Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:53, 21 March 2015

Before posting, check the archives and list of perennial sources for prior discussions. Context is important: supply the source, the article it is used in, and the claim it supports.

Sections older than 5 days archived by lowercase sigmabot III.

Additional notes:

• WP:RSN
• WP:RS/N
• WP:V/N

• RFCs for deprecation, blacklisting, or other classification should not be opened unless the source is widely used and has been repeatedly discussed. Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments.
• While the consensus of several editors can generally be relied upon, answers are not policy.
• This page is not a forum for general discussions unrelated to the reliability of sources.

Use of encyclopedia as source for statement that humorism is pseudoscience

• Article: Humorism
• Content and source:

Today, humourism is described as pseudoscience.

References

1. Williams, William F. (December 3, 2013). Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience: From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy. Routledge. ISBN 1135955298.

Jayaguru-Shishya removed this from the article:

• first with edit note, "We need something better than a source on extraterrestrials", which is a bullshit reason, then:
• then again; with edit note: "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages"

I asked for a valid reason to reject the content and source, and JS responded with: "Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages." (WP:TERTIARY)"

He offered no actual discussion, except to restate that quote from RS... which is no discussion at all. So, here we are. Is the content and source OK? Maybe not, but I am looking for actual, thoughtful input. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Source is not a fringe source, it is a reliable source about fringe topics (very important distinction). Secondary sources can trump tertiary sources, but the high-value that secondary sources holds does not mean that we cannot use tertiary sources. The bit about discussion does not mean that every tertiary source has to be discussed on the talk page before being added, it means that if he can bring in some sources that counter the contested source, we should downplay or avoid the contested source. WP:PSTS also says "Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources." Ian.thomson (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Jytdog. First of all, I opened the discussion at Talk:Humorism#Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience: From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy, so I am pretty surprised to hear that I "offered no actual discussion". Second, calling another editor's comment "a bullshit reason" is hardly WP:CIVIL nor constructive, in my opinion. And third, as you already said yourself, WP:TERTIARY goes as follows (emphasis added):

Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages.

Did you discuss at the article Talk Page before re-inserting the source? No. Instead, I said that "we should strongly favor reliable secondary sources instead of some tertiary sources, such as encyclopedias". This seems to be in line with WP:TERTIARY. I hope this helped to clarify. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Favoring secondary sources is not a reason to remove a tertiary source. It would be a reason to replace it with a secondary source for a specific point, but tertiary sources are better for "providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources." Please follow the spirit of the policy instead of just hanging on a single out-of-context portion. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Ian.thomson. Indeed, I launched the discussion at the article Talk Page, and not until now I got a reasonable answer. I am hoping, though, that user Jytdog will control his emotions better in the future, and restrain himself from calling other users' comments as "bullshit" or such. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

i tried to discuss with you JS and all you did was offer nonsense ("source about extraterrestrials") and repeat a quote from RS three times, which is not actual discussion. Which is still all you are doing (now for the 4th and 5th times). I am looking forward to hearing from others, which is why I posted here. If you have something thoughtful to say, I look forward to hearing it. Jytdog (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• The source is perfectly acceptable for the claim. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'm the one who inserted it and I thought it was a perfectly acceptable WP:RS too. Kindzmarauli (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Of course there is no problem with the source. It's not the 'ideal' source, but the fact that modern use of the theory of humours is pseudoscience should be uncontroversial, though I think the statement itself could be rephrased to emphasise that it is the continued use of humour theory that is pseudoscience. The theory was science (i.e. "knowledge") when it was dominant within medicine. Jayaguru-Shishya, User:Jytdog is correct that the mere fact that you quote a passage from WP:RS does not constitute a 'discussion', since the passage does not say encyclopedias cannot be used. If it were a "source about extraterrestrials" you might have a point, but it isn't and you don't. Paul B (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

There has been some criticism of the source regarding whether the specific content of specific articles is reliable. But, as with most encyclopedias, the reliability of any individual article does not relate to the matter of article selection. It is not necessarily an ideal source, as Paul says, and I can honestly see that, but I haven't seen anything which indicates that there has been any significant question regarding the subjects chosen for inclusion in that source. The exact phrasing of the content might be open to question, but I can't see any good reason to remove any such mention based on that source entirely. John Carter (talk) 23:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• question - Jayaguru-Shishya this is, right now, a snow close. We have 4 new voices, plus the editor who posted it, plus me, who all think the source is fine for the content (with a small tweak to the content, perhaps). You yourself have not even provided a reason for "no" - just cited a guideline that says a secondary source would be better. In the absence of any actual "no" here, do you see a need to take up more of the community's time with this? Jytdog (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• The Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience: From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy (ISBN 0-8160-3351-X) is an unreliable source that fails WP:MEDRS. It is neither a widely recognised medical textbook nor a scientific review article and its reliability has been seriously questioned by the skeptic community. The Skeptical Inquirer review of the book says that, ".. errors, major and minor, can be found throughout.", "It reads more like a collection of opinions", " contain material that is both correct and objective. Unfortunately, this tome fails on both counts." Please refrain from using this source in all medical articles. -A1candidate 00:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• I believe the above editor should read User talk:SandyGeorgia#MEDRS and pseudoscience. The apparent opinion of what may well be more knowledgeable editors about that source is that the above claim is a bit of a logical fallacy. As indicated there, what is being discussed here is whether the subject is a "pseudoscience". That, however, seems to have no bearing on whether it is or is not medically accurate. And as someone familiar with that review, as I said in my last comment above, there is nothing indicating that the subjects selected for inclusion in the encyclopedia are not legitimately included. I rather strongly urge the above editor to perhaps realize that there is in no way a clear and obvious equivalence of the terms "medicine" and "pseudoscience," despite his or her seemingly absolute conviction regarding that point. John Carter (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Webster's New World Medical Dictionary describes humorism as "definitively demolished" since the 1800s. Dismissing the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience as flawed is one thing, but asking for a MEDRS to cite for the statement "humorism is now regarded as pseudoscience" seriously makes as much sense as demanding MEDRSs for similar statements about astrology, alchemy, or the Nine Herbs Charm. Humorism was totally disproven before the 20th century and its absence is a rather distinguishing feature of modern medicine. WP:COMMONSENSE would dictate that we do not need a MEDRS to dismiss humorism, but that a MEDRS would be needed to say that humorism is not a pseudoscience. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention WP:PARITY supports use of this source in this context. Jytdog (talk) 14:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Unreliable The source in question starts by explaining the various difficulties of using the term pseudoscience and, amusingly, invalidates itself, "The word 'pseudoscience' is not itself a scientific term. Insofar as it connotes a rigor it does not in reality possess, one might even call it a pseudoscientific term." Looking at the entries for A, these include atomism, Agassiz, Age of the Earth, antimatter, aphrodisiac and Avebury. As these all seem to be reasonably respectable topics, the source should not be used indiscriminately to tag any such subject as pseudoscience. Andrew D. (talk) 13:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The term is difficult and POV-pushers for fringe theories love to endlessly discuss the demarcation problem. Sure there are boundary problems, but red is not blue and the argument becomes idiocy after a while. And there are pseudoscientific aspects to all those topics you just cited. The proposed content clearly limits application of the term to modern proponents of humorism. Jytdog (talk) 14:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Wholehearted agreement with Jytdog here. The articles linked to by Andrew Davidson bear the same titles as those in the encyclopedia, but it is also true that each of those links is to a topic which is rather broader than humorism. For instance, we all know Avebury exists, and that cannot be said to make it pseudoscientific. the article however deals with the pseudoscientific nature of some of the claims made about it. Humorism however is a much narrower topic, and the EoP article seems to be dealing with, basically, the same topic as our own article, so, on that basis, the claim, reasonable in some other cases, that the similarity of article names does not necessarily indicate the similarity of article subjects does not seem valid here. John Carter (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Humorism seems quite a wide topic in that such ideas dominated medicine for thousands of years. Even now, the idea that trouble may be caused by such imbalances is still prevalent; we just have a more detailed understanding of the components of which we might have an excess or deficiency - cholesterol, iron, serotonin, vitamins, &c. And our current understanding still seems quite limited in some ways. For example, a recent blood test indicates that my lipid level is higher than the doctor might like. But can she tell me whether I actually have incipient atherosclerosis or not? There doesn't seem to be a good test for this and so uncertain risk factors are used instead. These risk factors seem quite like the broad stereotypes of the humoural sort but instead of being choleric say, you might have a high BMI and type-A personality. Plus ça change... Andrew D. (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

OR claim that's akin to saying alchemy isn't necessarily a pseudoscience because gold, silver, and lead are on the periodic table. Your doctor would hopefully be using the risk factors based on previous documented connection, not because of magical stereotypes. Humorism is specifically the belief in blood, phlegm, and black and yellow biles, not other bodily fluids.

Geocentrism and Astrology dominated astronomy for thousands of years as well, but we still describe them as pseudoscience (if not outright superstition). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

To me this does not look like a normal RSN question? It is easy to find sources saying all kinds of things, but then we need to discuss due weight, which is more of an editing discussion. What are the editing concerns that lead to the discussion? I have noticed in the past around Misplaced Pages that the term "pseudoscience", whether it is a clear term or not, is more common on Misplaced Pages than in outside publications, and this seems to be linked to interest in Misplaced Pages's own policies, whereby articles involving "pseudoscience" come under the martial law of "discretionary sanctions" (which seems to derive from historical debates about climate change articles, but has had some mission creep by my reading). Is that playing a role here? I note remark above that there might be a difference between science which has been historically found wrong, and "pseudoscience" and that seems correct. Pseudoscience is not normally a term used to apply to Aristotle for example and I don't think we should have articles about classical science, philosophy and medicine coming under discretionary sanctions just because there are still proponents today.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Andrew L, this is indeed not a normal RSN question. I agree with others; the source given is reliable for the specific use proposed. Additionally humorism is pretty valueless as an aid to understanding the human body. Discussion of our, perhaps over-inclusive, use of the term "pseudoscience" and our possible over-eagerness to use it repeatedly to disparage out-of-date attempts to understand the world, is best had elsewhere. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster and Richard Keatinge on the face of it, this is a straight up and very obvious RSN case. The content and sourcing were objected to, based on the source. Consensus is clear that they are fine. We can guess that JS's actual objection was use of the term "pseudoscience" but our guesses about other editors' motivations have no place in WP. Jytdog (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The historical practice of now-outdated science is by no means pseudoscience, just early science -- but the continued advocacy of those ideas once they've been disproven to the point of sorcery is pseudoscience. Ptolemy is not classified as a pseudoscientist, but a modern advocate of Ptolomaic cosmology would be an astrologer (and so the only way for them to not be a pseudoscientist would be openly admitting they're practicing magic, not science). Ian.thomson (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson, as an editor with a long history on working on history of science and philosophy I am increasingly seeing these types of definitions of pseudoscience on Misplaced Pages, but not elsewhere in outside reliable sources. In fact the term is not even common outside Misplaced Pages, and to the extent that some blogs and journalists are starting to use it more, Misplaced Pages may even be the reason. It seems to be a Wikipedian definition? It seems to be a sort of mission creep thing coming from the history some years back of debate on climate change articles wherein pseudoscience became a critical term for giving admins special power, right? Anyway, for example can you find any source which says that Thomism is pseudoscience for example? Thomists, or at least some of them, follow the arguments of Aristotle, who argued against the style of philosophy which rebooted in modern times and which we now call science. So they fit your definition.

@Jytdog, yes I do recognize that in theory we can point to a sources question, but it is a rather difficult question to get worked up about. Encyclopedias can be used on Misplaced Pages, although in some contexts they are considered weak sources. It becomes a question of due weight, and due weight is generally a topic for article talk pages, although for sure there is nothing wrong with coming here for some extra opinions. OTOH your reply seems to confirm that it is really all about this term which is important for Wikipedians: pseudoscience? There is also seems to be a questioning of motives on both sides. I have not looked closely at the case, but it seems that the accusation is that the word is being forced into the article, using a weak source. Is that a fair summary? I do not see that the replies here have given any arguments for or against that.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not questioning anybody's motives; I will not delve beyond the surface of the objection that was actually raised. Which has now been well addressed in the appropriate forum. If you want to explore the use of the term "pseudoscience" generally, WT:FRINGE is thataway, and if you want to discuss whether the term is appropriate to use in the humorism article, Talk:humorism is thataway. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 12:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thomism doesn't exactly make empirically testable claims, but humorism and astrology do. Our article doesn't refer to Thomism as pseudoscience, and neither did I. Young Earth Creationism would be a better example, and we do refer to attempts to make empirical claims supporting YEC as pseudoscience. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes Ian.thomson but this definition of pseudo-science is again rather Wikipedian as far as I know and the language you are referring to in those example Misplaced Pages articles will have been placed there by Wikipedians, just like in the case under discussion. I am aware that there is quite a lot of discussion going on around Misplaced Pages about making sure that certain articles are seen as connecting to "pseudo-science", or not connecting to it, because that term then connects to the "martial law" of discretionary sanctions etc. In some cases I have personally seen very controversial efforts being made to twist the wording of articles quite far from what the sources say, in order to make sure that a big black line is drawn between a "history of science subject" (in the example I came into contact with this was teleological argument) and a "pseudo-science subject" (in my example "intelligent design", which NB is supposedly not the article for the intelligent design movement). Problem there is that not one source draws such a big black line. One practical result of long term debate on this apparent wiki-OR, is that the word pseudoscience has been added to the first line and definition of the topic of that article, although there are very few sources that use the word, and no sources at all which say this is a defining characteristic of intelligent design. The arguments given for justifying this include wikipedian definitions of pseudoscience much like the one you give. Is there any chance that the case in hand was similar? In any case, it is important, if you want feedback to be useable, to explain the context of the disagreement. Just coming here asking "can we ever use this source?" is actually not the correct way to use this forum. See the instructions at the top.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

In my original post i named the article, and provided the content and source, and asked if the source was an RS for the content. look at it. nobody asked any general questions. I think this thread is done. Jytdog (talk) 13:16, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I mean that you have not wanted to mention what was controversial about using the source. As gets said over and over on this forum, almost every source is good for something. What is clear from the feedback you have received is that it is apparently a weak source. The implication of this is that if there are debates about the weight it is being given, it might be problematic. There has also been a question raised about whether we are using the source beyond its own intentions, because I see the remark above given that the source itself questions the exactness of the term, whereas apparently some of the controversy here is about using the source to make a very black/white type of comment?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster I'll say this one more time. The editor who reverted and gave one bullshit reason and one non-reason (quoting policy that tertiary sources should be discussed but never saying anything) never said anything about pseudoscience. You are making that assumption. You are free to do that, but do not fault me for not dealing with your assumption about the original objections to the content and its source. It may be that you are raising that issue yourself but you have not framed it that way. Jytdog (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed I have not wanted to take a position at all, because I am unsure of the context. It is in any case true that just because a source is tertiary does not mean we can not use it. I am just saying that there might be other more valid concerns, including due weight concerns, and also concerning the quality of this specific tertiary source, which is apparently questionable. I stand by saying that on this noticeboard there is a long term recognized problem coming from editors who post without explaining context. Of course sometimes people ask questions here in a very focused way such as "can we use tertiary sources?" (ignoring other concerns) in order to get what they want in a content dispute.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

i provided the exact and complete objections that were raised, with diffs. Done here. Jytdog (talk)

• Reliable. Source is fine for the statement: "Today, humourism is described as pseudoscience." 2.27.78.13 (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe, although some of the information being posted here sounds a bit concerning. OTOH I continue to wonder if that is the real point of the disagreement, and therefore whether this is the right forum. Apparently the disagreement could be one of notability. In other words, is there really significant published discussion about "humourism today", or is humourism mainly a "history of science" subject? Is that not the issue of discussion? (I still have not looked closely.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• Reliable as a source for what is and is not considered pseudoscience. Obviously. Equally obviously, quacks who practise quackery based on humourism (i.e. a large swathe of the alternative "whole medical systems" insist otherwise and do research to try to bolster their beliefs, thus neatly proving the point. Guy (Help!) 23:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
• Unreliable - According to our article on the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, the contributors of this book are mostly affiliated with dubious academic positions such as "Department of Religious Studies" and "Center for UFO Studies". Those fighting pseudoscience must realize that using non-scientific sources to fight pseudoscience will only serve to weaken their own arguments and undermine the credibility of the skeptic's movement. -A1candidate 00:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

And those advocating pseudoscience need to understand the venues in which the demarcation issue is discussed, and not hold out for the impossible. Humourism is a refuted notion, the modern purported study of humoural interventions is pseudoscience. It is hard to think of any department more appropriate than religious studies, for investigation of humourism, which is, essentially, a religious philosophy and not a scientific or medical construct.

