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 60 | ← | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | → | Archive 70 |
Hello. Fellow editor Annoynmous is seeking to use an article that appeared in FAIR ( Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) as an RS for highly critical contentious facts. The "facts" relate to both what a living person ( Steven Emerson) has supposedly done and said, and what others supposedly said about Emerson.
The article in question is the only one that John F. Sugg wrote for FAIR. That suggests that his "opinion", which is also in the article, is not necessarily that of FAIR. Sugg's full-time job was as a senior editor for an alternative newspaper now named Creative Loafing, in Tampa Bay.
The proposed use is in the first 5 paras here. (See the left column). George has since tried to address the most immediate problem by changing some contentious critical claims to unsourced claims. But I think unsourced claims also have to be deleted since this is a BLP.
My understanding from this prior discussion and this one is that FAIR would not be an RS for such contentious "facts". Especially with regard to a living person. See WP:GRAPEVINE, which instructs us to: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is ... poorly sourced." But as Annoy is insistent on putting it in the BLP, I thought I would bring the question here as to whether the article is an RS for those purposes.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 09:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
And, as is discussed below, Sugg writings have already led to one defamation lawsuit by Emerson. It would seem poor risk-sensitivity to use Sugg's article as a source here at all.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 09:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Sure. Sugg states his own opinion briefly. He accuses Emerson of: "exaggerating the threats posed by Islamists", a willingness "to push an extremely thin story—with potentially explosive consequences," and "mistakes and distortions." I do not think Sugg is notable enough for his harshly contentious opinion to be reflected in a BLP. And as it is his only piece for FAIR, it would not appear to be "FAIR's opinion".
Specific "facts" asserted by Sugg, according to those 5 paras, are:
-- Epeefleche ( talk) 10:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Sugg didn't state those above-listed items as his opinion. He said they were "facts" (not, "in my opinion E said x"). So, even if he were notable (and writing for a non-RS alternative weekly paper doesn't make someone notable), I don't think we could cite his statements of fact. His statements of opinion were those reflected above in the para beginning "Sure". I agree w/you that if those third-party RS statements (such as the NYT) exist, they would be fine to quote.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 11:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
The point is that Sugg and FAIR are not RSs, especially as to highly contentious "facts" in a BLP.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 20:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
This is also a BLP, so as mentioned it needs the highest-level sourcing for this sort of harsh criticism. I see you supplied an RS source for one phrase, and apparently as I expected there is a non-Sugg source for #7. Those (and any more that can be supported by RSs) are of course fine.
As to John's suggestion that Sugg is notable because he was sued by E for defamation ... and we should therefore quote or use as a reference on Wikipedia language from the article very author who has produced writings that led to the defamation suit by E? I don't see it. It's just the opposite–this (thanks for pointing it out) shows the danger of reflecting on Wikipedia language from an author who Emerson has already sued once for defamation.
I urge someone to delete all such Sugg language that is not RS-supported at this point, given this new information. This would accord with the direction in WP:RS that "Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons, for legal reasons and in order to be fair. Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it is about a living person, and do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space."-- Epeefleche ( talk) 09:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
<- The Sugg article appears to have been used as a source in these 2 cases.
I don't know if that makes any difference regarding the Sugg article or whether these sources have already been found. Sean.hoyland – talk 21:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
The assertions that Sugg makes about Emerson seem to qualify as "exceptional claims", and they therefore require exceptional sources, per WP:REDFLAG. This article, written by a little-known journalist in a semi-reliable source, may not be sufficiently strong for these assertion. Since he seems to cite many of his print sources, we should be able to track them back and use those original sources. It's much better to use the CJR's criticism of Emerson rather than Sugg's view of the CJR's criticism, for example. Will Beback talk 23:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I think it is agreed that FAIR (and Sugg) can only be used in a contentious matter, especially a BLP, for their views, ascribed to them. Most of the matters sourced to him have now been re-referenced to more usable sources. At present there are only two statements. One is Emerson's remark about theOklahoma City bombing,--that he made the remark is not really in dispute, and other sources can be found for this. That leaves just one: that he " accused Emerson of focusing on 'unrelenting attack against Arabs and Muslims,' and wrote that Emerson's 'lengthy list of mistakes and distortions... mar his credentials as an expert on terrorism.' " I do not regard that as an exceptional claim, but the mainstream view—I think it a succinct statement of the general opinion. I see no reason why it can not be used as an opinion, which it clearly is. DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I just wanted to weigh in with one remark. "No defamation was ever proved" is so very very far from what I consider to be a valid argument in support of considering something a WP:RS that I'm shocked to even see it written in a discussion in Wikipedia. That is an argument with absolutely no merit whatsoever. Whether there do exist or could exist some valid reason to think that Sugg's trashing of Emerson is noteworthy, I do not know. But given the provenance and the lawsuit, I'd treat it very very carefully. I would suggest that everything claimed will need to have an independent reliable source, and if we can find those, then there's not really any reason to mention Sugg's piece at all. As was noted up above, he isn't Thomas Friedman or anything – so his scathing criticism isn't even arguably noteworthy in and of itself. (I should note that even if Thomas Friedman himself tore into someone, that would not automatically mean that it is noteworthy.)-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 02:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Annoy appears unwilling to respect the above comments, and related statements by Jimbo on his talk page to me that Annoy is aware of ("I didn't see anything you wrote on this that I disagree with at all. The source is not good enough."--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:05 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4), to the effect that FAIR: 1) should not be used as an RS for contentious statements in BLPs, and 2) should not be used as an RS for facts. I've deleted some of those, w/an edit summary pointing here. Annoy reverted my deletions.
In doing so, Annoy just now inserted highly contentious statements in BLPs, as here, for which FAIR is the only source:
And inserted FAIR statements of fact, as here: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. Some of those edits obviously fit into both categories. Per the above, the reversions/insertions were improper.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 07:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Just because a defamation lawsuit was dropped without a decision doesn’t prove the source is reliable. To my knowledge, there has never been a lawsuit against the Weekly World News whereby they conceded for the record that they fabricate stories; they typically had “settlements” wherein the lawsuits were dropped. Sugg quacks and waddles like a duck… so he’s a duck. Sugg is clearly not a reliable source and has no standing being used as a Wikipedia citation any more than other flakes with wild conspiracy notions (like how the U.S. government was actually responsible for flying those planes into the towers and for dropping them the rest of the way with explosives pre-planted in them). It is not Wikipedia’s role to give equal weight to every conspiracy contrarian who crawls out from under a rock attempting to pitch a book or a half hour on Larry King. If a wikipedian wants to get something into Wikipedia—where there is an assumption by our readership that the material has been given an encyclopedic treatment and the information has been properly vetted—then the editor needs to look towards sources that are well recognized as being reliable ones. Greg L ( talk) 23:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I just read this subsection for the first time. It appears Epeefleche had good reasons for certain edits, Annoynmous didn't like those edits, JimboWales got involved and essentially upbraided Annoynmous quite convincingly and essentially agreed with Epeefleche's actions in a certain matter, then Annoynmous and others made like what JimboWales said was of little consequence and Epeefleche was a bad guy for contacting JimboWales, and Epeefleche should be stopped. Anyway, that is essentially the message I got from reading the above. I thought you all might like to know how others may be viewing what's going on here. -- LegitimateAndEvenCompelling ( talk) 23:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that there is little to be gained by continuing to argue with annoynmous. His own user page suggests he is immune to social pressure. It states as follows:
I chose annoynmous because I'm persistent and I don't just back away because people want me too. I think a lot of people at wikipedia give up on the talk pages when they shouldn't because they get intimidated by other editors. I refuse to be intimidated.
Sugg is an unreliable source simply because his allegations are consistently preposterous when compared to the totality of evidence from reliable sources. Among Sugg’s other nonsense that don’t appear in reliable sources are…
Well… how silly of U.S. for thinking it was Osama bin Laden young men with Middle East connections (Ramzi Yousef, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Abdul Rahman Yasin and Ahmad Ajaj) behind the
1993 World Trade Center bombing, not Yugoslavians. And to think that Pakistan would consult with a red-headed American journalist (someone who makes a living by revealing information) as they plot thermonuclear war with their nuclear-armed arch-enemy neighbor is asinine. After reading utter rubbish like this, a claim that Bush Jr., during a G-8 conference, crawled under a conference table, inserted matches into the shoes of Germany’s chancellor, and lit them in order to give her the “hot-foot” gag would look plausible.
Faced with evidence of Sugg’s galactic-grade unreliability (fantasy fiction), having anything on Wikipedia (not just biographies of living persons) cited to him needs to be stripped from Wikipedia unless it corroborated by at least two other citations to sources that have a long-standing record of being reliable.
As for annoynmous, our continuing to argue here with him in vain attempts to get him to concede to anything seems, according to his own user page, an exercise in futility. For the rest of us to engage annoynmous in the face of abundantly clear evidence that he will never agree with those who take him to task is, in my opinion, tantamount to insanity. Why? I believe ‘insanity’ has amongst its many indicators “repeating a behavior that consistently fails with the expectation that doing it again will somehow result in a different outcome.”
It seems that the only effective way to deal with annoynmous is to leave it to the community at the ANI against him. Whether annoynmous “accepts” criticism or not from the community will be irrelevant there. Wikipedia is not to be used as the playground of those who would POV-push by cluttering it with rubbish cited to absurdly non-reliable sources. If such editors won’t get with the game plan, they can simply be given a time out in the corner. Greg L ( talk) 16:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, poorly sourced, or not related to making content choices, should be removed, deleted, or oversighted as appropriate. When seeking advice about whether to publish something about a living person, be careful not to post so much information on the talk page that the inquiry becomes moot; consider using off-wiki communication instead. The same principle applies to problematic images. Questionable claims already discussed can be removed with a reference to the previous discussion.
The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages. The single exception is that users may make any claim they wish about themselves in their user space, so long as they are not engaged in impersonation, and subject to What Wikipedia is not, though minors are discouraged from disclosing identifying personal information on their userpages; for more information, see here. [1] Although this policy applies to posts about Wikipedians in project space, some leeway is permitted to allow the handling of administrative issues by the community, but administrators may delete such material if it rises to the level of defamation, or if it constitutes a violation of No personal attacks.
I find your comment to be an attempt to use wikilawyering arguments to presume to tell me what I may truly think and how I may express my thoughts here, in a venue where policy issues on reliable sources is being debated. I’ll thank you not to presume so much. Perhaps you might like it if I limit my real opinion of Suggs to such wikidrivel as “I find Sugg’s writings to lack a certain degree of ‘truthiness’ ” but such muzzling is simply a retarded notion, otherwise no real work could be done in shaping Wikipedia’s guidelines or in determining whether certain sources are truly reliable, or in determining whether an editor is correct in citing a certain source. Sugg may not write material that is a metric ton of weapons-grade bullonium and be free of legitimate and frank criticism of its quality here in these venues. I will, however, be sure to take care to not mention what I really think about Sugg and his work on my own talk and user pages.
