Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:04, 12 January 2008

• ]

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

The guideline that most directly relates to whether a given source is reliable is Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources. The policies that most directly relate are: Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, Misplaced Pages:No original research and Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view. For questions about the sourcing policy, please go to WT:V.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350 351, 352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370 371, 372, 373, 374, 375, 376, 377, 378, 379, 380 381, 382, 383, 384, 385, 386, 387, 388, 389, 390 391, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 410 411, 412, 413, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 428, 429, 430 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437, 438, 439, 440 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449, 450 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 456, 457, 458, 459, 460

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

FrontPage Magazine and WorldNetDaily

See also: #Is FrontPageMag.com a reliable source?

There is currently a controversy on Islam in the United States over the inclusion of information that is thought to be irrelevant by some and relevant by others. Setting aside the issue of relevance since it isn't pertinant here, there has also been a concern raised about the reliability of the sources used as references for the disputed information. I will reproduce the disputed paragraph below with its two references so that those commenting here have some context. Note: I'm not asking for help or advice about the relevancy issue since that is a content question and not a source question. Thanks.

• According to Paul Sperry, the Pentagon has also criticized Islam at least on one occasion. He writes that after a detailed project undertaken to study Islam, Quran and Hadiths, the Pentagon has concluded that "Islam is an ideological engine of war (Jihad)." In its briefing paper titled "Motivations of Muslim Suicide Bombers", the Pentagon has concluded that "Suicide in defense of Islam is permitted, and the Islamic suicide bomber is, in the main, a rational actor. The bomber secures salvation and the pleasures of Paradise where 'beautiful mansions' and 'maidens' await him." It also describes 'Zakat' the Muslim charity as "an asymmetrical war-fighting funding mechanism." The paper also says that the actions of Prophet Muhammed could be considered quite radical by today's standards. .

While the main issue on the talk page has been relevance I was hoping to get some help on the secondary issue of reliability, either in this particular case or more broadly for those two media outlets. Are FrontPage Magazine and/or WorldNetDaily reliable sources for news in this context? In general? How are these media outlets classified? What are they comparable to? Other than the fact that some editors identify a bias in these sources and other editors deny any such bias I don't think any of us have a good understanding of the reliability issue. Any help would be great. Thanks.PelleSmith 22:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

• WorldNetDaily has a reputation for publishing fringe theories. FrontPage magazine is essentially one big editorial that pushes a conservative political agenda. Neither site has a reputation for accuracy, nor high standards of journalism. In the example above, there is no way these would be reliable sources. Try the Washington Post or Wall Street Journal. If the Pentagon took such a position, it would be reported widely. - Jehochman 23:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
• ditto to what Jehochman noted. WND and FPM demonstrate very little in terms of evidence of reliability. ITAQALLAH 13:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Agree with Jehochman. If the Pentagon had made that point, it would've been widely reported. → AA — 14:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Agree with Jehochman. They are both right-leaning rumor mills. Ngchen 14:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Agree with Jehochman. --Aminz 00:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Agree. Note that they are good sources for opinion, where that is warranted. Arrow740 03:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Agree. There was a well-documented case of them verbatim reporting from an Onion article about Harry Potter's satanic ties. --Haemo 03:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Um... This caught my eye, and there is less there than Haemo seems to think. Them is WorldNetDaily, btw, not FPM. There is no particular reason to believe the author got the quote directly from the Onion, and WND seems to have corrected it in some fashion (whether with just an excision or with an errata, I don't know). Chasing the chain of custody of quotes to the root has been a problem on occasion for both the WP and the WSJ, I think. Not arguing strongly for WND's reliability here -- just saying the proffered example doesn't prove much. Andyvphil 22:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Agree with Jehochman. --Raphael1 13:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Agree with Jehochman. PR 09:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Question

Does anyone know what standards these magazines have for oversight and fact checking? That is to say what is known about how they operate in terms of how reliable they are? Thanks again.PelleSmith 21:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be an issue with their standing among "peers" and mostly appear to be op-ed pieces.--Tigeroo 16:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting to contrast this discussion with the one on Counterpunch above. Beit Or 20:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Now in the archive. But, yes, as with Counterpunch, Media Matters, FAIR, etc. FPM should be citeable, but with appropriate caution. The subject here is politics, not particle physics, and the borders between opinion and fact are correspondingly blurred. In this area a damned lot of nonsense is published in peer-reviewed academic journals, and that's just the way it is. Andyvphil 22:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not how we work. Relata refero 05:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue is not that dissident publication on the left and right should not be considered reliable sources. Some are, some are not. The problem is that both FrontPage Magazine and WorldNetDaily have a long history of publishing material that is hysterical, unsupportd with documentation, and later shown to be factually dubious, bigoted, or just plain false.--Cberlet 13:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

We should have in mind that User:Cberlet has his own controversy with FrontPage. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 16:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

And left-wing magazines don't do any of this. Riiiiight.... - Merzbow (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily is right about Islam

I disagree with your consensus. Although, I have to agree with User:AA that if the Pentagon had reported it, it would have been reported a lot more widely, which is a good point. That said, it could be due to political correctness, that criticism of Islam is being omitted (which is a very common phenomena these days). So it's not necessarily so that WorldNetDaily is making this alleged Pentagon report up. But whatever the case, and how much of a WP:RS the WND is, it is absolutely right about one thing: "Islam is an ideological engine of war (Jihad)." In its briefing paper titled "Motivations of Muslim Suicide Bombers", the Pentagon has concluded that "Suicide in defense of Islam is permitted, and the Islamic suicide bomber is, in the main, a rational actor. — This is true. For those interested in knowing how this is supported by the Qu'ran, I recommend Sura 9:111 if you want to find out more about what the Pentagon is talking about. As for FrontPageMag and its reliability, it's a very biased magazine with an obvious agenda (very often, pro-conservative, pro-Israel, pro-right wing, etc.) but it's not necessarily so that everything reported there is by default inaccurate since it would of course be an ad hominem. Of course, the stuff reported on FrontPage should be taken with some precautions, but I wouldn't discard everything from that site as unreliable. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 16:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether what you wrote is true or not, what you wrote seems to fall under original research.Ngchen (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

References

Robert Spencer

Is Robert Spencer a reliable source in the field of Islam? He is the author of The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion, Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't, amongst other books.

He is also the director of "Jihad watch" which is considered a hate and Islamophobic website. (Sources:, ).

I think he violates WP:RS#Extremist_sources, what do you guys think?Bless sins 07:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree - he would certainly seem to qualify as an extremist source (in the sense of being on the fringes). I would be very, very wary of using him as a source for anything much. -- ChrisO 09:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

In general, I would agree... At best, he could be cited for a statement of opinion as opposed to a statement of fact. Something along the lines of: According to Robert Spencer, "blah blah Islam is bad blah blah" <citation>. This really depends on whether Mr. Spencer is considered an expert on Islam, and whether his opinions on Islam are notable or not. If he is simply a crank who wrote a book and runs a website, then his opinion does not rate mentioning per WP:UNDUE. Blueboar 14:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree, per ChrisO. I remember reading how he has very little in terms of scholarly publications. In addition, I doubt he is considered an expert on Christianity either, if he were trying to do a study on comparative religion.Ngchen 14:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, on looking into the subject a bit further... I'm not so sure about that... according to our article on him (see: Robert Spencer) he does have some credentials in the field (He has an MA in Early Christianity). He has authored six best selling books on Islam, and has been an op-ed contributer to several mainstreem newpapars. While his views are controversial, he does have notable supporters. So he is not a complete crank.

Extreme? Possibly... but even extreme views might still be considered notable and worthy of discussion in an article. Controversial? Definitely. I don't think we can simply write him off as unreliable, but I do agree that we should be very careful not to give his statements more weight than they deserve. I would definitely say that anything that is included about his views be carefully attributed as being his views, and not stated as absolute fact. It really depends on the article and how he is being used in that article. This one has to be taken on a case by case basis and argued out in the article talk page. I don't think we can make a blanket determination here. Blueboar 15:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Note that I have severe doubts on the context in which he is quotable. As an expert on Islam, for example, he has limited qualifications, and might be considered extreme. As a notable critic of Islam, I thought at first he could be considered quotable in relevant situations, except that he then serves as a primary source of criticism, and we should quote instead those who have analysed his work and those of others and can represent his views in reliable secondary sources. Relata refero 20:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you slightly misstate WP:PSTS here... while secondary sources are preferred in general terms, and certainly for any statement of fact, there is no rule in Misplaced Pages that says we can never cite a primary source. We simply need to do so with extreme care. In fact, when discussing a particular person's views it is better to cite the primary source directly rather than getting it second hand from a secondary source (who might take something the source says out of context). Once again, we have to ask whether we are talking about statements of fact (where we should cite reliable secondary sources) or statements of opinion (where we should attribute the opinion directly and cite the primary source). I really think this gets us far beyond WP:RS... we have to consider what our three core policies (WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:NPOV) say. Please note that I am not arguing that the views of Mr. Spencer should be discussed in an article on Islam... I am simply pointing out that, under some cicumstances, it may be appropriate to do so... and in those circumstances, then we can and should cite him. I don't think we can simply exclude his views as "extremist", or declare his books unreliable by fiat under WP:RS. It depends on the context of what is said in the article. Blueboar 21:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he qualifies as a reliable source in any way on comparative religion in general. However, I strongly disagree with But I am more concerned with your belief that I have misinterpreted WP:PSTS.Where in PSTS does it indicate that for statements of opinion we should cite the primary source? It would be remarkable and inappropriate if it did so, because in our citing of PSes we are almost certain to fall into the trap of choosing those statements which are outrageous, or unrepresentative. In fact, PSTS says the direct opposite:"Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source", and a PS should not buttress "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims." In any case, choosing 'representative' statements of opinion from a primary source is the same as saying "here, I argue that this is this source's main thrust", which is clearly original research (for an example, see the history of Max Mueller). I do not claim that this is necessary everywhere - obviously no one would intend it to apply to plot synopses, for example - but for anything even reasonably contentious or challenged, we need secondary sources. Relata refero 15:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If we include a statement such as: According to Robert Spencer, "blah blah Islam is bad blah blah"<citation>, you have to cite exactly where he says this. In this case, it is best to cite the original work and not someone else quoting that work. Note that such wording does not contain any interpretation of the primary source. It simply quotes the source and attributes it to its author. Doing this is definitely not Original Research. Now, if the article contained any further comment on the quote... that would be OR. It would also be OR if we took the statement out of context. Thus the strong caution about using Primary Sources that is contained in WP:NOR... but it is a caution, not a ban. WP:NOR definitely does NOT say we can never use primary sources. There are times when doing so is appropriate, and citing a direct quote is one of them. Blueboar 14:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You are quite wrong. In choosing a quote, we are choosing to represent the author's views. When the author himself is a primary source - "an individual very close to the subject of the article" - then we are, in effect, structuring an argument based on primary sources. In such occasions, we are required to use reliable secondary sources that discuss such arguments as far as possible; wikipedia users ourselves should not be given license to assume we can place all possible statements in the correct context. When Spencer is himself the subject of the article, or primary source, we can quote him directly only if that particular quote is considered relevant by secondary sources, which should also be cited. We should ideally say that "blah blah Islam is murderous blah blah according to notable critic Spencer", but source this to somebody who is an expert on Spencer. Can you seriously look at the second paragraph of this revision of the MM article, my earlier example, and tell me that this is not precisely the kind of OR that a lax approach you suggest to implementation of policy will allow?Relata refero 15:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

In the example you raise, the statements being made are not given with direct attribution or quotes. The language used constitutes an editor's interpretation of what MM said. I would say that was OR. But that isn't what I am talking about here. I am talking about directly quoting the source (keeping the statement being quoted in context) and attributing that quote to the source. Doing so is not OR in any way shape or form. But to settle this... I will ask for the opinion of those editing at WP:NOR. Blueboar 16:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I think we should exclude his views as "extremist".--Aminz 21:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

That source is an Ad hominem attack against him. Yahel Guhan 22:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• I think his views should be allowed to be presented only in "criticism of Islam" and related articles, and then, attributed to him with According to Robert Spencer... I do not believe he is an extremist in his views, but rather partisan. Yahel Guhan 22:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Should the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion be used as a resource on Jews? And the source provided by Aminz is a reliable and scholarly one.Bless sins 22:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Blueboar and others, here is a reasonable compromise. Spencer's views should be quoted whenever another reliable source quotes it. Thus, if CNN considers some of his views noteworthy, then we quote those views. This ensures that only the most notable of Spencer's views are quoted. Otherwie we shouldn't be quoting extremist views. This is how we treat other extremist sources (such as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion).Bless sins 22:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

My view was that he should be given space only in "criticism of Islam" and related articles not because of him being reliable in anyway but because he is a notable critic of Islam: The "criticism of Islam" article is supposed to record notable criticisms of Islam and these criticisms may come from every corner. But in practice we encountered a problem: Spencer is only a contemporary critic of Islam. Islam has been around for hundreds of years. It is thus recentism and undue weight to use him too much. Furthermore most of what is attributed to Spencer does not really belong to him. We should not credit Spencer with the criticisms that he has not himself proposed but is repeating those before him.

In my view we should have a section on "contemporary criticisms" and there we include the new criticisms coming from Spencer and people like him. Right now, the criticism article rely too heavily on Spencer. --Aminz 05:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That sounds about right.... although I would allow for quoting him directly. In any case, I certainly agree that his views should be limited to "criticism" sections and articles and should not be given undue weight. This is really more of a WP:NPOV issue than one of RS. Blueboar 14:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

As I say in my reply above, his views are notable in relevant articles, but WP editors should not be given license to decide which of his views are. Experts on Spencer or on the criticism of Islam more generally should. Relata refero 15:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolulte rubbish... While we can debate whether it is appropriate to discuss Mr. Spencer and his views in any given article, if you are going to discuss his views you should quote him directly, and with proper citation so that editors can check to see that the quote is in context. I seriously doubt that there are "Experts on Spencer" to quote. Blueboar 16:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hold your horses. Why should we trust editors to check the context? Show me the policy that says that. And as for 'experts on Spencer', I meant, of course, experts on the criticism or political controversies surrounding Islam who discuss Spencer, of which there are many. Relata refero 17:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

...and the names are? Beit Or 09:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

But again, that is not what I am talking about. I am saying that, as a noted critic of Islam, it might be appropriate to discuss what Spencer has to say. Once that discision has been made we have to deside how to use him. Now, given his biased (and possibly even extremist) views, I would not use him to support a bald statement of fact (ie "Islam is blah blah blah"), but instead we should use him only for a statement of opinion (ie "According to noted Anti-islamist Robert Spencer, 'Islam is blah blah blah'"). And if you do that, you should cite the quote to where Spencer says this. No more, no less. And while there is no rule that says editors have to check that sources are in context... I know plenty of editors who do check them. I know I do... Since I edit on some fairly controvercial topics, I frequently check the sources in criticims sections, and make sure that POV editors are not taking things out of context. I agree that, all to frequenlty, such quotes are used in ways that constitute OR. But (and this is a big "but") quoting someone directly is not automatically a form of OR. It can be done properly... As long as you keep the quote in context, and do not go beyond what the source is saying, it isn't OR. Blueboar 18:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

this passage may be of relevance from WP:SPINOUT: "However, it is possible for article spinouts to become POV forks. If a statement is inadmissible for content policy reasons at an article XYZ, then it is also inadmissible at a spinout Criticism of XYZ. Spinouts are intended to improve readability and navigation, not to evade Misplaced Pages's content policies." Spencer wouldn't be reliable for content on Islam, Muhammad etc. - not even for criticism - except in the instance of a reliable source (i.e. book review in a reliable publication) covering the claims made by Spencer (that is, after all, how someone becomes noted for criticism). in theory, this restriction should extend to Criticism of X articles, to prevent them from becoming slanted. primary source usage in this instance has major drawbacks, as can be seen in a few such articles, where excessive attention is given to the every musing, argument and deduction emanating from him. he has plenty of books published - and thus, there is virtually no limit to the amount of content that can be added citing Spencer's works. i disagree with using a partisan source (just because it happens to be partisan) in an article which analyses partisan views as documented by reliable sources - or at least, that's what an article should be doing. ITAQALLAH 18:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Itaquallah, in this case, there already is a well established Criticism of Islam article. And, in that article, it would be appropriate to discuss what Spencer has to say (he is, after all, a noted modern Critic of Islam). The key is not to give his views undue weight, and not to present his views as being fact, but only as his opinion. Also, according to the folks over at WP:NOR, he counts as a secondary source on Islam. Thus, the cautions about primary sources do not really apply. I would still use him sparingly and with caution, but the point is that he can be used. Blueboar 19:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment on definitions used in above discussions: Spencer is not a primary source on Islam. He's a secondary source. He may not be a good source, he may be a "one trick pony" who writes of nothing else, he may not be a source worthy of note, but he is a secondary source. Examples of primary source texts on Islam would be the Koran or Hadith texts. Neither primary sources nor secondary sources are totally unacceptable sources in every situation, so I think it would be more constructive to the dispute to focus on whether or not Spencer's views are worthy of note in a general encyclopedia. For example, where else in academia is he being cited? If the claims on the wp article about him are accurate, then his views appear notable but controversial. Where and when controversial sources can be used is the core issue here, and the "primary source" objection is just a misapplied technicality to excuse ruling out this particular source.Professor marginalia 19:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

this is how i see the issue (corrections welcomed): Spencer is a secondary source on Islam (albeit unreliable). he is, however, a primary source for his own views on Islam (meaning, he's a primary source for criticism). when the actual article subject is critical views, such as Criticism of Islam, then the critical sources are themselves primary sources for those critical views. the scope of the article (in this scenario) isn't Islam, it's what critics say about Islam. Blueboar, yes - it would be completely appropriate to discuss the views of Spencer in an article like criticism of Islam - but only to the extent that it's been covered in sources secondary to such criticism. as a noted critic of Islam, it's expected that at least his most significant or important claims will have been covered to a reasonable degree in books, newspapers, journals and so on. ITAQALLAH 19:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

just to clarify, this works both ways as well. in an article on `Muhammad in Islamic piety` (as a theoretical example), those texts in the form of pious or devotional passages, or other texts reflecting Islamic views, would constitute primary sources in relation to the topic, while studies on such texts and ideas would be secondary sources. ITAQALLAH 19:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

<unindent> Confirming my agreement with Itaqallah, Spencer appears not to be a reliable secondary source to base the article on, but in terms of WP:NPOV his views may be notable enough to be represented as a minority view, subject to undue weight requirements. He's a primary source for that view, and if notable enough then there should be reliable sources about his view from a mainstream perspective, which should be used as the basis for the section. However, like all primary sources, he can be cited and, if appropriate, quoted for his views providing care is taken not to introduce original research in interpreting or citing quotes out of context. .. dave souza, talk 19:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC) There is a logical disconnect here... Can someone explain difference between Spencer discussing Islam (where you say he is a secondary source) and Spencer criticising Islam (where you say he would be a primary source)? Are you saying that if he is saying something positive about Islam he is secondary, but that he suddenly becomes primary when saying something negative? Blueboar 21:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. It depends not on what he is saying, but what the subject of the article is. If we are considering quoting him about Islam, whether or not he is reliable, whether or not he is critical, he is a secondary source. If we need material for an article on Criticism of Islam, whether or not he is reliable, he is a primary source, as he is one of the most popular living critics of Islam, and as such is a major constituent of the subject of the article. Relata refero 05:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

that's not the implication here. speaking in very general terms (this includes Spencer and others) - a partisan (pro- or anti-) source discussing a subject is a secondary source when the article topic is about that subject ("X"). when the article topic itself is the very partisanship of the partisans ("positive/negative view of X") - the original partisan source is no longer secondary, it is primary. that's just how i believe the sources are classified, and why i think a secondary source on Criticism of X is a source which discusses critics and the views they express, not sources which themselves synthesise critiques (IMO primary). ITAQALLAH 22:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I see that there are RS and NPOV issues, and some PSTS disputes. I suggest focusing on RS, NPOV, and NOR as a whole, without obsessing over PSTS. Jacob Haller 23:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The PSTS issue emerges from OR. The question is who can correctly interpret Spencer's comments and ensure they are taken in context. One solution is that we only quote reliable sources quoting Spencer, making the assumption that reliable sources have done their homework.

Another issue is what to quote. Certainly some of Spencer's opinions are notable and certainly some aren't, and we should quote only notable opinions. One very reasonable way determining which opinion are notable, is that the notable opinion will have appeared in reliable sources, while non-notable opinion will be ignored by reliable sources.

Finally, saying that Spencer is unreliable, but still may be quoted is setting a dangerous precedent. If unreliable, yet popular sources, such as Spencer can be used, then what else? Can I use the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, quite popular, to talk about the Jews? (Obviously not, nor should I be able to use Spencer).Bless sins 01:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I find it quite appalling that you compare Spencer to Protocols of the Elders of Zion; there really is no comparision. Spencer criticizes Islam (and maybe Muhammad), but doesn't specificly call muslims some of the names Protocols does. Yahel Guhan 01:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Both are unreliable sources, as far as WP:RS is concerned. Spencer specifically calls Islam as "the World's most Intolerant Religion". His writings are considered "bigotry similar to anti-Semitism and racial prejudice". Anyways, I got a sufficient response out of this. Whether the Protocols are a reliable source (I beleive they aren't) is the topic of another notice.Bless sins 01:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You think your "resolved" tag is a funny joke, because I don't think it is funny; it really is disruptive, considering the discussion isn't resolved. Reguarding your arguement, Spencer calls "islam" intolerant. That is not bogotry. He doesn't say "all muslims are intolerant" which would be bigotry. That quote is one view, which you seem to be repeating throughout this argue. For criticism sections and articles, though, he is a reliable source, as he is a notable critic. Yahel Guhan 02:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yahel Guhan, when he calls Islam "the World's Most intolerant religion" he is calling all Muslim intolerant. This is because, by definition a Muslim is someone who follows the teachings of Islam. If someone doesn't believe in Islam, then they are not a Muslim.Bless sins 04:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that you have a point that Spencer needs to be covered in Criticism of Islam article, please note that as demonstrated above, he is not a reliable source in such articles, he is a primary source.Relata refero 08:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Relata, I disagree... Spencer is a secondary source (allbeit a biased one), even for criticism's of Islam, and from the comments at the WP:NOR Talk page, others agree with my view of the matter. But... even if he were a primary source, you are incorrect in saying that a primary source is automatically unreliable. You seem to equate reliability with "true" or "unbiased"... that is not the case. Your comparison with the Protocols is off base... what makes the Protocols unreliable is not the fact that it contains all sorts of unsubstantiated, hateful and biased allegations against jews... It is unreliable for a host of other reasons, the main ones being: The original was not reliably published. There is no accountability or editorial oversight... We do not know the author, so it is unattributable, even as a statement of opinion.... In Spencer's case, we do know who wrote it... We know who published it... And when we question the accuracy of what he says, we can phrase things as being Spencer's opinion. Blueboar 13:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I miswrote that: he is a reliable source, but a primary source, and thus to be used with accompanying care. Blueboar, the points you've made on NOR, while interesting, have all been satisfactorily answered, I believe.

I didn't mention the Protocols ( I wouldnt) and the comparison was made precisely because it was claimed that Spencer is a sufficiently extremist source: and, thus, we should avoid using it (though not by me, and I disagree with that.). Relata refero 15:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Though I agree that Spencer may be covered on Islam related articles, he should be covered by a reliable secondary source. Why? I'm outlining the problems below.Bless sins 04:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It just doesn't make sense to quote him from second hands when we can quote him directly. Beit Or 08:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Section break

Why directly quoting Spencer is inappropriate:

1. Spencer holds some views which are notable, and some views which are non-notable. How do we decide which views are notable? We see if those views have been covered by a reliable secondary source.
2. Quoting Spencer from a reliable source ensures that a reasonable limit is put on how much space he is given.
3. I argue that Spencer is an extremist source per WP:RS#Extremist_sources, because he is "anti-religious". Am I right? If yes, he "should be used only as source about self and activities in articles about self, and even then with caution." Using a reliable secondary source, however, solves this problem.
4. Finally, if we quote Spencer directly, we are setting a dangerous precedent: namely that popular extremists who are not at all experts in the field may be used as sources. Do we really want wikipedia filled with hate-speech that characterizes the faith of 1.2 billion as "most intolerant", that says that the Quran teaches "cutting people's heads off", that "Islam has always rejected it ", and last but not least "Islam is a violent, expansionary ideology that seeks the destruction or subjugation of other faiths, cultures, and systems of government." ?Bless sins 04:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I gave the Protocols as an example. If I dig down deep enough I could find extremist publications that demonize not just Muslims, but Jews, Christians, Hindus, women, non-whites, and all of the publications would be notable. Is this the type of encyclopedia you want?Bless sins 04:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Responding to the points above:

1. "Spencer holds some views which are notable, and some views which are non-notable." You postulate this distinction, but provide no evidence that it is in any way meaningful.
2. No, these are good writing, a sense of measure, and adherence to WP:NPOV that put a limit on how much space is given to any individual author.
3. "Anti-religious" is vague. Betrand Russell is fiercely anti-religious, but is he not quotable as a critic of religion in general and Christianity in particular? I don't think so.
4. This is based on the assumption that Spencer is an extremist. You have asserted his extremism, but provided no proofs.

Regarding your last paragraph on Jews, Christians etc., please mind WP:POINT. Beit Or 08:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The question of whether he is an 'extremist' is irrelevant to the point that in articles that focus on the subjects to which Spencer is 'close', as in articles about himself, his institute, and critics/criticism of Islam we should, wherever possible, use secondary sources rather than relying on the dubious abilities of wikipedians to extract the most notable and representative strands of his thought.

Extremism is relevant to how much he can be quoted elsewhere, of course. (So is WP:UNDUE).Relata refero 21:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The Russell example above is interesting in that it might help clarify the approach; in a Criticism of Christianity article, quoting large parts of Why I am not a Christian would clearly be OR; we would need to find a secondary source that would summarise Russell's arguments, delineate their context and importance. In a Criticism of Christianity article clearly Why I am Not a Christian is a source text. Relata refero 21:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Relata... I have to respond to one of your points above... you say "I argue that Spencer is an extremist source per WP:RS#Extremist_sources, because he is "anti-religious". Am I right?"... Short answer: No you are not right. Long answer: Being anti-religious does not make you automatically extremist. In Spencer's case, he is certainly an ardent critic of Islam, but he falls way short of being extremist. For example, he does not call for the illimination of Islam, or for the eradication of Muslems the way true extremists will. Compare his comments and actions with recognized extremist groups like Hamas, the Neo Nazis, Arian Nation, the KKK etc. and you see a vast difference. No, Spencer is definitely biased, bigoted and POV... but he is not extremist. The point of WP:RS#Extremist_sources is to say that religious or anti-religious extremists have limited reliability... not to say that anyone who has a religious or anti-religious view is by definition extremist. Blueboar 21:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, I have no opinion on whether Spencer himself is extremist, so your points are irrelevant if addressed to me; I suggest those who do think Spencer is extremist should respond. Incidentally, if that is the interpretation of WP:RS#Extremist, that section needs to be rewritten. And you appear to confuse extremism with militancy. Extremism can be non-militant in nature. Relata refero 09:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your argument, Relata. "...quoting large parts of Why I am not a Christian would clearly be OR." Why? Is he an extremist? Is quoting small parts not OR then? I am lost. Beit Or 22:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

As I said, extremism has nothing to do with OR. Quoting large parts of a primary source is the very definition of OR. Small parts of a primary source that have been indicated by secondary sources as being central, might perhaps be quoted. Relata refero 09:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

How then do you propose writing articles on current events, for instance, where we have primary sources (news reports) only? Beit Or 10:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Newspaper reports are not primary sources for events they cover, but are primary sources for articles about the media. Relata refero 08:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Blueboar: Yes bieng anti-religious doesn't make you extremist. But holding extreme anti-religious views does. One doesn't need to explicitly call upon the eradication of one religion to be considered an "extremist". Spreading hatred for a particular religion, without calling upon its destruction, is also extreme. Beit Or asked me to find some evidence for Spencer's extremism.

"The publications of Spencer belong to the class of Islamophobic extremism ... bigotry similar to anti-Semitism and racial prejudice." Source: Carl W. Ernst William Kenan Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies and Director of the Carolina Center for the Study of the Middle East and Muslim Civilizations University of North Carolina)Bless sins 10:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

One man's remark on his personal website is not sufficient to establish Spencer's extremism. And where and how does Spencer spread hatred for a particular religion? Beit Or 22:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I will also point out that WP:RS#Extremist_sources starts off by saying that it is talking about: "Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist..." So, I think real question here should be: is Spencer widely acknowledged as an extremist. In other words, before you can write him off as an extremist, you have to show that a whole bunch of reliable sources have called him an extremist. Biased, partisan, POV... all those I will give you. Blueboar 23:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Jihadwatch

The original poster indicated that Jihadwatch was recognized as a hate site by the Council on American-Islamic Relations and The Guardian. I don't think we can trust either of those sources on anything related to US Foreign Policy. To me, Jihadwatch has been more of a website that attacks radical Islamic terrorism, rather than Islam itself. ----DanTD (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh my goodness, your opinion of the Guardian is drastically at variance with established consensus and WP:RS. It has an established reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. Some, mostly American, commentators see it as a haven for ultra-leftism and fabrication, but if that were the case, the UK's notoriously strict libel laws would have knocked it out of business years ago. Excluding the Guardian for facts because of its liberal/social democratic editorial line would be like excluding Canada's National Post because of its conservative/neo-conservative editorial line. <eleland/talkedits> 14:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

New section; no, he's not an extremist, yes, he is a WP:RS

I argue that Spencer is a reliable source, not an extremist, and not 'anti-religion' (as someone stated above). He is anti-Jihad, and there's nothing extreme about being that, but rather, very rational. Look, this entire opposition to citing Robert Spencer on Misplaced Pages, comes entirely from biased Muslims who are opposed to Robert Spencer, not because he is wrong about Islam, but because he is critical of Islam. He is not conspiring against Islam. He is simply telling the truth about Islam, from Islam's own sources, whether it be from the actual Qu'ran or by quoting truthful Muslims like Osama Bin Laden and Anjem Choudary. I am seriously beginning to doubt if any of you have read his stuff or seen him in action. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 11:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not a Muslim, but a Christian, and I have read material by Spencer and find it biased and unreliable. In my view Spencer is an anti-Muslim bigot and a conspiracy theorist, and I am not alone

• "Regnery, a conservative publisher, has seen fit to publish another Robert Spencer book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)1. Perhaps some readers will consider this spiteful and rather vile book a camp classic, a hoot. But we Muslims will not. These assaults hurt, not because they hit home, but because they are so wildly off the mark. Spencer's reckless, scattershot approach harries the Muslim American community and leaves very little ground for moderates and humanists..." Modern-Day Crusader by Adem Carroll, The Public Eye Magazine - Summer 2006.

You don't have to be Muslim to abhor Islamophobia.--Cberlet 13:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

From Public Eye's "about us" page: "Political Research Associates is a progressive think tank devoted to supporting movements that are building a more just and inclusive democratic society. We expose movements, institutions, and ideologies that undermine human rights." Nice unbiased source there, c.... Kyaa the Catlord 13:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

So they are biased against "movements, institutions, and ideologies that undermine human rights?" Yeah that's a horrible bias. We should add here that the constitution of the United States of America is likewise biased. In fact I think this may be one of the worst systemic biases around in that wretched place we call "the free world." Personally I blame the Enlightenment.PelleSmith 15:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Political Research Associates -- SEWilco 15:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you find “Islamophobia” ABHORRING?!?! Anyone in his right mind should be anti-Islam as much as possible. There is nothing good about Islam and if you abhor criticism of Islam, that makes you in alliance with extremists. To criticise Islam, is common sense and a rational thing to do. There is nothing extreme about it. To answer your fallacious arguments: I have read material by Spencer and find it biased and unreliable. — On what grounds? What is unreliable about his books as far as his truthful criticism of Islam goes? How has he misrepresented his sources? Never mind his 'conservative Regnery publisher' because I don't care about which publisher he's released under, what I care about is how Robert Spencer's expertise on Islam meets a WP:RS. Also, he is a notable best seller, which qualifies him as a notable critic of Islam. Being that he is a notable best seller, would he have been a 'right wing extremist' as his opponents on the left are trying to portray him as, he would have been a lot more condemned than he is today. So tell me: how is Robert Spencer misrepresenting genuine Muslims like the righteous Muslims found in Dispatches? In my view Spencer is an anti-Muslim bigot and a conspiracy theorist, and I am not alone — Your view of Islam does not count since you don't know anything about Islam anyway, and to claim that you are not alone, is ad populum. Calling Spencer an anti-Muslim is extremely disingenuous. He is simply anti-Jihad, which means, in reality, that he is anti-Islam (as a political and religious ideology). He is not anti every Arab, Indonesian, or whatever. He is simply anti-Islam (and that's good thing). Calling him anti-Muslim is just a false tactic used in order to portray him as some sort of racist (as if Islam had anything to do with race or any kind of racial aspect for that matter). What matters here is Spencer's reliability as a notable critic of Islam, not your left-wing agenda; for the record, User:Cberlet has a long history of political controversy with Robert Spencer's boss, David Horowitz, as can be read more about in this article. This isn't a personal attack on Chip Berlet, but I'm just warning about the political POV here from his part, and that admins must have this in mind that there is a serious NPOV issue going on here. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 20:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You are totally right. There is a serious NPOV problem here. Lets also warn the admins about the person who posted this: "Anyone in his right mind should be anti-Islam as much as possible. There is nothing good about Islam and if you abhor criticism of Islam, that makes you in alliance with extremists. To criticise Islam, is common sense and a rational thing to do." He/she should probably be topic banned ... don't you think?PelleSmith (talk) 04:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

whatever the solution... this verbose, incendiary use of Misplaced Pages as a soapbox must stop. ITAQALLAH 14:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Topic banned? Why? I personally don't edit Islam related articles that much to begin with, and when I do, I keep my personal POV out of the articles. It's not like I go berserk and add text that says Islam is a tool for terrorism (which is what Islam essentially is; after all, Muhammed himself stated that he had been made victorious with terror). All I demand is that Islam-related articles be more NPOV and allow writers critical of Islam to be reflected in the articles (which is sort of an impossibility right now due to the influence of Muslim Wikipedians tightly controlling the articles; violating WP:OWN). I have been critical of Islam on talk pages before. But what I say on the talk pages is my personal point of view. The topics/articles is a different matter, where I try to be more professional. And for the record, this discussion is not about me, it's about Spencer's reliability as a WP:RS. If you're going to topic ban me for being critical of a terrorist religion, then you better make sure you follow through with your logic and topic ban all the atheists working on the Christianity article. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 05:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

From Public Eye's "about us" page: "Political Research Associates is a progressive think tank devoted to supporting movements that are building a more just and inclusive democratic society. We expose movements, institutions, and ideologies that undermine human rights." — How about, we protect movements, institutions, and ideologies that undermine human rights? Seriously, that's Islam in a nutshell, and it seems that the PRA is protecting Islam. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 20:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh god, I didn't realize that Chip had referred back to the group he's part of in his initial BLP violation on Spencer. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 01:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it seems more like a political catfight between two different political organisations, rather than anything remotely concerning Spencer's reliability as a critique of Islam. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 04:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Al insan al kamil

Al-Insān al-Kāmil#External links is a very good example of how Robert Spencer is being censored on Misplaced Pages by Muslim Wikipedians trying to push their POV. See the article's history regarding the link to Robert Spencer's entry on al insan al kamil Examples: — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 04:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Spencer is not a scholar on Islam. he isn't in a position to discuss concepts in Islamic or Sufi theology. if you have any academic, non-partisan links or references you'd like to use, please do so. ITAQALLAH 14:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. See his bio in his article. His course of study in university included Islam as a focus. He's not a Muslim theologian, but his degree is related to theology. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

as far as i know, his MA is in Early Christianity. you don't need to be a Muslim to be a reliable source on Islam. the general required standard on Misplaced Pages is a qualification in Islamic studies or in Near East/Oriental studies (as a verifiable demonstration of competence and expertise in the field, the same way a qualified biologist is a reliable source on biology-related topics). most major universities offer them. examples of some prominent scholars include G. R. Hawting, Annemarie Schimmel, Carl Ernst, Montgomery Watt, John Esposito, and the list continues. Spencer isn't in the same league as these individuals - scholars in general don't give his publications the time of day. ITAQALLAH 15:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

His degree is Religious Studies, same as the department Esposito chairs. His thesis was on monophysitism and the Church of England, but a religious studies degree doesn't necessarily focus on any one religion, especially in the case of the religions of the Book. They're all very linked and, based on my own experiences, you study them together. (Especially if he focused on early christianity, that's the heart of judaism and islam, the ME). Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 15:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

as yourself, i respectfully disagree. i don't believe a general qualification in Religious Studies (and the specific extent of his education in Islam is unknown) necessarily reflects competence in Islamic history, theology, treatises, and associated topics. a contraindication is in the comments of Carl Ernst (part of the same dept. from which Spencer qualified) who dismisses Spencer's credentials and publications. ITAQALLAH 15:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Does it matter if his major was Monophysitism and not Islam? The opposition to Robert Spencer is purely because of his critical books on Islam, not his qualifications to speak on Islamic issues (although, that is being used as a case in point against him). His arguments about Islam are well founded and in perfect agreement with Muslims like Bin Laden and Anjem Choudary. He is not misinterpreting Islam. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 16:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

i suppose it's telling that those two aren't scholars either. ITAQALLAH 16:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I would say they know Islam better than most scholars. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 16:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Two professionals in a field, who have strongly held viewpoints will disagree. This doesn't discredit either of them. They are both carrying degrees in the study of religion, of theology and are published authors in the field. Your, my, hell Allah's opinion doesn't matter. They are published authors writing on their field of expertise. Spencer is a notable author writing for a publishing house. This meets our credentials. Because others, and perhaps you, disagree with his statements does not make them any less reliable and it violates WP:NOR to discredit them in the manner you are attempting to. If you can find rebuttals to his exact statements, those could be used via talk on the articles his words are being used in to discuss the content of his work. He meets RS as it is written. His individual statements... may be up for discussion and review but calmly and in a calculated, reasoned manner. With all due respect, Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

it's one thing when there is scholarly difference amongst peers (scholars know how to disagree without making it personal), it's another thing when one questions the other's very education on the topic ("... he has no academic training in Islamic studies whatever; his M.A. degree was in the field of early Christianity", says Ernst - i am inclined to believe him, he is an Islamic studies professor at the university from which Spencer graduated). i don't oppose scholars just because i disagree with their views - as one who frequents academic journals, i customarily come across views i am at odds with, whether that is Caetani's, Friedmann's, Crone's, or anyone else's . however, if a writer has a noticable lack in pedigree, does not have his work peer-reviewed by scholars nor published by academic press, then the unreliability is self-evident - irrespective of whether he is Ahmed Deedat or Robert Spencer. ITAQALLAH 17:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

How many times should we discuss Spencer? He is only notable as a critic of Islam but he does not have any reputation as an scholar. --Aminz (talk) 03:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Spencer's reputation

According to this reliable sources are "third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".