The irony here is that if the ufologists were not included in the advisory panel, cranks would be complaining that there were no "experts". We see this all the time with homeopathy in particular, where any negative review finding is always waved away using a variety of excuses, and the response of the Aussie homeoquacks have used precisely this argument against the recent government review. Guy (Help!) 11:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

You're the one advocating pseudoscience - because you promote pseudoscientific publications such as Science-based Medicine and other self-published blogs that superficially employ the scientific method but are in fact based on subjective opinion. The demarcation issue is often discussed in scientific literature, except you're completely blinded to it and fail to realize the mere existence of numerous quack-busting review articles such as PMID 15061600 and PMID 22957409.

The irony here is that if mainstream scientists and medical doctors were the only contributors to this text, those fighting pseudoscience would complain that the "demarcation issue" is not discussed in the context of humorism and they would not have cited this source in the first place. And we would obviously not have the need for this pointless discussion. -A1candidate 12:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The issue here is really a categorical fallacy: pre-scientific "medicine" and medicine are two very different entities. Yes, humoural doctrines had a place in pre-scientific "medicine", as did many other now discarded ideas. The crucial thing is that these ideas were jettisoned as medicine began to be a scientifically-founded field.

Alchemy became chemistry, astrology became astronomy, humourism became... well, nothing, really, because it is worthless as a theory of physiology or disease so science had to start over from scratch.

We would document them as pre-scientific beliefs were it not for the fact that a significant number of people continue to believe in humoural theory, and to treat actual patients with actual ailments as if humoural theory were valid, despite the fact that it is not. Worse, they conduct sciencey-looking "studies" to try to prove their beliefs to be true. That is why humourism is pseudoscience, not pre-science. It is precisely analogous to creationism. It is a historical construct that is perpetuated for reasons of faith and doctrine by a minority, long after science has shown it to be invalid, and which nurtures a cottage industry producing "studies" that, by ignoring all conflicting evidence, "prove" their faith to be true.

That is pretty much the dictionary definition of pseudoscience, of course. Guy (Help!) 18:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

No, the Galenic school of medicine was not completely pre-scientific because the development of the scientific method is actually inseparable from the history of science or the history of mankind, for that matter. According to PMID 24879053, "In addition to these very perceptive insights on physiology, the Galenical school made important advances in anatomy".

Humorism was not "jettisoned" by medical science. It was what led to medical science in the first place. For if there was no humorism, there would have been no modern medicine. On the other hand, if there was no creationism, we would not have any creation science. Alchemy became chemistry, astrology became astronomy, and humorism (as taught by Galen) became physiology (See PMID 24879053). -A1candidate 08:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

As someone who has worked a lot on history of science articles, but none on humorism specifically, I have to say that A1candidate is right. There is no big black line that reliable sources on this subject can draw between "scientific" and "pre scientific". That is the kind of position one finds on blogs, but it does not reflect how medicine really developed. The Greeks already made a distinction between traditional knowledge (nomos) and knowledge built up in a methodical neutral way (episteme). In the case of a "practical" science such as medicine, one of the big distinctions between modern and classical science, teleology and similar metaphysical ideas, was never a factor, because it was accepted that in practical science you have to build knowledge based on what works, even if you are not sure why. (The debate between teleological classical science and modern science can be described as one of whether all science should be like medicine.) Humorism, you might say, was based on theoretical speculation combined with practical experience, and that is where it went wrong. But this speculation still plays a role today, and many ideas which seem true today will be proven wrong in the future.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• Unreliable for reasons already stated. David Tornheim (talk) 08:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Column on Donors Trust on (but not by) NBC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus is that this source is reliable, and that correct attribution should ensure that neutrality is maintained. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Source: Abowd, Paul (February 14, 2013). "Koch-funded charity passes money to free-market think tanks in states". NBC News. Retrieved February 16, 2015.
• Material sourced: Donors Trust donated to X.
• Articles: Donors Trust, and a number of individual recipients.
• Reason: Article is written by a third party, not affiliated with NBC. It should be attributed either to him, alone, making it usually unreliable, or to his organization, making it reliable only if attributed in text. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
• Ping: Recent significant contributors and admin actions to Donors Trust; HughD, Champaign Supernova, DrFleischman, Capitalismojo, Srich32977, CambridgeBayWeather, Safehaven86, NickCT, Cwobeel

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Generally, NBC News may be sourced on WP without in-text attribution for possible bias. The publisher is clearly and unambiguously NBC News. The article is running under NBC News banner, under the category of "INVESTIGATIONS." The source is NOT flagged by NBC as "guest columnist" or "rambling round the web" or "op-ed" or any such. The source is already attributed to the author by name in the supplied, well-formatted reference. The primary organizational credential of the author is clearly declared in the source. The source is a report on an investigation of primary source documents, the federal filings of the subject of the article and its donors. The source is used in the article only for its identification of donors and recipients from those documents, not for its views or opinions. As the federal filings are publicly available, there can be little reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of the identification of the donors and recipients. What is the issue here? Hugh (talk) 20:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

BTW, your addition of two editors to the ping both will not go through Echo, as it's an edit of an already-signed section, and is probably inappropriate ING, as neither of those editors edited Donors Trust or Talk:Donors Trust in the past month. However, they may have comment on some of the related articles; if significant contributors, the addition might not fall afoul of WP:CANVASS. It won't WP:NOTIFY, though. Thanks. NickCT, Cwobeel Hugh (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

1. The source is misidentified; it's an independent investigator posting on the NBC site. NBC has no control or verification of the investigator's work.
2. Due to the fact that it is public record, it might be reasonable for inclusion if The Center for Public Integrity has a reputation for accuracy. I haven't seen evidence for or against that. It still would provide no (not just little) indication of significance or relevance. Some of the statements which HughD has sourced to the article aren't actually in the article; for instance, he uses FreedomWorks while the source says FreedomWorks Foundation. But that's a separate issue; except in that it casts question on your additions to articles as being incorrect. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The source is perfectly identified in a well-formatted reference as per WP policy and guidelines, including author and publisher. It is an investigative reporting on the NBC News website. The dependence or independence is not in evidenced in the source, in any case the financial relationship between an author and a publisher is irrelevant. The authors' organizational affiliation is irrelevant. NBC News is a gold star top shelf publisher by any reasonable assessment if there is one. Again, this investigation on the NBC News website is not flagged by NBC News as "independent" or "guest" or any such. The host for this source is http://investigations.nbcnews.com, not http://guestblog.nbc.com, for g*d's sake. NBC News has complete control over what appears on their website. You have no evidence to the contrary. Do you think NBC News was hacked? What is the issue here? Hugh (talk) 21:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I will thank you to please help us all focus here on the reliablity of the specific source in the OP above. Hugh (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

NBC certainly has "control or verification of the investigator's work" — if they weren't convinced of its veracity and fairness, they could have chosen not to publish it. The fact that they published it establishes it under NBC News' aegis. This is no different than the Miami Herald publishing an article from the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting or the Juneau Empire publishing an article from the Associated Press — news outlets republishing the work of shared-asset newsgathering organizations is as old as the media itself. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

News organizations also host blogs, which do not necessarily reflect their point of view or editorial control. The navigation links on NBCNews.com suggests that "Investigations" is parallel to "News", "Politics", "Sports", "Science", etc., which might very mean that it is not "News". The fact that the author of the article is given an affiliation credit suggests that it is not part of the regular News site. (HughD also uses actual blog entries at Forbes as if they were articles, so his word is not convincing to me.) I admit that I'm not good at tracking down whether a web page represents news or commentary (including gest commentary aka op-ed), but this item doesn't have many of the hallmarks of an actual news article. If you can find something at NBCNews.com which specifies what the "Investigations" section is, I would accept that. But I really don't see that article as "news", without some specific statement by the mangement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Again I ask that you please help us all focus here on the reliability of the specific source in the OP above. Thank you in advance.Hugh

Interesting use of navigation links. So the sports news is not news and the science news is not news either? Hugh (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no evidence presented here that NBC News considers its "Investigations" section to be a "blog." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, see WP:NEWSBLOG. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Reliable (but): This is simply a republication of this CPI article, which is reliable. CPI is a veteran journalism outlet with a strong reputation. The author is a professional journalist whose work has been published at Mother Jones, WaPo, and NBC. The fact that this article in particular was republished by NBC is further evidence of reliability. The "(but)" in my !vote is because, optimally, we should be citing the original CPI source rather than the NBC republication. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 08:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The publisher is in fact NBC News, and the publisher in the well-formatted reference in the article is NBC News, exactly as per policy and guideline. Hugh (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

This isn't an RS issue, but by sourcing to NBC we are suggesting this is an NBC story, which is technically inaccurate. Citing the original source enables readers to better assess reliability for themselves. I don't see any counterargument for why citing NBC is somehow superior to citing CPI in this instance. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

This is clearly and unambiguously an NBC News story. The provided ref is well-formatted and precisely accurate. NBC News is cited as the publisher because NBC News is the publisher. Hugh (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Is this an NBC story or a CPI story? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Nice try at a compromise, Doc, but I'm afraid I must ask you to please help us all focus here on the reliability of the above original post, the NBC News item. The The Center for Public Integrity article you mention is a different source. Thanks. The two sources are NOT equivalent, and you know it. One is way, WAY more noteworthy than the other. NBC News is an internationally renown news organization, and CPI is a fine, respected organization, but it ain't NBC News. The original poster above has already run around WP flagging all instances of the use of the NBC News item with "importance?." His backup plan in case the NBC News item were OMG found reliable is to run with noteworthiness. Do you support his multi-pronged approach to spiking this ref by any means necessary? Noteworthiness is key here. To take the above cogent analogy, often AP reports can be found in many venues. If the NYT held an AP report for their phat Sunday edition, would you insist on an earlier citation to the AP website? No you would not. This is no different. It's RS, no buts. Hugh (talk) 13:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "compromise" you think I'm proposing. I was quite explicit I think the NBC page is reliable. No buts about that. I just don't think that citing it is as informative and helpful to readers as citing the CPI page directly. Your preference for more "noteworthy" sources suggests to me you're more interested in convincing readers than informing them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Noteworthiness is a legitimate, important aspect in sourcing. An AP story, goes out on the AP wire, pops up on the AP website, but the NYT holds it for the front page on Sunda - would you insist on citation to the AP website? Hugh (talk) 12:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe there's any policy, guideline, or essay supporting your personal view that "noteworthiness is a legitimate, important aspect in sourcing." Yes, I do think the AP page should be used whenever possible. Likewise for other syndicated sources. This is especially important for non-traditional watchdog groups such as CPI, whose politics and journalism credentials are questioned from time to time. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Noteworthiness being an important aspect of sourcing is a personal view? Wow. I will ask you a question a 3rd time that you have not answered yet: An AP story appears on the front page of the NYT and in the classifieds of the Green Acres Weekly Shopper, which do you run with bro? Hugh (talk) 21:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I already said. I'd cite the AP website. If it's not on the AP website, I'd link to either one, doesn't matter, but I'd list AP as the publisher. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

"I don't believe there's any policy, guideline, or essay..." WP:RSVETTING "What's their circulation? Size doesn't prove anything, but it's a data point. The New England Journal of Medicine and the North Carolina Literary Review are both scholarly journals, but they're not equal. Ditto the New York Times and the Easton (Maryland) Gazette. A bigger operation means more resources for fact-checking, a bigger reputation to uphold, and greater liklihood of employing top-tier people." Hugh (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

If you can find evidence that the republishing entity did any independent fact checking then that would probably change my analysis. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

"either one, doesn't matter" Another way the two sources are not equal is agenda. WP:RSVETTING "What about the publisher? What kind of outfit are they? What's their reputation? Do they have an agenda?" We have a fellow editor below who has weighed in with concerns regarding bias in The Center for Public Integrity, no such concerns expressed for NBC News. Hugh (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

This is exactly why the original source should be cited. Some editors have raised concerns about CPI's bias. It should be front-and-center that CPI's employees wrote and edited the content, so that readers can make that assessment for themselves. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

In this particular case, to claim noteworthiness doesn't matter, do you have to sort of ignore the fact that the OP above has flagged as {{importance?}} each instance of the use of the reference in dispute, as documented below WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Disputed_reference_flagged_as_importance.3F_by_OP? Hugh (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not the OP. Believe it or not this isn't you vs. the Borg. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you know I know you are not the OP, and I think you know I know you are not the Borg. I have seen a Dr. Fleischman who likes to call out snark, is that you or another Dr. Fleischman? Please may I ask again, are you aware that the OP has flagged this source as unimportant as you argue for substituting a much less noteworthy source for NBC News? Hugh (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Does it matter, and if so, how? (Can we take this to user talk please?) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Reliable per publication without disclaimers by NBC. I also don't find this particularly controversial (the donations may be, but the fact of the donations is not). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
• Reliable per DrFleischman. Lightbreather (talk) 22:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
• Reliable but use the original source per DrFleischman. He makes a solid case for using the Center for Public Integrity as the source. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your support of the The Center for Public Integrity, a worthy organization, I agree, though off-topic. May I ask, do you have a vote on the source which is the original topic of this RSN request, above, the NBC News investigation? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Original source only and any use should include its internal disclaimer that it, itself, receives substantial funding from a larger trust supporting liberal groups. ("The California-based Tides Foundation, which Ball calls the “ideological opposite” of Donors Trust, also operates donor-advised funds. The Center has received funding from the Tides Foundation in the past. In 2011, Tides raised $91 million and made $96 million in grants, including $26 million to overseas recipients.") Once we use a source, we, perforce, use the entire source. Collect (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow! Way to find room on the right we didn't know was there. Of coruse, as you know, an article by a different publisher is a different source. Please help us all here focus on the original request, above, an NBC News investigative report, which is clearly RS without qualification, if any RS is RS without qualification. You may be interested in opening an RSN request specific to The Center for Public Integrity. Thank you Hugh (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The aim is to find "best source" - the disclaimer is also found in the NBC source, so there is no "room on the right" issue at all -- just a belief that better sources should displace copies from them. The writer is not an NBC employee (By Paul Abowd, The Center for Public Integrity is moderately clear for that) so we have to identify him as his byline states. Did you perhaps think NBC actually produced the report by itself? Collect (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, NBC News generously provided the organization affiliation of the author as a credential after the byline in this reliable source. The employment relationship of an author and a publisher is irrelevant in an RS discussion. Many writers from many of our sources are not employees of their publisher. They may be employees or free lancers or other. Here the publisher is NBC News. Hugh (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll try the above, highly informative analogy from an uninvolved editor, above. An AP story may generally be found in many venues. Did you ever notice that? In such a case, would you cite the NYT or the Podunk Weekly Shopper? Hugh (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