If you feel my comments here unnecessarily slander Sugg (I find he does a good job doing that all by himself), just go find some uninvolved Admin to protect Sugg’s reputation by refactoring my above comments. Such Admin can then leave a notice on my talk page that my opinions stated here about him and his pure fiction (which resulted in a lawsuit) “rises to the level of defamation”, that Wikipedia does not protect such speech even here at this venue where vigorous debate in search of the truth is central to the venue’s purpose, and to remind me to speak more *nicely* about Sugg and his fine works here in the future. Greg L ( talk) 20:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
P.S. I will, however, be more than pleased to add a few “IMHO”s to some of my statements if that makes it clearer that I am not saying that Sugg’s work flat sucks as a matter of indisputable fact because he masquerades fantasy as being the truth in order to make a buck, but that I am simply opining that <stumble all over myself to appear as inoffensive as possible>
“In my so-very humble opinion, I find that Sugg’s work flat sucks because it
masquerades fantasy as being the truth in order to make a buck and hasn’t any role in being used in citations of fact here on Wikipedia—IMHO.”</stumble all over myself to appear as inoffensive as possible>
Greg L (
talk) 20:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to all for participating in this discussion. I believe we've now addressed the issue posed at the opening of this string.
Jimbo provided clear and direct input above. He wrote:
'No defamation was ever proved' is so very very far from what I consider to be a valid argument in support of considering something a WP:RS that I'm shocked to even see it written in a discussion in Wikipedia. That is an argument with absolutely no merit whatsoever. Whether there do exist or could exist some valid reason to think that Sugg's trashing of Emerson is noteworthy, I do not know. But given the provenance and the lawsuit, I'd treat it very very carefully. I would suggest that everything claimed will need to have an independent reliable source, and if we can find those, then there's not really any reason to mention Sugg's piece at all. As was noted up above, he isn't Thomas Friedman or anything – so his scathing criticism isn't even arguably noteworthy in and of itself. ...-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 02:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)".
The Emerson article now matches Jimbo's view of what it should look like ideally. A number of the Sugg statements were replaced with references to RSs, and the Emerson article now does not rely on/reflect the FAIR/Sugg article.
I understand that Annoy disagrees with Jimbo, and believes Jimbo is wrong, as Annoy has made clear above. Various other issues were raised that were not pertinent to this RS/N, which I'll not summarize. But curious readers can read them above.
A second RS/BLP policy issue that grew out of this one remains, however. That of whether it is proper to delete—from Wikipedia articles—text and refs that rely on FAIR: a) to make or support a contentious statement in a BLP, or b) to assert a fact. I've opened that issue up as a new post, reflecting my thoughts, some of which are already expressed above, here. That way interested editors can discuss the policy issue there, unencumbered by this string.
The related AN/I, regarding Annoy's editing, is taking place here.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 01:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
In this RS/N conversation I made the points that per policy, FAIR ( Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting): 1) should not be used as an RS for contentious statements in BLPs; and 2) should not be used as an RS for facts.
As editor Annoynmous is aware, Jimbo commented: "I didn't see anything you wrote on this that I disagree with at all. The source is not good enough."-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 11:05 pm, 1 May 2010, last Saturday (2 days ago) (UTC−4)
Following Jimbo's comment, I deleted some highly contentious statements in BLPs for which FAIR was the only source, such as the ones below. Annoy reverted me. Re-introducing the highly contentious statements into the BLPs.
Pertinent policies are as follows:
WP:GRAPEVINE instructs us to: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is ... poorly sourced."
WP:RS says: "Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons, for legal reasons and in order to be fair. Remove ... poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it is about a living person".
WP:BLP; Reliable Sources says: "Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source.... This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is ... poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article."
On the understanding that FAIR is not an RS for statements of fact, I deleted a number of such entries from various articles. Annoy reverted me. Inserting FAIR statements of fact, as here: [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26].
Some of those edits obviously fit into both the BLP/contentious and fact categories. I believe the reversions/insertions were improper. I do not believe FAIR can be used as an RS for facts at all, including non-contentious facts. This is especially true in BLPs. And with regard to apparently important claims that are not covered by mainstream sources.
Pertinent policies are as follows:
WP:BLP; Questionable sources and external links says: "Material available solely in questionable sources should not be used anywhere in the article, including in "Further reading" or "External links" sections."
WP:BLP; Public Figures says: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article.... If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out."
WP:REDFLAG says: "Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim: ... apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources; ... reports of a statement by someone that seems ... embarrassing, controversial ... Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources. If such sources are not available, the material should not be included."
I think that as a general matter, all agree it is acceptable to use FAIR for its opinion (where that is all that is given). As in "FAIR does not like X's book". See also this prior discussion and this one.
Sometimes, an opinion is mixed with assertions of fact and/or a contentious statement. Where it is both opinion and either fact and/or opinion, it's not OK to use it, IMHO.
So, it would not be OK to reflect FAIR saying: "Our opinion is that Person X's racism is bad", where there is not RS support for the fact that Person X is racist.
Or "Our opinion is that the fact that Y did such-and-such is bad," where there is no RS support for the fact that Y did such-and-such.
The reason is that the harms that we are seeking to avoid (including harm to the individual, and potential lawsuits against Wikipedia) are more significant than the benefits of reflecting the opinion. Furthermore, it is a " camel's nose" problem.
I would be interested in the thoughts of others. The related AN/I, regarding Annoy's editing, is taking place here.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 01:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The following issue also crosses into undue weight territory, but this seems like the best place to start the discussion. In the Salvia divinorum article, editors are in disagreement over the inclusion of self-selecting polls by local news operations (Indianapolis news station, Bangor (Maine) Daily News, Miami Herald). I'm involved in the discussion, so I'm presumably not presenting this completely impartially.
1. Are those news sources reliable sources for conducting and reporting their own polls? The WP article did qualify one of the poll results by including the disclaimer that it was "not a scientific survey and should not be used as a gauge of public opinion. It reflects only the opinions of bangordailynews.com readers who've chosen to participate".
2. Are the "opinions of bangordailynews.com readers who've chosen to participate" (and other self-selecting surveys) notable for an encyclopedia article, even with the explanation/disclaimer? The discussion is happening at Talk:Salvia divinorum#Online polls?. Thanks, First Light ( talk) 01:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
An IP is consistently adding material to Gog and Magog from this article [27] a website which says "The purpose of this website is to provide substantial evidence that the Holy Torah was given to us by G-d, and that no other "holy" texts come even close to it." The exact source is on a page which says "In this area users can post different discussion topics". I have no reason to suspect that the IP (well, IPs, probably the same editor) are not just newbies, but it would help if I could point to a discussion here - or have it explained to me that I'm wrong if that's the case, but this looks pretty cut and dried. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 12:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Over on How To Destroy Angels (band), I've been having a disagreement with another editor about whether or not Atticus Ross is in the band. Every article I can find says that the band is just Trent Reznor and his wife. But another editor has been including Atticus Ross, stating that he's in one video on the band's official website and he appears in a promotional image. As far as I know, videos posted on Vimeo and images aren't reliable sources. Can anyone make a judgment on whether or not he should be included? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Blabbermouth has posted that the project does in fact include Atticus Ross. [28] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.49.109.78 ( talk • contribs) 19:40, May 4, 2010
Hi, your help is needed on the Shanghai article. User:BsBsBs removed several sourced statements [30] regarding Shanghai's population statistics in the lead introduction but insist on keeping a statement ("After Chongqing and Beijing, Shanghai is the third largest of the four direct-controlled municipalities of the People's Republic of China") in which he did not find a reference for, but insist "it doesn't need a reference, it is evident to anyone who knows math". And this has led to edit conflict on the article. See the Talk:Shanghai#Population. Likewise in the Beijing article, the user insist on keeping a statement in the lead and in the demographic section in which wasn't referenced [31]. Your input and help is needed at these two articles. Thanks!-- TheLeopard ( talk) 18:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
In the Apple TV article there is a disagreement on whether this edit [33] can be supported by the sources provided by the editor. The editor, AshtonBenson wants to include content that says that the Apple TV lacks support for Digital Monitor Power Management. He provides 5 sources to support this section (which is not in the article right now):
The discussion can be found here Talk:Apple_TV#AshtonBenson_and_Apple_discussion_forums and Talk:Apple_TV#Power_Management_Limitations. Thanks. Mattnad ( talk) 21:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC). There may also be WP:OR/ WP:SYN issues here as well since the user considers a lack of mention for this type of power management in various documents to mean we can affirm that the ATV does not support Digital Power Management. Mattnad ( talk) 17:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Would like to ask if editors here regard a report from the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Israel Intelligence Heritage & Commemoration Center as a reliable source in the following context:
This is the report, which an editor wants to use in the infobox of the Gaza War article. The source, which appears on the website of an NGO and lists no sources of its own, has just been added to support a new edit adding two weapons systems to the Gaza side of the infobox.
Please note that report is dated April 2008, while the conflict took place Dec 2008 - Jan 2009. (My concern is that while the report may or may not be reliable regarding what Hamas had, how could it be reliable regarding what Hamas actually used in the conflict, as it predates the conflict timeframe by eight months?)
The corresponding sources for Israeli weaponry were published after the conflict, and report on which Israeli weapons systems were actually used in the conflict. This "not just had but used" distinction has been a requirement in the addition of weapons systems to the infobox, so would appreciate uninvolved editors' feedback on whether (1) the source itself; and (2) the fact of the predating of the report, satisfy RS criteria in this context.
Thanks.
RomaC (
talk) 15:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Following the 2007 SuccessTech Academy shooting in Cleveland, Ohio, on his radio show Gibson commented "I knew the shooter was white. I knew he would have shot himself. Hip-hoppers don't do that. They shoot and move on to shoot again. And I could tell right away because he killed himself. Hip hoppers shooters don't do that. They shoot and move on."
The John Gibson Show, October 10, 2007The John Gibson Show, October 10, 2007]
and is it fine to use you tube videos like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ8sFzuWouo&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailykos.com%2Fstoryonly%2F2008%2F1%2F25%2F163014%2F652&feature=player_embedded to support content in a BLP. Off2riorob ( talk) 21:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Certainly a documentary film or tv show could be a reliable source, depending upon the reputation of the producers, and as long it is obtainable - i.e., to be verifiable I have to have some means of viewing the documentary and verifying that it said what the text added to Wikipedia says it said. Dlabtot ( talk) 03:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC) Maybe I'm not clear about what you are actually asking. Dlabtot ( talk) 03:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
As to the youtube link, no. Dlabtot ( talk) 03:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I just used this article from the abovementioned publication for our article Ayaan Hirsi Ali. But the two articles seem to overlap on quite a few points so I am wondering who is copying who. Anyone have an insight on the reliability of this publication? Thanks, 86.41.80.244 ( talk) 11:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Simple question. Is this UK Companies court document, received via email from The Treasury Solicitors office [43], a reliable source for the statement "the case was dismissed" in reference to the case it refers to? -- Insider201283 ( talk) 13:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Since there is apparently confusion over what a Wikipedia source is, I'll rephrase the question -
-- Insider201283 ( talk) 14:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
(undent) You said "email the UK." We're in a dispute because you previously asked for help from this exact board about using sources, and I found that you were using sources poorly, and tried to fix your article. Hipocrite ( talk) 14:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Insider201283, I understand your frustration but you can't use an unpublished document that you obtained by yourself. Those are the rules, please read WP:OR and WP:V. And publishing it yourself doesn't count, see WP:SELF. There have been many cases like this in Wikipedia over the years. It doesn't have anything to do with trust, it just the way the rules are. Zero talk 14:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Wikipedia requires that all sources be verifiable, by which we mean that they need to be published by a reliable source, so any reader can go to a public library and check the contents for himself, if they are not published online. If a reader needs to submit a special request to some government agency to obtain a copy, this would not be a "published" document, but one that is supplied on request. In such cases we should rely on a secondary source (such as a newspaper article or a legal gazette) which reports on the topic. Crum375 ( talk) 14:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Just as extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, I believe out-of-the ordinary methods of obtaining documents require extensive directions within the citation of how to the document, i.e., "send email to lordhighbaliff@YYYY.gov.invalid requesting document XXXX."