What reputation "for fact-checking and accuracy" does Spencer have?

Please don't answer this by arguing Spencer has a degree, because this would imply that anyone with a degree is a reliable source.Bless sins (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

See Robert Spencer#Spencer's responses to critics. He seems to be claiming that his critics have failed to show him to be inaccurate. If he were obscure and his work not examined that would be a weak argument. He seems to have provided plenty of material for critics. Google Scholar isn't much help (notice the other Spencers with work before 1980 aren't him). -- SEWilco (talk) 05:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

SEWilco, his work doesn't appear to have received peer-review, nor any sort of review in academic publications. as with most polemic, scholars just don't give it the time of day. ITAQALLAH 16:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

What reputation "for fact-checking and accuracy" does Spencer have? — He has never been proven wrong by Muslims. Only personal attacks on his reliability has been made. But never ever have they proven him wrong on Islam. In fact, most Islamist pretty much agree with him on what he's saying about Islam. That said, there's nothing wrong with his reliability as far as Islam is concerned. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 12:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

reliability (and reputation) is positively established, not assumed until disproven. this non sequitur about not being "proven wrong" is also incredibly subjective. some may indeed argue that they have proved him wrong on various issues (Khaleel Mohammed, or even ) although - again - it has nothing to do with the criteria specified in WP:RS. Islamists might agree with some of what he says (just as they might with Zakir Naik), certainly not most or all - but that means nothing here. this issue has been discussed ad nauseum... perhaps it's time to give the discussion a rest until some new evidence of reliability surfaces. ITAQALLAH 16:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Spencer meets the criteria at WP:V where it states, and I quote: "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." He is published by Regnery Publishing and Prometheus Publishing. Do you dispute that these publishing houses exist and are, albeit sometimes controversial, respected? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

a publishing house is not necessarily reliable by default. respected? are they known for peer-reviewed, high quality publications on Islamic studies (or is this where they are, as you say, controversial)? (not a rhetorical question) it goes without saying that a publishing house should have a record of competence or pedigree in the topics it publishes on (Regnery's focus appears to be conservative politics and 'Politically Incorrect Guides™') and that is the spirit of the section you quote when read as a whole, regardless of the semantics of 'respected'. ITAQALLAH 18:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Itaqallah, do you know what a semicolon is? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

i did indeed pick up on it, but it does not exempt publishing houses from needing to possess some sort of authority in a particular field to be considered a reliable source there. peer-review is a standard facet of most reliable sources. ITAQALLAH 18:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me let you in on a very well kept secret. Journals are peer-reviewed. Non-fiction books for the most part are not. They have editors, not a peer-review process. This does not make them not reliable, actually it fulfills the same sort of fact checking required by RS... Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

let's assume that peer review is not a feature of standard published texts in Islamic studies - do you concede that a publisher should be known for good quality academic material/books in the field it publishes (non-academic material is also usable where it is mainstream, see WP:SOURCES and WP:REDFLAG) for it to be considered a reliable source on that topic? ITAQALLAH 19:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that Regnancy has published at least 1 New York Times best selling book? It is a mainstream publishing house. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

<reset>Kyaa, your first sentence i agree with. lots of books, including some written by Spencer, are known to be best sellers. that simply means that the book has been widely sold - something true for many controversial books which inevitably entice peoples' interest. not that it makes the books - or its publishers - reliable. as for 'mainstream' - if you mean the publishing house is well-known, then yes. if you mean that it reflects mainstream literature (in this case, on Islamic studies) - then i'd have to disagree. ITAQALLAH 21:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Look, he has been published and has a few bestsellers as well. If he totally made shit up about Islam, some academic scholar on religion would have proven him wrong on what he has written in his books. So far, no one has, because they can't since they know what he's writing is the truth about Islam. All they've done so far is to attack his publisher for being, and get this, "Conservative" (wow, how evil). Let's face it, he passes as a WP:RS. — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 10:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

scholars don't waste their time on every crankish publication released - to claim it's because they secretly know the crankery is true is extremely naïve and reflects a poor understanding of the issue at hand. in any case, he has been criticised precisely for his fundamental lack of scholarship and expertise - by real scholars - and his publishers have been criticised for pursuing a partisan agenda (not surprised after looking at this). it's mind-boggling how a controversial writer and publisher, writing specifically for a Christian Republican target audience (do the staunchly anti-darwinist, anti-feminist, anti-liberal stances give it away?), can be hailed as a reliable resource for information on Islam. ITAQALLAH 19:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You keep repasting that Carl Ernst link as if it had any validity at all. You also make it seem like there's some universal scholarly consensus that Spencer is a fraud, by posting that link when you write 'by real scholars'. There has never been any academic debate involving "real" scholars and Robert Spencer where they have proven him wrong. All you have is one shitty scholar who was probably paid to trash Spencer's publisher (as if his publisher had any relevance beside publishing the books). Again, that link is not worthy of paying attention to, simply because it does not focus on his content. Do you understand what I am saying? Either prove Spencer wrong (not his publisher, but Spencer's statements in his book), or just accept that he is right about Islam. do the staunchly anti-darwinist, anti-feminist, anti-liberal stances give it away? — What kind of a question is that? What does anti-darwinism have to do with Spencer's truthful and accurate criticism of Islam? And what's wrong with anti-feminism and anti-liberalism? — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 21:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Elias, your conditions about whether or not Spencer has been proved wrong have nothing to do with Misplaced Pages policy - please stop these verbose appeals to ignorance. as per what Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines actually say, sources are judged by their authors' qualifications, reputation for scholarly works (Spencer fails on both counts, which is what what the link shows), the presence of a peer-review system, the nature of the claim made by the source. few of your arguments have tackled these issues. ITAQALLAH 21:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Does the criticism of the New York Times, Fox News or any other media outlet make them unreliable sources? No. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

New York Times isn't a WP:RS in itself to begin with. And Faux News is obviously biased (although they can make a good point every now and then). — EliasAlucard (talk · contribs) 21:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

comparing journalism with academic disciplines doesn't work, IMO. all news media outlets offer a perspective, but at least they are established in their journalism. Regnery's forte is clearly conservative politics - and its publications on that topic might very well be reliable sources (i've not maintained that Regnery is an unreliable publisher as a whole, only that it's evidently not a reliable one in the field of Islamic studies).

however, when it publishes in areas of academic discipline - biology, anthropology, orientalism, and so on - then partisan goals (pro-Islam or anti-Islam, for example) cannot precede scholarly endeavour. to be honest, you've a problem if you find a source or publisher declaring it will challenge mainstream understanding of an academic discipline (that's the impression i get from many of the books in the P.I.G series). when these kinds of publications are rightly criticised as polemic tracts by qualified experts, then that raises a red flag. at the end of the day, if you are going to invest in exploring a scholarly topic, you at least publish authors who have the necessary tools. ITAQALLAH 21:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a serious confusion. Please see Misplaced Pages:V#Burden_of_evidence. The burden is upon those who add or restore the material. This would be anyone supporting the inclusion of Robert Spencer. Thus users like EliasAlucard (assuming he/she supports the inclusion of Spencer) must provide (not ask for) evidence that Spencer has a reputation for accuracy.Bless sins (talk) 05:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That is a unique interpretation of WP:V. Whoah. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't use this

This is a no-brainer - we use the author of the book The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion the day we use the author who writes: The truth about Jesus: Founder of the World's Most Violent Religion. PR 16:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

We link to Chip Berlet's work and Theocracy Watch's work in the Dominionism-related articles. These sources are as religiously extremist as you alleged Robert Spencer is. We use sources from ALL points of view. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

there's a lot to be said about current day muslim intolerance and about past christian violence also. the issue is not that of a flamboyant book title, but whether or not the material inside is considered reliable. Jaakobou 19:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Chip Berlet's Theocracy Watch (or at least, it's web-site) does not appear to be a home of extremism, nor to pander to the violent and hate-inspired. It specifically targets those with significant political and religious influence/power, and it objects to their apparent interest in introducing religion-based government. It specifically disavows attacking individuals: "This web site is not about traditional Republicans or conservative Christians. It is about the manipulation of people of a certain faith for political power. It is about the rise of dominionists in the U.S. federal government.".

Whereas Robert Spencer's Jihad Watch most probably does pander to the violent and hate-inspired. Today's lead story targets individual clerics and people of a minority faith, linking them directly to the killing of a 16-year old by her family. Imam Alnadvi said that judging from the information he received, hijab was only one of the issues. "This girl she refused to stay at home," he said. "There were feelings that she is going in some wrong direction ... going with some other boy or some other thing." This campaign is directed against a group that understandably feels oppressed, excluded from air-lines, discriminated against in employment and harassed in their charitable works. (Note - I've no problem with him campaigning in this fashion, I might easily agree with him - but that doesn't mean we should treat him as an acceptable source).

Unless you have different evidence to hand, it seems reasonable to describe the former as regular participation in the democratic process and the latter as "extreme", as fails reliable sources.

I don't believe there are any circumstances in which you should take it on yourself to interfere with my contributions. PR 17:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

PR, it's not just about whether these opinions are extreme or not. it is about whether they are competent to comment in a particular field of study. the question that has been posed here is if Spencer is a reliable source for information on Islam. the answer, taking into consideration his lack of study and competence in this discipline, his publishers' general lack of pedigree in publishing academic works on Islamic studies, and denounciations from qualified scholars in the field, can only be a resounding no. ITAQALLAH 18:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you (or perhaps I should say, I'm sure I'd come to an identical conclusion if I examined the output of this writer in more detail). But judging someone's literacy and reliability seems to cause a lot of editors rather a lot of difficulty - in fact, if we could do this reliably, we might discover a lot of dross in the editing pool and save ourselves a whole lot of grief. It's often easier to finger particular sources as "hate-sources" (or, in the more restrained language of the encyclopedia, those expressing "extreme" views).

The advantage of this approach is that we have quite well-understood red-lines eg quoting from Holocaust Deniers is a no-no, liable to lead to an indef-blocking (nobody's even bothered to write that into policy, we just accept it). David Irving is a useful touch-stone, since it's often quite difficult to prove that he was guilty of "gross historical fabrication" (it cost Deborah Lipstad some $10 million to prove, as far as I recall, just a handful of cases). It's much, much easier to prove he's an extremist.

Thats why I contributed as I did - not only is unnecessary (and potentially quite difficult) to prove Spencer cheats - making such allegations raises BLP issues. Hate-sources are barred anyway, on a much lower level of proof. PR 19:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Any source on religion is extremeist

No source on religion is un-biased, they are either strongly pro the religion or anti that religion. The idea that Spencer can't be used but hundreds of Imams can be used because they are un-biased about Islam is a joke. 09:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

As I've posted on PR's talk page, its less a matter of Spencer being a reliable source (which cannot be denied seriously) it is more a matter of making certain his views are attributed to him properly and being shown as his viewpoint on a controversial subject not as fact. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

(which cannot be denied seriously) ... seriously, it can. the evidence for reliability, which, let's face it, is pretty paltry, cannot stand up to the contraindications. use of partisan sources might be accepted on political-oriented articles like Israel/Palestine or Democrat/Republican - but on topics of academic discipline - they aren't. and Hypnosadist, you are grossly mistaken. see the Encyclopedia of Islam, or any other academic work for that matter. ITAQALLAH 17:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Not all sources on religion are strongly pro or anti. There are many reputable academics who have spent most of their lives studying religion and are capable of writing in a neutral impassionate way, and who have their work peer reviewed to ensure they don't stray from this.

As for the argument over this particular source, I have never heard of him, but it should be pretty simple to establish whether he is a reliable source or not. If his work has previously been published in peer-reviewed academic journals, and he is widely credited by reputable academics as being an authority on Islam, then you should be able to cite these accolades, and that will establish that he is a reliable source. If not, then he isn't a reliable source. The onus is on the editor claiming that a particular person is a reliable source, to establish that he is considered a reliable source by other professionals in the field. Whether or not you personally think that his work is valid, true, or reliable, is irrelevant; the only relevant thing here is the opinion of other experts working in the same field. The fact that he is notable and has a personal opinion is not in dispute, but that doesn't make him a reliable source for anything other than his own article, and perhaps an Opinions of notable people on religion or something similar. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Musings: Why do some editors insist on this type of source?

For the life of me, I can't understand it. Robert Spencer writes on issues that are extensively discussed, debated, and disputed by reputable sources. It's not as if there's a shortage of academic interest in, for example, the status of minorities under medieval Islamic regimes. And yet, the views of popular ideologues and polemicists like Robert Spencer and Bat Ye'or metastasize through our encyclopedia, sucking away the blood supply from respected scholars writing in university presses. It's as if our articles on particle physics were sourced predominantly to back issues of Popular Science and a smattering of crackpot "unified theory" websites. Not to mention that every — single — book — these clowns publish seems to have a ~50kb article stuffed with praise from the "in-crowd" of Muslim-bashers.

One of the strangest things about this affair is that patrons of Spencer, Pipes, Ibn Warraq et al. genuinely don't seem to realize that their favorite writers are in any way less than mainstream. In fact, they seem to believe that Middle Eastern Studies departments in the West are just stuffed full of Hamasniks and cowed "dhimmis", and that the ideologues are thus better sources than the mainstream academics! It's not uncommon on Misplaced Pages to see a titled professor of Islamic Studies, heading up a department at a prestigious university, paired with some B.A. Econ with a job at a shady neo-con think tank in "He said, She said" fashion — a violation of WP:UNDUE if there ever was one.

The ideological biases of many editors undoubtedly play a role here, but so, I think, does simple laziness. People like Spencer write mass-produced missives for a general audience, they have frequently updated websites and blogs, and their ramblings tend to be quoted and mindless-link-propagated across the conservative "blogosphere". Finding legitimate academic views of a subject may actually requre — gasp! — going to the library, in order to find out something you don't already know.

In the final analysis, the views of the Spencers and Ye'ors should be confined to articles which are about them specifically, and in a limited fashion, to articles like Criticism of Islam, as long as their view is clearly set-off from the views of proper scholars. They should not be quoted in most other contexts. Notoriety and popularity do not "a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking" make. <eleland/talkedits> 18:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes we need more John Esposito and what his 20 million dollar cheque paid for him to say. 18:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. We need what more mainstream, respected scholars like John Esposito say, and less of what idiot conspiracy-mongers like the people who perpetuate that dumb smear say. <eleland/talkedits> 20:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

20 million from a man who supplies british school kids with the Protocols of the elders of Zion clearly speaks to his bias. I don't listen to what a scientist paid for by a oil company says on global warming. Just read what the donation is for, its not for academic critique of islam. 04:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you any sources for that libelous claim? <eleland/talkedits> 06:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Search for Protocols and British schools on say the BBC news site, you won't believe me or the Jewish Chronicle . 07:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Editors of the encyclopedia will be keen not to re-cycle propaganda or give any credibility to hate-sources by eg treating the likes of JihadWatch and Robert Spencer as reliable. It's possible this story is true or partly true, but some/many regular secular sources seem to think it's been tampered with - see the Guardian "BBC2's Newsnight said examination of receipts provided by the researchers to verify their purchases showed some had been written by the same person - even though they purported to come from different mosques." That was on Thursday, so we don't know how this will pan out.

Let me remind everyone that the hate band-wagon is not just targetted on Muslims - more of this bile is aimed directly at the British, see this denial by the Holocaust Education Trust of a nonsense story that has nothing to do with Islam.

I've had a massive slew of allegations levelled at me, most of them obviously false. I face an indef-block with no further warning or possibility of appeal. The ax could very easily fall on me because of what I've said here - apparently, providing evidence in TalkPages is proof of soap-boxing and in my case that's a capital crime. Sorry about that - but I came to editing to find and document "truth", not give a veneer of respectability to propaganda. PR 09:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

And i could have read Policy Exchange for more on this. 11:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Even if we ignored the forgery, none of your sources mention the name al-Waleed bin Talal. Stop wasting our time with this nonsense. <eleland/talkedits> 23:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The school admitted to having and teaching the Protocols to kids until 2004. 13:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It would appear that you have no RS for this smear on John Esposito or him handing over $20 million to anyone. Furthermore, he's an American academic, unlikely to have funded anyone - and certainly unlikely to have funded a British school. Increasingly, this looks like an attempt to waste the time of good-faith editors. PR 14:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

So you woudn't quote from Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins either?

They are just as scathing about Islam. This is daft. You can quote him as long as it does not violate POV or UNDUE WEIGHT. Lobojo (talk) 01:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Er, no you wouldn't quote from either of these on the topic of Islam, as neither of them are experts on the topic. Dawkins on evolution - please go ahead. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Dawkins is an expert on evolution and certainly citable in that article. He isn't an expert on Islam or Christianity, so his views probably aren't relevant or desirable to cite in those articles.

I am surprised that anyone would argue against this - I mean, hypothetically, if George Bush said that he thinks atoms don't exist, then you think that because he's notable his point of view should be added to the article on atoms? Do you honestly believe that Dawkins' views on religion should be added to the Christianity article? If not, then why would citing him be appropriate in Islamic articles? You can't have it both ways. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

MEMRI

Is MEMRI http://www.memri.org/ a reliable source. I think it is based on the content it has. Yahel Guhan 00:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Brian Whittaker of the Guardian (who has a Masters' in Arabic language) has exposed at least two cases where MEMRI promulgated translations which were misleading at best, and probably knowingly fraudulent. MEMRI has also been extensively criticized for its extreme one-sidedness in the guise of "Media Research". Finally, all of MEMRI's founders are former Israeli military intelligence officers, Israeli neo-cons with deep links to Likud, or both.

That being said, MEMRI might sometimes be a reliable source for opinion and commentary, but I'm very leery about using such a group for factual information in the absence of independent confirmation. <eleland/talkedits> 01:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree. It can be used if properly attributed, and when describing opinions and not facts. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

See here for a related discussion. Relata refero 19:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have a related question which is a little trickier, and pertains to the use of sources like MEMRI and CAMERA for opinion purposes.

Basically, these organizations can be counted on, every time, 100%, to praise Israel and condemn perceived enemies of Israel. Pretty much anything that happens in and around Israel, they'll express an opinion on it, and it's always the same opinion. They are well-funded and active, but it's very difficult to know how significant their views actually are. Nonetheless, such groups tend to be used heavily in Middle East articles as sources of criticism and commentary.

Now, there are some occasions when these groups do get play in actual media outlets. There was a fraudulent Sabeel-bashing editorial in the Boston Globe recently by a CAMERA member, and MEMRI scored a media home run with their mis-translation of Tomorrow's Pioneers material. Obviously, those controversies deserve mention. But a lot of the supposed controversies MEMRI, CAMERA et al document don't seem to exist outside of a narrow partisan "echo chamber" environment. Pallywood is an excellent example - Israel wonks are obsessed with it, but the media don't take it seriously and probably haven't even heard of it.

"mis-translation" or not! The difference between the tomorrows pioneers translations are minute and well within slight veriation you get when you translate anything. Given this is all that can be said against an organisation that translates thousands of TV broadcasts as well as newspaper reports every year this is clearly a very accurate translating service (used by the BBC). MEMRI does not have a news agenda it just translates what is said in the arab media. 12:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

So, what is the guideline for judging when an opinion is important enough to be mentioned? Personally, I would favor keeping to reliable factual sources and only using partisan sources when it's been established, factually, that a genuine controversy exists. Is that the usual practice? <eleland/talkedits> 20:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

For evaluating whether or not they are echo chambers and to what degree they should be quoted outside their narrow concerns, I would suggest WP:FT/N. Relata refero 20:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I use the FTN often and greatly appreciate it, but I am leery of bringing such a fine, effective institution into the Israelistinian tarpit. <eleland/talkedits> 20:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I just thought that Moreschi and co. might be able to evaluate the notability of opinions quite dispassionately. Relata refero 20:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

More specifically the question (at least the question I have) is whether MEMRI is a reliable source on the Qur'an, its exegesis, the hadith/sunnah or classic Islamic theology. If yes, what makes it a reliable source in any those fields? I think the best way to go about this is to look at each individual author, and evaluate him/her for his/her credentials.Bless sins (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, you are asking the wrong question. What you should be asking is Is MEMRI a reliable source for views on the qur'an, exegesis, the hadith/sunnah or classic Islamic theology. Any answer your second point. Either it is or it isn't. Yahel Guhan 22:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The MEMRI seems to talk of Islam as if it is an expert. The question is, should we consider it as one? Also, "Either it is or it isn't" never works, since there are exceptions.Bless sins (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It is very, very easy to quote from someone else's scriptures in ways liable to incite hatred. So severe and obvious is this problem that, if MEMRI really claim to be a source on Islamic Scripture (do they?) that would be another reason never to use them.

There used to be a Israeli holocaust survivor, soldier and professor who insisted on exposing what appear to be serious extremism within Judaism. Our article on him doesn't discuss his apparently well-founded views on the religious exhortation to kill civilians. Instead of which, we re-publish the very most unpleasant things his opponents said about him ("diseased mind, Nazi views"). Why would we give a body like MEMRI, an attack-dog of well-funded anti-Muslim propaganda and extremism, better treatment than an individual who put his career and personal safety on the line to oppose extremism? PR 17:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why this is relevant. MEMRI is a serious organisation, that it can be argued that they have erred in translation on two occasions, just goes to show what a RS it is. Any major news source print daily corrections and apologies, so 2 mistakes should invalidate a source? Please! Lobojo (talk) 01:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews redux

Same Wikinews interview that inspired #Wikinews and this BLP/N on Wolfowitz. The interview is with Craig Unger, noted journalist who tried to sell the October surprise conspiracy in the early 90's and has recently published two books about conspiracies in relation to the Bush administration. This interview has been added as a source by the author to these articles:

• Rumsfeld BLP problem?
• Team B an especially strange block quote
• Christian Zionism basically the topic of Unger's new book, so he is probably notable in the field, but I suspect the book should be used instead
• Wolfowitz also citing the Daily Mail, so probably fine if the interview was removed

My understanding is that most editors thought citing Craig Unger's book would be more reliable than a Wikinews interview recording his off-the-cuff remarks. Some editors also expressed uneasiness that the author himself was inserting the story, but I don't think this matters: they're either permissible or not. The route shouldn't matter.

I asked user to cite to the book directly, but got no response. I don't want to merely delete these additions because I'm unsure of where the community stands and I also promised to try not to revert this user. So, to what extent may Wikinews interviews be used as a source? My view is that interviews should only be used as a source on the commentator unless the interview itself is notable in relation to some topic (that is, unless it has been covered elsewhere). Cool Hand Luke 18:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews conducts interview with notable people. It's one of the things we do, it's one of the things we were set up by the Wikimedia Foundation to do. Those interviews are not unreliable, as they are the transcribed words of the people. I'm not quite sure what the issue is, but if the issue is "We should not use Wikinews interviews as sources" then I think we should alert User:Jimbo and Wikimedia. The links you point to are an interview with Unger about the book, not "off-the-cuff" remarks but questions related to his research. It's surprising, Luke, that you just can't seem to stop focusing on my work, but okay. Let's see how the conversation goes and whether we need to have Wikimedia involved in it. --David Shankbone 20:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

What I mean by "off the cuff" is they're a record of his extemporaneous remarks and they are less reliable because the commentator must rely on memory and the claims are not vetted by a publisher. If you look at the two previous discussions I cited:

• User:Thatcher131, User:Will Beback, and User:AnonEMouse said that interviews were not reliable for these reasons. AnonEMouse specifically suggested citing the book instead, which I think is appropriate.
• User:JoshuaZ was concerned about interviews being marginally related to the topic, Wolfowitz in that case (which goes to WEIGHT, I think).
• User:Corvus cornix thought it was OR (which I disagree with).
• User:Blueboar, User:Sam Blacketer, User:Gerry Ashton and apparently User:Crockspot went further and claimed that Wikinews is simply not a reliable source. I don't don't agree with that—not in all cases, at least. (Apologies if your views are more nuanced.)

In my opinion, interviews are certainly reliable, but only for views of the person giving them. I think there was a consensus that they are not reliable for third-party commentary, and I would like to confirm that. You wouldn't reply to me, so this looks like the correct forum.

It's not an issue with Wikinews, it's with interviews generally. Unless the remarks are established as notable, we can't assess their WEIGHT let alone their veracity. Cool Hand Luke 20:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

So what, exactly, is your point? That a journalist talking about a book he wrote and the research he discovered on, for instance, Team B or Christian Zionism or Paul Wolfowitz is unreliable? The issue, to me, was the prominence of a Wikinews box that led to an entire interview, and not quoting the remarks of a notable person and the source for those remarks. So, perhaps you can clarify with a statement exactly your issue is if it was to be written as a guideline. And regarding the book, there is a link to a chapter wrote and was re-printed on Salon along with the interview. So, some kind of guideline that fleshes out your concern would be in order. --David Shankbone 20:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the guidelines need to be changed, but if I were to make something explicit, I would include interviews as self-published sources. As mentioned in the previous discussions, interviews (and perhaps Wikinews interviews in particular) share all the characteristics of self-published sources. As such, they should never be a source in third-party BLPs, and they should be used sparingly otherwise considering that "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." (See WP:SPS). Cool Hand Luke 20:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and the paragraph on Wolfowitz has four sources, including a fifth (David Nelson). So I don't see your issue. I think a broad-based "Interviews are self-published sources" argument is hurtful to Misplaced Pages; it depends upon with whom the interview is conducted. If it's Bob Gioevans who believes the world is flat, then probably it would be a "Self published source". If it's with a notable person who is published in other areas, or is notable in some field, then I disagree. All interviews are not equal. --David Shankbone 20:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Interviews published by sources that might be held liable for defamatory remarks are more likely to vet comments and be held accountable than Wikinews, but I don't think such speculation is helpful.

If "it's with a notable person who is published in other areas" then the views are likely to have been picked up in reliable sources. Indeed, we know they were in this case. Simply: if the remarks are worth reporting, they would have been quoted in news stories. For example, if we were writing about a company and wanted to cite a conference call. There would be no context or weight for including, say, the chairman's claims that the company is being plagued by a conspiracy of short-sellers. If and when news articles are written about these remarks, then we would have reliable sources. Cool Hand Luke 20:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

So your issue appears to be with a Wikinews interview being used at all, since Salon published the pertinent chapter and the interview backs it up? Because the paragraph on Wolfowitz is not only heavily cited, the interview in fact backs up already published sources. So, again, I don't understand your issue. --David Shankbone 21:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I cited four examples of its use. I said myself that Wolfowitz would be fine if you cut the cite to the interview. If this were just an issue with Wolfowitz, I would have used that talk page. I found the first examples more problematic. Concentrate on Rumsfeld. Cool Hand Luke 21:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Why would we cut the cite to an additional cite to the source backing up Salon? What use would that serve? --David Shankbone 21:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews convenience break

What Luke is arguing is that we should not use interviews with primary sources, the newsmakers themselves, on Misplaced Pages. There is no cause for us to not use the words of notable primary sources, the people directly involved with events and research. This is a major change in policy Luke is espousing and is currently covered nowhere in our established guidelines and policies. --David Shankbone 22:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why we shouldn't treat Wikinews interviews any differently than we would treat other self-published remarks by otherwise notable people. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

(Aside: Newsmaker's work products are sources, but they remain people.) My claim is simply that we should treat interviews like self-published sources. Cool Hand Luke 22:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

That makes no sense. If Tashi Wangdi makes a statement about what he knows about the 11th Panchen Lama's whereabouts, and it hasn't been reported in another source, that doesn't make his words a "Self Published Source" since he represents the Tibetan government in exile, who is in a place to know such information. That makes Wangdi a primary source. --David Shankbone 23:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Two scenarios for policy examination

Question. Would both of these be reliable sources for "new" information? Both are hypothetical and fictional(obviously, for BLP concerns), and are both issues that could be seen as possibly touchy along the lines of the Wolfowitz scenario.

• If Bill Clinton appears on Larry King Live, and announces a previously unknown fact about Hillary Clinton: "Hillary in college at Yale was briefly married to Donald Rumsfeld." As Bill Clinton is clearly an authority on his wife of 30+ years, would this be sufficient to source the fact that (again, fictionally for this example!) that Hillary briefly was wed to Rumsfeld? In this scenario, Bill's statement is not vetted nor screened--it went out live on the air, but there is no way anyone can argue that Bill is not a complete expert on this third party, his wife. Is this a valid source for this statement, about third parties? If the answer is "Yes", then why would it be any different if Bill Clinton made this statement in an interview on Wikinews, as opposed to Larry King Live?
• If Bill Gates is interviewed by Time Magazine, and says (again, fictional example): "It is my understanding that the US Department of Justice this week is going to offer a full and unconditional written apology and settlement to Microsoft for bothering us so much about trust laws, and US Attorney John Jacob Jingle-Heimer Schmidt has confirmed this to me." Is this a reliable source for the fact that the USDOJ will be giving MS an apology and settlement? In this scenario, Bill is clearly a recognized expert on Microsoft, and their relationship to the USDOJ with anti-trust laws. Is this a valid source for this statement, about third parties? If the answer is "Yes", then why would it be any different if Bill Gates made this statement in an interview on Wikinews, as opposed to in Time Magazine?

Are both scenarios fine to use for sourcing? If both of those are, I fail to see why Wikinews wouldn't be a fine source in the same vein--it's journalist are vetted, known to the Foundation by name, and acreddited journalists. Please tell me if I'm reading these wrong, and I'd like views on my two scenarios.

I'm wondering if the problem isn't with the fact that the known expert, Unger, made the statement, so much as it is the fact that this appeared in a Wikinews interview. If that is the case--do we need to let the Foundation as David mentioned know that Misplaced Pages does not consider Wikinews a viable tool for the project? Thanks. • Lawrence Cohen 22:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No, this commits the same error as Shankbone: assuming that people can be reliable sources. Reliable sources are characterized not just for their human expertise, but also for fact-checking. This is why we value peer-review and publications with a reputation for fact-checking. Using Bill Gates' statement to impute behavior to a living U.S. Attorney is not allowed. Luckily, such quotes would be so sensational that they would practically guarantee reliable coverage: news stories reporting the comment and trying to get confirmation from the implicated parties. This is a central axiom to WP:SPS: "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."

Incidentally, noting Unger's checkered past, and the interview's complete failure to ask a single challenging question, I would also challenge the notion that he's an expert. I won't argue that point, but it's a worthy aside. For various reasons, interviews are often biased in favor of those being interviewed. Because the interviewee often cannot carefully choose their words, and because they must rely on memory, blog posts could actually be a better source in some cases. At any rate, we should grant an expert interview no more deference than an expert blog post, and WP:SPS is the proper analysis. Cool Hand Luke 22:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Luke is saying several things here:

1. That people are not sources. That's not true. People are sources. If Bill Gates, involved in Microsoft litigation, can't be taken as a source of what the Attorney General is doing, then who can be? Who would a fact checker corrborate Gates' words with? Gates? The Attorney General? If the Attorney General said, "No, that's not true" and Gates stuck to his guns and said it was true, then you have a case where two people are saying something different. What if the Attorney General is lying? We aren't here to decide that a source is unreliable. Our policy is WP:V. One sees this throughout history, that notable people (generals, politicians, etc.) are often quoted as saying one thing, and others say another thing. That is how history gets recorded. The question is: who is the one saying what? There is no "truth computer" that people can go to in order to "fact check"--it always comes down to people's words, whether it be Bill Gates or a journalist who spoke to someone who was supposedly "in the know". How are we to take Bob Woodward at his word? The fact checking a publication would undertake is "Did Bill Gates say this" and not "Can anybody else substantiate Bill Gates?"
2. That Wikinews is in itself not reliable to be used; in other words, that if a person says something at Wikinews, then it should be notable enough to have been said somewhere else, and by default we should use that source instead of Wikinews. This prejudice against a website doing important work is unfounded. My interview with Tashi Wangdi, the Dalai Lama's representative, fleshed out many issues related to religion, Tibet-China and the Tibetan government-in-exile's position on a variety of issues, and was appreciated by many people on those pages. Are we really here to say we shouldn't use Tashi Wangdi's interview on the Tibet articles because it is on Wikinews? Or Ingrid Newkirk's interview on animal rights articles?
3. That he doesn't like Craig Unger. But that's also not what our policies speak to. Craig Unger is not some small-time conspiracy theorist, but a fellow at New York University Law School, a contributing editor to Vanity Fair (magazine), the former deputy editor of the New York Observer, and former editor-in-chief of Boston Magazine. He is a New York Times best-selling author. I question the veracity of quite a few notable people out there on the left and right, but the fact is that my dislike and questioning of their truthfulness (Robert Novak, say) doesn't mean I think we should discount them because WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

Luke, you say a lot of different things, none of which serves our purposes here on Misplaced Pages. And yes, Bill Gates making a statement about something that happened in regard to the Attorney General certainly should be used if he is directly involved. --David Shankbone 23:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at WP:SPS. We don't care if the source is expert, we can't use them to implicate living people. Period. Clinton's extemporaneous comment involving the behavior of a political rival isn't even a close call. We wouldn't allow it from Larry King Live or anywhere else. This isn't an anti-Wikinews argument. I'm not arguing #2 at all. And I don't have anything against Unger or his views; #3 is irrelevant. This should apply equally to all interviews, which are forums for one party to speak their views. Without the fact-checking, corroboration, or request for comment that accompanies reliable news sources, they are self-published and should follow the same rules.