AP stories get credited to the AP - not to the newspaper which happens to use the AP story. Same here. Collect (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Really? Rut roh! This is going to require a lot of edits! Really? An AP story appears on the front page of the NYT, you would insist we cite it to a wire service's website? Doesn't that short change noteworthiness just a tad? Hugh (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The MoS is fairly clear on this -- that "some articles do not follow the rules" does not abrogate the rules. Wire service copy should be credited to the reporter and to the wire service. Collect (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Reliable - As I understand it, if NBC is the publisher, the material gets attributed to NBC and not to the actual author. Is there some policy that states otherwise? NickCT (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
• Reliable Publisher is NBC News, a reliable source. May be used without in-text attribution. Hugh (talk) 03:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
• The Center for Public Integrity is a WP:RS and the author of this piece. It may be used and should be attributed as such. Champaign Supernova (talk) 03:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The author of the disputed reference is not in dispute, it is Paul Abowd. Please help us all stay focussed here on the above RSN request for comment, for the NBC News investigation. I agree the Center for Public Integrity is a fine organization, but please open a separate RSN request for comment for the Center for Public Integrity if you so desire. Do you have an opinion on whether the NBC News investigation is a reliable source? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 11:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Summary of positions

• NBC News reliable as published: NorthBySouthBaranof, Stephan Schulz, NickCT, HughD
• NBC News not reliable, suggest The Center for Public Integrity alternative: Dr. Fleischman, Capitalismojo
• Other: Collect

Hugh (talk) 03:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Not terribly comprehensive. Conveniently leaves out me as well as Lightbreather who both interestingly didn't agree with you. Huh. At least your WP:CANVASSING yielded another opinion aligned with your own. Champaign Supernova (talk) 04:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

so add yourself Hugh (talk) 04:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

You're not supposed to edit other peoples' talk page comments. Your attempt at "vote counting" appears incredibly disingenuous if you can't even be bothered to accurately represent the discussion, even when corrected. Zoinks. Champaign Supernova (talk) 04:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

so, you won't add yourself, even after I asked you to, because you're too afraid I'll report you to some talk page etiquette notice board? Hugh (talk) 11:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Frankly I think this attempt to mischaracterize the consensus is pure disruptive bullshit. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Doc, some are declaring victory over NBC News in edit summaries. Hugh (talk) 12:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

This isn't about "declaring victory", or it shouldn't be. Please review WP:HERE. DrFleischman made the most solid analysis on the point. I agreed with his analysis, as did Champagne, Lightbreather, Collect. Five editors from across the spectrum agreed. Then we had canvassing and a complete mischaracterization of the discussion. DrFleischman is right. This is disruptive and wrong. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Probably justified at this point. Regardless, two wrongs don't make a right, and your behavior here is pretty darn bad in my view. A lot worse than possibly jumping the gun on a forming consensus. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I appear to have accidently edited this section through a software glitch. I was having trouble opening the correct section and so edited the page. The Diff is weird and shows non-contiguous deletions that it is hard to imagine I did. I apologize to the members of this discussion and could someone look at this and determine whether this material was supposed to be deleted? I think the diff is wrong, I don't see how I could have accidently made non-contiguous deletions. Formerly 98 (talk) 12:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Early consensus effected: NBC News not RS

Enthused by some early comments, and unwilling to wait for this RSN request for comment discussion to pan out, the OP and some fellow travellers have declared the consensus of this discussion to be that NBC News is not RS, and have been converting the NBC News reference to their much preferred, much less noteworthy version, with edit summaries citing this discussion:

• diff Donors Trust 10 March 2015 22:47 Capitalismojo: I think the discussion at RS/N suggested CPI as the ref)
• diff Donors Trust 10 March 2015 23:40 Arthur Rubin: per discussion at WP:RSN
• diff Donors Trust 11 March 2015 03:45 Champaign Supernova: Actually the apparent WP:CONSENSUS at WP:RSN is to attribute this to the original source, CPI, and not NBC

Hugh (talk) 11:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Gross mischaracterization of the discussion. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

More premature declaration of victory in the war against NBC News on a talk page: diff from Talk:Paul Singer: "It's mentioned trivially in one source, which is not NBC news, but the Center for Public Integrity, if you care to take a gander at the WP:CONSENSUS here . Champaign Supernova (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Hugh, I don't understand what this is doing here and I lean toward hatting it. This is a content noticeboard, designed to resolve whether a source is reliable. Once a consensus is formed, the discussion ends and may be closed. If someone is editing against a consensus formed here then the solution is to report them to a conduct noticeboard or an administrator. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Disagree on the hat; this material is germaine to the critical issue of the differential in noteworthiness of the two sources. The RSN request was hijacked from what is should be, an up/down consensus on a source, to an A/B choice. This direction on the part of some editors is an important part of the discussion. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Disputed reference flagged as importance? by OP

The OP of this RSN request for comment has flagged each occurrance of content drawn from the disputed reference as not important, in anticipation of noteworthiness discussions, once the reference is successfully knocked back from NBC News to the much less noteworthy Center for Public Integrity:

• Donors Trust
• Richard DeVos
• John M. Olin Foundation
• Castle Rock Foundation
• Philip Anschutz

Hugh (talk) 11:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Wrong noticeboard. Suggest removal. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Disagree on the hat; this material is germaine to the critical issue of the differential in noteworthiness of the two sources. This RSN request was hijacked from what is should be, an up/down consensus on a source, to an A/B choice. This direction on the part of some editors is an important part of the discussion. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Content of the disputed reference: "Koch-funded charity passes money to free-market think tanks in states."

I believe that the above objection to this reference may have as much or more to do with the content of the reference than the reliability of the source, NBC News. The reference is to an NBC News investigation entitled "Koch-funded charity passes money to free-market think tanks in states." The report details findings from an examination of IRS filings, and describes the role of Donors Trust in aggregating and distributing funds while maintaining anonymity. The report names names. As the report's primary documents are publicly available, there can be little reasonable doubt as to the claims in the report; the approach then to keeping the noteworthy content of the report out of WP is to undermine the noteworthiness of the source. Hugh (talk) 11:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand why there's an issue. No one is saying that NBC is not a reliable source. What people are saying is that this particular piece was authored and first published by CPI, then re-published by NBC, so since CPI is itself a reliable source, it makes sense to use the original source--CPI. But we can still use this article, and it's still reliable. So I'm not sure why there's a problem. Champaign Supernova (talk) 14:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Champaign Supernova: - re "so since CPI is itself a reliable source, it makes sense to use the original source--CPI. But we can still use this article, and it's still reliable" - Wait a second. If you're agreed that the source is reliable and that the content is verifiable, why are you still pushing to exclude the material supported by the source? NickCT (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

If you're talking about Paul Singer (businessman), it's because the information that's been added to the article is not WP:NOTABLE and including it absent any evidence of notability is WP:UNDUE. As I've explained on that article's talk page, it's not about the reliability of the sourcing, but about whether the information is significant enough to include. I would encourage you to keep discussion about the Singer article on that article's talk page so as not to distract from the discussion happening here. Champaign Supernova (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

"this particular piece was authored and first published by CPI, then re-published by NBC" You have no evidence of this. There is no evidence of this in the sources. NBC News published the above RSN request for comment source on February 14, 2013. The much less noteworthy source you hope to use RSN to force a fellow editor to use instead was published the SAME DAY, February 14, 2013. So please lay off the silly order of pub argument. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The source you advocate as a substitute is not equivalent. It is not the same. It is not the "original." The two sources are very, very different in terms of noteworthiness, and that is a very important difference. Please help us all focus on whether or not the source described in the above RSN request is reliable, and please stop trying to change the subject, and please stop pretending you don't understand this. Hugh (talk) 15:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@HughD: - re "You have no evidence of this", "It is not the "original." " - Hugh, you do realize that they're correct in saying this is republished, right? It does actually state as much on the NBC article. It is actually the original. NickCT (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The above mentioned RSN request source NBC News does not flag their report as "republished from..." NBC News does include the author's organization affiliation as a credential in the byline. The publication date of the above mentioned RSN request source NBC News and the less noteworthy Center for Public Integrity source are the same. "Original" is ambiguous. There is no argument to be made here with respect to order of appearance. Hugh (talk) 16:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmmmmmm.... I think by putting the author's name and affiliation in like that, they are flagging their report as "republished from...". That is common convention. Note at the bottom of the article they put in "The Center for Public Integrity is a non-profit independent investigative news outlet.". I don't think they'd put that in if it wasn't republished.

You do raise a good point though. It often isn't super clear who the original source is. NickCT (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The organizational affiliation credential in the byline, and the footer on the NBC News investigation, would read equally well had the article not appeared on the Center for Public Integrity website; the credential and the footer do not imply "republished from..." Hugh (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

With respect Hugh, I think you may have got this wrong. I'm pretty confident NBC is indicating that this is republished material. Look at the article published in the huffinton post. They attribute The Center for Public Integrity, not NBC. NickCT (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, I think NBC may consider its "Investigations" section a blog, which would make the sourcing even more tenuous. NickCT (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

As fellow WP editor NorthBySouthBaranof pointed out 3 days and many thousands of words ago above: "There is no evidence presented here that NBC News considers its "Investigations" section to be a "blog." Hugh (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok Hugh. Well whatever the case, I still think the material you're trying to source with the reference is accurate, verifiable and reliable. NickCT (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

good bottom line, thanks Hugh (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree HuffPo, a news aggregator, is bringing the Center for Public Integrity source to their readers' attention, but that is very different from what NBC News did: NBC News ran content under their banner on their website under "INVESTIGATIONS," just as if Brian Williams had read it on the evening news - ok, maybe that's not such a good analogy... Hugh (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

What a pointless discussion. There is unanimous agreement the source is reliable. End of story. Move along now. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: - Still the minor point of who the source is. Is it NBC? Is it CPI? As mentioned below, I think this is a citation issue. But you're right..... Let's move on. NickCT (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand why there is disagreement here, whilst original source may be preferable, where there IS a clear original, and that source is notable, is it not the case that any outlet accepts responsibility (legally and in terms of reputation and 'character'), for content it publishes. WHERE they got that material is irrelevant, they were sufficiently persuaded of its reliability, suitability and news-worthiness to publish it in their name. Proper attribution seems more of a 'courtesy issue' than a reliability issue in this case.Pincrete (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Policy Discussion Started

For the record, I'm a little surprised there isn't explicit guidance on citing republished sources. I'm going to try to start a policy discussion. NickCT (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Looping in citing source talk was a great insight, perhaps even a breakthrough. Hugh (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Using government sites such as the DOJ as a source

I have a broad question about the use of government sites such as , this and this The use of the final source I've included was refused on March 6, with this edit summary: Remove press release as source per WP:SELFPUB. Remove health claims lacking WP:MEDRS sourcing. Diff here I'd like some feedback about using these and similar government sites as sources. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 13:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course primary sources can be used, but without third party analysis, they are easy to misuse. A press release is a poor source for the content that you added, in my opinion, but I disagree with Formerly 98 that it violates WP:MEDRS.- MrX 15:11, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The source is a reliable primary, fine for the attorney general's statement. Secondaries should be sought for context. Saying pesticides are toxic is a "sky is blue" level claim, not a medical claim. It doesn't seem necessary to include though. For the purposes of that article, it would do just as well to begin the quote at "By misleading consumers about the potential dangers...". Formerly98's edit to "illegal safety claims" is vague and uninformative. Rhoark (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Formerly 98 Gandy's summary here does not properly summarize my argument and it was posted without informing me, though I am the other party in the content dispute. I would like to explain my edits here:

The exclusion of this material was based on WP:SELFPUBLISH, which is part of the Misplaced Pages POLICY WP:VERIFIABILITY. Specifically, the policy states:

"self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources."

Footenote 9 of that same article further states:

"Self-published material is characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of contents. Further examples of self-published sources include press releases...."

The policy further elaborates the situations in which the use of self-published sources is acceptable: They may be used for non-exceptional claims about the organization that published the press release or other document but never to make claims about third parties.

This is not merely a guideline, but is part of a Misplaced Pages policy. To me it seems very clear. Formerly 98 (talk) 11:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you agree that Rhoark's response pretty much covers how you can apply policy in this case or does this need more discussion?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful response. Rhoark's response was also thoughtful and well reasoned, but I disagree with his statement that "Pesticides are toxic is a blue sky statement". Methoprene, for example, is recommended by WHO for addition to drinking water cisterns to control malaria mosquito breeding, as its tox is lower than many natural food components. In any case, I believe the issue of whether a source is sufficient to establish toxicity falls under MEDRS, which would clearly exclude the DOJ as a reliable source for such statements. I realize its a quote, but if we allow quotes about health effects from non MEDRS sources, I think MEDRS then becomes so easy to circumvent we open a real can of worms.