I also believe using a court record to support the claim that a case was dismissed is unwise, because sometimes cases are dismissed in a way that they cannot be reopened, but in other situations a variation of the case is reopened in a matter of minutes or days. In general, Wikipedia editors are not qualified to determine whether the case can be reopened or not. Jc3s5h ( talk) 15:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Judgments from the Civil and Criminal Divisions of the Court of Appeal, and from the Administrative Court, selected by the judge concerned, are available for free on the Bailii (British and Irish Legal Information Institute) database. If a High Court judgment is not available on BAILII , contact the court direct for a copy.
duplicate thread with #Deepak Chopra |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This Huffington Post blog by Deepak Chopra [59] is the sole source for the following text in the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi biography:
No other sources can be found to substantiate these events. Should this text remain in the article?-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
|
<ref>{{cite book | last = O'Brien | first = Brendan | authorlink = Brendan O'Brien (Irish journalist) | title = Long War: The IRA & Sinn Féin | publisher = The O'Brien Press | date = 1999 | pages = 153 | doi = | isbn = 0-86278-606-1}}</ref> was used as a source for a factoid in a biography, but the subject states that the claim was incorrect. A second cited source does not include the claim. It looks to me as if the O'Brien of O'Brien Press is the author himself, making this self-published. Is it reliable? Guy ( Help!) 17:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
The passport issued by France in 1837 to Chopin bears the phrase "issu de parents français". A copy can be seen here [61]. However, a certain Polish editor is insisting "I see you are still having problems understanding what a proper source means." Is a passport a reliable source of why somebody has the citizenship which they had at the time when their passport was issued? Varsovian ( talk) 13:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Did I miss something? While a discussion at Chopin's talk page was going on, another was taking place right here with no notice on the talk page (if there was one, I did not see it), resulting in no participation of those who have been involved in the matter for days. Then hardly nine (9) hours after the discussion began, it was over, the verdict being handed down quickly, kangaroo court style.
Although the matter has been settled by "higher-ups" while we were not given the chance to plead our case here, I shall give my thoughts on the matter anyway:
As much as I would like to take into consideration the findings of Mr. Tad Szulc, which can be nothing but right since he put his findings into a book form (yes, there is sarcasm in my tone), I want to point out that Chopin's first French passport was issued to him in 1834, year Mendelssohn invited him to be a guest piano solo performer at the Niederrheinisches Musikfest in Aachen. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:6JN8id3MrU8J:wapedia.mobi/en/Lower_Rhenish_Music_Festival+Music+festival+in+Aachen+in+1834&cd=2&hl=fr&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
Furthermore, if Chopin had come to France as a foreigner, he would have had to wait five (5) years after his arrival to France before he could become a French citizen. He arrived in France in 1831, thus, if a foreigner, he could not have got a French passport before 1836. Consequently, am I allowed to suggest that Mr. Tad Sulzc may have given the wrong information?
-- Frania W. ( talk) 00:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Deepak Chopra is a noted physician, guru, author, and lecturer. He first came to prominence as the top assistant to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, the creator of Transcendental Meditation, though the two later had a falling out and Chopra went his own way. Following the Maharihi's death two years ago, Chopra wrote a recollection of his former master. He published it in his own blog [62] and on the Huffington Post. [63] It includes events and conversations that haven't been reported elsewhere. In particular, it recounts an occasion when the Maharishi became severely ill, possibly due to poisoning, and his family in India chose to keep it secret from most western followers. There is now a controversy on talk:Maharishi Mahesh Yogi#Huffington Post about the usability of this source. I am not aware of any official response to Chopra's article from the movement, so the only controversy seems to be in the mind of one editor. My view is that Chopra is a notable, reliable source for his own personal experiences with the Maharishi, and that the material in the article is clearly attributed to him. (See Maharishi Mahesh Yogi#Years in Vlodrop (1991-2008)). I believe he would be an adequate source even if his recollection was only published on his blog, but the fact that it was also on the Huffington Post tends to add more weight to its reliability. Am I correct? Will Beback talk 16:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
If there is no other source, then I advise pulling the content. It is hearsay by Deepak Chopra - it is not his opinion, which could be simply attributed to him, but is being presented as factual events. To present it as fact without a second source is questionable at best; to present it with only Chopra's word smacks almost of repeating gossip. Given that it is known he and the maharishi had a falling out, the content is particularly questionable. KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 18:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Got an IP user who believes this is a reliable source and my revert of the edit adding it was inappropriate. Input? -- N419BH ( talk) 04:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Greg Palast, the author of that article. Note how he is a NYTimes Bestselling author and a BBC Correspondent. He has his own Wiki. You should read it. Then talk to me about sourcing. 24.255.165.125 (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Also: http://www.becnellaw.com/danielbecneljr.htm , that's the laywer. One of the most prominent personal injury lawyers in LA, winning the largest settlement EVER in LA for an individual in 72. Also here: http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/business/Transocean_under_fire_over_US_oil_spill.html?cid=8803398 He confirms the inside source and the lie. I mean, Wikipedia has taken far less reliable sources for other pages. But shall I keep going? 24.255.165.125 (talk) 04:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
<- I'm curious how "deeper than the 18,000 feet depth reported" becomes "was caused by BP lying about how deep the oil well was". I don't understand "BP failed to communicate that additional depth to Halliburton crews" either. It's the drillers on the rig that monitor the trajectory and depth of a borehole in order to hit the target specified on the well plan. This looks like a situation where higher quality sources are required. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I am involved in a good article review for an article. We are looking at a book source which is in itself reliable, but would also like another reliable source to describe its highlights. The Amazon website which sells this book has a brief " Product Description" section describing the contents of the book. Is this product description considered a reliable source to describe what's in the book? Thanks, Crum375 ( talk) 02:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
The publisher sells the book wholesale to the book vendors, such as Amazon and B&N, who in turn sell it to individual readers. The publisher creates a summary of the book, which is then included by the online vendors in the book's webpage, under a "Product Summary" or "From the Publisher" section (for Amazon and B&N respectively). The book is considered reliable, and the summary is logically approved by both publisher and author. If we trust the publisher as a reliable source for the book, why can't we trust its summary of it? Crum375 ( talk) 13:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think dust jackets and publishers' summaries should be used as sources for Wikipedia articles. Far better to follow David Eppstein's suggestion above and turn to reviews in other publications. Since Thompson's book is an academic monograph, the best source will be a review in an academic journal. Such a review may be found here. --Akhilleus ( talk) 14:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Consider what this would mean: if anonymous publishers' descriptions could be used as reliable sources regarding books, then virtually every book mentioned on Wikipedia will be "a groundbreaking study" or "a bold reevaluation" or "a courageous call to arms" or some such over the top thing. Eugene ( talk) 14:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
It's reliable, but not independent. So, it can be used for basic facts, but nothing controversial. I think there's a (justified) bias against financially motivated sources, but it doesn't necessarily make them unreliable as we define it, it just means extra care must be taken. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 03:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Just to comment on something above: the content of the dust-jacket of a book, and advertising material such as product summaries, is determined by the publisher. The publisher might ask the author's opinion on it, but the author doesn't usually have any real say in it. Expect over-simplification, excessive hype, and dubious claims of connection to current events and popular fads. It is not correct to take such material as a valid expression of the author's view. Zero talk 05:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Although Thompson's Messiah Myth is described by the publisher as rejecting the historicity of "the Jesus of the Gospels", Thompson states in the book that he is not interested in the historicity question; in fact, he makes clear that making sense of the origins of Christianity requires a historical Jesus, but he rejects the idea that such a historical Jesus is essential to the Gospels.
The following YouTube citations/links which contain network/cable TV clips were removed from the Peter Schiff article per WP:YouTube because it appears they were not published on YouTube by the copyright owners and are therefore not reliable sources. Some editors on the page disagree with this assessment. Please give your input are the links below reliable sources for a BLP?
Is 1911encyclopedia.org considered a reliable source? http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Main_Page
It looks just like a wikipedia fake. Secret killer ( talk) 21:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source in general? Specifically this news story and this one, which are cited in the Crispian Hollis article (see the last paragraph). The about page claims accuracy as the top priority. Thoughts? -- Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 17:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Fast context: Talk:Zbigniew_Jaworowski#Jaworowski_and_21st_century
It is a book published by the Munich Re, about climate change - and specifically an essay in it authored by Stefan Rahmstorf
{{
citation}}
: External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help)There is a flyer to see the chapter/contents which can be found here [66]
The context for the question is the following paragraph that has been in our article (BLP) on Zbigniew Jaworowski since the articles inception:
Originally this was referenced to the publications themselves - since the connection between "21st ..." and LaRouche is well-known (and on their site). The rationale for the description is (i guess) to make clear that 21st Century Science and Technology is not a regular publication, and not a scientific one. This was contested by a couple of editors who wanted a reference for it. So I linked 4 of Jaworowski's publications in the magazine [67]. That was contested again, now as a synthesis (ie. connection between 21st+LaRouche and possibly Jaworowski) - so i looked for such a reference - of which there were quite a lot, but to a large degree in blogs and other self-published sources. So i looked further and found a few:
This was reverted again... This time with claims of self-publication, unreliable sources and BLP violations.
The section in question here is a Q&A part of the Rahmstorf essay:
Which ought to cover the SYN claim. Since we have all three connected here. I'm going to follow this up on WP:BLP/N depending on the results of this - since there is also a claim of BLP violation here. So don't consider this a final answer where you will be put in front of an angry BLP-peloton afterwards for a stance on whether this is a reliable source or not :-) -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 19:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) I don't think it unreasonable to question the money aspect. A news service may make money from news, but it's aim (you would hope) would be to give balanced coverage of all news. If anything it would be inclined to sensationalise all news, not just one aspect. It may be that specific agencies are affected by, for example, specific advertisers - paper X may be less receptive to the idea of AGW if they have as a major sponsor or advertiser an oil company. That makes the individual paper a non-RS, but doesn't change that news media, in general, make money from all news. The news service has an aim, the university has an aim, they are both general. The insurance company has an aim, it is to promote insurance. In this case, X makes money from Y, so they publish things about Z that cause you to want Y.
Wikipedia does not necessarily have the same standard for describing a source as reliable in this case as the OECD etc. had for mentioning Munich Re in those cases - to help decide that, and aid uninvolved editors who may be interested to comment, could you list a couple of specific references from the lists your search terms generated that show what you mean. The general search terms give a lot of 'person x, who used to work in Munich' and 'here is Munich Res figure on how much insurance we'll need in 2012', so having a few specific examples would be helpful. Weakopedia ( talk) 09:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
There is a disagreement about the appropriateness of this reference http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/reviews/an-ethical-diet-the-joy-of-being-vegan-469964.html as a RS at List of vegans. The problem is that it partially references the Wikipedia list, by explicitly mentioning some of the names on the list:
Wikipedia, the online encyclopaedia, has a veritable roll-call of celebrity vegans. Woody Harrelson, the actor, is a vegan, as are his fellow Hollywood stars Joaquin Phoenix and Alicia Silverstone.
