This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 105

←

Archive 109

Archive 110

Archive 111

Archive 112

Archive 113

→

Archive 115

Is http://www.hypnoweb.net/ a reliable source?

In particular, the BLP Joseph Kennedy (actor) uses http://robin-des-bois.hypnoweb.net/acteurs-secondaires/acteurs-secondaires-saison-2/joseph-kennedy.123.542/ (note: ad popup) as its sole source.

My opinion: it's a community fan site, and as such, isn't reliable. It's also in French—which strikes me as odd, given that the subject is a British actor. If the guy is notable, wouldn't there be English-language news articles about him we could use instead? On the other hand, his name makes him very difficult to search for.

Dori ☾ Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 23:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not really familiar with what is RS when it comes to actors. I did click the link thinking that as a French speaker maybe I could offer an opinion. I don't feel much respect for it as a source, shall we say. The popup certainly does not help. The information is minimal and the administrative portions of the site use an informal form of address that is not usual in most "grown-up" sites (tutoyer). It's roughly the equivalent of 4chan, minus the association with Anonymous. I especially would not use it as an authority for any info the subject of this BLP is asking us to remove. HTH Elinruby ( talk) 01:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

As a fellow Francophone I'd have to second the opinion of Elinruby, Hypnoweb prominently solicits User Generated Content on the front page and discusses the copyright of User Contributions becoming property of Hypnoweb. Looks likes a kind of online forum/content farm.-- Voila-pourquoi ( talk) 09:23, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks—that was the impression I received from that page, and it's nice to have it confirmed by those who can read the original. Dori ☾ Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 23:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd assume a fictional character appearing in a commercial is reliable to that fictional character and can be mentioned in an article, but what is the proper way to site a commercial for a network that has a fictional character appear in them? I can provide a youtube link to the commercial, and I saw it on the network myself, but besides a bare link to Youtube, what would be the proper way to cite that? Mathewignash ( talk) 18:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Network? Network that has a fictional character? What's the article -- let's start there. Elinruby ( talk) 20:04, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Cartoon characters, Hub network, this commercial. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN4sZcUMuss Mathewignash ( talk) 20:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you link to the articel. Slatersteven ( talk) 20:34, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, Bulkhead_(Transformers)#Other_appearances. This is just an example, but I wanted to know the proper way to cite in cases like this. Mathewignash ( talk) 20:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

This is not the place to mention this, but exaclty whaqt does this add to the article?, seems to me to be rather trivial. Slatersteven ( talk) 20:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

That entire topic is chock-full of the trivial and banal, unfortunately. Another round of Transformers AfDs is probably in order. Tarc ( talk) 20:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It was an example, I'd just like to know how you cite a commercial besdies just adding a link to Youtube, which seems very sloppy. If you can't answer here, I'd appreciate perhaps being pointed in the right direction where I can find out. Thanks. Mathewignash ( talk) 20:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

An additional question, are commecials RS?, for example how do you verify it is the character in question, and not a copyright dodging approximation? Slatersteven ( talk) 20:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The Hub is owned by Hasbro. They own all the characters in that commercial. These scenes are taken from Transformers episodes, with the actual voice actors redubbing their lines for Hasbro. Mathewignash ( talk) 21:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Except that youtube clips can be created and edited by anyone. Is this an offical Hub clip or user uploaded? It does not appear to be so how can we verify form this clip this is an undoctored edit? Slatersteven ( talk) 21:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

On the original assumption, I'm not convinced a commercial appearance by a fictional character should be used for verifying anything beyond "has appeared in X commercial". If I believe the ads that ran in my childhood comics, many supervillains are completely unable to resist the lure of delicious Hostess (TM) Twinkies (TM) cakes, and Spiderman uses them as a powerful non-lethal weapon, but I'd be reluctant to cite that as canon - even though the comics were published by the same people who owned those characters. -- GenericBob ( talk) 21:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

That is what its being used for, to show they appeared in the advert, but youtube is not RS. Slatersteven ( talk) 21:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

As I stated, this video is on the air on the channel. It's real. I cannot provide a link to my television set. I'd like the cite a on-air commercial. I'm sure it can be done. The youtube link is just additional external link, it's not the source itself. Mathewignash ( talk) 21:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

As its not the source it should not be used for inline citatioin. Thus it should be removed. Slatersteven ( talk) 21:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I already said that the Youtube link isn't a good source, that's why I'm here, I'm asking how you source a commercial. As for the above mention of spider-man and hostess snacks, it's a absolutely reliable to cite that Spider-Man was used in advertising for Hostess products. Mathewignash ( talk) 21:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

As you accepet its not RS why did you remove the not an RS tag? Slatersteven ( talk) 21:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_templates contains no template for adverts. This implies they are not RS (perhaps becasue of the difficulty in verifying them?). The closest would by TV epsiide, but then would need an air date and time. Slatersteven ( talk) 21:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm just using cite video, and referencing back to the original airdate on the channel. Thanks Mathewignash ( talk) 21:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The only thing the advertizement would be a reliable source for is the blunt statement "the character appeared in a TV ad for the show". Even then, we would need to have a reasonable expectation that a permanent record of the advertizement exists... that it has been archived someplace that that a member of the public could gain access to if they put enough time and effort into tracking it down (a video library, a museum of television advertizing, etc). If we can be assured of this, then we can call the statement that the character appeared in the advertizement "verifiable". However, even then, I have to ask why anyone would want to mention that a character appeared in an advertizement. The existance of an advertizement would not be enough to indicate WP:Notability (the ad itself counts as a primary source, and we need secondary sources to support a claim of notability) and since the advert was created by the same company that created the character, it would count as a self-serving WP:SPS. Blueboar ( talk) 21:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It's currently being broadcast, so someone can view it that way. Bedides, you surely can't say that a TV special aired yesterday cannot be cited simply because people cannot yet purchase it on DVD or find it at a library yet? Mathewignash ( talk) 22:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

But they will usualy be able to find analysis of a documentry or a spot in the channels website. Its very rare for a TV program to recive zero coverage, even before transmision. Slatersteven ( talk) 22:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Just looking for examples on wikipedia for citing other commmercials (not that this proves they are doing the citation correctly either, I admit), often times people cite commercials for the characters or plots of upcoming movies and television episodes. There is no source to cite in these cases besides the commercial itself, or in some cases a link to a video streaming site with the the commercial on them. Mathewignash ( talk) 00:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Which can be verified latter on (the point that being made) by referance to otehr sources. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

A subtle question has arisen regarding a dance video. The question is whether a reputable news source who appears to be repeating promotional puffery may be used to document the puffery as fact. -- Noleander ( talk) 17:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Never mind ... the matter got resolved. -- Noleander ( talk) 18:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I know that the the mere existence of a peer reviewed paper is not a RS for the claims that are made within that paper, ie a peer reviewed paper on cold fusion does not mean that a) cold fusion is real nor b) cold fusion is accepted by mainstream science.

I am compiling a list of LENR researchers and before I move it to mainspace I want to be sure that I use RS, not violate BLP, etc.

Here is my question:

Can a peer reviewed paper be RS for the fact that its authors are LENR researchers ?

J. Marwan, M. C. H. McKubre, F. L. Tanzella, P. L. Hagelstein, M. H. Miles, M. R. Swartz, Edmund Storms, Y. Iwamura, P. A. Mosier-Boss and L. P. G. Forsley have jointly published a paper "A new look at low-energy nuclear reaction (LENR) research: a response to Shanahan" in the peer reviewed journal "J. Environ. Monit., 2010, 12, 1765-1770 DOI:10.1039/C0EM00267D "

The abstract reads "In his criticisms of the review article on LENR by Krivit and Marwan, Shanahan has raised a number of issues in the areas of calorimetry, heat after death, elemental transmutation, energetic particle detection using CR-39, and the temporal correlation between heat and helium-4. These issues are addressed by the researchers who conducted the original work discussed in the Krivit and Marwan (K&M) review paper."

I would like to stress that I am aware that:

• It is not always clear to pin point a paper to LENR, but in this case it is clear
• Being a co-author of a paper does not automatically qualify a researcher as LENR researchers, but in this case "issues are addressed by the researchers who conducted the original work". So all authors can be equally treated as LENR researchers.

btw, I am sure that they are indeed LENR researchers because they are actively participating in the LENR field, ie publishing papers, regularly attending the International Conference on Cold Fusion or other conferences like the cold fusion sessions at the APS or ACS conferences, additionally some of them have websites which show they are identifying themselves with the field and some are mentioned in news articles.

Thanks -- POVbrigand ( talk) 12:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

This looks like a WP:OR argument to me, and a fallacious one. I've checked the original Krivit and Marvan paper, and it neither mentions nor cites (e.g.) Storms. Hence the claim that all the authors of the new paper are "researchers who conducted the original work" is obviously wrong (a more plausible interpretation is that "some" of the authors are "among" the original researchers, which may well be true). Hence no, this is not a good source for your claim. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 13:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

A few thoughts on your list (beyond the question of source reliability)... first: It sounds like you are falling prey to the fallacy of "inherited notability"... thinking that, because Low-energy nuclear reaction is notable enough for its own article, anything related to Low-energy nuclear reaction inherits that notability. That may not be the case.

If you are thinking of making this a stand alone list, you will need an introductory paragraph or two... wherein you would establish for the reader that LENR researchers (as an identifiable group of people) is, on its own, a WP:Notable topic. To do that, you will need to cite some sources that discuss "LENR researchers" (as a distinct group of people). If you can not establish that the sub-topic of "LENR researchers" is notable on its own, it would be better to include the information within the main Low-energy nuclear reaction article (something along the lines of: "Prominent researchers in the field include...").

Second, when it comes to determining the authors of peer reviewed papers, you should limit yourself to the first few names. Those listed last usually had a marginal involvement in the work behind it. Blueboar ( talk) 14:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think it is reliable but it's a primary source and requires original research to arrive at the information you want to use it as a source for. Also as Blueboar argues the question remains whether those people are notable - that would have to be established based on WP:ACADEMIC. Usually some of the co-authors on such a multiauthored aper are just graduate students working in someones lab, they don't generally become notable for that. ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 14:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, my point wasn't to question whether the individual people were notable (my guess is that some are and some are not), but rather to question whether being a "LENR researcher" is notable enough, as a concept, to rate a stand alone list article. I am questioning the notability of the group... not the notability of the individuals within the group. We need to establish that "LENR researchers" (as a distinct group of academics), or "LENR researcher" (as a profession) is a notable enough topic justify being listed, before before we can get to the question of which LENR researchers are noteworthy enough to be included on such a list. Blueboar ( talk) 16:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You are right of course, I was assuming the list itself had passed notability and it was only an issue of the individual researchers to include to pass notability. It would require sources talking about LENR researcher's as a group (i.e. is there a professional organization or journals for LENR research?). ·ʍaunus· snunɐw· 16:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I share these worries about notability, group and individual, and would also ask what you will do about scientists who researched LENR for a while and then stopped. I believe that Japan had a state-funded research programme for a while and then it was abandoned. Itsmejudith ( talk) 17:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the great feedback. Some of the points I hadn't thought about yet.

• Notability as a group is not an issue. In numerous articles about cold fusion you'll get statements like: "Nonetheless, a network of dedicated cold-fusionists still toils away in a vineyard that looks pretty barren to almost everyone else." or "Cold-Fusion Graybeards Keep the Research Coming". It is always a statement along the lines of an Asterix and Obelix comic where "...a small village still holds out bravely against ...".

Furthermore there is the "International Society of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (ISCMNS)" who also issue their own peer reviewed journal.

• Notability per researcher is more an issue. Additions to the list should be very conservative also in regard of possible BLP issues. Mentions in news reports, several peer reviewed papers or regular participation and presentations on the international conference of cold fusion (ICCF) should at least make it clear that the researcher is part of the group. Then per Wikipedia:LISTPEOPLE#Lists_of_people notability within the group should also be verifiable.
• Scientists that only researched for a while and then stopped. Many of the researchers that looked into the subject in the 1989-early 1990s until the whole phenomenon was completely debunked are not "cold-fusioneers", ie not the researchers that should be on the list. Researchers who have stopped due to retirement like Pons or Fleischmann themselves or Oriani should be on the list however.
• Regarding the OR. I think that some synthesis is allowed per Wikipedia:SYNTHNOT#SYNTH_is_not_just_any_synthesis. If a researcher is active in the field with publishing several cold fusion papers, and verifiably attending the cold fusion conferences then the synthesis must be allowed that this researcher is a LENR researcher.

Kindly let me know if this is the right noticeboard to discuss further, I really appreciate the feedback, but if I have to take this discussion somewhere else just let me know. -- POVbrigand ( talk) 19:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Cold_Fusion_Userspace_BLP_issues. And for what its worth, I don't see the logic of POVb's assertion that "Notability as a group is not an issue". There are scientists working on many subtopics within many fields, and one could probably construct a 'group' based on whatever topic one considered significant using POVb's methods - but that doesn't make the group real in any sense beyond happening to meet the membership criteria that the complier sets. This is WP:OR. It is also questionable in that it (a) gives what is a minor field in terms of its generally-perceived significance undue attention, and (b) is liable to give undue weight to the significance of any LENR-related research that individuals may have conducted, to the detriment of any other work. And then there is the matter of whether such a list should include those who have done research into LENR, and come to the conclusion that there is nothing to it (of which there are more than a few examples) - should they be on the list? The whole thing looks to me to be an attempt to give a topic on the margins of science more credibility than the evidence suggests can presently be justified. If LENR ever achieves the results claimed by some of its proponents, I'm sure that Wikipedia will have articles on notable individuals, and maybe even a justifiable list of such individuals, but per WP:CRYSTALBALL, we shouldn't assume in advance that this will occur. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 19:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstood "Notability as a group is not an issue". I meant to say "the group as a group is notable" numerous news articles talk about the group of cold fusion researchers as an "outcast" group. Close writes in his book "The phenomen then separates the scientists in two camps, believers and skeptics. Interest dies as only a small band of believers is able to 'produce the phenomenon' (...) even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the original practitioners may continue to believe in it for the rest of the careers."

"This is OR", well that is merely your claim. Now my claim is, "It is not OR". There are numerous news articles that talk about the group as an outcast group and identify the group as a group. Francis Slakey, the Science Policy Administrator of the American Physical Society, said that cold fusion scientists are "a cult of fervent half-wits ... A cult is a group, no ?

Again you argue UNDUE, I don't think that is a valid point. I have the casual reader in mind that reads a news article about a group of "cold-fusioneers" and would like to inform himself on who might belong to that group.

I already answered your question "whether such a list should include those who have done research into LENR, and come to the conclusion that there is nothing to it (of which there are more than a few examples) - should they be on the list?" I think they should not, because those scientists would not like to be associated with cold fusion. And most of those researcher did their research in a timeframe of two months in 1989 and then went about their normal business and never looked back.

Your Crystal Ball argument is completely misplaced. I am not arguing that cold fusion works, I am not arguing that cold fusion is or should be accepted by mainstream science, it is not. What I do want to do is shed some light of the whole story of cold fusion. That is a perfect and valid motivation to create a list of participants of the field. -- POVbrigand ( talk) 21:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

And on what source do you base your assertions about who would, and who would not wish to be "associated with cold fusion"? Though you seem to be making an assertion here that 'cold fusion' and LENR are one and the same thing, which is very much a contentious question. Basically, you seem to be constructing a list to suit your own criteria, and then looking for arguments to justify it. And no, the fact that some individual refers to some other individuals as 'a cult' is hardly evidence that they are notable. And again, not actually evidence that the individuals referred to were the same people as your 'group'. Your list is OR, and is constructed to present LENR/cold fusion in a particular manner. If Slakey has referred to unnamed individuals as "a cult of fervent half-wits", then going out of our way to try to decide who this refers to is not only OR, but a clear breach of WP:BLP policy too. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 22:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

And on what source do you base your assertion here that this list is a clear breach of BLP policy. I am compiling a list of scientists who are researching the LENR field, who meet at the ISCMNS conferences. It's simple as that.

I think that your complaints are not suitable for the RS/N. You better wait until I put this article in Mainspace. -- POVbrigand ( talk) 23:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

As has been pointed out to you more than once, BLP policy applies to articles in user space too. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 23:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to inform that the BLP issue left the noticeboard without anyone replying but you Andy. It seems you are pretty alone with you views. -- POVbrigand ( talk) 11:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Please don't assume that. If only one person responds here, it is usually an indication that the rest of agree with him or her. Itsmejudith ( talk) 11:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

If a comment on the BLP noticeboard explicitly raises the question whether a userspace-list is a BLP issue and nobody replied, then I think it is fair to conclude that indeed nobody thought it was an BLP issue. -- POVbrigand ( talk) 13:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The text in the Wikipedia article on the Tetrabiblos states that one of the reasons for the work’s enduring popularity is due to:

"the text being one of the oldest almost complete manuals of astrological principles and techniques" (ref to source)

That statement is directly attributed to the author of an article which states:

"Modern astrologers remember Ptolemy as the author of one of the oldest complete manuals of astrology - the Tetrabiblos (Greek) or Quadrapartitium (Latin) meaning 'Four Books'".

Fifelfoo has suggested that the paraphrasing of the source is too close to the original text, and that "Close paraphrase constitutes plagiarism, even when acknowledged as it takes the words out of another's mouth".

There is no complaint being made here because I know Fifelfoo gave this example in good faith as an indication of the sort of thing that he considers could be a problem throughout. But I am confused because this is clearly attributed and not my notion of plagiarism at all. If it is, according to Wikipedia's standards, then it seems to be something we should all be made more aware of. Therefore I would like to get a clearer consensus of opinion on this. Is it really the case that there could be an argument for plagiarism here?

Please keep in mind that the query does not concern the reliability of the source, but only the reliability of the sourcing and whether this comment makes a legitimate use of its sources, or effectively engages in plagiarism.-- Zac Δ ^talk! 18:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm a fan of Gordian solutions - find a way to change it so the problem goes away. In this case, I would simply use a direct quote, which could be attributed or not. That looks like the sort of thing I would use if I wanted to get around the technical definition of plagiarism - five identical words in a row - but couldn't think of a better phrasing. Another option would be to rephrase it to say something like "The Tetrabiblos is a comprehensive documentation of astrological principles and techniques, which may account for its popularity and longevity." It doesn't give an answer that is generally applicable but it does resolve this example. WP:INTEXT does support the idea that a close paraphrase is a point of concern, as does Wikipedia:Plagiarism#How to avoid inadvertent plagiarism. However, both imply that the real issue is a close paraphrase without attribution or citation. If you you want a general principle, I would suggest it be the importance of inline citations. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 18:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard of the rule that five identical words in a row is plagiarism. My view is that the shorter the statement, the more difficult it is to create a variation that accurately conveys the information without using the same wording. When we consider that the paraphrase is both short and attributed, I don't see a problem. Jc3s5h ( talk) 18:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Not a RS issue. Please take it to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 18:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but it isn't a copyright issue either ... It looks as if there was going to be a Wikipedia:Plagiarism/Plagiarism problems page, but it isn't active. Anyway, I agree whole-heartedly with Jc3s5h: there's no problem. I said some similar things above and won't repeat myself. And rew D alby 19:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Admittedly, I'm very old school, but I would suggest it is borderline and perhaps a bit over the border toward plagiarism. That being said, it appears to be well intentioned. I think that perhaps it's harder for those not raised on cribbing notes by hand to make the distinction (or perhaps I'm just old and cranky). In this particular case, I think a direct quote would make sense, or perhaps something such as "the Tetrabiblos is consider by modern astrologers to be one of the first comprehensive treatments of astrology" (although I am basing that phrasing on the snipped presented above alone, and do not have the advantage of context). WLU's version is good, too. More importantly, however, I think that WLU's suggestion of inline citations is well taken--that makes it perfectly clear where the material came from, which would aid a copy editors or gnome in improving the wording such a question arise. Perhaps we do need better clarification, it would seem to be a good idea. -- Nuujinn ( talk) 02:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

What about one of the earliest extant/surviving guides? TFD ( talk) 05:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, I've already changed the wording, so that's not the problem. I'm also looking out for this and erring on the safe side just in case. I gave the example as an illustration to get clarity over the policy and principle. I cannot see a case to answer here myself because there is an inline citation, and I know of nothing in the plagiarism guidelines, on or off Wikipedia, to suggest otherwise. If there is I would like to have a reference to look more deeply into this. I too think it would be good to have some kind of 'plagiarism problems' page to explore this kind of thing. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 10:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

A five word descriptive phrase using very common words? Imho calling this plagiarism or in any way exceptional or exceptionable is absurd. No one would claim that the particular expression "oldest complete manual of astrology" (instead of 'most venerable exhaustive tome on astrology') is 'their work' for which 'credit is due'. Such a stricture would be unworkable and apply to every page on wikipedia - to the titles of some pages even. If there is no simpler or shorter phrase modulo such meaningless elegant variation, plagiarism is unlikely. If it were plagiarism, disguising it by paraphrases as suggested above would not change that fact, so paraphrasing is worse than useless. John Z ( talk) 00:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Avoid duplicating central phrases. Broad synthesis of secondary sources assists in this. Fifelfoo ( talk) 07:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I think we do need a noticeboard for such questions :) John Z is surely right that where there is plagiarism, to "avoid duplicating phrases" doesn't make any difference, because, at root, plagiarism is the stealing of ideas. Stealing the words in which those ideas are expressed is simply the quickest way to do it. On the other hand, for plagiarism to exist there must be the intention to pass off these words and ideas as one's own. That's why there is no plagiarism in a case such as the present one -- a simple statement immediately followed by a proper attribution to the source that supports the statement. And rew D alby 12:39, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't deny that, as others suggest above, naming the source in the text sentence, e.g. "Deborah Houlding describes this work as ...", ensures no one could even suspect plagiarism. And I think that's what I might do in an academic paper. I would probably add e.g. "correctly" or "accurately" to show that I am not disagreeing with her. But in fact, in an academic paper, unless there could be some disagreement I would have no need to attribute this statement at all -- to do so would be excessive. Houlding would be in my bibliography, and would be separately footnoted and mentioned in the text principally for information that was original thinking (which this isn't) or controversial (which this isn't).