Perhaps the critical question here is this: Is the PR being used as a source for the fact that a statement was made by the AG, or is it being used as a source for an attributed statement about the toxicity of the pesticide under discussion? I would argue both, and that it therefore is excluded by MEDRS. Respectfully Formerly 98 (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that where a specific compound is concerned, its toxicity should be backed by peer-reviewed research. As for self-publishing, don't focus overmuch on the listing of press releases as an example. What matters is not the form or style of the work, but whether there is a degree of oversight or gatekeeping between the author and final dissemination of the work. The press office of a government body should have copyeditors and legal advice, so that requirement is fulfilled. The usual cautions of WP:PRIMARY and WP:BIASED still apply. Rhoark (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@Rhoark: Thank you for your response. According to WP:SELFPUBLISHED, the characteristic feature of self-published sources that makes them unsuitable is "the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of contents." Do I understand correctly that your position is that the legal advisors in the DOJ and Attorney General offices are able to provide independent review and thus overcome this issue? This is my area of concern. Respectfully, Formerly 98 (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

No less independent than the relationship of a journalist and editor at the same newspaper. Rhoark (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

This is not really a reliable source issue. In the diff the reference is used to cite a quotation, and those should get as close to the primary source as possible. I see more of an issue as to whether the quotation adds anything to the article. Rejecting government publications as a general policy isimply because they come out of the GPO is so ridiculous as to hardly merit discussion. Mangoe (talk) 11:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

As I noted above, in my opinion Gandy miscast the issue. I never objected to the use of "Government sources". I pointed out that policy as described in WP:SELFPUBLISH prohibits the use of press releases other than for self-description.Formerly 98 (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Realizing that there are a couple of other issues here as well, I think it reasonable to point out that a press release from a private entity, like, for instance, a movie production company, is a lot different from a press release from, say, the National Institute of Health, NASA, or other governmental bodies and/or scientific research centers. The former very rarely have any sort of independent review in advance, the latter will be in general reviewed by at least the in-house lawyers immediately prior to release and will often discuss the results of scientific research which might be for the first time made available through the press releases. In general, the governmental/research center press releases might be seen by some as being more in the vague range between primary and secondary sources, as they tend to be written or at least reviewed before publication by individuals independent of the researchers and thus in a sense make them more secondary sources than primary sources. Particularly in press releases from government or research entities disclosing the results of prior research, I can't myself see any reasonable objections to using them, anymore than I would object to using academic journal articles written by the researchers about their studies. John Carter (talk) 18:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter:I tend to agree with you in principle, especially with respect to scientific and regulatory agencies such as NASA and the FDA. (Though I think that we need to edit WP:SELFPUBLISHED and not simply ignore it. But somehow the PRs coming out of AG offices and the DOJ seem much more political. They read like they were written by, well, prosecutors, and worse yet, ones that are explaining the importance of what they have achieved to the electorate. In the courtroom they are balanced by defense attorneys - the U.S. constitution requires that the office of judge and prosecutor be separate, and prosecutorial misconduct gets hundreds of cases dismissed every year. This is my gut feeling though it is hard to express it in a way that is easy to defend. Formerly 98 (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

You're right that they are biased and primary, not to be treated as gospel. Useable, though. Rhoark (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Especially for factual details of court rulings, which is how they were being used in many of the cases. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 07:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

This discussion is getting rather abstract, but in practice the answer is usually obvious. For example, here is one of the citations removed by Formerly 98 (diff):

Source:

Article: Chevron Corporation

Content:

In 2000, after violating the Clean Air Act at an offline loading terminal in El Segundo, California, Chevron paid, a $6 million penalty as well as $1 million for environmental improvement projects.

This is a statement about an objective fact, and the DoJ citation is obviously both relevant and reliable as a source to support this statement. There is no ambiguity whatsoever. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 07:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

And this from March 8: BTW, I want to add that Formerly 98 stated that I had brought a debate here without notifying him. That was not the case at all--we were not in a debate re using government announcements, but I was aware that I have seen them widely used and have used them myself and needed to know if they are acceptable or not. Gandydancer (talk) 10:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It probably would have been best practice to notify Formerly 98, to avoid any suspicion of deviousness. Formerly 98 might think that by not notifying him, you wanted the luxury of presenting your argument here unopposed, grabbing a quicker/easier consensus in your favor, and slipping it into your back pocket so that you could use it in an anticipated confrontation with him over the issue. I am not saying this was your intention; I am only saying these are the sorts of suspicions which can be avoided by notifying all parties. Xanthis (talk) 18:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It is not at all fair to me to suggest that I may have been acting in a devious fashion and it makes me angry to see my name used in that way. Please note that I asked my question "in general" and first gave a DOJ announcement that I used in the Cracker Barrel article where I was stunned to find that the article brushed over the fact that as late as 2004 Cracker Barrel restaurants were blatantly discriminating against black customers, the second one was a DOJ announcement related to Dow since that was the article I was currently working on, and the third one was a state government example, the one in which I was told that it was a "press report" and not usable. This is/was not a case where I was asking about the use of a certain site for a certain claim in which I wanted to win an argument, but a broad question about the use of government announcements. This question is important to me as I go about my WP editing. To come here and have it suggested that I may have planned trickery is not at all fair to me and I resent it. Gandydancer (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Gandydancer, I did not suggest that you were acting deviously, or that it was your intention to do so. I merely pointed out what the other editor - who made the edit which you used as an example, and with whom you were in an ongoing discussion - might think and how those are the sorts of thoughts that can be best avoided by notifying all parties.Xanthis (talk) 05:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

This case is a misapplication of WP:SELFPUBLISH. The idea behind the policy (and the real-world concept) is that "X has paid to have his work published, and we have no reason to trust it except for the word of X him/herself", which in almost all cases is where the term is applied is not worth much. However in case of the source under consideration, its factuality is backed by the Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York, which is certainly at least as credible as a generic popular publisher. Yes, there may be concerns about relative expertise, WP:PRIMARY etc, which mean that the source may need to be used with proper care and attribution. But dismissing this as a self-published source is simply not acceptable; if this is a common (mis)interpretation of the policy than it needs to be clarified, but I don't think that is the case. Abecedare (talk) 09:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Reliable. I must agree with Rhoark, Mr. X, Mangoe, and John Carter, and Abecedare. (But see my caveat about WP:MEDRS, below.)

Formerly 98, I know it must be frustrating for you that press releases from private individuals and companies carry little weight, while press releases from government offices have a certain currency. Frustrating though it may be, I believe it is quite true. The "WP:SELFPUBLISH" policy must be read in the appropriate context. It begins by saying, "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book..." The wiki policy then goes on to talk about things like "newsletters, personal websites, open wikis," etc.

I could agree that this is WP:SELFPUBLISH if the attorney general were making these statements on his own Facebook page, but that is not the case here. A press release by a government agency relating to its official functions is probably not "WP:SELFPUBLISH." If we take your (Formerly 98's) argument to its logical conclusion, then the bound volumes containing the original certified copies of the acts and resolves passed by a legislature in each year would arguably be "WP:SELFPUBLISH" in many cases.

The fact is that government bodies retain a certain neutrality even when they are engaged in regulatory, enforcement, and prosecutorial activities. Certainly at least as much neutrality as any publishing house. The fact that these government officials are democratically elected by the people whom they govern does not make this any less true (you spoke about the taint of politics). After all, unlike a private entity they are not engaged in litigation for their own pecuniary benefit. Here, the published press release by the Atty. General's office is given additional weight by the fact that there is a referenced (and attached) court judgement supporting it - which really makes it more of a secondary source.

To apply these principles to the quote at issue: I believe that the official press release is perfectly usable as evidence that Dow paid a fine (especially since the court judgement itself is linked to). As the other users have mentioned, this doesn't mean that this is necessarily the best source we can find. To address your "gut feeling": of course statements by government officials are not always gospel. Just because a source meets the criteria for being cited to does not necessarily mean that it must always be true. But that is a separate issue.

As for the statement, "Pesticides are toxic substances that should be used with great caution," in a medical or toxicology context this sentence would defintitely be problematic per WP:MEDRS. I am not a chemist (just a microbiologist) but I know that "pesticide" encompasses such a broad galaxy of chemicals that any general statement about toxicity is bound to be nonsensical. There is a big difference between chlorantraniliprole (which is so non-toxic to mammals that it doesn't require a signal word on packages - not even "CAUTION") vs. the organophosphate pesticide tetraethyl pyrophosphate (which will kill a rat within seconds if a drop is applied to an eye or mucous membrane). Here, the attorney general, with all respect, is wandering outside of his official bailiwick. If he were the surgeon general it might be a different story. But in the context of this diff ("environmental record of the company") it is really more of a question of relevance. See also my comments on the article talk page. Xanthis (talk) 20:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@Xanthis: Thank you for your thoughtful comments. Let me play devil's advocate with a reducto ad absurdum argument: Would this press release from the office of U.S. Senator Rand Paul be a WP:RS for the political positions of Loretta Lynch? This is also a government office. In most states, the Attorney General, like the state's senators, are elected officials. thanks. Formerly 98 (talk) 20:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

@Formerly 98: I think your argument is hardly reductio ad absurdum: it is an excellent example that tests the point. To answer your question, I would say no, Sen. Paul's press release is not a reliable source for the political positions of another person. But neither would a statement by the attorney general be a particularly reliable source for the political positions of another person -- judging political positions is outside of the scope of the official duties of that office. It is simple electioneering, and if the attorney general were to release such a statement (even on official letterhead) he could not really claim to be clothed with the presumption of neutrality that comes when his office is discharging official duties.

There is an additional distinction that I think is very important: an individual senator is a private person. They are members of the senate, but the senate as an entity can act only by vote. The senate can therefore "speak" only through its clerk. Because of this, I would say that statements made by individual senators -- even statements directly pertaining to legislation which they claim was passed/not passed -- will never count as a primary source. The attorney general, by contrast, is empowered by law to act individually in an official capacity, and to speak on behalf of the government.

In your particular example, the fact that Sen. Paul repeatedly uses the pronoun "I" is a strong clue. If the attorney general were to speak in terms of "I" (rather than in terms of "The State of New York"), IMO that would be good evidence that he is speaking his personal mind, rather than speaking on behalf of the State of New York. Xanthis (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Unreliable. I agree with Formerly98 that these are self-published press releases and my analysis pretty much ends there. Government agencies use press releases like these for political reasons, e.g. to show off their accomplishments. Agencies such as the DOJ and the NY AG's office answer to elected politicians, whose reputation for accuracy is, well, I don't need to finish this sentence. There is no evidence these press releases have been fact-checked for scientific accuracy. They were probably written by lawyers or press secretaries rather than by journalists or scientists. They are certainly not peer reviewed in the scientific sense. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman, I have a question. I agree with you that WP:MEDRS statements made by an attorney general's office (e.g., "Pesticides are toxic chemicals.") are probably unreliable, as I mentioned in my comment. But I wonder, do you feel the same way even about publications from a government office making factual statements directly concerning their official duties (e.g., "Dow has agreed to pay a $2M fine to the State of New York"), and maybe even referencing a primary source such as the court judgement?

Second, I can understand your suspicions that certain government agencies may try to use certain types of publications as a form of subtle electioneering. But I propose that "self-serving" does not necessarily mean "self-published" in the sense meant by WP:SELFPUBLISH (personal websites, blogs, open wikis, etc). While we might argue that certain publications from various government offices can be unreliable for other reasons (and possibly exclude them on that basis), it doesn't necessarily mean that they are WP:SELFPUBLISH. Xanthis (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

On your first question: A closer issue that depends on the specific content. WP:ABOUTSELF would apply in some circumstances. In all cases attribution would be necessary for such self-published statements. Regardless, it doesn't depend on the public-private distinction. Two private companies can settle a dispute and put out similar press releases, and the analysis would be the same. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

On your second question: "Self-published" doesn't just mean web content. See WP:V footnote 9 - press releases are expressly and squarely included. There is no exception for press releases from government agencies. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

This has been quite an interesting discussion, but right now it seems that the majority of commentators are taking a position that directly contradicts the literal language of WP:V, which is a POLICY. It is my understanding that policies cannot be overridden by local consensus, one needs to get consensus to change the policy.

What is the next step here? I don't mean to forum shop, but I don't think the conclusion of this noticeboard discussion can be to ignore the literal language of WP:V. I don't usually get involved in these sorts of things, should this discussion be moved to the WP:V talk page? Thanks Formerly 98 (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion should run its course. Contributions are still coming in. If they stall you might want to consider starting an RFC. But moving over to WP talk seems inappropriate. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, any consensus here cannot change policy, but can still be a valid good-faith interpretation of the policy as it relates to this case. For example, the qualified exception already granted to "newsblogs" (and especially the explanatory comments in footnote 9) seem to indicate that publications sponsored by recognized and reputable organizations can be excepted, even if self-published. (Would anybody really argue that Encyclopædia Britannica is no longer verifiable were the company to print the next edition in-house?)

Regarding the second point -- good question! The WP:SELFPUBLISH policy begins with the word "anyone", and in citing examples seems to use the word "personal" repeatedly (e.g., "personal websites," "personal blogs,"). That obviously doesn't mean the policy applies only to individual self-publishers, but it seems to be groping toward an idea (like the image of a guy running a blog from his basement in his undershirt) that is easy to visualize but hard to define. I am not aware of anything that prohibits specific ideas for re-wording from being advanced on WP:V talk at any time. Does anybody have ideas about how the policy could be re-worded to be improved? I agree with Dr. Fleischman that this excellent discussion should run its course. Perhaps out of this discussion will come some ideas about how to further clarify the WP:SELFPUBLISH policy. Ping (Gandydancer—MrX—Rhoark—Formerly 98—Mangoe—John Carter—Abecedare—Xanthis—Dr. Fleischman) Xanthis (talk) 02:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Unreliiable Press releases do not meet rs. Furthermore, it usually raises alarms when editors seek this type of source. Presumably if it were a press release then the press would have written a story. In doing so, they would determine what to present as fact and what to present as merely the opinion of the DOJ. Publication would also determine how important the statement was. If no story was written, then the press has ignored it and we need to explain why it should be mentioned here, per WP:WEIGHT. TFD (talk) 04:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, I agree with TFD on the weight issue, but my reasoning is because of WP:PRIMARY and not because the statement of self-published.

I am only objecting to labeling announcements by DOJ and other governmental (and private) institutions self-published because of considerable consequences that would follow, requiring for example removal of any nobelprize.org or pulitzer.org link from any BLP (since such "self-published" sources can never be used as third-party sources about living people). Abecedare (talk) 04:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I continue to believe that User:DrFleischman and User:Formerly 98 interpretation of what constitutes non-usable self-published works is not consitent with the real-world use of the term, or what wikipedia policy entails. But for now, I'll ping board-veterans @DGG and Blueboar: who may have some useful input. I would also like DrFleischman's (and any other interested editor's) view on whether this edit of mine from two days back at a high-profile, contentious, medical article citing a "self-published" report authored and published by NHMRC was against WP:SELFPUBLISH or WP:V policies. Abecedare (talk) 04:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The report you used would not be excluded because WP:V says

"Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.", which would generally apply to agencies such as the NHMRC, EPA, and FDA.

WP:V also contains a redirect to WP:RS which states:

"Ideal sources for biomedical assertions include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies"

Formerly 98 (talk) 05:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sufficiently versed in MEDRS or in Australian government to answer Abecedare's question. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• No source is absolutely reliable or unreliable, at least not for everything. All sources , without exceptions, have limitations. The actual use of a source depends on many factors what the reputation of a source may be for a particular subject, on the degree of editorial control and responsibility of a source is, what the topic being discussed is, whether it represents an exceptional claim, especially about BLPs, and so on. Even press releases: they depend on the authority of the person or body making the press release. On political matters, government sources typically represent what the government wants people to think about the issue--they do not even prove what the government in question actually thinks. For the articles in question here. The Rand press releases is proof of what he wishes to saw his views on the subject are. The DOAJ items are not proof of the facts stated therein, merely proof that the parties agreed to a settlement on these terms, or that a penalty was assed. They are statements of the legal issue at hand, not the scientific consensus. A party settling a case usually does not accept wrongdoing, just the expediency of making a settlement. To a certain extent they usually do represent the scientific consensus, but this is a matter of interpretation.

A government public health agency making an explicit statement of the scientific consensus, as in the Australian homeopathy example, is very strong evidence of what the consensus is. They're a reliable secondary source within the meaning of MEDRS. They're not definitive, but then nothing is. Even the most reliable sources listed in MEDRF have at times been mistaken, or subsequently proven to be wrong.