The singer Bryan Adams refuses to eat milk or cheese or any other animal product, as do k d lang and Moby.
How to have a big dingdoo is a mystery to all but a few
Heather Small, the lead singer of M People, and Benjamin Zephaniah, the poet, follow the vegan philosophy.
The athlete, Carl Lewis, who won nine Olympic gold medals, is a vegan.
The insertion of Uri Geller's name in the vegan list is believed to be a joke by a mischievous contributor.
Clearly this section of the article can't be used as a source for the Vegan list, but does referencing Wikipedia at all rule it out as a reliable source for everything else in the article?
For instance, it goes into some depth about Donald Watson's (founder of the vegan society) veganism: The vegan movement was started by a woodwork teacher, Donald Watson, in 1944 because of a desire to improve animal welfare.Watson grew up on a farm in South Yorkshire in the 1920s and became concerned for animal welfare when his Uncle George slaughtered one of the farm's pigs. He recalled in an interview aged 92 (three years before his death): "I decided that farms - and uncles - had to be reassessed: the idyllic scene was nothing more than death row, where every creature's days were numbered by the point at which it was no longer of service to human beings." Watson became a vegetarian and later a vegan, a word he invented.
Later in the article it discusses Heather Mills: Heather Mills-McCartney, the wife of Paul McCartney, himself a vegan, is the latest celebrity convert to the cause. The former model announced her conversion last August, saying that vegetarianism not only benefited health but also made a huge difference to the planet. She added: "I could never go back to eating meat or fish and I'm moving towards being vegan. When I crack an egg now, I think: 'Could that have been a baby?'"
It gives explicit details of Woody Harrelson's diet: Harrelson, 44, the bartender on Cheers!,has not eaten meat for 15 years. Not only is he vegan, but he also eats a 90 per cent raw diet. At opening night parties, he grazes on vegan canapes and regularly fasts, taking up to a week off from solid food. During one fast he lost 15lb. He has declared dairy to be one of the great evils of the world.
These more detailed accounts clearly haven't come from the Wikipedia list, so can you advise on whether it is acceptable as a reliable source in the cases beyond the names it draws from the Wikipedia list. It seems pretty clear cut which information comes from Wikipedia, so I guess the issue is whether citing Wikipedia in any capacity at all invalidates it as a source. Betty Logan ( talk) 13:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I've got an article that cites a sign. Specifically, one of those large signs that are commonly found around landmarks "This building was erected in...blah blah blah." What most people would say is "Find another source that says the same thing," but what makes this case special is that the sign is an English language sign at a landmark in the People's Republic of China, and states a fact (that it appears on the Provincial Historic Building Register) that we're having difficulty verifying any other way, in any language. My opinion is that a sign such as this should be considered a self-published source, and admissible as per Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field..."
Can I get a consensus here, one way or the other? ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 12:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
A sign is a medium. It is printed. It announces something to the public (if posted in a public place). Clearly, according to the above definition, a sign is a published source. Further, Wikipedia's article on publish states: "Publishing is the process of production and dissemination of literature or information – the activity of making information available for public view." A sign clearly disseminates information, making it available for public view (if posted publicly). ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 20:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I was under the impression that this was already agreed on, but some editors disagree, so I'm brining this up again here.
Tamilnet is a website that reports almost exclusively about Sri Lanka and the former Sri Lankan Civil War. It is/was used by many international media organizations as a source for Tamil Tiger perspective of the Sri Lankan Civil War, but always with the "pro-rebel" qualifier (see BBC: "The head of the Tiger's political wing, SP Thamilselvan, told the pro-rebel website Tamilnet", Reuters: "pro-rebel website www.tamilnet.com quoted Tiger military spokesman Rasiah Ilanthiraiyan as saying...", and there are countless other such examples).
WP:SLR is a WikiProject that was established to sort out disagreements related to Sri Lankan issues. The consensus achieved there was that everything cited from Tamilnet should be explicitly attributed as "pro-rebel Tamilnet reported..." (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/Sources)
The question has now come up though, with editor Obi2canibe saying we can use Tamilnet without attribution for "non-controversial" citations. My opinion, given that Tamilnet is questionable source per Wikipedia guidelines, is if a website is known to have publish falsehoods before, it cannot be relied upon as a diect source on Wikipedia. It also opens the door to have the website cited for disputed content which some editors will dub as "non-controversial". I also have not come accross any guidelines on Wikipedia that say questionable sources can be used to cite "non-controversial" topics. (we had a couple of discussion here and here, but couldn't come to an agreement).
This isn't an obscure topic with Tamilnet been the only available source. In fact, the article that caused the disageement has at least one other citation from reliable news organizations that cite the same facts that Tamilnet is used for [75].
I believe User:Blueboar summed it up the best in one of the discussion Obi linked to
"I am going to try to explain this one last time... I don't contest that Tamilnet is biased, or even blaitantly partisan. But being biased or partisan does not automatically exclude a source from being considered reliable. Reliability, as used in Wikipedia, does not equate to "respected" or even "factual"... it is an offshoot of "verifiable". Tamilnet really falls under the heading of "questionable source"... reliable for statements of opinion but not for statements of fact. As long as you give it proper attribution (ie you say: "According to Tamilnet...") it can be considered a reliable source for quoting the statements and opinions of Tamilnet and those it represents."
Since, with every discussion related to Sri Lanka, we see the same old editors with preconceived biases participating (myself included...), outside opinion will be very welcome.
(Note: I will notify User:Obi2canibe and WP:SLR of this discussion.) -- snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 14:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
My opinion is that editors should judge each article TamilNet individually. Rigidly applying rules for the whole site would mean that we'd never be able to cite its vast, easily accessible news archive on Wikipedia. It has been suggested they "make things up". Would they make up non-controversial facts? It has also been suggested that TamilNet should not be used where other sources are available. But what if the other sources are biased, such as the rabidly pro-government Daily News? Should we cite a neutral article from a Qualified Source or a biased article from a Reliable Source for a non-controversial fact? Editors should be given the freedom to use their own judgment and some common sense.-- obi2canibe talk contr 19:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
It's not reliable. Look what happened when Taprobanus's articles went to FAC. They all got vetoed. The reason the BBC etc attribute everything is because they are involved primary sources in the same manner as attributing an al-Qaeda website or a Chinese govt spokesman saying that the Dalai Lama is a cheat or terrorist, or attributing one politician saying their opponent is involved in fraud. It's because these are primary sources and aren't reliable except to say that it is an involved party's propaganda, and there's no way that anything more than 5% of any article should be a primary-source soapbox; and if their soapbox is notable, BBC would have quoted them anyway. While joke sources can always pass at low level due a majority of ethnic supporters, and nobody uninvolved caring (as well as other random home-made websites on all manner of topics), they never pass at WP:FAC, because even if 100 Tamil Tiger supporters go to FAC and say that TamilNet/Nation/Canadian is reliable, SandyGeorgia and Karanacs will rely on the one source-inspector any day. As for "common sense", Sebastian's idea of common sense is to simply ignore the policies and do whatever he feels like rather than making Wikipedia high quality. YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
1. A link to the sources in question: 2009 Bare Bones Film Festival 2009 Queens Int'l Film Festival
2. The article in which it is being used. Chinese room Version: [79]
3. The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting:
The 2009 feature film The Chinese Room (IMDb) concerns fictional workers in a Chinese Room-like office. An actual Chinese Room, with an inhabitant passing messages in and out, is visualized by the main character while the thought experiment is described.
4. Links to relevant talk page discussion. Talkpage: [80] [81] [82] Prior RSN discussion: [83] Mediation: [84]
This concerns an ongoing dispute about whether to mention the film The Chinese Room (film) in the article Chinese Room.
I have argued that Wikipedia content must be verifiable to reliable sources. The sources in question are the schedules of two film festivals where the film were shown. These schedules were published in advance of the showing of the film and are essentially advertisements for the film and the film festival. As such it is hard for me to see how they could qualify as independent reliable sources.
Independent sources would be newspaper or magazine reviews, news reports, etc. -- not advertisements or schedule listings, imho. If such sources did exist it probably would be entirely appropriate to create a The Chinese Room (film) article and to mention the film in the article about the thought experiment.
Are these film festival listings reliable sources in this context? Dlabtot ( talk) 15:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
A related question concerns whether the film could be considered a primary source about itself. That question is, when is a film 'published'? When the director says it is finished? When it has its "world premiere"? (Would it be necessary for that world premiere to be reported in reliable sources?) Or when it gets a
distribution deal? IOW, are undistributed films 'published'? To my mind, a film that has not found a distributor is much like a manuscript that has not found a publisher.
Dlabtot (
talk) 18:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I am currently discussing the possibility of recreating the Zalgo article with proper information and references with Acroterion, however since Zalgo is an Internet meme this seems to call into question what exactly can be classified as a reliable source of information. I personally have gleaned most of my information for the article (whose rough draft is available at User:FrankenSteinDr/sandbox) from http://knowyourmeme.com/meme/zalgo and the sister articles on ED and UrbanDictionary, as well as a direct link to its first appearance on forums.somethingawful.com.
What would be a proper source for this article? FrankenSteinDr ( talk) 12:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Our policy on original research WP:NOR currently describes the policy regarding reference texts, or tertiary sources, as follows:
Our policy on neutral point of view WP:NPOV includes the following language in relation to establishing the difference between majority, minority and fringe views:
The NPOV policy establishes the notion that tertiary sources are specifically useful in determining mainstream POVs. To some extent the NOR policy reflects this in it's first sentence by emphasizing how helpful these sources can be "in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources". However I'm not entirely sure that the relationship between these policies is all that clear. And I have a specific question about reliability and tertiary sources because I lack this clarity.
At Genesis creation narrative the following sentence in the lead was sourced to a reference text because it was disputed on the talk page: "The Genesis creation narrative, found in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis in the Bible, is one of several Ancient Near East creation myths, differing from the others in its monotheistic outlook." Here's the reference in full:
Now another editor showed up and changed this sentence and its source with the edit summary - " putting in mainstream scholarly view". The reference added instead is 40 years old - Yehezkiel Kaufmann The Religion of Israel, from Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile (1960) University of Chicago Press. On the talk page this editor claims that Leeming, regardless of the fact that Oxford University Press contracted him to author a reference work for them, is not an expert on the Hebrew Bible, and that therefore he should not be used for this claim. Arguments about Leeming's credentials notwithstanding (he's a well published scholar of comparative myth btw) my perspective was that the author shouldn't matter here as much as the publishing house and the type of publication. I personally believe that an up to date reference text by Oxford is much more likely to summarize accurately the mainstream POV on something like this than a non-reference text, especially one published 40 years ago. I'm I crazy for thinking so? What's the deal here regarding reliability and the appropriate reading of the above quoted policies? Is one of these texts more reliable than the other in this particular type of circumstance. Thank you kindly for your responses. Griswaldo ( talk) 15:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
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 60 | ← | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | → | Archive 70 |
Hello. Fellow editor Annoynmous is seeking to use an article that appeared in FAIR ( Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) as an RS for highly critical contentious facts. The "facts" relate to both what a living person ( Steven Emerson) has supposedly done and said, and what others supposedly said about Emerson.