As the WP:Plagiarism guidelines say, attribution within the sentence of text can cause problems. Being neutral and abjuring original research, we can't add the word "correctly". So it makes it look, to the casual reader, as if Houlding is taking one view when others take a different view: it misleadingly suggests a controversy. As those guidelines also point out, this whole area is especially difficult for Wikipedia. And rew D alby 13:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree: WP:INTEXT attribution normally signals a minority or fringey viewpoint on Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this counts as plagiarism. It might be close, perhaps, but it's not over the line. The commonness of the phrase (do a web search for "one of the oldest complete") is a significant factor. Repeating a very common phrase does not infringe on the original author's rights. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

“

In 2011 the British Homeopathic Association said that 400 General Practitioners used homeopathy in their everyday practice. [1] [2] The British Homeopathic Dental Association (BHDA) claimed to have 69 dentists [3], while the British Association of Homeopathic Veterinary Surgeons has 36 vets listed as members. [4]

”

I find all these references doubtful - all promotional organisations, and I don't think them particularly apropos to the article content. 86.** IP ( talk) 14:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

They are professional organisations, and as far as I know it's general practice to use such organisations for this kind of information. Based on my own experience in Germany, where lots of regular physicians prescribe homeopathy in some cases (happened to me, and I was not asking for it or expecting it in any way) -- maybe as a placebo -- these numbers look low, not high. And how is the number of people practising homeopathy in one way or another irrelevant to the prevalence of homeopathy? Hans Adler 14:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I am getting the impression that this is another instance of your battle against articles whose topic you don't like. The present article was split off the main homeopathy article because the section(s) on prevalence and regulation kept getting longer and longer. Both prevalence and regulation of homeopathy differ significantly between different countries, and except for some WHO document that didn't go into much detail nobody seems to have made an effort to give a good overview. By collecting so many pointers, this article gives important background information, e.g. for decision makers who are tasked with regulating homeopathy. The small viewer numbers (less than 1/40th of those of the main article) show that this is not of general interest, though it does interest some. Hans Adler 14:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that's a rather extreme assumption of bad faith, when I fully intend to be bound by consensus here. 86.** IP ( talk) 15:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone added biographical information to the Kristanna Loken article, citing these three sites:

• http://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/models/kristanna-loken-net-worth/
• http://www.joblo.com/hollywood-celebrities/hottie-profile/kristanna-loken
• http://www.reelz.com/person/226706/kristanna-loken/

Are they reliable? Nightscream ( talk) 08:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Second probably not, first and third are dubious. All are being used for her date of birth, and after a bit of googling I've seen two years mentioned - 1978 and 1979. Based on WP:DOB I would suggest they be removed along with the DOB. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 15:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know that. Nightscream, I think it should be mentioned on the talk page the reason why the date of birth was excluded in the first place (because the first results that came in the google for "Kristanna Loken Date of Birth" are the ones that I've put). If the users knew the reason, they wouldn't WP:BOLD. -- ConCelFan ( talk) 16:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Illyriad there is some discussion whether articles on joystiq, specifically articles by Beau Hindman about Illyriad are considered reliable sources for the purpose of determining notability. Some expert input would be appreciated. Yoenit ( talk) 12:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

For info on the various: Joystiq About, sub property Massively About/Team and Massively Contribution/Editorial Info also Beau Hindman About. Rescendent ( talk) 23:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Not expert input, but I know A) it has a staff and so is likely reliable and B) we've used it quite a bit in the past. Hobit ( talk) 16:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I nominated " Rehab" for a featured article. However, in the article there are two sources ( [1] and [2]) from Prefix Magazine which are questioned at the FAC. Can you tell me ... Is Prefix Magazine a reliable FAC source? — Tomica1111 • Question Existing? 19:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

These two appear to be unedited blog posts: unreliable. Fifelfoo ( talk) 02:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Can those sources together be considered satisfying WP:V?

1. Czarkoff, Dmitrij (2011-12-05), "Introduction: xxxterm Web Browser", OSNews, retrieved 2011-12-05 (written by author of the article, though edited and published by OSNews staff).
2. Bělka, Jiří (2010-02-25), "XXXTerm: nový prohlížeč postavený na jádře WebKit", Root (in Czech), retrieved 2011-12-07

Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 16:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Depends on what you're verifying. The first it could be used to describe the browser. I wouldn't say it lets the page unambiguously pass notability. The second is in Czech and I can't read it, but it looks like a fairly brief comment that may be user-generated; if my surmise is correct, it probably wouldn't be good for much. Pretty much anything can be used to verify something, your question seems to be looking for an answer about reliability or notability. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 14:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

My question is about notability, as the answer is needed to determine, whether the article can be moved to mainspace. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 15:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

A relevant started discussion is at User talk:Czarkoff/drafts/Xxxterm, and as I noted there I don't think that it is reliable. mabdul 14:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It? Could You please specify, which of the two references You consider unreliable. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 15:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

OSNews is considered reliable. The concern however is that the lack of coverage signifies a lack of notability. In this case, however, the browser is used in a major linux distro so its usage by this distro may confer notability. Smallman12q ( talk) 20:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Writing an article to demonstrate notability is a bit too close to gaming the system for my tastes. Though the draft article looks well-written and the substantial statements about xxxterm's features are sourced, I would say it doesn't really pass notability. I'd be far more comfortable waiting until a source, not to put too fine a point to it, that you didn't write could be found that discussed the browser. This strays from reliable source questions into notability; the reputation of OSNews might allow coverage for reliability, but the fact that you wrote and submitted the article really undercuts (for me) the ability of the source to pass notability. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 23:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems I need to explain my rationale: I wrote an article as a test of notability — if the software wasn't considered notable by the editors of OSNews, it just wouldn't get published. One can always see the list of submissions for the site and find out that most just don't make it. This article made it - test passed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 07:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The author of a wiki article does not affect its notability (though it represents a COI). Provided that the author maintained a NPOV and sourced the article, then its (the article) notability is independent of the author. Having wikipedians write articles in rs is not gaming the system. If this was commercial software, the software company would be paying to have articles written. RS fortunately have editorial standards which is why they're considered RS. Smallman12q ( talk) 12:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Can Twitter updates by a BLP subject be cited for biographical info in their article? Can this one be used to add information to the Brian Michael Bendis article about his children? Nightscream ( talk) 08:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd say no. A reliable source will no doubt report the information: then, we can too. And rew D alby 10:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem with direct testimony from individuals is that it is often untrue (note: I'm not saying Bendis doesn't have children, simply making a general rather than specific point). Celebs in particularly will dismiss or change elements of their past to best suit their current situation. For example, I do some work on a certain R&B popstar's article - in her version of her personal history, she had a tough street-kid who was discovered a couple of years ago in the ghetto, the reality according to reliable sources is that she went to stage school, has a posh double-barrled name and starred in a number of cheesy TV and radio shows before she got into pop. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 11:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Beyond the questions of whether the tweeter is presenting their public persona rather than the reality of their life , There are serious issues about who is actually operating the account (even when it is a verified account). Just because a page is verified does not guarantee that the verified person is controlling it [3] [4] [5] and i would say it is not reliable as a source other than for saying x's twitter account said "". Stuart.Jamieson ( talk) 14:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that, per Stuart, if one is reflecting material drawn from a Twitter post, in-text attribution would be appropriate.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 09:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

i would like to know if this source [6] is wp:rs.--  mustihussain  22:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Please have a look at the top of the page. Reliable sources are only reliable in a context. What article would you use it in, to make what claim? Fifelfoo ( talk) 22:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Also which author and chapter? As a whole, Routledge is a well respected academic publisher, and this book is a collection of academic chapters. Academic works are normally reliable in the field that they make explicit claims in: for example, this book would broadly be reliable in the area of contemporary politics and social politics of Islam in the West. It wouldn't be reliable for Islamic history, or the history of medicine, or the politics of Islam in, for example, Indonesia. Fifelfoo ( talk) 22:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

i was thinking of contemporary politics and islamophobia, and i got my answer. thanks.--  mustihussain  05:47, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Cesari teaches on the topic @ Harvard (quick check). That does not mean she is right or wrong, but that would indicate hers is a notable scholarly opinion. PЄTЄRS J V ► TALK 20:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering is http://www.sugarscape.com a reliable source?

Please have a look at the top of the page. Reliable sources are only reliable in a context. What article would you use it in, to make what claim? Fifelfoo ( talk) 22:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't imagine for what it might be considered "reliable." PЄTЄRS J V ► TALK 19:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source? It is used in several places (e.g: the Tawakel Karman article, to source statements about the groups' naming and its founder's opinions). Initially it seemed to me that it is a blog, and an extreme one at that, but I saw that its article says it is frequently quoted by many mainstream news providers, including The New York Times. Jeff Song ( talk) 23:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Clicking through to the article, the refs support that statement. I would, if the point is controversial, do what the RSs do, and indicate what the source is in the text of the article itself.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 07:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

ok, thanks. Jeff Song ( talk) 23:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

This article from Vexnews was added to Geoff Shaw (politician). Is it a reliable source for a BLP? St Anselm ( talk) 01:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Eh, I would argue not. The wikipedia page for Vexnews states that it's user-generated content and the comments by other newspapers found in that page's lead suggest it has a less than stellar reputation. BLP pages are meant to be deliberately conservative so if the two links are genuine news stories it's probably better to get them from more reliable newspapers. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 02:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Well that doesn't make sense - Wikipedia's article on Vexnews says the total opposite, giving examples of the multiple scoops they have had. Granted, Vexnews is unorthodox and not mainstream, but that does not mean it's unreliable. So long as the Vexnews article says otherwise, we can't assume different. Commking ( talk)

The examples of "scoops" are just that - examples; in other words, primary sources held up as examples of how the news site "scooped" other agencies. Many of the sources cited on the page don't mention Vex at all [7], [8], [9], [10], one is a youtube video on Vex's own account [11]. Much of the coverage in actual reliable sources that explicitly discusses the site is focused on its muckraking reputation. The Vex article itself requires an overhaul to remove a lot of the dubious information and sourcing. The reason BLP is strict is because wikipedia can really fuck up people's lives. It's for reasons like these that wikipedia isn't considered a reliable source.

I don't think any of this suggests the website can be relied on for information that can seriously impact people's lives. There appear to be other sources available (looks like Shaw's own website might say something) and it would be better to use them in my opinion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 23:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

A lot of people don't like Vexnews, granted. It's not mainstream, granted. But unreliable? Nothing to support that. I could argue the Herald Sun is unreliable - they print loads of BS. Should we stop referencing anything from Rupert Murdoch too? -- Commking ( talk)

But we're talking about Vex news, not the Herald Sun (which perhaps shouldn't be cited, but that doesn't mean Vex should be). I think I read that they publish their stories anonymously as well? Can't find it after a quick look. I still think you're better off verifying the story in a venue with a better reputation; Vex's rep doesn't look good, and reputation is an aspect to consider according WP:RS. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 00:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:NEWSORG says "Mainstream news reporting is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact." It says nothing about non-mainstream news. I guess that means we would need a specific consensus about the site before we use it. St Anselm ( talk) 00:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

There are no bylines, no editorial board, just pride in being vexatious. Not encyclopedic. PЄTЄRS J V ► TALK 20:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

[12] is an edit with the summary

sunlight foundation blog is not a personal or group blog. blogs from reiable sources are permitted

Alas - I can not deem "sunlight foundation" to be an RS nor its blog to be valid for contentious claims ( Koch Industries is closely linked to two specific BLPs). "Sunlight Foundation" is not a news organization, Paul Blumenthal, the author of the blog post, is not listed as a staff member or associate of the foundation in any way. The foundation [13] lacks even a "project editor" so cannot be assumed to do any factchecking at all. So is this blog a "reliable source" for the claims made? Cheers. Collect ( talk) 23:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Not RS, not a notable source of opinion, not controlled editorially. Fifelfoo ( talk) 02:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Another use of the Sunlight Foundation blog may be found at the BLP of George Kaiser, where it is used to make contentions about what "many experts, including the IRS, believe" about the legality of Kaiser's tax avoidance strategies. [14] Do the readers of this board have the same, or a different, reaction to the use at George Kaiser as they do at Koch Industries?-- Arxiloxos ( talk) 02:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

They're not editorially controlled: the blog isn't reliable to make summary claims of expert and government belief in relation to tax law. Try newspaper's opinion pages. Fifelfoo ( talk) 02:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

AFAICT, the Sunlight Foundation pages are not RS for anything - and especially for nothing contentious at all. My opinion is the same no matter what article tries using a non-RS source. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 03:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

They are a hacktivist group and usually their facts are correct. They run a website that is essentially a better interface to federal records. Whether the blogs are RS or not is a deeper question I don't have time to explore right now, but -- just making sure it gets its due or at least some of it. Elinruby ( talk) 04:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

So use them to locate the relevant federal records and cite those. Though you'll have problems finding the opinion and colour. We don't cite the Irish Worker's Solidarity Movement on the complexion of the Irish State; we don't cite the Australian Labor Party on the character of Tony Abbot. Fifelfoo ( talk) 04:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

This may be the way to go for the person that wants to use the information. I am hesitating over RS because it's my understanding that preferred sources are news blogs attached to publications (could be wrong about that) and while I think this keeps us from using good niche sources at times I understand the caution. It's hard to formulate a rule allows good blogs that does not also allow bad blogs. I'd say that according to my understanding, the group is fairly new and questionable as RS; editorial comment could be quoted as opinion but the editor should go to the federal records to support statements of fact. Note: I have encountered a similar issue in an article I am working on so while I am uninvolved with this one, I am not totally an outside opinion. For the record here is what they say about themselves: http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/about/. Elinruby ( talk) 19:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The sunlight foundation and opensecrets (primary source?) are now being used to state that the corporation donated money to Congressional candidates. [15]

The Center also reports Koch Industries contributed $1.35 million to winning congressional campaigns in the 2010 cycle

Using the second source as [16] from opensecrets.org . That source, however, does not attribute the contributions to Koch Industries (which would violate Federal law and state laws) but to the two principal owners of Koch Industries. So is this source valid for making the claim as stated in Koch Industries? Cheers. Collect ( talk) 14:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Open Secrets is the interface I mentioned above. I am inclined to believe what it says. I am not totally certain how RS policy applies to it. I believe that excluding it would remove information that is very likely accurate, though, which would seem to be a violation of the spirit of Wikipedia. But in any case, if the source says the owners made the contribution, then the article should say that the owners made the contribution. It's usual to look at contributions from the principals and employees of a corporation, but the article should not falsely claim that contributions were made that would violate laws if the statement was true. Elinruby ( talk) 19:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Sunlight, as observed above, is not a reliable source due to its lack of an editorial policy. Secondly that sentence misrepresents the source: 1) the figure is wrong; 2) it misrepresents donations from the controllers of Koch Industries as donations from Koch Industries. Thirdly I share your primary source concerns: opensecrets is pitched at media, with a mission to communicate to media, and don't present meaningful political analyses themselves. I don't think that their data is corrupt, but, neither do I think their data is straight forward to analyse. Fifelfoo ( talk) 14:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I have not checked your assertion that the statement is wrong, but if it is, that needs to be fixed. I also don't think that real facts should be excluded, and the federal records are not that easy to find or cite, which is the problem that Open Secrets tries to address. HTH. Elinruby ( talk) 19:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm the author of the edit that provoked this question. A few things:

opensecrets.org . ... does not attribute the contributions to Koch Industries (which would violate Federal law and state laws). Not so. see for yourself. It specifically labels its page on the contributions "Koch Industries". What opensecrets does say is the top contributors to Koch Industries contributions were Charles and David Koch. In any case, it's not just Sunlight and Open Secret that talk about "Koch Industries" political contributions, the head of Koch Industries does. Do they know something about Federal law and state laws that Collect doesn't?

AFAICT the "relevant federal records", i.e the Federal Election Commission online data is pretty raw and not particularly easy to use. For example here it provides names of recipients of campaign contributions from a source (Koch Industries PAC) but there are hundreds of contributions in alphabetical order, with no breakdown by party not even totaled for each candidate. This is what makes opensecrets and Sunlight very helpful.

On the Koch Industries talk age Collect has proclaimed that the result of the above discussion is: opensecrets.org is considered a "primary source" at the same noticeboard, and the claim that Koch Industries made the donations was roundly condemned there as not representing what the source says in any way.

There are a lot of "contentious claims" made about Koch Industries and its two principle owners, but I have never heard it/them deny that they contribute millions of dollars to a lot of mostly Republican political candidates. So, Collect, why all this time and energy on such a non-controversial issue? -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 22:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The donations are by individuals who happen to own a company ... not by the company (which would violate federal and state laws) , which is what your edit stated directly. Do you see that distinction? BTW, the adjective is "principal". Collect ( talk) 23:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Look, Boogalouie, those numbers may be accurate (I suspect) but that doesn't mean that David Koch sat down and wrote a check for 2.2 million dollars. Look at the limits on campaign contributions. What the have done is analyze some large companies to see if their employees (through sheer co-incidence of course) just so happened to contribute to the same candidate as the boss. This will be clearer if you compare the Comcast page for example, then look at http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/bundlers.php?id=N00009638

The main problem with using federal contribution records is not actually how hard they are to use; that would be original research, which is a nono at Wikipedia. I do not know if there has already been a discussion about the reliability of Open Secrets. To my eye (not all that tutored in wikipolicies) it's a website, and websites are treated with caution but can be used. With caution. Hopefully if I am wrong about that someone will tell us. Meanwhile, violating election laws is a serious charge. Tom Delay went to jail for sloppiness with corporate contributions, didn't he? so fix the sentence to say that the owners gave the money, then you two can work out whether Open Secrets is a RS or not. Let me know, I may want to use it. Elinruby ( talk) 06:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

In case anyone is reading this I emailed Sunlight foundation and got a reply to some of our questions:
How can you say Koch Industries or News Corp or whoever gave money when it's really employees of the company?
When sunlight says contributions from Koch industries , it means "contributions coming from the Koch Industries' political action committee and employees and their family members of Koch Industries and its subsidiaries." Here's a sample look up of "recipient: pompeo (i.e. Rep. Mike Pomeo (KS-R))" from "Organization: Koch Industries." from the "transparency data" with a list of employees and spouses (high level employees). Here's a reply from somebody from sunlight (Bill Allison) explaining "why campaign finance data is categorized and reported on the way it is."
where does sunlight get its money numbers from (aside from the Federal Election Commission)?
Explained here. "Our campaign finance data comes from the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), which in turn gets its data from the Federal Election Commission (FEC)." With it, it creates a database called transparency data. With that data it creates influence explorer database.
Who is Paul Blumenthal and why is he not on the Sunlight Found list of staff?
"he was Sunlight's lead writer for five years and expert in Campaign Finance issues. He left us a few months back for an opportunity with a different organization." -- BoogaLouie ( talk) 20:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm reading this. Thanks for sending the email. I think it's a useful source and that we should not exclude valid information. I also think that precise definitions are important in legal matters, so if the article in fact said that the corporation gave yea much when this is a compiled number, then the article needs to say that this is a number compiled from adding together the contributions of employees, esp. if omitting the qualifier makes it seem that a law was broken. Elinruby ( talk) 08:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi folks. This is Tom Lee, director of Sunlight Labs, which is the technical wing of the Sunlight Foundation. Let me issue a few points of clarification. First, Sunlight considers itself bound to high editorial standards. Our reporting group is headed by Bill Alison, an experienced journalist and nine-year veteran of the Center for Public Integrity. He oversaw Paul's work during the latter's time at Sunlight. Although I'm not sure if we have a posted editorial policy in the formal sense that I take it Wikipedia requires (I'm unclear on what the reqs are -- link?), we a) issue updates and corrections to posts when we become aware of errors b) are a nonpartisan organization and c) do our best to adhere to journalistic norms (as per the SPJ Code of Ethics) in our reported work.