The policy WP:V, like all WP policies, itself requires interpretation. It is interpreted in the guideline WP:RS, WP:MEDRF, etc., specific cases are interpreted here or one the article talk pages. Even what looks like the most absolute policy statement is intended to be read in a reasonable way, as it cannot foresee all circumstances. My opinion is that WP:V is correct as it stands as a statement of our policy, within these limits of interpretation. It is never a good idea to modify accepted wording to deal with specific exceptions. DGG ( talk ) 19:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• SPS says that an SPS, like a press release, shouldn't be used to make claims about third parties. If the DOJ press release is about a settlement, that settlement is between the DOJ and a third party, and I think the DOJ press release is a reliable source for the existence of the settlement and its terms. but like any WP:PRIMARY source, editors should be very careful not to go beyond what it actually says and not add analysis or commentary to it. Jytdog (talk) 23:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

These aren't primary sources. These are press releases describing settlements, so they're self-published secondary sources. The primary source would be the settlement agreement itself. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

they are manifestly secondary sources, as at least the third mentioned includes the opinions of others. But they are self-published, and therefore reflect the official view of what the agency in question wishes to say about the settlement--and is therefore subject to multiple layers of ambiguity and need for nPOV interpretation. DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's cut through all the wikilawyering shall we?... we are allowed to use self-published sources as long as we do so appropriately, and we are allowed to use primary sources, as long as we do so appropriately... so all this angst over the classification of the source is actually a distraction from the more important question: Are we using the source appropriately? Does it actually verify the specific statement found in our article? You can not answer this in generic terms. Each and every citation is unique... because in each case the source is being cited to support a unique statement. in other words... a government press release may well be quite reliable in one context, and yet the exact same press release will not be reliable in another context. We need to know the specific context to meaningfully answer the question. Blueboar (talk) 20:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• Reliable for use intended. David Tornheim (talk) 08:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Content removed because of link rot

I would welcome feedback both on linkrot in general and on this case specifically. Thank you.

Monsanto legal cases is a new article spun off from the original Monsanto article, in November 2012 with this this diff content was added to the Monsanto article with regard's a upheld complaint of false advertising against Monsanto, together with a response by Monsanto on its corporate website with regards the complaints against it.

On migration of pre-existing content to the new article it was discovered that the link (http://www.monsanto.co.uk/news/ukshowlib.php?uid=1875) to Monsanto's corporate response was dead, and it was tagged as such in February 2015, at about or soon after the migration of content to the new article. On 5 March, Monsanto's response together with the dead link was deleted from Monsanto legal cases because of the dead link. I undid this removal, and in the edit war that followed, the other user put forth the argument both in the edit history and on the talkpage (Talk:Monsanto_legal_cases) that since the link was dead, the content that relied upon that link was unverifiable, and should therefore be deleted in accordance Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. I countered by quoting Misplaced Pages:Link rot, namely "Do not delete cited information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online."

My questions are threefold:-

1. Is WP:Linkrot correct in saying that a reference need not now be working to be considered verifiable, just so long as it was at the time of its addition.
2. When spinning off content from one article into a new article, do we need to examine every reference afresh and treat each as a newly added reference, or can we rely on the fact that a reference was scrutinised in the past and was previously found to have no problems.
3. Does reverting a deletion because of a dead link, count as a restoration of existing content, even though the article is new. Or does it, because the article is new, count as adding new material to the article.

Thanks.KTo288 (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll just point out that the question of it being a "new" article is largely irrelevant here. That hasn't come up in discussion over the content, nor do I see anyone making justifications because the article is new. It's really just a question of the content in isolation regardless of which article it's in. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

This conversation appears to be moot now that another editor found a replacement source. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually I'm still interested in the validity of once working links, and whether verifiability can be grandfathered from one article to another.--KTo288 (talk) 16:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

the question is petty and pointy. in the exact case in hand, it took about one minute to find a valid source of the content online. the content itself was trivia. why this is worth edit warring over and going to drama boards over, is beyond me. if folks here want to theorize about angels dancing on pinheads, knock yourselves out. Jytdog (talk) 17:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Content needs to be WP:VERIFIABLE. If the link is still available in another reliable form - the Internet Archive is a good source, but there are others - replace the link and go on with life. If the link is dead, and there is no known way to get its content, it is no longer a valid reference. --GRuban (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

As KTo288 says about question 1, WP:Linkrot is quite clear about deleting dead links. It says: "Do not delete". The policy here is the same as sources in foreign language (they are OK) and offline sources (they are also OK). If you want to delete a statement supported by an offline source, then it is your responsibility to go to the library, read the source, and prove that it doesn't support the statement.

About question 2, whether sources need to be verified again when spinning off content, there was an epic, month-long thread about this recently on the Citing sources talk page. One editor staked out a position that sources always need to be re-verified when moving content, and defended it at length, with graphs. There were many editors who disagreed with him. One of them said it was a case of "unique and rather extreme opinions that diverge noticeably from the community's actual practice." If you have the time you can read the whole discussion, but the conclusion seems to be that while there are opinions on both sides, the extreme position didn't have that much support.

So my answers to KTo288's questions would be 1. Yes, WP:Linkrot is correct; 2. Yes, we can rely on the fact that a reference was scrutinized in the past; and 3. No, reverting a deletion of old content is not adding new content.

However, it's also true that this is not the best state of affairs. Look to see if the link is archived, or if another source exists. There aren't that many cases where a dead link is absolutely crucial to the article. – Margin1522 (talk) 02:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:VERIFIABLE is policy. WP:LINKROT ... isn't. "verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." Yes, that includes having to go to the library. But if it is theoretically impossible to check that the information comes from a reliable source, then it's not verifiable, and can be deleted. It is not good enough that some other editor once added the information, claiming to have seen that link; that other editor is not a reliable source. That doesn't mean that content should be deleted immediately when a link dies, WP:LINKROT has lots of good advice on how to fix it, and the dead link can help fix it. But if the content can not be verified, then it needs to go. --GRuban (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

There is clearly some judgement involved here, but in my own experience the more dubious the claim, the more likely it is to be from a source that would take hours of time or large cash expenditures to check. Realistically, I'd say anything that cannot be verified in 1 hour and with an expenditure less than $50 is effectively unverifiable Formerly 98 (talk) 15:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• WP:LINKROT is neither a policy nor a guideline. It is merely an essay, and can (and should) be freely ignored, particularly when BLPs are involved. Townlake (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:VERIFIABLE is policy, true. But it gives no specific guidance on the question of whether "verifiable" means "I can verify it today." Generally it doesn't mean that. Generally it means that someone can verify it. So the editor who deleted the link because he couldn't verify it yesterday was wrong. As it turns out, anyone can because the link in question was in the Wayback Machine, here, and at two other places on the web, here and here.

On the question of whether a source can be deleted because it would take over an hour and $50 to verify, that's ruled out in WP:Reliable sources/Cost. Which is an essay, true. But when the policy is silent on some specific question then a guideline or an essay that describes prevailing practice is better than someone's arbitrary interpretation of a general policy. The relevant content guideline here is WP:Citing sources#Preventing and repairing dead links, which says "5. Remove hopelessly lost web-only sources". So sure, we can follow that. But note that there are qualifications (it wasn't hopelessly lost), and that there are 4 other alternatives, and that the guideline refers editors to WP:Link rot. We have these guidelines because it's generally a good idea to follow them. It's usually not a good idea to ignore them because we think our interpretation of the policy is better. – Margin1522 (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• 1: Yes, WP:LINKROT is correct and supported by policy. The content should not be removed merely due to linkrot. The relevant policy is WP:SOURCEACCESS. The fact that a link has rotted does not mean the content is unverifiable, it just means editors will have to go elsewhere (online or offline) to find the source and verify the content.
• 2: There is no policy or guideline saying when editors are required or not required to verify content. WP:V is purely about verifiABILITY of content. That said, because verifiability is so important to the project, you are encouraged to verify early and often. It's an especially good idea to verify content when you add it, as routinely or intentionally adding non-verifiable content is often seen as disruptive. I have a hard time seeing anyone getting in trouble for not verifying content when forking or otherwise copying it. It's a good idea to explain what you're doing in your edit summary.
• 3: If you're referring to a requirement to verify, there is no duty to verify so reverting a deletion doesn't "count" as anything. I see nothing wrong with restoring content that was deleted merely due to linkrot. In the spirit of collaboration it's a good idea to at least try to find a new link. Using the Wayback Machine can be very helpful in this regard.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Found it. Use https://web.archive.org/web/20130513005749/http://www.monsanto.co.uk/news/ukshowlib.php?uid=1875 petrarchan47tc 06:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone who has taken time and effort on this, it is very much appreciated, again thanks. --KTo288 (talk) 06:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Lewrockwell.com

is

Is <ref> PNAC Captured Part of the U.S. Government and Caused America to Attack Iraq in 2003, Michael S. Rozeff, LewRockwell.com, 2014</ref>

A reliable source to assert *"Authors such as George (2005) and Kirby (2007) posit that PNAC enjoyed this influence largely due to the fact that key players in the Bush Administration - such as Lewis Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Zalmay Khalilzad, John Bolton, Carl Rove, Richard Pearl and Dick Cheney - were closely linked to the organization (either members or signatories to documents)." in List of PNAC Members associated with the Administration of George W. Bush which is subject to WP:BLP as well as WP:RS? Note that article title is PNAC Captured Part of the U.S. Government and Caused America to Attack Iraq in 2003 which I regard as typical of articles on the lewrockwell.com site. It appears to not have passed prior RS/N discussions other than for opinions of notable persons cited as such, but the implication of conspiracy appears to require stronger sourcing, IMO, than simply opinion. Collect (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that LewRockwell.com is not a reliable source for these sorts of claims about third parties. If these putative connections are really significant, someone else must have discussed them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no way that's a reliable source for that or much of any claim. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that use of this source should be limited only to describing opinions of its authors, as opposed to citing factual assertions. They specialize in "diatribes" and conspiracy theories. Cullen Let's discuss it 18:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Disagree strongly with any use: Advocacy sources like this one that alleges to "help carry on the anti-war, anti-state, pro-market work of Murray N. Rothbard." are extremely unlike to provide accurate information. I think the "it's reliable for the opinion of the authors" is the equivalent of saying it is not actually reliable. Every source is reliable for the opinion of the author. CorporateM (Talk) 03:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• Unreliable. Lourockwell.com has an express ideological agenda and doesn't even purport to offer accurate news coverage. The author is not a journalist. Moreover the source doesn't verify the content, since there's no reference to George or Kirby. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
• Ha ha ha ha ha! No. For the reasons stated above. Guy (Help!) 23:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
• No, it is not a reliable source. Spumuq (talq) 13:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
• UnreliableThis makes ordinary unreliable sources look like peer-reviewed math papers. No. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Question on a Youtube source

I know generally Youtube videos cannot be used as sources, but it is of an interview. Can you tell me if this can be used to verify if Drake Bell is a record producer and comedian or not? -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 01:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

You don't seem to have linked a video. If there's no reasonable doubt that someone on a video is Drake Bell, it can be used as a source that Drake Bell said something about himself. Rhoark (talk) 02:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to link, Rhoark. He didn't say it, but a reporter said it straight to him, no denial there, and it was taken as non-reliable, and it got to the point where the article was protected. Here.

Only what he says about himself would be usable. Interpreting the fact he didn't contradict the interviewer would be original research. If he's credited as producer on a record, that's enough to call him a record producer - no secondary required. Comedian is a bit trickier. Rhoark (talk) 03:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Rhoark, I understand. He produced his album Telegraph, and his EP, A Reminder. And I've seen articles take actors that appeared in multiple sitcoms as comedians. And he appeared in The Amanda Show, All That, Drake & Josh, Zoey 101, Victorious, and on iCarly. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Absent any reliable source claiming that he is not a record producer or comedian, any further source to determine that he is is superfluous, YouTube included. Rhoark (talk) 03:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't quite understand your comment, if you could elaborate, Rhoark, it's be great. But as far as I can tell, he has production, and is in several sitcoms, so I think nothing else is needed. -- Joseph Prasad (talk) 03:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It looks like a news broadcast that was re-published on YouTube, which should be A-ok. Because it is an interview, anything he says is self-published, because it's coming directly from him without vetting from an independent source; whereas anything she says is a secondary source. CorporateM (Talk) 03:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree about the things Bell says, but (to the extent CorporateM is suggesting it) I disagree that the things the interviewer says are reliable. Yes, this looks like some sort of published TV show, but the channel/producer can't be made out so there's no way to assess whether they have a reputation for fact checking. It could be a gossip channel with minimal fact checking. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

99 percent invisible (podcast)

I've been listening to this, now weekly, podcast recently and think it could qualify as a reliable source, but don't know enough about non-text sources to say for certain. The podcast is 10-20 minutes long and usually covers some interesting event or design; listen to the episode on the Centennial Light for a good example (that page has a summary of the episode in text too). The episodes always seem well researched and normally contain interviews with people involved in the topic. As such I think this could make a good source, thoughts? Sam Walton (talk) 10:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't look top-shelf, but solid. Rhoark (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It is definitely "reliable enough" to count towards establishing notability. For any contested claims, it would depend upon the subject and the "expert" guests quoted but would probably be at least a valid minority opinion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It would be helpful, when citing podcasts, to always include the name of the person being interviewed or offering factual statements. Shii (tock) 15:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It appears to be funded through sponsorships, donations and merchandise, which makes it not a personal blog. The staff appear to have a pedigree in professional reporting. While it's not mainstream, it looks very reliable to me. I have fewer reservations about it than prior commenters. CorporateM (Talk) 03:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Neuromuscular scientist's blog as an RS on religious practices - Reiki as pseudoscience

Reiki is a form of popular religious practice founded by a Buddhist monk. A blog post by neuromuscular scientist Steven Novella, a member of the skeptical movement, has described it as a "pseudoscience". He posted this on his blog, which is called sciencebasedmedicine.org. A number of editors on the Reiki page have decided that Novella's blog post means that reiki is "now considered to be a form of pseudoscience". Is this a correct use of sources? Shii (tock) 13:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

No. We need a good academic source to back up such a claim, not a self-published blog. -A1candidate 13:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Steven Novella is a published expert on neurophysiology, so he can be cited for his opinions related to neurophysiology. That can include the opinion that Reiki is pseudoscience. However, the opinion should be directly attributed to him, not given in the passive voice as the opinion of unspecified people. Rhoark (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

That's sensible. I personally think this claim belongs further down in the article, where spurious medical claims related to reiki are discussed. I don't think it belongs in the lede, especially when reiki was not intended to be scientific in its original form. Shii (tock) 15:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is a "spiritual practice". However, it is widely used as alternative medicine. A few sources to consider:

• Trends in Molecular Medicine says reiki is "pseudoscientific" and "faith healing". Research on reiki and similar "merely lend them legitimacy and take money away from more deserving projects" because in clinical trials reiki has "already been proved to have no benefits whatsoever".
• The National Council Against Health Fraud says, "There is no evidence that clinical Reiki's effects are due to anything other than suggestion, or that they are superior to massage or any other healing ritual. Reiki's metaphysical beliefs may be in conflict with an individual patient's religious beliefs. Full disclosure of the belief system should precede its use in any setting. An investigation of proponent literature casts serious doubt as to whether Reiki practitioners can be trusted with such full disclosure. Reiki literature presents misinformation as fact, and instructs practitioners on how to skirt the law in order to protect themselves from regulation and accountability."
• Edzard Ernst says reiki "defies scientific measurement and is biologically implausible. These circumstances render Reiki one of the least plausible therapies in the tool kit of alternative medicine."
• David Gorski says reiki is "highly implausible...pseudoscience", "dubious" and "quackery". Reiki is "as close to impossible from basic science considerations alone as you can imagine."