And people are not walking reliable sources; it's not as if every remark about Bush to have flown from a pundit's lips is encyclopedic. The articles (their work products) are sources—for their institutional fact-checking and expertise. Cool Hand Luke 23:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned the last time this came up that we already do the opposite of what you're saying. At the same as the first round of this Wikinews issue, on this page, were issues involving Lyndon LaRouche. Its apparently endorsed on Misplaced Pages to use expert self-published sources, isn't it? From the Dennis King/Chip Berlet material? • Lawrence Cohen 23:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

And SPS mentions established experts may be used. Bill Clinton is a walking reliable source about his wife Hillary, unless it comes out that he lies about her. One wonders how a publication would fact check against Bill Clinton? Time Magazine is doing an article on the candidates favorite ice cream flavors, and they can't get Hillary on the phone, but they get Bill. He says chocolate. Do you really think they would not print that? How would they fact check that, exactly, absent Hillary's confirmation? The question is: can people rely on Bill Clinton knowing what his wife likes? --David Shankbone 23:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

If they couldn't corroberate the fact, no they wouldn't print it as fact (especially if it were meaningful rather than trivial). They might print it as an attributed remark since in this case it is meaningless and doesn't appear to be related to a material or personal interest of Mr. Clinton. In most of the interviews you're conducting, the interviewee is talking about topics where he has a deep-rooted interest (for instance by being outspoken on one side of an issue). In those cases Time would attempt to substantiate the facts presented by the interviewee and indicate where its research suggested that the facts were not in line with the statements. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

My view of interviews published in self-publsihed venues like blogs or Wikinews is that we should regard them as reliable sources for the statements of the interviewees unless we have reason to doubt the veracity of the interview. Interviews, regardless of where published, should not be used as reliable sources for facts about 3rd-parties, but they may be used to cite opinions if the interviewee is notable in regard to the 3rd-party. (Bill Clinton's opinion of Hillary Clinton is notable, John Doe's opinion is not). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• I concur with this view by Will Beback. - Crockspot (talk) 03:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Will. What about Tashi Wangdi, the Representative of the Dalai Lama, on the whereabouts of the 11th Panchen Lama and the Tibetan people's feelings about the Chinese government's appointed Panchen Lama. Would Craig Unger, a noted journalist who has written two books and numerous articles for major publications on the Bush Administration, be considered a notable source as it relates to the administration? Would Bob Woodward? --David Shankbone 00:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

That would be a question about the WP:SPS policy, as I said (and you said was absurd). Can I take it that we're now on common ground on this point? Cool Hand Luke 05:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and how I would answer your questions (although I doubt you care about my views), is that the relationship must be supported by access to the person him or herself. An official representative for Tibet (or a President's wife or spokesman) have been given special access by the third-party. A journalist—even one that has written two partisan political books—has not, and really should not be exempt from BLP. Cool Hand Luke 05:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

See my comments below, but you raised many issues, and the only issues people appear to be agreeing with you about are biographical details of people. The Wolfowitz reference to the interview would be fine because the same details have been published before, and only serves to back up his already published material that is also used as a citation, along with the other four citations to the exact same material. The Team B and Christian Zionism articles were perfectly fine to cite to him. You raised a very broad spectrum of issues, and in the end, the issue is biographical details. See my further comments below. --David Shankbone 06:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Will summed this up quite clearly. 00:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC) (Jossi)

Thank you Will. Just a tiny additional question--in general, would expert journalists fall under this, for the topic they are noted for covering? For example, Jeremy Scahill is noted as an expert on Blackwater Worldwide, and their founder Erik Prince, and has written the only book exploring them (to date). He is often cited by other media an expert on Blackwater. Does an expert journalist like this in general fall under the realm of a notable view for interviews, or does it have to be someone closer (e.g. Bill and Hillary)? EDIT: just realized David asked basically the same question. • Lawrence Cohen 01:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Most of my interviews are done with people who are directly involved in issues and thus are notable for what they think. Ingrid Newkirk on animal rights, for instance; or Tom Tancredo on immigration. My interviews with journalists, even those who have reached the top of their field such as Craig Unger, are scant. Indeed, he is the only one. So for my work, it's important to point out that a reading of this policy will have far-reaching effects on Misplaced Pages, the sources we cite to, and what information we use those sources for. A few examples I posted on Jimbo's page to illustrate:

1. Scooter Libby: According to Jackson Hogan, Libby's roommate at Yale University, as quoted in the already-cited U.S. News & World Report article by Walsh, "'He is intensely partisan...in that if he is your counsel, he'll embrace your case and try to figure a way out of whatever noose you are ensnared in.'"
2. Dick Cheney: The conservative Insight magazine reported on February 27, 2006 that "senior GOP sources" had said Cheney was expected to resign after the mid-term Congressional elections in November 2006; however, only Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld left office following the elections.
3. Al Sharpton: In April 2007, the New York Post wrote that tension exists between Sharpton and Barack Obama. According to Post political reporter Frederick U. Dicker, "Sharpton has launched a 'big-time' effort to tear down Illinois Sen. Barack Obama as a candidate for president."
4. Most of Michael Moore controversies are allegations made about Moore by third parties, e.g.: However, the actual encounter was not captured on camera by Moore, and occurred before he became a filmmaker. Moore told the Associated Press that had he met face-to-face with Roger Smith during production and tried to keep the footage secret, General Motors would have made it known through the media to discredit him.

All of these examples, only but a few that exist, fail Cool Hand Luke's reading of the SPS guideline. I quote a pretty acclaimed journalist who did a great deal of research and interviews with high-ranking government employees and people involved, as well as looking over government documents. --David Shankbone 05:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

David, I don't think you have any idea what would fail my SPS standard—you didn't even understand what my problem was until several others chimed in to agree that interviews were basically self-published. Moreover, what I think really doesn't matter. The actual SPS policy matters, and that's why I brought this up here—to determine what the consensus is.

None of these things you cited are interviews. They are not bare dialogs giving platform to a single source who is making extemporaneous remarks. These stories been vetted into news stories from reputable publishers that presumably ask for both parties for comment and weave numerous sources together, checking them against each other. You asked above what would happen if the AG denied Bill Gate's hypothetical claim. The answer is that a press article would likely report both, and we would then be able to cite both. Reporters don't do anything magical when they take numerous primary accounts and weave them into a secondary source, but that doesn't mean that we should act as reporters. Not on this project, anyway. Cool Hand Luke 06:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The Michael Moore controversy example below is exactly analogous to the situation at hand. Do you really not see that? --David Shankbone 13:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The interview doesn't seem to be cited. I agree that the article should be rephrased to follow the sources, but it is not exactly analogous; it cites news stories instead of primary interviews. Maybe analogous to Wolfowitz, which is probably fine. Cool Hand Luke 19:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

And from what I understand by what is being said, none of the information from Unger's interview is wrong to put in, it's just wrong to put it in because it was from an interview, and not cited to his fact-checked book, that says the same things about the same people? And that only relates to BLP, and not to Christian Zionism and Team B, but only to Donald Rumsfeld. --David Shankbone 06:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe they still have a WEIGHT problem, but since you now agree they're self-published comments, we can have a productive discussion on the particulars. Thanks. Cool Hand Luke 19:15, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

This is nuts and pomposity on the part of Wikipedians. Wikinews has a remit to produce original research. Might as well delete that from our official policies if people will so persistently dismiss us as not credible or suitable for use in Misplaced Pages. It is one thing to avoid sourcing from our synthesis articles, but the OR? Neither wonder Rob Balder said Misplaced Pages was "the politest bunch of book-burning assholes on the planet". --Brian McNeil / 23:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

here is the inclusion of Wikinews Original Reporting that was never challenged. --Brian McNeil / 09:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Flags of the World

FOTW is used in several places as a source for flags of relatively difficult to pin down areas/peoples, some of whom probably don't have a legal or cultural flag - consider this. It looks to me like a contributory website, a wiki of sorts. Thoughts? Relata refero (talk) 07:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Relata - yes, I have known about this site for several years and I too used it as a first-stop flag source. I also was confused if it was a contributing site, but used it anyway to track down info, since they provide their own sources, citations and bibliography. I still don't know how they contribute to it - if at all. The site that I studied the most was here. Take Care... Dinkytown (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Mohammad Amin al-Husayni

Are the former journalists Leonard Davis, then second-in-command of AIPAC, now Israel's no.2 diplomat to the USA (as Lenny Ben-David), and Midge Decter, grande dame of the US neo-conservative movement, reliable sources for statements made by the leader of the Palestinians during the 1940s, in the absence of any further confirmation or citation?

And do the word of an ultra-right talk-radio host and Internet columnist, and the esteemed author of "The complete idiot's guide to Jewish history and culture" vouchsafe the claim? <eleland/talkedits> 01:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Since the esteemed editor is a historian who specializes in U.S.-Middle East policy, and the author/editor of 17 books whose work has been published in academic journals and major newspapers, the answer would seem to be 'Yes'. Please do not use this forum to soapbox about "grande dames of the US neo-conservative movements or about "ultra-right" radio hosts. Isarig 02:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? Mitchell Bard has not been cited on the page. The citations 46, 47, and 48 are Leonard J. Davis and M. Decter, Chuck Morse, and Benjamin Blech. Please talk sense, and avoid trying to paint evaluations of source reliability as "using this forum to soapbox." <eleland/talkedits> 02:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Do calm down, and adopt a more civil tone. What I'm talking about is that your were asking about "Myths and Facts: A Concise Record of the Arab-Israeli Conflict" - a book whose most recent editor is Mitchell Bard, a noted historian and academic author, which meets WP:RS. Now stop using this forum to rant about your political opponents, and edit according to policy. Isarig 03:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

But the 2006 edition isn't cited. The 1982 edition is. The 2006 version is available online, and makes no mention of the Mufti's supposed statement. Accusations of my "ranting" juxtapose oddly with accusations of incivility. <eleland/talkedits> 05:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, these are RSs. You are suggesting that we reject a source since they are zionist or neoconservative. Think what you like about these movements but we DO NOT reject academic sources based on their political viewpoint. This is a disgusting and nauesating suggestion. Would you have us reject all sources who happened to be anti-zionist, or Marzist?! Obscene. Lobojo (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Update: is a Haganah press officer and later IDF Lieutenant Colonel, a confidant of David Ben Gurion and his personal media strategy adviser, writing in 1947 during the run-up to civil war in Palestine, a reliable source for what Husayni may or may not have said during the 1940s, in the absence of further confirmation or citation? <eleland/talkedits> 15:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I would say that if someone is "a second-in-command of AIPAC" there is reason to suspect them of not being a reliable source on controversial Israeli-Palestinian matters. But suspicion doesn't make one an unreliable source, and the two men may very well be reliable sources. The burden of evidence is (for showing something is a reliable source) is upon those who insist on its usage. As of now I don't see any evidence provided for the reliability of Leonard Davis and Midge Decter.Bless sins (talk) 05:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree. At the very least there should be some sort of disclaimer about the biases of neoconservative commentators. --Terrawatt (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear. If there is bias then it cant go in at all. This suggestion is simply obscene. Someone is a Zionist so we need a discliamer before we can quote them, and to label them a neocon. We canont put on such a disclaimer since that vioates NPOV since it is expressing an opition to the effect "this source might be a lying neocon pig, so watch out". This is an obscene suggestion that would seem antisemitic if it were ever put into effect. Lobojo (talk) 01:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Look, this isn't the question of someone who is a scholar, but may be biased in some way. All scholars have their biases. The two sources at issue here are:

• A journalist, Haganah spokesman, and personal confidant of Ben-Gurion, writing in the heat of the 1947 civil war in Palestine, about the leader of the enemey
• A pair of lifelong "pro-Israel" lobbyists and activists, one of whom was later picked as chargé d'affairs at the Israeli embassy in Washington

Neither are scholars, neither are reliable, and neither should be used as an excuse to sling mud at Husayni. <eleland/talkedits> 01:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and the second source was actually published by AIPAC and distributed literally by the caseload, and was condemned by scholars for... oh, why do I bother, you haven't even been reading the discuission you're commenting on, have you. <eleland/talkedits> 01:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

They are scholars, he is cited by others, so we cite him. You are free to describe his roles alongside any quotes in a limited and neutral way. I have never understood the motives of editors who seek to defend a confirmed Nazi who spent the war as a guest of Hitler in Berlin from "mudslinging", I think that a little more mud isn't going to make to much difference to a man who drowned in a vat of it. When people come here to defent Eichmann, we tend to view them as sick. Much like I view the suggestion that zoinist scholars and writers be labeled zionists before they can be quoted. You are free to add sources that rebut the claims they make it you want. Lobojo (talk) 02:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Leonard Davis is a scholar? Really? What was his academic posting? Seriously, you need to stop just making up the facts to suit your POV. Leonard J. Davis aka Lenny Ben-David was many things, but "scholar" was not one of them. <eleland/talkedits> 04:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Gulf Times - "Guru followers asked to target Gandhi party"

• Staff (December 2, 2007). "Guru followers asked to target Gandhi party". Gulf Times. Gulf Publishing and Printing Company. Retrieved 2007-12-03. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  • I would like to hear some feedback from individuals who regularly post/monitor this Noticeboard, (not from the editors who regularly post at Talk:Prem Rawat) about whether or not this citation can be used in Misplaced Pages articles. Thanks, Cirt 07:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC).

Are there lists within Misplaced Pages of newspapers that are considered reliable or unreliable sources, and is there a procedure for a newspaper to be placed in either list? --John Brauns (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Tabloid beat ups like this have no place in Wiki or any other serious encyclopedia.Momento 08:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion of the Gulf Times and London Evening Standard is noted. I would like to hear some feedback from individuals who regularly post/monitor this Noticeboard, (not from the editors who regularly post at Talk:Prem Rawat). That is precisely why I posted this notice at this noticeboard. Thanks, Cirt 12:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC).

I think you should be more candid with us. This attempt to have an appalling, mistake riddled article deemed reliable is another attempt to circumvent Wiki policy and guidelines.Momento 22:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Still waiting for comment from someone from this noticeboard who is not a regular poster at Talk:Prem Rawat. Cirt 04:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC).

• Not a regular contributor to this noticeboard, but I would assume that whether the newspaper is reliable depends on how it is used. It is not a reliable source in that everything it says is true, but it is a reliable source for that something has been reported in the media. That is it cannot be used to state that the followers have infiltrated the event, nor that they have been asked to inflitrate the event, but possibly that they have been accused of infiltrating the event, and certanly that they have been accused of being asked to infiltrate the event. Labongo 15:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the response, that helps a bit. Cirt 15:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC).

A tabloid cannot be used for any of these claims in a BLP, in particular as it is misleading and obviously factually inaccurate and sensationalistic. The event was a a gala dinner a private event by invitation only, and could not have been "infiltrated". Tabloids, and other such yellow journalism cannot be used in Misplaced Pages to assert claims such as these. That is obvious. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well said. I would tend to agree. TimidGuy 20:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

• Okay. We have heard from two regular posters from Talk:Prem Rawat, and two who do not regularly post and edit Prem Rawat. I think that is fine for now. Thanks for your responses. Cirt (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC).

Discussion about image use and WP:NOR

Please come participate in the discussion here. It involves image use policy issues far beyond the template itself. Thanks. ···日本穣 06:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

GameSpot and CNET

I have used GameSpot and have considered it a reliable source until Jeff Gerstmann got fired. Many other gaming blogs are showing that other sites with sources inside GameSpot are showing that he got fired due to his review of Kane & Lynch: Dead Men, and due to the fact that Eidos, the game's publisher, demanded that CNET fire him or lose Eidos's advertisement contracts. Apparently, GameSpot surrendered. Should GameSpot and other C|Net-commissioned publications after Mr. Gerstmann got fired no longer be considered reliable sources due to this controversy? I know about the idea of innocent until proven guilty, but GameSpot's reputation is ruined and will stay ruined unless the manager who fired Gerstmann himself gets fired or someone within CNET or GameSpot comes clean on why Gerstmann got fired. As of right now, nobody within CNET or GameSpot who is willing to disclose their identities are willing to explain why and settle the matter once and for all. If these allegations are proven, GameSpot's name will be ruined until the manager who surrendered to Eidos's demands is fired, and anything Gerstmann writes in the future will be considered a really reliable source, because he has shown that he will tell his honest opinion and the truth no matter what.

No matter on how we rule on this issue, articles written before the firing should still be considered reliable. Jesse Viviano 10:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a fundamental problem with what sources can be used for video game materials. I have an article we are currently debating on whether the developer can be used as a reasonable source for references. See Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-11-19_World_War_II_Online. If we similarly can't rely on game media, that leaves nothing as a source. I'd appreciate some others reading this note to comment on the mediation cabal case, as well. I'd really appreciate some broader input on this issue.

It's an unfortunate fact that authors with POV issues (and there are many for video games) use verifiable source issues to force selective text to be removed from articles, even with no reason to believe it's not valuable to the article -- just unverifiable.. But I'm rambling...Warthog32 (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I am just saying that one particluar source has gotten poisoned by Josh Larson, who is the manager of GameSpot who does not know that a Chinese wall needs to exist between the advertising department and the editorial department except in very extreme cases like when a reporter proves an advertisement to be fraudulent or misleading where the bad advertisement needs to be pulled. He fired Gerstmann because some of GameSpot's advertisers were unhappy with his reviews of Kane & Lynch: Dead Men and Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction. He believes that there should be synergy between the two departments, not a Chinese wall. This works in Maxim, Larson's former employer, where the main focus is the women in teasing clothing are the main focus and not the articles, but not in a magazine involved in serious journalism, even if it is niche journalism.

There are other competing major sources, like 1UP.com, that are not tainted by this mess that we can use for sourcing new articles. It is unfortunate that we must exclude recent articles from GameSpot as reliable sources due to Josh Larson's apparent ignorance or moral bankruptcy. Jesse Viviano (talk) 06:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

What is the source being used for? Even the very best review is still an opinion, and as an opinion I can't see Misplaced Pages citing it separately from other outlet's reviews, which will immediately show up any issues with GS' copy. They aren't going to be unreliable with factual copy either as they have a host of competitors that will, again, immediately show them up for it. Within Misplaced Pages's remit, I don't see why Gamespot shouldn't continue to be a citable source. --Tom Edwards (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This is just a preemptive move. There are plenty of links to GameSpot on Misplaced Pages for references before the firing. They are fine. What I am concerned about is if new references to GameSpot after the firing are used as references, some people will laugh off the article as depending on a game journalism site whose management has shown that it will compromise editorial integrity, meaning that the article will be based on a source whose reputation is ruined. I am not active in writing video game articles (except to correct the obvious error I run across). Jesse Viviano (talk) 04:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not insulting the editors at GameSpot in my comments above. They are some of the best reviewers around. It is just that GameSpot's reputation is considered ruined due to a manager who apparently either is unethical or does not know better about keeping advertising and editorial departments separated by a Chinese wall with extremely limited exceptions like an editor shooting down a false advertisement. Without this Chinese wall, game reviewers will have a conflict of interest between keeping their jobs by not making the advertising department angry at them and doing their jobs properly by slamming games that are high profile and are utter garbage with bad reviews. Jesse Viviano (talk) 07:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the exact policy, but I expect that Misplaced Pages is better off considering the facts of whether a source is reliable rather than its reputation. --Tom Edwards (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Tom Edwards. In addition I believe there is no way to tell if other magazines/websites do not have similar conflicts of interest, but that they are better at keeping it secret. I assume the idea of having references to the reviews is to tell the readers what the biggest and or most respected reviewers think of the game, so as long as GameSpot has "many enough readers" it should be included. Labongo (talk) 11:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

ArabNews

Is ArabNews a reliable source? —Christopher Mann McKay 17:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

For what material? The reliability of a source, depends in many instances in the context in which they are used. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

On Daniel Pipes: In October, 2001 Pipes said, before the convention of the American Jewish Congress. " increased stature, and affluence, and enfranchisement of American Muslims...will present true dangers to American Jews." —Christopher Mann McKay 03:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If properly attributed, I do not see why it cannot be used. Please discuss with other editors that are actively engaged in that article. WP:CONSENSUS on this as a valid source, is still needed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It probably is reliable. Although I must admit I am not familiar with it. Considering how it's distributed worldwide, and its own stub article doesn't have anything denouncing it for false or misleading stories, I would make the educated guess that it is reliable.Ngchen (talk) 04:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Do other reliable news sources quote it? Is a news outlet out of Saudi Arabia free from legal constraints about what they may write? Hard to see how we can use this as a WP:RS. IronDuke 03:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Arab news is a reliable sources since it is a mainstream newspaper (thus satisfying Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Sources), much like the The Washington Post, or Vancouver Sun. Infact, it is Saudi Arabia's oldest English newspaper. With regards to Daniel Pipes, you better get another source to support a contentious claim like that.Bless sins (talk) 04:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It is really bias. Doesn't seem reliable at all to me. Yahel Guhan 06:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Is this reliable to determine if he made such a distasteful statement? He also says that he said it on www.danielpipes.com, so it seems ArabNews is perfectly reliable and acceptable. Lawrence Cohen 06:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

"It is really bias" Why?Bless sins (talk) 19:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

When Pipes makes a controversial statement at the American Jewish Congress, it is likely to receive wide coverage, and you would not be limited to Arab News as the only source. The same Arab News report that was linked above claims to be quoting from an unpublished grant proposal written by Pipes's Middle East Forum and 'obtained by journalists.' I would be more cautious with anything obtained that way. EdJohnston (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem of bias in this case is here by editors, with inappropriate comments. On the Daniel Pipes talk page, Ironduke made reference to the source being unacceptable because it is from Saudi Arabia, and references to theocracy. Arbitrarily saying here, "bias", is another problem. There is no excuse for comments that dismiss Arab sources out of hand. Arab or Saudi sources are just as valid to use on Jewish topics as Israeli or other Western sources. Lawrence Cohen 19:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Lawrence, you're welcome to respond to the substance of my point above, and I'd certainly welcome it. Slurring insinuations on the motives of other editors and baseless accusations of bias are not as welcome. IronDuke 23:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

What "insinuations"? At Talk:Daniel Pipes you openly claim that sources from Saudi Arabia are inherently unreliable due to "differences of journalistic integrity and freedom of speech". The latter may or may not be true but the concept that no Saudi has any journalistic integrity is an absurd, racist generalization. Amaliq (talk) 00:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

"the concept that no Saudi has any journalistic integrity is an absurd, racist generalization." That is indeed correct. Good thing I never advanced such a concept. IronDuke 00:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Still, "differences of journalistic integrity and freedom of speech" does not mean a source is not reliable. Do we maintain a list of nations that we devalue sources from? Who maintains the list, where is it, and who decides what nations we think aren't worth noting in Misplaced Pages? A Saudi source is as valid as an Israeli source, as a Pakistani source, as a Japanese source. Nation of origin means nothing. Lawrence Cohen 16:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

"Nation of origin means nothing." That is, of course, wholly incorrect. It would be difficult, in fact, to overstate precisely how wrong that is. I'll just say that countries which do not value journalistic freedom, and in which journalists are heavily censored, do not produce reliable, quality journalism. IronDuke 02:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The Nation

This this article from The Nation a reliable source? —Christopher Mann McKay 17:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Same answer as above. Reliable for what material? "Reliability" is not an absolute distinction: it requires context. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

the following reference was deleted off the Daniel Pipes article b/c the user said it was a unreliable source: According to writer Kristine McNeil in The Nation, Pipes has anti-Arab views. He said that the customs of Muslims immigrants are "more troublesome than most," and has referred to fundamentalist Muslims as "barbarians" and "potential killers." Pipes is a regular contributor to the Gamla web site, an organization founded that endorses the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians —Christopher Mann McKay 03:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Reliable. Although this source is biased, it is well-regarded as the premiere source of liberal opinion in the United States. Before people jump over me for having a liberal bias, let me say that National Review is also reliable.Ngchen (talk) 04:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not a reliable source for facts, but certainly a reliable source for the views of liberals on the subject. As it is properly attributed, I would see no problem in using it. In any case, you will need to reach WP:CONSENSUS with involved editors there.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree about it being unreliable in terms of facts. Sure, it may present facts in a biased way, but I doubt it publishes outright falsehoods as truth.Ngchen (talk) 04:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that if you want to show what liberals are saying, quote a liberal source. If you want to cite a conservative opinion, use a conservative source. For other things, it is better to use a centrist source. For example, I am comfortable quoting from MSNBC and CBS for liberal opinions and Fox News for conservative opinions. This is because sources will twist around the words of opposing opinions to make them look bad. However, I find those sources to be too biased to be used for controversial content that is easily skewed like the war in Iraq. I would rather use sources that I think are more centrist like ABC News and CNN for those topics. Even though I am somewhat liberal, I am disgusted by the blatant liberal bias in CBS and MSNBC, and of course I am disgusted with the blatant conservative bias in Fox News. Some people will consider my opinion on who is the centrist sources as bad, and I know that different people will have different opinions. Jesse Viviano (talk) 07:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that everyone who is offering an opinion on this cite read the actual reference. I'm not certain that the article being used could be used due to the unapologetically biased nature of the article. Wow. I've not read a hit piece like that ever before... it isn't journalism. I'm not exactly certain what it is. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Having read the first page of the cite, I must say that sure, it is biased, and written in an non-encyclopedic tone. But that doesn't mean that facts gleaned from the article are unreliable. It is, perhaps muckraking journalism, IMHO.Ngchen (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest that it definitely falls under the WP:REDFLAG clause. I feel dirty having read it all. There's focused, driven editorializing and then there is demonizing through propaganda tactics. That article clearly is the latter. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how there is any redflag violation. —Christopher Mann McKay 05:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly how a fringe opinion such as that is useful as a source in an NPOV manner. I was kind of hoping the last line would be something like "oh yes, and he eats babies too." Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 05:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It's hardly a fringe opinion. By all measures, the Nation is a mainstream rag. That doesn't mean that it's unbiased or doesn't have an editorial slant, but tell me what source doesn't? "Reliable source" doesn't mean no bias; that's a mistake too often made by Misplaced Pages editors. If there's an issue of balance in the sources used in the article, that needs to be hammered out on the talk page. But to paint the Nation as an unreliable (let alone "fringe") source, including that particular editorial, is absurd. bobanny (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That particular editorial is beyond the pale. I'd love to show you, line by line, how it uses propaganda techniques, but we're all able to read and discern for ourselves. I'd expect that sort of rant from a blog, not a reputable publication like the Nation. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The use of propaganda techniques doesn't separate the Nation from other reliable sources. Contrary to popular belief, propaganda is not the science of lying. It simply means propagating an idea or perspective through whatever means, whether rhetorical devices, logical argumentation, or whatever, all of which are used by the most respectable newspapers and magazines. Even if you don't agree with how that editorial depicts Pipes, the way it was originally used in the Misplaced Pages article was simply to say that this opinion of Pipes is out there. bobanny (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bobanny. According to Kyaa the Catlord's logic, most all main-stream media would be considered an unreliable source, especially Fox News--which is widely used on WIkipedia.—Christopher Mann McKay 01:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Fox News is at least presenting itself as news as is, for example, CNN. The Nation exists mainly as a journal of opinion. Their conclusions cannot and should not be used as facts. IronDuke 03:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Of course, no opinion printed anywhere should be used as a fact. What I am saying is that facts extracted from The Nation can be used. Likewise, the same applies to Fox News and National Review.Ngchen (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

IronDuke, in the context the text was used on the Pipes article, it is not presenting any opinion, only facts. What are you suggesting is an opinion?—Christopher Mann McKay 19:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

non Misplaced Pages Dictionaries and Encyclopedias

I have a couple of other editors telling me that Dictionary and Encyclopedia entries on a subject aren't usable as sources that we have to use papers by scholars for sourcing. What argument can I use against this? Alatari (talk) 15:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

If the dictionaries and encyclopedias are published by real corporate publishers with a decent reputation, then they are reliable. Something like the World Book Encyclopedia would be reliable, but something like the (fictional) Encyclopedia of Irreproducible Results wouldn't be.Ngchen (talk) 04:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I'm talking about Merriam-Webster and others. What WP policies do I quote? They only want to use college professors research, museum curators statements and some other texts. Alatari (talk) 04:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The reliable sources policy should be good enough. Also point them to this noticeboard. One would have to be totally unreasonable to discount secondary sources such as reputable newspapers, dictionaries, and the like. The only caution is to make sure to avoid novel, original synthesis of previously published material.Ngchen (talk) 04:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It's generally best to use secondary sources where possible. Encyclopedias are tertiary sources, i.e., based on secondary material, and therefore a degree away from the most authoritative source. That's not to say they're not reliable, but ideally encyclopedia sources should be limited to uncontroversial material. I don't know why dictionaries would be considered unreliable. Of course, it all depends on the situation, and I suspect the issue is more a matter of the best source, not whether these are reliable sources generally. Is there a specific debate you could point to? bobanny (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Didn't want to cite a specific debate for fear of silencing these comments. I'll use your advice above if the debate reopens. Alatari (talk) 22:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Publisher's "blurb" quotes and Bat Ye'or

A dispute has arisen as to the sourcing of favorable quotes reviewing Bat Ye'or's work. The sources are the "blurb" quotes on the back cover of her book. One side argues that since publishers of academic books are reliable sources, evidence must be presented that this particular quote is either taken from a longer review or taken out of context, or it is a priori reliable. The other side argues that blurb quotes are often taken out-of-context, even by reliable publishers, and points to a book reviewer griping about a "misleading" blurb "quoted out of context" from one of his prior reviews.

Neither side has located the originals, assuming the reviews were first published elsewhere. <eleland/talkedits> 02:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I see no problems in quoting from backmatter or dust-jacket flaps, if properly attributed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Would that mean we say "According to a review reproduced on the back cover of X, person Y said..."? <eleland/talkedits> 06:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Not all blurbs are created equally -- I suggest considering them on a case-by-case basis and using common sense. Blurbs exist to sell something, not to convey information. Some quote very selectively from reviews. I'd especially watch out for ellipses (…) indicating something has been removed from the text or brackets indicating other editing; those don't mean a blurb is automatically unreliable, just that it needs closer examination. --A. B. 12:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

In this particular case, we already have a source accusing that. Somebody reviewing the English translation of one of Ye'or's books took time out to note that the English edition carried a quotation from him, "quoted out of context" in a "misleading" way, from a past review. <eleland/talkedits> 21:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Another problem with using blurbs is that your source then typically consist of a single, or a few, sentence(s). I believe blurbs should genereally not be used as sources since they are either: (i) taken from a larger piece of work that can be sourced, even if finding that work is difficult, (ii) only consist of a few sentences and can hence be considered as random statements. Labongo (talk) 13:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"According to a review reproduced on the back cover of X, person Y said..."? meets the requirements of WP:V. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That seems obvious, that if it was put like that then there could never be any problem, even if the quote was manipulated. The publisher is a RS. Lobojo (talk) 01:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The Register

As a willfully tabloid source, not reliable surely, right? Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Please indicate on which (main namespace) articles you would like to see The Register removed as a source?

FYI, see also preliminary discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:Reliable sources#The Register --Francis Schonken (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm asking as a general question - it's in wide use, and I'm interested in the general sense of its reliability. This would, of course, not equate to a consensus to remove in all cases, but I'm interested in the general case, as it seems both widely used (1800 or so articles, I'm told) and poor. Phil Sandifer (talk) 19:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Quoting jossi (#The Nation): "Same answer as above. Reliable for what material? "Reliability" is not an absolute distinction: it requires context." I agree to that, also for this source. I think the discussion is moot without at least producing some examples. You also suggested: "not (...) a consensus to remove in all cases" - could you give some examples where you would not remove The Register as a reference? That might be valuable too, in order not to embark on a witch hunt for those cases where none is due. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you've assumed correctly. I'm unaware of any specific consensus regarding The Register, but last I knew tabloids and such rags were considered unreliable sources by everyone except a handful of headcases and soapboxers. If someone is seriously arguing a tabloid is a reliable source, I'd recommend smacking some sense into them or an appropriate drug intervention. :-P Vassyana (talk) 05:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Are we saying a publication cannot be used as a reference if it has a tabloid style? That would rule out the entire News Corporation, the media empire of Rupert Murdoch which thrives on providing tabloid-style news. The Register is a technical publication, and one of the most popular tech publications on the web. The wording style is tabloid, but is it known for inaccuracy? I'm not aware that The Register is known for factual inaccuracy.Lester 03:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

They are not known for fact checking. I think The Register can only be used as a primary source for statements like, "On January 1, 1999, The Register published a story saying XYZ." Their reliability appears to be the same as Slashdot, a chatroom or a personal blog. They publish whatever they think will attract the most attention, whether the story is accurate or not. - Jehochman 03:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

That is completely incorrect. The Register observes the UK's Press Complaints Commission Code of Practice, provides contact details on its web site for making corrections, complaining about inaccuracies etc.. Isarig (talk) 15:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The UK's minimum legal standards are far below what Misplaced Pages requires for a reliable source. Just because there's an address people can complain to does not mean that people actually do complain, nor does it mean that the Register actually publishes factually correct material. Therefore, this source may not be used in most circumstances. - Jehochman 15:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

THe UK's PCC is one of the most comprehensive codes of journalistic ethics in existence today. A publication which observes it is far and beyond Misplaced Pages's amorphous and ambiguous standards for what is considered reliable. Please read this before making nonsensical comments like "minimum legal standards". If you can show that reliable sources question The Register's reliability, or point to cases where it failed to adhere to the code - please point them out. Your personal opinion of The Register is really not that important.Isarig (talk) 15:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. It does not talk about journalistic ethics. It's about reliability of information. The Register does not have a reputation for factual accuracy because they mix opinion, satire and news. When running a story, they do not bother to contact the people written about to get their side of the story. Facts often get in the way of good drama. We are attempting to form a consensus, so everybody's opinion counts, mine included. I read The Onion and Slashdot, and watch Stephen Colbert once in a while. I enjoy them, but I don't cite them as sources. - Jehochman 16:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do not condescend. I have read WP:V and contend, your personal unsubstantiated opinions to the contrary notwithstanding, the The Register meets WP's standard for reliability. All major news stories mix opinion with news, and many sources that are beyond reproach feature satire. A source that observes a strict journalistic code of conduct meets and exceeds this project's requirements for reliability. Isarig (talk) 16:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

No, most major news sources do not mix news, opinion, and satire. Opinions pieces are clearly labeled. Fox News is an exception to this rule, and I would contend that they are not a reliable source. The Wall Street Journal has a similar political slant, but they fact check rigorously and clearly delineate news and commentary. Therefore, I consider the WSJ to be a reliable source. - Jehochman 16:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense

I think we are not seeing the forest for the trees. Or lets cut to the chase.

1. Was there ever a concern about the Register as a source before the current batch of Misplaced Pages stories? If so, please cite evidence here.
2. Disregarding the current batch of Misplaced Pages stories that we dislike, what is their journalistic reputation? Please cite evidence and facts.
3. Let's leave out personal stakes.