Links: reliable source and I predict the next question will be original research if you would not mind addressing that also...speaking as one that would like to use this data. Elinruby ( talk) 08:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the links! Unfortunately I don't see any text matching "editorial policy" on that first page. I may need a more specific pointer. Having read the page, I do believe that Sunlight would qualify as a RS, though I understand that there may be nuances I'm missing. I think I understand the proscription on original research, but it seems as though it only pertains to Wikipedia articles. I'm not sure what it means for Sunlight's content. For what it's worth, we do generate original research, both quantitative (e.g. regressions) and qualitative (e.g. reporting on phone calls to sources). Sbma44 ( talk) 18:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

"'Blogs' in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources; see WP:NEWSBLOG"( link);

Also: "Note that otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be as reliable as if published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format.

There is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact or opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources and WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source." link

This may also apply, especially the second paragraph. I think it gets overlooked a lot. Elinruby ( talk) 13:13, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Sunlight gets its federal campaign finance data from and helps to support the Center for Responsive Politics, which runs OpenSecrets.org. CRP's data originates from the Federal Election Commission. Unfortunately, the FEC's data does not come with usable identifiers. Because of this, to get any kind of an aggregate picture of the donor side of our political system, a large amount of additional work is necessary -- some automated, some manual. When it comes to this work, CRP is the only game in town. If you have read a US political fundraising total associated with a business or individual, it has almost certainly come from CRP's work and data. They have honed their methodology over their long history, and it is a standard that is respected and used by journalists, researchers and campaign finance professionals. This includes the decision to include employees' giving in aggregate company figures -- please see the post linked to by Ryan for more. Although I realize it may at first strike some as an unusual methodological technique, it is in fact an established approach that was developed both to reflect employee giving "encouraged" by company leadership, and to reflect the reality that political influence is not limited to quid-pro-quo transactions coordinated at the executive level. Legislators are very aware of who employs their constituents and donors. The resulting legislative biases are real and the public deserves to know about them.

I would respectfully submit that the RS discussion underway here reflects a lack of a familiarity with campaign finance reporting norms as are commonly used by the US journalist and NGO communities. Naturally, I'm happy to answer any more questions or to respond to formal requirements surrounding our editorial policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbma44 ( talk • contribs) 23:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with the idea that employee contributions are part of an employer's influence, but don't we need to make it clear that these are not donations from the corporation itself? And by the way, for my own information, is this bundling or is that something else? I am hazy on the fine print of the law, esp since Citizens United. Thanks for your thoughts. Elinruby ( talk) 08:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

That distinction is a valid one to make, and I don't have a strong opinion about what choice Wikipedia editors should make. I will say that within campaign finance reporting norms, it is normal and acceptable to refer to giving from an employer that includes the contributions of its employees. The analogy I would offer is this: sports journalists might refer to a quarterback "throwing three touchdowns" in a game. In fact, it might be the case that two of those touchdowns were thrown to receivers who weren't yet in the end zone, but then ran into it to score. The norm within sports reporting is to attribute such a touchdown to the quarterback (and the receiver, too). This might strike some as odd, and you could legitimately make the decision not to count such touchdowns if the analytic point you were making required an appraisal of touchdown-scoring outside the normal style in which it's reported. But the most common (and, I think, useful) way to report the quarterback's total for that game is to say "three touchdowns" rather than one. It's the same with grouping contributions.

Per your other question: in some cases this behavior might qualify as bundling, but not all. And whether it's reported as bundling is, unfortunately, a separate question. Election law is murky, and the enforcement of the rules governing contributions is outrageously lax. Sbma44 ( talk) 18:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) To anyone else reading: looks like editorial review to me, no? @Tom Lee -- does Bill Allison review all blog submissions? Thanks Elinruby ( talk) 08:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

@ElinRuby: Bill or a deputized senior editor reviews all content published by our reporting group. A senior staff member (usually from the writer's department) reviews all blog posts (and similar content -- ephemera like tweets are not formally reviewed) we produce, although depending on the time-sensitivity of the subject and the personnel involved that review can sometimes occur as much as a few hours after publication. If errors are detected we of course add updates or other notices of correction to the original post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbma44 ( talk • contribs) 18:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• Frankly, no, it doesn't look reliable and personal correspondence doesn't look like an editorial policy. Personal correspondence from politicised opinion works doesn't really influence me because it isn't in the public domain and irrefutably attached to the organisation's profile. This political body doesn't meet the standards of RS. And no, Tom, we don't have a policy that you could rapidly reduce to an analysis to make yourself reliable—policy doesn't work that way on wikipedia, and in the area of reliable sourcing something much closer to a "common law" exists. But consider, for comparative purposes, at the moment your organisation represents itself and its editorial control in the manner that religious sects, microscopic political parties (wsws.org is a useful comparator here, as are some of the US anarcho-capitalist thinktank "journals"), self-published sources, and aggregators). Compare the self-representation online of those "sources" with even the most half-arsed peer reviewed journal, or a community newspaper. Fifelfoo ( talk) 19:02, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

@Fifelfoo I hope I haven't given offense in some way. To be honest, some of the parts of your message are unclear to me; also, it seems like there's a sense of animus behind your remarks that I'm anxious to understand and defuse. I hope you'll expand on what you consider to be the problem. Until then I'll say just a few things:

• I don't believe I made any reference to personal correspondence. As I mentioned, when editorial review reveals a problem with something we published -- which is infrequent but not unheard of -- we publish corrections or updates in a way that's attached to the original post. I assume you aren't asking that that review process itself be public -- no newspaper or journal publishes that process that I'm aware of.
• I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "politicised opinion works" -- again, we are a nonpartisan organization. Our money-in-politics reporting frequently prompts angry opinions to the contrary, but it's just not true. I would invite anyone upset about our coverage of the Koch brothers to have a look at how much we've written about Charlie Rangel, to name just one example.
• I certainly respect that Wikipedia's RS standards must remain flexible and are not a checklist. But I'm afraid I'm still not clear on what about our policies is unacceptable. Our reporting is produced by journalists -- some went to journalism school, others have worked at newspapers, many are members of IRE/NICAR/APME/etc, and all of them pride themselves on their status as journalists. They implement an editorial workflow and set of standards that's are in keeping with those of their profession. I promise I'm not trying to be obtuse! I just really don't understand the objection. 12.154.244.225 ( talk) 22:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. I think Fifelfoo's misunderstood me as saying that since you are talking to us here you therefore meet the editorial review criterion. I meant that the *content* of what you are saying appears to *me* to amount to editorial control.

@Fifelfoo, if you had a new publication or website and someone was saying it might not be reliable, would you not want to know why? Surely he deserves a courteous explanation, especially since it does not seem to have occurred to him that anyone could have doubts about the matter :) This is why he is talking about professional standards organizations.

@Tom Lee, if I can in turn try to channel Fifelfoo, "reliable source" is not like the seal of good housekeeping. It usually depends on context. For instance, is Cosmo in French reliable for the name of a Japanese singer? This turns out to be a rather deep question, with MTV and the Associated Press the deciding factors. The kanji form of the name remains unclear. (See the YUI discussion above, as well as the completely serious discussions on whether Time and Wired meet the standard in specific situations. Welcome to Wikipedia).

Ha, fair enough! I can certainly understand that there may be no hard-and-fast, per-organization ruling about RS status. I hope that for this instance, at least, I've provided enough information to allay the concerns that were raised. Sbma44 ( talk) 21:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

This is probably a good place to mention that while I have written some news articles in the past and have had a Wikipedia account for some time, until recently I primarily used it to fix spelling errors and the like, and of course make the traditional complaints on discussion pages that the point I was researching was not addressed ;P So I am not an authority on reliable source policy and in fact seem to be having trouble getting my questions here into a format that allows an answer (and wish someone would help me with that, by the way). But neither are anyone else's opinions definitive, you see, except in the rare instance where many editors agree. That does happen, for instance blogs at the New York Times and Economist and blogs at the Guardian. Notice that it's not the print publication that's questioned, it's the blogs? But the deciding factor is often that there's a well-known news organization there that has a reputation for checking its facts?

So let me try to state the issue, and if I am wrong I am certain that someone will let me know. The idea is that in an age where $1.99 gets you a domain name and for a few pennies more a web hosting account may get thrown in, the mere existence of a webpage that says something does not prove that the particular something is a fact. I am sure you are with me so far. We've all heard jokes about facts found on the internet. Blogs are particularly suspect as they often may amount to some guy in his pajamas. That guy may be correct, of course, and much of the science in internet research lies in identifying the blogs that usually are correct on a given topic, but ah, citing them on Wikipedia is another matter. How to distinguish, as a matter of policy, Ars Technica from My Awesome Website or gregpalast.com from IthinkXsucks.com?

So one guideline is that blogs on the websites of formal news organizations, which are subject to review by those organizations, usually qualify. A retraction policy and a general air of being a source that is going to be around if someone wants to verify the reference also helps. Although I cannot think of a better formulation (yet) I (personally) think this causes all sorts of strangeness. Declan McCullagh appears to be an authority on internet matters on his employer's website but perhaps not on his own, for instance, even on the very same questions of fact. Welcome to Wikipedia. Because.... another guideline says that in general self-published sources are not reliable. Exceptions might apply if enough people decide that he is an expert.

Expertise is hard to determine, and random users of Wikipedia aren't assumed to be able to do this, and for good reason. But then you have an author of an internet protocol implementation being declared not-reliable on the subject of that internet protocol because he's speaking in a white paper hosted on a filesharing site. I actually understand the reasoning here, but the consequences are perverse. He *becomes* -- I think, haven't checked here -- a reliable source because a congresswoman asks Sandia Laboratories for a expert opinion. That expert opinion cites the white paper. The Sandia answer and the white paper *still* aren't strictly-speaking "reliable" until she puts them both up on her website. Even though she's the one asking the question, and the answer is by any stretch of the imagination definitive because of what Sandia Laboratories does. And notice, that answering expert opinion relies heavily on the originally-cited "not-reliable" white paper.

I am spelling all this out in hopes someone smarter than I will come up with a better way, but again, this is not a polemic. If there is a better way I don't know what it is. Wikipedia does not assume its editors have subject matter expertise and should not -- I've edited several on topics of which I knew nothing at all. Adding verbs to sentences is a contribution ;)

So perhaps you see why I asked if all material was reviewed. I would like to assure @Fifelfoo that I've not seen bias on the data pages, at least not of the type he seems to think. I personally would like to use the numbers on music and film industry contributions, which are cough very generous on both sides of the aisle. Obama's are astronomical, incidentally. It's not a partisan site.

This brings up the matter of original research, which is banned on Wikipedia. Editors are not subject matter experts on Wikipedia, even when we are, and we are not allowed to assert a fact simply because we know it is true. It must be attributed if at all surprising, which I am sure will not come as a shock to you either. The source for the statement must be verifiable, which rules out for instance letters that an editor might have in his attic, but not those that are available in a public archive, the difference being that the latter *can* be verified if enough effort is made. The Open Secrets site is primary data according to one editor's opinion above. A secondary source like the blog post would solve Boogalouie's sourcing problem, if the blog is determined to be reliable for this purpose.

So. Hopefully that helps somebody that's reading this. I am going to wander off now and catch my breath. Elinruby ( talk) 12:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

@ElinRuby this seems like an interesting and useful conversation. As you might imagine, my most immediate concern is addressing any misgivings that the Wikipedia community might have about Sunlight and its reliability (if there's more that can be usefully said there, let me know!). Otherwise, though, it seems like the conversation is expanding a bit beyond the specific scope of the Koch/Sunlight RS question, in which case it might be best if I bow out and leave you all to it. Sbma44 ( talk) 21:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

So.....this one is just going to hang undecided it seems? Did my rant scare everyone off? Elinruby ( talk) 13:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

We have already gone through a round of the "CRP number wars" (specifically relating to the same corporation) on Jim Inhofe, in April of this year; see Talk:Jim Inhofe#Koch Industries. The problem is that most journalism or quasi-journalism sources, including this one, fail to differentiate between Koch Industries and its owners, its employees, and its PAC. The contributions from employees are problematic, as employees are free to contribute money to any candidate or cause they choose, independently from the contributions of the corporation and its PAC, and further, not all of those individual contributions are broken down by CRP's tables and charts. Sources which fail to differentiate cannot be considered reliable for this purpose, regardless of whether the statement is "within campaign finance reporting norms" or not, because it is misleading at best and factually incorrect at worst. Koch Industries is not a biographic article, but its two principals are living persons, and accuracy of any statements relating to them must be totally accurate, whether in their biographies or within other articles which relate to them or their activities. I won't state that the Sunlight Foundation's blog is not a reliable source, because I believe that for some data, it can be considered a reliable source. However, it cannot for this specific post, because the text of the post fundamentally mischaracterizes the nature of the data from CRP. An additional consideration is its explicit characterization of the politics of three Democratic congressional representatives, which should be attributed to Paul Blumenthal if it is used elsewhere within Wikipedia. Horologium (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The Source in question: Google Books NGram viewer, charting uses of the term Southern Levant from 1500 until 2008 http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Southern+Levant&year_start=1500&year_end=2008&corpus=0&smoothing=0

The Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Levant#cite_note-1

The Exact Statement being supported: "use of the term was extremely rare until at least 1967." (I edited this phrase a bit recently for the sake of compromise, the editor who first posted the source hasn't opined on my edit, so it looks different on the Southern Levant page currently)

The Talk Page Discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Southern_Levant&diff=465828619&oldid=465806458

Just curious as to your views as to whether Google N-Grams can be used as a reliable source. Thanks. Drsmoo ( talk) 15:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

No. It's a tool, not a source, it just happens to be online. Using its results is original research. -- GRuban ( talk) 15:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It cannot be used as a source. It may be used to help editorial decisions, but shouldn't be taken as the word of God. VsevolodKrolikov ( talk) 16:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

As Google NGrams are primary sources for bibliometrics, using them directly would constitute original research. Sadly we need to wait for bibliometricians, linguists, historical dictionary editors and the like to comment. Fifelfoo ( talk) 21:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• In addition to the above, some results, such as this one, make me wonder about how accurate it is. I find that especially with some bizarre spikes in the 1600s for a number of terms.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 07:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

  It's based on an automated text recognition and scanning process, which makes a few mistakes. For that particular link, naturally the word "Internet" wasn't used in 1620, but if you look at the page referred to, you can see what it misread. That's part of what makes it a tool rather than a source, you need to know how to use it; you can't use it as a source any more than you could use an uncommented xray photograph as a source. -- GRuban ( talk) 15:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

This article has had a long history of sock/meat puppetry involving promoting the article subject's diet book. For a long time, we had no link to it whatsoever. However, a few months ago we relented and let in a limited reference [17] with a particular source:

"LITERARY LAS VEGAS". Spring Valley View. Las Vegas Review-Journal. 1 December 2009. Retrieved 26 May 2011.

What's not clear is whether this source can be considered reliable. It has no byline and it has numerous grammar errors, although it ostensibly appears in a local (but reliable) source. So it's unclear whether it's paid advertising or a reliable source. Thoughts? Sailsbystars ( talk) 14:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

This looks like typical promotional material "featuring" local individuals. Not an encyclopedic source. PЄTЄRS J V ► TALK 20:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to say it should be kept per Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Vecrumba is quite right that it wouldn't be enough to establish notability, but that's not what it's being used for. It's being used for one sentence saying he wrote a diet book. His main notability seems to be as a football player and model, but he's not doing that any more, now he's a nutritionist, leaving that fact out would be actively misleading readers by implying he's still a football player and/or model. If we can get a better source, we should use that, but if this is all we can get, we should use it. -- GRuban ( talk) 15:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I posted this to project math, and David Eppstein said he thought wikibooks wasn't reliable, and suggested I post it here as well. Searching the archives here wasn't any help.

I was editing the article on Euler's totient. In the section Euler's_totient_function#Other_formulae_involving_.CF.86 there are a number of summation formulae without source. The only on-line source I could find was [18]

Is this considered a reliable source? If so how should I reference it?

Thanks

open wiki, not reliable Fifelfoo ( talk) 21:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

What are opinions of EUObserver.com? Its media kit describes it as the most read website for European affairs after the Financial Times, and it is quite often used as a source by journalists as well as Wikipedia. The puzzle is finding anything written about euobserver.com itself. It is run according to "WHOIS" in partnership with the Group for a Europe of Democracies and Diversities in the European Parliament, an "Eurosceptic" grouping containing parties like the United Kingdom Independence Party. It is possible it has even been financed by this group. (A couple of reports from 2006 suggest this).

For the record, I've come across it in looking at European sovereign debt crisis. I find it puzzling that a source widely used does not appear to have much written about it at all. Any thoughts? VsevolodKrolikov ( talk) 06:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Is it a news aggregator? If so, we could usually trace the news stories back to the wires or other sources. If it publishes opinion and analysis, then perhaps we can be guided by the notability and qualifications of the commentator. Itsmejudith ( talk) 09:26, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it appears to have its own journalists, or at least people who write original material for it. One also writes for Red Pepper and occasionally the Guardian, another transferred from a leading Romanian newspaper. None of this looks odd, except the open association with a Eurosceptic group, and occasional references on the non-RS parts of the internet to it being a Eurosceptic site. I'm surprised there is so little information about it. VsevolodKrolikov ( talk) 03:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

They seem to be cited often as a source for books related to the EU [19], so I don't think they are on the fringe. Perhaps their journalists may lean a bit towards "Euroscepticism", but I think scepticism is a desirable quality for a journalist to have. -- Nug ( talk) 01:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You're confusing scepticism with "Euroscepticism", which is a political position. The former is great, but if a source is the latter, we would need to tread carefully in using it because of POV concerns. But apart from that, it does seem to be cited a fair bit. VsevolodKrolikov ( talk) 06:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair point, but I don't think they are overtly "Eurosceptic". There isn't a news source that doesn't have some degree of political bias, they are run by living people after all. It all depends upon the context of use I suppose, I would treat a Murdoch owned news source with some degree of caution when it comes to the Phone hacking scandal, for example. -- Nug ( talk) 02:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a lot of information about the publication. Personally, I think Europolitics is better - their journalists attend the daily EU briefings and ask tough questions, but their reporting is generally balanced. I am surprised by the claim that they are second most read for European affairs after the Financial Times... I know that in Brussels Europolitics is widely subscribed to (in old-fashioned printed version as well). ( 213.189.169.186 ( talk) 15:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)) Sorry I wrote this comment ( Connolly15 ( talk) 15:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC))

Recently, I noticed that some references in Russian legislative election, 2011 are to articles in Russian tabloids that have adds or story images that contain mild nudity. Is there any sort of wiki policy about this, or a way to put some sort of NSFW tag next to the link? I realize there's nothing wrong with nudity in the context of many articles on wikipedia, for something as unrelated like this it seems like we could conceivably save some people some grief by giving them a head's up. Any thoughts? a13ean ( talk) 15:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't go to reliability. The wiki policy is WP:NOTCENSORED and concepts around appropriateness of sources for their article. If the articles in the newspapers are appropriate to source the encyclopaedia article, then we use them. We don't enforce a "no-grief" policy. Fifelfoo ( talk) 23:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

At WP:NOTCENSORED it says "however, some articles may include text, images, or links which some people may find objectionable, when these materials are relevant to the content" so I just was wondering if a "head's up" might make sense since the portion of these materials that someone (more precisely, someone's boss) might object to has nothing at all to do with their content or the contents of the page. a13ean ( talk) 15:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

What is objectionable in nudity? You object its existence or aesthetic properties? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 20:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how to say this without it sounding weird, but would it be possible for you to give the links to the mild nudity? Contra Fifelfoo, and depending on what the source is being used for, I think it may well go to reliability. If we are quoting the opinion of Elena, 22, from Kalingrad, then we should find something else. -- FormerIP ( talk) 00:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming this is page 3 spillover into other articles, not "FWOAAAR, ELENA CRITIQUES THESE BOURGEOIS FOIBLES!!!" being used for its incisive political analysis. Fifelfoo ( talk) 02:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

OK. But are you assuming correctly? I think it would be useful to see the sources. For research purposes only. -- FormerIP ( talk) 02:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm totally willing to risk blindness for research purposes. Tarc ( talk) 15:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I looked through the article and found no tabloids. Furthermore, the only entry of nudity I found is this banner. Side note: my browser employs JS, cookie and plugins whitelisting, so I might have missed some banners. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 20:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

There will be cases where sources on political controversies &c include an element of nudity or other stuff which is likely to raise an eyebrow, because nudity is sometimes used by protesters (if the protesters are the right gender and if they're pretty then it's a great way to get placards shown widely in the media where they would otherwise have been ignored. Humanity is weird). Per NOTCENSORED and all that, I don't think it would be appropriate to completely exclude such sources, but surely we can apply a bit of common sense - for instance, if multiple sources are available then maybe we can leave out the one with the pictures that are likely to offend most. A little NSFW label in the references section sounds appealing at first, but I fear that actually implementing it would be fraught with drama... bobrayner ( talk) 16:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

An editor reviewing my DYK nomination for Bhagavad Gita trial in Russia has questioned the reliability of Forum 18, two articles from which: [20], and [21], have been cited in the article. Will appreciate your opinion on this as a WP:RS. Regards, Cinosaur ( talk) 09:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The use of Forum 18 sources in the article is deeply problematic. Forum 18 news is a politicised news-service that has a curious responsibility in its editorial requirements (emphasis added)

Forum 18 is an instrument to promote the implementation of Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and concentrates upon gross and open breaches of religious freedom, especially situations where the lives of individuals or groups are threatened, and where the right to gather based upon belief is threatened.