As for "reiki was not intended to be scientific in its original form", organic farming (in its original form) was pretty much a religious practice. The common usage of "organic farming", however, has nothing to do with those beginnings (or, of course, the original meaning of "organic"). Reiki, whatever its original form, is now most widely known as "a healing technique". - SummerPhD (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• The Novella source is fine per WP:PARITY. Or use one of the sources that SummerPhD mentions. Either way, the pseudoscientific/fringe nature of Reiki needs to be prominently mentioned, as required by policy. Alexbrn 17:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

As I understand the application of WP:FRINGE, the source should be fine. As with most discussions of this nature, editors bring up the subjects of original intent and history, but to use such arguments to censor information related to Reiki's scientific basis violates far too many of our core policies and goals. --Ronz (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

You've now cited two different articles by Novella -- a blog post and a journal article. You've also twice cited David Gorski, an oncologist who is simply outspoken on the subject of pseudoscience and an advocate in this regard. You should quit relying on these POV citations, and focus on Edzard Ernst, an actual expert in alternative medicine, and the National Council Against Health Fraud. I would agree with mentioning "pseudoscience" somewhere in the lede if proper citations are provided and not blog posts. Shii (tock) 18:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The blog post is in the article and the subject of your complaint. A peer-reviewed journal article is a suitable alternative. I cite Gorski separately from the journal article as he was speaking independently. I see Lübeck in the article (among others) cited from more than one source (sources we have dates but not titles for). Yes, Gorski is a medical doctor; is that a problem? Lübeck, untainted by a medical degree, apparently gets his reliability from angels and living close to a "famous power spot". Scientific studies of his various spiritual powers are available at his site. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, in my annoyance I overlooked the fact that the journal article does seem to be peer-reviewed and agreeable. Shii (tock) 19:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The blog is a poor source. Not only are blogs rarely peer-reviewed, WP:SELFPUB says we should not use self-published sources about third-parties. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter. Since reiki is obviously utter bollocks (mystic energy can flow through the hands and can be used for medical purposes ... riiiiiiight) any old source will do for the lightweight claim it's pseudoscience. Only more exceptional claims would require more exceptional sourcing. The "spinning plate" image from WP:RS illustrates the principle nicely:

Alexbrn 18:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

No, just because something is wrong, doesn't make it pseudoscience. And no, we don't just get to ignore our rules about reliable sources just because we feel like it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The image and caption are from WP:RS – these are our guidelines: read and learn. We are a reality-based project and these commonplace facts can have commonplace sourcing, or stronger if you wish (no harm in that). WP:Lunatic charlatans don't get passage in Misplaced Pages articles. Alexbrn 18:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

You are barking up the wrong tree. No one on this noticeboard would ever go to a Reiki practitioner. The question is not whether it makes sense, it's whether the label "pseudoscience" applies. I do not regularly pray, but that doesn't mean I think prayer is "pseudoscience". For claims like this a RS is needed and not just "any old source". Shii (tock) 19:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I think we're off on sidetrack here. We have a peer reviewed journal (among others) directly call reiki a pseudoscience. Whether or not a weaker source would suffice is immaterial to this discussion. Given that the OP agrees this is an acceptable source and no one else seems to be saying the label is inappropriate, I think we're done here. Objections? (Incidentally, I don't think reiki is "wrong". The proper term is "not even wrong".) - SummerPhD (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

We have a peer reviewed journal (among others) directly call reiki a pseudoscience.

I have access to the full text of that journal, and it doesn't appear to say that. Perhaps you may wish to quote the relevant section that I missed. -A1candidate 20:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

This article quotes them as calling it pseudoscience. This says it's widely considered pseudoscience. Science and pseudoscience in clinical psychology characterises it as pseudoscience. This also includes it along with homeopathy as an example of pseudoscience, quoting Gorski and thus establishing that Gorski is not just some random blogger but considered an expert in the field of pseudoscience. Are we done here yet? Guy (Help!) 23:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. I do not have my full access at the moment and I don't see a free text of it. I may have pulled the quotes from a press release or article about the article. Though i don't recall seeing this article (and don't typically use the Daily Mail for anything), it does seem to have everything I attributed to the journal article. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• the source is fine and inclusion in the lead is also appropriate. the lead should cover the major aspects of the subject, and the complete medical hokum is one of the major aspects. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The lede currently says, "Used as a medical treatment, reiki confers no benefit: the American Cancer Society, Cancer Research UK, and the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine have found no clinical or scientific evidence supporting claims that Reiki is effective in the treatment of any illness." I think that covers it. Most/all of the skeptic sources raised here are valid for the relevant article section, but putting the pseudoscience label in the first sentence is WP:HOWEVER. These are matters of weight, though. RS questions have been answered. Rhoark (talk) 13:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

a clarification in the lead sentence that the pseudoscience attribution is related to the medical / health/ energy claims. again, the lead sentence clarifies what it is notable for and that is the pseudoscientific energy claims.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Shii, Gorski and Novella are both medically qualified, Gorski is a published research scientist, so is Ernst, and all three are prominent and widely recognised authorities on fraudulent alternative health practices. Misplaced Pages is not an "integrative encyclopaedia", freely mixing fact and nonsense. Reiki is an alternative medicine therapy, and it is promoted with the same kind of pseudoscientific gobbledegook as homeopathy, therapeutic touch and numerous other refuted therapies. To frame it as a religious practice in order to obscure this, is a violation of WP:NPOV, because that is not how it is sold by its practitioners. Also, Gorski and Novella's opinion is not self-published, it's in a peer-reviewed journal: and we even have a source establishing its significance: . Guy (Help!) 23:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• To my eyes, the source might be minimally acceptable for the information it provides. However, I can and did find a few better ones rather easily on Google searching for the words pseudoscience and reiki. There is a good question whether the word should be included in the lead. That, I acknowledge, I am less sure of, and to an extent question, along the lines of Shii above. That would probably better be handled at the NPOVN. I guess the questions for that board would be whether the benefits claimed by reiki are of what might be called a "scientific" nature and whether it might be being effectively misused as a science, maybe like a theoretical case of a defrocked priest offering exorcisms for psychological benefits. John Carter (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• reliable Novella and Gorski are each widely recognized experts on quackery and pseudoscience. Per SPS :"Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" - Quackwatch is a reliable source on these matters. Jytdog (talk) 13:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC) (added 'reliable" at front Jytdog (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC))

• Not a reliable source: I don't believe a self-published blog from a neuroscienctist should be used in the Lead to define the subject. My understanding of expert sources is that merely being an academic and publishing works is not enough. Their work itself has to be the subject of significant discussion in other sources. Its actual application is much narrower than how it tends to be used to rationalize poor sources. However @SummerPhD: has already provided plenty of much better sources to replace it with and there's no reason to use weaker sources. CorporateM (Talk) 03:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

We don't need the blog in the lede, we have the peer-reviewed article by the same author. Guy (Help!) 11:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

CorporateM pardon me, but did you read my post right above yours? Novella and Gorski are both well-known in the field of skepticism - they are experts in pseudoscience. please check out their WP articles and of course the sources cited there. POV-pushers of alt-med quackery hate HATE HATE when Novella/Gorski are cited and constantly try to make the argument their expertise is limited to neurology/neurosci for Novella and cancer for Gorski; its just distortion. thx. Jytdog (talk) 14:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Nobody hates them. They are respecatable scientists who are free to publish any of their arguments in a review article which we could then cite, or they could post it on their blogs and be ignored. -A1candidate 15:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, this is really unnecessary personalization and battleground mentality. I urge you to trim the snide comments about other editors and focus on the content issue. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

i didn't say that anybody hates Novella or Gorski. i said that PoVPoAMQs hate when they are cited. Jytdog (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• Unreliable. I'm no expert in WP:MEDRS matters, but my understanding is that WP:UGC's expert exception doesn't apply to medical claims (which are specifically addressed by a different section of WP:RS). Per WP:MEDRS, the broad and unqualified claim that reiki is pseudoscience should probably require a literature review. I also I think the rule that extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources applies here. Despite the very reasonable skepticism over its efficacy, reiki is quite widespread and is offered by many hospitals. WaPo: "Reiki is now viewed by many as an effective, accepted alternative practice in mainstream America, where at least 1.2 million adults have tried the energy healing therapy." (source: ) The suggestions in this discussion such as "no one on this noticeboard would ever go to a reiki practitioner" are made in sheet ignorance. And derogatory comments (such as those dismissing reiki as "obviously utter bollocks") should be made more sensitively. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

  Nonsense. MEDRS only applies to medical claims. FRINGE applies in this case. --Ronz (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

  WP:MEDRS gives "specific attention given to sources appropriate for the medical and health-related content in any type of article, including alternative medicine." -A1candidate 22:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense back at ya. :-) This is a medical claim, is it not? I agree that FRINGE trumps MEDRS, but to get into FRINGE-land there has to be a consensus in the medical community that reiki is pseudoscience. I'm pretty confident there's no such consensus. This falls pretty squarely in the "questionable science" bucket. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

As DrFleischman says, since reiki is not a medical procedure, but a delusional quack treatment, WP:FRINGE is the correct reference, not WP:MEDRS. You won't get reliable medical sources expending much effort on something that has no remotely plausible mechanism of action and no credible evidence base. Guy (Help!) 11:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say that. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

MEDRS would be necessary to say that Reiki is not pseudoscience. A MEDRS is not needed to say that magical claims are pseudoscience. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Ian.thomson, the expert in the magic and medicine, has dubbed reiki magic, not medicine. I guess that settles it. Not to mention that this has nothing to do with the reliability of the source in question. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I haven't put words in your mouth, so it's not only dishonest but rude to do the same for me. I don't need to be an expert in medicine, I just have to see that there are no MEDRSs that describe Reiki as medicine, but there are sources describing it as the usual Vitalist Energy medicine magical pseudoscience. If we need a MEDRS to say that something has no medical value, we would need a MEDRS to describe Russian roulette as potentially lethal. The "MEDRS needed to say pseudoscience" argument demonstrates at best a major misunderstanding of NPOV, if not outright tendentious editing (not you, but I'm getting ready to name other names). Ian.thomson (talk) 06:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

If you can't find a reliable medical review article to back up a dubious claim about a treatment that is an "accepted alternative practice" for more than a million people (according to DrFleischman's source in the Washington Post), then it simply means that the claim is false and you should not use a self-published blog to support it. -A1candidate 13:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Huh? What claim is false and why? If I understand you correctly, you believe that because a treatment is widely used, that somehow means that it is not quackery? --Ronz (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I think what A1 is saying is that you need particularly reliable sourcing for the claim that a widely used treatment is quackery. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

On the note of needing a literature review, WP:PARITY applies here. For fringe topics, they typically don't get coverage in mainstream literature because they typically just get ignored. If we want to specifically use the term "scientific consensus", that usually requires literature reviews, but there are other variations to demonstrate an idea is fringe, quackery, psuedoscience, etc. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• Reliable for this instance. WP:PARITY applies in this specific usage. We have a lower bar for considering something reliable when describing a fringe topic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

This makes no sense at all. WP:PARITY has no bearing on the reliability of any particular source. It only comes into play when comparing two conflicting and otherwise reliable sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

??? "In an article on a fringe topic, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer reviewed journal." Novella and Gorski are the most reliable sources out there for FRINGE stuff. That sentence is what validates their use in these contexts. Jytdog (talk) 03:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

So true. I had missed that, and my apology to Kingofaces43. Regardless, I still fail to understanding the basis for how we're in fringe theory-land as opposed questionable theory-land. I see an awful lot of "duh it's so obvious" comments, which makes me wonder if much of the skepticism I see here is little more than blind faith. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Are there MEDRSs describing Reiki as scientifically valid medicine? Ian.thomson (talk) 06:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

First, does Reiki at all make a claim to be medicine? To the best of my knowledge, they only talk about healing which is definitely not the same as "treating", as any cultural anthropologist will explain. They are not the only ones to "heal" - for example, clinical psychology also talks about healing. Yet, medical practitiones are usually not authoritative with respect to psychology, so I don't understand why they should be considered authority on healing or other "para" type things? Moreover, among doctors, you will find ones who support "alternative therapies" and those who oppose them, and both these categories do publish in peer-reviewed journals. Why should we take a medical doctor as an authority on Reiki, that fails my understanding. IMHO, it is sufficient to mention that medicine did not find any clinical evidence that Reiki could help in any medical condition (except perhaps for a well-recognised placebo effect which should always be kept in mind when writing about alternative trerapies). kashmiri 17:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm no expert in this area, but my understanding is that some people claim reiki to be an effective medical treatment while others see it more as a spiritual practice. There is certainly a debate out there about whether it's an effective medical treatment, and to that extent the question of whether it should be labeled a pseudoscience is an important one. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

there is no legitimate debate about it, as an effective treatment for anything. there are "lunatic charlatans" who claim it is effective for treating diseases or conditions, and the scientific communtity, which says "Baloney". that's not a debate. with regard to its use for pleasure or spiritual development, science has nothing to say and "pseudoscience" doesn't apply. if our article talks only about pleasure and spiritual uses, all the talk of pseudoscience could and should come out. (this is where our articles self-destruct. if people who like these techniques would limit themselves to just describing uses in traditional medicine, or uses for pleasure or spiritual growth, and not keep trying to say that they actually contribute to health or treat disease - in other words, if they would stay clear of making claims about health that are testable with the scientific method - then things could be lovely.) Jytdog (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: I see it this way: Some people swear by treating cancer with carrot juice. There is no clinical evidence, for whatever reasons. But should we then go to carrot article and quickly label eating carrots as pseudoscience? I am no expert, either, but I see a lot of people using Reiki simply as a relaxation technique (which is absolutely valid in light of contemporary psychology). Moreover, medical scientists tend to be cautious in formulating their conclusions (see here: doi:10.1111/j.1742-1241.2008.01729.x) and I see no reason why us Misplaced Pages editors should not follow this example. I've seen that a few editors here feel that Misplaced Pages should bring enlightenment to the dark masses, not noticing that science has evolved since 1960s and the former black-white categorisation of medical theories and treatments is now giving way to postmodernist approaches. kashmiri 23:10, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree. In that way the article as currently written is not neutral. But that goes way beyond this particular discussion, which is about the reliability of a particular source. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

hell no. mainstream science is not post-modernist. there are critical theory people who like to talk about that kind of handwavy junk, and alt-med POV-pushers love to try to relativize science, but that is not mainstream, realworld, science. 15:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, "realworld" science! Makes me laugh. Only last month I witnessed two acclaimed medical researchers arguing whether muscle tissue is affected in a particular medical condition or not. I guess your view is that one of them must have been a pseudo-scientist, no? Because only one can be true in your view, no? Try to understand that science, especially medical science, is not about truths cast in stone but about constant research, constant quest, and there is nothing relativist about it. Pity that neophytes memorise scientific discoveries but forget to display the same humility to the current state of knowledge as actual scientists. kashmiri 18:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

oh blech. scientists in the life sciences are absolutely crawling around in the dark trying to figure stuff out. nobody sane would ever deny that. but going so far as to deploy that, and the real scientific debates that arise, to justify some po-mo radical relativism, is either ignorance or willful bullshitting (speech intended to persuade with regard for truth)... or most likely, a combination of them. the scientific method is all based on a realist model - there are actual facts out there, that we can discover. it is not just a wash of discourses embedded in power structures. phooey Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Proving naturalized US citizenship (northern Cali)?