We can't exclude a source because it gave us a succession of bloody noses. Lawrence Cohen 16:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Other way around. Cite evidence that The Register is considered a reliable source with a reputation for fact checking. Once there is an objection, the burden for demonstrating reliability is on those who seek to include information in Misplaced Pages. - Jehochman 16:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I've cited such evidence- it adheres to a very strict code of ethics, same as all other UK media outlets which are used all over WP. Isarig (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Legal compliance is not evidence of factual accuracy. Please show me places where other reliable sources have cited The Register. If they are so good, they should have multiple citations in Reuters, Dow Jones, Associated Press and other such news sources. - Jehochman 16:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

again with this nonsense? This is not about "legal compliance" - it is an adherence to a code of ethics. I've twice pointed you to the relevant document, please read it. Isarig (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I have not characterized your comments as nonsense. In my experience, the losing side of an argument will be the first one to break decorum.  ;-) Ideally, you would refactor to choose a more appropriate word than "nonsense". Go ahead and dig up some references showing that other publications consider The Register to be a reliable source. If it is reliable, that should not be difficult. I am making this very easy for you. If you come up with the citations, then you can end this debate the way you wish it to end. - Jehochman 16:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

When you repeatedly argue against a strawman, I will call your argument what it is, nonsense. Just to put your mind at rest, here's the UK's Telegraph citing The Register: , here's the UK's Guardian doing the same: ,as is the Times of India , The Canadian Press , PC World , Adweek , The Winnipeg Sun , ITWire , Telecom paper and many others you can find by searching Google. Isarig (talk) 17:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That's relevant information. - Jehochman 23:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• The Register is reliable enough for techie stuff, but individual journalists pursuing some kind of muckraking "investigative" journalism with a pretty obvious failure to even attempt to look at dissenting opinions is not going to be reliable in any publication unless it has independent corroboration. What we have in this case is a story about Bagley sourced entirely from Bagley and some people pushing an agenda, and a story about the Durova incident sourced entirely from an editor giving one side of the story (and a side which had been repeatedly rebutted at that), and a story on a Wikimedia Foundation employee written entirely in order to pursue the agenda of discrediting Misplaced Pages. None of these shines out to me as an example of critical review, just Misplaced Pages-bashing. We should stick sources which draw form a wider base than one or two editors pushing a heavy barrow uphill. I can't imagine any other circumstance where we'd spend this long agonising about an editor coming along and asking for his opinion, sourced to him and planted in a tabloid, to be put in an article. These Register pieces are op-ed at best, hatchet jobs at worst, and they make it perfectly plain that the threshold for inclusion is as low as you want as long as the material is derogatory. Guy (Help!) 17:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

News and Policy

There's a discussion going on at Moneybomb about whether or not newsandpolicy.com can be used as a reliable source. Specifically, this article is being cited. The criticism is that the site is a blog, not a reliable news source. What do you guys think? — HelloAnnyong 19:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of it. They aspire to be a reputable news source according to this, and claim their writers are experienced journalists. It does look like a blog though, and unless it has achieved a reputation as a reliable source, it can't claim to be reputable. On the other hand, try looking beyond whether or not it's a blog in getting a consensus. For example, the writer's website spells out her cred as a legit journalist, and not just some blogger. Also, the article is a reprint from the Cleveland Plain Dealer, which claims to be the biggest newspaper in Ohio. On that basis, I'd say unequivocally that it's a reliable source, whatever its editorial. bobanny (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Mondegreen examples

Can somewhat please step in? Regrettably, An anonymous editor and I seem to be embroiled in an edit war about whether I should be removing all examples of mondegreens without references. This editor's ideas about what constitutes a reference are very different from mine. Check our my last edit summary and the editor's edit summary in response. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Virtualology and famousamericans.net discussion on WP:AN

There have already been a variety of related discussions about spam, coi, copyright, and link quality in different places, so I started a more centralized discussion of all aspects these links at:

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Virtualology and Stanley L. Klos -- boon to our historical articles or just a bain of spam? (permanent link)

I'm leaving this entry here to point WP:RS/N regulars to the Administrators' Noticeboard discussion. Your inputs there on the reliability of this stuff would be helpful. --A. B. 01:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

http://www.straybullets.org

I can't find any info on editorial policy or the nature of this publication, it seems a little amateur. It calls itself a 'Cyber Webzine' and only produced three issues the last one being in june, possibly making it inactive. My initial thoughts are that it is a one man fanzine and therefore not particularly reliable but i wouldn't mind a second opinion as there doesnt seem to be much info on it. --Neon white (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find any evidence of an editorial policy or a reporting staff. I'd need to see some third-party commentary on this magazine before I'd consider it a reliable source. EdJohnston (talk) 06:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The only other mention of the site i can that seems related is a myspace page but it doesn't seem to reveale a lot more than the site itself and hasn't been logged into since october. --Neon white (talk) 02:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

laroucheplanet.info

Three editors at United States v. LaRouche wish to link to this site. The argument is that the site includes a transcript to a court document. However, the site more generally is anonymous and contains material which would clearly violate WP:RS and WP:BLP. Arguments have been made on both sides, citing various aspects of WP:EL. I'd like to get the views of people on this board.--Marvin Diode (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

External links dont necessarily have to be as reliable as citations as long as the info is relevant and correct. Is the document's authenticity in question? --Neon white (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Not by me. But I am concerned that it is just being used as a Trojan Horse to get "LaRouche planet" linked to the article. --Marvin Diode (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously if it seems like it's an attempt to promote the website that's a different issue. But as i does contain relevant info it can't be said to be solely promotional. --Neon white (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The same could be said for any external link. The site in question has valuable historical documents whose veracity isn't questioned. Many sites have parts that aren't entirely reliable. A linked forum doesn't invalidate a site. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

While any external link might be considered an attempt at promotion, most of the websites in question don't pose big problems with BLP and other core policies. WP:EL is ambiguous on this sort of thing: "Links normally to be avoided" includes Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research". On the other hand, "links to be considered" includes Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources. The "LaRouche planet" site appears to fall into both categories, so it is a tough call. --Marvin Diode (talk) 07:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

What misleading information are you referring to? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Here are a few examples: I can't say for certain whether they are misleading, but they are certainly unverifiable. When such vitriolic attacks are posted without listing any author who accepts responsibility for them, it arouses suspicion. --Marvin Diode (talk) 08:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

New perspectives and other hitherto unused primary sources.

While trying to do a solid audit of citations used in an article, one of the references (a book) used has very little information about it on the internet. Book reviews are short, but what is noticeable on this book review, done by the University of Hawaii Press, is the new perspectives and other hitherto unused primary sources:

The Philippines Under Japan: Occupation Policy and Reaction

ed. by Ikehata Setsuho; Ricardo Trota Jose
Distributed for Ateneo de Manila University Press

Although much has been written on the Japanese occupation of the Philippines, one aspect of that period has remained uncovered: the Japanese point of view. This book, written by Japanese scholars and a Filipino, attempts to provide that point of view, presenting new perspectives of the Occupation based on Japanese and other hitherto unused primary sources.

Is this a Reliable Source or Original Research?

Used in this article: Yamashita's gold Jim (talk) 16:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Citing a secondary source which uses primary sources is best practice and is not OR at all. If the book was printed in a reputable university press and was well-reviewed by knowledgeable reviewers than it is an excellent source, exactly the kind we want on Misplaced Pages. Of course, it should not be combined with other sources to advance a previously unpublished point, as that's against policy. And information which is supported by a citation to the book must closely match what the book itself says. I know that the Yamashita's Gold article is having problems with people pushing fairly kooky theories from a non-scholarly book as if they're reality, but in principle The Philippines Under Japan is an excellent source. <eleland/talkedits> 01:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I have that book on order, and it should arrive soon. If upon reading that particular book, if there is no mention as to the claim in the Yamashita’s gold article, am I justified in removing it, like I did the fiction novel previously? Jim (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"extremist" source?

In 2002 Gujarat violence, User:Bakasuprman has removed a report authored by Concerned Citizens Tribunal as an "extremist source". the citizen tribunal consists of two retired Justices of the Indian Supreme Court (one of them - V. R. Krishna Iyer heads the tribunal), two retired judges of the Bombay High Court, Aruna Roy, Tanika Sarkar and 3 others. its work has been widely reported and has been relied upon by, among others; Christoph Antons, Volkmar Gessner, Globalisation and Resistance: Law Reform in Asia Since the Crisis, 2007, Hart Publishing, Isbn: 1841136808 and Rowena Robinson, Tremors of Violence: Muslim Survivors of Ethnic Strife in Western India, 2005, Sage Publications, Isbn: 0761934081. the copy of the report linked to, published by Sabrang Communications, is the one that the Tribunal itself links to. independent news sources reporting on the publication of this report have been included in the article text.

this has been pointed out to him, to no avail. Doldrums (talk) 04:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Just because a source was used in a book (along with hundreds of others) really does not give any rubber stamp of approval. Sabrang, is an unreloable source, since it is funded and published by Teesta Setalvad, who was accused by a victim of the violence, Zaheera Sheikh of coercion to falsely implicate 21 people. The organization is controversial in the media, and some allege is has been used for embezzling foreign funds. Also of note is that it is an Advocacy Group. There is really no logical way that Sabrang can possibly fit under WP:RS, noting all this obvious controversy that surrounds it. When writing an article as contentious as 2002 Gujarat violence, it is obvious that only reliable, non-controversial sources should be used. Using a political ideologue in an NPOV article is nonsensical. This has been pointed out to him, to no avail.Bakaman 01:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

such grave allegations! are they true? how do the BBC, the New York Times, AFP or mainstream Indian news sources regard this supposedly "extremist" "unreliable" "controversial" "falsely implicating" "embezzling" person? where does WP:RS or WP:V impose a blanket ban on "advocacy" and "controversial" sources, irrespective of how notable it is and how many independent reliable sources regard it as reliable? Doldrums (talk) 09:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If it's good enough for the people who quote it, it's good enough for us too, providing we do as they do and say where the information is from. So, yes, reliable in this context as a source for whatever it is that the report says: just summarise, paraphrase or quote the report as necessary. Where other sources disagree, note this. You should not attempt to draw your own conclusions from the report, or judge which source is right when they may disagree. Hope this helps, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Altermedia

Is Altermedia a reliable source? --Gutza 08:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

No - it isn't notable, it doesn't even have an article on Misplaced Pages. If you think it is, then you would need to establish that before it could be a reliable source. Secondly, it seems to present articles in a very biased way with an anti-Jew anti-black POV. It is also taking a political position in support of various parties, such as the British National Party. It is definitely not neutral. I checked the front page of the UK site, headline : "Islamic beheading in UK". Contrast this with the same story from a reliable source, BBC News, which has nothing about an "Islamic beheading". They are clearly distorting facts with their POV. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 11:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It is a reliable source for existence of opinions (points of view) about some issues. Reliability as a source for facts should be weighted for every local version of Altermedia separately. --Dezidor (talk) 18:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages states clarly that unreliable sources may only be used in articles about themselves. Below, I explain just what is unreliable about it (and "unreliable" is an understatement). Dahn (talk) 22:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

How does one determine which local version can be used, and which specific issues it can be used for? --Gutza 19:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

To clarify a bit: this section is a consequence of a long thread on Romanian wikipedia, where altermedia is used as a reliable source. In the process of the discussion, I investigated a bit and it turns out that only two reliable sources (of the academic kind, mind you) even take altermedia into consideration. They are Thomas Greven, Thomas Grumke, Globalisierter Rechtsextremismus?: Die extremistische Rechte in der Ära der Globalisierung, VS Verlag, 2006, pages 171-171 and Wilhelm Hofmann, Franz Lesske, Politische Identität- visuell, LIT Verlag, 2005, page 160. Both cite altermedia as a portal, and both define it as a venue for far right extremism (with, in at least one case, emphasis on its promotion of antisemitism, xenophobia, the Klan etc.). Outside of these sources, altermedia as a whole has little covering: it is simply ignored, in both academia and mainstream journalism.

A larger debate was carried in relation to the Romanian altermedia, which, it was claimed, is an independent section - its independence is, however, easily dismissible by citing altermedia itself, as it defines itself as part of the portal in question. Three main issues have been noted. One is that ro.altermedia.info is run by a high-ranking member of the far right group Noua Dreaptă: Dan Ghiţă, whom altermedia itself indicates as its president and editor, is Noua Dreaptă's vice president (as mentioned here, here, and here) and has for its "reporter" Bogdan Stanciu, who is Noua Dreaptă's spokesman. The other issue clearly observable is its involvement with far right politics and its support for Noua Dreaptă's actions (accompanied by praises of fascist politicians such as Iron Guard leader Corneliu Zelea Codreanu); these activities are, to say the least, bordering on illegality in Romania. See for example here, here and here. I left aside the other myriad of claims it makes on all sections, all of which are visible to the naked eye (from "curing" homosexuality to denying the Holocaust to ranting about Jewish conspiracies to the links leading to "news of interest to white people").

The third and most important issue in respect to altermedia Romania is its reflection in reliable sources. For all its presence in blogs and forums, there are few reliable sources (mainstream or academic) mentioning it at all. Here they are: an article in the Romanian daily Curentul, where altermedia is referred to as an "Iron Guard nest" ("nest" is the terminology used by the Irion Guard to define its smallest active cells), and attributed the qualities of "the Guard's propaganda tentacle", "tool for propagating Noua Dreaptă's fascist ideology" etc.; an article in the magazine Observator Cultural, where altermedia's Holocaust denial is discussed in passing, where altermedia's connection with Noua Dreaptă is again mentioned, and where the author accuses it of promoting an Iron Guard-inspired view of Romanian history; an article in the daily Cotidianul, headlined "Hatred Boils Over on the Internet", where altermedia is mentioned alongside other extremist and neofascist sites; the Wiesel Institute, in a document dealing with Holocaust denial and antisemitism in contemporary Romania, cites altermedia several times (pages 10, 17, 33, 34, 40, and 44) - the document argues (page 17) that "under the cover of 'right to expression and access to information', the publication hosts messages with an antisemitic and denialist character" (a dismissal of both altermedia's character and its claim to reliability). There are a few more informal sources mentioning altermedia's neofascist character, antisemitism etc., but I just concentrated on the most relevant ones (reliable themselves).

The issue of editorial control was also brought up, and altermedia simply states that it encourages anyone to contribute as long as they feel that their material is censored elsewhere (by "the New World Order", mind you). This is a clear indication that the source is self-published and it places itself in contradiction with the mainstream (see WP:V and WP:RS for the implications of that). Altermedia, under any form and with any section, is not cited as a source of information in any reliable source. As shown, it is simply a study case for neofascism, antisemitism, Holocaust denial, racism and xenophobia.

In short: there is absolutely no way that this could be considered a reliable source, under any standards on Earth. Dahn (talk) 22:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Dahn is correct in stating that this is basically a spill out from the Romanian Misplaced Pages -- I simply tried to be as neutral as possible in how I asked the questions because I didn't want to risk being accused of tainting the topic with my POV. I hope I have been successful in not revealing my personal opinion on this source's reliability or my motives for asking these questions. However (or maybe even more so), please do try to give this inquiry a bit of your attention, this is setting a precedent on our Misplaced Pages. Thank you. --Gutza 23:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Technically, the labeling of a source as unreliable and its entire removal from wikipedia (+policing for possible new entries) is not unprecedented. I do believe this was accomplished in the case of Stormfront, Al Qaeda and others, and I have seen editors who simply remove such links from the articles. This may be without precedent for the Romanian wikipedia, but even there, I am led to believe, there has been agreement on at least some links to sites promoting Holocaust denial. As for your query, I find it entirely reasonable. Dahn (talk) 23:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

In short: I see that you and Gutza expand disputes from Romanian Misplaced Pages (see long dispute at this page) into English Misplaced Pages and I don´t know where else. I think that it is kind of harassment. Local Altermedias are very different as well as language versions of Misplaced Pages and sources in Romanian language are not problem of overwhelming majority of editors of English Misplaced Pages. Solve your personal problems with Romanian Altermedia at Romanian Misplaced Pages and write encyclopedia (this account is not about writing encyclopedia). Thank you, --Dezidor (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, me and Gutza agree that it is not a reliable source, as do several other users who formulated their opinion there. Above, I clearly indicate that the only two reliable sources even mentioning altermedia (as a portal, i.e.: in its entirety) do so only to highlight its extremist character. Additionally, the reason why this was posted here is so that the source itself, and in its totality, be exposed for scrutiny by the community. Please make sure you address these concerns, and not ulterior assumptions. Dahn (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

And if you drop my account in the pot, please make sure you check out my record of contributions over here (including my two featured articles). I only joined the Romanian project very recently, after a period of contributing as an IP, and after being asked to sign in by several administrators - precisely because they appreciated my input. Dahn (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

One additional comment: writing a proper and reliable encyclopedia is precisely why one needs to look into what sources are used and for what purpose. Dahn (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you both are against this source. But sorry, it is very difficult to believe that there is no connection between your dispute at Romanian Misplaced Pages and your actions here. It simply look likes that you want to write at Romanian Misplaced Pages: At English Misplaced Pages they said... --Dezidor (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Dezidor, I don't see what relevancy it has that it is discussed over there, given that I am bringing up the entire source for review here. I could just as well bring it for review because I please - meaning that I have a right, and, ultimately, a duty, to ask that these sources be exposed for scrutiny by any section of wikipedia. I do believe that this is the purpose of this page. Your answer, which was the second one to Gutza's first post, was that different altermedias "should be weighted for every local version of Altermedia separately" - based on what logic, and according to what rule? For the third time: the only two mentionable sources that cite the entire portal (no "Czech altermedia is okay, Portuguese altermedia is bad") discuss it as a source for nothing other than extremism; all other reliable sources that I was able to find discuss the Romanian section (which is not subject to some peculiar and particular rules) say very much the same. Am I missing something? Dahn (talk) 02:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

And even if I would want to cite a verdict passed on the English wikipedia as additional information there (as if what I posted there isn't as clear as what I wrote above), what's to say I'm not allowed to, given that the portal we're discussing is international, and that wikipedia enforces the same rules wherever? Dahn (talk) 02:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

My argument that different AlterMedias should be discussed separately is based on facts that this websites has own redactions and external contributors, different quality and popularity (for example Altermedia România looks like popular website, Altermedia Österreich doesn´t), different ideological opinions (almost every mainstream and non-mainstream media has own political or economic interests and it would be violation of NPOV to support only media with some opinions), different sort of supporters and opponents (and sources that writes positively, negatively or neutrally about them), different updating (for example AlterMedia România produces new articles every day in comparison with AlterMedia Schweiz which looks like dead project), different kind of articles (for example AlterMedia UK usually includes only comments to articles by another media and external links in comparison with AlterMedia Czech Republic that usually provides articles by its own authors or by authors of friendly media) etc. Altermedia.info is rather than one project only domain that hosts different projects with different content. --Dezidor (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but: 1) number of clicks does not make reliability; 2) several sources discuss the site in its entirety, and they are the only reliable sources that even mention the site; 3) speculations about the "political interest" of academic works fade in comparison to the burden of evidence regarding the bias of altermedia (and altermedia, for sure, is not academic); 4) the sources that do actually take the site into consideration belong to media so diverse that it would have to be "all the world against altermedia" (which is basically saying the same thing about what that site is all about). I fail to see any proof that the altermedias would be separate projects, and, in fact, I see plenty of evidence that they are not (both in third-party commentary and in what altermedia states about itself). Below, you have what I consider is a full answer as to the reliability of altermedia, with a direct quote from wikipedia's policies.

To the above, I will add this document provided by the Internal Ministry in North Rhineland-Westphalia, which keeps neonazi sites under a close watch. On pages 4-5, the entire portal is exposed as a venue for right-wing extremism, the links between its supposedly separate wings are discussed as facts, and the person holding the strings is identified as the notorious David Duke. Nuff said. Dahn (talk) 00:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This last source that Dahn brought (from the Internal Ministry of North Rhine-Westphalia, no land after Rhine there!) clinches the case, if there was any real doubt before that. As a side note: Jürgen Rüttgers, the Minister-President of North Rhine-Westphalia, does not sound like a pinko type to me, so the fact that his interior ministry says what it says regarding AlterMedia adds an extra layer of credibility, if I'm allowed to make the inference in this discussion. Turgidson (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, never mind all the assumptions. (And by the way, Dahn is among the project's most committed editors, so please.) Yes, the debate originated at ro.wiki, but why not have it here as well? As long as everyone stays civil, I don't see the problem. It's a good idea to establish a solid case here as well that altermedia should be avoided as a source. Biruitorul (talk) 00:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

From WP:RS#Extremist_sources:

"Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution."

Any publisher of material that advocates far right (or even far left) politics is not a reliable source (with the minor exception of an article about the publisher). The rules are very clear. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This entire discussion came from Romanian Misplaced Pages, where several users added altermedia as a source at various articles. As Dezidor pointed there are differences between different branches of Altermedia. Each branch has its own redaction team, the conclusions about American or German altermedia can not be extended on other branches. Romanian Altermedia is a popular site often quoted in various publications. For example: it received an award from the spreading of free information, it was quoted by University of Galati, Romania-Israel portal, Science Academy of the Republic of Moldova, Catholica.ro - website conecting catholic parishes in Romania, "Vestitorul", The newspaper of the Greek-catholic bishopric of Oradea, The revue of bioethics, the website of the students of the Free university of Moldova, Dervent monastery website, the website of the Romanians from Australia association, Curierul Conservator website, Christian writers association, the website of a bishop of Orthodox Church in Moldova, "My bussiness" website, a newspaper of the Romanian policemen training center, Orthodox Bishopric of Suceava official site, "Our Moldova" site (a site from the Republic of Moldova), Deca Press agency, Bacaul.ro - site of the people from Romanian city of Bacau, Lugojul.ro - site of the people from Romanian city of Lugoj, Site of the Yoga movement, Site of the orthodox young people from the Republic of Moldova and several others. I fully agree with Chris that sites that are widely aknowledged as extremist should not be considered reliable sources. However, in the case of Altermedia Romania, less than 5% of those who are quoting this site are considering it as extremist, it can not be considered as "widely aknowledged as extremist". I have to point also some fallacies in Dahn's message - the article in "Curentul" the he is quoting is mentioning altermedia as a "nest" (it is a derogatory term, like in the movie "Borat, a story for people in Kazahstan"), but not as an "Iron Guard nest", the "Iron Guard" was added by Dahn from his imagination. Both "Curentul" and "Observatorul Cultural" are minor publications in Romania. The refferences at other sections of altermedia are simply irrelevant for a judgement about Romanian altermedia, in my opinion.--MariusM (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It is obviously difficult for non-Romanian speakers to verify those references. Your argument is basically that, yes, the English speaking divisions of Altermedia are extremist and not reliable sources, but the Romanian division is totally different, and is actually a good, reliable source. It is not an impossible proposition, but is extremely unlikely. So I will ask:

• Is it really necessary to use this site as a reliable source? Are there no reliable sources similar to the BBC or CNN in Romania? No professional newspapers?
• The English Altermedia had content that was clearly anti-{Muslim, Jew, black}. Is the Romanian site different, or does it have a similar slant? The Romanian site uses the same tagline, "World wide news for people of European descent". The implication is obvious.
• The regional sites all link to each other without any warning that the viewer is being redirected to a completely different organisation. If you cite it as a reliable source, then how is the reader meant to know that you only believe the Romanian site is reliable?

Chris Bainbridge (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying that Romanian Altermedia is the best source, but sometimes they have good articles which are appropiate for Misplaced Pages, and other sources about those subjects are missing. When an article is added as a source, the reader is directed at a specific article from Altermedia, not at the entire network. The Romanian Altermedia has a "Frequently Asked Questions" page where they claim being independent from other sections of the altermedia. I am against a fatwa forbidding any link to altermedia articles without an analysis of the specific article which is proposed to be linked (this was Dahn's proposal at Romanian wikipedia). Romanian Altermedia has a wide variety of articles, from far-right to far-left political orientation.--MariusM (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

"I am against a fatwa forbidding any link to altermedia articles without an analysis of the specific article which is proposed to be linked" Well, that is the way that WP:RS works. A source is either considered reliable, or it isn't. We don't evaluate individual articles for their reliability. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 04:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

MariusM's message is spurious on several grounds: 1) the entirety of the links he cites are themselves unreliable, and most of them are blogs; 2) the publications he dismisses as "minor" are not at all minor, and all of them are mainstream, indisputably reliable, and rating above each and all of the links he so generously provides above; 3) there is no indication that altermedia Romania is an independent project, and I have made available the sources discussing both the project in general and the mainstream rejection of its Romanian branch; 4) anybody with a little knowledge of Romanian will note that altermedia publishes fringe theories of the far right persuasion as a rule (open worship for fascist politicians and war criminals, clams to cure homosexuality, Holocaust denial, etc). I do believe it is perfectly legitimate and necessary for wikipedia not to soil itself by using such stuff as its source. Dahn (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Dahn is relying on the fact that few people here speak Romanian and can verify his afirmations. I've noticed that he didn't comment my observation about his wrong translation of the article from "Curentul" (where altermedia is described as a "nest", but Dahn pretended that it is described as an "Iron Guard nest").--MariusM (talk) 05:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Quackwatch

We are looking for confirmation that each or all of the following are or are not reliable sources to support a statement like: Quackwatch articles are not subject to peer review.

• The Consultant Pharmacist - Website review: A giant step toward true legitimacy would involve active peer review of the articles to be published, a logical transition for a site that relies on so much of the accepted medical literature as its foundation.
• When You Can’t Critique CBP In The Peer-Reviewed Literature, You Can Always Send Your Article To Quack Watch - Instead of challenging them in the appropriate scientific forum (peer reviewed index-medicus journals) Dr. Barrett and Allen Botnick, DC have elected a forum for which there is no recourse other than Dr. Barrett's. My perspective is that Dr. Barrett and Botnick and the like would lose a formal debate with CBP® Researchers if forced to follow the scientific etiquette of peer-reviewed journals.
• Quackwatch Mission Statement - Members of our medical advisory board review articles upon request.

Any input from this noticeboard would be sincerely appreciated. Thanks! -- Levine2112 21:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I have never seen this web site before, and so am assuming the current copy of the Quackwatch article is mostly correct. The ASCP link says "For all the praise the site has won from reputable reviewers and rating services, the presence of so many articles from one author (Dr. Barrett) leaves one sensing a lack of fair balance in his condemnation of many dubious health therapies. Steps to correct this are under way, as many reputable professionals have signed on to populate the site in their areas of expertise." This is a fair criticism, but the article is from 1999, so the question is, is there now peer review of articles? The Quackwatch article says "Quackwatch.org's articles are not subjected to formal scientific peer review, but rather reviewed by the medical advisory board upon request." So, it seems that there is in effect a peer review system, but it is reactive rather than proactive. By that reasoning, I would conclude that the literal statement "Quackwatch articles are not subject to peer review" is not supported by the sources.

BTW Quackwatch appears to be functioning by itself as a reliable secondary source. Unless they are conducting their own research and arguing against established medical and scientific consensus, they would not be expected to submit secondary source articles to another journal for peer review. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 10:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch (QW) is not a reliable second source as it has been deemed by ArbCom as a partisan site. The articles are primarily one-sided POV. The references cited are largely 'cherry-picked' to further that partisan POV. Alternate POVs are not fairly reflected or represented. By QW own mission page, they are not peer-review. Peer-review is not a some time process. Either it is or it isn't. Otherwise QW would state on their website that they are peer-reviewed. An accurate rephrase of the contentious statement would be Some Quackwatch articles are subject to peer review.--Anthon01 (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right in that peer review should occur before publishing. They are doing, as they admit, review after the fact, and they're upfront about it. But they aren't publishing fundamental research and thus one wouldn't normally expect their articles to be peer-reviewed, though it would certainly strengthen their arguments. The more important question is, are they exercising editorial oversight? What did they do when alerted to the issues brought up by the paper you cite? Ignore it? Or investigate and possibly correct the articles? No publisher is perfect, and if they have investigated and corrected the articles in question, it would add to the argument that they could be considered a reliable source. And as for the ArbCom ruling, they found that one editor had inappropriately used Quackwatch as a bad reference. I don't think that is the same as ruling that Quackwatch is not a reliable source for anything, ever. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 18:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Chris, thanks for your input. We have decided to go another way with this information and are now only citing the first source but noting that this is the author's opinion. If you (or anyone else) would like to come to the article and give your input here or there or anywhere, I would appreciate it. Thanks again! -- Levine2112 20:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

TMZ.com

TMZ appears to be in most respects a gossip site, but they have broken a number of celebrity related news stories. The reliability has led to some contentious discussion on The Hills, especially in regards to the criticism section. The articles cited often refer to the folks involved in not-so-neutral terms, and often quote anonymous "insiders." Is TMZ a reliable source for citing evidence of possibly less than honest "reality television?" --skew-t (talk) 08:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

From WP:RS: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Can you establish that this site has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy? What have other reliable sources said about the site? Do they publish corrections when a mistake is noted? If not, then it isn't a reliable source. TMZ themselves say "TMZ.COM DOES NOT WARRANT OR MAKE ANY REPRESENTATIONS REGARDING THE USE OR THE RESULTS OF THE USE OF THE MATERIAL, INFORMATION, SOFTWARE, FACILITIES, SERVICES OR OTHER CONTENT IN TMZ.COM OR ANY SITES LINKED TO TMZ.COM IN TERMS OF THEIR CORRECTNESS, ACCURACY, RELIABILITY, OR OTHERWISE." If they don't make any representation regarding the correctness and accuracy of their content, then they are definitely not a reliable source - they aren't even claiming to be reliable.

BTW it shouldn't really matter - if any of the news they publish is notable and accurate, then it is almost certainly going to be also reported by a reliable source. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 10:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That's just a standard disclaimer that many publishers have. I think it's fine to quote TMZ, but if it's a contentious issue some editors may prefer to phrase it as "the entertainment newsmagazine TMZ says ..." Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Given that TMZ references are probably going to be used in news about celebrities, WP:RS#Biographies of living persons and WP:BLP#Sources both apply, in particular "Editors should avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject." and "Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all in biographies of living people, either as sources or via external links". Chris Bainbridge (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Bias, emotional arguments and reliable sources

I'm working on the puppy mill article because it seemed really vague and could have used some citations. As one might imagine, the entire issue is emotionally charged, with tons of OR online. I've found that I have a hierarchy of preferred sources with this issue:

1. Good, unbiased, but a little light on material - American Kennel Club and Westminster Kennel Club, anything .gov
2. Well established organization making no extraordinary claims - ASPCA
3. Sites that obviously intend to inflame an engender action but may have factual information via 'undercover investigations' - Humane Society of the U.S. (see ), In Defense of Animals ()

Would the members of group 3 be considered reliable sources by the community? Does the age of the organization matter? Should either be cited in an online encyclopedia? —Rob (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably best to restrict group 3 to "organisation Y claims that..."

Also consider using non-US sources. There are similar UK organisations for example The Kennel Club (UK)

Mayalld (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... the legislative section that's coming will cover the U.S., U.K. and Australia (so long as info can be found). The trick is writing an article that sounds both non-biased and not like a shock site, which is pretty much both of #3's sites. I've found that some newspaper articles tend to call on HSUS as a source, too. —Rob (talk) 23:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Whilst Puppy Farms are an issue in the UK as well, there doesn't seem to be the same degree of hysteria about it, so you may have more luck getting soem sensible sources in the UK, Canada, Australia and the like. Mayalld (talk) 23:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

John Safran vs. God a reliable source for Temple garment?

John Safran vs. God is a satirical documentary, so can it be used as a source about LDS beliefs? // Liftarn (talk) 14:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, if you can establish that John Safran is noted for his reliability and fact checking by other experts, preferably in the field of religious studies. On the other hand, if it's just "John Safran said xxx in his documentary", then this should only be used as a reliable source for an article on John Safran, or the documentary itself. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Is IMDB a reliable source for its polling and statistics in a film article?

Two groups of editors have gone around in circles on this one. There was a consensus that it wasn't a reliable source in a previous discussion at WikiProject Films. But trying to remove references to it led to this backlash on Talk:Films considered the greatest ever, with another group arguing that IMDB should be considered a reliable source.

The argument comes down to two opposing points of view:

• If you want to include these statistics in a third party article that isn't specifically about IMDB, then you should be able to show that IMDB is considered a reliable source for polling statistics.
• It is a reliable source for the statement "IMDB users voted xxx". We don't have to show that it's considered a reliable source in any other sense, as IMDB is notable enough to be included on its own merits.

Chris Bainbridge (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Websites allowing self published material ?

Hi, I removed text with a reference to the Libertarian Communists website, which has now been resurrected along with a load of other dubious references. I'd appreciate some comments before this escalates. The undo to my change including new references is -

Some selected quotes from the websites, for more, see the help/guides/disclaimers sections -

"The libcom group is a small collective of libertarian communists based in and around London, we maintain libcom.org, and as individuals are involved with a number of other groups and activity."

"The most important thing is that we want content. If you have an article you think would be good on libcom.org let us have it in whatever form you can. If necessary we can edit it so that it fits our guidelines and any random bits and pieces we can put in our Library."

http://libcom.org/notes/style-guide

"The Messenger Institute for Media Accuracy (Mess Media) is a web based media research and analysis center committed to ensuring the accuracy of media reports concerning messengers. Mess Media monitors, analyzes and corrects media reporting errors and bias that are all too common when the media shines the spotlight on messengers. Mess Media will also applaud those reports that include the facts."

http://www.messmedia.org/about.html

"Certain areas of the Inc.com Web site contain information supplied by visitors and others. Inc.com is not responsible for comments, advice, information, or any other posting made by visitors or others in these areas."

http://www.inc.com/about/disclaimer.html

Thanks -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 13:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The statement "Organizations representing couriers often accuse the employers of manipulating employment law to keep overheads down" is overly broad and uses WP:WEASEL:weasel words. The use of multiple citations, neither of which directly argues the cited text, looks like WP:SYN.

libcom.org looks like a web site run by a politics student in Brighton who self-publishes articles from himself and his friends; not a reliable source. The citation to inc.com refers to a single legal dispute in 1994, and wouldn't support the broad statement being made anyway. The messengers.org citation appears to be legal advice from someone who isn't named (again, it looks like a single person website); it is probably not a reliable source.

Anyway, the onus is on the person adding these citations to show that they're reliable sources. That means that professionals and other publications in the bicycle messenger industry cite them as being reliable, with a clear reputation for fact checking and accuracy. The onus is on the editor adding the disputed text to establish this. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

These sites are not only in breach of WP:RS they would break WP:EL too, becuase the content provided by them is unverified or unverifiable--Cailil 19:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

the lib.com ref was used because it held an true copy of a pamphlet called 'the couriers are revolting', which is a history of the Despatch Industry Workers Union. I accept that the statement "Organizations representing couriers often accuse the employers of manipulating employment law to keep overheads down" is overly broad, but the accusation has been made by the San Francisco Bicycle Messenger Association, the New York Bicycle Messenger Association, as well as the DIWU. So I would welcome guidance on how to incorporate the fact this criticism is made often.

Messmedia.org is frequently consulted by working bicycle messengers, and is trusted by them.Buffalo Bill talk to me 19:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

To quote WP:RS "Material added to articles must be directly and explicitly supported by the cited sources.". It would be better to just say who this accusation has been made by, cite your reliable sources (presumably, if there's been some controversy or legal action, then this will have been written about in the press), and let the facts speak for themselves. Please discuss your changes with the other editors that reverted them on Talk:Bicycle_messenger. Thanks. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Book Review – Reliable Source?

How can a book review been seen as a Reliable Source, when the reviewer is using the materials inside of that book, as the reference material?