Forum 18 News Service (F18News) is a Christian initiative which is independent of any one church or religious group. Its independence is safeguarded by a board whose members are Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic Christians, and who are responsible for matters of policy and fundraising. F18News is committed to Jesus Christ's command to do to others what you would have them do to you, and so reports on threats and actions against the religious freedom of all people, regardless of their religious affiliation.

F18News is objective, presenting news in a deliberately calm and balanced fashion, and presenting all sides of a situation. The overriding editorial objective of F18News is to as accurately as possible present the truth of a situation, both implicitly and explicitly.

F18News aims to ensure that threats and actions against religious freedom are truthfully reported as quickly as possible across the world.

Given that Forum 18 news reports on implicit truths, and has a Christian commitment to religious freedom, we can assume that Forum 18 news' truthful reporting includes editorial analysis in favour of the implicit truth of religious freedom. As such, using Forum 18 news for claims like, "The court case is thought to have been instigated by the FSB and the Russian Orthodox Church," "none of whom are experts on Hinduism." The other uses appear to be trivial, and free from the possibility of editorialisation in favour of a Christian religious freedom view point. Fifelfoo ( talk) 22:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Is the IBDB- the Internet Broadway Database- reliable to use as a source for an actor's roles in a play? I'm referencing Paul Sand in Paul Sills' Story Theatre if that matters. Albacore ( talk) 16:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Reliable per their editorial policy: http://www.ibdb.com/policies.php Fifelfoo ( talk) 01:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

the information about Hosea Kutako are inaccurate and misleading and should be revised to represent his historic accomplishment

• Please follow the instructions at the top of the page, and sign your posts using four tilde "~" characters in a row. Fifelfoo ( talk) 01:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The following sources are being challenged on the basis of not being independent (as well as being a fringe theory, but that's a discussion for another noticeboard). My reading is that WP:IS, in addition to being merely an essay, discusses self publication (i.e. a personal website or vanity press book). I believe that these peer reviewed journals and book chapters are adequate and should not be removed or challeneged on the basis of failing reliability or not being independent. The page is obviously paraphilic infantilism and the relevant quotes/sources are:

Sexologists Ray Blanchard and Kurt Freund discuss a series of case studies in which they make a distinction between pedophiles who imagined themselves as young children because "...this imagery increases the subject's similarity to the sexual object (children)" while infantilists would imagine they were children to increase the power difference between their preferred sexual object of adult women spanking and scolding them. Freund and Blanchard make a similar distinction regarding the use of diapers, with pedophiles wearing them due to their association with children while infantilists associate them with the "role of the shamed, defenceless, punished little boy."^[32]

In the limited number of extant medical case reports some clinicians have attempted to explain the behaviors associated with infantilism in terms of obsessive compulsive disorder,^[33] as "a concurrent cluster of symptoms found in a variety of psychiatric disorders",^[34] or as a form of autoeroticism analogous to Ray Blanchard's concept of autogynaephilia as applied in certain cases of gender identity disorder.^[35][32][12]

Another theory is that infantilism is an erotic identity disorder where the erotic fantasy is centred on the self rather than on a sexual partner and results from an erotic targeting location error where the erotic target was children yet becomes inverted. According to this model, proposed by Ray Blanchard and Kurt Freund in 1993^[32] and cited by Blanchard, James Cantor and Howard Barbaree in 2009,^[12] infantilism is an autoerotic form of paedophilia.

The sources being challenged are:

• 12 Cantor, James; Blanchard, Ray; Barbaree, Howard (2009). "Sexual Disorders". In Paul H. Blaney and Theodore Millon (ed.). Oxford Textbook of Psychopathology (2nd ed.). New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 530–7. ISBN  9780195374216.
• 32 Freund K; Blanchard R (1993). "Erotic target location errors in male gender dysphorics, paedophiles, and fetishists". The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science. 162: 558–563. PMID  8481752.

As far as I know references 33, 34 and 35 are not an issue. The challenge to these sources has been ongoing for a while. Bittergrey ( talk · contribs) claims that because these people are coworkers at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health they fail independence. I believe that because they are an article in a peer reviewed journal and a chapter in a university press, they are both reliable and independent. The latest section this can be found being discussed is here. As mentioned, there is also a discussion about whether this is a fringe theory, but I believe that could be deferred to the appropriate noticeboard. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 15:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The issue of the DSM is also raised, I believe this was dealt with on the RSN previously; see here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 15:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I must not understand the question. Independence, for reliability purposes, means independent of the subject, not independent of all other sources about the subject. Having a paraphilia (and certainly being an activist promoting its public acceptance) might constitute non-independence, but how exactly could one's co-workers' publications make someone affiliated with any paraphilia?

It's like saying that a professor of mathematics is somehow "not independent" on the subject of basic algebra if any of his or her colleagues also write about algebra. (We've never yet seen a non-independent source on the subject of algebra, because nobody has a conflict of interest on the subject.) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 16:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I consider the question absurd and don't think any of the policies cited by Bittergrey are relevant. However, edit warring is occuring over this point so I'm seeking outside input in an attempt to settle the issue. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 18:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:Exceptional claims require exceptional sources I would like better sourcing for this claim "...infantilism is an autoerotic form of paedophilia".

This source has a variety of WP:REDFLAGs, the preface of this textbook states "it is aimed primarily at graduate students taking a first course in adultpsychopathology ... chapter authors were given considerable latitude"(emph mine). The chapter author of this particular chapter, Ray Blanchard, sources this theory to his own published work in 1993.

• Freund, K., & Blanchard R. (1993). Erotic target location errors in male gender dysphorics, pedophiles, and fetishists. British Journal of Psychiatry, 162, 558-563

Blanchard and Freund wrote an article almost 2 decades ago(which is a long time in the field) likening all fetishes as being internal projections of outward desires, he specifically cites: dressing as a women as normal heterosexual desires focused inward, wanting to be amputated( acrotomophilia) as an inward projection of an attraction to amputees( apotemnophilia), and infantilism being an inward projection of an outward desire for children(pedophilia). I don't see how these theories from so long ago would be given any weight in today's world, the author republishing a short mention(1 paragraph) of his theories in a textbook where he was given "considerable latitude" certainly doesn't demonstrate modern acceptance of them. Per WP:FRINGE unless a source has supported these theories in recent time they should not be given weight in an article on infantilism/cross dressing/apotemnophilia/etc. AerobicFox ( talk) 19:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Though the term "autoerotic pedophilia" is a charged one, it means the paraphilic infantilist is attracted to the idea of themselves being a child - not a sexual attraction to actual children. There is minimal research on paraphilic infantilism (see [22], [23], [24]) and there is a lack of a "mainstream" opinion or focus.

Do these references deserve to be removed on the basis of independence? For me this question must be answered on this board for both sources, and is separate from whether "autoerotic pedophilia" is a fringe theory. If we're discussing it's status as a fringe theory, I would also argue that WP:REDFLAG doesn't necessarily apply - though the claim is surprising (only in that it uses a loaded term), it is made in mainstream sources that are not self-published. There is no prevailing view (the statement in the article about the DSM is not correct, see here; the DSM's statement is about a specific behaviour of masochists, not paraphilic infantilists in general), and no conspiracy is claimed. The statement itself is clearly attributed to specific authors, could be reworded to avoid the use of "pedophilia", but overall I think is adequately dealt with.

Given the much larger research base on cross dressing and amputee fetishism, I would prefer more recent sources for those articles. However, there don't seem to be many for paraphilic infantilism (essentially nothing for "paraphilic infantilism" since 2000 [25]). I'll try digging a bit more to see if I can find some more recent studies, but I didn't have much luck in the past.

The third quote is the most surprising and inflammatory, and though I would prefer to leave it in, it could be removed (it was only made visible today, see fifth block of changed text as well as discussion here). Do you have an opinion on the other two quotes? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 20:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to read the whole sentence. It doesn't say "It is a fact that X = Y". It says "Ray Blanchard says that X = Y". Do you have any reason to doubt that Blanchard holds that view? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

To be clear my opinion is that "infantilism is an autoerotic form of paedophilia" is an exceptional claim since it falls under "claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community". The OP really should have brought this to the fringe notice board, but since he brought it here asking if the author is independent of the sources, then the answer is obviously not. Blanchek seems to have attempted to plug in most of his biography as he references 15 of his solo authored works(going back to the 80s) as well as over 9 co-authored works. Clearly these sources are not independent of the author and the textbook should not be treated with more reliability than the original sources themselves, what we should be discussing is whether the original original sources are fringe or not, and not whether the textbook is independent of them since it's already clear that they aren't. AerobicFox ( talk) 20:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean Blanchard?

There is no "prevailing view within the relevant community" however. There's no single accepted theory for what causes a paraphilia, let alone paraphilic infantilism. There are mutliple proposed hypotheses, but Blanchard's ETLE isn't criticized or contradicted anywhere that I've seen, in general (where I haven't looked much) or specifically for PI (where I have looked). There's no orthodoxy to be fringe against, merely a small number of scholars theorizing. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 21:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

AerobicFox, I'm willing to agree that "infantilism is an autoerotic form of paedophilia" would be an exceptional claim. However, that is not the claim being made. The claim being made is much smaller, and it is, "Ray Blanchard said that infantilism is an autoerotic form of paedophilia". A publication in which Blanchard actually says that infantilism is an autoerotic form of paedophilia is surely as strong a source as you could possibly wish for supporting the claim that he said this. "He said this" is not the same sort of claim as "this is true". I'm not aware of any evidence that this claim (that Blanchard said this) is "contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community". I rather thought it was very widely accepted that Blanchard actually said this, and that no source at all disputes the fact that Blanchard made this claim. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The claim being made is much smaller, and it is, "Ray Blanchard said that infantilism is an autoerotic form of paedophilia"

If there is no claim to legitimacy being made then I have nothing to debate. You have to show or prove the importance/noteworthiness of this view, and I believed this discussion was about whether this source is reliable enough to do that. To make myself clear, I do not believe this source reliability demonstrates the notability of this author's opinion, for the above stated reasons. If you agree that no claim is being made to the legitimacy or importance of this theory then it follows that such a claim has no place per WP:WEIGHT in this article. AerobicFox ( talk) 07:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

No, that doesn't follow. There's no rule that says only "legitimate" claims are DUE. At articles like Cold fusion, describing distinctly illegitimate claims is very obviously DUE. The question for RSN is only this: is the source named sufficient to support the exact claim being made? In other words, do we have any reason to believe that the exact sentence in question is factually wrong?

RSN doesn't traffic in more complicated questions, like whether describing this particular theory about the cause of paraphilia, or any of the theories, is DUE. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• MEDRS applies. Freund 1993 is a PRIMARY in terms of medical research, it is the first proposal of a theory, and therefore unreliable. Cantor 2009 would be a secondary, but I consider it tainted by association with an author who proposes the theory. Cantor 2009 can be used if independent secondary studies published in appropriate medical forums attest to the uptake of this medical theory. Until someone can demonstrate this, the text should be removed from the article as unverifiable due to failing to meet MEDRS. Fifelfoo ( talk) 20:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Freund's ETLE theory has been cited elsewhere and in more recent books, but Cantor, Blanchard and Barbaree is the only place I've seen paraphilic infantilism discussed specifically. I could provide examples where the ETLE is favourably cited regards other paraphilias, but would that help with paraphilic infantilism specifically?

Questions for everyone - does this discussion apply only to the statement about "autoerotic pedophilia" or does it apply to all three statements? And would this be an issue if the phrasing were changed from "autoerotic form of pedophilia" to "sexual attraction to the idea of one's self as a child"? A less technical but still accurate summary. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 21:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

That's beyond my competence as an encyclopaedic editor as I don't regularly handle appropriate medical synthesis, I suggest that you ask at WT:MEDRS and ask them to come here to comment, as this is a complex MEDRS issue? Fifelfoo ( talk) 21:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, I'm not sure how you arrive at this conclusion. Did you read the text carefully? It's not being presented as the Truth™. It's being presented as speculation by an expert: We had this idea, and here's a description of the idea. Do you really think that a publication in which Blanchard announces his new theory is "unreliable" for what his theory is? You are allowed to WP:USEPRIMARY sources for simple descriptions of their contents, after all.

I'd be more sympathetic if someone was trying to pass this off as the one True™ explanation for the paraphilia, but that's not what's going on here. The text says "They discussed some case studies... They attempted to explain... They proposed this model." What more authoritative source could you possibly imagine for the remarkably tiny claim that they said something about this subject, than the publications in which they actually say things about the subject? Maybe sworn testimony in which Blanchard affirms that he really did have this theory? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, MEDRS might be appropriate, psychology is kinda borderline on whether it's a medical or even scientific issue. Paraphilic infantilists themselves don't seem to consider themselves a "medical" population and their activities aren't illegal. The psychology or sexology wikiprojects might be other places to ask. The thing is, it's a sexual choice and not a disease so how does medicine apply?

I regularly edit medical pages and a lot' of pages that fall into the fringe category. I don't think this is a fringe idea, primarily because it appears and is discussed in peer reviewed journals and a book from a respected scholarly press. Normally the struggle is to find any scholarly discussions and keep out unreliable sources from webpages, vanity press and the like - here we have scholarly discussion and citation. Given the dearth of sources on this topic (and it's quite the dearth as multiple sources note that there is hardly any research on the topic) I would think Blanchard's work could be used cautiously and judiciously. Primarily, this is met by attribution - it's something I hardly ever do because I think it reads badly and waters down the statement to a simple opinion. However, in this case that seems appropriate. Erotic target location errors in general do appear in the scientific/sexological literature [26], [27], [28] (all by the same author), [29], from google books [30] and google scholar [31] more generally.

Anyway, caution in the use of primary sources is always warranted irrespective MEDRS. I hadn't thought of PSTS as a reason to remove, mostly because there simply aren't many sources. Since this is a potential etiology and not a proposed treatment, and since there is so little work on the area, I would suggest this is a situation where a primary source like this one could be used (particularly given the reliability of the journals and book publisher themselves). WP:PSTS does permit judicious use, and in this case there's no interpretation - just an attributed summary of an idea. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 23:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Paraphilic infantalism isn't MEDRS, but the claim that paraphilic infantalism is self-directed pedophilia is a medical claim: as you note, it is a proposed etiology and one which has criminal and severe medical implications—it is making a claim that it isn't a sexual choice as such. I concur that attribution is appropriate with this claim; and I'm happy that if erotic target location errors are widely considered to be non-fringe, then it is includable by attribution based on your MEDRS experience. Fifelfoo ( talk) 23:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

There are no criminal or medical implications though! Paraphilic infantilism is not pedophilia, and this distinction is made in the article. A pedophile is attracted to children. Paraphilic infantilists are attracted to the idea of themselves as children. There's no crime because the paraphilia drives them to act like children - not have sex with them. The preferred partner is an adult, one who either also plays a child or one who assumes the role of an adult or parent. It is quite unfortunate that Blanchard and others chose to use the terms they did, but the idea has essentially no overlap or relationship with pedophilia except through a strict adherence to a linguistic straightjacket. A comparison would be the difference between a rapist and a person who entertains fantasies of being raped. The former is illegal and abhorrent, the latter disturbing to most people - but perfectly legal. Another comparison would be the distinction between homosexuality and transvestic fetishism - one is attraction to a member of the same gender, the other is attraction to the idea of being a different gender. If the impression is that paraphilic infantilists have anything in common with pedophiles, then please help rewrite or suggest this out of the page! If replacing "autoerotic pedophilia" is too loaded, then I am perfectly happy replacing it with a summary that avoids the term. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 23:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Blanchard's claim is pretty uncompromising—it needs pretty uncompromising sourcing: multiple independent receptions of the theory. You'd need to speak to a MEDRS expert about whether its multiple independent receptions of the theory generally, or the theory as applied to this paraphilia. Fifelfoo ( talk) 02:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

We're not trying to support Blanchard's claim (which may or may not be right, and maybe next century they'll have an answer). Our job is to support the Wikipedia article's claim. The Wikipedia article claims that Blanchard said these things. That claim doesn't require multiple independent sources that approve of Blanchard's idea; it only requires a source that proves that Blanchard said these things.

Remember the Monica Lewinksy scandal? We're not trying to support the equivalent of "Bill Clinton did not have sexual relations with that woman". We're only trying to support the equivalent of "Bill Clinton said, 'I did not have sexual relations with that woman'". That's a much smaller claim, and one eminently suit for a non-third-party, primary source support, e.g., a video clip of Bill Clinton actually saying those words. This is exactly the sort of situation in which WP:USINGPRIMARY sources is wholly reliable. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you are better off replacing it with a summary that avoids the term. I can't comment on whether this is a fringe theory. However, I personally am inclined to trust anything published by the Oxford University Press or a peer-reviewed journal. Even if the book, which I have not examined, is intended to be an anthology of differing views, there's a presumption that these views have some claim to academic legitimacy. So I am not sure why quoting the book for what an author says in it would be wrong. Elinruby ( talk) 03:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Source 12 is a textbook written by Ray Blanchard which references source 32 which was also written by Blanchard in 1993. Blanchard in fact referenced 20+ of his own works in that textbook which describes itself as aimed towards students taking "a first course in adultpsychopathology", and also states that its "chapter authors were given considerable latitude" in what they wrote. This doesn't mean that all 20+ of Blanchek's works dating back from the 80s should gain additional reliability because they were "published by the Oxford Press" or because they were "published by a reliable source twenty years ago" in an ever changing field. Blanchard's theory here "Erotic target location errors" was not directed specifically at infantilism, but was applied by Blanchard to dozens of sexual paraphilias and activities. The specific application of the theory to indicate that infanitilism is pedophilia turned inward is directly contradicted by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems which consider the two conditions to be unrelated. If you want to source the opinion that infantilism is pedophilia turned inward in a manner which demonstrates some sort of importance or credulity to the theory then you will need to find a better source, preferably one in a modern peer reviewed journal which addresses the mainstream notion that the two conditions are unrelated. AerobicFox ( talk) 04:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for having to catch up.. even though I'm mentioned by name, I wasn't informed of this discussion. Seems someone only wanted one side represented.

• WLU - "As far as I know references 33, 34 and 35 are not an issue."

Reference #35 (Dickey) is an issue. Not only is it written by one of Blanchard's coworkers, it doesn't even use the word "infantilism." Additionally, it doesn't cite the F&B article, just one of Blanchard's other theories. #33 and #34 don't apply to the fringe theory being discussed.

• The DSM, the consensus document of the APA and possibly the most verifiable source immaginable, categorizes infantilism as a type of masochism, not pedophilia. Even one of WLU's 'experts' used it as a reliable source for a definition of infantilism [32]. (This was back in 2008, before that expert had an alternative book of his own to promote.)
• Source 32 (Blanchard et al, or F&B) also does not mention infantilism at all.
• Source 12 (Cantor, Blanchard et al, or CB&B) is the only source connecting Blanchard's fringe theory to infantilism. Others use a wide variety of other terms. Furthermore, it only uses the word 'infantilism' five times. For comparison, the word is used five times in the article in text dedicated to the fringe theory. The three sources, with only five uses among them, are cited 13 times in the article.
• WhatamIdoing... Somehow I'm not at all surprised to see you here backing up WLU. Dejavu.
• AerobicFox: Basically, WLU is asking us to disregard the APA so that he can use this charged term, complete with the implied legal consequences. AGF limits our discussion of why he is so intent on this, but we do need to ask why the charged term is needed at all? What value does including this unaccepted speculation in the article offer? Is it worth the damage?
• Fifelfoo: "MEDRS applies. Freund 1993 is a PRIMARY in terms of medical research, it is the first proposal of a theory, and therefore unreliable. Cantor 2009 would be a secondary, but I consider it tainted by association with an author who proposes the theory. Cantor 2009 can be used if independent secondary studies published in appropriate medical forums attest to the uptake of this medical theory. Until someone can demonstrate this, the text should be removed from the article as unverifiable due to failing to meet MEDRS."

I agree fully, and moreso, wish to point out that Freund 1993 doesn't mention infantilism at all. As a result, Cantor 2009's assertion that Freund 1993 applies to paraphilic infantilism is, in a way, primary.

• WLU: "Questions for everyone - does this discussion apply only to the statement about "autoerotic pedophilia".

This is the infantilism article. If the authors don't call it infantilism, us claiming that they really meant to call it infantilism is SYNTH. We've been over this a dozen times, WLU.

• WLU: "You are allowed to WP:USEPRIMARY sources for simple descriptions of their contents, after all."

If this were the "gyneophilic masochists" article, maybe, but it isn't. F&B present a list of neologisms and don't connect any of them clearly to infantilism.

• Fifelfoo: "Paraphilic infantilism isn't MEDRS, but the claim that paraphilic infantilism is self-directed pedophilia is a medical claim: as you note, it is a proposed etiology and one which has criminal and severe medical implications."

I couldn't have written it better.

• WLU: "There are no criminal or medical implications though!"

Where exactly is this place were those with a type of pedophilia are given the benefit of the doubt?

• Elinruby: "However, I personally am inclined to trust anything published by the Oxford University Press or a peer-reviewed journal."

Actually, Oxford only published that "Fruend and Blanchard (1993) referred..." and "They interpreted..." Oxford didn't publish any indication of confirmation or merit. It also only dedicated four sentences of the 21 page section to the theory. Here, it is being given 10% of the article.

• AerobicFox:"The specific application of the theory to indicate that infantilism is pedophilia turned inward is directly contradicted by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems which consider the two conditions to be unrelated. If you want to source the opinion that infantilism is pedophilia turned inward in a manner which demonstrates some sort of importance or credulity to the theory then you will need to find a better source, preferably one in a modern peer reviewed journal which addresses the mainstream notion that the two conditions are unrelated."

...and that was written by someone who isn't on Blanchard's payroll.

Finally caught up - Sorry about that. So much for getting to bed early. By the way, this weekend I noticed WLU contacting editors who had taken his side in the past and asking them to get involved again [33]. I asked him to stop [34]. Please keep an eye out for other places he might take this, again hoping that only one side will be heard. (On the topic of forumshopping, except for those who have had past success at WP:RS, who takes fringe and POV issues here?) BitterGrey ( talk) 06:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Note attempt to make this sound like an obscure etiological issue with "no 'mainstream' view" here [35]. BitterGrey ( talk) 07:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

AerobicFox, where does the DSM and ICD-10 discuss paraphilic infantilism? The ICD-10 I've never seen mentioned, but I am quite certain the DSM does not discuss it and does not directly contradict Blanchard's ELTE theory in any way. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 11:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

WLU, Cantor himself used the DSM as a defining reliable source for infantilism [36]. Either Cantor was competent or incompetent. If you believe he was competent, accept the relevance of the DSM as a widely published, medical, consensus document that lists infantilism under masochism, not pedophilia, thus contradicting the fringe theory. If you believe he was incompetent, biased, editing in bad faith, etc., you shouldn't be pushing this fringe theory, since it is only Cantor, Blanchard, et al that ties it to infantilism. Which do you believe?

I also notice that you have again deleted a reference to the DSM, making that section once again completely one-sided [37]. BitterGrey ( talk) 14:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Claiming a public figure ( James Cantor is both the subject of a wikipedia page and an editor) is incompetent based on a single wikipedia edit which they did not replace after I removed it is probably not a good idea per WP:BLPTALK, and in my mind does not affect the reliability of a source he co-authored with three other people. Your assumptions also leave out simple errors, mis-remembering something, and the fact that Oxford University Press has peer review. I consider the edits made by James Cantor ( talk · contribs) to be utterly irrelevant to the reliability or content of a peer reviewed journal or book chapter. I frankly can't believe you keep bringing it up as if it had any relevance. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 15:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

WLU, you might wish to carefully read my comment before making BLP accusations. This would be yet another accusation that you made against me but had to retract after reading my comment (eg [38]). (You have even accused me of adding that citation to the DSM's definition of infantilism - the one that Cantor added.)

For those reading, please note that WLU commonly refers to the fringe theory as Cantor's hypothesis or theory. (eg [39]). BitterGrey ( talk) 15:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

As a convenient shorthand, I do refer to the chapter by the first author. However, reliability comes from the publisher as well as the author's expertise. Further, you appear to be attempting to discount the reliability of a source based on a single edit made by a wikipedia account. The reliability of Cantor, Blanchard and Barbaree 2009 does not rest on whether one change among the nine that one of its authors made as a wikipedia editor more than three years ago. The choice is not between James Cantor being a competent wikipedia editor versus any source he touches being worthless. The source stands or falls on its own merits. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 19:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a case of a mysterious new phenomenon, but an opposition to the categorizations of the consensus view of the APA, a nationwide body of considerably more than three psychologists, as published in the DSM. ...And even one of those few has demonstrated that he considers the DSM relevant. What WLU is presenting in multiple locations in the article is is a fringe view, not even mentioned outside the facility of origin. BitterGrey ( talk) 14:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

There are numerous editors who have stated that the DSM does not address paraphilic infantilism - myself, FiachraByrne, James Cantor, FuFoFuEd, WhatamIdoing and regarding the DSM point at least, AerobicFox also seems to agree that the DSM does not discuss it [40]. Who among wikipedia editors agrees with you that the DSM discusses paraphilic infantilism, and further that the American Psychiatric Association has a consensus view on paraphilic infantilism? And keep in mind, I am using Blanchard and Freund (1993) to source and expand on the idea that paraphilic infantilism and pedophilia are different things. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 14:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

WLU, you might want to reread what AerobicFox actually wrote, accept that FiachraByrne's last relevant edit [41] was to revert you, note that James Cantor did cite the DSM as relevant, etc. BitterGrey ( talk) 15:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Do we have a consensus that the few sources that WLU has offered do not overrule the mainstream position that infantilism is not a form of pedophilia, as expressed by the APA in the DSM, and in other sources? WLU has again reverted my attempt to make the article more neutral [42].

• Remove all three places where the unreliably supported theory is presented. While it is good to see that WLU might finally be bowing to concerns of WP:TERRORIST, greater concerns remain: Since all of the sources are depended (all coworkers), the theory does not meet the standard set by WP:FRINGE. Given that WLU chose to raise this at RSN, I'll touch on those aspects as well: Since two of the three sources use a list of neologisms which they do not connect to infantilism, WP:SYNTH is necessary to use them in an infantilism article: Any editor seeking to include the material would have to guess what neologism was paraphilic infantilism. Since only one source associates the fringe theory (but no particular neologism) to paraphilic infantilism, it is arguably primary, and so should not be the basis of multiple sections. Furthermore, WLU asserts that the DSM (which contradicts this theory) has no relevance (most recently [43]), and has no sources to support this exceptional claim. BitterGrey ( talk) 15:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather note what is applicable to the issue I'm discussing - that the DSM isn't really applicable to paraphilic infantilism and doesn't present a consensus position on paraphilic infantilism. You might also want to note that I have had concerns over the use of the term "pedophile" for a long time ( here) and most recently reworded the statement to make it clearer to most readers. FiachraByrne was the editor who added the statement in the first place.

Your claims of fringe theories, neologisms, independent sources and synthesis don't hold up as these are published in mainstream, respected venues that make explicit links to paraphilic infantilism. Since pretty much every single one of your posts misrepresents sources, consensus, policies and guidelines, there's no point in discussing with you further. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 15:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I tried to open on a positive note, but have crossed it out to avoid it being used as yet another tangent to avoid the more substantial issues. BitterGrey ( talk) 16:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

And WLU, you are not being "criticized for acknowledging the term that was used on the page was a loaded one, and changing it accordingly while maintaining the idea that paraphilic infantilists don't want to rape children" as you claim in that list of accusations that you have been nursing since March [44]. Another editor may have added the text months ago, but you were the one fighting to keep it [45] [46] [47] [48]... BitterGrey ( talk) 03:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I think we have a consensus that the DSM doesn't even mention the term paraphilic infantilism anywhere in it, and therefore that the DSM doesn't classify PI as being masochism (or as anything else). Saying that the DSM refers to PI is a clear NOR violation. (It is, by the way, exactly the same error as assuming that the autoerotic pedophilia is exactly the same thing as plain old pedophilia.)

(For those unfamiliar with the text, the DSM says that some masochists may wish to be punished or humiliated by being treated like a baby. This is not at all the same thing as paraphilic infantilism, which is wanting to be infantilized without any feelings of humiliation, and multiple sources confirm that the motivation/emotional response is a critical distinction between the two [e.g., this entry for autonepiophilia.) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Pg 572, section 302.83, under masochism, in the paraphilia section: "The individual may have a desire to be treated as a helpless infant and clothed in diapers ("infantilism"). It is right there in black and white. Even the source WAID posted comments that "...infantilism is classified as sexual masochism in DSM-IV and IV-TR..." I fully agree that not all AB/DLs meet the criteria for a paraphilia. In particular, many won't have the distress or impairment of Criterion B. Another source called this interest that wouldn't be diagnosed as a paraphilia as "Adult Baby Syndrome." This isn't being debated. What is being debated is the assertion that infantilism is a type of pedophilia. Now, WAID, would you mind pointing out where that source claims that infantilism is a type of pedophilia? That is the real issue here. BitterGrey ( talk) 02:43, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Fringe theory/theories removed from three places in the article [49].

Those seeking to restore the texts should provide independent sources that infantilism and pedophilia are related in the manner described in the theory/theories. Since the three sources could not even agree on a neologism (even though they all came from the same facility) this will be difficult to do without WP:SYNTH. (Since the DSM is not the only source that classifies infantilism as something other than pedophilia, trying to get the DSM dismissed is not a route to getting this fringe theory/theories restored. Independent, reliable sources will be needed.) BitterGrey ( talk) 03:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Holmes would be another example. It seems WLU hopes to provide better support the CB&B fringe ("...infantilism is an autoerotic form of paedophilia".) by adding refs to Homes ("This form of paraphilia [infantilism] should not be confused with any form of sexual child abuse, pedophilia, incest, or child molestation"). This is pretty much the direct opposite of the theory he is trying to promote. These are being added to other places in the article, not presented as contradicting the fringe.

Note edit war: [50] [51] BitterGrey ( talk) 14:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it "says right there in black and white" that "The paraphilic focus of Sexual Masochism involves the act (real, not simulated) of being humiliated, beaten, bound, or otherwise made to suffer." It further "says right there in black and white" that the actual diagnostic criteria are:

A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving the act (real, not simulated) of being humiliated, beaten, bound, or otherwise made to suffer.

B. The fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

Those are the only two diagnostic criteria, and you must have both. There's absolutely no possibility for a desire to be treated like a baby in a non-humiliating, non-suffering way to qualify as sexual masochism, just like there's no possibility that non-humiliating, non-suffering cross-dressing qualifies as masochism, even though that, too, is listed as a possible form of humiliation. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

WAID, I know that you are indebted to WLU for rushing to your aid when you and I had a disagreement. Before that time, I hadn't had any troubles with WLU. Now the troubles seem constant. How long are you going to continue to rush to his aid?

The attempt at WP:SYNTH to sway consensus is a demonstration that you accept that consensus is against you, WAID. Per WP:BURDEN, those seeking to include a text are the ones responsible for supporting it. If you wish to include a text that states infantilism is a type of pedophilia, sources stating that infantilism is a type of pedophilia are required. Of course, even WLU has waffled his pre-Dec 6th position (he now blames it on me [52]) and reworded the text to the opposite of what is meant before.

Needless to write, either it was a misrepresentation of the sources before, it is one now, or the sources are uselessly ambiguous. BitterGrey ( talk) 06:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not "rushing to WLU's aid", or anyone else's, and my opposition to your (IMO) POV pushing is not personal—on my end, at least, although perhaps you take it personally. It happens that I'm one of the top 40 all-time contributors to this board, and it's normally on my watchlist. I tend to comment on medicine-related items and on questions of primary vs secondary sources. I would have commented on this discussion no matter who had posted it.

If you find that I'm consistently opposing you, then that suggests that we have fundamentally different ideas about how to deal with Wikipedia. For example, in the other incident you mention, I (and everyone else at the WP:External links/Noticeboard, if memory serves) oppose you adding your personal website about how you have paraphilic infantilism into that article. You accused me there, too, of rushing to WLU's aid, without noticing that I'm the all-time top contributor to that noticeboard. In fact, my contributions there exceed the sum of the next three editors together. So perhaps since my normal activity seems suspicious to you, I should point out now that I'm also fairly active at COIN and several other noticeboards, so that you won't be someday make false accusations about wikistalking WLU or anyone else when you encounter me there as well. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The troubles seem constant because you keep editing tendentiously and ignoring any editor who disagrees with you despite us apparently agreeing that paraphilic infantilism is not pedophilia. Instead, you resort to (like above) accusations of bad faith, bias, conspiracy and irrelevant diffs [53], that you insist on reposting despite it being pointed out that they are irrelevant [54], [55]. Also, every indication is that there is no consensus for your point, Bitter. None. And there never has been. And my stance is the same as it has always been - pedophilia and paraphilic infantilism are different, and though the use of the words "autoerotic pedophilia" are technically correct according to the ETLE theory, they are too loaded to be used casually and are better summarized. A point I made in August and reworded in December. As WAID said above, autoerotic pedophilia isn't the same thing as pedophilia.

Regarding the masochism point specifically, there appear to be at least two forms of infantilists, those who desire humiliation and those who desire to be treated like an infant for other reasons. This is covered here. There's nothing to be done here. Stop trying to lay blame, just leave it alone. The page makes a distinction you want made - paraphilic infantilism is not pedophilia. Remove the tags and just let it go. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 12:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Has everyone noticed that the comments I make about WLU generally include diffs, so people can confirm them, but that the accusations he is making against me generally link to policies if they are linked at all? (With a few exceptions: WLU probably meant "accusations of bad faith, [accusations of] bias, [accusations of] conspiracy and [posting] irrelevant diffs." Those who follow that diff will see that I did in fact include a diff in another conversation. (This one : [56]). Of course, Cantor thought it was relevant. WLU, please feel free to explain why you waffled on Dec 6th. (Again, here are difs of WLU warring for "infantilism is an autoerotic form of paedophilia." [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] from August to Dec 6th.)

Perhaps it is necessary to write that either it was a misrepresentation of the sources before, it is one now, or the sources are uselessly ambiguous. BitterGrey ( talk) 15:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I usually consider it adequate to include a diff and an explanation once. I don't consider it necessary to repeat myself in the face of your constant misrepresentation that boders on outright lying. For instance, claiming I'm "edit warring to keep in the term autoerotic pedoophilia"; are you sure I'm not reverting your inappropriate removal of perfectly reliable sources that are alternative theoretical formations and thus not fringe theories? As far as diffs go, here's one that pretty much explains it. I assume you'll keep repeating yourself about James Cantor ( talk · contribs) and the DSM, as well as misrepresenting my position on the term autoerotic pedophilia, so I'll almost certainly have to keep inserting it. God knows having said it three times on three different boards apparently isn't enough. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 16:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: There is a parallel discussion on this at WP:FTN#Paraphilic infantilism (shorter)... may I suggest a centralized discussion? Blueboar ( talk) 16:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I suggest centralizing here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 16:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Blueboar, I had thought the RSN discussion largely dead. So far one of one vote in the consensus has been to remove Blanchard's autopedophilia/masochistic gynephilia theory (which WLU claims is infantilism) from the three locations in the article. However, the productive discussion is long over, and no other editors have gotten involved. It seems reasonably certain that as this discussion gets longer, the odds of additional editors (who might edit) decrease. If no one willing to edit gets involved, this discussion will have been pointless.

Now WLU and loyal ally WAID have added some nine hundred words to that discussion, and WLU has tried to supersede your suggestion to merge with his own, so that readers will be directed to just WLU's and WAID's restart. Any advice? BitterGrey ( talk) 05:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You could start with the advice I gave you on your talk page - instead of treating this like a clash of personalities, you could make the best case you can for your position based on policies, guidelines and sources. Continuously accusing people of bad faith drives away actual contributors. A centralized discussion, as Blueboar suggested, has been created on the FTN. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 11:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

WLU, you might wish to consider leading by example, and refraining from accusations like "your [BitterGrey's] constant misrepresentation that bo[r]ders on outright lying" [63], etc... BitterGrey ( talk) 15:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what to call it when you've systematically represented my position so many times without ever acknowleging my many, many corrections. It's not an accusation, it's factual - you've misrepresented the consensus regarding the DSM an enormous number of times, misrepresented my statements regarding the lack of relationship between paraphilic infantilism and pedophilia, and misrepresented James Cantor's position regarding how the DSM deals with infantilism (it doesn't, and he says so). You're also misrepresenting why WAID disagrees with you - she's given policies and guidelines, you're completely ignoring those points in favour of the belief that it's because she doesn't like you. You've spent almost all of your time and energy attacking the motivations of people who disagree with you rather than dealing with their arguments. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 15:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

My my, what a long list of diffless accusations. If anyone cares, WLU's master list of accusations against me is here [64]. He's been nursing it since February. Of course, if he really wanted to promote conversation, he wouldn't write "I've been ignoring Bittergrey's constant claims of bias and his interpretations. Cuts down on the reading." [65]. BitterGrey ( talk) 03:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

And as I explained two days ago, I did indeed ignore your claims of bias and conspiracy - while continuing to respond to your substantive points. You keep repeating the same claims, showing no evidence that I've responded to them multiple times. That is why I keep pointing out that you misrepresent other people's opinions. And when I do include diffs, you still show no evidence of having read them or recognized their significance. The edit I link to has a multitude of diffs, sections and archives, yet here we are two days later and you are repeating the exact same accusation and ignoring the fact that I've provided diffs showing your accusations are unfounded. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 14:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Here again, the facts don't agree. For example, my post about CAMH sources (Blanchard et al) was made in November, but you didn't respond until three weeks later [66], just before starting this discussion in December. Given that you reverted every substantial edit that I make to the article within hours, this supports exactly what you stated: You are ignoring me. When I commented about your sense of ownership [67], you made an accusation that you had to retract, admitting that you assumed, instead of actually reading [68]. BitterGrey ( talk) 16:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the point of any of that regarding the current discussion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 17:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

WLU, you started this tangent. Perhaps you shouldn't have made all of those accusations. Glass houses... BitterGrey ( talk) 06:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the correct noticeboard for discussion on this anymore, sorry I've been away for a while so I'm playing catch-up. The sources used are reliable, although I'm largely indifferent now towards their weight considering the lack of resources on infantilism. I'm definitely against including more material, and would support some removal, but I don't really care if what's currently written stays. I'd like to correct what I wrote here above, the DSM does not discuss infantilism/adult baby syndrome/etc, except a brief blip in the context of masochism, but isn't really useful for defining infantilism at all. AerobicFox ( talk) 04:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Since my main concern has been the fringe theory/theories (that infantilism was a type of pedophilia) and the lack of independence in the only sources for it (Blanchard et al and Blanchard et al), I doubt this was ever the correct forum for this discussion. Since this discussion started, the text flipped 180 but still references the same sources & theory. This complicated the discussion at the fringe theories notice board that I started once this one died down. The restart, with the groundwork necessary to discuss the various theories and pre/post text versions, is here. BitterGrey ( talk) 16:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Freund & Blanchard don't say paraphilic infantilism is pedophilia, they say paraphilic infantilists don't want to have sex with children - they want to be children. Further, they say that they desire an adult sexual partner.

If it's a fringe theory, prove it. Show me the peer reviewed sources that criticize it.

There is no noticeboard for independence of sources, and on top of that the sources are independent because they are published in a reliable, peer-reviewed journal with independent editorial oversight. They are thus independent of the author. WP:IS doesn't apply. Freund & Blanchard, as well as Cantor, Blanchard & Barbaree, both meet the requirements of WP:SCHOLARSHIP, WP:SOURCES, Wikipedia:Third-party sources#How to meet the requirement. F&B are the authors (and recognized experts in the field of sexuality and paraphilias) publishing in a peer reviewed journal. You have never addressed the fact that you are mis-applying WP:IS, which is about editorial independence of the publisher. Nobody has agreed with your opinion that F&B lacks independence. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 17:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

"MEDRS applies. Freund 1993 is a PRIMARY in terms of medical research, it is the first proposal of a theory, and therefore unreliable. Cantor 2009 would be a secondary, but I consider it tainted by association with an author who proposes the theory. Cantor 2009 can be used if independent secondary studies published in appropriate medical forums attest to the uptake of this medical theory. Until someone can demonstrate this, the text should be removed from the article as unverifiable due to failing to meet MEDRS." Fifelfoo's edit history goes back to 2003, so he is probably not "Nobody." I guess I should be comforted that I'm not the only one WLU is ignoring. BitterGrey ( talk) 06:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if Freund is a primary source. See Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary and secondary sources, especially the sections labeled '"Primary" is not another way to spell "bad"' and 'You are allowed to use primary sources... carefully'. This page expands on the official policy at NOR, which says "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia". WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Don't know if this will help end this discussion or just prolong it, but I shall introduce more sources and recommend that we apply less weight to medical/psychological viewpoints in areas where they are still divided and acting childishly:
  • Erotic Target Location Errors: An Underappreciated Paraphilic Dimension by Anne A. Lawrence cites the same sources we are discussing here on ETLE's and sums them up thus "Blanchard’s (1991; Freund and Blanchard, 1993) formulation, despite its potential clinical and heuristic value, has gone largely unnoticed and unappreciated."
  • After her paper supporting the use of ETLE's was published Charles Moser apparently wrote some sort of response critical to it(I haven't looked too hard for it), but I have Anne A. Lawrences response to Moser's response to her in a letter to editor entitled "Erotic Target Location Errors are Easy to Mischaracterize: A Reply to Moser", and I must express my shock at seeing such a petty and childish argument breaking out like we have on Wikipedia in academia.(ex. "Moser’s ludicrous misrepresentation of what I actually wrote," "Most of Moser’s other criticisms of my article result from his having ignored or misinterpreted my statements, either inadvertently or for rhetorical purposes," etc, etc)
• It's clear that this is just one of those areas that mainstream science has not really covered in depth (likely due to controversy). Some articles simply cannot be expanded, and either way we cannot gauge a consensus in the medical community by the pioneering work of a couple of conflicting psychologists who appear to be the only ones to write on the subject. I would recommend only a single, generalized section on the psychological aspects of infantilism noting the lack of research, referring the reader to prevalent views of paraphilias in general, and ignore trying to input ETLE's into the infantilism article just because there is so little else which mentions infantilism. The fact is that the medical community has not provided any research which makes anything more than trivial references to infantilism, so we should just report that instead of trying to beef up the refs of the article by providing scholarly works which only mention them as an aside as part of a group with other paraphilias. AerobicFox ( talk) 07:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I've got three points. First, that's not an indication that it is a fringe theory, only that these two authors have discussed it. There are more, though they're not all positive [69], [70], they're also not all negative [71], [72], and even Moser has cited it without criticism apparently [73] (though it's in press and should be treated very cautiously). Freund & Blanchard has been cited 33 times according to google scholar, and the above are only the ones with full links to them. There were other sources but they commented more on F&B's case studies rather than the ETLE idea. If you're saying this means F&B's ETLE is a fringe theory on the basis of the above discussion between two authors, I don't agree. If you're saying it's simply not mainstream enough to be included...well I still don't agree but am more willing to accept it.

Second, applying that standard uniformly to all sources on the page would essentially gut large portions of the page since, again, there is no real research on the topic. The page would be a list of behaviours and perhaps organizations that promote it and not much else. None of the sources indicate the consensus of the medical community and if that's the standard we're applying then there are very, very few that could be used as they're mostly isolated theorizing. Ironically, F&B's ETLE theory might be the most developed and cited.

Third, Freund & Blanchard still make a valuable distinction between pedophilia and paraphilic infantilism, stating that one is attraction to children and the other is attraction to the idea of being a child. What is your opinion on this use (already on the page in the section on [ [74]]) of F&B being used in this way (or possibly a shorter version)? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 13:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

We need to be careful not to confound the multiple ETLE theories. The more widely publicized one (at least relative to masochistic gynephilia/etc.) is usually referred to as autogynephilia. It holds that heterosexuals become transsexuals when their heterosexuality gets inverted. Etiologicially, it involves one step. Most of us are heterosexual for the preservation of the species. This theory holds that some of us become transsexual somehow. At least in the DSM, transsexuality is not grouped as a paraphilia, but a gender identity disorder. The theory we are discussing here relates to masochistic gynephiles. It holds that some people become pedophilic somehow, and that the pedophilia can be inverted somehow, into masochistic gynephilia. (F&B didn't call it infantilism.) Etiologicaly, this is two steps, somehow pedophilic and then somehow inverted. Unlike transsexualism, infantilism is a paraphilia. Except for the acronym, the only commonality is that something gets inverted somehow.

We should also note that this childishness extends onto Wikipedia(eg [75] [76]), negatively affecting the articles of Dr. Moser and others critical of Blanchard's theories. BitterGrey ( talk) 16:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe that's inaccurate, a more accurate comparison would be when a person with a male gender identity becomes attracted to the idea of being a female. There's only one ETLE theory, and it is that one end of a continuum is excitement at the partner having a certain trait and the other end is the self having that trait. F&B's point is that "erotic target" can be another axis on a set of continuums; heterosexual-homosexual, self-other, male-female, and theoretically a host of variations (amputation or not, bestiality on one end furry on the other). It isn't a matter of "steps", it's a matter of axes. ETLE is proposed as a dimension of sexuality which can be expressed multiple ways depending on the other dimensions; it's used to explain common paraphilias where the target is self rather than other; where an individual is preoccupied with their own body being changed, not with seeing another's body exhibiting the trait.

I'm really, really not sure what those ANI links are supposed to demonstrate. Neither my name nor paraphilic infantilism seem to be mentioned in either archive. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 18:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

So it is just a neologism for the subject-object continuum? That a line can be drawn between any two points is a truism, not a sexological theory. Of course, if mentioning infantilism was a criteria for relevance to this discussion, two of the three sources WLU has fought for would be excluded. BitterGrey ( talk) 07:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it is a theory hypothesizing an axis of sexual attraction. Not subject-object, transformed self-other as sexual partner.

Only one source is necessary to make the point, since Cantor, Blanchard & Barbaree 2008 state on page 531:

“

The erotic fantasies of persons with erotic identity disorders pertain less to any sexual partners and more to their transformed images of themselves; some authors refer to these paraphilias as autoerotic...Freund and Blanchard (1993) referred to this characteristic as an erotic target location error. They hypothesized that erotic target location was a basic dimension of sexual attraction, independent of the nature of the erotic target (object) itself. They interpreted infantilism as an erotic target location error for persons whose erotic target is children, that is, infantilism as an autoerotic form of pedophilia.

”

This source explicitly links F&B 1993 to infantilism, as well as making the point that infantilists are attracted to the idea of a transformed self (the erotic target axis of sexual development). I'm quite happy to use the above citation to verify the third point, while Freund & Blanchard alone makes the valuable point that apparently similar fantasies of pedophiles and paraphilic infantilists have very distinct and different etiologies, expressions and result in very different choices of sexual partners. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 17:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I have been watching this discussion for some time without commenting. Perhaps the following helps. My relatively superficial impression here is that the core of this dispute is whether it is OK to even compare paraphilic infantilism to pedophilia or, even to use or mention the term "autoerotic pedophilia". It is legitimate to come to different conclusions depending on whether you have a general audience in mind (including readers who are patients or know a patient) or a medical audience.

For a general audience, the most important question in the light of which the article will be read is: "Is it dangerous?" When a person does one bizarre, egocentric thing, it is perfectly natural to worry that the person could also be capable of doing other bizarre, egocentric things that might be more harmful. E.g. anyone considering a partnership with someone who suffers from this condition and not worrying, at least at first, whether they might be murdered or maimed in their sleep, or whether their children from an earlier (or the same!) relation are safe, would probably be an unusual special case. Such readers will not be relieved when they learn that there is a differential diagnosis between paraphilic infantilism and pedophilia, or that someone uses a technical term that contains the word "pedophilia", or that someone has even classified it as a special form of pedophilia. They will be worried, and likely very much so. I simply do not know whether they will be appropriately worried or not. Maybe there are no reliable sources that would settle this question, but even so it's better to discuss what is probably the core problem openly.

For a medically oriented audience it's important to give pointers to all the major opinions, and that apparently includes the scary ones.

I don't have a solution, but maybe this helps to get the discussion on a more constructive track. Hans Adler 14:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

RS/N does not supply mediation services, a soapbox, or non RS related content advice. The conduct in this section does not belong on RS/N.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yup. We've had to put up with this same vacuous 'debate' on multiple noticeboards for far to long. Most people have no idea of what it is about, and of the minority that do, few show any evidence of caring. Personally, I don't think that it is appropriate to apply the term 'paedophile' to someone who enjoys dressing up as a baby or whatever, for the same reasons that I don't think it appropriate to apply the term 'rational' to someone who spends their spare time arguing about such obscure matters here. This isn't a journal of abnormal psychology, it is an online encyclopaedia, written (supposedly) for a general audience. Find another soapbox... AndyTheGrump ( talk) 06:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC) I think all input is helpful in a way, Hans Adler, so thanks. WLU and I seem to mostly agree on the rest of the section contrasting infantilism and pedophilia. At issue is the inclusion of the mosochistic gynephiles/autoinfantophilia/autopedophilia/autoerotic pedophilia theory/theories in three places in the article. The section on this theory under pedophilia was commented out until just a few days ago. This is because, of the three editors involved back in August, no two agreed on how or if it should be presented [77]. I'm not opposed to the discussion of these theories among academics - there just hasn't been any: All three sources cited are from Blanchard and his coworkers. This suggests that the theories are minor, as well as unclear. When child molestation is involved, unclear is dangerous. BitterGrey ( talk) 15:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC) One thing that everyone seems to miss here, is that "autoerotic pedophilia" is not the same thing as "pedophilia". The central point of the ETLE hypothesis is that it is attraction to the idea of a transformed self, so when one is at the extreme end of this spectrum the sexual partner is almost irrelevant. Fruend & Blanchard's point is that their theory differentiates pedophilia from paraphilic infantilism to being on completely opposite ends of a proposed continuum, and in doing so make a crucial point about paraphilic infantilism in the first place - it's sexual excitement at the idea of being a child. It's like conflating homosexuals and heterosexuals because they are on the same spectrum, ignoring that they are on completely different ends. I realize that pedophilia is a loaded word, which is why I changed the phrasing; I think the current phrase amply captures the intent while still being accurate to the theory. F&B do compare them, and state that according to their theory, they're completely different. Hans, the term "autoerotic pedophilia hasn't appeared in the page for nearly two weeks now, based on a comment that a less inherently pejorative wording should be used - a statement I myself made in August. The current page does not use the term "autoerotic pedophilia", it says "sexual attraction to the idea of the self being a child" which is both accurate according to the theory and lacking a very loaded word - satisfying both specialist and generalist audiences. There are lots of sources that say PI and pedophilia are different (Freund & Blanchard are one of them) and there is a reference stating paraphilic infantilists tend to be protective of children, not exploitative. What I am attempting to convey is that the current page already does what Hans Adler suggests, and removing Freund & Blanchard will obscure, not clarify, the distinction between PI and pedophilia. I also can't figure out what you are supposed to be representing with that diff. As far as including the theory three times, the theory of ETLE is alluded to once, mentioned once, and Freund & Blanchard is used a third time as a reference to make the distinction between the two conditions. Can anyone quote me the section of paraphilic infantilism where pedophilia and PI are conflated? In seems like people are reading Bittergrey's inaccurate summaries rather than the actual text. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 18:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC) Should we be including concepts/theories that "...everyone [but WLU] seems to miss..."? I thought the whole point of RSs was to avoid having to depend on the unverifiable insight of one editor. Oh, and in AerobicFox's defense (also here [78]), he was correctly and directly quoting the WLU#1 version [79] not "Bittergrey's inaccurate summaries". BitterGrey ( talk) 05:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC) Considering the number of people who seem to think "autoerotic pedophilia" is the same as "pedophilia" when it is clearly not, I think people should read the actual source before saying it is inappropriate to use because it conflates the two. If everyone is relying on your summary for instance, then they will conclude that "autoerotic pedophiles" wish to rape children. Freund & Blanchard, who define the term, clearly state that pedophiles wish to rape children - autoerotic pedophiles wish to role-play childhood. This is quite clearly verifiable, in the sources - which nobody seems to have read. Your summaries are indeed inaccurate, since you are claiming the two are the same - Freund & Blanchard do not. You have access to the sources - where do they say paraphilic infantilists, masochistic gynaephiles or autoerotic pedophiles (a term never used, infantilism is referred to as the "autoerotic form of pedophilia") wish to have sex with children? Can you provide any quotes that says paraphilic infantilists or masochistic gynaephiles desire a child as a sexual partner? Here is a quote where Freund & Blanchard clearly state the two are differet: "The above cases suggest a distinction between paedophiles with erotic imagery of themselves as children and masochistic gynaephiles with similar fantasies. This view is based on our analysis of the relationships between the infantile (or juvenile) self-imagery and the other elements of the total fantasy. With paedophiles, this imagery increases the subject's similarity to the sexual object (children). With masochistic gynaephiles, the same imagery increases the subject's difference from the sexual object (women), in particular, the difference between subject and object in power and control. This power differential, expressed in such fantasies by the imagined woman spanking or scolding the subject, is central to the masochistic arousal. A similar analysis can be applied to the fetish objects (usually nappies) used in masturbation by the two groups. With paedophiles, the fetish derives its power from its association with the sexual object, children. With masochistic gynaephiles,the fetish derives its power from association with the (fantasised) subject; it is an accoutrement to the role of the shamed, defenceless, punished little boy. In light of these differences, we believe that erotic fantasies of being a child probably have different aetiologies in the two groups." Based on the above, it seems quite clear that F&B are saying the groups are different. I will also quote their definition of an ETLE: "This theory predicts that, for every class of sexual object, there will be small subgroups of men who develop fetishes for clothing associated with the desired object, who develop the erotic fantasy of being the desired object, and who develop the sustained wish to transform their own bodies into facsimilies of the desired object." The erotic focus is a transformed self. Not children. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 17:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC) ( "lie enough and it becomes the truth". WLU misquoting [80] Lenin, in the lede to his second page of accusations against me.) Or we could use the much shorter summary from the Wikipedia article, version WLU#1, cited to both F&B and CB&B: "Another theory is that infantilism is an erotic identity disorder where the erotic fantasy is centred on the self rather than on a sexual partner and results from an erotic targeting location error where the erotic target was children yet becomes inverted. According to this model infantilism is an autoerotic form of paedophilia." [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86].(emphais added). So again, should we be including concepts/theories that "...everyone [but WLU AFTER Dec 6th] seems to miss..."? BitterGrey ( talk) 05:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

First off, this is a BLP so of course the sourcing has to be high quality.

In Richard Kaczynski (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), the following sources have been proposed to support that the subject has been "a lecturer on magick since 1990".

1. ACE: Starwood Speaker Roster - a simple list of who presented in what year, without details about what they presented, whether they lectured on bunny rabbits or juggled chainsaws.
2. Crowley Without Tears lecture offered by Richard Kaczynski at the 1990 Starwood Festival - a master copy of an event program from a single event in 1990, with some pages upside down for copying, folding and stapling into a booklet.

I don't believe either of these can be considered reliable, particularly not for this article as they are not independent and had a financial interest in promoting the event. Neither of them actually verify the statement, even together. However, I believe we need third-party reports or reviews of these events or a reliable biographical source that actually states the fact being supported. Combining multiple non-independent event announcements would violate our policy against synthesis and original research and would constitute misuse of primary sources, would it not? Yworo ( talk) 19:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Let me say several things about this. First, the second citation was placed instead of the first, so the value of the first is moot. Second, I think the bar is being set a bit to high for as simple a statement as this. An example of a lecture he has given on the subject as early as 1990 at the biggest event in America in this field has been offered. (The quality of the graphic reproduction is irrelevant; the event did not begin posting online catalogs until 1994.) It was not offered to assert notability, just to support the statement that he has been lecturing on this subject since this year. Yearly examples for the time between then and now could be supplied, but to what purpose? Third, I think the notion that such a statement should require a 3rd party report or review of "he has lecture on Magick since 1990" is way over the top. A review would just supply someone's opinion as to the quality of his lecture(s), an issue that is not mentioned in the article. Fourth, I believe a listing in the program and/or catalog of an event or in the curriculum of an educational organization or institution is sufficient for such a simple assertion; the notion that some publication must review a lecture or class merely to note its existence is a bit absurd. If, say, a teacher at Yale taught a class in law for ten years, it is likely that the only citation would be in the catalog containing the curriculum of those years; it isn't likely that some magazine or such would do a review of this class. Nonetheless, it would certainly be a notable credit to the teacher that he taught such a class at Yale for ten years. Fifth, none of this would violate Synthesis, since the same source was being offered, and listing different lectures to support this simple statement (and again, I don't see the need in the first place, though I suppose one could be placed on the discussion page of the article) would not combine different data to create a new conclusion not made in either sources. It would not violate original research, being published objective material simply listing the lectures that were given and when, in the official records of the hosting organization, not the editor's assertion that "he was there and so he knows". The implication that there was a "financial interest" is also irrelevant; what possible interest could there be to a reference to a lecture given 21 years ago? (Just for the record, Kaczynski was never paid for a lecture at Starwood, nor is he a member of the organization that runs it.)

I'm sorry to be so long-winded about this. I don't think this is a major issue, except that the editor bringing it up has nominated the article for deletion. Other citation requirements have been placed in the article, some which I think raise the bar a good deal on some rather simple statements. I would be interested in knowing what, if any, citation needs to be added that is comparable to other Wikipedia articles' requirements for this simple statement. In the meantime, other editors and I are working in good faith to update and improve the article, and it is my hope that these efforts will satisfy the Wiki community in general. Rosencomet ( talk) 22:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

These seem to be primary sources demonstrating the fact that he lectured 1990-1996. If that is a notable fact (the Starwood page disarmingly describes it as "useless knowledge") I don't see any problem in using those sources to support it. And rew D alby 13:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you can also find Kaczynski in the program of almost every Starwood Festival through 2006. Rosencomet ( talk) 16:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The CIA [87] states:

• "Shia Islam represents 10-20% of Muslims worldwide... Ismaili faith: A sect of Shia Islam... Alawi faith: Another Shia sect of Islam... Druze faith: A highly secretive tradition and a closed community that derives from the Ismaili sect of Islam...
• Sunni Islam accounts for over 75% of the world's Muslim population".

Someone is using this CIA info in the Islam article and misinterpreting it as Sunnis being at least 75% and Shia's 10-20%. I ask where does the other 5% or so go? Can this CIA info be considered reliable in Islam article since it doesn't add up to 100%? There is no other source that mention Sunnis at 75% or anywhere in the 70s. They all say Sunnis are '85-90%' today. See the list of 10 sources I presented at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts#Percentage of Sunnis and Shias in Islam. I respect the CIA in many cases but I have pointed out the errors it has made on Afghanistan. See Talk:Islam#Third party intervention re Sunni numbers.-- Kiftaan ( talk) 14:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

If it were over 100% I might worry, but a missing 5% simply suggests they aren't enumerating the myriad splinter sects that exist. A way of navigating the issue might be attribution ("The CIA says...") or "Estimates range from..." Of the 10 sources you list on AN, none really specialize in Islam and the best way to resolve might be to find somewhere that has a focus on primarily Islam and using that. A bit of digging doesn't really turn up anything I would consider conclusive; the Encyclopedia of Islam cites Encyclopedia of Britannica's 85% figure [88]. That's sort-of helpful. Overall I would say the world factbook would be considered reliable but not definitive. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: ^simple/ _complex 23:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd point out there are other groups that call themselves muslims - aside from Sunni's and Shia's. Such as Bahai's, Ahmadiyyan's etc. Some Sunni's don't even recognise Shia's as muslims. -- Commking ( talk) 23:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree w/WLU and Commking.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 07:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

To WLU, I had written it like this "Most estimates show that 85-90% of Muslims are Sunni (CIA states over 75%) and 10-20% are Shia. [8][9][10]" until someone changed it. [89] I'm not rejecting the world factbook, I'm saying can we ignore their percentage figures in the Islam article. According to Pew Research Center: Of the total Muslim population, 10-13% are Shia Muslims and 87-90% are Sunni Muslims. The Pew Forum's estimate of the Shia population (10-13%) is in keeping with previous estimates, which generally have been in the range of 10-15%. Some previous estimates, however, have placed the number of Shias at nearly 20% of the world's Muslim population. [90] PRC and all others who specialize in Islam are telling us that Sunnis today make up 85-90% but only the CIA (world factbook) uses the term "over 75%". It is very strange for the CIA to write Shias 10-20% and Sunnis over 75%, and it doesn't mention any other sects.-- Kiftaan ( talk) 07:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

To Commking, you are incorrect because Bahais follow Bahá'í Faith, which is considered a separate religion. Ahmadiyya is a movement and is considered belonging to Sunni sect. It has reported suggested figure of less than 5 million followers, which is less than 0.1% of the total Islam (1.57 billion followers). There is no reliable source which mentions Ahmadiyya or any of the other Islamic movements being sects of Islam. In fact they all make it clear that these are movements and not different sects. "Some Sunni's don't even recognise Shia's as muslims" is irrelevant here.-- Kiftaan ( talk) 07:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, my understanding is the opposite -- that, for example, there are in fact RSs that mention Ahmadiyya as a sect of Islam. [91] [92] [93] [94]-- Epeefleche ( talk) 08:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Posting these selected book refs from google books.com is not a good way to learn, you can find more helpful info in the Wikipedia article of Ahmadiyya. Ahmaddiya is a movement that started in the 19th century by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. He and his followers never claimed (or claim) to be a different sect, that is more important than the opinion of a book writer.-- Kiftaan ( talk) 09:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I pointed you to a number of RSs. There are many more. Here at WP, RSs are gold. WP itself is not an RS -- and information in it is only as strong as the extent to which the information is based on RSs (such as the ones I presented to you). We rely on what the RSs tell us; not, as you suggest, on non-RS articles, or individual editors' opinions that are not supported by RSs.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 09:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

You may consider these books RS but there are more RSs that oppose the view of these book authors. These books can only be used like "according to such and such Ahmadiyaa are considered a sect but according to such and such they are not." I'm afraid this discussion is leading to another topic which I don't feel like arguing at this point. I have told other editors that if they argue for weeks or months and we all agree that these are sects of Islam, they do not come near 1% of total Islam. They don't make any difference when it comes to percentages.-- Kiftaan ( talk) 09:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

If there are multiple RSs that express conflicting views on a subject, it is of course appropriate (as I've said elsewhere on this page) to reflects the different views, and attribute them to the RSs. But that's not what we are necessarily facing here, and more importantly serves to change the subject -- I stand by my prior statements, to bring us back to the subject at hand.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 16:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The issue here is that the CIA uses a percentage for Islam (over 75% Sunni and 10-20% Shia) that doesn't add up to 100%. Can this be considered reliable and used as a source for the Islam article? If yes then how can we interpret it? Surely the CIA is not saying that Sunnis are 75% because there is not a single reliable source on the planet which puts Sunnis anywhere in the 70s percent. The lowest I have seen is 80% in google books but all the top experts on Islam say Sunnis are 85-90% today. The Islam article should only present current estimates not those from the past. The percent shown on the CIA website has no date given, it could be old and outdated. The CIA even explains that their information is considered unreliable [95].

“

Information is raw data from any source, data that may be fragmentary, contradictory, unreliable, ambiguous, deceptive, or wrong.

”

Starting with the first country in its list, Afghanistan, in 1991, CIA presented this:

• "Religion: 74% Sunni Muslim, 15% Shia Muslim, 11% other... Language: 50% Pashtu, 35% Afghan Persian (Dari), 11% Turkic languages (primarily Uzbek and Turkmen), 4%... Ethnic divisions: 50% Pashtun, 25% Tajik, 9% Uzbek, 12-15% Hazara..." [96]

About 2 years later it made a contradiction:

• "Religions: Sunni Muslim 84%, Shi`a Muslim 15%, other 1%... Languages: Pashtu 35%, Afghan Persian (Dari) 50%, Turkic languages (primarily Uzbek and Turkmen) 11%, 30 minor languages (primarily Balochi and Pashai) 4%; much bilingualism... Ethnic divisions: Pashtun 38%, Tajik 25%, Uzbek 6%, Hazara 19%; minor ethnic groups include Chahar Aimaks, Turkmen, Baloch, and others..." [97]

Several years later it came up with something different. [98] Before 2009, the CIA didn't have a separate page for all the religions of the world and percentage of Sunnis and Shias. [99] This either began in 2010 or in 2011 and is considered raw data that the CIA explains is unreliable, which has no references or dates.-- Kiftaan ( talk) 08:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Questionable books

Please supply full citations following the instructions given at the top of the page. Failure to do so is deception when you misrepresent sources. Sources 1 (Routledge), 2 (Taylor & Francis), 3 (Melbourne University Press), and 5 (Columbia University Press) are all published in the academic press, they're academic sources the very sources you rightly suggest should be relied upon. Your attempt to mislead, "Just reading the names of these books," combined with your failure to even cite the works correctly (for example: looking up the publishers and discovering two are commercial academic presses, and two are university academic presses) is troubling as it damages the encyclopaedic process. As an RS/N editor, I suggest that further attempts to mislead RS/N in this blatant manner will be actioned as disruption. Fifelfoo ( talk) 21:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
An editor typed "world muslim 80% sunni" in google book search and got result to these 5 books. Can these guestionable sources be treated as reliable sources for the current percentage of Sunni/Shia in the Islam article? I have carefully checked each book and the information in them not only go against all the top academic sources, they are also outdated. A dictionary of modern politics (published: 2002) Eastern Europe, Russia and Central Asia 2004 , Volume 4 (pub: 2003) Inside Muslim Minds (pub: 2008) Who Gets to Narrate the World?: Contending for the Christian Story in an Age of Rivals (pub: 2008) Islam and the Ahmadiyya jamaʻat: history, belief, practice (based on John Eposito 2002) Just reading the names of these books, how can someone use these to determine the current percentage of Sunni/Shia Muslims? Also, pay attention to the years. I ask that we stick to "quality" and not quantity. We may find many books that mention that there are aliens from Mars walking around on earth but does that make it true? User:PassaMethod keeps bringing these books as his sources which I believe are "not acceptable" per WP:USERGENERATED, WP:NOTRELIABLE, WP:SCHOLARSHIP and many other reasons. I suggest that we stick to the academic sources such as Pew Research Center (PRC) [100], Britannica, and Berkely Center, etc.-- Kiftaan ( talk) 14:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that you quickly jumped to conclusion without understanding my point or maybe I didn't prepare my argument clearly. My question was mainly trying to ask the community here if these 6 books, which contain old estimates, be presented as the current estimates in the Islam article? In addition to the estimates being too old, the books are mainly about other things instead of the Sunni sect of Islam.-- Kiftaan ( talk) 00:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Your decision to misrepresent their academic status does nullify our capacity to assume good faith from you in sourcing. You have a lot of ground to make up here in terms of quality of argumentation and presentation of sources given your conduct immediately above. Fifelfoo ( talk) 03:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

An article in Race & Class by Matt Carr (abstract here, full text available there) is being cited to include a comparison of the conspiracy theory Eurabia to the conspiracy theory Zionist Occupation Government. The article is cited by a number of other works. Jayjg has argued that this is a WP:REDFLAG claim and that Matt Carr's view being included on this violates WP:UNDUE. I'll raise the issue of UNDUE at NPOV/N, but for the issue of the source not being suitable for a "redflag" claim, is this source reliable for the content in this diff? nableezy - 00:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't see any problem in the proposed text: It is from a notable peer-reviewed journal, and helps put the 'Eurabia' conspiracy theory into a broader context. I'd say that Carr's article was a fine source for an overview of the issue. If there is an argument about balance, the answer is to find sources of similar weight arguing another position, rather than excluding this one. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 01:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

See comment below. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Race & Class is peer reviewed, this article was peer reviewed, this article is specifically on the topic of the encyclopaedia article and was reviewed as such. Carr's academic opinion, at page 9, is clear, "Stripped of its Islamic content, the broad contours of Ye’or’s pre- posterous thesis recall the anti-Semitic conspiracy theories of the first half of the twentieth century and contemporary notions of the ‘Zionist Occupation Government’ prevalent in far-right circles in the US. Yet her book has been well received, not only by established heralds of the Islamic threat, such as Melanie Phillips, Daniel Pipes and Oriana Fallaci, but by respected historians such as Niall Ferguson and Churchill’s biographer Martin Gilbert, who, whatever their political views, might at least be expected to recognise the absence of historical discipline or methodology when they see it." This clearly supports the diff indicated as far as reliability grounds go. The intellectual history, the genealogy of this idea, is clearly put in a journal dedicated to issues of race and racialism. The diff could be more strongly worded, using a non-attributed version given that this is Race & Class. Fifelfoo ( talk) 02:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Carr can't have an "academic opinion", because he's not an academic. He's a freelance journalist. If the comparison is so apt, why haven't any actual academics made it? Jayjg ^(talk) 04:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

guess what he becomes by publishing in a scholarly peer reviewed publication for that publication? We trust the process of review Fifelfoo ( talk) 04:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Um, no, when a freelance journalist has an article published in Race & Class, that doesn't make him an academic. Academics are typically people who teach or do research at a university, generally professors with PhDs, and who regularly publish in academic journals in their fields of expertise. And although we trust the process of review to an extent, as I pointed out already on the talk page of the article in question, "reliable/not reliable" is not a binary choice, with sources being either 100% reliable or 100% unreliable, and nothing in-between. Rather, reliability is a spectrum, and depends on many things, including the author, the publisher, the subject matter, when the material was published, and other factors. Being published in a peer-reviewed journal generally indicates that a source is reliable. "Generally" is the word specifically used in the WP:RS guideline, and "generally" means "not always"; that one should also assess various other factors. In this case, a respected academic writing in his field of expertise in a respected peer-reviewed journal would be at the high end of reliability; a freelance journalist writing in a journal that while peer-reviewed, has a specific agenda, would be significantly less so. And if the latter author made a claim which no reliable or academic source has apparently made, then WP:REDFLAG becomes relevant. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

here is a more general comparison. liz fekete, the executive director of the institute of race relations and author of "a suitable enemy: racism, migration and islamophobia"(pluto, 2009), states that "although the conspiracy draws on older forms of racism, it also incorporates new frameworks: the clash of civilisations, islamofascism, the new anti-semitism and eurabia. this muslim conspiracy bears many of the hallmarks of the ‘jewish conspiracy theory’, yet, ironically, its adherents, some of whom were formerly linked to anti-Semitic traditions, have now, because of their fear of islam and arab countries, become staunch defenders of israel and zionism." the source is the newest race&class edition.--  mustihussain  07:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I asked you before if she ever mentions ZOG, and you admit she doesn't. So, not relevant here. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

What 'claim' is this? Carr draws a comparison, based on the evidence he presents, between the 'Eurabia' conspiracy theory and others - I cannot for the life of me see what is contentious here. This isn't controversial to anyone with any knowledge of the broader topic - all Carr is saying is that this conspiracy theory has precedents elsewhere. It does. Anyone with even the most basic understanding of the subject, as discussed in academia, will be well aware that comparisons between say 17th-Century witch-hunts and McCarthyism, are par for the course - that is how (some) academics work. You look at the broader picture, rather than the incidental details, and in the process learn something more general - or at least you hope you do. And yes, it is possible (though unlikely, I'd think) that no 'academic' has made this particular comparison before - but so what? Is there any reason, based on the evidence that Carr presents, to consider the comparison invalid? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 06:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Andy, I suppose one can compare anything to anything else and find some sort of commonality. But let's step back a bit, and examine the context. Liftarn is very keen to denigrate anyone who says anything negative about Islamism, and in this case wants to equate the notion of "Eurabia" - the idea that demographic changes are leading inevitably and fairly openly to a Muslim Europe, with the tacit acceptance of European governments - with the notion of "Zionist Occupation Government" (ZOG) - the idea that for several decades Western governments have been been secretly controlled by a tiny cabal of Jewish Zionists. In particular, he wants to insist that anyone who uses or defends the phrase "Eurabia" is the equivalent of the white supremacists, neo-Nazis and other antisemites who promote the notion of ZOG (see also, for example, his recent attempts to add Anders Behring Breivik to the Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar, equating critics of Islam with insane mass-murderers. [101]). Faced with objections, he (and others), scour the internet, attempting to find some even halfway reliable source that makes the connection. They find exactly one, a freelance journalist who several years ago, in an article in a journal, stated "Stripped of its Islamic content, the broad contours of Ye’or’s preposterous thesis recall the anti-Semitic conspiracy theories of the first half of the twentieth century and contemporary notions of the ‘Zionist Occupation Government’ prevalent in far-right circles in the US." Based on this rather tenuous statement ("broad contours... recall etc."), they insert the material into the article. This not only distorts the relevant literature on the topic (because no reliable sources make this connection), but also distorts even Carr's article (because now, in the three sentence summary of a twenty page article, we still have one sentence devoted to connecting "Eurabia" with ZOG). This is the exact opposite of the way research should be done. It's political game-playing, not article writing. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Please do not use personal attacks as a debating method. It is no secret that I oppose racism, but that should not render my views invalid. And yes, the use of "Eurabia" is very much a litmus test for islamophobia just as the use of "ZOG" is for antisemitism. // Liftarn ( talk)

Liftarn, even if you were doing it (and you're not), the purpose of Wikipedia isn't to "oppose racism" or whatever else you imagine your cause to be, it's to write encyclopedia articles. As for me, I'm just addressing the elephant in the room. Jayjg ^(talk) 09:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that and while you may think it makes me biased I do try to keep neutral and base everything on reliable sources. // Liftarn ( talk)

Just a note, and I am not uninvolved here, as I have edited related articles a lot in the past. Carr's statement is in line with David Aaronovitch's view. I think also that we should consider merging Eurabia with Bat Ye'or since the neologism is so closely identified with her. Itsmejudith ( talk) 09:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

What exactly does Aaronovitch say on the topic of ZOG and Eurabia? Jayjg ^(talk) 09:08, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you've probably read the quote. Of course it isn't exactly the same, but he does classify her views as conspiracy theory so that shows that Carr's view isn't totally weird. And it's in a peer reviewed journal. The reviews in Bat Ye'or are a mixture of journalists' and academics' reviews. We reflect the mix that's out there and this one is part of that mix. Itsmejudith ( talk) 13:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

If I've read the quote, I don't recall doing so - can you quote it here for everyone's benefit? In any event, as I've said to Mustihussain at the article in question, what you're now suggesting is synthesis - there are, unfortunately, all sorts of conspiracy theories about Jews, and they're not all ZOG. As I've also pointed out to him, this method of editing is exactly backward; an editor wants to equate Eurabia with ZOG, and now various other editors are trying to find a way of justifying that edit. If it's that hard to find reliable sources directly and/or explicitly tying the two together (and it quite obviously is that hard), then they shouldn't be trying to make the edit in the first place. Find reliable sources, and then summarize what they say, rather than what is going on here. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

"This is a concept created by a writer called Bat Ye'or who, according to the publicity for her most recent book, "chronicles Arab determination to subdue Europe as a cultural appendage to the Muslim world — and Europe's willingness to be so subjugated". This, as students of conspiracy theories will recognise, is the addition of the Sad Dupes thesis to the Enemy Within idea" in David Aaronovitch, It's the latest disease: sensible people saying ridiculous things about Islam, The Times, 2005-11-15. Visite fortuitement prolongée ( talk) 22:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

That compares Eurabia to useful idiots, not ZOG. That's actually a comparison that makes more sense, too. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Carr is a respected journalist whose writings are quoted by individuals and organizations concerned with subject area in question. The article is published in a peer reviewed journal. I think we're done here. The rest of the conversation belongs in article talk. PЄTЄRS J V ► TALK 20:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

He's still a freelance journalist who has published what is apparently as unique view. So no, not quite done. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Good source for a fairly mainstream opinion on this book. I'd attribute the view to him ("Carr, writing in Race & Class, calls Yeo'rs book etc...."), but he's fairly representative of a lot of the criticism of the eurabia conspiracy and is published in a highly reputable place. If anything, the connection of european muslim hatred to european antisemitism is commonplace in academia these days. Bali ultimate ( talk) 19:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

This is in reference to the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University#External_links The issue deal s with the reliability and appropriateness to include the third external link in the Wikipedia article about the Brahma Kumaris. That link reads as follows: “Brahma Kumaris Info An independent resource accurately documenting the beliefs and lifestyle of the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University, including many of its channeled messages.” According to Wikipedia policies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Restrictions_on_linking

It is valid to add a link if: 1)“Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[2] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons.”

That external link is being used as a source of authoritative knowledge about the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual Organization. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University) Please bear in mind that: 1) That website belongs to one of the authors of the Wikipedia article on Brahma Kumaris . His opinion and contributions are heavily biased against The Brahma Kumaris, violating the principle of “neutrality” of an article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bksimonb/BKWSU_Article_Analysis_2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bksimonb/BKWSU_Article_Analysis_2#brahmakumaris.info_website

2) The explanation of the link is misleading to Wikipedia readers: “An independent resource accurately documenting the beliefs and lifestyle of the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University, including many of its channeled messages.” Their website is made mainly of contributions of Ex-Brahma Kumaris members who have personal issues with the institution. Therefore, it is full of “original research.” Even though, their opinion is respected; to describe themselves as “accurately documenting the beliefs and lifestyle of the Brahma Kumaris” is misleading to the public. 3) The use of their domain name is very similar to Brahma Kumaris. If recognized as a valid source; would like to recommend to describe this link as “Ex- Brahma Kumaris members” for there is another link “which accurately documents the beliefs and lifestyle of the Brahma Kumaris members” here: http://brahmakumarisforum.net/phpbb3/ which has equal validity as the “Ex-BK “member site. 4) That website (Brahmakumaris.info) has been used to make personal attacks to BK editors of Wikipedia: http://brahmakumaris.info/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2244 http://brahmakumaris.info/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=2746&p=34723&hilit=riveros#p34723 http://brahmakumaris.info/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2244&p=31209&hilit=riveros#p31209

among other links, in that way ; violating the Wikipedia rule listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#External_links

5) There is an example in the "scientology" wikipage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology#External_links Note that the external links are scholarly web links only.

Thank you. Riveros11 ( talk) 14:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The two official links were already in the content. If the opposition advocacy site is cited in reputable sources, such content should simply be added to the criticisms section. I removed all three. PЄTЄRS J V ► TALK 20:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

If the forum of that site was used to attack some WP editors, it's reasonable not to link to those forum threads per WP:NPA, but not to ban the whole site from Wikipedia.

User:Vecrumba is mistaken in hard connecting a possibility to put a website into external links to reputable sources - external links sections may well contain "pro" (like the official webistes) and, at least in order to maintain NPOV, "contra" websites. WP:External links names even "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." as "links to be considered".