The article in question is the only one that John F. Sugg wrote for FAIR. That suggests that his "opinion", which is also in the article, is not necessarily that of FAIR. Sugg's full-time job was as a senior editor for an alternative newspaper now named Creative Loafing, in Tampa Bay.
The proposed use is in the first 5 paras here. (See the left column). George has since tried to address the most immediate problem by changing some contentious critical claims to unsourced claims. But I think unsourced claims also have to be deleted since this is a BLP.
My understanding from this prior discussion and this one is that FAIR would not be an RS for such contentious "facts". Especially with regard to a living person. See WP:GRAPEVINE, which instructs us to: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is ... poorly sourced." But as Annoy is insistent on putting it in the BLP, I thought I would bring the question here as to whether the article is an RS for those purposes.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 09:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
And, as is discussed below, Sugg writings have already led to one defamation lawsuit by Emerson. It would seem poor risk-sensitivity to use Sugg's article as a source here at all.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 09:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Sure. Sugg states his own opinion briefly. He accuses Emerson of: "exaggerating the threats posed by Islamists", a willingness "to push an extremely thin story—with potentially explosive consequences," and "mistakes and distortions." I do not think Sugg is notable enough for his harshly contentious opinion to be reflected in a BLP. And as it is his only piece for FAIR, it would not appear to be "FAIR's opinion".
Specific "facts" asserted by Sugg, according to those 5 paras, are:
-- Epeefleche ( talk) 10:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Sugg didn't state those above-listed items as his opinion. He said they were "facts" (not, "in my opinion E said x"). So, even if he were notable (and writing for a non-RS alternative weekly paper doesn't make someone notable), I don't think we could cite his statements of fact. His statements of opinion were those reflected above in the para beginning "Sure". I agree w/you that if those third-party RS statements (such as the NYT) exist, they would be fine to quote.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 11:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
The point is that Sugg and FAIR are not RSs, especially as to highly contentious "facts" in a BLP.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 20:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
This is also a BLP, so as mentioned it needs the highest-level sourcing for this sort of harsh criticism. I see you supplied an RS source for one phrase, and apparently as I expected there is a non-Sugg source for #7. Those (and any more that can be supported by RSs) are of course fine.
As to John's suggestion that Sugg is notable because he was sued by E for defamation ... and we should therefore quote or use as a reference on Wikipedia language from the article very author who has produced writings that led to the defamation suit by E? I don't see it. It's just the opposite–this (thanks for pointing it out) shows the danger of reflecting on Wikipedia language from an author who Emerson has already sued once for defamation.
I urge someone to delete all such Sugg language that is not RS-supported at this point, given this new information. This would accord with the direction in WP:RS that "Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons, for legal reasons and in order to be fair. Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it is about a living person, and do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space."-- Epeefleche ( talk) 09:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
<- The Sugg article appears to have been used as a source in these 2 cases.
I don't know if that makes any difference regarding the Sugg article or whether these sources have already been found. Sean.hoyland – talk 21:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
The assertions that Sugg makes about Emerson seem to qualify as "exceptional claims", and they therefore require exceptional sources, per WP:REDFLAG. This article, written by a little-known journalist in a semi-reliable source, may not be sufficiently strong for these assertion. Since he seems to cite many of his print sources, we should be able to track them back and use those original sources. It's much better to use the CJR's criticism of Emerson rather than Sugg's view of the CJR's criticism, for example. Will Beback talk 23:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I think it is agreed that FAIR (and Sugg) can only be used in a contentious matter, especially a BLP, for their views, ascribed to them. Most of the matters sourced to him have now been re-referenced to more usable sources. At present there are only two statements. One is Emerson's remark about theOklahoma City bombing,--that he made the remark is not really in dispute, and other sources can be found for this. That leaves just one: that he " accused Emerson of focusing on 'unrelenting attack against Arabs and Muslims,' and wrote that Emerson's 'lengthy list of mistakes and distortions... mar his credentials as an expert on terrorism.' " I do not regard that as an exceptional claim, but the mainstream view—I think it a succinct statement of the general opinion. I see no reason why it can not be used as an opinion, which it clearly is. DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I just wanted to weigh in with one remark. "No defamation was ever proved" is so very very far from what I consider to be a valid argument in support of considering something a WP:RS that I'm shocked to even see it written in a discussion in Wikipedia. That is an argument with absolutely no merit whatsoever. Whether there do exist or could exist some valid reason to think that Sugg's trashing of Emerson is noteworthy, I do not know. But given the provenance and the lawsuit, I'd treat it very very carefully. I would suggest that everything claimed will need to have an independent reliable source, and if we can find those, then there's not really any reason to mention Sugg's piece at all. As was noted up above, he isn't Thomas Friedman or anything – so his scathing criticism isn't even arguably noteworthy in and of itself. (I should note that even if Thomas Friedman himself tore into someone, that would not automatically mean that it is noteworthy.)-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 02:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Annoy appears unwilling to respect the above comments, and related statements by Jimbo on his talk page to me that Annoy is aware of ("I didn't see anything you wrote on this that I disagree with at all. The source is not good enough."--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:05 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4), to the effect that FAIR: 1) should not be used as an RS for contentious statements in BLPs, and 2) should not be used as an RS for facts. I've deleted some of those, w/an edit summary pointing here. Annoy reverted my deletions.
In doing so, Annoy just now inserted highly contentious statements in BLPs, as here, for which FAIR is the only source:
And inserted FAIR statements of fact, as here: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. Some of those edits obviously fit into both categories. Per the above, the reversions/insertions were improper.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 07:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Just because a defamation lawsuit was dropped without a decision doesn’t prove the source is reliable. To my knowledge, there has never been a lawsuit against the Weekly World News whereby they conceded for the record that they fabricate stories; they typically had “settlements” wherein the lawsuits were dropped. Sugg quacks and waddles like a duck… so he’s a duck. Sugg is clearly not a reliable source and has no standing being used as a Wikipedia citation any more than other flakes with wild conspiracy notions (like how the U.S. government was actually responsible for flying those planes into the towers and for dropping them the rest of the way with explosives pre-planted in them). It is not Wikipedia’s role to give equal weight to every conspiracy contrarian who crawls out from under a rock attempting to pitch a book or a half hour on Larry King. If a wikipedian wants to get something into Wikipedia—where there is an assumption by our readership that the material has been given an encyclopedic treatment and the information has been properly vetted—then the editor needs to look towards sources that are well recognized as being reliable ones. Greg L ( talk) 23:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I just read this subsection for the first time. It appears Epeefleche had good reasons for certain edits, Annoynmous didn't like those edits, JimboWales got involved and essentially upbraided Annoynmous quite convincingly and essentially agreed with Epeefleche's actions in a certain matter, then Annoynmous and others made like what JimboWales said was of little consequence and Epeefleche was a bad guy for contacting JimboWales, and Epeefleche should be stopped. Anyway, that is essentially the message I got from reading the above. I thought you all might like to know how others may be viewing what's going on here. -- LegitimateAndEvenCompelling ( talk) 23:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that there is little to be gained by continuing to argue with annoynmous. His own user page suggests he is immune to social pressure. It states as follows:
I chose annoynmous because I'm persistent and I don't just back away because people want me too. I think a lot of people at wikipedia give up on the talk pages when they shouldn't because they get intimidated by other editors. I refuse to be intimidated.
Sugg is an unreliable source simply because his allegations are consistently preposterous when compared to the totality of evidence from reliable sources. Among Sugg’s other nonsense that don’t appear in reliable sources are…
Well… how silly of U.S. for thinking it was Osama bin Laden young men with Middle East connections (Ramzi Yousef, Mahmud Abouhalima, Mohammad Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Abdul Rahman Yasin and Ahmad Ajaj) behind the
1993 World Trade Center bombing, not Yugoslavians. And to think that Pakistan would consult with a red-headed American journalist (someone who makes a living by revealing information) as they plot thermonuclear war with their nuclear-armed arch-enemy neighbor is asinine. After reading utter rubbish like this, a claim that Bush Jr., during a G-8 conference, crawled under a conference table, inserted matches into the shoes of Germany’s chancellor, and lit them in order to give her the “hot-foot” gag would look plausible.
Faced with evidence of Sugg’s galactic-grade unreliability (fantasy fiction), having anything on Wikipedia (not just biographies of living persons) cited to him needs to be stripped from Wikipedia unless it corroborated by at least two other citations to sources that have a long-standing record of being reliable.
As for annoynmous, our continuing to argue here with him in vain attempts to get him to concede to anything seems, according to his own user page, an exercise in futility. For the rest of us to engage annoynmous in the face of abundantly clear evidence that he will never agree with those who take him to task is, in my opinion, tantamount to insanity. Why? I believe ‘insanity’ has amongst its many indicators “repeating a behavior that consistently fails with the expectation that doing it again will somehow result in a different outcome.”
It seems that the only effective way to deal with annoynmous is to leave it to the community at the ANI against him. Whether annoynmous “accepts” criticism or not from the community will be irrelevant there. Wikipedia is not to be used as the playground of those who would POV-push by cluttering it with rubbish cited to absurdly non-reliable sources. If such editors won’t get with the game plan, they can simply be given a time out in the corner. Greg L ( talk) 16:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, poorly sourced, or not related to making content choices, should be removed, deleted, or oversighted as appropriate. When seeking advice about whether to publish something about a living person, be careful not to post so much information on the talk page that the inquiry becomes moot; consider using off-wiki communication instead. The same principle applies to problematic images. Questionable claims already discussed can be removed with a reference to the previous discussion.
The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages. The single exception is that users may make any claim they wish about themselves in their user space, so long as they are not engaged in impersonation, and subject to What Wikipedia is not, though minors are discouraged from disclosing identifying personal information on their userpages; for more information, see here. [1] Although this policy applies to posts about Wikipedians in project space, some leeway is permitted to allow the handling of administrative issues by the community, but administrators may delete such material if it rises to the level of defamation, or if it constitutes a violation of No personal attacks.
I find your comment to be an attempt to use wikilawyering arguments to presume to tell me what I may truly think and how I may express my thoughts here, in a venue where policy issues on reliable sources is being debated. I’ll thank you not to presume so much. Perhaps you might like it if I limit my real opinion of Suggs to such wikidrivel as “I find Sugg’s writings to lack a certain degree of ‘truthiness’ ” but such muzzling is simply a retarded notion, otherwise no real work could be done in shaping Wikipedia’s guidelines or in determining whether certain sources are truly reliable, or in determining whether an editor is correct in citing a certain source. Sugg may not write material that is a metric ton of weapons-grade bullonium and be free of legitimate and frank criticism of its quality here in these venues. I will, however, be sure to take care to not mention what I really think about Sugg and his work on my own talk and user pages.