If the book says XYZ happened, and the book reviewer mentions in his review that XYZ happened (or might have happened), how is it that XYZ suddenly is valid, and has a Reliable Source? Jim (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Though you did not provide a context, I imagine this question arises from Talk:Yamashita's gold#Third_opinion, where a book review by Chalmers Johnson appears to have more credibility than the two books he was reviewing, by Sterling Seagrave and Peggy Seagrave. The text of the Yamashita's gold article should be toned down due to the weakness of the sources, and it should express more caution when presenting the claims from the Seagraves. This may not be answering the exact question you raised, so please be more specific, or give the actual example. EdJohnston (talk) 16:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Newbie on board, sorry.

In this article, Yamashita's gold, the book review reference (as well as the book reviewed) is used as a reference source in:

• Several historians have stated that Yamashita’s gold existed
• The Seagraves and other historians contend…….
• The Japanese government intended that….
• Many of those who knew the locations of the loot were killed…..
• According to various accounts…..

In these cases, the book review is being used, as “Several historians”, “other historians”, somehow knew the intensions of the Japanese government, assumed those knowing were killed, and the book review is used as a “various account”. This information is only found in the Seagrave's publication and the book review. Jim (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

If the person who originally added this text possesses the Seagrave books, you could ask him for more specifics. Or you could try to obtain the Seagrave books yourself and see which other historians they quote from. I notice that a bunch of sources are piled up in Footnote 1 of the article, but it's hard to know which book is said to support what claim. From the article's talk page, I notice what seems to be excessive reliance on the Seagrave books, and also some bad blood between you and the other editor. I hope that further discussion can focus on the facts at issue and not so much on the personalities. EdJohnston (talk) 02:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That is the point I am trying to make. The Seagrave’s publication is only source claiming this conspiracy theory exists, there are no reliable sources supporting their theory, or other historians. The Yamashita’s gold article is using the book review(er) as a reliable source, even though the review(er) discredits the Seagrave’s as historians. If you take away the book review, you simply have the Seagrave’s making these claims, and you no longer have “some historians” and “other historians” in the equation. Jim (talk) 14:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources In a BLP

I'm having a bit of trouble telling whether a source is adequate in a bio article. The sources seem weak to me but I'd like other opinions. The article is Donald Michael Kraig and the only source of note is a bio on his publisher's website here. The second source apparently only confirmed that he was at the WinterStar Symposium but it doesn't seem to be working at the moment since I get a 404 error.

My question is how to treat a bio from a publisher about one of their writers, particularly when that seems to be the only source in the article. Such bios are often written by the authors themselves which can be a questionable source for accuracy. Input on this is very welcome because it would help me resolve similar problems with a bunch of articles I'm going over. Cheers, Pigman☿ 02:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe this biography is a reliable source. Reading the Donald Michael Kraig article gives one a walled-garden feeling that people within a movement write about each other, invite each other to conferences, etc., without any of them ever being covered in a mainstream publication. The article on his publisher, Llewellyn Publications, *does* have a criticism section, but even the sources quoted there aren't reliable. The Llewellyn article does have one citation to Publishers Weekly that counts as reliable. Some of these articles may deserve to be nominated for deletion, or at least shortened to remove material that has no evidence of any reliable recognition. EdJohnston (talk) 05:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I think you're right on the money about the, um, inbred nature of the Neopagan community. I've often tried to stress that, just because someone is well known in this particular community, it doesn't necessarily mean they are notable by Misplaced Pages standards. WP:RS and WP:V are the policies I quote most often to people. (yes, I know RS is a guideline not a policy but it complements V so very well.) Unfortunately, many of the bio articles I'm having these questions and doubts about their sources are connected to an editor who is very WP:OWN-ish about some articles. Since I brought him to Arbcom on related issues a year ago, I suspect he will not look kindly at edits of this sort from me. The moment a "citations needed" goes on one of these articles, no matter how obvious it might be to many experienced editors, he'll call it harassment. Sorry, don't mean to unload and I don't want to name the editor because that's not the point. I just wanted some confirmation that my perception of the problem with this sort of sourcing was accurate. Cheers, Pigman☿ 07:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• On second thought, I really believe these articles could benefit from more outside and independent eyes evaluating their sources as well as generally going over them. I'm not going to list them all here but if you go to this thread on the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard, there is a sizable list in the third post down the thread. Not all of them have sourcing problems as bad as the Donald Michael Kraig article but many have problems of various sorts. Thanks, Pigman☿ 21:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a lot of work. If you feel that these articles have many sourcing problems, why not pick one that you feel to be one of the worst and take it to AfD? (As a test-case AfD it would probably be OK to announce the discussion in a number of places, including here). If other editors agree that the article is bad, that might give some ideas for how to deal with the others. If other editors don't agree, then drop that plan and consider some other reform idea. EdJohnston (talk) 21:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't asking just you to do all the sourcing for these articles! Not at all! I just figure maybe some other people reading the thread might be so inclined to check them out. I know it's a lot of work but I'm just putting the idea out there because "many hands make light work" and all that. I'm certainly thinking of taking a couple to AfD just to get a sense of other people's judgment on their content, notability, and sources. More eyes will certainly improve those that can be improved. If good sources can be dug up and added, I'd be happy. If not, deletion doesn't preclude re-creation with better sources in the future. Really, I didn't intend to lay the whole bunch on your shoulders. Cheers, Pigman☿ 23:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Tyr (journal)

Please review. I argue that this article fails WP:BK, and that there are no independent reliable sources discussing it. This is problematic, since we end up with an article on a publication essentially based on the publisher's self-view. That the topic is politically sensitive (neo-fascism) doesn't help any. dab (𒁳) 11:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Which sources in particular are you asking about?

• Tyr: Not a reliable source for other articles. Could be considered a reliable source for itself, but even then used with caution, if your assessment that it's extremist is correct.
• fluxeuropa.com: Looks like a single person web-site for mainly self-publication. The fact that it's now closed because that one guy doesn't want to do it anymore would support this argument.
• Northvegr: Is there any evidence that this is a "reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? Their WP article is very bare, and I can't find any reliable sources (academics, newspapers etc.) talking about it. Although at a (very) quick glance, their web site appears to have a range of material, but they appear to be self-publishing research (translation of medieval texts etc.), which would be a big no as a reliable source, unless the authors have an established reputation already from previous publication in 3rd party respectable sources. So on the face of it, I'd say no as a reliable source. As usual, the onus is on the person claiming this is a reliable source to demonstrate that to be the case.
• Willamette Week: This looks like it would be considered a reliable source for local news. But a 300 word review of a locally authored writing does not indicate that the writing is notable - local papers cover tens of thousands of stories a year throughout the world; most aren't notable.

Chris Bainbridge (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

LiveJournal

I noticed many months ago an ongoing campaign to misuse WP:RS to keep any information critical of LiveJournal management out of the article, eventually becoming so angry that I gave up and stayed out of the article for quite some time.

I went back to it last night and found some of the same editors still misusing RS to keep the article POV, including the blatant deletion even of the POV and other tags. The article and talk page histories show many, many incidents of this misuse. Unfortunately, this ongoing campaign again got me hot under the collar, so I respectfully request that other editors without axes to grind with regard to LiveJournal in either direction please review the histories.

Thank you. -- Davidkevin (talk) 15:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed here before. If you have new sources that you'd like to include for negative, balancing feedback that are not blog based, we are open to them. Suggesting that the article reads like an advertisement or that it portrays LJ in an overtly positive light is unfounded however. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 15:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Why are comments from employees of SixApart/Livejournal, in their LJ accounts, reliable sources, but complaints from customers in the same venue, aren't? That is my understanding of the issue, from a cursory read of the back and forth that goes into multiple months worth of edits.--Vidkun (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between the news and announcement, etc, journals and those of the average user. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Why? Explain to me exactly what the difference is, except that one is a mouthpiece being flapped.--Vidkun (talk) 14:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

These are being used for official statements, like press releases, from the company itself. Joe User is presenting his opinion and nothing else. Statements by the company meet our criteria, random user bitching does not. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

And WP:RS gives leeway for such sources in cases like Brad Fitzpatrick commenting on the sale of his company.... It doesn't give leeway for randomloliconfanboy's blog. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

So, now that you have decided to go derisive towards anyone criticising LJ (when you could have simply said "random complaining customer" you have shown why there are some people who think that this is a POV issue - if it supports (directly coming from LJ employees or volunteers) LJ, it's a reliable source, but if it is a disgruntled customer (or hundreds, on a number of different community fronts) it gets a moniker that is intentionally demeaning, in an attempt to downplay its importance.--Vidkun (talk) 14:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

An employee, especially a high level one like Brad Fitzpatrick, is considered an expert in his business. As I stated on the talk page of the article, I don't feel that the brad.livejournal.com and evan.livejournal.com cites really are providing much information and the info they do provide isn't critical to the article. I'm willing to compromise, but the type of user.livejournal.com cites that commonly pop up for criticizing LJ are not of the same sort of material and do not meet the WP:V exceptions as the ones coming from board members or highly ranked management do. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

If a website is considered reliable because it contains "official statements" from company employees... then it is reliable period. The source is either reliable for all it says (positive as well as negative), or is unreliable for all of it. You can not pick and choose within the source and say the positive comments are reliable, but the negative ones are not. Blueboar (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Tired of arguing this, I'll just continue on the LJ article. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You're tired of it? Too bad, it's a valid issue that has merit being discussed here, and not just at the LJ article, because some people who might be good third party neutral observers will have more likelihood of seeing the issue here than on the LJ discussion page. You say that Brad and Evan are experts, so what? Let me quote from the relevant section of WP:v:

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

--Vidkun (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Its not a blog. Its a company communique in the trappings of a journal. We can and do use company created material in every single other company article. If you don't like that, go play with them as well. Your hard-headed, pov-press insistence that we treat the statements made by the creator of LJ like we do any other journal on LJ is without any sort of grounds in reality. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you really do have a great sense of importance, and, by the way, hypocrisy. I have been polite in my responses regarding this issue. In your edit summary on LJ you insert personal attacks, like you just did here, with your comment If you don't like that, go play with them as well. Your hard-headed, pov-press insistence that we treat the statements made by the creator of LJ like we do any other journal on LJ is without any sort of grounds in reality. Please stop, it is obvious that you cannot deal with this situation in a civil way, and continuously resort to name calling, and accusations of incivility to others, with no concern for your own incivility.--Vidkun (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm done talking with you. If you do not understand WP:RS, WP:V and how it relates to statements made by a company which describe its own product, the specifications of the software/web programming, and how primary sources work.... that is not my problem. You also do not seem to understand that we can cite the statements of persons when they are speaking about themselves, per BLP's sourcing requirements. You simply seem to want to add speculation by random persons into a well written article by third parties who do not meet our sourcing requirements in any way. And most telling, when you and the OP in this thread found that consensus was against you on the article's talk page, you came here in hopes that people who are uninvolved with the article and do not understand the situation would back you. I invite those parties to look over the request, the article and then make statements, not simply react blindly as appears to be the case here. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm done talking with you. I don't give a damn. While some of your issues regarding LJ users opinions as RS vs Brad's may be correct, your imputation of my motives are far off the mark. And, again, you continue to be uncivil and reactionary, which you choose to not comment on. You may be an expert on LJ policy, this does not mean you are allowed to be uncivil to people because you disagree with them.--Vidkun (talk) 18:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I am correct as has been hashed and rehashed on the talk page of the article in question. If you will not listen to me, why should I waste my time trying to correct you? This is not being uncivil, it is a simple statement of fact. I will no longer try to correct your misconceptions since you do not seem to have a desire to improve the article, you simply wish to draw a reaction. I will not feed your desire per WP:DISENGAGE, I have notified you that I am leaving this discussion. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 18:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Knol as a RS?

Interestingly, the CSM reported today that Salon blogger Farhad Manjoo believes that the Google Knol project will serve as source material for Misplaced Pages. This raises the question: Does (will) Knol meet the reliable publication process standards of WP:V? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately we have Misplaced Pages:Verifiability so we don't need to rely on what bloggers say. Knol is no different from any other self-published blog, or website that lacks editorial oversight: it is not presumed to be a reliable source except for non-controversial information about the writer. - Jehochman 16:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You're probably wrong, or at least on the wrong side of consensus. There's a discussion on the mailing list about this. Relata refero (talk) 05:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Final Solution (disambiguation)

The section that reads:

* Euphemism for ethnic cleansing, final solution was according to Mattias Gardell used by Andrew Jackson for describing the Indian Removal Act of 1830 but the seventh annual message to Congress does not contain the term nor does the law. Fellman writes that William Tecumseh Sherman was using the euphemism in 1867.

This source: Stockholms Fria Tidning: Svart vildavästernhistoria has no English translation, is from a self-proclaimed anarchist and I have searched for hours and the only time Andrew Jackson used final solution that I find is his references to the border dispute with Mexico. The Indian Removal Act maybe the ground work for the Final Solution but it's the superlative that Jackson first said the exact words Final Solution in reference to the Native Amricans sourced in English I can't prove. Is this Mattias Gardell source reliable? Shouldn't the burden of this work be on the contributing editor's back instead of mine? Alatari (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Mattias Gardell is a scholar of comparative religion and appointed Nathan Söderblom Professor at Uppsala University. He has been working at the Department of Comparative Religion and the Centre for Research in International Migration and Ethnic Relations at Stockholm University. He specializes in the study of religious extremism and religious racism in the USA. I'd say he sounds quite reliable. // Liftarn (talk)

He may be a reliable source on religious extremism, but I don't see how he is a relaible source on matters of history, such as when a certain term was used for the first time. Does he provide a source for the alleged use of the term by Jackson? Isarig (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Considering he specialises in the study of racism and extremism in the USA I'd say it's well within his field of work. He doesn't specify it as the article was more about the situation of black in Oklahoma. The full quote (and a rough translation) is available on the talk page. // Liftarn (talk)

He is a scholar of comparative religion. He is not a historian, and this is clearly not his field of work - and you concede this was not even the topic of the article. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and this falls far short of it. Isarig (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Read the article at Mattias Gardell. The study of racism is within his field of work. Even if he was just some random jounalist it would still be considered a reliable source since it was published in a newspaper. There are no extraordinary claims presented so no extraordinary evidence is required. // Liftarn (talk)

The study of religious-based racism is within his work. Not history, not racism in general. Again, he is a a scholar of comparative religion, and the article you are sourcing your claim to is not even about the Indian removal act. The claim that "The Final Solution" - a term most people associate with Nazi Germany - was actually coined and used by Americans to refer to a racist based policy against Indians is quite extraordinary, and requires an academic source - an established historian who specializes in American Indian history - not some random journalist or a professor of comparative religion. Isarig (talk) 13:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

We also have a source saying the term was used by William Tecumseh Sherman and that also predates Hitler. If you find a reliable source giving earlier usage it would be another matter. The claim is hardly extraordinary. When looking into it I found several sources saying Hitler was inpired by both the Armenian genocide and how the USA treated the Indians. Also note how it's formulated. We certainly have a reliable source that Mattias Gardell made that claim. It should be noted that the law was based on the Christian ideas that man (i.e. whites) was appointed by God to rule over the cattle (blacks) and wild animals (Indians). // Liftarn (talk)

I can find many sources attributing William Tecumseh Sherman using ""it will help to bring the Indian problem to a final solution." or some combination and sources claiming Adolph Hitler stole from Sherman but only Mattias Gardell attributes it to Andrew Jackson and Mattias Gardell's comments have not been picked up by English scholars or translated. I'm just asking for corroborating sources because it does seems the uniqueness of the attribution isn't WP:V. Your comment on Mattias Gardell being out of his subject area is helpful. Alatari (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the source is certainly enough for saying that Mattias Gardell says so and that's the phrase being used now. // Liftarn (talk)

"Foreign opinion is irrelevant"

Would some folks, possibly some administrators, review this and comment on the talk page? User:Randy2063 just posited the wonderful declaration on sourcing for Waterboarding that,

"Foreign opinion is irrelevant because they haven't necessarily been under the same pressures."

This is, I think, going to be incendiary on this talk page. Can someone please remind these folks that claims of non-United Sources being "irrelevant" are not acceptable? Lawrence Cohen 20:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The correct link is Talk:Waterboarding#.22Foreign_opinion_is_irrelevant.22. Lawrence Cohen 21:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, the argument that reliable sources that you don't agree should be eliminated because "Foreign opinion is irrelevant" is clearly ridiculous, and should be treated as such.

From a quick read, the main argument about the waterboarding article appears to be whether the lead should call it torture. The legal systems of most, if not all, countries would consider repeated use of any method of violence as torture. The lead should focus on that, and actual court findings and international treaties, and not the personal opinion of a few American lawyers and politicians.

Randy2063 appears to be pushing an extreme POV; that waterboarding shouldn't be called torture because it has been carried out by the United States government against suspected terrorists. This argument is clearly wrong; the classification of the physical and legal concept of something does not depend on who is carrying it out. A few points:

• Whether or not it is torture, as defined by domestic law around the world, and by international treaty, should be in the lead, not the speculation and personal opinion of a minority.
• Personal views of notable people on the US controversy should be restricted to one section. As there have been no court cases, there is nothing here citable as a reliable source other than personal opinion. When personal opinion of a minority conflicts with legal rulings and treaties internationally, it should be weighted accordingly, not prominently stated.
• If it didn't hurt that much, and hence wasn't torture, it would be of no use against hardened terrorists, would it?
• If insurgents kidnap an American soldier, and waterboard him 24 hours a day for a few weeks, then it would be universally declared as torture. Reversing the roles of the actors makes no difference; Rand2063's argument is biased and wrong.

Chris Bainbridge (talk) 13:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not debate this here, but in my defense I must say you've completely mischaracterized my position.

You've erred in your "insurgents kidnap an American soldier" counterexample, and you've compounded it by saying "24 hours a day for a few weeks." First, none of those who've been waterboarded are considered uniformed lawful combatants as a soldier would be. Second, it has been acknowledged that waterboarding for any extended period is probably torture, and that's not what we're talking about here. Perhaps you should have used "American CIA agent" for "35 seconds".

The problem with this article is that we're talking about personal views of various people who may be authorities in something but are either missing a background in law or actual knowledge of how the CIA uses waterboarding.

I've suggested WP:NPOV#Let the facts speak for themselves but it's been discarded here.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• First, none of those who've been waterboarded are considered uniformed lawful combatants as a soldier would be.

Can you cite a reliable source dictionary definition of torture that excludes secret agents etc.?

• "American CIA agent" for "35 seconds" A single instance of being stabbed isn't torture. Repeatedly stabbing someone to cause enough suffering that they would rather do something completely out of character in order to avoid being stabbed again is torture. If the inflicted suffering, and the threat of future suffering, is enough to turn someone against their own people, then it's very hard to see how it wouldn't be considered "torture" by the vast majority of English speakers.
• There may be a conflict between the dictionary definition of "torture" (what the vast majority of the English speaking world mean by "torture"), and the legal situation in the United States. There is a distinction between the two. Legally, it may not be torture under Uzbek law for an agent of the state to boil ordinary citizens alive, but it will be universally considered torture by everyone else. But you would need a very reliable source to cite this argument as true for U.S law, as it is quite an extraordinary claim - not just personal opinions, but actual court rulings. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

This isn't about secret agents. You gave a nonsense example intending to put the shoe on the other foot, and I explained how you went overboard. I also toned your example down to show that it could indeed work the other way.

Now you're trying to add pain, which seems to suggest that 35 seconds of waterboarding alone isn't enough to make your point. Stabbing and waterboarding aren't the same thing. Waterboarding may be a miserable experience but it reportedly isn't painful if done properly.

I don't want to drag that entire discussion in here. I had suggested a solution, and pointed to an applicable WP guideline. Perhaps the administrators should evaluate that guideline to see if it should be removed from the WP:NPOV page. It seems to be a waste of time if it only works one way.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Let the facts speak for themselves is a useful policy that intends to avoid editorial disagreements like this, but you have to balance it against WP:UNDUE. In this case, there are reliable sources to indicate that waterboarding would be considered torture under domestic and international law. Judges have stated in legal proceedings around the world that waterboarding is considered torture. These sources should be weighted very strongly, as international law and actual court proceedings are considered a very reliable source. As for the U.S. controversy; I still think this should be restricted to a single section; it may be a peculiarity of U.S. law that waterboarding, when carried out by agents of the state against foreign prisoners, is not legally considered torture. In the same vein, agents of the state boiling people alive may not be legally considered torture in Uzbekistan. These are peculiarities of particular domestic legal systems, and should be mentioned, but Misplaced Pages is global, and articles on general topics should not obsess over U.S. events or a U.S. centric viewpoint. Having said that, if you're going to cite that as being true for U.S. law, you'll need to source actual legal findings by a court - otherwise, you need to make it very clear that you're just citing personal opinion of some lawyers and politicians.

35 seconds You have plenty of reliable sources indicating that one former CIA agent said that he heard from his colleagues that one particular interrogation with this method lasted 35 seconds. You do not have a reliable source that this is in fact the case - reliable sources should be 3rd party and noted for their accuracy. At best, you could say "former agent X claimed that his colleagues told him that one interrogation lasted only 35 seconds". Chris Bainbridge (talk) 10:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Be careful here. You're right that we have only shadowy sources that say how long it took, but the one single individual who just this month had said it took 35 seconds is the only named person who went on the record. The article was perfectly willing to declare the U.S. was waterboarding back when we had no named sources at all. It seems you're being very selective about which shadowy sources you give weight.

Those legal rulings and treaties are not as clear as you think. It's misleading for an article to imply that since waterboarding is against civilian or military law that it could also be against international law in all cases.

You're misinterpreting the rationale for why this may not be considered torture but I don't want to argue that here. The main point is that some people say it may not be torture in all cases. Others say it is. The only ones who know both the exact technique involved, and the law, are the lawyers who approved it for the CIA, and they're not talking. Everything else is what people choose to believe.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 14:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The article was perfectly willing to declare the U.S. was waterboarding back when we had no named sources at all. It seems you're being very selective about which shadowy sources you give weight. Not at all - if you had asked me for an outside opinion on reliable sourcing back when this topic was just rumour, I would've given you a similar answer: the reliable sources are reporting that "person X said Y", Y is a controversial claim not supported by most other reliable sources, so Misplaced Pages should report "person X said Y" instead of regarding Y as an absolute truth. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's nice to know but the premise that waterboarding-is-always-torture is supported the same way. Unless you want to say that all coercive interrogation is torture, you're going to need a reliable source that can say where we draw the line.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

What exactly are we supposed to be careful about in regards to discussing waterboarding? Lawrence Cohen 16:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

My "be careful here" comment was only because I don't think the sources were as well defined as he thought.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Randy unfortunately seems to be still under the assumption that the United States government is some authority on waterboarding, and that issues related to their definitions of torture ought to hold more weight or value ("foreign sources are irrelevant"). The US opinion, which they won't say what it is is either "it's torture" or "it's not torture", but that opinion of theirs carries zero weight outside of the United States, and is again just one opinion. Unfortunately virtually all other sources and views (as sourced on the article and talk page) are that waterboarding is torture.
2. If the US government comes on record either way, we can note that, but their view doesn't carry any extra weight on the article. The article isn't Waterboarding and the United States. Waterboarding isn't going to be used to defend the practice, or the US, or the other way around. There are other places for that.
3. As has been asked nearly eight times so far on the talk page, for counter-sources to the now nearly three dozen sources that assert waterboarding is torture, none have been presented yet.
4. Specific to the foreign sources bit, I wanted to get more eyes on that as it's been an ongoing circular debate with Randy unwilling to accept sourcing, and I wanted to help resolve this.

Lawrence Cohen 16:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Your sourcing on recent CIA waterboarding being torture seems to be opinion only. All the cited court cases involve other factors that make this different.

I don't know how many times we've been through this. We usually changed direction whenever I brought up the Let the facts speak for themselves guideline. I may not agree but at least Chris is one of the few who's willing to discuss that.

As I've said repeatedly, I don't want to repeat everything all over again. I just jumped in because I felt my position was being mischaracterized.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No-one has posted any sources yet. What are they? Which is being questioned? On first glance i can't see any that look particularly unreliable. It seems like a well sourced article. --Neon white (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This is it: Waterboarding#Classification_as_torture. We've encourage Randy to provide sources, but nothing yet. Front Page Magazine, which has been repeatedly demonstrated as a non-reliable source on this noticeboard, was previously removed. Lawrence Cohen 19:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's look at your sources:

• 100 United States law professors
• Benjamin G. Davis, who's one of those law professors. His ideology is actually pretty far to the left. If the rest of those 100 are in the same league then you're actually making my point.
• Jimmy Carter, who'd criticize U.S. foreign policy anyway.
• French Journalist Henri Alleg, who calls it torture but he's not a lawyer, and they used a slightly different method. I wouldn't call him an objective source anyway, given his background. He's probably in Davis's league.
• John McCain, who was indeed tortured (although some of the people complaining now were supporting the torturers at the time).
• Four retired JAGs. They're your best source but none of them are privy to the CIA's methods.
• An opinion from Amnesty International. It cites the Army Field Manual but conveniently leaves out the fact that the FM forbids a lot of things that aren't torture.

Compare that to mine, who say it might not be torture depending upon the circumstances, and the difference isn't that wide.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

And let's note that they're all opinions.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that you might be in the wrong place with this. This particular noticeboard is an intended to provide a place for editors to post questionable sources to gain others opinions on their reliablity. If i understand it correctly, this is simply an editing conflict and not an issue with the reliabilty of a particular source. If this is the case then you need to be at dispute resolution. I'd recommend a request for comment. --Neon white (talk) 19:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It is actually relevant to reliability of sources, as Randy has repeatedly questioned whether ours are applicable, and then made the despicable statement that foreign sources have no value. Lawrence Cohen 20:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It still seems like a content dispute to me. Unless there is a particular source that is questionable that you want comment on. If so please post it. On the final point, as long as sources are verifiable it doesnt matter what country they originate in, they don't need to be in english as long as there are no other better sources that are in english. --Neon white (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

As is often the case, context is everything. I had qualified my statements when I said:

• "Foreign opinion is irrelevant because they haven't necessarily been under the same pressures. Their politicians can say anything they like. They're no different than Nancy Pelosi who allowed secret waterboarding when the pressure was on her, and pompously decried it in public after the danger had passed. Foreign governments also haven't had these types of leaks to the media, and so we don't know what they're really doing at the moment."

But if we look at those sources above, there's only one. He's a French communist. That's not an objective source. BTW: If you look at their activities, they were also "anti-war" during the early days of WWII prior to Hitler turning on the Soviets. It's no surprise that he'd criticize the U.S. in this one.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources don't have to be objective they just have to be verifiable. I fail to see how any of that has any relevance to the reliability of a source. --Neon white (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Funny that you say that. The Waterboarding article is now removing FrontPageMagazine as a source because of its tilt to the right. Meanwhile, an avowed communist reporter on an extremist site like DemocracyNow and leftist law professors like Benjamin G. Davis get top billing. I guess you're right. They don't have to be objective at all. (Some facts really do speak for themselves.)

As I read WP:V, it says we can use opinion but I think the article then needs to say that this is based on opinion.

I have no problem saying that most people call it torture, or that it's widely held to be torture, or whatever, but I fail to see how we can say it absolutely is torture citing only opinion. I think even aggregate opinion should be qualified in some way.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 21:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Front Page Magazine wasn't removed for being "right", it was removed when I noticed:

• Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_3#Is_FrontPageMag.com_a_reliable_source.3F
• Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#FrontPage_Magazine_and_WorldNetDaily

They already were considered an unreliable source. Lawrence Cohen 22:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

And you don't think twice about a guy who was probably supporting the Hitler-Stalin pact? Since when do communists really oppose torture?

The RS noticeboard links don't look conclusive to me.

This isn't to say I mind removing that FrontPageMagazine reference. There are other sources that say the same thing. I'm washing my hands of it anyway. When an article is this one-sided, I'd prefer that its bias remain obvious rather than appear even-handed when it's not. I hope you keep all the sources I criticized above.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow. "Since when do communists really oppose torture?" ??? And I was accused of bias for simply insisting that we only use sourced material? Lawrence Cohen 23:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll just note that no effort at all by others have been made to edit or change the article, just to criticize on the talk page. Which is fine, I suppose. If you feel like Googling up some sources, feel free to add them. And again, wow. Lawrence Cohen 23:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's related to my observation about the Hitler-Stalin pact, which I think is a valid criticism of that source when considering the subject of this article.

I've edited plenty of articles with plenty of references. I can leave this one.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Your personal views about the author of a source has no bearing whatsoever on verifiablity. I think it would be in your interest at this stage to have a good read of WP:V. Again i will ask; what is the source that is being questioned? --Neon white (talk) 06:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The Bible

I can't imagine this hasn't been dealt with before, but what's the verdict on the bible being cited as an accurate historical record (in respect to the factual accuracy of the events described as opposed to discussions of its theological contents)? CheshireKatz (talk) 03:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think it can be used any more than for instance Mahābhārata. // Liftarn (talk)

I think it depends on how you use the bible as a source, lets say it's about the 10 commanments, and just says what the 10 commanments are, then yea, that's a source. But if it talks about bible anaysis of the 10 commanments, then no, as that heads to WP:NOR territory. Secret 19:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The Bible is a primary historical source document, and should only be used on that basis. It says X, that doesn't mean we can say that X is true, but is verifiable that the Bible says X and that fact can be included in relevant articles. You can't interpret a primary source: "This bit says X and that bit says says Y, therefore Z" is not acceptable; "This says X and that says Y" is broadly acceptable.

However, you shouldn't need to doyour own exegesis. Every part of the Bible has been the subject of detailed study by experts. If there's a particular historical event that interests you, experts will have written about it, explaining its context and meaning in minute detail. The works of those experts should be the references for anything other than simply repeating or paraphrasing or summarising what the Bible says. In this the Bible is no different from any other primary historical source. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to apply WP:PSTS correctly to a controversial subject, so bear with me. I'm sure every part of the bible has been the subject of detailed study, but claims of the accuracy of any particular historical event described requires a secondary historical source, correct? ie. The Gospel of John 7:1-9 says "Jesus moved around in Galilee but avoided Judea, because "the Jews/Judeans" were looking for a chance to kill him." Am I correct in asserting that absent a secondary document supporting the veracity of that claim (which very well might exist), the statement cannot be taken as historical fact, because it does not come from a reliable source and therefore must be framed as "The Gospel of John depicts Jesus as moving around...?" - CheshireKatz (talk) 15:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, not only is that what Misplaced Pages policy says, it's also what historians do. I skimmed the two histories of the early church I have (fr:Étienne Trocmé, L'enfance du christianisme; Jean Daniélou, L'Église des premiers temps) and this is largely how they present things. But it will take a lot more than this to improve Persecution of early Christians by the Jews. Best of luck, Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Antiwar.com vs. Political Research Associates

I see that in this edit, a cite from Antiwar.com was removed on the grounds of being self-published. It was removed from the bio of Chip Berlet, the main attraction at Political Research Associates, which is abundantly cited as a source all over Misplaced Pages. This seems ironic to me because I can see no structural difference between Antiwar and PRA. They are both highly opinionated commentary sites. Why is one better than the other? --Niels Gade (talk) 07:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I also can see no difference. It appears to be a case of goose and gander. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Echos of the disparate treatment of Frontpage Magazine and MMFA and FAIR. But it's hardly news that Misplaced Pages editors have net group biases. But Chip Berlet has a special history, as it seems it was a long-term project of SlimVirgin and a like-minded claque of admins to abuse and manipulate BLP policy to the detriment of NPOV in that article, among others. Andyvphil (talk) 04:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, antiwar.com doesn't count as self-published. It might count as a source of dubious reliability; however, there is certainly no difference between quoting the editor of that site and the editor of Publiceye.com. I'd like to disassociate myself from Andy's remarks above, though, as I don't know the facts (also, its clique). Certainly, if PRA is overused, people should feel free to remove it. Relata refero (talk) 05:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, claque does work in this context. --Niels Gade (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Heh, you're right. Relata refero (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any conclusion here that PRA is an unreliable source. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

We were discussing self-publishing, actually. And we usually wait a bit before deciding there's no consensus. People check this noticeboard on irregular schedules. Relata refero (talk) 06:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Some editors are pointing to this thread as a reason to deleted sourced material. I was simply pointing out that that is premature. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Did anyone have particular cases where they felt the PRA was used improperly as a source, for comparison? AliveFreeHappy (talk) 06:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. PRA is overused as a source, and often in ways which violate WP:BLP. There are two persons who are professional anti-LaRouche activists, Dennis King and Chip Berlet, who both have websites with arguably slanderous attacks on LaRouche. PRA is Berlet's website, and King's website has been discussed before on this page (Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 3#www.lyndonlarouchewatch.org.) (PRA, for example, features defamatory leaflets with instructions to print them out and distribute them at LaRouche events, not the sort of thing you would expect from a scholarly source.) These attacks do not appear in the conventional press, so these two persons have opened Misplaced Pages accounts (User:Dking and User:Cberlet) to use Misplaced Pages to get greater exposure for their views. They are joined in this effort by User:Will Beback and User:Hardindr. The idea appears to be to use Misplaced Pages to "expose" LaRouche, since the conventional media are not doing this to their satisfaction. Material from the the websites in question is spammed into all LaRouche-related articles in violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG. I think that use of PRA should be scaled way back to a level that corresponds to its notability, and never for material that conflicts with BLP -- I do not believe that PRA meets the standards required by WP:BLP. --Terrawatt (talk) 07:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Dennis King and Chip Berlet have been professional investigative journalists, and are the acknowledged experts on Lyndon LaRouche and his movement. They've been quoted at least dozens of times in the mainstream press. King is the author of the only full-length biography, which was published by a major publishing house, Doubleday & Co. Berlet is a longtime researcher for Political Research Associates, which also meets our standards of a reliable publishing source. Some editors have tried repeatedly to have these two authors considered unreliable sources and have never succeeded.(Isn't there a statute of limitations?) Yet they haven't proven that the authors have been factually incorrect in any straighforward reporting. The reason that they are used in all the LaRouche articles is that they are the leading researchers of the LaRouche movement. Their viewpoints on LaRouche are not different from all the other reliable sources, and are consistent with the usual reporting. What erroneous material has PRA published that shows they are unreliable? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Who "acknowledges" them as "the experts"?

2. It looks to me like King's website was rejected as a self-published source at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 3#www.lyndonlarouchewatch.org.

3. PRA is loaded with what WP:BLP calls "a conjectural interpretation of a source," i.e., rampant editorializing and conspiracy theory. PRA might be acceptable in many cases for non-controversial material, but what King, Berlet and Will Beback have consistently done is use it as a source for a fringe theory that behind every utterance of LaRouche there is a hidden agenda of neo-fascism, which has been noted by outside observers as a particular tactic of Berlet and PRA against all of their targets. As is noted at the beginning of this discussion, Activist Justin Raimondo has written that "Berlet is professional political hit man whose specialty is smearing anyone outside the traditional left-right categories as an extremist, at best, and a nascent Nazi at worst." This is why PRA should be used sparingly and with particular caution in BLP articles. Will Beback is completely mistaken to say that "Their viewpoints on LaRouche are not different from all the other reliable sources." --Niels Gade (talk) 15:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

1. Do you want me to plaster a talk page with all of he times that Berlet and King have been cited? I'll do so if that convinces you.