Hello! Does anyone have advice on how to support the claim that a person has become a naturalized citizen of the USA (processed through northern California)? I understand that northern California records up to 1989 are online, but this is a more recent naturalization. Does it make sense to reference the location of the archive, and if so, what would be a proper format?

Bonus question: Why 1989? Is there any law that restricts this kind of record from becoming searchable online if it was processed after 1989?

Thanks! -Eekiv 03:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:WPNOTRS, it is probably better to rely on secondary sources for such matters. Using primary records (particularly for BLP's) is often problematic, and may constitute WP:OR when it comes to actually ensuring the individual concerned is the correct one, and not another person of the same name. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

You'll need a reliable secondary source. "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses." BLPPRIMARY - SummerPhD (talk) 14:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

It may be worth noting that under WP:ABOUTSELF, you could probably use the subject themselves as a source, if they have published the claim that they are naturalized somewhere.Knight of Truth (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know that I would trust a BLP as a reliable source for naturalization, as I can see how someone might say they are, when they aren't really. Birthdays, degrees and graduation dates I'm more likely to take their word on - though people do lie about these as well. I would say you'll probably need a secondary source. CorporateM (Talk) 02:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I just note that the question does not explain context. It seems reasonable to assume this involves a living person in which case we have a reasonably clear policy not to use such primary records. But as a more general point, please explain context of RS questions when posting on this forum.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The Merck Index

I've made a proposal to update citations of The Merck Index, formerly printed, and which is now published online. This will involve adding web links. The Merck Index is published by the Royal Society of Chemistry, where I am Wikimedian in Residence. Please comment on the proposal's talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Use of commercial locksmith site as ref versus a ref from The Guardian

• Article: Mortise lock
• Current reference: AnytimeLocksmiths.co.uk

After reverting some spammy references from User:Sarac12345, I noticed that this user has several times over the last few years added links to anytimelocksmiths.co.uk (e.g. this inline link. Suspecting COI/SEO, I reverted an edit that user has made using the same link on Mortise lock. User:Andy Dingley reverted my revision with the comment Restore section and ref. Just because it's a commercial site doesn't make it implicitly spam. I found a link from The Guardian that supported the assertion regarding a particular lock and insurance , which Andy Dingley again reverted with the edit summary restore the locksmith. They are a more competent authority that a newspaper, they also explain what 3621 implies, which neither of your refs even try to.

I don't see how a locksmith company link would be superior to a ref from The Guardian which, while not as detailed as the commercial link, clearly supports the one-sentence assertion regarding locks and insurance policies. I don't want to edit war over this, so I'm seeking additional community feedback.OhNoitsJamie 17:20, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

commercial sites rarely meet WP:RS - their primary function is to push their wares and services, not to provide accurate and factual information. and the guardian is FAR superior site. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

It's self-published (and self-promotional), so it has no business being in the article when better sources are available. --Ronz (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

A merchant site could be reliable for very basic facts about a product they offer, such as its physical dimensions. A licensed locksmith is likely an expert on laws or insurance policies related to locks, but the usual standard for self-published experts applies - they must have been separately published on the topic by a reliable publisher. Rhoark (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• "this user has several times over the last few years " . This user has 35 edits in total, having started last September. Isn't basic accuracy a requirement before accusing editors of being habitual spammers?

I restored the ref because it's a reasonable ref and I certainly see no problem with the editor's past history. They have edited a number of articles about locks, they haven't "spammed" by any reasonable interpretation.

The crux of this matter is that it's common knowledge to UK householders that insurance companies demand locks to BS3621_(sic). The encyclopedic aspect to this is to explain, not that BS3621 is required, but what BS3621 is. The locksmith source does this, with a useful illustration. The Grauniad ref does not.

The first ref added to replace the "spammy" locksmith was to Confused.com, a purely web-hosted price comparison website. Now if I saw an illustrative ref to a minor local locksmith being replaced with a content-free link to such a web business, then that's a change that I'd regard as far more suspicious for "spam" than this ever was. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

This should full in any questions the Guardian left unresolved Rhoark (talk) 21:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

What does that ref explain that the Guardian ref doesn't? It still fails to describe anything about what 3621 requires.

The original ref The 5 Lever Mortice Deadlock is still the only one given that in any way describes what this standard means for a lock. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

If it is a standard, then there should be the official document for this standard, something like this one, so that . Staszek Lem (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

That is a source from a commercial lock maker, rather than a commercial lock seller. Is that really a significant difference?

That source is a page of impenetrable text. Standards, in raw form, are rarely readable.

That source isn't actually about BS3621. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

This is not from commercial lock make, this is from a union of lock makers.The text is pretty much penetrable. A standard is a standard is a standard; readability irrelevant; precise interpretation is. I didn't say this is the ref to be added (I could have done it myself): I wrote "something like this one". Staszek Lem (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Can someone explain why we're comparing websites? We don't search for all the sources that contain a certain piece of information and then choose the most reliable one. We look at each source independently. If it's reliable according to our standards, it can be cited. If it's not reliable, it can't be cited. This means there may well be no reliable source for any given content, in which case the content generally gets deleted. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I would like to second Rhoark: First, you have to have an official source, then you can add interpretation from sources less definitive but more verbose. We have no idea what this particular vendor chose to tweak the description of standard to their advantage. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Not reliable Appears to be a locksmith company, not a union as specified. Commercial links are not forbidden; Symantec for example is known for providing one of the most widely read annual IT security reports and those reports are probably reliable. But in this case I see no special reason to believe they have a reputation for fact-checking. CorporateM (Talk) 02:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Reliable for the purposes of defining the product; the web sites of commercial companies are often by far the most reliable source for technical descriptions, and in particular can serve to interpret the standards, which are primary sources. No commercial company of note could possibly publish such material and be inaccurate about it: their business depends on it. Some have even evolved into universally used publications , such as the Merck Manual. Such is the manner of publications in industry, and the failure to use such sites is a contributory factor towards the ridiculously poor WP coverage in most of the less exciting technical fields. The only real alternatives are trade textbooks and trade journals, which are poorly index and difficult to access, often known only to practical workers in the subject--and very likely to be out of date (especially textbooks). It mainly needs to be kept in mind that most technical sources in practical fields are very much country-specific, and an article should ideally try to cover equivalents in at least the major English-speaking countries, although it is usually difficult for any one person to do this--at least, the article should indicate very clearly the applicable country. DGG ( talk ) 22:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

bible-history.com

bible-history.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Misplaced Pages: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

Hi all I came across an IP editor 67.1.215.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) spamming the website above into ELs. This caused me to look up how much the site is used here and I was bummed to find it used 170 times. I checked the RSN archives and don't see that it has been discussed there.

So here is their "about" page and here is one of the articles that was spammed into WP - which appears to be taken from WP so violates WP:CIRCULAR. It appears to me that everything on this website is derived from elsewhere. I don't think this should ever be used as a source in WP. Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 18:15, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Given the amount of quality scholarship on the subject, a self-published site like this should never be used. --Ronz (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest taking this to WP:ELN. External links don't need to be to reliable sources (see WP:ELMAYBE #4), so whether bible-history.com pages are reliable or not isn't important. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree in part. ELMAYBE Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources indicates that we are still pointing to a reliable source, albeit indirectly. I.e., we have to establish whether this website leads to reliable info, which is the job of this noticeboard. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

This is:

• a religious propaganda site
• solicits donations
• does not indicate the sources of its information (see eg its article about Nero), hence fails WP:ELN mentioned by user:srFleischman.
• does not indicate scholarly credentials of the website owner

Therefore I am inclined to consider all refs to this site as POV spam. WP:original research Staszek Lem (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC) WP:OR

There are plenty of very very high quality sources on this subject. there is not any need at all to use marginal sources like this. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

DrFleischman if you click on the link at the top (this one), you will see that the site is used as a reference, not just an EL, in many articles. it will take some work to check them one by one (which I intend to do) but before i started that i wanted to get a sense of the community about the source in general. Seems like most folks view it like i do.... Jytdog (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Site should be blacklisted as per WP:SELFPUBLISH, WP:FORK and WP:CIRCULAR - material added to the site is not vetted at all...in fact most pages are copy and pasted directly from other sites with typos and all ...thus WP:ELNEVER and WP:COPYLINK also applies. To put it simply as per WP:NOTRELIABLE "they have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest". Adding the link as a source or external link in not what we are looking for here at all As per bible-history.com This site is constantly being updated with the help of writers, editors, researchers, print artists, musicians, voice artists, admin support and programmers most of whom contribute to this effort anonymously.-- Moxy (talk) 00:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Support blacklist per multiple. CorporateM (Talk) 02:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks all. I proposed it for the spam blacklist here. Jytdog (talk) 12:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done, Guy (Help!) 12:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Question regarding removal of tertiary sources from an article

I would be very interested in any comments regarding the removal of tertiary sources as sources from the List of new religious movements article, the bulk of which is indicated by the revision history here. The primary concerns are whether the removal is actually necessarily supported by policy and guidelines, and the second, probably bigger, concern is whether it is reasonable to, in at least one instance included in the changes indicated above, leave at least one of the items listed unsourced by the removal of the tertiary source. Also, considering the sometimes controversial nature of the term NRM itself, I would be interested in whether or not having as many such sources, primary, secondary, or tertiary, would be perhaps in the best interests of the article, to eliminate the question as to whether the inclusion of a subject is based on perhaps one single perhaps questionable claim in one source or not. John Carter (talk) 16:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

In the long run, any entries not sourced to reliable secondary sources should probably end up removed from the (as you point out) controversial list. The editnotice for the list has been in place since 2009 and clearly specifies that "All material in the article must be sourced with citations to secondary sources" as a part of the inclusion criteria. Tertiary sources may help us with high-level context, but (especially in a controversial area), secondary sources are needed. Having said all of that, there may not be any harm in leaving the tertiary sources in place - we just need to ensure that secondary sources are added (or the entries are removed). --Tgeairn (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The above comment is, unfortunately I believe, very much in error, and I very much welcome the input of any uninvolved editors regarding that matter. It has been well and repeatedly stated here and on the other noticeboards that tertiary sources are at least acceptable to demonstrate that given topics can be included in lists. The rather, at least to my eyes, seriously questionable statement in this edit summary regarding what that individual declares, apparently by fiat, is the "primary interest" is not in fact the most important thing. I myself believe that the statements of the above editor are themselves an indicator of perhaps less than adequate understanding of policies and guidelines, particularly when removing a tertiary source leaves an entry in a list unsourced, and believe it not unreasonable to request that someone whose grasp of procedures is perhaps questionable not declare themselves as being the judge and jury regarding what sourcing is and is not adequate for inclusion in a list. John Carter (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Tertiary sources are suitable for general information about a subject. I believe the edit notice is contrary to policy and should be modified. In addition, not everyone makes a distinction between secondary and tertiary sources; some lump secondary and tertiary sources together as secondary sources. So if the edit notice doesn't have a link to the definition of secondary source intended by the edit notice, who's to say tertiary sources don't satisfy the edit notice? Jc3s5h (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Not really an RSN issue, more of a WP:NORN issue, but oh well. Neither of you are quite right on this. WP:OR is quite clear that tertiary sources can be used and are even preferable in some situations. Secondary sources are not required. However, stylistically it's inappropriate to cite "as many such sources, primary, secondary, or tertiary," as possible, as this is a recipe for citation overkill. In most cases a good approach is to cite the single most reliable source available. An exception to this is the rule that exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Most of the content at List of new religious movements seems pretty unexceptional to me. And I think a few sources (say, three) should be sufficient even for the most exceptional content in the encyclopedia. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

You are right of course on the overkill aspect being potentially abused. We shouldn't overburden an entry with, for instance, more than a few citations unless the material being cited is particularly questionable. Unfortunately, I regret to say, I don't myself know of any group which really likes being called an NRM, and that makes effectively every entry in the list potentially questionable by that group's supporters. And, again unfortunately, considering the sometimes questionable arguments about some of these entires, and the fact that some of the sources used might not specifically use NRM per se in the title, like Lewis's Encyclopedia of cults, sects, and new religions, which is probably one of the best sources in general on the topic but arguably doesn't use the exact phrase NRM per se, sometimes multiple citations are appropriate. So, maybe, that source and others like it which might not use the exact term prominently, and one of the others which does specifically prominently use the phrase NRM, might be useful, and, if one of them might be challenged by some, a third for confirmation of that one. John Carter (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The fact that a group doesn't like being labeled a certain way doesn't strike me as a proper reason to invoke WP:EXTRAORDINARY. Invocation of that policy should be reserved for, well, extraordinary cases, and if we used the criterion you suggest it would be invoked an awful lot. As for sources not specifically using the NRM term, that's really a verification issue. Either the source verifies the content or it doesn't, and this must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. If the source doesn't verify the content it shouldn't be cited, and adding more non-verifying sources would only make the article that much more misleading. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, historically, the arguments get made an awful lot. And one of the other really regrettable situations with this particular topic is the fact that the term NRM is so newly agreed upon, well after the anticult movement started, that the arguments based on cult≠NRM or sect≠NRM are rather frequently made. If there were more really good sources since the establishment of the term, that wouldn't be as much of a problem, but there are only one or two journals dealing with the topics and the number of books and other sources since the development of the term which really use the term at all prominently isn't that good. So, yea, it could even be argued, perhaps somewhat effectively, that even an article about the topic in Nova Religio or the older journal "Syzygy" does not necessarily mean that the subject qualifies as an NRM. John Carter (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

In that case our article might be a good candidate for deletion under WP:DEL-REASON #6. I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter to have an opinion on the matter. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems that John Carter's point about the lack of reliable secondary sources, particularly the lack of sources that agree with one another, is a good argument for having a WP:Secondary requirement for inclusion. As the list stands now, we have several hundred references to three of the sources. For the list to have value beyond being a reprint, we can and should do better than that. If we can't, then the entry doesn't belong on the list (or the whole list should go as DrFleischman mentions above). The tertiary sources can certainly stay referenced in the article/list, but secondaries should be required for inclusion. --Tgeairn (talk) 15:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Your POV is noted. However, your argument that a list can only have value if it is "beyond being a reprint" to my eyes seems to show a misunderstanding of one of our core policies as per WP:VERIFIABILITY, and I find it nothing less than amazing that someone who describes himself as an experienced editor seems to be arguing that his personal opinion about what are sufficient basis for inclusion should take priority over extant policies and guidelines. John Carter (talk) 15:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree with John on this point. As I explained, removal because of citation solely to tertiary sources is directly contravened by our policy on original research. My point about deletion was something completely different. I'm saying the inclusion criteria might be either unusably narrow (labeled by RS's as an NRM) or unusably ambiguous (labeled by RS's as something that may or may not be synonymous with NRM). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

In this particular case, the term NRM is occasionally avoided in favor of more "politically correct" language, but the different terms like "emerging religions" are all pretty much describing the same set of groups. The field itself, perhaps strangely, in this case seems to be, based on the available academic sources, more clearly defined than the specific name most frequently given to the field. I aee on WorldCat the dominant categorization terms seem to be "cult," "sect," and "new religious movement," or plurals or translations thereupon, so the field is fairly well defined, even if the terminology still isn't. John Carter (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Tertiary sources are acceptable, but articles must be based mainly on secondary sources. I never use them and if it were up to me I would ban them. However, I see no reason to remore them as sources unless better sources are provided or the text they supported is removed. TFD (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

this depends on the specific sources. Tertiary sources such as reliable subject encyclopedias are usually even more appropriate for Misplaced Pages articles , at least as a foundation, than more specific secondary sources. On the other hand, a mere list of organizations under a heading is not usually a reliable source unless it is a list that shows them meeting an important and specific criterion, and is compiled by a reliable publisher. DGG ( talk ) 22:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC) .

HangWith as a Production Diary

I'm currently working on Con Man (web series) and the production team is using video broadcasts through the social media platform Hang W/ (http://www.hangwith.com/) as a sort of production blog, both under accounts to the team members themselves and to an account unique to the series. They mentioned fan conventions they will be filming at in a recent one with the co-producer, and I currently wish to use it as a source, but I'm not entirely sure if it fulfils WP:TWITTER. (I'm somewhat sure it does, but I'm not certain.) As it stands, the single Hang W/ video will replace two Twitter references and moves it from an intention to a confirmation. Even if it's ill-advised for this particular statement, the team has expressed these videos in the future will turn into a production diary, as indicated on their Indiegogo campaign and a news items listed on Nasdaq, and I want to make sure for the future should something more weighty arise. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 22:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

TenTonParasol There is no question about the accuracy of the information. What is to be considered is whether the information should be included in Misplaced Pages. The usual answer would be no, the information is WP:PROMOTIONAL, because the only source covering it is self published. If there is an extraordinary reason to include it, like for example if it gives necessary context to other information presented by reliable sources, then it could be included. In that case, make a note on the talk page of why you included it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

In general, we tend to cover events that already happened, as oppose to plans for the future. This is covered under the Crystal Ball policy. The exception is when there is substantial analysis by a credible source, or for subjects like future-tech. We definitely shouldn't be covering future-looking plans with a primary source though. CorporateM (Talk) 02:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

So, I shouldn't use it to source future plans or anything that doesn't really have enough weight to include in the article, to make sure I'm understanding correctly? I'll just hope reliable secondary sources publish the filming locations as the date approaches. If it's appropriate to ask, if, hypothetically, they discuss specific inspirations or creative process of the work through this and it cannot be sourced through another source, would it be alright to use? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 15:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Big Data to Knowledge - self published sources?

Hello. A user would like to use a series of sources to develop the Big Data to Knowledge article. I think we are in agreement that all the sources cited are written and published by the funder and organizer of the subject of this article. Some of the sources might be published by direct recipients of funding from the main government funder.

Can someone please comment at the article talk page about evaluating the appropriateness of sources? I take the position that the sources seem self published. The other user takes the position that they are not. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done and watchlisted. CorporateM (Talk) 03:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Vimeo link

Would this vimeo link be considered reliable to source the information in Sahaja Yoga#Allegations of Persecution. It was added to the article with this edit by an IP who might actually be the person in the video. (See Talk:Sahaja Yoga#New Section Suggestion). Would that make it a "primary source" and, therefore, OK to use per WP:PSTS or are there other issues in play here such as WP:UNDUE and WP:BLPSPS that should take precedence here? Any suggestions on what should be done would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Probably even a more appropriate self-published source wouldn't pass muster for that kind of claim. However, I usually see self-published sources being official bios and whatnot, and not every comment he makes in front of a video camera. Also, is there any proof that's him in the video? All I saw was "young poet" or something like that. CorporateM (Talk) 03:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure CorporateM. I only stumbled upon that article after seeing this posted at WT:Talk page guidelines. Not sure who the person in the actually video is and was guessing by what I read at Talk:Sahaja Yoga#Why remove section of Alleged Surveillance and Persecution? and WNew Section" right below it. Anyway, I saw that you removed the entire section. I've have a feeling it's going to be re-added by the same IP. - Marchjuly (talk) 03:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• No. That would be WP:OR. Guy (Help!) 11:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

celebritytonic.com

Is celebritytonic.com a reliable source? Their disclaimer page is seriously not promising. For example, "We source our information from third party websites and the information may not always be accurate" and "we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website content". --Geniac (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

That's a dead giveaway that it's unreliable. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

endgame.org

Was used at Citizens for a Sound Economy for the claim

Between 1986 and 1990, CSE was granted almost $5 million from various ]. "David Koch and several Koch Industries employees served as directors of CSE and the CSE Foundation."<ref>{{cite web |last=Draffan |first=George |date=2000 |url=http://www.endgame.org/corpcon2.html#CitizensforaSoundEconomy |title=The Corporate Consensus: A Guide to the Institutions of Global Power |accessdate=March 18, 2015}}</ref>

It appears to be a personal blog of George Draffan, with big sections about the Bilderburg conspirators etc. Collect (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems to be a convenience link for a book published by "Apex Press and the Program on Corporations, Law & Democracy". Apex Press is an imprint of Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, so it's presumably reliable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

"Book" might be overstating the case. According to the WorldCat entry at OCLC 48396103 it is "114 unnumbered pages : illustrations ; 28 cm", and held by just five libraries in the world. Draffan's other works are much more widely held, including one published by Apex, OCLC 492765725. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

You are right. But "The Elite Consensus" apparently is an updated version of the linked original, and it makes Draffan into a published expert. It might be better to dig out the new edition, but since the claim is fare from exceptional, I'd accept the original, too. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Yep in a sense -- but that means his conspiracy theories then also become a usable source? He seems a prominent "Bilderburg conspiracy" sort, alas. I would suggest it is a deficient source for any contentious claims about living persons as a result. Collect (talk) 11:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

"While the ERT subtly masterminds its grand vision of Europe in collaboration with the European Commission, another Brussels-based European lobby group is busy implementing the less glamorous but equally critical details. Whereas ERT is quietly proactive, UNICE is a reactive, detail-obsessed, supremely efficient lobby machine. Its working groups dissect every proposal, regulation, directive and article emerging from Brussels before spitting influential position papers back into the policy-making apparatus. Its efforts often result in the adoption of business-friendly initiatives, and the blockage of more socially or environmental progressive legislation" from endgame.org. I note the Koch $5 million quote is found in many (33) pages now - with no "original source" given. Unfortunately, I find no source specifically cited by Draffen for the claim. Collect (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Publishers at reiki

In the process of cleaning out numerous self-published books at reiki, I have found several publishers that I cannot find anything about. Several of them are used by authors whose other works I had removed as self-published. They are being used to explain details of a fringe practice, the history of the practice, etc. As some of the claims are quite extraordinary, I don't want to have claims attributed to all reiki believers if the claims are actually limited to "some" believers.

Any information/opinions on the RS status of Lotus Press, New Leaf Distribution Company, Headway and Ulysses Press would be appreciated. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Where do you get the idea that Reiki is "Fringe"? According to this site there are 1 Million Practitioners. I have seen it in many cities. It is offered in universities and there are numerous organizations including international organizations, which list practitioners in every state in the U.S.David Tornheim (talk) 09:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Reliable -- All four publishers look as reliable as a mainstream publishers like Barnes & Noble (which publishes things like these and these) or Random House (that publishes these and these). Headway is part of Oxford University Press.David Tornheim (talk) 09:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The publishers may be mainstream - that does not however necessarily make content regarding fringe medical practice reliable - see Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Reiki is not a Western Medical Practice. It is an Eastern Healing Practice--originating in Japan. Neither is Yoga a Western Medical Practice. David Tornheim (talk) 09:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Unreliable Sources used in the GamerGate Article

Yes, I know. GamerGate ... But I think since this controversy already made Misplaced Pages look bad (ArbCom drama) we should insure that the article quality actually improves. And one massive problem standing in the way is the amount of factually wrong statements that are sourced but provably wrong and every argument regarding the truth is dismissed with a handwaving of WP:RS. My opinion is that the reliability of sources should be judged individually whenever possible.

There are many examples and I will start with only one. I don't want to waste anybody's time.

Source: http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2014/10/gamergate-should-stop-lying-to-itself.html

I will list what statement the source supports on the GamerGate article as well as if/why the statements are false/inacurate:

• "Quinn's detractors falsely alleged that the relationship had induced Grayson to publish a favorable review of the game"

The accusation wasn't even that there was a review. But in any case: "Nathan Grayson has, provably, written twice about Zoe Quinn’s Depression Quest in a favorable manner without disclosure at both Kotaku, on March 31st, 2014, and Rock, Paper, Shotgun on January 8th, 2014. It was proven that Grayson and Quinn were close together since January 10th, 2014 and had at least known each other since June, 2012. Grayson was also thanked in the credits of Depression Quest." Source. To quote from the Rock, Paper, Shotgun article: "Anyway, standouts: powerful Twine darling Depression Quest, surrealist Thief usurper Tangiers, and sidescrolling epic Treasure Adventure World." (article about 50 games greenlit).

• "Gamergate has been described as involving anti-feminist ideologies. Some supporters have denied this label, but acknowledge that there are misogynistic voices within it."

The according piece from Jesse Singal's article is supported by "proof". If you read the proof, it becomes quite clear that Jesse Singal misrepresented his source, in other words it is a lie (by accident?): The author of the "proof" only describes himself as antifeminist, but not GamerGate itself.

• "Many Gamergate supporters contend that their actions are driven by a concern for ethics in videogame journalism, arguing that the close relationships between journalists and developers are evidence of an unethical conspiracy among reviewers to focus on progressive social issues."

I don't object to that, although the wording "unethical conspiracy" can be seen as judgemental and should be avoided. Another question would be what is to be considered a conspiracy. There were in fact ethical mishaps uncovered by GamerGate and several platforms changed their ethical guidelines - but this is going to far for this discussion.

• "Because of its anonymous membership, lack of organization and leaderless nature, sources widely differ as to the goals or mission of Gamergate. With no single person or group able to speak for the Gamergate, defining it has been difficult."

• "Singal was critical of the movement's lack of organization and leadership commenting on their "refus to appoint a leader or write up a platform"."

No objection here (but relevance?).

• "Jesse Singal, writing for New York based on a post he made to Reddit, stated that he had spoken to several Gamergate supporters to try to understand their concerns, but found conflicting ideals and incoherent messages. Singal observed that despite being told by supporters that Gamergate was not about misogyny, he saw Gamergate supporters making a constant series of attacks on Quinn, Sarkeesian, and other women."

The actual observation taken from Singal's article:

"When I visited KIA on Sunday, for example — again, the subreddit I was explicitly instructed to visit if I wanted to see the real Gamergate — three of the top six posts were about the indie developer Brianna Wu (a subject of harassment and threats), the feminist commentator Anita Sarkeesian (ditto), or the “social-justice warriors” (SJWs) that Gamergaters love to ridicule for polluting gaming with their "radical" ideas. Keep in mind that merely mentioning Wu or Sarkeesian or Quinn to many Gamergaters lights a white-hot fury in them — This is not about them, they will insist, ad nauseam, to the point that the more clever of their lot have started referring to them not by name but by the label "Literally Who" (or LW) 1, 2, and 3 (as in "I literally have no idea who that is")."

Singal just states that there are discussions about these women, but nothing remotely like "constant series of attacks".

To summarize: Not only contains the source inaccurate and false information, but these false informations are reprinted on Misplaced Pages but also is the source itself misrepresented (last point).

I propose to declare this source unreliable and encourage all interested Wikipedians to check the reliability of other sources as well. Citogenitor 15:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

"Fact Monster"

The article Sneakers (footwear) has recently been augmented by two kilobytes loosely attributed to "Fact Monster" (though some of the addition is not in this source). Neither "Fact Monster" nor "factmonster.com" appears in the WP:RSN archive. The page looks feeble to me: it's unsigned, it says nothing about its own sources, it's written for kids (and thus particularly susceptible to simplification and the lure of an attractive story). But the short article Fact Monster (revised only trivially in the last eight years) seems to take the website seriously (it calls it not an "infotainment website" or similar but instead a "fact center"). Am I perhaps just snobbish? -- Hoary (talk) 02:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Does not look Reliable to me. It also appears to be close to a copyright violation. I think the user adding it should provide some evidence as to why they think this is RS. In the meantime, I think the material should be removed from the article.David Tornheim (talk) 09:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Seems to be a secondary source, check the Columbia_Encyclopedia page, it seems they license its use to a range of groups. Gudzwabofer (talk) 09:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Naturopathy

I was told this is not a reliable source:

http://health.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/320188/naturopathy-final1106.pdf

I'm at a loss as to why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gudzwabofer (talk • contribs) 08:23, 21 March 2015‎

Please see the notice at the top of this page - we need to know the article it is being cited in, and what text precisely it is being cited for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I was told it isn't fit to be used for the Naturopathy page at all because it contradicts someone else's sources, and was published 10 years ago (making it younger than a lot of pre-existing sources on the page). They also failed to recognise that the reason the systematic review this source refers to isn't accompanied by in text referencing is because the systematic review is a component of this source. They advised me to post it here.

Here is a copy of what I posted, which was deleted.

In 2003, the Victorian government commissioned La Trobe University to undertake a review of Naturopathy in Australia. This built on the 2003 Federal Expert Committee on Complementary Medicines in the Health System.. Among its findings was that "A review of 77 systematic reviews published between 2001 and 2003 suggested that there is now evidence of the benefits of naturopathy and WHM for almost every body system and all major illnesses. It can be concluded that the ‘tools of the trade’ of naturopathy and WHM can be effective, and that the practice of naturopathy and WHM is therefore potentially effective," and that "The list of what are considered by conventional medicine practitioners to be complementary therapies changes continually, as those therapies that are proven to be safe and effective become adopted into conventional health care and as new approaches to health care emerge ." The report identified the potential risks of naturopathy as " inappropriate prescribing, failure to be aware of contraindications, inappropriate dosage, and inappropriate duration of therapy." It described the main contributor to this as being lack of education on the part of the practitioner. The report recognised that there had been significant progress in naturopathic education, with many universities now offering Bachelor degrees, but that there was still progress to be made on consistent quality across all institutions. The report recommended government regulation and protection of title for naturopathy, among other professions.

3. http://health.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/320188/naturopathy-final1106.pdf School of Public Health, La Trobe University. Retrieved 21 March 2015.

4. http://www.tga.gov.au/sites/default/files/committees-eccmhs-report-031031.pdf Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved 21 March 2015.

5. http://health.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/320188/naturopathy-final1106.pdf School of Public Health, La Trobe University. Retrieved 21 March 2015.

Gudzwabofer (talk) 08:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Looks Reliable to me. David Tornheim (talk) 09:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

It appears to be a report on "The Practice and Regulatory Requirements of Naturopathy and Western Herbal Medicine", rather than a systematic review of the efficacy of naturopathy - only 26 pages of 319 actually constitute "A Review of Reviews of the Benefits of Naturopathy and Western Herbal Medicine", and the section was written by practitioners of complementary medicine - perhaps not the best source for an impartial overview. Accordingly, I have to suggest that it might not be an ideal source for such claims. Apart from anything else, there appears to be no evidence that this section of the report was subject to peer review, as would occur with more normal systematic reviews published in scientific journals. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the report meets WP:MEDRS for medical claims. QuackGuru (talk) 09:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages dispute resolution