If you feel my comments here unnecessarily slander Sugg (I find he does a good job doing that all by himself), just go find some uninvolved Admin to protect Sugg’s reputation by refactoring my above comments. Such Admin can then leave a notice on my talk page that my opinions stated here about him and his pure fiction (which resulted in a lawsuit) “rises to the level of defamation”, that Wikipedia does not protect such speech even here at this venue where vigorous debate in search of the truth is central to the venue’s purpose, and to remind me to speak more *nicely* about Sugg and his fine works here in the future. Greg L ( talk) 20:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
P.S. I will, however, be more than pleased to add a few “IMHO”s to some of my statements if that makes it clearer that I am not saying that Sugg’s work flat sucks as a matter of indisputable fact because he masquerades fantasy as being the truth in order to make a buck, but that I am simply opining that <stumble all over myself to appear as inoffensive as possible>
“In my so-very humble opinion, I find that Sugg’s work flat sucks because it
masquerades fantasy as being the truth in order to make a buck and hasn’t any role in being used in citations of fact here on Wikipedia—IMHO.”</stumble all over myself to appear as inoffensive as possible>
Greg L (
talk) 20:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to all for participating in this discussion. I believe we've now addressed the issue posed at the opening of this string.
Jimbo provided clear and direct input above. He wrote:
'No defamation was ever proved' is so very very far from what I consider to be a valid argument in support of considering something a WP:RS that I'm shocked to even see it written in a discussion in Wikipedia. That is an argument with absolutely no merit whatsoever. Whether there do exist or could exist some valid reason to think that Sugg's trashing of Emerson is noteworthy, I do not know. But given the provenance and the lawsuit, I'd treat it very very carefully. I would suggest that everything claimed will need to have an independent reliable source, and if we can find those, then there's not really any reason to mention Sugg's piece at all. As was noted up above, he isn't Thomas Friedman or anything – so his scathing criticism isn't even arguably noteworthy in and of itself. ...-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 02:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)".
The Emerson article now matches Jimbo's view of what it should look like ideally. A number of the Sugg statements were replaced with references to RSs, and the Emerson article now does not rely on/reflect the FAIR/Sugg article.
I understand that Annoy disagrees with Jimbo, and believes Jimbo is wrong, as Annoy has made clear above. Various other issues were raised that were not pertinent to this RS/N, which I'll not summarize. But curious readers can read them above.
A second RS/BLP policy issue that grew out of this one remains, however. That of whether it is proper to delete—from Wikipedia articles—text and refs that rely on FAIR: a) to make or support a contentious statement in a BLP, or b) to assert a fact. I've opened that issue up as a new post, reflecting my thoughts, some of which are already expressed above, here. That way interested editors can discuss the policy issue there, unencumbered by this string.
The related AN/I, regarding Annoy's editing, is taking place here.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 01:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
In this RS/N conversation I made the points that per policy, FAIR ( Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting): 1) should not be used as an RS for contentious statements in BLPs; and 2) should not be used as an RS for facts.
As editor Annoynmous is aware, Jimbo commented: "I didn't see anything you wrote on this that I disagree with at all. The source is not good enough."-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 11:05 pm, 1 May 2010, last Saturday (2 days ago) (UTC−4)
Following Jimbo's comment, I deleted some highly contentious statements in BLPs for which FAIR was the only source, such as the ones below. Annoy reverted me. Re-introducing the highly contentious statements into the BLPs.
Pertinent policies are as follows:
WP:GRAPEVINE instructs us to: "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is ... poorly sourced."
WP:RS says: "Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons, for legal reasons and in order to be fair. Remove ... poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it is about a living person".
WP:BLP; Reliable Sources says: "Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source.... This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is ... poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article."
On the understanding that FAIR is not an RS for statements of fact, I deleted a number of such entries from various articles. Annoy reverted me. Inserting FAIR statements of fact, as here: [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26].
Some of those edits obviously fit into both the BLP/contentious and fact categories. I believe the reversions/insertions were improper. I do not believe FAIR can be used as an RS for facts at all, including non-contentious facts. This is especially true in BLPs. And with regard to apparently important claims that are not covered by mainstream sources.
Pertinent policies are as follows:
WP:BLP; Questionable sources and external links says: "Material available solely in questionable sources should not be used anywhere in the article, including in "Further reading" or "External links" sections."
WP:BLP; Public Figures says: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article.... If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out."
WP:REDFLAG says: "Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim: ... apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources; ... reports of a statement by someone that seems ... embarrassing, controversial ... Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources. If such sources are not available, the material should not be included."
I think that as a general matter, all agree it is acceptable to use FAIR for its opinion (where that is all that is given). As in "FAIR does not like X's book". See also this prior discussion and this one.
Sometimes, an opinion is mixed with assertions of fact and/or a contentious statement. Where it is both opinion and either fact and/or opinion, it's not OK to use it, IMHO.
So, it would not be OK to reflect FAIR saying: "Our opinion is that Person X's racism is bad", where there is not RS support for the fact that Person X is racist.
Or "Our opinion is that the fact that Y did such-and-such is bad," where there is no RS support for the fact that Y did such-and-such.
The reason is that the harms that we are seeking to avoid (including harm to the individual, and potential lawsuits against Wikipedia) are more significant than the benefits of reflecting the opinion. Furthermore, it is a " camel's nose" problem.
I would be interested in the thoughts of others. The related AN/I, regarding Annoy's editing, is taking place here.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 01:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The following issue also crosses into undue weight territory, but this seems like the best place to start the discussion. In the Salvia divinorum article, editors are in disagreement over the inclusion of self-selecting polls by local news operations (Indianapolis news station, Bangor (Maine) Daily News, Miami Herald). I'm involved in the discussion, so I'm presumably not presenting this completely impartially.
1. Are those news sources reliable sources for conducting and reporting their own polls? The WP article did qualify one of the poll results by including the disclaimer that it was "not a scientific survey and should not be used as a gauge of public opinion. It reflects only the opinions of bangordailynews.com readers who've chosen to participate".
2. Are the "opinions of bangordailynews.com readers who've chosen to participate" (and other self-selecting surveys) notable for an encyclopedia article, even with the explanation/disclaimer? The discussion is happening at Talk:Salvia divinorum#Online polls?. Thanks, First Light ( talk) 01:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
An IP is consistently adding material to Gog and Magog from this article [27] a website which says "The purpose of this website is to provide substantial evidence that the Holy Torah was given to us by G-d, and that no other "holy" texts come even close to it." The exact source is on a page which says "In this area users can post different discussion topics". I have no reason to suspect that the IP (well, IPs, probably the same editor) are not just newbies, but it would help if I could point to a discussion here - or have it explained to me that I'm wrong if that's the case, but this looks pretty cut and dried. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 12:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Over on How To Destroy Angels (band), I've been having a disagreement with another editor about whether or not Atticus Ross is in the band. Every article I can find says that the band is just Trent Reznor and his wife. But another editor has been including Atticus Ross, stating that he's in one video on the band's official website and he appears in a promotional image. As far as I know, videos posted on Vimeo and images aren't reliable sources. Can anyone make a judgment on whether or not he should be included? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Blabbermouth has posted that the project does in fact include Atticus Ross. [28] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.49.109.78 ( talk • contribs) 19:40, May 4, 2010
Hi, your help is needed on the Shanghai article. User:BsBsBs removed several sourced statements [30] regarding Shanghai's population statistics in the lead introduction but insist on keeping a statement ("After Chongqing and Beijing, Shanghai is the third largest of the four direct-controlled municipalities of the People's Republic of China") in which he did not find a reference for, but insist "it doesn't need a reference, it is evident to anyone who knows math". And this has led to edit conflict on the article. See the Talk:Shanghai#Population. Likewise in the Beijing article, the user insist on keeping a statement in the lead and in the demographic section in which wasn't referenced [31]. Your input and help is needed at these two articles. Thanks!-- TheLeopard ( talk) 18:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
In the Apple TV article there is a disagreement on whether this edit [33] can be supported by the sources provided by the editor. The editor, AshtonBenson wants to include content that says that the Apple TV lacks support for Digital Monitor Power Management. He provides 5 sources to support this section (which is not in the article right now):
The discussion can be found here Talk:Apple_TV#AshtonBenson_and_Apple_discussion_forums and Talk:Apple_TV#Power_Management_Limitations. Thanks. Mattnad ( talk) 21:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC). There may also be WP:OR/ WP:SYN issues here as well since the user considers a lack of mention for this type of power management in various documents to mean we can affirm that the ATV does not support Digital Power Management. Mattnad ( talk) 17:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Would like to ask if editors here regard a report from the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Israel Intelligence Heritage & Commemoration Center as a reliable source in the following context:
This is the report, which an editor wants to use in the infobox of the Gaza War article. The source, which appears on the website of an NGO and lists no sources of its own, has just been added to support a new edit adding two weapons systems to the Gaza side of the infobox.
Please note that report is dated April 2008, while the conflict took place Dec 2008 - Jan 2009. (My concern is that while the report may or may not be reliable regarding what Hamas had, how could it be reliable regarding what Hamas actually used in the conflict, as it predates the conflict timeframe by eight months?)
The corresponding sources for Israeli weaponry were published after the conflict, and report on which Israeli weapons systems were actually used in the conflict. This "not just had but used" distinction has been a requirement in the addition of weapons systems to the infobox, so would appreciate uninvolved editors' feedback on whether (1) the source itself; and (2) the fact of the predating of the report, satisfy RS criteria in this context.
Thanks.
RomaC (
talk) 15:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Following the 2007 SuccessTech Academy shooting in Cleveland, Ohio, on his radio show Gibson commented "I knew the shooter was white. I knew he would have shot himself. Hip-hoppers don't do that. They shoot and move on to shoot again. And I could tell right away because he killed himself. Hip hoppers shooters don't do that. They shoot and move on."
The John Gibson Show, October 10, 2007The John Gibson Show, October 10, 2007]
and is it fine to use you tube videos like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ8sFzuWouo&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailykos.com%2Fstoryonly%2F2008%2F1%2F25%2F163014%2F652&feature=player_embedded to support content in a BLP. Off2riorob ( talk) 21:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Certainly a documentary film or tv show could be a reliable source, depending upon the reputation of the producers, and as long it is obtainable - i.e., to be verifiable I have to have some means of viewing the documentary and verifying that it said what the text added to Wikipedia says it said. Dlabtot ( talk) 03:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC) Maybe I'm not clear about what you are actually asking. Dlabtot ( talk) 03:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
As to the youtube link, no. Dlabtot ( talk) 03:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I just used this article from the abovementioned publication for our article Ayaan Hirsi Ali. But the two articles seem to overlap on quite a few points so I am wondering who is copying who. Anyone have an insight on the reliability of this publication? Thanks, 86.41.80.244 ( talk) 11:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Simple question. Is this UK Companies court document, received via email from The Treasury Solicitors office [43], a reliable source for the statement "the case was dismissed" in reference to the case it refers to? -- Insider201283 ( talk) 13:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Since there is apparently confusion over what a Wikipedia source is, I'll rephrase the question -
-- Insider201283 ( talk) 14:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
(undent) You said "email the UK." We're in a dispute because you previously asked for help from this exact board about using sources, and I found that you were using sources poorly, and tried to fix your article. Hipocrite ( talk) 14:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Insider201283, I understand your frustration but you can't use an unpublished document that you obtained by yourself. Those are the rules, please read WP:OR and WP:V. And publishing it yourself doesn't count, see WP:SELF. There have been many cases like this in Wikipedia over the years. It doesn't have anything to do with trust, it just the way the rules are. Zero talk 14:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
(ec) Wikipedia requires that all sources be verifiable, by which we mean that they need to be published by a reliable source, so any reader can go to a public library and check the contents for himself, if they are not published online. If a reader needs to submit a special request to some government agency to obtain a copy, this would not be a "published" document, but one that is supplied on request. In such cases we should rely on a secondary source (such as a newspaper article or a legal gazette) which reports on the topic. Crum375 ( talk) 14:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Just as extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, I believe out-of-the ordinary methods of obtaining documents require extensive directions within the citation of how to the document, i.e., "send email to lordhighbaliff@YYYY.gov.invalid requesting document XXXX."