Being cited in an article isn't the same as being "acknowledged as the experts." I would be interested in seeing reliably sourced commentary that says they are "the experts." --Niels Gade (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

2. I don't see a consensus there. I see one editor piping in, but without a full understanding of our policies.

3. I don't think you are accurately describing my actions. The whole concept of "fringe theories" concerning LaRouche is a bit humorous, considering how many fringe theories he's come up with and how frequently he's describned as "fringe". Raimondo is hardly an objective commentator. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

How would you describe your actions? What is inaccurate in Niels' description? --Terrawatt (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been advancing the "fringe theory that behind every utterance of LaRouche there is a hidden agenda of neo-fascism". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You have supported King and Berlet when they do it. --Niels Gade (talk) 16:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you substantiate that accusation? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

For example, you have vehemently defended the use of King's book as a source. King's book is simply a very long essay defending this fringe theory. The mere fact that something has been published by a large publishing house does not make it automatically a suitable source for BLP. --Niels Gade (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

That book is the best, most reliable source we have for the life of Lyndon LaRouche. Being published by a major publishing house does, in fact, make it a suitable source for a BLP. I have certainly not sought to advance the theory that that "behind every utterance of LaRouche there is a hidden agenda of neo-fascism". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

But the book you are promoting does advance that theory. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that using the book as a source is the same as "promoting" it. I haven't written an article about it, or any other promotional actitivity. I have defended it's use as a source. No one has presented any verifibale factual errors on the book, and Niels Gade himself has confirmed facts from it. No one is suggesting that there's a more reliable 3rd-party source for the life of LaRouche. If you call using the book as a source "promotion" then are those editors who use LaRouche-published books and articles "promoting" them? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

1. I have no problem with using King and Berlet as a source when they are cited by legitimate publications, because those publications may be expected to excercise some discretion about which of their theories are suitable for responsible publication. The Kronberg interview you mention below has not appeared anywhere, to my knowledge, outside of the PRA site.

2. I see a consensus.

3. Actually, I think it is quite appropriate to compare LaRouche with Berlet as "fringe" commentators. In fact, both of them frequently describe their opponents as neo-fascists or proto-fascists. The difference is that I have not seen quotes from LaRouche plastered all over Misplaced Pages. The quotes from LaRouche appear to be confined mainly to the articles about LaRouche and his organization. I think it would be appropriate if quotes from PRA and Chip Berlet were largely limited to articles Chip Berlet and Political Research Associates. As far as Raimondo is concerned, would you say that he is less objective than Berlet? --Niels Gade (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

2. Who are the participatns in this consensus you see?

3. I'm not sure what the point is of comparing the reliablility of two sources. As for Raimondo, he appears to be more of a commentator than an investigative journalist. Michael Rubin of Frontpagemag.com says, "Citing statements replicated in recent Mujahedin-e Khalq publications brings as much credibility as quoting from Lyndon LaRouche’s Executive Intelligence Review. Quality of sourcing always matters: Justin Raimondo is hardly a trustworthy authority." His footnote goes to an article titled "Justin Raimondo: An American Neo-Fascist", written by Stephen Schwartz. Do you think he's a reliable source? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Kronberg interview

The dicussion above is rather vague and compares the position of one source versus another. On a more specific point: is there any reason why this interview on PRA with Marielle Kronberg should not be considered a reliable source for her words? Does anyone assert that the interview is faked or altered? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

As long as this interview is not considered the absolute truth as is quoted only to show the opinions of Marielle Kronberg, and if the opinion of this lady is relevant for the Misplaced Pages article where it is intended to be added, I don't see any reason to avoid the usage of this interview as a source.--MariusM (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I have indicated elsewhere that I don't object to it appearing in one article, but spamming it into every LaRouche-related article is undue weight. --Niels Gade (talk) 21:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

If you don't object to the sourcing why did you just remove it from an article, claiming a sourcing issue? "the sourcing issues are discussed at WP:RSN#Antiwar.com vs. Political Research Associates. The only actual criticism is sourced to PRA. The rest of the paragraph is context." If there's no sourcing issue then please restore it. ·:· Will Beback ·:·

Source of rating in RuneScape

There is a dispute regarding a line of text in RuneScape that refers to the game being rated highly in terms of popularity by a source that tracks these changes. This sentence is in dispute regarding poor wording, the reliability of the source and how the source should be attributed in the article. The dispute is discussed here. I've also sought third-party opinions here. I'm hesitant to take this to Arbitration, as Arbitration says that the content of articles is not ruled upon. SharkD (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

From the site itself "Mmogchart.com is dedicated to my research in tracking the growth". So you now know that not only is it self published research, it's also a primary source for statistical data. For those reasons, it isn't a reliable source. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 20:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The website is cited by a BBC article, which is the actual source being cited in RuneScape. Does this have any affect on anything? SharkD (talk) 03:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the wonderfull world of WP:RS! The BBC article is a reliable source, the site isn't. // Liftarn (talk)

Telephone interview as source

A user reverted my removal of this difficult-to-verify and highly general statement from the Malt liquor article: "Country Club is now owned by Pabst and is still sold today, though its sales were eclipsed years ago by almost every malt liquor on the market" (emphasis added). He also added a source--of sorts: Gary Galeke, Brand Historian, Pabst Brewing Company. Telephone. October 1, 2006. I'm not sure telephone interviews with alleged experts are considerable reliable sources, by Misplaced Pages's definition--and they are certainly not verifiable. What is the best way to handle this? Delete the unverifiable source? Request a better one? Engage in an edit war? (just kidding)--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 13:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds a lot like original research if he called him up and asked. // Liftarn (talk)
  • Certainly fails WP:V, so not a reliable source Mayalld (talk) 14:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Feel free to call the source up, I'll give you his number. Unfortuantly when it comes to nitch topics such as Malt Liquor sales, not every source can be published through traditional means. The source it's that web savvy thus the lack of email backup or web postings. However, I knew this person was a good source for the desired info not only on his job position, but several talks he gave in the local area. Why Fat Man is so honed in on these two sentences when the rest of the article is such junk, I have no idea. --Brownings (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
      • That is the definition of original research, which is not allowed. If somebody edit wars to restore the original research, let me know and I will help them stop. - Jehochman 15:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
        • No worries, it doesn't look like an edit war is getting ready to start. FYI, I'm the other party in Fat Man's dispute. Since the majority here seems to be siding with Fatty, I guess I don't have a leg to stand on, which is fine. However, I am a tad upset that Fatty seems to have taken things so personal and bent on removing such a small comment from a rather insignificant article. His/Her efforts would be much more useful in actually contributing to the article, rather than perusing this nonsense. While Fatty has singled out these couple of sentences, if they are to be pulled from the article, then all information pertaining to Country Club should be deleted. While I won't do Fatty's dirty work for him/her, I'll gladly kill off the other bits if Fatty zaps the area in question. --Brownings (talk) 01:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
          • It's not nonsense. It's basic Misplaced Pages policy. Indeed, in the 2005 formulation of the No Original Research policy, a private conversation with someone, even someone who is an expert, was given as an explicit example of sources that one should not be basing one's Misplaced Pages contributions on. Until the experts get their information peer reviewed and published, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source, and our sources when making it are things that have been written down, peer reviewed, fact checked, and published, so that readers can check articles for correctness against published sources that they know to be fact checked, reliable, accurate, and actually documenting accepted human knowledge. If you aren't building Misplaced Pages that way, you are doing it wrongly. See User:Uncle G/On sources and content. Uncle G (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Indeed... clearly original research. Misplaced Pages is not the forum for introducing unpublished material. Blueboar (talk) 15:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Photographic evidence

At Baton Rouge Magnet High School#Condition of physical plant a larges series of photos is being used as editorial comment to show the condition of the school. I have added a source discussing one aspect of the alleged damage. I have also removed a lot of editorial captions and original research captions. I think that there are several problems with this section. When photos are used as editorial, shouldn't they be accompanied by some kind of reliable source? How do we know the photos are current and accurate? And isn't the quantity of 8 negative photos, no positive ones an issue of WP:UNDUE? Comments/suggestions are welcome. Ongoing talk is Talk:Baton_Rouge_Magnet_High_School#Building_Condition AliveFreeHappy (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the whole article has a more serious notablity issue, to be honest i don't think it would survive a afd, but to answer you point, i think the photographs would be considered original research. --Neon white (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a high school with an article longer than a page. There's no way it would be deleted. That said, this looks like OR, and it's probably undue weight with verifiability problems as you mentioned. A gallery to support an interpretive sentence is certainly not encyclopedic. The gallery of primary images should be removed and replaced with a citation to secondary source. Cool Hand Luke 04:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Considering the majority of it is unsourced, the length of the article is not going to have any bearing on whether it is judged to be a notable school. --Neon white (talk) 06:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong. I wish it could be deleted, but I would bet money that any school of these characteristic would not be deleted. Cool Hand Luke 22:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Quackery

The following two sources: Source #1 and Source #2 are being given reliance for a statement that Samuel Hahnemann was accused of quackery. Both of these sources are excerpted in relevant part in this talk page discussion. Readers are left with the impression that some verifiable accusation exists supported by reliable sources. That is not the case in my opinion.

A third source, Hahnemann himself in Section 74 of the Organon of Medicine was a strong critic of the common medical practices of his day such as the regular use of mercury and leeches as curatives. We would call those practices quackery and Hahnemann condemned them in equivalent terms. In my opinion it is a violation of NPOV to allow unreliable second- and third-hand smears by these very practitioners to be used to label Samuel Hahnemann an accused quack in the Misplaced Pages without balancing it with a clear explanation of the controversy.

This is especially egregious because the article is on Quackery and Hahnemann is used as the first prominent example of someone accused, when no reliable source accuses him of having been a quack. To the contrary, these sources upon which reliance is being made are supportive of Hahnemann. To cherry pick words, not even whole sentences, out of context and then formulate these vaguely made slurs as "accusations" which should stand unopposed seems strongly at variance with the sources. —Whig (talk) 07:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Some important points to keep in mind in this dispute:

• The truth or falsity of the accusations is not the issue and is irrelevant to this discussion.
• Hahnemann's opinions on other matters, and his life in general, are not relevant here. Even the worst of criminals may well have done some good things in their life. That would not legitimize attempts to document the fact that they had been accused of crimes. (I'm not saying Hahnemann was a criminal. That's just to illustrate the point.)
• The only thing we are after here is whether he was accused of quackery and whether the sources we are using to document that undeniable fact are RS.

The interesting thing here is that if we had used anti-homeopathy sources to document charges of quackery, we could be accused of cherry picking from biased sources to find documentation. Even though that might well be legitimate, we totally avoid this accusation by going to pro-homeopathic sources to find that even they are not in doubt that Hahnemann was accused of quackery, even while he was alive. That his accusers were right about him and wrong in other areas is irrelevant to the fact that he was accused. That is clearly documented by pro-homeopathy sources. If they were in doubt, then they wouldn't have mentioned it. To illustrate from the "other direction", it's always easy to find nice comments about oneself from one's friends, but when one's enemies make nice comments about oneself, it is even better to quote them....;-) That removes the possibility of being accused of cherrypicking or inaccuracy. If one's enemies will concede that you are a nice person, then there must be something to it. It's hard to find more RS in such a case. -- Fyslee / talk 15:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

As Fyslee indicates, this is an interesting situation. From a strictly "reliable sources" perspective, the articles on the websites are signed, which is a good start, but one website is an open project and the other is to all intents and purposes a personal website.. Neither meets Misplaced Pages's standard in my opinion per WP:SPS, and since I cannot find any evidence that the authors are "established expert(s) on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications," the articles cannot qualify by that route either. However, what makes this unusual is that, as Fyslee points out, these articles are published on supposedly "friendly" homeopathy websites, which you would think would downplay or omit any allegations of quackery, but don't. However, there is in fact there is no need to rely on these websites, as the comments can be reliably sourced elsewhere. In the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 44 (5), 435–437, E. Ernst's 1997 article "Homoeopathy: past, present and future" makes clear that Hanhemann and homeopathy had from the start been subject to criticisms amounting to accusations of quackery:

From its very beginning, homoeopathy received fierce criticism. In his book: ‘Anti-Organon oder das Irrige der Hahnemannschen Lehre im Organon der Heilkunst’ (Anti-Organon or the errors of Hahnemann’s teachings in the organon) , J.C.H. Heinroth for instance stated that medicine was misguided to accept from Hahnemann ‘much that would not have stood the test of a sharp mind’. Others called homoeopathy ‘the highest triumph of ignorance and mysticism’ and ‘a public scandal’ . Oliver Wendel Holmes analysed Hahnemann’s three basic assumptions (the ‘like cures like’ principle, the theory about infinitesimal dilutions and the origin of all disease) in some detail and concluded, ‘when one man claims to have established these three independent truths, which are about as remote from each other as the discovery of the law of gravitation, the invention of printing, and that of the mariner’s compass, unless the facts in their favour are overwhelming and unanimous, the question naturally arises, is not this man deceiving himself, or trying to deceive others?’ . Many physicians agreed: ‘either Hahnemann is right, in which case our science and the basis of our thinking is nonsense, or he is wrong, in which case this teaching is nonsense. There is no third option’ . The Encyclopaedia Britannica of 1891 summarized the orthodox view of that time: ‘Hahnemann’s errors were great. His doctrine of specifics was highly retrograde … He led his followers far out of the track of sound views of disease … But … he had the great merit of disturbing and discrediting indefensible modes of practice’

I can email the full article to anybody who wishes. Incidentally, once again, Ernst is a homeopath himself.

::And a quick search of google books confirms that multiple contemporary sources. The Oxford Illustrated Companion to Medicine, p. 210, by Stephen Lock, John M. Last, George Dune (2001) makes the same association in a highly reliable source. --Slp1 (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Some excellent points. It is true that we are not dependent on these two sources, since there is pretty much universal agreement in the scientific world that homeopathy is nonsense and that Hahnemann, regardless of any good qualities he undoubtedly had, was deluded and very unscientific in his theories and conclusions, even while seeming to use some aspects of the scientific method, but in a misguided fashion. As to Edzard Ernst as a source, we would be hard pressed to find a better source, especially when we consider his credentials and professorship, although some prominent ex homeopaths are equally scathing in their criticisms. Please send the article to me by my email and post the URL here if you have it. -- Fyslee / talk 01:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The article is not available free online unless you have specific access to the journal via a university etc. Here is the Pubmed listing, however. I have sent Fyslee a copy of the article and can do so to others who want it.Slp1 (talk) 21:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I think if you want to suggest other sources be included that should be discussed in Talk:Quackery. The sources we are currently making reliance upon are the sources that I am seeking comment on. Additional sources would require further inspection. —Whig (talk) 22:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• The two sources fail RS. . . they are self-published.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 03:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought you were out - User:DoctorIsOut - but apparently you are still active. -- Fyslee / talk 22:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:SELFPUB as well. For what we're using these sources to claim, this may meet the criteria. --Infophile 23:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

(indent) From an outside view, I do not believe that WP:SELFPUB ("Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves") applies here, since this article is about quackery, not about homeopathy per se. However, notwithstanding Whig's desire not to discuss other sources here, it appears that there are manifold contemporary sources that described homeopathy and Hahnemann as quackery and quacks respectively. Just try a google-books search for "Hahnemann quack homoeopathy" . Given these, I am not sure how anyone could try to claim that he hasn't been accused of being a quack. But anyway, the answer, as stated above, is to substitute reliable sources. Here is another one that makes the claim, from History of science; an annual review of literature, research and teaching 39 (125 Pt 3): 255–83. "Homeopathy and "the progress of science" . "In spite of a seemingly secure polymathic foundation, Hahnemann was vilified like his iconoclastic predecessors, and his proposed solution to the therapeutic anarchy of the day earned him even more notoriety than his critique. Typically, he was portrayed as a quack unable to earn a living from orthodox medicine, dishonest or insane, and, in a dismissal extending to all who followed his precepts, as “too weak mentally to practise medicine or even to take care of himself”." Slp1 (talk) 18:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. I'm sympathetic to the effort to use pro-homeopathic sources to support this detail, but the effort apparently isn't fulfilling its goal of making it unarguable even to homeopathy supporters. I guess my question now is: Should we remove those citations now that we have other, reliable ones? I don't see anything in WP:SOURCES that says we can't use sources such as these in addition to reliable ones to back up the claim when they serve a purpose in doing so, but I'm not an expert in sourcing. --Infophile 21:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

• A fourth source (Source #4) has been added to the first two sources as reliance for the same statement. It is precisely the same relevant text as Source #1. I believe it is unacceptable for the same reasons that I have already set forth in the posting of this notice. —Whig (talk) 02:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The only reason you've given is that these aren't reliable sources in your opinion, which isn't really a reason. Could you please explain why this isn't a reliable source? --Infophile 05:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that the new one was the one provided by Slp1. I've added that one in now, and there should be no problems with that one being considered reliable. --Infophile 05:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

What sources are you asking about? http://homeoint.org does not appear to be a reliable source; for a start, it appears to be self-publishing by Robert Séror. Is there any evidence that experts and professionals in the field consider this to be an expert source? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand Whig's comment that the 4th source Source #4, is the same as the first source as they are by entirely different authors. The fourth source is actually a very colourful retyping of a fairly widely quoted book published in 1895 called the "The Life and Letters of Dr Samuel Hahnemann" by one Thomas Lindsley Bradford, M.D. (as can be seen by this googlebooks recent re-printing by a homeopathy publisher )

As such it is one of many 'older' publications that makes the claim that he was called 'quack', as pointed out above. I believe this book would also be reliable sources for the claim that he was called a 'quack', but suggest that you cite the book per se not the this rather unlikely-looking (and more unreliable) website, though a link to googlebooks would be good.Slp1 (talk) 13:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Serebii.net

It's a great fan site, but also has great information. They have a big community, however, so there's bound to be mistakes. On the other hand, Serebii.net is trusted by many individuals as a place for reliable information. They have alot of information, so they have to fact-check it, anyhow. What do you think? I really don't know if I should use Serebii.net as a reliable source... - ~VNinja~ 20:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I cannot see anywhere on the site where they describe themselves or say that they check facts. It would depend what purpose it is to be used for. Can you give more details? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was planning on using Serebii.net to gain pokemon info, namely for Mewtwo, but I wasn't sure if I should or not. - ~VNinja~ 20:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

If you can't get information from the Pokemon publishers themselves and you can't find anything better by googling then you could consider using it for the time being and asking on the article talk page or the Pokemon wikiproject (if there is one) if anyone can help you find a better source. It isn't ideal, but may be acceptable if what you are saying isn't controversial in any way. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Semi Walled Garden with questionable source

I hate to say I think I already know the answer to this but bear with me. Because I have a long term conflict with the editor that placed this reference in these articles, I feel I need to double check and be very cautious rather than bold about removing it. The most current manifestation of this conflict can be found on the Conflict of interest noticeboard.

This link has been used a number of times to source info in articles: . Besides the fact that it doesn't appear to meet WP:V or WP:RS and is essentially a personal essay published online, the webpage does not show up on Google at all. Searching on exact phrases in it come up blank. Also note that the only link on the page is to this promotional and commercial website.

Here is an example from Badal Roy:

Roy has appeared and offered workshops at RhythmFest, the Starwood Festival, and at the SpiritDrum Festival, a special tribute to the late Babatunde Olatunji (co-sponsored by ACE and Musart) with Muruga Booker, Jim Donovan of Rusted Root, Halim El-Dabh, Jeff Rosenbaum and Sikiru Adepoju, among others.

Variations of this quote have been adapted to most of the articles of the people named in this quote, shuffling the names around as needed. Most of these musicians are obviously notable from the content of their articles but this item appears to me as undue weight, particularly since, when I check the musicians' online bios, they never mention these events (Starwood, RhythmFest, SpiritDrum) among their personally notable achievements. Even Muruga Booker doesn't mention the events on his main bio page and the source document is actually in a subpage on his website. But without links to it from the main website as far as I can see.

I suspect this is a mini-walled garden form of spam placed by User:Rosencomet (who is also Jeff Rosenbaum) to raise the profile of his group and events. I think the inadequacy of the sourcing is blindingly obvious, but I'm leery of removing these references without at least some feedback from other editors. I may be too close to ongoing conflicts with User:Rosencomet to be completely objective. Cheers, Pigman☿ 05:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Potentially this could be acceptable as a self published article considering it's only being used in an article about the publisher and being relevant to notability --Neon white (talk) 06:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

But you're right to say that anything taken from it must be notable in the context of the article it's used in. If not, it's WP:SPAM and can be removed. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

That's my point. First I believe the source for the info doesn't meet WP:V or WP:RS and, second, there is no indication that the events were specifically important enough in the performers' careers to be notable and included. Because the editor who put these particular references in these articles (and similar ones in a slew of other articles as well) has a huge WP:COI in mentioning his group and events, it strikes me as linkspam. I just wanted to see what others thought. Cheers, Pigman☿ 20:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

LENR-CANR.org

LENR-CANR.org is a repository of scientific papers on cold fusion. Its home page says "It features a library of more than 500 original scientific papers in Acrobat format, reprinted with permission from the authors and publishers.". When providing sources for statements in the cold fusion article, we cite the full references to the original article and include a link to the copy on LENR-CANR.org. We believe that it is line with the wikipedia policy on copyright, which only says: "However, if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work."

However, this approach is challenged by Guy, saying that, if we want to add the link to lenr-canr.org, we need to prove that the website does not violate copyright. Is he right ? (see the full discussion here)Pcarbonn (talk) 16:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Relating to the same article on cold fusion but a separate issue: what is the status of the reports of two United States Department of Energy reviews of research in this field? Are they to be regarded as reliable secondary sources or as primary sources? Also, what is the status of the following academic journals: the Journal of Electroanalytic Chemistry, Physics Letters A, the European Physics Journal, Thermochimica Acta, the Japanese Journal of Applied Physics and die Naturwissenschaften? Is the fact that a journal is listed by the Institute for Scientific Information relevant? Can we use the ISI's citation indices and other bibliometric indicators as a guide to reliability? Also (while I am making this query, although it has not been challenged) can we treat news reports in magazines such as the New Scientist as reliable for describing the current standing of this field of research? Itsmejudith (c) 17:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

If there is no doubt as to the fact that the papers are published with permission then i don't see a problem with it. --Neon white (talk) 17:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Use of ISI's citation index for ranking journals would help to weed out the fringe journals that nobody reads. The list above by Itsmejudith seems to include some very respectable ones. The New Scientist is not peer-reviewed and it has some tabloid aspects to its science coverage. I'd not take everything which appears there at face value. This has been discussed in other threads, which could be looked up if necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

You said "If there is no doubt as to the fact that the papers are published with permission then i don't see a problem with it". The question is "where is the burden of proof ?". Do we have to prove that there is no doubt that the papers are published with permission (how could we prove that ?), or can we assume that it is so until proven otherwise ? Pcarbonn (talk) 22:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• I have reviewed a number of links to this site. In one case I found that a purported link to a major paper started with an editorial by the site's "librarian", , spinning the content to promote the fringe view that he promotes. In other cases the papers are clearly marked as copyright, and there is no evidence of permission from the rights owners. This site is not an acceptable source. Almost all the content sourced to it can be cited directly to the original journal of publication, and should be so cited; links to material hosted with no evidence of copyright permission are problematic, and where such links are on a site whose mission is to promote a fringe view it is much more of a problem. It is not, itself, a source anyway, only a repository of other materials; there is no evidence that Jed Rothwell's commentaries are authoritative here. The only uses of links to this site that I have found anywhere in Misplaced Pages have been to serve the agenda of advancing the low-temperature fusion fringe view. Guy (Help!) 11:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Where full bibliographic details of a paper are available then that is sufficient, no need for a link. But I don't see that we need to make a blanket ban on lenr-canr in the cases where it is just providing web space and when a reader can click on the link and go straight to the paper. A comparable case is the satanic ritual abuse article discussed above, where the page links to an FBI officer's report hosted at the website of a POV organisation. It is just the convenience of having the web link that is sought and the link does not endorse the POV of the site. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It would appear there is a case of ownership going on at this article. I happen to have one of the books that's been removed from the Bibliography, I put the entry back in. As I said in my edit-summary "Mizuno was published by Kogakusha, translated and reprinted by Infinite Energy Press with permission. He is Dr at Dept Nuclear Eng. at Hokkaido Uni, has papers and a 2nd book on same in Japan." I was reverted with the insulting "Infinite energy press is a vanity press. Removed".

It will be impossible to produce a reasonable article on subjects such as this as long as high-handed and completely unnecesary actions, apparently motivated by some form of vendetta, are carried out by the likes of User:ScienceApologist. PR 15:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Self Published Photographs

Are photographs on sites like imageshack, photobucket permissable as sources? I would assume they were as obviously self-published as a video on youtube but i thought i better ask. --neonwhite user page talk 00:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Not different than a blog or YouTube, except users upload image content instead of text or video. Might sill be used in the rare case that it can be shown that the subject him or herself uploaded the images, or for expert commentary, ect. See WP:SPS. Cool Hand Luke 00:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You're answering "yes" to the "obviously self-published" part, I assume. Anyway, random "found it somewhere" photographs are totally unsuitable as sources, but are often fine for illustrative purposes. <eleland/talkedits> 17:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Dallas Observer blog on BLP

At Greg Williams (radio personality) blogs from the Dallas Observer are being used for information that probably requires a higher quality of source for a BLP. For example . I think the information relying on these sources should be removed. Comments? AliveFreeHappy (talk) 05:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

In addition, the more I look the more I think that The Dallas Observer itself may not be qualified as WP:RS. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 07:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The Dallas Observer is certainly a reliable source according to our criteria... it is a published print newspaper. Thus, its website is reliable (similar to the way the New York Times website is reliable).

The blog is more of a grey zone. Blogs associated with reliable media outlets are often reprints of the paper's Editorials and Op-Ed pieces. As such, they can be considered reliable sources for statements about the opinion of the author, but not for statements of fact. Anything cited to such a blog should be directly attributed to the editor/collumnist who authored it (as in "According to Joe Schmoe, editor of the Dalas Observer, such and such is the case").

That said... Not every opinion is noteworthy enough to be included in our articles. It really depends on the reputation of the editor/collumnist who authored the blog and his expertise in the subject matter he is commenting on... You have to ask the question: Is his/her opinion notable? That means we have to figure in things like WP:NPOV (especially WP:Undue Weight). And if you do cite the blog to back a statement about the opinion of its author, be sure that you are only citing the core blog piece. "Comments" and "Responses" from readers are not reliable (even if signed, we have no way to know if they are who they claim to be), and their opinions are not notable.

Finally, we have the fact that we are discussing a BLP... a much higher standard applies in those articles. In BLPs, I don't think statements of opinion by third parties have a place. Thus, in this case, I would remove the material. Blueboar (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Cuban Artists

User:ArleArt has created over 140 articles with the only external link being to the http://www.cubancontemporaryart.com/ . I first noticed it when working on AWB and seeing lots of articles with that as their own source. Then I saw an entry on WP:COIN, which makes me think there is no preexisting consensus for mass-additions. The website listed as the source is a pay-per-view site, so I can't confirm its reliability or copyvio status. On his talk page, there have been numerous attempts to contact him this issue User talk:ArleArt and his only response has been "Sorry but i could,nt understend exactly why you want that this article ereaised. The category that i create cuabn contmporary artists is a way to promote the life and the art oof visual artits from the island susana mori is one of those artist and for that i think that she is important. If you need more information about her please made mew know" Could someone at least slow down this user until we are sure there are no copyvio issues with these articles? And how would we go about vetting 140 articles for notability and reliable sources? Mbisanz (talk) 06:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Techblogs

I'm curious if we deem things like Techcrunch, lifehack, mashable, etc to be reliable. They're blogs to start with so I'd say no. I'm often wondering who exactly it is thats written entries at a lot of these places when they're used as sources. I did a quick search of the archives and didn't find TC or LH being discussed before. I'm also curious how these would apply to establishing notability (separate but I think slightly linked).--Crossmr (talk) 17:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Blogs in general are not considered reliable sources. A de-facto exception (ie not officially mentioned as an exception in the RS guidline or WP:V, but generally accepted by the community as an exception) are blogs authored by an acknowleged expert writing on the subject of his expertise. And in those cases things should be expressed as opinion not as fact. To my mind an opinion never establishes notability (one person thinking something is notable does not make it so.) Blueboar (talk) 20:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

given that a person is an expert and that his blog is accepted as an authority in the subject, it should have a considerable amount of reliability as anything the same person were to published otherwise. Recognition by authorities in the subject as notable is notability. Of course, it would have o be shown that the person were in a position to establish notability--a notable critic in the case of SF, for example. DGG (talk) 23:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews: Please post definite answer

Okay, the discussion is stale, and has begun wandering far from the topic. There is clearly no consensus that Wikinews is a reliable source. That's your answer. This can, and probably will, change in the near future, and the issue can be re-examined then. --Haemo (talk) 01:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If people want to discuss the matter further, they are welcome to do so. There is no reason to "close" this discussion unilaterally. Vassyana (talk) 21:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like a definite answer to the question: Is Wikinews to be considered a reliable source? David Shankbone is currently insisting that it is, that if a private citizen asserts that he has conducted an interview with a famous person and placed the results of that interview on Wikinews, that interview can then be used as a source for Misplaced Pages -- even though he acknowledges that if the same private citizen asserts that he has conducted an interview with a famous person, trying to use that interview as a source for Misplaced Pages would be original research. To my knowledge Wikinews meets none of the requirements for a reliable source such as fact-checking; can someone please tell me where a general policy decision has been made that Wikinews will be accepted as a reliable source regardless of this? -- 192.250.34.161 (talk) 17:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

No. Other wikis are never considered reliable sources.--Crossmr (talk) 20:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Crossmr... Wikis are not reliable sources by our criteria. Blueboar (talk) 20:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Interviews should not be used in the biographies of living people unless weight is established. See Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Wikinews redux. This is a general rule for interviews: they represent the interviewee's views alone and are analogous to a self-published source. The quote, as argued on the talk page, appears self-serving to me, and is unverifiable (except as Sharpton's avowed view). In this case, I don't think any bare interview would be an acceptable source, wikinews or not, and I would be much more comfortable waiting for secondary coverage (ideally not written by the same editor who inserts it). On the other hand, it's not a BLP violation because it is only presented as Sharptons's views, so perhaps it's fine—unless we treat Wikinews like other wikis.

As for the verifiability of Wikinews generally, Blueboar has started a new thread: Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability#Wikinews interviews. Cool Hand Luke 21:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with other that wikinews is self-published, there's no guarantee to the reliablity of anything posted there. --neonwhite user page talk 21:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I firmly but politely disagree with all the comments posted so far. Wikinews interviews can be of high quality, and Wikinews has a vetting process to help ensure that. These interviews can and should be used whenever they are of good quality. Indeed, in many cases, they will be of higher quality than any interview done by the mainstream press, because the author of the interview is available to clarify any questions, and the actual audio can in many cases be made available. Interviews are different from other forms of journalism in the way they are used in Misplaced Pages and in the way they are conducted by journalists.

The correct answer is surely not a blanket prohibition, and of course not a blanket acceptance. We need to have some assurance that the interview was actually conducted (in a newspaper, that assurance is put forward by the reputation of the newspaper, the editorial process, etc. in a wiki, or other form of citizen journalism, there has to be some parallel reasonable method). In the current case, we are discussing interviews which were reported on in the mainstream media, by a trusted member of the Wikinews community. This is very different from a random alleged interview by an anonymous ip number.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Was this interview reported? I find no mainstream reference to this interview with Al Sharpton. You may be thinking of the more recent interview with Shimon Perez. Cool Hand Luke 22:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am thinking of the interview with Shimon Perez.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

by a trusted member of the Wikinews community. This is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. If we begin analyzing information based on the reputation of an individual user we're moving far away from WP:V. The reputation the user has with you may be very different from the reputation the user has in my eyes. As well, unless an entire publication can be said to be reliable, we're moving in to the realm of original research by having an editor evaluate a piece from wikinews and form their own conclusion on whether or not they feel its trustworthy. When it comes to a self-published source what is trustworthy to one person is not trustworthy to another. This is just begging to get us in to POV issues.--Crossmr (talk) 23:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. I think it is perfectly valid, as a part of considering the validity of a source, to consider the reputation and history of the person making the report. Consider an interview conducted and presented by Michael Moore or Ann Coulter. Cause for alarm there, since both are noted as polemicists more than as reporters. So we do consider the authorship of an interview even in those cases, naturally. The same can apply to Wikinews or other citizen journalism. The full context has to be considered.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael Moore and Ann Coulter are very visible public figures with a long trail of information about them. Its very easy for someone to find multiple sources on these individuals and form an opinion on them. The less public the individual the more difficult it is to determine if there is a bias or anything else involved. With a non-notable wikinews editor I doubt you'd find anything from a reliable source on them for which you could base an opinion on. You'd be left to form an interpretation on their own words and again you're in to original research. How you view an editor and how I view an editor could be vastly different. We'd be basing this on personal opinions on how we view what they've done or said.--Crossmr (talk) 01:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

David Shankbone is a public figure in a sense: if you want to judge him, you can check his 12K edits on WP, his countless images, his talk page, his work on Wikinews, ... you can even see how he looks, find out his real name and email address! You can get to know him a lot more than any other journalist. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:36, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Is he a public figure outside wikinews? then no, he's not really. His edits to wikinews are a single pov that I, a non-reliable and point of view entity, must analyze and insert my own bias as to whether or not I believe him. Where as Michael moore and ann coulter likely have reliable sources writing about them that would help us make the determination on whether or not they have a particular bias in regards to a particular subject. If an editor is analyzing facts and drawing conclusions which reliable sources haven't drawn, its original research and has no place here.--Crossmr (talk) 04:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews original reporting should not be used, unless you can check facts with a video or something. You shouldn't source facts because Shimon Perez says something to Wikinews. Articles can remain in the "See Also" section however as they supplement the encyclopedic content, same as Commons or Wiktionary does. Can you show us articles were quotes have been attributed to Wikinews and removed?--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

A couple of very interesting comments from Wikinews imply that this interview may indeed be unverifiable, and that "Wikinews cannot and should not be used as a source on wikipedia." See Wikinews:Water cooler/miscellaneous#Wikinews on Misplaced Pages Cool Hand Luke 23:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• See also Talk:Tawana_Brawley_rape_allegations#Pull_quote_from_Al_Sharpton. Adding a quote from an interview you've conducted yourself on Wikinews could be considered conflict of interest and original research. I'm sure it's reliable information, but I can't check it, I just trust the author and the source -but basically, it's non-verifiable. Appropriate for the article? Probably not, even then it might be better to suggest it on the talk page and see what others with no conflict of interest think about inclusion into the article. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that's the main issue here. Wikinews might be an acceptable source in some cases, but this user's behavior leaves a taste of COI and OR in the mouth. User should know better than to cite their own research. Cool Hand Luke 23:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
    • From your point of view maybe: I'm seeing someone who is providing 10x more good content than anyone else out there, in pictures and interviews, and somebody who is just trying in an honest manner to improve Misplaced Pages. This is not about User:David Shankbone's behaviour: he's traveling to Israel and working 14hours/day to get pictures and interviews! He's breaking grounds for Wikinews and Commons and he should be highly respected for that. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
      • No doubt. I think there's no bad faith here, and the user has produced thousands of free images, tons of content. Cool Hand Luke 23:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
        • And I do agree that it would be best to avoid any appearance of impropriety if Wikinews reporters refrain from citing their own work in Misplaced Pages. I would say the same thing for New York Times reporters.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The entire question is formulated wrongly at the outset. Is it a reliable source? Misplaced Pages isn't reliable, so why should any wiki be? The question is: is Wikinews a verifiable source? No, unless you have video or audio. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Is the Arkansas Herald-Times of Little Rock, Arkansas a reliable source for a quote by the current Governor of Arkansas? Well, this is a hypothetical paper because I deliberately made up the name of the newspaper, but the point is: a good quality local newspaper, is it a reliable source? In general I think we would say yes, although of course in any given particular case, there could be reasons to doubt. I see Wikinews in the same light. Something randomly appearing by an anonymous ip number on a Wikinews talk page is not a WP.RS. An interview with accompanying audio files, conducted by a reputable reporter with a longstanding history in the project(s), surely is. How about the same interview without accompanying audio files? Well, it's just going to depend: how pathbreaking is the quote, how likely is it that the reporter is manufacturing the quote, or distorting it. Those are the same kinds of judgments we might make about the hypothetical Arkansas Herald-Times, and for the same reasons.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

As an experiment, I went to the Sharpton interview in question... and changed something (I know... BAD Blueboar! But I had to see if it could be done. I reverted myself immediately). Right there... the fact that I could go in and change the interview... tells me that Wikinews is not and can not be considered reliable under Misplaced Pages standards. How are we to know if the version being quoted in the wikipedia article accurately reflects what the subject actually said... how do we know the Wikinews interview has not been vandalized? We don't. We can not verify the interview. We can not rely on it any more than we can rely on another Misplaced Pages article. The problem isn't Wikinews... the problem is the wiki format. This isn't about dismissing Wikinews as a project... I am sure most of Wikinews is great reporting... just as most of Misplaced Pages is great enclyclopedia writing. But as long as "anyone" can post an interview, and more importantly as long as "anyone" can change the interview... we can not consider it reliable.