I find reasonable the idea of User:Riveros11 to describe the link as "Ex-BK members". Fuseau ( talk) 21:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I will attempt to make such change as suggested. :::However, the user supporting the "ex-BK member site" have been reversing and :::adding more controversial material whithout previous discussion. What would be the next step?

http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University&diff=prev&oldid=466577353

Riveros11 ( talk) 14:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

A user has found a collection of news reports that call Katzrin the "largest town" in the Golan Heights. Those sources are as follows: Fox News Israel National News Haaretz AFP and The New York Times. These, with the exception of Israel National News ( Arutz Sheva) would all normally be considered reliable sources, nobody disputes that. However, the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics publishes official data on populations of towns. The latest data from the CBS ( here) shows that Katzrin (listed there as Qazrin) has a population, as of the end of 2009, of 6500 people. The same data shows that Majdal Shams, a Druze village in the Golan, had a population of 9600 and about twice the growth rate of Katzrin. So the official data shows that Katzrin is ~32% smaller than Majdal Shams and also growing at a slower rate. Yet despite this, a user insists that we still say that Katzrin is the "largest town in the Golan". Are news reports more reliable than official census data for the size of cities? nableezy - 20:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The five news sources are unequivocal in that they say that Katzrin is the largest city/town on the Golan. Conversely, we are required to draw an inference that it is the second largest city from the census data. In light of that, I believe that we should abide by the reliable news sources.-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 20:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The news sources are directly refuted by the census data. I await uninvolved views on whether or not a news reporter is more reliable on the population of a town than an official census is. nableezy - 20:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The "data" is expressly contradicted by the New York Times, AFP, Israel National News, Fox News and Haaretz-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 20:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Uhh, which is why I am asking for views on what is more reliable, the census or the news reports. nableezy - 20:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Why not just say both? "According to The New York Times, AFP, Israeli National News, Fox News and Haaretz, X; however, the official Israeli statistics say Y." Also, check they're referring to the same thing - a metropolitan area can mean something very different from the city proper. 86.** IP ( talk) 20:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

This is in the lead, and I think it would be awfully silly to say news reports say that Katzrin is the largest town, however the official census shows it is several thousand people smaller than Majdal Shams. Neither of these places are "metropolitan areas", they are both relatively small towns. nableezy - 20:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy, how do you know that Katzrin is a very small town? Do you speak from persoanl experience? Have you ever been to Katzrin? Or are you engaging in more Original Research. I maintain that five reliable sources, the New York Times, AFP, Israel National News, Fox News and Haaretz each refer to it as the largest city/town on the Golan. But 86.** IP's suggestion is a move in the right direction.-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 20:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Because it is 6600 people? nableezy - 22:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• From Haaretz The magistrate's court in Katzrin, the largest town in the Golan Heights, will close for a year

• From Fox News Other places, however, like Katzrin, the largest city in the Golan Heights, is on UPS' delivery route.

• From AFP The movie, shown at a mall in Katzrin, the largest city in the Golan

• From Israel National News The wave of building is at a record high, Sammy Bar-Lev, chairman of the regional council in Katzrin, the region’s largest city, told Arutz 7.

• From NYTimes A historian and an iconoclastic politician, Mr. Harel, 64, spoke in a cafe in Katzrin, the largest town in the Golan

Folks, I really don't think there's much of a question here. The sources are unequivocal in that Katzrin is in fact the largest city/town on the Golan,-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 21:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

This might be an interesting example for the Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability fistfight about the phrase "verifiability not truth". I would say that the "largest town" fact is verifiable but probably not true. Might I suggest a wording something like "Katzrin is often said to be the largest town in the Golan Heights, though the Druze village of Maidal Shams is probably larger." With the appropriate references in-line. Dingo1729 ( talk) 21:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Might work. Interesting suggestion.-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 21:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

However, I do have a point to add. These news sources are generally accepted as reliable sources with strong, independent vetting processes. Therefore, it stands to reason that in addition to being verifiable, it is also true. Do you think that all the noted sources would just take the statement out of a hat? All five?-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 21:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Could be down to terms. There's some wiggle room between "most populous named area" and "largest city" 86.** IP ( talk) 21:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you formulate a suggestion?-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 22:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

We are now watching as a user claims that a collection of news reports are more accurate than census data for the population of a town. I really cannot believe this. Majdal Shams is not simply probably larger than Katzrin, it is larger according to official data on the size of each town. How a collection of off-hand mentions in news articles can compare that requires a bit of explanation. nableezy - 22:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Nableezy, I was just putting out a half-formed suggestion. "Katzrin is often said to be the largest town in the Golan Heights, though the Druze village of Majdal Shams is larger." may well be better. This still covers the case, pointed out by 86**IP of whether or not a village is a town. There is a legal distinction in many countries between a town and a village but it seems better not to delve into such detail. Dingo1729 ( talk) 00:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I wasnt trying to harp on probably, my point was that we have official data on the question, and even though your sentence above may be true (I would question often), and even acceptable if we have to include what we know to be an error, we should recognize that WP:RS doesnt say that every source, even if usually reliable, is reliable for everything, and that there is such a thing as a more reliable source. When we have a relatively weak source, such as a newspaper article on a completely unrelated topic, and we have much stronger source, such as official census data, we dont need to try to include the mistakes of the less reliable source. If one of the sources were actually focused on Katzrin and its size and the other localities in the Golan and that said that Katzrin is the largest town the case for including it would be much stronger. But here we have an off-hand mention of a village as being the largest town for which we have a much higher quality source directly refuting. WP:V doesnt mean that anything that you can verify to be in a reliable source should be included, it gives that as a minimum threshold. Here we have an instance in which we know that these off-hand mentions are incorrect. But yet we have a user insisting on including what he knows to be false. As far as the question of village and town, both Katzrin and Majdal Shams are classified, as best as I can tell, as Israeli local councils. nableezy - 00:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Sources are not equal, even if they are generally considered "reliable". The Central Bureau of Statistics is the preeminent authority on locality populations and we have up-to-date information from it that Majdal Shams is substantially larger. Not just a little bit larger but a lot larger. Moreover, this is something that newspapers are not particularly reliable on since they do not have any resources to count populations. Most of the offered sources are either out of date or (Arutz 7) not reliable sources even for news. Actually this is a case of some people trying to wikilawyer stuff into the article that they know to be wrong. Zero ^talk 22:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, Wikipedia. Always brings the stupid. Obviously census data is the best data for this, and news articles frequently get things like this wrong. And throw the NYT "source" right out: It's from 1999. Even if it was accurate then, it may not be accurate now (and would be superseded by census data that's far more current). Bali ultimate ( talk) 22:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is a 2011 article from The Economist that says Majdal Shams is largest. [102]. I support giving all the info; that's what we normally do when reliable sources disagree. -- GRuban ( talk) 22:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I've been asked to clarify, so:

It's possible for Kazrem to be considered the largest city without being the most populous area if, for example, Majdal Shams is not considered a city (for instance, it's a farming area with little governmental infrastructure), or if the borders or count are done differently between sources. It may even have to do with non-population factors, like area (this is less likely) or economics. I don't know if any of these are true, but it's a possible reason why sources might disagree. It's also possible that newspapers are lazy - bad facts do propagate through the media sometimes, if one article gets it wrong, particularly if the first newspaper to report gets it wrong, due to the high degree of "follow the leader" in the media.. 86.** IP ( talk) 22:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Newspapers are lazy is the answer. Both of these places are relatively built up population centers, and both are, as far as I have been able to find out, classified by Israel as Local council (Israel). nableezy - 00:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Another possibility to consider is that at some point in the not-too-distant past, Majdal Shams was actually smaller than Katzrin, but growing at a higher rate (as noted in the OP) overtook it in population. It would not be unusual for commentators to still apply the "largest city" epithet to Katzrin even if it was out-of-date - and in the case of older news reports, quite possibly accurate at the time. -- RexxS ( talk) 02:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I found 2003–2004 figures and Majdal Shams was easily the biggest then too. I'm afraid the explanation (apart the simple cause of human error) is one that would not surprise anyone who knows Israel. Majdal Shams is an Arab location, while Katzrin is a Jewish location. Arab locations tend to be overlooked. Zero ^talk 10:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

86.** IP has hit the nail on the head with this comment and I could not have said it better myself. It's possible for Katzrin to be considered the largest city without being the most populous area if, for example, Majdal Shams is not considered a city (for instance, it's a farming area with little governmental infrastructure), or if the borders or count are done differently between sources. It may even have to do with non-population factors, like area (this is less likely) or economics. This is precisely why we have to go with what reliable sources say rather than what we infer from what we think they mean.-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 16:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, no, that isnt true. Both Majdal Shams and Katzrin are classified as local councils, and these off-hand mentions in newspaper articles on different subjects are not anywhere near the reliability of official census data. You are attempting to put in an article what you know to be false. I cannot honestly think of many more bad-faith tactics than that. Answer this question, is Katzrin larger than Majdal Shams? nableezy - 17:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You were the one who brought this issue to RSN and when you don't like the direction that it's heading, you engage in ad hominems. Referring to my attempts to making an encyclopedia more accurate as "bad-faith tactics" is a personal attack and is disruptive. To answere your question, I'd say we have to go with what the reliable sources say and not what we think we want them to say.-- Jiujitsuguy ( talk) 18:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

And the reliable source (the census) says that Majdal Shams is larger. I see you arent disputing that. nableezy - 19:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Let me be clear -- any argument that old, non-specific newspaper articles (in that they aren't in-depth explorations of "Which town is bigger") are preferred, or equal too, the census data is pure horseshit. The argument is being deployed by someone who edits exclusively with an ideological agenda (that is, you). The people on the other side of this are ideologically opposed but they're right. This is isn't a debatable issue, or even one of nuance. The math is the fricking math. The reason this horseshit argument is being used is because you actually think the pro-settlement argument for keeping the Golan heights is strengthened somehow by skewing the content of an encyclopedia article (though how the argument is strengthened or weakened by the fact that Katzrin is the 2nd largest rather than the largest town is rather beyond me). There is no reasonable or good faith argument to favor news articles, of much less reliability than census data, in this case. It's purely about propaganda for you. The sophistry about "maybe they MEAN land area, etc..." is also a waste of time. If you must, say Katzrin "is the second most populous by population and the largest by land area" (assuming you can find a specific, reliable source that lists towns in the Golan by land area.) Finally, these kinds of arguments being tolerated endlessly on wikipedia (rather than being dispatched with by people who know the difference) is just one of the governance nightmares of wikipedia. Bali ultimate ( talk) 18:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I basically agree with Bali Ultimate's summary. I don't consider myself to be ideologically involved. Dingo1729 ( talk) 20:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• Bali -- I can't for the life of me imagine that ... however this is decided ... any arguments on the meta-issue that you identify are advanced in the slightest. You admit as much yourself. This is like arguing over date format, in terms of its relevance to any ideological ARBPIA struggle, as best I can tell. And as to the bottom line issue, I believe that in all instances where we have RSs on both sides, the better approach is to reflect what the RSs say, and let the reader weigh the matter. I've just applied the same approach in a baseball article -- this has nothing to do with ARBPIA, but with how we handle matters when we have RSs that conflict. And, while I'm not one to push the primary source point, I do know that there are some editors who prefer the non-primary source RSs to the primary sources.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 09:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

If you want to relate this to a dispute about baseball, then lets see what you think of this. Lets say you can find a source discussing where Mets players parked their cars in 1998. And that article, while discussing something completely unrelated to baseball, says something like John Olerud, who led the league in hitting, parks at the McDonalds across the street from the stadium. Would you say that this source is acceptable for claiming that in 1998 John Olerud led the NL in batting average? Even if somebody brought the official statistics from MLB that show that Olerud in fact came in second in hitting in the league? Would you really be here saying I believe that in all instances where we have RSs on both sides, the better approach is to reflect what the RSs say, and let the reader weigh the matter.? Would you really be saying that the article should say that Olerud won the NL batting title in 1998, though official statistics show that he actually came in second? Really? nableezy - 15:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Epee -- More ideologically driven sophistry and horseshit. In this specific case you have a source that is clearly correct (official census data), and a few newspaper articles that are clearly incorrect. This is a matter of fact, not of opinion, not of interpretation. This is one of those cases where there is clearly a "best" most accurate source (the census data) and it determines the facts of the matter. The whole point is to make articles as accurate and clear as possible. This game playing verifiability not truth horseshit (part of an attempt to degrade the factual content of an article in service of an ideological agenda -- that is, a propaganda exercise) is pathetic. (My meta complaint that it's tolerated by a dysfunctional governance system will of course not be fixed here. But this as clear an example as one could hope to find). Bali ultimate ( talk) 16:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

If I had a NY Times-level article dated date x that said "Olerud led the league in hitting", and an MLB.com stat that said that in year y Olerud was second in the league in hitting, I would reflect both.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 16:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

So you would knowingly use a source that offhandedly makes an erroneous claim to make what you know to be a false statement in an article? Wow. nableezy - 16:47, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

No.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 16:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

No? So you wouldnt "reflect both" the incorrect off-hand mention in an unrelated news article on Olerud leading the league in hitting when the official statistics show that he did not lead the league in hitting? I thought you just said you would. nableezy - 17:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Who said that the New York Times article, in that example, was incorrect? I would, as indicated, state: a) that the New York Times article dated date x said "Olerud led the league in hitting", and b) an MLB.com stat said that in year y Olerud was second in the league in hitting. The two are not mutually exclusive.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 18:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Sources make such mistakes all the time. What we do in such a situation is find out which of the sources are correct and report that with citation to these sources. In the vast majority of such cases this is done by implicit consensus because everyone knows it's the right thing to do. And without giving undue weight to incorrect reporting.

By the way, often it's not even a mistake but is not even intended to be a correct statement of fact. A famous case is Eskimo words for snow, where one source after another just makes up an essentially random number for the number of snow words that Eskimos supposedly have for snow, typically followed by some equally bizarre and incorrect linguistic claim about English or some other language. This stuff is never meant literally, so we must filter it out. See On Bullshit. Hans Adler 18:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• If secondary sources don't use the census data, which you have available, then by what means would the secondary sources ascertain which city had the highest population? In any case, if the New York Times simply calls one place "larger" than the other then it is probably WP:SYNTHESIS to presume they are explicitly addressing population i.e. Canada is larger then the United Kingdom, but the population is only half the size. If the context isn't explicitly addressing population then it's merely an assumption by the editors that they are. Betty Logan ( talk) 18:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Once again -- we're not dealing with apples-to-apples here. According to The New York Times in 1999 and Haaretz in 2010, Katzrin was at those times "the largest town in the Golan". The Israel Central Bureau of Statistics data that is pointed to was based upon the results of a 2008 population census, but it was supplemented by Ministry of the Interior changes recorded in the population register, and it also stated that its population "estimates" exclude the foreign workers population. The years at issue are different, the stats pointed to are not the pure census stats but have been supplemented as indicated, and it is not known whether the foreign worker population is excluded in the NY Times and Haaretz statements (if those do related to population). The best thing is to simply reflect what the RSs say; something along the lines of The New York Times in 1999 and Haaretz in 2010 reported that Katzrin was at those times "the largest town in the Golan"; The Israel Central Bureau of Statistics reported that a 2008 population census, supplemented by Ministry of the Interior changes and excluding the foreign workers population, __". -- Epeefleche ( talk) 19:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

That is a serious distortion. The CBS data contains "provisional" numbers for mid-2010 and final numbers for 2009. Majdal Shams is both several thousand people larger and is growing at a faster rate. The news reports are not focused on Katzrin, or on population of cities in the Golan, and all are making off-hand mentions to something that we know is false, and something that they dont have any actual expertise in (counting the population of cities), and for which the CBS is, as Zero put it, the preeminent authority in the field. The RS here is the CBS, and offhand mentions in a colelction of news stories do not change that. nableezy - 19:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

What I stated reflects what the footnote in the indicated CBS page states. It's apples-to-oranges; for starters, different years are being reflected. Plus, there are the further differences or potential difference mentioned above. The New York Times is an RS, and is a perfectly fine RS to quote for the proposition that it stated in the year that it stated it.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 22:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• That still misses the fundamental point that the sources do not explicitly address population size, that is your interpretation of what they say. Clearly WP:SYNTHESIS rules them out. Betty Logan ( talk) 19:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

  I didn't "interpret" what the New York Times said. I quoted it. Same with Haaretz. How is a direct quote an interpretation?-- Epeefleche ( talk) 22:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe Bali ultimate's phrasing of this argument was the best, that being The sophistry about "maybe they MEAN land area, etc..." is also a waste of time. I defy you to find a source discussing the size of a city and, unless explicitly specifying it is by land area, meaning something other than population. Los Angeles is about 6.7% larger than NY by land area, but you wont find sources claiming that Los Angeles is larger than NY unless they explicitly say by land area, and sources saying that NY is the largest city in the US will leave it at that. nableezy - 19:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Imprecise terms such as "largest" are easily picked up and repeated. There is no evidence that the news reports arrived at the characterization independently, nor is it clear what "largest" means—we only infer most populous. What is factual is that Katzrin is the second most populous, and cite census, no need to have that as inline article narrative. PЄTЄRS J V ► TALK 19:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

What is also factual, supported by RSs, is that in other years -- before and after the census -- RSs said [fill in the quotes, from the above RSs]. There is not necessarily any conflict, as they are discussing different years. The New York Times is a perfectly fine RS for reporting what city is largest -- especially so when there is no census data, for the year in question, that conflicts. And there is no "synthesis" if we simply quote the RS.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 22:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It is synthesis if you are applying it in a context that the source doesn't apply it, and these sources are not explicitly addressing population sizes. The consensus from the impartial editors here is clearly to use to the census data to cite population statistics. It is factual, it is precise, it is clear. We can debate this issue until we're blue in the face, but I don't think anyone's opinion is going to change. Betty Logan ( talk) 23:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

First of all, see Nab's comment above as to your interpretation. I agree with him. Second, if we use a quote, we avoid any possibility of synth -- even if you continue to disagree with Nab and others. Finally, the New York Times and other RSs discuss the issue, but clearly vis-a-vis different years. All of the above sources may well be accurate. There is no reason to treat the New York Times as a non-RS.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 23:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The Haaretz article was published in July 21, 2010. The census data gives provisional data for June 30, 2010. At that time, Katzrin's population was 6500 people, and had grown by 0 thousand people between January and June, Magdal Shams had a population of 9700 and grew by 100 in the year to date. But you would have us believe that in the three weeks between that point, Katzrin had grown or Magdal Shams had shrunk by enough people to overcome a difference of 3200 people. Really? Because a Haaretz article on the temporary closing of a magistrate court offhandedly says that it is the largest town? We have to pretend that the impossible happened, that a city that grew by 0k in the past 6 months grew by 3200 people in 3 weeks? And no, the NYTimes and other RSs do not discuss the issue, they make a casual remark in an article on a different topic. We dont need to repeat what we know to be wrong. What is provably false. And the very idea that this even needs to be said is astonishing. Forget that it was me that initially brought up the fact that Katzrin is not in fact the largest town, pretend that it was me who made that claim and JJG the one who brought the census data. After you have adjusted your anti-Nableezy ray gun, tell me why we should pretend that a city several thousand people smaller than the largest town in the Golan is in fact the largest town in the Golan. nableezy - 00:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Ynhockey was kind enough to supply links to data on yearly populations from the CBS, which also now include the end of 2010. Below are the populations for each going back to 1993 and the years 1990, 1983 and 1980 (cant find yearly in the 80s).

Population data
Year	Katzrin	Majdal Shams
1980	1.0	5.6
1983	1.9	6.5
1990	3.7	6.9
1993	4.4	6.9
1994	5.0	7.0
1995	5.0	7.0
1996	6.1	7.3
1997	5.8	7.4
1998	5.9	7.5
1999	6.1	7.7
2000	6.2	7.9
2001	6.1	8.1
2002	6.3	8.2
2003	6.3	8.4
2004	6.4	8.6
2005	6.5	8.8
2006	6.5	9.0
2007	6.4	9.2
2008	6.5	9.3
2009	6,5	9.6
2010	6.7	9.8

Is there really any question that Majdal Shams is larger, and has always been larger? And can we finally put this to bed? nableezy - 01:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

• A question from a totally uninvolved editor: Do the Druze in Majdal Shams hold Israeli citizenship? If so, is there any other reason that they would be included in census data, but not counted for other purposes? (Let us ignore Zero's unhelpful implication of racism for now.) Since the dispute seems to revolve around wording for the lede of an article, and it appears that Majdal Shams is larger than Katzrin (according to both CBS data and that 2011 article from The Economist cited above by GRuban), that might be one way of framing the sentence. This is a case where verifiability runs smack-dab into common sense, and I would be inclined to take CBS data (compiled by an Israeli governmental organization dedicated solely to statistical compilation and analysis) to offhand mentions in a whole host of reliable sources, when none of the sources are specifically discussing Katzrin itself. Fact-checking focuses on facts about the story in question, and less so on "common knowledge" added as asides. Horologium (talk) 13:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The Golan has been annexed by Israel, and the Syrian residents are entitled to Israeli citizenship (though I believe few have availed themselves of this "privilege"). As far as Israel is concerned, the area (including both Qazrin and Majd ash-Shams) is an integral part of Israel, and is treated as such for statistical purposes. RolandR ( talk) 16:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)