Large scale clean-ups/answersingenesis.com

Large scale clean-ups/evolutionnews.org

Large scale clean-ups/independentpoliticalreport.com

Large scale clean-ups/kavitakosh.org

A content dispute has arisen at Scopes Trial involving multiple questions of policy (WP:V/WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV). For lack of a better idea, I'll bring it here and seek some outside opinions on whether the sources are reliable vis-à-vis the statements they're being used to support.

• Sources in question include Answers in Genesis, Creation Worldview, Evolution News, and (strangely enough) About.com.
• Diff: [1]

Thanks for any guidance. Rivertorch (talk) 08:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither AIG, not CW nor EN is remotely a reliable source. They are all promoting quite particular (and particularly implausible) interpretations of one religion without regard for reality. They could be used as sources for their own opinion, but I very much doubt that these opinions are notable. I don't know how good or bad the editorial policy of About.com is, but again, I fail to see this comment as notable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AIG, CW, EN are not reliable sources and should not be used - expect in the very limited circumstances described by Stephan. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I alluded to that on the talk page. Many thanks to both of you for your help. Rivertorch (talk) 09:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand about CW, which I mistakenly left in, and also EN, even though the writer is from the Discovery Institute.

What I don't understand, though, is why a creationist perspective can't be given on the play/film Inherit the Wind if it is clearly labelled as such. It isn't a matter of science, but of historical fact, which the play/film clearly distorts in the favor of the evolution side. For just two things, it never mentions the ACLU's involvement, making Scopes seem persecuted, and it made the creationist lawyer traumatize the teacher's girlfriend on the stand when Scopes had no girlfriend and no women were part of the trial. If the serious inaccuracies in ITW aren't addressed, then WP seems to be approving the play/film as fairly-accurate history and a reliable source itself, when it's not. As one of the sources, Austin Cline of the atheism page on About.com, acknowledges, ITW is taken as history. People don't know what the difference is since most will never actually study the trial.

I also proposed, although maybe not clearly enough, that if the research in AiG's article on the discrepancies wasn't allowed, then at least a straight opinion from the article on what creationists see as its bias against creationists be included. Something like, "creationists believe that the play/film is biased in how it portrays the trial," along with Austin Cline's comment on his view that it is not historically accurate. I also want to mention, too, that I haven't seen a comment on including Austin Cline's remarks and if they are considered RS. Psalm84 (talk) 10:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of these sources are reliable for the claim. The standards expected for sources here would be scholarly literary criticism, scholarly history of science or scholarly applied theology / religious history. None of the sources meet this standard. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that particular section the article, which isn't on the actual Scopes trial but on film/plays about it, there are two sources to Bryan.edu and Allegedthemovie.com, which don't meet that sort of standard.

In the section on plays/films it seems the standards should be closer to those for plays/films/documentaries would apply, wouldn't they? And About.com seems to be a frequent RS for WP. Psalm84 (talk) 10:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also am wondering, too, are there any RS that are creationist, so that there could be a creationist reply to how creationism is portrayed in the play/film, even if it's just a remark that they find it biased? I am also wondering if the historical inaccuracies and the bias in the film are clear to others. I placed a couple of examples here of the inaccuracies, and there are more in the diff in the original post. Psalm84 (talk) 11:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can gutter presses evaluate the historical accuracy of a fictive work? Fifelfoo (talk) 11:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Film critics often do it. A lot of the inaccuracies are blatant. And it is objective that creationists object to how they're portrayed in the film and believe it distorted what happened. That belief is also backed up by those discrepancies. I mentioned a couple, but there are more. Psalm84 (talk) 11:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So find it in an appropriately edited press, and bring it to RS/N. Bring your sourcing out of the gutter. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right now since I dropped two sources I'm just talking about Answers in Genesis and About.com. I'm not sure why either are "gutter sources"? And there is a problem with finding such a source that isn't creationist that talks about the inaccuracies in a play that attacks creationism. As I wrote on the talk page: "if AiG is so objectionable, how about a quote from the article which is clearly their opinion that they find the film to be biased and inaccurate?" Psalm84 (talk) 11:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we give any credence to such a fringe unreliable source and their opinion? --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If a play/film negatively portrays a certain group of people and they object to it, why shouldn't a comment on how they believe they were falsely portrayed be included? And in this case, comparing the trial to the play shows that. Psalm84 (talk) 12:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• http://www.answersingenesis.org/: 1114 external links.
• http://www.creationworldview.org/: 2 external links (including this discussion).
• http://www.evolutionnews.org/: 207 external links.

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources listed have a suitable fact checking editorial policy. In particular the religious sources listed are sub-tabloid. About is a link farm with an open door policy on content and no expertise. If serious scholarly literalist theologians have engaged with the subject of the subsection of the article, then please bring those sources. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are starting to go in circles - there is no consensus to include your fringe sources in any form and unless you bring new sources to the table there is nothing left to discuss. That other pages need clean-up means nothing to this discussion (leaving aside that 95% of the usage are to talkpages) --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about the play specifically, and right in the article, when it gets to the play, it says it was "was loosely based on this trial" and "... not based on any actual event", ergo, it's fiction. It does not need to portray historical accuracy, and certainly does not need any clarification from a "creationist perspective". That's absurd.

• AIG not RS.
• CW not RS.
• EN, I would like to see the specific article cited, it's possible the author may be credible (for his own opinion only), but the site is not RS.
• About.com not RS.

In response to your question about finding a suitable film review, if you can find a film critic who is RS and points out the creationist view flaws in the movie, it may be RS, but may still fail under WP:WEIGHT or WP:FRINGE concerns, admittedly, you're in a very tough place to advance from, at least that's how I see it.

As an aside, many articles here have poor sources, that doesn't mean we should add one more, it means those other articles with poor sources should be written better, WP:OSE is never a good argument. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 16:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. My previous post wasn't meant to illustrate that these sources are reliable. Instead, it was meant to illustrate that the problem is more widespread than this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Widespread use of potentially inappropriate sources

I'm going to keep this up here for a bit, so as to specify the problem and allow RS/N editors to examine test cases from these publications. I resolved the single inappropriate use of creationworldview.org already. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/: 1114 external links.

Is Wright, David (2012). "Feedback: Timeline for the Flood". Answers in Genesis. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) a reliable webpage to act as a reference for Flood geology. Flood geology is a FRINGE science, and so in an article on a FRINGE science, participation in standard scholarly peer review may not be a reliability criteria, as long as the work has been reviewed by the FRINGE community and is used for discussion of FRINGE beliefs. As the work is used as a general reference in Flood geology, no specific claim is sourced against it. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would say no, unless it is to back up reliable sources. Fringe beliefs that have not been discussed in reliable sources t of the fringe community are probably not noteworthy of inclusion in WP articles. First of all, we have the problem of weight. We cannot tell how prominent a particular belief is within the fringe community based on the say so of highly partisan promotial, advocacy or apologetics sources that do not have a reputation of being neutral sources of relaible information, and in fact have a reputation for misrepresentation.

The question is topical as I was just considering removing this section [[2]] and the second paragraph of this section [[3]] because they are entirely sourced to fringe sources. In my view, creating material based solely on in-universe fringe sources is tantamount to OR based on primary documents. I would appreciate your input.

Furthermore, whether something has been "reviewed" by the fringe community is irrelvant, as the "review" is not truly independent, nor does it resemble in any aspect real scholarly review. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 05:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a peer reviewed journal of Flood Geology, then the papers contained within are probably useful for explaining the beliefs of Flood geologers, edited anti-science is still edited and it would be reliable for the views of that FRINGE anti-science community. It would obviously be completely and utterly worthless in explaining geology. Regarding the two sections you noted, if "Robert Larmer" is a scholarly theologian, or highly esteemed professional practicioner with widespread publications in professional theological presses, his views might be noteworthy. The rest looks like garbage. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Larmer, "Is there anything wrong with "God of the gaps" reasoning, " International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 52: 129–142, 2002. is reliably published, and appropriately peer reviewed afaict, the question would be, does it support the supposition in the text, or is the supposition OR? Fifelfoo (talk) 05:51, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was not talking about the Larmer paragraph, but the next paragraph starting with "Christian young Earth creationists". That paragraph does look entirely like OR.

As for "peer reviewed journal of flood geology", I trust that you mean genuinely academically peer reviewed, and not a sham pseudo-academic journal that claims to be "peer-reviewed" as described in the first paragraph of WP:PARITY. I'm not sure, but it seems that you are saying that "editing" is sufficient to make a source reliable. The "editing" that takes place solely within a fringe community does little to add credibility to a source, the same as with "review". An editor has to have a reputation for sound editing within the mainstream community for a source to be considered reliable, and a belief has to be discussed (whether favorably, unfavorably or neutrally) by the mainstream community to be considered noteworthy. Your thoughts? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You would be correct if the topic were geology, or the scientific correctness of flood "geology," but when representing faithfully the beliefs of flood "geologists" themselves, we should use the best available flood geological sources. Let us consider three sources (Guttersnipe 2011) a christian YEC link aggregator with no authors for the article and no editorial policy, (Fringe 2002) a "peer" "reviewed" Flood "geologist" journal, and (Geologist 2010) a peer reviewed geologist in a normal magazine. We would use them such: "Flood geology is a pseudo-science whose views are utterly rejected by the scientific community. (Geologist 2010) Flood geologists believe X, Y and Z. (Geologist 2010; Fringe 2002) These beliefs fail to account for observed phenomena A, B and C. (Geologist 2010) Flood geologists mainly collaborate through a yearly conference held in East Timor. (Fringe 2002)" Do you understand what I'm getting at here? We should never use guttertrash link aggregators, even when using them to source the contents of the beliefs of FRINGE groups. Some FRINGE groups, such as Flood Geology may have internally consistent systems to verify that Flood Geologists actually believe X, Y or Z; when such systems of confirmation exist, we should use such sources when explaining the content of FRINGE beliefs. Such sources can't speak to the validity of FRINGE beliefs, but they can speak to the content of FRINGE beliefs. Do you get me? Fifelfoo (talk) 06:58, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm talking about any content, not just scientific content. The beliefs of fringe groups are a topic of scholarly interest, and thus require sources deemed as reliable by the scholarly community, whether the source itself originates from within the fringe community or not.

I do, however, agree that the best sources from within the fringe community can be used, with "best" defined by their standing outside of the fringe commnunity. That is, have real serious scholars found the source reliable and used it in their discussion of the topic. A source that is valued and referenced solely within the fringe universe is probably of little value here on WP. I would reject your recognition of "peer" "reviewed" as adding credibility to the source (Fringe 2002), though, if that credibilty is entirely self-assigned or recognized only in-universe, and not by the scholarly community at large.

The example you gave, "Flood geologists mainly collaborate through a yearly conference held in East Timor", is particularly troublesome, because it's not necessarily non-controversial. Fringe communities tend to be extremely factionary, and their publications tend to be exceedingly partisan in this regard. The source you picked may repesent a small off-shoot of the community that does indeed meet in East Timor, but ignores the BIG pow-wow attended by most other factions in Ouagadougou (the infamous "no true Scotsman meets in Ouagadougou" fallacy). Without recourse to out-of-universe sources, it would be impossible to evaluate the reliability of their claim without violating WP:OR. Unless I had out-of-universe confirmation, I would not allow the sentence as you posted it. I MIGHT allow clearly non-controversial statements about themselves in a very limited sense, though, based on such sources, but not about the fringe community as a whole.

Indeed, the reason that I am removing the first section I mentioned above is that it is factionary, and limited to the Seventh Day Adventist element of the YEC community, which promotes vegetarianism. The rest of the YEC community does not really care one way or the other about vegetarianism.

Last of all, please give me your opinion on the SECOND paragraph of this section [4]], beginning with the words "Christian young Earth creationists". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to use all caps by the way. I would pull the second and third paragraphs in their entirety. There's no indication that the opinions in the second paragraph are weighty (particularly as the article is YEC, not Answers in Genesis, etc.). The third paragraph appears to have no sourcing other than tripe articles. (You'd think a fucking fringe community would at least be a coherent whole—obviously the "about oneself" exemption only applies to the organisations publishing such organs.) Fifelfoo (talk) 07:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Agree with third paragraph as well. Fringe communities are very rarely unified and uniform. I've been workign on sourcing for the articles on astrology for the past year, and it's almost impossible to identify significant figures or movements in that "community" at all because exremely few reliable out-of-universe sources exist at all. Much worse than with creationism, for which we do have abundant reliable out-of-universe sources. Thanks very much for your input! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It gets worse. Their stuff is in general unedited shite from non-notables, but they have run a "Technical Journal" with no about information, on which one paper at least claims review prior to publication (cf: Bombardier_beetle#cite_ref-am_5-0); and actually run a "peer reviewed" publication, ARJ to publish pseudo-science. ARJ looks like it would contain "weighty" opinions by biblical literalist pseudo-scientists; if the opinion of a pseudo-scientist would otherwise be weight-worthy in a particular article (noted controversy in non-FRINGE sources, etc, involving the FRINGE). So we can't just nuke this, because occasionally there might be "good" stuff there, but most of the 1000 links are either going to be talk space or utter crap. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vis a vis 'flood' geologists, J Harland Bretz was no Biblical literalist, but his regional catastrophism was scorned by the American Geological Society, probably from vehement distaste for any form of catastrophic explanation, until his more rigorous interpretation of the data vindicated him - test propositions carefully.Cpsoper (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing how Bretz is relevant to the discussion of a link aggregating website that publishes unpeer reviewed magazines? If you want to start a discussion of the use of a particular Bretz work in a particular Bretz article I suggest you start a new section in RS/N at the bottom. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I quote, 'Flood geology is a FRINGE science' - precisely how the AGS myopically reacted to Bretz. The relevance of neglecting a wealth of important data and of a blinkering paradigm like gradualism should be obvious given this and other historical antecedents.Cpsoper (talk) 23:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have the privilege that original researchers have of reacting myopically or with good long sight to novel or non-standard hypotheses. We represent the preponderance of scholarly knowledge. If you wish to change the preponderance of scholarly knowledge, then a geological, theological or history and philosophy of science doctorate and subsequent scholarly publications is only 10-15 years away. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This item has been accepted as a large scale clean-up at Wikipedia:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard/Large scale clean-ups Fifelfoo (talk) 07:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Links starting: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/

These represent articles reprinted from Journal of Creation, formerly Technical Journal; a product published by Creation Ministries International. Journal of Creation / Technical Journal has no indication of peer review and has a mission to publish pseudo-science. Answersingenesis.org makes no acknowledgement of Journal of Creation/Technical Journal's copyright, and these items should probably be deleted as copyvio links, when they're not deleted for being non-noteworthy FRINGE science or FRINGE humanities.

Example article: Bombardier beetle

Example source: Armitage, Mark H.; Mullisen, Luke (April 2003). Preliminary observations of the pygidial gland of the Bombardier Beetle, Brachinus sp.. Answers in Genesis. Retrieved 9 July 2007.

Actual source: Armitage, Mark H.; Mullisen, Luke (2002) "Preliminary observations of the pygidial gland of the Bombardier Beetle, Brachinus sp." Technical Journal (Christian Ministeries International) 17:1

Claim supported, "Others such as intelligent design proponent Michael Behe and Answers in Genesis, accept most of the scientific view but contend that "complexity" suggests an origin by design."

Claim fallaciously claims weight to this FRINGE view, and misattributes it. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vis a vis 'flood' geologists, J Harlen Bretz was of course no Biblical literalist, but his regional catastrophism was foolishly scorned by the American Geological Society, till his interpretation of the data vindicated him - be careful to test things carefully.Cpsoper (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And that's relevant how? I see that what you identify as your "home page" on your user page contains an array of links to some of the unreliable sources under discussion here. Rivertorch (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, please give an example of unreliability in the citations quoted.Cpsoper (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Technical Journal isn't peer reviewed, it fails to meet the basic criteria for science articles. The claim "Others such …Answers in Genesis, accept [fact]" is manifestly unverifiable from the article as Armitage and Mullisen (2002) was never published by Answers in Genesis. Even then, it is a misweighting, as AiG's opinion (a religious lobby organisation) means sweet fuck all on a scientific article. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Foul language betrays weak argument - to avoid clogging up this noticeboard, see rebuttal on my talk page shortly, where you may reply.Cpsoper (talk) 23:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't wish to participate in a consensus forming discussion, do not be surprised when your opinions are not included in the consensus formed. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Fifel. It is a valuable comment, looking at some of the expressions in the section above.Cpsoper (talk) 23:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you agree with yourself—mass suspected copyright violation external links are a serious business. Also, as you would know from detailed policy discussions; that while I am sad that your variant of English is so limited, I am not going to go and erase my own variant of English to meet your personal needs. I will perhaps avoid using my own variety of English's natural emphatics, mate, but your decision to withdraw from consensus formation and your use of an effectively ad hominem attack are not particularly good engagement with the policies of our community. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:05, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through this link series, generally replacing these links with citations to Technical Journal and only removing content when the claims were that content cited against Technical Journal was representative of Answers in Genesis' views. Cases where these were indicative of YEC community views as a whole were tagged with an inline weight template, and discussion started on the talk page for the community of editors there to evaluate. Outside of a few scientific articles, these links were on YEC related pages. Links starting http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/ should probably be blacklisted due to the copyvio element; could someone advise on this? Fifelfoo (talk) 02:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Links starting: http://www.answersingenesis.org/arj/

Represent a peer-reviewed FRINGE "journal", Answers research journal, which I believe indicates that these views may be weight worthy within the FRINGE science community represented; such that they would be reasonable to use when commenting on the FRINGE practice itself (but obviously not its validity) in articles solely dedicated to FRINGE practices. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any other links in article space

Represent unedited or at best "popular" magazine articles representing FRINGE science or FRINGE humanities from non-weight worthy opinions. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.evolutionnews.org/: 207 external links.

Is the headpage of evolutionnews.org reliable for the claim, "According to the Center for Science and Culture's weblog,[3] at least 10 state legislatures are now considering legislation reconsidering how evolution is taught." in Intelligent design in politics? Fifelfoo (talk) 01:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is Holocaust Denier Led the Charge Against Academic Freedom on Evolution in Alabama Casey Luskin. Discovery Institute, Evolutionnews.org. reliable for the claim "A notable characteristic of this [free speech on evolution] campaign is the [Discovery] Institutes framing the issues as a confluence of free speech, academic freedom and discrimination," in Discovery Institute intelligent design campaigns. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Such sites are reliable only as primary sources to describe themselves, and then only in the most basic terms. The subjects of articles don't get to decide which of their own characteristics should be termed notable. On a broader note, it looks as if you've uncovered a potentially widespread sourcing problem here. Do those counts include both inline citations and standalone external links? Rivertorch (talk) 06:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't uncover them, another user did. They appear to be at least 50% article space, and most of them references rather than External Links. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At first sight it looked terrifying, but I see that quite a lot are on talk and project pages. Then there are articles that from their titles are about organisations and individuals involved in this perspective. These probably need a long trawl through to see how many are notable, and whether we have a huge walled garden here or not. The references on science articles, like Bombadier beetle can never be justified, as far as I can see. That creationists evoked the B. beetle might be a notable fact in creationism but isn't a notable fact about the B. beetle. The material should simply be deleted. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This item has been accepted as a large scale clean-up at Wikipedia:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard/Large scale clean-ups Fifelfoo (talk) 07:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This large scale clean-up is causing problems for articles like Objections to evolution and Nylon-eating bacteria and creationism that cover the Creation–evolution controversy, which may be notable as a scientific controversy because of the psuedo sicence nature of creation science, but is quite notable as a cultural/political/religious/sociological phenomenon. Anyone with any sense knows that Answers in Genesis is never a reliable source for any scientific topic, but it is a reliable source (and an important one) for what creationists say and think and it is widely cited as such by postings on websites that are reliable sources such as National Center for Science Education, TalkOrigins Archive and NMSR. If we can't cite sources from organizations like AiG or Creation Ministries International it is hard to cover the controversy, especially since those organizations are significant players in the controversy. It is a long established principle that sources that would not otherwise be considered reliable for anything else, are in fact reliable sources for their own viewpoints. Let us stop and discuss this a little before we continue to hack up perfectly good articles like the two I mentioned. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are trying to bear that factor in mind. You'll have seen that I divided the articles into categories; that was to help cleanup and allow people with subject expertise to help out with the articles most relevant to them. I see the use of AiG to illustrate the YEC position as an open question. If their position is notable in regard to a topic, it can go in. It isn't always notable. Often, there will be a better source for the same position. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are trying to keep that in mind, but the edits at objections to evolution in particular don't seem to be consistent with that, and it has sparked a mini edit war. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would appreciate some input on the reliability of a source used in the Insite article.

The last paragraph of the Research section cites a letter to Lancet, printed in its pages here, critiquing a Lancet study on the Vancouver Supervised Injecting Facility which claimed that it had reduced overdose deaths within a 500 meter radius around Insite by 35%. On the following page of Lancet here, the Lancet study's authors reply to the critique. What is in dispute is the use of a more recent documented comment by the Lancet study's critics here whereby they demonstrate that the Lancet study's authors are evidenced as incorrect in their Lancet reply to the original criticisms.

It should be noted that the media release by the Drug Prevention Network of Canada derives from an Australian media release here - (See 'Serious Errors in Vancouver Injecting Room Study') by one of the critics whose letter is published in Lancet. This establishes, in my view, the reliability of the source, and the gravity and correctness of the reply is, I believe, self-evident. See Diff [5] Minphie (talk) 12:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph you mention seems to rely on primary sources and press releases or articles which wouldn't satisfy WP:MEDRS and it is not appropriate for Wikipedia articles to arbitrate.
Note that the journalistic catch phrase "Lancet study" just means a study (generally by researchers unconnected to the journal) which was accepted for publication in The Lancet. ICMJE guidelines stress the ethical responsibility of peer review journals to facilitate post-publication reviewing in the form of Letters, where appropriate accompanied by Authors' Replies.
Hope this helps, —MistyMorn (talk) 14:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Letters to the editor should generally be avoided, and are certainly not useable for anything more than a statement with WP:INTEXT attribution: "Alice Expert writes that the Moon is made of green cheese". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The debate about Insite's 35% reduction in overdoses in its immediately surrounding area, as to whether it is due to the presence of Insite or due to the ongoing policing of the immediate area around Insite which reduced drug use in that same area by 46%, has most certainly been described with attribution, as can be seen in the last paragraph of the research section.

My question is whether the debate between the authors of a Lancet study and its critics, where subsequent letters by both have been reproduced in Lancet itself, and where there are media releases addressing these two letters and further public debate by the two parties in the media, constitutes the use of primary sources. These appear to me secondary sources on the original debate as per Wikipedia's own definition, "In scholarship, a secondary source is a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere." Where the discussion about the Lancet study is continued in the media by the very same authors/critics it would seem to me to be clearly secondary. There may be someone who is conversant with the 'common law' of Wikipedia, ie what has been accepted elsewhere, who might wish to comment. Minphie (talk) 06:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're not for the purposes of wikipedia. I'd suggest reading WP:MEDRS and contemplating it. Supervised injecting rooms, being a medical topic, fall under it. In relation to "what constitutes a secondary source in scholarly debate," in relation to medical findings, secondary sources are sources that review multiple original ideas and opinions along side multiple studies. Non-peer reviewed letters are not such a source. Wait until a subsequent scholar contextualises all this guff in a review article regarding supervised injecting sites. Because all the participants in the debate are doing in their letters is generating new medical primary sources, new original opinions, they're not seating these original opinions in a context of an appropriate scholarly review of these opinions. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does this page meet RS standards or not? It seems to be from a "blogspot" of the Riverdale Press, which appears to be itself an at least basically reliable local newspaper in the area. John Carter (talk) 18:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RS for what? Someguy1221 (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, actually. I've asked the editor who added material based on it, User:Catflap08, to indicate exactly what he wants sourced from this article. John Carter (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well what I can see is that ceratain articles form the Riverdale Press are available online also for people to comment on them ... in my eyes not a blog as such which is more like a diary.--Catflap08 (talk) 16:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually, I think the Riverdale Press blog might actually meet WP:USERG standards, which specifically indicates that "news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." I am not myself sure how to actually determine from the newspaper's "blog" site whether it actually meets those standards myself, because I actually haven't dealt with such sources before. But if it is, as it appears to be, a form of online edition of that newspaper, it probably would meet RS standards. I have sought outside input at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Riverdale Press blogspot. John Carter (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a Response to the comment provided by John on the Dispute Resolution Board but was informed that the issue is about Reliable Sources, discussed on this Noticeboard. For this reason I'll repost it here:

The comment above does not help in resolving whether a blog can be used asa reliable source. Guy Macon says blogs are not reliable sources. John Carter says he is not sure. I request other Wikipedia editors to examine the matter, because it belongs to clarifying Wikipedia guidelines. To initiate an examination of whether a blogspot - and in particular the mentioned one - meets the guidelines I’d like to present the following points:

1/ Wikipedia guidelines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS#Usage_by_other_sources indicates: “Never use….blogs as a source for material about a living person” . The mentioned source in dispute is a blog, with a defaming rumor involving a living person (the teacher).

2/ In Citing Sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sourcesources we find:
“the information given is supported by reliable sources, thus improving the credibility of Wikipedia”. Here we have an information about “controversy about proselytizing” supported by a blog which defines the information as a mere rumor. I disagree with the editors (involved in supporting the blog) on accepting a rumor as a reference in Wikipedia article, whether it is on a blog or on a rumor spreading -self confessed tabloid.

3/ There is a problem of Anonymity, included in the blog. The blog indicates statements of individuals who “did not want to be named” and created a string of personal comments - similar to chat groups comments - with many identifying themselves as “ Anonymous”. Question to all Wikipedia Editors: Is a blog reporting a rumor and including anonymous contributors to the information, is this a reliable source? John mentions that blogs are acceptable if : “these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field”. In the examined case, the writer confesses of writing a rumor and the other contributors to that blog are not professionals, as they signed with “anonymous”.

4/ The rumor-based information (contained in that disputed reference) was copied by another similar source. If a person repeats a lie or a rumor many times, that does not make it reliable. The other source which “copied and pasted” the same rumor meets also the same quality of lack of credibility.

5/ If the opinion of other editors is to accept the disputed blog (and the second source which copied the rumor from that blog) then I suggest the following: the accurate citation by the editor(s) of the sentence should include that “there was a rumor about proselytizing”, and then add the blog as a reference. If the word rumor is not added to the citation, then the citation is misleading as it falsely claims that it is about proselytizing while it is about a rumor of a single incident of alleged proselytizing (and which was disputed by other individuals involved in the matter, as the blog itself mentions).

6/ Question: is a web-article which is written by an anonymous person (or group of unknown people) - is this source regarded as acceptable in Wikipedia.

General question, general answer: We evaluate reliability partly on the basis of the author (Is expert? Has published reliably on subject? etc.) partly on the publisher/website (Academic? Strong on fact-checking? etc.). So, if the piece is anonymous, all depends on the evaluation of the publisher/website. Andrew Dalby 09:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

7/ The title of this thread was chosen by John as " Riverdale Press Blog" , however the dispute is not just on that questionable reference. There are 2 matters here not just one included in the title. All rasied matters should be addressed, not only the Rivedale Press Blog. I don't know whether I have to extend the second matter to a different thread, as initially I included both matters in one post (at the Dispute resolution Board). I'll continue then here with the other matter which was not addressed.

The disputed sentence referes to a claim of controversy using the words “religious tolerance”. This matter is in particular of a very important weight and I request its full examination of by Wikipedia Editors: the disputed sentence starts with a claim of “controversy regarding religious tolerance”. To support this claim, a source citing a complaint by a certain individual (about age discrimination and religious intolerance) in a case which went to the court. The reference does not mention that the Court dismissed the case, and brought the information as valid, while it is not. The Court did not rule about any breach of religious tolerance referred to in that misleading source. The answer of the editor involved who introduced the misleading claim was that the Court's decision was weak, and he reinstalled the misleading refrence again. I do not know about Wikipedia rules concerning criticising a Court’s decision as weak - as a justification of including a misleading information in the article.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 07:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from point 6 above, and which was answerd by Andrew Dalby - none of the other points were discussed or answered. It seems that a general question gets a general answer quickly, so if this is the case I may as well generalise my questions, which remain unanswered. Originally, my matter was posted as a "Disputed sentence" which had 2 (two, not one only) disputed use of references as explained on the Dispute Resolution Board. It was moved here and unfairly given the title Riverdale Press Blogspot, changing thus the focus of the original matter - to just one subject.

Now, to trigger the discussion onwards, I am asking Editors the following 2 general Q below (which constitute the essence of relevant points I explained in details above - without repeating them here):/1/ Is a blog which acknolwedges that the information given on it is a mere rumor, is this blog accepted as a refrence to the wording of a sentence which makes of the rumor a fact, misleading thus readers about its low credibility. And: /2/ Is it acceptable to use a refrence about a specific legal matter (one side accusing another in a court case) and which the legal system rejected its credibility (and twice dismissed the court cases about it) - is it acceptable to use that refrence speaking only about the accusation of one side (ignoring the court's dismissal of the accusation) as a supportive refrencein a sentence virtually defaming the accused, misleading thus readers about the rejection of the whole matter by the court. I wonder whether the last question here requires a separate section - because the title given to this thread deals with one refrence only without addressing the totality of the matter as put above and as originally put on the Dispute Resolution Board.

can I also emphasise here that the problem is not just about the misleading refrences but about the wording of the sentence. Even if a refrence may be considered as reliable, the problem remains in the wording of the information in the article, which does not support the full contents of the refrences.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 05:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I believe that the Riverdale site is no Blog as such. This is an online version of the Riverdale Press. On a side note a Pulitzer prize awarded newspaper. The site just gives the opportunity for users to comment on articles published. I would also like to say that Safwan is in no position to brand the incidents published in the Ocweekly as rumours. Even without the riverdale reference (which I took out a week ago) or the OCWeekly reference the sentence would remain the same. The lack of religious tolerance and issues on proselytising are issues brought up again and again, whether it be academics, journalists, ex-members or still active critical members. Safwan does not like the sentence full stop. As for the ongoings at Soka University the court ruling was not about if SGI is engaged in proselytising or not but on which grounds the sacking of the employee was legal or not . Proselytising to my knowledge is not forbidden in most western countries at least– its just a pain in the neck. Yet again I must emphasise that Wikipedia is not about judging, but to mention relevant information for the reader. Denying those critical issues would indeed be against Wikipedia ethos and purpose. I would also like to mention this, a draft version on a future guideline concerning religious issues, although still a draft what it underlines is that critical issues have and should be mentioned and there is no need to say things like “ but SGI states that ...” when information critical of SGI is published. It has been brought up by another user within the SGI-talk. To be honest the reader does not care actually as the article should solely describe what SGI is about how it sees itself and goals it follows. The critical issues have their own right. Yet again its not about judging, but give an idea about a religious group – and even though some may not like that, but mentioning those issues critical are important. Safwan has to acknowledge that there are people in this world who know the faith he is practising quite well, may it be due to own experience or by interest. We are talking about religious issues and what some people hold dear – and they have every right to so – is simply not equal to those who do not share that interpretation of a certain faith may it be on philosophical, organisational or academic grounds. And even though this a very private opinion Safwan, your eagerness to get rid of those critical issues perfectly underlines the old criticism of SGI as being unable to accept and tolerate those views that simply do not buy in on how SGI portrays itself. And yet again a private opinion, Safwan, you know perfectly well in which way other faiths, Buddhist or not, indeed Nichiren-Buddhist or not are being portrayed behind closed doors. So denying the obvious will just result in making the not obvious to be more visible. --Catflap08 (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question was asked above as to what information is being sourced from the Riverdale Press blog. I'm not sure that I see an answer to that question. It would help the others who might review this thread to have a clearer idea as to what specific content is being sourced from that site. John Carter (talk) 17:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, something has been achieved here - but just partly, not completely: the disputed source (of Riversdale Press Blogspot presenting a rumor about a teacher) - this was removed from the disputed sentence (on Soka Gakkai page, Perception and Criticism):

“There has been controversy about the degree of religious tolerance[75] and proselytizing[76][77][78]practiced by some of Sōka Gakkai's members[79]”

However, the same subject of the same rumor about that teacher was copied by this source: ([77] in the sentence above: http://www.culthelp.info/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=5600

This brings the subject of my enquiry again to this Board. Is a description of a "rumor" acceptable as a reference implicating it as a "truth", that is: implicating the teacher involved in wrongdoing based solely on rumors. The sentence above is about ‘proselytizing’ while the source is about a 'rumor concerning proselytizing'.

If this reference is maintained in the disputed sentence then this is a case of presenting a rumor as a fact on Wikipedia pages.

The other subject is not dealt with by any editor,: it is the first part of the disputed sentence which claims that controversy about ‘religious tolerance’ is supported by this information:[75]: http://www.ocweekly.com/content/printVersion/932823/ . This source presents an information (dated March 2011) about an alleged discrimination claimed by a staff (discrimination based on the complaining staff's age and also religious beliefs) - submitted in a legal case to the court system. The court dismissed the case in April 2011. This means that the allegation of religious intolerance (which the editor involved put in the disputed sentence) -, does not support reality of the case upon which the editor relied. If the court dismissed the case, the question here to Wikipedia editors, on whether : an information speaking half the truth and ignoring the decision of the court in the matter - is it acceptable within Wikipedia practice. In other words, is it acceprtable to publishes that "X was accused" in a court case, deliberately avoiding and ignoring the fact that "the accusation against X was invalid".SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The court did not decide wether SGI is proselytising or not. Actually I am tempted to reinsert the Riverdale quote - both are examples where prsoelytising became an issue - in both cases not the focus. The Cult watch article describes also what happened in that school. At any rate I slowly getting the impression the editor tries to withold information. The article on SGI is NINE pages long. What I finally would like to know if the editor wants the word proselytising not to appear in the article? The idea that this was a rumor soley is being voiced by the editor in question --- both newspaper articles report on issues - as newspapers do.--Catflap08 (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)I would also like to know finally disclosing on what basis he believes the Riverdale Press and OC Weekly are to be regarded unreliable sources? They are newspapers - as anyone can see.--Catflap08 (talk) 21:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to cooperate and acknowledge that Wikipedia editors have not voiced their views about the 2 matters presented here. I have explained the matters in details here (and also: in "Two Unresolved Matters"). Going into circles is not helpful. Giving nonsensical arguments is not helpful (such as: "The article on SGI is NINE pages", shouting the number 9 to validate your points).

Again I am asking Wikipedia editors the 2 questions: /1/ is it acceptable for an editor to give information relying on a source - which speaks about an accusation to someone (or organisation) - but without mentioning that the claimed accusatin was in a court case which was dismissed by the legal system. This is a matter about Wikipedia rules and gudelines - it is a general question regarding a sentence giving a false claim the impression as being a true claim - which can mislead the reader- is acceptable by Wikipedia.

The second question is also general: it is about using a refrence which presents a rumor about someone, a rumor by confesstion of the writer of the blog - not any final or true fact. Rumor spreading sources - in this particular matter - was used in a sentence, treating the rumor as a confirmed fact against the person involved. Is this acceptable in Wikipedia? ( For confirmation of my impartial approach please understand the following: I have no objection at all to that sentence about proselytizing. It should not be deleted, not at all, because it has other acceptable by Wikipedia sources (I will examine their contents in the future), so these acceptable sources can remain in the same sentence. But the other 2 sources which are specifically dealing with a rumor - are the subject of objection). My 2 questions are of general nature.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the article Women's suffrage in the United States and editor has been deleting a section sourced mainly from Lott and the Washington Times. The first deletion is I think the editor not logged in (no accusation of any wrongdoing here, I've done this before) with the edit summary "rm speculation, passive verbs and John Lott is not a significant historian or political scientist". I reinstated it, attributing part of it to Lott, with an edit summary saying " removing verbs you don't like hardly make it clear a whole section has been removed, Lott has good academic credentials". It's been deleted again[6] with a new reason, "polemical article in polemical newspaper is a poor RS for controversial claims". I don't see either of these arguments as good reasons to remove this, but I am happy to be shown I'm wrong. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are two sources cited in this section:

• Lott, John R. Jr. "Women's suffrage over time." Washington Times, November 27, 2007. [n.p.]
• "Where There's Life There's Hope." Life, November 15, 1906.

The second is a clear primary, and via the advice at WP:HISTRS I would suggest it be removed. Argumentative use of primaries is OR.

The first is more complex. Lott has published in Journal of Political Economy on this topic (Lott, John R Jr.; Kenny, Larry "How Dramatically Did Women's Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government?" Journal of Political Economy [n.v.; n.i.], 1999, [n.p.].). The question is, why are we citing a non-peer reviewed publication when a peer reviewed publication exists. Lott's speculations on women's sufferage in the Washington Times hasn't suffered the scrutiny of political economists. Lott and Kenny's findings have. Replace with Lott and Kenny 1999; and if the content isn't found there, remove it—Lott knows how to get peer reviewed papers published, if the claims exist only in the Washington Post, then they're obviously not capable of withstanding the peer scrutiny process. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't disagree but the statements are plausible. Women's suffrage is likely to have favoured prohibition. Since Lott is published elsewhere on this topic, my instinct is uncontroversial and reliable. This is not carte Blanche to Lott or Washington Times on history. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And maybe minor, I'd be a lot happier if it had been the Washington Post. Dougweller (talk) 15:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lott emphatically does not have good academic credentials. If he can't get it past a peer review, it is inherently questionable. Hipocrite (talk) 21:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on him says "He has previously held research positions at academic institutions including the University of Chicago, Yale University, the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Maryland, College Park, and at the non-academic conservative American Enterprise Institute. He holds a Ph.D. in economics from UCLA". Are we now saying that anyone with similar credentials can't be used unless they have published in a peer reviewed source? Dougweller (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Source. The book or web page being used as the source.

If it's a book, please include author, title, publisher, page number, etc.

If it's an online source, please link to it.

2. Article. The Wikipedia article(s) in which it is being used. 3. Content. The exact statement(s) in the article that the source is supporting. Please supply a WP:DIFF or put the content inside block quotes.

I am looking for views on whether A Genealogy of Evil: Anti-Semitism, from Nazism to Islamic Jihad by David Patterson is WP:RS.

The book is currently being used to source a variety of statements:

• Nazi relations with the Arab world "In 1932, immediately before Hitler's rise to power, Hitler was given the name Abu Ali in Syria, and Muhammad Haidar in Egypt" and "In 1941 the Mufti orchestrated a coup d'état, with Nazi support and financing, led by Rashid Ali al-Gaylani."
•  1941 Iraqi coup d'état " The Mufti Amin al-Husayni was one of the orchestrators of Rashid Ali al-Gaylani's coup d'état, with Nazi support and financing."
• 1947 Aleppo pogrom "The Jews of Aleppo had suffered previous pogroms in 1853 and 1875"
• Arab nationalism "In 1941 Rashid Ali al-Gaylani staged a pro-Nazi coup in Baghdad, Iraq. The Mufti Amin al-Husayni of Palestine was one of those who, together with pro-German Iraqi officers, obtained finances and support from Nazi Germany."
• Haj Amin al-Husseini "Al-Husseini was involved in the organization and recruitment of Bosnian Muslims into several divisions of the Waffen SS and other units. The largest was the 13th Handschar division of 21,065 men, which conducted operations against Communist partisans in the Balkans from February 1944."

Having read parts of this book, it appears to be a polemical work with an extreme POV. Whilst it has a reputable publisher, this review questions it in the strongest possible terms:

"Indeed, the flaws of Genealogy of Evil are so extensive and visible that regrettably one cannot but ask serious questions as to how it possibly got through the Cambridge University Press vetting process. The limited truths—that some influence was wielded by Nazism over certain Islamic extremists, and that exterminationist anti-Semitism continues to motivate many of them—do not disguise the overwhelmingly propagandistic nature of this book. Its appalling abuse of interpretive method, and Patterson’s transparent promotion of an analytically blinkered political and religious agenda, have no place in anything with pretensions to academic work."

Oncenawhile (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The review is by an appropriate scholarly expert. This review in DOMES: Digest of Middle East Studies rips the book a new oriface from the first line, "A strongly normatively characterized analysis of two political phenomena… Patterson, an academic specialist on Holocaust studies (University of Texas, Dallas) and apparently a subscriber to the foundational school of Islamic studies, holds onto the “pre-modern” acceptance of absolute values. Hence, for him there is such a thing as “evil,” which of course presumes the existence of the obverse ancient Greek goal of achievement of “the Good.” The nature of evil itself, however, is treated with scant examination, but is a necessary condition for purposes of the thesis here to understand and appreciate extreme violence and genocide." I would say that these hostile scholarly reviews invalidate the work's capacity to maintain a weighty opinion. I would also say that the hostility of the scholarly reviews to the work's factual basis constitutes an definitive attack on the capacity of the work to be used for fact on wikipedia reliably. (This opinion would change based on the preponderance of scholarly reviews of the work proffering a different opinion). Fifelfoo (talk) 23:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This makes no sense. The "hostility", at most, might require us place less emphasis on its theories, but not its facts, as you strangely proclaim. This is an book written by an academic in its field and published by an academic publishing house.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Just you have provided one review from a student newspaper that is "hostile" towards this book, it doesn't mean that the book is automatically non-RS.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Response - Two negative reviews doesn't make a book non-RS

The book may be polemical, but that doesn't mean that the specific facts it cites aren't accurate. Using two hostile reviews as an excuse to remove all mentions of this book in Wikipedia seems a little disengenous. You have neglected to mention that the book itself is written by a recognized expert - David Patterson has published over 30 books, holds a chair at a major university and that the book is published by a University Publising company. This more than meets the requirements of RS - and this doesn't change just because two people do not agree with the book. Numerous other books written by experts that have subsequently been criticized by other experts are cited in Wikipedia.

Let's also take a look at the two reviews cited. The first is by Jonathan Leader Maynard, who is described as "reading for a DPhil in Political Theory at University College, Oxford." (i.e. he is a student). The second is by someone named "Sanford R. Silverberg" but there is little information on him. No offence, but trying to use these two reviews as evidence that the book is not RS is a bit of a stretch. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 23:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Hyperion, you say he is a "a recognized expert" - the link to his personal page at his university says his areas of specialization are "Holocaust, anti-Semtism, Jewish literature, Jewish history, modern Jewish thought". None of those have anything to do with the quotes his latest book is being used to support (i.e. those typed out above). Oncenawhile (talk) 07:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's taken about 5 years to get the article on Haj Amin al-Husseini sourced adequately, comprehensive, and approaching WP:NPOV. For a good part of that, the problem was edit-warring by POV-warriors who saw in him the Arab incarnation of Hitlerian evils (see the Novick quote at the end of the page), who used poor sources, or generic sources of quality that quoted poor sources. Patterson is an example of the latter. He knows nothing of al-Husseini scholarship, and inadvertently picked up a poor source. al-Husseini is the most intensively studied figure in that area: specialist books and articles abound, by distinguished Israeli, Arab, and Western historians. There is simply no need to use tertiary sources as her that happen, through oversight, to ignore the best scholarship and rely on bad sources written with a polemical thesis. The only reason I have not removed it yet is because it's published by CUP. But Patterson is simply not acceptable for this page, because he himself has used a notoriously unreliable source. I hope it is not discourteous, Hyperion, but I have, I believe, fixed the problem on the al-Husseini page in the meantime by replacing Patterson there with an excellent Yugoslavian historian's work, which has more details. Nishidani (talk) 08:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still respectively disagree with you regarding Patterson's reliability. However, the new source you cited seems to be reliable as well, so using it as the citation shouldn't be a problem.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Supportive reviews

It seems that at least two sources have reviewed this book and have praised it [7] - Jeffrey Herf, University of Maryland, College Park and, Alexander Zvielli in The Jerusalem Post.

Just for the record, Cambridge University Press (which published the book) seems to have no problem in promoting this book on their website. [8]

Hi Hyperion, you have quoted the editorial references that the author/publisher uses to promote the book, likely "connected" (i.e. solicited) reviews. That doesn't prove anything - every popular book on Amazon has the same. Look at the same for From Time Immemorial, known to be one of the most intellectually dishonest books on the subject, and definitely not RS. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Three points:

1) The author of "From Time Immemorial" was not a full professor at a recognized university and the book was not published by a University publishing company (unlike a Geneology of Evil, where both of the above are in the affirmative)

2) There is extensive research from recognized sources that debunks "From Time Immemorial". In contrast, there is a grand total of one negative review (from a student newspaper) and one selectively quoted review.

3) These reviews may be solicited, but that doesn't mean that aren't accurate or valid.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 13:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Selective quoting of Sandford Silverberg

It seems that you have selectively quoted Sandford Silverberg (above). According to his review on Amazon.com, Silverberg goes on to state that "The substance of Patterson's work reifies those who project a similar political agenda, but will be subject to strong criticism from those whose expertise is Nazi-Muslim relations. Nevertheless, this comment aside, there is a rich trove of material for others to mine and insert into the historical record and controversy that has raged on for some decades, but one that certainly is currently in vogue." -Sanford R. Silverburg, Digest of Middles East Studies"[9].(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

"there is a rich trove of material for others to mine." We are an encyclopaedia, not a publisher of original genealogy studies. If you wish to conduct a genealogy based on someone else's work, feel free to publish elsewhere. We don't rely on half-baked works, because we don't want unformed dough, we want the research to be fully risen. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What does your above rant have to do with the issue at hand (i.e. whether this book should be considered non-RS based on two negative (actually one negative and one selectively quoted) reviews? I've noted that this book was written by a University professor, published by a University press, and has been both positively reviewed by at least two sources. I think I've made my case that this book can be considered RS, and that the rush to remove any reference of this book in Wikipedia is at best premature, and at worst, disingenuous.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Hyperionsteel, thanks for your contribution. I don't think that the term "rant" is fair against Fifefoo's post - we could all be accused of that. Nor do I think suggestions of disingenuity are appropriate - the clearly linked edit summaries were intended to bring in any editors who disagree. Therefore I am glad you are here, so we can debate this properly above. Oncenawhile (talk) 07:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I used the term rant because Fifelfoo's above statement didn't address the point I was trying to make (i.e. that Silverberg's review of the book was selectively quoted). Instead, he makes bizarre comments about my supposed desire to engage in "geneological studies" using "unformed dough" as opposed to "research [that is] fully risen." I'm not sure what Fifelfoo's point was, but it has nothing to do with whether or not Silverberg's review (selectively quoted or not) can be cited as definitive evidence that this book is (or is not) RS.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Also, I used the terms "premature" and "disingenuous" because you immediately removed information from about five Wikipedia pages based on these two reviews (I have since reverted them). Removing so much material sourced from this book because of the two reviews you cited seems premature to me, but I admit it was my cynicism talking when I used the word "disingenuous."(Hyperionsteel (talk) 14:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

I stand by my assessment. The DOMES review tears this book a new oriface. The fact that Hyperionsteel may be deeply unfamiliar with reading academic reviews is frankly beside the point. I haven't read a more hostile review of a work in quite some time, particularly the section where it is suggested that the work is not of any use except for potentially further primary research. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to your opinion about the new oriface. Many books receive hostile reviews (especially when dealing with sensitive topics like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict). However (and I'm repeating myself), just because a book has received a hostile (or even an very hostile) review by a student in a student-run newspaper, it doesn't automatically mean that the book is non-RS. The book was written by a full University professor, published by a University press, is actively promoted on the University press' website, and has receieved at least two positive (and one mixed) reviews from RS sources. Also, and no offence intended, you did selectively quote Silverberg's review in your above justification.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Domes is a peer reviewed journal published by Wiley-Blackwell, mate. And I didn't quote it selectively, which is an offensive euphemism and an accusation of misconduct. When you extended the quoted material, I demonstrated that the material you chose to quote to support the validity of the work in fact undermines it. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, Silverberg is stating that while the book's conclusion "has yet to be firmly established" and that "the substance of Patterson's work reifies those who project a similar political agenda," he acknowledges that the book contains "a rich trove of material for others to mine and insert into the historical record and controversy." How does this further undermine the book? In fact, Silverberg is stating that the facts cited in the book are accurate, but that Silverberg's conclusion based on those facts isn't well-supported (i.e. your claim that this review undermines the book's "factual basis" is clearly disputable, if not incorrect.)

Also, I've read the full review, and while it is certainly critical of Patterson's conclusions, it is hardly the "hostile" attack that you make it out to be and certainly does not provide the book with any kind of perforation or aperture that it didn't have before this review was published. I've seen reviews of books that are far more "hostile" than this one. In any event, nobody is arguing that the book is perfect or that it does not contain flaws, but the point is that it does meet (as I have cited above) the requirements for RS in Wikipedia.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Is this profile reliable for the birth info it may provide to the Brian Haberlin article. Nightscream (talk) 03:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, and "remove immediately" for the BLP article. It is an Open wiki without adequate editorial control. Compare to the editorial control exercised over authoritative sources such as BDM offices or BDM columns in a newspaper. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Governance of the Gaza Strip, this article in newsmax.com has a quote from former CIA director James Woolsey which says, remarking on the then future possibility of a quick election in Egypt last year, “Right, and that's what happened in Gaza,” Woolsey said. “Hamas called for immediate elections, and we got one vote, one man – and it's now a theocratic dictatorship.” This quote is being used to [write in the infobox that Gaza Strip is governed by a De facto Theocratic dictatorship. Setting aside newsmax's, uhh, poor reputation as a source, is the quote from this person sufficient to include that "fact" in the infobox as though it were a fact? nableezy - 06:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. James Woolsey's off-hand comments are not sufficient for the political science or sociology of politics issue of the link between democratic voting in Gaza and the theoretical construct of theocratic dictatorships. Woolsey lacks WEIGHT in political science, as do off-hand comments. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another source has been offered for the claim. This paper by one Efraim Inbar at an Israeli think tank says the following:

free elections in the Palestinian territories, pushed by a misguided American foreign policy, led to the hardly-legitimate Palestinian presidency of Mahmoud Abbas and a Hamas dictatorship in Gaza.

Is that source sufficient to make the unattributed statement of fact that Gaza is governed under a dictatorship? nableezy - 19:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is an Israeli think tank's non-peer reviewed in house publication any more scholarly than a Palestinian journal of public opinion? Mideast Security and Policy Studies lacks peer review. Efraim Inbar knows damn well where they need to publish in order to influence scholarly debate, and he hasn't. Efraim is the director of BESA, the publisher of his paper, so this is effectively an SPS, and the "Expert" argument means jack, because this is an expert deliberately avoiding scholarly presses. I don't see any indication that Efraim's self published opinion is weighty enough to claim that Hamas is a dictatorship governing Gaza. That's an extraordinary political science claim, and throw away references in non-peer reviewed papers are not the exceptional sources required. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A source dispute has arisen at July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike. For lack of civil discussion, I thought it could bring some more stable discussion if more voices was heard. Source in question is a fox news article. The diff in question tries to remove the use of this source when other neutral sources exist. Two sources, (Guardian and mediaite) both identifies Fox to be an partisan source and is the reason behind this action. Thanks. Belorn (talk) 06:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

can you please cite the source in question; your diff provides no indication of what the source under discussion is. Similarly can you directly point to (hopefully quote here) the contentious claims. The source appears to support 10-20 claims. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lets go through the claims:

• ...one had an AK-47 and another an RPG-7

Article says: WikiLeaks also does not point out that at least one man was carrying an AK-47 assault rifle. He is seen swinging the weapon below his waist while standing next to the man holding the RPG.

In this capacity it is not clear if the reporter is reporting or analysing. If the latter his article serves as a primary source for the claim.

• The second airstrike using 30 mm fire was directed at Chmagh and two other unarmed men as they were attempting to help Chmagh into their van.

Article says: Another point of contention comes later in the video when U.S. Apache helicopters open fire on two men in a van who had arrived at the courtyard to carry away one of the wounded.

Article doesn't actually back up the statement.

• ...and another was carrying an AK-47 or AKM assault rifle.

Not clear how this draws on the article, which doesn't mention AKM assault rifles.

• The van had no visible markings to suggest it was an ambulance or a protected vehicle.

Article says: However, the military says that because the van had no visible markings to suggest it was an ambulance or a protected vehicle, it was fair game under Army rules.

Journalist is clearly reporting what the military says. Article is definitely a secondary source for this claim.

• Assange later acknowledged "Based upon visual evidence I suspect there probably were AKs and an RPG, but I'm not sure that means anything,"

Article says: "Based upon visual evidence I suspect there probably were AKs and an RPG, but I'm not sure that means anything," Assange said.

Article is quoting Assange verbatim, so is clearly acting as a secondary source in this capacity.

• Capt. Jack Hanzlik, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command stated that the airstrike video "gives you a limited perspective, [it] only tells you a portion of the activity that was happening that day. Just from watching that video, people cannot understand the complex battles that occurred. You are seeing only a very narrow picture of the events." Hanzlik said images gathered during a military investigation of the incident show multiple weapons around the dead bodies in the courtyard, including at least three RPGs. "Our forces were engaged in combat all that day with individuals that fit the description of the men in that video. Their age, their weapons, and the fact that they were within the distance of the forces that had been engaged made it apparent these guys were potentially a threat."

Article says: "It gives you a limited perspective," said Capt. Jack Hanzlik, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command. "The video only tells you a portion of the activity that was happening that day. Just from watching that video, people cannot understand the complex battles that occurred. You are seeing only a very narrow picture of the events." Hanzlik said images gathered during a military investigation of the incident show multiple weapons around the dead bodies in the courtyard, including at least three RPGs. "Our forces were engaged in combat all that day with individuals that fit the description of the men in that video. Their age, their weapons, and the fact that they were within the distance of the forces that had been engaged made it apparent these guys were potentially a threat," Hanzlik said.

Article quoting a military spokesman. Secondary source.

There are a few issues with the source, but for the most part where the reporter is quoting either Wikileaks or the military then it is acting in a secondary source capacity. It is ok to use for those quotes, just try to refrain from using any parts where the journalist interjects any of his own analysis. Betty Logan (talk) 07:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please cite the source you are discussing. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:07, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for an extensive and clam responses. I will contemplate a bit, and later do a edit based on those comments. I am/was under impression that sources independent of content should be replaced when there are better alternatives, with the goal that good sources can bubble up and make the content more trustworthy. So my goal was not to do any direct changes to the content, but rather just improve what sources back up that content, initiated by a talk comment that questioned the use of Fox news as source in this article. Is that still something worth pursuing? Belorn (talk) 08:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is always worth improving source quality, but remember when improving sources to read them in full. New sources may indicate that current sections of the article aren't weighted correctly, or even correct. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO the article goes too far towards conducting its own investigation. Stick more closely to the accounts in the mainstream media. If CNN (to give just one example) doesn't mention a point of detail, then you should wonder whether that point is notable. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble seeing the point of the two links intending to say that Fox News is biased. The Guardian link clearly identifies the Fox News piece as "an opinion piece on the Fox News site." The Mediaite link is about a commentator, not a reporter.

None of these two links are about the Fox News reporter who wrote the Baghdad story. Note, too, that both of these links cover different POVs. That's pretty common for newspapers and TV.

If we were to toss out an entire publisher because they also include commentary then we'd have very few references from newspapers.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You take up an interesting viewpoint, so lets look into it. News papers is considered by Wikipedia RS to have editorial oversight on content they publish, but with some limitations in regards to Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces.

Doing a second search, I found this guardian columnists article talking about the fox news agenda, and mostly in regard to Bill O'Reilly. I do not think Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) actions should be viewed as outside the editorial oversight of Fox news. On other hand, is that enough to prove neutrality issues between Fox news and Wikileaks? I would regards it as so, but I would like to hear more opinions on this.

What affective editorial control Fox news had in regards to the original two links I found should be questioned. The guardian link do point (implicitly) towards the view that it was an opinion piece outside the the control of Fox news. Belorn (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian comment that you just linked is an opinion piece published by The Guardian. The "comment is free" section is notorious for its radical off-the-wall commentary. That doesn't mean those opinion writers are speaking for The Guardian. Nor does it mean that The Guardian editors agree with anything they're saying. It does not matter that they have editorial control. They want differing opinions on their comment pages.

The same goes for Bill O'Reilly, who is *not* speaking for Fox News. His opinions are his alone.

And the same goes for the commentators that you're citing -- none of whom had anything to do with the *news* article that you're trying to get rid of.

Other news channels have their own paid political commentators, too. Their opinions do not necessarily agree with the position of the entire news channel. It is not intended to reflect on their news reporting.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 22:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think there is any possible simple answer to your point Randy. No rule will tell us what to do in all cases. Both Fox and the Guardian are big news organizations with fact checking, so useable. Both can be described as partisan, especially on their blogs, but then again WP does not forbid us to use partisan sources, just to be careful to report them in a balanced way. If a comment from Fox is notable but potentially going to be argued as being partisan, then seek consensus. A simple way to get consensus in many cases is just to atttribute anything that a reasonable MIGHT think is partisan (According to Fox...).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, it is attributed to Fox News. But, technically, that shouldn't be necessary this time. The reference is summarizing what named sources are saying. Nobody is being confused about this being the military's position, and nobody argues that their spokesman is not being quoted accurately. Had this been done right, we'd be saying "according to a military spokesman..." and then quote or summarize that.

This targeting of Fox News is a bit more absurd than usual.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "targeting" of Fox News. The path to this point is well described above, where a complain was made on the talk, sources to support it was clear (at least initially), no one contested those sources (See diff response) but just responded by edit warring, and the rest can be seen here. It is a gray zone what to do now. I think the bias is clearly there, and that reader will trust the Wikipedia article less because that source is used.

But to go there, that would likely require an RFC and I do not think that its worth it yet. Maybe no consensus is the best way to go for now.

I have followed up the first response, excellently made by Fifelfoo. In areas where the source article does not actually support the claims, it should either be removed or the Wikipedia article should change to mirror what it says. I have removed the source where other sources disagree with Fox news, (like was the 2 men shot in the van, or as they were attempting to help Chmagh into their van). Since this is mid edit, more edits might be made. Belorn (talk) 10:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there is targeting of Fox News. It's been going on for years. The complaint you refer to came in from an intemperate anonymous editor whose edit summary says "Fox News isn't reliable source" and then calls the elected government of Iraq a "a puppet regime" even though the insurgents in this case had also opposed Saddam Hussein's rule of Iraq. You said your concern is that people trust what this article says, but who can trust any article written like that? I certainly don't.

Your edit summary for the diffs says the Fox News article is a primary source, which is clearly not true.

Your nitpicking about the men in a van, as not being inside the van at the time they were shot, is an overreach. I take it as merely a description of the men, as compared to the other men who'd been on foot. I can't see this as being anything other than a weak attempt to diminish Fox News.

I still don't know why you pick on Fox News's use of partisan commentators when other RS news organizations (NYT, Washington Post, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS) do this, too. You need to explain that.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 05:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My 2 pennies: The others have imho a better reputation and are less known for (subtly) fudging stuff. However this may not matter in a specific case.However personally i wouldn't touch Fox News with a stick and there is usually a more reliable and accurate source available anyway.

Is this http://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/europe/3953-pressure-mounts-on-jewish-charity a RS for this claim? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jewish_National_Fund&diff=500719400&oldid=500691286 the page is The Jewish National Fund. Dalai lama ding dong (talk) 07:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its stated clearly "we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability" [10].So its not reliable--Shrike (talk) 07:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly per Shrike. In relation to Middle East issues, if a news source won't back its publications it isn't a great sign. Their about page notes that their efforts are to present primary sources and specialist opinion. WEIGHTy opinion in relation to Middle East issues is even more difficult; I'd suggest that only Expert exemptions would really apply to opinion, but I'd question why a real Expert in our sense would be publishing their opinion in Middle East Monitor (its unlikely they'd do so). Fifelfoo (talk) 08:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In our article on the Melungeons an IP has inserted a variety of non-peer reviewed sources.[11]. I'm also unhappy about statements such as "backs these results as well" where all we have is a chart which says nothing about backing up something (although this is of course an OR issue). Note also that the accusation of 'vandalism' seems to be 'I don't agree with it'. Dougweller (talk) 10:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. The reliable material on Melungeons and other science subjects is remarkably secondary science papers. "Latest comprehensive study published by University College London on Portugal Y-Haplogroups. By Beleza, et al., 2006. Contributors: Universidade de Porto, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Oxford University" is miscited and probably primary in terms of science. Eupedia isn't appropriate for the claims. 23andme.com isn't adequately cited (but probably isn't). "The News article from New Scientist life also backed up this finding in the December 2008 issue by Ewen Callaway " is miscited and probably inappropriate. "…dn16200-spanish-inquisition-left-genetic-legacy-in-iberia" is inadequately cited and probably inappropriate. www.ourfamilyorigins.com is inadequate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/23andMe is fundamentally and grossly unacceptable. www.familytreedna.com doesn't appear adequate. www.worldfamilies.net nope. www.ourfamilyorigins.com/cv/dna.htma may be partly reliable (for the "made available online" bit) but not the rest. I'd suggest the rest of the uses of this source are inadequate. Not really acceptable sourcing; and the citations are incomprehensible or incomplete. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):The diff looks like WP:ADVERT.For example:
This helps confirms that through DNA testing in both Melungeon and Portugesse (Latest comprehensive study published by University College London on Portugal Y-Haplogroups. By Beleza, et al., 2006. Contributors: Universidade de Porto, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Oxford University.) people, the stories of Portugesse ancestry could be confirmed. This Information had also been backed up by leading DNA Genetics company "23 and me" (In 2008, Time magazine named the 23 and me's saliva-based DNA-testing service "Invention of the Year", In 2007 Google, whose co-founder Sergey Brin is married to the co-founder of 23andMe Anne Wojcicki, invested $3,900,000 in the company, along with Genentech, New Enterprise Associates and Mohr Davidow Ventures).</ref>
Inappropriately sourced and blatantly unencyclopedic. —MistyMorn (talk) 10:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For completeness I think it should be mentioned that I already mentioned on Doug's talk page, after he asked my opinion, that I find it a little strange (maybe I am missing something) that the complaints being discussed here do not seem to apply to the latest version of what is being edit warred about. I can agree that 23andMe publicity material, and so on, but it is not apparent to me in the latest edits? If I misunderstand I am sorry, but shouldn't the scope of the discussion home in on only the latest edits? It confuses the issues somewhat. Can we try to define the concern a bit more clearly? My attempt:

Is Doug's latest concern just about the JOGG for example? (That seems to be the only source now being cited, or at least the one which actually published the study. Doug mentions peer review, and although JOGG has a review process the JOGG is not an academic journal, and I know some people say that only true academic journals should be said to have a "peer review".) On the other hand, it's articles do get cited every now and then by un-doubted academic journals. So the JOGG is a well-known debating point on this noticeboard, and I think it comes down to saying it is a borderline source for anything technical. This in turn would mean that editors should look at whether the claims being made are highly technical, or controversial etc. A possible concern some might raise is that this particular study was concerning autosomal DNA and a whole population, so it is not the classic type of Y DNA study that has been used for a decade by genealogists as a relatively straightforward tool. Another approach might be to check if, as sometimes happens, the article has been cited by any "big names". (The AP news story which was added does at least give an impression of notability. Notability can sometimes be a reason to mention a popular theory even if it is not considered mainstream.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, JOGG needs to be used carefully. But I am more concerned about using this company, this which looks like a copyvio link in any case and is also raw data which we should not be using), and this. The IP is also interpeting data, which we shouldn't be doing, particularly with material about genetics. Too often I see this happening - someone will take an article which could be a reliable source but instead of referring to the conclusions they extract data from it and use that to make their argument. Dougweller (talk) 14:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In principle what you say makes sense, for sure, and I apologize for not spending more time on this, but I am still not certain if it is clear just what the practical details are. As mentioned I could not see many of these sources in recent reverts when I checked. What I can see quickly...

The first source is a testing company which is the market leader in the types of genetics tests that genealogists use. They also host some genealogy projects run by genealogists on their webspace (or a lot of such groups have at least got links there). Can you make it clear how it is being cited? I can't think of many occasions where the company or the projects it hosts are going to be considered good sources, but there might be cases. It's raw testing as such would I think qualify as having a reputation for accuracy, but normally raw data is not what we use (primary, and often requiring non obvious interpretation). Their press releases (occasional) might sometimes verge on the notable, but can probably normally better be traced back to other publications.

The second one is one I do not know, but looks like a private website set-up to keep a record of results. Again, not sure if it is being cited, but does not look like a source we would normally use for most types of things.

The third one you name is a website which again hosts volunteer projects, and I think also some forums and the like. (In this case not for commercial gain.) Once again, I do not see how it is being cited, so it would be best to make that clear. There might be something I am missing, but in general it is not a website I think editors writing on these subjects in WP would normally use.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies Doug. I just noticed I had misunderstood who made which edits I was looking at. LOL. Yes it is clear in diffs like this: [12]. I throw my voice behind you here. This is not like one of the cases you and I sometimes handle where there are valid concerns being badly expressed.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've reported the IP for editwarring and I note what may be a legal threat[13]. Dougweller (talk) 18:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've started to take a look at this page and have tagged some OR concerns regarding one particular paragraph. Presumably that entire paragraph mainly refers back to this very primary source, now presumably incorporated into Estes et al 2011 (ref 4).

I feel that this article (PDF) is a useful RS which provides an interesting perspective and could help reinforce the sourcing.

—MistyMorn (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

193.205.203.3 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has started adding a bunch of refs to a book which is not yet published. It's hard to say if they're reasonable because I can't read the source. I'll start reverting now, but is it fair to say that anything is not a RS prior to its publication if there's no publicly available preprints? a13ean (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, not RS until verifiable. The publisher maintains an embargo until publication date. After that the book is verifiable, even if Amazon can't get it immediately. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it isn't published it isn't a work and it can't be cited. Otherwise I'd cite all those great books I'm going to get around to writing, having reviewed by scholarly presses' readers, and published. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A blog called Corporette has made an article about an fictional character's clothing, which would be useful as critical commentry in articles of the surrounding area. This would give the reader better understanding of what the character wears, as well as much more on the ways she dresses. The article is written by Ashley Faus- who has an extenstive CV in comenting on fashion. It would be used in the character article of Megan Hunt, and the episodes she wore the clothes in, as this would provide much needed criticl commentry (Reception) for episodes of the program, as Body of Proof hardly ever has reception by critics. Althuough this source may be unreliable due to the blog factor, I believe it is reliable, as it has been writen by an "established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field" and the "information in question is really worth reporting" (WP:BLOGS). Anyway, please comment either way, Thanks. :) — M.Mario (T/C) 17:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any expertise in literary, film or television criticism—no expert exemption. The costume and mise en scène of a fictional characters' role in a fictional television programme are not the expertise of semi-professional fashion bloggers writing a pure puff/advertorial. It isn't reliable. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MM, do you have anything to back up your remark that Ashley Faus, and specifically the blog, would have a reputation for fact checking amongst relevant authorities?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article: "A possible Semitic origin for ancient Zimbabwe" - Mankind Quarterly, Spring/Summer 2012 ... May well be relevant to Great Zimbabwe?

I understand that this site is a 'platform' where one can present a case that a particular publication qualifies as a 'reliable source' according to Wikipedia criteria. In other words, I do realize that this is not the place for discussing the nature and contents of the article - (but, if necessary, it may be read at http://DLMcN.com/anczimb.html ). In addition, I have added "Great Zimbabwe" to the list in "WikiProject Alternative Views", and some of the points mentioned in the associated Talk-File there might be worth looking at, in order to give a more complete picture of the controversy... (Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Alternative_Views - see "Great Zimbabwe").

>> It was certainly not a smooth, straightforward process which eventually led to the publication of the above-mentioned article. The interval between the initial submission - and the printing and distribution, was about 14 months ... (much, much longer than the normal time-lag with non-peer-reviewed publications!) Various changes and additions to the text were necessary in order to satisfy the referees and the editors.

Owing to its very recent appearance, that "Mankind Quarterly" essay has not been cited in other publications. However, older versions of the text certainly have been cited (and indeed recopied) in various Internet sites, and also in Ian Kluckow's book "A History of the Great Zimbabwe Mystery" (edited by Jerold Richert). --DLMcN (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Potentially unreliable sources, which states "a short list of journals which should be used with extreme caution include... Mankind Quarterly", as well as our own article on the journal, which notes that it has been called "a cornerstone of the scientific racism establishment", a "white supremacist journal", "scientific racism's keepers of the flame", a journal with a "racist orientation", an "infamous racist journal", and the "journal of 'scientific racism'". So I don't think that it can be considered a reliable source for such an exceptional claim. RolandR (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - By all means treat the article "with caution", but at the same time please judge it by its contents, because it might well throw important light on the subject. Or, putting it differently, surely it cannot be mandatory for Wikipedia to reject every single "Mankind Quarterly" article, unconditionally?--DLMcN (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to argue that the article author has a distinguished record of mainstream publication? Itsmejudith (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I gather that DLMcN is the author. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am indeed the author, which can perhaps be regarded as a 'complication' - except that DougWeller did nevertheless suggest that I should still submit the article for consideration. Anyway to answer Judith's question (necessarily, in a modest way - i.e., cutting out the word "distinguished"!) - I have certainly published a number of scientific papers, and have recently had another one (on History) accepted by "Comparative Civilizations Review".--DLMcN (talk) 20:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):::::::I actually said that I didn't think your article was a reliable source but that if you disagreed, this was the place to disagree. And it is my opinion that your article may fit Mankind Quarterly's 'profile', ie it argues that it wasn't Africans that build Great Zimbabwe, which would be a desirable viewpoint for a journal with a racist orientation. Everyone should note that the article already presents the view that the Lemba were responsible for building it. In fact, I note that you added (and partly Semitic) to an edit which had said "Van Warmelo's observations and interviews also support a distinct identity." That is cited text, does van Warmelo actually say "and partly Semitic"? Dougweller (talk) 09:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... Yes, van Warmelo definitely does say that^. The editor of Mankind Quarterly, incidentally, did seem keen to try and discover and present the truth, as far as that is possible. --DLMcN (talk) 10:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Dr D L McNaughton is a South African meteorologist and astronomer working at Dubai Airport in the Meteorological Office." http://alhafeez.org/rashid/eclpart4.htm . No. His musings on this topic, published in a racist journal, don't pass muster. You're welcome.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it passed muster in Mankind Quarterly, it has already been disqualified as reliable. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, FRINGE content, from a non-expert in a FRINGE journal should not be used to support claims regarding an archaeological site. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Initially, it did seem strange that the Wikipedia 'Jury' should be able to condemn an article without even reading it - but, believe it or not, I actually find some consolation from that fact! - i.e., my reaction would have been different if one of you had highlighted serious flaws and errors in the text. Putting it differently, I am genuinely anxious to ascertain the truth regarding Ancient Zimbabwe, and would therefore welcome specific comments and even criticisms of my attempts to examine the evidence.

OK - I appreciate that Wikipedia does not regard that^ as its function. However, looking now at the other side of the controversy - it would be constructive, helpful and illuminating if Wikipedia could explain in more detail exactly what are the arguments which (allegedly) justify the "Shona" theory. Is that a permissible suggestion within the Wikipedia context? --DLMcN (talk) 09:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might benefit from looking generally at Felipe Fernández-Armesto's Millenium, Bantam Press, 1995 on African empires. Eurocentrism is written all over this area, or more generally, the idea that Africans never built civilizations off their own bat. It has four excellent synthetic pages precisely on Mwene Mutapa's empire (pp.185-8). No mention of Islam, which is not an argument. But the point is, the existence of impressive ruins in Africa does not immediately suggest that outsiders, or people from a 'higher civilisation' must have been responsible.Nishidani (talk) 10:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read your article. Interesting to see that a racist journal published an article that claims the credit for the incredible genius behind Great Zimbabwe may not have been that merely of black people but was... ta-da... black Jewish people. --Dweller (talk) 12:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the editor DLMcN appears to be canvassing favourable editors on this issue: [14] [15]. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article. I noticed that the main thrust was to say that DNA evidence supported a theory now considered discredited. The people one would expect to get such a paper published in an academic journal are genetics researchers, not someone who's simply read the secondary sources. The genetics findings are already published in two papers. You present no arguments why the Lemba rather than the Shona speakers of the area were responsible for the building of Great Zimbabwe. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To quickly respond to that - I've become indirectly involved in this but only to help inform DLMcN about how and where to raise his queries. I have no association with him, other than he saw my name as a member of the WP:Alternative theory Project and wanted to know how to link the project to this page. I made responses on my talk page and on the project page, advising him on policy. His approach to me was not 'canvassing' and my responses have been entirely free of any favouritism towards his cause.

As a result of his query I looked at his article and did a little light copy-editing on the page, though the topic is something I know nothing about and have never had a personal interest in. Though IRWolfie finds it hard to AGF, it seems to me that DLMcN has been open and appropriate about the fact that he authored the article. So I think we can set that aside, noted as a matter to be aware of. In addition the journal is listed as one which can be referenced but only with extreme caution applied. Putting these two points together my own view is that some reference to the alternative theory would add to the information value of the page providing

1) it is clearly reported to be an alternative view which is not currently accepted by mainstream academia, and

2) DLMcN does not introduce the text directly on the points where his own work is referenced, but makes the proposals on the talk-page, for other non-involved editors to critcally assess. I have seen that Dougweller has been helping and advising him, and I would be happy to lend a hand on that myself if it helps, to ensure that policies are appropriately applied. This is not because I am favourable to his views, but because an editor has asked for help in the article he is working on, and I am happy to give it if I can -- Zac Δ ^talk! 17:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're acting in good faith, Zac, but not every alternative theory ought to be presented. This one is pseudo-history, and close to racist pseudo-history, at that, and in no way notable. We cannot put every crackpot idea in. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Judth, let's refrain from assuming that because a theory is alternative it's "crack-pot". WP does have a place for fringe views, and it was notable enough to be published in a journal deemed acceptable so long as extreme caution is exercised. From what I understand (via the alternative views project) it's since 1972 that the Shona theory predominated, largely due to the work of one influential author. So long as we put the relationship of this theory into proper relationship with that then we are adhering to the policies of WP:FRINGE. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 17:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's just assume that the theory is appropriate to include. Our sources for the theory are:

• A self-published site on a personal website of someone who is not a recognized authority in the field (fails WP:RS on multiple counts)
• Mankind Quarterly (we don't cite Klan publications, so I don't see why we'd cite this).

Until a reliable source comes up for it, we can't cite it. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's because Klan publications are completely disreputable, but this journal is not completely disreputable; it is one to be used with extreme caution. I'm not ignoring the concerns but let's not forget that our article on the journals says "The Mankind Quarterly is a peer-reviewed academic journal dedicated to physical and cultural anthropology and is currently published by the Council for Social and Economic Studies in Washington, D.C. It contains articles on human evolution, intelligence, ethnography, linguistics, mythology, archaeology, etc. The journal aims to unify anthropology with biology."

Note that Robert Gayre is listed as a founder of the journal. It is Gayre's views which are currently dominating mainstream opinion and the ones that are being opposed in the said article. Hence it's illogical to suggest that reference to this article necessitates racial bias in this issue.

The article was not self-published. The author was taken seriously enough to have his work published in a peer-reviewed journal which is dedicated to that field of study. If he were a recognised authority then his views would be mainstream and we wouldn't be talking about how to incorporate reference under the rules that dictate WP:Fringe policies. The point this board established is that the source is listed - not as one to be rejected, but as one to be used with extreme caution. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 20:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're mistaken there. Gayre's views aren't and weren't mainstream. They are representative of a current in scientific racism that flourished until WW2. The article under discussion tries to resurrect them, in a racist pseudo-journal. When I say "crackpot" I am being generous. "Racist" is nearer the mark. He does not have any peer-reviewed publications yet. He says he has one in press. That wouldn't make him anywhere near an expert on this topic. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right - the article is resurrecting Gayre's theory not opposing it, which is what I thought added some credence. But still, I'd hesitate to use the terms you use. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 00:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gayre's views are not mainstream. But neither are the views of the article by McNaughton. Mankind quarterly is completely disreputable as a source on anthropology and history. It is perhaps a reliable source on the current ideas of the US racialist right wing.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Produce evidence (from real reliable sources) that this source is peer-reviewed or reliable for anything except as an example of extreme kookiness. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Mankind quarterly is not a reliable source for science, especially not for African anthropology or history. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• A "journal" with an evidently strongly racist platform is not a reliable source for science. Now, if the theory can be shown to be notable in its own right, probably independently of the Manking Journal itself, then it might qualify as an acceptable source for an article relating to the theory or some similar more focused article than Great Zimbabwe itself. Beyond a possible article for the theory itself, the source might be acceptable as a source for, for instance, people involved in arguing the theory. Knowing the context in which the source is to be used is crucial. But I cannot see this source being in and of itself sufficient basis for the inclusion on any of the more central articles on Great Zimbabwe and its history or culture, or similar articles. John Carter (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was routed to this conversation, which I was previously unaware of, by a nice little prod on my talk page from DLMcN, whom I have had the pleasure of editing alongside on subjects like this before: I am sorry to see this has been interpreted by some above as "canvassing favourable editors", but never mind. I have to say I am surprised by some of the opinions here, which seem to me to be biased against DLMcN, the article and Mankind Quarterly, and actually appear to have a far stronger racial agenda than that which David is purported to have. I was taken aback by the sarcastic input of Dweller, an editor I have known for a long time whom I know to strongly sound, but the tone taken by Bali ultimate frankly shocked me ("No. His musings on this topic, published in a racist journal, don't pass muster. You're welcome.") Nishidani at least appeared to want to be constructive, offering a source on pre-colonial African empires which I think we would do well to include.

I admit that I am no expert on the journal Mankind Quarterly, but a quick glance at our page on it gives me a good summary of why other editors appear hesitant. It appears to be that some contributors to this conversation consider the article's appearance in Mankind Quarterly as grounds enough to disqualify it as a reliable source. While I agree that many articles published in such a journal are likely to be somewhat spurious, I do not believe that this is grounds to simply abrogate legitimacy from them all without individual consideration of their content. I quote here our page on potentially unreliable sources, which includes Mankind Quarterly in its list of scholarly journals that "should be used with extreme caution". This is not the same as "should not be used at all". DLMcN's article, while it may trigger alarm bells for some of the more racially-conscious members of our community because it dares to question the credited achievements of the pre-colonial Shona nation, appears to me to be well-sourced, neutrally-presented and good enough to be cited – so long as it is made clear that this is not the mainstream theory.

The article itself does not claim this theory to be the mainstream, actually giving the modern scientific consensus (that Shona speakers created Ancient Zimbabwe) twice, in the section "Trying to identify the builders" and in the article's conclusion. This is not "racist pseudo-history ... in no way notable ... [a] crackpot idea" (in Judith's words above); it's an alternative to the mainstream which some people find uncomfortable, essentially on racial grounds (the same racial grounds, incidentally, that DLMcN is accused of having in writing the article). I would not be so receptive to DLMcN's article if it were unsourced and blatantly racist (it is neither). Certainly I think that he has been perfectly forthright here about his authorship of the article and has done his damnedest to have it assessed through proper Wikipedia process, going through the talk page with other editors then bringing it here, rather than simply adding it to articles surreptitiously with the forlorn hope that nobody would notice.

I would understand the vehement opposition displayed above if DLMcN were proposing to dedicate the entire Great Zimbabwe article to these views, but he is not trying to do that. He has simply written an article summarising a widely-published, albeit rather old, theory, and attempted to have the views contained therein represented. Some of us are interested in knowing the truth about pre-colonial Zimbabwe, which, ultimately, barring some kind of wondrous future scientific advance, will forever remain a mystery. It is unfortunate that some seem more preoccupied with discrediting various aspects of the article's publication rather than providing critical analysis to it with a view to adjudging its suitability. I don't believe for a minute that my input here will not draw a hail of accusations of being biased myself, but I still feel I should comment, as it does not appear to me that justice is presently being done. —Cliftonian (talk) 01:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, with scholarly topics, it is not our job to review articles and judge their suitability. We rely on the academic peer-review process for that, or at least rigorous academic editorial review. This article has received no such review. Second, nor is it noteworthy, as it has never been cited or even commented upon in the scholarly literature. There is therefore nothing to discuss. End of story. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question of reliability is only a side issue here. The real show stopper is whether the theory is notable, which would depend not on the respectability of the journal in which it was published, but rather on the number of mentions of the study in other reliable sources. Fringe theories that have not generated attention do not merit inclusion at all per WP:FRINGE.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):I don't quite understand how you (Dominus) can say it is not noteworthy as it has not been cited, as it has only very recently been published. The text contained therein has been cited in Ian Kluckow's A History of the Great Zimbabwe Mystery, in any case, so this claim is spurious at best. Regarding your other point, the article did receive peer review when it was submitted to Mankind Quarterly, with several changes and additions made before it was published. I presume you are alluding here to this peer review being somehow illegitimate. —Cliftonian (talk) 02:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC) Edit: Fifelfoo posted on my talk page suggesting that I indicate that this could be interpreted as representing a conflict of interest (he hinted that I might somehow have been involved in the article's peer review at the journal, which I was not). I would like to qualify my comment regarding the article's peer review by saying that it was based purely on DLMcN's opening comment at the top of this section, and nothing else. —Cliftonian (talk) 02:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I said the book has never been cited or mentioned in the scholarly literature, and it hasn't. Lucknow's book doesn't even come close to being scholarly. And yes, the "peer-review" conducted by Mankind Quarterly is a sham. If you disagree, the burden is on YOU to prove otherwise. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not feel I can comment extensively on Kluckow's book, which I have not read, though I do feel you are probably right that it would not pass as "scholarly", so I apologise for previously misinterpreting this point. I still maintain that it is somewhat fallacious to expect numerous citations for such a recently-published work, however. Regarding Mankind Quarterly's peer review, I don't feel that either of us can prove its legitimacy either way. Certainly I don't know quite what evidence you could expect anybody here to present on this matter that would not be immediately dismissed as a conflict of interest. The article appears balanced to me, though of course this is just my opinion. —Cliftonian (talk) 03:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The information can be used in Lemba_people#Construction_of_Great_Zimbabwe where it is relevant. The article is an appropriate source for speculative theories about the Lemba people. User:Fred Bauder Talk 02:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it can't, until it has been cited or subtantially commented on by the relevant scholarly community. See: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Unwarranted_promotion_of_fringe_theories Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's start over. We have an article in a racist magazine that's not considered a reliable source, and a copy of that article on the author's personal site (the author, even if he developed the idea, is not a recognized authority in the field). Neither of those meets WP:RS by default. That's what this board is about. You cannot take the peer review from the magazine, and then the lack of racism from the author's personal website and go "tada! Reliable source!" You cannot ignore that Mankind Quarterly is dedicated to scientific racism, and you cannot get Wikipedia to accept MQ as a source. You cannot make Wikipedia accept personal websites as sources either. There is no need for this conversation to go any further. Anything beyond that is off-topic and does not belong here. It does not matter where the article could be used because the article cannot be used, end of story. Please, everybody, drop the stick and back away from the horse. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm happy with that. I'm sorry I made a fuss. I still think the article is solid, but I acknowledge the conversation is going nowhere, essentially for the reasons you described, so I agree it's probably best we drop it now. —Cliftonian (talk) 03:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to drop the subject now. I would like to thank all contributers - even if I did wonder whether some of them were perhaps violating the Wikipedia "Ad Hominem" code. I am not going to register a formal complaint about that - but instead of hurling personal insults at one another, surely it is better to focus on hard facts and evidence? --DLMcN (talk) 05:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is [The Top 200 Chomsky Lies by Paul Bogdanor a reliable source for this edit at United States and state terrorism? RolandR (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I notice that there was once a Wikipedia article on Bogdanor which was deleted at AFD. Doesn't say much about the notability of his opinions... Zero^talk 15:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Not even a question, WP:BLPSPS rules out such a source. nableezy - 15:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed some sources from a couple of articles about alien abductions (here and here, among other places) because many of them are fringe, and all of them fail WP:RS. Yogiadept, who inserted them, disagrees, so I'm going to list them here to get other opinions if these are appropriate for our "information control system to keep the public misinformed and under educated about real events happening in the world".

• UFO Magazine, hosted on Squarespace.com, a blog
• "Summation of evidence," which starts off with "The UFO Phenomenon is real", part of a personal website.
• Stories (1) and supposedly declassified so-called military documents (1, 2), hosted on the Computer UFO Network.
• Youtube videos, including:

UFOs and Nuclear Base Shut Down 1 of 5, a WP:COPYVIO of the Larry King Show taken out of context and including commentary from Exopolitics.org.uk, a UFO entheusiast site

A purported interview with a supposed UFO witness (and part 2 and 3), hosted by the "UFOsamongus2 channel"

• A self-published book on Scribd
• More purported interviews with supposed UFO witnesses, hosted by Konsulting.com, a personal website run by "a father/son partnership" "hoping to provide an outlet for some UFO publications."
• This essay from the Mutual UFO Network, that Yogiadept called a "local paper" and a "MUFON Report online," like it was a legitimate news agency.
• Another purported interview, hosted on a Wordpress blog that describes itself as "a major resource to a global audience for UFO cases," dedicated "to bring a higher level of awareness regarding government knowledge, involvement and cover-up of these historic events."
• A paper from the Omaha UFO Study group, which regards MUFON as reliable.
• What Lurks Beyond: The Paranormal in your Backyard, by Jason Offutt, which takes various paranormal claims at face value, because the author "wanted to prove that the paranormal is not just in remote mountains of the Pacific Northwest, the lochs of Scotland, in some secret lab in Roswell, New Mexico, or deep in the jungles of South America."

Yogiadept has quit using Gods, Demons, and Space Chariots and Gods and Devils from Outer Space, books advocating theories about Ancient astronauts, but I welcome any comments on those as well.

Fnord, everybody. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of them come even close to meeting the requirements of WP:RS. None have undergone any serious form of editorial review or fact checking. None of them are quoted or cited in serious scholarly discussions on the topic. All appear to be notable only in-universe. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All obviously way out on the fringe. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the same user; Aetherius Society looks like if you removed everything cited to Aetherius.org, there'd be hardly any article left. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear God, I'm going after that one with the pooper scooper next. I'm looking for some reliable sources out there on that group (which I kinda get the impression he's a member of), and I believe that we probably can have a (highly reworked) article. The group appears to meet WP:NOTE ultimately. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The society is notable, but the level of detail cited to primary sources is, in my opinion, excessive. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to look over The Silence Group. Don't know how notable the topic is, but the use of bold quotes makes it seem like the encyclopedia is screaming a conspiratorial rant at the reader. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not seeing anything in it's current sources or on Google Books. Prodding that, too. Thanks for pointing it out. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Mental_Transmission
• The Cosmic Concept
• The Next Master
• Shape Power
• The Nine Freedoms
• George King (Aetherius Society)
• Mary King (The Magdala Centre/The Aetherius Society)

Bit of a walled garden here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio concerns

So far I've found obvious copyvio (and a bit of pov editing) at three articles and left him warnings. I haven't cleaned up Baltic Sea UFO yet as RL intervenes but I will soon. Dougweller (talk) 05:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That one's fixed and recent material added, but I haven't done more checking for copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged most of the above articles to more appropriate venues, usually Aetherius Society. I've reverted the George King article to the state it was in before Yogiadept got ahold of it, and readded some of the acceptable edits that were there, with some more NPOV phrasing. It could be That one I have gotten that involved in fixing the Aetherius Society article beyond gathering some Google books on the talk page. I have not checked for copyright violation, but I'm not worried about George King so much as the AS article. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the stuff in the AS article (which reads as though it was written by the society, and I suspect that anyone named yogiadept may have a coi), doesn't belong in it. I've removed some stuff that wasn't linked to any reliable sources to show significance. Still needs a lot of pruning plus adding material from reliable sources -- right now the vast majority of the sources are the society itself. Dougweller (talk) 09:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently Encarta has been gone for a while. It's been used recently for this edit which puzzles me as it isn't online (although I did note the editor today using a source he clearly hadn't read). So what do we do about anything sourced to Encarta? Especially when it looks dodgy? Dougweller (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's archive.org.[16] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously in this case it can be checked out, but ordinarily I would suggest any source that is not verifiable from the time of its addition should be pulled. Betty Logan (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I remember having an encarta CD when I was younger. Is it possible that someone could be using the CD to access it? Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds likely. The CD shipped with Windows in the 1990s. Tertiary source, not RS, but not dreadful and an editor might find it useful to consult for ideas. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Itsmejudith here. Encarta is problematic, but not highly so. Its use should be depreciated, but not worried about. If you come across an editor inserting Encarta, chat with them about the desirability of using secondary sources, etc. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Encarta is not a good source, but acceptable in doubt (like Britannica or any other encyclopedia formally would). Being available online is not a necessary criterion for in general and hence not for Encarta in particular. There plenty of Encarta CDs and the webarchive mentioned above, so in doubt Encarta needs to be treated like a book being out of print.

However if some editors adds problematic or dodgy material sourced on Encarta, I would revert that until a better source is provided. For serious content dispute it is certainly not acceptable to base your argument/desired content solely on Encarta.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well if editors are using the CD version then it's the CD that needs to be cited, preferably with the version number and any other relevant citation details. At least the CD is verifiable to some degree; citing a dead website is incorrect referencing. Betty Logan (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but cited a dead website is possible if the site was still alive at the time the citation was introduced or if the content in question is available in an archive (of course in that case a link to the archived version should be provided).--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. However, when an editor manages to find an url that doesn't work and uses that as a source, it does look as though they may have just copied it from somewhere else without checking it. Dougweller (talk) 15:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If a link dies that's a fairly common problem, we don't pull the source, but if an editor is referencing claims with dead links then obviously the information is not coming from the cited location. If it's coming from an archive or CD then those should be sourced directly as per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Betty Logan (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are articles on websites GigaOM, Tubefilter and Tubemogul reliable, and do they contribute towards the notability of a subject?

I am sceptical of them contributing towards the notability of a subject, as they cover Web television stuff, whether it is well established or not. And they mostly seem like opinion pieces. They are owned/involve the same people as the ones that made Streamy Awards, which was created to promote the industry.

Imo, they also seem to cover lots of trivial things, which would only interest people in that industry.--Otterathome (talk) 18:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs do not count as reliable sources unless they are by recognized authorities in the field (easy way to check that is to see if we have an article about the blog's author). So, they wouldn't count towards notability, either. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Source. Lange, Karen (September 2007). "Tales From the Bog". National Geographic 212 (3): 80-93.
• Article. Bog body
• Content. "An article in a German archaeology journal called "Imaginary People" concluded that many of the cases (my comment: of an archaeologist named Dr. Alfred Dieck) were fabricated."
• I have no strong views on the assertion itself. My concern is that as the content stands, we lack the name of the German journal, page references etc. or the author of the original conclusion. National Geographic is not a specialist archaeological journal itself. Hchc2009 (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Locate the German source. These are original and extraordinary theoretical claims in archaeology. The correct place to find original and extraordinary theoretical claims in archaeology is a peer reviewed archaeological journal. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • I agree with Fifelfoo, but National Geographic is a RS in its own right. While it's obviously not a specialist archaeological journal and is aimed squarely at the mass market, it does have a very long track record of publishing articles on archaeological topics and can be assumed to hire writers who know what they're talking about and undertake fact checking. Given that a claim like this is potentially libelous, it can also be assumed that National Geographic's lawyers would have required confirmation before giving this article the OK to publish. But yeah, citing the original journal article would be the best option. Nick-D (talk) 00:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nick's right, I was being a bit hard. Even when you find the German source I'd suggest leaving the National Geographic cite as further reading. The difference between a source for a claim, and a reference to a source for ordinary readers to follow up. A good reason to use the further reading section, when the article doesn't rely on a citation but a citation may help readers. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Dieck is dead so libel is not a concern. Roger (talk) 15:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source in question seems to be this one: VAN DER SANDEN, Wijnand A. B.; EISENBEISS, Sabine: Imaginäre Menschen: Alfred Dieck und die Moorleichen in Nordwesteuropa. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt, ISSN 0342-734X, 2006, vol. 36, no1, pp. 111-122

You might also check out Alfred_Dieck (the source is used there as well) and corresponding German Interwiki. Apparently several German TV documentation covered the subject as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers guys - will take the source back over to the article! Hchc2009 (talk) 05:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has been adding multiple sources to this article. I'm not sure who added a web page for the "Milton Keynes & Northampton Communists" but I removed that, plus a very large number of links to articles by this person (and this website). I'm now questioning this blog[17] and this website of photographs. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I would love better cites but, when I came across this article Soraya Tarzi, it had very few cites, especially for when the Queen, ripped off her veil in public in Afghanistan during a tribal meeting. Talk about brave! One cite might good but four cites from different POVs is better and more belivable.

Please see the article's edit summary history where I repeatedly express my concerns about the cites.

Also, in the talk page of the article under the first section, I address my concerns about POV of some of the sources early on. I say:

I added some need citation tags and will hunt for the original verifiable sources for the biography but it looks to be a needle in a hay stack. Geraldshields11 (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the need citation tags and found cites but I am worried about POV and circular citations. Geraldshields11 (talk) 01:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The History of Afghanistan^[1] By Meredith L. Runion and A History of Women in Afghanistan: Lessons Learnt for the Future or Yesterdays and Tomorrow: Women in Afghanistan^[2] By Dr. Huma Ahmed-Ghosh seem to be non-circular cites. Geraldshields11 (talk) 03:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cites

I added the communist's cite because I was worried about POV of the sources too close to the subject. Even communists in England are saying the monarch/queen was a notable person for women's liberation. When or where have you ever seen that?

The critic, Madeeha Syed, is from the region and the citation to a January 29, 2012 Urdu newspaper article^[3] she wrote was deleted, in addition to her website. Both newspaper article and website confirm her position on the text. Also, she and the Urdu newspaper are used as cites in four other Wikipedia articles (Although in full disclosure, only cultural articles).

Since I was very concerned about POV, I added multiple cites to support the text under the theory that if a professor in California, a US federal analyst, communists in England, and Muslims in the region are saying the same thing then at least one of the groups must have done original research to support the text. Which group is the best to support the text is anyone’s guess.

References

Solution

Dear Dougweller, Please see the above where I discuss my concerns about the cites and POV. Also, the critic's newspaper article. Furthermore, I would love to collaborate with you on this article so we can make a good article with great cites. Thanks. Geraldshields11 (talk) 18:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have worked very hard on this and that's appreciated, but we must follow WP:RS. I look at

Madeeha Syed's website which says "Madeeha has been a published music journalist/pop culture critic since 2005. She began commenting on fashion in 2008 but considers music to be her first and dominating love in the sphere of journalism." I note that she is working on the music of Pakistan. She might well be a reliable source for music and fashion in Pakistan, but I don't see how she qualifies as a reliable source for history. Dougweller (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dougweller, Thanks for the compliment.

Let us agree that Madeeha Syed of Pakistan is a better cite to fashion and music and her Dawn newspaper article was her first foray into history reporting. The text of her newspaper article parrallels the text of A History of Women in Afghanistan. So, let us remove the cite in the article.

But, then we are left with needles in a haystack.

The text of Queen Of The Dessert: Soraya Tarzi, Queen of Afghanistan^[1] parallels the text of A History of Women in Afghanistan but website has the pictures of the royal family and is (seems) not be associated with the Tarzi Family. So, it is closer to a third-party source.

If that website is removed then The Tarzi Family & The Tarzi Family Historical Society would be the source of the pictures of the royal family. This is too close to the person in the article.

I believe in multiple cites for the report that the person of the article tore her veil off during a tribal meeting. The above cites are strong but, because the negative connotation of that act in today's Afghanistan is too great, without multiple sources that statement might not be believable.

But, I guess I am being too cautious about the biography of a dead person.

Referenece

Please tell me your thoughts in this matter. My best regards, Geraldshields11 (talk) 03:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unedited blogs are not appropriate sources for history, refer to WP:HISTRS for the appropriate sources for history. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Fifelfoo, Thanks. Please feel free to add more or different cites. Let us work together to make a good article with great cites. Also, I found a better cite for the mention of her descendant^[1]. See below.

Referenece

I've recently been commenting out references made to Wikimapia, because I don't think it qualifies as a reliable source.

The reason I don't think it qualifies is because it's user generated, and in past discussions 'user-generated' content hasn't been considered as 'reliable'.

What are the views of other people? (Please note that Wikimapia's use of Google Base Layer for it's dataset is a different issue entirly). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki does not cite wiki. There is a lack of appropriate review over edits to Wikimapia which means that we cannot consider it as a reliable source. It may be valid for external links, you'd need to consult the external links people. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I already did that, see Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard, and got back a comment implying that it failed the criteria established by WP:EL. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

right, it has 5600+ potentially violating links. I'm proposing that this go to the large-scale clean-ups as a candidate. I suggest that it be mooted for blacklisting in the meantime. The blacklist is here. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The link for large scale cleanup requests being? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added it to the candidate list here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Large_scale_clean-ups#Candidate_clean-ups; it would probably need to wait for one or two of the current clean-ups to clear. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For reference the usages are here - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&limit=5000&offset=0&target=http%3A%2F%2F*.wikimapia.org Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it a reliable source and so we should not use it as such by citing, etc. However, there may be very good reasons to link to it, just as a link to another WP page or a file on Commons. The problem is only if the link is to support some assertion. So, please do not blacklist it and please keep the bots in their kennels. Thincat (talk) 23:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't use bots, for instance, Wikimapia is a potential reliable source on Wikimapia. But in general, as Sfan00 IMG has demonstrated at WP:EL/N, it is an ELNO—and it certainly isn't like a link to a wikipedia or commons page. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I've been removing Wikimapia sources & ELs for many months, thinking that it was already ok to do so. Sorry if I have overstepped the mark by doing so. - Sitush (talk) 08:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some links I have seen may indeed be inappropriate—for example, one used to support a claim that two urban communities have now coalesced. I'm sure some thoughtful cleanup is useful. However, I do doubt the wisdom of blacklisting (if I understand it fully). Vast numbers of articles importantly link to http://toolserver.org/~geohack/ (an "unreliable" site"?) via geographical coordinates and this in turn links to "unreliable" sites such as http://www.wikimapia.org/. If this is acceptable (and it is) then I do not see much sense in blocking a direct link. Thincat (talk) 08:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have a fairly strong policy against supporting any single service via article specific external links. Why not add external links to google maps, open street map and open cycle map? Users are mature enough to select their ISBN resolution service of choice, or their geolocation resolution service of choice. We ought to supply the ISBN or geo code, and let users determine which service they prefer for themselves. (Sfan00 IMG already made this precise argument in the EL/N discussion btw). Fifelfoo (talk) 08:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have seen the WP:EL/N discussion and don't really have a problem there. And I certainly think broad menus for ISBN and coord sources is a very good thing. However, if a book source is on Amazon but not Google Books we should link to the right place and such citations are ubiquitous. Can the same properly apply to mapping sites? Thincat (talk) 09:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The appropriate place to make an ELYES argument about additional information not available from other geolocators would be EL/N; but, I'd be very happy for you to report back here regarding the outcome of that one so it can be factored back into any large scale clean-up (which probably has to go ahead for reliability / prodding anyway). I am happy to go as far as "It isn't a reliable source," but I very much understand that external links do not have to meet wikipedia's reliability criteria. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This looks not be not a sourcing question at all, but one about ELs. I don't think we should have it in the candidate cleanups unless we see it frequently used as a source. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is used regularly as a source, Check the refs I've commented out in my contribs Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My removals - referred to above - have tended to be citations rather than ELs. Of course, most of my edits relate to India stuff and it may be some quirk that causes them to be used more often as sources in that sphere than perhaps happens elsewhere. Regardless, I doubt that it will take long to get things in order - if it takes a month or so then that is nothing compared to the time that most of these things have been sat there. - Sitush (talk) 10:10, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, it does come under our remit. By the way, I don't know how to do the search for websites and what articles they appear in, as in the Answers in Genesis cleanup. Could we find an automated way to work out whether the web address appears in a section headed External links? Itsmejudith (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We may need to tout for toolsmiths. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... or give me a month to do it the hard way. - Sitush (talk) 10:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's that... there's that... but there's also the next 5000 unit external link problem. I can grep and sort non-Article space links from Article space links based on the current external links search, but I can't do much about where the object lies inside the article. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this article space only? - Sitush (talk) 11:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is, but the multiline output is less useful for group problem resolving over longer periods of time? Fifelfoo (talk) 21:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to provide an example of why Wikimapia should not be considered a reliable source: Recently, a small settlement (identified on no online maps, including Wikimapia) near Maarzaf, Syria, made the news as the site of the Al-Qubeir massacre. Within a day or so, there appeared on Wikimapia a polygon identifying a settlement at 35°10′47″N 36°33′28″E / 35.17972°N 36.55778°E / 35.17972; 36.55778 as "Maarzaf Al-Qubair"; but about a day later another polygon appeared on Wikimapia at a somewhat different location, 35°10′37″N 36°30′53″E / 35.17694°N 36.51472°E / 35.17694; 36.51472, identifying a settlement as "Qubair Farm". (Both labels appear on Wikimapia to this day.) Which coordinates should we use on WP to identify the location of the settlement and event? Clearly the answer is "neither" unless some reliable and independent source is found to corroborate the actual location. Deor (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a reliable source for the Dhimmi article to state "Others opine that dhimmi imposed discrimination within Arab law and custom and inflicted severe hardship upon non-Muslim citizens"? It is used by the BBC.

Islam at War:A history, George F. Nafziger, Mark W. Walton, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2003. Ankh.Morpork 21:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nafziger's doctorate and work is in military history, not social or economic history. Nafziger's opinion may be a mis-weighting—particularly as the Opinion of Others isn't inherently weighty. Seek histories specifically of the dhimmi and non-muslims. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering if it is alright to use source articles from a popular blog/news site called Allkpop? The site started out as a blog site that later grew into a popular news portal for Korean pop music for non-Korean speaking people. However, I'm unsure because its reliability are still being put to question.

I'm unsure if using sources from this site on an article like the Wonder Girls is this is alright. But I believe that Allkpop is reliable here because JYP Entertainment, the group's management agency, are the ones who gave the information to the site. Also in the past, JYP Entertainment and its artists have been in touched with the site as these articles show1,2, and 3. It seems to be a good sign that they have a good relationship with this site and so they trust them enough to give details about Wonder Girls' new song. So is it alright to trust this site's reliability? Bleubeatle (talk) 08:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_125#Allkpop_and_Soompi says nope.

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_121#allkpop.com very no due to BLP

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_84#What_is_the_general_feeling_about_the_reliability_of_allkpop.com not answered (probably due to the date of the question).

I would follow these up by saying that gossip blogs are not suitable sources for BLP articles, or for any articles. I would strongly suggest other news sources (possibly in Korean). Fifelfoo (talk) 09:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see. I should've looked that up on the search bar before I posted it. Err..my bad.Bleubeatle (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! You wouldn't expect k-pop to be a controversial sourcing area, but it is. Just like (as below) you wouldn't expect heavy metal genres to be an area requiring the highest quality sources imaginable, but it is. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could not seem to find a relevant discussion as to whether The Metal Review is a source that passes WP:RS but I was curious as to whether I could use this source. [18] I would used it on both the relevant album page Count Your Blessings (Bring Me the Horizon album) for album notability and the relevant band page for a musical style section Bring Me The Horizon.

"European, melodic death metal with black metal-styled vocals and a smattering of slow-and-heavy breakdowns."

The kind of unbiased assessment of the band's heavy metal influences is very useful for the development of a musical style section. Jonjonjohny (talk) 08:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see metalreview.com gives all the appearances of a magazine with traditional editing, that merely happens to be published using blog software. They clearly divide user-generated content (ie: "comments") from edited content. One of the problems is that these are reviews, specifically focused on the work. The apparent depth of reviewing on this site is a good sign, in the sense that The Metal Review does appear to review "significant" works of metal only from a metal perspective. What I'm not sure about is the notability or weight of the reviews—particularly on the ever controversial point of metal genres. Sorry I can't be more indicative, but this isn't my strong suit. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is with regards to a claim and reference used in the Assam#Etymology section. The claim and reference are given here:

The academic consensus is that current name "Assam" is based on the English word Assam [16]

The reference given is

S. C. Bhatt, Gopal Bhargava, Land and People of Indian States and Union Territories, Gyan Publishing House, 2005, p. 147. "The word Assamese is an English one, built on the same principle as Cingalese, Canarese, etc. It is based on the English word Assam."

This issue has previously been discussed on the talk page (Talk:Assam#Etymology_of_Assam), submitted to Wikipedia:Third Opinion, and lastly to Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_33#Assam.23Etymology. When the discussion at the last instance failed, it was suggested that the issue be submitted here.

The issue

The phrase in the above claim---Assam is based on the English word Assam---is nonsensical. The quote the editor has provided from the cited source is making a statement on the Assamese language, not the name Assam. The editor has used the phrase "English word Assam" to claim that the name Assam originated with the English.

The quoted sentence should actually read somewhat like:

The academic consensus is that current English name "Assam" is an anglicized version of a native name.

This is because the cited reference quotes directly from the seminal work: Banikanta Kakati (1941) "Assamese: Its Formation and Development" p1 [19]. Banikanta Kakati has himself clarified the above statement in a later work, where he writes, with less ambiguity: "The word 'Assamese' is an English one based on the the anglicised form 'Assam' from the native word "Asam", which in its turn is connected with the Shans who invaded the Brahmaputra Valley in the 13th century." (Kakati, Banikanta, Aspects of Early Assamese Literature (Gauhati University Press, 1953) p1 [20]).

The editor makes a narrow and literal reading from a phrase in the cited source, and choose to ignore the rest of the scholarly literature available on the subject. As a result the editor has produced a nonsensical statement. Past attempts to correct this have failed because the editor has been resisting changes to the above text.

Chaipau (talk) 11:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kakati 1953 is a reliable academic source. Only include conflicting views if they are backed by a source of equivalent quality. Reflect sources properly, don't cherry-pick small phrases out of context. Using Kakati you are on safe ground to say "Assam" is an anglicised form of "Asam"... You don't necessarily have to say anything about academic consensus. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes actually saying that something is an academic consensus requires very good sourcing which actually says this or demonstrates it in an obvious way, but it is rarely necessary to use such language.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your inputs. In lieu of the current unwieldy and confusing section, this was a suggested alternative alternative. Your comments on this alternative text would be very valuable. Thanks. Chaipau (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. Getting there but some tweaks may still be needed. Try to avoid using Gait directly as it is so old. Your other sources are all good, I think. There is an art in writing them up. Avoid using terms like "accepted", "consensus". Just follow the straightforward Fact - source model. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:08, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have rephrased the text and removed all use of "accepted" and "consensus". I could not avoid Gait for two reasons. One, he's is still a standard work; and two, because states clearly that the British used a name other than "Assam" and that a similar name was used by the Mughals earlier. I haven't seen any other reference that does this pointedly. Chaipau (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Better still. Now, this would be nitpicking were it not that the text has been challenged, and also we are on RSN and the archives may be used for reference. You don't need Gait because you have Kakati, you don't need to attribute. British Raj sources are a perennial headache on India articles, full of ethnocentric assumptions and haphazard methodology. Perhaps Gait is better than the others, but post WW2 is a useful rule of thumb on history articles. Fact, footnoted reference to Kakati, done and dusted. The only other tweak, not a sourcing thing, is that I would take out the "the" before "medieval". Then good to go. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. As a post-war scholar Kakati can critically read Raj texts, and make scholarly claims. As an encyclopaedia we are not a post-war scholar like Kakati—we should most certainly avoid using Raj texts due to their manifest deficiencies and their general rejection as appropriate scholarship by the post-war scholarly community. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have now removed Gait and the "the", here. I shall make more changes, if necessary. Thanks! Chaipau (talk) 02:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editor says the article is "based on material copied with permission" from Virtual Vermonter. I'm not sure this is a reliable source for the entire article, or that "copied with permission" is a valid claim. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right to doubt these things :) Virtual Vermonter doesn't appear to meet our criteria as RS. If I'm right, no need to worry about the permission thing because the material should not be used as our source.

The Olcott book, mentioned on the web page, would be a primary source: we might use it with care, if someone can find a copy, but we can't base a whole article on it. The Williams book listed under "sources" on our Eddy Brothers page, published by Knopf, is probably OK: ideally, that's the kind of source we want. Maybe the Cranston book also, but whether it contains much relevant material I don't know. Andrew Dalby 14:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having recently been fragged for copyvio myself, I know how easy it is to misunderstand and run afoul of close paraphrasing. This article seems full copyvio, to my eyes. The Virtual Vermonter page has no copyright-free notice but it does have an "all material copyright Virtual Vermonter" notice. In addition the story itself is listed as being "excerpted from" a separately copyrighted book by Rich Gray. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]