Rediscovered: Biographies of Sai Baba of Shirdi and Upasni Maharaj of Sakori by Kevin Shepherd. First published in 1985 in Cambridge, Great Britain. A ground-breaking work presenting Sai Baba as a Muslim and a Sufi adept (possibly of the majzub variety), thus countering the 'Hunduizing' tendency of all past Indian authors. Underplaying the miraculous element present in the sources, and focusing on the saint's teachings, Shepherd is particularly critical of Narasimhaswami's works, in his opinion heavily marked by hagiographic and apologetic concerns (though he surprisingly seems to ignore the existence of the latter's major contribution, i.e., the four volumes of the Life of Sai Baba, which he never mentions). Shepherd's portrayal of Sai Baba as a Sufi owes much to the views of Meher Baba and his devotional milieu." (Rigopoulos, The Life and Teachings of Sai Baba of Shirdi, p. xxvii) Throughout his book, Rigopoulos makes several references to Shepherd, all of them indicating that he takes Shepherd's views seriously. For example, on p. 255 (n. 104): "On this controversial issue, see Narasimhaswami ... who argues against viewing Upasani as Sai's successor, and Shepherd ... who, on the contrary, supports such view."

18. Dealing first with Warren's point about the absence of a bibliography in Shepherd's monograph. Fladrif would not be aware that the monograph in question is the first half of Gurus Rediscovered (on Shirdi Sai Baba). The second half of the book (on Upasni Maharaj) does have a bibliography. In addition, the Sai Baba monograph does have seventy-seven fully referenced notes.

19. Fladrif and most (if not all) of the contributors to the RSN discussion would be unaware of the wider context of the comments of Warren and Rigopoulos. Bear in mind that the Hindu Sathya Sai Baba (referred to in Point 2 above) claimed to be a reincarnation of Shirdi Sai Baba, and also that Sathya Sai Baba became renowned for his tendency to perform miracles (although such claims have been strongly rebutted by sceptics). Claims like Shepherd's, concerning the neglect of Shirdi Sai's Muslim background, as well as the tendency to overemphasize his miracles, would be popular neither with his own Hindu followers, nor with Sathya Sai's followers. Both Rigopoulos and Warren were followers of Sathya Sai (although Warren later turned against him).

20. Fladrif et al would also be unaware that Shepherd himself (in his 2005 Investigating the Sai Baba Movement: A Clarification of Misrepresented Saints and Opportunism) comments authoritatively on the critical remarks of Rigopoulos and Warren. I quoted these in a similar dispute in 2010, and I will copy them here for the sake of completeness:

'Rigopoulos [The Life and Teachings of Sai Baba of Shirdi], p. xxvii, has criticized the present writer for not having mentioned Narasimhaswami's Life in my Gurus Rediscovered. In that book I did indeed express my distrust of Narasimhaswami's hagiographic and Hinduizing tendencies, and did indeed fail to mention one of that writer's influential works, comparatively late in publication by comparison with other sources ... Only Vol. 1 of the Life is actually biographical, and the work as a whole "presents a Hinduized version of Sai Baba's life, overshadowing the Islamic influence and background" (Rigopoulos, Life and Teachings of Sai Baba, p. xxv). Narasimhaswami may be credited with a genuine attempt at serious biography, but some of his major assumptions and theories have been very misleading, and it is arguable that Rigopoulos has fallen prey to some of these. My amateur contribution, not intended as any exhaustive study, was offered as a remedy to the predominant influence of Narasimhaswami's version. Gurus Rediscovered was merely an amplified draft (written mainly in 1978) of an earlier work written in my youth and which was part of a larger unpublished manuscript containing other information about Sai Baba and Upasni Maharaj, in addition to some other saints and gurus. In retrospect, I will concede that it was a failing of mine to omit reference to Narasimhaswami's Life; however, the context of my sparing references to his books should be duly noted. These books have served to distort many events and need not be regarded as definitive. Rigopoulos has evidently borrowed and adapted my cues about the Sufi dimensions in the life of Sai Baba, and briefly acknowledges Gurus as a ground-breaking work. The way I arrived at that perspective was by screening out the camouflage provided by Narasimhaswami. I might add that Rigopoulos neglected to mention several of my own published books relating to events in Maharashtra, including Meher Baba, an Iranian Liberal (Cambridge, 1988), though he specifically included the latter figure in his version of "the Sai Baba Movement".' (Investigating the Sai Baba Movement, p. 166 n. 13)

'The questionable work Devotees' Experiences of Sai Baba was cited in Gurus Rediscovered, p. 79 n. 70. I maintain that it is healthy for amateurs to be deeply sceptical of the contents, contrary to the gullibilities of academic enthusiasts of the "Sai Baba movement". I also noted that Narasimhaswami's Charters and Sayings contained "some interesting material" (Gurus Rediscovered, p. 79 n. 61). It is, however, doubtful if some of the sayings attributed to Sai Baba are accurate, although these are regarded as gospel by enthusiasts. The "Sai Dialogues" are not beyond suspicion of having been moulded by the expectancies and proselytizing aims of the Shirdi revival assisted by Narasimhaswami. Cf. M. Warren, Unravelling The Enigma: Shirdi Sai Baba in the Light of Sufism (New Delhi: Sterling Publishers Ltd, 1999), pp. 13ff., 353ff., who observes a number of relevant points about the Hindu biases of Narasimhaswami, but who is unwilling to credit certain other criticisms about that commentator relayed by the present writer from the literature on Meher Baba. Dr. Warren's version of some emphases found in my Gurus Rediscovered is distorting, possibly because that work criticized Satya Sai Baba, whom she supports. Her book is unusual for an attempt to evaluate the Sufi background of Shirdi Sai in the face of Hinduization. Cf. the critical remarks in my Pointed Observations (Dorchester, Dorset: Citizen Initiative, 2005), pp. 371ff., note 98. Dr. Warren accuses me of having dismissed Narasimhaswami as "an opportunist, whose only interest was in elevating himself through writing the biographies of holy men" (Warren, op. cit., p. 24 n.38). That is an undue compression of the details. I was relaying remarks of Meher Baba, who strongly criticized the miracle instinct of Narasimhaswami, which also found expression in the latter's biography of Upasni Maharaj. Also, I was pointing out that when Narasimhaswami went to Shirdi in the 1930s, he did not have any mentor to correct the devotional distortions that were occurring, and which he furthered (Gurus Rediscovered, pp. 3-5). "A dead teacher is much easier to follow than a living specimin" (ibid. p. 5). The cover of Dr. Warren's book describes her interest in writing devotional songs honouring Shirdi Sai and Satya Sai, which may explain why she is so amenable to the subject of miracles.' (Investigating the Sai Baba Movement, pp. 167-8 n. 16)

The 'critical remarks' to which Shepherd refers are as follows:

The books of Narasimhaswami range from his Introduction to Sri Sai Baba of Shirdi (1938) to Life of Sai Baba (4 vols, 1955-56). These and other works were published by the All India Sai Samaj at Madras, an organization of which Narasimhaswami was the President. An academic work strongly influenced by the output of Narasimhaswami was A. Rigopoulos, The Life and Teachings of Sai Baba of Shirdi (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993). This version failed to penetrate the devotional lore involved, and instead misled many readers by elevating Satya Sai Baba as a valid point of reference. The supposedly authoritative perspective of Satya Sai Baba has since been extensively contradicted by the substantial amount of material emerging on the Internet which places the career of that guru in a very negative light. The problems involved in glorifying Satya Sai Baba are legion. That guru's pronouncements on Shirdi Sai Baba can be regarded as fiction of a very objectionable kind. On these matters, see further my Investigating the Sai Baba Movement. Cf. M. Warren, Unravelling the Enigma: Shirdi Sai Baba in the Light of Sufism (New Delhi: Sterling Publishers Ltd, 1999), which demonstrates an affiliation to the Satya Sai cult, though adopting a contrasting standpoint to Rigopoulos, proffering a Sufi construction instead of the standard Hinduized portrayal. Yet this more innovative work disconcertingly bears a dedication to Satya Sai Baba, being written by an academic supporter of Satya Sai, whose claim (ibid., pp. xviii, 28-9) is elevated without criticism. A relevant component is the formerly neglected Urdu notebook of Shirdi Sai's faqir disciple Abdul Baba (ibid., pp. 261ff.). Yet there are problems of exegesis attendant. In particular, the glorification of Satya Sai Baba (ibid., pp. 366-78) is very misleading. Dr. Warren has not duly integrated available details of the majazib tradition, which is arguably more relevant. She accuses me of having suggested that Shirdi Sai could have been a majzub (ibid., pp. 111-112), here citing Gurus Rediscovered, p. 19. In fact, I made no such suggestion in the terms which she imposes, as my references were to the variegated majazib tradition of the Deccan, and not to a state of consciousness of the type simplistically dwelt upon by persons confusing the terminology of Meher Baba with research references supplied by Professor Eaton. The acute lack of context given to my "suggestion" is some indication of the extent of academic negligence in this field (which has been the almost exclusive preserve of cultic interests). In Gurus Rediscovered, I did actually state Meher Baba's version of Shirdi Sai's status (Gurus p. 78 n. 55), if academic literacy in Satya Sai circles is ever capable of checking that far. The Satya Sai cult has contributed to serious confusions between different source materials. The abuse of the Ph.D. dissertation in misrepresenting rival investigation can be implied as a flaw at the University of Toronto, whose imprimatur is supplied in a foreword to Dr. Warren's book. Those concerned should at least be able to distinguish between Professor Eaton and Meher Baba, not to mention the conflation between Shirdi Sai and Satya Sai. The academic scene is a confused one, to say the least, and pride in credentials is not sufficient to vindicate all the errors. For instance, an improved academic familiarity with the largely unknown diary mentioned (but not cited) on p. 354 of Dr. Warren's Enigma would soon reveal that I was reporting Meher Baba's critical view of Narasimhaswami's instinct for the miraculous, an issue which may be regarded as valid for data collection and not merely an arbitrary verdict of mine. Such diaries are evidently unknown to the University of Toronto, which should perhaps extend library facilities instead of producing premature verdicts ignoring due data. Cf. Enigma, p. 24 n. 38 and p. 364 n. 40 for judgments made without inspection of the uncited diary, a procedure which not everyone would regard as scholarly. Rather grudgingly perhaps, Dr. Warren has been prepared to acknowledge that "Shepherd was the first author to question this Hindu bias" (ibid., p. 15) and that "most of his arguments concerning Sai Baba's Sufi connections are strong" (ibid.). She was not generous enough to stipulate what those arguments were, but was clearly influenced by them in the formation of Enigma, so that the University of Toronto can claim Enigma as "the first scholarly attempt to provide a historical context to Sai Baba's teachings" (ibid., p. ix). I am happy not to be regarded as a scholar in view of what that term currently signifies in cultic academe. Gurus Rediscovered was a book which dared to criticize Satya Sai Baba (Gurus, pp. 1-2, 73, 80 n. 77), and some observers say that this is why supporters of the Satya Sai cult react so strongly to components of Gurus. Both Rigopoulos and Warren have elevated Narasimhaswami above "secondary" sources, eager to bolster the miracle lore which is associated with Satya Sai.' (Pointed Observations, pp. 371-3 n. 98)

Dabholkar's devotional work was written in Marathi verse, and published in 1929. He assimilated Sai Baba to the Hindu bhakti tradition of Maharashtra, and did not understand much about Sufism, it has been concluded. H. S. Dixit added a foreword which merits criticism for having obscured the saint's Muslim background with a divine incarnation theory. Hari Sitaram Dixit was a prominent Hindu devotee who seems to have first visited Shirdi in 1909. He was a lawyer by profession. See Dabholkar, Shri Sai Satcharita, trans. I. Kher (Delhi: Sterling Publishers Ltd, 1999). A popular adaptation in English of this work was produced by N. V. Gunaji and published in 1944. See Shri Sai Satcharita or The Wonderful Life and Teachings of Shri Sai Baba (tenth edn, Bombay: Sri Sai Baba Sansthan, 1982). Dr Warren has emphasized that, although many readers have assumed Gunaji's book to be a verbatim translation of Hemadpant, this is far from being accurate. Gunaji both omitted and added, and his additions include frequent Hinduizing interpretations from his own zealous pen. See Warren, op. cit., pp. 3ff. See also note 77 infra. Dr. Warren has criticized both Dr. Rigopoulos and myself for not using the Marathi text of Hemadpant (ibid., pp. 15, 18). I am happy to accept that particular criticism. Gurus Rediscovered was not a Ph.D. thesis, and I do not read Marathi. Dr. Warren has herself confirmed several aspects of my unconventional monograph. As for Gunaji's misleading adaptation, it made far greater sense to me to rely upon the non-Hinduizing assertions of writers like C. B. Purdom and Dr. Ghani that Sai Baba was a Muslim.' (Investigating the Sai Baba Movement, p. 168 n. 17)

21. Apart from the detailed qualification of Rigopoulos' and Warren's critical remarks, it is worth noting that Shepherd here points out that Narasimhaswami's books are published by an organization of which he was the president. Narasimhaswami is cited in the Wikipedia article on Sai Baba of Shirdi, which has GA status. This article also uses Dabholkar's Shri Sai Satcharita (referred to by Warren in the critical comment quoted by Fladrif, and by Shepherd in the final block quote above), published in Shirdi by Shri Sai Baba Sansthan; and Bharadwaja's Sai Baba the Master, published in Andhra Pradesh by Sree Guru Paduka Publications. In the Meher Baba article, which also has GA status, over half (9 out of 16) of the referenced books are published by organizations with connections to Meher Baba: Sufism Reoriented, Sheriar Foundation, Avatar Foundation, Manifestation. Just to spell out the point, these GA-status articles are dependent on sources published by organizations that are linked to the subjects of the articles themselves. But it is Shepherd, for some reason, who is the subject of a reliable-source investigation.

22. It is also worth mentioning that Warren herself later turned against Sathya Sai Baba, and her subsequent remarks about Rigopoulos' lack of neutrality are revealing. In a 2003 letter to an ex-devotee of Sathya Sai (academic philosopher, Robert Priddy) she wrote: "In my book on Shirdi Sai Baba I felt I could not use much of what Sathya Sai Baba had said because none of it was verifiable, (although I was a devotee at the time) but it is amazing how much of what he has said has become an integral part of the accepted hagiography. Even Rigopoulos was not discriminating enough in his book on Shirdi Sai, accepting Sathya Sai's pronouncements as gospel." Here one academic writer (Warren) undermines the objectivity of another (Rigopoulos), and in so doing she implicity supports Shepherd's own take on the unreliability of devotees, notwithstanding their academic status.

23. Other ex-devotees of Sathya Sai have referred very positively to Shepherd. See the following entry from Barry Pittard's blog: Brian D. Steel Updates References To Kevin R.D. Shepherd Writings (Brian Steel is a Wikipedia editor). Also, Guru’s Partisans Banned From Editing Of Wiki ‘Sathya Sai Baba’ Entry, in which he refers to Shepherd as a "rational, competent, independent British writer".

24. At this point, DGG entered the current discussion, since he had been asked to comment: "I think the criteria for what counts as a RS in this area are somewhat more flexible than in many others, and self-publication is not as strong a reason for total rejection as it might be elsewhere. Some of Shepherd's books are in reputable libraries, and there have been citations of his work. I'd never use his works as sources for BLP, and I've argued in accord with the consensus at WP:Articles for deletion/Kevin R. D. Shepherd that he is not a notable author. But the material here does not depend solely or even principally on him, he usually seems to be only a supporting source, often for what has another citation also, and I think they are usable in the context of the article under discussion." He goes on to point out significant shortcomings in the article (Meher Baba's critics). Such things can, of course, be changed and the article has been much improved since DGG commented, but our concern here is with Shepherd as a source, not the content of the article.

25. Referring to DGG's input, Andrew Dalby remarked: "The argument 'Some of Shepherd's books are in reputable libraries' (DGG above) has no value. If you self-publish, it's part of your self-imposed job to get your book into libraries. You often do that by direct-mailing the libraries you consider most visible and useful to you, and often by giving them copies of the book." That is true, of course: that an author has self-published books in libraries is not proof of his reliability. But one cannot conclude from this that Shepherd did in fact direct-mail libraries. Logically speaking, that is not entailed. In fact, in his own commentary on this current dispute, Shepherd says: "All of my books that went to libraries worldwide did so via library suppliers in the book trade. I never contacted any library, nor did I send any free copies of books. Every single library purchased from one or other of the library suppliers. The sole exceptions were the five UK libraries requiring a legal deposit copy in accordance with established protocol." He also points out that DGG, while supportive, understated the case, since "all [i.e. not some] of my books are in reputable libraries". A final observation on this point is that Dalby ignores the other part of DGG's comment, that "the criteria for what counts as a RS in this area are somewhat more flexible than in many others, and self-publication is not as strong a reason for total rejection as it might be elsewhere".

26. It is relevant to point out here that I recently decided to do a comparative WorldCat library search on Shepherd, Rigopoulos and Warren. These are the results:

† This number refers to an e-book, not physical books held in libraries.

It is clear from the above that the distribution of Shepherd's books in the major libraries of three of the top English-language-speaking countries of the world is comparable to that of Rigopoulos and Warren. The total numbers for all three authors are relatively small because, as I have already pointed out, this is not a major area of academic interest.

27. Dmcq (referred to above in Points 11, 13 and 14) now re-enters the discussion. He recognizes that one of the authors commenting on Shepherd did consider him an "expert in the field". He doesn't specify which author, and his qualified approval should be read in the light of my Points 15-22 above - Dmcq would not be aware of this context. He also takes up the point I had made about Shepherd being in possession of primary-source material on Meher Baba: "If there is good evidence the author was involved with the subject then they [i.e. Shepherd] can also be used as a primary source I'd have thought." Fladrif subsequently obscured this comment when he "hatted" two significant portions of the discussion.

28. At this juncture, editor Hoverfish (see Point 8 above) re-enters the discussion, and makes an unsubstantiated claim about Shepherd's relationship with Meher Baba and the English Meher Baba group in the 1960s, and a sequel in the 1980s. Since Hoverfish is an "involved" editor, the only relevance of such hearsay is that it shows he has an informant in Meher Baba circles.

29. Fladrif now carries out the "hatting" and attempts to draw the discussion to a conclusion. His comments here deserve close scrutiny, since they are quite misleading. He begins by stating that the consensus of uninvolved editors is that "Shepherd's self-published books are not reliable sources under WP:RS". A little further down he says that it is a consensus of five against one. He doesn't specify who the five are, although Hoverfish provides the following list of those "against": AndyTheGrump, Fladrif, Dmcq, Will Beback and Andrew Dalby. By my count it is more like three (AndyTheGrump, Fladrif and Andrew Dalby) against two (DGG and Dmcq). Dmcq's position (as I have shown above) is ambivalent. And Will Beback's only comment was: "I strongly disagree with the view that if normally reliable sources sources can't be found for a topic we should lower the standards to use whatever is available. If the only good sources on a topic are self-published, or otherwise inadmissible, then we shouldn't cover that topic." Even if we accept that as a negative verdict on Shepherd (and ignore the fact that it raises some interesting issues for several of the NRM articles in Wikipedia), it is still four against two. But such a head count is not my major concern.

30. Before I turn to that, I want to finish examining Fladrif's attempt at a conclusion. He states: "While some editors are open to relaxing the requirements of WP:SPS, they note that sourcing is the least of the problems involved in the articles in which these sources are being used, and that it appears that there are better sources which do meet the requirements of WP:RS that should be used instead of Shepherd's books." This is misleading for several reasons. First, the "problems" referred to (by DGG) related only to one article (Meher Baba's critics), not to "articles" in the plural. Second, Fladrif consequently implies that there are "better sources" in all of the articles (plural) that cite Shepherd. Again, DGG was only referring to the article under question. It is quite simply inaccurate that other sources are more reliable than Shepherd in the articles that cite him. This point was made by DGG in 2010 in the context of the Sai Baba of Shirdi article, when he stated that Shepherd's published books are "considerably more acceptable than many of the other sources in the article". This was his conclusion as a non-specialist in the area, and it is confirmed by my experience, as outlined above. Stephen Castro made the point again, in response to Fladrif: "Doubtless those apparently 'better sources' being from publishers, quite often linked to a charitable trust, which specialise solely in books about Meher Baba, to the exclusion of any other subject. Such books are written by devotees of Meher Baba, for devotees of Meher Baba, and in the case of one multi-volume project, initially funded by devotee benefactors." But this point of Castro's was ignored, in favour of a digression.

31. The preceding point is important, because Fladrif accepts the reality that some editors are open to relaxing the requirements of WP:SPS, but he rejects this possibility not (as he did earlier) because of a "threshold test", but because of a mistaken belief that the other editors claim that there are more reliable sources in the articles that cite Shepherd. I have indicated that the opposite is actually the case. First, DGG said that Shepherd was more reliable in the Shirdi Sai Baba article. Second, Shepherd is no more unreliable than authors published by organizations associated with the subjects of NRM articles; indeed, in my experience, he is more reliable. Third, Shepherd is at least as reliable as Rigopoulos and Warren, who were both devotees of Sathya Sai Baba when they wrote their books, and Warren expressed her own misgivings about Rigopoulos' blind acceptance of statements by his guru.

32. Returning to the "head count", I think it is clear from my analysis above that such a count is meaningless. As a philosopher, I find that the whole discussion on the RSN page lacks any rigour. Points are made and then not addressed (such as Shepherd's possession of primary source materials, raised by me and noted favourably by Dmcq), and even obscured by "hatting". Inaccuracies are purveyed, such as the one by Fladrif that I have just described.

33. As far as I can see, it is not a question of how many are "for" and "against", but of what arguments are "for" and "against". I believe that there are several arguments "for" Shepherd's inclusion in a handful of NRM articles. First, Shepherd has been cited in these articles for several years, and the only questions about his reliability have come from sectarian interests (SSS108 and WikiUserTalk, for example). Second, Shepherd is at least as reliable (and often more reliable) than other sources cited in these articles, as recognised by DGG. Third, Shepherd has been cited approvingly by academics in the field. Fourth, Shepherd is in possession of unpublished primary-source material. Fifth, none of the subjects of these articles is alive (thus avoiding any BLP issues).

34. Standing against these arguments is, I believe, only one argument, which has been referred to as the "threshold test". This is that Shepherd hasn't "previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Two of the contributors (DGG and Dmcq) make a case for relaxing this, based on the context of unreliable NRM sources in general. To my mind, a small majority in favour of a single "against" argument should not sway a minority in favour of several "for" arguments, especially in a process that exhibits such a lack of rigour.

35. In all of the above, I am not arguing for a wholesale purge of unreliable sources in NRM articles. DGG's argument is the most realistic here: "most sources in this general subject, with the exception of a few widely regarded works, are less than satisfactory ... all we can do is achieve the balance of opposing unsatisfactory sources. Actually, quite a bit of the world is this way. Sources are not reliable vs. unreliable - they are of varying degrees of reliability. We use the best of what we can get. The above is I think either generally accepted at Wikipedia, or in my opinion ought to be." We are talking about historical, not scientific, evidence here. Shepherd is one source among others, and it is the responsibility of article writers to satisfy themselves of the reliability of their sources. One way of achieving this is obviously by "triangulating" different sources, and not relying on a single source. For factual points, my own policy is to use the earliest reference first, if I have access to it. I would only use others if there was some question about the reliability of the earliest source. An example of my putting this policy into practice can be seen in my recent editing of Azar Kayvan (see note 2).

36. Furthermore, as per the reliable sources guideline (Statements of opinion), I can't see why Shepherd's books should not be regarded as reliable sources for his own opinion, which is an informed opinion that has been cited by Rigopoulos and Warren. As long as the standard scholarly convention is followed, inserting the inline qualifier "Shepherd claims that ..." or "According to Shepherd ..." and so on.

37. Finally, if an author like Shepherd is caught in the "net" of the so-called "threshold test", then I think it is time to take another look at this test. After all, the policies and guidelines have evolved to their current state to meet the various exigencies of providing reliable information. I would imagine that an author like Shepherd is rare, perhaps even unique in Wikipedia annals. He may be a "test case" for existing policy. The relevant part of SPS would only need to be modified slightly, perhaps along the following lines: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable 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. In exceptional circumstances, a self-published author may be acceptable if he has multiple publications, over a sustained period, uses the scholarly apparatus, and is cited by other (preferably academic) authors."

Concluding Points
38. In conclusion, Shepherd is a significant contributor in a relatively obscure area of academic interest. It is an area where sources tend to be unreliable in general. His books have been cited favourably by academics in the field, in spite of their own devotional biases. The distribution of his books across major libraries in the English-language-speaking world is as widespread as that of such academics. He has been accepted as a source in the NRM area by an experienced editor and administrator (DGG), in spite of long-standing (albeit intermittent) hostility from some sectarian editors. His own published books have been informed by unique primary-source material. And perhaps the most significant point of all, as well as the simplest and most obvious: no editor has ever demonstrated a single unreliable fact in any of Shepherd's cited books. This was one of the recommendations covered by the advisory comment at the top of the RSN page. Smartse fails to provide, as per point number 4, any "exact statement in the article that the source is supporting", let alone that the source is unreliable.

39. I submit the above statement to my fellow editors for their consideration. For me there is an important point of principle here that I would like settled once and for all. I apologise for the length, but in this regard I can do no better than repeat the quote from sceptic Farrell Till that is on my user page: 'assertions are generally brief but rebuttals of assertions require detailed analysis and support'. I have endeavoured to provide as much relevant information as possible. The only response that anyone should take seriously is one that addresses the main points of the argument.

40. I will also post a reference to this statement on the WP:Verifiability Talk Page, since it raises issues that are significant to the Verifiability Policy.

Simon Kidd (talk) 13:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is exactly the sort of wall of text Shepherd produces on his own website, e.g. http://www.citizenphilosophy.net/Wikipedia_Anomalies.html -- J N  466  15:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow, what a long screed there. Just skipping to the conclusions:
 * "Shepherd is a significant contributor in a relatively obscure area of academic interest." -- Even if that could be demonstrated in a way that people would agree, if it's obscure, why would Wikipedia care?
 * "It is an area where sources tend to be unreliable in general." -- Well, then, guess we can't use any of them, per our policies.
 * "no editor has ever demonstrated a single unreliable fact in any of Shepherd's cited books" -- Even if this were true, it's not the point. It is not up to editors here to find errors, it is up to notable and reliable experts to endorse the author and his writing as reliable and notable, which appears not to be the case. The default here is that something is unreliable unless it meets our standards for reliability.
 * Editors are not on Wikipedia to play the "prove me wrong" game, especially not with someone who thinks arguments are won by the amount of verbiage thrown at them. DreamGuy (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Simon Kidd, for providing a much needed reasoned and detailed argument re the books of Kevin Shepherd. It is very easy for editors to resort to slogans of policy rather than actually thinking matters through. Your reasoning will doubtless be pearls before swine in some instances (“wall of text”, “a long screed”), but hopefully more thoughtful readers will appreciate the valid points you make. --Stephen Castro (talk) 22:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hatting of "Self-published sources (Kevin Shepherd)"
"In the vast majority of cases there was no trial, no report of the arrest. People simply disappeared, always during the night. Your name was removed from the registers, every record of everything you had ever done was wiped out, your one-time existence was denied and then forgotten. You were abolished, annihilated: vaporized was the usual word." George Orwell, 1984, Chapter 1

"Everything faded into mist. The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth." George Orwell, 1984, Chapter 7

Simon Kidd (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We can't do that in Wikipedia, except to protect individuals from harrassment. Everything is in the page history, and your long post is only hatted and still visible at a single click. Now, shall we start again? You say that Kevin Shepherd's books are reliable sources, although self-published. Summarise why you think that. Start off with 50 words, which is enough to get the discussion moving again. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Itsmejudith above, your monolog might be more persuasive if you engaged it as a dialog instead, asking disinterested editors to start by reading 14 pages of text (8,367 words@11point font) is a little bit more of a task than most are willing to take on. Do start a discussion, Don't give a sermon. -- Mael e fique (t a lk) 18:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The disruption was primarily due to text inappropriately structured for wikipedia discussion, largely length but also structure. Try again, very slowly, with small amounts of text.  Summarise your most immediate issue in a single paragraph.  Fifelfoo (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Kevin Shepherd has been used as a source in several articles in the New Religious Movements (NRM) area for several years. He has published 11 books on subjects in this area over a period of almost thirty years. They are held in major libraries around the world, and some of them have been cited approvingly by academics in the field. In his own research he has had access to unpublished primary-source material, which he has used in his books. Although self-published, his books are no more unreliable than other sources in the NRM area, where books are often written by devotees and published by organizations affiliated with the subjects of the articles. In fact, it is arguable that Shepherd is more reliable. This has been recognized by an experienced admin and editor (DGG), who has suggested that the SPS policy be relaxed in this area. Given that DGG's original pronouncement on this was made two years ago, it is remarkable that the reliability of Shepherd's books should be called into question again. Not a shred of evidence has been supplied to demonstrate that Shepherd is actually unreliable. The mere fact of self-publication is being used to cast doubt on his reliability. Fladrif argued (against DGG and Dmcq) that Shepherd failed the "threshold test" of SPS, and he misrepresented DGG's verdict in his attempt to close the discussion. Simon Kidd (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you requesting that an experienced RS/N editor close that particular discussion? The remainder of your content is material that should be posted on RS/N, not on this talk page. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I do think that there should be some resolution, but only if the points I have made are seriously addressed. After the hatting of my extended analysis here two days ago, I copied (in slightly modified form) the final ten points from that analysis to the RS/N page. It's all there for any interested party to read. Simon Kidd (talk) 13:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, I'll read the lot—including hatted sections—and close it. Fifelfoo (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I would say that where his books have been cited approvingly by recognised academics, they can be used as sources – sparingly, and with attribution. However, I still feel some lingering resentment here at the fact that the 8,000+ words posted above by User:Simon Kidd are stylistically indistinguishable from the idiosyncratic texts Mr Shepherd posts in his own name on his website. . -- J N  466  13:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The implication being that I am a sockpuppet of Kevin Shepherd? And you base this on our "indistinguishable" writing style? Are you suggesting then that Shepherd's Autobiographical Reflections are a fabrication. They certainly don't tally with my biography. I live in Perth, Western Australia, where I work as a school teacher. The photograph on my Wikipedia user page was taken at the 2011 Philosothon competition at Hale School, where I was working at the time (and where I trained the winning team, I might add). You can see the photo about half way down this page, and there is another one of me with the winning team at the end of the page (third from the bottom on the left). According to Shepherd, he was born in 1950, lives in England, writes under his own name, has published 11 books since the 1980s, and has no role on Wikipedia. I was born in 1967, grew up in Ireland, lived in England for 8 years, have never published a book, and edit on Wikipedia under my own name. It is ironic and insulting, therefore, that an anonymous editor should call either my own or Kevin Shepherd's credentials into question. A psychologist might suggest that your resentment is really caused by his unflattering references to you on the page you cite! Simon Kidd (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't care much if you have independent physical existence. Suffice it to say that you don't show a scintilla of independent philosophical existence. -- J N  466  16:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Your personal opinions are likewise a matter of supreme indifference to me, and have no relevance at all to discussions of Kevin Shepherd's reliability as a source. Simon Kidd (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * According to the Autobiographical Reflections you linked to above, Mr Shepherd has worked in some capacity at Cambridge University Library. Perhaps that has something to do with his works being held by more than the expected number of academic libraries. I also see he is the son of Kate Thomas, who I recall wrote an autobiographical book in her time in which she pretended to be a man, named A. J. Peterson. This was during her period as a disciple of Idries Shah, who self-published an entire corpus of pseudonymous books in praise of himself. So reading these Autobiographical Notes doesn't exactly assuage my concerns. -- J N  466  17:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Kevin Shepherd did not work at Cambridge University Library, but From January 1981 until 1993, and with a reference from a sponsor at Corpus Christi College, he undertook a private research project at CUL. Kate Thomas wrote Approach to Reality (1983) under the pseudonym of A J Peterson. Idries Shah wrote the bulk of his books under his real name, but is said to have also written under various pseudonyms. Shah himself was quite open about this, and wrote: “ From time to time I have had occasion to tell people that I write under names other than my own … Can you believe that, in at least nine instances out of ten, after hearing this, the person has said: ‘Indeed? And what are your pen-names?’ This is a good illustration of the almost complete automatism of much thinking. If people write under pseudonyms, it is surely because they do not want their real name to be attached to that writing.” Reflections (1969), p. 88. Writing under a pseudonym is certainly not something unusual in the world of publishing. Sometimes it is necessary to write under a different name so that readers focus on what is being said rather than who is saying it. Many editors on Wikipedia use a pseudonym, perhaps for a similar reason. Could the pseudonymous editor kindly address the valid points raised by Simon Kidd in the original statement? That should surely be the focus for intelligent discussion. All else is just a superficial distraction. --Stephen Castro (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Y'all are sure remarkably well informed about Mr Shepherd's whereabouts in January 1981. I'm quite familiar with the Shah passage you quote but will note that it is rather unusual for people to self-publish praise of themselves – ostensibly authored by third parties, but in fact authored by themselves – and even odder for admirers of such a person like Ms Thomas to copy that behaviour, also writing about themselves pseudonymously ... Mr Shepherd, on the other hand, seems remarkably familiar with Wikipedia and its SPS guideline for someone who has never edited here. Frankly, all this concern over whether Wikipedia cites him or not would tend to militate against him.  -- J  N  466  20:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It is closed. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And archived here due to page size issues (over 500kb at the time of archiving) Fifelfoo (talk) 01:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Rules on involved parties opining???
Are there any? I mean a limited amount of commentary by involved parties is one thing, a general opinion and brief responses to anything truly problematic. But as we often see happens, especially on controversial issues, is involved parties leave masses of text, usually duplicative of whatever was said on article talk page, often repetitive of what they or other involved parties have said even in the WP:RSN thread, to the point of driving off uninvolved parties. And even those of us who may be more interested in hearing from uninvolved parties may get pulled into the thread to deal with it. What to do?? I myself would appreciate a little reminder note in intro to the project page saying something like: Parties involved in discussion on this issue in any articles should keep comments and responses minimal and brief to allow uninvolved parties more freely to bring forth community opinions. CarolMooreDC 14:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It may take a fair amount of text to explain to non-specialist uninvolved editors why a specialist publication is reliable. It might take considerable text to explain why anyone able to understand the article would consider a calculation or unit conversion to be routine, and thus explain why numbers in the article do not appear verbatim in the source. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You are right. I guess it's not the initial text. Is the badgering that's a problem, though it's hard to put that into officialese, I guess... CarolMooreDC 15:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Self publishing list
I recently commented on VP that new users should be informed of WP:RS. To that end, is there a list of "self-publishers" such as Lulu (company), AuthorHouse, Xulon Press and iUniverse? It is getting somewhat tiresome to:


 * Tell people to read WP:RS
 * Tell people to check if a book is self-published.

There really needs to be a list of these self-publishers, where some of the content actually comes from Wikipedia. I have seen fragments of some Wikipedia articles I have written appear verbatim in some of these books. The technology trends encourage self publishing, so there is a need for avoiding a feedback loop into Wikipedia. One step would be a WP:BAG request for a bot that flags AuthorHouse, etc. based on the ISBN. But the bot needs a list of the publishers and an agreement that the publisher is a no-no. After that the bot can screen scrape Amazon, etc. But the list needs to be created first based on discussion. How can this list get started? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It is started, but very incomplete. Vanity_press Just expand the list. Fladrif (talk) 02:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Forgive me if I'm intruding into an issue fully clarified elsewhere, but I see three different subjects here.
 * One is "vanity presses". They are a way for people to pay to get their own work published when commercial and academic publishers won't take it. There is an overlap: some commercial and academic presses will accept, or demand, subsidies to publish certain books. I guess, if definable, a vanity press is one that does nothing else.
 * Two is "self-publication". That's arranging for the printing and publishing of your own work yourself. There is an overlap with the vanity press trade, because some businesses will do part of the job for you and leave you to do the rest. But essentially self-publication is different from publishing with a vanity press. You can't list self-publishers: anyone in the world with a book at their fingertips and money to spend can be a self-publisher.
 * Three is reprinting public domain (etc., including Wikipedia) material with your own label on it. Yes, it's certainly a great nuisance when we are trying to identify reliable sources, not to mention the other problems it causes, and it would be very good to have a list of publishers that do it. All I'm saying is, it's not the "vanity press" business -- that's quite different -- and it's not self-publication. And rew D alby  10:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Very good points. It may be possible to compile a list of vanity publishers, as that is a presumably finite group of publishers where the author pays for publication. It will be pretty much impossible and pointless to compile a list of self-publishers because anybody can simply print a run of their own book and call it "History2007 Press", "Dalby Publications", "Fladrif Books"...ad infinitum. There are thousands of them. As for publishers that are churning out volumes of material plagiarized from Wikipedia  mirrors, I know that a number of them have been identified at various RSN threads, and some efforts have been taken to systematically remove those publications as references, but again its a moving target. Fladrif (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I just discovered that there is, in fact, an ongoing project to list Wikipedia mirror publishers and websites, which is quite extensive: Mirrors_and_forks Amazing what you can find on here. Fladrif (talk) 14:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A good find! And rew D alby  17:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Non RS website bot
Apart from the list of these self-publishers, I think it would be a good idea to:


 * Have a list of non-RS websites, per project. There are several that get used in many projects and one has to debate them at times, other times they just "look like references" but are not.


 * A bot that uses those lists and leaves messages for people that the website they just added is non-RS.

I suggested the bot to Blevintron who recently wrote a nice bot. Ideas? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 11:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It sounds like a handy bot if it's feasible, it would also be handy for the bot to automark the source in text as unreliable with "a added by bot comment". IRWolfie- (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. But these things work better one item at a time. So if we get the first version, then the rest can happen too. There are other bots which do those types of things. The reason I made a suggestion to Blevintron is that he already has 90% of what is needed. And his code for the bot looked clean and nice, so no big deal in modifying it. History2007 (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

List of self publishers
Now, how about staring a page called List of self-publishers? It can certainly include Lulu (company), AuthorHouse, Xulon Press, iUniverse etc. as well as others which are even too small to have Wikipedia pages. As stated above Vanity press has a partial list but it is very incomplete. I think that title is more obvious that List of vanity presses.

The fact remains that without a clear list the self-publishers may just fall through the cracks. The existence of the page will help clarify which sources are self-published and less than WP:RS. Any objections to starting that page? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * A separate list, not just the examples (which by definition would not be comprehensive) seems like a great idea. I would suggest creating List of self-publishers as well, however, because many vanity/self-publishers will not be notable enough to be on an article list. Also, the projectspace page could potentially be formatted for use as a reference by the bot, whereas an article would be subject to different guidelines. --RL0919 (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with RL0919. Many of the self-publishing houses won't be notable.  How about creating two lists?  One in Wikipedia space and one in article space?  The advantage of the one in article space is that our readers's contributions will be a source of input for the Wiki list.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not happy with the terminology. "Self-publishing" is publishing your own books, so publisher = author. Anyone living in a free country can do that, and we couldn't possibly list the people who have already done it, let alone the ones who might do it in the future. And rew D alby  17:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * How about List of self-publishing companies and WP:List of self-publishing companies? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is a need or benefit to list the name of every individual. But in addition to the vanity presses that serve multiple authors, there are authors, some rather prolific, who slap a "publisher" name on their works that might lead the unwary to think a publishing house was putting out their books. It could be helpful to list those once they have put out some minimum number of books (three or more, perhaps?). And it may be that the term "vanity publisher" or "vanity press" is better to use for a page title, with "self-publishers" as a redirect for search purposes. --RL0919 (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. Literally we are mistaken in using the word "self-" -- the point about these businesses is that you don't have to do it yourself, they do it for you. Wikipedians call them self-publishers because we are pretending that publishing with these businesses is really just like doing it yourself (and we are not wholly wrong, of course). The terms used off-Wikipedia used to be "vanity press" and "subsidy publisher"; I think these businesses now say that they offer "publishing services". And rew D alby  18:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * We have an article on Self-publishing and the cited sources use the term, "self-published". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, my mistake! I still find it a confusing term, but I accept that it is widely used, e.g. by Vantage Press as linked below. And rew D alby  09:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the terms, I agree that self-publisher may not be the term that these businesses use. But then they are trying to look as respectable as possible - of course. However, my guess is that the average reader will understand "self-publisher" more readily than "vanity press". As for what they do, regardless of how one phrases it, what characterizes them is:


 * One needs two things to get published in these places: a manuscript and a heartbeat.
 * There is no peer-review etc. and I am not even sure if they do spell checking.

So regardless of the terminology, Wikipedia needs to warn users about these types of books. I started the page anyway. If a different name is desired, a page move can be discussed of course. And please add your (least) favorite self publisher there. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * By the way, I will leave a few messages on a few Wikiprojects for people to add items to the list, so we can get it moving. History2007 (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, the talk pages for WP:V and WP:R since those are the main policy and guideline pages. WikiProject Books, too. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually the situation is worse than I had thought. As I went to build a page for Vantage Press, the oldest of them all, I saw that they are used everywhere, e.g. Perinatal asphyxia lists them in the body of the article... I will leave messages. History2007 (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * But when busy deleting, let's not forget V that does outline when such sources may be used. Especially if overtime authoritative WP:RS have taken their facts or opinions as being reliable. More than who published it should be checked out. CarolMooreDC 22:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Appropriate filesize for RS/N
RS/N is currently 300kB with a 7 day archiving period. I would suggest that this is far too large, and would suggest we drop a day of archiving a week until we reach 4 days or 100kB which ever comes first. As this isn't a crisis, I'm not being bold, but soliciting opinion. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with it, right now at least, it seems that we are addressing the issues very quickly, and so the stale issues are making the page very long. My only concern would be if it gets tightened down too much, and whoever is here, isn't quite as speedy dealing with questions. But at the very least for now, I would say lets try it and see what happens. --  Despayre  tête-à-tête 14:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Archive period is currently 6 days of inactivity. Please observe the page size / archiving of discussions / adequate level of response for RS/N questioners while we test 6 days archiving. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Since changing the archiving period RS/N has weighted between 230K and 100K, with a standard weight of around 130K. I would declare this a triumph, in moving from 7 day to 6 day archiving, we've dropped 100 to 200K of weight.  I don't believe we need to reduce the archiving period any further.  This means that as a minimum editors would need to scan RS/N twice a week to ensure they comment on all items (if they so wish!). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't want to get in the way of a celebration, but it didn't seem to be dwindling fast enough, so I rolled it back to 5 days, about 5 days ago . Pass out the party hats anyway! --  Despayre  tête-à-tête 02:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That would mean 5 days without any new comments, so even if they checked the board once a week, they would still be able to comment if they need/want to. --  Despayre  tête-à-tête 02:57, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Almost certainly. I think we can hold here.  Anything that gets 3 days of comments (ie: lasts for a week), is worth noting.  Most stuff that doesn't get more than a day of comments is generally an "obvious" result. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. At the moment, we're moving things along usually within a few hours, and with the occasional other editors chiming in as well, we don't seem to be having any problem producing opinions well within that timeframe anyway. --  Despayre  tête-à-tête 05:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

next template?
Why do these issues always seem to show up in bunches?
 * Your discussion is no longer on-point for this noticeboard. To keep this page tidy and functional for other editors with RS questions please take this discussion back to your article's talk page, it is unlikely that editors here will get involved in your argument beyond the RS question, and if they do, it would be on your talk page, not here. Thank-you.

We probably don't need that, but it would save a lot of typing all the time! It would certainly have trimmed down the recent medical discussion, the drug-free Australia discussion, the Thomas Jefferson discussion, and now probably the youtube discussion. Maybe it's just me, I just wanna see the question, get it answered, wait for some consensus, or not, and talk about any clarification, and then move on to the next one. Although I will admit, when an editor says that an award winning director that studied at Harvard isn't RS for what genre a movie he directed is, I do kinda lose my patience a little bit. --  Despayre  tête-à-tête 15:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe just a template at the top of the section instead? Hmm, I don't think that's quite right though, that would seem to indicate that ppl voicing opinions here are some kind of authority on RS-ness. I don't think we really want to create that suggestion. Other ideas? --  Despayre </b> tête-à-tête 15:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If you haven't answered the question, and if there's a clear RS/N consensus, or, the discussion has moved clearly off topic and stayed there, I suggest closing with an visible "archived" template. Hidden archiving stuffs up the search mechanism.  Visible archiving normally sends the message about off-topic discussion.  Resolved works when there's a clear resolution to a small section so that other RS/N editors don't attend to already answered questions.  Other thoughts? Fifelfoo (talk) 22:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the  templates? -- <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#D00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ACF"> Despayre </b> tête-à-tête 22:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * and and the like, but not   It is important to preserve a searchable record. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Do the people that are good at templates, that made/make hat know there's an archiving problem? Maybe they could fix it? Hatting is so much "cleaner" than that hideous white block of text you get otherwise... -- <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#D00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ACF"> Despayre </b> tête-à-tête 17:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've read all about it over at template top, I think a really good idea is to see if Miszabot can automatically expand or remove hats before archiving, although it does take away from the fundamental concept that an archive is *exactly* the same... perhaps a warning at the top of each archive stating that hats have been removed (maybe a marker added in place?) for searchability reasons, and no other text has been altered? Anyone have a problem with this idea? -- <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#D00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ACF"> Despayre </b> tête-à-tête 18:01, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Recurring items subpages (or a FAQ)
There have been previous discussions about establishing a FAQ to address inquiries about frequently recurring sources. IMDB, YouTube, About.com, RT are names that have been mentioned or which spring to mind. Subpages, such as WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/IMDB and WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/YouTube have also been proposed. At least the most recent discussion seemed quite positive towards such a strategy but was inconclusive, so I'm basically bumping the subject. Is this something we can set in motion? __meco (talk) 10:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I started creating a RSN FAQ a while back, but never finished it. It's available here: Reliable sources noticeboard FAQ. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Additional input from RS/N editors requested
Could other editors please examine RS/N#Webb Garrison A Treasury of Titanic Tales this section to give the original requesting editor more opinions? Fifelfoo (talk) 03:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But is that book actually relevant to the discussion? It seems to have been thrown in as a red herring. I'm unlikely to be able to get hold of it easily, and if it is apparent from the author's credentials and the publisher that is is a populist work, then I'm not sure I would be able to add much anyway. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for dragging me into that, and then closing it before I could say something even snottier . -- <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#D00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ACF"> Despayre </b> tête-à-tête 08:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Could other RS/N regulars take a gander at the Vassula Ryden's 4 sources? Discussion was disrupted by involved editors, and only two uninvolved editors have commented so far. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

HAT chat :)
I know we discussed recently how to archive sections on the page, and we're not using hat because it screws up the searches (when hatted, the search still works, but it brings you to the collapsed hat, imo, most ppl aren't so dumb they won't open the hat). What if we just use hat to get rid of the "waste of time" sections, never hatting the actual/original question (which is 99% of what would be searched for), just the text that's a distraction, such as the ridiculous wall of text that now sits in the middle of the Ryden section? Thoughts? -- <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#D00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ACF"> Despayre </b> tête-à-tête 15:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * There's actually some valuable content in there, indicating that the article's talk page is utterly stewed—I never would have believed that a theologically qualified individual writing on contemporary theology in a theological publisher of the highest standard (OUP), would be shot down for a plain bones account of interfaith interactions. :). Hatting the second section is a warning to involved editors, plus most of the search terms already emerge in the previous discussion.  I'm not a fan of hatting, but I used it on the revisiting because it was revisiting.  Normal visible archiving encourages editors to believe that their comments will be read, but that further commentary isn't required.  When you hide people's text it can suggest to them that their commentary won't be read which can cause problems. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:55, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I hadn't considered that ppl might think their comments won't be read, I suppose that's a good point, I know how ppl like to whine when others don't immediately agree with them (generally speaking, not referencing any topic in particular). Still makes the page ugly though. And yes, I was a little surprised at that OUP issue too. -- <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#D00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ACF"> Despayre </b> tête-à-tête 00:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

YouTube as a reliable source
Since this is a hypothetical question, I am posting it here per the instructions. I have long seen editors saying (and have said myself) that YouTube is not a reliable source. I have stated this solely because other editors have stated this as well. Is there any reason to say that this is not reliable? Ryan Vesey Review me!  22:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC) If people tend to agree with this idea, I will work on finding reliable channels to create that page. Ryan Vesey Review me!  00:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Do we have any evidence that this actually is the named professor, not a hoax? In this case we do, because it's linked from MIT as http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-01-physics-i-classical-mechanics-fall-1999/video-lectures/for-the-love-of-physics/. But in the case of a video like this one, used as a reference in Dorcadion scopolii, it's self-published and therefore unreliable - here, we don't know how credible the identification of the beetle is, and the person who added it to Youtube, naming the beetle, may be accurate, or ignorant, or malicious. Pam  D  23:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am considering creating a proposal on the talk page of Identifying reliable sources and/or to Verifiablity stating "The reliability of YouTube should be determined on a case by case basis. Care must be taken to avoid original research and addition of YouTube as a link should follow the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Determinations of the reliability should be made on the talk page or at Reliable sources/Noticeboard.  A list of YouTube channels that generally contain videos that are considered reliable can be found at Reliable YouTube sources."
 * Undergraduate textbooks, and by extrapolation undergraduate lectures, are not considered reliable science reporting due to the pedagogical intent overriding the scholarly intent of the text, see Lies for children (surprisingly we don't have a redirect to the article on this pedagogy of science concept). Fifelfoo (talk) 00:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What policy do you have to support this content? I find your argument ridiculous and it directly opposes RS which states "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources" (emphasis added).  It goes on to present a "however" but that is something that is also determined on a case by case basis. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  00:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Post-graduate textbooks, whose purpose and function is professional and current are fine. School and undergraduate textbooks are generally "lies for children" and lack a fact checking structure which allows us to be confident of their capacity to supply verifiability.  The clear difference between pedagogical texts, and scholarly works that merely happen to be set as texts is blatantly obvious.  Moreover, undergraduate lectures, whether videotaped or not, do not enjoy the scholarly methods of fact checking and their purpose is solely pedagogical. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I have to disagree. To make a blanket statement that undergraduate textbooks lie and that professorial lectures are pedagogical is a standard trope of right-wing conservatives. Your comments are WP:SOAPBOX. I'd certainly like to see hard evidence that undergraduate textbooks and college professors are all liars. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I highly agree with Tenebrae and disagree with you Fifelfoo. It appears  that this is a one man campaign by you that you are trying to paint as policy. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  01:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you agree with Tenebrae's personal attack, I suggest you retract that element. Tenebrae can frankly take their septic US focused analytical frame work and remove it from the encyclopaedia; apart from its obvious invalidity, it is incorrect.  Ryan, go read the archives of RS/N. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * To explain lies to children with a lie to a child: If I'm going to explain to you the process of the Russian revolution, we're not going to start with the class composition of the Moscow workplace soviets and the party balance and function of the Left SRs and Bolshevik majority position in actual workers' control. We're going to start with gross simplifications regarding Lenin's substitutionalist conception of revolution in What is to be Done?  Correspondingly, undergraduate teaching does note convey the actual state of scholarly consensus, where scholars attempt to explain the world.  Undergraduate teaching starts with useful simplifications aimed at bringing undergraduates into a capacity to receive knowledge.  This is pedagogy; this is eduction.  And this is precisely what undergraduate lectures and undergraduate (and more so school textbooks are).  They're educational tools, they're meant to educt students towards having the capacity to actually understand the underlying mechanism.  The valence model of the atom prepares students for the quantum orbital model.  But that doesn't mean we use a NSW secondary school text aimed at year 10 students for "the atom."  Correspondingly, undergraduate lectures relate tangentially to the actual state of research in their field.  They do not present the current state of scholarly work, because they're designed to confer undergraduate degrees. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Youtube is purely a transfer mechanism. It has no intrinsic RS qualities good or bad in itself. Any video in question is RS if the source is RS. IE, a CNN news report, uploaded by CNN is RS for CNN's views. The same video uploaded by me is not RS. I watched the video in question, and there are many things that it might be RS for, but there are many things that it would not be RS for as well. One of the keys to RS-ness is context. Is the video RS for the fact that a Professor from MIT has demonstrated that the period of a pendulum is independent of the mass, or the degree of swing? Yes. Is it RS for the fact that physicists agree that the period of a pendulum is independent of the mass, or the degree of swing? No. Also, this is 1 hour out of an entire course, context could be very hard to evaluate. I once had a history prof give an hour lecture about how in the 1940's the Japanese managed to build 250+ miles of railroad through the jungle using nothing but international volunteers, at the end of the hour, he asked us to turn all our notes in, and then told us he was talking about The Death Railway, and his point was how you shouldn't necessarily believe everything people tell you, especially in university. I learned a lot in that class, just not that day . -- <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#D00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ACF"> Despayre </b> tête-à-tête 01:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Nobody follows the Header instructions. What should we do?
The instructions at the top of RSN say...

...but nobody follows them. What can we do to get people to follow them? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Use colors to highlight the intructions?
 * Create a template that editors can fill out, sort of like we do at WP:AN/EW? For example, this is what you get when you click on "Click here to add a new report"
 * Create a notice which repeats the instructions when they create a new thread? For example, at List of common misconceptions, when you click on edit, there's a notice to make sure editors are following the list's inclusion criteria.
 * All of the above? Some other idea?
 * Drop the instructions since nobody is following them?
 * Hadn't seen that notice on the edit screen at List of common misconceptions. It's a good idea, I think -- but the notice needs to be as short as we can possibly make it. And rew D alby  18:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:Dispute resolution has a nice form too. It is helpful cause even those of us who have been here many times with specific issues, diffs, etc. can forget to share some important piece of information. CarolMooreDC 22:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * While not all header instructions are essential in a particular request, they are so commonly essential to requests that it would help to be slightly more forceful with them. If nothing else, it will ensure faster assistance to people requesting outside opinions. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, to create a template is a good idea.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent idea Paul! Hah, I was just coming over to this talk page to suggest this idea, after repeating the whole "Please list a specific source for a specific edit if you would like a specific answer, no source is completely reliable or unreliable without context" speech for the fifth time this week. I can take a shot at it later today, we'll try and keep it small? What's a good graphic for something too vague and nebulous to discuss cogently?  -- <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#D00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ACF"> Despayre </b> tête-à-tête 14:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Here are a few samples that could be moved into the template area, they will accept |date= and |user= parameters too, so if those were used, the text would automatically change to:
 * "On April 2, Despayre reviewed this question but decided that it did not have the required level of detail to provide a useful answer here. No source is completely reliable, or completely unreliable, without context. Please provide a specific edit, and the specific source for that edit, that you would like comments on. When you have done that, please remove this banner."
 * I"m partial to the 1st and 4th ones myself (I can always shrink the microscope pics a little, later, if required). Thoughts? (esp. text changes, and overall "goodness/badness" of the idea) -- <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#D00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ACF"> Despayre </b> tête-à-tête 15:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to simplify the instructions slightly. In order to determine reliability, we need 3-4 pieces of information: But the first item (source) is broken into two bullet points. I've combined these into one bullet point and tweaked the wording a bit:
 * Source
 * Article
 * Content
 * Links to any relevent discussions.

Thoughts? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Sometimes the reason editors don't follow instructions in headers is simply that it has been a long time since they've read them, if ever. One tool for dealing with this is the use of edit notices, such as the one seen upon editing this talkpage that say "The purpose of this page is to discuss Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If your post is about a specific problem you have, please ask for help at the Wikipedia:Help desk or see the New Contributors' Help Page." We could similarly have an editnotice for the Noticeboard page itself, though there seem presently to be problems doing so. A key template has been deleted and salted. LeadSongDog come howl!  16:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In reverse order, LeadDog, while I'm sure you're right about that reasoning, I don't think your solution is ideal, as by the time they all get to the edit box, they are way more concerned with saying what they have to say, and not reading any edit notice above it. However, they will always come back to check on the current status of their question, and a little non-threatening template that asks for more info will definitely get seen.


 * Quest, do you think we could shorten that list of instructions even further, make the notice a little less "in your face", at the very least by keeping in shorter (narrower on the page length)? We need an edit, and a specific source, and I guess we need an article too . Plus suggest further details they may feel are helpful? Or something else? Any thoughts on exact text layouts? Lose the graphic? Keep the graphic? One of the ones I used? Some other one? -- <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#D00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ACF"> Despayre </b> tête-à-tête 22:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * While I value your attempt, I always need a citation. Just having the author, work title, containing object title, year and publisher makes things so bloody simple on first sight.  Clicking on [34] and being taken to an external site eats up 3 minutes of trying to find bibliographic data. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Definitely true. How would you rephrase the template then? (Also, a possibility, I could add a collapsed section with further details? ie, a [show] button?) -- <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#D00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ACF"> Despayre </b> tête-à-tête 23:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "A citation containing at least the author's name, year, title of the work, publisher and a link to the source in question. For example, if the source is a web site Fred Blogs (2012) "My cat pictures" Animalpics or if the source is published, Strickland, D.S. and Worth, B.S. (1980) "Books for the children" Early Childhood Education Journal 8 (2): 58--60." ? Fifelfoo (talk) 23:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, what I meant was do you have a specific wording we could use for the template, not an example, I know what you mean, I'm just wondering if you have a take on the best way to say it, short, clear, and without the snippiness we all feel when we have to explain it for the nth time in a day (we could hide an example in the collapsed head too) -- <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#D00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ACF"> Despayre </b> tête-à-tête 01:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think of the editnotice and the template as mutually exclusive, both would help. The editnotice would reduce the number of problem entries, while the template would help respond to them. The template should not, though, try to teach editors how to complete a citation. Rather, it should ask them to provide as complete a citation as they can. There's probably some value in having it provide easy links to some tools that would help them doing that: local ones such as user:diberri's template filler, user:citation bot, and wp:REFTOOL; global search tools such as Google Scholar, Worldcat, Archive.org, and the Open Library could all be usefully linked from the template.LeadSongDog come howl!  03:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In my experience these automated tools are only as good as the user's capacity to manually fill in a citation. Most of the time the "problem" citations are the ones where a manual citation is required: the user is questioning a source that isn't part of the scholarly publications apparatus to begin with.  Especially true regarding "amateur website" queries. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Leadsongdog, I like your idea of using both the template and the edit notice, I thought you were proposing an "instead of" idea, but "in conjunction with" is a good idea. Here's my next evolution for comments:


 * and with optional parameters:

Comments? -- <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#D00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ACF"> Despayre </b> tête-à-tête 07:05, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to edit on that template (Template:RSNvague) Fifelfoo (talk) 07:15, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * By all means, I think there's definitely some text touch-ups needed at the very least. I'm out for the night, I'll check back and see what kind of communal brilliance we've created in the morning ciao. -- <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#D00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ACF"> Despayre </b> tête-à-tête 07:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Far more recognizable than I expected! I see you caught that pesky little "a" in the #IF statements, thanks for that too. I made a small tweak to the population bullet, other than that, I don't see too much else to do to it, lol, when can we take it out for a test drive?  -- <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#D00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ACF"> Despayre </b> tête-à-tête 13:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Tweaked some more to avoid Good/Bad value judgement and to directly ask for links and cites.LeadSongDog come howl!  17:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I tested the template. WPBannerMeta (the template this is based on) is not meant for use outside Talk: page hierarchies.  Also, the template is pretty big and hostile in practice, compared to the one line sentence I actually needed. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we should keep everything very simple for relatively new users, so as to encourage people to come and seek advice. At the moment there are five things to include in a post, which is too many. The fifth item, diffs on the talk page are unnecessary so long as the OP tells us which article or articles the post relates to. Indeed, it is often undesirable for an RSN regular to have to read through reams of talk page bickering. We need three things, really: the source (we should spell out, book, article or web pages), the relevant article(s), and the statement(s) to be supported. I don't have a view yet as to whether it would be helpful to ask posters to fill in a form nor to whether a standard "more info please" template would be good. RSN is one of the services on the pedia that works pretty well, cutting out swathes of pointless circular argument, so I'd tend towards the ain't broke, don't fix it. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I completely agree - ease of use and low threshold for initiating a request are paramount here. If needed we can always ask for more specific (and maybe use a template for that). But if you have to figure a form or template to as k any question at all, that's definitely off putting.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @Despayre: I was going by the principle of least change, and tried not to change too much. However, here's a bigger rewrite, incorporating Judith's suggestion of not asking for links to talk page discussions.


 * A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Good stuff. I would tweak as follows: Source. The book, article or webpage it is proposed to use as a source. (Include the web link if there is one.) Article. The Wikipedia article or articles in which it might be used. For example.... Content. The statement or statements in the article that the source would support. For example... A source might be reliable to support one statement but not reliable to support another.
 * A bit like that anyway. It could take a few iterations to get the wording spot-on.Itsmejudith (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * BTW, I noticed that the border surrounding the instructions at Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts are yellow, which makes them stand out more. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Incorporating some of Judith's suggestions and fixing a copy and paste mistake I made:


 * A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Replace "Source."'s For example, with "For example, Jo Bloggs (2012) Furry Cats Jo's Cat Website " or equivalent. Many RSN users simply do not know the elements of a citation to include, and there's no point in supplying half an instruction, relevant to online sources only, when what I need to avoid turning a 2 minute job into a 15 minute job is the author, title, publisher etc. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Prefer edit notice I think we'll get better results with an WP:Edit notice or pre-loaded text than with the other options.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * @Fifelfoo: I'm not 100% sure that I understand you, but does this address your concern?


 * Here's the same wording, but with the first instruction broken into 2 bullet points:


 * A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, either one of those works for me. Both are expressed more clearly than I could possibly write it. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think all the wording changes are good, are those going to be in the bullet points, or in the main section? Also, I am partial to the "quick/right way, slow/wrong way" examples, as they are pretty much exactly what we see time after time on the RSN page, and as Fifelfoo says, a lot of the people think when they supply something like "www.people.com", that *is* the source, and is what we are asking for (I think there's at least 3 examples of that on the page right at this moment even!). -- <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#D00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ACF"> Despayre </b> tête-à-tête 00:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI, I have no objection to anyone changing the text (try not to muck up the #IF statements though ) when you do that, the examples on this page will automatically update with the next refresh and we can see the finished result immediately. Since the template isn't in use anywhere there's no harm in messing with it right now. It's at template:RSNvague. -- <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#D00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ACF"> Despayre </b> tête-à-tête 00:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @Despayre: I'm not sure I understand your question. They're going to be on the RSN page directly below where it says "Editors can post questions here about whether particular sources are reliable, in context, and editors interested in sourcing issues will answer. For general or hypothetical questions concerning a source, please use the talk page."  Yes, that's a good point about the source being the actual article, not just www.people.com (for example).  If you notice, I changed the wording to use the phrase "web page" instead of "web site" and the example from "http://www.webpage.com" to "http://www.website.com/webpage.html".  I'm not sure it will do any good, but it's worth a try.  I'll take a closer look at your template (great idea, BTW), but wanted to focus on rewriting the instructions first.  Once we get the wording down (maybe we have already?), I'll take a closer look at the template.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ahh, gotcha, I was skimming the text here, and thought you were talking about the template text, not the RSN page instructions text. I thought the template would be good, because even when the RSN page is shorter, ppl still don't follow the instructions, and when it gets like it is now, the instructions aren't really seen being waaaaay up at the top, so a quick insertion of the template will catch the posting editor's eye pretty quickly I think, and tada! problem solved? Well.. maybe.  -- <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#D00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ACF"> Despayre </b> tête-à-tête 01:12, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @Despayre: Right, I'm talking about the RSN page instructions, not the tempate. However, the two should be consistent with each other.  The third sentence of the template has two inconsitencies with the RSN page instructions:
 * The order of the three items is different (source, article, content versus content, source, article).
 * The RSN page instructions ask for a blockquote and the template asks for a diff.
 * In order to make things as easy as possible for users, we should try to be reconcile these differences. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Nobody follows the Header instructions - Arbitrary break
That section was getting too long to scroll through...picking up here...
 * @Despayre: Right, I'm talking about the RSN page instructions, not the tempate. However, the two should be consistent with each other. The third sentence of the template has two inconsitencies with the RSN page instructions: The order of the three items is different (source, article, content versus content, source, article). The RSN page instructions ask for a blockquote and the template asks for a diff. In order to make things as easy as possible for users, we should try to be reconcile these differences. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Ya, they should be consistent, I can re-order the template items. Regarding the diff/block quote, I think the diff would be preferred, but sometimes there isn't a diff, it's just editors asking about a proposed edit, so then a block quote might work (but what about "is such and such a site reliable as a source for weather data in article X?", that fits neither a block quote, nor a diff). Could we change the instructions to ask for one of the two options?
 * Now that I look at those RSN page instructions, my first thought is that the intelligent order for the 3 items would require that both things are changed, the order that makes sense to me is, article (big picture), content (little picture), source (which now has context, big and little pictures). Thoughts on that? -- <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#D00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ACF"> Despayre </b> tête-à-tête 05:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * @Despayre: Sure, we can change the instructions to ask for a diff or a block quote. Here's an updated version:


 * As for the order of the three items, for me, the current order makes sense to me, but I'm not sure I can articulate why. Let's see if anyone else has preference. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's what the new header will look like incorporating the changes to the wording and yellow coloring from the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard: User:A_Quest_For_Knowledge/sandbox. I think this is a big improvement. What does everyone else think?  If no one objects, I'd like to go ahead with this change. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Why dont we add a preformatted template something like submitting a new case in wp:SPI at least they will know what they have to submit and they will also know that if they leave the section incomplete then the report may not lead to its conclusion--  Ð ℬig  XЯaɣ  20:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Quest, I like your notice, but please mention inclusion of page numbers for books too. DB, I like the form, but I think there are too many variations on the questions to pigeon hole quite that much. As much as it's annoying when it's done wrong, a lot of the questions are done right, so I don't think we need to entirely scrap the system we have now (although it would certainly provide some continuity to the page). I'm just not sure we need to make that big of a change. Unrelatedly, I love the giant stop sign on the SPI page when you don't change the topic from sockmaster. -- <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#D00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ACF"> Despayre </b> tête-à-tête 21:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, I've added page number in my sandbox as suggested by Despayre: Proposed new RSN header. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. -- <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#D00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ACF"> Despayre </b> tête-à-tête 17:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've also updated my template to fall in line with your layout as well. And changed some of the example wording, using "Basic way" and "Better way", and mentioning that better is better (uhm, cuz it is?) . -- <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#D00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ACF"> Despayre </b> tête-à-tête 18:16, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I've gone ahead and implemented the changes to the instructions as discussed. I'll take a look at the template tomorrow.  Time for bed soon. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As someone who has just failed to follow the header (apologies!) could I suggest changing 'You will get a faster response ... etc', to 'You may not receive a response unless you provide the following: ...'. As a first-timer on this board it currently reads as if that stuff is optional rather than necessary.  BothHandsBlack (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks for that input, and personally I mostly agree with that sentiment, but strictly speaking it's not "necessary". However, as editors just like you, we don't particularly feel the need to go out and hunt down sources for other articles either, so it's definitely preferred. Sometimes I have 5 minutes, without that info, it's a 15 minute problem,ergo, it doesn't get looked at. It's purely for the benefit of the editor showing up here with a question. -- <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#D00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ACF"> Despayre </b> tête-à-tête 02:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I made some minor tweaks to Template:RSNvague. See here for the changes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The template can't use Bannermeta if it is being posted on non-talk pages. Give it a try in your own userspace and see the problem. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * -- <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#D00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ACF"> Despayre </b> tête-à-tête 14:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Nobody follows the Header instructions - Arbitrary break II
I'm not sure that this is a good idea. If editors aren't following the minimum requirements of the header instructions, requiring even more isn't going to help. If anything, the longer the instructions and the more we ask for, the more likely they're going to be ignored. I'd rather keep it simple. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That's why we also created the template, for when they don't even give us the bare minimum. It makes sense to put at least some of the work onto the people that would like an opinion here, I don't mind spending the time answering the questions, but I do mind wasting my time going out and looking for the actual question before I can even get on with the answer. We can help more people with our views, if we don't have to take as much time on people that come here and don't read the instructions. That helps everyone, and also, the instructions (and the template), help newer editors by explaining what they should do, and that's also better for everyone. The alternative is to just ignore ridiculously phrased questions, and that seems like a net detriment to me. Aside from not getting answers to their questions, the page would get quite cluttered with questions no one is going to answer (or fewer ppl are going to answer, at least). That will then likely deteriorate into grumpy editors, bitchy comments, etc. just imo. Whenever I've had a reason to bring things to this board, I am the one motivated to make sure I get the best possible answers from here, because I want something for one of "my" articles, it makes sense that the onus should be on the person asking, and they should be the most motivated ones, it's their question. We're just disinterested 3rd parties, with opinions . (tnx for touching up that NORN question though ) -- <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#D00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ACF"> Despayre </b> tête-à-tête 13:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * So...are you agreeing with or disagreeing this this edit? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The continuing problem with the header is that editors do not understand two things:
 * What constitutes an appropriate citation
 * Whether they need to supply a citation. "Oh but it was an online book"
 * And then the rules lawyering begins by lazy editors who don't contribute. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Weighing the pros and cons, on the whole, I agree with the edit, because, while we're here to be helpful, I'm not a fan of babysitting. If people can't read and follow clear instructions to begin with, how are we helping them by coddling that kind of behaviour? What is the long term effect of that? Compared to, what is the long term effect of having them attempt to do it the right way to begin with? That's probably a little harsher than my actual opinion, but I think the sentiment is similar at least. -- <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#D00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ACF"> Despayre </b> tête-à-tête 23:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd rather spend 15-20 minutes on an RS question (if needed), than 9 minutes figuring out what they are asking, and 11 minutes attempting to determine my answer. That 9 minutes is probably 2 minutes for the editor who is already familiar with the question, ergo, it kinda wastes my time, and multiply that by the amount of editors that answer that question (ok, am I just rambling now?). -- <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#D00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ACF"> Despayre </b> tête-à-tête 23:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * @Fifelfoo: But if editors are too lazy to follow the existing instructions, what good does adding even more do? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see your point. The requirements are now specified fully, rather than relying on the "assumed knowledge."  Fifelfoo (talk) 23:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * My point is that the longer and more complicated we make the instructions, the more likely they are to be ignored. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Under the prior instruction, for a book supply a full citation, I was prompting editors repeatedly on the constituent elements of a citation, and that an "online" book is still a book. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that addresses my point that the longer and more complicated the instructions, the more likely they are to be ignored. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I personally have not noticed an increase in "bad questions" since we changed the header, between that and the template use, I think we're getting better questions. But did you have an alternative idea? The shorter instructions that were there before didn't seem to be the answer. -- <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#D00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ACF"> Despayre </b> tête-à-tête 15:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I do have an alternative idea. What if instead of making the instructions longer, we also put in the header text when they create a new section? For example, if I create a new section at AN/I, there are instructions at the top of the edit page that begin "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion....". Click here to see what I mean. So, when an editor creates a new section, they'll see the header instructions not once, but twice. Obviously, editors can still ignore them, but I think that has a better chance of improving the quality of questions. BTW, I'm under no illusion that this is going to magically change things. When I made my original post on April 16th, I figured that it would take multiple approaches to get editors to follow the instructions. We tried a couple ideas, now let's try the next one. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am in favour of us testing your idea. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Adding to the changes we've made already, me too. -- <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#D00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ACF"> Despayre </b> tête-à-tête 01:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, great. Which version of the header instructions do we want to use, this or this?  I still think that simpler is better.  In fact, I'd like to change this...


 * ...to this...


 * ...and get straight to the point. Maybe we are losing people's attention on the first sentence?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I like the first second one. For brevity concerns. -- <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#D00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ACF"> Despayre </b> tête-à-tête 21:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm going to go ahead and do this. I don't actually know how to put the header text in the Edit page - we might need an admin to do that - but I'll ask at the Help Desk and I'm sure someone will be able to help.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I like how it looks. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Header Instructions - Break III
I am sick of dealing with this, "I can see no such requirement. I can see no discussion in RSN which obeys your requirement. In fact the top of the page just says: If it's an online source, please link to it, which I did. IRWolfie- (talk)" kind of rules lawyering when I need a citation so that I don't have to waste hours of my life doing other users work for them. I'd like the header and edit message changed to require full citations. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think things are getting better and we need to allow time for a new culture to sink in. I know I need to be less willing to jump straight in without full info. But sometimes we might be able to say something useful without having read the whole source in full. For example, if someone is questioning whether a book is appropriate and we can see straight away it is from an academic publisher, we would be able to say "looks OK on the face of it, what is the issue?". Itsmejudith (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm a little bit of two minds on this question, and I fall down on the "academic rigour" side of things, blame the teacher in me. On the one hand, it's certainly not a problem for the person who comes in here with a malformed question, if they get the answer they need without having to type everything in that's requested (and it *is* a request, not a requirement). On the other hand, it makes it a lot more work for those of us here who are volunteering our time to go out and research the context of a question, and any other relevant info that's missing (which isn't always obvious), and in the long run, isn't it better for everyone if the person with the concern puts in a little bit of effort and gets a "correct" answer from those willing to donate their time to it? The board runs more smoothly, we can answer more questions in the same amount of time, and the board would be less prone to errors from not having all the facts, and makes it much easier on those here to look at the information required. Hypothetical example: "Is fallingrain.com a reliable source?" easily looked at and discovered the answer is no. Until you go a little further and find that the article is "weather.com" where someone has inserted the text "weather.com is the only internet site that claims to provide statistical weather data across the planet". fallingrain.com would be RS to prove that assertion wrong. That's pretty simplistic, but clearly an example of why context is important. And on a personal note, if the editor can't be bothered to write out a proper question, how does babysitting that question to get an answer help that editor become any better for WP? (There was literally an editor in here recently that actually said "I can't be bothered to write it all out", personally, I feel that's a smack in the face of this board, I don't work for him. I'm volunteering my time to be helpful and I think that attitude should be discouraged, and clear questions will eventually be the norm, not the exception. On the board right now I count 6 questions that started out needing the template before I thought they could be answered, out of 18. So 33% of the editors coming here asking for help can't read? I'm not sure that's a glowing recommendation for the use of WP generally, I'd like to try and do my tiny bit to raise that LCD (lowest common denominator, not liquid crystal display ) just a little if we can. Note that the last point is purely my own personal opinion, so feel free to weigh that bit accordingly. Does this sound a little bit like a rant here, or is it just me? . -- <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#D00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ACF"> Despayre </b> tête-à-tête 17:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that Judith makes an excellent point about RSN's culture. Editors are not used to be asked to provide for this information.  It may take some time RSN's culture to change.  Something also to keep in mind is that newbies are just feeling their way around the place.  I get the strong feeling that Rob Bowman's OP is a newbie (doesn't sign signature, thinks IMDB is a reliable source and asks editors to personally contact them for the information).  Sometimes it's a good idea to answer the question differently depending on the experience level of the editor. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks everyone. What I think I should take out of this is that I'll be less "BITE"y.  But this is my concern about the simplified citation instruction (the "book" one).  In that a small proportion of editors are belligerent rules lawyers.  I'll give these instructions longer to sink in with editors bringing questions.  Fifelfoo (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You know, in all honesty, we don't really need the full citation. A link to the Amazon page for the book would tell almost everything we need to know, besides page number and a quote from the source.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but I would be opposed to that. I have no interest in suggesting users rely on an outside source, designed for profit, that may change it's format at any time, that we have no control over. That would also infer some kind of "reliability" or "legitimacy" on Amazon from WP. Regardless if that's right or wrong, I don't think we should be doing that here. What is wrong with people doing research here having to use the research skills I learned in grade 6? -- <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#D00 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#D00 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ACF"> Despayre </b> tête-à-tête 15:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I kind of figured someone would object. :) It's just an idea I wanted to throw out.  Personally, I would have no problem with it because I could easly get the book title, author and publisher.  Oh well, do you have any other ideas?  I'm running out.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is, I don't need the publisher or publishing location unless I really need the publisher and publishing location. And the less "usual" the source, the more I need it.  Pashtun biographies published in the 1970s need fuller bibliographic details than some idiot's Kindle book.  But when an editor actually bothers to present a full citation: Some Idiot My Book Online (Kindle/Amazon): Some Idiot, 2012; suddenly the concept of self-publication may dawn on them :) Fifelfoo (talk) 22:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The point of all this is to encourage editors to give us the information we need to properly answer their questions about reliability. We want editors to know that in order to efficiently answer their questions we need to know some context... Specifically -
 * a) What is the source in question?
 * b) Where is the source to be used (ie which article is source to be cited in)
 * c) How is it to be used (ie what specific statement in that article is the source supporting).
 * We want to phrase our request for this information as a request... and not as some sort of mandated "rule". Blueboar (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Editors are remarkably sloppy about "what" the source is, including identifying the source appropriately in text, and quite often about "what" the source is at all. I'm less upset at editors who simply lack the capacity to make a citation—their problem is ignorance which can be overcome—my problem is with editors who can cite who are too damn lazy to show basic courtesy. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Header Instructions - Break IV

 * I've reverted the following undiscussed changes. The change in color, in particular, clearly goes against the established concensus that we spent months discussing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Apologies for my invasion. I've been on a noticeboard header cleanup kick and didn't realize this one was actually being discussed. Most of them are rather neglected. I see the color scheme is at issue, so I mocked up Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Header/Sandbox using the current colors. The instructions are pretty much unchanged, aside from some slight copyedits; this is mostly a formatting thing and I'm not trying to change how things work here. The current header just has text sections that seem disconnected from each other and "floaty", and I think the standard noticeboard header format will tie things together nicely. I'm happy to tweak the proposal how ever might be suggested, though I do think an update is warranted that incorporates a bit of streamlining with the other boards.  Equazcion  ( talk )  06:22, 19 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I find the proposed changes to be deeply problematic. We have extreme editor compliance problems with a rigid format, that the proposed edit distracts from this essential regulation of contributions. It changes "When posting, please be sure to include any of the following information that is available:" to "Welcome to the reliable sources noticeboard," which is content duplicated from the page name own heading 1 element. It crowds it with "If you mention specific editors, please notify them of the discussion. You may use rsn-notice to do so" when these notices are rarely required as editors are rarely under discussion here. Further more, it introduces page purging junk and shortcuts to the most essential information item in the header: what is required to post here. Also lost are the core instructions regarding hypotheticals, and "While we attempt to give a second opinion and consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not official policy. This is not the place for content disputes which should be directed to the article talk page or associated WikiProject." The proposed edit is a long way from useful, both in formatting, and in lost content. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I edited Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Header/Sandbox to address these concerns. I kept the purge feature in, but repositioned it -- editors have found this useful on noticeboards, as frequently-updated pages sometimes show old versions to some editors and require a purge (I rarely get this myself but it's been a concern for others). I kept the introductory title in, but made the instructions more prominent -- although all pages of course have a level-1 header, noticeboards should still contain a somewhat prominent message stating what they are; something that isn't a "Wikipedia:" jargony address, as much as that might make things obvious to us. Let me know what you think of the new version.  Equazcion  ( talk )  07:41, 19 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * The newer version resolves all the issues I have, I would say that I'm now "indifferent" regarding which version to use. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) I'm going to implement this for now. Of course, if anyone still has objections, let me know.  Equazcion  ( talk )  07:50, 19 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Header instructions - Break V
Could editors think about how to integrate Reliable Sources/Noticeboard/Large scale clean-ups into the header?, to encourage editors to help with the clean-up process? Fifelfoo (talk) 07:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I would probably cut that page down in terms of vertical formatting and transclude it somewhere beneath the header. That page should be more of a "current alerts" listing like many noticeboards have. I'd probably make it either a wide(horizontally)/thin(vertically) banner box containing a multi-columned list, or maybe a narrow list down the righthand side. Just my thoughts.  Equazcion  ( talk )  09:52, 21 Jun 2012 (UTC)
 * While I'm happy to take advice, I'm thinking that a maximum of 3 groups / 1500 lines is a better idea to actually get through stuff without archiving. Which means keeping the "work" on one page, and moving transcluded elements of the page to the archives completely done.  The "candidates" ought to handle the alert problems. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)