I also believe using a court record to support the claim that a case was dismissed is unwise, because sometimes cases are dismissed in a way that they cannot be reopened, but in other situations a variation of the case is reopened in a matter of minutes or days. In general, Wikipedia editors are not qualified to determine whether the case can be reopened or not. Jc3s5h ( talk) 15:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Judgments from the Civil and Criminal Divisions of the Court of Appeal, and from the Administrative Court, selected by the judge concerned, are available for free on the Bailii (British and Irish Legal Information Institute) database. If a High Court judgment is not available on BAILII , contact the court direct for a copy.
duplicate thread with #Deepak Chopra |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This Huffington Post blog by Deepak Chopra [59] is the sole source for the following text in the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi biography:
No other sources can be found to substantiate these events. Should this text remain in the article?-- — Kbob • Talk • 17:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
|
<ref>{{cite book | last = O'Brien | first = Brendan | authorlink = Brendan O'Brien (Irish journalist) | title = Long War: The IRA & Sinn Féin | publisher = The O'Brien Press | date = 1999 | pages = 153 | doi = | isbn = 0-86278-606-1}}</ref> was used as a source for a factoid in a biography, but the subject states that the claim was incorrect. A second cited source does not include the claim. It looks to me as if the O'Brien of O'Brien Press is the author himself, making this self-published. Is it reliable? Guy ( Help!) 17:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
The passport issued by France in 1837 to Chopin bears the phrase "issu de parents français". A copy can be seen here [61]. However, a certain Polish editor is insisting "I see you are still having problems understanding what a proper source means." Is a passport a reliable source of why somebody has the citizenship which they had at the time when their passport was issued? Varsovian ( talk) 13:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Did I miss something? While a discussion at Chopin's talk page was going on, another was taking place right here with no notice on the talk page (if there was one, I did not see it), resulting in no participation of those who have been involved in the matter for days. Then hardly nine (9) hours after the discussion began, it was over, the verdict being handed down quickly, kangaroo court style.
Although the matter has been settled by "higher-ups" while we were not given the chance to plead our case here, I shall give my thoughts on the matter anyway:
As much as I would like to take into consideration the findings of Mr. Tad Szulc, which can be nothing but right since he put his findings into a book form (yes, there is sarcasm in my tone), I want to point out that Chopin's first French passport was issued to him in 1834, year Mendelssohn invited him to be a guest piano solo performer at the Niederrheinisches Musikfest in Aachen. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:6JN8id3MrU8J:wapedia.mobi/en/Lower_Rhenish_Music_Festival+Music+festival+in+Aachen+in+1834&cd=2&hl=fr&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
Furthermore, if Chopin had come to France as a foreigner, he would have had to wait five (5) years after his arrival to France before he could become a French citizen. He arrived in France in 1831, thus, if a foreigner, he could not have got a French passport before 1836. Consequently, am I allowed to suggest that Mr. Tad Sulzc may have given the wrong information?
-- Frania W. ( talk) 00:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Deepak Chopra is a noted physician, guru, author, and lecturer. He first came to prominence as the top assistant to Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, the creator of Transcendental Meditation, though the two later had a falling out and Chopra went his own way. Following the Maharihi's death two years ago, Chopra wrote a recollection of his former master. He published it in his own blog [62] and on the Huffington Post. [63] It includes events and conversations that haven't been reported elsewhere. In particular, it recounts an occasion when the Maharishi became severely ill, possibly due to poisoning, and his family in India chose to keep it secret from most western followers. There is now a controversy on talk:Maharishi Mahesh Yogi#Huffington Post about the usability of this source. I am not aware of any official response to Chopra's article from the movement, so the only controversy seems to be in the mind of one editor. My view is that Chopra is a notable, reliable source for his own personal experiences with the Maharishi, and that the material in the article is clearly attributed to him. (See Maharishi Mahesh Yogi#Years in Vlodrop (1991-2008)). I believe he would be an adequate source even if his recollection was only published on his blog, but the fact that it was also on the Huffington Post tends to add more weight to its reliability. Am I correct? Will Beback talk 16:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
If there is no other source, then I advise pulling the content. It is hearsay by Deepak Chopra - it is not his opinion, which could be simply attributed to him, but is being presented as factual events. To present it as fact without a second source is questionable at best; to present it with only Chopra's word smacks almost of repeating gossip. Given that it is known he and the maharishi had a falling out, the content is particularly questionable. KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 18:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Got an IP user who believes this is a reliable source and my revert of the edit adding it was inappropriate. Input? -- N419BH ( talk) 04:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Greg Palast, the author of that article. Note how he is a NYTimes Bestselling author and a BBC Correspondent. He has his own Wiki. You should read it. Then talk to me about sourcing. 24.255.165.125 (talk) 04:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Also: http://www.becnellaw.com/danielbecneljr.htm , that's the laywer. One of the most prominent personal injury lawyers in LA, winning the largest settlement EVER in LA for an individual in 72. Also here: http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/business/Transocean_under_fire_over_US_oil_spill.html?cid=8803398 He confirms the inside source and the lie. I mean, Wikipedia has taken far less reliable sources for other pages. But shall I keep going? 24.255.165.125 (talk) 04:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
<- I'm curious how "deeper than the 18,000 feet depth reported" becomes "was caused by BP lying about how deep the oil well was". I don't understand "BP failed to communicate that additional depth to Halliburton crews" either. It's the drillers on the rig that monitor the trajectory and depth of a borehole in order to hit the target specified on the well plan. This looks like a situation where higher quality sources are required. Sean.hoyland - talk 03:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I am involved in a good article review for an article. We are looking at a book source which is in itself reliable, but would also like another reliable source to describe its highlights. The Amazon website which sells this book has a brief " Product Description" section describing the contents of the book. Is this product description considered a reliable source to describe what's in the book? Thanks, Crum375 ( talk) 02:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
The publisher sells the book wholesale to the book vendors, such as Amazon and B&N, who in turn sell it to individual readers. The publisher creates a summary of the book, which is then included by the online vendors in the book's webpage, under a "Product Summary" or "From the Publisher" section (for Amazon and B&N respectively). The book is considered reliable, and the summary is logically approved by both publisher and author. If we trust the publisher as a reliable source for the book, why can't we trust its summary of it? Crum375 ( talk) 13:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think dust jackets and publishers' summaries should be used as sources for Wikipedia articles. Far better to follow David Eppstein's suggestion above and turn to reviews in other publications. Since Thompson's book is an academic monograph, the best source will be a review in an academic journal. Such a review may be found here. --Akhilleus ( talk) 14:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Consider what this would mean: if anonymous publishers' descriptions could be used as reliable sources regarding books, then virtually every book mentioned on Wikipedia will be "a groundbreaking study" or "a bold reevaluation" or "a courageous call to arms" or some such over the top thing. Eugene ( talk) 14:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
It's reliable, but not independent. So, it can be used for basic facts, but nothing controversial. I think there's a (justified) bias against financially motivated sources, but it doesn't necessarily make them unreliable as we define it, it just means extra care must be taken. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 03:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Just to comment on something above: the content of the dust-jacket of a book, and advertising material such as product summaries, is determined by the publisher. The publisher might ask the author's opinion on it, but the author doesn't usually have any real say in it. Expect over-simplification, excessive hype, and dubious claims of connection to current events and popular fads. It is not correct to take such material as a valid expression of the author's view. Zero talk 05:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Although Thompson's Messiah Myth is described by the publisher as rejecting the historicity of "the Jesus of the Gospels", Thompson states in the book that he is not interested in the historicity question; in fact, he makes clear that making sense of the origins of Christianity requires a historical Jesus, but he rejects the idea that such a historical Jesus is essential to the Gospels.
The following YouTube citations/links which contain network/cable TV clips were removed from the Peter Schiff article per WP:YouTube because it appears they were not published on YouTube by the copyright owners and are therefore not reliable sources. Some editors on the page disagree with this assessment. Please give your input are the links below reliable sources for a BLP?
Is 1911encyclopedia.org considered a reliable source? http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Main_Page
It looks just like a wikipedia fake. Secret killer ( talk) 21:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source in general? Specifically this news story and this one, which are cited in the Crispian Hollis article (see the last paragraph). The about page claims accuracy as the top priority. Thoughts? -- Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 17:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Fast context: Talk:Zbigniew_Jaworowski#Jaworowski_and_21st_century
It is a book published by the Munich Re, about climate change - and specifically an essay in it authored by Stefan Rahmstorf
{{
citation}}
: External link in |chapterurl=
(
help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (
help)There is a flyer to see the chapter/contents which can be found here [66]
The context for the question is the following paragraph that has been in our article (BLP) on Zbigniew Jaworowski since the articles inception:
Originally this was referenced to the publications themselves - since the connection between "21st ..." and LaRouche is well-known (and on their site). The rationale for the description is (i guess) to make clear that 21st Century Science and Technology is not a regular publication, and not a scientific one. This was contested by a couple of editors who wanted a reference for it. So I linked 4 of Jaworowski's publications in the magazine [67]. That was contested again, now as a synthesis (ie. connection between 21st+LaRouche and possibly Jaworowski) - so i looked for such a reference - of which there were quite a lot, but to a large degree in blogs and other self-published sources. So i looked further and found a few:
This was reverted again... This time with claims of self-publication, unreliable sources and BLP violations.
The section in question here is a Q&A part of the Rahmstorf essay:
Which ought to cover the SYN claim. Since we have all three connected here. I'm going to follow this up on WP:BLP/N depending on the results of this - since there is also a claim of BLP violation here. So don't consider this a final answer where you will be put in front of an angry BLP-peloton afterwards for a stance on whether this is a reliable source or not :-) -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 19:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) I don't think it unreasonable to question the money aspect. A news service may make money from news, but it's aim (you would hope) would be to give balanced coverage of all news. If anything it would be inclined to sensationalise all news, not just one aspect. It may be that specific agencies are affected by, for example, specific advertisers - paper X may be less receptive to the idea of AGW if they have as a major sponsor or advertiser an oil company. That makes the individual paper a non-RS, but doesn't change that news media, in general, make money from all news. The news service has an aim, the university has an aim, they are both general. The insurance company has an aim, it is to promote insurance. In this case, X makes money from Y, so they publish things about Z that cause you to want Y.
Wikipedia does not necessarily have the same standard for describing a source as reliable in this case as the OECD etc. had for mentioning Munich Re in those cases - to help decide that, and aid uninvolved editors who may be interested to comment, could you list a couple of specific references from the lists your search terms generated that show what you mean. The general search terms give a lot of 'person x, who used to work in Munich' and 'here is Munich Res figure on how much insurance we'll need in 2012', so having a few specific examples would be helpful. Weakopedia ( talk) 09:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
There is a disagreement about the appropriateness of this reference http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/food-and-drink/reviews/an-ethical-diet-the-joy-of-being-vegan-469964.html as a RS at List of vegans. The problem is that it partially references the Wikipedia list, by explicitly mentioning some of the names on the list:
Wikipedia, the online encyclopaedia, has a veritable roll-call of celebrity vegans. Woody Harrelson, the actor, is a vegan, as are his fellow Hollywood stars Joaquin Phoenix and Alicia Silverstone.
The singer Bryan Adams refuses to eat milk or cheese or any other animal product, as do k d lang and Moby.
How to have a big dingdoo is a mystery to all but a few
Heather Small, the lead singer of M People, and Benjamin Zephaniah, the poet, follow the vegan philosophy.
The athlete, Carl Lewis, who won nine Olympic gold medals, is a vegan.
The insertion of Uri Geller's name in the vegan list is believed to be a joke by a mischievous contributor.
Clearly this section of the article can't be used as a source for the Vegan list, but does referencing Wikipedia at all rule it out as a reliable source for everything else in the article?
For instance, it goes into some depth about Donald Watson's (founder of the vegan society) veganism: The vegan movement was started by a woodwork teacher, Donald Watson, in 1944 because of a desire to improve animal welfare.Watson grew up on a farm in South Yorkshire in the 1920s and became concerned for animal welfare when his Uncle George slaughtered one of the farm's pigs. He recalled in an interview aged 92 (three years before his death): "I decided that farms - and uncles - had to be reassessed: the idyllic scene was nothing more than death row, where every creature's days were numbered by the point at which it was no longer of service to human beings." Watson became a vegetarian and later a vegan, a word he invented.
Later in the article it discusses Heather Mills: Heather Mills-McCartney, the wife of Paul McCartney, himself a vegan, is the latest celebrity convert to the cause. The former model announced her conversion last August, saying that vegetarianism not only benefited health but also made a huge difference to the planet. She added: "I could never go back to eating meat or fish and I'm moving towards being vegan. When I crack an egg now, I think: 'Could that have been a baby?'"
It gives explicit details of Woody Harrelson's diet: Harrelson, 44, the bartender on Cheers!,has not eaten meat for 15 years. Not only is he vegan, but he also eats a 90 per cent raw diet. At opening night parties, he grazes on vegan canapes and regularly fasts, taking up to a week off from solid food. During one fast he lost 15lb. He has declared dairy to be one of the great evils of the world.
These more detailed accounts clearly haven't come from the Wikipedia list, so can you advise on whether it is acceptable as a reliable source in the cases beyond the names it draws from the Wikipedia list. It seems pretty clear cut which information comes from Wikipedia, so I guess the issue is whether citing Wikipedia in any capacity at all invalidates it as a source. Betty Logan ( talk) 13:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I've got an article that cites a sign. Specifically, one of those large signs that are commonly found around landmarks "This building was erected in...blah blah blah." What most people would say is "Find another source that says the same thing," but what makes this case special is that the sign is an English language sign at a landmark in the People's Republic of China, and states a fact (that it appears on the Provincial Historic Building Register) that we're having difficulty verifying any other way, in any language. My opinion is that a sign such as this should be considered a self-published source, and admissible as per Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field..."
Can I get a consensus here, one way or the other? ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 12:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
A sign is a medium. It is printed. It announces something to the public (if posted in a public place). Clearly, according to the above definition, a sign is a published source. Further, Wikipedia's article on publish states: "Publishing is the process of production and dissemination of literature or information – the activity of making information available for public view." A sign clearly disseminates information, making it available for public view (if posted publicly). ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 20:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I was under the impression that this was already agreed on, but some editors disagree, so I'm brining this up again here.
Tamilnet is a website that reports almost exclusively about Sri Lanka and the former Sri Lankan Civil War. It is/was used by many international media organizations as a source for Tamil Tiger perspective of the Sri Lankan Civil War, but always with the "pro-rebel" qualifier (see BBC: "The head of the Tiger's political wing, SP Thamilselvan, told the pro-rebel website Tamilnet", Reuters: "pro-rebel website www.tamilnet.com quoted Tiger military spokesman Rasiah Ilanthiraiyan as saying...", and there are countless other such examples).
WP:SLR is a WikiProject that was established to sort out disagreements related to Sri Lankan issues. The consensus achieved there was that everything cited from Tamilnet should be explicitly attributed as "pro-rebel Tamilnet reported..." (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation/Sources)
The question has now come up though, with editor Obi2canibe saying we can use Tamilnet without attribution for "non-controversial" citations. My opinion, given that Tamilnet is questionable source per Wikipedia guidelines, is if a website is known to have publish falsehoods before, it cannot be relied upon as a diect source on Wikipedia. It also opens the door to have the website cited for disputed content which some editors will dub as "non-controversial". I also have not come accross any guidelines on Wikipedia that say questionable sources can be used to cite "non-controversial" topics. (we had a couple of discussion here and here, but couldn't come to an agreement).
This isn't an obscure topic with Tamilnet been the only available source. In fact, the article that caused the disageement has at least one other citation from reliable news organizations that cite the same facts that Tamilnet is used for [75].
I believe User:Blueboar summed it up the best in one of the discussion Obi linked to
"I am going to try to explain this one last time... I don't contest that Tamilnet is biased, or even blaitantly partisan. But being biased or partisan does not automatically exclude a source from being considered reliable. Reliability, as used in Wikipedia, does not equate to "respected" or even "factual"... it is an offshoot of "verifiable". Tamilnet really falls under the heading of "questionable source"... reliable for statements of opinion but not for statements of fact. As long as you give it proper attribution (ie you say: "According to Tamilnet...") it can be considered a reliable source for quoting the statements and opinions of Tamilnet and those it represents."
Since, with every discussion related to Sri Lanka, we see the same old editors with preconceived biases participating (myself included...), outside opinion will be very welcome.
(Note: I will notify User:Obi2canibe and WP:SLR of this discussion.) -- snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 14:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
My opinion is that editors should judge each article TamilNet individually. Rigidly applying rules for the whole site would mean that we'd never be able to cite its vast, easily accessible news archive on Wikipedia. It has been suggested they "make things up". Would they make up non-controversial facts? It has also been suggested that TamilNet should not be used where other sources are available. But what if the other sources are biased, such as the rabidly pro-government Daily News? Should we cite a neutral article from a Qualified Source or a biased article from a Reliable Source for a non-controversial fact? Editors should be given the freedom to use their own judgment and some common sense.-- obi2canibe talk contr 19:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
It's not reliable. Look what happened when Taprobanus's articles went to FAC. They all got vetoed. The reason the BBC etc attribute everything is because they are involved primary sources in the same manner as attributing an al-Qaeda website or a Chinese govt spokesman saying that the Dalai Lama is a cheat or terrorist, or attributing one politician saying their opponent is involved in fraud. It's because these are primary sources and aren't reliable except to say that it is an involved party's propaganda, and there's no way that anything more than 5% of any article should be a primary-source soapbox; and if their soapbox is notable, BBC would have quoted them anyway. While joke sources can always pass at low level due a majority of ethnic supporters, and nobody uninvolved caring (as well as other random home-made websites on all manner of topics), they never pass at WP:FAC, because even if 100 Tamil Tiger supporters go to FAC and say that TamilNet/Nation/Canadian is reliable, SandyGeorgia and Karanacs will rely on the one source-inspector any day. As for "common sense", Sebastian's idea of common sense is to simply ignore the policies and do whatever he feels like rather than making Wikipedia high quality. YellowMonkey ( vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
1. A link to the sources in question: 2009 Bare Bones Film Festival 2009 Queens Int'l Film Festival
2. The article in which it is being used. Chinese room Version: [79]
3. The exact statement in the article that the source is supporting:
The 2009 feature film The Chinese Room (IMDb) concerns fictional workers in a Chinese Room-like office. An actual Chinese Room, with an inhabitant passing messages in and out, is visualized by the main character while the thought experiment is described.
4. Links to relevant talk page discussion. Talkpage: [80] [81] [82] Prior RSN discussion: [83] Mediation: [84]
This concerns an ongoing dispute about whether to mention the film The Chinese Room (film) in the article Chinese Room.
I have argued that Wikipedia content must be verifiable to reliable sources. The sources in question are the schedules of two film festivals where the film were shown. These schedules were published in advance of the showing of the film and are essentially advertisements for the film and the film festival. As such it is hard for me to see how they could qualify as independent reliable sources.
Independent sources would be newspaper or magazine reviews, news reports, etc. -- not advertisements or schedule listings, imho. If such sources did exist it probably would be entirely appropriate to create a The Chinese Room (film) article and to mention the film in the article about the thought experiment.
Are these film festival listings reliable sources in this context? Dlabtot ( talk) 15:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
A related question concerns whether the film could be considered a primary source about itself. That question is, when is a film 'published'? When the director says it is finished? When it has its "world premiere"? (Would it be necessary for that world premiere to be reported in reliable sources?) Or when it gets a
distribution deal? IOW, are undistributed films 'published'? To my mind, a film that has not found a distributor is much like a manuscript that has not found a publisher.
Dlabtot (
talk) 18:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I am currently discussing the possibility of recreating the Zalgo article with proper information and references with Acroterion, however since Zalgo is an Internet meme this seems to call into question what exactly can be classified as a reliable source of information. I personally have gleaned most of my information for the article (whose rough draft is available at User:FrankenSteinDr/sandbox) from http://knowyourmeme.com/meme/zalgo and the sister articles on ED and UrbanDictionary, as well as a direct link to its first appearance on forums.somethingawful.com.
What would be a proper source for this article? FrankenSteinDr ( talk) 12:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Our policy on original research WP:NOR currently describes the policy regarding reference texts, or tertiary sources, as follows:
Our policy on neutral point of view WP:NPOV includes the following language in relation to establishing the difference between majority, minority and fringe views:
The NPOV policy establishes the notion that tertiary sources are specifically useful in determining mainstream POVs. To some extent the NOR policy reflects this in it's first sentence by emphasizing how helpful these sources can be "in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources". However I'm not entirely sure that the relationship between these policies is all that clear. And I have a specific question about reliability and tertiary sources because I lack this clarity.
At Genesis creation narrative the following sentence in the lead was sourced to a reference text because it was disputed on the talk page: "The Genesis creation narrative, found in the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis in the Bible, is one of several Ancient Near East creation myths, differing from the others in its monotheistic outlook." Here's the reference in full:
Now another editor showed up and changed this sentence and its source with the edit summary - " putting in mainstream scholarly view". The reference added instead is 40 years old - Yehezkiel Kaufmann The Religion of Israel, from Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile (1960) University of Chicago Press. On the talk page this editor claims that Leeming, regardless of the fact that Oxford University Press contracted him to author a reference work for them, is not an expert on the Hebrew Bible, and that therefore he should not be used for this claim. Arguments about Leeming's credentials notwithstanding (he's a well published scholar of comparative myth btw) my perspective was that the author shouldn't matter here as much as the publishing house and the type of publication. I personally believe that an up to date reference text by Oxford is much more likely to summarize accurately the mainstream POV on something like this than a non-reference text, especially one published 40 years ago. I'm I crazy for thinking so? What's the deal here regarding reliability and the appropriate reading of the above quoted policies? Is one of these texts more reliable than the other in this particular type of circumstance. Thank you kindly for your responses. Griswaldo ( talk) 15:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)