Listing it under See Also or as an EL is a different matter. Blueboar (talk) 00:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a glitch: normally, interviews fall under the Archiving policy and are fully protected -but we have an admin backlog. Anyway, we would still have reverted you. To address the greater issue: anyone can post an interview, as long as they provide proof (e.g. hand-written notes, audio, video,...) that satisfies the Wikinews community. We've been lazy as of late, and accepted simply to trust our own accredited reporters, although some still do this. It's just an awful lot of extra work. There's no reason to assume things are being made up if there are pictures etc; a lot of interview subjects check the interview anyway. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo hopes to solve this problem by outlining a "best practices" guideline, which would make certain articles verifiable. For example, an interview would be verifiable with the primary source if reporters posted an audio recording of the interview, like User:Stevenfruitsmaak suggests. I think that would solve the problem, although I agree with Jimbo's observation that it would be best if reporters (on Wikinews and elsewhere) don't cite their own work on Misplaced Pages. Per WP:COI, talk page suggestions would seem more appropriate. Cool Hand Luke 00:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Original reporting is just as good as CNN or any other agency. The fact that you say we are not reliable because its "wikinews" is ridiculous. Me including a handful of other Wikinewsies go through a lot of trouble and research and such to get the interviews or exclusive story. If you want to say all we do is recycle news, well CNN does, FOX News does etc etc. So again another excuse. We don't have accredited reporters to not get good news, we have them so others will see us as a good news site. If you want to go and say Wikinews is unreliable because its a WIki, then WP is just as bad...pot, kettle, black. DragonFire1024 (talk) 00:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

No one here will deny we're "just as bad." "Articles and posts on Misplaced Pages should never be used as third-party sources." This is about the verifiability of sources, not the credibility or worth of Wikinews. Cool Hand Luke 00:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

When you question a reporters credibility, you question Wikinews's. We don't add bylines to articles and regardless of who does an interview about who, all articles are Wikinews's. So telling us just because we are a Wiki makes us unreliable is just an excuse IMO. We don't have a bunch of accredited fake reporters making up fake stories to go on WN or WP. They work just as hard if not harder than mainstream media. They don't get paid to get someone to say what they want them to. In our case, they have nothing (financially) to gain whereas CNN and or FOX News have everything to gain. We don't just give any tom dick or harry a pass and woohoo let them go nuts. Yes you can edit a story, its a wiki. But edits by anon users, who make obnoxious edits will get reverted. We watch our site closely. And to target us to make a point about editing, is just another lousy stab in the back. DragonFire1024 (talk) 01:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Guilty as charged m'Lud. But it goes to the core of what reliability and verifiability mean here on Misplaced Pages... as long as the text can be changed, we here at Misplaced Pages have no way of knowing if it is accurate. This isn't about whether Wikinews is credible... it is about whether Wikinews is reliable by WIKIPEDIA'S rules. It isn't... no Wiki is (not even Misplaced Pages itself). Now, Jimbo's suggestion that an audio version of the interview be posted would go a long way towards fixing the problem. But as long as the potential for someone to come along and change the text exists, Misplaced Pages can not consider it reliable. The difference between Wikinews and any other news outlet is that once the interview is published it remains intact. If Wikinews is willing to protect interviews so idiots like me can't change them... then we can reconsider. Blueboar (talk) 01:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

No, its the truth, its not an excuse. Unless there is editorial oversight on articles there is no way for an editor to independently verify the source. This is a requirement on wikipedia. If I go to an article and say "Hmm that looks dubious. It comes from wikinews. Who is this that wrote it? I have no idea, I can't verify where he got his information from, but randomeditor says this guy is a solid guy, so it must be true". When we go down that road, we're done as far as I'm concerned. Unless articles are verified as true and locked as such, I can't see their use as a source.--Crossmr (talk) 01:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

That's what policies are for. References and sources. We don't publish a story if the person does not cite sources, or provides good OR notes. That's called verifiable. WP might be large and have enormous traffic, but if you are having trouble with verifiable information, then that boils down to watching who posts what and where on WP.

Prime recent example, the WMF COO. The register published a flaming BS story, so we thought, with nothing to verify it or back it up. Yet at WN we came up with a heck of a lot more than the Register. But does that make us unverifiable because we are not the Register (bad example to compare with I know but replace the Register with your favorite news source)? No. But yet Wp will jump all over a Register article or CNN or whatever, before they think ONCE about coming over to WN.

Again...contradicting. We don't protect right away because it is a Wiki. WP doesn't protect at all. At least in terms of infinity. But thats an ultimatum thats rather disturbing. Your point is if its not protected we don't allow it?? Correct me if I am wrong...but it's Wikinews? These are rather lame and just unfounded excuses.

Jimbo is right. We do have several areas with "practices" but in messages, policies, mission statements and our own accreditation policy. Maybe we need it centralized, but I somehow sense that verifiability is not the only reason WN is not allowed to be sourced........DragonFire1024 (talk) 01:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, verifiability and editorial oversight.--Haemo (talk) 03:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Seemed to me that there was quite some common ground being found above, so maybe go it easy Dragonfire :). One thing I wanted to point out (which Dragonfire just stated): Articles are "locked" after a certain amount of time (its not a bot doing it, so the time varies). And I agree with the above statements made, that Wikinews articles can't be cited if they're still editable. Two solutions to this(a blend being possible):

• Wait longer till using a Wikinews article as a source (and the article is non editable), or
• accelerate the locking of interviews (as there's not much to be contributed later on in contrast to other articles).

On editorial oversight... I'm not too deeply into what goes as sources for WP, but I would have thought that using an interview is OK, even without oversight. For articles I would agree, I personally would not find it appropriate for, say the articles I wrote on the Climate conference in Bali, to be used as sources for a WP article, if there were not some sort of review (which I guess would necitate far more thourough Original reporting notes, but that would be our problem, not yours

What about this diff: a Wikinews interview used as a reference. The interview took place in IRC, and the original text can probably be retrieved from User:TheFearow. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I see two points being raised in the foregoing discussion:

1. Is Wikinews a reliable source?

Wikinews is no more or less reliable than any other source of "citizen journalism." That is, without the editorial oversight to ensure mistakes are kept to a minimum, and with no incentive to ensure that the 'facts' are correct. As we speak, there is one article on the Wikinews main page (Dec. 22) that suggests that an aircraft crash had something to do with the fact that the plane was refueled. This is bad journalism (or poor language), and I can't imagine that a editorial oversight would not have caught it.

2. Are Wikinews and Misplaced Pages far enough removed from one another?

For the public, news that first appears on any 'wiki' source is going to be associated with the encyclopedia. That this is not true is immaterial; the 'wiki' name blurs the distinction between Wikinews and Misplaced Pages.

Further, the 'pedia doesn't have a mandate to up-to-date, so if the "news" is not something exceptional, it can be probably be avoided. But then again, exceptional claims require exceptional sources.

The request for a "definitive answer" can be fulfilled thus: Like any other source of "citizen journalism," Wikinews can be cited, but shouldn't.

-- Fullstop (talk) 00:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages/Wikinews research arm

It's sad that we sell ourselves so short. We have built one of the most influential news sources in the world, yet we do not trust ourselves. On my User page is a photo of me with Shimon Peres, President of Israel, who spoke with me not so much for my affiliation with Wikinews, but for my affiliation with Misplaced Pages. For him, it was a chance to speak to all of us, and to also clear up some incorrect information on his page. I was one of the first people who made a big push to obtain free use images of hard-to-obtain people, places and things. When I started this in July 2006 there were not many images on the project, and I was constantly hit with "You shouldn't put your own photos on pages." I was told my photography was OR, that I had a COI in putting my own photos up, etc. Now the same arguments are raised.

Misplaced Pages purports to circumvent corporate interest, but we have become so beholden to the MSM that we have lost site of the DIY spirit that made Misplaced Pages what it is. Do it yourself. Wikinews should not be seen as a threat to Misplaced Pages's reliability, but a way to enhance it. Misplaced Pages is an inappropriate place to conduct an interview; but Wikinews is not. I recently spoke with an aging soap star named Victoria Wyndham, who spent a long time discussing what was wrong with her Misplaced Pages page (she's not Mexican, but Spanish, her son was featured in a play, not her, etc.), what she thought was important in her own career.... There is great potential here, under the watchful eyes of our fellow editors, to use Wikinews to improve Misplaced Pages further and "Do it Yourselves" instead of waiting for the MSM to tell you information they may never get around to telling you. If the idea here is to build an encyclopedia, to not have--and develop more fully--a research arm that can undertake the sort of work I have undertaken seems ridiculous and amateur. --David Shankbone 01:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm very opposed to any form of original research on Misplaced Pages, and to the use of "citizens' journalism" websites, because they often publish nonsense. But I have to say I agree with David here. His work is outstanding, and it seems crazy to question its use, especially because, as he says, he was granted the interviews because the subjects respect Misplaced Pages.

David, would it make sense for you to take the initiative here (assuming you have the time or inclination), and try to set up a research arm of Wikinews or Misplaced Pages, where original research/journalism of the kind you undertake can be encouraged and strictly monitored? We already allow original images. Original text is the next step, though the dangers of it mean we'd need a very, very strict accreditation system, so that the people allowed to produce material that Misplaced Pages could use as a "reliable source" are really the very best editors Misplaced Pages has. SlimVirgin 01:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this theoretically what the Wikinews accreditation is? Cool Hand Luke 01:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I know nothing about how they work or how strict they are. Any system producing original material for Misplaced Pages would need to almost set up the apparatus of a newspaper, in effect. We'd need some guidance on ethics, we'd need to know the reporters/researchers were professional and mature (not necessarily in age, but in attitude), they would need some guidance on how to interview and write up a story. I don't know how much of this wikinews already does. SlimVirgin 01:56, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

before you insult the accreditation policy, (Wikinews:Accreditation policy), read it. We vote on people for accreditation, and again not just some joe schmo tom, dick or harry. People vote based on trust. Have they done work? Maybe OR? etc etc...to suggest we hand out a press pass like it was a cereal box prize is just insulting, and a low hit. DragonFire1024 (talk) 01:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, where on earth have I insulted anyone, or suggested passes are handed out "like a cereal box prize"? I said above that I have no idea how strict they are. Please read what people have actually written (this is one of the things good researchers need to be able to do, actually). SlimVirgin 02:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is what the accreditation system is for, but we can use more people to develop exactly what SlimVirgin suggests. To be honest, my interviews took Wikinews a little off guard and we could stand to have more help over there not only in conducting them with notable people--I had trouble finding people to interview Senators and such who were willing to do interviews--but also in developing guidelines and standards. Can anyone envision instead of a YouTube Presidential debate, but a Misplaced Pages/Wikinews Presidential debate moderated by our own editors? Why not? In terms of content I have inserted into Misplaced Pages that I have created on Wikinews, it has only been from the interviews I have conducted. I think Cool Hand Luke's criticism about COI falls flat with interviews. In an interview, the interviewer is not the source of the information, the interviewee is. Al Sharpton is quoted on Tawana Brawley, not David Shankbone. I think the interview is a great place to start for us to develop an OR/Research arm, because in the end, when you quote someone, it is their words and we know the questions to ask ("Alex Kapranos: Do you consider yourself Scottish of English?" (he's coming up, by the way)). The fact is, we could use more people on Wikinews helping with this sort of work, not completely eject it from Misplaced Pages. We could use more people helping us to develop standards around these interviews and how to use them between the projects, not being completely shunned. There is great potential for us here. --David Shankbone 01:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

David, it's true that it's Al Sharpton talking, not David Shankbone, but interviewers can certainly influence what's said, and what's left out. This is why we'd need an excellent accreditation system and some kind of training for people wanting to do these interviews. But in theory, I think your ideas are inspired. SlimVirgin 02:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

COI is adding your own work into articles; although interviewers might slightly influence their subjects, the more important thing is that the quote might not be notable for the article, and as the author of the interview, you are a poor judge to whether or not it is.

I agree with SlimVirgin's idea for a Misplaced Pages research arm: it already exists', it's called Wikinews and you are welcome to join. A few weeks ago, I edited ' on the Dutch Misplaced Pages. Before, it said that Misplaced Pages could not give out press cards for things like getting images of news events. Now it explains about Wikinews and how people can ask me to go out there in the name of Wikinews and help out.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

David... who's this "we" you are talking about? I see Wikinews as a very different and seperate thing than Misplaced Pages. Yes, they are owned and run by the same company... but they have very different goals and very different rules. For example, The amount of OR that is allowable at Wikinews is completely unacceptable here. Different projects, different rules. It isn't that Wikinews is seen as a "threat" to Misplaced Pages's reliability... it is simply that it isn't considered a reliable source by our rules. No wiki is. Blueboar (talk) 02:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the "we" is all of us. Commons is there for a reason: to provide media. Wikisource is there for a reason. Wikinews is there for a reason. These projects can all join together to create one source that everyone uses. Yes we - There is a "big picture" to Wikimedia's projects, and Wikinews is a part of that. It's just up to us to now start fulfilling a big picture vision here. There are roles that all the projects play. Research/interviews is one for Wikinews. We can use help from our fellow Wikipedians who want to see Misplaced Pages improved. --David Shankbone 02:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Except Wikileaks right? DragonFire1024 (talk) 02:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

David, I agree that there is a big picture to Wikimedia... and that there is some connection between Wikinews and Misplaced Pages. This is why I would allow Wikinews articles to be placed in the "See Also" section of a Misplaced Pages article. But the connection does not negate the fact that Misplaced Pages has very different goals and rules than Wikinews. They are seperate projects under a common banner. Wikinews has rules and guidelines that fit Wikinew's purpose... Misplaced Pages has different rules and guidelines that fit Misplaced Pages's purpose. Face it, sometimes those rules and guidelines will conflict. This is one of those times. Blueboar (talk) 14:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Blueboar, I think there are levels here and I think this discussion suffers from not differentiating between types of OR that can be done on Wikinews and cited on Wikipeida. For instance, if Wikinews was to create it's own poll of Iowans about who plans to vote for whom for President in the caucuses, conduct the poll and then attempt to have it included on the 2008 campaign page, I would have a problem with that. But if Wikinews conducts an interview with a Presidential candidate about the issues, as we have done, I see no reason why Misplaced Pages should not acknowledge and use the information (especially when a candidate does so). There is a difference between interviews and a "story". Getting people to talk to us on the record seems to me to fall outside the realm of what we should be concerned about, and the issues are conflated as if these interviews are coming out of thin air. So if we talk to Al Sharpton about Tawana Brawley, I see no good reason why, if our goal is to educate and provide information, we should not actually use information that is provided to us via Wikinews. Not only do we have audio available, but we also have e-mails available if anyone questioned the veracity of the information. This is a very useful way to use Wikinews on Misplaced Pages, by giving our editors a chance to talk to the people who we write articles about, provide a source to correct inaccuracies about their work, and discuss with newsmakers the issues we cover that would help our project flesh them out better. I think as far as interviews go, this is a chance for us to get around regurgitating the corporate rags that have come newspapers and websites and pursue knowledge for knowledge sake. --David Shankbone 14:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Well that goes to show Slim...how many Wikipedians, particularly the ones involved in the debate actually read Wikinews...? How many of you have looked through our OR since this debate? How many have actually took the time to look at us? And I don't mean a simple edit to prove a point. DragonFire1024 (talk) 02:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately all wikis are self publiushed by definition. Wikinews isn't well known for fact checking or it's editorial policy and that makes it unverifiable. --neonwhite user page talk 03:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Fact checking? I am sorry but that's just totally untrue. Prime example: Wikinews:Former Chief Operating Officer of Wikimedia Foundation is convicted felon. If you want to talk more about fact checking: Wikinews:Death of Nancy Benoit rumour posted on Misplaced Pages hours prior to body being found and probably the best one because it was made with the help of three projects and maybe 100 people: Wikinews:Kenya Airways jet with at least 114 on board crashes. I can show you many more, but these are our best IMO. DragonFire1024 (talk) 04:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that good article don't exist on wikinews but reputation are gained over many years and as far as i know wikinews does not have such a reputation yet. --neonwhite user page talk 03:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately we are judged by our worst not our best, providing an unedited audio tape of the interview is the ONLY way to provide Verifiabilty. 10:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The OR firewall

I have no problem with OR on Wikinews—that's the purpose of the site, what makes it better than a mishmash of already-published news. I don't even have a problem with Wikinews OR being certified with best practices and cited on Misplaced Pages, as Jimbo has proposed. In fact, this is a great idea, that will finally remove doubt over the use of Wikinews. However, SlimVirgin's argument that written original research is the logical progression from original photographs terrifies me. The fact that it's being proposed as a limited sort of "license to OR" is only slightly better. Frankly, we've not had a stellar record of selecting most-trusted Wikipedians. More importantly, it would topple the good rule we have against OR, replacing it with instruction creep and evasion.

I'm all for new and exciting OR projects—on Wikinews. As Durova said, this is not the time for us to ignore one of our fundamental rules. Cool Hand Luke 08:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

True... the OR on Wikinews is actually a good thing... at Wikinews. But not at Misplaced Pages. Different projects, different rules. Blueboar (talk) 13:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I think a number of the project's main attributes run counter to any effort to make Wikinews a better source for use on Misplaced Pages, including the fact that Wikinews reporters may report under pseudonyms or anonymously and the fact that there is no central editorial structure. As far as I can tell if a Wikinews article contains an appallingly false statement nobody within the project actually suffers for this -- and therefore nobody has any particular incentive to prevent it from happening. It's difficult to see how this problem can be rectified without undermining central values of the wiki. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

We don't allow OR on Misplaced Pages because we allow anyone to edit, so editors can be anonymous, and even when they use a real name, we have no way to verify their identity. We also only report on material that has already been published. But once something is published on Wikinews as OR there, it is no longer OR here on Misplaced Pages. In this case we are only left to decide if Wikinews is a reliable source for the material to be used on Misplaced Pages. In most cases, I would say not, because Wikinews also allows anonymous or un-verified editors, and the editorial supervision is by other editors. Perhaps once the editorial process meets the Google News standard that will change. For now, it would be too easy to do an end-around on the WP:NOR policy by publishing to Wikinews first, then using the material here.

However, in the specific case of interviews with notable people conducted by accredited reporters on Wikinews who provide a complete transcript or recording of the interview, I think we can use the interview as a reliable source. I have read the Wikinews Accreditation Policy, and find it provides the key ingredient of assuring that the source is a real identifiable person with a known track record, and a reputation to protect. Because reporters must reveal their real legal name to be accredited, it is not possible to create throw-away accounts for doing mischief. As to the editorial supervision, there is a process for revoking credentials in that process. I think we can also safely assume that material will be removed if it is substantially questioned to protect the reputation of Wikinews, so this meets the needs of Misplaced Pages for editorial supervision. The material should not be considered self-published, because although reporters initiates the process, they do not have ultimate control of the publication process, as they would on a blog.

So the blanket dismissal of Wikinews, while convenient, is not in the best interest of either Misplaced Pages or Wikinews. Like most "problems" on Misplaced Pages, we need to use common sense, and avoid creating and following self-sustaining rules. Dhaluza (talk) 23:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Dhaluza is correct. Furthermore, there isn't original research here going on since we have the interview on Wikinews. Wikinews interviews are by people like David who have their names public and have confirmed their real life contact info with the Foundation. Thus, they have the basic elements of a reliable source. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews editorial control

Allusion was made about to Wikinews having some kind of editorial controls, but looking the place over, I can't find any evidence of that. Is there anything that seperates it from a collectively written weblog? WilyD 13:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

In fact, they appear to be claiming they have good rules but lack the manpower to enforce them; meaning that in practice they lack actual functioning reliable editorial control. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

That issue is being addressed by having approved versions live. But the key is not to sink a project for a temporary project, but to improve it and find ways to address the issues. If Welfare is not working, the key is to fix it, not to get rid of it; social security, public education, Misplaced Pages, Wikinews...etc. --David Shankbone 20:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Until it becomes clear that Wikinews has editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking, it's not a reliable source. No one is trying to "sink the project" — we're simply saying that without some serious editorial controls, it's not reliable. This can change, naturally — however, verifiability is an issue. --Haemo (talk) 20:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Those who follow foundation-l and the development of flagged revisions should be well aware that I have invested a great deal of time and effort towards soliciting input on how, with the help of this extension, we gain sufficient editorial control over the default display of Wikinews to get Google to list us on their news site. The aim there is to significantly increase the site's profile and attract new contributors and readers. Anyway, it annoys me no end to see some Wikinews contributors reacting to people's comments here by not fully digesting them and reading the worst into what is said. Nearly as much as the Wikipedians who've never even read a single Wikinews policy and dismiss us out of hand as "just a wiki - anyone can edit".

Wikinews has an archiving policy, and I have protected over 3,000 articles as part of the implementation of this policy, roughly 30%+ of Wikinews' article count. Before I do so I read every single one, although as I'd expect people to understand, I do significantly less of that work now. Perhaps our policy needs tightened up and interviews protected 36 hours after publication. Perhaps accompanying audio requires uploading to permit citing, IRC logs may be required with signatures of authenticity from various of the participants, or emails require vetted through OTRS to authenticate via details that should remain private. There is an effort to build consensus on Wikinews' Water Cooler as to what should be guides for making an article citeable, ignore the bit at the top where the loudest contributors dig their trenches and shout "you're wrong!" at each other. --Brian McNeil / 22:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The concept of a WA wikinews article is heading in the right direction. 11:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

WA? --Brian McNeil / 12:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• I would like to invite user Blueboar to attempt his disruption on any one of these listed articles, vandalism to prove a point is stooping pretty damn low and in this case proves procedures are not followed, not that you have an argument-winning point. --Brian McNeil / 12:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do not falsely accuse Blueboar. He edited a Wikinews entry to see if he could and immediately self-reverted. That is neither disruption nor vandalism. Vassyana (talk) 12:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It is the very definition of n:WN:POINT --Deprifry (talk) 20:48, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

He immediately reverted and caused no disruption. That's hardly a POINT edit. Vassyana (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment. The problem is that Wikinews, regardless of its worth and credibility, is essentially a self-published source. We would not allow a user to post information from their interview with someone or the results of their personal investigations. To say we should allow it if they instead post to Wikinews first is simply absurd. While I appreciate the good work people do at Wikinews, it simply is not a reliable source. Without significant editorial control and review, it's just another self-published source. That doesn't mean honor code rules and superficial community review. That means real fact-checking, reviewing interview audio, calling agencies to verify official statements and so on. Such editorial review would require fundamental changes to the project, which seems unlikely. The contributors to Wikinews are passionate, earnest and dedicated to their project, and I admire that. However, whether or not Wikinews is a worthwhile project has nothing to do with its reliability as a source under Misplaced Pages conventions. Vassyana (talk) 12:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Ask yourself this: Will Misplaced Pages:Stable Versions make Misplaced Pages a reliable source? Once you realise it'd be absurd to suggest it will, ask then what would make Wikinews fundamantally different from a Misplaced Pages with stable versions? WilyD 13:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

We're not talking about Misplaced Pages stable versions, which are a half-assed attempt at discouraging vandals until they get bored. I want Stable Versions for Wikinews with but with an editorial board that is - potentially - prepared to put their names behind contributions. Now, can we close the "no, nay, never" discussion here and move on to how Wikinews needs to improve? The discussion for that - surprisingly enough - is on Wikinews. --Brian McNeil / 14:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we should not be saying "No, nay, never"... This has to be a "No, not yet" discussion... Wikinews wants to be a reliable source for us and, assuming this desire is achievable, we should assist them in doing so. They are going to have to make some fundamental changes for that to happen, but if they are willing to make those changes, we should not discourage them from doing so. This is a conversation that needs to take place in both locations... as they have ideas they need to come to the appropriate talk page here and ask: "If we do such and such, will that make Wikinews more likely to be accepted as a source on Misplaced Pages?" I would hate to have the good folks at Wikinews make changes to their proceedures, only to discover that we still don't consider Wikinews acceptable. They will need to have imput from us so they know what they will need to change. As a start, I encourage them to "read, mark and inwardly digest" our policies and guidelines... especially WP:NOR and WP:V. Blueboar (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

there are other good reasons for Wikinews to have stable versions that have been discussed elsewhere--prime among them in my opinion is the acceptability for GoogleNews, which not unreasonably wants to have something fixed that can be cited. But this is up to the people who work there. DGG (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Stable versions will introduce editorial control on Wikinews because only a selected group of Editors will be able to flag revisions. That's pretty much installing an Editorial Board. It's a totally different approach from Misplaced Pages, where it is aimed at reducing vandalism. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

How is it functionally different? Stable versions have multiple purposes, including some form of editorial control - indeed, only a selected group of editors will be able to flag revisions (assuming it ever happens (HA!)) and so forth. Weblogs often have specific, named people approving and publishing the content, and yet are usually not considered reliable sources. The defenses of Wikinews as a source are missing the problem entirely (and why Wikinews would want to get endorsed as a reliable source here to attract a mass migration of POV warriors is beyond me. ;) Cheers, WilyD 01:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that Wikinews is a self-published source for the purposes of Misplaced Pages. The editor does not have ultimate control of the publication process, which is the defining characteristic of a WP:SPS. Although anyone can start an article, they do not own it, and will likely be challenged if they are making false claims or pushing a POV. Just because a Wikinews article is not self-published, that does not mean it is a reliable source, and your garden variety Wikinews article probably is not. And for the garden variety Wikinews subject, we probably have other mainstream sources to use. But in specific cases, Wikinews could be a reliable source, and should not be dismissed summarily, but objectively evaluated like any other source. Dhaluza (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Irony

This shows what some Wikipedians think of sister projects; I'm delighted to see most people who participate in deletion requests reacted with a WTF? But it is symptomatic of a noticable portion of the Misplaced Pages base who think this project is the be all and end all. I recall a certain contributor standing for board on a basis of shutting all sister projects. Individuals who have clearly expressed such opinions have obviously (AFAIK) rescinded any right to comment on the validity of Wikinews and other sister projects and - in utter ignorance - think people will migrate to Misplaced Pages from sister projects. I would - again - encourage people to join the Wikinews discussion to create best practice procedures and guidelines. We have Sue Gardner on the board - former head of CBC.ca; yes, she's busy, but she is the best person to help finalise such guidelines if there is an effort to produce them. --Brian McNeil / 12:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The WikiMedia Foundation involves itself in content dispute as little as possible to maintain its legal status as a service provider and not a publisher. The English language Misplaced Pages community decides its criteria for reliable sources; and we decide that criteria to maximize our credibility, not for other purposes, and certainly not to push David's anti-media POV (which I agree with, but NPOV rules). WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

NO

I don't see how it can be used as a source any more that wikipedia can. The content of the page can change at any time and the "anyone can edit", so no, wikinews is no more reliable than wikipedia, and I belive that we don't consider WP a RS. Thatve is the only non-trivial point here. Have I missed something? Lobojo (talk) 01:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews will be a reliable source when other news organisations and other experts begin to treat it as a reliable source. The issue of the content changing is something that is not fatal; content already changes on reliable source news sites as new information comes in. The issues are oversight/responsibility and reputation. Oversight/responsiblity can be added by policy. Establishing a reputation takes time. But there is no fundamental reason why a community based news organisation can't be considered as a reliable source. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 03:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. I see your point. I am doubtful that "wikinews" will ever become viewed as a reliable source though, sad to say. I wonder if wikipedia should just ditch its NOT NEWS policy (which anyway only applies to trivial news stories) and incorporate Wikinews. Lobojo (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages ditch the not news policy?! Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia! WMF's goal is to create and spread knowledge and this is the encyclopedic branch of that, just as Wikiquote collects quotes and Wiktionary is a dictionary. Misplaced Pages and Wikinews have two very distinct purposes.

Now for Wikinews never being able to be viewed as a reliable source, however, why not? Try using Wikinews for a bit. Anyone can create an article, but those articles are not published. When the template {{publish}} is put on an article, lists all around the site are automatically updated. If an article was really not ready for publishing (by not citing sources, etc.), the tag can be quickly removed. For original reporting (ie. interviews, etc.), the reporter should post notes, an audio clip, or whatever on the article talk page. A few days after publishing, the article is permanently protected and is "archived". Now not "everyone can edit".

So without just saying "Wikinews is a wiki", how come it is unreliable? Greeves 19:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Turn the question around: which other reliable sources have cited it? Show some evidence that it has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" amongst other reliable sources. By default, sources are considered unreliable. To become reliable, evidence must be shown that notable people and other reliable sources consider the source to be reliable and cite it. Establishing a reputation takes time, and it may not be possible to show that Wikinews is considered a reliable source at the moment, even though it may have the necessary editorial and oversight policies. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

"Over-Unity" and "Anti-Gravity"

I'd like to get some comments on inclusion of weblinks and use as sources for these two sites:

• http://jnaudin.free.fr/ Linksearch
• http://www.americanantigravity.com/ Linksearch

My own assessment, on which I'd like to receive comments:

I've pruned back links to these sites and content only sourced to these sites for years, but as the pruner:inserter ratio seems to swing towards the inserter-faction in the the recent past, links and content are on the rise again.

Jean-Louis Naudin is a hobbyist experimenter who discusses and tries to reproduce nearly every claim of "over-unity" (a.k.a. perpetual motion machine) and "anti-gravity" and often claims success. He has no (known) formal education in engineering, physics or related fields and doesn't published in reputable sources.

American Antigravity is something like the "professional" version of JN Labs -- professional not in the sense of any linkage to the professional societies in engineering, but regarding better web layout and more direct attempts to sell something.

--Pjacobi (talk) 12:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

They don't look like reliable sources to me. --Haemo (talk) 21:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

While some of the links, are being used in reasonable places to document pseudo-science topics, for which they might possible be acceptable, some may not be. This should go the the SPAM notice board also. DGG (talk) 18:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Part of the question, I'd like get feedback on, is whether sources like the above really should be used for pseudo-science topics. Is it a good idea, to let crank #1 testify in support of crank #2 -- or should denying the first and second law of thermodynamics be considered to be an extremist view, per Misplaced Pages:RS#Extremist_sources? I sometimes get the impression of some crackpot-link-exchange-program taking place, where Naudin or Matti Pitkänen (not the skier Matti Pitkänen, but the physicist of same name, compare Misplaced Pages:Votes_for_deletion/Matti_Pitkanen) give positive feedback for every strange idea, just to get themself linked back and linked in Misplaced Pages as reference, e.g. at Searl_Effect_Generator#References. --Pjacobi (talk) 23:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it a good idea, to let crank #1 testify in support of crank #2? Is crank #1's testimony published in a reliable source, like a peer reviewed journal? Does their opinion carry the same weight as the laws of thermodynamics? Of the sites you list, jnaudin.free.fr/ appears to be a self-publisher of Jean-Louis Naudin. Since it's self-published, it isn't a reliable source for any article other than one on the site or author. As for americanantigravity.com/ - this doesn't look like a reliable source. The onus is on the person claiming it is a reliable source to show that it is considered reliable by other physicists working in the same field. As far as I can see, it isn't a peer reviewed journal with any notability or respect in the physics world. So no, they wouldn't be considered reliable sources. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources are not simple reliable or unreliable in and of themselves. They are reliable or unreliable depending on what you're using them to cite. If you say "Jean-Louis Naudin says that he has reversed gravity with device x that does y.", it's a reliable source. If you say "Newton was wrong and gravity is an elaborate conspiracy." then it's an unreliable source. Cranks can be used as references for statements about themselves or their theories. Misplaced Pages:SELFPUB#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_in_articles_about_themselves is close. — Omegatron 03:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Omegatron is correct in this... except that WP:SELFPUB is is discussing articles about themselves. In other words it is appropriate to include something like "Jean-Louis Naudin says that he has reversed gravity with device x that does y.", in the article on Jean-Louis Naudin... but it may not be appropriate to include the same statement in the article on Gravity. WP:Undue weight is an effective counter-balance to WP:SELFPUB. In a case like this, I would also recommend that people read WP:FRINGE. It gives good advice on when the theories of cranks should and should not be included in Misplaced Pages.Blueboar (talk) 03:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No. WP:SELFPUB needs to be changed to remove the "in articles about themselves" clause. I've fixed this several times and it eventually winds up the way it is now again.

For instance, this is a perfectly legitimate reliably-sourced statement that could be put in the Ionocraft article:

Jean-Louis Naudin claims that he has operated lifters in a pure vacuum.

There is no rule that sources like this can only be used in articles about the source itself. — Omegatron 00:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Just another example and a specific case:

• http://www.rexresearch.com/ Linksearch

And the specific case: http://www.rexresearch.com/grebenn/grebenn.htm was once used to source Viktor Grebennikov. As far as I judge the consenus here, it was removed for good reason -- leaving the problem, that all other sources for the Grebennikov article I've found, are of similiar quality (I cannot judge the source in Russian and can only hope the best). Is this enough reason for deletion? --Pjacobi (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It's too bad! The Viktor Grebennikov article is rather entertaining. Under our rules, since the content is unsourced, it needs to go. If the article could say the same thing from sources I think it would be OK. (Everything that I could find about Grebennikov's work seems to be self-published by one person or another). EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi

erm... well on Candybar... the one about the fones... well the reference there... is that valid? i mean... its from a blog! Wikikoolkid (talk) 22:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

well to carry on as you left off...um...not so much... as you say it is a blog, which is not a reliable source per Misplaced Pages.... on top of which the blog does not even make the specific claim in the article, as far as I can see --Slp1 (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you... so I can delete it, rite? Wikikoolkid (talk) 22:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

well... ill go change it now... lol... Wikikoolkid(User)(Talk) 22:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Forums Used for References

In the Smash Lab article, a user posted criticism of the show, citing it as critics giving the show bad reviews, but the reference cited is a forum on Discovery's Website. I wanted to double check that this is not a reliable source before removing the content, and sources. Amazingracer (talk) 00:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No. From WR:RS:

Web forums and the talkback section of weblogs are rarely regarded as reliable. While they are often controlled by a single party (as opposed to the distributed nature of Usenet), many still permit anonymous commentary and we have no way of verifying the identity of a poster.

Chris Bainbridge (talk) 00:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks for the quick response! Amazingracer (talk) 01:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

List of sites running the LiveJournal engine

Properly sourced material about one particular journal site is being repeatedly abusively deleted, with secondary issues of WP:OWN, WP:LAWYER, WP:CENSOR, and others. Your comments? -- Davidkevin (talk) 01:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

To add to what Davidkevin states: the dispute concerns the addition of CommieJournal to the list; the other sites on the list are several years old and have been mentioned in published news stories while CommieJournal is several months old and has not. On the other hand, it is already as large as one of the other sites already listed (JournalFen). Davidkevin seems to feel that the existence of the site is self-sourcing and that primary sources are acceptable in this context. He has additionally stated that the list should be as inclusive as possible, but has made no effort to include other unlisted journals. Davidkevin is also very quick to assume bad faith (as has been apparent not only here but on Talk:LiveJournal) but that has little to do with this noticeboard other than as an explanation for his various claims of policy violations above. I agree with him that wider contribution to this discussion would be a good thing, and have also requested it at Talk:LiveJournal. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If by "he...has made no effort to include other unlisted journals," you mean the list of dead links and journal sites with a literal handful of users at this link as mentioned on the article talk page, that's because, believe it or not, I would agree with you about their non-notability. I don't think CommieJournal is the same as they are, due to its size, rate of growth, and the reasons behind its creation and those reasons being an ongoing reaction to the problems at LiveJournal. If CommieJournal were to fade to unused non-notability as they have, or if LiveJournal management took the winds out of CommieJournal's sails by improving itself and removing the relevancy of it, I would agree with you about removing it at that time. -- Davidkevin (talk) 03:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Waterboarding again

Would quite a few people be willing to read this, in particular starting at Talk:Waterboarding#Shibumi2 second attempt at new article lead, and weigh in? The level nastiness and POVishness based on politics is astonishingly bad in the commentary. This page has been protected repeatedly from absolutely horrific edit wars, and given the ingrained political bitterness on the topic, the level of political dismissal of sources is amazing. The tone has gotten so horrible I'm tempted to wash my hands of the whole thing to let myself work on other articles again. Lawrence Cohen 03:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's already been pointed out many times that this is not about the reliablity of sources and doesn't belong here. I suggest a request for comment. --neonwhite user page talk 04:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

People saying sources aren't valid because they're (examples)

• From New York, a "liberal" city
• From an expert in France who also is a member of a civic group that at one point in WW2 offered support to Stalin (note the expert wasn't even *alive* in WW2)
• "American" views have more value because other countries haven't been through what "we" have
• Further abuse of RS is the fact that some are saying that if 100+ sources and people saying "x is x", but 1-5 say "x is y" that you can't say that "x is x" because it would violate NPOV and be biased to America (I did post to the NPOV talk page, no one seemed to care).

Is the point of this noticeboard only to judge if a source is worthy to include, but not the other way around as well, if arguments to exclude a source are worthy? Or for general abuse of how RS works? I'm posting it here again because I'm frankly frustrated at such flagrant political nonsense. It doesn't seem like something for AN or ANI. If not here, what is the best venue to ensure that out-of-policy damage to the encyclopedia is stamped out before it can take hold, when multiple people swarm in a gang to enforce it? Lawrence Cohen 14:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I just skimmed that talk page and it seems you forgot a good reason to exclude a source is because it represents:

• "fringe opinions from 100 law professors whose previously published writings indicate membership in the lunatic left-wing fringe"

It appears that you're arguing against people who, like football supporters, will back their side to the end without any willingness to compromise. I would suggest a compromise like global warming, "While individual X have voiced disagreement with Y, the overwhelming majority of X are in agreement". But would this satisfy your vocal opponents in this case?

Is the point of this noticeboard only to judge if a source is worthy to include, but not the other way around as well, if arguments to exclude a source are worthy?

People on this noticeboard comment both ways.

If the article had been written five years ago, nobody would've batted an eyelid at calling it torture: nobody argues against calling the rack torture, and yet "A History of Torture" (Scott 1940) states that waterboarding was "generally adopted when racking, in itself, proved ineffectual." There may be a difference between the legal definition of torture in the United States, and the meaning of the word in the English language. Maybe the article can make that difference clear, and make it clear that the US lawyers are only commenting on US law. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 16:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that neither side is willing to compromise, and the side that is supporting calling it torture is the one completely backed up by policy as far as I can see. When a page is overrun by people pushing advocacy for a fringe viewpoint like this, what is the policy-based mechanism that exists for stopping the nonsense of wasting everyone's time? Lawrence Cohen 16:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, how did the global warming editors do it? It must be possible, otherwise that article would still say that global warming was a left-wing UN plot to take over the world. I suspect it involves significantly raising the bar of what is considered a reliable source, and only allowing citing peer reviewed journal articles, whilst at the same time acknowledging that there's some minority view point. And even with all that, they're still reverting vandal edits to the article every day... Chris Bainbridge (talk) 16:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Another thing that might've helped in the global warming case was separating it from global warming controversy. Given that the waterboarding article focuses too much on the US controversy (as the Good Article reviewer noted) it's currently poorly weighted and suffering from recentism. Maybe it could be split, with waterboarding in the U.S. controversy or something similar for the US stuff, and the main article for everything else. Having said that, it might just lead to a POV-fork. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the historical perspective is more relevant to this article than fringe views. --neonwhite user page talk 15:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Is a poll of the general public a reliable source per our standards?

• http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/06/waterboard.poll/

People on Talk:Waterboarding are citing this poll as evidence that the status of Waterboarding as a form of torture is heavily disputed. I have not seen polls used before, for a core RS on a contentious issue. Is this acceptable usage? Lawrence Cohen 17:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. telephone poll of 1,024 American adults was carried out over the weekend and had a sampling error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points From the above poll. 17:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The poll is citable as a reliable source for the opinions of American adults on waterboarding. It shows that, in 2007, there is some disagreement between the American public.

The question of whether the opinion of the general public of the United States is, or should be, a factor in determining the content of Misplaced Pages articles is a completely different one. There are certainly precedents for not following U.S. public opinion (e.g. global warming, intelligent design etc). Chris Bainbridge (talk) 20:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The only thing it can really cite is the result of a poll, drawing your own conclusions from results of a poll would be original research. However if, say a newspaper or journal, publishes a conclusion or interpreation based on the result that would be a different case. --neonwhite user page talk 15:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That is true - a poll itself is a primary source of statistical data, and should be avoided. However, when the poll is carried out by a reputable polling agency, and results published in a reliable source, then it is fine to cite it. In this case, the research appears to fit those criteria. Having said that, if there's any dispute regarding the poll methodology or results, and that has been covered in reliable sources, then it is fine to cite that as well.

As to whether saying there is "a dispute" when poll results show disagreement over some topic is a case of WP:SYN; I think not, the word itself suggests an elevation of a mere "disagreement" . In fact, the WordNet definition of "dispute" is "a disagreement or argument about something important". And if it wasn't important, then the poll shouldn't even be mentioned in Misplaced Pages in the first place. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 15:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

THIS IS AN ABUSE! Please STOP to eliminate the Quotations about Leonard Oprea's work!

YES, dear Victoriagirl, I READ and I understood very well the Misplaced Pages's policies concerning self-published sources and Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves. Therefore, I have to tell you firmly: this book of Leonard Oprea is published in the USA by a POD Publishing House. I mean - a book published by a Publishing House, NOT by a self-publishing venture etc. More - these quotations BELONG to their authors, cultural American VIP beyond any doubt, NOT to some other people. And this you or anybody else can easily check up. Thus, if it will be necessary I will RE-introduce again and again these quotations and I am telling you again:

• NO ISSUE regarding THE VERIFIABILITY of Quotations about Leonard Oprea’s work!
• Dear Victoriagirl user, please, respectfully I ask you do not be a Misplaced Pages censor. It is against the rules of Misplaced Pages 💕.
• Dear Victoriagirl since when is a section of Misplaced Pages article out side of the Misplaced Pages rules just because it is composed of quotations drawn from a self-published source (nota bene: which actually is a POD book, NOT a self-publishing book and it is a perfect legal // check up its ISBN number// publication on sale in the USA and world-wide on amazon.com, barnesandnoble.com and other more than 100 web-sites and you can also find it in the public American libraries of Boston or of the Cultural Romanian Institute of New York etc.etc.etc.)?!!
• Please, dear Victoriagirl just try to check up professionally the Quotations about Leonard Oprea’s work according to google.com, amazon.com, barnesandnoble.com, Leonard Oprea article of Romanian Misplaced Pages and according to who are Vladimir Tismaneanu, Norman Manea, Adam J.Sorkin and last but not least Andrei Codrescu, the well-known cultural American VIP who signed these quotations. Years ago, when these quotations were introduced in this article, their sources were carefully verified and everything was and still is according to the Misplaced Pages rules. Every Quotation content of this article is verifiable anytime by anyone/ sic!/. Thank you for your understanding. judetadeus (talk) 6:24PM, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

What is your question? It seems you are angry at Victoriagirl. Please try discussing your issues politely with her on Talk:Leonard_Oprea. Thanks. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 01:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I have responded to the post by User-multi error: "Judetadeus" is not a valid project or language code (help). at Talk:Leonard Oprea. Victoriagirl (talk) 04:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The article is AUTO. Judetadeus wants to put complimentary quotes in the article which appear on the backs of books he has self-published. I have stated this is not acceptable. Situation seems to be resolved now. Tyrenius (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

IE8/Vasudev

On the IE article, there is a ] going on over its performance in ACID2 test. Specifically whether it needs a change in the test (via opting in to a third rendering mode apart from quirks mode and standards mode). There is no official clarification on whether the mode exists or whether the Acid2 test does/does not trigger it. In this situation, this link was added which says the existence of the mode. However, I have questions on whether he can be considered reliable and his words put to canon? I want others opinion on this. --soum 00:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Specifically these quotes from the talk page discussion are relevant:

221.128.181.109 (talk · contribs): According to the MVP FAQ here, IE8 DOES introduce another (a third) "IE8 standards mode". However, I don't see how it means IE8 "cannot be considered to pass the Acid2" as stated in the article.

Soumyasch (talk · contribs): Any evidence Abhishek has access to the inner working of the IE team and that he is not under an NDA ro reveal such information and that he is singing the official tune and this is not just a friend-of-a-friend-told-me rumor? --soum

Remember the dot (talk · contribs)"This Q&A guidance is taken from the MVPannounce mail I received from my MVP lead". As a Microsoft Most Valuable Professional, yes, he does have access to such information. —Remember the dot

Soumyasch (talk · contribs): You know what an MVP is? S/he is an independent and recognized expert on one or more products. They need not be on MS payroll. And are no way automatically a part of any MS product team. Just by being an MVP you do NOT gain access to such information. And my question is still unanswered: How the hell does he publicize information that is still under NDA (if it were not under NDA it would have come directly from the official sources or the developers). And I asked about Anand, not Vasudev. Vasudev mentions his source, Anand does not. Since he is not officially known to be a part of IE8 project, he does not consitute a source reliable enough for citation. --soum 00:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, these statements are also backed up by the MIX07 presentation by Chris Wilson, Internet Explorer Platform Architect. The Vasudev source is simply more convenient, since it is in text form. The Vasudev source reproduces, verbatim, statements from Microsoft.

Microsoft is under no obligation to share with the public the information it shares with its MVPs, and I doubt that the MVPs are required to not pass on the information they receive from Microsoft. —Remember the dot 01:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No these are not backed up. The MIX 07 talks was plans, this states as facts. True they speak of the same essence, but the MIX talks never says it has already happened. So, they are not a verbatim repro. Yes, MS is under no obligation, but there in not just one MVP. If they are not required to restrain their, don't you think there will be more confirmation? Even beta testers are under an NDA (unless the beta is public) and you expect MVPs to be given a discount? I highly doubt that. Btw, I posted it here not against you but to get a fresher perspective, sans mine or your bias. We can talk on the article talk page or on our talk pages. --soum 01:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Blogs are not usually considered a reliable source. From Are blogs a reliable source: In most cases, no. Most weblogs ("blogs"), especially those hosted by blog-hosting services such as Blogger, are self-published sources; many of them published pseudonymously. There is no fact-checking process and no guarantee of quality of reliability. ACID compliance of browsers is widely discussed, so if this information is true it will eventually be published in a reliable source, but until then it shouldn't be cited as fact on Misplaced Pages. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 12:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

world policy council

The World Policy Council of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity is a nonprofit and nonpartisan think tank established in 1996 at Howard University to expand the fraternity's involvement in politics, and social and current policy to encompass important global and world issues. They describe their missions as to ‘’address issues of concern to our brotherhood, our communities, our nation, and the world.‘’

The council has issued 5 white papers in its 11 year history covering topics such as the AIDS crisis, Middle East Conflict, Extraordinary rendition and other issues it deems of national or international import.

This link here is the current position paper in PDF format. The nine board of director who research and write the papers are listed on pages 2-4 and consist of Senator Edward Brooke, Ambassadors Horace Dawson and Kenton Keith, Educator Henry Ponder, and congresmen Ron Dellums and Charles Rangel. The mission of the WPC is listed on page 5 and their positons on five issues follow.

1. The council is cited here for obtaining global headlines for their position on Nigerian Politics.
2. This video shows Senator Brooke describing the council during the last 1:30 minute. on YouTube
3. This video continues the discussion by other council members regarding purpose, compostion and the audience for the white papers for the firt 3 minutes. on YouTube

Would you consider the research and opinion of this council a reliable source to cite within wikipedia articles?--Ccson 04:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It's clearly a reliable source for the views of the World Policy Council and of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity. The reliability of think tanks in general has to be viewed with extreme caution. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll make it clear that any cited text is the position of the WPC. I'll wait to see if additional editors respond.Ccson21:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree... position papers by the council are reliable for statements about the opinion of the council. Such statements should be directly attributed (in text) as being the opinion of the council (ie: "According to the World Policy Council...."). That being said... the question then becomes one of NPOV and other policies. Is the opinion of the WPC notable on a specific topic? Would discussing this opinion violate the Undue weight clause? etc. etc. In other words... Under WP:V and WP:RS we can say that the position papers of the WPC may be used, but we can not say if they should be used in any given article. Blueboar (talk) 15:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. It's reliable as far as the World Policy Council and APA are concerned. It's not reliable as an expert on ER. And it does violate Undue weight. ⇒SWATJester 19:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

For those of you who don't know what APA is.....it's a college fraternity. It's not a scientific think tank. It's not a political organization. It's.....a college fraternity. It's not the American Enterprise Institute. It's not Brookings. It's not the AIPAC. It's not Center for Freedom and Democracy. It's......a college fraternity. Guess what, my fraternity's members include presidents of the united states. Does that make them a reliable source to discuss world politics? No, it does not. It's just another lame attempt to give undue weight to an article that is entirely critical already. There are plenty enough RELIABLE organizations criticizing Extraordinary Rendition, that we don't need a fraternity to do so. ⇒SWATJester 19:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

News of the World and Yedioth Ahronoth for BLP?

Talk:Chabad-Lubavitch related controversies#Dovid Jaffe. -- Jeandré, 2007-12-29t22:01z

• While the "News of the World" may be a tabloid it is part of News Corp along with the WSJ and The Times. I don't think there is any dispute as to their fact-checking being basically good. And Yediot Aharonot is the principal newspaper of the state of Israel. While I may not like the journalistic style of the NOTW, it remains true that it is subject to libel laws like everyone else. Lobojo (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Given its focus on sensationalism I wouldn't use NotW as a source for something that could be damaging to a person. If the fact in question is worth mentioning it should have been picked up by a serious newspaper or news magazine. If it hasn't, then the point likely isn't sufficiently important or noteworthy to include (see also WP:WEIGHT). I don't know anything about Yedioth Ahronoth.Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It was picked by Yediot, undoubtably a serious newspaper no? It was also picked up, and followed up by the Jewish Chronicle, which I forgot to mention. Lobojo (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

If those are in fact reliable sources (I'm not familiar with them), then cite them instead of NotW. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The Yediot one is in there. I cant find the Jewish Chronicle one right now, it must have got deleted. I think though in principle while I sympathise with your view of the NOTW as sensationalist, I am reluctant to agree that it is not an RS just because of that. While you may have to translate the information into an encyclopedic format and remove the curse words and so on, they cannot print anything that The Times cannot print. The libel laws are equally strict, and it is the same company. While some people have litigated the NOTW and won, many people have tried and failed, and the same applies to all major news outlets. I dont think that the style (however much I look down my nose at it) prejudices the RSness of a source. Lobojo (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The argument that NotW somehow must share the reliability of some of its better-regarded sister publications in News Corp is erroneous. To make a parallel, the parent company of CNN also owns properties that we wouldn't use as reliable sources. Again, if better sources are available, use them; if better sources aren't available, then one has to question the noteworthiness of the material proposed for inclusion. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really making that point. The point I'm making is that they are subject to the same libel laws, and since they are owned by the same company they are subject to similar factchecking requirements to ensure they are not litigated. Lobojo (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

2007 (UTC)

A tabloid reporting a "rumor" is not a Reliable source for what is written there. Not to mention the BLP issues. Everything is subject to libel laws, but not everything is a reliable source. There is also the issue of this topic not being relevant to this article. Chocolatepizza (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The onus is on the editor citing the News of the World to show that it is considered a reliable source. Framing the language of articles to reduce the probability of being sued is a completely different thing from being considered a reliable source. Given what I have seen of the News of the World, it is extremely unlikely that you could show that its standards of journalistic integrity are held in the same regard as BBC News, The Times, etc. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 04:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing about a rumor. The paper says he did something on a certain date and time, he repsonded by threatening to sue, 18 months later his case is yet to materialize. Lobojo (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The real question is: what are you trying to state in the article? If you are trying to state that the subject of the BLP actually did "such and such on X date" and citing News of The World as the source for that "fact" then no, it is not a reliable source. If on the other hand, you are trying to state the fact that News of the World claimed that the subject did such and such on X date, then it might be considered a bit more reliable (with lots of caveats). That said, it would be best to find a third party source that discusses the fact that the News of the World maded these claims, and cite that source instead. Blueboar (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP is pretty clear: "Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all in biographies of living people, either as sources or via external links". Chris Bainbridge (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make above relates to the notability of the News of the World's claim and of the subject's subject's lawsuit against it. I agree that using the News of The World as a source to back a statement of fact (say a statement such as: "Yedioth Ahronoth kissed Bigfoot on July 12, 2007") would violate WP:BLP. However... if the fact that "On August 9th, News of The World published an article claiming that Yedioth Ahronoth had kissed Bigfoot, and now Mr. Ahronoth is suing that publication for libel" is considered a noteworthy event that should be included in a biography of Yedioth Ahronoth, then we are dealing with a slightly different situation. In such a situation, we need to establish the fact that the claim and reaction is noteworthy... and to do that you need to have a solidly reliable third party source (ie a source other than News of The World) that mentions the fact that News of the World has made a claim and that Mr. Ahronoth has reacted to it by filing a lawsuit. Once you have established that the claim and lawsuit are noteworthy, then the claims made in the original News of The World article can be discussed and cited in context (ie as verification that the claim was made, and not as verification of what the claim happens to say). If we are discussing the fact of the claim, as opposed to the facts behind and within the claim, then we are essentially dealing with a WP:Undue weight issue rather than an RS issue. Blueboar (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL!! I see what you are saying and I completely agree, I also believe that the paragraph in question conforms. Here is why. Mr Yedioth Ahronoth (!!) is not the name of an involved party! It is the name of Israel's premier newspaper that published an article recounting the NOTW story and adding further comment an analysis! Funny funny!! So I think the sources are good when taken together - though an investigative report printed in the NOTW that didn't get any further coverage probably would not do, though I am reluctant to class the paper as a unreliable source, it does publish real journalism (and has had many history changing scoops over the years) along side the titties and "readers wives". But seing as the story was picked up by other (more classy) newspapers, I don't doubt the RS status of the sources when taken together. Lobojo (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You can't add two sources together to create a composite reliable source. I have no idea if the Israeli newspaper is a reliable source. However, if they're sourcing articles from the News of the World, then that would certainly count against them.

"I am reluctant to class the paper as a unreliable source, it does publish real journalism" - Are we talking about the same News of the World? The one published in the UK with topless photos of women with large breasts in every issue? The one that showed us "proof" that "Maddie McCann was abducted ALIVE"? The one that reported as truth that "90 per cent of people on benefits are scroungers" and that "Criminals are now officially entitled to better housing than war heroes"? It would be very, very, very hard to show that this tabloid is considered a reliable source by anyone, but you're welcome to try. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes precicely. The main thing is that they are subject to editorial review and libel actions like any other major corporation, that is to say, any error about a living person puts them at a risk of unlimited liability. All the examples you quote have nothing to do with living people and are just polemic which we shuold not quote. But when they make an accusation against a living pesron they have to be meticulous with their facts, and on the few occasions when they have not been they have faces lawsuits. While I share you disdian for the paper and similar ones, we need to avoid bringing our own value judgements into this. We need to ask are the NOTW and the The Sun etc. reliable sources for information about people. Here is a list of some of the major journalistic scoops they have exposed in recent years along with some of the notable journalists who work for them: . I doubt there is a newspaper in the world that has not quoted or taken stories from the NOTW or The Sun (its weekday sister paper.) (sunday veriosnLobojo (talk) 01:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"The main thing is that they are subject to editorial review and libel actions like any other major corporation". By your argument, every single British news publication is automatically a reliable source, just because it is subject to British libel law.

I wouldn't go that far, but major ones, that have significant assets and readership, rather than just minor private local rags would do, that is the primary issue with BLP, to cover wikipedia's ass. As long as we are merely citing an established source, then we cannot face legal action. Note that the NOTW submits to the PCC's restrictive code of conduct and abides by its rulings (see here).

"All the examples you quote have nothing to do with living people and are just polemic which we shuold not quote." You can't pick and choose which articles are considered reliable - it is the source that is considered reliable, not individual articles.

The articles are not unrealiable, they are just polemical, attention grabbing, and sensationalist. They need to be much more careful when libel is involved. I think this is clear. A source does not need to be reliable for everything. The BMJ is not a reliable source on political discourse, but is on medical matters. Lobojo (talk) 02:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

"Here is a list of some of the major journalistic scoops they have exposed in recent years" Five famous scandals since 1843 does not make them a reliable source. Please read WP:RS. If you want to use the News of the World as a reliable source, then you must show that it is considered a reliable source by other experts and other reliable sources. You may personally believe that it is a reliable source, but your personal beliefs don't hold any weight here. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It has external regualots and ombudsmen and so on. It is regularly cited in other newspapers, who clearly think that it is something of a reliable source. Lobojo (talk) 02:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

)

The point of WP:RS is not "to cover wikipedia's ass" or that "we cannot face legal action". It is to ensure that articles are "based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Otherwise you'd just have people adding any old rubbish to Misplaced Pages.

"A source does not need to be reliable for everything. The BMJ is not a reliable source on political discourse" Your example makes no sense - the BMJ is a medical journal, they do not publish articles on politics.

"It is regularly cited in other newspapers, who clearly think that it is something of a reliable source." Prove it. If the News of the World really is a reliable source, then you should be able to easily demonstrate that it has a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" with academics, professionals and other news organisations.

"The articles are not unrealiable" In a couple of minutes of Google searching I found "Maddie McCann was abducted ALIVE", "90 per cent of people on benefits are scroungers" and "Criminals are now officially entitled to better housing than war heroes". In what possible way are these articles reliable? And again, we don't judge individual articles for reliability - the source is either a reliable source for third party articles on Misplaced Pages, or it isn't. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 03:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

NOTW is a tabloid. We can't quote it in anything related to BLP. Simple as that. Relata refero (talk) 13:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Where does it say that being a tabloid automatically invalidates a source, all the newspapers in the UK are now in tabloid form apart from the Daily Telegraph, what does the size of the paper have to do with reliablity? Also this is not exactly the question. The question is also asking if Yediot is a reliable source. Lobojo (talk) 13:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

YA is fine. On NOTW, see Jimmy Wales' quote on the BLP page. Relata refero (talk) 13:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Use some common sense. If NOTW is a reliable source, then it would be okay to add the following to an article: "In Britain, criminals are officially entitled to better housing than war heroes"(citeNOTW). That would clearly not be a good thing for Misplaced Pages.

You might want to check that your understanding of the word "tabloid" in this context of British English is correct - see Tabloid#As_a_sensational.2C_gossip-filled_newspaper, as you seem to be confusing it with the print form factor. I guess it's an easy mistake for a non-native English speaker. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 16:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

People in Britain still do refer to the popular papers as "tabloids" but I would bet that the usage will gradually die out now that the serious papers are also printed in that format. "Red-top tabloids" or "red tops" is another attempt to distinguish between the two kinds of paper. Whatever way we look at it though the NoTW is a good example of the kind of paper not considered a reliable source in WP. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)Non-native english speaker?! Thats nice, would you be so good as yo show me the linguustic errors I am making that would give you that idea? I suspect you are just joking or trying to be unpleasant, but I'll asume good faith. The stories you quote and mock, actually have quotes from various notable people and sources. So the question is can we refer to NOTW to cite those quotes. Do we think they are fabricating their sources? Nobody is suggesting that we use the opinion of the NOTW as sceintific sources. Lobojo (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC) Well, if Yediot is a reliable source I am satisfied. Lobojo (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This is going nowhere. Lobojo, you're welcome to reply here and have the last word but the consensus is clear that NotW is not a reliable source. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thats nice, would you be so good as yo show me the linguustic errors I am making that would give you that idea? I didn't mean to offend you, but you mistook "tabloid" as a reference to the form factor of the paper when it was clear from the context that the writer meant a different usage of the word. This is not a mistake a native English speaker would usually make. I also noticed that your posts contain many spelling mistakes (linguustic precicely shuold disdian pesron unrealiable reliablity asume) and non-capitalisation of "wikipedia" "english" etc., and the fact that you were asking about an Israeli newspaper led me to think you were probably not a native English speaker. I fully accept that this may have been an erroneous assumption on my part, and I apologise if you interpreted my writings as a deliberate attempt at offence. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yediot is Israel's premier newspaper? Not. It is the most widespread newspaper and but it is a tabloid. When I read anything in it (I try as little as possible) it is with a grain of salt. I would limit references to it in controversial issues. --Shuki (talk) 19:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Uncovering the Right on Campus

I'd like wider input on this book Uncovering the Right on Campus: A Guide to Resisting Conservative Attacks on Equality and Social Justice ISBN: 9780945210078, specifically its chapter on its piece by Jennifer Pozner (formerly of FAIR) called 'Female Anti-Feminism for Fame and Profit.'

I agreed with this source's removal for Misandry because it is not directly linked to the subject and it would constitute WP:NOR to include it there. However the user who removed it did so becuase they consider its author to be "far left". This characterization is utterly incorrect and borders on being a BLP issue. I think this is a reliable source in regard to its primary subject, Christina Hoff Sommers, and that it should be useful in articles directly relating to her and her work. Any thoughts?--Cailil 16:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Asian fetish

One editor persists in repeatedly re-inserting unreliable sources (blog posts, articles in student newspapers) into the article. This same editor is also trying to discredit an article published in Salon (which generally is a reliable source) because he claims it was "heavily panned" — but all he has cited in favor of this premise is the same unreliable sources. This editor, User:Tkguy, has made virtually no edits outside of this topic. His understanding of Misplaced Pages policy seems to be relatively sketchy, though he has been advised of sourcing requirements several times. *** Crotalus *** 02:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This does not seem to be an issue for this noticeboard. You already know that blog posts etc. are unreliable sources in general. What, specifically, are you questioning the reliability of here? Chris Bainbridge (talk) 03:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I know that blog posts are unreliable sources, but apparently he refuses to accept this - he's put them back in a couple of times. Also, there is some question as to whether student newspapers should be included at all (this isn't just limited to him), and also whether repeated citations of AsianWeek constitutes undue weight. It would be nice to get a broader perspective on these latter two issues. *** Crotalus *** 03:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

A student newspaper might be a reliable source - it depends on the paper; some are, not all are. "Asian Week" does not look like a reliable source to me, but it is up to the editor claiming that it is to show that to be the case. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 03:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The blog post has been reinserted, in what appears to be a violation of WP:3RR. He's claiming now that since the blogger is labeled a "managing editor," it's OK to cite a blog. Nonsense, of course; many of the more prominent bloggers (especially in the political arena) are professional or semi-pro, but their blogs are still blogs and not reliable sources. *** Crotalus *** 04:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Dissertations?

Are dissertations considered a reliable source? I've never had to deal with using them as a reference before so I've never run into this. I would assume that because they are reviewed by a panel of academics that they would be but I can't find a specific reference within WP:RS and I'm not sure what the verifiability of a dissertation would be. Thanks. --ImmortalGoddezz 05:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I've seen dissertations used as references effectively in a few articles. One criteria that could be helpful would be to look at the sources quoted in the paper. If it's well-referenced, that would lend credibility. Another criteria could be - was it self-published by the student on their own website, or by the university? If published by a university, that seems to add some reliability. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Since the dissertation was added by a person other than myself I haven't had time to check what it's sourcing. However it does look like it's been published by the university, Columbia. The only links I can find for this online seem to be either columbia login only or one of those 'pay for full copy of the dissertation' sites. Not sure if this has any influence over the reliability or not. --ImmortalGoddezz 06:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

In general dissertations will be a reliable source. However, if they are a primary source for new research, and your interpretation is disputed, then it would be best to find a secondary source discussing the dissertation. Also weight it appropriately - an undergraduate dissertation will usually not have been subject to as much review as, say, a PhD thesis. In fact, some undergraduate theses don't undergo formal review, but are merely marked, so falsehoods aren't corrected; in these cases, it would not be a reliable source. The fact that you have to pay for a copy has no relevance; books also cost money. Googling I found the author of the text you cite is now "assistant professor in the Holocaust and Judaic Studies Program and the Department of History at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton, Florida." and the article you cite is not just a dissertation but has now been published as a book by Wayne State University Press. It's a reliable source, but you should probably cite the book. Chris Bainbridge (talk) 13:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah interesting, I'll have to get my hands on a copy then. The content that it is sourcing is not disputed, it just needs a source, however when I read that it was a dissertation sourcing it I began to wonder about the reliability of using one as a source since I'd never used a dissertation before and I'm not all that knowledgeable about th ins and outs of that process. Thanks for all the answers! --ImmortalGoddezz 17:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Warning, warning, warning. Even what seems to be an unimpeachable source can not always to be trusted. ex. As part of my profession I once dealt w a man who used "University of Chicago" as a reference. When I tried to call, the telephone operator was very clear "There is no such place as University of Chicago. There IS a University of Illinois AT Chicago". Surprise, no one at the university had ever heard of this man. Checking sources is ALWAYS much more difficult than it seems.67.161.166.20 (talk)

Some details of the example may have escaped you. See our article on the University of Chicago, founded in 1890. EdJohnston (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

In Britain some PhD thesises are published and a great many are deposited, unpublished, in National Libraries or in university archives. If published it is more than likely that, unless they are ground-breaking revelations, the print run will be minute. But again, copies will be in the National Libraries as it is a legal requirement. Therefore, upon request at those places, you should be able to access those source materials. So I cannot see why such scholarly works cannot be offered as sources. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Domestic violence information

An anon editor removed this information from Father's rights movement. I double checked it and reinstated the info that was borne out by the sources. These sources are available online.

The first source is 'Claims about husband battering' reprinted from Domestic Violence and Incest Resource Centre Newsletter, Summer 1999, authored by the academic Michael Flood.

The second is a reprint of Michael Flood's fact sheet on How the fathers’ rights movement undermines the protections available to victims of violence and protects the perpetrators of violence.

The fact sheet might be debatable as a RS - however both was removed by User:Blackworm on the grounds of Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper) - ie not "reliable, third-party, published with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". I believe he is quoting selectively. Policy states clearly that (as long as the self published source is not a blog/personal website etc): "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."

Michael Flood lectures in Sociology at the University of Wollongong. He was a Postdoctoral fellow at the Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society. He has published on this field, but from the opposite point of view of many Father rights advocates, as can be seen on his article here on WP. Also this source is only being described (as per WP:PSTS) it is not being used to interpret anything else. It was included to make the section comply with NPOV.

The passage that these were added to is here. The removed content criticizes the use of certain studies by Father's rights groups. --Cailil 16:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Update: After a little digging I was able to find (just using Google Scholar) 7 documents citing Flood's - the majority of them Australian government documents. wider input on this issue would be much appreciated--Cailil 14:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources have to be evaluated in the context they are used, as we are not only concerned with the reliability of sources (which is not an absolute measurement), but with WP:NOPV as well, in particular undue weight aspects. You will need to discuss this at article's talk. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Jossi. I think it is an NPOV issue really. These sources were being used to reference a 2 line academic criticism of some Father's rights movement statistics. The POV of the father's rights movement takes up the majority of the paragraph - its critics take up 2 lines. Considering the number of criticisms of these stats 2 lines is short but I think anymore would indeed be undue. The talk page was deadlocked - I have found other sources published in The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health and by the Australian Institute of Judicial Administration - we'll see if this resolves the issue. Thanks for the reply--Cailil 17:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Football Teams

This is related to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Vojvodina national football team. A large number of articles about "national" football teams have been created using this source http://roonba.50webs.com/ . There are no other seeming sources. Can http://roonba.50webs.com/ on its own constitute a reliable source? JASpencer (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I would have to say no, it does not constitute a reliable source. I don't see any "about us" information on the page that tells me it is anything more than a personal fan website. How do we know that the information listed is accurate? Where does the website obtain its information? What sort of fact checking is in place? Since we don't know, we can not rely on it. Blueboar (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Roads2HyCom

Hi, there is discussion on User_talk:Mion#Hydrogen_car about Roads2HyCom, which is a project from the university of Aachen, it runs as a wiki however editors are granted acces on request, point is they are collecting extensive information, like on watermanagement in fuel cells, hydrogen valves, hydrogen infrastructure, etc, articles in general are referenced, so as it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception, (read the last two words), i would like to have your opinions on it. thanks. Mion (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Broadcast - Television and radio industry news, data and analysis

I've never really understood where there line is drawn, particularly when the legal disclaimers, naturally, try and disclaim liability for everything. I haven't looked, but it is it the case that even the likes of the BBC, The Times etc have such disclaimers ?

Anyway, on to this one -

"Whilst we take every care to ensure that the information on this website is accurate and complete, some of it may be supplied to us by third parties and we are unable to check its accuracy or completeness."

http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/terms_and_conditions.html

Published by medium sized publisher Emap -

"A mostly paid-for publication, Broadcast has a circulation of 12,269 (ABC audited) and readership of over 72,000 industry professionals"

http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/about-us.html

If it wasn't for the 3rd party supplied material or if it was syndicated from PA/Reuters etc, I'd have said reliable, but since we don't know, what do you make of it ? Thanks -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 20:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think legal disclaimers shoiuld be largely viewed as a 'get out' in case someone doesnt fact check properly, i doubt it effects the reliability a great deal. --neonwhite user page talk 18:17, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The reliability of a source

See the discussion at Talk:Chocolate Thai#RfC: Cannabis culture as a source. Uncle G (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Saul David: The Indian Mutiny

How neutral, reliable and third party source can Saul David and his book be considered in context of Indian Rebellion of 1857. This author is a BBC commentator, with this book as the only proof of his acquaintance of Indian history. However, his views appear so much oriented in favour of a certain POV that he is extensively cited on the said page to edit facts that were written there for ages now. He has become such a God of that page that sometimes it is stiffling. --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Saul David does not just work for the BBC, he has made programs for all of the UK’s TV stations. Moreover he is visiting professor of military history at the university of Hull, as such he is a recognised academic authority in the field of milliray history.]

Misplaced Pages articles cannot be quoted?

I understand that Misplaced Pages articles cannot be quoted, but can a writing in another article with a reference to an existing Misplaced Pages article be outright rejected on basis of this policy? That would simply amount to acknowledging that the original article used is a farce and the editors there are idiots? Reference: Talk:Indian Rebellion of 1857 Patiala & Jaipur (history sections of later two used). --Bobby Awasthi (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Wot's all this then?

It appears that after this change was made, a whole bunch of active discussions on this board disappeared. I'm assuming that I'm not the only who noticed, but FYI. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Stockholms Fria Tidning: Svart vildavästernhistoria, by Mattias Gardell
2. Encyclopedia Britannica; Andrew Jackson: A Permanent Habitation for the American Indians
3. The Indian Removal Act of 1830
4. Fellman (p. 264)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards